Helix JCM800 2203 Request Thread (FW 3.70 new Brit 2203)!

James Freeman said:
Yes but bright caps don't sound good with jazzmasters and fuzzes, a lot of scarf wearing mustachioed men on facebook will be outraged if Line 6 delivers great sounding classic Marshalls.
Click to expand...
Honest question…ever play a vintage spec Fender through a stock 1959/2203? With a fuzz?

The thing is, those players aren’t wrong…It is BRIGHT with anything other than humbuckers. It borders on unpleasant for me sometimes and I like bright tones. Add a fuzz to that and all the really harsh sizzle gets pushed right to the front…it’s a lot unless you are running that amp cranked.

L6 needs to provide a bright cap switch. Period. Then we all love their Marshalls, we all can get what we expect out of it.
 
The lack of bright caps on several amps and broken amps that remain so for years is the result of a far bigger issue.
If Line 6 really want to solve this at the core they need to reconsider their entire approach to modeling.
 
James Freeman said:
Yes but bright caps don't sound good with jazzmasters and fuzzes, a lot of scarf wearing mustachioed men on facebook will be outraged if Line 6 delivers great sounding classic Marshalls.
Click to expand...
A lot of the newer amps and certainly fx additions have been targeted at younger demographic I'd say. I certainly understand why. But I'm old, dammit! :rofl
 
EOengineer said:
What would you change?
Click to expand...
I would improve the component based modeling until the response is 97% there without having to measure everything, even if we get idealized response without fine tuning it to the reference amp.
Also, have a separate Beta branch where you fix/change the current amps and notify people in advance that the current model will be replaced.

Fractal is perpetually improving their component modeling for 17 years, and I think this is the 'correct' way to do it.
 
Last edited:
Gearzilla said:
I’m guessing Line 6 is probably one generation away.
Click to expand...
They are.
I also think if Line 6 are working on a new modeling technology for Helix Next it's not going to appear in the current Helix, which is why I specifically ask for a great JCM800 (Plexi, Jubilee, etc.) before the current Helix is EOL'd so it will hold more value after the fact.
 
James Freeman said:
I would improve the component based modeling until the response is 97% there without having to measure everything, even if we get idealized response without fine tuning it to the reference amp.
Also, have a separate Beta branch where you fix/change the current amps and notify people in advance that the current model will be replaced.

Fractal is perpetually improving their component modeling for 17 years, and I think this is the 'correct' way to do it.
Click to expand...
That’s interesting. I knew they had a lengthy or at least “manual” process to dial in models, but perceived that as more a checks & balances or fine tuning thing than an integral part of their core modeling process. I was just making assumptions though. Seems sort of dogmatic as, at least as far as I’m aware, Fractal doesn’t own all the billion amps they model, so are perhaps skipping that manual comparison and by most accounts that’s going gangbusters for them.

I guess I’d like both - the highest quality component modeling with a robust, well supported QA & comparison phase. Moreso I’m of the opinion they’d be well served to ramp up their user research, as they’ve clearly swung and missed in terms of the actual amp or settings choices they’ve made when necessary to limit some more complex amps. Gotta get that stuff right.
 
EOengineer said:
That’s interesting. I knew they had a lengthy or at least “manual” process to dial in models, but perceived that as more a checks & balances or fine tuning thing than an integral part of their core modeling process. I was just making assumptions though. Seems sort of dogmatic as, at least as far as I’m aware, Fractal doesn’t own all the billion amps they model, so are perhaps skipping that manual comparison and by most accounts that’s going gangbusters for them.

I guess I’d like both - the highest quality component modeling with a robust, well supported QA & comparison phase. Moreso I’m of the opinion they’d be well served to ramp up their user research, as they’ve clearly swung and missed in terms of the actual amp or settings choices they’ve made when necessary to limit some more complex amps. Gotta get that stuff right.
Click to expand...

It’s not going gangbusters for them, really. There have been plenty of occasions where users that deeply know the real amp mentioned that something wasn’t right with the response of the model when it was done from a schematic or without deep measurement of the real circuit.

When you do it based on schematics of components and not actually deeply measuring the real behavior of the amp, there are things that don’t go as planned.

It’s slower to do it the way L6 does it (and fractal does it this way sometimes too IIRC), but the results are really; really close to the real thing when they get it right.

I’d rather them take their time and get it right personally. Sure, that means less amps get added in a given period of time, but i still ultimately prefer it. I don’t want them to change their approach to modeling, but I do want a stock plexi with a standard bright cap or a couple of cap options. Just the stock value would be fine they already have versions with tame values or no bright cap.

D
 
I’d love to see all the plexi variations combined into a single amp model. When the circuit is essentially the same, the controls are the same, I’d much rather be able to compare like for like without having to adjust the entire model/preset. It’s really a benefit that digital can offer that isn’t possible so easily with analog. Switching between different years of model would be cool, but I’d love it even more if you could choose which values from which year.

Probably not for everyone, but when I think about what digital amp modelling can offer that is not practical in the analog realm, this is the direction I’d like things to go in. Not fictional circuits of amps that would never exist.

IMG_8703.jpeg


Photo from Johan Segeborn’s youtube channel
 
MirrorProfiles said:
I’d love to see all the plexi variations combined into a single amp model. When the circuit is essentially the same, the controls are the same, I’d much rather be able to compare like for like without having to adjust the entire model/preset. It’s really a benefit that digital can offer that isn’t possible so easily with analog. Switching between different years of model would be cool, but I’d love it even more if you could choose which values from which year.

Probably not for everyone, but when I think about what digital amp modelling can offer that is not practical in the analog realm, this is the direction I’d like things to go in. Not fictional circuits of amps that would never exist.

View attachment 7974

Photo from Johan Segeborn’s youtube channel
Click to expand...
That is a really cool find. Thanks for sharing!
 
MirrorProfiles said:
I’d love to see all the plexi variations combined into a single amp model. When the circuit is essentially the same, the controls are the same, I’d much rather be able to compare like for like without having to adjust the entire model/preset. It’s really a benefit that digital can offer that isn’t possible so easily with analog. Switching between different years of model would be cool, but I’d love it even more if you could choose which values from which year.

Probably not for everyone, but when I think about what digital amp modelling can offer that is not practical in the analog realm, this is the direction I’d like things to go in. Not fictional circuits of amps that would never exist.

View attachment 7974

Photo from Johan Segeborn’s youtube channel
Click to expand...
I had my tech mod my JTM50 with as many variations to the Plexi models as he could. Switchable.

The differences are not huge. Note though the JTM50 is tube rectified.
 
Last edited:
Deadpan said:
I had my tech mod my JTM50 with as many variations to the Plexi models as he could. Switchable.

The differences are not huge. Note though the JTM50 is tube rectified.
Click to expand...
Yeah, some values can definitely be fairly subtle and some things are purely to accommodate different valve types.

I think the shared/split cathode, filtering, V2a cathode, NFB in particular contribute to fairly noticeable changes. Some of the other values can be more subtle, but sometimes combine with one of the above tweaks where they make more sense when something else has changed.

I’m always surprised how often Marshall landed on the best values - so many people tinker and end up on something that’s exactly how Marshall did them.
 
DieSchmalle said:
James Freeman said:
I would improve the component based modeling until the response is 97% there without having to measure everything, even if we get idealized response without fine tuning it to the reference amp.
Click to expand...
Sounds like profiling.
Click to expand...

No, just accurate component modeling.

Take a passive RLC circuit for example, even with 10% component tolerance a batch of 100 PCBs will measure very close to the same.
Real time RLC emulation exists for decades and non-ideal behavior of RLC components (parasitic resistance, leakage, etc.) has almost no benefit in tube amp modeling.

What isn't quite accurate yet is the behavior of a virtual tube in an RLC circuit or the effect of the passive biasing components around the tube, I don't think anyone perfected it yet, not even Fractal.

If you look at a JCM800 schematic for example, it is so simple with only a handful of components, you'd think real time circuit emulation would easily emulate it to a high degree of accuracy, apparently not yet.
So why not make it your main focus?
 
Last edited:
MirrorProfiles said:
I’d love to see all the plexi variations combined into a single amp model. When the circuit is essentially the same, the controls are the same, I’d much rather be able to compare like for like without having to adjust the entire model/preset.
Click to expand...
This is definitely an area where Fractal shines, but even then they do have multiple models for different variations of the same amp.

I can't really see Line 6 going into this level of detail, at least in the current generation of products, because if you do it for one model, you are probably obliged to do it for all.

With specific reference to the original request in this thread, I think perhaps a couple of new, revised, Marshall models based on unmodified versions of the amps is probably the way to go.

Chuck in a Silver Jubilee and @James Freeman will have to move his soapbox to a different street corner, although I'm betting it would be separate power amp models! ;)
 
Sometimes Line 6 needs a little (huge and annoying) nudge to get their head out of the facebook hipster-sphere.

F yes I'll be asking for separate power amps next. :D

I also totally agree about this:
EOengineer said:
Moreso I’m of the opinion they’d be well served to ramp up their user research, as they’ve clearly swung and missed in terms of the actual amp or settings choices they’ve made when necessary to limit some more complex amps. Gotta get that stuff right.
Click to expand...

The Mark IV Lead settings... yeah, that's a big miss.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

James Freeman
Modeler Time Domain Response Analysis
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
murphy brown
M
Fireproof
Fractal Audio Firmware Update Thread
144 145 146
Replies
3K
Views
178K
TSJMajesty
TSJMajesty
Back
Top