Community: Message List

Re: Patches for HD500 reproducing DT25 4 voicings

support@line6.com — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 08:34:25 GMT

Yes. I checked too and it is what's now called Brit P75 Brt that was originally called just Brit P75

Re: Patches for HD500 reproducing DT25 4 voicings

support@line6.com — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:32:55 GMT

Hi Thomas

Sorry. Always use PRE models when using them in the POD with a DT-xx. Now, the Brt and Norm variants in my example came later than the current DT amp versions, but I believe the Brt PRE model is the same as the model used in the DT-xx but that does need checking to be absolutely certain.

I should probably have picked a different amp model for the example

If your DT-25 is a combo the output mode in the HD500 will be automatically set to Combo Pwr Amp too Stack Pwr Amp if you have the head and cab

Personally I would turn off cab modelling on the HD500 patch but that's just a matter of personal taste. Try with cab modelling on which will use 'live' versions of the cabs or off to see which works best. I'll try and find out which Brit-P75 model is in place in the DT series amps currently as that is quite important to know when you're trying to compare.

Nick

Re: Patches for HD500 reproducing DT25 4 voicings

support@line6.com — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:11:26 GMT

I cant 'prove' my HD500 DT-xx test patches will sound the same on your amp as your amp sounds stand-alone because I don't have access to your amp, so only you can prove or disprove that the HD500 + DT-xx can sound identical to your DT-xx stand-alone.

Here's one of a few methods you could use to test your HD500 + DT-xx settings against your DT-xx stand-alone:

DT-50 Stand Alone Amp Model:

Topology and HD Preamp:

· I: Fender Blackface Deluxe

· II: Brit P-75

· III: Vox AC30

· IV: Treadplate with voicing IV on amp

DT-25 Stand Alone Models:

Topology and HD Preamp:

· I: Fender BF DBL Vib

· II: Brit P-75

· III: Vox AC30

· IV: Treadplate with voicing IV on amp

Note 1: an L6 Link connected POD with patches including the TREADPLATE PRE will set the DT-xx Topology to III instead of IV as it is on the amp when used stand-alone

Note 2: following the recent update for the POD HD500 series to firmware version 2.02 and possible changes to the amp models (unknown) there may be a slight difference between the DT-xx PRE amp models and the POD PRE amp models which may alter the sound slightly.

This is what I would personally do to get the HD-500 + D-xx amp to sound the same as the DT-xx amp in stand-alone mode.

Note that all amp models and settings on your POD have to be as near identical as the settings on the DT-xx as possible for this to work, otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges.

1. Plug #your guitar directly in to your amp

2. Set the Topology to I, II, III or IV on channel A on your DT-xx. For this example I’d suggest Topology II Brit P-75
3. Set the Drive Bass, Mid, Treble, Presence and Channel Volume so you get the sound how you like it on the amp. Keep the Reverb control on the amp at 0% as it’s independent of the POD
4. Once happy, on your HD500 or POD HD Pro, select a blank patch and add ONLY the Brit P-75 model. Turn cab modelling to No Cab.
5. Be careful not to move the controls on the front panel of your amp
6. Connect your POD to your DT-xx using L6-Link.
7. The amp is now under the control of the POD and the POD’s default control settings will over-ride the amp’s physical settings.
8. You need to get the POD to register the same settings as the amp’s controls are set to.
9. Move each control knob on the amp’s front panel the tiniest amount and back to the original position to register the new settings in the POD.
10. Save the patch in your POD
11. Plug your guitar into your POD without changing any settings and try the patch.
12. A/B the DT-xx and POD variants of the amp model.
13. The main things to watch out for are a) the different amp models in use for Topology I between the DT-25 and DT-50, and; b) that some of the high gain amp models (typically Treadplate) are set by default to use Topology III in the POD where it’s Topology IV by default on the amp stand-alone, so you must ensure your apples-to-apples test patch in the POD has its default topology set to the same as the topology on the amp stand-alone.

That should work for you, but because of the differences that might now exist between the PRE models in the DT-xx because of its older firmware and the appropriate PRE models in the latest POD firmware version 2.02 and above, you may notice a slight discrepancy in tone.

I cannot give any assurances or guarantees but the method above worked well for me.

Providing patches to ‘prove’ any of this is not possible or valid, because the amp controls on other users’ systems are not available to me to ensure that both the POD HD patch settings and stand- alone amp settings are consistent. Only the end user has control of that.

Apologies for any text formatting issues. I created the main section in Microsoft Word 2010 and copied into the forum editor.

Nick

Re: POD HD500 Routing Question.

support@line6.com — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:06:39 GMT

Well since I wrote the post you are replying to from January 2011 I did quite a lot of digging.

You cannot efficiently send a suitable signal to an on-stage guitar amp and PA and expect to get the same sound from both at the same time.

What I do now know is a satisfactory and cheap solution is to use an active DI box which has its own independent cab emulation

I bought a couple of Behringer Ultra GI GI100 DI boxes which offer this feature. They are about £25 GBP each, but that's a lot cheaper than the nearest competition and to be honest the speaker emulated sound does a pretty good job.

So taking that approach, set up your patch with the amp block set to No Cab, stick the output of the HD500 into the DI box input, turn the DI box speaker emulation on which will take away any harshness in order to feed your PA and take a direct feed from the DI box pre speaker emulation as your no cab feed. If however you are using a traditional valve guitar amp power amp section with PRE modelling (ideally) and a standard guitar cab you can in most instances turn the HD500 cab emulation off anyway and treat the output as dry for all. I tend to use PRE models with any real amp, but the FULL amp models should give a reasonable result when doing the same thing without the need for any DI boxes. In other words, just let the power amp and cab handle the on-stage sound, and let your computer IRs handle cab modelling for DAW use

There's a few ways you might get around the issue and they're all valid in that if they give you the desired result - job done! It's largely a matter of personal preference and opinion. I don't think there is necessarily one 'right' way

Nick

Re: 1.81 killed my '59

support@line6.com — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:40:22 GMT

If using the USB interface, make sure the guitar's volume control is up to 100% so the guitar doesn't go to sleep

Nick

Re: HD500 Bundle and Preset SAVE failures...

support@line6.com — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:03:11 GMT

Seems like you might be getting an 'invalid data' error. This seems to occur mostly when importing presets which were created using another POD HD500,POD HD or POD HD PRo family member. It seems to be mainly due to differences in the available physical input settings. When transferring presets between the three devices, for it to be a relatively easy process, you need to ensure that the input specified in the preset, physically exists in the destination device. I don't know where your presets originated, but I suspect there is a link here. You may want to load up an older version of POD HD500 Edit in off-line mode in order to sanitise the Input settings with your bundles.

Nick

Re: Problems after update with Patch sharing

support@line6.com — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 16:42:43 GMT

No worries. It would be nice to not have to do anything other than drag and drop our patches between the various editors and like you I hope some time that a way to do this easily and safely can be found. I just don't think in reality it will happen unfortunately

I'm sure you are right that with sufficient resources dedicated to solving the issue of patch transfer that an answer could be found, but the resources (developer time and cost) in exchange for the return might just not be economically viable when there are ways around it that work already. In all honesty I don't know how complex any additional code would need to be, but I suspect it would be more than just adding a few lines of code.

You are right in that the issue isn't a drama.

Yep - the forums are open to all to express opinions etc.... I'm with you on that - I still have my XTL and the model packs I purchased for it LOL.

Line 6 do keep tabs on the forums of course, but if you want to get an idea directly under the noses of the developers, you should submit Product Feedback using the Contact Us link at the bottom of the page. The great thing about Line 6 is that they do listen to customer feedback and where appropriate and possible they often take action

Nick

Re: Problems after update with Patch sharing

support@line6.com — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 14:04:45 GMT

Personally I can't see that Line 6 will make any changes to the way patches can be shared now between the POD HD, POD HD500 and POD HD Pro. This is only my opinion. My reasons are that whilst Line 6 facilitated importing 'foreign' patches, there were always physical differences between the units which were always known could cause some unexpected behaviour to occur if the conditions were right. Line 6 have never supported the transfer of patches between the three units as such for this reason. Users have always been on heir own if something didn't work. Given the fact that the unexpected behaviour was shown to occasionally cause uncontrolled squealing (probably for other reasons than just a mismatch of input settings), which is potentially serious in terms of possible damage to hearing and equipment, I believe that any and all data mismatches and loopholes had to be closed, which has had the positive effect of curing the squealing issue, but with the slight inconvenience of us now having to 'sanitise' our patches before importing them into a device other than the type where they were initially made. So, I think the current way that transferring of patches now works, is going to be the way it remains.

I understand your idea to have one common editor, but given that patches need to be sanitised in the originating hardware's editor before importing into the destination editor, would mean that it would be a less straightforward process. I appreciate a lot of people liked the previous Gearbox interface for POD XT/X3 but I was not a fan. I tend to edit directly on the hardware anyway with all three POD HD units, but I do find the POD HD editors pretty intuitive when I do use them

Re: Problems after update with Patch sharing

support@line6.com — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 12:12:56 GMT

Digging into it a little further, the problem in the main seems to be due to differences in the physical inputs that are available on the various units which is not exactly a new discovery.

Using both POD HD500 Edit v2.00 in Offline mode and POD HD Edit with the POD HD attached and running f/w 2.02 simultaneously I loaded all my POD HD500 set lists into POD HD500 Edit. Looking at the majority of my older presets, I have the Input sources set to a reasonable Guitar - Aux - Variax for input 1 and Same for Input 2. Of course the POD HD desktop unit does not have either of the physical Aux or Variax inputs available. Dragging and dropping a POD HD500 patch that is set this way from HD500 Edit to POD HD Edit results in the message: 'Invalid data found in one or more patches. These patches have been reset and named 'New Tone (reset)'

That's fair enough in my opinion as the inputs on the POD HD desktop don't physically match the available inputs on the POD HD500. It is obviously not going to be possible to simply drag and drop some HD500 patches into a POD HD or POD HD Pro or vice-versa any more unless the source patches are set to one or more of the common to all inputs in the first place.

However, you can still use all three version 2.00 editors to get around this (expected) behaviour, by simply sanitising the input settings (and almost certainly any FX loop settings) in the Edit program for the unit the patch was created in originally by using that editor in off-line or on-line mode (if you have say both a POD HD and a POD HD500) to clean the patch up before dragging it from the source editor to the new destination editor. You can just make a simple change to the Inputs in the source editor without having to Send Selected to to its attached (or not POD), and perform a drag and drop exercise from one editor to the other.

This, I believe is the correct way to do it.

The other way to do it is simply to roll back the Editor to v1.06 and the destination device will pick up the troublesome patch and allow to to save it in the attached POD, but then when you update the editor to v2.00 it will not accept the patches from the POD.

So a little bit of housekeeping is the way to go

Nick

Re: Problems after update with Patch sharing

support@line6.com — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 11:14:07 GMT

Hmmmm.... Sorry, it would appear that the issue remains from f/w 1.43. I had believed that this was fixed

Regards

Nick