Jump to content

wolbai

Members
  • Content Count

    129
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by wolbai

  1. fingerpicking - like the original played by Gary Kemp. But that is a good question. I am pretty shure that the preset I have used will sound different (more highs, less warm, more percussive) when played with a pick. To complete "fingerpicking versus pick story": I have used a Sharkfin plectrum from Landström (white) for the e-guitar tracks. It is a pretty amazing plectrum with 3 in 1. It is my favorite now. In addition to a regular pick it has also a sharkfin part which is awesome for faster playing and another sawtooth like part which is pretty cool for special distorted guitar rhythms and harmonics. When I changed to that pick, I was reminded how heavily a pick can influence your overall tone. So in reality the signal chain (apart of yourself) starts with a pick. I think that is underestimated sometimes. wolbai.
  2. Hi Cachera, thanks for your nice feedback! The recording was done with JTV FW 2.0. I personally haven't noticed differences in the acoustics between FW 1.9 + FW 2.0. And that is what I have read so far from the one or another L6 Experts in this forum. wolbai
  3. Hi brue58ski, (luckily) I am completely blank in acoustic sound history with L6-gear (older Variaxes, X3-Live, etc.). The existing FW 2.0 is pretty okay for my needs so far: I am gigging with my band (no possibility and desire to carry acoustic guitars and additional equipment. I have decided to go for the "all-in-one" solution and therefore I was prepared that I can't have everything) and I do from time to time some recordings for (my) private fun. The used Vintage mic preamp was a sound improvement in my acoustic sound - as explained above - to my former presets. So that may overlap to your experience with other L6 mic preamps you have used in the past. So I can understand your wish for a wider range of mic preamps. What still remains at the end of the day: acoustic sounds needs more fiddling and tweaking than E-guitar sounds regardless what equipment is used. wolbai
  4. Hi clay-man, you are so right: all acoustics need some EQ-tweaking live and for recording. The reason for that is that the frequencies are more complex and have a wider bandwith than electric guitars. In the acoustic preset I have used a StudioEQ at the very first place in the signal chain: -12 db at 80 Hz - 3,5 db at 220 Hz - 11 db at 440 Hz + 1,5 db at 1,1 Khz I also have used the HPF + the LPF in the Vintage Pre amp to color the tone. The are 2 effects in the preset: dimension (with sw2 + sw3 off) at 20% and Hall reverb (standard) with 20%. The Tone-knob is set to 85% in the JTV-Acoustic model to get more room for that specific recording. In the recording software itself I have changed additional seetings with a Studio EQ, Stereo Enhancer and bit of Vintage Plate Reverb. Sounds a lot of tweaking, but I think that is (unfortunately) normal for Acoustic sounds. wolbai.
  5. Hi guilhordas, attached you will find the HD500-preset. Unfortunately I did a mistake: it is not the Martin 6-string I have used. It is the Gibson J-200 (position 5 in the JTV): http://line6.com/customtone/tone/239966/ wolbai.
  6. Hi clay-man, thanks for your kind words! The Acoustics and the Gibson Les Paul sounds great in FW 2.0 to me. As always you have to fiddle around a bit, but not a big deal. You probably have heared some string noises on the Acoustics: I recorded it with my JTV69 and there I have set the strings pretty low far faster playing. Unfortunately for Acoustics this is not the best. But these are more physical limitations which the modeling has to deal with. The Gibson model has indeed a nicely midrange tone. It cuts also very good through a LIVE-Band mix. I do the old trick by setting the mid-EQ on the amp somewhere between 70-90% depending on the amp models. wolbai
  7. Hi, I am excersing the song "Through The Barricades" from Spandau Ballet currently with my band. And from time to time I prove my jingle-jangle by recording. I have therefore used the JTV FW 2.0 Martin 6-string and the Gibson Les Paul model. Especially the Les Paul now sounds very much Les Paul like: I now can clearly hear the modeled PU-switching. Much more differentiated than former JTV-FW IMO. EDIT: Sorry for the initial mistake - I have used the Gibson J-200 Acoustic model (position 5) and not the Martin 6-string. I this regard I have more accidently discovered the Vintage pre amp for acoustic-sounds. Sounds pretty good and adds some more flexibilty with high and low frequencies. I have simply used the "no amp"-model before. The first part of the song is completely recorded w/o a playback. I also recorded some string-like sounds with my guitar and the Octo-reverb. Not perfect - for shure, but as an option for a lack of a keyboard not the worst to me. I have used a playback for the second part of the song (average quality) and I recorded various guitar tracks. All in all I wanted to sound it more rocking than a cuddly ballad. The current JTV-modellng still has the problem with the "dying sustain" when swichting the PU-selector in guitar phrases where a lot of sustain is necessary. It is hearable at a certain point in the recording. Although the FW 2.0 is battlesome, the resolution of the modeled guitars is more differentiated to me compared to FW 1.9. When switching the PUs now on the Les Paul model gives a more authentic feel. I therefore find myself now playing more with position 3 and 5 which I haven't done that much before. For the electric guitar tracks I choosed the POD HD Soldano full amp model. The POD HD is linked via a TASCAM-audiointerface to the PC. Recording software is Cubase/Artist 7. Pretty simple setup. During the recording, the song got somehow its own flavour to me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIo5HTwX9so Any thoughts ? cheers - wolbai
  8. After some adjustments on the Stratocaster model, I am now pretty fine with the new FW 2.0 :-) I just wanted to share with you a recording I did on song I love for its tunes and chord progression. The song is from Steve Winwood "While you see a chance". I let him musically meet his good old friend Eric Clapton :-) I exclusively used the position 2 and 4 which is somehow typical for the EC-sound to me. I used the Marshall Plexi Lead Full amp model of the POD HD500. I recorded two guitar tracks: a Rhythm + lead track. The song is in its original version completely without any guitar (at least I haven't heared any). But Steve Winwood and Eric Clapton are playing this song when they are Touring together. Couldn't manage to upload the presets to CustomTone so far. Will try it later ... Any thoughts / feedback is welcome.
  9. Hi offashead, no need to change anything as long as you are fine with the sound on FW 2.0 ;)
  10. I ended up now pretty similar to you on the string volume: 60-60-60-60-100-100.
  11. Not that easy to correctly follow up that Thread with now 18 pages. Sorry for that. But most of all I am very happy that the Start-model went back to a more Vintage sound. ;)
  12. Just to be clear for everybody who may have overseen the Thread "Variax 2.0 Spank Bug ?": -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The above mentioned Workaround for position 2 initially suggested 2 days ago by " ReverendLove" (without string volume adaption) is now the official Line6 workaround confirmed by Line6 for a Software-Bug (see link): http://line6.com/support/topic/2121-variax-20-spank-bug/page-2 And this issue is NOT attributed to any wrong / corrupted installation of the FW 2.0. I personally add to that workaround - as mentioned above - the string volume changes (for position 2 AND 4) to come even closer to FW 1.9 or the magnetic PUs of the JTV69.
  13. Hi fremen, I agree. It is not completely like 1.9 or the magnetic PUs on the JTV69. But it is very good workaround which I am willing to go for. I see FW 2.0 as a package. And this was the missing part. I am pretty convineced that there will be an update from L6 in the near future. At least I am looking for that. Will try your suggestions to go even more into extrems with the string volume. But the string volume is definetely a part which helps to get bell ringing back.
  14. He Dude - you are a genius ! Tried your suggestions for Strat position 2. In addition to that, I reduced the string volume of E-A-D-G to 80% and let the B-E stay at 100% (not possible to increase string volume above 100%). And I increased the preset volume +3db. The pos 2+4 is about 3-4 db lower in volume than 1-3-5. I also integrated your suggestions on Tone pot, etc for Strat-position 2. For Strat-position 4 I left the original FW 2.0, but I did the same with the string volume as in position 2. The increased string volume even better supports the bell ringing tone to me. I made a quick recording on that. The playing is quite sloppy. I was more focused on the tone. I have used the Fender Twin Reverb of the HD 500 with a little spring reverb directly into an audio interface and then recorded with Cubase. I have made 2 example for each of the position 2 + 4. The first one is always the workaround for FW 2.0 and the second is the original FW 2.0. The bells are ringing again to my ears: http://www.soundclick.com/player/single_player.cfm?songid=12464830&q=hi&newref=1 To me this is a very good workaround. Thanks - you made my day !!!
  15. Hi, one update on my DEAD battery in my JTV89F which I attributed to the FW 2.0 update. May be this is helpful for some users: I realized that one of the two connectors were bent out of shape. Once I brought the connector back to normal shape with a small screwdriver the battery worked as it should be. And I was able to upload the JTV89F model presets to CUSTOM 1 bank. I guess I caused this due to my less experience in swoping the batteries in a JTV (I mainly use them powered with a VDI cable). I will continue to report on my progress to adapt the POD HD presets on FW 2.0 using a DR (JTVS / POD HD / DT50). One thing came up to my mind after I have made some comments on my testing at the rehearsal room yesterday in this Thread: All the guitars which have now lower output compared to FW 1.9 (I see this especially on the Strat-model and on the ES335 pos. 1-3-5) will likely need more Amp-volume than before. This is an assumption for now. If I remember correctly from yesterdays rehearsal noodeling around, the sounds got more lively by increasing the amp-volume on the amp model I have used (Marshall Plexi Lead). But this will quickly come real when I will start to balance my presets volume wise with a VU-meter.
  16. For clean-tone POD HD presets, I see some work on the amp model EQ to do under FW 2.0: Drive, treble, bass, etc. How much is depending on the guitar model we are talking. Under the models I use to play, Is see the main need to change the parameters for the Start-model and the ES335-model. For the Strat model is see more work to do when it comes to distorted / overdrive sounds. As this new modelled Strat has LOWER output than the Start used in FW 1.9, you need to push your tone with other parts in your signal chain to get the same distortion/overdrive level as under FW 1.9. The effects which comes to mind mind for that are: dist-/overdrive-pedals, compressor and drive-parameter of the amp model. Another effect which seems to put under observation is the Noise Gate in the POD HD: At least the ES335 position 1 reacts pretty negatively with a Noise gate at the beginning of the signal chain.
  17. Hi, I am one of the initial "no-buyer" of FW 2.0 :D This FW has absorbed pretty much time in the last days. I am lucky that I can spend some time before I go on vacation to figure out how the FW 2.0 works for me as a giging musician. So I spend several time today in the rehearsal room. These are my outcomes so far. May be this is some kjnd of help / interest for some users: 1. I had my JTV89F with FW 1.9 and my JTV69 with FW 2.0 with me. 2. I played first on a clean amp model (use the Dream rig: HD500 , DT50 and JTVs) and compared FW 1.9 and 2.0 and for Start the magnetic PUs on the JTV 69. I played on gig level. 3. I first measured the volumes of the models and the strings compared to 1.9 + 2.0, because I saw some concerns regarding the different string volume on fw 2.0 especially on the Strat. I measured this with a VU-meter. - The overall outcome is that the FW 2.0 has pretty much closer string volume than FW 1.9. For FW1.9 in each model special strings (regardless what position) are up to 10-12 db louder. - The FW 2.0 volume levels are much closer. It differs maximum 3-4 db. - On the Strat model in position 2+4 the B-string is 3-4 db lower than the other strings. This can be worked out with the WB HD-Software. - I measrued Strat, Tele, ES335: - The Strat model is in average approx. 3-4 db lower in volume than 1.9 - The Tele is about the same volume in FW 2.0 as in FW 1.9 - The ES335 is also 3-4 db lower in volume than 1.9 But the FW 2.0 have significant closer string volume differences than 1.9. That was a surprise to me. And this is a very good outcome and speaks fore FW 2.0. 2. I then played several models on a clean amp model: I have to say that I cannot confirm that the new models have no balls or sound liveless. The opposite is the case to me: - they react heavily more direct than 1.9: striking the plektron differently gives different sounds impuls, - I have not heard articifial model overtunes in 2.0 as in some models of fw 1.9 - switching the PU-selector is very articulated and sounds now more pronounced. 3. Some specifics to the Strat-model: - the model has lower output, - position 2+4 has less twang. Also compared to the magnetic pus of the JTV69. Probably something which users have to "buy" as the flipside of the medaile, if they go for FW 2.0. But blending with the magnetics on the JTV69 should helpe I have heard in this forum. - As this Strat Model has lower output it behaves different when it comes to overdrive /distortion. I checked one preset from me playing "Another brick in the wall". With some modifications of the Compressor, Tube drive, I was fairly quickly able to get the some behaviour of the Strat as in FW 1.9. And it sounded now good to me. - On position 2+4 the B-string needs to be raised by 2-3 db to get the same level to the other strings (my personal recommendation). 4. Some specifics to the Tele: - big improvement to me. Especially the position 4 (formely I guess with the tone knob rolled back ???). 5. Some specifics to the Semis: - The position 1 on the ES335 is with less balls and thin compared to fw 1.9 YEP. BUT: I kicked out my Noise Gate and changed some parameters (Amp-Drive, more Amp-mids), changed the dist-pedal and I got the balls back. - It does not sounds as under 1.9, but definetly no longer thin and/or liveless. - The Epiphone (pos. 2+ 4) has pretty much lower volume (approx. -5dbs) compared to position 1/3/5 6. Some specifics to the Les Paul model: - Stellar to me: the position 3+5 is now really usable. Switching between the PUs does now sounds pretty much more as a Les Paul. - position 1 is very agressive and I like that for Gary Moore stuff. The changes I have done to adapt the sounds to my presets was not so much I had thought before. It mainly affects the parameters of the Amp model EQ (Drive, Mid, Treble, etc.), DIST-pedals, Overdrive-pedals, Comp.). In summary: It will take for sure several hours to adapt my approx. 100 presets to FW 2.0, but I can see now light at the end of the tunnel, because the models are pretty much more articulated. The only negative thing is the pos. 2+4 on the Strat. It simply sounds different to the magnetic PUs of the JTV or the FW 1.9. That means to me: thumbs up for FW 2.0 now !
  18. Hi, did my testings at the rehearsal room at gig volume level with existing presets. As far as I can see now this firmware is so huge in tonal difference that IF I would take the FW 2.0 this will lead me into a longer tweaking time to all of my presets with the Dream rig. As I have approx. 100 POD HD presets to maintain and I am gigging, I am just hesitating at the moment to jump into that time consuming work, which at the end may turn out that it was worth to go for or not. I listen quite carefully to the Videos played on a clean amp: several models are a big improvement. YEP. But if I would play let say "Another Brick in the wall" with the firmware 2.0 with my current presets for that song, I would be lost: - the twangy Rhythm guitar is not available to me - the Leadpart will not break up to distortion in some phrases with my current amp and effect settings - some strings sound as if they have a different volume level I guess I will move to FW 2.0 in the future, but this takes considerable time I have to invest, because I cannot start just from scratch. For other who just have started or which do not giging, this may look quite different. P.S. Good to know that the L6 Gurus are close to these forums. I appreciate that pretty much.
  19. I agree. Although I am not a current "buyer" of the FW 2.0, I will invest more time to test and assemble with the WB HD-software. But no doubt: the difference of this FW is so huge that it necessarily leads me into considerable tweaking time for the POD HD presets (amp and effect parameters) I am using for gigging. The Strat model seems to have to most gap to the old FW. This may not be negative to all users, but to some like me. Although you can blend the strat-model with the magnetic PUs of the JTV (they sound pretty similar to the old FW model), this is only a "workaround" for the JTV69 users. The fact that L6 has integrated the JTV89 pickups in the FW is great: these piuckups (and their real magnetic ones in my 89F) are stellar for really high gain sounds. And this is potentially very beneficial to many none-JTV89 user.
  20. Hi LarryLion, thanks for the tip. Will give this a try. For the moment the start model is worse compared to the older one to me. But why should I now try to: - tweak the string volume on the high E and B-string on the strat model (they are noticeable lower volume than the others) - blend magnetic Pus with modeled just to get the old FW 1.9 sound ??? Or just to give the new WB HD its real justification ??? I need more time to test and A/B the new FW to go for it ...
  21. Hi, placed this also in the Thread "Now Available: Variax Hd Upgrade And Workbench Hd Software": I discovered the same issue: High E and B-strings have noticeable lower volume than the other strings. And the high E-string doesn't ring long enough to me compared to the others. Although it is now more comfortable to adjust strings volume with WS HD, I do expect from a new proudly announced JTV-firmware that this is just RIGHT. This issue and some others leads me to the point that I will stick to FW 1.9 for now. The FW 2.0 is not a no-brainer to me at the moment. I need to make more testings and A/B before I am willing to go for FW 2.0, because I need to touch / tweak my presets (approx. 100 to go through), if I go for it.
  22. Quick feedback from some testing in the rehearsal room today on guitar models I am using (not very detailed and A/B-like honestly): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - the Strat-models are VERY different. They seem not to break up that early to distortion as the old models. They have more brightness to me. The position 2 sounds better to me in the old version. I honestly cannot say up to now that this model is an enhancement to my ears. At least I have to invest considerable tweaking time on my presets. I cannot just use this model with the existing presets. Not really sure the strings are ringing in the same way. High E and B string is seems to have lower volume than the other strings. - The ES335 position 1 sounds very thin to me now. It does not break up / distort as the former version. The other positions sounds more ES335 like now. But again: postion1 needs tweaking of my presets. I cannot use this model instantly. - The Les Paul-model are an improvement in my opinion. Instantly good. No tweaking. Great. - The Teles are different and more to a real Tele. As with the Strat model, I am not sure whether the strings are ringing on the same level. - The Chime 12-strings are improved; sounds way better to me than before. - I haven't checked the Acoustics so far. All-in-all: I need to make more tests to decide whether to go for the FW 2.0 or not. For now I stick to version 1.9. Honestly speaking it is not a no-brainer to me. But ears are different as always ...
  23. SERIOUS PROBLEM ENCOUNTERED: ------------------------------------------------ Since I have uploaded the new FW, my battery is DEAD on my JTV89F. I initially assumed that this was due to the very low battery level. So I recharged it over night. I did this with my other JTVs also. The other JTVs where I have also installed the new FW shows green lights with the new battery load. The JTV89F does nothing. Connecting to the USB-interface shipped with the JTV and the 1/4" inch cable / VDI cable connected, I cannot connect to workbench HD to upload the OLD 89 PU-models to my JTV89F back again. The light is red on VARIAX-IN. Any thoughts? EDIT: I have opened a support ticket for that issue.
  24. With the old FW the modeled JTV89F PU-selector settings were assigned to CUSTOM 1 on my JTV89F. With new FW CUSTOM 1 this is different. How do I reset the JTV89F 1-5 models to CUSTOM 1 ???
  25. Two additional tips: ------------------------ If you need to change the scale or the intervall within the lead part you are playing, you can do this by assigning the scale (or any other parameter of the smart harmonizer) to the MIN or MAX of the available controllers like EXP-1, etc. With this feature you even can play pretty challenging solo parts as well. Another point I found out is, that you have to experiment with the mixer parameter on each song to find an appropriate mix of both guitars. I often find myself setting a mix between 35 - 50 %.
×
×
  • Create New...