Jump to content


Photo

Acoustic Sounds Get Worser From Update To Update?


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#41 phil_m

phil_m

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 5489 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis, MN

Posted 12 September 2013 - 09:24 AM

The acoustics struck me again as a bit too roomy and muddy/boomy. I wish they modeled them with a mix of DI feel. Still hate the dread, but I find the gibson nice and usable. Acoustics are really important to me, so I really need to like them to keep the 2.0

On the electric side, the first thing I noticed was how much better palm muting sounds...I know this had been improved in previous firmwares, but I'd been stuck with 1.71 so that's a big change for me. I haven't explored much at all, so I'll have to report back on that some other time

 

 

If you're not using alternate tunings on the acoustics, one thing you could try is blending in a little bit of the signal from the magnetic pickups in Workbench. That could give you a bit more of the midrange thump you're looking for in a live acoustic sound.

 

It's kind of ironic, really. What most acoustic DI systems are trying to give you is the sound of a miced acoustic, but in reality, that sound doesn't quite cut it live for most pop and rock applications. You need a bit of the piezo quack to cut through.


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

 


#42 vjclaus

vjclaus

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 29 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 11:32 AM

for me the 1.72 works best
  • 0

#43 hurghanico

hurghanico

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1384 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 11:39 AM

for me the 1.72 works best

 

You probably wanted to say 1.71 ;)

1.72 doesn't exist


  • 0

#44 israz99

israz99

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 31 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 04:06 PM

It would be good to know what is the amp that virtzberg uses to play the aocustics. In my opinión the acoustic sounds in WB 2.0 sound really good, I play them through Guitar Rig 5 and I can get them to sound just like Pink Floyd in the live versions of wish you were here, if that is not good enough then I don't know what it is. 

 

Remember that teh acoustic sounds in WB 2.0 won't sound well through a normal amp.


  • 1

#45 Junis

Junis

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 80 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 04:42 PM

What is possible to do in Wb to change the tone of the acoustic beyond the pitch and tuning?


  • 0

#46 Rewolf48

Rewolf48

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 357 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 13 September 2013 - 04:09 AM

Is nobody else having problems with the 2.0 Acoustics and HD500 over VDI?  

 

Something did change between 1.9 and 2.0 because the previously fine HD500 EQ, Compress, Reverb is now completely overloaded and even with the volume turned down sounds awful.


  • 1

#47 ur2funky

ur2funky

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 114 posts

Posted 13 September 2013 - 04:33 AM

Is nobody else having problems with the 2.0 Acoustics and HD500 over VDI?  

 

Something did change between 1.9 and 2.0 because the previously fine HD500 EQ, Compress, Reverb is now completely overloaded and even with the volume turned down sounds awful.

 

Maybe something in your patch got messed up.  I'm having no problems with my patches over VDI, and I went 2.0, 1.9, 2.0 the other afternoon.  Decided to stay on 2.0 after a Strat/Dano body fix.


  • 0

#48 clay-man

clay-man

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 831 posts

Posted 13 September 2013 - 04:38 AM

It would be good to know what is the amp that virtzberg uses to play the aocustics. In my opinión the acoustic sounds in WB 2.0 sound really good, I play them through Guitar Rig 5 and I can get them to sound just like Pink Floyd in the live versions of wish you were here, if that is not good enough then I don't know what it is. 

 

Remember that teh acoustic sounds in WB 2.0 won't sound well through a normal amp.

 

Nice. I run mine into guitar rig 5 as well. I EQed it and it sounds a lot better. I suggest you guys do the same. A bit of EQ on a 100% dry channel. No amp no cab. If you're not doing it on the computer, do it on a proper set of speakers (Acoustic amp, PA speakers, or any type of speakers that you can plug in)

 

Dial in the lacking parts of the tone that you want, and push back anything overpowering that you don't like.

 

The point of the new acoustics is to sound like a genuine mic'd acoustic. The old Variax acoustic models still sounded very piezo-based. The new Acoustics adds a lot of missing body and resonance as well of the nuances of sounding like strings being recorded through a mic, and not a pickup system.

 

Remember that even at that stage, most people EQ their mic'd acoustic a bit to sound better in a mix of a track. 


  • 0

For a minute there, I lost myself.

Radiohead_bear-728286%5B1%5D.png 


#49 silverhead

silverhead

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 11384 posts
  • LocationOttawa, Ontario, Canada

Posted 13 September 2013 - 04:43 AM

I believe the change in the sound of acoustics from v1.9 to v2.0 is related to the change in the HD modeling 'engine' of the JTV. I don't think the acoustic models themselves were changed (they were already HD as of v1.82).

 

Perhaps your HD500 preset has been somehow corrupted. Try recreating the offending acoustic preset from scratch (don't copy/edit) and see if the problem persists.


  • 0

Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans.
.... John Lennon

 

 


#50 Rewolf48

Rewolf48

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 357 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 16 September 2013 - 04:15 AM

Well I have managed to get the acoustics back into some resemblance of usable, but it was a dramatic fix - previously they were quiet even after the compressor so I had added 5bd of boost in the mixer at the end of the chain to balance the patches - this is what was causing the overloaded sound.  

 

With JTV 2.0 I had to change that to 5db of cut and move the mixer to the front to avoid overload of the EQ, and move the compression threshold up from around 30 to 90.  Even then I still think I am getting clipping on the initial attack - perhaps I should try turning down the volume down in Workbench HD.


  • 0

#51 arislaf

arislaf

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1095 posts
  • LocationGreece

Posted 16 September 2013 - 05:13 AM

Is nobody else having problems with the 2.0 Acoustics and HD500 over VDI?  

 

Something did change between 1.9 and 2.0 because the previously fine HD500 EQ, Compress, Reverb is now completely overloaded and even with the volume turned down sounds awful.

As for me, yes I have the same problem, but I don't think is the version of the JTV...I updated the HD 500 just few days before to the latest firmware, and listened that the acoustic patches were much more different and aggressive...Even with the var 700 on acoustics...

 

I believe that the latest update of the pod, made the fx more powerful than before.


  • 0

#52 guilhordas

guilhordas

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 364 posts
  • LocationBrazil

Posted 16 September 2013 - 06:15 AM

can you share this last patch of acustic? thanks

Well I have managed to get the acoustics back into some resemblance of usable, but it was a dramatic fix - previously they were quiet even after the compressor so I had added 5bd of boost in the mixer at the end of the chain to balance the patches - this is what was causing the overloaded sound.  

 

With JTV 2.0 I had to change that to 5db of cut and move the mixer to the front to avoid overload of the EQ, and move the compression threshold up from around 30 to 90.  Even then I still think I am getting clipping on the initial attack - perhaps I should try turning down the volume down in Workbench HD.


  • 0

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


#53 mauritzSA

mauritzSA

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts

Posted 16 September 2013 - 02:15 PM

I just received an email from Line 6 about a tutorial on getting good acoustic sound using the JTV and Pod HD by Sean Halley, but can't find a link to the tutorial. Does anybody know where this is?
  • 0

#54 biofilm

biofilm

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 16 September 2013 - 08:00 PM

I just received an email from Line 6 about a tutorial on getting good acoustic sound using the JTV and Pod HD by Sean Halley, but can't find a link to the tutorial. Does anybody know where this is?

 

I've been looking for the video since I received that email earlier today... Have not found anything. They probably ran into some issues and will upload it soon.


  • 0

#55 Junis

Junis

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 80 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 06:48 AM

I'm having difficulty getting a patch that has enough volume but not distort, I use the first chain, tube comp (tresh 89 and 26 level), graphic eq, reverb, the mixer I Set in center and 10 db, before I left the eq after the mixer and more distorted, after I put the eq before the mixer has improved, but still distorts a bit, I already tried using the eq studio flat just to give volume, instead of the tube comp but not much has changed

someone can give a suggestion?

 

I attached a print of my patch

 

 

 

Attached Files


  • 0

#56 guitarno

guitarno

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 172 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 08:08 AM

I just received an email from Line 6 about a tutorial on getting good acoustic sound using the JTV and Pod HD by Sean Halley, but can't find a link to the tutorial. Does anybody know where this is?

 

 

I've been looking for the video since I received that email earlier today... Have not found anything. They probably ran into some issues and will upload it soon.

 

I haven't heard of this yet. I'd really like to see this one. Be sure to post the link when you get it!


  • 0

#57 ur2funky

ur2funky

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 114 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 08:21 AM

I got that same email, but there is no video linked to it, and I've searched online with no luck.  

 

 

 


  • 0

#58 markcockerill

markcockerill

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 271 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 04:09 AM

I only use a variax acoustic model for recording so in that respect my Variax 700 acoustic still cannot be beaten by any version of JTV. I started work on a new song the other night (I usually play acoustic first) and played around with the JTV69 acoustics with FW 2.0, I soon picked up the 700 and the pleasure was instantaneous. The volume difference is astonishing for one thing, I cannot possibly use the JTV and expect any kind of quality acoustic guitars sound going on in the mix. I suppose if all I created was just acoustic only based songs then it would be a different matter but once I start layering all manner of sounds the definition of each instrument is no longer a huge issue. All I want to do is pick up an instrument and play, I don't have the patience any more to constantly mess about with stuff. Only my opinion mind.


  • 1

#59 Rewolf48

Rewolf48

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 357 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 18 September 2013 - 04:39 AM

I'm having difficulty getting a patch that has enough volume but not distort, I use the first chain, tube comp (tresh 89 and 26 level), graphic eq, reverb, the mixer I Set in center and 10 db, before I left the eq after the mixer and more distorted, after I put the eq before the mixer has improved, but still distorts a bit, I already tried using the eq studio flat just to give volume, instead of the tube comp but not much has changed

someone can give a suggestion?

 

I attached a print of my patch

 

Having worked on this a lot more last night I will try to help.  My guess is that the EQ settings are the problem, and the raising of the gain to +10 in the mixer is overloading the reverb at certain frequencies, but not all. I can't see all the numbers (because the last two are just knobs), but I think that you have Graphic EQ settings of:

 

80    220   440   1.1k   2.2k

-2.0  -1.5  -8.5  -8.0?  +1.5?

 

So you are cutting massively in the main range of open string frequencies.... and then making it up in the mixer.  I think it is a bit unbalanced.

 

I admit that I don't know exactly what you are after, and honestly I am fumbling about just learning this stuff (still), but I would suggest that for an acoustic in a band mix situation you:

  1. Move the EQ so that it is first in the chain, and bring the 440 and 1.1k values back up to about 0 and + 1.0 respectively, but reduce 80 to -5.0 unless you are playing solo and want the boomy low end.
  2. Tube Comp set threshold about 80 and level about 20
  3. Mixer both paths 0 and centered
  4. Spring Verb try a little pre-delay ~15ms, tone right down to 30% and mix up to about 25%

At least that is what my memory is of my latest attempts which sounded fine last night through my PA speakers, but my ears might have been a little fatigued, and the higher level of low-end cut might be because my room is boxy and the speakers are in floor monitor position on a wood floor so I might be getting the extra low-end from the room.

 

Anyway try it as a starting point and tweak as desired (and tweak, and tweak, and tweak...)


  • 0

#60 Junis

Junis

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 80 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 05:12 AM

Thanks mate, I'll test these their suggestions, and this coming weekend I'll have a gig and will test the patch in PA results, as you asked, the numbers of eq are -2.5, -1.5, -8.5 (the JTV acoustic guitar has very aggressive mediums), -7.7 and +2.0.Yes, you right, I look urgently a good patch to play with a live band (drums, bass and keybords, pop rock band. It's been two years that I did not do anything to not be tweak tweak tweak and tweak, I'm already going crazy LOL

 



 

  • 0

#61 Junis

Junis

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 80 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 05:46 AM

I recorded a quick sample here via usb audacity in comparing the two patches .1 what you recommended and 2 patch I've ever had here, listen to see what you think ok? but we know that in PA it would sound completely different, but just to have a little notion

Attached Files

  • Attached File  test.mp3   482.35KB   33 downloads

  • 0

#62 Rewolf48

Rewolf48

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 357 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 19 September 2013 - 04:01 AM

That is roughly what I get, but also what I was going for (I am actually using the D12 with six strings).  

 

The first part (my roughly remembered settings - I am having a lunch break at work so I can't check) is artificial sounding, more full but without a muddy low.  I am trying to get a Peizo Acoustic sound that work in a band mix; a bit like an Ovation.  It is not a recording sound or intended to be, and it is not a solo acoustic guitar sound (but try switching the eq off).

 

The second part I think sounds great as an isolated guitar, and is the sort of thing that I had before, but with electric guitar, bass, keyboards, drums and vocals also playing it was just disappears into the mix leaving just high-end "zing" coming through if the drummer is light on the cymbals.

 

Or at least that is what I am hoping is the case -  I am an amateur struggling with the technology and had accusations of it being both Muddy and Thin at the same time before - the 2.0 update destroying the original sounds meant that I had to urgently try again; I get to try it out properly tonight.

 

I added a Hall reverb (as well as the Spring) as an optional effect to my patch last night; the spring reverb is short and dense and is filling out the guitar sound (giving it more body perhaps), the hall verb is acting more as a true reverb for those periods when I am playing by myself for an intro, it would get switched off when the other instruments come in.


  • 0

#63 Junis

Junis

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 80 posts

Posted 19 September 2013 - 09:49 AM

you really think that eqs should stay in 1 in the chain of effects? the compressor would go where?


  • 0

#64 Rewolf48

Rewolf48

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 357 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 20 September 2013 - 04:24 AM

I want to withdraw my suggestions for an acoustic patch as I need to do some more fine tuning. I might even start by re-flashing both devices and checking the piezo settings as there is something wrong that I can't sort out. I even have a big click as I change to Acoustic patches.

 

The "general rule" is that the Compressor always comes after initial EQ. This is so that a big signal in the unwanted part of the spectrum (removed by the EQ) doesn't control the compression amount.


  • 0

#65 hurghanico

hurghanico

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1384 posts

Posted 20 September 2013 - 05:29 AM

..I even have a big click as I change to Acoustic patches..

 

I think it's an old variax characteristic to do an audible click going from electric models to acoustic

my 700 does a click too

maybe it's correlated to the switching between 2 different underlying engines, or to the sudden change to a wider frequency spectrum of the acoustics, or to some sort of compression.. who knows


  • 0

#66 Rewolf48

Rewolf48

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 357 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 25 September 2013 - 06:42 AM

OK, I think I have it - at least until the next rehearsal.

 

First the 2.0 update has boosted the volume of the Acoustics significantly; they are much louder than any other model - that is the primary reason why my carefully balanced patch was destroyed.  The patch can be lowered in volume in Workbench of course.

 

But before I did that I tweaked the individual string volumes so that they were balanced to my ears and some needed to go about half the original level - which means less chance of clipping in the JTV modelling.

 

I also remembered somebody responding to requests for Acoustic patches with the idea of using an Amp.  I initially dismissed this because surely you want EQ and Compression right?  Actually want I really wanted was to be able to tweak the EQ directly using the knobs rather than having to muck about with the menus, and then it hit me. Doh! :wacko:

 

The HD500 already has EQs that respond to the knobs - abut 25 different ones in fact.  The Amp models, or more specifically the Amp Pre models with No Cab; excluding the high gain ones there are still 8 or so that are very clean when you take away the power amp and cab.

 

So my new patch is:

 

Marshall JTM-45 Pre: No Cab, Gain ~ 60, Tone and Presence as you like it and Vol nearly Full.

Tube Comp: Thresh 90 Gain 19

 

Reverb for when I am the solo instrument (I have Hall)

 

And that's it really - how can I have missed this for all the time I have had the HD500?  And to those who think they want an Acoustic Amp Model...have you tried the current models Pre No Cab?


  • 0

#67 johnnyayyy

johnnyayyy

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1374 posts

Posted 25 September 2013 - 09:16 AM


The "general rule" is that the Compressor always comes after initial EQ.

 

Erm,...  I always compress first - with the eq before the compressor some eq changes tend to make the compressor do crazy things.

 

But I believe the rules are: "There are no rules".

 

The case for putting compression before eq: http://www.soundonso...es/qa1007_1.htm


  • 0

#68 guitarno

guitarno

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 172 posts

Posted 25 September 2013 - 09:36 AM

OK, I think I have it - at least until the next rehearsal.

 

First the 2.0 update has boosted the volume of the Acoustics significantly; they are much louder than any other model - that is the primary reason why my carefully balanced patch was destroyed.  The patch can be lowered in volume in Workbench of course.

 

But before I did that I tweaked the individual string volumes so that they were balanced to my ears and some needed to go about half the original level - which means less chance of clipping in the JTV modelling.

 

I also remembered somebody responding to requests for Acoustic patches with the idea of using an Amp.  I initially dismissed this because surely you want EQ and Compression right?  Actually want I really wanted was to be able to tweak the EQ directly using the knobs rather than having to muck about with the menus, and then it hit me. Doh! :wacko:

 

The HD500 already has EQs that respond to the knobs - abut 25 different ones in fact.  The Amp models, or more specifically the Amp Pre models with No Cab; excluding the high gain ones there are still 8 or so that are very clean when you take away the power amp and cab.

 

So my new patch is:

 

Marshall JTM-45 Pre: No Cab, Gain ~ 60, Tone and Presence as you like it and Vol nearly Full.

Tube Comp: Thresh 90 Gain 19

 

Reverb for when I am the solo instrument (I have Hall)

 

And that's it really - how can I have missed this for all the time I have had the HD500?  And to those who think they want an Acoustic Amp Model...have you tried the current models Pre No Cab?

 

That's interesting... I started to notice on some acoustic type patches on my HD500x that the variax had some particular notes (F#) that were really dominant when played with other notes. I went into workbench and for the 1st time started adjusting the string levels on one of the acoustic models - I forget the model (position 3 on the pickup selector of my 59). That one always seemed a little boomy and not as usable as the other 6 string acoustics. Adjusting the string volumes really improved that model. Maybe as Rewolf48 said, that is the key to getting a better sound out of the 2.0 acoustic models. I'll have to spend some time playing with the string balances.

 

   Also, I'll have to try your suggestions for the amp settings. Thanks for posting this! B)


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users