Community: Message List

Re: Looking for Amp for Pod HD 500.

support@line6.com — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 03:41:31 GMT

I absoutley love my HD500 in the the FX return of my Fender Mustang III. I like it way better than my FRFRs. It's 100 watts into a neutral sounding Celestion. And if the HD500 ever dies I plug into the front of the Mustang and still have killer tones. $300

Re: What every HD500 owner needs to know!

support@line6.com — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 19:28:38 GMT

sintetik123 wrote:

.
For me, all these approaches dull the sound of the amp models (which, by the way, are great).

I don't know what is going on with your unit but the setting we're talking about here in no way dulls the sound. It makes the sound much clearer.

Re: What every HD500 owner needs to know!

support@line6.com — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 06:14:45 GMT

I spent months trying to love my HD but my Fender Mustang III totally blew it a way. I was really discusted. Now the HD is easiy better than the Mustang (which is a great amp). I'm glad I didn't sell it but I can't believe Line6 isn't telling this to everyone. I wonder how many others have sold theirs wihtoug knowing this.

What every HD500 owner needs to know!

support@line6.com — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 04:48:38 GMT

I've had a love/hate relationship with my HD500 for almost a year. I could rarely get a decent clean sound with my Strat and my Les Paul sounded horrible. I alost sold it several times. This all changed when I read on another forum that having input 2 sent to "SAME" would over drive the unit. I thought this may be why, even after the firmware update, I still got ugly crackly sounds on the cleans, I set all my patches to input1=guitar and input2=variax, ALL MY PATCHES SUDDENLY SOUNDED GREAT! I could even hear the noise level drop by just change the input to field in HD Edit.

After all this time of being ready to sell it and liking my Fender Mustang III MUCH better I am finally blown away with the HD500!

Does Line 6 know this is the default! It boggles my brain to think of all these people possibly hating this awesome unit because of this.

Re: Custom IR's

support@line6.com — Sun, 15 May 2011 15:14:57 GMT

mtreehugger wrote:

Some of the above discussion pertaining to tweakability of mic, room, etc. is intriguing. I'm wondering if they couldn't do for the cabs what v1.3 just did for the amps--implement some deep edit parameters for mic placement and speaker response. Then, instead of screening a scadload of 3rd party IR's, we could just dial in what sounds best.

This is the only scenario that I think is feasabale. I must add, however, that I like the current cabs just fine.

Re: Custom IR's

support@line6.com — Sun, 15 May 2011 14:57:13 GMT

slothrop wrote:

deanesque wrote:

I'm sure the SHARC can do this. I just don't think it could do much else since it already reaches the CPU limit quite frequently.
I'm more concerned with the memory and bus speed than the cpu, I don't need 8 effects at once I would be happy with 3 or 4 if i could run an IR and of course you'd have the onboard cabs off. The only time I hit the DSP limit is when I'm playing around.

I'm sure it's all in the equation but I hit the limit frequently when using dual amps.

Re: Custom IR's

support@line6.com — Sun, 15 May 2011 06:12:48 GMT

mdme_sadie wrote:

deanesque wrote:

I don't know if it has been mentioned but IRs require a LOT of prosessing power. Convolution reverbs on a DAW are HUGE CPU hogs. I can't imagine that the 500 has enough juice to do that and everything else it's doing. If that were the case we wouldn't be getting CPU limit errrors. This kind of feature has to be designed in from the beginning. I think your dreaming if you think Line 6 can add it.
An Impulse Response is just an array of volume values by frequency domain (and method of capturing this). Convolution reverb makes use of impulse responses and yes can be processor intensive, but it's a totally different effect. Applying it purely as a cab sim is far less intensive, you can think of it as an EQ with many more E points and no Q (values are either linear interpolated or treated as flat), and as has been pointed out is probably what the cab sim that's in the HD is doing already. I don't really see anything stopping the SHARC from doing this.

I'm sure the SHARC can do this. I just don't think it could do much else since it already reaches the CPU limit quite frequently.

Re: Custom IR's

support@line6.com — Sat, 14 May 2011 23:31:20 GMT

I don't know if it has been mentioned but IRs require a LOT of prosessing power. Convolution reverbs on a DAW are HUGE CPU hogs. I can't imagine that the 500 has enough juice to do that and everything else it's doing. If that were the case we wouldn't be getting CPU limit errrors. This kind of feature has to be designed in from the beginning. I think your dreaming if you think Line 6 can add it.

Re: POD HD400 Service

support@line6.com — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 15:58:53 GMT

Sweetwater adds a 2 year warranty. See if they will replace it.

Re: HD500 or X3 live....

support@line6.com — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 02:50:56 GMT

Octo777 wrote:

deanesque wrote:

The X3Live is plastic. the HD500 is steel.

Erm, no, the X3 Live is Brushed Aluminium.......

OK. But isn't a big part of it plastic? I played one extensively when I bought my GT10. I decided it wasn't road worthy and went with the Boss.