Jump to content


Photo

Dt50 Cabinet Models


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 wahwahferrar

wahwahferrar

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts

Posted 06 August 2013 - 01:21 AM

So, I just realised the default voicings on my DT50 have cab sims. Can anybody tell me what they actually do. Someone who actually knows, not just speculation - I can guess as well as anybody. I run it through a THD 2x12, and using the cab sims doesn't sound rubbish like I would expect. I can switch them off via midi with the new firmware to compare.

 

So, they are clearly not full cab sims - more like what the pod does when it's not in 'studio/direct' mode. Are they just some eq (that's what it sounds like), or are they more than that? Does the dt50 phase them out as the amp gets louder? It seems a bit silly to have a cabinet sim going when you're driving a real cab to speaker break-up.

 

Cheers


  • 0

#2 wolbai

wolbai

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 285 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 06 August 2013 - 03:02 AM

If you don't want to have experience by ear (which you may consider as speculation) than I am afraid you have to join the Line6 developers team to get answers to your questions :D

Clearly speaking: Line 6 does not give that type of details you are asking for in my opinion. (May be some of the Line6 Experts which have participated as beta testers can answer your detailed questions)

But I can confirm that my ears (speculator :D ) tell me, that L6 is using cab/sims in their standalone mode and in the 4 original voicings. This is more or less confirmed by the fact of the latest DT-firmware release which gives everybody a more detailed view how a DTXX is designed. So if you want to go for the 4 Voicing to make them sound the same over the POD HD, you should go for standard cab/sims ON when using Line6 combos and cabs.

If you use the DT-amp HEAD and a none-L6 cab, then the story might be different:

Assuming you have a 4x12 cab, I would start with cab/sim OFF on all amps where a half stack is the standard rig, because your own one should do it better than a cab/sim. But if you want to use the BF Double (= Fender Twin) on the same 4x12 cab, I would start with the standard cab/sim ON with the BF double amp model. As you are using a different (none- L66) cab, you have to experiment at that point a bit, because your speakers (which I don't know) are likely different to the Line6 speakers used in their cabs.

Hope my comments still helps, although they are based on speculation respectively experience on learning by doing ...
  • 0

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

THE RETROMANIAC

Gear: JTV 59, JTV 69, JTV 89F, Godin Progression, Godin Seagull, Gibson Les Paul Deluxe, POD/HD500, DT50/212, DT50/Head, Marshall JVMC212, RIVERA Rockcrusher, Radial JDX Reactor
website: http://www.soundclick.com/wolbai  Band: http://www.jump-backtorock.de/


#3 mribanezmetal

mribanezmetal

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 33 posts

Posted 06 August 2013 - 04:27 AM

To me, this is a really interesting topic. As a proud owner of a DT50 and HD400, I've opted to run no cab simulation when plugged into my Marshall Greenback loaded cab. I've done the firmware update on the DT50 and to be honest I prefer just dialling in the amp models I like the most and using the DT50 in standalone mode. Your right in saying that, when the cabinet simulations are on, you don't get the kind of extreme high end roll off you'd expect like say 'going direct' or from previous models Pods into the return of a power amp on studio mode. 

 

I know you wanted something more definitive but I don't know if anybody here is going to give you THE concrete answer to the question and to an extent , is almost not that critical in terms of getting a good tone for yourself.  I mean that in a constructive way and speaking from my own experiences of course. ;)

 

I think perhaps the models are as you say, not full versions but probably a slightly eq'd version of the preset to get you closer to what the original model was using. For instance, a Mesa Dual Rectifier on a Mesa Vintage 30 loaded cab has a certain 'voice' to it and I think SOME of the Vintage 30's frequency response is mildly dialled into it. 

 

Personally I thought If I was already using a cabinet with MY choice of speakers and MY preferred speaker frequency responses, just turn off all cabinet modelling. I'm really pleased with my rig and pretty much treat it like a 'more affordable' answer to having several sort after Marshall's on a Greenback loaded 4x12 cabinet. 

 

I hope that helps or at least makes you think that your not the only one!!  

 

Cheers   :)


  • 0

#4 spaceatl

spaceatl

    Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 4660 posts

Posted 06 August 2013 - 06:15 AM

It is a fairly simple concept and it applies the HD PODS as well as the DT amps...When you are using FULL amp models you are using a FULL cab model. Has a lot of color. When you use a PRE amp model, the cabs change to what are termed as LIVE cab models....These are lighter in the attenuation and optimized for the DT amplifiers...Nothing that mystical about the DT amps...Tube amps with Celestions...So the LIVE models will tend to work pretty decently with similar cab/speakers...of course I would suggest that you find the output mode that seems to work best for your rig...Auditioning takes some time, but it is well worth going through the cabs to find what fits your rig...I tend to use only a few different cab models as I use a DT and SV amp with 212 ext cabs and have replaced all the stock speakers...I am happy with my results.


  • 0

#5 wahwahferrar

wahwahferrar

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts

Posted 06 August 2013 - 03:47 PM

Thanks for your posts guys. The that surprised me most was that, before the 2.0 update, I was using the DT probably without realising there was a cab sim on. I'm pretty experienced using modelling live (traditionally amplitube into an acoustic image and my THD cab) and when things sound a bit funny, the first thing I do is make sure the cab sim is off. Switch the cab sim off and everything comes right. I've got a pod HD500 and always just made sure the can sim was off if I was using a guitar cabinet. I'd read that they were 'live' models if not if studio/direct mode but was not convinced. I think I've changed my mind a bit, 'cause the DT has always sounded REALLY good, and I've had 'live' cab sims on without realising it! 

 

BTW, I don't use the pod with the DT using the line6 connect. I've always wanted to be able to call up different patches with the amp settings not changing. On a gig, I want to be able to change the amp eq and have it 'stick' when I change patches to use different effects chains. Having the pod with only effects running and using the preamp sims on the DT is the perfect setup for me.

 

I have some experience as a software developer and have always thought patch systems on things like the pod could be made a lot better by allowing a hierarchy of patches. So, for example, I could have a 'parent' patch that has , say, an amp setup with maybe some reverb and eq. I could then apply a 'child' patch that has maybe some chorus or a drive pedal. Then I could change the child patch, but retain the amp settings and reverb from the parent patch. This is actually a pretty common way of dealing with settings in software. The active settings are calculated from a hierarchical structure with certain rules for overriding or combining settings further up the hierarchy applied. That's the way I'd do it.


  • 0

#6 spaceatl

spaceatl

    Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 4660 posts

Posted 06 August 2013 - 06:07 PM

The Live cabs can actually save you from having to add an EQ...basically, that is what a cab model is...It is how Line 6 designed the system to reproduce the amp...No Cab is nice to have for some tones, but I have found the live models really help me get an amp model matched to the speakers I use without have to use excessive EQ which adds all kinds of phase artifacts that aren't so nice...less rad the better I find...

 

Certainly a patch hierarchy where some models remain while other change would be really cool...Certainly is an OO way to think about it and very easy to write in C++, C# and even in Java as big of piece crap that framework has turned out to be...Firmware is a totally different animal...Takes a lot longer to write optimized firmware and speed is the name of the game at the data rates the HD is running...A lot more limitations than writting code for a PC or a Mac....It would be great, but I think that sorta stuff is more reserved for the Software based stuff than embedded at this time in this industry...totally different worlds...But then most software developers skipped Assembly... :)


  • 0

#7 wahwahferrar

wahwahferrar

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts

Posted 06 August 2013 - 09:29 PM

I'm sure it would be a whole lot simpler and less computationally intensive than, say, modelling a tube amplifier - absolutely trivial in comparison. And there's no reason why an OO language is required.


  • 0

#8 spaceatl

spaceatl

    Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 4660 posts

Posted 07 August 2013 - 06:16 AM

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that I thought OO was the only way to do it....I was just making a complexity observation contrasting the two approaches you alluded to (vst vs embedded)...developed in the same timeline....embedded will generally always have less features...at least that has been my experience. But I have never written code in music industry...simply not enough money in it.

 

Just that the complexity of the implementation is greatly reduced in a higher level OO language as compared to a procedural approach like optimized assembly that is unique to the chip itself...I have not seen an embedded version of amplitube....Seems that the VSTs are always a bit more flexible than embedded stuff...just an observation...I know that I can get more features in the same timeline using C++ than I could doing...say....8051 assembly....


  • 0

#9 stumblinman

stumblinman

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 441 posts
  • LocationPacific Northwest

Posted 09 August 2013 - 10:38 AM

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that I thought OO was the only way to do it....I was just making a complexity observation contrasting the two approaches you alluded to (vst vs embedded)...developed in the same timeline....embedded will generally always have less features...at least that has been my experience. But I have never written code in music industry...simply not enough money in it.

Just that the complexity of the implementation is greatly reduced in a higher level OO language as compared to a procedural approach like optimized assembly that is unique to the chip itself...I have not seen an embedded version of amplitube....Seems that the VSTs are always a bit more flexible than embedded stuff...just an observation...I know that I can get more features in the same timeline using C++ than I could doing...say....8051 assembly....


Ya, what he said!
  • 0

#10 saTa

saTa

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 35 posts

Posted 27 August 2013 - 02:14 AM

Thanks for this thread... I too have always switched off cab modelling on my HD500 as I figured the DT25 112 Combo was an *actual* cab. I didn't realise there were live models that the HD500 would switch to when linked via L6Link. Once again, the L6 documentation could do with some improving... I'll give this a shot over the weekend and see what happens!
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users