Jump to content

guitarno

Members
  • Content Count

    208
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by guitarno

  1. I installed an Earvana nut on a guitar I owned years ago. I was also impressed with the improvement in tuning. I had not really considered this for my JTV 59, because I don't have any major intonation problems with it. To tell the truth I kind of forgot about the Earvana nuts. I think that because tuning and correct intonation is so critical to the success of altered tunings on the Variax guitars, Earvanas might just be a great way to make a practical improvement to a JTV. I'll have to think about putting one on my 59...
  2. Another method that works pretty well is the FX Loop block. This only works if you're not already using it for something else. Put a short jumper cable form the FX Loop "Out" to the FX Loop "In" jacks. Put the FX Loop block somewhere in the chain. You can put it before an amp, or overdrive stompbox to get more drive, or if you don't want to change the overall tone, just make it louder, put it at the very end of the chain. Set the level controls of the FX Loop block: I'm not looking at it right now, so I don't remember exactly, but there are 2 controls: Input & Output or something like that. I normally set one at unity or no gain, and one to +3db or +6db or whatever level you need. You'll have to experiment with these settings to get what you want. Assign the FX Loop to one of the footswitches to turn it on and off. I've used this many times & it makes a good booster. Don't forget the patch cable or it won't work. B)
  3. I agree with radatats statements above: "Disconnect pedal 2 first. After it is reset and calibrated you can reconnect pedal 2 and it should be good. If it acts up again try just disconnecting and reconnecting pedal 2." This is also what I have found. It's a little weird, but the assignments end up being backwards some times. Un plug the mission pedal (pedal 2 input), plug it back in, and it will be corrected. Then save your patch & it should be OK after that.
  4. Yes I agree with that. The "Virtual tunings" eliminate a number of physical issues like slackened strings buzzing that can happen with regular alternate down-tuned strings. There are some definite advantages with "Virtual tunings" that won't happen with a Tronical unit. With the JTV you can do outlandish things like drop all strings 2 full steps to "C" tuning without slack string issues. Not really practical with physically tuned strings of the same gauge.
  5. That's a real interesting situation. I do find myself thinking exactly as post #2 - My initial reaction is that this would defeat the purpose of JTV alt tunings & make no real sense, but I'll have to admit because of the issues brought up by the OP, it DID cross my mind briefly. I do wonder how well mechanical alt tunings work compared to the JTV virtual alt tunings. Obviously they would be more "Authentic" sounding, but also more limited. I would be very interested in the OP's opinions & comparisons of alt tunings between his "Tronical" guitar and the JTV! :unsure: Please give us your impressions!
  6. As far as the output mode on the L2T, if you use it with a Pod HD500 or 500X, the Pod can remember which setting you have on the L2T on a patch by patch basis, and will change it when you change patches. Here's what you do: · With any given HD500 patch selected, manually switch between output modes directly on the L2T (push the output mode button on the L2T for "Reference PA", or "Electric Guitar" or whatever you want). · Save your patch on the HD500. That's all there is to it. The next time you select that patch, the HD500 will automaticlly set the L2T to that setting. You have to be connected by the L6 Link in order for this to work. I use this feature all the time because I have a JTV & switch my L2T to "Acoustic" for acoustic guitar patches and it works like a charm. As far as the tone on electric guitar patches sent to the L2T, you do have to optimize your patches for that speaker, just like any other speaker. If you have a patch that sounds good when output to a traditional guitar amp, it's not going to sound right when sent to a FRFR PA speaker. You are going to have to tweak the gain and EQ settings for whatever speakers you send the signal to. I don’t know what your 20 year old PA is, but I know I am getting pretty good tones from my L2T, and I’m sure you can do the same. Maybe you should start with a simple patch with only 1 amp and no effects & just play with the balance of EQ controls (start at “5†on all tone controls), and gain & volume controls on the POD, and the L2T, and just try to do some experimenting on what settings sound good to you.
  7. They are attached as ".TXT" files. I assume we can just re-name them to the proper extension. You should be able to use the "More Reply Options" button and add whatever attachments you want (within any limits set by the forum). I assume using this method you could attach patches to a posting.
  8. cruisinon2, on 02 May 2014 - 5:55 PM, said: I also think that in at least some cases people are being fooled by hearing the guitar acoustically. JTV's are quite resonant. Mine rings louder than my Strat. It has fooled me before at low volumes. Try recording something direct, no mics involved, in an alt tuning. If the ghosts notes are not there in the playback, then they can't be part of the output signal. I had to do this when I first got the guitar to convince myself that this was in fact what was happening. Not a hint of anything weird in the playback...only possible answer was that I was hearing it from somewhere else. I'm not suggesting that your guitar doesn't have a genuine problem. But testing it is easy, and pretty foolproof. Good luck. I agree with the above. I am one who did seem to have problems with this, and I did have a ticket open for this, but after doing a couple of FW updates to try and eliminate other possible problems, I couldn't get it to record the doubled notes when recording direct. I could hear it in the room, but when I tried to record it, it wasn't there (on the recording), so I had no case and my ticket got cancelled. I think that hearing the original notes acoustically is distracting, but it's just an unfortunate reality of electronically altered tunings. I have used the tunings live, and amplified, other people can't hear the doubled notes that I hear being close to the instrument. If it's loud enough, I can't hear them either. I haven't done any extensive testing yet, but I think the new FW update is a big improvement in this area, at least from what I have heard so far. I used to have really overly resonant notes (F# @ 4th string, 4th fret) - that seems to be gone now. It may just be string resonances (an altered tuned string setting off harmonics & vibrations that starts another string ringing when it was not intentionally played, as a previous poster stated. This can only be dealt with by proper string damping when you play. As the last poster said, "JTV's are quite resonant" – mine is and that’s part of the problem ( a blessing and a curse), but I’m finding out in my case, it’s just something I have learned to deal with, and I’m not sure that there is a real easy solution to this or that it’s the same for everyone.
  9. I have a JTV59 and a HD500X. I bought a L2T and I am very happy with it. It does a good job of amplifying the acoustic tones, and a good job with the heavy tones as well. It's powerful, pretty portable, and I haven't had any real trouble with it at all. Overall, I am very happy with it, and don't really miss using my tube amp nearly as much as I thought I might. I would definitely recommend it as an option for those who need the acoustic tones. I would like to have another one or a L2M for stereo for the other side, but don't have the cash for both right now, and I am finding it is not really needed. 2 of them would be overkill for me, though I do love ambient stereo sounds - maybe someday...
  10. O.K. Johnnyayyy - Sorry to hear you're having "Popping sounds" coming from the bridge. That's something I haven't had a problem with or heard about before. "Adding a stop bar would also allow you to adjust string tension by lowering or raising the stop bar to compensate for different string gauges and tunings." That makes sense - being able to adjust the pressure on the piezos / string tension could be an advantage. I guess I wasn't thinking about that part of it. I guess that's an unwanted result of the one piece wrap around bridge design on the 59 JTV. I read an article some time ago from a Godin LGX-SA owner that claimed that reducing pressure on the piezo elements on his bridge (by building six small string pads onto the bridge right behind the piezo elements) really helped eliminate problems he was having. There are a number of issues with the piezos that have been talked about in this forum; ghost notes, noises, uneven volume levels levels, overtones at some frequencies. I have had problems with "Ghost notes" and weird overtones at particular notes, and have had to play around with string to string volume. Probably due to differences in the piezo elements.
  11. Yeah, I'm not sure what real purpose that would serve. Is it really worth the cost & risk of drilling holes in the top of a $15oo guitar? What else would you change? You would use a regular LP style stop tailpiece & a piezo equipped tune-a-matic type bridge? What would you gain by doing that? I could really see a Bigsby because you then have a vibrato bar so you gain that capability. That is something I would definitely be interested in. I really wanted a Strat type JTV but when I tried them both out, I really didn't like the neck on the 69 model, and I had some reservations on what the tremolo & its related tuning instability would do to the alternate tuning feature of the JTV. That & I really liked the feel & playability of the 59 model - to me it was clearly superior to the 69 I played. It might have just been those 2 particular guitars, but it was no contest & I was compelled to get the Non-Tremolo 59 model instead. I do miss having a vibrato bar for some things, but don't miss the tuning headaches. Sorry to be long winded. I do see a benefit to the Bigsby - don't really see one for adding a stop tailpiece. I have wondered about replacing piezo elements in the bridge for better ones (if they exist), and I would be interested to see what mods or improvements in tone or response can be had, but not sure the stop bar gets you anywhere.
  12. So far, ALL the acoustic sounds on the mp3's and video on this post sound pretty good to me. I use the acoustic sounds on my JTV-59/HD500X/L2T a lot, and I like the sounds I am getting in general, but I'm always looking to improve on them. A lot depends on exactly how you set up the patch on the POD/Amp or whatever you are using for effects & amplification. I have tried out a number of patches from customtone, and many of them are too easy to get distortion if you pick or strum too hard. Also a lot of them sound overly compressed to me. The clips posted here sound pretty natural and convincing for acoustic emulations. I'd be interested to know what blocks & settings you used. (for those using POD's at least)
  13. I had a similar problem when I owned a X3Live a number of years ago. The foot switches on that model were prone to failure. Mine did and I had to take it in to a service center for repair/replacement foot switches. I don't know if the HD500 uses the same switches or not but they may be. I for one am glad they updated the switches on the HD500X.
  14. Let us know how it goes with the PE60. I was considering getting one or maybe even two for stereo, but I also have a JTV & use a lot of the acoustic patches & wasn't sure if the PE60 would do a good job with those sounds. I ended up getting a Line6 L2T, which I like a lot for what I do, but it was a bit expensive. Still curious how the PE60 would match up with a JTV/HD500X.
  15. Thanks for sharing the link. I bought a hand made one, from one of the users on this forum. It's nice, works well, covered in a red braided sheath. One thing I don't like about any of the VDI cables I've used is their stiffness. Because of that, they tend to get in the way more than a normal guitar cable. So this one is more flexible - more like a normal cable? I may have to pick one up if that's the case. Could always use the other one for a spare. Thanks!
  16. Wow! It's going to use "Turbo-Encabulators" and "dingle arms" ??? Awesome!
  17. I agree with the comments from Silverhead. I used a pair of Presonus Eris 8's, and that worked pretty well. For me that set up sounded very good on acoustic (JTV) and clean patches. The high gain sounds were a little brittle and forced some adjustments to my patches when running this way. Also due to the exposed cones on studio monitors, they're really not practical for gigging, but in your home it won't matter.
  18. I'm attaching Arislaf's Acoustic patches to this post. Thanks again for these Arislaf! Acoustic-Vocal.h5s.zip
  19. Very nice Phil! Thanks for posting!
  20. guitarno

    Hd500x Cosmetics

    Yes - At least on some. Seems like a by-product of the stamping process - or they were "knockouts" for a different type of footswitch that is now not used on the HD500X. A lot of people have HD500x's with these, but not everyone. Not a big deal IMO.
  21. I have a JTV-59 that I've owned for a couple of months. I'd have to say that I was initially, and still am very impressed with it as an instrument, aside from the modeling electronics. From day one it played, felt and intonated as well as or better than all the other guitars I tried in it's price range. That includes Gibsons, Fenders, Epiphones, Gretches, anything else I tried out at the time to compare to. I like the stock pickups - I thought about replacing them someday for Lollars or some other high end 3rd party pickup, and may do that eventually, but they are not bad at all, and don't sound muddy to me. Does it compare to a $30,000 vintage LP? or a $3000 - $5000 custom made instrument? Probably not but I can't afford to be a guitar snob (wish I could), and I haven't had any issues with it. I think it stands up on it's own merit as an instrument pretty well, even without the guitar modeling, which no one else has.
  22. You may want to bring it in to an authorized repair center and let them inspect it. I had a number of foot switches on a X3 Live model fail, and had to get them all replaced. They are either the same or very similar to the ones used on the HD500 I believe. The updated foot switches on the HD500X were a welcome upgrade.
  23. It would be a little redundant seeing as how they would really have all the same models, but I have a 59 and if I could afford it, might want to add one with a tremolo bridge. I would also be interested in another if they ever released either an updated acoustic version, or a hollowbody electric version.
  24. In reference to your 2nd question: The tunings are all based on what your strings are tuned to physically, so if you're already tuned to Eb (-1) on all your strings, all the alternate tunings will be relative to that (Alternate tuning Eb (1 down) will now actually be D (2 down), and so on. In reality, if your strings are tuned down to Eb to begin with, that IS "Standard" for you. The problem then is that all the alternate tunings will be 1/2 step lower than normal also. As silverhead said, there is no global alternate tuning, but "standard" tuning on the JTV means no changes to strings as tuned physically, so maybe that's what you want already. You could modify all the alternate tunings in workbench to be 1/2 step higher that normal to keep them as intended relative to "E" standard" tuning with your guitar tuned down 1/2 step.
  25. Yeah, I've had this happen a couple of times also. Happens randomly as you said. I haven't lost anything crucial yet, but that I'm guessing it's only a matter of time. I haven't really figured out what series of events causes this yet, but as mentioned above, editing on the hardware and HD Edit at the same time causes some strange & unpredictable results. That issue is really a pain because even though I know that and try to avoid doing it, it is completely anti-intuitive. When I make changes, I want to test them on the hardware to make sure it sounds & works the way I want it to on the hardware, because that's what I'll be bringing to the gig, not HD Edit. I have to find a workflow where going back & forth between editing in HD Edit, and using the hardware does not cause these kinds of weird problems. What I've tried to do so far is do all the tweaking in HD Edit, play & test the sound (without touching the POD), re-tweak, play, and when I think it's good, save in HD Edit to the hardware. THEN, I switch to using the hardware (expression pedal, switches) without touching HD Edit to see if it works as expected. IF NOT: back to the "HD Edit" cycle. I still get an occasional weird issue with this sequence. Maybe I need to save from the hardware after touching it to make sure they're in sync??? Also, when using this process, it forces a number of intermediate "Saves", where you now cannot go back to the original sound, so you almost have to be working on a copy of the patch in another slot so you can switch back to the previous (un-edited) patch for comparison, and if you end up making bad changes that you can no longer "Undo". I sure wish the "Sync" between the 2 was immediate and foolproof. It would make the editing process a lot cleaner and easier. It's complicated enough weeding through all the choices to get the sound you're after without adding in additional glitches in communication between the HD500 & HD Edit.
×
×
  • Create New...