Jump to content


Photo

Any Plans For Custom Ir Functionality?

ir impulse responses pod hd

  • Please log in to reply
112 replies to this topic

#41 DeanDinosaur

DeanDinosaur

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 733 posts

Posted 24 April 2014 - 02:24 PM

Another shot for me! Where you been Dean? I've been sober far too long! ;)

 

I've been in the Pipline, filing in time, provided with toys... :)  


  • 0

#42 DeanDinosaur

DeanDinosaur

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 733 posts

Posted 24 April 2014 - 02:36 PM

....., but I see those DEPs as add-ins to compensate for the overall shittiness of the included cab models.

O come on!  The line 6 IR's aren't lollipop. If you can't get any of  these CABs working, I have to say it's user error, there are too many  excellent clips out there using those same Cab models by too many users to even contemplate counting. How about trying to figure out what you're doing wrong instead of bashing a product that countless players are successfully using day in and day out for gigging and recording!

 

I see the DEPs as way to compensate for those who never actually played a real world 4x12 and don't know that a 4x12 can be very boomy with the  amp's  bass knob  any where past 40%.


  • 0

#43 gunpointmetal

gunpointmetal

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 498 posts

Posted 24 April 2014 - 03:28 PM

The cabs are useable, and compared to previous generations, much better. I used nothing but them on the last recording I did (mostly to save processing power on an aging PC). But compared to most of free IRs out there, they are pretty sub-standard (as are those in Boss and Zoom). In my experience, I can get a useable tone with an amp model with everything at noon and a decent cab IR. I haven't been able to do that with the ones in the box.


  • 0

#44 Digital_Igloo

Digital_Igloo

    Line 6 Staff

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

Posted 10 June 2014 - 10:25 AM

Already posted this on IdeaScale, but let's try it here too:

 

What is everyone currently using for IRs? Note that software allows for much longer impulses than existing hardware solutions. One cab emulator pedal truncates third-party IRs to around 900 samples; another truncates at over 65,000. Several third-party IR libraries are at 1024. The unofficial GSP1101 firmware truncates IRs to only 128 samples (!). So yeah, they're ALL over the map.

 

A 2048 sample IR may very well eat up more than half of the DSP (it's nowhere near a block or two), so it's important to understand (for us and others) where the ideal compromise in sample length lies.


  • 1
Product Manager | Line 6

#45 Digital_Igloo

Digital_Igloo

    Line 6 Staff

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

Posted 12 June 2014 - 09:32 AM

No one? Our research has told us the only people who care about IRs are a small subset of people on forums. Could it be that even they don't care about IRs? Or they simply don't care about sample length?


  • 0
Product Manager | Line 6

#46 stumblinman

stumblinman

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 537 posts
  • LocationPacific Northwest

Posted 12 June 2014 - 10:36 AM

I'm guessing the percentage of folks wanting IR's is quite a bit lower than those wanting eq's in Hz or new amp models or multiple output options dependent on outputs used ie: L6 link in stack power amp and 1/4" or XLR in studio/direct. A vocal minority when complaining may not really want to be part of the solution. It is nice to see L6 maybe taking an interest in it though.

Or maybe the IR guys don't understand the sample rate thing. I didn't until I looked it up.

But then again, I don't care about IR's.

But!

I wish you luck in adding features! Glad Ideascale is being used for more than "add a power switch to all devices".

No one? Our research has told us the only people who care about IRs are a small subset of people on forums. Could it be that even they don't care about IRs? Or they simply don't care about sample length?


  • 0

#47 DeanDinosaur

DeanDinosaur

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 733 posts

Posted 12 June 2014 - 10:37 AM

When I use the HD500, I only use it with the internal IRs because to my ears it sounds like the Line6  Cab when disabled, some other components are also disabled and not just the IR. 

Your research is not showing the whole picture for two reasons:

1-Anyone who's using the POD for recording (not live) specially as an audio interface, will very likely be interested in external IR support and if not, they will be when they hear others' success. This will advance the HD series and make it more appealing to most interested in recording. The research should specifically target those who use it for recording and not live.

 

2-Even if you research is accurate, you're overlooking the fact that forum members are always a very small minority compared with forum viewers (lurkers) who don't participate. It's similar to the research that suggests that for every single complaint that a company receives, there are at least ten that simply don't want to bother.

 

I would love to be able to use External IRs if It's confirmed by line 6 that disabling the CAB is only disables the IR portion and not some other. Thank you very much for chiming in.


  • 0

#48 Rewolf48

Rewolf48

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 359 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 13 June 2014 - 03:57 AM

Or it might just be that those who so vocally wanted IRs have given up and are no longer so active on the L6 forums because they have found alternative solutions such as KPA. The original threads I have found are back in 2011 which is an absolute age.

 

I still struggle with a fizzy high-end and a boomy bottom and all attempts at containing these seem to end up perversely thin but still muddy sound - I am talking about live through an reasonable quality FRFR solution as backline and which I put down to my ignorance of how to use EQ effectively and the limited scope of adjustment on the FRFR.  Give me a global graphic EQ so I can quickly tune all presets + FRFR to suit a room before the IR support.

 

But that might just be down to my lack of understanding about what you can do with an IR - it must be said that most people who are demoing HD + IR videos seem to be into Metal which isn't really my cup of tea.

 

[I am gassing for 2 x L2t, which you released after I bought my FRFR, but money for hobies is tight at the moment :( ]


  • 0

#49 gunpointmetal

gunpointmetal

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 498 posts

Posted 13 June 2014 - 08:10 AM

I never really looked at the samples, honestly, and I've been using free ones to mess around with (God's Cab set, mostly) and those have a much more "speaker" like sound to me. I know the ones in the hacked firmware on the Digitech GSP are super, super short, but they still sound pretty decent. Preferable to whats in the box, at least to me.

Already posted this on IdeaScale, but let's try it here too:

 

What is everyone currently using for IRs? Note that software allows for much longer impulses than existing hardware solutions. One cab emulator pedal truncates third-party IRs to around 900 samples; another truncates at over 65,000. Several third-party IR libraries are at 1024. The unofficial GSP1101 firmware truncates IRs to only 128 samples (!). So yeah, they're ALL over the map.

 

A 2048 sample IR may very well eat up more than half of the DSP (it's nowhere near a block or two), so it's important to understand (for us and others) where the ideal compromise in sample length lies.


  • 0

#50 smrybacki

smrybacki

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 463 posts
  • LocationCarlisle, PA

Posted 19 June 2014 - 05:03 AM

No one? Our research has told us the only people who care about IRs are a small subset of people on forums. Could it be that even they don't care about IRs? Or they simply don't care about sample length?

Just coming on board with the concept of IRs which has apparently been around quite a while.  If I understand you correctly, the current generation of hardware inside the POD HD series isn't really up to the higher sample rates of some of the IRs?  That and the sample rates are at the elast, highly variable anyway?

Over at the Gear Page, IRs are discussed a lot and I am really just coming to understand the technical aspects of it.  More research is needed by me, but it's fun stuff so I dig it a lot anyway. One thing I do know is that for $500, the POD HD500x is a pretty powerful option sans IRs, and in order to step into the world of IRs and Axe-FX and Kemper Profiling Amps, your going to need a LOT more cake than $500 so I can't imagine that even if Line 6 does go there, it would be inexpensive to the end user.


  • 0

#51 joel_brown

joel_brown

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 403 posts
  • LocationVirginia

Posted 19 June 2014 - 05:23 AM

I think that's the best summary so far.  Yes it would be nice if the PODHD had support for external IRs (and a Global EQ) but it may not have the horsepower to support anything other than very low res IRs.  More than likely they would have to put in a faster DSP chip, reprogram some things, retool some hardware, then for $1200 bucks they may sell enough of them to make a profit.

 

Or they could just repackage their old stuff and call it Amplifi and make a bunch of money.

 

All of this is just speculation cause Line6, for good reasons, doesn't talk about their future plans.


  • 0

#52 DeanDinosaur

DeanDinosaur

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 733 posts

Posted 19 June 2014 - 05:30 AM

. One thing I do know is that for $500, the POD HD500x is a pretty powerful option sans IRs, and in order to step into the world of IRs and Axe-FX and Kemper Profiling Amps, your going to need a LOT more cake than $500 so I can't imagine that even if Line 6 does go there, it would be inexpensive to the end user.

I can't see dollars having much to do with anything. Instead of adding a new amp model or new effect, they will just add an "IR Loader/player" that can occupy a block. That's the fastest way I think this could be done, but line 6 has the creative coding gurus who can accomplish External IR functionality one way or another. They can even add two IR players, one light version so you can use more simultaneous effects and another that can even play the highest resolution that will take alot of DSP power so you won't be able to load dual amps etc,  the higher resolution would be good  for recording and the light one for Live. Problem solved, No?


  • 0

#53 tomtheguitarguy

tomtheguitarguy

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 52 posts
  • LocationSoCal

Posted 19 June 2014 - 06:11 AM

still loving my Pod HD Pro to this day.

but i can't help to realize the built in impulse responses just doesn't work well.

and since i have about 500 IRs in my hard-disk, i can't help to wish the HD family will one day be able to use those IRs.

even if its only 1 slot for custom IR would be great if memory space is an issue.

 

or maybe come out with a new product like the Torpedo loadbox and named it POD HD BOX ?

custom IR is the last missing piece for all POD units IMHO.

 

The Logidy pedal might help you in the meantime - yes, you'll have another pedal, but you'll be able to use your IR's live...


  • 0

www.TomTheGuitarGuy.com

www.TomcatsBand.com

 

G & L Will Ray Signature ASAT

Fender 52RI Telecaster w/ Hipshot B Bender

CIJ Fender 69RI Blue Floral Telecaster w/ McVay G Bender

 

Dr. Z RxES 2x12

Quilter MicroPro 200 ~ Quilter Aviator Ultralight 8 ~ Quilter Steelaire

Bose L1 Classic w/ 2 B1 Bass Bins ~ Bose L1 Compact

 

Line 6 JTV-69 James Tyler Variax

Line 6 PODHD500

Line 6 Stagesource L2t (x2)


#54 smrybacki

smrybacki

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 463 posts
  • LocationCarlisle, PA

Posted 19 June 2014 - 07:15 AM

I can't see dollars having much to do with anything. Instead of adding a new amp model or new effect, they will just add an "IR Loader/player" that can occupy a block. That's the fastest way I think this could be done, but line 6 has the creative coding gurus who can accomplish External IR functionality one way or another. They can even add two IR players, one light version so you can use more simultaneous effects and another that can even play the highest resolution that will take alot of DSP power so you won't be able to load dual amps etc,  the higher resolution would be good  for recording and the light one for Live. Problem solved, No?

I'm not smart enough on the technology or it's implementation to make a call there.  One thing I do know is that Line 6 IS a business and there would have to be some financial impetus for them to develop anything even if it were possible.  Someone mentioned this Logidy pedal which I need to go look at now just to know what the heck it is lol...


  • 0

#55 tomtheguitarguy

tomtheguitarguy

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 52 posts
  • LocationSoCal

Posted 19 June 2014 - 08:29 AM

I'm not smart enough on the technology or it's implementation to make a call there.  One thing I do know is that Line 6 IS a business and there would have to be some financial impetus for them to develop anything even if it were possible.  Someone mentioned this Logidy pedal which I need to go look at now just to know what the heck it is lol...

 

There are two different versions (you can load a different SD card with each of the firmwares - so you don't have to buy two pedals) - one for reverb and one for cab sims...

 

http://logidy.com/?pid=0


  • 0

www.TomTheGuitarGuy.com

www.TomcatsBand.com

 

G & L Will Ray Signature ASAT

Fender 52RI Telecaster w/ Hipshot B Bender

CIJ Fender 69RI Blue Floral Telecaster w/ McVay G Bender

 

Dr. Z RxES 2x12

Quilter MicroPro 200 ~ Quilter Aviator Ultralight 8 ~ Quilter Steelaire

Bose L1 Classic w/ 2 B1 Bass Bins ~ Bose L1 Compact

 

Line 6 JTV-69 James Tyler Variax

Line 6 PODHD500

Line 6 Stagesource L2t (x2)


#56 Digital_Igloo

Digital_Igloo

    Line 6 Staff

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

Posted 19 June 2014 - 09:10 AM

Or they could just repackage their old stuff and call it Amplifi and make a bunch of money.

That's like saying Apple repackaged their old stuff and called it an iPhone.  ;)

Okay, maybe not, but there's a lot more to the promise of AMPLIFi than its POD Farm 2.5 modeling engine.


  • 0
Product Manager | Line 6

#57 Digital_Igloo

Digital_Igloo

    Line 6 Staff

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

Posted 19 June 2014 - 09:27 AM

I can't see dollars having much to do with anything. Instead of adding a new amp model or new effect, they will just add an "IR Loader/player" that can occupy a block. That's the fastest way I think this could be done, but line 6 has the creative coding gurus who can accomplish External IR functionality one way or another. They can even add two IR players, one light version so you can use more simultaneous effects and another that can even play the highest resolution that will take alot of DSP power so you won't be able to load dual amps etc,  the higher resolution would be good  for recording and the light one for Live. Problem solved, No?

 

What's the desired sample length for a light version IR?

 

What's the desired sample length for the highest resolution IR?

 

Currently, sample truncation for IR playback in hardware ranges from 256 (Digitech GSP1101 with 3rd-party firmware) to over 65,000 samples (Logidy EPSi in cab mode). The Two Notes C.A.B. truncates user IRs at around 900 samples and IIRC, Fractal started out at 512, and now truncate at 1024 (normal res), 2048 (high res), or 8000 (ultra-high res).

 

Again, a single mono 2048-sample IR may eat up more than half of HD500X's DSP, as it uses a different type of technology as the Logidy.


  • 0
Product Manager | Line 6

#58 DeanDinosaur

DeanDinosaur

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 733 posts

Posted 19 June 2014 - 10:47 AM

What's the desired sample length for a light version IR?

 

What's the desired sample length for the highest resolution IR?

 

Currently, sample truncation for IR playback in hardware ranges from 256 (Digitech GSP1101 with 3rd-party firmware) to over 65,000 samples (Logidy EPSi in cab mode). The Two Notes C.A.B. truncates user IRs at around 900 samples and IIRC, Fractal started out at 512, and now truncate at 1024 (normal res), 2048 (high res), or 8000 (ultra-high res).

 

Again, a single mono 2048-sample IR may eat up more than half of HD500X's DSP, as it uses a different type of technology as the Logidy.

Let's say the light version is the resolution that's currently used in the HD series and the higher resolution is marginally better, as high as possible limited by still allowing  one signal path with 4 to five effects and not the dual path. The added flexibility will be huge as the odds of mating an amp with the prefect matching IR will be within reach and will be a huge improvement regardless of the Resolution.


  • 0

#59 Digital_Igloo

Digital_Igloo

    Line 6 Staff

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

Posted 19 June 2014 - 11:28 AM

Let's say the light version is the resolution that's currently used in the HD series and the higher resolution is marginally better, as high as possible limited by still allowing  one signal path with 4 to five effects and not the dual path. The added flexibility will be huge as the odds of mating an amp with the prefect matching IR will be within reach and will be a huge improvement regardless of the Resolution.

Haven't done the math (much less a conversation with engineers to confirm), but a rough guess would be a 512-point IR is the ideal size for that particular scenario.

 

Thanks!


  • 0
Product Manager | Line 6

#60 Akeron

Akeron

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 333 posts

Posted 19 June 2014 - 12:42 PM

Jay Mitchell talks about IR length here

 

http://www.rig-talk....p?f=75&t=151140


  • 0

#61 Rewolf48

Rewolf48

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 359 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 20 June 2014 - 04:07 AM

So to summarise Jay says all that is need for a decent Cab (as opposed to Room) is 20ms.  

 

Assuming that internally HD POD processes at 96Kb/sec then 20ms is 1920.

 

Which Igloo says will take about 50% processor, meaning that assuming you have an Amp as well that there is very little left for anything else.

 

Early Axe FX was apparently 512pt IRs, but appears to have been at 48K because that translated to 10ms and the difference between 512 and 1024 (10ms and 20ms) was "subtle but reliably detectable" and apparently enough that later Axe FX got support for even bigger ones that allowed for more "room".

 

But to get those working on even the AxeFX involved data reduction techniques and heavy filtering of the longer tails - and the Axe FX has a lot more processing power than an HD.

 

I am getting the impression that if Line 6 adds this that either audio quality will be compromised or the overall amp+effects chain very limited


  • 0

#62 DeanDinosaur

DeanDinosaur

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 733 posts

Posted 20 June 2014 - 05:04 AM

...

 

I am getting the impression that if Line 6 adds this that either audio quality will be compromised or the overall amp+effects chain very limited

What if they add a button in the Current Cab that allows loading of external IRs instead of the internal ones. Same resolution, same everything, that will only make the external IRs available and the possibility of finding a better suited speaker for the specific guitar or pickup used.

 

That's what many are asking for, the ability to load external IRs and that shouldn't increase the DSP demand if the current resolution remains the same. I don't see the big deal. This will make the POD HD more marketable. sure more IRs will be sold, but more HDs will also be sold when others hear great recordings where specific external IRs are used. Who knows, some might even strat recording their own IRs of the specific real world setup they use and if 80% of the tone in the speaker (according to cliff chase), then the POD HD can get close. While they'e at it, They can even add a feature to record your own IR, the Mic input can accomplish that. There's already a looper there, so this is not far fetched. They can charge money for both features, quite a few will pay (I know I would).

 

Studio Devil upcoming device will sell for $600 mainly because it will allow external  IRs loading. Some how and to many, having external Ir loading ability, gives a sense that you're getting close to AXE FX territory. Line 6 can accomplish this by creative programming and keep the prices down, they will be everyone's hero  if they aren't already. They definitely have the smartest, most creative minds in the business that can accomplish that and more. I speculate that the only reason it's not done is very likely due to marketing considerations and not to scientific/programming abilities.


  • 0

#63 phil_m

phil_m

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 5490 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis, MN

Posted 20 June 2014 - 05:26 AM

What if they add a button in the Current Cab that allows loading of external IRs instead of the internal ones. Same resolution, same everything, that will only make the external IRs available and the possibility of finding a better suited speaker for the specific guitar or pickup used.

 

I don't know that the internal cabs are using the same type of technology as an IR file. I would be surprised if it could be a simple one for one replacement where the external IR file consumes the same amount of DSP as the internal one. From what I understand, loading external IRs is relatively processor intensive.
 

I speculate that the only reason it's not done is very likely due to marketing considerations and not to scientific/programming abilities.

 

I think that what Digital Igloo is saying is that right now, it's a combination of both. If adding IR capability would mean that 50% of the available would need to go to the IR block, it wouldn't be a very useful tool to people. Perhaps they could truncate it, but if truncating is seen as a compromise by people who want it, it might end up not even pleasing people. I think there's some logic in not providing a feature that can't be used unless it's really compromised. I think if it were simply a matter of adding a block with the capability and allowing an easy swap, Line 6 would have done it by now. But from what I'm reading, it isn't that easy.


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

 


#64 DeanDinosaur

DeanDinosaur

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 733 posts

Posted 20 June 2014 - 06:24 AM

. If adding IR capability would mean that 50% of the available would need to go to the IR block, it wouldn't be a very useful tool to people....

If at 50% you can still load AMP, EQ compressor and Modulation (forget about reverb), it would be a tremendously useful tool for recording. Any serious recording doesn't need reverb (until the mixing stage).  Dual amp is in no way near double tracking and anyone who is serious about recording has no need for dual amps.

 

For live use, most are using the PODs with AMPs and with the DT series, it's the perfect compliment for live use.  

 

Originally PODs were intended for recording and despite the fact that many use them live, there are still a huge section of users who actually buy them solely for recording. Evolution of the product into something that can also be used as an FRFR for live where you would need the best IR possible, is still no where near as large as those who are interested in the POD as a recording tool. How many guitar players you think pod the early Bean for effects? If line 6 tomorrow comes out with a unit that only does AMP simulation as the main focus similar to the early POD, it's almost certain it would be a big hit even if it relied on the early POD Beans adopters as a target market. Better yet,  if they introduce an IR loader instead of a new amp, even if you loose most of the horse power but can still load a good amp that sound and feels better recorded, it would be a win win for recording artists.


  • 0

#65 phil_m

phil_m

    Uber Guru

  • Line 6 Expert
  • 5490 posts
  • LocationMinneapolis, MN

Posted 20 June 2014 - 06:40 AM

If at 50% you can still load AMP, EQ compressor and Modulation (forget about reverb), it would be a tremendously useful tool for recording. Any serious recording doesn't need reverb (until the mixing stage).  Dual amp is in no way near double tracking and anyone who is serious about recording has no need for dual amps.

 

I don't know how much you could load if 50% were eaten up from the get-go. One thing I can see, though, is that if Line 6 added this capability and people went through their existing tones trying to replace the cabs with an IR and were constantly hitting the DSP limit, that there would be a lot of frustration. I can see them wanting to avoid that scenario.


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

 


#66 stay_gold

stay_gold

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 20 June 2014 - 07:14 AM

hi,i never come to the line6 forum but eard you are talking about IR, so i give you my opinion as a recreational player.i bought a pod hd pro x new around january 2014 and i have hard time finding MY sound so im starting (like a lot a people these days) to investigate IR with my daw.i would like to load IR in my pro x for sure; and im little upset i cant but an old unit like digitech gsp1101(285euros new) can; as i bought my unit new in 2014(735euros).its true that IR was not that important till now but it will be the big thing for late 2014 as everybody is talking about it in forums(1101,epsi,amplifire) and if you make free 3rd party IR possible in the pro x you will see a lot of youtube videos about pro x +IR vs axefx or kemper which is good for your future sells i think.no IR means an outdated product late 2014.
i see some people starting using old multifx like your old pod with external IR(epsi) with great result( no good for current hd sellings)

i wish i can remove all things i dont use in the hd (effects like chorus and noisegate looper and some amps),i dont know if it will make more space for IR.and i think having IR will make people stop using dual amp (lot of dsp) to single amp+IR.for sound quality i wish something like epsi but i will take anything you gave me (even as low as digitech1101).thanks


  • 1

#67 UDNshade

UDNshade

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 20 June 2014 - 07:39 AM

I wouldn't mind having less DSP as long as we have some kind of information about the DSP usage percentage, and maybe the percentage of DSP every effect uses. Even if that information is only available when the HD edit is open. All in all it would be an extra tool for tone shaping, and damn if Pod users don't find ways to squeeze every last drop of tone in creative ways (see setting input 2 as mic or variax, etc).

 

On the general subject of improving the internal cabinet usability , I'm going to repeat 2 of the suggestions an older user by the name of Meambobbo had put to the table:

  1. The ability to use a single amp with 2 cabinet emulations
  2. The ability to introduce a custom delay to the signal in order to phase correct the cabinets. Ideally that would be calculated and applied automatically for each pair of amp and cabinet when using dual amp mode, as well as when seperate effects are applied to each chain. A bit more realistic perhaps for it to be automatic in case single amp-dual cab mode is introduced.

Given that the processing power of the HD series is limited, I believe the above suggestions pose the best alternative that doesn't cripple the amount of effects that can be used in a patch. In order to make it more marketable a bit more sweat would be necessary by the engineering department for automatic signal delays to be applied, but I'd gladly pay for it.


  • 0

#68 DeanDinosaur

DeanDinosaur

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 733 posts

Posted 20 June 2014 - 09:19 AM

I don't know that the internal cabs are using the same type of technology as an IR file. .......
 

 

The current scenario is people attempting to replace the whole cab with an IR. It's pretty frustrating when no one from line 6 can confirm if this is worthwhile. I personally, based on what I hear, don't find any improvement because they're not interchangeable without loosing significant programming and not just the IR when you replace the Line 6 cab with an IR using software Plugins. 

But to answer your question, I'm almost 100% sure that an IR is part of the line 6 cabinet and can be seperated if needed from the other technologies or enhancements.

I don't know how much you could load if 50% were eaten up from the get-go. One thing I can see, though, is that if Line 6 added this capability and people went through their existing tones trying to replace the cabs with an IR and were constantly hitting the DSP limit, that there would be a lot of frustration. I can see them wanting to avoid that scenario.

I'm not sure how to read this and whether your trying to find justification for line 6 not doing or not planing to add this functionality, when the technology and ability has been around for well over a decade. Why would someone go through their fine tuned existing tones and replace the cabinet and expects that his Patch will be better?! And if he or she isn't smart enough to realize that the expectations are idiotic, why should that stop the advancement of technology forward?


  • 0

#69 RIblues

RIblues

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 145 posts
  • LocationRhode Island

Posted 20 June 2014 - 12:20 PM

It appears to me, that any way you slice it, there were have to be a compromise made. The compromise would be a hit to DSP, memory, an effects slot or all of the above. Any compromise whatsoever would be unacceptable, especially for a function that could be categorized as an "option". Any option or accessory that inhibits the function of the device is a fail.

 

However, if custom IR's are deemed a worthwhile investment and avenue for Line6, and polling/survey's show that there is market demand, I believe a separate  device would be the answer.

 

The device would be purchased separately as an accessory and would operate possibly using the Line6 link. It could be similar to the Logidy having it's own DSP, memory and power supply. By utilizing Line6 Link communication, it would know that it is connected to a DT amp, Stagesource, PA, studio monitors etc. and make the necessary adjustments. Being a stomp box, when engaged, it would automatically bypass/disengage the pod's cabinets and mic. Also, a software edit program would be necessary similar to HD Edit that would allow you to create presets using the pod's amps and the custom IR's. Because it communicates via Line6 Link, when you change presets on the pod, the device would automatically load the assigned custom IR. You could also disengage via foot switch at any time which would automatically turn on the pod's built in cabinets and mic that you have assigned. Playing live, you could have a combination of presets using the pod's cabinets and the custom IR's which you could switch on and off on the fly without skipping a beat.

 

The connections could be guitar into the pod, Line 6 Link out of the pod into the device, Line6 Link out of the device and into your DT amp, Stagesource, monitors, toaster oven, whatever. Stereo out, XLR's, 1/4" connection, USB, every connection you would need.

 

Being a separate device and purchased as an option, buy it if that's what you want, don't buy it if your not interested. Having it's own DSP and memory, no hit in power or function to the pod would be required. Line6 could license Redwirez, etc., create their own high resolution IR's, allow you to load any you find and so on. A separate area of Customtone can be created to upload various presets using the pod's amp and Custom IR's from the device for numerous situations like recording studio, playing live, etc.

 

Obviously, it could be updated via firmware on a regular basis and being a separate device, less risk of bricking the pod. It could also be designed to operate on it's own not requiring a Line6 product, opening up another revenue stream and market.

 

Sorry, but I don't have a name for this device, maybe a poll is in order.


  • 0

#70 DeanDinosaur

DeanDinosaur

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 733 posts

Posted 20 June 2014 - 03:48 PM

How is it any compromise if instead of a new amp, an IR/Loader Player is added. If you choose not to use it, you still have the original cab.  currently, there are more than a Hundred effects and amps, you use what you like and you don't use the one's you don't like. Ok you might use up some memory that might be useful to add new amps (like the PODs really need more effects and Amps). If there'a a compromise, it's the current status of the product where there are hundred of effects and they're all compromised to a degree or another by running scaled down algorithms to allow for  the plethora of effects and amps

 

 

It appears to me, that any way you slice it, there were have to be a compromise made. The compromise would be a hit to DSP, memory, an effects slot or all of the above. Any compromise whatsoever would be unacceptable, especially for a function that could be categorized as an "option". Any option or accessory that inhibits the function of the device is a fail....


  • 0

#71 JTSC777

JTSC777

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 105 posts

Posted 20 June 2014 - 04:59 PM

At the end of the recording day IRs' or no IRs'  my tube amps and various cabs are going to sound better. To spend so much time auditioning/choosing/tweaking and money on external gear just doesn't make sense to me as a working pro. The clients I record for especially the main one insist on my playing tube amps and cabs although I tried to use some modelling gear on the last album I recorded for them they would not go for it. Having said that I had some time this morning to really dig into the cabinet sims in my recently aquired HD500 and I think they sound great through good headphones/good studio monitors and cranked up into my Atomic Reactor active wedge with 6L6s' in it. If I need a real speaker cabinet live or for recording I will use one. For all other situations live the HD 500 cabs are quite good IMHO . Yeah some of them don't sound so good but neither do the real ones to my ears. Lots of things to tweak and experiment with when it comes to the HD500s' included cabs. I am hoping to use it to record at least some of my next project and perhaps blend it with real speakers/cabs. 

 

Also quite a few real tube amps have some fizzy sound to them especially when using them for gain. A good JCM800 has some of this. I know because I have a very well maintained 1982 50 watter. A whole lot of realism is modelled into these Line 6 amps and not all of it is pleasant. You have to dial it out and "live" with it a while just like a real amp.It took me a few years to learn how to use that JCM because I learned on Twins and Hiwatts and Bassmans. Now I can play everything from straight ahead jazz to Metallica on it. 


  • 0

#72 DeanDinosaur

DeanDinosaur

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 733 posts

Posted 20 June 2014 - 05:57 PM

1-At the end of the recording day IRs' or no IRs'  my tube amps and various cabs are going to sound better. .....

 

2-Having said that I had some time this morning to really dig into the cabinet sims in my recently acquired HD500 and I think they sound great through good headphones/good studio monitors 

1-Not unless you have excellent Preamps, Mics, speakers and properly acoustically treated room.

2-The original POD 2.0 sounded great and it still does to this day, but POD HD sounds better, and POD HD with the ability to load external IRs will  simply be better than the current POD HD.


  • 0

#73 magpie

magpie

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 80 posts

Posted 20 June 2014 - 11:43 PM

What's the desired sample length for a light version IR?

 

What's the desired sample length for the highest resolution IR?

 

Currently, sample truncation for IR playback in hardware ranges from 256 (Digitech GSP1101 with 3rd-party firmware) to over 65,000 samples (Logidy EPSi in cab mode). The Two Notes C.A.B. truncates user IRs at around 900 samples and IIRC, Fractal started out at 512, and now truncate at 1024 (normal res), 2048 (high res), or 8000 (ultra-high res).

 

Again, a single mono 2048-sample IR may eat up more than half of HD500X's DSP, as it uses a different type of technology as the Logidy.

 

 

Digital_Igloo, thanks for discussing this and I hope Line6 listens. There's a big world outside of this forum and if Line6 implemented support for IR loading it would be an enormous step up in competitive feature power and a win win for both Line6 and the consumers.
The line6 forum might not the best place to ask about the IR features since it's the consumers on other forums that use other products that is your biggest target here who really use IR's. Ask the question and a start a poll on TGP and it will be answered!

Line6 develops great products in the most competitive price range market where +95% of users can afford a product.
Yes, the vast majority of average users will never know much about recording or the big importance of IR's, but the majority of pro's or educated hobbyists do use IR's in DAW or hardware and know how important they are. Cab IR's are far more important for the tone result than amp models since IR's offers almost unlimited tonesculpting.
With IR loading implemented in the PODs the average joe can skip this feature and continue playing with stock IR's like before, but Line6 have now tapped into the market of users who;
-always use their own made IR's from their own guitar cabs.
-only use third party IR's.
-like doing eq tone matching IR's & exactly copy guitar tones from songs & recordings with DAW eq matching software like Ozone.
 
Notice that later this year the Atomic/studiodevil Amplifire desk/floor unit will be released with IR loading feature and several threads about it on the fractal forum have been deleted. Unfortunately Fractal are notorious for censoring posts/threads and ban members on regular basis that mention competitive products. Fractal knows the Amplifire will take some users from them because of the IR loading feature. It makes perfect sense for Line6 to implement this lower cost feature that is the most powerful feature for creating great guitar tones. It would be a good consumer boost for the Line6 company.

Regarding IR resolution & sample lenghts.
Several tests show extremely small differences (if any) comparing Hi and normal res Ir's and most can't hear any difference in blind tests.
I'd suggest get the most common used resolution and lenghts, no need to go hi res at all. I don't care about the hyped Ultra res in the axe fx at all after comparing. The ultra res boarders to be false marketing, created as a closed format that can be markeded and it's proven by Jay Mitchell to have less resolution, unlike the marketing claims. He knows more than most about IRs and speakers.


  • 0

#74 RIblues

RIblues

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 145 posts
  • LocationRhode Island

Posted 21 June 2014 - 03:04 AM

DeanDinosaur:

 

It's a compromise when you load a custom IR, and as Digital Igloo stated above, some mono Ir's could use 50 % of the DSP. Yes, the pod has 100 effects and some 30 amp models. But, it was designed and built with those and it works as advertised. Also, as you stated previously, the need to use an amp or effects block to load the player. If a customer purchases the unit thinking that he or she can run dual amps and up to 8 effects, then tries to add an IR unit, and it's a no go. That's a compromise. Yes, it would be the individuals choice and they should understand how it will work, but can you imagine the emails that Line6 support will get and the forum post bit@#$%& and complaining how all of their presets that they created can't be used with their new IR device that Line6 gave the okay to use.

 

JTSC777:

 

Thanks for your input, but most of your post are preference and personal opinion. If your tube amps are clearly preferred than your interest in IR's are void any way. Also, I know recording musicians as well, and they prefer modeling. You can research one and read his columns over at Guitarworld.com. Finally, why should you have to spend hours tweaking them and they still come up short? That hasn't been my experience.

 

Magpie:

 

Good post, thanks. The Axe and the Atomic where designed from the bottom up to be able to load custom Ir's, the pod is not. That's the issue. I've read many user experiences from those that have used the Torpedo and the Logidy with the pod and they came to the same conclusion, it was good, but not the night and day result that they were expecting. Why? Maybe DeanDinosaur is correct, you can't completely turnoff the pod's onboard cabs. If that's the case, then custom Ir's are a no go. I don't know if that's true but it would explain the common user experience with trying to use them.

 

Whatever the case or opinion, the current hardware is not going to be able to load custom Ir's in it's current state. Therefore, it would be an option that would have to be integrated in the next generation. Is it worth the time and investment and possible compromises that may have to be made to fully utilize the function? I don't believe so. I feel strongly that it should be a separate unit as I described in a post above, designed by Line6 to communicate with it's other products. Then it's a win, win for everybody.


  • 0

#75 stay_gold

stay_gold

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 21 June 2014 - 06:49 AM


 

Whatever the case or opinion, the current hardware is not going to be able to load custom Ir's in it's current state. Therefore, it would be an option that would have to be integrated in the next generation. Is it worth the time and investment and possible compromises that may have to be made to fully utilize the function? I don't believe so. I feel strongly that it should be a separate unit as I described in a post above, designed by Line6 to communicate with it's other products. Then it's a win, win for everybody

 

 

i dont care about next generation, the pod pro X  is a late 2013 unit and i hope it can compete with some others units even the gsp1101 from 8years old.the epsi is $200 and i didnt bought it cause you cant control presets via midi but im sure you will see a unit under $250/300 doing that soon.waiting for a seperate unit from line6 will be a long wait imo and the competition is already there.i hope line 6 will give us a free update to load free 3nd party IR soon,no matter the quality at least to have more cab choices.thanks


  • 0

#76 Akeron

Akeron

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 333 posts

Posted 21 June 2014 - 08:33 AM

And here Logidy tell us what they think about it

 

http://www.thegearpa...7&postcount=110


  • 0

#77 DeanDinosaur

DeanDinosaur

    Gear Head

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 733 posts

Posted 21 June 2014 - 09:23 AM

DeanDinosaur:

 

It's a compromise when you load a custom IR, and as Digital Igloo stated above, some mono Ir's could use 50 % of the DSP...

 

What I'm suggesting as well as everyone who's advocating External IR functionality, is to be able to load an external IR that's the exact resolution as the LINE 6 IR that resides in the POD HD. That should require the same DSP if it's done from the Line 6 Cab (how much DSP was required to add the newer cab parameters?. If Line 6 IRs are very low resolutions customers don't have to know that because line 6 can release a PC/mac editor to convert all IRs  to the native LINE 6 IR resolution/Format. I don't know what the resolution of the current POD HD but I'm hoping it's a 512-point IR. Digital iglo stated that "a 512-point IR is the ideal size for that particular scenario." which would be great but whatever it is, it's doable without any compromises if the resolution remains the same.


  • 0

#78 Vacantplanet

Vacantplanet

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 12 posts

Posted 21 June 2014 - 10:50 AM

I think it'd be great to add IR functionality, even if it takes up more DSP. Alot of guys right now run 3 or 4 eqs  to get a desirable sound or to try and dial unwanted artifacts from the stock cabs. How much DSP does that consume compared the proposed 512-point IR? If this cab thing actually becomes a reality and a few more amps, a happy camper I'll be!


  • 0

#79 RIblues

RIblues

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 145 posts
  • LocationRhode Island

Posted 21 June 2014 - 12:59 PM

And here Logidy tell us what they think about it

 

http://www.thegearpa...7&postcount=110

That's interesting and it's pretty much what I have been reading with user experiences. Evidently the pod cab and mic models are quite good.


  • 0

#80 RIblues

RIblues

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 145 posts
  • LocationRhode Island

Posted 21 June 2014 - 01:09 PM

What I'm suggesting as well as everyone who's advocating External IR functionality, is to be able to load an external IR that's the exact resolution as the LINE 6 IR that resides in the POD HD. That should require the same DSP if it's done from the Line 6 Cab (how much DSP was required to add the newer cab parameters?. If Line 6 IRs are very low resolutions customers don't have to know that because line 6 can release a PC/mac editor to convert all IRs  to the native LINE 6 IR resolution/Format. I don't know what the resolution of the current POD HD but I'm hoping it's a 512-point IR. Digital iglo stated that "a 512-point IR is the ideal size for that particular scenario." which would be great but whatever it is, it's doable without any compromises if the resolution remains the same.

I understand what your saying and I'm with you, but if we are talking the same resolution, what is it that you are trying to accomplish. Do you feel that the pod's cabs and mic's leave some thing to be desired? Or are you looking for more options?

 

Also, we still do not have an answer to the question that you posed earlier: Can the pod's cabs be completely disabled or bypassed? If the answer is no, then you will never get to the goal that you want to achieve. If they can be, than external IR's may be a worthy experiment. The answer is apparently in post #76 that Akeron put up earlier.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users