Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Jump to content

ozbadman

Members
  • Posts

    418
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by ozbadman

  1. probably... but that little history of variax updates is probably not common knowledge...

    but it's very real and factual history... and it's just not possible what they are asking for.

    perhaps the clever line6 guys will come up with something...

    but the internal storage and sounds are not infinite, they are finite.

    perhaps they can make up for these things in the 3rd generation variax if that ever happens.

    (took 7 years to go from gen1 to gen2... wont likely be fast if ever)

     

    And besides, they should have a JTV Acoustic to work on...

  2. Well, I know, but you'd have to know how the hardware works and all, something Line 6 knows because they're the one that made the guitar. 

     

    This person is asking for additional stuff though, and making new firmware from scratch would throw out all the features of the real firmware out the window.

     

    That's my point. You can't just "open up the modelling" like is being asked for. You could open up certain parameters, but that's effectively what they're doing by providing different bodies, pickups, angles, positions, etc. Even adding an api would require the end-user to understand the problem domain to a much higher level than your average guitarist wants to. You could possibly add customisation of elements like pickup inductance, resistance, body resonances, etc., but that really depends on how their current algorithms work. If they're not component based, all that goes out the window.

     

    The point is, they already provide the ability to vary the things they think are useful to an end-user. They could possibly provide other things, but what they are is algorithm specific and only Line 6 knows what they would be. Beyond that, everything rapidly gets much harder, and if someone really wants to do it, they could do so right now. But, we seem to be going around in circles somewhat.

     

    Me, I'm happy they provide the ability to cutomize the tones at all. Pretty amazing really.

    • Upvote 1
  3. Well the source code is the file that is editable to the programmers, not yet exported as the firmware file. That means it can still be open with the editing software and tweaked with it. Once you compile the source code it's not readable by the editing software, but is used to actually run as a process, in this case the Variax's DSP.

     

    I'm sure they used something to write up the algorithms/convolutions to model the guitars and other stuff. It would be pretty hard and ridiculous to code in raw computing language (hexadecimal/binary)

     

    I think you missed my point. When Line 6 started this process, they started like the rest of us: 0 lines of Source Code (ignoring startup libraries, etc.). There's nothing stopping someone else from doing the same thing. (FWIW, I am a former embedded software engineer, working in assembler and higher level languages).

  4. I was going to say that you could hack the firmware, but that would be insane to mess with. You'd need to reverse engineer everything.

    The problem with this is that you don't have the source code obviously. 

    Hacking the firmware could possibly brick your JTV too. It's not really feasible unless you're that insane.

     

    I couldn't agree more. I was just pointing out the level of complexity, and the fact that if anyone was crazy enough to want to do it, they already could without Line 6 changing anything. Line 6 didn't start with Source Code originally either.

  5. I understand the point you're making. Please just consider that there is a vast amount of talent out on this planet that is very comfortable with programming and customizing code (even firmware) to extend its capabilities. Just look at custom ROMs people have developed for mobile phones, game emulators and so on. Opening up the software to this community would enable Line6 to tap into this pool and get additional functionality to add to their core platform or even generate revenue for developers building new add-ons. Think Apple/ MS Flight Simulator or X-plane etc. Not to mention getting more beta testers and a rich and thriving ecosystem around their core product.

     

    This is technically already possible.

     

    A JTV is just a computer in a guitar body. Its code is downloaded from a PC through the interface cable. If someone were sufficiently interested, they could look at the chips on the JTV, disassemble the existing JTV code, and write their own JTV firmware. Line 6 is not stopping them.

     

    But it's never going to happen. Beyond the programming, you have to learn the domain: how to model different guitar bodies, pickup positions, process the piezos, etc. Line 6 has had professionals working on it full time for over a decade, and they've done a remarkably good job.

    • Upvote 1
  6. Aww really? Well, the thing that matters is if I like it or not. I love it.

     

    300 was a strat with rosewood (I think)

    500 was a strat with a LP headstock and an LP knob layout

    600 was the closest to a regular strat, with a maple fretboard and tremelo

    700 was a super strat

     

    in my opinion ^

     

    Sorry, I got that in the wrong order. The 600 was a better build than the 300 :p I've fixed it in my original post.

  7. I know that the 700 is the highest quality in the original variaxes, but is the 600 better build quality than the 300? I know the 600 uses basswood.

     

    The one thing I didn't like about the original line up was that they were all strats with just different headstocks and minor design differences. The JTV line offers more variety in what you can choose, though i still think they should make a telecaster model.

     

    From what I understand the 600 was a better build quality than the 300, although I don't know why. People seemed to complain a lot about the guitar aspect of the 300, whereas overall people seemed fairly happy with their 600s.

     

    I couldn't agree more with you about all the old Variaxes being Strat-ish. I think the current line-up covers a much broader group of people, which is great. I just wish they had used a different designer, and a Japanese factory.

  8. Whaaaaat?

     

    You described exactly what makes the 700 disgusting. That fake PRS look that is worse than those undisputable ugly PRS firewood.

    I dispute your indisputably, but I did enjoy the rant nevertheless.

     

    I think I like PRS guitars as I like looking at polished wood. Hang on, that came out wrong....

     

    BTW: The one, only and ever beauty ist the Gretsch Jupiter Thunderbird. There you see a bold, timeless and cool guitar.

    There I see a festering turd.... :)

     

    • Upvote 2
  9. 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.

     

    Yeah, the 700 was a significantly higher build quality than the 600. Decent guitar though.

  10. So I have a number of Variax 700s, and just one JTV59 (I wanted a 69, but can't get past the ugliness).
     
    I'm interested though: For those who don't like the look of the 700, is it:
    a) the body shape

    b) the natural wood coming through the lacquer
    c) the neck/headstock
    d) the lack of a pick-guard
    e) the "weird" look of having no pickups.
    f) all of the above
     
    I'm interested as I personally find the 700 the most beautiful looking guitar I've ever seen. That being said, I could understand people not liking the lack of pickups, but the overall shape of the guitar, including the shaped top is very similar to a PRS to me (oh yeah, I guess PRS guitars are the most beautiful I've ever seen).
     
    Just curious as to what people don't like about the look of the 700, for those who don't like it.

    • Upvote 3
  11. The 700 is an ugly shaped piece of wood. Even the 300, 600 and 500 looked better. The 700 has neither style nor soul. They look like a log of wood for high school posers.

    I was definetely shocked when they came out - an absolute design failure.

    Oh no Sir. I think you're referring to this:

     

     

    the 69 headstock is beautiful.. so glad that they did not go with the James Tyler headstock... now THAT's ugly... (and the man makes GREAT guitars)

    myTylerHeadstock.jpg

     

    • Upvote 1
  12. O.K. for anyone interested in hearing these strange notes, I recorded a sample. Again, thanks in advance for any ideas. This was recorded clean using a Yamaha THR10 and an Apogee MiC.

    http://goo.gl/2oaVhr

     

    Instead of recording with a Mic, you need to record directly from the JTV plugged into your recording device to make sure you are only getting the processed signal. See if the weird notes go away under those conditions.

    • Upvote 1
  13. I have rolled the firmware back to version 1.9 on the JTV59 and the click between patches that use different guitars goes away. I guess it's a bug in v2.0. I hope they fix in a future version.

    They won't fix it unless they know about it. If you want it to be looked at, you should let them know through a support ticket, including that the issue didn't happen with 1.9

  14. O.K. I have a weird problem. If this is the wrong thread, please redirect me to anyone who would be able to help. 

     

    When using the piezo pickups, on standard tuning, everything sounds fine on all models. However, when I move into, say, DADGAD, then my high B and E strings both sound like they've got ghost notes. I've tried to modify it in Workbench with no luck. These ghost notes appear in many of the alt tunings. I have also put a damper behind the nut to see if that would help. Any insights from anyone? I am a novice at this Variax thing. I've had it about a week. The "stellar" line 6 documentation does not seem to give me any clues. 

    Any help will be greatly appreciated!! Thanks.

    Steve

    Steve, it's the correct forum, but you need to start your own thread on this topic in order to maximize your chance of someone replying. Just start a new thread and copy what you wrote into it.

  15. Thanks for posting the clips.

     

    I too will have a guess. I find Quack1 a bit smoother and I imagine that's the real strat too. The second sounds a little digital to my ears. That being said, I really hope I'm wrong as that would mean I have Quack1 at my fingertips :)

     

    Perhaps you could add a poll here to see who thinks which is which before you do your reveal.

×
×
  • Create New...