These forums are read only, please use our new forums here.

Main :: Vetta



Vetta + JTV = FRUSTRATION...Not what we were promised.
by MerlinFL on 2011-01-29 18:56:44

I'll appreciate any answer, but I'm specifically hoping to hear from R. Miller on this one.

Has anyone figured out WHY the JTV guitars plugged into a Vetta are "seen" by the Vetta as a Variax Acoustic Model 700???  I presume this is part of the reason why the patches do not save, nor recall directly between the JTV & the Vetta using the VDI like the previous models accurately do.

Anyone think line 6 might simply create a DI box of sorts that WILL allow the older Vax guitars plug nearly direct into the Vetta so that the guitar patches CAN be saved and recalled like the previous Vax models do?  Right now, I'm using a $500.00 VDI interface called the POD HD500.  It's a pretty big waste of money for such a simple task, but I am trying to create patches on the HD500 that I can not create on the Vetta so I can actually use the unit for something other than just an interface.

Here is a photo of my current guitar rig for the larger shows I do.  Massive sound, but big pain in the back since I have no roadies and can't afford proper road cases for all this gear.. !!

In case anyone needs this...

1) Vetta 1 upgrade both hardware and software to V2 status with the newer FBV Longboard (thanks to Rick Miller for my first Vetta) & Rich Renken (for helping me get a VDI interface for my 2nd Vetta)

2) Prototype Tyler Variax Model 59US I got being one of the Beta tester team

3) POD HD500

4) (2) DT50 1x12

All gear connected in the way I like best.  FX Loop out to 1/4" in of Vetta.  HD500 into both DT50 via L6 iLink.  (6) XLR outputs to PA system.  (2) from HD500, & Vetta, (1) each from DT50s.  A real "wall of sound" when all running together.  I also have a Vax EC 700 set up on walk-behind stand connected VDI into the Vetta for dual guitar playing "show off" bits and other practical performance reasons.

New New Line 6 Gear_a.jpg

I hope someone will see my question and have an answer - whatever that answer might be.

Take care,

Neal



Re: Vetta + JTV = FRUSTRATION...Not what we were promised.
by Crusty_Old_Rocker on 2011-01-29 23:47:22

The simple solution is to let go of the Vetta. 

Since  I got the DT50s the Vetta II has become redundant.  There's a new  flagship in town and when combined with the HD500, the dual DT50s leave  my Vetta II combo dead in the water.

I'm  wondering why you're still using the Vetta when you have a pair of  DT50s and the HD500.  I really prefer the HD500 and DT50s now.  I  haven't played the Vetta II since getting my tones built into the HD500.

You're  fortunate enough to have a JTV and can take advantage of the dual  Variax channel capabilities of the HD500, that's something you can't do  with the Vetta.

Cheers,

Crusty



Re: Vetta + JTV = FRUSTRATION...Not what we were promised.
by johnnyayyy on 2011-01-30 17:14:48

MerlinFL wrote:

patches do not save, nor recall directly between the JTV & the Vetta using the VDI like the previous models accurately do.

Could you post the info you wrote about here so we could try to figure out what is going on?:

                                Jan 6, 2011 2:34 PM MerlinFL wrote:

And   for ANYONE who might wish to have a list or chart of sorts on EXACTLY   how to work the Workbench software as well as program tunings on the   guitar, how to save alt tunings to the JTV so that they will be  recalled  by the Vetta,...

Just ask if you wish a...

"Neals Guide to JTV patch saving & recalling features for both new & older VDI equipped gear".

It   will be a typed out, VERY FRIENDLY, step by step instruction guide  from  me on how to get the new JTV to work with your older gear



Re: Vetta + JTV = FRUSTRATION...Not what we were promised.
by MerlinFL on 2011-01-30 18:52:10

Crusty_Old_Rocker wrote:

The simple solution is to let go of the Vetta. 

Since  I got the DT50s the Vetta II has become redundant.  There's a new  flagship in town and when combined with the HD500, the dual DT50s leave  my Vetta II combo dead in the water.

I'm  wondering why you're still using the Vetta when you have a pair of  DT50s and the HD500.  I really prefer the HD500 and DT50s now.  I  haven't played the Vetta II since getting my tones built into the HD500.

You're  fortunate enough to have a JTV and can take advantage of the dual  Variax channel capabilities of the HD500, that's something you can't do  with the Vetta.

Cheers,

Crusty

Sorry you don't understand why I am not as thrilled as you and a few others on here about the new gear.  I'm doing my best to learn it and try to begin working with it, but I will ALWAYS count my Vetta as my #1 amp and everything else - second to it.

That's the simplest and shortest answer I could come up with.

The dual channel thing is not as big a deal as I originally thought it might be either.

All the best,

Neal



Re: Vetta + JTV = FRUSTRATION...Not what we were promised.
by MerlinFL on 2011-01-30 19:07:38

johnnyayyy wrote:

MerlinFL wrote:

patches do not save, nor recall directly between the JTV & the Vetta using the VDI like the previous models accurately do.

Could you post the info you wrote about here so we could try to figure out what is going on?:

                                Jan 6, 2011 2:34 PM MerlinFL wrote:

And   for ANYONE who might wish to have a list or chart of sorts on EXACTLY   how to work the Workbench software as well as program tunings on the   guitar, how to save alt tunings to the JTV so that they will be  recalled  by the Vetta,...

Just ask if you wish a...

"Neals Guide to JTV patch saving & recalling features for both new & older VDI equipped gear".

It   will be a typed out, VERY FRIENDLY, step by step instruction guide  from  me on how to get the new JTV to work with your older gear

Johnny - I'm curious why after reading the headline of this thread/Problem I'm having, you are asking me for something I certainly PLANNED on producing, BUT since the Vetta or the JTV or both decided to NOT KEEP WORKING 100% correctly, there was no reason to send out something that would not do what I did have going for a total of three whole days.  And not been able to recreate that functionality again.

That would be like giving out prices of JTV guitars then changing them after they've been advertised, or finding out AFTER the JTV guitars have been put into production that they WILL NOT be 100% compatible with the Vetta or other older VDI equipped gear.

Others might work like thatr, but I do not.  I ONLY can report my personal experiences as I have them, BUT I will not give info that I KNOW is incorrect.  that would just be plain WRONG & IRRESPONSIBLE.  I feel worse than most that what I thought I got worked out and made ME HAPPY, turned out to NOT continue to work and there is no reason I've found for it working or working then stopping to work.

Have I cleared everything to do with me, my Vetta and my JTV up for ya yet Johnny?

So as of now - the answer to the question of how you get a Vetta to work perfectly with a JTV guitar is to buy a POD HD500.  Connect it to the Vetta, the use MIDI to change Vetta patches when changing guitar patches saved on the HD500.  A $500.00 interface is what you need to have at this point in time to guarantee 100% correct functionality.

Also why I posted this question.  I want someone who might know more than I do about these two pieces of gear to give some answer why the Vetta "sees" the JTV connected through the VDI as a Variax Acoustic 700???  What was different about the VDI output of the Acoustic Vax from the Electric Vax that the Vetta thinks it's an acoustic Vax?  ALL older Vaxs use the same output channel, so what's the deal???

Also - Also - the HD500 "sees" the 300/500/600/700 ELECTRIC Vaxs, the TYLER Vax, the ACOUSTIC Vax, ALL DIFFERENTLY.  Could this be a BIG CLUE TO THE ANSWER?!?!?  I think so, but I'm not the tech who designed it, or the tech who knew how to get the HD500 to recognize these guitars differently.  If they were all the same, why would it need to be set up to recognize each of the OLDER Vaxs differently???

Lots of high IQs here - I hope one or more will work this out and post an answer that will help solve my Vetta/JTV problem.  THEN I can send out instructions on how to to all the things I intended to do back a few months ago.  What I honestly respect but do not need to read anymore about, is how I should move forward to let go of my Vetta.  I'm NOT going to do that, so why not try to solve this problem?

Thanks everyone, and best of luck to us all,

Neal

DIE HARD VETTA LOVER!



Re: RE: Vetta + JTV = FRUSTRATION...Not what we were promised.
by Kneehow on 2011-02-01 15:49:56

Hi Neal,

  None of us in Support were involved with the direct day-to-day development of the new JTV guitars and it's interaction with Variax-capable devices.

  The answer (that you most likely won't be happy hearing) is an educated guess on my end: the firmware of the Vetta II (2.5 has been the release version for quite some time now) was coded years ago at this point, long before the JTV's were even a possibility.

  In order for the Vetta II to fully function with the new JTV's, a new firmware (or system software) would have to be written for the Vetta amp and at this point in time I nor any of my Support colleagues can see this happening with the release of the DT50 and HD500 devices being the reason.

  Sorry that you may feel upset by this. I empathize with your position, but at the end of the day there's really not a whole lot that we in Support can do in terms of changes to the existing Vetta system software. We can encourage you to bring visibility to your concern by dropping feedback directly to the departments that have the power to change product behavior (Product Dev and Engineers) using this portal: http://line6.com/company/contact/productfeedback/

Beyond that, I can't add much more to this answer.

  Regards,

  L6Perry



Re: RE: Vetta + JTV = FRUSTRATION...Not what we were promised.
by MerlinFL on 2011-02-01 19:13:16

Line6Perry wrote:

Hi Neal,

  None of us in Support were involved with the direct day-to-day development of the new JTV guitars and it's interaction with Variax-capable devices.

  The answer (that you most likely won't be happy hearing) is an educated guess on my end: the firmware of the Vetta II (2.5 has been the release version for quite some time now) was coded years ago at this point, long before the JTV's were even a possibility.

  In order for the Vetta II to fully function with the new JTV's, a new firmware (or system software) would have to be written for the Vetta amp and at this point in time I nor any of my Support colleagues can see this happening with the release of the DT50 and HD500 devices being the reason.

  Sorry that you may feel upset by this. I empathize with your position, but at the end of the day there's really not a whole lot that we in Support can do in terms of changes to the existing Vetta system software. We can encourage you to bring visibility to your concern by dropping feedback directly to the departments that have the power to change product behavior (Product Dev and Engineers) using this portal: http://line6.com/company/contact/productfeedback/

Beyond that, I can't add much more to this answer.

  Regards,

  L6Perry

Thanks for your time L6Perry.  I've been a long standing Line 6 owner/performer and I figured your answer would be THE answer. And it's probably the same one I'll get when I submit it to the R&D people as you suggested.

What should have never happened is the lapse in concern for the Vetta in the first place over three years ago - 2007 to be more specific.  That is also the same time period STATED in all JTV, DT50, and POD HD promo videos as WHEN they started thinking about the next evolution of amps, relationship with Bogner, etc., So it certainly WAS at the time within the power of those making the new designs to slip in the code that would do what the JTV does while still being able to work directly with the Vetta or the XT series of POD products.

In my very non-technical way of thinking and point of view. If the Vetta simply does not work, then why does the Vetta "see" any changes I make on the guitar, why does the Vetta "See" the Vax 700 I have as a Vax Acoustic guitar, why if the patches change it simply can't save anything other than the tone knob setting - which it DOES do for every guitar I want to save.  Very odd in my humble opinion for this not to work.  And a terrific way to get people like me to buy a $500.00 interface from the JTV guitar to my Vetta known as the POD HD500.  I'm SURE that a simple and very inexpensive interface could have been made for those of us who have VDI gear, want VDI connectivity, but may not want to buy a POD HD500.

But what do I know?

Thanks again for your answer and help,

Neal



Re: RE: Vetta + JTV = FRUSTRATION...Not what we were promised.
by Crusty_Old_Rocker on 2011-02-02 18:12:57

MerlinFL wrote:

In my very non-technical way of thinking and point of view. If the Vetta simply does not work, then why does the Vetta "see" any changes I make on the guitar, why does the Vetta "See" the Vax 700 I have as a Vax Acoustic guitar, why if the patches change it simply can't save anything other than the tone knob setting - which it DOES do for every guitar I want to save.

Hi Neal, there is a very simple explanation for this.

What gets transported via the VDI cable is:

  1. Power + and an earth - this powers the Variax
  2. Digital audio (AES/EBU format) one way Output from Variax
  3. MIDI control data two way between Variax and connected device(Vetta)

Quite simply, the "control" data that is transferred between the Variax and the connected device (Vetta) is in MIDI format and must comply with the MIDI data protocol.  MIDI data is a quite unsophisticated protocol.  There are only a handful of data types that it manages (e.g. things like program change, note pitch, note velocity, note duration and continuous control) each data type has 128 values (0-127 decimal or 0 - 7F hex).  The CC# have 128 commands available and each of those commands can have up to 128 values.  Most of the MIDI that Line 6 use between devices is in the form of CC#.

Quite obviously, some of the control data types, commands and values in the JTV are consistent with the previous Variax, there also appears to be a data value used for identifying the device in the Variax 700 that is the same value as used in the Variax acoustic.  Other things are clearly not using the same MIDI commands or values between the JTV and the previous Variax and that is why the Vetta isn't correctly communicating with the JTV.  It's as simple as that, really.

Cheers,

Crusty



Re: RE: Vetta + JTV = FRUSTRATION...Not what we were promised.
by MerlinFL on 2011-02-03 01:48:24

Crusty_Old_Rocker wrote:

MerlinFL wrote:

In my very non-technical way of thinking and point of view. If the Vetta simply does not work, then why does the Vetta "see" any changes I make on the guitar, why does the Vetta "See" the Vax 700 I have as a Vax Acoustic guitar, why if the patches change it simply can't save anything other than the tone knob setting - which it DOES do for every guitar I want to save.

Hi Neal, there is a very simple explanation for this.

What gets transported via the VDI cable is:

  1. Power + and an earth - this powers the Variax
  2. Digital audio (AES/EBU format) one way Output from Variax
  3. MIDI control data two way between Variax and connected device(Vetta)

Quite simply, the "control" data that is transferred between the Variax and the connected device (Vetta) is in MIDI format and must comply with the MIDI data protocol.  MIDI data is a quite unsophisticated protocol.  There are only a handful of data types that it manages (e.g. things like program change, note pitch, note velocity, note duration and continuous control) each data type has 128 values (0-127 decimal or 0 - 7F hex).  The CC# have 128 commands available and each of those commands can have up to 128 values.  Most of the MIDI that Line 6 use between devices is in the form of CC#.

Quite obviously, some of the control data types, commands and values in the JTV are consistent with the previous Variax, there also appears to be a data value used for identifying the device in the Variax 700 that is the same value as used in the Variax acoustic.  Other things are clearly not using the same MIDI commands or values between the JTV and the previous Variax and that is why the Vetta isn't correctly communicating with the JTV.  It's as simple as that, really.

Cheers,

Crusty

Very well as usual explained, but "simple" it's not unless you are speaking to someone like yourself who knows all of these very intricate things about MIDI and Values, and what the previous Vax sends/recieves, or the Vetta sends/recieves, but I still don't understand how different the Vax Acoustic could be that the Vetta thinks I'm connecting an acoustic Vax, when I'm really connecting an electric Vax.  After all you explained in excellent detail - this concept still escapes me.

I wonder and am still puzzled why the Vetta could detect the electric Vax's properly before the JTV, when the JTV has a setting on the HD500 EDIT to define the guitar as an electric Vax, and Acoustic Vax, or a Tyler Vax.  Yet the Vetta which always knew the difference between an electric Vax and an acoustic Vax prior to the Tyler Vax without any difficulty.  I think this is very odd with all those Hex CC#, or MIDI 128, or other 1's and 0's in computer language.

So I'll go back to my original question - WHY does the Vetta see my Electric Vax 700 perfectly fine via VDI, yet the JTV (Channel 1 which is the modeled channel of the two channels output by the JTV) shows up as an Acoustic Vax?  Someone please tell me EXACTLY what the Electric Vax 700 and the Acoustic Vax 700 on only ONE channel output differently since the Vetta obviously sees SOMETHING DIFFERENT.  AND if there is an answer, HOW to get the output of the JTV channel 1 to read as an electric Vax like it does with the EC700 and other previous models?

Take care,

Neal



Re: RE: Vetta + JTV = FRUSTRATION...Not what we were promised.
by Crusty_Old_Rocker on 2011-02-03 03:02:33

By virtue of your response to my explanation of the way MIDI data is communicated between the Variax and the Vetta, if this were explained EXACTLY to you you would be told more about all thos Hex CC# or MIDI 128 or other 1s and 0s in computer language.

I have not reverse engineered the MIDI in and out of the Variax, so I don't have the exact CC# or value.  But let's use a hypothetical situation.  When the Variax is connected to the Vetta a data connection is established and the Variax will send a CC# with a value to the Vetta.  The Vetta firmware has been programmed to look for that CC# and depending on the value that is sent with that CC#, the Vetta II will report the corresponding Variax model on the screen of the UI (based on an exact value or range of values) and depending on how the routines are written, the Vetta will then communicate with the Variax in a way that works for the type of Variax that's connected.

Clearly the firmware in the JTV sends the same CC# and corresponding value as the Variax acoustic when it establishes the data connection, this is the only way that the Vetta could report the acoustic guitar connected.  The Vetta doesn't have eyes, so it can't see the physical guitar connected to it, the Vetta can only go by the CC# and value that is sent to it by the Variax.  So, once it receives that chunk of MIDI data, the firmware displays on the screen of the UI the Variax model (in your example - the acoustic one).

How can this be changed?  Well the firmware in the JTV could be rewritten to report a different CC# and value, this would mean that the Vetta will either report it as a different Variax or if the CC# and value don't equal what the Vetta recognises as a Variax model then the Vetta will report "no Variax connected".  Alternatively, the firmware in the Vetta II would need to be rewritten to remove the reference to the Variax acoustic and report the connection of the JTV.  This doesn't mean that the JTV would actually work correctly, that would require a massive amount of programming to write a whole new routine to accommodate the JTV.

Given that the new gear has its firmware written to recognise the JTV by the MIDI data it sends, if Line 6 were to change the CC# and value in the JTV it would need to be a number different to the Variax electric guitars because the new gear will need to have different programming to fit with the features of the old Variax electrics and for the JTV.  So Line 6 could give the JTV a unique MIDI identification, but then they would have to reprogram the firmware in all the new gear.  The consequence of giving it a new and unique MIDI data ID tag would be that the Vetta firmware would not know this whole new and unique number and report "no Variax connected" and nothing would work, you wouldn't be able to use the VDI for anything.

The Vetta may have been programmed to respond to an exact value on a  CC#, for example B0 55 1A or it may use a value range when identifying  the Variax.  This would enable several versions of a Variax to be  reported.  If exact numbers are used in the gear then I would suspect that if the Variax Acoustic is connected to a POD HD500 the HD500 will report it as a JTV.  But if the Vetta II used a range (e.g. 1A - 1F) for identifying the Variax acoustic then the HD500 won't report it as a JTV unless it is using the exact same ID value as the Acoustic.

Now, I am just a guitarist who uses this gear.  So, I can't be certain that the above is 100% accurate, but based on my knowledge of how the gear communicates and applying some good old fashioned computer logic style common sense, I'd bet money that what I have said goes very, very close to what's actually going on.

Cheers,

Crusty



Re: Vetta + JTV = FRUSTRATION...Not what we were promised.
by johnnyayyy on 2011-03-10 00:31:15

MerlinFL wrote:

patches do not save, nor recall directly between the JTV & the Vetta using the VDI like the previous models accurately do.

So far a few people have reported their JTV is working properly with  their Vetta in this thread:  http://line6.com/community/thread/58557?tstart=0




The information above may not be current, and you should direct questions to the current forum or review the manual.