Jump to content


Photo

Hd500x Dsp Limit


  • Please log in to reply
162 replies to this topic

#81 Charlie_Watt

Charlie_Watt

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1189 posts

Posted 19 June 2014 - 05:08 PM

The dual paths are cool but they do use lots of DSP horsepower.  The extra 20% really helps.  I like the improved footswitches too.


  • 0

#82 jandrio

jandrio

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 565 posts

Posted 20 June 2014 - 02:16 AM

.... In the hands of a good skilled player with a well maintained well setup instrument these HD units are tough to beat.....

 

+1


  • 0

#83 NucleusX

NucleusX

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 226 posts

Posted 29 June 2014 - 05:48 AM

@Digital_Igloo.

 

Nice to see Line6 finally defend something with technical referencing from a someone that knows his stuff, pity you

weren't there to give such a statement to my thread and investigation about the broken firmware present in the

Shortboard MKII I started months ago which can be found here. http://line6.com/sup...-external-exp2/

 

As for your response to my post in THIS thread, I will put this to you.

 

1. Customers are in need of a product.

2. Company's are in need of customers money to survive and expand.

3. Customers are in need to be heard by that company for them to

    deliver the features for customers to part with their hard earned money.

4. Company makes hard decisions to satisfy or go bust.

 

Pretty simple right ?

 

Now with this in mind I will put to you the Zoom G5. (no I don't work for Zoom lol)

I won't claim that it has the 96Khz clarity as the HD500/HD Pro as it has 48Khz processing.

BUT, I will point out that the unit HAS "dynamic block assignment", 9 simultaneous FX, 12AX7

tube booster, looper, drum machine, headphones, XLR, 4 LCD screens, Z pedal, a 2nd TRS

socket for another expression, USB interface, PC editing software, no proprietary connectivity,

no licencing, doesn't run out of DSP as easily, blah blah blah. And the most important part, they

delivered the product for about %50 of the price of the HD500, but has about %75 of the sound

quality and sounds quite decent for its price point, that struck a perfect balance for hardware

that the software required, hardly much juggling with DSP here. Not a bad effort for a unit that

has everything you'd want, and no extra crap you don't need adding to the price. I would've

happily paid the extra few dollars for an up to par DSP chip in the HD Pro. Or better still, add

the better DSP chip, removing dual paths, remove all the proprietary components such as

Variax VDI, L6 LINK, FBV interface that all only serves to lock you into MORE line6 gear that's

not mandatory for standalone operation, and would STILL keep it roughly at the same price point.

 

I understand these are 2 totally different beasts, but the point im trying to make is...

Did line6 create these products with their customers needs in mind and actually listen ?

Did customers want a lack of model packs most of us assumed where to be put forth ?

Did customers really need to throw away %80 of their DSP away on dual amp sims ?

Did customers want proprietary connectivity or licencing ?

 

From what ive been reading all over this forum, these where things most didn't care for.

So where is the line drawn in the sand where a customer needs, and company delivers ?

Seems some lose their focus on delivering a product with the customers concerns in mind.

Money is top priority to company's and customers aren't blind to that fact.

It SHOULD be the company satisfying the customer, not the other way round. We are all in

a symbiotic relationship, and one cannot survive without the other... Unless of course, the

customer goes elsewhere ? Seems they need us more than we need them in the end.

You'd think this would be a big concern to a company's revenue rather than launching

ideascale to placate their customers into thinking they are actually being heard. 

 

If I where to think of an analogy for the DSP chip in the HD500/HD Pro, I would say it was like

dropping a 4 cylinder engine into a lamborghini diablo ! in a disproportionate kind of way.


  • -1

#84 joel_brown

joel_brown

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 438 posts
  • LocationVirginia

Posted 29 June 2014 - 05:13 PM

Good post but other than Kemper and AXE for way more money, I don't see any other viable choices.  I would think Line6 knows, or atleast believes this too.  Otherwise they'd be scrambling to do what you said.  With that said, you'd think the competition would be scrambling to bring something out that would lure Line6 customers away.  But all I see is stuff that's almost as good for the same or less money.  I already spent the money, I'm not going to spend it again for something that's almost as good as what I already have.


  • 0

#85 NucleusX

NucleusX

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 226 posts

Posted 29 June 2014 - 11:24 PM

I'm not complaining cause I knew what I bought from day one with flaws and all. I bought a glorified amp sim and

that's about it, and I'm fine with that. But as a thrifty FX consumer, I certainly know what I want and what I don't

want and not shy to say so. The day I let a company tell me what I want is the day I stop thinking for myself. 

Wether its a voice in the wilderness or not is another story, but it would pay to hear what your customers would

have to say if a company is to keep the peoples respect and loyalty, that really is a no brainer.


  • 0

#86 Digital_Igloo

Digital_Igloo

    Line 6 Staff

  • Product Management
  • Pip
  • 97 posts
  • LocationCalabasas, CA

Posted 30 June 2014 - 08:19 AM

So where is the line drawn in the sand where a customer needs, and company delivers?

 

Replace "customer needs" with "NucleusX's personal needs", and your question is more accurate.

 

Zoom makes a great box. I would never tell someone not to buy a competitor's product if it happens to better fulfill their needs.


  • -1
Product Manager | Line 6

#87 NucleusX

NucleusX

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 226 posts

Posted 30 June 2014 - 08:34 AM

My needs ? such a professional response, no need to be rude.

I'm not telling anyone to buy it, it was a great example of striking

a balance between hardware vs software, that was the point.


  • 1

#88 gunpointmetal

gunpointmetal

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts

Posted 30 June 2014 - 09:24 AM

It think part of the issue NucleusX may be trying to get at is that a lot of us (myself included) were expecting the HD series to pickup exactly where the previous generations left off, in regards to model packs, recording features, amount of useable effects, etc. And honestly, a lot of the language used was not super accurate (Dynamic DSP doesn't MEAN anything until you have the manual or the product in your hands). I was expecting to get all the I/O for recording that came with the X3/XT in regards to dry/wet recording, multiple input channels, etc....But Digital Igloo does make a point, you (and me, on a few things) have certain wishes to see in this product, but no meeting all of them is not a total failure (although I'd say the DSP limitations and EQ layout are pretty close to a fail) or a bad product.....as much as I don't like it, it makes total sense for them to put proprietary stuff on there to connect to their other gear...just like Apple...buy more licensed dongles, buy more official L6 accessories.....


  • 0

#89 Digital_Igloo

Digital_Igloo

    Line 6 Staff

  • Product Management
  • Pip
  • 97 posts
  • LocationCalabasas, CA

Posted 30 June 2014 - 09:28 AM

no need to be rude.

 

No offense implied; the point is that claiming to speak for "the customer" at large is disingenuous, especially when our research echoes the exact opposite sentiment. POD HD users want dynamic model allocation and the best-sounding (read: DSP-intensive) effects from Line 6, even if it means they can't string four spring reverbs or pitch shifters together.

 

Here's my list again from the previous page:

 

• 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

 

Please pick three.

 

Again, if the occasional DSP Overload message gives one the feeling that their product is underpowered—even when it's not—there are alternatives, even from Line 6.


  • 0
Product Manager | Line 6

#90 stumblinman

stumblinman

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 568 posts
  • LocationPacific Northwest

Posted 30 June 2014 - 09:32 AM

@Digital_Igloo.

Nice to see Line6 finally defend something with technical referencing from a someone that knows his stuff, pity you
weren't there to give such a statement to my thread and investigation about the broken firmware present in the
Shortboard MKII I started months ago which can be found here. http://line6.com/sup...-external-exp2/

As for your response to my post in THIS thread, I will put this to you.

1. Customers are in need of a product.
2. Company's are in need of customers money to survive and expand.
3. Customers are in need to be heard by that company for them to
deliver the features for customers to part with their hard earned money.
4. Company makes hard decisions to satisfy or go bust.

Pretty simple right ?

Now with this in mind I will put to you the Zoom G5. (no I don't work for Zoom lol)
I won't claim that it has the 96Khz clarity as the HD500/HD Pro as it has 48Khz processing.
BUT, I will point out that the unit HAS "dynamic block assignment", 9 simultaneous FX, 12AX7
tube booster, looper, drum machine, headphones, XLR, 4 LCD screens, Z pedal, a 2nd TRS
socket for another expression, USB interface, PC editing software, no proprietary connectivity,
no licencing, doesn't run out of DSP as easily, blah blah blah. And the most important part, they
delivered the product for about %50 of the price of the HD500, but has about %75 of the sound
quality and sounds quite decent for its price point, that struck a perfect balance for hardware
that the software required, hardly much juggling with DSP here. Not a bad effort for a unit that
has everything you'd want, and no extra crap you don't need adding to the price. I would've
happily paid the extra few dollars for an up to par DSP chip in the HD Pro. Or better still, add
the better DSP chip, removing dual paths, remove all the proprietary components such as
Variax VDI, L6 LINK, FBV interface that all only serves to lock you into MORE line6 gear that's
not mandatory for standalone operation, and would STILL keep it roughly at the same price point.

I understand these are 2 totally different beasts, but the point im trying to make is...
Did line6 create these products with their customers needs in mind and actually listen ?
Did customers want a lack of model packs most of us assumed where to be put forth ?
Did customers really need to throw away %80 of their DSP away on dual amp sims ?
Did customers want proprietary connectivity or licencing ?

From what ive been reading all over this forum, these where things most didn't care for.
So where is the line drawn in the sand where a customer needs, and company delivers ?
Seems some lose their focus on delivering a product with the customers concerns in mind.
Money is top priority to company's and customers aren't blind to that fact.
It SHOULD be the company satisfying the customer, not the other way round. We are all in
a symbiotic relationship, and one cannot survive without the other... Unless of course, the
customer goes elsewhere ? Seems they need us more than we need them in the end.
You'd think this would be a big concern to a company's revenue rather than launching
ideascale to placate their customers into thinking they are actually being heard.

If I where to think of an analogy for the DSP chip in the HD500/HD Pro, I would say it was like
dropping a 4 cylinder engine into a lamborghini diablo ! in a disproportionate kind of way.


You would probably need an adapter to put a 4 cylinder into a Lamborghini, as it's probably not compatible. Email them and let them know this doesn't meet your needs.

Why wouldn't a company with a long-term product and marketing plan want to lock you into their gear? You think they don't already have the next generation (or two) product in mind at the very least, and maybe already in basic manufacturing?

While you're at it, ask Microsoft to make a PS4 emulator so you can use the competitor's discs instead of theirs. This is the nature of the beast. Product integration is a smart business model.

I'm no fanboy, but I knew what I was buying: a modeler with 16 amps, 100+ effects and multiple I/O options. They gave me extra amps down the road, and I appreciated it. I bought a DT25 knowing it would integrate with my 500, but doesn't have to. Each piece of gear works on it's own just fine, or can work better together. I bought and returned a JTV59 as it didn't suit my needs and I wasn't happy with it.

You do realize you don't have to use two amps, right? Line 6 doesn't have to eliminate the option just because you don't like seeing a DSP limit sign.
  • 0

#91 NucleusX

NucleusX

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 226 posts

Posted 30 June 2014 - 09:40 AM

@ stumblinman

 

Digital_Igloo created a list of items they could've altered to make a better DSP chip viable

and i'll quote "• Remove parallel signal paths", this is why I assumed it could be a cost

cutback that would've allowed it, nothing more.


  • 0

#92 Charlie_Watt

Charlie_Watt

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1189 posts

Posted 30 June 2014 - 09:42 AM

I like the flexible use of DSP that Line6 designed into the PodHD's.  Just because you can run out doesn't mean it's underpowered!


  • 0

#93 stumblinman

stumblinman

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 568 posts
  • LocationPacific Northwest

Posted 30 June 2014 - 09:46 AM

You only chose 2.

@ stumblinman

Digital_Igloo created a list of items they could've altered to make a better DSP chip viable
and i'll quote "• Remove parallel signal paths", this is why I assumed it could be a cost
cutback that would've allowed it, nothing more.


  • 0

#94 NucleusX

NucleusX

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 226 posts

Posted 30 June 2014 - 09:50 AM

I could pick another, but what would be the purpose of this exercise ? not as if

anything will change now lol, it'll just generate another point of attack on me.

And might I add, the other 3 big MFX companies like Boss, Digitech, and Zoom

don't seem to impose proprietary additions anywhere near as much as Line6.


  • 0

#95 phil_m

phil_m

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 5548 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis, MN

Posted 30 June 2014 - 10:11 AM

And might I add, the other 3 big MFX companies like Boss, Digitech, and Zoom

don't seem to impose proprietary additions anywhere near as much as Line6.

 

Uh, what do mean by the term "proprietary addition"?


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

 


#96 Digital_Igloo

Digital_Igloo

    Line 6 Staff

  • Product Management
  • Pip
  • 97 posts
  • LocationCalabasas, CA

Posted 30 June 2014 - 10:15 AM

Digital_Igloo created a list of items they could've altered to make a better DSP chip viable and i'll quote "• Remove parallel signal paths", this is why I assumed it could be a cost cutback that would've allowed it, nothing more.

Not sure what this means. A better DSP viable? For years, Line 6 modelers have utilized SHARC DSPs. To meet a desired price point, we choose a specific DSP chip (usually the fastest non-Tiger SHARC available at the time) and push it to the limits. Cost cutbacks don't really come into play—features, models, block limits, etc. are accounted for from the very beginning. Sure, we could've put in multiple SHARCs—or Tiger SHARCs—and then charged hundreds (or thousands) more. The problem then is that people who build traditional tones without four pitch shifters or spring reverbs are forced to pay a premium for effectively no reason.

 

Short version: most people feel the occasional DSP overload message isn't reason enough to entertain a single item from the list.

 

That said, don't think we aren't actively pursuing ways to make DSP management less obtrusive for the user.


  • 0
Product Manager | Line 6

#97 NucleusX

NucleusX

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 226 posts

Posted 30 June 2014 - 10:18 AM

@ Digital_Igloo

 

Could you please tell us exactly what model of processor is in the HD500/HD Pro ?

I want to further investigate their specifications and costs.


  • 0

#98 Digital_Igloo

Digital_Igloo

    Line 6 Staff

  • Product Management
  • Pip
  • 97 posts
  • LocationCalabasas, CA

Posted 30 June 2014 - 10:52 AM

Earlier in the thread:

 

http://line6.com/sup...p-limit/?p=8854


  • 0
Product Manager | Line 6

#99 NucleusX

NucleusX

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 226 posts

Posted 30 June 2014 - 11:01 AM

So apparently its the ADSP-21369 which costs $19.69 and I assume even less in bulk.

How would this justify hundreds, or thousands of dollars in increase ? seems overly exaggerated.


  • 0

#100 Digital_Igloo

Digital_Igloo

    Line 6 Staff

  • Product Management
  • Pip
  • 97 posts
  • LocationCalabasas, CA

Posted 30 June 2014 - 11:14 AM

Not going to get into how parts costing (and cost of development for major architectural changes such as dual processor support) affects end user pricing, but here's the Tiger SHARC price list: http://www.analog.co...HARC_Processors

 

Summary: POD HD 500 was never underpowered, but its specific SHARC DSP was discontinued and replaced with a faster one. We didn't want some HD500s faster than others, so we made a new box.


  • 1
Product Manager | Line 6

#101 NucleusX

NucleusX

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 226 posts

Posted 30 June 2014 - 11:21 AM

None of those DSP processor models on that 2nd link refers to the

ADSP-21369 that's in the HD500/HD Pro from your first link lol.

Which is it ? It can't be both.


  • 0

#102 phil_m

phil_m

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 5548 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis, MN

Posted 30 June 2014 - 11:34 AM

None of those DSP processor models on that 2nd link refers to the

ADSP-21369 that's in the HD500/HD Pro from your first link lol.

Which is it ? It can't be both.

 

He's saying that if they went with the Tiger-SHARC processor (which is what the Axe-FX uses, btw) the cost would be significantly higher than the $500 price point. And that's the kind of processing power they'd need if they were to create a unit that could maxed out dual signal paths and have it be impossible to hit the DSP limit.

 

As far as adding a second SHARC processor, I'd say that there are probably significant tooling and programming costs that go into adding a second processor. I'm sure it much more complicated than simply soldering a second chip to the board.


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

 


#103 NucleusX

NucleusX

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 226 posts

Posted 30 June 2014 - 11:41 AM

I'm sure its more than the cost of the chip itself as-well, surrounding electronics

would need some attention, but that clearly wasn't my question. There's a conflict

of information here and I'm just trying to quantify all this with specifics.

2 x ADSP-21369 chips wouldn't increase the cost all that much I wouldn't

imagine, especially if they are under $20 each.


  • 0

#104 NucleusX

NucleusX

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 226 posts

Posted 30 June 2014 - 01:30 PM

*Crickets Chirping* lol


  • 0

#105 Digital_Igloo

Digital_Igloo

    Line 6 Staff

  • Product Management
  • Pip
  • 97 posts
  • LocationCalabasas, CA

Posted 30 June 2014 - 01:58 PM

Not going to get into how parts costing (and cost of development for major architectural changes such as dual processor support) affects end user pricing...


  • 1
Product Manager | Line 6

#106 stumblinman

stumblinman

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 568 posts
  • LocationPacific Northwest

Posted 30 June 2014 - 02:08 PM

I see now why so few L6 employees chime in on these boards: They just get hammered. Thank you Digital Igloo for as much info and patient guidance you have provided. It is appreciated.
  • 2

#107 stumblinman

stumblinman

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 568 posts
  • LocationPacific Northwest

Posted 30 June 2014 - 02:12 PM

I'm still waiting to hook my Boss amp up to my new Zoom guitar.

They don't make all these categories man, so what are they going to need proprietary connections for?

Also, as far as I can tell:
L6 Link uses XLR.
VDI uses Ethernet.

What is proprietary about those?

I could pick another, but what would be the purpose of this exercise ? not as if
anything will change now lol, it'll just generate another point of attack on me.
And might I add, the other 3 big MFX companies like Boss, Digitech, and Zoom
don't seem to impose proprietary additions anywhere near as much as Line6.


  • 0

#108 NucleusX

NucleusX

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 226 posts

Posted 30 June 2014 - 02:33 PM

@ stumblinman

 

I shouldn't dignify such a stupid question with an answer, but ill entertain it.

Try connecting devices other than Line6 gear to those connections and you'll

see what proprietary really means, and blow your gear up in the process, i

can't say I'd feel sorry for you if you did lol.


  • 0

#109 Charlie_Watt

Charlie_Watt

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1189 posts

Posted 30 June 2014 - 02:44 PM

I don't know anything about L6 Link but I know for sure that VDI is not Ethernet.  The cable might be the same but the interface isn't even close.


  • 0

#110 phil_m

phil_m

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 5548 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis, MN

Posted 30 June 2014 - 02:48 PM

I shouldn't dignify such a stupid question with an answer, but ill entertain it.

Try connecting devices other than Line6 gear to those connections and you'll

see what proprietary really means, and blow your gear up in the process, i

can't say I'd feel sorry for you if you did lol.

 

I still don't know what you're complaining about, really. You're upset that Line 6 has connections on its equipment that will only work with other Line 6 equipment? Is that it? Why on earth is that a bad thing? It's not like you can't use the standard connections (1/4", XLR, etc.) to hook it up with other equipment. Honestly, to me it seems like for some reason you're just choosing to be angry and suspecting Line 6 of having nefarious motives.


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

 


#111 Mr_Arkadin

Mr_Arkadin

    Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 2615 posts

Posted 30 June 2014 - 02:50 PM

The propriety argument is silly. None of the connectors disallow other means of useage: you can use MIDI for foot controllers, normal 1/4" for Variax audio and normal audio outs instead of L6Link, so these properiety connectors you hate so much add features for some, but take no features away that the Bosses and Zooms offer.

 

Also if you already have a foot controller and Line 6 took away the connector on new products there would be more people annoyed than not. You don't have to use the propriety connectors if they offend you so much.


  • 0

#112 NucleusX

NucleusX

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 226 posts

Posted 30 June 2014 - 03:05 PM

No-one is offended, its simply discussing the trimmings that could've allowed for a better DSP chip, simple.

But I should know better than to debate this with experts by now, your biased to ALWAYS say positive

things about Line6 gear, that's your job even if you dis-agree with some of it.


  • 0

#113 Mr_Arkadin

Mr_Arkadin

    Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 2615 posts

Posted 30 June 2014 - 03:15 PM

Please don't start getting personal again, this happened before and the thread got locked, let's not do that here.

I doubt removing a few connectors would offset the cost of extra DSP and the necessary development costs(hardware and software).

I do not agree with all of Line 6's decisions, but I can't see how you can complain about connectors that people actually use and help integrate the various devices. That's my honest unbiased opinion.

Oh, and my job is in broadcast television, I don't work for anyone else (including Line 6).
  • 0

#114 phil_m

phil_m

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 5548 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis, MN

Posted 30 June 2014 - 03:15 PM

No-one is offended, its simply discussing the trimmings that could've allowed for a better DSP chip, simple.

But I should know better than to debate this with experts by now, your biased to ALWAYS say positive

things about Line6 gear, that's your job even if you dis-agree with some of it.

 

Well, you certainly are coming off as offended... And, as far as the Expert thing, it most certainly isn't our job. None of us our employees of Line 6, nor are we here to be cheerleaders. As far as this particular conversation, though, that's really immaterial. You're speaking on a purely hypothetical level about things that have no bearing on reality. These designs decisions were made years ago, and, really, they are what they are. You like the product or you don't. Nothing is going to be changed regarding the physical design of these units at this stage in the game.


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

 


#115 NucleusX

NucleusX

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 226 posts

Posted 30 June 2014 - 03:19 PM

Show me a single thread with either of you 2 as experts at the time discussing 

something negative about a Line6 decision, all i'll concede and admit defeat...


  • 0

#116 phil_m

phil_m

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 5548 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis, MN

Posted 30 June 2014 - 03:21 PM

Show me a single thread with either of you 2 as experts at the time discussing 

something negative about a Line6 decision, all i'll concede and admit defeat...

Show me one where you aren't complaining, and I'll do the same... :P

 

Really, though, there have been a few times where I've expressed that I wished Line 6 would have done something differently, but even then, it isn't my nature to go around publicly complaining about things I have no control over. It's simply not productive.


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

 


#117 NucleusX

NucleusX

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 226 posts

Posted 30 June 2014 - 03:23 PM

I could show you several... you first.


  • 0

#118 Mr_Arkadin

Mr_Arkadin

    Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 2615 posts

Posted 30 June 2014 - 03:24 PM

The only way that argument could work is if I had said something positive about every single negative subject. This obviously can't happen as I don't have enough hours in the day. I have a life.

For example I am not a fan of, say, AMPLIFi, but rather than waste my life posting my negative thoughts about it I just don't post on that forum (plus I don't own one anyway).

I'm not going to b1tch about stuff just to appear cool.


  • 0

#119 stumblinman

stumblinman

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 568 posts
  • LocationPacific Northwest

Posted 30 June 2014 - 03:33 PM

Ohh... You don't like their communication protocols, not the actual connection points. My bad. I thought you were upset because they used a standard XLR input for the L6 Link, a standard Ethernet port for VDI, and an Ethernet port for FBV. Those components are actually very inexpensive and don't add more than a pittance to the cost at all. I'd bet they cost less than a second DSP chip, so I doubt that's a big cost saver there.

If you are saying that they should lay off programmers and engineers that designed these products and features (since, obviously they won't be needed)so you can have a more powerful Pod at the same price point, then that's a much greater savings than 3 generic input ports. 4, if you count the L6 Link out.
/sarcasm

Please lock this useless thread.
  • 0

#120 JTSC777

JTSC777

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 119 posts

Posted 30 June 2014 - 03:37 PM

I have been a loyal Roland/ Boss user for over 20 years.From the GR-1 synth and GT-3 to the GT10/GR55 these days. This is how many model packs and updates upgrades I was offered during all those years=1.1 for the GR55 which was nothing to crow about mostly presets and piano tones behaving a little better. I have never been mad about that and have never complained about it I just learned to work with whatever limitations the units I was using at the time had to get my work done.This is Rolands philosophy regarding upgrades/model packs/firmware changes/piano sounds being glitchy and a whole bunch of other bugs etc....with every thing they have ever offered to musicians-" It's perfect when it comes off the line.We(Roland)do not need to ever improve on anything we make as it is already better than anything else". No I'm not kidding.That is how they deal with customer dissatisfaction and quibbles about bugs/upgrades etc...Do I still buy/use their gear?Yes. Do I appreciate Line 6 offer to update/fix bugs/give me killer customtone patches etc....?you bet I do. I will roll out my HD500 for the first time this weekend with my trio at a large casino for a two night engagement.I will use it with my Roland GR55. I programmed and tweaked my Boss GT10/Roland GR55 for almost a year before I was able to use them at a gig. I have had the HD500 for about three weeks and it was actually ready to gig last week but I left it at home and used my other stuff. Tone wise for amp modelling/effects and cover gigs it kills the GT10 and I can't wait to use it. If you really want to get upset start using Roland /Boss gear and wait for nothing as far as support forums/upgrades etc...oh and yes you get to use 3rd party editor software that crashes before you can even perform a patch write.

 

Sorry but some of you don't know how good you have it.

 

My 2 and a half cents


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users