Jump to content


Photo

Pod Hd500x Sounding Thin Compared To Hd500

pod hd500x

  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 matthewterrado

matthewterrado

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 21 posts

Posted 15 August 2013 - 08:56 AM

I recently upgraded to the POD HD500x from the HD500 and uploaded my old tones from the 500 to the 500x by changing the .extension. It worked great except I've noticed that my tone sounds thinner and brighter on the HD500x. Also, it seems like the output volume is quieter while using headphones than it was on the 500. Any Ideas?


  • 0

#2 stumblinman

stumblinman

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 429 posts
  • LocationPacific Northwest

Posted 15 August 2013 - 09:07 AM

Are your input/output settings the same? Studio/ direct vs combo front etc? Global input options? Impedance?
  • 0

#3 TheRealZap

TheRealZap

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 14795 posts
  • LocationClemmons, NC USA

Posted 15 August 2013 - 09:08 AM

your bundle/tones do not have your global settings.. perhaps there is a difference there?


  • 0

#4 MartinDorr

MartinDorr

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 216 posts
  • LocationArizona, U.S.A.

Posted 15 August 2013 - 09:09 AM

Assuming you are correct you could do a manual comparison (maybe via screenshots) whether the tone settings in the file (the binary encoding) are translating to the same parameter values (what shown in the SW editor or on the HD display) on the HD500 and HD500X user interfaces.
You should be able to at least check and compare the 2 editors using both file versions of the 'same' tone if you do not have the HD500 anymore. Would be really interresting if you find a difference beyond it just sounding different.
Besides that there could be more HW changes lurking that have not been dicovered by users opening the HD500X enclosure (and not pulished by Line 6), e.g., like a change in AD converters or just a later rev of the AD converters installed in the HD500X.
Just wildly guessing ...
Martin
  • 0

#5 matthewterrado

matthewterrado

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 21 posts

Posted 15 August 2013 - 10:37 AM

I sold my 500 to a friend but he said he'll give it back to me so I can compare the two. I'll let you guys know what I find. Thanks for responding!
  • 0

#6 matthewterrado

matthewterrado

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 21 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 08:52 AM

So I compared the two and the Hd500 is louder than the 500x but the tones are pretty consistent between the two. Maybe my ears were messing with me on the day I first got the 500x!
  • 0

#7 chuskey

chuskey

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 74 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 11:06 AM

So I compared the two and the Hd500 is louder than the 500x but the tones are pretty consistent between the two. Maybe my ears were messing with me on the day I first got the 500x!

 

Tones can sound different at different volumes.  It's called the Fletcher Munson Curve:  http://en.wikipedia....Munson_curves

 

If there was a noticeable difference in volume the patch could have sounded thin as you wouldn't hear as much bottom end.  So it may not have been your ears messing with you!

 

I remember they added a loudness feature to the Vetta, firmware 2.0 I believe, that compensated for this when you were playing at lower volumes. 

 

Feature wise the Vetta was way ahead of its time.  That was a sweet amp, but way heavier than my HD500 :)


  • 1

#8 matthewterrado

matthewterrado

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 21 posts

Posted 27 August 2013 - 07:30 AM

Tones can sound different at different volumes.  It's called the Fletcher Munson Curve:  http://en.wikipedia....Munson_curves
 
If there was a noticeable difference in volume the patch could have sounded thin as you wouldn't hear as much bottom end.  So it may not have been your ears messing with you!
 
I remember they added a loudness feature to the Vetta, firmware 2.0 I believe, that compensated for this when you were playing at lower volumes. 
 
Feature wise the Vetta was way ahead of its time.  That was a sweet amp, but way heavier than my HD500 :)


That totally makes sense! My question now is, should I set my master volume lower while running the POD direct out in the PA so I can get the bottom end?
  • 0

#9 chuskey

chuskey

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 74 posts

Posted 27 August 2013 - 08:26 AM

That totally makes sense! My question now is, should I set my master volume lower while running the POD direct out in the PA so I can get the bottom end?

 

What I do is leave the master volume on the HD500 wide open.  I then create my patches at whatever volume, and as close to the same speaker type, I'll be using onstage.  That way I know pretty much what I'm going to get. 

 

Then if you find that you're having to play at a lower volume at a gig and it sounds a little thin you can use the EQ on the PA to compensate.  That way you aren't going back and adjusting all your patches.    

 

I pretty much only play going direct to the house these days and use a stage monitor or in ear monitors.  This method of creating patches works really well for me.  

 

Also if you use the same PA or setup a lot you can start to figure out how it reacts.  I have a PA that I own and use and it tends to produce a little more bottom end, so I create the patches that way.  I have another set of patches I use if I play at church because I'm familiar with how the room reacts.  


  • 1

#10 matthewterrado

matthewterrado

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 21 posts

Posted 27 August 2013 - 09:02 AM

What I do is leave the master volume on the HD500 wide open.  I then create my patches at whatever volume, and as close to the same speaker type, I'll be using onstage.  That way I know pretty much what I'm going to get. 
 
Then if you find that you're having to play at a lower volume at a gig and it sounds a little thin you can use the EQ on the PA to compensate.  That way you aren't going back and adjusting all your patches.    
 
I pretty much only play going direct to the house these days and use a stage monitor or in ear monitors.  This method of creating patches works really well for me.  
 
Also if you use the same PA or setup a lot you can start to figure out how it reacts.  I have a PA that I own and use and it tends to produce a little more bottom end, so I create the patches that way.  I have another set of patches I use if I play at church because I'm familiar with how the room reacts.  


Yeah I create my tone using my IEMs, so opening up the master volume would kill me. I suppose I can turn the amp or mixer volume down to open up room for the master. It doesn't sound thin at lower volumes. It's when you crank it that it starts to sound thin. I'll try your method out! Thanks for the help!
  • 0

#11 scottyo78

scottyo78

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 161 posts
  • LocationSeattle, WA

Posted 27 August 2013 - 02:55 PM

It's when you crank it that it starts to sound thin.

 

Really? Wow. That just goes to prove the "Different strokes for different folks" moniker. ^_^

When I create my tones... all of them... through each system, favor the bass/mid's when I crank it. :D

At home I play through my studio (KRK Rokit 8's) or my 1/2 stack. At church, the PA and/or sometimes my Fender Stage 112 amp.


  • 0

#12 DeanDinosaur

DeanDinosaur

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 692 posts

Posted 27 August 2013 - 03:23 PM

I believe you get the best signal to noise ratio with master volume for the whole unit at 10 (the actual physical knob, not the amp master volume).


  • 0

#13 matthewterrado

matthewterrado

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 21 posts

Posted 27 August 2013 - 06:40 PM

I believe you get the best signal to noise ratio with master volume for the whole unit at 10 (the actual physical knob, not the amp master volume).


Do you mean 10 o'clock or 10 (100%)?
  • 0

#14 chuskey

chuskey

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 74 posts

Posted 27 August 2013 - 06:54 PM

Do you mean 10 o'clock or 10 (100%)?

 

I believe he meant 100%  


  • 0

#15 DeanDinosaur

DeanDinosaur

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 692 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 06:16 AM

Yes I meant 100%.  


  • 1

#16 matthewterrado

matthewterrado

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 21 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 06:40 AM

Yes I meant 100%.  


Yeah I used to run my hd500 at 100%. I'm gonna try chuskey's method of shaping tone with the master at 100% with the 500x.
  • 0

#17 Jonam93

Jonam93

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 08:06 AM

I don't know how to start a new topic on here, but I'm having real issues with my HD500x looper and can't find any advice on the web about it: 

The looper is meant to be 48 seconds. but it's not even doing half that before stopping recording me and starting again from the beginning, just as if I'd pressed the footswitch. 

 

Has anyone else had this problem?


  • 0

#18 phil_m

phil_m

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 5273 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis, MN

Posted 22 October 2013 - 08:14 AM

The looper is meant to be 48 seconds. but it's not even doing half that before stopping recording me and starting again from the beginning, just as if I'd pressed the footswitch.

 

 

The looper time can be extended to 48 seconds if you hit the half speed switch prior to recording your loop.


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

 


#19 Karl_Houseknecht

Karl_Houseknecht

    Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 3857 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 08:29 AM

I always set the master volume of the HD to 50%.  Because if my sound guy tells me he needs more or less signal, then I can adjust as needed.  If it's at 100% and he needs more, then I'm screwed.


  • 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: pod hd500x

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users