Acoustic Sounds Get Worser From Update To Update?

[virtzberg]

Is anybody else thinks like me that the acoustic sounds get worser from update to update?

I had the electric 700 (which I sold) that had a very good acoustic sound, than the JTV (1.9) that had a thinner sound and now 2.0 which is the worst...

Is anybody out there at Line 6?

[pugdealer]

That's why I've bee sticking with 1.71...can't like any acoustic sounds on the newer firmwares...haven't tried the 2.0 though, but I will, I always do!

[clay-man]

I think the new acoustics sound great. The old acoustics sound like high quality piezo acoustics (It is litereally piezo of course)

but the new ones sound like actual mic'd up acoustics, and I really like that. It paves way for plugged acoustics to sound like mic'd acoustics.

 

I can get my 600 to sound kind of like the new acoustics by heavy EQing but it's definitely not as good as the JTV acoustics.

 

But I guess it's all a matter of opinion. I do think the new acoustics are a bit too rolled off on the high ends. I suggest trying to EQ it a bit and see what type of tone you can get out of that.

[arislaf]

I strongly believe that the 700's latest version had the best acoustics, and the worse are the jtv's 2.0

[TheRealZap]

you can revert to any 1.7 firmware update at any time and get all those "700" model sounds you want.

there has never been a forced upgrade.

I disagree with you, but it's all very context dependent... meaning how you set them up and how you use them.

for home recording i still use the variax 700 acoustic which has the old models then some...

i just like the options, but i can certainly appreciate the improvements in the latest JTV firmware.

[phil_m]

I have been working on recording some fingerstyle acoustic songs with the new acoustic models, and I've got to say, in that context, I really like the new models shine. I don't know if you've ever tried doing that type of stuff with a close-miced acoustic, but it can be somewhat of a pain - trying not to breathe or move too much so the mic doesn't pick it up, getting the mic position just right, ect. But once I added a little EQ and compression in my DAW I was extremely pleased with the results. It sounded as good or better as some of the real recording I've done. I hope to put some samples up here in a little while.

[guitarno]

I have been working on recording some fingerstyle acoustic songs with the new acoustic models, and I've got to say, in that context, I really like the new models shine. I don't know if you've ever tried doing that type of stuff with a close-miced acoustic, but it can be somewhat of a pain - trying not to breathe or move too much so the mic doesn't pick it up, getting the mic position just right, ect. But once I added a little EQ and compression in my DAW I was extremely pleased with the results. It sounded as good or better as some of the real recording I've done. I hope to put some samples up here in a little while.

 

   I guess I have to agree with you. I was playing some fingerstyle stuff in DADGAD with one of the new acoustic models (I forget which one), and I recorded some of it into Logic, just screwing around to do some testing, and I thought it recorded really well and sounded pretty authentic. I am a brand new Variax user though, and I didn't have the older stuff to compare it to, so I can't really say if it's any better or worse than it used to be. I do see a lot of people complaining that it isn't as good now. It would be interesting to hear the difference. I wonder if anyone that thinks it's not as good could post a few "Before and After" clips that we could listen to?

[thorneven]

"Worser"?  I think they are betterer.  :P

[Charlie_Watt]

I am new to my JTV but I have a 500 to compare to.  The Acoustics are far better on my JTV with 2.0.  I am not crazy about the 12 string models but they too are improved over the older stuff.  I am sure that we all agree that there is room for improvement and the more flexibility they give us with Workbench the better.

[phil_m]

"Worser"?  I think they are betterer.  :P

 

Are you not aware that I get farty and bloated with a foamy latte?

 

[arislaf]

you can revert to any 1.7 firmware update at any time and get all those "700" model sounds you want.

there has never been a forced upgrade.

I disagree with you, but it's all very context dependent... meaning how you set them up and how you use them.

for home recording i still use the variax 700 acoustic which has the old models then some...

i just like the options, but i can certainly appreciate the improvements in the latest JTV firmware.

Really, no reason to do that, I still have my 700 <3 but thanks for mentionig it.

 

By the way, the 1.7 firmware on jtv sounded much more different than the 700's

[TheRealZap]

oh yeah!

:)

 

Really, no reason to do that, I still have my 700 <3 but thanks for mentionig it.

 

By the way, the 1.7 firmware on jtv sounded much more different than the 700's

[clay-man]

Remember that JTV's pre-HD modeling was the same as the 300/500/600/700. The piezos are what gave it a different sound.

[thorneven]

Are you not aware that I get farty and bloated with a foamy latte?

I am not, but it's hard for me to resist a joke about grammar being that my mother was an English major and god forbid I spoke incorrectly.  But since you asked, do you get fartier and bloatier?  :D

[arislaf]

Remember that JTV's pre-HD modeling was the same as the 300/500/600/700. The piezos are what gave it a different sound.

Woops! That is correct, i forget the sound of the piezos!on my 700 i instaled the graphtec ,that's the reason it sounds much different (&better imo)

[clay-man]

Woops! That is correct, i forget the sound of the piezos!on my 700 i instaled the graphtec ,that's the reason it sounds much different (&better imo)

 

Yes. The JTV and Ghost system are way higher quality than the stock piezos on the Gen 1 Variax guitars.

 

The HD update finally kind of shed's the JTV's skin of lingering in the old Variax's technology. Everything is now updated and now you have a completely new guitar from the old Variaxes.

[arislaf]

Wich make me wonder how will sound the jtv with graph tec...... ;)

[phil_m]

Wich make me wonder how will sound the jtv with graph tec...... ;)

 

The 89F comes with a Graph Tech bridge, so it could be a relatively easy question to answer.

[Charlie_Watt]

Graphtec was easy conversion on the old Variax 500, 600, etc but not so at least on my JTV 69s.  The bridge is way different. 

[silverhead]

Wich make me wonder how will sound the jtv with graph tec...... ;)

 

I've wondered that too, but haven't felt the need to swap the JTV piezos. I own a Variax 300 and changed to Graphtec pickups a couple of years ago. The sound improvement was incredible - much better than the original V300 piezos.

 

When I purchased a JTV one of the first things I did was compare sounds with the upgraded V300. At that time the JTV modeling was the same as the V300, so any difference in sound  would have been due to the different piezos. I could not tell any difference; to my ears the new JTV piezos sound as good as the Graphtec.

 

Mind you, technology moves ahead - perhaps the latest version of the Graphtec would indeed be better, but I know for me it's not worth it. I am very happy with my JTV as it is, and I'm pretty sure the quality of the piezos is not the limiting factor in my sound or playing. :lol:

[Charlie_Watt]

In my 500, the difference was big because of two things:  Graphtech ghost piezos are grounded and the Variax ones were not. The Ghost are potted into the bridge pieces - the Variax ones are just spring loaded and can move around or lose contact with the string.  I am not sure how the JTV piezos are grounded.  They can still move around in the bridge which I don't really like but they do sound as good as my 500 Ghost pickups.

[Leftzilla]

The JTV89F has the graphtec piezos.  But to truly compare you would need the 89 hard tail and 89F with the Flotd Rose.  I have a 59 and the difference between guitars seems to influence the sound more than the different piezo's (At least to me).  I have two bands and they both thought that the acoustic emulation out of the 89F "sounded" better.  However when I recorded them side to side no one could tell the difference

[LarryLion]

The JTV acoustic models are not great, BUT ... if you don't play hard, and let the amp do the work, I find they can work a lot better, i.e., they respond better to a lighter touch.  Try that - the tendency on an actual (unamplified) acoustic is to play harder, and I find it is the reverse with a set of acoustic simulations, like on the JTV. Also, the acoustic models do not respond well to low neck position bending, or string bending in general, which is physically possible on the JTV, but not on most "real" acoustics.  The solution - resist the extreme bending, and play the acoustic model as if it was the real deal with respect to bending, it will sound more natural.  You wouldn't "bend" the average 12-string, why bend the JTV model?  Same applies to the resonator models.

 

The only significant limitation of the JTV's acoustic model, IMO, is the lack of a wound 3rd string, and the string gauge "feel", due to physically smaller (electric) gauges.  The simulation connot cover that "feel", so playing acoustic on the JTV doesn't feel right.

 

I've rigged my JTV through a Boss LS-2 (line selector pedal) with a simple loop-back, to give me volume boost when connected to a PA, and I can strum or pick softly, and still be loud enough, when I want to be.  Takes a little time to play "simulated acoustic" effectively, but it is definitely do-able.

[clay-man]

The JTV acoustic models are not great, BUT ... if you don't play hard, and let the amp do the work, I find they can work a lot better, i.e., they respond better to a lighter touch.  Try that - the tendency on an actual (unamplified) acoustic is to play harder, and I find it is the reverse with a set of acoustic simulations, like on the JTV. Also, the acoustic models do not respond well to low neck position bending, or string bending in general, which is physically possible on the JTV, but not on most "real" acoustics.  The solution - resist the extreme bending, and play the acoustic model as if it was the real deal with respect to bending, it will sound more natural.  You wouldn't "bend" the average 12-string, why bend the JTV model?  Same applies to the resonator models.

 

The only significant limitation of the JTV's acoustic model, IMO, is the lack of a wound 3rd string, and the string gauge "feel", due to physically smaller (electric) gauges.  The simulation connot cover that "feel", so playing acoustic on the JTV doesn't feel right.

 

I've rigged my JTV through a Boss LS-2 (line selector pedal) with a simple loop-back, to give me volume boost when connected to a PA, and I can strum or pick softly, and still be loud enough, when I want to be.  Takes a little time to play "simulated acoustic" effectively, but it is definitely do-able.

 

This. I found playing hard makes it sound very unnatural. Might be that "piezo quack" thing going on that's causing that.

[Junis]

what is the piezzo that comes in 69?

[clay-man]

what is the piezzo that comes in 69?

 

"L. R. Baggs Radiance Hex piezo pickup system"

 

Not available to buy directly, I don't think.

 

This is the piezo quality from best to worst I think:

 

Graphtech Ghost system

LR Baggs Radience system

300/400/500/600 LR Baggs X-bridge-esque piezos

[Junis]

the grahtech is possible to buy separately? it will be worth the trade for this in my 69?

"L. R. Baggs Radiance Hex piezo pickup system"

 

Not available to buy directly, I don't think.

 

This is the piezo quality from best to worst I think:

 

Graphtech Ghost system

LR Baggs Radience system

300/400/500/600 LR Baggs X-bridge-esque piezos

[phil_m]

the grahtech is possible to buy separately? it will be worth the trade for this in my 69?

 

I don't think it's even feasible to replace the saddles on the 69 (or any of the JTV other models, for that matter) with the Graph Tech saddles. The saddles are integral to the bridge in the JTV. I would think that the gap between the current saddles and the Ghost saddles would be relatively small.

[clay-man]

the grahtech is possible to buy separately? it will be worth the trade for this in my 69?

 

The graphtech stuff is possible to get, but I'm not sure it would fit on the 69 because of the 69's saddle design. In fact, I think it would  require a lot of changed to the guitar to be able to use the piezos:

 

Possibly a whole new bridge, including tremolo block, because the bridge also has the weird screw design with the saddles.

[Charlie_Watt]

I see no way to change the piezo's on the 69 due to the very unique bridge and saddle design.  The old Variax was very Strat like and the Ghost Strat saddles would go right on the Variax bridge. 

 

Playing style with the Acoustic models is an issue.  You can't play it hard like a real acoustic (IMO) and have it sound good.  This may be mostly due to the setup.

[Junis]

only once I had a chance to test my jtv ( 1.9 at that time ) and a 300 side by side, to be honest I liked most of the acoustic 300 , softer , with less aggressive presence . but in return , the patch used for the 300 sounded good , had a lot more efects, eqs ,compressor , since the jtv I needed much less eqs

[robdog03]

To me, the "HD" acoustic models are a mixed bag.

 

Pro: They sound more like a mic'd guitar, vs a piezo pickup, which I think is better for recording.

 

Con: I don't think they sound much like the guitars that are modeled...esp Acoustic 3. Also, I'm not crazy about the mic ambience in a live context.

 

My $0.02.

 

-Rob

[pugdealer]

I just updated to 2.0!

 

I agree with someone who said that in the old variax up until the JTV with 1.71 the acoustics sounded like reeally good acoustic to DI sounds, and that was just fine by me...sounded good right out of the guitar with no tweaking and were easily manipulated to get the right tone. I LOOOOVED the dreadnought!!

 

After 1.8 they got that mic'ed sound, and I hated them...there was just toooo much room effect for me, and I started hating the dread. The acoustics sounded muddy, distant, flat, really booomy, and I couldn't use/like them no matter how much tweaking I did, so I stuck with 1.71.

 

Now the 2.0

The acoustics struck me again as a bit too roomy and muddy/boomy. I wish they modeled them with a mix of DI feel. Still hate the dread, but I find the gibson nice and usable. Acoustics are really important to me, so I really need to like them to keep the 2.0

On the electric side, the first thing I noticed was how much better palm muting sounds...I know this had been improved in previous firmwares, but I'd been stuck with 1.71 so that's a big change for me. I haven't explored much at all, so I'll have to report back on that some other time

[ur2funky]

After a week with 2.0, I flashed back to 1.9 and found the acoustics (especially #3) very compressed.  I went back to 2.0 and prefer the dynamics of the acoustics, but hate the life-less Strat.  I changed the body of the Strat to the Dano in Workbench (as from a tip on this site), and it does help make them usable. 

 

The dynamic nature of the acoustics in 2.0 suit my playing style better than the 1.9

[derek_32999]

Out of curiosity, after hearing so many say that the acoustics on 2.0 sounds worse or better than 1.9, isn't it a fact that the acoustic modelling is the same?  The acoustic update was in FW 1.8 wasn't it?  So, to hear a difference you would have to flash back to 1.7.

 

:ph34r:

[TheRealZap]

you're correct, but the full optimization within the JTV for the HD models seems to have enhanced them in 2.0, even though they are the same models.

 

Out of curiosity, after hearing so many say that the acoustics on 2.0 sounds worse or better than 1.9, isn't it a fact that the acoustic modelling is the same?  The acoustic update was in FW 1.8 wasn't it?  So, to hear a difference you would have to flash back to 1.7.

 

:ph34r:

[Junis]

someone tried to make martin 12 in 6? through the WB? if so, what did you think?

[phil_m]

The acoustics struck me again as a bit too roomy and muddy/boomy. I wish they modeled them with a mix of DI feel. Still hate the dread, but I find the gibson nice and usable. Acoustics are really important to me, so I really need to like them to keep the 2.0

On the electric side, the first thing I noticed was how much better palm muting sounds...I know this had been improved in previous firmwares, but I'd been stuck with 1.71 so that's a big change for me. I haven't explored much at all, so I'll have to report back on that some other time

 

 

If you're not using alternate tunings on the acoustics, one thing you could try is blending in a little bit of the signal from the magnetic pickups in Workbench. That could give you a bit more of the midrange thump you're looking for in a live acoustic sound.

 

It's kind of ironic, really. What most acoustic DI systems are trying to give you is the sound of a miced acoustic, but in reality, that sound doesn't quite cut it live for most pop and rock applications. You need a bit of the piezo quack to cut through.

[vjclaus]

for me the 1.72 works best

[israz99]

It would be good to know what is the amp that virtzberg uses to play the aocustics. In my opinión the acoustic sounds in WB 2.0 sound really good, I play them through Guitar Rig 5 and I can get them to sound just like Pink Floyd in the live versions of wish you were here, if that is not good enough then I don't know what it is. 

 

Remember that teh acoustic sounds in WB 2.0 won't sound well through a normal amp.