Nothing that great marketing and demo videos could not negate. . . . . . .plus neal explaining it to them between sets;-)

You are a very funny man!!!    I feel especially touched that you actually read what I write. 

Count me in on the JTV-69 (American that is).

There are a lot of Stratocaster players on this planet and there must be a reason for that.  Personally, it's about fit and comfort.  I can play a Strat for a much greater time than a Les Paul that's for sure.  If there were little demand for a JTV-69 then that would equate to there being little demand for Stratocasters.  Now that's just silly.

Not all of us want the sharp edge of a Les Paul digging into the inside of our forearm especially when you start playing in a percussive style.  Not everybody wants to be a lead guitarist, there are some of us that dig into percussive style rhythm guitar playing and I can tell you that after smacking your forearm against the sharp edge of a Les Paul for an hour your arm gets quite bruised.  I also prefer a maple fingerboard to a rosewood and the JTV-69 would be the obvious model to come with a maple fingerboard.

Now the JTV-59 has clearly been developed with the Les Paul player in mind and the JTV-89 for the shred kiddies.  As a Strat player I would not be at all interested in the JTV-59 or JTV-89.  In fact, I would be faced with having to transplant the guts of a non US JTV cheapy into a Strat style guitar.  When you think that the whole idea of the JTV is to deliver a quality instrument to do away with the need of having to transplant the guts into a guitar that we want, then the JTV-69 is the ideal guitar for the Strat players in our midst.

When it comes to Strats, I only consider US made models, because I know that I'm getting the 'real deal'.

So, put me down for a US made JTV-69.  What will be the colour options Rich?

Cheers,

Crusty

P.S.  I am tempted to start a JTV-69 appreciation thread.

Crusty_Old_Rocker wrote:

 

Count me in on the JTV-69 (American that is).

 

There are a lot of Stratocaster players on this planet and there must be a reason for that.  Personally, it's about fit and comfort.  I can play a Strat for a much greater time than a Les Paul that's for sure.  If there were little demand for a JTV-69 then that would equate to there being little demand for Stratocasters.  Now that's just silly.

 

Not all of us want the sharp edge of a Les Paul digging into the inside of our forearm especially when you start playing in a percussive style.  Not everybody wants to be a lead guitarist, there are some of us that dig into percussive style rhythm guitar playing and I can tell you that after smacking your forearm against the sharp edge of a Les Paul for an hour your arm gets quite bruised.  I also prefer a maple fingerboard to a rosewood and the JTV-69 would be the obvious model to come with a maple fingerboard.

 

Now the JTV-59 has clearly been developed with the Les Paul player in mind and the JTV-89 for the shred kiddies.  As a Strat player I would not be at all interested in the JTV-59 or JTV-89.  In fact, I would be faced with having to transplant the guts of a non US JTV cheapy into a Strat style guitar.  When you think that the whole idea of the JTV is to deliver a quality instrument to do away with the need of having to transplant the guts into a guitar that we want, then the JTV-69 is the ideal guitar for the Strat players in our midst.

 

When it comes to Strats, I only consider US made models, because I know that I'm getting the 'real deal'.

 

So, put me down for a US made JTV-69.  What will be the colour options Rich?

 

Cheers,

 

Crusty

 

P.S.  I am tempted to start a JTV-69 appreciation thread.

Hey Crusty - that is cool you are a Strat player.  I'm the opposite when I prefer the 59 and the 89 and would never play a start style guitar as I wrote about previously.  I could tell you how to keep from beating up your forearm while playing an LP if ya want my technique?  Also these LP style guitars have body cutouts in order to lessen that exact problem some players have while playing a non-contoured guitar.  89 = "shred kiddies"??  Really??  I like the style of that model guitar and although I don't typically play super heavy metal styles of music, I just like the styling of the guitar and i'm far from a kiddie.  LOL  I wish I still was!!  LOL

I'm hoping that I can somehow afford a 59 USA and an 89 USA at some point in time.  So I'm going to try whichever one is available first since Rich mentioned months of backorders already.  I might even give a Korean version a try if that is what I can get my hands on first - even if just for comparison.  I have to do everything mail order - which means I don't get to try anything out until I've paid for it first, so it makes side by side comparisons very difficult in my situation.

Crusty, I also mentioned your name with regards to Workbench on another related thread - I hope you do not mind?

Let me know if you are interested in my technique suggestions or if it doesn't matter sine you prefer strats.  If you start a model 69 appreciation thread, can I start a 59 and/or 89 appreciation thread once I get one to have something to appreciate fully?

Hold on a minute Crusty!  I love the Strat playability, but I'm not just a rhythm player... Neither were Hendrix, Clapton, Jeff Beck, John Mayer....the incredibile list of great Strat players goes on.

I do find that the difference is percussive players or players that like clean and crunch sounds vs. more distortion players.  I, like you, like the contoured fit, rounded edges (like a woman's shape ), and light weight of a Strat.  I'm really glad that the JTV-69 looks like something I would enjoy playing and have all the features discussed here.  I'll take a wait and see look as to if I go for the Korean or American made.  I will ask myself the question "Is this good enough to be my #1 guitar or simply a tool I will use occassionally (like my Variax 600)?".  It does look like a candidate for a main guitar!

Line6Renken wrote:

Ok, sorry, but you are seriously out of bounds here. You go on and on with a lot of words, but you have no idea what you are talking about. We didn't stuff some synth into our guitar. It is not synthesis, it is modeling, there is a massive difference. We hold patents because it is not just some synth in a guitar. Also, as I already said, there is no superior guitar modeling available in an outboard synth guitar processor anywhere. Period.

 

Adrian Belew is a long time Line 6 user and friend and we did that as a favor to him and to the good people at Parker. It was very contained and lower volume and it was a lot of work for us. I am glad you brought it up because as "easy" as it has been to work with Parker, it has been a lot of work for us and basically proved that something on a grand scale would be a nightmare.

 

You don't seem like a customer for old Variax, the new James Tyler Variax or anything Line 6 in general so why are you taking the time to post here? I am kinda dumbfounded. Do you work for one of our competitors?

Explain to me the difference between guitar "modeling" and the synthesis of guitar sounds as triggered by a piezo. What's the "massive difference" other than that you're calling it modeling and someone else might call it synthesis? I'm looking at a signal from a piezo going to a DSP chip that contains some firmware. In both cases. Where, exactly, does that "massive difference" lie?

I'm unclear on why you would work with a single artist like Adrian Belew and with the "good people at Parker" but not with the "good people" at other guitar companies?  If it proved that something on a larger scale was likely to be a nightmare for you, then might it not also be a good indicator that there are areas where you could simplify the process? Seems to me you're doing something nearly identical in integrating mag pickups and Variax technology in your new guitars, no? And I'm wondering why it was so difficult when it seems to have been fairly straightforward for a lot of transplant practitioners?

And finally, I'm not sure why you're playing this "you don't seem like a customer for old Variax, new Variax or anything Line 6 in general" card? I think you probably *wish* I weren't a Line 6 customer, because then you assume that my input wouldn't be valid. Unfortunately, I own not one, but three Pod XTs (one Live, two Beans -- the Beans are currently registered online...)) and I'm getting ready to purchase an X3 Pro -- and I've prosyletized the use of Line 6 Pods like crazy. I have two Atomic Reactor amps (I know, not your product) and also use the pods with rack power amps to drive FRFR speaker systems. In addition, I own a Variax 700 Acoustic (want a picture with today's LA Times next to it?) and a Variax 500 Electric. I'd be quite an obvious customer for a new Variax guitar, except that while the Variax stuff warms the cockles of my heart, none of the Tyler part does. And I've mentioned all of this before.  I don't work for one of your competitors (directly). I'm an advertising photographer in the LA  and San Francisco areas (I've had studios in both places simultaneously, pre-"digital"), my wife is a graphic designer and we do marketing consulting. I *do* have NDAs from quite a few music industry clients (I shoot a lot of product). I was a very early adopter of digital photography and even helped write some of the early software for professional-level digital backs for medium and large format (my second digital camera back was a 60mmx60mm square single-shot sensor that produced a 16 MP file...in 1996. My first produced a 100MP file in 1994 -- a scan back). And I was a professional musician (keyboards, originally, with a B3 and Rhodes 88) beginning at 11 years old. It's quite likely I was on tour before you were born.

The large amps are mostly for stage volume anyways.  It's more about being able to have the sound swimming all around you. I think it's goofy but for some people it's whatever you're used to.

I knew I guy who did a couple of tours mixing sound for The Nuge.  Ted had a real problem with stage noise - because he had all those amps set up and they were all LIVE!  So one day a couple of the tech guys rackmounted all of his pedals, replaced the tape on his echoplex and cleaned the heads.  It cut the stage hum/noise considerably.  They brought Ted out to show him  and Ted went to the amps to dial up his tone and HATED it.  Because for years, Ted was so used to his rig - that the just knew that if he punched in the amps dials to certain levels that it would always sound the same way.  Changing the FX - changed the tone - so Ted wasn't about to futz around trying to fix it or relearn the setting on his amp - so they had to undo everything.  Down to replacing the old tape in the echoplex.

Some people are just comfortable playing that way - and besides there's always someone that sees Super High Gain amp being played by rock star X - and says - I'm going to save up for that.

Also - have worked w. enough BAD soundmen that I don't trust many of them with a stereo send.  Other people might have the same issue as well and see stage volume as control.

I do agree with you though - I think you're definitely going to see most people moving away from big amps if for no other reason than smaller cars = less space to put that 4x12.

scottpcollins wrote:

 

The large amps are mostly for stage volume anyways.  It's more about being able to have the sound swimming all around you. I think it's goofy but for some people it's whatever you're used to.

 

I knew I guy who did a couple of tours mixing sound for The Nuge.  Ted had a real problem with stage noise - because he had all those amps set up and they were all LIVE!  So one day a couple of the tech guys rackmounted all of his pedals, replaced the tape on his echoplex and cleaned the heads.  It cut the stage hum/noise considerably.  They brought Ted out to show him  and Ted went to the amps to dial up his tone and HATED it.  Because for years, Ted was so used to his rig - that the just knew that if he punched in the amps dials to certain levels that it would always sound the same way.  Changing the FX - changed the tone - so Ted wasn't about to futz around trying to fix it or relearn the setting on his amp - so they had to undo everything.  Down to replacing the old tape in the echoplex.

 

Some people are just comfortable playing that way - and besides there's always someone that sees Super High Gain amp being played by rock star X - and says - I'm going to save up for that.

 

Also - have worked w. enough BAD soundmen that I don't trust many of them with a stereo send.  Other people might have the same issue as well and see stage volume as control.

 

I do agree with you though - I think you're definitely going to see most people moving away from big amps if for no other reason than smaller cars = less space to put that 4x12.

Go figure - I've heard that same exact story about Nugent.  Old dog = NO new tricks.  I wonder how many of the "old guard" would till feel the same way?  The opposite of that is someone like Steve Morse.  He's always keeping an eye and ear out for new tech as he has always been about using as much tech as possible to get ALL the tones, he possibly could.  Oddly enough - even Alex Lifeson has changed over the years fromMarshal/HiWatt and Leslie's etc. to pedalboards, rack stuff and Hughes & Kettner (sp?) amps and even to modified Strat style guitars from his previous collection of various Gibson models.  BUT if they ever do an OLD SONG, he goes back to playing one of his gibson guitars 8 of 10 times.

I went to a combo style amp because I was tired of dragging around my Marshall 4x12 and my rack mount 9100 Marshall tube dual 50 watt stereo power amp, plus the TWO preamps, plus all the extra compressors, noise gates, etc.  It wasn't because I play insanely loud -  days of that are LONG gone, but it's simply the gear I had.  Then comes along the Vetta combo and everything I needed was IN one amp, and even though it was WAY too much power for my needs, I knew I could always turn the volume knob down and NOT lose much of the speaker response.  I currently run it in half power mode, and my master volume knob never gets past 9-10 o'clock since it have no numbers.  SO it's never been turned up to it's full potential and that all works fine with me.

However, unless you HAVE a soundman which we can't afford due to the pathetitc pay rate in this are, I'd NEVER do a live gig depending on a monitor system to get my sound.  I simply can not take that chance.  PLUS - there is not a single unit made currently by Line 6 that matches up to what the Vetta can do.  Some of the X3 pedals come close with two amp simultaneous modelling, but not close enough in comparison.

Lastly - as posted somewhere way back in this thread...I believe that various brand 40 watt TUBE amps are selling so well because it gives the best of both worlds in a compact size with the proper DI outs for ease of use on stage.  Personally I hope that anything related to the Vetta amps decide to DO a 40 watt tube amp by Bogner or whomever so I don't have to bring my Marshall 9100 very heavy power block for those shows I want tube power and a 4x12 cabinet.  The combination of both the Vetta solid state with the tube power is an amazingly FAT sound, but it's just too much to bring on a regular basis.

So how about we shelve the continued discussion about amps in favor of sticking with the title of the forum or pehaps start a separate forum as Crusty did regarding the choice of guitars and why?

Synthesis = detecting pitch of each string, triggering corresponding MIDI notes on a sampler or synth. Playing nuances are not preserved; the guitar audio is thrown away after pitch is detected, and the synth sound (piano, organ, synth, etc.) replaces the guitar sound. Along with glitches, trigger delay, etc.

Modeling = applying dynamic, frequency, and resonance processing to the actual audio from each string. Playing nuances are preserved; the actual audio from the guitar is used directly in a "dressed up" form.

Two very different things, both in concept and in necessary playing style.