Jump to content


Photo

How Much I Liked This Song When It Came Out..

variax 700 hd500 strato plexi blackmore input2=null smoke on the water

  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#41 Akeron

Akeron

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 322 posts

Posted 25 December 2013 - 07:12 AM

Attention English readers, there's a translation at the end!

Concordo con perapera (con cui pare condivido anche il nome). Da estenuanti test audio fatti da me (ammetto per niente scientifici) con "Same" ho un gain più vicino a quello dell'amp originale, perlomeno col Plexi Brt. Molto probabilmente preferisci usare Variax perchè è come usare l'input "Low" dell'amp anzichè quello "High". Nei manuali delle precedenti versioni del POD veniva specificato quale input era stato usato per fare l'emulazione ed era quasi sempre l'input "High" per cui "potrebbe" essere che sia lo stesso anche per il POD HD. Blackmore non mi stupirebbe se avesse usato l'input "Low" visto che preferiva il canale con meno gain dell'amp. Dato che quel setting può essere cambiato a seconda della patch usata, ha un senso usare valori diversi per avere suoni diversi. Comunque il miglior complimento alla tua versione credo sia rappresentato dal fatto che prima ricordavo a malapena l'assolo e adesso mi ronza continuamente in testa in un loop infinito :D

Translation
=======

I agree with perapera (with whom it seems I share even the same name). From exhausting audio tests done by me (I admit not scientific at all) with "Same" I have a gain closer to the original amp one, with the Plexi Brt at least. It could be that you prefer to use Variax because is like using the "Low" input of the amp instead of the "High" one. In the manuals of the previous POD versions it was specified which input was used doing the emulation and it was the "High" one most of the time, so it "could be" that's the same even with the POD HD. It wouldn't surprise me if Blackmore had used the "Low" input since he used to prefer the lowest gain amp channel. Since that setting can be changed depending on the patch used, it makes sense using different values to get different sounds. By the way, the best compliment to your version I think is represented by the fact that I barely remembered the solo before and now it hums non-stop into my head in an endless loop :D


  • 0

#42 DeanDinosaur

DeanDinosaur

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 692 posts

Posted 25 December 2013 - 07:32 AM

  Still, I wonder if there actually is any tape saturation effect in the Tape Echo FX.

I believe there is since they provide another version of the same effect that doesn't have it.

There's a "tape echo studio" "The same effect as the Tape Echo only it does not color your guitar’s dry signal" according to the model gallery.


  • 0

#43 gckelloch

gckelloch

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 135 posts

Posted 25 December 2013 - 08:00 AM

Thanks deano.  I think it's just transistor distortion though, and the delay time can't be set low enough to use the mix at 100% even if there is tape sat when driven, which I doubt there is anyway.  Good tape sat is somewhat DSP intensive, and it's only been done really well in the last few years.  Line 6 might get around to it eventually, but it's a specialized sort of thing.  They should do it though, considering how much tape sat has classically been integral to overdriven guitar tone -- maybe in the next modeler.


  • 0

#44 hurghanico

hurghanico

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1259 posts
  • LocationBologna, Italy

Posted 25 December 2013 - 03:40 PM

I agree with perapera (with whom it seems I share even the same name). From exhausting audio tests done by me (I admit not scientific at all) with "Same" I have a gain closer to the original amp one, with the Plexi Brt at least. It could be that you prefer to use Variax because is like using the "Low" input of the amp instead of the "High" one. In the manuals of the previous POD versions it was specified which input was used doing the emulation and it was the "High" one most of the time, so it "could be" that's the same even with the POD HD. It wouldn't surprise me if Blackmore had used the "Low" input since he used to prefer the lowest gain amp channel. Since that setting can be changed depending on the patch used, it makes sense using different values to get different sounds. By the way, the best compliment to your version I think is represented by the fact that I barely remembered the solo before and now it hums non-stop into my head in an endless loop :D

 

Lorenzo Ak. first of all thanks for the likeable compliment :)

 

regarding the POD settings, given that I use more often my Variax, in my case I set the inputs as variax/guitar when I want (lately very often) a single active input ..

 

I liked your comparation of the effects of the low/high inputs of the real amps with the POD single/double inputs..

 

what I know is that if I look for a low to mid gain blues-rock tone with lot of dynamics, definition, and vibe, and I want it ready in not more than 5 minutes, the single input approach is the way to go.. ;)

 

for those type of sounds I can get also some decent results with the double input approach, but I don't get the excellance (there is often something missing or too much), and also I have to tweak parameters here and there a lot more.. :wacko:


  • 0

#45 perapera

perapera

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 113 posts

Posted 25 December 2013 - 04:00 PM

ok, but must be said that my original patch is different and sounds different than yours, because I used 1 single input in pre..

 

sorry I reopened my setlist now in the editor (without the pod connected) and saw some inconsistency between what I tested and the patches saved in the setlist (scary!)

1- the editor without the pod connected went to "global" input settings

2- even after returning to "preset", the A and B versions of "smokewater" had both inputs active which of course is wrong

 

anyway

 

the A version must be guitar/same with the fixed volume pedal at 71%

the B version must be guitar/variax and without the volume pedal

 

what gckelloch wrote is very interesting but of course it doesn't change the test (the volume pedal attenuates the signal before the amp)


  • 0

#46 perapera

perapera

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 113 posts

Posted 25 December 2013 - 04:08 PM

I reconnected the pod and the setlist there was correct... I don't understand what happened,

anyway

I saved the setlist and re-uploaded it in the zip (same link)


  • 0

#47 radatats

radatats

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 692 posts
  • LocationOrange County, NY

Posted 25 December 2013 - 04:09 PM

I recently did an extensive test of the single/dual input settings in another thread and I found and confirmed that the lower signal is not due solely to the single input. It is actually a result of the mix down performed within the first MONO FX block or Amp in the Pre area.  If you do not use a mono FX or use a dual amp path, the signal from the single input will be the same as if you had both selected.  Therefore, the signal strength is not based on the number of inputs (Guitar/Same) it is the result of the summing and mix down within the mono block.  

 

Still a valid method of reducing signal strength, just important to understand WHY it is lower than if both inputs were selected.

 

http://line6.com/sup...uts/#entry30183


  • 0

l6+sig+pic-1.png   


#48 hurghanico

hurghanico

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1259 posts
  • LocationBologna, Italy

Posted 25 December 2013 - 04:14 PM

I reconnected the pod and the setlist there was correct... I don't understand what happened..

 

I think the issue is due to the fact that the HD500 Edit program doesn't read the HD500 system global settings, and when you open the program its default input setup settings is set to "global", if you manually change it to "preset" it will then read correctly all the presets parameters including their inputs setup


  • 0

#49 hurghanico

hurghanico

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1259 posts
  • LocationBologna, Italy

Posted 25 December 2013 - 04:18 PM

anyway

 

the A version must be guitar/same with the fixed volume pedal at 71%

the B version must be guitar/variax and without the volume pedal

 

I have no doubts that the A and B versions sound exactly the same

 

but what I am talking about in this thread is a different thing


  • 0

#50 perapera

perapera

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 113 posts

Posted 25 December 2013 - 04:46 PM

I recently did an extensive test of the single/dual input settings in another thread and I found and confirmed that the lower signal is not due solely to the single input. It is actually a result of the mix down performed within the first MONO FX block or Amp in the Pre area.  If you do not use a mono FX or use a dual amp path, the signal from the single input will be the same as if you had both selected.  Therefore, the signal strength is not based on the number of inputs (Guitar/Same) it is the result of the summing and mix down within the mono block.  

 

Still a valid method of reducing signal strength, just important to understand WHY it is lower than if both inputs were selected.

 

http://line6.com/sup...uts/#entry30183

 

yes you're totally right

just a clarification:  the first "mono effect" can be the amp: it attenuates the signal too before summing input1+2


  • 0

#51 hurghanico

hurghanico

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1259 posts
  • LocationBologna, Italy

Posted 25 December 2013 - 04:51 PM

I recently did an extensive test of the single/dual input settings in another thread and I found and confirmed that the lower signal is not due solely to the single input. It is actually a result of the mix down performed within the first MONO FX block or Amp in the Pre area.  If you do not use a mono FX or use a dual amp path, the signal from the single input will be the same as if you had both selected.  Therefore, the signal strength is not based on the number of inputs (Guitar/Same) it is the result of the summing and mix down within the mono block.  

 

Still a valid method of reducing signal strength, just important to understand WHY it is lower than if both inputs were selected.

 

probably there are a couple of ways to explain in a possible logical way the HD500 input routings..

the only official Line6 statement about the inputs settings we had till now is written in the rectangle ar pag. 54 of the HD500 advanced guide

reported here:

inputs.JPG
 
anyway apart all the possible logical reasonings on the HD500 routings, what counts most for me is how to get the more enjoyable sounds, eventually also at the cost of being illogical

  • 0

#52 perapera

perapera

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 113 posts

Posted 25 December 2013 - 05:00 PM

I have no doubts that the A and B versions sound exactly the same

 

but what I am talking about in this thread is a different thing

 

Yes you are right,

summarizing:

you agree with me that choosing only one input is ONLY attenuating the input signal level by 6dB (no phase issues)
but you say that some (all?) amplifiers benefit from this attenuated signal (maybe because there is some pre-drive-pot circuit)


I must say that if you were right then if someone puts an amp in A or B path, he needs a fixed volume pedal before the amp (since he looses the possibility to attenuate with the input settings choice)
 

p.s.

I don't want to hijack your thread, that's why I think we need to go on on my thread:

http://line6.com/sup...vs-both-inputs/


  • 0

#53 hurghanico

hurghanico

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1259 posts
  • LocationBologna, Italy

Posted 25 December 2013 - 05:32 PM

summarizing:

you agree with me that choosing only one input is ONLY attenuating the input signal level by 6dB (no phase issues)

 

to be exact I agree with you that there is a difference of 6 dB between the 2 solutions, it could be due to an attenuation in the single input scenario or could be due to an increase in the double input scenario, I don't know..

I agree that there are no phase issues with 2 same inputs

 

but you say that some (all?) amplifiers benefit from this attenuated signal (maybe because there is some pre-drive-pot circuit)

I must say that if you were right then if someone puts an amp in A or B path, he needs a fixed volume pedal before the amp (since he looses the possibility to attenuate with the input settings choice)

 

yes, that's just my opinion..

 

the fixed Volume FX or an EQ FX at the beginning of a separate path A or B could be a good idea to get the same single input behaviour you'd get in pre..

 

but for one of the most common scenarios where a single guitar signal goes through a simple chain that split in two towards 2 different amps, you don't need any trick to get the single input approach working as described..

 

the problem arises only when you want process simultaneously 2 different instruments with separate chains, or 1 instrument with 2 separate chains.. which after all are the most difficult things that the HD500 can do due to its DSP limits..

 

p.s.

I don't want to hijack your thread, that's why I think we need to go on on my thread:

http://line6.com/sup...vs-both-inputs/

 

not a big problem for me, you are keeping alive this thread and more and more people are coming here and listening to my smokes on the waters..

ah ah..

 

I could become famous because of you :D

 

jokes apart, I'm following also your other threads, I'll reply there at some point if I'll have something more to say..


  • 0

#54 perapera

perapera

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 113 posts

Posted 25 December 2013 - 05:59 PM

two years ago I was on stage with my guitar students for the end of the year exhibition of the school

 

we decided to close the show with a smoke on the water version with as many students on stage as possible

 

my youngest student (8 year old) started the song playing the initial riff (with double stops, like blackmore)

he had a yamaha pacifica hyper-basic-version and a cheap marshall valvestate

he had a GREAT tone because he was playing with his heart

 

maybe Line6 should model a heart and put an option to switch it on in their next firmware ;-)


  • 0

#55 perapera

perapera

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 113 posts

Posted 25 December 2013 - 06:06 PM

to be exact I agree with you that there is a difference of 6 dB between the 2 solutions, it could be due to an attenuation in the single input scenario or could be due to an increase in the double input scenario, I don't know..

 

I am sure it's an attenuation in the single input scenario,

my routing schematics say so, and I'm sure they are correct

 

recently radatats confirmed it with an independent test:

http://line6.com/sup...uts/#entry30183

 

this doesn't change the fact that an attenuation can help in getting a better sound with some fx chains,

I'd only be surprised if the attenuation was needed for every situation


  • 0

#56 hurghanico

hurghanico

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1259 posts
  • LocationBologna, Italy

Posted 25 December 2013 - 06:25 PM

this doesn't change the fact that an attenuation can help in getting a better sound with some fx chains,

I'd only be surprised if the attenuation was needed for every situation

 

I don't think it's needed for every situation.. that depends only on what you need..

 

personally, for a long time, blindly guided by logic, thinking that this was the standard way to use the device, what is supposed Line6 considered the reference point for the models, I forced myself to get any sound taking for granted that setting in their defaults..

 

then one day I decided to try more thoroughly the other solution, and a new world opened to me ..

I can't say that this one-single-input-approach should be considered the right one, but I can say that surely with it you can get some really good and cool sounds..


  • 0

#57 hurghanico

hurghanico

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1259 posts
  • LocationBologna, Italy

Posted 25 December 2013 - 06:36 PM

my youngest student (8 year old) started the song playing the initial riff (with double stops, like blackmore)

he had a yamaha pacifica hyper-basic-version and a cheap marshall valvestate

he had a GREAT tone because he was playing with his heart

 

heart, passion, feelings, enthusiasm, touch sensibility.. they all play a huge role in music


  • 0

#58 hurghanico

hurghanico

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1259 posts
  • LocationBologna, Italy

Posted 26 December 2013 - 06:05 AM

I am sure it's an attenuation in the single input scenario,

my routing schematics say so, and I'm sure they are correct

 

IMO it's difficult to be 100% sure of the POD exact functioning in regard to its routings..

 

we have their official statement written at pag. 54 of the HD500 advanced guide:

 

""Note that when utilizing both Inputs 1 & 2 (or when using “SAME” for either of these
Input options) the two Input signals are combined to allow them to be fed into any Amp or mono FX
Model within the Pre position, which can result in a hot signal level. Reduce your
instruments’ volume as needed to avoid overloading your Pre-positioned Models
.""

 

and we have our logic reasonings and observations:

 

path A (or B ) when it is separate (untill there is nothing in pre position) can be reached only by input 1 with a certain volume level,

to get the same above initial level when we use instead the default pre position we need to set input 2=same

 

at this point we have 2 possible different explanations to choose from:

 

1) if we want trust the Line6 above official statement, we must deduce that for some unknown reasons, if you use the path A (or B ) in separate mode (with nothing in pre) its initial input level is doubled.. and to get a full (not doubled) single input in pre you should use only 1 input..

 

2) if we don't want trust Line6 statement, then it means that path A when separate is reached by a full single input, and to get a full (not halved) single input also in pre position you need to set input2=same..

 

 

there is the great obstacle of the NDA that prevents us from knowing the truth, so we are simply left to do what works best for us, which after all is the most important thing..

 

maybe with the final acquisition of the Line6 by Yamaha some secrets will be finally disclosed..


  • 0

#59 radatats

radatats

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 692 posts
  • LocationOrange County, NY

Posted 26 December 2013 - 07:00 AM

In the tests I performed, and you can download my patches and try for yourself, I found that the signal from input 1 and input 2 is fixed, it does not change.  It ONLY drops if I put a mono block in the PRE position with only one input selected.  That makes sense when you look at the block schematic for a mono block.  It SUMS the two inputs and halves the output to give you a single signal strength equal to one of the inputs and feeds that to both path A and B.  It does not recognize that there is now only one input and still halves the signal giving you a reduced strength signal to use.  Hence my conclusion that the weaker signal is solely a result of the actions performed within the mono block during mix down and is totally logical and expected.  

 

Note that if I put a stereo block such as a Wah in the pre position instead of a mono block with the same setup, a full strength signal is passed, it is not reduced in any way. And that also is logical because there is no summing in a stereo block.  At no point in any of these tests could I generate a signal hotter than the single input being passed to path A so it is safe to say that there is never a configuration that will combine the two inputs or double the signal.

 

Again, I understand the caution being referenced and it makes sense if you understand what is being accomplished in the mono block with the summing and mix down.  However, it must be understood that is the only configuration where the signals can be combined and so you can act on it as needed.  Note that they do not tell you to limit to one input, they advise you to reduce your guitar volume to compensate. They also only reference possibly overloading the block in the PRE position.  I believe they are referencing the first block, the one that does the mix down, not anything after it in the chain.  This is a cautionary statement, not a normal procedure.  It is there in case you are feeding two very hot signals in (active pup guitars?).  Perhaps there is a limit to the signal reduction capability during mix down.

 

Either way this is all just info for us to better understand how our gear works to allow us to make intelligent decisions on how to configure and use it.  Certainly if you like the lowered signal input results, that is all that matters but I think the underlying reason for the reduced signal condition is settled.   :)


  • 0

l6+sig+pic-1.png   


#60 hurghanico

hurghanico

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1259 posts
  • LocationBologna, Italy

Posted 26 December 2013 - 08:22 AM

..but I think the underlying reason for the reduced signal condition is settled..

 

I agree that it is a possible explanation


  • 0





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: variax 700, hd500, strato, plexi, blackmore, input2=null, smoke on the water

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users