Jump to content


Photo

Hd500x Dsp Limit


  • Please log in to reply
162 replies to this topic

#41 marcwormjim

marcwormjim

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 50 posts

Posted 19 July 2013 - 03:34 AM

When would anyone possibly ever use 4 '63 Spring Reverbs, and a harmonizer strung together in practical or live use.

 

Never, if they're using a POD. The point, again, is that Line 6 chose not to meet the hardware demands of the software, in order to price it at $500. If they had chosen to meet those hardware demands, you could put eight '63 Spring Reverbs in a row. It doesn't matter if no one uses 8 reverbs - This is called quality-control testing. The maker of your car tested it for all kinds of scenarios you'll never use it for, and they do it because they have to. Conversely, Line 6 made a gamble and won on selling the same engineering failure, twice. That's because it was a strong product, even with its flaws.

 

I can give you two practical examples of why someone would cue up 4 '63 spring reverbs, though:

 

1. Using a DSP-intensive effect to quantify the available DSP.

2. Any other reason they can come up with. Maybe they're creative, or something. 


  • 0

#42 phil_m

phil_m

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 5549 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis, MN

Posted 19 July 2013 - 03:53 AM

Conversely, Line 6 made a gamble and won on selling the same engineering failure, twice. That's because it was a strong product, even with its flaws.

 

You can disagree with their design decisions all you want, but there's no reason to call it an "engineering failure" simply because you don't like the way it works. Engineering is all about designing within a budget, and it often comes down to making these types of decisions.

 

The fact is that the HD500X (and 500) are $500 modelers, and for that price they give you quite a bit to work with. If you want more than what they are providing at that price, you have two options. Buy another product that does what you want, or augment the HD500 in some way. It's really not that difficult.


  • 1
Time is a train
Makes the future the past
Leaves you standing in the station
Your face pressed up against the glass

 


#43 TheRealZap

TheRealZap

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 15725 posts
  • LocationClemmons, NC USA

Posted 19 July 2013 - 04:05 AM

is it 2010 again? wtf... why we having the same tired argument....

the updated 500 (500x) does a small bit more for the same money...

you'll sell a million burgers at 1$, or you can sell 1 burger for a million dollars... which is going to sell faster?

line6 is a business.

you don't go to mcdonalds and ask for a lobster dinner...

if you want a specific product... go to whoever sells that specific product.... 

if the specific product you want hasn't been made...

make the suggestion and move along... maybe one day it will... maybe not...

maybe when it is finally made, they'll be something better anyway....

and you'd only be kidding yourself if you don't think that line6 has plans beyond the HD series...


  • 1

#44 perapera

perapera

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 113 posts

Posted 19 July 2013 - 04:23 AM

I totally agree that the DSP power of the HD500 AND of the HD500x is less than needed, but

sorry marcwormjim, I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this:

If they had chosen to meet those hardware demands, you could put eight '63 Spring Reverbs in a row

 

follow me on this:

I can say with a good level of confidence that the Pod HD was the first affordable device to use freely assignable fx blocks;
 

any rack or pedalboard multifx I tried before, limited you to use only some kind of effects on each of the block

this means that you could not put three distortion pedals or 3 delay pedals or even an octaver and a wha in some cases

that was for the manufacturer to be shure that anything you loaded wouldn't overload the CPU
 

now, the ability to use for example many delays in series and parallel was one of the reasons I bought the HD500

and you CAN do that,

but, to be able to give you freely assignable fx blocks, the DSP MUST be "dynamic"
 

I think 8 reverbs is too much.
 

but two parallel chains with distortion, amp, modulation (or pitch), delay and reverb on each should be possible

and the HD500 AND the HD500x CANNOT do that!

in this sense I agree with you when you say that the HD500 and HD500x have an inadequate DSP power (and other hardware flaws)
 

so to summarise I don't think the DSP should provide the power to load ANY effect configuration,

but at least it should give us double the DSP power of the HD500


  • 0

#45 marcwormjim

marcwormjim

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 50 posts

Posted 19 July 2013 - 05:32 AM

My disagreement is to do with Line 6 putting themselves in an all-or-nothing corner with the assignable FX blocks - If you can't accommodate 8 of the most DSP-intensive effects, then either limit the number of effects, or don't go dynamic at all. A post was made explaining that the compromise had to be either to eliminate dual-tones, eliminate the ability to re-order the chain, or keep both by forcing a DSP limit. Line 6 did the best they could, with the problem they created, so they could hit that $500 mark. I've never said that Line 6 "should" do something or that they owe anyone anything - What I have been doing, is pointing out not only what the original design shortcomings are, but that they've sold the same shortcomings for the second time in a row by still refusing to go beyond that $500 price-point, even if it means delivering what they intended in the first place. There's nothing more for me to say on that subject, except defend my non-diplomatic language.

 

 

"You can disagree with their design decisions all you want, but there's no reason to call it an "engineering failure" simply because you don't like the way it works."

 

 

Find a quote of me saying it that simply, and you'll be correct. 

 

Here's my reasoning, one more time (but without that offensive f-word): In order to stay at the target-price, Line 6 compromised software stability by only providing a portion of the required processing power in the hardware. At this point in the engineering process, this is a...BooBoo.

 

So, they go back to the drawing board, but because time is money, they work around the BooBoo. Note that at this point, the BooBoo is not only still included, but is dictating the rest of the engineering. Some might argue that, because the BooBoo is still present...that this still constitutes a BooBoo.

 

So, in engineering around the BooBoo, they implement a Dynamic DSP Limit that doesn't remove the BooBoo, but rather makes its compromising effects less-drastic - Damage-control. So, the BooBoo is still there, but smaller. It's been a few years since I worked with Venn Diagrams, but my sense of logic - Not involved in public-relations for Line 6 in any way, mind you - Dictates that a partial BooBoo does not constitute a Non-BooBoo.

 

So the BooBoo from the start has changed, and a lot more has changed to accomodate it...But that doesn't matter, because I'm guilty of some kind of offense for thinking that the BooBoo is still in the final product, to an extent that would justify still referring to it as a BooBoo.

 

Rather than apologize, I'll instead proactively promise to adopt whatever euphemism you think is more-flattering toward a company that won't read this, because they have a separate forum for suggestions. How about "Design Decisions"?

 

I admit, at times, that I question the company's design decisions. NO OFFENSE.

 

 

 


"is it 2010 again? wtf... why we having the same tired argument...."

 

They're selling the same tired product again. Capiche?

 

Sorry for the quote marks -The multi-quote didn't hold up too well when the post went through.


  • 0

#46 TheRealZap

TheRealZap

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 15725 posts
  • LocationClemmons, NC USA

Posted 19 July 2013 - 05:52 AM

So? it's still what it is... only slightly better for the same money....

if the product was "tired" it would have been "retired" and something new...

it obviously sells well, because of the value for the price and the capabilities it DOES have...

 

"is it 2010 again? wtf... why we having the same tired argument...."

 

They're selling the same tired product again. Capiche?

 


  • 0

#47 marcwormjim

marcwormjim

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 50 posts

Posted 19 July 2013 - 06:03 AM

No capiche, then. You know that question you asked, about why the tired old arguments are popping up again? It's because the company you're an expert on just released the cause of those tired old arguments for the second time. That other stuff about its popularity and redeeming qualities must be over my head - They don't seem to be a point of contention anywhere in the thread.
  • 0

#48 TheRealZap

TheRealZap

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 15725 posts
  • LocationClemmons, NC USA

Posted 19 July 2013 - 06:08 AM

my point is if it doesn't meet your needs move on...

your complaint has been heard...

the 500x is not the next generation new model...

its a slightly updated version of the same model...

much like a regular tv... this years 200$ tv isn't much different than last years 200$ tv

 

No capiche, then. You know that question you asked, about why the tired old arguments are popping up again? It's because the company you're an expert on just released the cause of those tired old arguments for the second time. That other stuff about its popularity and redeeming qualities must be over my head - They don't seem to be a point of contention anywhere in the thread.


  • 0

#49 marcwormjim

marcwormjim

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 50 posts

Posted 19 July 2013 - 06:20 AM

You're terrible at this. You're drawing all these irrelevant analogies between PODS and Mcdonald's and televisions to supplement your exasperation and butthurt over a relevant complaint about a product that hasn't been on the market a week, yet.

Take your own advice: If I don't meet your needs, move on. I'm not bragging when I say I can debate you into the ground, and be re-registered in a day if I'm banned for calling Expert Users out on posting irrelevant, rambling attempts at ad-hominems to extinguish valid criticisms I'm damn-well entitled to express, in whatever terms I want. And this is coming from a fan and endorser of the company's products.

 

That's my most recent complaint. I'll trust that it's been read, rather than heard, and that it won't need repeating.


  • -2

#50 phil_m

phil_m

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 5549 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis, MN

Posted 19 July 2013 - 06:25 AM

I'm not bragging when I say I can debate you into the ground, and be re-registered in a day if I'm banned for calling Expert Users out on posting irrelevant, rambling attempts at ad-hominems to extinguish valid criticisms I'm damn-well entitled to express, in whatever terms I want.

 


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

 


#51 TheRealZap

TheRealZap

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 15725 posts
  • LocationClemmons, NC USA

Posted 19 July 2013 - 06:25 AM

terrible at nothing....

by your own admission the hd500 and hd500x doesn't meet your needs...

no analogy required... why are you still here? just to be a negative nancy....?

you have expressed your opinion... but to present the expression of your opinion as some sort of fact... is simply wrong.

 

You're terrible at this. You're drawing all these irrelevant analogies between PODS and Mcdonald's and televisions to supplement your exasperation and butthurt over a relevant complaint about a product that hasn't been on the market a week, yet.

Take your own advice: If I don't meet your needs, move on. I'm not bragging when I say I can debate you into the ground, and be re-registered in a day if I'm banned for calling Expert Users out on posting irrelevant, rambling attempts at ad-hominems to extinguish valid criticisms I'm damn-well entitled to express, in whatever terms I want. And this is coming from a fan and endorser of the company's products.


  • 0

#52 marcwormjim

marcwormjim

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 50 posts

Posted 19 July 2013 - 06:26 AM

That's just your opinion.


  • 0

#53 dennisrford

dennisrford

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts

Posted 19 July 2013 - 09:44 AM

I think the HD500X is a work of engineering genius.  Their goal seems to have been to maximize flexibility and the quality of the models--which is what most users would probably prefer.

 

They could have cut corners on the spring reverb and other models in case someone wanted to put 8 of them in their signal chain, but they didn't.  They could have disallowed dual amps to keep the dsp utilzation down, but they didn't. They could have made other compromises to avoid the dsp limit, but they didn't.  I think they made the right engineering decisions.

 

Having said that, I don't know if I'll get one.  I had an HD500 for a while and didn't really bond with it. 

 

 
  • 0

#54 gunpointmetal

gunpointmetal

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 512 posts

Posted 19 July 2013 - 10:09 AM

or, marcwormjim is simply pointing out a "DESIGN PROBLEM" with the POD HD500-whatever....I agree if you are going to have eight freely assignable FX blocks and two amp positions, your device should be able to handle any combination of those eight blocks and two amps. Other wise you have "sometimes eight, sometimes three, depending on how many amps you use and if they include cab and mic modeling, freely assignable FX blocks" and "sometimes two, but mostly one if you like lot of ambient FX or pitch shifting, amp positions".

 

What they should be doing is putting R&D and time into coming up with reasonably priced (read sub $500) FRFR solutions for GUITAR PLAYERS (hey guys, target market for your products here) and working on more amps and ways to maximize the available DSP in the underpowered modeler you release a few years back instead of a "re-launch".

 

You'ld think some of these experts were like dating Line 6 or something....."Don't pick on my girlfriend, guys! I know she's only half as smart as I said she was and she doesn't do a lot of things I told you she does, but that's not reason to tell me she's not good enough!"


  • 0

#55 scheater5

scheater5

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 70 posts

Posted 19 July 2013 - 10:28 AM

6072c3f98f422cbfe116f89220478223.thumbna


  • 0

#56 smrybacki

smrybacki

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 500 posts
  • LocationCarlisle, PA

Posted 19 July 2013 - 11:28 AM

Again, the HD500x market is NOT current HD500 owners. There's no reason for existing HD500 owners to be disappointed because they were not targeted for a vast improvement. Also, as you say, you are not having any problems with DSP. Why are you disappointed that a problem you are not having may not be fully resolved?

 

It's more the notion that there may be new amp models and other firmware upgrades that the (now) older 500s won't see that has me disappointed.  One of the reason's I went with Line6 versus competitors was theirpropensity to update existing firmware to give your product extra life for no more outlay.  This blows that right out of the water for me anyway.


  • 0

#57 TheRealZap

TheRealZap

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 15725 posts
  • LocationClemmons, NC USA

Posted 19 July 2013 - 11:44 AM

then you have NO worries... they've publicly said that they will not have any special models or hd500x specific upgrades...

anything the 500x gets the 500 will also get... the only difference is that the 500x may be able to run an extra effect here and there.

 

It's more the notion that there may be new amp models and other firmware upgrades that the (now) older 500s won't see that has me disappointed.  


  • 0

#58 smrybacki

smrybacki

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 500 posts
  • LocationCarlisle, PA

Posted 19 July 2013 - 11:47 AM

then you have NO worries... they've publicly said that they will not have any special models or hd500x specific upgrades...

anything the 500x gets the 500 will also get... the only difference is that the 500x may be able to run an extra effect here and there.

Then that'd be better for sure.


  • 0

#59 TheRealZap

TheRealZap

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 15725 posts
  • LocationClemmons, NC USA

Posted 19 July 2013 - 11:48 AM

indeed... by making the hardware more current and getting more new users, this will mean more incentive for them to continue to make firmware upgrades that we can all enjoy.

 

Then that'd be better for sure.


  • 0

#60 smrybacki

smrybacki

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 500 posts
  • LocationCarlisle, PA

Posted 19 July 2013 - 12:03 PM

indeed... by making the hardware more current and getting more new users, this will mean more incentive for them to continue to make firmware upgrades that we can all enjoy.

 

Agreed.


  • 0

#61 robsangg

robsangg

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 19 July 2013 - 12:21 PM

  • I was just pointing out to my own practical purposes, and financial means it's not feasible.  By all means if anyone desires to be that creative and string that much ambient noise and modulation together and get it to sound good, go ahead.  I won't go into what you have to pay to have that ability without reaching your DSP limits(ahem, AXE-FX), but I don't see the expense for the moderate upgrade.  The downside is of course that Line 6 can and probably will make more amp/effects models available for the 500X that won't be available for the 500, but that's what happens.  I believe the 500 is about 3 yrs old, I may be wrong because I wasn't standing in line to get one when it came out, but the company had to release something new to keep the marketplace open.  Just good business on their part, but until there is a major upgrade, I can't justify the expense for the same modeling tech, even if it does have a more powerful processor.  It still sounds the same.

  • 0

#62 SiCantwell

SiCantwell

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 70 posts

Posted 22 July 2013 - 03:27 PM

If you take Line6 at their word that they won't release upgrades incompatible with the 500, then the X is good news because it means they're extending the life of the HD500/500X line. It's better than having them come out with an HD1000 and abandoning the 500 line altogether. Take it from me: Apple left my original iPad high and dry with their latest IOS, which I can't use.
  • 0

#63 TheRealZap

TheRealZap

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 15725 posts
  • LocationClemmons, NC USA

Posted 22 July 2013 - 03:34 PM

Yup, they've done the same to me a number of times... PPC, ipod, ipod touch, java, etc... apple is a good example of how to tee off customers, yet somehow still fuel the zealots.

Apple left my original iPad high and dry with their latest IOS, which I can't use.


  • 0

#64 hansvaneven

hansvaneven

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 374 posts

Posted 22 July 2013 - 11:18 PM

Wait, seriously, you can hit the DSP limit on the X that easily?

 

What a total joke.

 

I thought the HD500X had twicethe power, not sure where I read that, but yikes 20% more is not much :(

 

Cheers,

 

Hans


  • 0

#65 robsangg

robsangg

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 09:31 AM

Christian Arnold has a video on youtube, and I think someone has posted the comparison here in this forum as well, comparing the 500X & 500 side by side.  Slight change in the DSP, which he demostrates.  Not much in IMHO.  If I am to upgrade later it will be for the footswitches, which I definately like.


  • 0

#66 perapera

perapera

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 113 posts

Posted 24 July 2013 - 01:43 AM

• Christian Arnold's video is well done
[ exept for the +5 semitones which is a 4th not a 5th ;-) ]

so +20% means one heavy DSP effect block more,
that could be useful but not game changing

• I'm really happy if the firmware upgrades will continue for hd500/hd500x and I can understand this could mean extending the life of the 500* line,

but I don't think that creating an HD1000 would mean "abandoning the 500 line altogether", look at the M5, M9 and M13: they just have different targets;

it seems like line6 thinks none of their customers would spend more than 500€ for a pedal...

or have they fear to compete with other brands in the 1000€ range?
Actually there aren't many, because the most are on the 1500€ range or more: DV Mark Multiamp, Kemper, G-System (1200 without ampsim)

only the Eleven would be a direct competitor...

• anyway I'd like to see the interior of the HD500x to see how "professional" theese switches are... like the DL4 ones? even if they seemed pro switches, they actually were "actuators"
http://www.mylespaul...dl4-repair.html
  • 0

#67 phil_m

phil_m

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 5549 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis, MN

Posted 24 July 2013 - 05:29 AM

it seems like line6 thinks none of their customers would spend more than 500€ for a pedal...

Well, I'd say they think that not enough of their customers would be willing to spend that much to make it worth their while. It's obvious that it's not simply the price point that they're concerned about because they do sell stuff that is still higher priced. Their PA equipment, the DT amps, and the JTV guitars are all higher-priced items. I just think in the floor-based modeler category, it's a harder sell. Personally, I do like the idea of a more powerful HD product, but I don't know that I'd be willing to spend $1,000 on it.
 

anyway I'd like to see the interior of the HD500x to see how "professional" theese switches are... like the DL4 ones? even if they seemed pro switches, they actually were "actuators"

 

Virtually every switch on any every digital multi-fx unit is an actuator of some sort. There's no actual analog circuit to open or close in most cases. In the ones that offer true bypass as an option, even then the actuators are triggering relays.


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

 


#68 perapera

perapera

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 113 posts

Posted 16 August 2013 - 03:52 AM

Well, I'd say they think that not enough of their customers would be willing to spend that much to make it worth their while. It's obvious that it's not simply the price point that they're concerned about because they do sell stuff that is still higher priced. Their PA equipment, the DT amps, and the JTV guitars are all higher-priced items. I just think in the floor-based modeler category, it's a harder sell. Personally, I do like the idea of a more powerful HD product, but I don't know that I'd be willing to spend $1,000 on it.
 

 

Virtually every switch on any every digital multi-fx unit is an actuator of some sort. There's no actual analog circuit to open or close in most cases. In the ones that offer true bypass as an option, even then the actuators are triggering relays.

 

yes they have higher-priced gear, but I wrote "more than 500€ for a pedal"

 

and when I talk about actuator vs real switches I'm not talking about analog vs digital anything (the pod is all digital),

I'm talking about this (the circled one is the DL4 original actuator, the other one is a heavy duty *professional* switch):

DL4_actuator_vs_switch.png

(image taken from http://www.ebay.com/...e-/320764764006)

 

as you can see the DL4 switches *looked* like real switches from the outside of the unit but they weren't,

I was wondering if this is the case for the HD500X too


  • 0

#69 NucleusX

NucleusX

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 12 June 2014 - 08:30 PM

A quote by marcwormjim on page 1 (proper quoting isn't working for me at the moment)

 

"Thanks for clearing things up in that regard. I'll revise my post."

 

Did anyone else notice that he was detracted a point for this statement ?

I mean seriously this point system is ridiculous herding people into certain directions.

I bet the experts clock points up to each other just to strengthen their arguments, WTF. 

I'm not trying to offend anyone or start an argument, but I see room for abuse with it.

The man humbly posted a recant, taking a point off him was totally un-necessary.

 

Watch for my points detractment, coming soon..  lol, not that I ever cared for them.


  • 0

#70 brue58ski

brue58ski

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 548 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 12:09 AM

I'm not sure if anyone posted this here but the HD500X was not a purposeful upgrade. The chip the 500 used was discontinued. The chip they had to replace it with had more DSP. Instead of a bunch of new 500 owners saying "hey I have more DSP than you guys say you have" and the inferno of controversy that would create, they gave the 500's with the new chip a new designation. HD 500X. They also decided to upgrade the switches while they were at it. No bait and switch, no screw the consumer plot. Just a more powerful chip that they had no choice but to use. I think it was good that they did that but I think they should have been more upfront about why what happened, happened. Just to avoid confusion and threads like this.


  • 0

#71 NucleusX

NucleusX

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 02:08 AM

Personally, I believe the X versions of both the HD500, and the HD Pro, are a silent admission

from Line6 that they failed with the non-X versions. If they where so great in all their entirety and

confident with the products, then the X versions wouldn't even exist period, and would've moved

onto bigger and better things apart from their continued software/firmware support for the HD Series.

You might argue that these where better targeted at consumers not already owning the non-X

versions, but how many senario's have you seen play out this way ? A rare sight for me in the better

part of 2 decades that I've been an FX consumer. And for the very small handful of senario's that

did play out this way, always without a doubt, caused a flurry of debate from people and consumers

knowing how a successful series flows. One example from memory was the debate over the Boss

DD-2 Vs DD-3 which caused a bit of a stir in the guitarist community. In their own right, the HD500

and HD Pro are a fine bit of kit. In the context of an evolving series, I consider them to be a failure.


  • 0

#72 Charlie_Watt

Charlie_Watt

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1197 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 05:21 AM

I disagree.  I think they upgraded to the 500x.  The 500 is a fine unit - the 500x is slightly more capable and has much better switches.  I call it progress!  DSP horsepower increases with time.  It may be as simple as supporting a higher processor clock speed.


  • 0

#73 RIblues

RIblues

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 204 posts
  • LocationRhode Island

Posted 13 June 2014 - 07:11 AM

And they sound better...........allegedly?

 

http://line6.com/sup...ide-comparison/


  • 0

#74 brue58ski

brue58ski

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 548 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 10:33 PM

Personally, I believe the X versions of both the HD500, and the HD Pro, are a silent admission

from Line6 that they failed with the non-X versions. If they where so great in all their entirety and

confident with the products, then the X versions wouldn't even exist period, and would've moved

onto bigger and better things apart from their continued software/firmware support for the HD Series.

 

 

So you don't believe the chip they were using wasn't available anymore and that's why they used a chip with more power? The fact that it was such a minor upgrade leads me to believe this. Why go through all that hassle it entailed to do this for such a small increase in power. That, and that the story I told, came from someone who would know. It's been so long I can't remember who I heard it from but I do remember it being a very reliable source. It's in a thread somewhere.


  • 0

#75 RIblues

RIblues

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 204 posts
  • LocationRhode Island

Posted 18 June 2014 - 01:42 AM

More than likely, Line 6 was not satisfied with the current condition of the HD500 and was not ready to go to market with the next generation, so they did a quick refresh to hold them over for a few years. Or, they have plans to implement new capabilities into the Pod HD line and the current hardware was preventing them from implementing that.

 

Whatever the case, unless Line 6 issues an official statement, we will never know.


  • 0

#76 JTSC777

JTSC777

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 121 posts

Posted 18 June 2014 - 11:09 AM

I play paying gigs in all kinds of situations 4 to 6 nights/days a week.I also record and am a paid session guitarist. For working players who play 80 per cent covers as a chunk of their living all of these modelling devices in the 500 dollar price range are a great thing.I think that is who Line 6 is mostly aiming at customer wise. For me personally to not have to transport/maintain/tube amps/speaker cabs etc... to most of my gigs(their are of course exceptions) has been a great thing and has increased my profit per gig. I think that a few players who maybe don't have the best skill set and think they need a bunch of gimmicky( 8 reverbs/ 3 tremelos/4 phasers/3 amps etc...) effects are looking to the HD units when they should be buying a bunch of pedals and cables to make those silly sounds. In the hands of a good skilled player with a well maintained well setup instrument these HD units are tough to beat.I just don't think they are made to do 6 choruses/3 reverbs/ a helicopter rotary flanger etc...and IMHO I have heard enough of those silly sounds from  few recent records my son listens to. I gave him a Cream album/a Hendrix album and a few others so he could get some perspective on what the guitar should sort of sound like. If you want to sound like a synth get a Roland GR55 like I do and play weird envelope follower/phasey/moog type sounds with it. I am very grateful that Line 6 and Boss/Roland still make such inexpensive powerful units for us to use in the field. Man we are so spoiled.


  • 1

#77 NucleusX

NucleusX

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 19 June 2014 - 06:09 AM

 @ brue58ski

 

I guess in the end, this is all down to definition. Sure id agree to categorize the X

additions as "Upgrades". But as far as the %20 incrementation of performance

they offer, i certainly wouldn't consider them a true evolution in the HD series. 


  • 0

#78 Digital_Igloo

Digital_Igloo

    Line 6 Staff

  • Product Management
  • PipPip
  • 104 posts
  • LocationCalabasas, CA

Posted 19 June 2014 - 08:56 AM

Personally, I believe the X versions of both the HD500, and the HD Pro, are a silent admission from Line6 that they failed with the non-X versions...

No.

 

Line 6 has chosen (and continues to choose) open, dynamic block assignment for its flagship modelers. There will always be situations where, depending on the types of models assigned, DSP limits are reached. Alternatively, more than one—likely several—of the following scenarios would need to take place:

 

• Remove half the block locations so the user can fill each one with pitch shifters or spring reverbs

• Limit the user to only one of each type of effect

• Remove the more DSP-intensive models entirely

• Use a less DSP-intensive modeling architecture, or limit the quality of the more DSP-intensive models

• Remove parallel signal paths

• Restrict the order in which blocks can exist

• Remove non-model features that also take up DSP, such as input routing, output routing, Variax VDI, L6 LINK, USB audio, the Looper, etc.

• Charge a lot more for multiple processors and the cost of developing for multiple processors

• Charge a LOT more for Tiger Sharc processors and the cost of developing for Tiger Sharc processors

 

If one is still more concerned with the occasional DSP Overload message than with the items above, AMPLIFi FX100, POD HD300, and POD HD400 all utilize fixed block assignment.

 

HD500X and HD ProX were opportunities to incrementally improve on the already immensely successful POD HD platform. They were never a "oh no, we need to do this"; they were a "this is cool—why don't we do this?"


  • 2
Product Manager | Line 6

#79 gunpointmetal

gunpointmetal

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 512 posts

Posted 19 June 2014 - 09:00 AM

 I think that a few players who maybe don't have the best skill set and think they need a bunch of gimmicky( 8 reverbs/ 3 tremelos/4 phasers/3 amps etc...) effects are looking to the HD units when they should be buying a bunch of pedals and cables to make those silly sounds. In the hands of a good skilled player with a well maintained well setup instrument these HD units are tough to beat.I just don't think they are made to do 6 choruses/3 reverbs/ a helicopter rotary flanger etc...and IMHO I have heard enough of those silly sounds from  few recent records my son listens to. I gave him a Cream album/a Hendrix album and a few others so he could get some perspective on what the guitar should sort of sound like. 

Just cause you don't "like it" or have no use for doesn't mean that Hendrix/Cream were the beginning and end of guitar tone or reasonable effects chains. Maybe I don't want 4 spring reverbs in a row, but maybe I want a spring and particle stacked with different settings on BOTH sides, or maybe I wanna run two harmonizers with different settings on BOTH SIDES. The whole reason to get a multiFX (aside from the modeling/home recording aspects) is to GET RID of all those cables and individuals pedals to stomp. If I wanna turn on all four of my reverbs on a pedalboard, thats four stomps on, four stomps off...not exactly the same thing.

 

"Back in my day you got a fuzz box, maybe a chorus, a tube amp, and you had to carry it up hill through fifteen feet of snow to the gig AND back."


  • 0

#80 PRSGuy

PRSGuy

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 38 posts

Posted 19 June 2014 - 09:46 AM

Yeah I tend to agree with gunpointmetal. Just because it may not be your cup of tea doesn't mean it indicates someone can't play well. I actually do not use a lot of the effects but I can overwhelm the DSP with dual amps and fairly common effect setups.

 

Your comment really is you being comfortable and confident with your skills and sounds, which is great, but it certainly is not the end all.

 

There are some excellent contemporary players that use fairly sophisticated signal chains...


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users