ColonelForbin

They sure look alot like Pacifica! I suppose that begs the question: how much are the Variax components of the guitar worth? Because this brand new Pacifica is $180... Bit of a stretch to turn a $180 guitar into a $799 guitar; or, perhaps the way of looking at it is, the HD Variax modeling portion is $619; the Yamaha guitar is $180; the combined price is $799?? I like the Variax and all; just don't have a lot of interest battling with a cheap less than $200 guitar, trying to get it tuned properly, or if it has playing related issues, neck, etc. Time will tell!

Reset it to factory default, then reload all the models and the new firmware - just to be sure. Possibly some strange setup in the model selections from the previous owner?

Cool!! Good to know that feature actually works well for someone. I messed around with it for a while, but then ended up using the variax, so I forgot all about it.. It does relate specifically to the first FX model or Amp model in the signal chain- so you may need to keep that in mind if you come up with patch variations that use different effects as the first thing in the signal chain. Also, for what it's worth, if you use single amp models, try setting input 1 = guitar, and change input 2 to variax, or something other than 'same'. When using two amp models, the 'same' feature allows you to send the single guitar signal to both amp models. If you are using just one amp model, choosing the input 2 as 'same' doubles the signal strength going to one amp model, in essence, creating an un-intended signal boost. Sounds like that could also be factoring in to what you are hearing. "Note: The Guitar In-Z setting affects the GUITAR IN input only. Please see the Impedance Ratings table at the end of this section to reference the input impedance of each individual model. • The Auto option dynamically sets the input impedance to match the input impedance of the very first Amp or FX model in your POD HD signal chain . • Or, you can manually select from a variety of impedance values from low to high (22k, 32k, 70k, 90k, 136k, 230k, 1M, or 3.5M). A lower value will typically result in some high frequency attenuation, lower gain and overall “softer†feel. A higher value provides full frequency response, higher gain and overall “tighter†feel. Amp & FX Model - Guitar Input Impedance Ratings: Model Guitar Input Impedance (Ohms) Amps & Preamps All Amp & Preamp Models 1M Distortion FX Screamer 230k Color Drive 136k Buzz Saw 230k Facial Fuzz 22k Jumbo Fuzz 90k Fuzz Pi 22k Octave Fuzz 230k All Other Distortion Models 1M Dynamics FX All Dynamics Models 1M Modulation FX Dual Phaser 230k U-Vibe 90k Analog Chorus 22k All Other Modulation Models 1M Filter FX All Filter Models 1M Pitch FX All Pitch Models 1M Delay FX Multi Head 22k Analog Echo 230k Analog w/Mod 90k All Other Delay Models 1M Preamp + EQ FX All Preamp & EQ Models 1M Reverb FX All Reverb Models 1M Wah FX Weeper 90k All Other Wah Models 1M Volume & Pan FX All Volume and Pan Models 1M

+1 to that! Above all, it needs to play well, and stay in tune. Especially since it's modeling the tones of the guitar; it just needs to be a blank canvas. I like playing my JTV59, but I also really like the scale and feel of my strat. Didn't like some specifics about the JTV69, never got one. This new entry remains intriguing. I like that they moved all the Variax controls to one spot on the guitar; I never liked the JTV69 layout with the rolling dial up on the top like that. I had a Yamaha acoustic, did just fine for a number of years. It wasn't some pricelss heirloom guitar, it was a playing guitar, which got played out, dragged around, dinged and beat up, but still remained a nicely playable guitar with decent tone. I can get behind the Standard idea; adding the Variax HD models to a reasonably decent quality core Yamaha instrument without the $1500 price tag. It's easy to overlook, since the JTV vs Standard prices are now only $200 apart, that for a considerable length of time, the JTV's held their ground at or around $1500. Some sales here and there, rebates and such - but only after the NAMM announcement did all the retailers drop their JTV pricing down to the $999 mark.

Hey forum moderators! Feel free to move this over to the new Variax Standard forum if you feel like it. :)

Very nice! Eugene is a great place, I visited once, loved it.. I intended to move to Oregon back in 1999, ended up in Colorado instead. Still love the idea of 'The Great North Woods'.. The drummer from my band is moving to Oregon later this year, lucky fella!.. :)

The toe switch only works if you have it programmed to do so! a wah or volume or some other effect must be assigned to toe switch, it functions like an extra FS assignment. If you have nothing assigned to say, FS3, pressing it will do nothing. Or at least, that's how I understand the EXP toe switch

I am definitely interested in this new Variax! price looks decent too.. For me, I have a JTV59, but never liked the design of the JTV69, so I never got one. This is a nice in between, the design changes moving the knobs to one spot looks better to me. The slightly revised pickguard shape looks cool to me as well, and the headstock design is cleaner, a little better overall layout, look and design. As for playability, time will tell.. It's at least encouraging to note that it appears they revised the string tree design from an earlier version as compared to what seems to be the end product design. Take a look at the Variax Standard on the Sweetwater page, looks a bit different. Pickguard and pickup colors reversed too! I am guessing here, but I would imagine it's the same models currently on the JTV series. http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/VariaxStdBurst

This makes for an interesting read! http://www.slashsworld.com/equipment/amps/the-appetite-amp-story/sweet-marshall-o-mine/ "So exactly what model Marshall was #39? Although records are not perfect with respect to the year that the amp was manufactured, it is known that the amp was a 100W Marshall Super Tremolo (Model 1959T), built sometime between 1965 and 1973. The amp was a hand-wired, pre-master volume model, although it is unclear whether the head was of the “Plexi†variety (’65 through mid-’69) or the later “Metal Panel†variety (mid-’69 through mid-’73, since Marshall replaced hand-wiring with printed circuit boards in mid-’73). The head was modified by a service/repair tech who worked for S.I.R. throughout the 1980s into 1985 (more to come on him later). In short, the modification consisted of adding an extra pre-amp gain stage. A master-volume control was also part of the modification to #39, since the amp was a pre-master volume model. The modification made the Marshall very overdriven, essentially leaving it with extremely limited clean-tone (non-distorted) capabilities. This is where the *other* amp previously mentioned – the JCM 800 that has also been connected to the “Appetite†sessions – might fit into the puzzle. I think that the JCM 800 was probably used on all of Slash’s clean guitar parts in “Appetite†(yes, there *were* some clean parts). It is also possible that the JCM 800 was used by Slash on some of “Appetite’s†rhythm parts. However, I believe that it is highly likely that #39 was used by Slash on the vast majority, if not the entirety, of his lead/solo work on “Appetite.â€

Which amp model is nearest to what Slash used on Appetite? I read somewhere they dialed in his Marshall and left it that way for the whole record! I guess, JCM800, maybe some Plexi. You should be able to get it most of the way there with amp model, gain, eq, cabinet, and mic model settings before touching any FX. Avoid compression until you get the cranked amp sound dialed in. As far as future amp model requests, the modified Marshall JCM800 head, owned by S.I.R. and rented by Slash for the Appetite recording session known as "Stock #39" would make for an awesome JCM800 model option..

It does look a bit more 'classic' strat compared to the JTV69. The headstock graphics, the cut of the pickguard, and the grouping of the tone, volume knobs with the variax models and tuning knobs - never liked the JTV69 layout with the controls separated like that. I am pretty boring with my finish choices on guitars.. sunburst everything! Tobacco sunburst JTV59, 3 tone sunburst USA strat HSS. Except for my bass, which is some fake mahogany finish that wore half off where my picking hand rested.

The majority of the photos I have seen match the second photo, including the Line6 web page. Come to think, I believe the only place I've seen the first photo (white pickguard, black pickups) is on the Sweetwater website! The sunburst black pickguard with white pickups seems the most likely, since the designs for the white and black models use white pickups.. Hoping that Feb.13 date is accurate!

really good question! hoping it plays well first and foremost. Musicians Friend says they expect to ship Feb.13, wondering if that's accurate.. http://www.musiciansfriend.com/guitars/line-6-variax-standard-electric-guitar/j19075000002000

Seeing two different looks for the new variax standard sunburst.. they both look sharp! I like the design change to put the variax controls all in one place, similar to the JTV59. - Black pickguard with white pickups: http://line6.com/variax-standard/ - White pickguard with black pickups: http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/VariaxStdBurst

Hmmm...Good question!

I *think* I figured this out; while driving to work today. It just occured to me that, if you have a patch which: 1. has no FX in the slots before the amp models 2. has two amp models, panned hard left and right 3. set the input settings to different sources; as I did... Then, it sees two amp models and two input sources, and one of the input sources in my case was empty (I had nothing plugged into the guitar in) I had set input 1 to variax, and input two to guitar - old habit from running single amp models... In doing so, I muted one amp by not sending it any signal! :)

Yeah.. just did! Was messing with them last night; had the old HD500 linked to the pair of L2t's, had the newer HD500x linked to the pair of DT25's. I must say, the JTV acoustic models sound a million times better through studio direct linked into the L2t's.. But for electric tones, the DT's win hands down, 100%. I am considering something like, use the HD500 for JTV acoustic tones, going direct to the mixer and/or into the L2ts - those are usually doing duty as floor monitors, so I'd still be able to route my signal through them, just not exclusively. But man, pairing a couple Marshall amp models like the JCM800 and the Plexi, panning them hard left/right; linked into the two DT25's. so cool. Plus, ping pong delay! So much fun. I can see it's a challenge to get amp models to pair well; since each amp is getting it's own sync data for the power amp settings, the volume jumps can be a bit extreme. Seems like this is the kind of rig you pre-program all the variables, and don't try to tweak on the fly. The settings as saved could be quite different from the setting position of any given knob, and by turning the knob, you can cause blasting insanely loud sound to occur, at say 1am, like I did last night!! Thankfully the wife was out of town, and I have my gear in the basement, so I don't think I disturbed any neighbors. Woke me right up though!!!! Anyway, just took both DT25's to the amp shop to get new JJ's tubes installed, figured do them both at the same time so they sound comparable. Any thoughts or tips on good pairings of amp models, or tricks to get the relative levels balanced between two different amps models?> I am thinking the mixer settings will be quite crucial, since they are individual for amp A and amp B, it seems likely to be a good way to approach getting the levels somewhere within reasonably match between the two amps. I can see the allure of the full range / studio direct options. Takes one more variable out of the equation. The sync data is really the most crucial part of the DT link experience: you can pan everything mono, and sum to mono, but it will still split the typology data between the two amps based on the amp model designation, unrelated to the panning. Mucho Fun!

This is a tricky rig to make work! I quickly realized that I have to pre-program all my patches with the link behavior on a patch by patch basis. As compared to linking between two L2t's for example- they just automatically go into stereo, or whatever setting is in the mixer- using a pair of DT amps seems to function a bit differently. Because with the DT amps there is also 'sync' behavior determining the power amp settings, it takes the complexity to a different level. Still not 100% certain how the physical knobs on the two DT's interact with the HD500 amp model settings. If anyone else is doing this kind of dual DT -HD500(x) linked rig, and you have some advice, I am all ears! I was having issues sorting out which controls work; for example, if you set up a patch with two amp models; there are actually multiple settings screens which control the link behavior. The key parameter seems to be the 'sync' setting; this is what tells DT#1 power amp to match the amp model typology settings in amp model A, and DT#2 power amp to match amp model B. Then there is another screen which allows you to route the actual signal - the pre FX, the 'pre' amp model, and the post FX. What I was getting stuck with; was I though that adjusting the physical knobs on DT#1 would adjust the corresponding settings on the HD500 amp model A; and adjusting knobs on DT#2 would do the same for amp model B. I *think* this is how it works, but I gave myself all sorts of trouble last night trying out this dual DT rig for the first time. At various points, I would have one or the other DT go completely silent; with what I thought was a pretty straight forward two amp model patch with no FX.. Eventually with enough mixing and matching of the pre amp models, was able to get some cool dual amp model tones. And of course the obligatory geek out session in 'stereo' using the ping pong delay. I noticed they changed around the setlist titling in the 500x, and they have a whole section dedicated to Link with DT amps. Those are a good starting place, rather simple, and you have to tweak them a bunch to get them into dual amp setups, but it's a good starting place. I realized that the two 'pre' amp models, via the mixer block don't *need* to be panned in stereo to achieve stereo effects. Any stereo effect placed in the post mixer slot will function in stereo; it's just the preamp signals that are being merged - the power amp settings are still dictated by the 'sync' settings. I guess if you want to have "dual mono" then you pan the two pre amp models hard left and right. The thing is, it's the sync settings which influence the volume spikes the most. If you lock the power amp settings on DT amps, then cycle through the preamp models; they are all essentially the same, just tone stacks. OR at least that's what it seems like. I totally did that thing last night around midnight, where you turn the wrong knob, and with the wrong amp model, the whole rig increased the volume by around 10x for one chord....I jumped about a foot out of my chair! It seems like matching comparable power amp settings helps alot; if you want to blend radically different amp model typologies in one dual amp patch, use the mixer block to individually adjust the output level to balance them. I see how those are critical - there are HUGE volume jumps from certain amp model power amp (sync) settings. Anyway, I will have some time to research this and think about it a bunch; because both amps are going to the repair shop today to get new JJ's tubes, and it will be a couple weeks before I have them back. For what it's worth, having dual stereo rigs is pretty cool. I am thinking the old HD500+two L2t's will be the JTV acoustic rig; and the HD500x with the two DT25's. I would probably seriously entertain the new Variax standard, so one guitar is the dedicated acoustic models, and the other electric. I could split the signal from one guitar, but I prefer using the electric models to the magnetic pickups; don't want to be limited to just mags I couldn't believe how much better the JTV acoustic models sound through the full range / studio direct mode linked to the two L2t's, I put the two DT25's on amp stands, and put the two L2t's on their side, tilted back on their rockers, up against the front legs of the two amp stands. Overall, total overkill. But way fun. STEREO!!!!! The ping-pong delay is just too much fun :)

Yeah, it's a move most expected after Yamaha bought Line6, was just a matter of time. It's actually quite a decent price point! Those JTV's were stuck at $1500 for a long time; now they are all at $999, across the board. I think the 'assembled in the USA' price tag of the US JTV's was a bit of a put off for the general market; for that matter, the $1500 JTV price was a bit steep for what it is; nice guitar and all, glad I got a price match on mine for basically what they are now selling them for everywhere. What I think will be interesting to note; is how dealers, vendors, etc. handle the rather slim margin of price between the new Yamaha Variax, and the JTV's with the new lower price. $799 for the Variax Standard; $999 for the JTV's. $200 is a fair chunk of change, but compared to the over $2000 price jump from the Korean JTV's to the USA JTV's, it's a relatively slim margin. I don't expect the JTV prices will go up, so I'd guess there will be some incentive for sales and such on both sides of that price gap. For me, I don't really need a second Variax, though it would sure be cool! At at the $799 price, I feel like it's a touch more attainable than the $999 for another JTV. I guess the real comparison will be the build quality. Will the new Variax standard feel like an $800 guitar? Or will it be like the Roland GC-1, which is a $900 guitar that feels like it should cost $200... I actually bought one of those a few months ago, played it a couple times, and sent it back within the 30 days return period.. Did not like the feel of that guitar at all!

Looks like Nile Rodgers is having some serious musical fun right here!

Love that concept! That's the core of good music for me. It reminds me of a quote from that movie 'Almost Famous'.. "But… it’s not what you put in, is it? It’s what you leave out. Listen to… listen to Marvin Gaye… A song like “What’s Going On.†That single “woo†at the end of the second verse – you know that woo – that single “woo.†That’s what you remember. The silly things, the little things… there’s only one, and it makes the song. It’s what you leave out. That’s rock and roll."

Yeah; if I had $4,000 to spend on a guitar, I'd get a Myka!! http://www.mykaguitars.com/

Yeah, +1 to this idea! I picked up one of the Zoom MS-70 CDR too. Thing sounds fantastic! And check this out: it has a Zoom model of the Line6 Particle Verb!!! That one is a notorius DSP hog, and the Zoom version sounds great. For a reverb effect, it's subtle and specific. Programming the Zoom into the FX loop of the HD500 is perfect, because you can assign an FS to turn on/off the FX loop if you want. The Zoom has a mode where when you press the footswitch it just toggles through "on deck" presets. Dial in a few basic configurations, keeping in mind that it will likely sound best in the 'post' amp model slot. I think Radatats was saying he puts it just after the amp model mixer block, so the noise gate functions after the amp models but before any reverbs and delays. I am guessing the HD500 noise gate is mono? The Zoom noise gate, as he mentioned, is stereo. I guess that matters more if the signal coming off the amp/mixer block is in stereo; such as doing dual amp models and such. Anyway, a nice compliment to the HD500 rig! I had previously used an M13; works great, total overkill. Plus, in the post amp model slot only certain FX from the M13 sounded good. Delays reverbs chorus - great. Distortion, comps, autowahs, not so much.. Those tend to prefer the 'pre' amp model position. Plus, the M13 is a floor space hog. The Zoom is tiny and easy to squeeze into the pedalboard I have my HD500 in.