Jump to content


Photo

How Many Persons Rolled Back To A Before Hd Version?


  • Please log in to reply
118 replies to this topic

Poll: Version battles! (123 member(s) have cast votes)

How many roll back to a non HD version

  1. Roll Back (55 votes [44.72%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 44.72%

  2. Stay on HD (68 votes [55.28%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 55.28%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#41 FrozenOzone

FrozenOzone

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 238 posts

Posted 14 November 2013 - 11:00 AM

I just got my 89 3 months ago right before the 2.0 update. I played with the 1.9 version for about a month and thought the 89 was fantastic sounding I was really impressed. I mean WOW! Then I installed 2.0 and have had issues with 2.0 since installing it and it reboots my HD500. I have tested my 89 on 4 different HD500's (per L6) and they all reboot with 2.0. I even sent in my 89 to L6 and they replaced the battery compartment and sent it back stating it was fixed and it wasn't. I am not saying that 2.0 is broken but I think there are issues. Yes I told L6 this as well.

Just my opinion... From a new users stand point, 1.9 has a lot of character and feels good. Like I am connected with the guitar. With 2.0 it sounds thin, very little character and feels like I am unconnected when I am playing. It feel like there is a little more latency in 2.0 that makes me feel like I am not connected with the guitar. Remember just my opinion.

 

I rolled back to version 1.9 about 3 weeks ago and I am back in love with my guitar again.

Thanks to L6 for providing other firmware options because you can always go back to an earlier version.


  • 1

#42 wicker_man

wicker_man

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 83 posts

Posted 14 November 2013 - 02:32 PM

I currently have v2.0 on my JTV-59.  Initially, I was excited to get the update (as, I expect, was everyone else).  After the playing through the models, I've got to admit I was not blown away by it like I thought I would be and over time I'm beginning to think that I preferred the sounds the way they were before the update.  I've tried tweaking my patches, but it hasn't made it sound any better and now I'm thinking I want to roll back to v1.9.  Just to satisfy my own curiosity, I'm going to record some samples before and after I roll back to A/B the tones.  Perhaps then I'll be convinced I've made the right decision. 


  • 0

#43 clay-man

clay-man

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 909 posts

Posted 14 November 2013 - 04:09 PM

I'm really serious though about the Strat. Not the complaint about that "Oh they don't sound as nice as 1.9", but if quack positions won't work because the firmware isn't turning on both pickups correctly, then they legit have a problem. That's not a complete strat without those positions. They need to fix that.


  • 0

For a minute there, I lost myself.

Radiohead_bear-728286%5B1%5D.png 


#44 Charlie_Watt

Charlie_Watt

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1196 posts

Posted 14 November 2013 - 04:10 PM

The 2 and 4 problem has a very easy work around in Workbench.  They should fix it but the work-around gets the two pickups turned on and the quack is there.


  • 0

#45 phil_m

phil_m

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 5549 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis, MN

Posted 14 November 2013 - 06:37 PM

I'm really serious though about the Strat. Not the complaint about that "Oh they don't sound as nice as 1.9", but if quack positions won't work because the firmware isn't turning on both pickups correctly, then they legit have a problem. That's not a complete strat without those positions. They need to fix that.

 

 

 

The 2 and 4 problem has a very easy work around in Workbench.  They should fix it but the work-around gets the two pickups turned on and the quack is there.

 

 

Just to clarify, though... When you install the HD firmware, what you hear from the 2 and 4 positions is correct. The bug isn't in the firmware. The bug is in Workbench (or at least only happens when used with Workbench). It seems that if you connect the Variax to Workbench and try to alter the Spank model, it doesn't let you save the model with both pickups on. The workaround is to flip around the neck and bridge pickups, I believe. This will let you save the 2 and 4 with both pickups on. But if you don't try to alter the Spank model in Workbench, the stock Spank model is fine. Both pickups are on, and what you hear is what you're intended to hear, not a bug.


  • 1
Time is a train
Makes the future the past
Leaves you standing in the station
Your face pressed up against the glass

 


#46 clay-man

clay-man

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 909 posts

Posted 14 November 2013 - 07:06 PM

Just to clarify, though... When you install the HD firmware, what you hear from the 2 and 4 positions is correct. The bug isn't in the firmware. The bug is in Workbench (or at least only happens when used with Workbench). It seems that if you connect the Variax to Workbench and try to alter the Spank model, it doesn't let you save the model with both pickups on. The workaround is to flip around the neck and bridge pickups, I believe. This will let you save the 2 and 4 with both pickups on. But if you don't try to alter the Spank model in Workbench, the stock Spank model is fine. Both pickups are on, and what you hear is what you're intended to hear, not a bug.

 

Thanks for clarifying that. Then they need to fix workbench, I suppose.


  • 0

For a minute there, I lost myself.

Radiohead_bear-728286%5B1%5D.png 


#47 brue58ski

brue58ski

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 548 posts

Posted 14 November 2013 - 11:31 PM

Just to clarify, though... When you install the HD firmware, what you hear from the 2 and 4 positions is correct. The bug isn't in the firmware. The bug is in Workbench (or at least only happens when used with Workbench). It seems that if you connect the Variax to Workbench and try to alter the Spank model, it doesn't let you save the model with both pickups on. The workaround is to flip around the neck and bridge pickups, I believe. This will let you save the 2 and 4 with both pickups on. But if you don't try to alter the Spank model in Workbench, the stock Spank model is fine. Both pickups are on, and what you hear is what you're intended to hear, not a bug.

 

Are you sure?  When I upgraded I coudn't find my Variax computer interface for awhile and had read all the position 2, 4 complaints before it ever saw workbench.  The quack was not there and still wasn't there after connection to the workbench.  There was a workaround somewhere and that worked but as I recall there was no quack there at the initial installation.  I haven't altered any of my guitar models so maybe I'll try reinstalling the firmware and see what happens.  I hope your right.


  • 0

#48 edstar1960

edstar1960

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1240 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 15 November 2013 - 01:25 AM

Just tried v2.0 - but found TELE, STRAT and SEMI models pos 1,3,5 very low output vol. Tried it again , same issue, so rolled back to v1.9 and these models once again have full volume and depth as expected.  Not sure at this point whether it is due to faulty flash upgrade or whether it is what the v2.0 models are meant to sound like.  They certainly don't sound like the v2.0 models I have heard on Sean Halley's video and on Christian Arnold comparison video.  So I am thinking mine is due to faulty upgrade even though it said it was successful.  When I get some time I will try another upgrade to v2.0 to see if they sound better or see if I get the same issue.


  • 0

#49 Ed_Saxman

Ed_Saxman

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 110 posts

Posted 15 November 2013 - 01:50 AM

Is 2.0 firmware the biggest fiasco in terms of software of the history of Line 6? :o

 

Undoubtedly.

It is incredible that ye be not ashamed. We, the customers, we are. Ashamed and very disappointed.


  • 0

#50 phil_m

phil_m

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 5549 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis, MN

Posted 15 November 2013 - 04:40 AM

Are you sure?  When I upgraded I coudn't find my Variax computer interface for awhile and had read all the position 2, 4 complaints before it ever saw workbench.  The quack was not there and still wasn't there after connection to the workbench.  There was a workaround somewhere and that worked but as I recall there was no quack there at the initial installation.  I haven't altered any of my guitar models so maybe I'll try reinstalling the firmware and see what happens.  I hope your right.

 

 

Yes, I'm sure. I had someone from Line 6 who would know confirm it for me. I actually confirmed it to myself as well by doing a comparison between the 2.0 model and a real Strat. I made clips and put them up here. http://line6.com/sup...-of-the-quacks/

 

When asked to guess which one was which it was about split between people saying the 2.0 Spank was a real Strat. That seems to be the purpose of the Variax to me, so I it's doing what it should.


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

 


#51 clay-man

clay-man

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 909 posts

Posted 15 November 2013 - 05:38 AM

Yes, I'm sure. I had someone from Line 6 who would know confirm it for me. I actually confirmed it to myself as well by doing a comparison between the 2.0 model and a real Strat. I made clips and put them up here. http://line6.com/sup...-of-the-quacks/

 

When asked to guess which one was which it was about split between people saying the 2.0 Spank was a real Strat. That seems to be the purpose of the Variax to me, so I it's doing what it should.

 

This. The purpose of the Variax isn't to give you a tone you prefer out of that model, but a close replica of that model. You people think it sounds "thinner than before". Maybe that's how a real strat is supposed to sound? Maybe the 1.9 version wasn't as "thin" as a real strat should be?


  • 1

For a minute there, I lost myself.

Radiohead_bear-728286%5B1%5D.png 


#52 edstar1960

edstar1960

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1240 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 15 November 2013 - 06:09 AM

Yes, I'm sure. I had someone from Line 6 who would know confirm it for me. I actually confirmed it to myself as well by doing a comparison between the 2.0 model and a real Strat. I made clips and put them up here. http://line6.com/sup...-of-the-quacks/

 

When asked to guess which one was which it was about split between people saying the 2.0 Spank was a real Strat. That seems to be the purpose of the Variax to me, so I it's doing what it should.

 

Thanks for posting this phil.  I had a listen to your recordings and I could barely tell the two apart and I certainly could not have guessed which was the "real" strat as they both sounded like great strats to me.  However, when I upgraded to v2.0 the strat sound I got from my JTV59 was nowhere near yours on the recording. My model was thin and lifeless and as if the volume had been turned down to 50% or less.  However, when I rolled back to the v1.9 version I found that is comparable - not the same but comparable in volume and depth.  So I guess that points to the v2.0 flash upgrade being faulty two times in a row for my JTV59.  I will try it again and see if it provides a strat tone like your recording on the 3rd attempt. And if not then I guess I will have to give it a 4th and maybe a 5th try before opening a L6 support ticket.  Certainly your recording proves that the v2.0 model should sound great and as good if not better than the v1.9.


  • 0

#53 dbaudrate

dbaudrate

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 49 posts

Posted 15 November 2013 - 06:28 AM

This. The purpose of the Variax isn't to give you a tone you prefer out of that model, but a close replica of that model. You people think it sounds "thinner than before". Maybe that's how a real strat is supposed to sound? Maybe the 1.9 version wasn't as "thin" as a real strat should be?

Ya, I've thought about that.  I remember when we changed out the sound system in our church. The old one was so muddy that when we put the new one in, people complained it was too loud, even though the decibels were lower than before. 

 

I went ahead and rolled mine forward again to 2.0 so that I could play with Workbench HD.   


  • 0

#54 Charlie_Watt

Charlie_Watt

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1196 posts

Posted 15 November 2013 - 06:46 AM

Not sure what is going on with some JTV's but my Strat sounds good with 2.0 in all 5 positions.  The Quack is definitely there in 2 and 4 as it should be.  My JTV came with 2.0 installed from Sweetwater - at my request.  I have not rolled it back and I don't intend to.  I have a Variax 500 if I want old models.  The JTV sounds better on most models than the 500 but not lots better.  It's a nicer guitar though.


  • 0

#55 edstar1960

edstar1960

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1240 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 16 November 2013 - 03:03 AM

OK - so I decided to try upgrading to v2.0 again this morning.   I had got there after a few hiccups previously but thought some models were very weak sounding so rolled back to v1.9 where all models sounded good. So this morning I went from v1.9 to v2.0.  Connected up my JTV59 via the dongle to the same USB port I had used before and on my first attempt it failed with the UNKNOWN MIDI PORT error right at the end.  Odd.  Everything was connected just as before when it had worked. So I tried for a second time. Once again it failed at the end with the UNKNOWN MIDI PORT error. Very odd.  OK - so I thought what if I unplug my Alesis IO/2 USB interface as that is the only thing connected that has a midi port. So, I unplugged the Alesis IO/2 and tried a third time. Wow!  This time it worked and I got the TYLER VARIAX UPDATE SUCCESSFUL.  I tried it out through my HD500 and to my surprise, the ACOUSTICS sounded great, the RESO models sound too loud so may need volume adjusting in Workbench HD, the STRAT was a normal volume and sounded great, the LESTER was incredibly loud, the TELE sounded normal on POS 5 and 3 but on POS 1 (the bridge pu) sounded too quiet, most Tele's I have played the bridge pu is louder and has far more attack than the neck pu, and from what I recall the earlier TELE pos 1 model was louder and had more attack, it certainly drove the HD500 patch I have set up for it far more, so this is one that would need adjusting in Workbench HD to see if it can be tweaked back to what I think it should sound like. I also use the SPECIAL pos 1, and this sounded quieter than v1.9 but not by much and still seemed usable so maybe this is a more accurate model and I can tweak if I need to. Finally the SEMI, well it was louder than the last time I had upgraded, more along the volume of the STRAT and TELE but still was not as full bodied sounding as the prior v1.9 model, but maybe that is how 335 should sound?  It certainly was nowhere near as weak and quiet as the last time I had upgraded and I think this time it is usable and maybe with a tweak in Workbench HD will be great.  So this time I get a different result - but why?  This time v2.0 seems usable and worth perservering with and worth a little effort to tweak to taste.

 

So - I thought - is this a one off - have I got yet another slightly off install?  So I thought to be sure, I would reinstall v2.0 one more time to make sure it was not a fluke.  I went back to the PC, connected up the JTV59 exactly as before and bam first re-install attempt I get the UNKNOWN MIDI PORT ERROR at the end!!  What?? The Alesis IO/2 was not connected.  Everything was as it was before, 20 mins ago when I successfully upgraded.   Oh well!  So I had no choice but to try again - and this time - the second attempt I got the TYLER VARIAX UPDATE SUCCESSFUL.  I rushed off to try through my HD500 to see if anything else had changed or if it was the same as before.  After a few minutes, trying the ACOUSTIC, the SPECIAL, the TELE, the STRAT, the LESTER and the SEMI, I come to the conclusion that it does still sound the same - so maybe I have at last got the correct v2.0 install.  But why does it fail?  And why do I need to attempt the install several times in a row to get it to work?  And why, some times, does it says it works but the models don't sound right?  Try to reinstall again and then the models do sound right?     Confuses the hell out of me.

 

Summary of my thoughts on v2.0 on the models I use:

 

ACOUSTICS - sound great - yes there is more body tone coming through but it is not overpowering this time whereas the first time it was.

RESOS - sound great but sound much louder so probably need volume tweaking in Workbench HD

LESTER - sounds great but much louder so probably needs volume tweaking in Workbench HD

STRAT - sounds great, not noticeable different from before, maybe a bit more subtle

TELE - all sound great except for pos 1, bridge pu, which is too quiet, I would expect this to be louder and have more bite, but is it an accurate representation of their modelled TELE or is it a slight blip in the v2.0 install on my JTV59 and is fine for others?  I may be able to tweak this to taste in Workbench HD unless it is a fault in my installed model - so maybe another flash reinstall is needed for this?

SPECIAL - pos 1 is quitter than before but still usable, a little tweak in Workbench HD may be needed

SEMI - quieter and less full bodied than v1.9, but perhaps this is how a 335 should sound, I don't know. It has more bite.  Again volume can probably be adjusted in Workbench HD if needed.

 

I am disappointed that the install process is not trouble free, and that there is no way of knowing if the update has worked completely successfully even if it tells you it has.

However, I am now no longer greatly disappointed with the models, but it is too early to say whether I am overly impressed with the new versions, but they will probably grow on me and I may find that I can really hear the differences after a few weeks and will not be able to roll back to an ealrlier version.  We will see ..... meanwhile ..... time to play!


  • 2

#56 phil_m

phil_m

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 5549 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis, MN

Posted 16 November 2013 - 07:29 AM

I am disappointed that the install process is not trouble free, and that there is no way of knowing if the update has worked completely successfully even if it tells you it has.

However, I am now no longer greatly disappointed with the models, but it is too early to say whether I am overly impressed with the new versions, but they will probably grow on me and I may find that I can really hear the differences after a few weeks and will not be able to roll back to an ealrlier version.  We will see ..... meanwhile ..... time to play!

 

 

The only thing I'd say is that if you have the HD500, then you should just use its VDI port to do the update rather than the Workbench interface. I don't have hard data or anything, but it seems overall that people have far less problems doing the update through a POD than through the WB interface. I think some people have gotten the mistaken impression that because Workbench HD won't work through the PODs yet that they can't do the update through them either. But you can.


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

 


#57 guilhordas

guilhordas

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 391 posts
  • LocationBrazil

Posted 16 November 2013 - 07:32 AM

Definitely there is a bug in the upgrade or workbench or anywhere, I am also having many problems similar to yours, the line 6 need to fix it


  • 2

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


#58 snhirsch

snhirsch

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 312 posts
  • LocationBurlington, VT USA

Posted 16 November 2013 - 11:14 AM

It's interesting that you're hearing a difference in the acoustic models.  From what I've read in the forums and elsewhere there have been no changes in their modeling since 1.9.  The acoustic guitar models were claimed to be the earliest release of "HD" modeling technology that takes full advantage of the DSP horsepower on the JTV.


  • 2

40 years of Rock-n-Roll and proud of it!

 

PRS Custom 24 (1990) w/ GK-3 Hex PU

James Tyler Variax JTV-69(k) w/ Strat Neck

Roland GR-55 Guitar Synth

QSC K10 FRFR

 


#59 edstar1960

edstar1960

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1240 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 17 November 2013 - 03:48 AM

It's interesting that you're hearing a difference in the acoustic models.  From what I've read in the forums and elsewhere there have been no changes in their modeling since 1.9.  The acoustic guitar models were claimed to be the earliest release of "HD" modeling technology that takes full advantage of the DSP horsepower on the JTV.

 

You are correct that there should be no difference between the 1.9 and 2.0 acoustic models. 

Remember I am only stating my opinion based on my experience, and that I had problems with the upgrade process, therefore, there is no guarantee that what I originally heard was the correct models for either 1.9 or 2.0.  I am even unsure that my original 1.71 level was correct, because there were differences between the SEMI models on my 1.71 and the 1.9 I installed, and the SEMI models had not been updated between those releases.  This leads me to believe hat I have had slight faults with all of my JTV flash installs that have somehow affected how some models sound.  Either that or I have another fault in either my VDI cable or my HD500 that is causing models to sound different after each upgrade and between each time I go and experiment to listen to the sounds.

All I can report is that between 2 different upgrades to v2.0 that some models have sounded different each time, and that the rollback to v1.9 in between the two upgrades also had some models that sounded different to v2.0 but also to v1.71 which was not supposed to happen.  


  • 0

#60 edstar1960

edstar1960

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1240 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 17 November 2013 - 04:04 AM

The only thing I'd say is that if you have the HD500, then you should just use its VDI port to do the update rather than the Workbench interface. I don't have hard data or anything, but it seems overall that people have far less problems doing the update through a POD than through the WB interface. I think some people have gotten the mistaken impression that because Workbench HD won't work through the PODs yet that they can't do the update through them either. But you can.

 

Thanks for the advice phil.  I will try the JTV v2.0 upgrade again through the HD500 and see if it is immediately trouble free, and whether or not it changes any model sounds.   

 

OK - just tried it - and it worked first time!  Models still sound as they did from the previous v2.0 attempt.  So looks like I have the correct v2.0 sounds.

My opinion on the sounds is that the TMOD pos 1 sound is still too weak (quiet) for my taste as supplied.  The SEMI's sound much thinner but perhaps that is more authentic, but for my taste I would prefer them fuller, but I do like the "wood" sound of the body coming through, that is much more pronounced. The SPECIAL pos 1 is also weaker but still sounds good, particularly when using an overdrive effect.  The STRATs sound pretty much as they did before on first listening, probably a bit more natural sounding.


  • 0

#61 TheRealZap

TheRealZap

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 15720 posts
  • LocationClemmons, NC USA

Posted 17 November 2013 - 04:54 AM

although there are no difference in the actual acoustic models 1.9 vs 2.0

i do believe that the underlying HD engine was changed enough to make the models appear improved.

kind of like playing a cd through a cheap player, vs a high end player... (yes i can tell the difference)

 

You are correct that there should be no difference between the 1.9 and 2.0 acoustic models. 

Remember I am only stating my opinion based on my experience, and that I had problems with the upgrade process, therefore, there is no guarantee that what I originally heard was the correct models for either 1.9 or 2.0.  I am even unsure that my original 1.71 level was correct, because there were differences between the SEMI models on my 1.71 and the 1.9 I installed, and the SEMI models had not been updated between those releases.  This leads me to believe hat I have had slight faults with all of my JTV flash installs that have somehow affected how some models sound.  Either that or I have another fault in either my VDI cable or my HD500 that is causing models to sound different after each upgrade and between each time I go and experiment to listen to the sounds.

All I can report is that between 2 different upgrades to v2.0 that some models have sounded different each time, and that the rollback to v1.9 in between the two upgrades also had some models that sounded different to v2.0 but also to v1.71 which was not supposed to happen.  


  • 0

#62 edstar1960

edstar1960

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1240 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 17 November 2013 - 05:19 AM

although there are no difference in the actual acoustic models 1.9 vs 2.0

i do believe that the underlying HD engine was changed enough to make the models appear improved.

kind of like playing a cd through a cheap player, vs a high end player... (yes i can tell the difference)

 

Thanks for that snippet of info!  That may well explain my experience regarding the acoustic models.  The sound difference on the SEMIs between 1.71 and 1.9 remains a mystery and may well be an install glitch that I was blissfully unaware of until now.  The difference in sound of the SEMI's between 1.9 and 2.0 is clearly intentional and is very obvious.  I do like the fact that you can hear more of the "wood body tone" coming through, but not so keen on the thinner quieter sound - although if I use Workbench HD, I may be able to tweak the volume and make them sound a little fuller. I will have to experiment.


  • 1

#63 TheRealZap

TheRealZap

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 15720 posts
  • LocationClemmons, NC USA

Posted 17 November 2013 - 05:23 AM

the semi's are models of completely different guitars (depending on which one you are referring to...)

some of the new models are based on p90 guitars now...

also the tele 2/4 position should be radically different... based on a custom/deluxe/thinline type model with the fender wide range buckers... (pretty awesome IMO)

 

for 2.0 they didn't simply create HD models of the same guitars...

they made HD models. (of mostly same-ish guitars)

 

Thanks for that snippet of info!  That may well explain my experience regarding the acoustic models.  The sound difference on the SEMIs between 1.71 and 1.9 remains a mystery and may well be an install glitch that I was blissfully unaware of until now.  The difference in sound of the SEMI's between 1.9 and 2.0 is clearly intentional and is very obvious.  I do like the fact that you can hear more of the "wood body tone" coming through, but not so keen on the thinner quieter sound - although if I use Workbench HD, I may be able to tweak the volume and make them sound a little fuller. I will have to experiment.


  • 0

#64 edstar1960

edstar1960

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1240 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 17 November 2013 - 05:32 AM

the semi's are models of completely different guitars (depending on which one you are referring to...)

some of the new models are based on p90 guitars now...

also the tele 2/4 position should be radically different... based on a custom/deluxe/thinline type model with the fender wide range buckers... (pretty awesome IMO)

 

for 2.0 they didn't simply create HD models of the same guitars...

they made HD models. (of mostly same-ish guitars)

 

Again - thanks for clarifying.  That probably explains why the SEMI's all sound so different.  So maybe I won't be able to tweak them to what I am used to.  I used SEMI pos 1 and 3 mainly before.  So I will have to see whether I want to continue using them, or tweak them or use different guitar models on those songs.

Yep - I had noticed that the TELE, pos 2 and 4 had changed greatly as well, but as I had never used them before I had no reference to offer an opinion, on how they had changed. I was only voicing my opinion on the ones I Had used pre and post HD and how I thought they had changed to my ears.

 

Thanks again for the info - things make more sense when you know the full story and the background.


  • 0

#65 TheRealZap

TheRealZap

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 15720 posts
  • LocationClemmons, NC USA

Posted 17 November 2013 - 05:34 AM

actually you can easily change out the pickups to humbuckers on the semi's, i rather like them with the LP pickups, i uploaded a few examples to the vguitar forums sharing area (pinned at top of jtv forum)


  • 0

#66 clay-man

clay-man

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 909 posts

Posted 17 November 2013 - 09:28 AM

the semi's are models of completely different guitars (depending on which one you are referring to...)

some of the new models are based on p90 guitars now...

also the tele 2/4 position should be radically different... based on a custom/deluxe/thinline type model with the fender wide range buckers... (pretty awesome IMO)

 

for 2.0 they didn't simply create HD models of the same guitars...

they made HD models. (of mostly same-ish guitars)

 

They really should update the based-on list. Update the manual as well.

 

They at least did the 335 right?


  • 0

For a minute there, I lost myself.

Radiohead_bear-728286%5B1%5D.png 


#67 TheRealZap

TheRealZap

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 15720 posts
  • LocationClemmons, NC USA

Posted 17 November 2013 - 11:49 AM

someone did update the poster:

ozbadman i believe.

 

 

anyway this ought to clear up some confusion.

Attached Files


  • 0

#68 clay-man

clay-man

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 909 posts

Posted 17 November 2013 - 02:33 PM

I can see what some people are whining about. I think the 175 sounds nowhere near as beefy and woody as the 1.9, but that might be the P90's.

Hopefully you can compensate loses in workbench.

 

I do think that if it sounds more realistic, then that's good then. Just stick to 1.9 if you really want those sounds. It's not like the features are way different.


  • 0

For a minute there, I lost myself.

Radiohead_bear-728286%5B1%5D.png 


#69 edstar1960

edstar1960

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1240 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 17 November 2013 - 03:15 PM

someone did update the poster:
ozbadman i believe.
 
 
anyway this ought to clear up some confusion.


Thanks for posting ths. However, can you confirm the 335 is the same model in both v1.9 and v2.0 although they may have sampled different guitars for each? When I referred to SEMI models in my earlier post, I meant the bank labelled SEMI, which is the Gibson 335 and Epiphone Casino. The 335 is one of the models I used the most and sounds very different as I explained earlier. I don't use the JAZZBOX bank, so don't think I am affected by a swap from humbuckers to P90s eg. the Gibson 175. If the 335 in v2.0 is just a different sample with humbuckers then I am surprised they sound so different. It sounds like a totally different guitar to me.
  • 0

#70 TheRealZap

TheRealZap

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 15720 posts
  • LocationClemmons, NC USA

Posted 17 November 2013 - 03:20 PM

most likely a different guitar... because i believe that they rent them or borrow them to model... 

i'm certain that it is a whole new model created with a whole new process.. it does not surprise me that it would sound different...

one would hope better.. but we're talking subjectives here... between the models as is, and workbench HD... 

you have loads of tonal options.

i preferred my 335 with the LP pups personally...


  • 0

#71 edstar1960

edstar1960

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1240 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 18 November 2013 - 01:40 AM

most likely a different guitar... because i believe that they rent them or borrow them to model... 

i'm certain that it is a whole new model created with a whole new process.. it does not surprise me that it would sound different...

one would hope better.. but we're talking subjectives here... between the models as is, and workbench HD... 

you have loads of tonal options.

i preferred my 335 with the LP pups personally...

 

I have yet to play with Workbench HD so maybe some custom made models are what I need, and maybe swapping to pick ups on the new 335 model will get me something I prefer.  As you say, it is just a new model to be used as supplied or customised or ignored as each user requires. 


  • 0

#72 wicker_man

wicker_man

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 83 posts

Posted 18 November 2013 - 04:45 PM

someone did update the poster:

ozbadman i believe.

 

 

anyway this ought to clear up some confusion.

 

Where do I find the poster for v1.9?


  • 0

#73 TheRealZap

TheRealZap

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 15720 posts
  • LocationClemmons, NC USA

Posted 18 November 2013 - 04:55 PM

http://i118.photobuc...rence-small.jpg

 

Where do I find the poster for v1.9?


  • 0

#74 wicker_man

wicker_man

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 83 posts

Posted 18 November 2013 - 04:58 PM

Thank you Zap!
  • 0

#75 edstar1960

edstar1960

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1240 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 19 November 2013 - 05:05 AM

I have now played a few times at home with the v2.0 models on my JTV59 and I have sorted out the correct settings on my HD500 and got the correct connections to my powered speakers, and all is sounding good.  I think I will be keeping v2.0.


  • 0

#76 TheRealZap

TheRealZap

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 15720 posts
  • LocationClemmons, NC USA

Posted 19 November 2013 - 05:06 AM

great! did you get a chance to try the LP pups in the 335?

 

I have now played a few times at home with the v2.0 models on my JTV59 and I have sorted out the correct settings on my HD500 and got the correct connections to my powered speakers, and all is sounding good.  I think I will be keeping v2.0.


  • 0

#77 edstar1960

edstar1960

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1240 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 19 November 2013 - 05:15 AM

great! did you get a chance to try the LP pups in the 335?

 

Yes - I have created some custom presets that have the LP pups on the SEMI body.  I also pulled down output vol to -2db as they are really loud.  They still sound very loud when played through my HD500 patches - so I may tweak them down some more.  I also prefer that combination but I need to tweak a little more to get them just right.  Thanks very much for the advice - good call!    :)


  • 0

#78 aeugle

aeugle

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 152 posts
  • LocationMunich, Germany

Posted 22 November 2013 - 04:10 AM

I just got my 89 3 months ago right before the 2.0 update. I played with the 1.9 version for about a month and thought the 89 was fantastic sounding I was really impressed. I mean WOW! Then I installed 2.0 and have had issues with 2.0 since installing it and it reboots my HD500. I have tested my 89 on 4 different HD500's (per L6) and they all reboot with 2.0. I even sent in my 89 to L6 and they replaced the battery compartment and sent it back stating it was fixed and it wasn't. I am not saying that 2.0 is broken but I think there are issues. Yes I told L6 this as well.

 

 

Just my opinion... From a new users stand point, 1.9 has a lot of character and feels good. Like I am connected with the guitar. With 2.0 it sounds thin, very little character and feels like I am unconnected when I am playing. It feel like there is a little more latency in 2.0 that makes me feel like I am not connected with the guitar. Remember just my opinion.

 

I rolled back to version 1.9 about 3 weeks ago and I am back in love with my guitar again.

 

 

Thanks to L6 for providing other firmware options because you can always go back to an earlier version.

 

I have the same effect, 2.0 reboots the HD500 (1 time). It is a bug. The strat in 2,4 sounds thinner


  • 1

#79 wicker_man

wicker_man

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 83 posts

Posted 23 November 2013 - 04:19 PM

Well, I rolled back to 1.9 last night and spent a couple of hours playing today going through the models and my patches.  Felt a bit lifeless, so I reinstalled 2.0 to make a comparison and have decided I definitely prefer 2.0 so will be sticking with it.  I guess it's all down to personal taste in the end and what works for you.


  • 0

#80 HijlkoSoepboer

HijlkoSoepboer

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 03:57 PM

So far I'm planning to go back to 1.71. Somehow I'm not happy with the sounds. I feel I lost playability (much more difficult to play clean), the sounds are uneven and I find less distinction between the models. I don't care if it sounds original, I want to have a great sound and an easy playable guitar (I'm actually a keyboardplayer and guitar is my second instrument).

 

I have a JTV-59 and en POD HD500 Pro and previously owned a Variax 700.

 

Maybe I need to tweak the guitar in workbench and the POD HD500 Pro and give it more time, for now I simply don't have the time.  

 

The setup is used in an Eagles Tribute band and use 6- and 12 string acoustics, telecaster and LP. I had also a very nice strat sound with a little overdrive which does not seem possible to get in 2.0.

 

 

I really believe Line 6 should have put more effort to the sounds V2.0 is delivered. I also cannot understand why there are no decent standard patches in the POD HD500 Pro. It is a great unit and I managed really good sounds from it with the Variax 700. If I had tried it in the shop with the factory presets I'm sure I wouldn't have bought it.


  • 1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users