jdenkevitz

Heres a video of my band. Im using a jtv into pod hd500 direct into recording pa/recording interface. Also using a Fishman Tripleplay to drive some synths.

One thing to consider is that piezo's can be problematic with Roland converters if you are attempting to use COSM modeling, and some are problematic with the midi conversion due to the microphonic nature of some piezo's. Not all piezo's perform equally. Piezo's have a wider frequency range than the magnetic GK pickups. If you want the best midi performance available right now, get a Fishman Tripleplay. It runs circles around Rolands current tech. FWIW ive used both vg99 and gr55 on my JTV's, and now have switched to the FTP.

I still prefer the acoustics in the Acoustic 700 over any other variax acoustic emulations. Including the 'HD' one in the JTV's.

I've rolled back my 69 to fw 1.9. I have a 59p on the way and will probably give fw2.0 another shot on that one. I may roll my 69 back to the pre acoustic HD firmwares as I prefer the more direct sound of those for live use.

I would give it a 4 or 4.5 out of 5. Its tough to rate it because nothing else really does what it can do, with the exception of a vg99 setup (or possibly the Peavey Antares Autotune guitar). I have really played the daylights out of my Korean 69, and its not given me a single issue besides a very minor problem with string slippage of the high E string (something I adapted to fairly quickly). I don't have an issue with 'disconnect'. When using really dramatic alternate tunings, there is a slight degree of latency, but its very small, nothing compared to what you get from many Pitch to Midi systems.

I have had good dealings with Hello Music. A friend of mine got a V-drum set from them that had an issue and they did right by him. I have purchased several items without issue. Sweetwater has a great rep, but my experiences have been less than stellar. I had a horrible experience buying a variax from them years ago. It came broken with a loose knob and dead piezo (so much for their 'inspection'). They had no others in stock to replace it and I therefore asked for a refund, which they agreed to give me minus all shipping costs. So I needed to send the guitar back on my dime, and I would be receiving my money back minus the $30 for the original shipping. Needless to say it didn't go down well. They eventually capitulated but only after arguing with a manager. I've never had any experience like that with MF regarding receiving a faulty product. In fact I once received a Godin from MF with a hairline neck crack, and they paid for the return shipping, and cross shipped a replacement immediately.

As would I. There are things I like about the new firmware, but in several models I prefer the 1.9 variants. http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/JT-Variax-Allow-user-access-to-all-replaced-models-in-workbenc/524926-23508 Theres alot of admiration of the Emperor's new clothes here.

'Support' using such language as "Meltdown rebuttal coming in ..." More hyperbole and misdirection. You speak out of both sides of your mouth within the exact same post repeatedly. Just when earlier you admitted to not knowing what you were talking about, and then mere sentences later went on to speak from that very same position (the one which you admitted knowing nothing about) as if you did. Its just old and boring now. I've attempted to keep this thread on track, the mod asked that be done, but you just want to play games and obfuscate. Happy Trolling. By all means keep bumping the thread to get the last word, its obvious thats what is important to you.

I did, and still you find the need to get in snide remarks. I did this. Apparently reading comprehension is difficult for some here. Need I say more?

For anyone who would like the option of having some of the older models available (Strat, 335, older pre 1.72 Acoustics), please see the following: http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/JT-Variax-Allow-user-access-to-all-replaced-models-in-workbenc/524926-23508 This would give us, the end user, the choice in which models to use, and give us greater versatility. Only Line 6 knows how difficult from a technical/resource perspective this would be to add in a future firmware update, and whether or not they are hamstrung from a limited amount of memory in the units firmware making this request difficult to fulfill. As such, I would prefer that conjecture in that regard be left out of this discussion ... This is simply a feature request.

I made a submission on Ideascale that you may agree with. http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/JT-Variax-Allow-user-access-to-all-replaced-models-in-workbenc/524926-23508 This would allow us access to the removed models. I believe access to the 'old' models would allow greater tonal versatility, and for me, that's the point of the Variax.

I do not own a 700 (electric) so I cant comment on that comparison, but compared to my variax 600, the JTV69 is much better build quality and design. I have played the daylights out of my JTV and haven't had a single significant issue in over 32 months of playing. I did have piezo problems on my Variax 300 and 600, and my Variax 700 Acoustic had an issue with its VDI Socket.

The Masonite body is a good substitute when used with the Strat pickups. I also recommend folks drop the resistance on the Tone control to darken the sound more akin to the 1.9.

The new strat sounds nothing like my actual strat. Obviously, like almost any type of guitar, there can be tremendous variation tonally between models from different years and specifications. However, 2.0 Strat sounds like it has a balsa wood body. I really do not care if its a more accurate 'HD' replication of the guitar they used. Let L6 know. Heres a topic I started asking for the capacity to load older models... http://line6.com/support/topic/2230-please-make-the-non-hd-models-available-in-workbench/

So at this point you have nothing to add except using a mocking tone to again restate your position (which you admitted earlier was unfounded in any specific knowledge). You admitted you don't know what feedback line 6 has received pertaining to this update. I certainly have made no such claim that I do, nor have I claimed any such thing. But you continue to argue from the position that only a few are unhappy. Even if this is the case, I admitted earlier its not a fundamentally sound business decision to placate the desires of one or a few end users. But you dont have a clue that that is the case. Even if im the only one in all the universe with that opinion, its certainly my right to make a request of such. All you need to do, if you dont agree, is mind your own business. But you seemed somehow threatened and emotionally involved in the topic, to the extent that you are now trolling and bordering on mocking personal attacks. Its innapropriate. Im glad to see you admit that your poll uses loaded language. I suppose you were not confident enough in your position to make a poll using objective terms for choices, but instead felt the need to use loaded language. What is "HILARIOUS" is that at this moment in time, 50% of the respondents agreed with my request, even with your silly language.

I agree the 335's are too thin in fw2.0. I prefer the 'old' version. You can decrease the pot resistance value to somewhat alleviate the change.

I explicitly stated I was aware you could rollback, but that this isn't desired due to loss of other new features. That's the point of the thread. At risk of beating a dead horse.... Its all subjective to the player, but I would hope that people actually listen and judge the models not based upon 'oh this has a newer version number, it must be better'. I could not care less whether the modeling is considered 'old and outdated' if to my ears it sounds better. The strats, 335 and l4 have a much thinner sound, and i've had to go into workbench to wrangle changes to approximate the setup I had pre 2.0. I have then gone through and made significant changes to my amp and eq settings within my hd500, and im still not pleased. This same thing happened with the 'new and better HD' modeling on the acoustics after 1.72. It diminished my enjoyment and useability of those models as they had imparted a very annoying low-delay room ambience into the models which heavily affected how they sit in a live mix. Thankfully Line6 modified this after receiving user feedback (which I and others contributed to on this very forum) in a subsequent update, although I still prefer pre 1.72 acoustic models (they have a much more direct sound that works better on stage). The point is they make changes and attempt to improve, and I appreciate that effort as many companies do not bother (Roland im looking at you), but its altogether possible that those changes aren't ideal to a set of customers. As such, I inquired as to the possibility of allowing us to use some of the 'older' models. For some reason, a few (vocal) users view this request as a threat to them getting future extra models of their dream guitars or pickups, when there is no substantive evidence of this being the case.

So you have no substantive reasoning as to whether its truly an 'either/or' scenario. My intent is not to argue, but rather determine what is actually known or not in regards to what is possible. There seems to be quite a few people on this forum making statements based on assumptions.

Same, but I would also pay for the capacity to load in pre 1.72 Acoustic guitar models, as well as models from the Acoustic Variax 700. Id happily pay $100 for the Acoustic 700's models.

Out of curiosity, why are these the only options. Why are they mutually exclusive? Has Line 6 stated that they we either get strat/335 from 1.9, or a dozen new odd models that you list, but not a mix of both? Do you know how much memory is included in the hardware? Has Line 6 stated this? Are you just making up this either/or scenario from conjecture?

I agree if its one, or only a few customers, its a waste of time. But how can you possibly know that? Johnny, do you work for Line 6? Are you an official representative? Do you have any specific knowledge when it comes to the metrics corresponding to customer feedback? There are actually quite a number of users who have requested what I have been discussing. How would it be profitable? For one, it means happy customers, who are willing to sing their praises of the product to others. Secondly, it means more versatility and a larger set of models for any potential buyer to pick from, not just what happens to be whatever is in the current firmware. Thirdly, I'm willing to pay for the capacity to load in past models (as I did with model packs on my old Pod XT Live). I would happily pay at least $50 for the capacity to load in the old acoustic models (pre 1.72) and the old Strat and 335. Only Line 6 knows how much feedback on this particular subject matter has been received, so really, stop making such assumptions.

Its hardly a waste of space if that is what is desired by the Customer. If its truly impossible for them to allow us to load different bodies in as we feel appropriate (something im not convinced is the case), I would suggest that an alternative version of the firmware be made available, one that lets us use the older bodies, but gives us access to the new workbench functions (ie making 12 strings of any guitar).

The fact that people are asking for the capacity to include the old models would lead one to believe that, at least for those customers, its not a 'waste of memory'. Do you have specific knowledge in regards to much memory/how many models the firmware can store? Or are you just guessing (making up stuff)?

To me the issue is one of what tools work for different styles/preferences. The promise of this technology is its versatility. Why wouldnt HD models and non HD models work loaded in at the same time? Thats the way it was in 1.9 The Acoustics were 'HD' and the electrics were not. It worked then, why cant I do that with select electrics now? I dont understand the mentality of updating new features and then making substantive changes at the same time to the tonality of many instruments. The option to use the older models should be available without having to sacrifice new features. I'm reminded of the adage 'If it aint broke, dont fix it'. Personally I thought the 'update' of the acoustics to 'HD' was more a step backward than forward, as it mainly just 'cooked in' ambience to the guitar tone itself. I would love to hear from an actual Line 6 representative on this issue. Im sure that if enough customers make their desires known, Line 6 can make it happen.

I would greatly appreciate it, if the user were given the option of choosing which guitar models to load from the various iterations released. While I do like many of the changes in fw 2.0, I prefer some of the non HD models. Additionally, I also enjoy using the pre 1.72 non 'HD' acoustic guitar models. They had a more direct characteristic that was better suited when playing live as opposed to the 'HD' models which have ambience baked into them. Is it a technical impossibility to offer us the capacity to use a combination of HD and non HD models? I prefer the older 335 models as well. With the new ones, ive had to go through and bump up the pickup output levels, and make changes to the tone knobs to approximate how the old ones sounded, and its still not what I prefer. I would even gladly pay a fee to have access to all the models. Please don't reply to this thread that I can just roll back to a prior firmware. Im aware of this, but doing so means I lose many of the newer functions added.