JTV 69 crappy acoustic tones. please help

[Pacohelix]

HI all.  I'm running a 69 into a helix out to a dt25.  my acoustic tones are garbage.  Ive downloaded patches off of the customtone.   Ive bought acoustic patches.  I tried my own.  nothing sounds anywhere close to all these videos I hear on the net.  The guitar is using the vdi cable to the helix.  L6 link out of helix to the amp.  the channel on the amp is set to bypass all preamp stuff.  please help

[Charlie_Watt]

I don't know about the DT25 but mine sounds great through a PA monitor.  I use my HD500x with no amp model and an acoustic patch I got from Custom Tone.

[cruisinon2]

HI all. I'm running a 69 into a helix out to a dt25. my acoustic tones are garbage. Ive downloaded patches off of the customtone. Ive bought acoustic patches. I tried my own. nothing sounds anywhere close to all these videos I hear on the net. The guitar is using the vdi cable to the helix. L6 link out of helix to the amp. the channel on the amp is set to bypass all preamp stuff. please help

Unfortunately, there's not much you can do. Downloaded patches aren't gonna help you, because the Helix isn't the problem. the DT25 is the problem. It's an electric guitar amp, with the same limited frequency response that they all have. Far too narrow to produce acoustic guitar tones. You could plug an actual acoustic into that rig, and it still won't really sound like what it is (yes, I've tried...it doesn't work).

 

If you want to take advantage of the JTV's acoustic models, you're gonna have to think about moving to an FRFR rig.

[Rewolf48]

Some people have had what they considered to be success when using the HD500 in the chain - the trick is forcing the DT25 into a topology that is a neutral as possible.

 

The following may or may not help:

 

http://line6.com/support/topic/13741-jtv-acoustics-with-dt2550-in-standalone-mode/

 

http://line6.com/support/topic/5553-acoustic-solution-for-jtv-with-dt-amps/

 

The problem with Helix is that it doesn't have the ability to control DT amp topology in the same way that HD500 could - in the built in menu options, but I do recall some people setting up custom MIDI messages to achieve the same effect.

 

ColonelForbin and radatats both use Helix now so they might have suggestions.

[Charlie_Watt]

Guitar amps without a high frequency horn / tweater can't reproduce acoustic guitar sounds well enough to sound good.  I real acoustic won't sound good through it either.

[roscoe5]

HI all.  I'm running a 69 into a helix out to a dt25.  my acoustic tones are garbage.  Ive downloaded patches off of the customtone.   Ive bought acoustic patches.  I tried my own.  nothing sounds anywhere close to all these videos I hear on the net.  The guitar is using the vdi cable to the helix.  L6 link out of helix to the amp.  the channel on the amp is set to bypass all preamp stuff.  please help

 

I have a JTV-69, Helix, DT50 and a Celestion V30 212 cab.  While this setup is not full range (FRFR), it helps to use the Helix preamp Mic>Studio Tube Preamp with DT for acoustic tones.  I like to use DT Voicing I, Class AB, Pentode settings with this.

 

A Helix parametric eq block and some adjustments to flatten out any harsh frequencies can help further.  It helps to know the frequency response curve of your guitar speaker.  For example, my celestion V30's are pretty flat in their (limited) frequency range, except for a peak between 1kHz - 1.4kHz before the response tapers off.  This is pretty harsh for acoustic sounds and I pull these down with the Helix parametric eq.  I like a little 700 Hz scoop on my acoustic sound too.

 

If you REALLY want to get tech, you can try using an RTA app and reference mic with the DT25 and using a Helix para eq block to flatten out the response.  You get then copy this para eq block to your acoustic patches to give you more of a flat response and theoretically better acoustic sounds with a guitar amp.  Maybe someone here has already done this and can share.  Ears are pretty good reference devices though ;)

 

Now I don't rely on the mic'd cab/DT amp for my live acoustic sound to front of house PA, only for monitoring and jamming at home through DT.  That PA signal comes out of Helix XLR out.

[Pacohelix]

Unfortunately, there's not much you can do. Downloaded patches aren't gonna help you, because the Helix isn't the problem. the DT25 is the problem. It's an electric guitar amp, with the same limited frequency response that they all have. Far too narrow to produce acoustic guitar tones. You could plug an actual acoustic into that rig, and it still won't really sound like what it is (yes, I've tried...it doesn't work).

 

If you want to take advantage of the JTV's acoustic models, you're gonna have to think about moving to an FRFR rig.

 

I tried running through my PA and it sounded good.  not great.  I looked into studio moniters and was not happy with the overall sound of everything.  possible I just bought junk?

[Rewolf48]

If you haven't already read this - if you want a definitive example of how the acoustics can sound jump to video at the bottom of the page and play from 3:05 in.  That is using HD500 so Helix should sound better, but pay attention to the content above about how to achieve those sounds.

 

http://blog.line6.com/2013/2061/

[andrewthouston]

I'm new to the guitar modeling world, but considering one can now have a single instrument that sounds like just about anything, and an MFX that sounds like just about anything, why saddle it with a specific cab tone?

 

(Hadn't seen "FRFR", so had to look it up. First thing I opened was on the Kemper board. Christoph Kemper seems to agree that "FRFR" is entirely redundant.)

[cruisinon2]

I'm new to the guitar modeling world, but considering one can now have a single instrument that sounds like just about anything, and an MFX that sounds like just about anything, why saddle it with a specific cab tone?

Because some guys will start to twitch if there aren't one or more little glowing tubes, and a giant box that says "Marshall" on it, somewhere in the vicinity...;)

 

Not sure I understand what's redundant about the concept of FRFR, though....but what do I know? My name isn't Kemper.

[andrewthouston]

Because some guys will start to twitch if there aren't one or more little glowing tubes, and a giant box that says "Marshall" on it, somewhere in the vicinity... ;)

...set to Twin Reverb, and their "Strat" set to Byrdland, getting ready to jam on some Stranglehold.

 

Not that I blame them. Modern tech may make it the most sensible solution that everyone in the band play thru the same speakers and wear IEMs. But that's hardly very rock and roll, is it?

 

 

Not sure I understand what's redundant about the concept of FRFR, though....but what do I know? My name isn't Kemper.

Because "full range" already implies (the desire for the capability to reproduce) flat response, by default.

 

Does it mean if you could give people a DC-to-RF, +/- 0.01db system, they'd never reach for the eq? Of course not. They'd still want to add +10 below 100 for pop/rap, and whatever other eq curves their ipod tells them is appropriate for a given genre of music. But it's still a "flat response" system, even if it's not being used as such.

 

But since I referenced it, here's Kemper's post, just fyr:

 

I think FRFR is the strangest term in our business, and a bit misleading.

It pretends that FRFR is something special.

 

But FRFR is EVERY speaker exept guitar speakers.

Your stereo at home, your iPod earplugs, your car radio and the biggest festival PA are all FRFR.

I would love to ban this word from our forum

It is better described by regular broadband speakers or linear speakers. They all try to be perfect and non colouring. Some are bad, some are great.

 

Sorry, don't mean to run it into the ground! Was just surprised to stumble across a new acronym, only to find out it's to represent something that's been around forever. So I wonder if it's largely coming from the guitar-modeling world (a new thing for me), as a convenient way to distinguish from guitar cabs?

 

In which case, are there also "FR, non-FR" speakers?

[cruisinon2]

...set to Twin Reverb, and their "Strat" set to Byrdland, getting ready to jam on some Stranglehold.

 

Not that I blame them. Modern tech may make it the most sensible solution that everyone in the band play thru the same speakers and wear IEMs. But that's hardly very rock and roll, is it?

 

 

Because "full range" already implies (the desire for the capability to reproduce) flat response, by default.

 

Does it mean if you could give people a DC-to-RF, +/- 0.01db system, they'd never reach for the eq? Of course not. They'd still want to add +10 below 100 for pop/rap, and whatever other eq curves their ipod tells them is appropriate for a given genre of music. But it's still a "flat response" system, even if it's not being used as such.

 

But since I referenced it, here's Kemper's post, just fyr:

 

 

 

I think FRFR is the strangest term in our business, and a bit misleading.

It pretends that FRFR is something special.

 

But FRFR is EVERY speaker exept guitar speakers.

Your stereo at home, your iPod earplugs, your car radio and the biggest festival PA are all FRFR.

I would love to ban this word from our forum

It is better described by regular broadband speakers or linear speakers. They all try to be perfect and non colouring. Some are bad, some are great.

Sorry, don't mean to run it into the ground! Was just surprised to stumble across a new acronym, only to find out it's to represent something that's been around forever. So I wonder if it's largely coming from the guitar-modeling world (a new thing for me), as a convenient way to distinguish from guitar cabs?

 

In which case, are there also "FR, non-FR" speakers?

Well I suppose most of that is true...true-ish, anyway...lol. Except when it comes to headphones. There are plenty that are 20Hz-20KHz (or beyond if you belive the spec sheets), but that have nothing remotely resembling a flat response. Somewhere around here in a fairly recent thread there was a link to frequency response curves to dozens of different headphone makes and models. I was surprised at how many of those curves looked like rollercoaster schematics ...even on nice, expensive cans.

[andrewthouston]

Back to the topic at hand...

I tried running through my PA and it sounded good.  not great.  I looked into studio moniters and was not happy with the overall sound of everything.  possible I just bought junk?

Yes, focus on one thing at a time. Your amp may be the weakest link in the chain (in this application), but first thing is to isolate the elements and make sure you're getting a good signal to it (garbage in, garbage out).

 

Set the Helix to bypass, and run it into a set of headphones or home stereo or monitors that you're familiar with. Focus on getting the best possible raw sound out of the guitar first. See how adjustments to your playing style and the guitar itself (I hear GHS White Bronze strings are very good) affect the sound.

 

Kind of like if you go to shop for a new acoustic. Typically you'll audition how they sound acoustically first, then out the pickup (into a reasonably accurate monitoring system), and then maybe plugged into a stage amp or pa. In this case, that first step doesn't really apply, so you'd want to start at the second step. But not the 3rd!

[andrewthouston]

Well I suppose most of that is true...true-ish, anyway...lol. Except when it comes to headphones. There are plenty that are 20Hz-20KHz (or beyond if you belive the spec sheets), but that have nothing remotely resembling a flat response. Somewhere around here in a fairly recent thread there was a link to frequency response curves to dozens of different headphone makes and models. I was surprised at how many of those curves looked like rollercoaster schematics ...even on nice, expensive cans.

Yes, but this is actually your ear's fault. If you intentionally make a headphone that measured flat, in the same way a good loudspeaker does, it would sound terrible! Why? Because your ear doesn't respond to a sound being fed directly into your ear in the same way it does to a sound in a natural acoustic space.

 

It's a little like (trying to think of a good analogy) viewing a work of art (say, a painting) with your nose 3" away from it. Your eyes can pick up maybe 20% of the image extremely clearly, but the other 80% is quite fuzzy, if not gone. In audio, that 20% could represent the upper-mid freqs (that we're extremely sensitive to), and the other 80% everything else.

 

But if you have a need to view the art at 3", it certainly can be done: you shrink it down to the size of a phone screen. This is roughly what headphones have to do. Your ears and eyes were designed to hear and see things in natural space. They can also go beyond that, but the "source output" needs to be adjusted accordingly.