Question for the Forum About Wireless Variax

[Digital_Igloo]

Hi All,

 

Who here would be interested in wireless VDI for $999? Not "oh, that'd be cool—you should make that!" but "I'd pay $999 for wireless VDI were it available today."

 

$999 is just an educated guess at this point and is based on three required G70-level channels: Models, Magnetics, and a back data channel for remote capability. Assume traditional guitars could work with the system as well.

Thanks!

[Rocco_Crocco]

$1K... not for me.

 

Probably $400 would be the magic number for me.

[mcbeddall]

Hmm not for me, out of my price range really , but then I've never really had an urge to go wireless anyhow. The vdi cable is the only thing stopping me from crowd surfing my way through all my solo's, and really it's better for everybody if it stays that way for now

[DarrellM5]

Too steep for me as well, but I'm not a gigging musician.  If I did play gigs I'd definitely be willing to pay that amount.

[Charlie_Watt]

Too much for that capability.  I paid less than that for my JTV.

[MartinDorr]

Same here.

I wonder though about an all around wireless guitar with a sufficiently large battery to run both the Variax electronics and the wireless transceiver, combined with an easy to use guitar charging dock,i.e., you put your guitar on the stand and whole things gets recharged without having to through the trouble of plugging in. That together might get the attraction you need for the price point.

[stevekc]

Id pay $999, but only if the channel count was 9 channel minimum ( 1 channel for Mag PU, 1 channel for existing Variax Modeling,  add another 6 channels for each string, one bi-di AES67/ OSC  / MIDI control channel , and be "plug & play" infratructure ready for a future next gen version of Variax with individual string processing definable by the user.   

[jandrio]

i'll seriously consider buying an 1.4K helix unit provided it offers wireless vdi plus storing the JTV model parameters on each helix patch.

btw, i think u can do vdi-wireless with only two channels:
normally, when (remotely) changing jtv models from helix/hd500 the guitarist DOES NOT need sound, so the remote-control-data-channel can b encapsulated within one of the two audio channels (models + magnetics) INTERRUPTING THE SOUND WHEN RECEIVING DATA.

this is a 2/3 cheaper solution, but has the abv limitation.
of course, I don't know the exact /actual specs, so i'll quite happily be wrong... :)

[snhirsch]

At $999?  Not a chance.

[Palico]

Too steep for me. It would be a nice to have but not worth that much. Can go wireless without the VDI much cheaper already, if I really really wanted wireless. Now like someone said put into Helix along with Helix getting a DT integration. Then that might be enough extra features and sound improvement to get me to upgrade the my rig. 

[line-6-user]

More likely $200

[Digital_Igloo]

i'll seriously consider buying an 1.4K helix unit provided it offers wireless vdi plus storing the JTV model parameters on each helix patch.

 

btw, i think u can do vdi-wireless with only two channels:

normally, when (remotely) changing jtv models from helix/hd500 the guitarist DOES NOT need sound, so the remote-control-data-channel can b encapsulated within one of the two audio channels (models + magnetics) INTERRUPTING THE SOUND WHEN RECEIVING DATA.

 

this is a 2/3 cheaper solution, but has the abv limitation.

of course, I don't know the exact /actual specs, so i'll quite happily be wrong... :)

 

We already embed transmitter data wirelessly (battery life, etc.), but the issue is back channel data, which is meant to send data from the receiver (and presumably any Helix or POD connected to the receiver) back to the guitar. This would require a third channel because it's going in the opposite direction. Bluetooth and Wifi aren't fast enough alternatives.

[BigChas52]

I think $999 is a fair price for the capability, considering that it is a simultaneous 3 channel transmitter/receiver.  That said, I believe most Vax owners would have no real need for it, or desire to pay that much for it. Would it chew up digital channels in a multi-channel (mics, instruments, etc) environment?

[burningyen]

Not I.

[cruisinon2]

I'd rather have another Variax at that price...or be 2/3 of way to a Helix.

 

If I were playing football stadiums, and actually moving across a large stage, sure, I could probably afford it ;). Otherwise, no thanks. For the stages I'm on most of the time, being tethered is not really a hindrance...no real need for wireless at all, VDI or not.

 

If I could lead a battery-free existence, I would...just something else to keep track of and replace.

[sulkbooth]

Nah, not for me. But I don't gig as much either, and usually just use my VDI. (I haven't had a battery in my JTV for 6 months!)

[Charlie_Watt]

I agree that it would be a fair price but I doubt that you Line6 would sell many at that price. 

[clay-man]

that price is ridiculous. 

[Digital_Igloo]

that price is ridiculous. 

 

And yet, here we are. VDI is three channels; three channels of wireless ain't cheap.

[clay-man]

And yet, here we are. VDI is three channels; three channels of wireless ain't cheap.

It's not 1000 dollars.

It could use some type of protocol to deal with the transmission obviously. It doesn't need to be 3 separate channels as long as there's a way to decode the stream of data.

 

That price is beyond bloated.

[samsgs]

Glad your looking at it.  Would love it but could not come close to pulling the plug at that price.

[Digital_Igloo]

It's not 1000 dollars.

It could use some type of protocol to deal with the transmission obviously. It doesn't need to be 3 separate channels as long as there's a way to decode the stream of data.

 

That price is beyond bloated.

 

Yeah, it's probably around $1000. VDI is two channels of audio (modeling and mags) and a third back channel going the opposite direction. Doesn't matter how you embed the data, if you want to use existing Variax guitars' VDI outputs and existing Line 6 modelers' VDI inputs using existing Line 6 radios, it's three channels, period (plus a forward data channel, but that is embedded into the audio stream).

 

Your "some type of protocol" obviously precludes VDI, which is its own protocol. If you're talking about:

• some magic next-gen Variax along with...
• some magic next-gen multichannel bi-directional wireless system that works with...
• some magic next-gen Helix...

...we're all ears. Or if you're some genius digital radio engineer who knows something we don't, we're hiring.

 

This thread isn't about rationalizing why we should make a wireless VDI system for $1000 (CLEARLY we shouldn't). It's about collecting data for the rest of the organization.

 

Thanks everyone for your input. None of this comes as a surprise, but at least I now have some metrics to share.  :)

[cruisinon2]

Hurumph! ;)

[phil_m]

Your "some type of protocol" obviously precludes VDI, which is its own protocol. If you're talking about:

• some magic next-gen Variax along with...
• some magic next-gen multichannel bi-directional wireless system that works with...
• some magic next-gen Helix...

 

[HonestOpinion]

Don't know anything about the VDI protocol. It looks so much like an ethernet connector, too bad wireless can't just be done with WIFI.

[phil_m]

Don't know anything about the VDI protocol. It looks so much like an ethernet connector, too bad wireless can't just be done with WIFI.

 

Beyond my expertise, but I believe the reason wifi isn't a viable option is that wifi is a packet-based protocol - that is to say that instead of sending a continuous data stream, you're sending discrete bundles of data. So you always have some sort of buffer, and with that latency that would be unacceptable for real-time playing.

[HonestOpinion]

Beyond my expertise, but I believe the reason wifi isn't a viable option is that wifi is a packet-based protocol - that is to say that instead of sending a continuous data stream, you're sending discrete bundles of data. So you always have some sort of buffer, and with that latency that would be unacceptable for real-time playing.

 

Latency would have been the issue I would have assumed was the showstopper as well. If that is the issue I wonder if the ever evolving WIFI protocol will get fast enough at some point. The new WIFI "AC" standard is already a lot faster than the old "n" wireless standard.  Maybe WIFI will get fast enough at some point in the hopefully near future. Anyway, way out of my depth here, I have no comprehension of the challenges with this type of connection, just spit-balling.

[Rewolf48]

I think that the next generation of WiFi should be fine doing multi-channel real time audio - IEEE802.11ay

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11ay

 

20 to 40 Gbps (2 to 4 Gigibytes/second) with a range of 300 to 500 meters.

 

It is likely to become a standard in 2017, so all we have to do is wait a bit and the platform onto which this can be built will appear...

 

Then all we need is for the hardware to be small enough to embed into a plug and we will be there (I have a USB adaptor that only sticks out 5mm, so it is possible - but perhaps has to be a bit bigger for the battery to support passive instruments)

[HonestOpinion]

Don't know anything about the VDI protocol. It looks so much like an ethernet connector, too bad wireless can't just be done with WIFI.

Latency would have been the issue I would have assumed was the showstopper as well. If that is the issue I wonder if the ever evolving WIFI protocol will get fast enough at some point. The new WIFI "AC" standard is already a lot faster than the old "n" wireless standard. Maybe WIFI will get fast enough at some point in the hopefully near future. Anyway, way out of my depth here, I have no comprehension of the challenges with this type of connection, just spit-balling.

I think that the next generation of WiFi should be fine doing multi-channel real time audio - IEEE802.11ay

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11ay

 

20 to 40 Gbps (2 to 4 Gigibytes/second) with a range of 300 to 500 meters.

 

It is likely to become a standard in 2017, so all we have to do is wait a bit and the platform onto which this can be built will appear...

 

Then all we need is for the hardware to be small enough to embed into a plug and we will be there (I have a USB adaptor that only sticks out 5mm, so it is possible - but perhaps has to be a bit bigger for the battery to support passive instruments)

There you go Line6, your community has provided the answer. Next-gen WIFI for wireless VDI. Royalties and one of each L6 item(for life) please! ;)

[silverhead]

 

There you go Line6, your community has provided the answer. Next-gen WIFI for wireless VDI. Royalties and one of each L6 item(for life) please! ;)

 

You're halfway there! Don't forget that VDI also powers the Variax. After you figure out the technology for wireless power transmission and give Line 6 the patent for it I'm sure Line 6 could grant you your wish. ;) :lol:

[HonestOpinion]

You're halfway there! Don't forget that VDI also powers the Variax. After you figure out the technology for wireless power transmission and give Line 6 the patent for it I'm sure Line 6 could grant you your wish. ;) :lol:

 

LOL, wireless transmission of power is also being worked on, that can be 2018's project. We're not magicians dammit  ;)

[gumtown]

WiFi is not part of the spectrum where you would want to use this,

if you imagine a live concert with all the patrons having a WiFi enabled cellphone in their pocket, all trying to find a connection, that is a lot of R.F. interference.

 

I just happened to chance upon this topic during a Google search on wireless tech, I am currently designing a wireless GK system (7 channel + data), and wonder what makes a VDI system work.

[clay-man]

My point is that regardless of "channels" it should not affect the price because it's a stream of data. That's like saying we should pay more for our modem because we have more than 1 program open processing internet data.

 

Unless there's a limitation where you need to add a component for each channel, it shouldn't be a problem. It should come as 1 digital stream, and be decoded into 3 channels via the processor and how the data is encrypted.

 

Perhaps doing that type of data in real time is more expensive than I thought, as like what was stated earlier, it's not like we're using a wifi signal.

 

Otherwise, in theory, it should be encrypted into 1 stream. If that's not possible and we need 3 expensive components for each channel, then, well, that's stupid.

 

I know wireless is a few hundred dollars, but jesus christ, you should not be paying the same price for the guitar itself.

[cruisinon2]

If you're scampering across stadium-sized stages, I understand the need for a wireless. But if your band is tucked into the corner by the bar at Walt's Trout Hut every Friday night, then why bother? Half the point of the VDI is not being dependent on a battery to power the guitar. Why in the name of all that is decent and holy, would I fork over a thousand dollars and add yet another battery that I have to keep charged/replace? Thank you, no...

[gumtown]

To put it in a simpler singular perspective, on the guitar you would need two transmitters and one receiver, and a suitable battery capacity to run those and the guitar modelling circuit.

On the other end, you would require two receivers and one transmitter, so the cost would be roughly 3 times that of a regular wireless guitar system.

 

Then to make it cater for all, a cheepo short range 2 hour charge system won't do, it would need to be acceptable at the (semi) pro end too. 

 

 

 

[clay-man]

To put it in a simpler singular perspective, on the guitar you would need two transmitters and one receiver, and a suitable battery capacity to run those and the guitar modelling circuit.

On the other end, you would require two receivers and one transmitter, so the cost would be roughly 3 times that of a regular wireless guitar system.

 

Then to make it cater for all, a cheepo short range 2 hour charge system won't do, it would need to be acceptable at the (semi) pro end too. 

I'm arguing that you need 1 transmitter and 1 receiver because you can simply mix the digital data into 1 stream and decrypt it via processing.

 

All you need to do is program a wireless protocol that would process the channels into a data stream back and forth. A programmer does need to get paid, but there's a reason why modeling products are usually SOOOO much cheaper unless all the equipment is seriously high end.

[jandrio]

..I'm arguing that you need 1 transmitter and 1 receiver because you can simply mix the digital data into 1 stream and decrypt it via processing...

 

T R U E !

[blessed1]

I'm very interested in the wireless VDI. The only reason I bought the HD500X and the JTV69 was to be able to store and change guitars with each patch and was disappointed after purchasing to find this feature wasn't available when playing wireless which is how I play. $1000.00 is a little steep considering the money already invested but if you lower the price I'd be very interested. 

[cruisinon2]

$1000.00 is a little steep considering the money already invested but if you lower the price I'd be very interested.

Don't hold your breath...I seriously doubt this one's even getting off the drawing board.

[blessed1]

You might be right. I maybe wrong, but it seems like L6 focuses primarily on musician who are recording, that's cool, but some of us are performers, doing choreography and leaving the stages, this is where a wireless is a necessity, couple that with the ability to change guitars with each patches, I'd stop carrying 4 or 5 guitars to each performance, I'd just buy 2 Variax ( 1 as a backup ) and call it a wrap, that's perfect for the touring guitarist. That's freedom, not being locked down to one spot on the stage because you can't leave your pedal! LOL. I can't let the singer get all the girls because he has a wireless mic and can go in the audience and I can't. This is 2016 LOL...