Variax 2.0 / guitar modeling speculation thread

[burningyen]

Boss GM-800 and GK-5

I take that back; found some more images, and it does look like it'll have onboard sounds. Maybe it is a GR successor, sans VG stuff (since that's built into the SY-1000). Post em up!

thegearforum.com

RIP Variax

i still dont understand to this day why yamaha guitars didnt come with variax tech built in a revstar or a pacifica with variax inside would surely have been a seller !!!!!!

www.thegearpage.net

 

[ragingplatypi]

You'd think that in any next gen version you could either cram the processing into a separate pedal sized box or at least minituarize it with the components available today.

I still think the uses for it are for people who just need a lot of sounds in a single gig, or some sort of traveling studio guitarist who just brings one guitar to cover anything they need to play.

I celebrate the differences in my various guitars. If I could get all of their sounds in one guitar, that would be just less fun because guitars are inspiring as objects alone.

I agree that the physicality of the guitar matters for inspiring different playing. I just like the practical aspect. Currently the poly capo in the Hx doesn’t totally replace my baritone guitar, but at a gig I only use the thing for one or two songs. I’ve got the same issue with different tunings and acoustic.

 

[Alex Kenivel]

Boss GM-800 and GK-5

I take that back; found some more images, and it does look like it'll have onboard sounds. Maybe it is a GR successor, sans VG stuff (since that's built into the SY-1000). Post em up!

thegearforum.com

RIP Variax

i still dont understand to this day why yamaha guitars didnt come with variax tech built in a revstar or a pacifica with variax inside would surely have been a seller !!!!!!

www.thegearpage.net

 

[BahamaDada]

Man, imagine a just rock solid Revstar, that can be used just like any usual guitar, but it harbors the full Variax in it.

Instant buy for me.

One of the reasons I never bought a Variax: I don't like the looks. Neither the L6 Variaxes, nor the James Tylers. A Revstar isn't the prettiest guitar, but it is at least a unique design.

 

[dk_ace]

Man, imagine a just rock solid Revstar, that can be used just like any usual guitar, but it harbors the full Variax in it.

Instant buy for me.

One of the reasons I never bought a Variax: I don't like the looks. Neither the L6 Variaxes, nor the James Tylers. A Revstar isn't the prettiest guitar, but it is at least a unique design.

Right, but there are plenty of us who won’t buy the revstar for the same reason you won’t buy the JTV.

I doubt there’s a V2. The thing this kind of product always deals with is that there are big tradeoffs between the available options.

- Put it in a dedicated guitar. You have control of everything, but a big portion of people won’t like your aesthetic choices no matter what you do because no guitar is for everyone.

- Make it something you can add to other guitars. People will hate if it’s visible or requires anything irreversible, which is hard to avoid here. If this really worked out well, tons of players would have added the Roland VG thing to their guitar, but very few were willing to. And the VG thing couldn’t entirely do what variax does. Downside here too is that you can’t control that people install it right.

If someone was willing to make a lot of skus and could sort out a clever way to do the electronics on most guitars without much work, it could be done as a bridge replacement theoretically. If that were financially viable, I think L6 would have already done it though…

D

 

[mbenigni]

If the new ones had really remarkable acoustic simulations and alternate tunings including flawless drop tunings be tempted.

Agree. And throw in a couple of passable "fake a bass line with your guitar" settings as well.

 

[ragingplatypi]

Right, but there are plenty of us who won’t buy the revstar for the same reason you won’t buy the JTV.

I doubt there’s a V2. The thing this kind of product always deals with is that there are big tradeoffs between the available options.

- Put it in a dedicated guitar. You have control of everything, but a big portion of people won’t like your aesthetic choices no matter what you do because no guitar is for everyone.

- Make it something you can add to other guitars. People will hate if it’s visible or requires anything irreversible, which is hard to avoid here. If this really worked out well, tons of players would have added the Roland VG thing to their guitar, but very few were willing to. And the VG thing couldn’t entirely do what variax does. Downside here too is that you can’t control that people install it right.

If someone was willing to make a lot of skus and could sort out a clever way to do the electronics on most guitars without much work, it could be done as a bridge replacement theoretically. If that were financially viable, I think L6 would have already done it though…

D

I’d like to think that it would have sold better if the technology was in a Squire Strat and Epiphone LP. That’s as broad a spectrum of players as you can get, and each guitar can be modded to your liking.

 

[dk_ace]

I’d like to think that it would have sold better if the technology was in a Squire Strat and Epiphone LP. That’s as broad a spectrum of players as you can get, and each guitar can be modded to your liking.

Can only speak for myself, but I have zero interest in a squier or an epi.

D

 

[mbenigni]

Can only speak for myself, but I have zero interest in a squier or an epi.

D

Tell us what guitar you'd prefer, and I'll show you the pie chart to prove @ragingplatypi's point.

(P.S. I want mine in an OG Parker Fly... but I won't pay more than $1500 for it. )

 

[ragingplatypi]

Roland messed up with their VG strat by making it too expensive putting it in a high end guitar.

 

[Enchilada Jones]

Roland messed up with their VG strat by making it too expensive putting it in a high end guitar.

Yea, its like they embraced the tiny niche market paradigm instead of learning from the crack dealer in the 80's...first taste is free, then once addicted they keep paying...
Make the guitar easily accessible to grow your base then expand the product line once you have the pond stocked.

But I guess cocaine is a much higher profit margin basic ingredient than the technology of guitars and DSP etc. so, never mind

 

[dk_ace]

Tell us what guitar you'd prefer, and I'll show you the pie chart to prove @ragingplatypi's point.

(P.S. I want mine in an OG Parker Fly... but I won't pay more than $1500 for it. )

My point is that no matter which guitar you pick you’re doomed to not appeal to a ton of players.

Having a clever bolt on approach with a lot of skus is probably the closest way to hit the most players. If I could add this to a guitar I already have and like easy enough and in a way that doesn’t look weird, I’d buy it.

Second best might be working with a builder to offer multiple options across builds and price points. If they did a strat, that would look like a mexi, USA, and custom shop option. Maybe you do squier instead of mexi, but either way a lot of players aren’t gonna be interested in either of those. With Gibson you could do something similar. One could argue that all this wouldn’t be much different than what they did with Tyler, and we see how that went…

Devil’s advocate here though, if they had done a version of this with Fender that had a USA or custom option and no weird branding (looks exactly like any other strat) - I would have bought it. Not sure I would have in Gibson unless it had a bigsby, on a do-everything guitar I want a trem.

The things I’m saying I think they would have done a lot more volume on here that I would have bought aren’t new ideas, they’ve already considered them and done the math I’m sure. If that math worked out, I think they would have done one of those things instead of closing shop on variax.

D

 

[dk_ace]

I’d like to think that it would have sold better if the technology was in a Squire Strat and Epiphone LP. That’s as broad a spectrum of players as you can get, and each guitar can be modded to your liking.

I’ll clarify this way: you can’t mod the headstock on a squier or an epi. That’s the JTVs greatest sin: the headstocks. We’re suckers for the real thing nostalgia/aesthetics. It’s why everything that isn’t Fender, Gibson, and now PRS has a hard time getting the same traction as those 3.

Ok you can sort of mod the squier headstock if you can get someone to sell you a legit fender water slide decal and refin it if necessary…

D

 

[Sleezy E]

I’ll clarify this way: you can’t mod the headstock on a squier or an epi. That’s the JTVs greatest sin: the headstocks. We’re suckers for the real thing nostalgia/aesthetics. It’s why everything that isn’t Fender, Gibson, and now PRS has a hard time getting the same traction as those 3.

Ok you can sort of mod the squier headstock if you can get someone to sell you a legit fender water slide decal and refin it if necessary…

D

I like my jtv over my lp BECAUSE of the headstock.

It stays in tune, which is more important to me than anesthetics, but then again, I don't think the jtv headstock on the 59 looks bad at all anyway

 

[ragingplatypi]

Put a standard size neck pocket on it and you can have any headstock you want.

 

[Deadpan]

I seem to recall someone from Line 6 saying the hardware of the Variax would be a limit to the line. Of course things can change.

 

[ragingplatypi]

I seem to recall someone from Line 6 saying the hardware of the Variax would be a limit to the line. Of course things can change.

I remember reading that. But I also heard about people transferring their Variax guts to another guitar, so I wonder what factors into “tuning” the system.

 

[Hapless]

Can only speak for myself, but I have zero interest in a squier or an epi.

D

I used to shy away from Epi's, but I just got a Matt Heafy Origins and it's pretty sweet. I think Epiphone has stepped their game up, quality-wise, and Matt's sig model doesn't have a matching Gibson counterpart.

 

[dk_ace]

I used to shy away from Epi's, but I just got a Matt Heafy Origins and it's pretty sweet. I think Epiphone has stepped their game up, quality-wise, and Matt's sig model doesn't have a matching Gibson counterpart.

As far as playing and sounding good, they do. The headstock is different, it doesn’t say Gibson, and for those reasons I’ll never be interested. I’m done buying something that isn’t the “real thing”. That’s just a personal preference, but I’m not alone.

D

 

[Hapless]

As far as playing and sounding good, they do. The headstock is different, it doesn’t say Gibson, and for those reasons I’ll never be interested. I’m done buying something that isn’t the “real thing”. That’s just a personal preference, but I’m not alone.

D

Yeah, I get that. I've come to judge guitars on whether their specs are what I'm looking for rather than the name on the headstock. I don't even listen to Trivium, but I liked the specs on the Epi, so I got it.