mdmayfield

Found this link while browsing over lunch - this sounds intriguing: http://forums.fender.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=84000

Since I almost never use the whammy bar either (and prefer guitars without them) I'm not exactly sure. I don't think the springs absorb too much per se, though you'd figure they must come into play to some degree. My main problem with springs over the years has been a sproingy/reverb-y resonance when playing overdriven. With Strats and my JTV-69, what I ended up doing - not for sustain purposes, but just to turn it into a hardtail - was tightening the springs all the way, re-setting the action to take the new position of the bridge into account, and then putting some felt, foam, or other damping material under the springs to avoid the sproingy sounds. I don't know the physics in-depth enough to say what exact difference that makes to the vibrations, but it seems to help sustain a bit, maybe because the bridge is in contact with the top of the guitar body at that point. If there's a pro luthier around, they would probably know for sure and have a more detailed explanation. Another thing people like to do is get a wooden or metal block, shaped to just the right size, to wedge in the vibrato mechanism to keep it from moving. That might be worth asking a repair person or luther about, as well.

Thanks for attaching the tracks. Those sound pretty much normal to me for the most part. If I really listen for it, there's a tiny bit of what sounds like ringing on a few of the notes on the Variax Spank track. It seems within the ballpark of what I'd expect from any electric guitar recorded direct, though. To my ear, the tiny bit of ringing sounds like it might be coming from the strings between the nut and tuners. Piezos would pick that up much more than magnetic pickups, so that may be why you only hear it in the modeled guitars. If you have something soft that can keep those parts of the strings damped, does the reverb-like sound go away?

Or heck, the PodHD probably has a lot of storage space, and a Variax Workbench patch definition has got to be really small, like a few KB or less (it's just a list of a few dozen settings). Why not store a bunch of Variax guitar definitions inside the POD?

I've also found many of the models in 2.0/2.1 to be noticeably quieter than 1.9. It's probably a deliberate change that they made for accuracy's sake, or some other internal reason us regular folks will probably never know about. For example, for the last few months I've switched between the JTV and a Vax 300 transplant with the same HD500 patches, and I've found that 1.9 is comparable in sound to the original Variax 300/500/600/700 (except for the acoustic models). In 2.0/2.1, though, they completely redid the models. Once adjusted for gain, I also like the 2.0 sounds better, though it's annoying to have to redo all my Pod patches to accommodate the level differences. As long as I'm using both a 300 and a JTV, I rolled back to 1.9 for tonal "compatibility", but once I have two JTVs I plan to retire the 300 and redo all the HD500 patches to tailor them for the new JTV 2.x sounds. Is it a possibility to adjust your amp/pedals/modeling/whatever to compensate? Or do you also have other considerations like another guitar that you want to use as backup?

Mat, I have a hunch that this is a physical resonance in your JTV-59, and not in the modeling. Do you hear the reverb sound through the magnetic pickups? (Though, if not, it's worth noting the piezoelectric pickups can "hear" guitar body resonances more than magnetic pickups.) Also, if you can post your raw sound clips straight from the Variax, with no amp modeling or effects, (and maybe the LP and Strat you're comparing it to), it would be helpful to diagnose.

Charlie_Watt, my experience agrees with yours - for example, physical standard tuning, going to Drop D digital tuning drop the low string to D, but physically tuned to Eb, digital Drop D actually drops to Db. I don't think the Variax modeling "knows" what you're physically tuned to - it should be all relative. donnachatoo, are you referring maybe to *setting up* a custom alt tuning on the instrument (as opposed to setting it in Variax Workbench) and saving it in one of the tuning slots, by holding down the knob then playing the notes relative to the 12th fret? Because that would make sense. I think that's the only time the Variax modling ever actually "listens" to the notes you're playing, so it probably assumes you're in standard tuning.

Sustain is a physical phenomenon more than a modeling thing - it's the interaction between the nut, string, bridge, vibrato, and guitar body. It all depends on how that whole system resonates together, and is different from individual guitar to individual guitar (for example, compare any two Strats and you'll find slightly different sustain times). Having said that, although modeling can't exactly increase sustain, I believe Line 6 have some kind of amplitude curve shaping thingamabob in their modeling, as some guitar models actually create a sharper attack and quicker decay - - thus, less sustain than the physical instrument (for the tradeoff of more punch). You can experiment with different guitar models to find the one that has the most sustain (that is, the full sustain the physical instrument is capable of). Either way, if you switch to the magnetic pickups, you'll hear the "100%" mark, the total amount of sustain that your personal JTV-69's physical parts can achieve. If it's not enough, you'll need to take generic "any electric guitar" approaches to trying to get more sustain, because there's nothing Variax-specific about that physical aspect. For example, - Convert the guitar to a hardtail - Alter the setup (i.e. sometimes higher action is more sustain) - Experiment with different string gauges - Change the neck, body, vibrato, nut, etc... Good luck! Matt --- Quick edit: Of course you'll also hear the physical sustain unplugged, too. Also, something to watch out for is to make sure the magnetic pickups aren't too close to the strings, because their magnetic fields attract the metal strings, causing "drag" that reduces sustain.

This is just the physical magnetic pickups right? I'm assuming the modeled pickups still work for that harmonic since the strings are actually being sensed by the piezos in the bridge. Or is that somehow mathematically possible to include that in the modeling?

This is a critically important thing to be aware of, and may help a lot depending on your equipment, but it's not one-size-fits-all. On my setup, for example, the input is too weak if I do this, and it works better for me with the default. A large number of people do report that they get a better sound the way joel_brown describes, though. You'll need to test for clipping or distortion at the input, vs. wanting more input gain than you can get, to know for certain.

The clock speed of the DSP does not affect the latency of the audio signal, or any timings in the mixer or any other module. DSP audio latency is based on the sample rate of the audio and the number of samples in the processing buffer (which are unchanged between the two units, if the software is the same). The placebo effect is very strong with sound. It happens below the level of conscious thought, so there's no way to fully compensate for it in a sighted test, and it doesn't matter how good an ear one has - in fact I've found that people with better ears are often *more* susceptible. I for one have found it helpful to always check myself with blind tests on important decisions, as a reality check. YMMV. However, even if a blind test shows a difference, it's also possible that a slight volume level difference could account for this. Level differences tend to be registered as quality/tone differences, not only because of the psychological impact, but also because our ears hear differently at different levels (see Fletcher-Munson hearing response curves). Edit: basically I remain open-minded, but unconvinced so far, that there's a difference.

The order of effects is a really interesting thing to experiment with. The difference that Reverb -> Delay vs. Delay -> Reverb makes depends on the circumstances: If the delay and reverb in question are perfectly linear time-invariant (LTI) effects - that is,: - they don't add any kind of overdrive or distortion (i.e. they're linear), and - they don't change in any way over time (i.e. they're time-invariant) Then there can be no difference in sound between R->D vs. D->R, at least for that particular reverb and that particular delay, when they're placed right next to each other. (Someone better at wave physics and signal processing theory than me could even prove that mathematically.) If there are other effects in between the reverb and delay, then of course swapping the delay and reverb could potentially make a big difference. Also, the further away from perfectly linear time-invariant the specific effects are, the more difference their order could potentially make, even if they're adjacent in the signal chain. Analog delays and reverbs are never perfectly LTI (some are far from it) though some are close approximations. Some digitally modeled delays and reverbs, though (which operate only in the digital domain), are perfectly LTI.

I think the advantage over other MIDI pickups might be that you don't have to damage your guitar's finish by drilling and lollipoping into it to install the pickup. I'd suggest we double-check the dolollipopentation, though; I don't want to come off as being all lollipopsure about it.

Sure, I'd agree with that too. The 20+ ms delays used for fake double (or more) tracking don't usually cause those kind of issues. The issue I'm referring to only happens with really short delays, like under 5 ms, like what you'd get when mixing two otherwise identical signals, but where one passed through an extra D/A or A/D conversion. Video example: Thanks, Matt

Charlie_Watt, yes, you're absolutely right as far as delaying one copy of a signal, vs. not delaying it. The complication comes in when you mix *two* signals, one delayed and the other not. When you mix two identical signals with one delayed a tiny bit, you get a "stuck flanger" type effect (comb filtering) - in fact, this is how a real analog flanger works: it mixes two copies of a signal, one delayed, and gradually varies the timing of the delay. If you have a DAW setup, it's a really interesting experiment to two copies of a track, and nudging one of them ahead or behind just a handful of samples, to hear the comb filtering effect. (Sorry for the continued tangent from the original question!) Matt

A side note, something else to consider - if I'm not mistaken, there will be at least 3-5 ms or so timing difference between the two outputs, which might change based on whether modeling is activated or not. If you're going to mix the signals, that might be something to watch out for, since assuming that's the case, it'll cause some odd comb filtering on the signal.

Yup, removing this feature is a fairly recent Line6 "F-" "U-". :rolleyes:

I would bet almost anything that this is due to the different piezo elements in the Floyd Rose bridge. Unlike the other JTVs, there's no special setup that mitigates the "plink" which was always evident on the old non-Tyler Variax 300/500/600/700. I always hear that same exact annoying tinny sound in the 2000-3000Hz range on my old Variaxes. I remember on the old discussion forums when Rich Renken was the product manager of the JTV, he responded to one of my questions about this that there was a solution to the plink sound made with a specially designed bridge. However, assuming the 89F is using Graph Tech's solution instead of the special custom designed bridge, that's probably why this same sound that we used to hear in the old Vax is there on the new 89F. It might be that the Floyd Rose prevents the same mechanical/physical design from being used. If the sound is fine on the JTV 59/69 and the regular 89 (with the hardtail and the new piezos), that seems like some very strong evidence that this theory is correct. It certainly seems much improved over the old Variax on my 69. Thanks, Matt

I'm also very annoyed and disappointed that this doesn't work. There's probably a technical explanation for this. Pulling something out of thin air (or out of my fat... head), maybe it's a communications issue, where: - the data isn't sent over USB through the HD in exactly the same way, or with the same timing, as over the Workbench unit - the old version of WB + old JTV firmware used a communication protocol that could cope with the difference, but... - the new version of the WB software + new JTV firmware depends on some new implementation of the protocol... - which doesn't function properly through the HD as opposed to the USB Workbench unit I work in tech support and this is the kind of crap that happens all the time. One team makes a tiny mistake on a spec that gets passed to another team, or makes some kind of wrong assumption, and hilarity ensues. It's probably not exactly what I outlined above, but I think I'm in the ballpark. You'd be amazed what a miracle it is that any software and hardware of any kind even works at all, sometimes... But, nevertheless, as I mentioned above I'm also very annoyed and disappointed that this doesn't work.

I've noticed different levels, too. In my experience, the difference between one reasonably good ADC/DAC and another is very subtle (if even noticeable at all) compared to the relatively big tone difference that you get by changing gain a couple dB in one stage of a guitar rig. Unless there's something wacky going on that we haven't pinned down yet, I'd expect that precisely compensating for level differences would make the tone effectively the same between the VDI and the 1/4" outputs. (You'd think that L6 would have compensated precisely for this during R&D/QA, but maybe it slipped through the cracks.)

Exactly... Even though it's standard AES/EBU digital audio (IIRC), as I understand it it's just one stream and not really spittable. I believe they use the left and right sides within one stereo (multiplexed) digital signal to carry the two channels. The only way to split it would be to plug it into an AES D/A converter and send the left side to one place and the right side to another..... so it *might* TECHNICALLY be sort-of possible, but it's not feasible or practical - much easier to just use the Pod HD.

Check for a gain difference... I haven't upgraded yet, but in the video, it sounds to me like the 2.0 *sound* is more to my liking, but has been turned down a couple dB. That'll make a big difference in the sound you get since it's hitting the amp at a lower level. If you're not satisfied with the 2.0 Strat, it may be worth experimenting with what happens if you put a boost as the 1st effect in the Pod, or else boost the level of the pickups in Workbench.

The VDI cable transmits audio digitally (it's a form of AES/EBU digital audio), so is unaffected by resistance (the signal either gets through perfectly, or not at all). When running the 1/4" output, the onboard D/A converters convert that same signal to analog audio. The *quality* (as in, faithfulness to the original) of the signal is very close but slightly better on the VDI, ***BUT***... if it's the same as the old Variax 300/500/600/700, the signal coming out of the 1/4" output is several dB hotter than the VDI, at least as far as a Pod is concerned. This signal gain makes a huge difference in playability and response, since it determines how hard the guitar signal hits the input of the virtual amp. So here's an experiment to try: Create two identical HD patches, but make one with a Boost Comp (with all neutral settings except for Output turned up 4-5 dB) as the very first effect. Then compare the "boosted" patch with the VDI cable to the "regular" patch with the 1/4". Another thing to investigate is your input options - depending on your playing style and specific setup, it may work better to put them either to: - Input 1 Variax / Input 2 Same; or - Input 1 Variax / Input 2 Aux (or another unused input) You may want to try both to see which works better for your setup.

You might find this interesting. It's the first of a 3-part video series I made on dynamics processing (a compressor is one type of dynamics processor):

Finally, a reasonable JTV transplant candidate!