Jump to content


Photo

Please Make The Non 'hd' Models Available In Workbench


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#21 Charlie_Watt

Charlie_Watt

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 829 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 11:22 AM

If you like 1.9 then use that!  It's not likely that we will have access to both in one download.


  • 0

#22 Bobbyl

Bobbyl

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 32 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 11:54 AM

I am using it but I'm also letting L6 know my thoughts about HD. i am a working professional after all. BTW- I really like most of the HD models and the general realism and dynamic response of HD.


  • 0

#23 clay-man

clay-man

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 654 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 01:35 PM

The fact that people are asking for the capacity to include the old models would lead one to believe that, at least for those customers, its not a 'waste of memory'.

 

Do you have specific knowledge in regards to much memory/how many models the firmware can store?

 

Or are you just guessing (making up stuff)?

 

It is a waste of space because the point of the HD update is to give you updated technology and performance compared to the decade old modeling technology used in the pre HD models, which are the same models used in the Generation 1 Variaxes.

 

Keeping the old models is a waste of time and space and would prevent allowing them to add onto the new HD stuff, and possibly present new original models.

If you like the old models, just downgrade. You have the option.

 

I am assume that the memory is already pretty full because they had to drop some telecaster bodies and a few other things in the HD update. Either this is the case, or they thought it was pointless to model multiple versions of the same guitar this time around.

 

It's time to either use workbench to tweak the tone, or move on. If there is legit bugs in the HD update, they will address this in time.


  • 0

For a minute there, I lost myself.

Radiohead_bear-728286%5B1%5D.png 


#24 johnnyayyy

johnnyayyy

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1364 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 02:32 PM

I am using it but I'm also letting L6 know my thoughts about HD.

 

This forum is not a great place to let Line6 know your thoughts - try posting here: http://line6.ideascale.com/


  • 0

#25 jdenkevitz

jdenkevitz

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 27 August 2013 - 07:14 AM

It is a waste of space because the point of the HD update is to give you updated technology and performance compared to the decade old modeling technology used in the pre HD models, which are the same models used in the Generation 1 Variaxes.

 

Keeping the old models is a waste of time and space and would prevent allowing them to add onto the new HD stuff, and possibly present new original models.

If you like the old models, just downgrade. You have the option.

 

I am assume that the memory is already pretty full because they had to drop some telecaster bodies and a few other things in the HD update. Either this is the case, or they thought it was pointless to model multiple versions of the same guitar this time around.

 

It's time to either use workbench to tweak the tone, or move on. If there is legit bugs in the HD update, they will address this in time.

 

Its hardly a waste of space if that is what is desired by the Customer. 

 

If its truly impossible for them to allow us to load different bodies in as we feel appropriate (something im not convinced is the case), I would suggest that an alternative version of the firmware be made available, one that lets us use the older bodies, but gives us access to the new workbench functions (ie making 12 strings of any guitar).


  • 0

My Band: www.steamtheory.com

My Youtube vids: http://www.youtube.c...y?feature=watch

Also post as "germanicus".


#26 johnnyayyy

johnnyayyy

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1364 posts

Posted 27 August 2013 - 08:29 AM

Its hardly a waste of space if that is what is desired by the Customer. 

 

It is a waste of space and a waste of Line 6's resources if this feature would only appeal to one customer, or a few customers.

 

Please explain how spending time and money creating firmware that will do what you want it to do will in the end be profitable for Line 6.

 

And go here and cast your vote for what should be included in future versions of JTV firmware! : http://line6.com/sup...71-jtv-20-poll/


  • 0

#27 jdenkevitz

jdenkevitz

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 27 August 2013 - 09:10 AM

It is a waste of space and a waste of Line 6's resources if this feature would only appeal to one customer, or a few customers.

 

Please explain how spending time and money creating firmware that will do what you want it to do will in the end be profitable for Line 6.

 

And go here and cast your vote for what should be included in future versions of JTV firmware! : http://line6.com/sup...71-jtv-20-poll/

 

I agree if its one, or only a few customers, its a waste of time. But how can you possibly know that? Johnny, do you work for Line 6? Are you an official representative? Do you have any specific knowledge when it comes to the metrics corresponding to customer feedback?  There are actually quite a number of users who have requested what I have been discussing.

 

How would it be profitable? For one, it means happy customers, who are willing to sing their praises of the product to others. Secondly, it means more versatility and a larger set of models for any potential buyer to pick from, not just what happens to be whatever is in the current firmware. Thirdly, I'm willing to pay for the capacity to load in past models (as I did with model packs on my old Pod XT Live). I would happily pay at least $50 for the capacity to load in the old acoustic models (pre 1.72) and the old Strat and 335.

 

Only Line 6 knows how much feedback on this particular subject matter has been received, so really, stop making such assumptions. 


  • 1

My Band: www.steamtheory.com

My Youtube vids: http://www.youtube.c...y?feature=watch

Also post as "germanicus".


#28 phil_m

phil_m

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 5289 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis, MN

Posted 27 August 2013 - 09:27 AM

Just to reiterate, the place to submit ideas, feedback, criticism, etc. for Line 6 products is here: http://line6.ideascale.com/

 

I would note that there doesn't really seem to be a huge contingent of people unhappy with update based on that site. You'll always have some people unhappy. That's life. But I'd also say that Line 6 isn't looking to change sounds or models just for the heck of it. They are trying to provide a more accurate modeling product.


  • 0
Time is a train
Makes the future the past
Leaves you standing in the station
Your face pressed up against the glass

 


#29 johnnyayyy

johnnyayyy

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1364 posts

Posted 27 August 2013 - 11:31 AM

 Johnny, do you work for Line 6?

 

Nope. Do you?

 

 

Are you an official representative?

 

Nuh uh... how 'bout you?

 

 

Do you have any specific knowledge when it comes to the metrics corresponding to customer feedback? 

 

Not a bit. You?

 

 

There are actually quite a number of users who have requested what I have been discussing.

 

Quite a number, as in 3 or 4? What is the exact number of users who have requested this? What were their names? What evidence do you have to support your claim? I have only seen evidence of a few, but maybe if  they keep repeating themselves it will SEEM like "quite a number"...

 

 

How would it be profitable? For one, it means happy customers, who are willing to sing their praises of the product to others.

 

Are you saying the people who are forced to choose between 1.9 modeling or 2.0 features will never be "happy customers, who are willing to sing their praises of the product to others"?

 

3 or 4 additional "happy customers" spreading the joy of JTV by word of mouth is probably not going to add much to Line 6's bottom line or do much to recoup the additional $$$ spent adding the old tones to the new firmware.

 

 

Only Line 6 knows how much feedback on this particular subject matter has been received, so really, stop making such assumptions.

 

 

Aren't you "assuming" Line 6 has received any feedback at all on this subject? No? Eh, me neither. I don't know and neither do you. But based on my limited knowledge of how the world works I bet it would be much more effective and productive to contact L6 directly on this matter or post on ideascale where they have requested we post ideas for improving their products than it is to go on and on about it in this forum.

 

I do not know whether Line 6 is aware of peoples' opinions on this matter and neither do you.

 

I do not necessarily think your idea is a bad one, it just does not seem to be very popular in this forum and I have seen no evidence of it being popular outside this forum.

 

And I doubt that any amount of restating it here is going to raise a groundswell of support, but I do wish you luck in your endeavors and hope you get everything you want out of your JTV.

 

Let's try another poll to get an idea of how important this is to other users here:

 

http://line6.com/sup...he-20-firmware/


  • 0

#30 clay-man

clay-man

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 654 posts

Posted 27 August 2013 - 08:42 PM

Its hardly a waste of space if that is what is desired by the Customer. 

 

If its truly impossible for them to allow us to load different bodies in as we feel appropriate (something im not convinced is the case), I would suggest that an alternative version of the firmware be made available, one that lets us use the older bodies, but gives us access to the new workbench functions (ie making 12 strings of any guitar).

 

Yes it is. I just explained to you that the point of the HD models is to give you new technology, to move on and update.

YOU CAN DOWNGRADE TO 1.9.

 

It would waste memory for possible future features of the guitar.

 

Why would they want to continue with old and outdated technology that the old modeling is? Was it good? Yes, it was great, but this isn't 2003 anymore and Line6 have better technology to make the modeling more accurate than ever before.

 

If there are legit problems with the modeling, then they will fix it overtime.


  • 0

For a minute there, I lost myself.

Radiohead_bear-728286%5B1%5D.png 


#31 johnnyayyy

johnnyayyy

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1364 posts

Posted 27 August 2013 - 10:03 PM

Yes it is. I just explained to you that the point of the HD models is to give you new technology, to move on and update.

YOU CAN DOWNGRADE TO 1.9.

 

It would waste memory for possible future features of the guitar.

 

Why would they want to continue with old and outdated technology that the old modeling is? Was it good? Yes, it was great, but this isn't 2003 anymore and Line6 have better technology to make the modeling more accurate than ever before.

 

If there are legit problems with the modeling, then they will fix it overtime.

 

 

I am reminded of this thread: http://line6.com/sup...g-back-x3-live/


  • 0

#32 ozbadman

ozbadman

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1689 posts

Posted 27 August 2013 - 11:06 PM

I am reminded of this thread: http://line6.com/sup...g-back-x3-live/

 

I want Line 6 to put back the "sound good" switch. They used to have it, but took it out at some point. Probably when I started playing harder stuff.


  • 0

#33 Bobbyl

Bobbyl

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 32 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 06:24 AM

Why would they want to continue with old and outdated technology that the old modeling is? 

 

I've never suggested they use outdated technology. I simply asked for the same strat and 335 to be remodeled using HD. The new strat and 335 have made my presets unusable. They sound like completely different instruments (and not ones I would buy. It's not HD I have a problem with. It's the choice of instruments. I think that the realism and dynamic response of hd are a huge improvement. I just like the TONE of the earlier strat and 335 they modeled a lot more and I've been playing them since the first variax 500 come out.

 

  • 1

#34 jdenkevitz

jdenkevitz

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 07:29 AM

Yes it is. I just explained to you that the point of the HD models is to give you new technology, to move on and update.

YOU CAN DOWNGRADE TO 1.9.

 

It would waste memory for possible future features of the guitar.

 

Why would they want to continue with old and outdated technology that the old modeling is? Was it good? Yes, it was great, but this isn't 2003 anymore and Line6 have better technology to make the modeling more accurate than ever before.

 

If there are legit problems with the modeling, then they will fix it overtime.

 

I explicitly stated I was aware you could rollback, but that this isn't desired due to loss of other new features. That's the point of the thread. 

 

At risk of beating a dead horse....

Its all subjective to the player, but I would hope that people actually listen and judge the models not based upon 'oh this has a newer version number, it must be better'.

I could not care less whether the modeling is considered 'old and outdated' if to my ears it sounds better. The strats, 335 and l4 have a much thinner sound, and i've had to go into workbench to wrangle changes to approximate the setup I had pre 2.0. I have then gone through and made significant changes to my amp and eq settings within my hd500, and im still not pleased. This same thing happened with the 'new and better HD' modeling on the acoustics after 1.72. It diminished my enjoyment and useability of those models as they had imparted a very annoying low-delay room ambience into the models which heavily affected how they sit in a live mix. Thankfully Line6 modified this after receiving user feedback (which I and others contributed to on this very forum) in a subsequent update, although I still prefer pre 1.72 acoustic models (they have a much more direct sound that works better on stage).

 

The point is they make changes and attempt to improve, and I appreciate that effort as many companies do not bother (Roland im looking at you), but its altogether possible that those changes aren't ideal to a set of customers. As such, I inquired as to the possibility of allowing us to use some of the 'older' models. For some reason, a few (vocal) users view this request as a threat to them getting future extra models of their dream guitars or pickups, when there is no substantive evidence of this being the case.


  • 0

My Band: www.steamtheory.com

My Youtube vids: http://www.youtube.c...y?feature=watch

Also post as "germanicus".


#35 johnnyayyy

johnnyayyy

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1364 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 08:57 AM

I explicitly stated I was aware you could rollback, but that this isn't desired due to loss of other new features. That's the point of the thread.

At risk of beating a dead horse....
Its all subjective to the player, but I would hope that people actually listen and judge the models not based upon 'oh this has a newer version number, it must be better'.
I could not care less whether the modeling is considered 'old and outdated' if to my ears it sounds better. The strats, 335 and l4 have a much thinner sound, and i've had to go into workbench to wrangle changes to approximate the setup I had pre 2.0. I have then gone through and made significant changes to my amp and eq settings within my hd500, and im still not pleased. This same thing happened with the 'new and better HD' modeling on the acoustics after 1.72. It diminished my enjoyment and useability of those models as they had imparted a very annoying low-delay room ambience into the models which heavily affected how they sit in a live mix. Thankfully Line6 modified this after receiving user feedback (which I and others contributed to on this very forum) in a subsequent update, although I still prefer pre 1.72 acoustic models (they have a much more direct sound that works better on stage).

The point is they make changes and attempt to improve, and I appreciate that effort as many companies do not bother (Roland im looking at you), but its altogether possible that those changes aren't ideal to a set of customers. As such, I inquired as to the possibility of allowing us to use some of the 'older' models. For some reason, a few (vocal) users view this request as a threat to them getting future extra models of their dream guitars or pickups, when there is no substantive evidence of this being the case.



We get it. You think the best use of Line6's limited resources is to give you and the other 4 people who simply must have the old sounds with the new features what they want. Polling shows the majority of us don't give a lollipops-arse about having access to the old sounds with the new features as we are happy with the new sounds and we are okay with rolling back to 1.9 or earlier if we really want the old sounds.

Maybe if you keep complaining about it you will get what you want, good luck. I believe they would have to create an ala carte system in Workbench and the JTV firmware to make this possible so I guess it wouldn't be a COMPLETE waste of L6 time, effort, money and brainpower, as the groundwork would be laid for adding some models that more than 5 people would actually be interested in...

It took Line 6 around 10 years to make any real changes in the Variax models, in the spanking new firmware we have access to fewer guitars than we started with (no Tele Thinline, Les Paul Custom, Les Paul Gold Top) so things are not trending in your favor. Dear LORD, I hope we don't have to wait 10 more years only to be told the big new development is the Jdenkavitz Signature Model 3.0 Firmware with E-Z access to all those "vintage" Variax sounds from the past... future ad blurb: "Get the sound of 2003 on your JTV - NOW WITH SIMULATED PLINK, KLANG AND WARBLE FOR MAXIMUM AUTHENTICITY!!!"

Future thread:

"Thank You For Doing Jdenkavitz's Thing, Now Please Make Plink, Klang, And Warble Available In Workbench: Ive had to go into workbench to wrangle changes to approximate the setup I had with my old Variax and I'm still not pleased"

Eh, okay, I'm done with the ribbing. You have stated your opinion and everyone has voted, let the Sharcs fall where they may...


As such, I inquired as to the possibility of allowing us to use some of the 'older' models.



In a users support thread... erm, what did you expect to happen? Have you gotten around to talking to someone from Line6 about your idea? What did they say? Is it possible or not? re they already working on it? Did they force you to sign a NDA?

They should make one of the terms of an NDA that you can't tell anyone you have signed and NDA... IMO


EDIT: P.S. I think it is HILARIOUS that people voted their JTV 2.0 "a worthless pile of 'lollipop'" if they cannot access the old models with the new features. This means that until the day 2.0 was released they thought their JTV sucked, only because it didn't allow them to turn every guitar into a 12 string...? Or blend mags with their piezos (wait they could do this already with a PodHD)...? People are funny!
  • 0

#36 jdenkevitz

jdenkevitz

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 10:31 AM

We get it. You think the best use of Line6's limited resources is to give you and the other 4 people who simply must have the old sounds with the new features what they want. Polling shows the majority of us don't give a lollipops-arse about having access to the old sounds with the new features as we are happy with the new sounds and we are okay with rolling back to 1.9 or earlier if we really want the old sounds.

Maybe if you keep complaining about it you will get what you want, good luck. I believe they would have to create an ala carte system in Workbench and the JTV firmware to make this possible so I guess it wouldn't be a COMPLETE waste of L6 time, effort, money and brainpower, as the groundwork would be laid for adding some models that more than 5 people would actually be interested in...

It took Line 6 around 10 years to make any real changes in the Variax models, in the spanking new firmware we have access to fewer guitars than we started with (no Tele Thinline, Les Paul Custom, Les Paul Gold Top) so things are not trending in your favor. Dear LORD, I hope we don't have to wait 10 more years only to be told the big new development is the Jdenkavitz Signature Model 3.0 Firmware with E-Z access to all those "vintage" Variax sounds from the past... future ad blurb: "Get the sound of 2003 on your JTV - NOW WITH SIMULATED PLINK, KLANG AND WARBLE FOR MAXIMUM AUTHENTICITY!!!"

Future thread:

"Thank You For Doing Jdenkavitz's Thing, Now Please Make Plink, Klang, And Warble Available In Workbench: Ive had to go into workbench to wrangle changes to approximate the setup I had with my old Variax and I'm still not pleased"

Eh, okay, I'm done with the ribbing. You have stated your opinion and everyone has voted, let the Sharcs fall where they may...




In a users support thread... erm, what did you expect to happen? Have you gotten around to talking to someone from Line6 about your idea? What did they say? Is it possible or not? re they already working on it? Did they force you to sign a NDA?

They should make one of the terms of an NDA that you can't tell anyone you have signed and NDA... IMO


EDIT: P.S. I think it is HILARIOUS that people voted their JTV 2.0 "a worthless pile of 'lollipop'" if they cannot access the old models with the new features. This means that until the day 2.0 was released they thought their JTV sucked, only because it didn't allow them to turn every guitar into a 12 string...? Or blend mags with their piezos (wait they could do this already with a PodHD)...? People are funny!

 

So at this point you have nothing to add except using a mocking tone to again restate your position (which you admitted earlier was unfounded in any specific knowledge). You admitted you don't know what feedback line 6 has received pertaining to this update. I certainly have made no such claim that I do, nor have I claimed any such thing. But you continue to argue from the position that only a few are unhappy. Even if this is the case, I admitted earlier its not a fundamentally sound business decision to placate the desires of one or a few end users. But you dont have a clue that that is the case.

 

Even if im the only one in all the universe with that opinion, its certainly my right to make a request of such. All you need to do, if you dont agree, is mind your own business. But you seemed somehow threatened and emotionally involved in the topic, to the extent that you are now trolling and bordering on mocking personal attacks. Its innapropriate.

 

Im glad to see you admit that your poll uses loaded language. I suppose you were not confident enough in your position to make a poll using objective terms for choices, but instead felt the need to use loaded language. What is "HILARIOUS" is that at this moment in time, 50% of the respondents agreed with my request, even with your silly language. 


  • 0

My Band: www.steamtheory.com

My Youtube vids: http://www.youtube.c...y?feature=watch

Also post as "germanicus".


#37 TheRealZap

TheRealZap

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 14879 posts
  • LocationClemmons, NC USA

Posted 28 August 2013 - 11:08 AM

everyone is free to have an opinion... the more models the better really... i'd personally prefer more new ones to the return of the old ones...

but no problem for me if you have a different opinion....

....

 

on this point though... it is a topic in which he created... making the entire thread his business...

he obviously wants to discuss the topic... his opinion is different than yours... no big deal...

apparently his argument is using tactics in which are failing to persuade you...

now shake hands and agree to disagree...  :D

dBNKQ.gif

Even if im the only one in all the universe with that opinion, its certainly my right to make a request of such. All you need to do, if you dont agree, is mind your own business. 


  • 0

#38 johnnyayyy

johnnyayyy

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1364 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 11:20 AM

So at this point you have nothing to add except using a mocking tone to again restate your position (which you admitted earlier was unfounded in any specific knowledge). You admitted you don't know what feedback line 6 has received pertaining to this update. I certainly have made no such claim that I do, nor have I claimed any such thing. But you continue to argue from the position that only a few are unhappy. Even if this is the case, I admitted earlier its not a fundamentally sound business decision to placate the desires of one or a few end users. But you dont have a clue that that is the case.

 

Even if im the only one in all the universe with that opinion, its certainly my right to make a request of such. All you need to do, if you dont agree, is mind your own business. But you seemed somehow threatened and emotionally involved in the topic, to the extent that you are now trolling and bordering on mocking personal attacks. Its innapropriate.

 

Im glad to see you admit that your poll uses loaded language. I suppose you were not confident enough in your position to make a poll using objective terms for choices, but instead felt the need to use loaded language. What is "HILARIOUS" is that at this moment in time, 50% of the respondents agreed with my request, even with your silly language. 

 

:D

 

Wait, how many different accounts do you have here? I just received notification that an different user had posted this same response, nearly word for word... interesting... did you immediately delete it when you realized you were logged in to the wrong account? Very interesting... I now wonder how many of the 30.43% (NOT the 50% you stated) of those responding to the poll who thought your idea is a great one were really just you voting under different aliases...? (Psssst... I think having multiple accounts might be a violation of the Line 6 TOS... you might want to watch that...Jdenkavanicus... :) )

 

I admitted earlier its not a fundamentally sound business decision to placate the desires of one or a few end users. But you dont have a CLUE that that is the case.

 

Aaaaand neither do you. Wait, I actually do have a CLUE... there was a poll... but time will tell, won't it? Let's keep those fingers crossed...

 

you seemed somehow threatened and emotionally involved in the topic

 

What you are doing here is what is commonly known as "projecting"... http://en.wikipedia....ical_projection

 

 

All you need to do, if you dont agree, is mind your own business.

 

Wait... by that token all you need to do if you don't agree with my opinion is "mind your own business', and all you need to do if you don't agree with L6's decisions is "mind your own business"

 

If you are that afraid of people disagreeing with you maybe you should rethink your decision to post your opinions in an open forum on the internet.

 

You started this thread then attacked everyone who didn't agree with you, I brought up some points you didn't like and you attacked me. Not necessary or productive and you need to calm the "lollipop" down.

 

As much as I think implementation of your idea would be a colossal waste of time and resources and a distraction from work Line 6 could be doing to move the JTV forward, I did say many times and I will repeat: I don't have any problem with the idea of you getting what you want, and I think the steps that would be necessary to make it happen (ala carte modeling) would likely be necessary in order to enable L6 to add features (new models) and real improvements that more than just a few people would like to see.

 

In any case, rave on brother, you give them windmills heck. I already wished you luck in your pursuit, what more do you want?

 

 

 

everyone is free to have an opinion... the more models the better really... i'd personally prefer more new ones to the return of the old ones...

but no problem for me if you have a different opinion....

....

 

on this point though... it is a topic in which he created... making the entire thread his business...

he obviously wants to discuss the topic... his opinion is different than yours... no big deal...

apparently his argument is using tactics in which are failing to persuade you...

now shake hands and agree to disagree...   :D

 

 

:D :D :D

 

Done and done!


  • 0

#39 clay-man

clay-man

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 654 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 11:50 AM

I've never suggested they use outdated technology. I simply asked for the same strat and 335 to be remodeled using HD. The new strat and 335 have made my presets unusable. They sound like completely different instruments (and not ones I would buy. It's not HD I have a problem with. It's the choice of instruments. I think that the realism and dynamic response of hd are a huge improvement. I just like the TONE of the earlier strat and 335 they modeled a lot more and I've been playing them since the first variax 500 come out.

 

Ok. I agree with that. The only thing I have to say is that they might not have the same guitars they had when they did the modeling back in 2003.

They should try to model at least the same model guitars that they were. If they are, perhaps their copy of the vintage guitar is rather poor? Either that or they're modeling it poorly. 

 

I can't really speak for myself since I haven't got a JTV HD Variax, but if it is actually off from what it's supposed to sound like, then you have a legit argument.

 

I just see some people asking "Can we have 1.9 strat" and it sounds like they're saying "put the old modeling technology back in that position". It's counterproductive to do that.


  • 0

For a minute there, I lost myself.

Radiohead_bear-728286%5B1%5D.png 


#40 johnnyayyy

johnnyayyy

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1364 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 01:58 PM

They should try to model at least the same model guitars that they were.


Well... some might say the guitars L6 chose to model this time around are better choices than those used back in 2002.

The Jetliner, for instance - as Jeff Beck says to anyone who will listen, this particular model is the only one that is going to give you that classic Cliff Gallup sound. A Silver Jet is a cool guitar, but is not considered THEE ULTIMATE in rockabilly tone by anyone as far as I know - likely the thick sparkly top material has an dulling effect on the tone that makes it not quite all it could be. Sure, Billy Zoom loves 'em, and so do I, would love to own an original but the new Jetliner tone sounds more like those classic 50's recordings than the old Silver Jet ever did, maybe due entirely to the HD modeling or maybe also because L6 chose the right guitar to model this time.

And what is considered by everyone everywhere to be the ultimate Les Paul? The 1959 model. Why is the 59 better than the 58? Can't remember... because all the cool cats used them? Or is there something that was perfected in 1959 that makes the Les Pauls that year the Holy Grail of electric guitars? Different Neck or neck tenon? Hmmmm, I think the electronics are the same... aha, slightly different weight, flame maple top (does that resonate differently than non-flame maple?) ... pic from the Gibson Custom Shop re: reissues says 59RI body backs weigh a little less...

GibsonLPWeights.jpg
at any rate, the new JTV 2.0 modeling sounds more like a real Les Paul than the pre 2.0 did, is this entirely due to the superior HD modeling process or is it also partially due to having a superior guitar as a point of reference during the modeling? We will probably never know, but it probably doesn't hurt to have the ultimate example of something on hand if you are going to start imitating/duplicating it, yes?

They also modeled a fake (Jerry Jones) Dano copy this time around, don't remember anyone demanding a Jerry Jones guitar but maybe it was all that was available to L6 during the modeling phase (doubtful, Danelectros are are not really all that rare)- hmmmm, that's a head scratcher... maybe the Jerry Jones guitar somehow sounded more like a Dano than a Dano...? Yeah, this one is puzzling... the only non-vintage electric guitar modeled, and it is a tweaked copy of a vintage guitar... odd, L6, very odd...
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users