Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Jump to content
Line 6 Community
Welcome to the Line 6 forums!
Apply to Join our Public Beta Testing Program!
Limited Support of Legacy Products
New Forum For Discussing Tones

edstar1960

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    976

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

 Content Type 

Everything posted by edstar1960

  1. edstar1960
    Good idea jandrio. If another v2.32 user would like to test loading it to their HD500 then by all means please try and report back. I have attached it. PA User 1 - tweaked with v262.zip
  2. edstar1960
    The Global EQ was off. I saved both Set Lists one after the other, just before I performed the fw roll back on the HD500. Both Set Lists saved under latest HD500 Edit. One of them was able to be SENT to the HD500 at fw v2.32 with no issues and the other one repeatedly hit the UNKNOWN ERROR issue but apparently still had all values sent and saved on HD500. Neither Set List had been manipulated after saving - they were just saved. When I re-installed fw 2.62 on the HD500, then resent the set list that had previously issued the UNKNOWN ERROR, it worked fine. No biggie. There must be something within fw 2.32 that behaves differently to fw 2.62 when receiving a Set List from latest HD500 Edit - hence the UNKNOWN ERROR. and whatever that something is it does not happen for every Set List. Something about my User Set List that has triggered it - but I really don't know what it could be - because all my patches are set up for use with a Variax just like the Line 6 Supplied Variax Set List. Maybe "something" happened (a corrupt bit ?) to the particular backup that causes an issue when sent to v2.32 but is ok at v2.62. ?? I don't know - I am just guessing at possibly logical reasons why it may have occurred. I think a Set List will just contain parameter values and names of the set list and patches - I don't see why it needs to contain anything else - therefore I can't see why a v2.62 saved Set List that only utilises pre 2.62 available models would not be compatible with fw 2.32. It's not a problem for me any more though as it works fine with everything is in step and at the latest level. I am just curious about the reason why but I won't lose any sleep over it. :) Thanks everyone for your input.
  3. edstar1960
    I agree there must be some difference which accounts for the unknown error. Remember that I used the latest HD500 Edit version at all times. I saved the Variax Set List and my User Set List with latest HD500 Edit with my HD500 at v2.62. I restarted latest HD500 Edit and opened my saved Variax Set List and successfully sent it to HD500 at v2.32 I then opened my saved User Set List and sent that to HD500 at v2.32 but it reported the unknown error at the end but appeared to successfully write the set list. The Variax Set List may well have been created under an earlier fw release BUT I saved it as a SetList under v2.62, just like my User Set List which I originally created under v2.32 but saved under v2.62. BUT the Variax Set List was saved back to the HD500 without error but the User Set List was not. I don't see what the difference could be. Neither Set List references the new models in any of the patches. Both were saved under v2.62 so if there were any differences in format due to license manager or amp model inventories then both Set Lists should have had those changes and both should have hit same error being written back to v2.32.
  4. edstar1960
    Thanks very much for the advice. I decided to abandon my comparison attempts and instead re-installed fw 2.62, did the global reset, pedal calibration, and then used Hd500 Edit to open my previously saved user list and send it to my HD500, and it worked fine. Unsure why the Variax Set List which was introduced with v2.62 can happily be sent to an HD500 at v2.32, but my User set list saved at v2.62 cannot. If it was just a firmware compatibility issue then surely both would have failed? Unless, the Variax Set List was initially created and saved under v2.32, in which case it could be due to a difference in how things are stored under v2.62 which makes them incompatible with v2.32.
  5. edstar1960
    I have not purchased any of the new amp bundles - so I am just using existing amp models in my patches. I didn't roll back HD500 Edit - I was still on the latest of everything except the firmware. However, the supplied Variax Set List that came with v2.62 was successfully written back to the v2.32 HD500 with the latest HD500 Edit. But my own User Set List - saved with latest HD500 edit from HD500 with v2.62, was not successfully written back by latest HD500 Edit to HD500 at v2.32. That's odd. The only difference between the two is that I have probably tweaked a few params in my own set list directly from the HD500 while it was at v2.62.
  6. edstar1960
    Today I decided to roll back my HD500 from fw v2.62 to fw v2.32 so I could compare them to see if my tone changed at all on existing patches. First off I connected my HD500 to PC and backed up my User Set list, and the supplied Variax set list. I then rolled back the fw. I only rolled back the fw to v2.32 and did not roll back any other software on any other components so everything else is latest level. It said flash update successful after the first requested power on reset. I then performed the 2nd power on reset to reinitialise the Global parameters. (Hold left key down) I then performed the 3rd power on reset to re-calibrate the expression pedal. (Hold right key down) I then performed final power on reset to get back to standard operation and connected to PC via USB Started up HD500 Edit Received the patches from the HD500 Navigated to Set List User 1, and used HD500 Edit to open up the previously saved Variax Set list and then sent that to HD500 - all OK Navigated to Set List User 2, and used HD500 Edit to open up previously saved User Set list, and then sent that to HD500. Just after the status box reports 95% complete, I get the error pop up message - see attachment. . So, I follow the recommended steps. Closed HD500 edit. Powered on and off HD500. Rconnected to PC. Restarted HD500 edit. Re-opened the saved User Set List and sent it again - same error. DId this about 3 times - same error every time. Last time, I loaded a blank set list and sent that to the unit first and then tried sending the saved user set list - same error. I decided to go and try my HD500 with my JTV and L2M to see if the User Set List worked correctly as it appeared to have downloaded to the HD500 despite the error message. From my limited testing, it appears to be OK. But do I have a corrupt patch in there somewhere that is going to bite me in the middle of a gig when I least expect it? Why am I getting this error message? And what can I do to fix it? Or can I ignore it? Thanks in advance for your help
  7. edstar1960
    Here is a patch from my HD500 that gets a pretty good distortion tone with the Variax Tele model on the HD500 Blackface Lux model which you are welcome to try. See attached zipped file TeleLux. TeleLux.zip
  8. edstar1960
    I just tried the same patch on my HD500 through an L2m, Behringer B210D, Studiomaster Gx12a, in quick succession. I left each of the active PA speakers on their flat settings and played at a similar volume. The patch sounded totally different on each one. I tried to adjust the EQs on the B210D and GX12A to get them to match the L2m but couldn't do it, they got closer on sound but they were still altering the patch sound a fair bit. This is why when people go direct to the board in different venues they end up with different sounds because each PA will have different power amps and different speakers and that messes with their patch tones. Same thing for different guitar amps. If you are not going to play through the same setup on which you created the patch then be prepared for it to sound different and be prepared to re-tweak back to the sound you want.
  9. edstar1960
    Thanks to pfsmith0 - he has shown that GLOBAL EQ, whether ON or OFF does affect extreme low and high end frequencies. See this thread: http://line6.com/support/topic/13346-global-eq-frequency-response-plots/ That may well explain some of the "better sound" reports. It may also explain why recordings before and after the upgrade sound the same because the GLOBAL EQ does not affect the USB outputs - assuming recordings made using USB connection. Unfortunately for me, it doesn't explain why my HD500 tone has changed, I am getting an increase in low end and a cut in high end, and possibly some cut in high mids. Almost like a diagonal line on a graph starting above flat line at low end and ending below flat line at high end. I also hear a difference when using L6 Link which GLOBLA EQ does not affect. I may try a re-flash to see if anything changes if I get time this weekend.
  10. edstar1960
    I agree. :) I agree :)
  11. edstar1960
    Any ideas why this might be happening? Thanks.
  12. edstar1960
    But the Parametric EQ only allows you to select one band along with the high and low shelves. Wouldn't it be good to have one with the same control parameters as the GLOBAL EQ, but be an available EQ fx block that can be added in to a chain as and when needed? Rather than have to use multiple blocks to load multiple EQ fx blocks to get the same result? Are you referring to Duncann's ideascale request? Or the suggestion above by perapera? I thought the suggestion was to have another EQ fx block with the same controls as Global EQ, which could be applied to individual patches instead of having to use a combination of existing EQ fx blocks, PLUS, keep the GLOBAL EQ as it is for when you need to adjust ALL your patches at once to a specific venue.
  13. edstar1960

    Fizz...

    edstar1960 replied to EddieVanSilva's topic in POD HD

    I have found that fizz can be lessened if the amps dep BIAS control is raised above default 50 .... essentially the nearer 100 you get the less fizzy the sound seems to be. When using a full amp model you may also want to back off the amps MASTER dep control a bit too - this will ease off on the modelled power amp distortion in the patch. Plus lower the RESONANCE value on the cab model - it boosts low end and high end frequencies - I suggest turn it down from default of 50 to 0 - which effectively turns it off - see if you like it without RESONANCE and then introduce it back in a little at a time to see how much or little of it you need, perhaps notching up by 5 or 10 at a time to see how the sound is affected. Also try a different MIC with the CAB model to pick one that matches the frequencies you want to highlight - some of those mic's really do boost the high end stuff. Also, use one of the EQ's that allows you to introduce a HIGH end cut and set it to about 7K or lower to cut out any unwanted top end noise. Hope that helps.
  14. edstar1960
    Yes - they could not provide GLOBAL EQ for all outputs because the architecture of L6 Link, which allows the signal to be "tapped" from several points in the signal path, would mean that several copies of GLOBAL EQ would have to be active, essentially a copy for each "tap" point and from code optimisation they could only free up enough DSP to have one copy of GLOBAL EQ available at all times. The intent was that the most DSP hungry patch before GLOBAL EQ existed (ie: one that effectively used all available DSP) would still be able to load and run once GLOBAL EQ had been activated - so GLOBAL EQ would be a transparent update even though in effect it has constantly got a little piece of DSP reserved for it. If they introduced another EQ fx module that essentially provided the same parameters and controls as global EQ, then that could be selected by a user and included in a patch just like any other fx. It would be under DYNAMIC DSP allocation control - just like all the other fx. It would not be GLOBAL EQ but a specific patch EQ with similar controls. The GLOBAL EQ would still be sitting there in the background ready for master venue EQ use affecting all output - but the new EQ module could be used as and when for each patch as needed, and assuming the particular patch has the spare DSP to run it. As they have the code available and tested and implemented - how difficult would it be to port it to a standalone fx module, assignable per patch and updatable via HD edit? I am not holding my breath - and I am certainly not counting on it happening - but I think it would be a fairly simple task for them if they chose to do it and it would be nice to have ..... :)
  15. edstar1960
    But if the Global EQ was packaged as a standalone EQ that could be allocated to an FX block then it would be available in HD Edit as a standalone fx block and would be within the patch chain - so it would be able to be applied to every output. I think that is what perapera means as opposed to the actual GLOBAL EQ being assignable and used within each patch.
  16. edstar1960
    Thanks for your input and for sharing your experience. It's nice to know that we are not all imagining the improvement. Hope to hear from some more users with similar experiences. Personally, I can't hear any difference on my 1/4" outputs between GLOBAL EQ being ON and OFF when using default settings. However, v2.62 does seem to have improved the tonality of my HD500 existing tones across all outputs - even the L6 Link out which is unaffected by Global EQ. So, for me at least, I don't think the improvement is directly down to the Global EQ but it may be a side effect of the code optimisation which was performed to allow implementation of Global EQ. YMMV. It's all good though! :)
  17. edstar1960
    Thanks for your input and suggested possible explanation. :) My experience has been that the Global EQ on default settings on the 1/4" outputs makes no difference ON or OFF - it sounds the same to me. I still think my existing HD500 patches with the previous amp models sound better with fw v2.62 though. For me it sounds like the top end has been reduced and the bottom end increased resulting in a warmer richer sound, before I was always having to EQ out what I perceived as a harshness and treble bias to the tones but that is no longer the case with v2.62. I also notice the improvement when using L6 Link which is unaffected by Global EQ.
  18. edstar1960
    Yep. Using JTV59. I am assuming people will be A/B'ing using the same setup - otherwise it really is a non starter. Dave did A/B side by side but he didn't record his samples but I have no reason to believe ear fatigue had anything to do with his experience. The others, like me, played before and after and noticed a difference when they reloaded their old presets. Again, ear fatigue doesn't hit you from a few moments listening to a well known patch, then listening again after the upgrade and noticing it sounds different. I am not completely ruling out ear fatigue or just misperception ........ but if users think it is just that then they don't usually bother to say... and the reported incidents have not been after messing around for hours or trying loads of patches .... it is just a before and after experience ..... and some of the more experienced guys on here have said the same thing ......... so I figured it is worth collecting details at least. If anyone has got an A/B audio sample that they could post demonstrating the before and after sounds with the same guitar and same patch just with different firmware then that will be great. However, if nobody can produce a before and after that sounds different then we will just have to file under x-files ..... :) Thanks for your input everyone! :)
  19. edstar1960
    I hear you! LOL ;) Ear fatigue is real and so is misperception. I am very aware of both in regards the HD500. So why did I bother with raising this thread? User one is David who has an HD500 and an HD500X, he had both at latest fw levels and he A/B'd them using the same patch and he could tell that the HD500 sounded more treble-y/harsh. He upgraded both to v2.62 and then A/B'd them with the same patch and discovered that they now sound the same - the treble-y/harsh quality has now gone from the HD500. User two - myself - I tried out an existing patch before the upgrade - backed everything up - did the upgrade - overwrote everything - performed the global reset and pedal recalibration - reloaded in ,y previous setlist - tried the same patch again and it sounded les treble-y/harsh than before. I had not been playing for hours (just a few mins before the upgrade and a few mins after) so I can rule out ear fatigue. I have left it for a few days and gone back to it and it still sounds warmer and richer and better than it used to. I did not record a sample before and after so it could be my ears playing tricks on me or just a misperception on my part. I had noticed several other people mentioned that their HD sound improved after the upgrade - so I thought it worthwhile to gather all the "perceived difference" info in one thread, to see whether there is enough evidence to rule out "it's just in our heads" . Since then I have seen in the different threads that other users have also experienced the "it sounds better" after the upgrade ..... so it could just be a matter of mass delusion rampaging through the boards ...... or it could be that the upgrade has made a sonic difference to the units. :) This thread is for all those that have heard a difference and don't believe it's misperception or ear fatigue to record their experience and their setup so we can all review the data. :) The data can then be filed in the Line 6 X-FILES and we can get Mulder and Scully to investigate! ;)
  20. edstar1960
    BTW - I am interested in all instances where users have heard a tonal change once they have upgraded whether they think the unit sounds better or worse. It seems a number of people have thought it sounds better after the upgrade - so would be good to get a handle on how many people and why they think the tone has changed and to record details of their setup in case we can spot an obvious trend. Thanks again.
  21. edstar1960
    My setup: JTV59 > VDI > HD500 > USB > DAW JTV fw v2.21 HD500 fw v2.62 Chosen JTV model Lester Bridge unmodified compared against JTV59 bridge. Chosen HD500 patch - my own custom built using Marshall 100 model. The patch has a Hard Gate and then the Amp model, followed by a parametric EQ to remove the harshness around 3K, and then a Vintage pre EQ to remove bottom (80hz) and top (7khz) ends, and then finally a room reverb. And then a blank patch with both L + R sides boosted by 6db at mixer stage. Noted behaviour: On my custom patch the Lester Model drives the Marshall 100 amp model slightly harder than the JTV mags. (There is less difference on the recordings than I can hear on headphones A/B ing the two sounds - the mags always produce a clearer slightly less driven tone). On the blank patch the Lester Model has way less volume than the JTV mags. Attached sound file showing Marshall patch with Lester model followed by JTV mags, and then blank patch showing Lester model followed by JTV mags. Question: If the JTV mags are so much louder than the modelled Lester Bridge, then why does the modelled Lester bridge drive the Marhsall 100 model harder than the louder JTV mag bridge humbucker? I expected the louder pickup signal to drive the model amp harder but it is the other way around in this instance. JTV-Model-Mags-Compare.zip
  22. edstar1960
    First thing to do is backup your existing presets and set lists. Perform the v2.62 update and overwrite everything. Perform global reset and expression pedal calibration. Then overwrite the patches and set lists installed with your backed up patches and set lists. You can name all the set lists whatever you want and have them all containing your custom patches, it is entirely up to you. You don't need to keep the installed patches or set lists.
  23. edstar1960
    Yes. Monkey detected both JTV fw update and WB HD update, so I selected them and applied them one at a time.
  24. edstar1960
    Just recently I updated my HD500 to v2.62 and had to re-calibrate the expression pedal. Had this same issue again as I had tried it before on previous fw updates and had issues. Last time just gently manipulating pedal got around it for me, but this time it wasn't having any of it. On the 3rd attempt, I pressed the C button and got the wrong readings, so I pressed it again and tried again, and then again and suddenly the figures changed to 0 to 255. I know? Go figure. Anyway - that got me around the issue too. No idea why the process is so flakey!
  25. edstar1960
    OK - then I think you need to raise a support ticket with Line 6. Monkey 1.70 should be able to determine that v2.21 is latest for JTV and not v2.10. It should take you through the necessary steps. Or if you prefer, you can try to do the install manually by downloading the relevant update files from the Line 6 Support DOWNLOAD area - that shows v2.21 as the latest JTV fw and gives you an option to download it directly. I have never tried the manual install - I have always used Monkey as it points out which parts need to be updated - so your first step is to run Monkey to see which components it associates with your JTV (even though it says v2.1 is latest) - just to see what components you need to check eg; DRIVERs, USB, FLASH etc ... then you need to check the download page to see what the latest version of each of those components are and install them accordingly. For example, you may need updated Drivers so they should be done first, then updated USB code, then updated flash. I am sorry I can't be more precise with the manual install stuff - but I have seen plenty of people in other threads say they have done it that way - so there should be plenty of users out there who can help you if you choose to go that way. Hope you get it fixed.
×
×
  • Create New...