Jump to content


Photo

Difference Between Hd500 And Hd500x


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#21 ChristianArnold

ChristianArnold

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 187 posts

Posted 15 July 2013 - 06:37 AM

I just purchased an HD500x from JRRshop. I'll A/B it with my 500 when it arrives. The dealbreaker for me will be if it still can't do amp channel-switching within one patch (without having to be bare of effects). 

 

I may just be slow, but could you explain "amp channel-switching within one patch"? Thanks


  • 0

Check out all my youtube videos featuring Line 6 products here. www.youtube.com/christianarnoldmusic


#22 marcwormjim

marcwormjim

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 50 posts

Posted 15 July 2013 - 12:34 PM

I mean having two amp models within one patch, then being able to virtually A/B between them by toggling one "off" with the same command that toggles the other "on." Other amp modelers (Even past PODs) allowed you this in your signal chains, so that you could effectively switch "amp channels" with delay/reverb spillover, rather than suffer a muted lag as you switched between patches. While this option is still there in the 500, it practically isn't; as the DSP limit caused by upgrading the hardware demands of the software without actually upgrading the hardware resulted in people having to settle for bare-bones patches in the HD500 if they wanted amp-switching within one patch.

 

That, to me, was the biggest failure of the HD500. I understand that there's still a DSP limit in the 500x, though - So we'll see how much of an obstruction it still is.


  • 0

#23 mralmostpopular

mralmostpopular

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 31 posts

Posted 15 July 2013 - 06:00 PM

I mean having two amp models within one patch, then being able to virtually A/B between them by toggling one "off" with the same command that toggles the other "on." Other amp modelers (Even past PODs) allowed you this in your signal chains, so that you could effectively switch "amp channels" with delay/reverb spillover, rather than suffer a muted lag as you switched between patches. While this option is still there in the 500, it practically isn't; as the DSP limit caused by upgrading the hardware demands of the software without actually upgrading the hardware resulted in people having to settle for bare-bones patches in the HD500 if they wanted amp-switching within one patch.

 

That, to me, was the biggest failure of the HD500. I understand that there's still a DSP limit in the 500x, though - So we'll see how much of an obstruction it still is.

 

I just tried it, and there is a little pop/click when switching amps while signal is passing through.  So keep that in mind.


  • 0

#24 marcwormjim

marcwormjim

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 50 posts

Posted 15 July 2013 - 08:35 PM

Thanks.

 

My rig has me running through a GR-55 and into a Loopmaster passive-A/B between an HD500 and an inferior-sounding GNX4 for channel-switching. I can live with a slight click, if it means downsizing. 

 

Two patches I'll be trying for are ones that allow for switching between Eric Johnson and Allan Holdsworth's clean and lead sounds. If the 500x can't handle it, It'll be cheaper to return it and just buy a used 500 off ebay to replace the GNX4.


  • 0

#25 schlottdog

schlottdog

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 17 posts
  • LocationTHe Bay area

Posted 17 July 2013 - 07:05 AM

So, any future firmware updates (i.e. new amp models) for the 500X will also include the 500? This is my biggest concern. I just got my 500 a little under 2 months ago after waiting and dreaming of one for a long time (couldn't afford it) and then a new and improved model comes out! Just a bit disheartening. Don't get me wrong - I absolutely love my 500 and just hope there will be continued support. I would imagine that customtone will be somewhat affected, tho.

 

 

Got you beat....got my 500 about 2 weeks ago...albeit off eBay. I am in the "love/hate" relationship and starting to find myself comparing it to my tried and true XT Live....sort of like comparing the girlfriend with the Ex-wife.....LOLOLOL.

 

 

It would be nice if Line 6 would offer an upgrade package where you send your 500 in and they put the new DSP in it. I would pay $100 for it.


  • 0

#26 pfsmith0

pfsmith0

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 69 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 09:29 AM

I mean having two amp models within one patch, then being able to virtually A/B between them by toggling one "off" with the same command that toggles the other "on." Other amp modelers (Even past PODs) allowed you this in your signal chains, so that you could effectively switch "amp channels" with delay/reverb spillover, rather than suffer a muted lag as you switched between patches. While this option is still there in the 500, it practically isn't; as the DSP limit caused by upgrading the hardware demands of the software without actually upgrading the hardware resulted in people having to settle for bare-bones patches in the HD500 if they wanted amp-switching within one patch.

 

That, to me, was the biggest failure of the HD500. I understand that there's still a DSP limit in the 500x, though - So we'll see how much of an obstruction it still is.

Couldn't you do this by putting each amp in it's own A/B signal path and then using the foot pedal to change the mixer gains between 100/0% and 0/100% for A/B? It wouldn't be a push button but it would still be a single foot control. No muted delays. Plus, you could then vary how sudden the switch happens and you would also maybe get some interesting mixing effects in the 50/50% region. In addition, since the reverb/delays are part of the common signal path, you keep your spillover tails.


  • 0

#27 Rewolf48

Rewolf48

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 316 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 18 July 2013 - 03:49 AM

Couldn't you do this by putting each amp in it's own A/B signal path and then using the foot pedal to change the mixer gains between 100/0% and 0/100% for A/B? It wouldn't be a push button but it would still be a single foot control. No muted delays. Plus, you could then vary how sudden the switch happens and you would also maybe get some interesting mixing effects in the 50/50% region. In addition, since the reverb/delays are part of the common signal path, you keep your spillover tails.

 

You can't control the Mixer in real time, but you can assign two Amps to the same footswitch to bypass them - have one on and the other bypassed with the bypass volume = 0 then when you hit the footswitch it will turn the off amp on and the on amp off.

 

The alternative is to assign the Volume of each Amp to the expression pedal and sweep between them (which I think is what you were saying), but you are relying on the correct audio curves to get a flat cross fade...

 

[so two problems with the existing HD there already: can't control mixer and can't set curves]

 

What the earlier post was about is that you can't very practically do this because with two DSP expensive amps and two spring reverbs you have hit the DSP limit (you wouldn't necessarily want the same reverb settings for both amp channels) 

 

[another problem - if there was something that allowed you to recall effect state with footswitch then you might get away with only one reverb]


  • 0

#28 Jeffsco

Jeffsco

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 51 posts
  • LocationSidney B.C.

Posted 18 July 2013 - 04:02 AM

Got you beat....got my 500 about 2 weeks ago...albeit off eBay. I am in the "love/hate" relationship and starting to find myself comparing it to my tried and true XT Live....sort of like comparing the girlfriend with the Ex-wife.....LOLOLOL.

 

 

Yea..but in this analogy ..you wake up one morning and realize you were an idiot for leaving the Ex-Wife....See if she'll still take your calls before you go thru any more hassles with the Girlfriend.


  • 0

#29 SiCantwell

SiCantwell

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 67 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 04:46 AM

Are any of these 500X claims actually new to the X? Is there something new about "dual signal paths" and "multiple routing options"? Is "dynamic DSP" different from the DSP we already have in the 500, or is there just a bit more of it?

Quoting from sonicscoop.com news item:

 

Unparalleled flexibility to craft your tones:
  • Dual signal paths
  • Multiple routing options
  • Dynamic DSP with more power for amps and effects
  • Stereo FX loop can be inserted anywhere in the signal chain

  • 0

#30 chuberto

chuberto

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 21 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 04:51 AM

I mean having two amp models within one patch, then being able to virtually A/B between them by toggling one "off" with the same command that toggles the other "on." Other amp modelers (Even past PODs) allowed you this in your signal chains, so that you could effectively switch "amp channels" with delay/reverb spillover, rather than suffer a muted lag as you switched between patches. While this option is still there in the 500, it practically isn't; as the DSP limit caused by upgrading the hardware demands of the software without actually upgrading the hardware resulted in people having to settle for bare-bones patches in the HD500 if they wanted amp-switching within one patch.

 

That, to me, was the biggest failure of the HD500. I understand that there's still a DSP limit in the 500x, though - So we'll see how much of an obstruction it still is.

 

It's not so bad if you use the HD with a DT amp as you only use the Amp Pre models, which is exactly what I do. My very effects heavy patches I run as single channels amps, the other stuff I do as follows:

 

Set inputs as 'Same'

 

            --------Volume Pedal ------- Amp--------Unused-------------

Wah <                                                                                         >Mixer--------Modulation-------- Delay--------Reverb-------Looper---------

            --------Volume Pedal ------- Amp--------Noise Gate/Eq----

 

 

I set the volume pedals to '0' so that when they switch on they mute the signal, turn off the Exp Pedal control and FS2 controls both to toggle between the two. The Volume Pedal modules use minimal CPU so there's still enough processing power to run a modest modulation, delay and reverb. If I wanted a little more, I could turn off the reverb and use that on the DT but it's not something that I really find happens.


  • 0

#31 jamesnlcc1

jamesnlcc1

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 11:21 AM

"New features on the POD HD500X include an expanded offering of HD amp models, more processing power, the ability to add more effects to signal chains and higher contrast displays."


  • 0

#32 StephenSLR

StephenSLR

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 232 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 23 July 2013 - 02:40 PM

Did they address the issue of the weak power input socket of the HD500?

 

s


  • 0
Listen to my band here:
 

#33 stumblinman

stumblinman

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 438 posts
  • LocationPacific Northwest

Posted 24 July 2013 - 09:00 AM

Did they address the issue of the weak power input socket of the HD500?

s

Nope, still the same poor lollipop design. L6 engineers are a strange lot. They seem very intelligent about modeling and effects, then do dumb stuff like the power plug design on the HD500 and the poor circuit board layout on the M5 that causes it to short out and reboot if you step on both buttons. Documented grounding issue, dig around the M series forums and they give a simple fix.

In my line of work, I work with engineers almost daily, and most of them have this "it works on paper" attitude. Implementation is what matters. But then again, if they make a little extra coin on accessories when this stuff breaks...
  • 0

#34 StephenSLR

StephenSLR

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 232 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 24 July 2013 - 01:34 PM

In my line of work, I work with engineers almost daily, and most of them have this "it works on paper" attitude. Implementation is what matters. But then again, if they make a little extra coin on accessories when this stuff breaks...

 

I also work with engineers and what they design is not always what gets produced. Some of them like to have the most robust and exotic equipment to make it last but it's too expensive for the client.

 

s


  • 0
Listen to my band here:
 

#35 marcwormjim

marcwormjim

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 50 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 03:52 AM

Here's a really ugly thread, but Dale sheds some very helpful light on the matter:

 

 

http://www.thegearpa...1&postcount=689

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlHouseknecht viewpost.gif
I think "flaw" is a strong word. Perhaps we could say that there are some design decisions made in the first gen unit that may not have been optimal?

1. No power switch.
2. Power plug outer shield is exposed and subject to shorting.
3. USB too close to power input...easy to fry the unit. Has been done.
4. Input configuration makes it near impossible to achieve unity gain.
5. Effects loop difficult to achieve unit gain.
6. First gen unit is arguably underpowered in the DSP section.
7. Switches are of suspect quality. (yes, lower failure rate than X3, but still...the sight of them... smile.gif )

Line6 appears to have addressed at least two of these "flaws" in the new unit. That's commendable. Would be great if some of the other ones had been too.

1. As you point out, they are design decisions, not necessarily flaws. ...bend over to switch it off / bend over to unplug it ...meh! (for the record, I'd also prefer a switch, but I was out voted by the product manager who felt it wasn't needed).

2. The DC power connector and power supply are both off the shelf parts used on, literally, millions of products world wide.

3. USB is present on millions of products as well. It is important to keep the digital & power circuits as far from the analog circuits as possible to minimize noise in the unit (hence putting power in and USB far to one side with the MIDI jacks between them and anything analog). I've honestly never heard of someone plugging a DC jack into the USB port. Furthermore, the barrel of the DC jack is (neg), and the case on the USB is ground ...as far as I can tell, it is impossible to "fry a unit" by touching the two together!

4 & 5 ...I've got nothing. This may be a legitimate concern (it probably is, in fact) it's just something that I've never had an issue with using my guitars / amps.

6. The HD500 had as much DSP power as could be had at the $500 price point at the time. Even now, a couple years later, you can't get a huge increase in DSP for the same money. ...what can be had (that would work with our existing architecture), we put in the 500X to help alleviate the "DSP wall" for people who use DSP heavy dual signal paths.

7. I don't know that I'd call the old switches of "suspect quality" but anytime you have failures in the field, even when they are statistically a very small number, that perception is hard to combat. ...the new switches should prove to be an improvement in both durability and feel (as well as LED visibility). The switches also have a slightly longer throw to accommodate user feedback.

Karl, I'm just quoting your post to address comments some others have made, not taking argument with your comments / complaints.

...

 

I want to note that Dale's post was 1. informative, 2. addressed the presented issues, 3. exhibited patience, and 4. didn't resort to any insults, attacks, or attempts at misdirection. In reading that thread, I noticed a few usernames from here copy-pasting the same irrelevant character-attacks and other damage-control strategies that were posted on this board during "DSP-gate." Google brought up the same posts on Harmony Central and other sites hosting threads dealing with word-of-mouth misrepresentation of the unit's DSP. User profiles on thegearpage.net have accordingly been annotated with their Line 6 affiliation.


  • 1

#36 scheater5

scheater5

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 70 posts

Posted 25 July 2013 - 06:15 AM

I'm glad to see calm discussion (and semi-calm disgruntlement) going on now that the worst of the anger of the release of the 500X is over.  

 

There are some disappointments in the new unit.  For me, they're mostly software.  A little DSP increase for the same price is welcome.  However, it doesn't fix a single one of my problems with the unit.  I could get CONSIDERABLY more DSP "bang for my buck" out of the original 500 if things like comb filtering were fixed instead of me wasting blocks to compensate.

 

If there was an option to automatically (or not) compensate for comb filtering, and the EQs were in decibels and frequencies instead of "percent," I'd be satisfied.  Go further and allow me to separate the amp block from the cab block and I'll be ecstatic.

 

I know comparisons of other modelers are always controversial, but this is the bottom line for me - fix the software and I'll buy two to alleviate my DSP problems.  Until then, I'm planning on buying one of the "other guys."  

 

And for what it's worth, I'm still here, keeping an eye on the board, hoping for some sign that a fix is coming, because I'd honestly rather stay with Line 6. 


  • 0

#37 G_Vegas

G_Vegas

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 28 July 2013 - 08:42 AM

Unfortunately when I rename the files .hxe Microsoft thinks they are system help files windows 8 and doesn't like it.

 

I get an error message "you are attempting to open a file of type system file (.hxe), doing so could cause damage to your system.


  • 0

#38 phil_m

phil_m

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 5277 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis, MN

Posted 28 July 2013 - 08:58 AM

I get an error message "you are attempting to open a file of type system file (.hxe), doing so could cause damage to your system.

 

If you open the file from within the HD500X program itself, do you still get that error message? I could see you getting error if you just try double clicking on the file itself, but it shouldn't matter if you open the program first.


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

 


#39 G_Vegas

G_Vegas

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 28 July 2013 - 09:09 AM

It seems to be forgiving enough, but contrary to posts here it seems .5xe is the preferred extension as that is what the edit program looks to open.


  • 0

#40 Studioratasshole

Studioratasshole

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 28 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 01:22 PM

I had 3 hd500s get the "logo loop of death" returned all and settled for Bean HD for recording. I suggested problem may have been in the limited processing chip. Line 6 rep came to music store I taught at and SWORE the Bean never had the "loop" problem. And he was correct, still runs perfect. LINE 6... IF YOU SEE THIS,,, here's an idea for all who have the HD 500. Years back you OFFERED A UPGRADE CHIP for the pod 2. It was easy to put in, well worth the money, and I instantly heard the sound diffrence. How about offering a UPGRADE CHIP FOR PROCESSING CHIP FOR HD500's? Of course I would put stipulations on installation so YOU would not be responsible for noobs wrecking there units! Lol Customer could find a qualified installation "tec" if they felt they needed such. Bottom line is YOU WOULD MAKE ALOT of money selling this update chip! And a lot of hd500, 400, 300 and hdpod customers happy!

Hmmmmm, maybe next generation pod could have user friendly plug in/swap out slots to occomadate chips. Chips you could sell as technology races forever faster..... Customer could perchase particular upgrades to fit "there needs" Just saying,
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users