Jump to content


Photo

Hd500x?


  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#21 GTLazer

GTLazer

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 209 posts

Posted 08 July 2013 - 01:30 AM

if those are the final specs, I definitely agree...this seems like a good but partial fix of the old unit; at this point I would have waited some more time and released a brand new POD generation

 

The really disappointing thing about this is that, if they had plans to fix things like the EQs in the near future, you'd have thought they would've got it sorted in time to be on the spec sheet for the 500x.

 

This suggests to me that a fix is probably not forthcoming. Maybe it's time to have a closer look at the 11R.


  • 0

You like my answer? Hit the up arrow. You no like my answer? Hit the down arrow. Sorted.


#22 hurghanico

hurghanico

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1259 posts
  • LocationBologna, Italy

Posted 08 July 2013 - 02:21 AM

what I hope is that there will still be some firmware updates and support for our HD500, frankly I can live with the few hardware limits as I did till now

I'm pretty sure they can still do something to optimize resources..
for example, giving the ability to completely disable the looper, which at present is always ready and available using continually precious resources that might be available for other things

I wonder what second hand market value will have our HD500 after the new model will come out, whereas there will be still around the 400 and 300 models

I imagine that if a used 500 and a new 400 will have about the same market value nobody will buy a new 400 anymore except for the people wanting no second hand stuff
  • 1

#23 fmarinheiro

fmarinheiro

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 12:46 AM

If this means they will stop improving the current HD500, that is a very short life time. I wasn't expecting to have a discountinuate product in less than a year after buying it. Bad first experience with line 6
  • 0

#24 greghall

greghall

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 186 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 12:56 AM

In fairness the HD500 has been around a longer than a year, and the X looks more like a minor hardware upgrade. I would hope that this will extend the life of the HD series, with more firmware features in the pipeline. 


  • 0

#25 Inerzia

Inerzia

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 167 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 01:28 AM

what I hope is that there will still be some firmware updates and support for our HD500, frankly I can live with the few hardware limits as I did till now

I'm pretty sure they can still do something to optimize resources..
for example, giving the ability to completely disable the looper, which at present is always ready and available using continually precious resources that might be available for other things

 

That would be really good. Freeing up resources from something I never use. It shouldn't be done globally though, but on a per-preset basis, otherwise, turning the looper back on and trying to call up a heavily loaded preset would result in failure to load due to lack of free resources.


  • 1

#26 hurghanico

hurghanico

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1259 posts
  • LocationBologna, Italy

Posted 09 July 2013 - 02:00 AM

That would be really good. Freeing up resources from something I never use. It shouldn't be done globally though, but on a per-preset basis, otherwise, turning the looper back on and trying to call up a heavily loaded preset would result in failure to load due to lack of free resources.

 

yes, I agree ..
let say that you should be able to treat the looper as all other effects
being able to put it in the chain only if you want
as opposed to now which is always present turned on and available


  • 0

#27 GTLazer

GTLazer

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 209 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 03:46 AM

I would rather they just changed the pre/post option to pre/post/off.


  • 0

You like my answer? Hit the up arrow. You no like my answer? Hit the down arrow. Sorted.


#28 hurghanico

hurghanico

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1259 posts
  • LocationBologna, Italy

Posted 09 July 2013 - 05:08 AM

I would rather they just changed the pre/post option to pre/post/off.

 

it depends on what you mean by "off"

because if an fx is still present in the chain and it's just toggled off it's still reserving the same resources it would use when it's on

to effectively free up it's dsp resources cost it must disappear from the chain, like for any other fx


  • 0

#29 GTLazer

GTLazer

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 209 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 05:20 AM

Indeed. "Off" was meant in the 'DSP sense'.


  • 0

You like my answer? Hit the up arrow. You no like my answer? Hit the down arrow. Sorted.


#30 phil_m

phil_m

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 5277 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis, MN

Posted 09 July 2013 - 05:57 AM

The problem with turning the looper block on and off is that the way that it's set up is that it exists outside of the preset. So even if there was some way you could turn it off globally to free up DSP resources, it could cause problems with presets that were near the DSP limit when it was turned back on.

 

I actually would be surprised if the looper used much in the way of DSP resources, though. It's not really doing anything that would be processor intensive.


  • 0
Time is a train
Makes the future the past
Leaves you standing in the station
Your face pressed up against the glass

 


#31 scheater5

scheater5

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 70 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 07:07 AM

Several of my major problems with the unit don't appear to be addressed (we'll see, once an official announcement is made).  There are some technical issues that Line 6 seems to refuse to acknowledge (see: anything Meambobbo has ever written on here) that bug the crap out of me.  I'm keeping my HD500 and considering non-Line-6 upgrade paths....I know that's a controversial topic, and I don't wanna get into it, I'm just saying that I'd rather stay Line 6, if only they fixed some glaring problems.


  • 0

#32 hurghanico

hurghanico

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1259 posts
  • LocationBologna, Italy

Posted 09 July 2013 - 07:32 AM

The problem with turning the looper block on and off is that the way that it's set up is that it exists outside of the preset. So even if there was some way you could turn it off globally to free up DSP resources, it could cause problems with presets that were near the DSP limit when it was turned back on.

 


certainly it is logical that the looper is outside the presets if you want to use it in pre and be able to change presets or settings in general while the looper is running

unfortunately it is not possible to measure approximately the weight it has on dsp since it is not possible to disable it

anyway I think wouldn't be bad as a solution to eliminate the looper as it is and replace it with a looper fx that works with the same logic of the other fx, just maybe with the limit that you can have only one looper per patch to not create confusion also with the dedicated board switches which can work obviously with just one looper at a time

sure by doing so we would lose the ability to change presets during the loop but would keep the
ability to change the settings of that single patch that contains the looper at the beginning of the chain, even if this solution would eat one of the 8 blocks,

but I suspect that in case of a looper fx restructuring there would be room for an added free ninth block

 

however I know that will never happen


  • 0

#33 silverhead

silverhead

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 11099 posts
  • LocationOttawa, Ontario, Canada

Posted 09 July 2013 - 07:55 AM

I don't think that disabling the looper would return much if anything in the way of useful DSP. The looper uses memory - not processing power. When recording it simply writes the output of the DSP processing (or the dry input in PRE position) to its internal memory - the recording is a very light processing load. On playback it simply routes an existing audio stream directly to the device outputs (if recorded in POST mode), or to the signal chain input for DSP processing (if recorded in PRE mode). On playback in POST mode It is analogous to the AUX input but a little faster and less demanding because it recalls the audio stream from its internal memory rather than from the external media. On playback in PRE mode the audio stream is simply added to the physical inputs - the DSP happens as the input signal goes through the chain.

 

Neither the record or playback activities of the looper use a noticeable amount of DSP, imho.


  • 0

Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans.
.... John Lennon

 

 


#34 hurghanico

hurghanico

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1259 posts
  • LocationBologna, Italy

Posted 09 July 2013 - 09:21 AM

...The looper uses memory - not processing power. ...

 

..Neither the record or playback activities of the looper use a noticeable amount of DSP, imho...

 

probably you and our friend phil_m are both right.. who knows

 

actually mine is more of a mental speculation than else
I try to imagine which optimizations may still be possible to prolong the life of our device, but given the recent news and rumors I have to assume that everything
useful that could be done has been already done

 

and the HD500 development has ended, and reached its terminus

 

probably future developments will be avaible only for the new hardware coming out


  • 0

#35 GTLazer

GTLazer

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 209 posts

Posted 09 July 2013 - 11:57 PM

probably future developments will be available only for the new hardware coming out

 

As such it sounds like there's very little difference between the 500 and 500x, so I would imagine (or at least hope) that any future firmware upgrades would still apply to the 500 as well.


  • 1

You like my answer? Hit the up arrow. You no like my answer? Hit the down arrow. Sorted.


#36 Inerzia

Inerzia

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 167 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:15 AM

As such it sounds like there's very little difference between the 500 and 500x, so I would imagine (or at least hope) that any future firmware upgrades would still apply to the 500 as well.

So I hope too


  • 0

#37 hurghanico

hurghanico

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1259 posts
  • LocationBologna, Italy

Posted 10 July 2013 - 03:52 AM

I share the same hope
but I have no many illusions

in the video of andertons-music, the demonstrator says that the new model will replace the old one
which makes me think that the old one will be discontinued
.. we'll see


  • 0

#38 joel_brown

joel_brown

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 327 posts
  • LocationVirginia

Posted 10 July 2013 - 03:57 AM

http://line6.com/sup...x-on-july-13th/

 

The above link is the announcement I found about the PODHD500x.  From what I can tell it's just a faster DSP and some better switches.  But in 3 days we should find out. 


  • 0

#39 Octo777

Octo777

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 880 posts
  • LocationKeith, Scotland

Posted 10 July 2013 - 04:31 AM

Guitar Guitar claim to have them in stock already.

 

http://www.guitargui...=13070214233158

 

If the only difference is more DSP and some new footswitches then I am good with my 500 for now.


  • 0

#40 greghall

greghall

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 186 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 05:01 AM

Andertons video:

 

http://www.andertons...rce=Emailvision


  • 1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users