brue58ski

The thing we have (I don't know if it's Aviom but it's the same idea) allows us to do our own mix in our IEM's. It's very cool. We used to have something that you just got whatever the house mix was but luckily it also had an extra stereo input. I would plug my headphone output into that to do exactly what you want to do.

That's a good one. LOL.

I do get what he's trying to do. One frustration I'm sure many of us have dealt with is no being able to hear ourselves very well in a live situation. Isn't the guitar guy turning his amp up too loud an old cliche? I like to have myself a little bit louder than the rest of the band in my IEM's That way I can be sure that I am playing the right notes. I can't focus on how my efforts are mixing with everyone else because I'm on stage. I'm not in the audience. Mixing from the stage is a bad idea if you don't have to. I'm not going to hear exactly what the audience hears. That would be what the audio engineer hears. It's up to the audio engineer to mix my efforts with everyone else. I just want to make my efforts as correct as I can make them so the audience gets the best performance I can give them. That's what does matter to the audience, the rest of the band and anyone else other than me. That's why I need to make sure I can hear myself. AND it doesn't effect what the audience hears. The best of both worlds in my opinion. Just the way I do things and the poster as well apparently. But, ya know. Whatever works for you. That's what works for me in my particular situation.

Another big aspect of True Life is, if you create something like that, many people will be offended. And it's not just true life to me. Like it or not, It is the way things are and the way it has been for at least my whole life. Is anyone actually surprised that there was a reaction? The debate as to whether people should be offended or not, is one I don't even care about. I won't judge either side. I've heard both points. Ad nauseum. I agree with aspects of both sides. I guess that's why I don't care about the "is it offensive?" debate. I've heard it my whole life. I see no end to it. But to be surprised or indignant or whatever because someone IS offended is incredibly unrealistic. Say all you want to about how people SHOULD react. TRUE LIFE is that people WILL react to it. Of course they will!! Isn't that part of the reason the band/guy did it? Isn't it part of their schitick? To get a reaction? Their canned response is the same tired old response we've heard for decades. Yes, you do have the freedom to pretty much say what you want (can't yell fire in a theater). But it's a two way street. People have a right to feel however they do about it. It is not a character flaw to be offended by what they did. I do understand why someone would. And they also have a right to express their feelings about it as well if they choose to. As far as it's supposed to be funny. Well, I don't laugh at poopie jokes anymore. But I am an old jaded fart. Oh, I don't laugh at fart jokes anymore. Hey, ya want to get a reaction from people. Fake a fart in an elevator. "What are you getting so offended for? It's not real". Hardee Har Har. Offending people is easy. Uplifting people is hard. Takes heart and mind. Something I see lacking these days. In the interest of full disclosure, I did used to laugh at poopie and fart jokes. It was usually during recess. This whole diatribe is not because I'm offended, but because I'm bored. Jeese would somebody please come up with something else. I mean this has already been done, and in a more clever way I think. (back to the Big Muff Pi). I did make a comment previously that I think it would be a sad day when people weren't offended by that but it was not because I think you shouldn't be able to do such a thing. It's because it would be an indication that people had stopped thinking for themselves. Their thoughts would have been controlled.

I'm sorry I have the floor unit. Yours is the Rackmount unit. The floor unit doesn't have that. I just looked in the manual and it is essentially a direct output from your guitar with no A/D/A conversion. It does not enter into the Helix world. It essentially completely bypasses the Helix. It's like having a guitar with two outputs. A buffer is supposed to help make the signal exactly the same going out as coming in. That was the long answer. The short answere is, yes.

I know of no Guitar Thru connection. I notice there is a Dry Thru parameter on the FX sends. The manual seems a bit vague on what it does but it sounds like normally the Send would output whatever preceded the Send block in the path it was in but as you turn it up it starts to add the "dry" guitar directly from the input with it being fully dry when it's turned all the way up. You'll just have to try it to confirm it. I can't speak to the buffered part. There is nothing about that or the Guitar Thru connection you mentioned.

Assuming you are connected to your computer via USB, if you haven't done this yet you do need to select the USB 1/2 option in your outputs. If you have Multi selected, it should be part of that. I'm not at home so my terms may be wrong.

Oooo. I didn't think of that idea. I'm gonna try that. Thanks.

I wouldn't.

What a clever statement. Never heard that before. OK. You win. :rooleyes:

Well, I've never been impressed with "clever" things like this. It's just been overdone for decades. And then for people to take the supposedly moral high road with "Gee golly! You're offended by that? I was just funnin'. Just exercising my free speech. You just need to lighten up." What a croc. Of course that's going to be offensive to a group of people and it's actually not a character flaw for them to be offended. They have every right to be offended by anything they are offended by and have every right to exercise their free speech in expressing that offense. It's just foolish to think that it wouldn't offend someone. C'mon, really? Whether it should or not is another topic but to feign ignorance that someone would be offended by that is just stupid. Do you have a right to name your distortion pedal after genitalia? Of course you do. Big Muff Pi anyone? Free speech, right? It's just tiresome and boring that one of the main ways people seem to try to exercise and prove their freedom of speech and how powerful and clever they are, is to say something that they know will offend a group of people. It's been so overdone for decades and requires little to no intelligence. Twitter anyone? We all know any one of us could EASILY come up with something that will offend somebody and of course one of the main "how can I rattle someones cage?" go to's is genitalia and overtly sexual comments. YAWN. Gee, no one's ever done that before. :rolleyes: And then look at the band's response. I'll bet they had most of that written out beforehand. I'm pretty sure they knew they would offend people. C'mon, they aren't stupid. Just their attempt at humor was IMHO. Am I offended by it personally? No, not really. I do think it's inappropriate but that's as far as my being offended goes. That humor has been around my whole life. It was kind of funny in the '60's and '70's. Now, it's just boring. Seen and heard it all before in some way or another. I am more offended by people acting shocked, surprised or indignant, that people would be offended by that. I think it would actually be a sad day for society when no one would be offended by that. It's much easier to tear something down than to build it up. That's why people do take the "offend somebody" route. It's much easier, requires little thought or intelligence and gives a false sense of power. OK, I guess I've wagged my finger enough at this. You kids be good now. Sorry if I offended anyone. But hey, "I was just funnin'. Just exercising my free speech. You just need to lighten up."

Well I've looked long enough and can't find anything to confirm he used anything other than the power soak. I know he said devices (plural) in the video but everywhere else that I can find, he doesn't. I personally think he didn't use any kind of Rockman distortion. Why would he use the power soak if he already had devices to get that sound? All of the distortion devices he has created are to be used without a Marshall which there is no doubt he used. Again, otherwise he wouldn't need the power soak. This is a bit frustrating since the main question most guitar players would want to ask would be EXACTLY what equipment did you use to get that sound? And nobody asks that specific question. Maybe he added some kind of tone shaping magic into the Power Soak. He has mentioned compression without a brand name so maybe it was a compressor circuit he had designed the he used along with the amp. Could it be the kind o compression he uses in the Rockman? The bottom line is......I have no idea really exactly what he had in his basement studio. Until I talk to him (yeah right) or someone finally pins him down we're stuck with our assumptions. But hey check this out. Supposedly it's one of the original power soaks. https://reverb.com/item/7772478-scholz-prototype-power-soak-2-owned-by-barry-goudreau-formerly-of-boston Very interesting. One of the pics shows the insides of the power soak. Check out that silver box in there. Could that be the secret? It says on top in the left hand corner OL CONTROL SIGNAL PRESENT-INDICATOR. I couldn't really make out the first letter but if it is O could it mean overload? Oh well. This was fun to explore. I always had a feeling (More Than A Feeling? (hah hah)) Tom was less than forth coming with his tone "secrets". But no matter how much I know (or don't know), I still haven't figured out how to get his sound without a special IR in the Helix (I have Glen Delaune's Boston patch that uses one). I revisit exploring his sound about once a year. Perhaps with these few new breadcrumbs it's time to try it again. I have an idea or two I'd like to try.

Just so I'm clear, my assessment is based on what the steel string IR's sounded like. Not the Nylon string IR's. I haven't tried them.

Here it is, right from Tom's mouth. He did use a power soak prototype but, as I said, I just guessed at that. I found the mic choice (was it a choice?) interesting. GW You would later go on to develop the Rockman headphone amplifier, a device that also revolutionized the process of recording guitars directly into a mixing board. Were any of the guitars on Boston recorded direct? SCHOLZ No. They were always done with a prototype of my Power Soak power attenuator, at low volume, through a standard cabinet close-miked with an Electro-Voice RE16. I was using mostly a Marshall head that sounded like doo-doo on its own, but with a Crybaby wah pedal, an EQ and these old Maestro Echoplex tape delays in front of it, it sounded really good. It was noisy as hell, so I’m sure that I was getting some preclipping before it got to the head. For guitars, I had two Gold Top Les Pauls that both sounded very similar, and that was it. Here's the whole article. It's a good read. https://www.guitarworld.com/features/interview-tom-scholz-recalls-making-boston-and-don-t-look-back

As has been pointed out in an earlier post. It doesn't require the rest of the electronics he produced since they weren't around when he made the first and second album. I think it was just a lot of clever EQ'ing once he had the amp cranked and his MXR 8 band(?) EQ in there. The power soak (the first product he produced) was first sold in 1980 two years after the second Boston album. He could have had made one for himself during the time of those two albums I suppose, but I don't think he used it in the studio since he could crank the amp up as loud as he wanted. I believe he first created it in order to get the "sound" without being overly loud when he was live. Needed to crank those power tubes, which the Helix does.

It's possible. I would try giving each piezo a squirt of this. https://www.amazon.com/DeOxit-Cleaning-Solution-Spray-spray/dp/B07CG8YVFN/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1533579342&sr=8-1&keywords=deoxit Best stuff around. I know the JTV-69's piezo's are grounded through the piezo's outer coating touching the area it's in. I believe the same is true of the JTV-89. Next time you change your strings, spray some around the piezo's. Don't worry about overspray. If that doesn't work you can buy new piezos. Here's the info if you want to do that. Thank you for the email and interest in Graph Tech. I would be happy to help with your inquiry 1) Yes, the bridge on your JTV 89F is one of our PN-0080-B0 ghost bridges 2) Yes, the saddles on this bridge are of the PN-0080-B6 variety 3) You can purchase the entire saddle (the price would be pro-rated) or simply the inserts themselves. 4) We don't have printed instructions for this process but I can spell them out very easily. If an order interests you, please provide a complete shipping address and I will generate a sales quote for your evaluation. We accept Visa, MasterCard & PayPal I await your response Best regards! Gray Bramwell Product Development & Technical Support Graph Tech Guitar Labs #5-7551 Vantage Way, Delta BC Canada V4G1C9 www.graphtech.com Toll Free: 1-800-388-7011 ext.123 (international only) t: 604.940.5353 ext. 123 f: 604.940.4961

Are you using the mic preamp?

I do wish FX like the 10 band EQ had a way to assign all of it's parameters to snapshots in a couple of steps instead of having to do it one parameter at a time.

I found no bundle to be downloaded. Do I need to join the forum before I can download it?

So 3 Sigma has some classical guitar IR's. I've tried their steel string acoustic IR's and they do make the JTV acoustics better but not what I was looking for. Unfortunately in the video example they provide in the website, the guy is using a nylon string guitar so ya can't tell what it will do to the JTV's acoustics. They are only $10 so it would be fairly cheap to try one but based on my experience with their steel string acoustic IRs, don't expect miracles. Here's their website. https://www.3sigmaaudio.com/items/category/classical-guitars/

Is there any audio? :D

Wait a minute!! Is that a music store?

So, some questions. Just for curiosities sake so don't feel any major obligation to answer. 1 Do you use everything, at one time or another, in one of your average gigs? 2 What kinds/types/styles of music do you perform that you can use all of that. 3 How long does it take to setup (or is it just in someplace permanently).

Anyone if there were any new factory patches in 2.60?

The signal chain for most amps with an FX send/return is preamp - FX send - FX return - poweramp. There are several ways to use the FX send/return with a Helix. he simple way would be to just plug the Helix into the FX returns instead of the guitar inputs of the heads. That will, though, bypass the preamp (assuming this is how the EVH 50 is wired) There is a method called the "4 cable" method that will allow you to use the amp's preamp whenever you want to or not. For your purposes you will need to use two Helix FX send/returns. This is assuming you want to maintain the stereo thing. And this is from memory as I am not at home but here goes. Program the Helix: Create a split in your patch just before the output. Make it an A/B split and pan them hard left and right. I believe both the split input and output each have a pan parameter. Program an FX send/return block into each path (A/B) of your patch after the split so your left and right outputs each have one assigned to them. Assign one FX send/return block to FX send 1 and FX return 1 and one to FX send and return 2. Cable everything up: Plug your guitar into the Helix. Plug each FX send into one of the amps guitar inputs so both amps have one Helix FX send going into each amp. Plug each amps FX send into the same Helix FX return it's getting it's Helix FX send from. Plug the Helix's left and right outputs into each amps FX return. So here is the path you are striving for Guitar -> Helix patch-> Split -> Helix FX send 1 -> amp 1 guitar input -> amp 1 FX send -> Helix FX return 1 -> Helix 1/4" left out -> amp 1 FX return -> Helix FX send 2 ->amp 2 guitar input -> amp 2 FX send -> Helix FX return 2 -> Helix 1/4" right ou t-> amp 2 FX return That's the signal path to use the amps preamp. To put it simply. Guitar - Helix - Amp input (this gets you to the amps preamp) - Helix FX return - Helix FX only patch - Helix output - Amp FX return For no preamp you simply bypass the FX send from the patches path and the amp then gets it's input signal only from the Helix output. so... Guitar - Helix - (no Helix FX send/return) - Helix patch - Helix output - Amp FX return This whole system requires some well thought out patch creation (has to do with FX send/return placement and usage) There are other things you can do (for example: you can create a pathch so both the Helix's full amps and the Amp's pream are available) but I'm running out of time so you'll need to look up the rest yourself. Or I'll finish tomorrow. Look for 4 cable method if you're going on the internet. It will be a hassle, but what you want can be accomplished. At least what i think you want i.e. stereo Helix.