Jump to content


Photo

Great Comparison V1.9 Vs 2.0


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#41 TheRealZap

TheRealZap

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 15476 posts
  • LocationClemmons, NC USA

Posted 02 September 2013 - 04:42 PM

right... and you see a few people saying they prefer 2.0... and a few more are probably too busy playing and enjoying 2.0 (or even 1.9) to care...

 

just saying... none of this is very scientific... and of course people that are happy with the update, aren't hanging around to preach to the choir...

 

 

I see many customers here me included who prefer the previous strat sound, maybe that's not important for Line6 but IMO it should be so in case we were the majority


  • 2

#42 ozbadman

ozbadman

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1689 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 06:02 PM

I see many customers here me included who prefer the previous strat sound, maybe that's not important for Line6 but IMO it should be so in case we were the majority


See:

http://line6.com/sup...71-jtv-20-poll/
  • 0

#43 johnnyayyy

johnnyayyy

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1374 posts

Posted 02 September 2013 - 09:25 PM

write... and you see a few people saying they prefer 2.0... and a few more are probably too busy playing and enjoying 2.0 (or even 1.9) to care...

 

just saying... none of this is very scientific... and of course people that are happy with the update, aren't hanging around to preach to the choir...

 

Artists rendering of forum members trying out JTV 2.0:

 

Figura-11.jpg


  • 2

#44 arislaf

arislaf

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1095 posts
  • LocationGreece

Posted 03 September 2013 - 12:28 AM

Hahhahahahahahaha, perfect!!!


  • 0

#45 hurghanico

hurghanico

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1396 posts

Posted 03 September 2013 - 01:49 AM

 

I saw the above poll, but IMO a total of 64 votes is too little to be of any value, there are people who probably does not even know that there are firmwares .. or even dedicated forums.. and polls..

anyway everyone obviously is free to do what they prefer
personally instead of having a masonite-spank and use other workarounds to get some
decent sounds, I prefer to stay with what I have

if there'll be a significant better fw update in the future maybe I'll go for that


  • 2

#46 guilhordas

guilhordas

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 372 posts
  • LocationBrazil

Posted 03 September 2013 - 05:22 AM

Now, undoubtedly is sad that after this long wait, we have to change the models so that they sound good, spank and changed the semi, I think it was not that angry people waiting, lol, but okay, we love our JTvs


  • 0

Jtv 69 , pod hd 500, suhr S3,prs custom 22, Gibson SG standard 96, fender plus strat 93


#47 jdenkevitz

jdenkevitz

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 152 posts

Posted 04 September 2013 - 10:21 AM

I saw the above poll, but IMO a total of 64 votes is too little to be of any value, there are people who probably does not even know that there are firmwares .. or even dedicated forums.. and polls..

anyway everyone obviously is free to do what they prefer
personally instead of having a masonite-spank and use other workarounds to get some
decent sounds, I prefer to stay with what I have

if there'll be a significant better fw update in the future maybe I'll go for that

 

I made a submission on Ideascale that you may agree with.

 

http://line6.ideasca...nc/524926-23508

 

This would allow us access to the removed models. I believe access to the 'old' models would allow greater tonal versatility, and for me, that's the point of the Variax.


  • 0

My Band: www.steamtheory.com

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

Also post as "germanicus".


#48 hurghanico

hurghanico

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1396 posts

Posted 04 September 2013 - 10:49 AM

This would allow us access to the removed models. I believe access to the 'old' models would allow greater tonal versatility, and for me, that's the point of the Variax.

 

I saw your idea on ideascale but unfortunately I don't believe it's possible to realize what you're saying there..

 

I believe that every variax has all the avaible hardware memory loaded with the specific fw included parts of the modeled guitars..

and the workbench is not much more than a remote control to assemble those parts together and eventually save/load the results..

 

probably there is no room into the variax memory (ie fw data) to accomodate every model part done so far, and so only Line6 decides what to include or not in every fw..

 

certainly ideally it would be really very nice if it was possible, but for now you can only choose which fw as a whole package works better for you ..


  • 0

#49 TheRealZap

TheRealZap

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 15476 posts
  • LocationClemmons, NC USA

Posted 04 September 2013 - 11:17 AM

using simply logic we can with 100% certainty say that it is not possible.

any version of the variax software before 1.83 had both the factory models and the user models installed (all models were basically duplicated. which was a HUGELY nice unknown feature of the original variax)

after 1.83 when they added the HD acoustic models, they removed the duplicate factory models to make room for the HD models.

i'm certain that if one bank of HD models required the removal of all the duplicated models... that there is NO room to put them all back with the HD models.

if there was enough room for say a handful of the old models... i'd still say no thanks... make me more new HD models. (that and picking and choosing old models will never make everyone happy anyway... slippery slope.)

 

 

I saw your idea on ideascale but unfortunately I don't believe it's possible to realize what you're saying there..

 

I believe that every variax has all the avaible hardware memory loaded with the specific fw included parts of the modeled guitars..

and the workbench is not much more than a remote control to assemble those parts together and eventually save/load the results..

 

probably there is no room into the variax memory (ie fw data) to accomodate every model part done so far, and so only Line6 decides what to include or not in every fw..

 

certainly ideally it would be really very nice if it was possible, but for now you can only choose which fw as a whole package works better for you ..


  • 2

#50 Charlie_Watt

Charlie_Watt

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1146 posts

Posted 04 September 2013 - 11:18 AM

The model selector hardware also limits how many models we can select.  WB only changes model parameters not models.


  • 0

#51 TheRealZap

TheRealZap

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 15476 posts
  • LocationClemmons, NC USA

Posted 04 September 2013 - 11:26 AM

i'd also point out that even though the original models "co-existed" with the HD models (the new acoustics) that the full HD 2.0 release changed the sound enough to have many questioning if the acoustics had been further upgraded...

in reality the underlying code had been upgraded to better use those HD models....

the original variax models probably would not even sound the same if placed on top of the underlying HD code...

maybe better... but that's no more or less subjective than the current HD models... again a slippery slope....


  • 0

#52 johnnyayyy

johnnyayyy

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1374 posts

Posted 04 September 2013 - 01:17 PM

using simply logic we can with 100% certainty say that it is not possible.

any version of the variax software before 1.83 had both the factory models and the user models installed (all models were basically duplicated. which was a HUGELY nice unknown feature of the original variax)

after 1.83 when they added the HD acoustic models, they removed the duplicate factory models to make room for the HD models.

i'm certain that if one bank of HD models required the removal of all the duplicated models... that there is NO room to put them all back with the HD models.

if there was enough room for say a handful of the old models... i'd still say no thanks... make me more new HD models. (that and picking and choosing old models will never make everyone happy anyway... slippery slope.)

 

Get ready to get yelled at... :(


  • 0

#53 TheRealZap

TheRealZap

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 15476 posts
  • LocationClemmons, NC USA

Posted 04 September 2013 - 01:23 PM

probably... but that little history of variax updates is probably not common knowledge...

but it's very real and factual history... and it's just not possible what they are asking for.

perhaps the clever line6 guys will come up with something...

but the internal storage and sounds are not infinite, they are finite.

perhaps they can make up for these things in the 3rd generation variax if that ever happens.

(took 7 years to go from gen1 to gen2... wont likely be fast if ever)

 

Get ready to get yelled at... :(


  • 0

#54 ozbadman

ozbadman

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1689 posts

Posted 04 September 2013 - 02:04 PM

probably... but that little history of variax updates is probably not common knowledge...

but it's very real and factual history... and it's just not possible what they are asking for.

perhaps the clever line6 guys will come up with something...

but the internal storage and sounds are not infinite, they are finite.

perhaps they can make up for these things in the 3rd generation variax if that ever happens.

(took 7 years to go from gen1 to gen2... wont likely be fast if ever)

 

And besides, they should have a JTV Acoustic to work on...


  • 0

#55 brue58ski

brue58ski

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 530 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 01:29 AM

Personally I don't think the video is really making a fair comparison.  It's common knowledge many of the 2.0 models are lower in volume, comparing them without compensating for the volume difference between the 2 is not a valid comparison IMO. 

 

Dan

After listening to this video, to me just about everything in ver.2 sounds like it's not hitting the amp as hard as the 1.9 models i.e. volume.  It really hit me listening to the acoustics whose modeling I don't believe was changed.  I half believe we were given the update a little early. Hence the lack of using the Workbench through the HD500 and all the anomalies talked about (like the spank 2 position).  I personally am glad they did it if that's the case since if they hadn't I'd still be waiting.


  • 0

#56 hurghanico

hurghanico

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1396 posts

Posted 07 September 2013 - 03:21 AM

After listening to this video, to me just about everything in ver.2 sounds like it's not hitting the amp as hard as the 1.9 models i.e. volume.

 

I think probably you're right, but in the previous posted demo video the opposite instead seems to happen:

ver.1.9 sounds like it's not hitting the amp as hard as the 2.0 models..

 

I think some of us forum members would appreciate if someone could make a more accurate and definitive video comparison between the 2 FWs

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

and also would be nice to do a video comparison between the 2.0 and the real things as has been done in this video where the comparison was made ​​with the 1.9 and the similarity with real things is quite impressive


  • 0

#57 hurghanico

hurghanico

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1396 posts

Posted 08 September 2013 - 04:18 AM

Sean Halley playing the 1.9 electric models in the first two videos, and playing the 2.0 versions in the last one..

the rig connection for the first 2 clips is: JTV--->HD500--->DT25 head--->4x12 cab--->ribbon mic

for the last one I don't know but I suppose it should be the same above if not better

 

based on what you hear in those videos which one you would choose for you?

 

1.9 electric

 

1.9 semi-hollowbody

 

2.0 models

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIaYGYtJW5g


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users