Jump to content


Photo

Hd500x Dsp Limit


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#21 SiCantwell

SiCantwell

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 67 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 04:29 AM

Will 500X users be able to import their saved presets from the 500?


Oops, covered in a.separate thread. You just rename the patches. Sorry!
  • 0

#22 bjnette

bjnette

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 379 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 05:52 AM

I think, perhaps, we need to keep a bit of perspective here.

 

Us 500 owners aren't the target market for the 500x; it's just a way of freshening things up for new customers and getting another couple of years out of technology they've already covered their R&D costs on.

 

More is more, at the end of the day; whether it's 20% more or 100% more is neither here nor there if you weren't already a 500 owner.

I totally agree with you.

Here's a link to the relevant Analog Devices page:

 

http://www.analog.co...HARC_Processors

 

I've read that the HD 500 has a SHARC ADSP-21369 @333MHz.  The same proc now shows a clock speed of 400MHz.  A 20% increase.

Maybe that's the whole story.

So what you are inferring is that the processor used in the HD500 production is now clocked at 400mhz and thus an increase in processing power and now with new foot switches the 500X.

I presume this is unconfirmed but is a little "Sherlock'ing" on your part. You may be right.


  • 0

#23 Astaroth_CY

Astaroth_CY

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 174 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 07:02 AM

Here's a link to the relevant Analog Devices page:

 

http://www.analog.co...HARC_Processors

 

I've read that the HD 500 has a SHARC ADSP-21369 @333MHz.  The same proc now shows a clock speed of 400MHz.  A 20% increase.

Maybe that's the whole story.

Could you please provide the sources of information you have for:

- what processor the HD500 has

- what clock speed the HD500X is running at

 

This could be significant. If it's literally just an overclock of the same exact processor, HD500s could be easily overclocked with a firmware update to match the same DSP power.


  • 0

#24 dennisrford

dennisrford

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 09:08 AM

Could you please provide the sources of information you have for:

- what processor the HD500 has

- what clock speed the HD500X is running at

 

This could be significant. If it's literally just an overclock of the same exact processor, HD500s could be easily overclocked with a firmware update to match the same DSP power.

Here's the guy who identified the dsp inside the HD500:

 

http://forum.musicra...xe-FX-DSP-chips

 

fwiw, I beleive there is an error in his chart.  The 333 GHz should be rated, I think,  at 2.0 GFLOPS (billion floating point operations per second) instead of 2.4.  The 2.4 rating is for the 400MHz version.

 

I'm just speculating about the clockspeed of the HD500X based on the dsp limits people are reaching that suggest something like a 20% increase in dsp capacity.

 

If line 6 just used a newer, faster version of the dsp chip then they probably wouldn't need to change the motherboard and software.  It may be that Analog Devices stopped making the 333MHz version so line 6 had to change.

 

I have no direct experience with dsp chips, but if they can be compared with CPUs in PCs, then I'll say this:

The increase in speed seems to be due to a higher mulitplier (12 instead of 10, or 6 instead of 5).  If the multiplier is locked in these chips, then you're probably out of luck in trying to make the HD500 run at a higher speed.  There's still no guarantee that a 333MHz rated chip will even run at 400MHz.


  • 0

#25 mcolquitt

mcolquitt

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 190 posts
  • LocationLas Vegas, Nevada

Posted 17 July 2013 - 11:27 AM

Well if you ask me this is a big mistake. I love my line6 gear and have many of their products. To say they have always been a bit quirky when it comes to information would be an understatement for sure, but just exactly how much they had to do with the "leaked" advertising is something I would really like to know.

 

I was stunned when I saw what maxed the DSP in the "x". That would NEVER get me to upgrade, actually nothing with regard to DSP has offered a problem for me. The tones I am able to get and the available effects for use in a single chain is more than adequite for most, unless you're Robert Fripp or someone similar.

 

Very dissapointed.


  • 0

#26 phil_m

phil_m

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 5290 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis, MN

Posted 17 July 2013 - 01:24 PM

To say they have always been a bit quirky when it comes to information would be an understatement for sure, but just exactly how much they had to do with the "leaked" advertising is something I would really like to know.

 

Why in the world would they intentionally leak information that explicitly said something they knew they could never deliver? I really can't imagine any scenario where they would think something like that was good.

 

If I had to guess what happened, I would bet that a sales rep heard about the new unit, misinterpreted data about the DSP and sent the bad info off to a retailer somewhere.

 

It's unfortunate that the 2X DSP rumor was spread, and I have to admit that I believed it too. But it is what is now.


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

 


#27 silverhead

silverhead

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 11133 posts
  • LocationOttawa, Ontario, Canada

Posted 17 July 2013 - 01:44 PM

...

I was stunned when I saw what maxed the DSP in the "x". That would NEVER get me to upgrade, actually nothing with regard to DSP has offered a problem for me. The tones I am able to get and the available effects for use in a single chain is more than adequite for most, unless you're Robert Fripp or someone similar.

 

Very dissapointed.

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?


  • 1

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

 

 


#28 TheRealZap

TheRealZap

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 14893 posts
  • LocationClemmons, NC USA

Posted 17 July 2013 - 01:52 PM

it's also notable that the leak site was not English as a primary language... perhaps it simply got mixed up in translation.

 

 

Why in the world would they intentionally leak information that explicitly said something they knew they could never deliver? I really can't imagine any scenario where they would think something like that was good.

 

If I had to guess what happened, I would bet that a sales rep heard about the new unit, misinterpreted data about the DSP and sent the bad info off to a retailer somewhere.

 

It's unfortunate that the 2X DSP rumor was spread, and I have to admit that I believed it too. But it is what is now.


  • 0

#29 ChristianArnold

ChristianArnold

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 187 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 01:58 PM

I just bought the HD500x today and havent played it yet. If it's not even that much more power, I still find it a decent upgrade for me personally, even though I am upgrading from the HD500. I love the switches, and the brighter wording next to switches. I love my HD500 so I'll take any little upgrade to it. 


  • 0

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


#30 bjnette

bjnette

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 379 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 03:13 PM

I just bought the HD500x today and havent played it yet. If it's not even that much more power, I still find it a decent upgrade for me personally, even though I am upgrading from the HD500. I love the switches, and the brighter wording next to switches. I love my HD500 so I'll take any little upgrade to it. 

That is a fair enough attitude.

What is this "leaked" advertisement? 

I must admit I was under the impression it was twice the processing/memory power which I got from this forum on a couple of the first "photoshopped" HD500X and a few subsequent posts and links to the gear page.

 

Edit: Relooking at the Andertons HD500X video it infers this impression and didn't dispel it.

With "we've increased  processing power"... "should hit it (DSP) 'a lot' later on" at just before  2mims43secs. in retrospect it covers itself and doesn't claim anything.

If it is a 20% only increase, I'd call it "we"ve increased the DSP a little" "should hit it a little later on".

Sure enough later he says "which you could always do with the HD500 but now you have a little more" at 3:00

I think there was plenty of time to dispel any false impressions gotten from translations. 

But the benefit of the doubt has to be given in cases of plausable indeniabliity.

 

Thanks dennisrford for the link and data-cheers


  • 0

#31 mcolquitt

mcolquitt

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 190 posts
  • LocationLas Vegas, Nevada

Posted 17 July 2013 - 03:25 PM

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?

I suppose my post was not exactly clear, I should have been more thorough. I don't particularly care who they were targeting or who this product is geared towards, I am a happy HD500 owner to be sure but I guess my post is more a reaction to the thought that there was/is or could have ever been something more sinister involved in the early marketing of this new unit. I would tend to agree that it is unlikely that L6 was ever be involved or even knew of this false claim; it simply wouldn't be representitive of their history.

 

In response to who it is marketed for I feel that is somewhat ridiculous for anyone to think of when looking at a product. I mean let's face it there isn't one of us that doesn't come here and look around with restrained excitement hoping there is some fresh new update, firmware or product. If there was more to the 500X I would certainly buy one; I would probably have already made the order before it came out. I get what you are saying about people that are happy shouldn't be dissapointed because this is not and never was targeted for current hd500 folks, I get it, I just don't see it as you do, I mean everyone here on the forum is a potential customer, probably the best and most loyal ones.

 

Lastly, I really think, even though it is not a normal thing for L6 to do, they should offer up a disclaimer or an acknowledgement of this erroneous claim and distance themselves from it.


  • 0

#32 marcwormjim

marcwormjim

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 50 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 03:35 PM

In response to the apology that the 500x is not intended for 500 owners, and therefore the amount extra processing power is irrelevant:

 

The 500 was sold with (at least) half the processing power that it requires. For this reason alone, the DSP limit is and has always been a design failure, allowed for the sake of lowering the price-point. As someone who's been using one from the start, I fully understand that it is what it is - But I will not make excuses for Line 6. Merely having grown accustomed to the unit's shortcomings does not mean that I have forgiven them. 

 

Let's be completely honest, here: The X3 didn't overrun its processing power, because what it had was sufficient for the requirements of its firmware. The 500 is the successor, but didn't adhere to the same standards of performance - The hardware simply didn't meet the requirements demanded by the new modeling algorithms. After enough time passed in the 500's lifecycle, the computing hardware market allowed for increase in processing power for the HD500, while keeping it at the same price point. And that's what it all comes down to:

 

Each succession of floorboard POD has to be kept within a certain price-range. And for the last two iterations, corners have been cut to keep it there. Obviously, no one is going to admit that anyone, at any point, was short-changed.

 

The demands of firmware, software, etc. require a certain level of processing power, in order to function as intended. The HD500 product was approved and sold without those requirements having been fulfilled. Even if the price is right, no one is obligated to ignore the fact that it is an engineering failure. We know that it's an engineering failure, because Line 6 has never officially said that they specifically designed it to suck.

 

Or did they? Here's how marketing spun it in the manual: "We’ve offered up a whole lot of sound possibilities in POD HD500, and it can take some serious Digital Signal Processing (DSP) to run these goodies. Rather than limit your creative potential with fewer Models or signal routing options, we chose to implement a “Dynamic DSP” system, which dynamically assigns DSP resources to accommodate your tone configurations"

 

That sounds better than "Even with workarounds, it doesn't work like it's supposed to. Five-Hundred Dollars." That's essentially been the case, twice. 

 

Again, I endorse the HD500 for my amp-modeling needs - To the point that I would have bought a 500x that finally fulfilled the hardware requirements. But it doesn't. I understand why that's the case, but still think it's lousy. That's merely my opinion, informed by facts.


  • -1

#33 phil_m

phil_m

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 5290 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis, MN

Posted 17 July 2013 - 04:05 PM

The 500 is an X3 with new firmware, but the same processing power...

Not really... The X3 is a completely different platform, so it's not really fair to compare the two products. On the X3, for instance, you're limited to one instance of each effect in a tone, and the way you can arrange effects in a tone is much more limited. So there are some relatively simple things that you can't do on an X3. You can't, for instance, have a tone with two different distortions.

 

Really, most of the limitations that people run into with the HD500 come when people start doing dual tones. It's my understanding that during the beta testing period, it came down to either getting rid of the dual tone option altogether or adding the DSP limit. The designers understood that some people would be frustrated with the DSP limit, but they left it in just for some extra flexibility.

 

But the DSP wars have already been fought, and the dead buried... I have no desire to fight them anymore.


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

 


#34 marcwormjim

marcwormjim

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 50 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 04:13 PM

I remember another Line6Expert verifying that the 500 shared its under-the-hood hardware with the X3, for production reasons. This was when the 500 first launched, and it was presented as an explanation of the DSP limit. That story may have changed in the last few years. I'm not trying to start a debate - My post is intended to just be my summary of the situation...That it just is what it is.


  • -1

#35 phil_m

phil_m

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 5290 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis, MN

Posted 17 July 2013 - 04:22 PM

I remember another Line6Expert verifying that the 500 shared its under-the-hood hardware with the X3, for production reasons.

 

Well, that's simply incorrect... All PODs since the XT are using Sharc chips, but they've gotten more powerful for each generation. The X3 did have dual processors, though. That's the main reason the dual tones work differently on the X3 than on the HD. On the X3, the two tone paths are always completely separate.

 

Here's a rundown of the processors used in the last few generations of PODs.


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


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

 


#36 marcwormjim

marcwormjim

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 50 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 04:29 PM

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


  • -1

#37 robsangg

robsangg

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 07:07 AM

When would anyone possibly ever use 4 '63 Spring Reverbs, and a harmonizer strung together in practical or live use.  I have an HD500 and the only time the DSP limit is reached is whenever I'm simply goofing around with out of this world sounds.  In a live situation, or when you're playing in a band situation, much of this is simply not practical usage.  When you can string a compressor, overdrive, fuzz, 2 amps, a delay, and reverb and not reach the DSP limit, how much is actually to much.  I can see the want for unlimited ability, but I can't justify the expense of a new unit to try and obtain it.  The footswitches are nice however.


  • 1

#38 perapera

perapera

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 113 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 11:55 PM

yes "more is more" so, for the price of the hd500x minus selling my hd500,

I could buy an hd bean and keep my hd500 getting double dsp power and more complex routing capabilities! ..now THAT is more!

 

 

what pisses me off (and all hd500 owners I think) is that I now own a discontinued product, replaced by something that isn't worth the difference in price...

 

AT LEAST I hope, since the architecture is the same, that new updates of the firmware will be valid for the hd500 too...


  • 0

#39 perapera

perapera

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 113 posts

Posted 19 July 2013 - 12:15 AM

The 500 was sold with (at least) half the processing power that it requires.

...and with "non-professional grade footswitches" as Line6 clearly admits now!

As I wrote in the old forum (http://line6.com/sup...e/353044#353044 ; btw why in the hell did they close the old forum?!? too full of criticism, maybe?)
and to Line6 through a feature request,
I would pay twice (1000€) for a "POD HD1000" with double processing power and various flaws solved
  • 0

#40 TheRealZap

TheRealZap

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 14893 posts
  • LocationClemmons, NC USA

Posted 19 July 2013 - 02:59 AM

the would not have made it readable if that was the case... the old forum software had spam issues...

 


As I wrote in the old forum (http://line6.com/sup...e/353044#353044 ; btw why in the hell did they close the old forum?!? too full of criticism, maybe?)
 


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users