Inerzia

Nothing official so far, Jayson

BTW, the question is if you managed to install 2.0 without any issue of any kind, not just installation issues. Anything that may come after, like uneven string volumes, qualifies as issue as well

WHAT IS THIS????? I started this topic as a POLL!! Now there's censorship too? Is someone afraid the results could show some uncomfortable truth? I could never stand the fanboy mentality, but this... this is clearly a step forward in as$ licking. I'm truly sickened

* OTHER THAN the officially acknowleged issue that affects positions 2 and 4 on the spank model, that makes it impossible to store some combinations of pickups (your typical 2 and 4 strat positions)

It does! but without amp or preamp models from the HD itself, so, no cabs either. That setup uses the TriAxis as preamp and the HD as both pre-preamp and post-preamp FX engine. Then the signal goes to a stereo power amp and stereo cab. That's how I do it anyway. I also tried to make it work using clean amp and preamp models from the HD, so I could use the cab sims, but I didn't get anything usable.

Same happens with my JTV-89, although much less frequently since I bought a hard vinyl case for it. In my case it seems to be bad contact on the inside of the selector, and everything goes back to normal after a few seconds of playing chunky palm muting riffs.

Nice idea! You might want to check this topic I started, just in case you need to know exactly what the pickup selector does.

That's the other part of the switch, the cover and the rotating shaft and contacts. Both switches closed

Here are the pictures of the JTV-89 selector And what I guess must be a JTV-69 selector

I've been scratching my head for some time now trying to work out how the pickup switching works in my JTV-89, mainly because, although I like the pickups, I wanted to have more options on the magnetic side. I wanted something like what I would want on a HSH strat. That is: two 4conductor humbuckers with duncan triple shots and a single coil sized humbucker in the middle. The switch, as it is, doesn't give any option to add another pickup, because all four (well, five) conductors are soldered on a small PCB that's attached to the selector and it's impossible to see inside the selector to find some way to add anything or change any of the pickup/coil settings, so... I went and opened it. Well, I didn't exactly open the one inside my guitar, but a spare I got from the spanish distributor. The switch was failing and I didn't want to send the JTV to tech service because they are sluggish, so I asked them for a replacement switch and they sent it, on the condition that the guitar would be serviced at the store where I bought it. In fact, they did send the wrong switch the first time, so I ended up with two, one that seems to belong to a JTV-69 and the one I needed. I've been a customer for a long time, so the people at the store agreed to let me change it myself, which I never did, because once I bought a hardcase for the guitar, the switch stopped failing so often (It almost never fails now and I've worked out a way to quickly get it back to normal). So I opened the selector and found out how it works. It works in the same way a superswitch would, only this one is preset. There are fixed contacts and mobile ones. The fixed ones are printed in a way that does the coil splitting in positions 2 and 4 and does, well... you know... what a JTV-89 does with its mags :-) The switch is some kind of 2P5T, where on one pole you select the magnetic pickup setting and on the other you select modeling pickup setting. On the modeling side, the contacts are arranged in a standard fashion. Bad news first: The modeling side of the switch has three resistors (18,65k, 75,1k and 37,2k are the exact values, though they most likely correspond to standard values of 18k, 75k and 36k) and I'm guessing the variax brain detects which position the selector is on based on the resistance measured between the two contacts that go out the PCB. Good news: The values of those resistors are standard and they are possible to replicate, so you can use a standard two pole five throw blade selector and add another pickup (or whatever you want to do with your five) Better news: The lower PCB can be desoldered from the selector and soldered to a different one, so you don't have to mess around with resistor values and provide some new small board to solder them onto. PICTURES: YES!! I know I should include pictures in this very post, and at this very moment, but my camera is out of battery and my phone isn't good enough, so you'll have to wait, but the pics will come. I won't actually modify the guitar until the triple shots and the duckbucker are here, then I will have a friend route the guitar for me and then I will do the electronics so, for now, the only pics I'll post are the ones of the selectors. In a month or two (when I can buy the stuff) I'll start doing the mods

On the other hand, if the next generation of pods was something based on HD modeling (same as they did with the XT - X3 families) that would mean my HD500 would stay current much longer (and maybe even updated). Maybe too, they could refurbish some parts of that technology in a new line of compact pedals, a wha (I wonder why they haven't done one already) or a cab modeler (as I suggested on ideascale ) Targetting different needs, reusing technology that's already available and still desirable, why not? Don't you think a cab modeler (reusing the modeling from the HD family) would sell? I would buy one, and I know many (not just one or two) of my friends have been looking for such a thing but can't afford a Torpedo

Yes, and you're not losing anything, just some quick pan over some knobs. It doesn't even seem to be the real thing, but an animation of the 3D model. We'll see it, in time.

I have a 500, and I've been thinking about upgrading since I discovered the DSP limit, which occured no more than 20 minutes after I first plugged it. It wasn't necessary to go al Fripp on it to reach the limit. I felt p¡ssed. I had just gotten a new piece of great sounding hardware that was designed not to live up to its own possibilities. I would have expected that limitation on a personal computer, not on a digital guitar processor. First time I had heard of such a thing. I've been getting great tones out of it anyway, but still I wish I could freely use the eight slots. Without compromises. What I surely won't do is buying another half cooked version of the same thing. A new, "upgraded" HD500 that just adds 20% more power and it's still not able to reach full potential? If you think about it as a new, sligthly improved version of the same product with a different processor because the manufacturer ran out of the old ones it's understandable, but if you think of it as an upgrade, it's ridiculous. I consider it more of a hardware update. I'm getting a G-Major 2 to go in the FX-Loop of my 500, and that will give me filter, compressor, 3 band parametric eq, pitch, mod, delay and reverb available at any time. That will be my upgrade, and, unless L6 significantly improves the modeling, I'm gonna stick with it for quite some time (and I mean years)

¡Se dice alimentador, no eliminador! :D Si encuentras un alimentador con las mismas especificaciones que dice arriba Hurghanico te valdrá. Tanto en los alimentadores como en los aparatos que los necesitan, suele haber un icono que indica la polaridad correcta Si el alimentador se corresponde con el icono del POD, suministra 3 amperios a 9 voltios, y la clavija es la misma, te vale.

And why not the other way round, as it was before HD? Why change it deliberately? I bought a guitar that is partially digital, and that digital part is updateable/upgradeable, so I expect it to be updated/upgraded from time to time, but changing the volume paradigm from "evenness" to "variety" is not what I would call a step forward, specially when it is such a pretty easy fix that those interested could have been making, up until now. Did you ever feel the need to lower the strat models for the sake of realism?

Lucky you, Phil, for me it wouldn't qualify as "slight", but more in the range of 6db... even the differences are inconsistent, it seems... As I said, I tried to make it work, but it wouldn't sound right no matter how many times I succesfully (according to the monkey) flashed with 2.0 or how many tweaks I made. Maybe some real strats and teles have some volume differences between strings (I'll take your word for it, no need to look it up) but I wouldn't tolerate such a behavior in a supposedly professional instrument. I'd return it or try to fix it immediately. I consider it a fault, an inconsistency. Most people, me included, would prefer something more even, I think. Even if volume differences between strings or between models are something desirable, why not present even volumes by default and leave it up to us to drop some of them if we wish to do so? I get it, a real LP sounds hotter/louder than a strat, but those two are two different guitars. When I pick one guitar, I expect it to be consistent from pickup to pickup, and also from model to model if it's something like the variax, so that I can freely switch between them without having to touch the volume pot, unless I want to. And, if preHD firmware versions of the models had even volumes when the real guitars wouldn't, why the h€ll change that now? Unless it is a bug...

I can't help you with the sizes and legs, because the only pickup change I've ever done in my life, I did wrong and switched an F-spaced pickup for another, narrower, one (I didn't know there were different sizes of pickups back then). What I can do is point my nose towards the prey: http://www.dimarzio.com/faq#55/65/7568 For the wiring in the JTV89(F) you need a 4 conductor pickup, otherwise you won't be able to split (or tap) the coils. It would be nice if somebody, more tech savvy could step in and contribute.

About the stock pickups: They're usable, but nothing special, and the neck pickup is noticeably quieter than the other. Be it for the bareknuckles or some other pickups, I think you'll end up replacing the stock ones.

No reason that I can think of :D In fact I was considering a matched set of warpigs to go into my Vax700. I ended up putting this set because I really wanted to have a guitar with that kind of pickup combination (the variax does that and more, but I wanted the sound of real pickups) and they sound great. Then I started thinking about putting the warpigs on my JTV89, but, based on what I've heard, I think I'm gonna go for a pair of alumitones. Tough decision, because I really love bareknuckle's stuff

It has happened to a lot of people here. For a while I tried to make it work, balancing the overall and the individual string volumes the best I could, but it wasn't just a matter of volume, there were tone differences between strings too, so, in the end, I rolled back to 1.9, and that's what I have now. I hope they fix that.

18/20 here B)

I know, Zap, I know, and I value your opinions, the time you put in, and the wealth of information you provide, it's just that I can get very intense (and English is not my mother tongue)

I think all our opinions about the old and new models are based on our experience as users, most of the content in these forums is based on our user experience... I don't get what you're getting at, sorry Arislaf opened the thread and he didn't state which aspects of the models were to be discussed. Issues are as relevant as subjective tone and feel preferences

Yes, Zap, it's either us, or our pods, our interfaces, our setups, or even our guitars, but a firmware problem? No, that's impossible! because it works on some guitars so that's irrefutable proof that the firmware is fine... Will you at least admit the possibility? Sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one, even with Line6 involved :D In the past, there have been updates where the code was refined and optimized to run better in all units of a particular product without a change in sound, without dumbing anything down, and even so, if it required dumbing down the models, should we, who are having problems with the HD update, be left out? left behind? Why not modify and even "trim" the models, if that's what's required for the firmware to run correctly in all units? We all are customers, we deserve the same treatment, if something is free, let us all have it for free, and have it working. After trying to make it work for a few months, I had to roll back, but I don't want to settle for that because I loved certain aspects of the new firmware. I just want the same as you and others have, no more, no less. If that were the case (and I don't think it is), and all the models had to be reduced in quality in the next update, those who already have a working HD JTV could stay in 2.0 if they wished. Isn't that what we always say to each other in such cases?

Maybe you don't know Yamaha that well. I'm not gonna compare digital modeling to a C5 concert grand piano in terms of expected lifespan, but, do you have any idea how many working DX7s are still out there? Fv<k capitalism, and fv<k programmed obsolescence.