Apr 23, 2011 2:01 AM
Information about dsp load for amp´s and FX?
-
Like (0)
As you all may have noticed: the max dsp load is easely met when using a dual amp configuration. I guess we have to live with that given the current HD500. In order to optimise a preset it whould be very helpfull to have MORE information about the load a specific FX or AMP put´s on the DSP. Please can somebody (line6) make a list.
A suggestion for POD HD Edit might be a bar showing the processorload of the individual elements. Also the selection of elements which will result in a DSP overload might be made impossible and/or visible in the menu´s.
(a preset with only a screamer, ping-pong delay, spring reverb and volume can´t be made dual amp other than a Super O and a Gibtone 185 or pre-amp models!!!)
This topic has been done to death:
http://line6.com/community/message/208840#208840
http://line6.com/community/thread/49404?start=0&tstart=0
Check the "More like this" on the right as you go through them for even more.
thanx for the links, seems like sometimes it is not so easy to find the info you are looking for within all these discussions
Hi,
some information about the processing power needs of the various effects can be found in this thread:
http://line6.com/community/thread/50339?tstart=0
I don't think that there are any official documents on that subject.
I agree that something in Edit that shows the DSP "workload" as you build a patch would be useful.
While we are on the subject of changes to EDIT I would love to be able to drag and drop the FX blocks etc.
johnpicton wrote:
I agree that something in Edit that shows the DSP "workload" as you build a patch would be useful.
While we are on the subject of changes to EDIT I would love to be able to drag and drop the FX blocks etc.
Yeah. . .if you use dual amps the HD 500 is woefully underpowered. There are some work arounds that are just a PIA. I decided to relegate my HD 500 to being used as a glorified JTV Variax IO and midi controller. Hitting DSP errors on 80% of the patches you build is just not any fun. That plus the fact that there are only 16 amp models, weird blanket covered sounds to get rid of. . . .made it a no brainer.
I bought an AXE FX and finally got to start playing with it last night. I can see this thing will be a huge time suck because of how deep you can go in editing and tweaking. It is incredible. I am going to do a full unibiased comparison between the axe and HD and of course pricepoint is a huge plus to the HD etc.
The idea of having a meter showing DSP use is a good one. I am thinking Line 6 are hesitant to do so because it will further point out how much DSP dual amps use etc.
The Axe does have a meter and in about 10 hours of messing with it I have not run into DSP overlaod even once. I don't build patches with 2 pitch shifters and spring reverbs but on HD I hit the DSP wall ALL the time.
On the Axe the DSP sits at 7% in a completely empty patch. Probably just normal overhead. I added a AC 30 and am at 28%.I add a train wreck sim and am at just 48%. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the DSP in the Axe is way more powerful, and of course more expensive. It also appears that the DSP code for the Axe may be more efficient than on the HD.
I add a spring reverb and delay to the above patch and am still at 58% of CPU. I added 2 Tube drives and am at 72%. I add an intelligent harmonizer and am at 78%. . .yeah that is right 6% DSP usage for intelligent harmonizer. Oops. . .I am doing this realtime and being a noobie had forgotten to add the cabs for the amp models. I just added the 2 cabs and am now at 94% of CPU. For a goof I added a rotary speaker sim and a Q filter and am at 97% of DSP.
I am pretty confident I will hit the DSP limit of the Axe very rarely and am totally sure I hit the limit 80% of the time on the HD. For the record My typical patches look nothing like the one above and I am sure that patch would sould like poo. .. . . the point is the DSP is far more powerful as it should be as the unit costs 4x the price. It also has a more elegant and less frustrating way of handling the DSP limit.
There have been numerous threads on the DSP limit problem or as many fan boys say "feature". Of course any device that allows such flexible routing will hit the DSP at some point. The axe is way more flexible in FX routing and hits the DSP much later.
I am HUGE Line 6 fan and would have loved to see them being the leaders in the modeling world but they are still playing catch up in many ways. They are positioning themselves at the 500 buck bedroom, budget concious price point, which makes all the sense in the world as that is where the money is.
From a business stand point they will do very well. from a user stand point, I don't want the best available for 500 bucks. . .I want the best available.
To be honest I don't object to the DSP limit kicking in (although in an ideal world and all that!). I appreciate that rather than Line6 making everything so insipid and bland so that everything would work with everything else that we can pick and choose and if we come up against the limit then rework the patch.
It is just that it would be very handy to be able to monitor it. (And I would still like to be able to drag and drop FX in EDIT).
johnpicton wrote:
To be honest I don't object to the DSP limit kicking in (although in an ideal world and all that!). I appreciate that rather than Line6 making everything so insipid and bland so that everything would work with everything else that we can pick and choose and if we come up against the limit then rework the patch.
It is just that it would be very handy to be able to monitor it. (And I would still like to be able to drag and drop FX in EDIT).
I don't have a problem with the DSP limit kicking in. It is just that with dual amp rigs it kicks in way to easily. As others have said the Axe FX also has a DSP limitation but you will run into it WAY less and there is a meter to help you as you start making patches. . .
toasterdude wrote:
I don't have a problem with the DSP limit kicking in. It is just that with dual amp rigs it kicks in way to easily. As others have said the Axe FX also has a DSP limitation but you will run into it WAY less and there is a meter to help you as you start making patches. . .
Or you could buy 4 x HD500's and chain them together, running into the DSP limit WAY less than on an AXE-FX for the same price! I do agree a meter would be useful however (I happen to have both an AXE and an HD500).
Maybe it's just me but I feel a little different about this.
I bought the HD 500 for all the extra features - dual amps, 8 effects at once, etc., etc.
It seems a little lame to me for the HD 500 to be under powered - lack of DSP - whatever.
I think you should be able to run any combination of effects & dual amps that's available.
It's kind of a tease to have the stuff there and not be able to use it as you wish.
I don't run into the DSP limit thing that much but when I have an idea for an amp/effects combination and the machine tells me "Sorry dude you can't do that" that kind of sucks.
There was no warning of that nature in any of the hype ads I read before buying the HD 500.
All I remember reading was that the HD 500 had a lot more features than either the 300 or 400 so I went for what I thought was more processing power - NOT!
I don't like to switch patches (amps) in the middle of a song because when you do you get a drop out while the next patch is loading.
I like to stay in the same patch and turn effects on and off as needed.
Oh well I said my piece.
tim1953 wrote:
All I remember reading was that the HD 500 had a lot more features than either the 300 or 400 so I went for what I thought was more processing power - NOT!
Well the 500 does have more power. Use the 500 exactly as a 300 or 400 and you won't hit any DSP limit. But you'll also lose any ability to have a distortion and a spring reverb at the same time, or a comp and distortion at the same time and no chance of dual amps, ever.
Mr_Arkadin wrote:
tim1953 wrote:
All I remember reading was that the HD 500 had a lot more features than either the 300 or 400 so I went for what I thought was more processing power - NOT!
Well the 500 does have more power. Use the 500 exactly as a 300 or 400 and you won't hit any DSP limit. But you'll also lose any ability to have a distortion and a spring reverb at the same time, or a comp and distortion at the same time and no chance of dual amps, ever.
Can you tell us what DSP comes in the HD 300 and 400 vs the HD 500? Are we sure the HD300 has less "power" or was it a "feature" to cripple some features to get them in at under 400 bucks?
toasterdude wrote:
Can you tell us what DSP comes in the HD 300 and 400 vs the HD 500? Are we sure the HD300 has less "power" or was it a "feature" to cripple some features to get them in at under 400 bucks?
It's nothing to do with the DSP - could be the same for all I know - it's to do with the code: that's where the 'power' is. You love trolling for the sake of it don't you?
The 300 and 400 is 'crippled' because it (perhaps) utilises less of the DSP, but gives no DSP limit alert as a result of fixed architecture - the 500 allows flexibilty and will as a result produce a DSP limit. With the current processor/price point you take your choice. You can't have it both ways.
I hope you enjoy the pro grown up Axe FX board (tip: just don't ever criticise it) and leave us bedroom hobbyists to it.
Mr_Arkadin wrote:
toasterdude wrote:
Can you tell us what DSP comes in the HD 300 and 400 vs the HD 500? Are we sure the HD300 has less "power" or was it a "feature" to cripple some features to get them in at under 400 bucks?
It's nothing to do with the DSP - could be the same for all I know - it's to do with the code: that's where the 'power' is. You love trolling for the sake of it don't you?
The 300 and 400 is 'crippled' because it (perhaps) utilises less of the DSP, but gives no DSP limit alert as a result of fixed architecture - the 500 allows flexibilty and will as a result produce a DSP limit. With the current processor/price point you take your choice. You can't have it both ways.
I hope you enjoy the pro grown up Axe FX board (tip: just don't ever criticise it) and leave us bedroom hobbyists to it.
Uhm. . .tim said he thought the 500 had more DSP Power. Your reply said it does have more power. I assumed you read what he wrote and were answering. From what I can tell all 3 units have the same DSP but the 300 and 400 don't allow you to hit DSP limit by limiting the code.
I hope you enjoy your COSM modeling;-)
I chose not to "limit" or "feature" myself to a 500 dollar price point. . . . . .
toasterdude wrote:
I chose not to "limit" or "feature" myself to a 500 dollar price point. . . . . .
Well I'm happy that you can afford such things, not everyone can.
Regardless of price the Axe FX may not appeal to everyone for many reasons (complexity, rack form etc.). There is no one-size-fits-all. You didn't like the HD500 and got the Axe, great. Sorry why are you still here? To bang on about the Axe's superiority? That's the definition of a troll. (Side note: if you went on the Axe forum and said how much better the HD was you would have your account removed, true freedom of expression there).
I think even you would agree the HD stuff is miles better than COSM.
Mr_Arkadin wrote:
toasterdude wrote:
I chose not to "limit" or "feature" myself to a 500 dollar price point. . . . . .
Well I'm happy that you can afford such things, not everyone can.
Regardless of price the Axe FX may not appeal to everyone for many reasons (complexity, rack form etc.). There is no one-size-fits-all. You didn't like the HD500 and got the Axe, great. Sorry why are you still here? To bang on about the Axe's superiority? That's the definition of a troll. (Side note: if you went on the Axe forum and said how much better the HD was you would have your account removed, true freedom of expression there).
I think even you would agree the HD stuff is miles better than COSM.
Uhm. . .I still have the HD 500 and am using it in front of the Axe as a JTV variax router, with an occasional effect added to the mix. Besides the HD 500 I have 2 X3 Pros, 2 X3ls, an X3 bean and an XT bean. Add a variax nylon, variax AC 700 acoustic, variax 600, 2 variax 500s and one JTV with another on order. . .I think I am allowed to hang around;-)
If I joined this forum to diss Line 6 and flaunt the Axe superiority, then I may be a troll. Truth is I held off buying an Axe FX for a LONG time. . . .as I am a HUGE Line 6 fan and was hoping the next "big thing" would come from them. They created the modeling market and a part of me would love to see them be the leaders in that market. I understand that their goal is profit and not leading any markets and I am totally down with that. It just bums me out as I would rather have a box with Axe FX quality and features plus variax integration with a big *** Line 6 logo on the front. Charge me 3 grand for it and I will buy tomorrow. . . .lol. .
If you went on the Axe Forum and said how much better the HD was. . . .you'd be lying obviously;-)
Line 6 still has some key advantages:
many people prefer all in one floor boards
variax integration
headphone out. . .even if it is of limited usefullness since if you use the recommended line 6 settings the headphone out will blow your head off
effects with a more "vintage vibe" which I normally lean towards. Echoplex, univibe etc etc etc although many have ripped apart the quality or lack there of of the leslie and univibe in the HD.
I think any company should take a look at the competition and borrow or steal ideas when necessary.
I am on the Axe Forum and don't see any threads about DSP limitations. They don't limit the way you can route FX in any way and they give you a meter to see DSP usage. I know Line 6 can not currently do anything about DSP limit as the box is already at the limit of the DSP but they can add the DSP usage meter to limit the frustrations of the users. I don't see pointing that out as trolling. . . .
If a guy hits the DSP limit on an Axe. . ..he can upgrade to the ultra. .. problem solved. Line 6 has no upgrade path and if everyone sings cumbaya and raves about there not being any DSP limitations and how cool the "feature" is. . . .there never will be. . . .
toasterdude wrote:
Uhm. . .I still have the HD 500 and am using it in front of the Axe as a JTV variax router, with an occasional effect added to the mix. Besides the HD 500 I have 2 X3 Pros, 2 X3ls, an X3 bean and an XT bean. Add a variax nylon, variax AC 700 acoustic, variax 600, 2 variax 500s and one JTV with another on order. . .I think I am allowed to hang around;-)
If I joined this forum to diss Line 6 and flaunt the Axe superiority, then I may be a troll. Truth is I held off buying an Axe FX for a LONG time. . . .as I am a HUGE Line 6 fan and was hoping the next "big thing" would come from them. They created the modeling market and a part of me would love to see them be the leaders in that market. I understand that their goal is profit and not leading any markets and I am totally down with that. It just bums me out as I would rather have a box with Axe FX quality and features plus variax integration with a big *** Line 6 logo on the front. Charge me 3 grand for it and I will buy tomorrow. . . .lol. .
Fair enough. I honestly thought you were in the "Axe FX made me sell my Line 6 gear" camp, so I retract my troll accusation. But you have admit that not everyone can afford three grand (double that and you have about what I earned for the whole year due to the recession). Line 6 have to be realistic with their products. What would be nice is if they had a small offshoot company that did boutique stuff (like Fender has their custom shop) that could cater for people like you with bug bucks and the rest of us could 'make do' (not the way I see it btw) with the cheapo products.
toasterdude wrote:
I am on the Axe Forum and don't see any threads about DSP limitations.
You won't see any complaints even if there are.
Again though we're talking about a product in a different price bracket. I'm sure if Line 6 made the HD3000 (that being the target price
) then I'm sure there would be no DSP limitations there.
The meter idea is a good one - in fact my old but current Sharc-based Scope system has just such a thing because you can also reach a DSP limit with that due to its completely flexible architecture. You can just see it bottom left in this screengrab:
So let's be clear about this once more as people are misrepresenting the facts:
1) ALL digital multi-effects units have DSP limits.
2) The only routing limitation placed on the HD500 is that you can have only 2 Amps.
3) The DSP limit that people are complaining about is not that there is one (since ALL digital multi-effects pedals have DSP limits), but that you hit it more often than people expect based on Line 6's marketing.
4) The 300/400 constrict your routing options such that you can never hit this limit.
So, to sum up:
1) It is a 'feature' in the sense that Line 6 could have restricted the HD500 routing options so you didn't hit the limit. This is called an HD400 (ignoring the minor additional effects the HD500 has).
2) It is a limitation in the sense that users are finding they hit this wall more often than they expected. AXE-FX users have a limitation too, but they can get more things in their chains before they hit it so it doesn't seem to cause too many problems.
3) Bigger DSPs cost more money. Some users would be prepared to pay more if Line 6 makes a device with a bigger DSP that moves the DSP limit further away.
So, I think the feature/limitation discussion is missing the point and has been done to death.
The real issue is that pople didn't expect to hit it as often as they do and those users thus feel it is underpowered. Additionally, some users would be prepared to pay more to have a bigger DSP and the DSP limit effectively increased to the point where it would take a lot more to hit the limit, a'la the AXE-FX. Obviously, Line 6 was trying to hit a price-point here, as well as maintaining the M-Series effects. Hopefully they introduce an HD600 for $600 wth say, twice the processing power. That should be enough I think such that you'd rarely hit the limit. Time will tell.
My 1.5c with the devaluation of the dollar.
David.
Very nice summation. I concur.
ozbadman wrote:
So, I think the feature/limitation discussion is missing the point and has been done to death.
I think this is where I came in. ![]()
ozbadman wrote:
Hopefully they introduce an HD600 for $600 wth say, twice the processing power. That should be enough I think such that you'd rarely hit the limit. Time will tell.
I think your pricing might be a bit off there. I would say minimum $700, possibly more.
ozbadman wrote:
So let's be clear about this once more as people are misrepresenting the facts:
1) ALL digital multi-effects units have DSP limits.
2) The only routing limitation placed on the HD500 is that you can have only 2 Amps.
3) The DSP limit that people are complaining about is not that there is one (since ALL digital multi-effects pedals have DSP limits), but that you hit it more often than people expect based on Line 6's marketing.
4) The 300/400 constrict your routing options such that you can never hit this limit.
So, to sum up:
1) It is a 'feature' in the sense that Line 6 could have restricted the HD500 routing options so you didn't hit the limit. This is called an HD400 (ignoring the minor additional effects the HD500 has).
2) It is a limitation in the sense that users are finding they hit this wall more often than they expected. AXE-FX users have a limitation too, but they can get more things in their chains before they hit it so it doesn't seem to cause too many problems.
3) Bigger DSPs cost more money. Some users would be prepared to pay more if Line 6 makes a device with a bigger DSP that moves the DSP limit further away.
So, I think the feature/limitation discussion is missing the point and has been done to death.
The real issue is that pople didn't expect to hit it as often as they do and those users thus feel it is underpowered. Additionally, some users would be prepared to pay more to have a bigger DSP and the DSP limit effectively increased to the point where it would take a lot more to hit the limit, a'la the AXE-FX. Obviously, Line 6 was trying to hit a price-point here, as well as maintaining the M-Series effects. Hopefully they introduce an HD600 for $600 wth say, twice the processing power. That should be enough I think such that you'd rarely hit the limit. Time will tell.
My 1.5c with the devaluation of the dollar.
David.
Looks pretty accurate. Like I said. . ..on the Axe forums there are not countless threads on DSP limits so it is not seen as a problem there. . . .here we have people reporting that a gibtone, /13 and a spring reverb will get you the error message.
I think the pricing is a bit off as the DSP in the Ultra is not twice as powerful as the one in the HD 500 and costs 6 times as much. However it does look like the Axe models are better optimised as they seem to get more mileage out of the unit then pure DSP would account for.
I'd say 800 bucks would be the minimum for a model with better DSP . . . .BUT. . . .I am not sure that is so easy. Line 6 uses the second from the top of the line in the normal sharc line of DSPs and Axe uses the Tiger sharc. I don't think it is just a recompile if you move from one platform to the other. I am not an engineer but it appears Line 6 is married to the older, less powerful, less expensive line while Fractal is married to the top of the line. . . .
I think an argument can be made that having a bean, a floor board and a rack makes more sense than 3 floor boards in witin 200 bucks of each other price wise. Heck maybe 2 floorboards but 3? Line 6 got a rap. . .some what deservedly so for repackaging old tech endlessly to create a ton of products in the market. Floor Pod, Floor Pod Plus, XT Live and X3 Live were all available at the same time and all used the old modeling algorythms. Looks like they ramped up the floorboard range of similar products right off th bat. . . .
ozbadman wrote:
toasterdude wrote:
I don't have a problem with the DSP limit kicking in. It is just that with dual amp rigs it kicks in way to easily. As others have said the Axe FX also has a DSP limitation but you will run into it WAY less and there is a meter to help you as you start making patches. . .Or you could buy 4 x HD500's and chain them together, running into the DSP limit WAY less than on an AXE-FX for the same price! I do agree a meter would be useful however (I happen to have both an AXE and an HD500).
OK Genuine question here - I have both an X3L and an HD500, how easy is it to chain them together, and what would be the best way? Should I use the 1/4 inch jacks, the XLR or should I be using effects loops (like the 4 channel method). What should I look out for and what (if any) advantages are there.
I use vocal + guitar and to be honest was a little disappointed with the lack of presets for vocal on the HD500 unlike the X3L - although overall I think the HD500 is far superior it is a bit lacking on the vocals side. My gut feeling is - when live or in a practice environment use the X3 for vocals and the HD500 for guitar with each one feeding separately into my PA - trouble is when trying to record I obviously cant have both devices connected via USB (and in fact my new PC wont work with my X3, which is why I bought the HD) hence my questions about the best way to link them together.
John
I think if I were chaining both devices together, I would place the X3 Live in the HD500's FX Loop and have the X3 Live follow the HD500's patch selection by making the X3L a MIDI slave to the HD500. That way, I can easily bypass the X3 Live when not required, by simply opting not to have an FX Loop in some of my HD500 patches. It would mean rearranging my X3 Live patches in such a way as to make the ones I want to use match up with program change numbers. Or to make it more flexible (albeit with a bit more tap dancing) I would forego the MIDI link, have a single HD500 patch called X3 Live and then switch to whatever I wanted on the X3 Live itself.
Nick
nickmattocks wrote:
John
I think if I were chaining both devices together, I would place the X3 Live in the HD500's FX Loop and have the X3 Live follow the HD500's patch selection by making the X3L a MIDI slave to the HD500. That way, I can easily bypass the X3 Live when not required, by simply opting not to have an FX Loop in some of my HD500 patches. It would mean rearranging my X3 Live patches in such a way as to make the ones I want to use match up with program change numbers. Or to make it more flexible (albeit with a bit more tap dancing) I would forego the MIDI link, have a single HD500 patch called X3 Live and then switch to whatever I wanted on the X3 Live itself.
Nick
Hi Nick, thanks for the advice. It all sounds logical, looks like I am going to have to dip my toe in the water of program changes. Always liked a challenge![]()
Thanks again
Regards
John
toasterdude wrote:
johnpicton wrote:
I agree that something in Edit that shows the DSP "workload" as you build a patch would be useful.
While we are on the subject of changes to EDIT I would love to be able to drag and drop the FX blocks etc.
Yeah. . .if you use dual amps the HD 500 is woefully underpowered. There are some work arounds that are just a PIA. I decided to relegate my HD 500 to being used as a glorified JTV Variax IO and midi controller. Hitting DSP errors on 80% of the patches you build is just not any fun. That plus the fact that there are only 16 amp models, weird blanket covered sounds to get rid of. . . .made it a no brainer.
I bought an AXE FX and finally got to start playing with it last night. I can see this thing will be a huge time suck because of how deep you can go in editing and tweaking. It is incredible. I am going to do a full unibiased comparison between the axe and HD and of course pricepoint is a huge plus to the HD etc.
The idea of having a meter showing DSP use is a good one. I am thinking Line 6 are hesitant to do so because it will further point out how much DSP dual amps use etc.
The Axe does have a meter and in about 10 hours of messing with it I have not run into DSP overlaod even once. I don't build patches with 2 pitch shifters and spring reverbs but on HD I hit the DSP wall ALL the time.
On the Axe the DSP sits at 7% in a completely empty patch. Probably just normal overhead. I added a AC 30 and am at 28%.I add a train wreck sim and am at just 48%. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the DSP in the Axe is way more powerful, and of course more expensive. It also appears that the DSP code for the Axe may be more efficient than on the HD.
I add a spring reverb and delay to the above patch and am still at 58% of CPU. I added 2 Tube drives and am at 72%. I add an intelligent harmonizer and am at 78%. . .yeah that is right 6% DSP usage for intelligent harmonizer. Oops. . .I am doing this realtime and being a noobie had forgotten to add the cabs for the amp models. I just added the 2 cabs and am now at 94% of CPU. For a goof I added a rotary speaker sim and a Q filter and am at 97% of DSP.
I am pretty confident I will hit the DSP limit of the Axe very rarely and am totally sure I hit the limit 80% of the time on the HD. For the record My typical patches look nothing like the one above and I am sure that patch would sould like poo. .. . . the point is the DSP is far more powerful as it should be as the unit costs 4x the price. It also has a more elegant and less frustrating way of handling the DSP limit.
There have been numerous threads on the DSP limit problem or as many fan boys say "feature". Of course any device that allows such flexible routing will hit the DSP at some point. The axe is way more flexible in FX routing and hits the DSP much later.
I am HUGE Line 6 fan and would have loved to see them being the leaders in the modeling world but they are still playing catch up in many ways. They are positioning themselves at the 500 buck bedroom, budget concious price point, which makes all the sense in the world as that is where the money is.
From a business stand point they will do very well. from a user stand point, I don't want the best available for 500 bucks. . .I want the best available.
I don't really understand your argument. It's like saying, "my $15,000 Ford Focus is woefully underpowered, because it won't go 150mph like my $65,000 Corvette does". If an HD500 could do what an Axefx does at less than 1/4 the price, Fractal would be out of business. Price is the determining factor on performance for these kinds of products, and the HD was designed with a target market that isn't going to pop $2500 for an effects processor (without a floor controller).
I agree that the DSP limit situation isn't a feature, it's a limitation. Any argument against that is silly. But it's a limitation that should be expected at the product's price point, and there are work arounds can help.capabilities. That's the downside of the of the current platform, maybe the 'Pod HD Pro'oser competitor to the Axefx. But for $500, the HD does a fantastic number of cool things, with tremendous flexibility, IMO.I think that's where some have gone wrong, having unrealistic expectations of the HD's capabilities.
I slightly resent the "bedroom, budget conscious" dig, I and many others are regular gigging and recording musicians using these products in pro situations. I can well afford an Axefx, it's just not the format I need, and I'm satisfied with the functionality that the HD gives me. The fact that you want the best available is just fine- I hope you get satisfaction from your Axe. Obviously the HD didn't fit your needs, that's cool.
gtrman100 wrote:
I don't really understand your argument. It's like saying, "my $15,000 Ford Focus is woefully underpowered, because it won't go 150mph like my $65,000 Corvette does". If an HD500 could do what an Axefx does at less than 1/4 the price, Fractal would be out of business. Price is the determining factor on performance for these kinds of products, and the HD was designed with a target market that isn't going to pop $2500 for an effects processor (without a floor controller).
I agree that the DSP limit situation isn't a feature, it's a limitation. Any argument against that is silly. But it's a limitation that should be expected at the product's price point, and there are work arounds can help.capabilities. That's the downside of the of the current platform, maybe the 'Pod HD Pro'oser competitor to the Axefx. But for $500, the HD does a fantastic number of cool things, with tremendous flexibility, IMO.I think that's where some have gone wrong, having unrealistic expectations of the HD's capabilities.
I slightly resent the "bedroom, budget conscious" dig, I and many others are regular gigging and recording musicians using these products in pro situations. I can well afford an Axefx, it's just not the format I need, and I'm satisfied with the functionality that the HD gives me. The fact that you want the best available is just fine- I hope you get satisfaction from your Axe. Obviously the HD didn't fit your needs, that's cool.
I agree about the price point and totally get it. You analogy is however not even close to what I am saying. I am saying that I want a damn corvette and am willing to pay corvette pricing. I would have preferred to give my corvette money to Line 6 as I am a long time customer and fan. Heck if Line 6 had offered a Camaro for $40,000 or even a Camaro SS for 50k I would have stayed with Line 6 products.
They have done "pro" PODS in the past. The DT 50 is a fairly expensive amp, as was the vetta. The US versions of the JTV are certainly priced more like corvettes or camaros than ford focuses.
I am glad you agree that it is a limitation and not a feature. It is obvious to all that the limitation was the 500 buck price point. If I thought line 6 would do a pro model with a better DSP or dual DSP I may have waited. The popular consensus though seems to be the same features as HD 500 in a bean. . . .oops I mean a rack. . . lol. .
I apologize for the bedroom budget "dig". It was not a dig. I play 90% of the time in my bedroom. Well an extra bedroom converted into music room studio. I know that many pros and gigging guitarists use the POD. I was commenting more on the market that Line 6 are targeting. Line 6 started the whole modeling "revolution" and it bums me out to see them a few years behind the leaders in the modeling worled now. It pains me to see how long it took to get access to power amp seperate from pre amp, sag control etc.
2 weeks ago if Line 6 would have anounced a Pro model that was in the ball park of the Axe FX capabilities but cost $1,000 to $1,500 I would most likely have bought one immediately.
Now. . . .however. . . . they would need to come out with something better than the Axe and I don't see that happening. I wish it would, but I just don't see it.
toasterdude wrote:
They have done "pro" PODS in the past. The DT 50 is a fairly expensive amp, as was the vetta. The US versions of the JTV are certainly priced more like corvettes or camaros than ford focuses.
You make a good point. The DSP limit is a limitation (by definition!) -- marketing-wise, Line6 has decided that the compromise between features and price was at the $500 mark they chose. Those that would have liked to spend more and see the DSP ceiling raised at this time have no alternative within the L6 products. In the past, I thought the PRO versions of the pods were overpriced considering the feature differences. But I felt like the pros were "showcases" to keep up the image of the company: products with no compromises for those willing to pay. I'm one of those that was glad that the HD ships for 500 bucks, and I am not too bothered by the DSP limit. I, however, can understand the frustration of those that would like an uncompromising L6 product but find the present offer falling short. There is however little to be gained by complaining over a company strategy. The best chance would be to let your interest in an uncompromizing "pro" version reach the "powers that be", by issuing feature requests and such. Pod Pros have always hit the street after the "poor man's" versions, so this might be the case again.
No one is putting down Line 6 - like I said - overall I really like my HD 500 but I think Line 6 made a mistake when they chose the prosessor for the HD 500.
It is under powered.
You shouldn't run out of DSP just because you choose the "wrong" selections of amps & effects.
Did they really think that given the choice of certain amps & effects the customer would never select those combinations?
I've maxed the DSP out without even using 8 effects at once - a Deluxe reverb amp, a compressor, a chorus, a certain echo & a certain reverb and I've maxed it out - that's way under powered as far as I'm concerned.
I'm certain that the next step up in processors would not of cost that much more money.
The sad thing about it is I was hoping that the HD 500 was going to evolve over the next several years.
We all know that Line 6 is going to develope more complex models and as this happens the need for more DSP will grow.
If we're already maxing out the DSP now then we must assume that the DSP is already obsolete and will not support future higher level models.
Maybe that's how they have it planned - so in a year or so we have to buy their next "Super HD Pod".
Don't tell me I can use dual amps & have 8 effects because that's not the case with all the models.
I think the ads were misleading.
tim1953 wrote:
No one is putting down Line 6 - like I said - overall I really like my HD 500 but I think Line 6 made a mistake when they chose the prosessor for the HD 500.
It is under powered.
You shouldn't run out of DSP just because you choose the "wrong" selections of amps & effects.
Did they really think that given the choice of certain amps & effects the customer would never select those combinations?
I've maxed the DSP out without even using 8 effects at once - a Deluxe reverb amp, a compressor, a chorus, a certain echo & a certain reverb and I've maxed it out - that's way under powered as far as I'm concerned.
I'm certain that the next step up in processors would not of cost that much more money.
The sad thing about it is I was hoping that the HD 500 was going to evolve over the next several years.
We all know that Line 6 is going to develope more complex models and as this happens the need for more DSP will grow.
If we're already maxing out the DSP now then we must assume that the DSP is already obsolete and will not support future higher level models.
Maybe that's how they have it planned - so in a year or so we have to buy their next "Super HD Pod".
Don't tell me I can use dual amps & have 8 effects because that's not the case with all the models.
I think the ads were misleading.
I am pretty sure on single amps you can have 8 FX. Dual amps you can max out really quickly. I was really hoping the HD would be a great solution for dual tones from the JTV variaxes. . . .but I was wrong.
The hype for HD was pretty big. People asked about whether you can load in user IRs and someone answered that you wouldn't want to. I guess inferring that what they came up with was even better. Instead we got so so cab sims that may have been improved for 1.3 according to Glen. Before 1.3 many cabs sound like they have a blanket over them.
To this day the marketing spin on the Line 6 site doesn't really make you think that a gibtone and a divided by 13 plus reverb will max out DSP.
I think you are right. Apart from adding additional amps or effects and maybe some more routing options. . . .. the HD doesn't seem like a platform to grow with. It appears they would rather sell 500 boxes every 2 years than a 2k box that lasts for 10.
They are also losing some of their other advantages over the competition. In the X3 generation besides variax compatability I dug the fact that I could use Gear Box VST for recording and get the same tones live if I wish. Now I use Pod Farm and those tones are not compatible with X3 or HD.
I guess that means I can buy other VSTs such as Revalver now as I am tied to using Line 6 exclusively. More tools and more choices is always good.
I will most likely buy Red Wire and other third party IRs to use in my DAW with Pod Farm and also to load into the Axe. The stock cab sims on the Axe are way better than the HD. . . at least pre 1.3. . . and the red wires are supposed to take things up a notch or two!
Gerritsmrg wrote:
As you all may have noticed: the max dsp load is easely met when using a dual amp configuration. I guess we have to live with that given the current HD500. In order to optimise a preset it whould be very helpfull to have MORE information about the load a specific FX or AMP put´s on the DSP. Please can somebody (line6) make a list.
A suggestion for POD HD Edit might be a bar showing the processorload of the individual elements. Also the selection of elements which will result in a DSP overload might be made impossible and/or visible in the menu´s.
(a preset with only a screamer, ping-pong delay, spring reverb and volume can´t be made dual amp other than a Super O and a Gibtone 185 or pre-amp models!!!)
I personally have discussed this topic with some people from L6 previously. I can't say what (if anything) is in the pipeline as I just don't know. BUT line 6 do understand that users would like this sort of info...
All we can do is to wait and see. BUT if you want the people who decide things like this to hear you, you need to fill in an official feature request via the contact us link at the bottom of this page, and then click product feedback.
Historically Line 6 have usually given users what they want if there is enough demand. the only exceptions would be details about products that would compromise Line 6 product internal workings. I don't know if the DSP% for the amp models would be considered confidential and that's why they wont release it... but what I do know is that Line 6 DSP engineers are some really smart chaps, and are masters of optimisation, so there's also other possibilities that in the future some models may be optimised to give the same audible tone whilst requiring a little less DSP. Like I said, who knows... but just giving you some other possibilities.
Cheers
Rowbi
Rowbi wrote:
All we can do is to wait and see. BUT if you want the people who decide things like this to hear you, you need to fill in an official feature request via the contact us link at the bottom of this page, and then click product feedback.
Cheers
Rowbi
Good point well made. Thank you.
thanx for your close to the source answer and your suggestion for how I should talk to line 6.
Gerrit
I agree that it's easy to meet the DSP limits when using Dual Amps but it's not hard to get around. Or at least I haven't found it hard and I am using the Engl and the Bogner as a major part of my overdrive tone.
People try and cram it all into one patch but if you spread your sound over 2 or 3 patches it is entirely possible to utilise dual amps.
For example:
My main overdrive sound is made up of like I said before, the Engl and the Bogner.
Within that sound I have a Noise Gate on all the time and at any given time I need to be able to turn on and off a Wah, Phaser, Pitch Glide set to 1 Octave Higher and a Flanger effect.
If you have all those FX loaded into the same patch, the DSP limit is met, so I have the FX within the same sound, but spread over two patches with exactly the same amp settings..
Main 1 contains Noise Gate > Wah > Phaser > Amp > Flanger
Main 2 contains Noise Gate > Wah > Pitch Glide > Amp > Flanger
My lead sound contains exactly the same amp settings but has Boost Comp, Screamer and Digital Delay in there too. Now while that is 8 FX, obviously it's impossible to have them all loaded in the same patch without meeting the DSP, so I have another patche set up as follows:
Lead 1 contains Noise Gate > Wah > Boost Comp > Screamer > Amp > > Digital Delay.
All of these patches also have the expression pedal assigned to the master output parameter of the amp sections which negates the need to use up an FX block with a volume pedal.
So with some clever patch set up/routing it makes the DSP limits when using dual tones far less of a problem and with what, 512 slots for patches, it's not like you could realistically run out or space! lol
Stay in the mix and in the know.
Latest offers, special deals and insider updates.