Crusty_Old_Rocker

The patch levels will be dramatically affected by the amp modelling that you're using. If you are using the "Pre" modelling and the DT's power amp topography & NFL, the levels will differ quite a lot, particularly if switching between class A and class AB. The different pre amps all have different gain structures and they all hit the power amp at different levels too. Think of it this way, if you put a real 85 Watt Fender Twin Reverb next to a real 30 Watt VOX AC30 and check out the volume difference, you'll be amazed at just how loud that AC30 is. The physical differences in the circuitry are responsible for this and the Pod HD with DT amp is duplicating those differences. It gets much easier to balance levels when using different amp models if you use the full amp models in the Pod HD and select class A Topo I on the DT amp for all patches. This means that the amp tone is a finished product going into the DT amplifier and using class A Topo I will minimise the effect of the DT power amp on your tone. You can then balance patches using the channel volume. Don't be afraid to tweak the deep editing parameters on the amp modelling to get the tone you're looking for. Cheers, Crusty

You might notice a DT Amp in the little pic with my posts. :D As I mentioned, I have a preference for open back cabs too. It's like the speaker is free to do its thing. I have also used FRFR PA speakers for amp modelling and get great results for simulating the sound of the modelled speaker cabs. So, it really comes down to what you prefer and what you're aiming to achieve with the gear. Cheers, Crusty

Yeah, it really looks like a hardware issue within the unit. Monkey does some deeper checking within the hardware to ensure that it's genuine working Line 6 gear, I suspect that might be why it only sees it in safe mode. You could tell the seller that you'll buy it once the Variax input is working correctly. Cheers, Crusty

It can be done. The easiest way is to have your patch locations synchronised on the two devices. The midi from the HD500 will select the patch on the Pro. It's a simple program change command. You can get fancy and spread the patches across the two devices, but it does get fiddly. Cheers, Crusty

Try this little trick. Build a patch with two parallel signal chains using identical settings. Put a "boost compressor" at the beginning of one of the signal chains before your distortion effects, leave the other without. Use the boost compressor to drive things and add a decent dose of compression (get yourself plenty of sustain) use the signal chain without the compressor to keep your playing dynamics and attack. There are many ways to really get the drive to go over the top. Using the above trick on high gain amp models can deliver some impressive results. Cheers, Crusty

If using a Variax, put the loop up to first position in the chain and drop your distortion/overdrive into the loop there. It's less than optimal because the loop will be running at line level. Play with your loop levels to get the pedal to do its magic. Cheers, Crusty

You'll most likely find that it's the input and output settings. Just double check them. Cheers, Crusty

The VDI transports control data in MIDI format as well as the audio (digital) along with power to the Variax. Workbench and Monkey will just be using the control data, not the audio. So it could be just the wires that transport the digital audio that's mucked up. Cheers, Crusty

The greatest impact on the sound will be the open back of the combo vs the closed (ported) cab used with the head. I have the DT50 combo and I have DT25 heads with cabs. The open back of the combos give a more open sound wheras the ported closed back speaker cabs are tighter and tend to have more bass. The 12AX7 and EL84 valves handle the vibration within combo amps fairly well, so rattling the valves isn't a big issue, but it can be if you're playing loud. Personally, I'm a bit torn between the two there are advantaged and disadvantages for both. While generally speaking I prefer the sound of open backed combos, the closed back on the DT25 cab works really well for modelled tones. Cheers, Crusty

If you're driving your power amp then the valves will be playing an audible role in the output tapped. If you have the HD500 in the equation, you can use the deep editing options to simulate the power amp characteristics that you prefer. Personally, if I were not going to mike the DT and I'm using a Pod HD500, I'd leave the DT amp out of the equation. But, that's just what I'd do. There are plenty of options available to you. Cheers, Crusty

I have always gone with the whammy bar option. The reasoning is that use of the whammy bar features strongly with some of the modelled guitars like the Gretsch. Having a whammy bar rounds off some of the modelled guitars. Cheers, Crusty

I have the 75 for use in my lounge room. I'm not allowed to put my DT amps in the lounge room but the AMPLIFi 75 is the perfect addition to a guitarist's lounge room. The 75 won't do for band gigging but a guitar vocal stint in a coffee shop would suit this little amp. Cheers, Crusty

To me the design appears to be centred squarely on playing along to music that you have on your iPhone, iPod or iPad. When you take that into consideration the design seems to make sense. If the intention were to build your music library around existing tones, then certainly, I'd be wanting to see all the existing tones and add the songs to my music library. I have switched off the auto load option and I have told the app not to show tones that don't match the songs in my music library. I would like to see the option to have it load matching tones from My Tones without auto loading from the cloud though. When I build a tone, I'd prefer to have that one as my "go to" for a particular song rather than something that someone else has built. Cheers, Crusty

Rowbi's right. You can save tones onto your iDevice as My Tones, but there isn't a way to organise them. When you play a song the app will still go and retrieve tones online. Cheers, Crusty

The control data is MIDI and the audio is digital (AES). Cheers, Crusty

I'm pretty excited by the potential of this amp. In some ways it's getting back to the Vetta with all the amp and effects modelling in the amp along with wet and dry signal routing. One thing I always wish my Vetta had was tweeters for the acoustic tones. It combines some of the neat ideas of the Spider Jam into something that's gig worthy. The main shortfall for me is no VDI with Variax control assigned to patches. If that were added into the next iteration of this amp then we'd have a Vetta III. I can see myself using this amp for everything from practice, through guitar/vocal solo/duo work to band gigging. I can deal with manually contolling the Variax and using the G30 wireless really frees me and the backing tracks up from being tethered to an amp. I just wonder if there is some way that Variax control might be implemented via the USB port? Can't wait to get myself one of these. Cheers, Crusty

I'm a little confused. Why are you playing the 700 when you could roll back your JTV to 1.9? Why can't you roll your JTV back to 1.9? Cheers, Crusty

The firmware update procedure is a bit unique in that the main part of the firmware (the “application†so to speak) is updated, separately to the models. You can have a state were the guts of the firmware will update but something could go wrong with the models. Typically, there would be an error reported late in the update process and reconnecting the guitar to Monkey will show the updated firmware version, giving the impression that the update was successful, but the modelling side of the firmware could be messed up. It's a good idea to make sure that the update process completes both stages fully without any errors by ensuring that Monkey reports that the update has been successful. If you don't get that message from Monkey, then the firmware upgrade may be incomplete. I had this problem occur when updating my JTV69 using the Workbench interface. Using the POD HD Pro for the update worked (even though Workbench HD only works using the interface). So, if Monkey isn't reporting a successful firmware installation, try using another device as the interface for the firmware. Cheers, Crusty

Then fire up Workbench and adjust your JTV to make a guitar that suits you personal taste. What JTV do you have? You're not constrained to the defaults. Ron Huisen got the Variax to sound more like a Strat than the default, so you can certainly make the JTV sound less like a genuine Fender Strat to suit your personal taste. It's all good. Cheers, Crusty

You're right, it's just that Ron Huisen's patch sounded more consistent with my genuine Fender Strat. They do all sound Stratty. I'm just providing the outcome of my direct comparisons between Variax 700 (v1.9 equivalent), JTV69 with v1.9 and v2.0 firmware and a genuine Fender Stratocaster all of which I have with me right here and now, that's all. Cheers, Crusty

It's funny, I like the look of my Cherry Burst 700 over my Lake Placid Blue JTV69. But across every other dimension, the JTV69 is a much better instrument. Cheers, Crusty

What JTV and Strats are you currently using in your comparisons? Having owned and played many Strats over the past 37 years, I do have a bit of an idea of what a strat sounds like. My current Strat is a 2008 American Deluxe V Neck. I also have owned a Variax 600 and still currently have a Variax 700 and a JTV69. The Strat model on my Variax 700 comes from Ron Huisen's "Patch Creativity Bundle". I replaced the Strat model on my Variax 600 and Variax 700 with that Strat model becuause Ron's version sounded more like my real Strats than the official Variax versions (which are what was in v1.9 on the JTV). I won't have to use Ron Huisen's Strat patch on my JTV69 with the HD modelling because it now sounds more like the Strat I currently own and the many other Strats that I've owned and played over the years. But, that's just me. I'm more than happy to let others prefer the stock v1.9 Strat, to each their own. However, I found the v1.9 Strat wasn't as accurate as Ron Huisen's patch, but I find that I don't need to alter the v2.0 Strat to get an accurate Strat sound out of it. I just wanted to clarify that I actually have, sitting right next to me, a Variax 700 with the equivalent of the v1.9 Strat (in the FACTORY bank) plus Ron Huisen's Strat patch (in the USER bank), a JTV69 with v2.0 firmware and a real live Fender Stratocaster for direct comparisons that I have made using a variety of real and modelled amps. Based on those comparisons, I find the JTV69 v2.0 firmware the most consistent with my real live Fender Stratocaster. Cheers, Crusty

So, at a gig, while playing a Variax with v2.0 firmware, how many members of the audience are going to walk out and demand a refund because they prefer the sounds of the v1.9 firmware? Just asking. :P Cheers, Crusty

I'm often flummoxed by comments like this. The aim of the modelling is to sound like the real thing, not some caricature or derivative of the real thing. Similar comments have been made in the past about the amp modelling, where people have preferred sanitised amp modelling rather than "warts and all" amp modelling where some chariteristics of the modelling (e.g. power capacitor bleed) were acurately included in the modelling, but people wanted those true characteristics removed. If people prefer to have a Strat model that doesn't actually sound like a Strat, where does that leave those who do want the modelling to accurately reproduce the true sound of the real thing? I recognise that it's all about preferences and individual tastes, but if the aim is to reproduce the sound of a real Strat and people struggle to differentiate the two, then I belive the modelling has achieved its goal. BTW, I have an American Deluxe Strat and the Variax does a great job of sounding plenty Stratty to me. Cheers, Crusty

Good to hear, that one in the YouTube video is a train wreck (and I don't mean a train wreck brand amp). That amp had some serous problem. Cheers, Crusty