edstar1960

If you are going to use it as your main amp and back line then put it on a speaker pole and use it like that when creating patches. If you are going to use it as just a monitor to hear yourself and allow the FOH PA take care of your main sound, then put it on the floor with the handle as a tilt back in the monitor position and use it like that to create your patches. I would avoid using it standing vertically on the floor because the bass response will vary dramatically depending on what type of floor or stage it is sitting on. Hope that helps.

If the tail piece causes the string tails to pass over the bridge at a shallower angle then you have changed the "string break angle" at the bridge. The break angles at both the nut and the bridge do effect how strings feel. Generally the steeper angle the stiffer the stings feel. So a shallower angle will produce strings that "feel" lighter to play. Google "guitar string break angle" to read more. The Gibson tune-o-matic bridge and stop tail allows you to increase or decrease the break angle at the bridge by lowering or raising the stop tail. I don't understand why that could lead to lower action and no fret buzz unless it's because the looser feeling strings mean you don't play as hard to get the same result, so the lighter playing style results in no buzz? Just my guess. But I am glad to hear that you can achieve your desired lower action height with the tailpiece in place.

Ha ha :D Unfortunately the budget active PA speaker market is aimed at the "makin' beats" crowd .... the online video reviews I found for both TS110A and DBR10 were made by DJs. :D

I haven't had that problem but with my HD500 running into a DT25 via L6 Link it would some times sound much brighter as if some of the bass had been rolled off but a second press of the patch FS to reload the patch and suddenly the bass would be back in there. I am now using HD500 into an L2M and haven't really been aware of it re-occurring although some days I think the unit sounds more harsh and trebly. When I first installed the latest fw with the global EQ, I was sure everything sounded warmer and less harsh/trebly - but now months down the line I am back to thinking "why is it sounding harsh today?" and then promptly tweaking the treble down and boosting the bass. Maybe it's just my ears or maybe the HD500 does do things differently on some days for some reason. I would recommend that perhaps you record the scenario's you are describing just so you have evidence of what it is doing now. Then I recommend you back up all your patches individually, re-install the fw, do the global reset, re-calibrate the pedal, and load in your previous patches one at a time and check they sound the same. If it still misbehaves as before - then you have the recordings for evidence and you can open a ticket with L6 support and they should then give you an RMA so you can send the unit back to be fixed.

Thanks for your advice. You would think FRFR would mean pretty much all will sound similar but unfortunately the budget brands often don't do true FRFR - they get the speakers to sound good by artificially boosting low and high end for DJ market for example. I tried the Behringer B210D and found that it just introduced too much top end and even after dialling it back with the onboard EQ still could not get the resultant HD500 output sound to not sound either harsh or woolly - the mid-range sweet spot seemed to be totally elusive - and it has not quite got the volume to punch through the mix in a live band situation. That's why I snapped up an L2M about 2 years ago when it was on offer and overall I like it a lot but still struggle with boomy bass or ice pick treble because I have to set my sounds up at home and then end up playing louder at rehearsal or live in different rooms with different floors. For example the rehearsal room we have really enhances the boom and bass end to the point that our last rehearsal when I was playing the low E and A strings on one of my patches it sounded more like I was playing bass guitar through a bass rig than an electric guitar through an FRFR speaker emulating a Marshall amp with a 4x12 cab. I would like something lighter and more convenient for rehearsal and for smaller gigs. Currently the speakers in question cost about the following in the UK stores inclusive of VAT (20% sales tax): £219 TS110A £283 DBR10 £462 L2M The DBR10 has more input and routing options but I can live without them if that is the only difference - not worth the extra £64. If the TS110A is loud enough for band use and sounds as good as the DBR10 then clearly that is the one to try, but would be nice to hear from anyone that has directly compared the two, just to be sure. If not, then I guess I will have to find a local store that stocks both that can also demo them for me to hear for myself. Plus, if neither are in the ballpark of the L2M in terms of "sound" produced then I probably won't bother getting one.

Thank you! I will try that! :)

Just a quick update on this. I have recently changed strings on my JTV59 and while doing so decided to implement the suggestions from katiekerry and clayman about wrapping the string tails in tape and putting a strip of velcro on the bridge behind the sddles at the top of the grooves. This has greatly reduced, if not eliminated, the metallic overtones and high end bias when using the models. I have not had time yet to compare them again with the real thing but I certainly think it is a step in the right direction and so I need to go back into WB HD and re-tweak my models to cater for the new improved tonal characteristics of my JTV59. Maybe I won't need to worry about the lack of GUITAR-IN-Z at all and will be able to get close enough sounds from existing parameters. And I would recommend that anyone with a JTV59 try using a velcro strip behind the saddles, and wrapping the string tails in tape - it makes a big improvement in how the modelled guitars sound by eliminating unecessary resonances from the Tyler one-piece bridge/tailpiece..

I have ordered a tail piece and some 10mm wide black velcro today ready for next time I change my strings. However, I found some white Velcro in the cupboard and decided to slip a small piece of that under the tails just before they reach the saddles - so I loosened off my strings and snuck in the small pieces and they seem to have reduced the resonance even more and seem to have removed the clang and metallic sound! I wish I had tried this ages ago - the JTV59 sounds so much better and the models more realistic now all the metallic ringing overtones have been removed! The only downside is that I now need to go in to Workbench HD and readjust my models and also re-tweak my patches where necessary due to the tonal difference in the guitar and how each string now sounds. But - I am happy that it is sounding much better! :) That annoying resonance and metallic overtone has been bugging me for so long! I recommend everyone with a JTV59 puts the Velcro strip on the bridge just behind the saddles, and wrap the string tails with tape for good measure - or install a tailpiece. Thanks for the suggestion katiekerry. :)

Thanks for the tip arislaf. I didn't keep my patches either - I backed them up and let the install overwrite everything with the factory presets and then I loaded in my saved set list with my patches - I didn't load them one by one. However, I didn't save all my patches individually - I saved them as a set list - so I guess I can't reload the individuals one by one now. So it's worth remembering to keep individual copies of each patch too.

Thanks for the info!

OK - thanks. Do you remember if they were all for a specific amp/cab/mic combination? And if so - which amp/cab/mic combination? The upgrade was meant to be transparent - so if a particular amp/cab/mic came out of it worse than before then it would be good to know and relay to Line 6 - so that whatever went wrong can be addressed. Thanks.

Thanks for the update. Were you able to re-tweak the nasty patches so they were back to what you liked?

Sorry Max I should have been clearer with my initial post. Obviously the L2M has the speaker modes and the L6 link options which will add a premium to the price - but I was looking at just the "sound" comparison between the different options - specifically the ALTO TS110A and the YAMAHA DBR10 - and then the "sound" comparison between either of those and the L2M ignoring the other proprietary options you get with the L2M. By the way - I already have an L2M and I am interested in getting a second cheaper and lighter backup for use at rehearsals hence the question about the other two which seem to be mentioned a lot. Also as Cruisinon2 has mentioned if I want to use the new GLOBAL EQ, I have to lose the use of L6 Link which takes away one of the big advantages of the L2M. I am just interested if anyone has done a direct comparison between the TS110A and the DBR10 and what they thought, and as a bonus whether anyone has compared them to the L2m and what they thought in that case too. Thanks for chipping in though.

Has anyone directly compared using the HD500 or HD500X with the ALTO TS110A with the YAMAHA DBR10? And has anyone compared either of those speaker options with using the HD500 or HD500x with the Line 6 L2M? If so - what were your views - how did they compare? Are the more expensive Yamaha and Line 6 speakers worth the extra? Thanks.

Thanks for your comments. Interesting that some people are experiencing a difference. Unfortunately, some have had the tone get worse and in marcgtr's case he can't re-tweak to the sound he had before. So did the firmware upgrade change something that is crucial to the tone? Or did it highlight a flaw in some electrical component that is only apparent for users with a specific production run of the unit? Or can the flash update process actually cause a component to fail or become damaged? My experience has been that initially I thought it had become less harsh however recently I have been using it and finding the harshness and treble has returned I am leaving several days between use to ensure it's not ear fatigue. So I don't know if it is the firmware or if it's just the unit itself which is causing the apparent difference in tone on different days. Unfortunately there is no way of testing the unit to make sure it is all working correctly - so if there is a flakey component that is just a bit off some days we will never know until it fails outright and causes an obvious "broken" sound.

Good idea. Will have to try that too.

I might try the Velcro too next time ..... at rehearsal last night I did notice that my 3rd string has a very pronounced clang to it now on every model so wrapping tape at the end of that one seems to have not worked .... I could hear it jump out at me every time I played the string, even tried playing gently thinking it was the fact I was hitting string too hard but could not get rid of it. The 1st and 2nd strings sound much better and overall the subtle flanging sound that can be heard on some models is all but gone. Annoying that the 3rd now has the pronounced clunk ... so I will have to spend some time trying to work out how to fix it. I am toying with the idea of putting a tail piece on my JTV59 like you did with yours .... that will avoid the issue of having to tape up the ends ... but I guess you still get the resonance transferred through the bridge itself which is why you still need the Velcro?

Yes I know. And as I mentioned in my first post I tried to make it sound "similar" - I never thought they could ever be identical because they modelled a classic Tele and I have a modern made Tele which is a 60's player series - so my Tele is intended to sound similar to a 60's Tele so they should be similar but not the same. However, as described above, I found they were so far apart that the only thing left to do is to try to swap volume/tone pot values because I can't reproduce the GUITAR-IN-Z effect with the VDI connection. I will try using the model via the 1/4" connection so it is then processed the same way as the real guitar but I need to get my JTV battery charged up to be able to do that first .... but I need to do it to narrow down where the tweaks need to be made.

Thanks for sharing the guide. I have seen that before but unfortunately it doesn't talk about how to reproduce in WB the resistance due to cable type and length which the guide says affects the pickup sound "... much more than you may think". It also doesn't discuss what happens when a Variax is connected via VDI to an HD500 and how to adjust models to cater for that digital link. But it does have lots of useful stuff about how to manipulate pickups and pot values to produce fatter and thinner sounds etc ... so I will revisit that and see if I can tweak my Tmod-5 model to be more like a real Tele neck pick up sound. :)

I think they have long since lost their notes on who/how/what made their original demo tones but they may have their notes for the most recent VARIAX SET LIST that came out with the latest fw - perhaps they could at least share that with us? I agree with you that it's not unreasonable to assume that the Dream Rig will provide WOW tones right after connecting together and switching on. If only that was the reality! Yes - we can all get there - but it takes time and effort and knowledge. I have had the full set up for years now and still don't get it right - but I am inching ever closer to knowing what to do to get a great sound - but there are so many variables that can come into play that the great tone I am working on can easily turn into woolly mush or ear piercing scratchy ice pick from hell. I certainly find dialling in the sweet warm tone so many great tube amp players have really tricky - I can get close - but I end up with it being too woolly with too much bass or too scratchy, harsh with too much treble and then I flip flop between the two trying to just hit that sweet spot in between but never quite getting there! I certainly wish it was easier! It is a shame they didn't continue with the dream rig hints and tips but thank goodness for all the great and generous forum users who share their knowledge with everyone to help us get to the WOW sound.

I tried to set up my JTV TMOD-5 (neck pickup) model to be similar to my Fender 60's Player Tele neck pickup. I had my JTV connected to my HD500 with VDI and my Tele connected via 1/4" Guitar In. The HD500 connected to my PC via USB and Windows HD running. I had L mono out going to a mixing desk connected to a reference amp connected to Tannoy Reveal monitors. I just wanted to get the model strings balanced and sounding similar to the real thing - I didn't think I could get them to sound identical, just similar. So I was just using the same CLEAN sounding amp model patch in the HD500 for the comparison. Both guitars had Volume and Tone controls on Max. First off, I was surprised by how different they both sounded - the Fender Tele with rich warm notes on the 3 low strings and treble attack on the high strings but the JTV model just had high treble attack across all strings. So I looked at the GUITAR-IN-Z setting and it was set to AUTO. So I tried removing the fx blocks before the amp in the patch and when I was left just with the amp, I was getting a brighter sound but still nowhere near as bright as the JTV model. So I tried manually setting the GUITAR-IN-Z value and even with it on the highest level of 3.5M the Fender Tele did not sound quite as bright as the JTV model. It was getting closer but still far enough apart to easily be able to tell the difference. Nothing more I could do to adjust the Fender Tele tone, so I looked at options for the JTV model, and the only things available in Workbench HD are the Volume pot resistance value and the Tone pot resistance and knob position. As I always have my Tone on max, the Tone pot value was not going to be of any use, unless I decided to save a lower Tone knob position with the model. This prompted me to ask "why can't I set the input impedance for the Variax VDI just like I can with the Guitar In?". Surely that would be the best option? But it's not available. So the next question "why is it not available?". My testing with the GUITAR-IN-Z showed that those changes made a big difference to the tonal input of the guitar. Surely we should be able to do the same with the JTV? Or if not, then surely the JTV models should be very similar to the equivalent standard guitar models without any need to tweak - but they are not - they are much brighter and full of high end - well the Tele Neck pickup model certainly is. So - I could go into Workbench and spend some time experimenting with the different volume pot values to see if I could match the tonal qualities of the model with the real thing, or I could experiment with the tone pot values and setting of the knob position to achieve a similar tonal quality. But these options seem way over the top and time consuming and unnecessary when the Variax models should have the input impedance modelled in some way already or at the very lest they should respond like the AUTO setting does for Guitar In and match chosen fx or amp, but they don't. They don't appear to have any modelled tonal attenuation due to "lead length" or "Input impedance" - they seem to be constant with no high end attenuation occurring as with a real guitar/pickup/lead combination. Does anyone know why the VDI implementation does not allow for any impedance matching like Guitar-In-z ? Does anyone have any suggested values for volume and/or tone pots that I could try in Workbench HD to make the JTV Tmod-5 model behave tonally like a real Fender Tele neck pick up in terms of attenuated high end? Thanks in advance.

I think the simple answer is the same reason that our own patches sound different when we play them through different set ups at different volumes. None of us are playing the demo patches back in exactly the same scenario as when they were created - we are using different guitars, equipment and we are different players. It would be nice to know though, exactly what setups were used for the creation of each demo patch. What guitar was used, how was the patch monitored - headphones, studio monitors, FRFR PA system, power amp with 4x12 or 2x12 or a combo amp - did they go direct into a desk or a DAW - what was the output mode that was used when the patch was created, what volume was it played at, etc, etc. Not sure if they will even still have all this info for their demo patches or whether all their demo's were created in the same environment with the same guitar and gear by the same person. But if we knew that they were all created with output mode STUDIO/DIRECT in a professional studio environment with quality amp and studio monitors then at least we would know in which environment they should sound as intended, and then we can make adjustments accordingly for the environments we actually use them in.

Thanks for this suggestion clay. I just changed the strings on my JTV59 today and I wrapped the tails in masking tape before fitting them and it makes a great difference to the tone - just like you found with the JTV69 - it drastically reduces the metallic clang which was always plaguing me! I never knew if it was programming fault due to a bad flash install or a problem with my JTV59 or just poor models - but turns out it's just a bad physical design of the bridge allowing the tails to contribute to the overall sound instead of the string being cut off at the saddle with the piezo. Having the combined bridge/tailpiece on the JTV59 allows all this extraneous transmission of noise back to the piezos - along with the fact that hey can also move around a little within their pockets. Wrapping the tails is a great idea for an easy cost effective fix which drastically reduces the problem. Sure - it's a bit fiddly putting the little bit of tape on before fitting the strings but boy is it worth it! The JTV59 models sound much better! I recommend anyone with a JTV59 try wrapping the tails of their strings next time they change their strings! :) Thanks again Clay! :)

Thanks Duncann. . I have not tried every combination but out of the ones I have used the guidelines above do work to reduce fizz, but I accept that it may not always be the case for every combination, which is why I originally put the summary line about trying each suggestion in isolation first and then combining the things that work best if needed, but I have now also edited my post to indicate that the statement may not hold true for every combination of amp/cab/mic

Thanks Bill. Very true - in the end it's down to your own ears and what you think sounds best - but hopefully the guidelines above will help in isolating and removing perceived fizz. :)