clay-man

You need to turn up your amp to drown out the acoustic sound of your strings (the natural sound directly from the strings, not the guitar) This is something you'll have to face with the Variax since it's not actually physically altering the tuning, but rather processing the signal to a different pitch. I know it might be annoying, but you can drown out the strings without being too loud.

Noone with a Gen1 Variax can confirm this?

"we can't find that" Your link is broken. If you're getting weird ringing notes, it might be your strings behind the nut ringing and traveling to the piezo. Arnold made a video about this. Putting velcro or a hairtie, or something that'll mute the part of the strings behind the nut will stop that.

I like these videos because it helps tell me if I should bother buying a JTV to step up from my 600. One of the reasons why I was so comfortable with getting an old Variax in place of a JTV is because the modeling technology is the same before the HD update came. The HD update might be a real game changer in the modeling guitar race, and it definitely catches my eye and makes me wish i had a JTV more. I knew it was unrealistic for me to get 1.4k for a 69s maple neck.

So I noticed that when I played at the 12th fret mark of a Rickenbacker tuned an octave up, I get this fuzzy, almost silent note. I messed around and swapped bodies and stuff, and I notice this only happens when the pickup is positioned where a neck pickup goes. Is this a glitch with the old Variax or is my Variax goofy?

Have you tried adjusting the string volume in workbench some more? Individual string volume, that is. The acoustic sounds are probably the closest sound you'll get to the raw piezo input. Is there any buzzing when you listen to the strings directly without plugging in your guitar?

I actually have thought about that, and I think it would be great. The only problem is that I believe this voids the warranty.

In design? I don't mean the entire design, I mean the trem block at most. Personally that and a better headstock is the only thing I want with the 69

Sorry for the double post, but after looking at the 69's bridge, here's an idea: Get pieces of thread, tie one part through the hole off the ball, then the other end to the saddle screw for each string. Yeah or nah?

Agreed. I LOVE, my Variax 600, it's freaking great. Not the best materials maybe, but it's design and build is great. Only problem I have with it is the crappy plastic nut which gives tuning problems. I need to throw in a TUSQ nut on it someday. I look at the 69, and it just looks really goofy. The body is nice, but the headstock and neck is really lackluster. I like the fender headstock on my 600, the decals look lovely with the Line6 logo on the bottom center and "the Variax" logo on the bottom right where the curve is. Looks stylish, professional. I don't know much about James Tyler, but I know he's supposed to be a highly acclaimed luthier. This thing with the ball ends falling into the electronic cavity is awful and can short your circuit board if it lands and connects 2 points together. That's not good at all. All I can suggest is be careful with your broken strings and make sure they don't fall into the cavity. If there's any way to obstruct the strings from falling into the cavity, then try it, ONLY if you know it won't damage your guitar. I don't get why the strings have to be front-loading. My strings go through the trem block on my 600 and they don't fall into the cavity when they break. If anything, they should fall outside of the guitar since there's an opening so you can restring without taking off the tremelo cavity cover. Sorry to hear that you guys are having this problem.

Maybe perhaps that's just how they modeled it. Either they modeled how loud it is, or they glitched to normalize the levels on the models.

Ouch, that's the one I want. Is there a cavity that the string ends keep falling into? You might have to do something stupid like put tape on the ends or like tissue paper to make sure it doesn't fall out like that. I donno.

I believe the previous modeling technology, minus the acoustics, were all the same since the original Variax guitars. The only different that was made in tone was because the JTV used higher quality piezo pickups than the original Variax guitars. Either way, the modeled strat definitely should sound like a traditional strat instead of being off like everyone is complaining about. I'm not 100% sure. Like I said, haven't played the HD stuff myself yet.

That's definitely not good. That could cause a short. What model JTV do you have?

Ok. I agree with that. The only thing I have to say is that they might not have the same guitars they had when they did the modeling back in 2003. They should try to model at least the same model guitars that they were. If they are, perhaps their copy of the vintage guitar is rather poor? Either that or they're modeling it poorly. I can't really speak for myself since I haven't got a JTV HD Variax, but if it is actually off from what it's supposed to sound like, then you have a legit argument. I just see some people asking "Can we have 1.9 strat" and it sounds like they're saying "put the old modeling technology back in that position". It's counterproductive to do that.

Yes it is. I just explained to you that the point of the HD models is to give you new technology, to move on and update. YOU CAN DOWNGRADE TO 1.9. It would waste memory for possible future features of the guitar. Why would they want to continue with old and outdated technology that the old modeling is? Was it good? Yes, it was great, but this isn't 2003 anymore and Line6 have better technology to make the modeling more accurate than ever before. If there are legit problems with the modeling, then they will fix it overtime.

I really don't want it to be reverted back to 1.9. I really do think that's stupid. If anything, if it really means that much to you, they should fix the modeling on the strat and others people keep complaining about by furthering the HD models and tweaking them, not reverting back to 1.9 models. 1.9 sounds good, yes, but it's outdated technology, and they should use their current technology to make all the new stuff right. I say, if it actually sounds like the thing they're personally modeling, then they got the job done. Maybe the problem is that they're modeling with vintage guitars that sound off. Now, if it DOESN'T sound like the guitars they're modeling after, then you have a valid argument. Either way, the past models are outdated and they're trying to move on from that. You should be happy that they're moving away from the Generation 1 Variax technology so you're actually getting something brand new and updated. It's one of the reasons why I was fine with getting a Gen 1 Variax over a JTV because I didn't think there would be a modeling technology overhaul.

It is a waste of space because the point of the HD update is to give you updated technology and performance compared to the decade old modeling technology used in the pre HD models, which are the same models used in the Generation 1 Variaxes. Keeping the old models is a waste of time and space and would prevent allowing them to add onto the new HD stuff, and possibly present new original models. If you like the old models, just downgrade. You have the option. I am assume that the memory is already pretty full because they had to drop some telecaster bodies and a few other things in the HD update. Either this is the case, or they thought it was pointless to model multiple versions of the same guitar this time around. It's time to either use workbench to tweak the tone, or move on. If there is legit bugs in the HD update, they will address this in time.

You realize the sound of the models are coded in the firmware, not the model presets itself. It's a waste of memory to have both the old and new models in the firmware, and I highly doubt it can even fit in the memory of the JTV.

It definitely does need some detail in order to minimize artifacts indeed. It's why polyphonic pitch shifting can get a bit warbly but still not sound like complete trash, because the more notes you have in the input, the more complicated it is to work with the wave. Not only does having a pitch shifter assigned to each string allow you to tune each string individually, but it helps the Variax pitch shift with better results. Either way, the latency is used as a fallback to have time to tailor the signal into a good quality pitch shift. The best VST pitch shifter I've seen is called Pitchwheel, and that needs 46 ms to do high quality pitch shifting. It sounds remarkable. Reaper's ReaPITCH also is high quality and has high latency. The less latency, the less natural and professional the pitch shifting will sound. For the Variax, you need a good balance between latency and quality. Fast enough to not ruin your guitar playing, but good enough quality for it to pass as capo/detuning substitute. I say the Variax does a nice job.

I know it doesn't need the pitch, but it still needs data and time to process everything correctly. First half is the pitch shifter on 38 ms latency, second half is on 3.5 ms latency it can't even track chords on 3.5 ms. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/21663288/Music/pitchshifters.mp3

I know there's physical latency, but we're talking about process/digital latency. This is latency that happens during the input->processing->output stage. There's 2 types of latency with this kind of latency 1) Over all performance latency. This is the buffer/latency you set on your DAW. This is the amount of time you give your processor to preform an effect or task. The lower the latency, the harder and faster your processor has to work. If your processor can't process the effect in fast enough, you will have crackling and/or stops in the audio. 2) There's latency which is induced by an effect. It sets a determined latency because that latency is deemed an appropriate amount of time for the effect to work correctly. An effect that causes latency most likely needs to read some of the input in order to apply the effect correctly. This latency has NOTHING to do with how fast or strong the processor is. You can have a fast processor and the latency will still be the same, as it's a set latency by the effect, not the overall buffer of the processor.

if Standard is your physical tuning (E standard), that means the pitch shifter is OFF, which means there's no latency going on at all, because its... well... off. It doesn't need to add latency if it's not actually shifting the strings. I believe it does add latency to all strings if just 1 is tuned different, but this is so you don't have delay between the strings your playing.

Latency is something you'll want the minimum, but it's something you can't get rid of. It all depends on the routine you're doing and how fast it's being processed. Pitch shifting does a routine that requires latency, which doesn't matter how fast the processor is, because a processor can only read the current form of the wave, hence why it needs latency to read some of the wave, and apply the algorithm to pitch shift the input without making it sound like crap. Latency shouldn't be of concern though unless it is actually noticeable, like you said. 6-8 ms on Reaper and the latency of Variax on alt tunings, and I still don't really notice any latency.

They can't focus on minor problems that might not be their fault. If it is their fault, like Zap said, an expert can contact them about it to inform them. They want the entire Line 6 user zeitgeist, not just a portion of the users who happen to decide to post on these forums. There are means of which you can contact them directly about this type of stuff anyways.