Skip navigation
Up to Discussions in Pod HD User's Group
582 Views 9 Replies Latest reply: Apr 10, 2012 11:28 AM by MerlinFL RSS
Inerzia Just Startin'
Inerzia
54 posts since
Feb 10, 2007
Currently Being Moderated

Apr 1, 2012 5:09 AM

DSP Upgrade for HD. Is it possible?

Has anyone opened their HD processor?
I'm wondering if there are any empty slots for more DSPs
I know it's not very likely, that's the main reason why I

haven't opened mine yet.

  • silverhead Expert Line 6 User
    silverhead
    9,592 posts since
    Apr 1, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 1, 2012 7:16 AM (in response to Inerzia)
    Re: DSP Upgrade for HD. Is it possible?

    Don't do it. As soon as you open it up you have voided any remaining warranty.

     

    And even if you find what you think might be 'empty slots', this machine is not your everyday computer. You can't simply 'add more DSP' like you can add RAM in a normal computer.

    • Inerzia Just Startin'
      Inerzia
      54 posts since
      Feb 10, 2007
      Currently Being Moderated
      Apr 9, 2012 6:38 PM (in response to silverhead)
      Re: DSP Upgrade for HD. Is it possible?

      I know, I know it wouldn't be anything near as easy as shopping for RAM and installing it, and I don't remember any previous L6 product

      been offered with any DSP upgrade option, but I don't remember any previous "DSP castrated" products either...

       

      It's just that, even loving the tones I'm getting from my HD500, I can't help but feel frustrated by the annoying "DSP limit reached" messages.

       

       

      Thanks anyway for your response.

      • Iknowathingortwo
        MerlinFL
        1,667 posts since
        Jul 17, 2007
        Currently Being Moderated
        Apr 9, 2012 11:46 PM (in response to Inerzia)
        Re: DSP Upgrade for HD. Is it possible?

        Perhaps Line 6 is working with, paying for, or simply waiting for...better compression ratio programs to come out?  I'm not sure if this is the DSP limit problem, but it could be one reason why the company chose to put more into the unit than can be used at one time.

         

        This didn't happen previously, but does anyone really know (outside of the developers) just how much DSP processing those 80 amps & cabs, plus ?? amount of FX or anything other bells and whistles there were put into all prior units like the Vetta?

         

        All I know is that the Vetta was produced somewhere around 2002, and the technology available had to have been much less than 2002 tech because the engineers can only work with what is available at the time of development.

         

        Based on publicly posted interviews on YouTube and other websites...Line 6 people were discussing the engineering process and when it first went onto a daft board.  That was stated as 2007 - does anyone remember what tech and DSP power was available in 2007?  Perhaps this is one part of the answer?  Perhaps the company chose to put more available then could ever be used at the same time on the processor these POD HD units have because they wanted to give better sonic choices instead of worrying about DSP limit messages?

         

        In other words - if Line 6 chose to "skimp" on anything or use less powerful algorithms that would never cause the DSP OVER LIMIT message to happen, would anyone be complaining?

         

        Just a thought,

        Neal

  • hitchface Just Startin'
    hitchface
    334 posts since
    Jul 1, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 9, 2012 11:52 PM (in response to Inerzia)
    Re: DSP Upgrade for HD. Is it possible?

    Also worth mentioning is that it might be possible for the engineers to optimize the code in the future. At least with other forms of programming, a good tech can get a lot of performance out of some very efficient code.

     

    A different word altogether, but case in point is the Half-Life 2 and related episodes. The developers were able to get extremely good graphical detail and performance out of the game while minimizing system resources...the result was a game that ran on a fraction of the resources compared to other, similarly classed, games.

    • Iknowathingortwo
      MerlinFL
      1,667 posts since
      Jul 17, 2007
      Currently Being Moderated
      Apr 10, 2012 12:04 AM (in response to hitchface)
      Re: DSP Upgrade for HD. Is it possible?

      Seems like an excellent example even though I'm not familiar with the game mentioned.  Bottom line - getting highest performance out of the available tools.

       

      Music in all it's permutations or how best to work tons of various music equipment to work together as effectively and efficiently as possible I know well.  Computer code writing and what can be done within that realm of expertise?  I've not more than a basic idea.  I don't envy those who have to crunch all those 1s and 0s to get these pieces of gear to work and sound as well as they do.

  • jdenkevitz Just Startin'
    jdenkevitz
    127 posts since
    Jan 30, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 10, 2012 5:45 AM (in response to Inerzia)
    Re: DSP Upgrade for HD. Is it possible?

    If you go under the assumption that the HD500 has better modelling than the x3/xt/vetta generations (which I do), than its difficult to make a comparison not knowing more about how much more 'hungry' the new algorithms are comparatively.

     

    If you want more dsp, look at the fractal units. Its not really a totally apt comparison as Fractals Algorithms are alot more advanced than whats in the pod, but the newer fractals can do alot more simultaneously than what a pod can do (of course its 4x the price also). The chips used in the pod hd500 are a much lower end DSP chipset compared to whats put into the fractal units.

    Its a matter of profit/cost analysis. Line 6 could easily have put in a more powerful chip that wouldnt reach a limit for their given algorithms, but id wager a dollar that they had a meeting, and did an analysis of how many potential sales would be lost (by disappointed users hitting a dsp limit versus) versus how much profit would be lost by using an upgraded chip.

     

    The Pod HD uses the same family of chip that was in the Pod x3.

     

    POD HD DSP: SHARC ADSP-21369 at 333 MHz (KSZ-2A), 2.4 GFLOPS

     

    POD X3 DSP: SHARC ADSP-21369 at 266 MHz (KSZ-1A), 1.6 GFLOPS

     

    POD XT DSP: at 60 MHz, 180 MFLOPS

     

    Axe-FX (Standard) DSP: TigerSharc at 500MHz, 3.0GFLOPS

     

    Axe-FX (Ultra) DSP: TigerSHARC at 600MHz 4.0GFLOPS

     

    The TigerSHARC chips are much more powerful for processing audio than the SHARC chips, ie you cant just look at a straight comparison of GFLOPS.

     

    To give you an idea pricewise, a few years ago when the HD first came out, the cost of their chip was $30. The cost of the chip in the Fractals was $200. The Axe-fx 2 uses (i think) two of the 600mhz chips, one for amp modelling, one for effects.

    • Iknowathingortwo
      MerlinFL
      1,667 posts since
      Jul 17, 2007
      Currently Being Moderated
      Apr 10, 2012 11:28 AM (in response to jdenkevitz)
      Re: DSP Upgrade for HD. Is it possible?

      jdenkevitz wrote:

       

      If you go under the assumption that the HD500 has better modelling than the x3/xt/vetta generations (which I do), than its difficult to make a comparison not knowing more about how much more 'hungry' the new algorithms are comparatively.

       

      If you want more dsp, look at the fractal units. Its not really a totally apt comparison as Fractals Algorithms are alot more advanced than whats in the pod, but the newer fractals can do alot more simultaneously than what a pod can do (of course its 4x the price also). The chips used in the pod hd500 are a much lower end DSP chipset compared to whats put into the fractal units.

      Its a matter of profit/cost analysis. Line 6 could easily have put in a more powerful chip that wouldnt reach a limit for their given algorithms, but id wager a dollar that they had a meeting, and did an analysis of how many potential sales would be lost (by disappointed users hitting a dsp limit versus) versus how much profit would be lost by using an upgraded chip.

       

      The Pod HD uses the same family of chip that was in the Pod x3.

       

      POD HD DSP: SHARC ADSP-21369 at 333 MHz (KSZ-2A), 2.4 GFLOPS

       

      POD X3 DSP: SHARC ADSP-21369 at 266 MHz (KSZ-1A), 1.6 GFLOPS

       

      POD XT DSP: at 60 MHz, 180 MFLOPS

       

      Axe-FX (Standard) DSP: TigerSharc at 500MHz, 3.0GFLOPS

       

      Axe-FX (Ultra) DSP: TigerSHARC at 600MHz 4.0GFLOPS

       

      The TigerSHARC chips are much more powerful for processing audio than the SHARC chips, ie you cant just look at a straight comparison of GFLOPS.

       

      To give you an idea pricewise, a few years ago when the HD first came out, the cost of their chip was $30. The cost of the chip in the Fractals was $200. The Axe-fx 2 uses (i think) two of the 600mhz chips, one for amp modelling, one for effects.

      I had no idea (still have no real idea either) about the actual guts of the unit you are comparing to the Line 6 POD HD, but I think you are probably right on target about a possible meeting and cost analysis vs. sales iimpact.

  • blasturd Just Startin'
    blasturd
    8 posts since
    Feb 3, 2011
    Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 10, 2012 6:49 AM (in response to Inerzia)
    Re: DSP Upgrade for HD. Is it possible?

    ^ Yep, the HD Series have the same DSP and CPU as the Pod X3, only clocked slightly higher.  The motherboard on the HD500 is actually labeled as "Pod X4".  I don't think the DSP is actually clocked at 333 Mhz, probably closer to 300 Mhz.  Everything else inside the HD series is the same as the X3.  Since the new amp models are in "HD" now, they take up more space in memory, therefore the HD can't hold as many models as the X3 could.

  • meambobbo Iknowathingortwo
    meambobbo
    1,702 posts since
    Dec 13, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 10, 2012 7:10 AM (in response to Inerzia)
    Re: DSP Upgrade for HD. Is it possible?

    Someone mentioned overclocking the chips, but I don't think this would help - I believe the DSP limit reached error is baked into the code, using fixed values for each amp/effect, not calculated on the fly by benchmarking the system.  All DSP increases would have to be the result of software.

     

    So here's a few that could help:

     

    1) Separate the amp and cab blocks.  For people who want to use one amp and two cab/mics or two amps but one cab/mic, this would reduce DSP needed.

     

    2) Offer stripped down or lower quality versions of effects.  I would love a reverb that takes up as much DSP as a delay, even if it didn't sound as good as the other reverbs.  I would love a Parametric EQ without the low and high shelves that I rarely use.

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Incoming Links

Bookmarked By (0)