JVM410 and FW3

[welshboyo]

Hi Guys,

Might be picking up a JVM in the next few weeks.

I know there were "apparently" some midi implementation issues with the older FW, but was this purely user error.

Was there a problem and do any of you guys run a 410 with the FX8?

Opinions/advice please

Thanks

 

[Karl Houseknecht]

I ran a 205 with my FX8. Not sure if there was any user error, but there was a very noticeable lag and audio gap in the JVM switching when using PC's tied to scene changes on the FX8. Didn't like it one bit.

 

[Sonicsam]

Hi Guys,

Might be picking up a JVM in the next few weeks.

I know there were "apparently" some midi implementation issues with the older FW, but was this purely user error.

Was there a problem and do any of you guys run a 410 with the FX8?

Opinions/advice please

Thanks

I believe there was a midi problem with the Joe Satriani model, but not with the regular 410.
I use it without problems, but I do not change channels mid song...

 

[algiman]

Hi Guys,

Might be picking up a JVM in the next few weeks.

I know there were "apparently" some midi implementation issues with the older FW, but was this purely user error.

Was there a problem and do any of you guys run a 410 with the FX8?

Opinions/advice please

Thanks

Nothing "apparently" or "user error" about it. The JVM410 Satriani version has problems with the SYSEX messages that FW2 was putting out, the regular JVM410 worked to begin with. FW3 has resolved the issue, and both variants work perfectly. I use both, live, and am a happy bunny now it all works.