I consider myself extremely blessed to live in a country where I can earn a living that allows me to buy and have the privilege of using gear such as the HD500 or an Axe-Fx.  I don't take it for granted.  Those of us who can do this can get precious over the  differences in tone between these two great products. But be grateful you've got one or the other (maybe both in some cases).  I can only afford the 500 but I can make satisfying music with it. If those of us who love playing music make our preferences a cause for flaming one another, pity help the world with its greater problems.  There are people on the streets of our cities tonight who are homeless and desperate in the midst of the misery of there lives (whatever has caused that) and we're flaming one another over tone?  I'm in my 60's and have gotten tremendous help from these forums over the years and I'm deeply appreciative of all the guys who give their knowledge and help freely.  Thanks guys.  Sometimes my tone sucks, not because the device is the problem ... I'm the problem ... but I'm learning.  This thread has probably seen its useby date expired and maybe we're flogging a dead horse.  I think this thread has probably gone far beyond what Karl intended and any value in repeating the arguments ad nauseum has disappeared.

Pete

Billy ..theres a rabid Axe/FX fan over at the Line 6 website..need ya to get over there right away!

+1n on that.

I bought an HD500 and took it back! Two reasons. Some of the amps (especially the higher gain ones) Sound muffled, like there is a blanket over the speakers and the eq on the unit is nowhere near good enough to sort them out. The amp mpdel eq's are the same as the ones on the origional amps. Lets face it they were pretty useless! The parametric on the HD isnt good enough to make up for it. This meant that they lacked some of the "bite" i like to cut through a mix in a live situation. How about being able to replace the tone stack on the amps with a custom one that works?

I could have lived with that and just used a a couple of models however. the thing that killed it for me was the insane amount of poweramp sag that has been moddled. You dont always turn a tube amp up all the way. You would blow the windows out in most venues with a 100watt head! So some way of controlling that sag would have saved the day for me.

If these two issues are sorted out I will be straight to the guitar shop to buy another HD!

amgamg wrote:

 

That vermin has got to be the worst to get rid of....once it starts it never stops...I'll get him..I'm on my way!

Many supposed responses augmented with visuals, but they in essence are not really responses at all so the visuals cannot augment something that is not there in the first place.  

A real response has something to back it up and support it with at least some evidence. None of the above 3 visuals shows such things, and the responses therefore remain empty challenges to the facts.

And another piece of supporting evidence to my original challenge is that I dont see any pro engineers saying they thought the Pod HD can be mistaken for a real studio recording.

So unlike the Pod HD series which had a misleading HD set of letters, something that is not misleading is the following accutate description which actually accurately describes the Axe FX from the Axe WikI:

"Unique to the processing in the Axe-Fx is our proprietary natural processing algorithms. Many of the algorithms in the Axe-Fx replicate patterns that occur in nature (this is where our company name was derived from). The reverb algorithm replicates the sound of a real room, the chorus and flanger use special variable delay algorithms that are more natural and smooth that any pedal (analog or digital) could ever achieve and the amp simulations use unique, dynamic, non-linearity generators that produce smooth, even-ordered harmonics giving a depth to the sound that other processors lack"

Along with our superior algorithms the Axe-Fx uses the finest quality components available. The op-amps, A/D and D/A converters and passive components are all of the highest quality. The converters are the same converters used in high-end studio equipment costing many thousands of dollars. A single op-amp in the Axe- Fx costs more than all the op-amps combined in many “budget” processors.

Additionally our unique analog topology eliminates any electrolytic capacitors from the signal path. Only high-quality film capacitors and precision metal-film resistors are used in the signal path assuring low-noise and low-distortion performance. These features also allow the Axe-Fx to excel as an general purpose outboard processor for studio and live use."

Thankfully, this was the truth when I actually heard the unit.  And you definetly get what you pay for.  There is years and years worth of code programmed into the unit.   The DSP in the unit does over 2 billion floating point operations a second, it uses 32 bit floating point numbers.

(Who is for once actually giong to respond with facts supporting the HD by the way?)

Anyone here who has attempted to compare a mere toy to this is nothing but a complete bozo.  This was my last post because its no use talking to a wall.   But to those in here who were actually open-minded, thank you for your consideration.  You deserve better than the totally mis-informed and ill-willed treatment that was counter-productive in here.  You will not be dissappointed with your new Axe.  It has a very 3D quality to it, but not too harsh on the highs - still retaining a warm soft analog quality., while still retaining the large "in your face" sound if you so wish. 

P.S. Sweeping through the low pass filter in the HD with an expression pedal is a total joke along with many of the other blocks, distortions, effects, etc.  

And finally, to some of the mis-informed individuals in  here - including the original poster of this  thread, I am also informing you that circus is now accepting job  applications, so get those spots while they last.

So sell your HD500 and buy an AXE-FX and people who like their HD500's can keep them, and everyone's happy. Seems pretty simple to solve to me.

.... just to echo your opening observation.....

Seriously though the last time I heard a my Rembrandt is better than your Photoshop argument, I think I was in grade school.......

(just kidding, of course...)

phil_m wrote:

 

oh really?  Care to show how?  nice try but its invalid if you make an assertion about someone, and then fail to show how they are what you are describing them as, then it makes our attempt futile.