tormal

Dear silverhead, cruisinon2, Digital Igloo, Thanks for your explanations. I always forget that F/M is all about ratios of different frequency ranges to each other and to get a ratio you need a base to compare to. Yes, I also wanted a kind of magic wand that can be used instead of my ears... but now I understand (again) that there is no other way but tweaking a bit. :-)

I have just become the proud owner of a Helix LT (after having a 500/500X for years), that is why I am reading this thread with great interest. Can you please explain a bit more how to understand "Helix knowing the volume at which you're playing"? Can I understand it that it does not matter what level the Volume dial is set, the equal loudness/Fletcher-Munson curves are taken into consideration by the software so regardless of the volume settings everything will sound the same at low and at high levels or even at headphone and gig levels? Thanks in advance!

Okay Gentlemen, I will put my idea to IdeaScale. Regarding going beyond what the product is designed to do: I do believe that I understand what the guitar does and how it does that – but I hardly can run with it because I know Standard's hardware is capable of more. Standard has exactly the same electronics as JTV89 does. The only difference is in software, and whether it is allowed to roll back to 1.n (knowing all the possible issues with alt tunings) or not is solely depends on Line6 decision. As psarkissian mentioned: they are sharp people, so I do believe they understand the old Latin proverb: Vox populi vox Dei. :-)

Dear psarkissian, Who is it up to then? I hope not Ideascale, that is a bit slow method to introduce changes. Alt tune selections I reprogrammed, as I've said earlier, so it is not a problem at all, and I am aware that only Workbench can be used, of course.

I have a JTV 89F and I needed a 2nd (spare) guitar. As the Standard's price was about 2/3 of a JTV it seemed logical to have it, especially knowing that their hardware is the same. My idea was to roll Standard back to 1.9 immediately after buying, so have a sonically equal guitar with my 89F – but then it came to light that although hardware is the same, some software restrictions apply. I was not satisfied with that because I frankly could not understand why Line6 restricts rolling back on software side when there is no restriction on hardware side. So I decided to make an experience and put my JTV main board to my Standard and voila: it started to show up in Line6 softwares as JTV. Kind of a Frankenstein's creature: Standard body, JTV software. So (at least to myself) I proved that it is possible to have a sonically identical JTV and 89F with 1.9 software version. Now I am hard at trying to convince Line6 via psarkissian to elimit that software restriction. I think they could make happy not just me but another bunch of Standard owner guys and girls out here. :-)

Dear psarkissian, Shorthand I understood, what I did not was "ever so slight", what did you mean by that? I understand all your technical background explanation but as I was able to use 89 main board in Standard without any problem (alternate tuning knob label/sound issue I don't regard as a problem because it could easily be solved) I dare to say that they are identical from hardware point of view, their only difference is firmware, which in case of 89 allows rolling back to 1.n and in case of Standard it does not allow. And this I regard as a policy issue because it solely depends on Line6's decision. So I fully agree with amsdenj's proposal that Line6 should listen to customers' voice and let them decide if they want to roll back on Standard to 1.n or not. The hardware is capable of doing that.

Dear psarkissian, I acknowledge that there may be slight differences in switching layouts and therefore 59/69/89/Standard might need some firmware adjustment – although the harness connectors (and therefore I think harnesses also) are the same on (at least 89's and Standard's) main boards. I am 100% sure that there is no difference between the hardware of 89 and Standard, the only difference is the firmware loaded into their main boards in the factory. The firmware identifies to Monkey and to Workbench (and also to POD HD) that which guitar is attached to the computer/multieffect, and then based on this identification rolling back firmware to 1.n is allowed (JTV case) or not allowed (Standard case). Otherwise how would I have been able to replace my Standard's main board with my 89F's mainboard and have the Standard identified by Monkey/Workbench/POD HD as JTV, can you please explain to me? Furthermore –as English is not my mother tongue– would you please also explain what does it mean when you write: "Re: #2, ever so slight. But then, I hear it 'cause I've serviced Standards and hundreds of JTV's." Is my understanding correct that you hear the difference among different Variax body types when models are used? Does this mean that Line6's advertisement that modelled sounds are totally the same regardless of the body type/shape of Variax guitars is not 100% true?

Dear psarkissian, The switching layouts of 59 and 69/89/Standard are different, but there is no difference between 69/89 and Standard. That is why 89F main board worked perfectly in my Standard, with the exception of alternate tunings' sound and labels on the knob – but that was easy to solve with saving custom tunings. If I wanted I could order a 89 tuning knob and there would not be any problem with that, factory programmed tunings would be the same ones as indicated on the knob. So in case of 5-place pick-up switch equipped guitars there is nothing to do with hardware/software functionality, I am sure, because I have experienced it. Regarding firmware optimization: 1) In the JTV advertisements Line6 mentioned that the models sound exactly the same regardless of the body shape difference of 59/69/89. 2) Now you say that JTVs and Standard have different bodies, there will be a different tone colour. Why would only Standard be different in tone colour if all four models have different bodies? In case of 59/69/89 Line6 was able to solve the different body/same tone question in case of Standard Line6 was not able? I do not believe that. So either statement 1) or 2) is not true. According to my technical knowledge about guitars and electronics, piezo pick-ups are independent from body resonation because they pick up the signal directly from the ringing of the strings. Then it is digitalized (A/D conversion) and processed with your wonderful software to model famous instruments and then it is turned back to analogue signal (D/A conversion). So in my opinion Statement 2) is not correct. By ruling out technical factors as you can see above, we are back at the strange policy issue. Do you agree with me? :-)

Yes, you are right. Model choices were not a problem, but alternate tunings sounded differently from the labelled ones. So I also tried to save the personal tunings (=match the tunings with the tuning knob labels) and it also worked perfectly. The only difference is the backlight of the tuning knob: when the original programmed tunings work the knob's LED is pink, when any of the ones I changed/reprogrammed, the LED is blue. Otherwise everything is totally identical. Moreover, the two boards are totally the same, even the part numbers and some date-ID codes also. So I do believe (better word: know) that JTV and Standard hardwares are the same, the only difference between them is in the software. I can understand why Line6 restricts Standards to be rolled back to 1.n version (you have to sell all those JTVs on stock), but maybe it would be a more sincere policy and decision to let your customers decide whether they want to roll back or not. Only those few lines of codes should be removed that identifies whether a board attached to the computer is built into a JTV or into a Standard... By giving us this freedom the sales volume of the alternate tuning knobs may increase a lot... :-)

I authorized myself by sacrificing the warranty. :-) If Men In Black would come for me I wish they were the Blues Brothers searching for a stand-in guitar player... ;-)

Curiosity made its victory over common sense, so I decided to make a small experience - knowing that I may loose warranty... So I took the main board from my JTV89F and replaced the one in the Standard with it. And it turned out to be working... :-) L6 Monkey identified my Standard-bodied Variax as a James Tyler Variax, so did my Pod HD500X. Everything worked perfect and flawlessly, all my guitar tones were accurately loaded via the Variax cable when changing patches on the Pod. Using the analog output of the Standard was also perfect. The only difference was –as I had expected before– that the labels on the alternate tuning switch did not match with the ones coming from the guitar: the sounds were of course the alternate tunings of the JTV89F. Despite of this everything else was okay. Conclusion: there is some software restriction which does not allow Standard to be rolled back to 1.n software version It is a pity, because it clearly proves that we are talking about a strange policy issue (from customers' point of view) and not about a software/hardware incompatibility issue anymore. I am sorry about that. But finally there is a solution for having Standards running on 1.n: the main board has to be replaced, it only takes 15-20 minutes to do. Pros: - anyone can use 1.n Variax software on his/her Standard, if it is his/her preference - anyone can have a sonically identical JTV and Standard as 2nd axe - anyone can have a spare main board running 2.n software taken out from his/her Standard, because Cons: - a spare JTV69/JTV89/JTV89F main board shall be purchased (~130$, still cheaper than a used JTV) - and be installed after opening the back of the Standard, so - warranty can be lost

Dear Clay-man, You may be right... but I am still loving more the sound of 1.9 than any 2.n, it's just my blocked old mind. :-)

Factual information: 1.9 was issued on 7 Nov 2012, at the moment it is only 1196 days old, which is less than 3.5 years. Personal opinion: If a firmware is newer it does not automatically mean that it is better. For me 1.9 is much better than 2.n. I tried at least 3 times 2.1 on my JTV89F and have always returned to 1.9. De gustibus non est disputandum.

Dear psarkissian, Thank you for confirming the issue. Bad news, unfortunately. And basically I do not see the idea behind it. I have just compared the guitar models in JTV's and Standard's Pilot Guides: they are totally the same. Even the alternative tunings are the same in case of JTV 59, JTV 69 and Standard, only JTV 89 is different. So the switch and knob layout should not be a problem from rolling back point of view. I think this issue is as a very strange and non-user friendly policy - because there is no real technical reason behind it. I might consider to sell my Standard, because this way it cannot act as a sonically identical back-up axe for my JTV 89F.

Dear psarkissian, I haven't got the time to check the forum recently and only now I see your kind offer of help. Thanks in advance. Did you have the chance to test the rolling back and forward between 1.9 and 2.n in case of a Standard? I would be happy if you could do that and share the secret with us. Regarding "cheating" and labelling on the knobs: I think I could live with it. :-) If not, I still can make the model order and tunings to match with the labels in Workbench, I think. Thanks for your answer in advance!