These forums are read only, please use our new forums here.

Main :: DT50/DT25



I am done with the DT50!
by tommy1170 on 2011-01-24 12:06:51

Well folks, I am sad to say it, but I give up on the DT50.  It is an amazing sounding amp by itself but the promise of "complete integration" with the PODHD500 simply was not realized in its current iteration.  I think Line 6 had a GREAT idea but really flubbed a number of the core details of how to make it a reality.  Furthermore, the numerous bugs, etc. have plagued this setup.  What I - and I suspect many customers - really wanted was something akin to a Vetta II Tube Amp.  They really NAILED  the Vetta in my book.  If they took that platform, upgraded the preamp models with the HD models, and used the Bogner Power section, they would have had a real winner.  Especially if they retained the stereo operation.

Some other interesting observations from my experience that may benefit other L6 users here:

  • Preamp Models - I know L6 says otherwise but I am quite sure that the preamp models on the v1.1 of the PODHD and DT50 firmware were NOT the same.  The DT50 had different, and to my ears, much better preamp modeling.  I know there are posts on the boards that say otherwise, but the differences were too severe for that to be the case.  And I fully understand all the PODHD output modes and DT50 topologies and such.  The bottom line is that they were different.
  • PODHD/DT50 Firmware Update v.1.2 - The second I played the PODHD500/DT50 combination with the updated firmware, I could hear a big difference - for the better I might add - not withstanding the well document complaints with the Uberschall revisions.  I am SURE the L6 Techs read these boards and internally discuss and respond to our feedback.  The 1.2 firmware sounds much better than the 1.1 - especially the cleans.  Having said that, it too is buggy and like many users, my PODHD stopped recalling the DT50 power amp selections I saved.  When recalling presets, all the settings went back to their default values.  I did not have this issue in 1.1, where these functions worked perfectly.  I know they'll eventually get it sorted out, but why do we have to be beta testers to such extremes when plunking down $2K for the "flagship amplification" setup from L6?  They can and should do better!
  • Control of the DT50 from the POD - Whether its using L6 Link, or MIDI, they current crop of user manuals are severely lacking.  I would think for the "fully integrated" setup, I could control the topologies, etc. from the PODHD.  Also, why is there not a full MIDI implementation manual.  I would have been happy if I could have used my PODHD as a glorified FBV pedal for the DT50.  There is so much that should be possible on the integration front that currently requires lots of workarounds.  Why make the DT50 fully controllable by the PODHD?  Why can't I use my DT50 preamps and the PODHD effects to free up DSP space and get the best of both?  This combo has such potential, but its just not there yet.  And where the heck is the DT50 Advanced Users Guide
  • Background Noise - I know this issue is well documented but for a $1300 "flagship amp", the think is way too noisy, in ALL operating classes.  And please spare me the "that's just normal for a tube amp" comments.  I have owned and played TONS of tube amps and NONE of them have the level of hum at rest as the DT50 does.  It is super annoying and from what I understand, L6 is aware of this issue.  I got one of the very first DT50s to hit the market and I suspect I have an early production model that has some kinks, because the amp is way too noisy.
  • Interestingly, after applying the firmware updates, I plugged the PODHD500 into my Vetta II Head's effect returns jack, set the output to studio direct, and was BLOWN AWAY by how good the PODHD sounded throught the Vetta Head.  It was infinitely better than any sound I have ever got out of the PODHD with the DT50 and was DEAD QUIET at rest I might add.  I was SHOCKED at how much better it sounded, as I tried this setup with the v1.1 firmware and thought the DT50 sounded better at the time.  For what its worth, I still think the DT50 by itself sounds the best out of all combinations.  They really nailed the tone.  Its the platform and the integration - and the background noise - that sinks the total ship.
  • My new setup is going to be the PODHD500 going through the Vetta head, which will allow me to really take advantage of the dual amp tones and stereo effects, as I have a (2) L6 Spider Valve 4x12s.  I can't believe how much better the PODHD sounds through the Vetta than through the DT50, and all of the switching and control options I want are in that package.  Line 6 needs to revisint the Vetta III concept.  I think they should come out with the "Vetta HD" and give us what we tought the PODHD/DT50 combo really was
  • In conclusion, I remain a huge L6 fan but they really blew it on the DT50/HD500 integration.  My DT50 is going back to Sweetwater tomorrow as I've given up.  The platform is just not there yet.  L6 should also revisit its communication policies.  For sure, trade secrets and competitive/future products information should remain highly confidential.  However, if there was better transparency and communication around known issues and plans to address them, foks might hang in with the company and the products a lot longer.  This is especially true as appears that L6 is moving upmarket into thinks like boutique-class tube amps in such.  For a $300 Spider IV, I'll be patient for a good product at a low price point.  For a $2K "Flagship Amplification", "Fully Integrated" platform, my patience is dramtically less.  Something to consider.

OFFER TO LINE 6 - I will offer to do beta testing for you for FREE on future products.  And I will be very happy to pay full price for any future products that I might ultimately purchase after providing product testing.  I am a 20-yr. IT consulting professional and very well off so I am not looking for income or product free bees.  I am simply a devoted music fan and longtime L6 user.  I just love making music and L6 products so if you ever need another set of educated ears and thoughtful feedback, let me know.  Thanks - Tom



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by Lespaulidas on 2011-01-24 12:38:05

hear ya bro.  I am frustrated as well..  I expected better integration too.   There is no doubt that the preamps are different.  I can not match a DT50 tone I fell in love with, with a modeled amp from the HD500.  Why can't I save this setting as a "Amp" in the HD500? 

Thanks for the heads up on  vetta head (no pun intended).  I may have to look at other amp options as well.  Or possibly ditching the HD500 and just using the DT50 with traditonal pedals.  Because the DT50 is phenominal by itself.   With the HD500.. -not so much when you compare the straight up tone of the DT50 versus the HD500 linked to one IMO (on certain tones - which happen to be the ones I like).



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by tommy1170 on 2011-01-24 12:45:18

That's just it, you would expect NOT to have to choose BETWEEN the DT50 tone and the PODHD500 tone.  Everyone on the forums, L6 and otherwise, universally agree that the DT50 sound better by itself.  In fact, MUCH better.  It's got more punch and tone and feel.  Which is fine, but I did not buy the DT50 as a simple 2-channel tube amp.  If that was all I wanted, I would have bought a Mesa Dual Rectifier or Mark V.  I bought the DT50 because it was "fully integrated".  In fact it is not.  Why do I have to choose the DT50 tone I LOVE, but lose all of the cool presets, effects and switching capabilities of the PODHD?  Or simply use the PODHD for all that stuff but lose the incredible DT50 tone.

This is a platform integration issue and it has not been sorted out.  And by the way, just to be clear, while the v1.2 preamp tones are much better, they are still in fact very different from the preamp models in the DT50 itself.  They are different, I don't know how or why, but they definitely are.  The PODHDs don't come close the the DT50 by itself.  I'm done with it.

Tom



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by TheRealZap on 2011-01-24 12:59:13

not going to argue... because if it doesn't work for you, then you should rightly move on....

couple of points.

the reason you can't directly just control the dt50, has to do with the audio traveling one way... meaning it can't turn around and pick up post effects from the HD.

also.... you'll notice that the dt50 isn't marketed as a full 4 model amp... the term model is NEVER used in official documentation....

it is voicings...  the dt50 has 4 voicings... those voicings are based on the same models that are in the HD, but the dt50 is perhaps not as simple as it's exterior suggests.

it's likely doing things and making changes to the power amp that are only possible in the analog realm...

that's the reasons that real amps sound better than models... or so the theory goes.... (i'm far from an amp guru)

i'm very pleased with the models and the DT50...

in any case, you have your reasons... and that's good enough...

best of luck with whatever works for you.



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by tommy1170 on 2011-01-24 14:32:35

Zap-

Appreciate your response, and have gained quite a bit of knowledge from reading many of your excellent posts.

Regarding the DT50 control issue, to clarify, its not a question of pre vs. post audio.  Its a firmware issue related to the ability of the PODHD500/DT50 to pass digital control information between the two devices.  I accept the fact that all audio sent to the DT50 is in effect "pre", meaning I can't put an effect such as a chorus post the DT50 preamp models.  Although as an aside, the DT50 reverb is in fact post preamp on the DT50 itself so I have to believe post effects are possible and could be achieved via a future firmware update.  In any case, getting back to the control issue, other users and experts on this forum (most notably Crusty) have suggested it is infact possible to change the voicings, pentode/triode, operating class, and even volume control using the PODHD500 via MIDI.  However, there is NO available documentation on what MIDI channels the DT50 uses, and therefore how exactly to configure these commands using the PODHD.

On the concept of 2-channel vs. 4-channel.  That was never an issue I raised.  I fully understand the DT50 is a 2-channel amp with four amp voicings available.  The issue I raised - and it is a very valid issue - is that the DT50 "voicings" are in fact HD preamp models.  So the DT50 takes its own HD preamp models then feeds them to the power amp depending on the voicing selected on the amp.  In effect the voicing swithc is really a preamp model switch, and therefore a "digital" control.  The DT50 pentode/triode and operating class switches are the "true analog" controls over the DT50 tube power amp section.  Now....  If the PODHD500 preamp models were EXACTLY the same as the DT50 preamp models, there would be NO difference between the sound of the two - even when the analog variables are identical.  In fact, however, there are SIGNIFICANT differences in sound between the preamp models on the PODHD and the DT50, which is why the DT50 sounds so much better than the POD.  In fact, the careful observer will note that v1.1 of the PODHD firware was released on 9/30/10 while the v1.1 of the DT50 firmware was released on 11/15/10.  My strong bet is that L6 made some improvements to the DT50 models.  That would also explain while the preamp tones between the PODHD and the DT50 on the v1.2 firmeware updates are much closer sounding - but still not EXACTLY the same.  Someting is different still for sure....

The other strong suspicion I have is that the output modes on the PODHDs somehow color the sound, and in fact make it thinner when it hits the DT50.  There are significant variances in the sounds output from the DT50 depending on the output mode selected.  What L6 should have done - and still should do - is to have a "true DT50" output mode.  That is to say that the final signal that hits the DT50 power amp stage is EXACTLY the same as if it were coming from the DT50 itself.  That includes signal level, tone curves, etc.  Furthermore, there should be (4) new amp models added to the PODHD500 that are EXACTLY the same as those on the DT50 itself (i.e., DT50 NFLI DT50 NFL II, etc.).  The optimal scenario would be you set the output mode on the PODHD500 to "DT50" and then select one of the "DT50" amp models on the POD then - bang - you have EXACTLY the same sound from the POD as you would from the DT50 itself.  Folks could then layer on whatever additional effects they wanted and everyone would be happy.  Since the preamp models in the PODHD and DT50 are both digital, why wouldn't L6 do this?  It just makes sense.

***

Please don't take any of this as being overly critical.  I am a huge L6 fan and have benefitted immensly from these forums.  I'm just trying to give something back to the community based on my experiences with the PODHD and DT50.  And as I said originally, the PODHD500 itself kills.  Its great.  But the DT50 by itself sounds the best.  L6 should address these issues so the DT50 can be a true representation of "flagship amplification" from L6.  My two cents....

Tommy



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by gtrman100 on 2011-01-24 15:04:43

First- I'm sorry that you're having problems with your DT50. I think there are a few separate issues you're having:

> the noise problem you're having isn't normal. My DT50 is as quiet as my other tube amps, except in Topology III(AC30). It has fairly loud 60hz hum in this mode, probably because they couldn't design the amp to run in Class A and the other modes without it. It's not a problem for me when I start playing.

> the preamp models in the DT50 might be slightly different than the HD, but I am very happy with the tones I'm getting with HD preamps. I'm sorry you're not. I know they say that they are identical- I- Fender Deluxe, II-Marshall JTM-45, III- Vox AC30, IV- Mesa Dual Rec, I haven't tried to replicate them. What difference are you hearing? Are you saying you can't get excellent tones using the HD preamp models?

> software 1.2 bugs- I've had none of that. My topology mode, Class A/AB, Pentode/Triode switches work perfectly with the HD in control. There is a technical problem there that Line 6 needs to address.

>HD control over DT50- you are completely right, Line 6 should never release a product without complete documentation. They finally have released the Connectivity Guide for the DT50/ Pod HD units, but it should have been with the release of the product. I'm sure that delivery dates promised, etc, had something to do with it. But, as was stated before, it was never claimed that the Pods would act like a midi controller over the DT50. Maybe you expected it, but it was never promised. Maybe down the road they will release midi implementation documentation, and maybe there will be a software update with the HD's to allow it, but it was never in the product description.

> I've never heard a Pod HD through a Vetta, but I'm shocked that you think it sounds great. Are you listening to it in a band situation or solo? I had a Vetta for a while, and never bonded with it. I didn't have 1/10th the dynamics, fullness and warmth that the DT50 has, IMO. To me, the solid state output stage in the Vetta was it's weakest point, and could never cut through or sound rich in a band situation. It amazes me that you think the HD into a Vetta sounds better than the HD into a DT50.

Anyway, I'm sorry that you're giving up on the DT50. I'm not a L6 fanboy, but the DT50 is the first L6 amp that can compete with the best boutique amps out there, IMO. Good luck with your tone quest.



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by TheRealZap on 2011-01-24 15:20:10

i'm not sure if you've already gotten rid of the DT50... but if you are so inclined, make a couple of A/B recordings and post the tone file, and i'll do what i can to get the examples some attention from L6,... at the end of the day,  me and all the other "experts" are only users, so all we can do is point things out... so i certainly can't make any promises....



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by tommy1170 on 2011-01-24 15:30:13

You got it Zap.  Will do.  Thanks again for the feedback and support.  You guys are a real asset to this community.  Tommy



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by Rowbi on 2011-01-24 20:59:34

tommy1170 wrote:

Well folks, I am sad to say it, but I give up on the DT50.  It is an amazing sounding amp by itself but the promise of "complete integration" with the PODHD500 simply was not realized in its current iteration.  I think Line 6 had a GREAT idea but really flubbed a number of the core details of how to make it a reality.  Furthermore, the numerous bugs, etc. have plagued this setup.  What I - and I suspect many customers - really wanted was something akin to a Vetta II Tube Amp.  They really NAILED  the Vetta in my book.  If they took that platform, upgraded the preamp models with the HD models, and used the Bogner Power section, they would have had a real winner.  Especially if they retained the stereo operation.

Some other interesting observations from my experience that may benefit other L6 users here:

  • Preamp Models - I know L6 says otherwise but I am quite sure that the preamp models on the v1.1 of the PODHD and DT50 firmware were NOT the same.  The DT50 had different, and to my ears, much better preamp modeling.  I know there are posts on the boards that say otherwise, but the differences were too severe for that to be the case.  And I fully understand all the PODHD output modes and DT50 topologies and such.  The bottom line is that they were different.
  • PODHD/DT50 Firmware Update v.1.2 - The second I played the PODHD500/DT50 combination with the updated firmware, I could hear a big difference - for the better I might add - not withstanding the well document complaints with the Uberschall revisions.  I am SURE the L6 Techs read these boards and internally discuss and respond to our feedback.  The 1.2 firmware sounds much better than the 1.1 - especially the cleans.  Having said that, it too is buggy and like many users, my PODHD stopped recalling the DT50 power amp selections I saved.  When recalling presets, all the settings went back to their default values.  I did not have this issue in 1.1, where these functions worked perfectly.  I know they'll eventually get it sorted out, but why do we have to be beta testers to such extremes when plunking down $2K for the "flagship amplification" setup from L6?  They can and should do better!
  • Control of the DT50 from the POD - Whether its using L6 Link, or MIDI, they current crop of user manuals are severely lacking.  I would think for the "fully integrated" setup, I could control the topologies, etc. from the PODHD.  Also, why is there not a full MIDI implementation manual.  I would have been happy if I could have used my PODHD as a glorified FBV pedal for the DT50.  There is so much that should be possible on the integration front that currently requires lots of workarounds.  Why make the DT50 fully controllable by the PODHD?  Why can't I use my DT50 preamps and the PODHD effects to free up DSP space and get the best of both?  This combo has such potential, but its just not there yet.  And where the heck is the DT50 Advanced Users Guide
  • Background Noise - I know this issue is well documented but for a $1300 "flagship amp", the think is way too noisy, in ALL operating classes.  And please spare me the "that's just normal for a tube amp" comments.  I have owned and played TONS of tube amps and NONE of them have the level of hum at rest as the DT50 does.  It is super annoying and from what I understand, L6 is aware of this issue.  I got one of the very first DT50s to hit the market and I suspect I have an early production model that has some kinks, because the amp is way too noisy.
  • Interestingly, after applying the firmware updates, I plugged the PODHD500 into my Vetta II Head's effect returns jack, set the output to studio direct, and was BLOWN AWAY by how good the PODHD sounded throught the Vetta Head.  It was infinitely better than any sound I have ever got out of the PODHD with the DT50 and was DEAD QUIET at rest I might add.  I was SHOCKED at how much better it sounded, as I tried this setup with the v1.1 firmware and thought the DT50 sounded better at the time.  For what its worth, I still think the DT50 by itself sounds the best out of all combinations.  They really nailed the tone.  Its the platform and the integration - and the background noise - that sinks the total ship.
  • My new setup is going to be the PODHD500 going through the Vetta head, which will allow me to really take advantage of the dual amp tones and stereo effects, as I have a (2) L6 Spider Valve 4x12s.  I can't believe how much better the PODHD sounds through the Vetta than through the DT50, and all of the switching and control options I want are in that package.  Line 6 needs to revisint the Vetta III concept.  I think they should come out with the "Vetta HD" and give us what we tought the PODHD/DT50 combo really was
  • In conclusion, I remain a huge L6 fan but they really blew it on the DT50/HD500 integration.  My DT50 is going back to Sweetwater tomorrow as I've given up.  The platform is just not there yet.  L6 should also revisit its communication policies.  For sure, trade secrets and competitive/future products information should remain highly confidential.  However, if there was better transparency and communication around known issues and plans to address them, foks might hang in with the company and the products a lot longer.  This is especially true as appears that L6 is moving upmarket into thinks like boutique-class tube amps in such.  For a $300 Spider IV, I'll be patient for a good product at a low price point.  For a $2K "Flagship Amplification", "Fully Integrated" platform, my patience is dramtically less.  Something to consider.

OFFER TO LINE 6 - I will offer to do beta testing for you for FREE on future products.  And I will be very happy to pay full price for any future products that I might ultimately purchase after providing product testing.  I am a 20-yr. IT consulting professional and very well off so I am not looking for income or product free bees.  I am simply a devoted music fan and longtime L6 user.  I just love making music and L6 products so if you ever need another set of educated ears and thoughtful feedback, let me know.  Thanks - Tom

I'm with Zap on this one.  I totally respect your opinions, but I would tend to differ in my own opinions.

as far as I'm aware the firmwares in the DT50 and POD HD have always had the same 4 voicings available.  the DT50 doesn't switch class when you switch the voicings on it, that's why they're called voicings.  the POD HD does change these.  the Dual Rec and the AC30 on the DT50 wont directly mimic the POD HD by default, but the controls are there to do it.  so on the DT50 you'd select voicing III, then switch it to class A.  on the POD HD you'd just need to select AC30 pre while connected to teh DT50 and it would default to NFL III and Class A on the DT50 power amp for you. the dual rec is similar in that it uses NFL IV on the DT50, whereas the POD HD will use NFL III by default, so you select dual rec on the POD and then change it to NFL IV to sound the same.  I tested all 4 DT50 voicings on my amp and then on my HD400 the other say and they all sounded teh same, both on FW1.20.

reagrding things like the uber, if LIne 6 change it, then I believe it's because they have the real amp and think the model didn't sound good enough on the previous FW version, so they updated it.  that's good enough to me.

on the control issue, perhaps there's some technical reasons why, but you can always use your DT50 like a normal tube amp and put the POD in its loop as your FX pedal, or use the 4 cable method, and a 2 channel switch to change teh DT50 channels?  I don't personally see why people are complaining about having to use the POD tones, as I have proved already and posted in another thread that they're the same.

at the end of the day if it works through the vetta, then that's awesome.  I'm also not 100% sure your DT50 is working correctly, as things like the noise issue, it's so low for me that as soon as I start playing it's in-audible, so to me that means the noise in the background isn't an issue.

keep rockin

Rowbi



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by arcticman on 2011-01-24 23:03:03

Hi Rowbi,

I missed your post proving the POD tones are identical to the four DT50 tones.

Would you please post your HD500 patches along with your DT50 settings that replicate the  four tones.

Also can you please clarify... when using an HD500 and DT50 via L6 link... when I turn off an HD500 amp model in a patch are the enabled FX in the HD500 still configured in their respective pre and post configuration or are the FX routed to the DT50 as "pre" effects?

Thanks



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by Rowbi on 2011-01-25 00:54:39

arcticman wrote:

Hi Rowbi,

I missed your post proving the POD tones are identical to the four DT50 tones.

Would you please post your HD500 patches along with your DT50 settings that replicate the  four tones.

here it is chap: http://line6.com/community/thread/52951i didn't start teh thread, but I posted some good info later through the thread in a few replies. they are POD HD400 patches, but they were very simple setup patches, you should be able to follow my instructions in that thread to replicate., basically all FX off, and the noise gate off, the amp models with all controls at 50% to mirror the DT50.  but reverb off.  the little extra bits of info about the DT50 voicing vs POD HD model differences are also mentioned, as you have to change the POD HD defaults to mirror the DT50.

I will have an HD500 in the next few weeks, and intend to actually record some demos of the HD400 and HD500 through the DT50, using the pre models, then turning the amp off in the PODs, then also just using the DT50 alone.  all with no FX of course. so that will need a bit of time to sort that out...

arcticman wrote:

Also can you please clarify... when using an HD500 and DT50 via L6 link... when I turn off an HD500 amp model in a patch are the enabled FX in the HD500 still configured in their respective pre and post configuration or are the FX routed to the DT50 as "pre" effects?

Thanks

there's a simple diagram on the 3rd page (page 1.1) of the L6LINK Connectivity Guide for POD HD & DT50.  you can get that from the support link at the top of this page, then click product manuals and select POD HD in the list.  it shows digital audio is only 1 way, from POD to DT50, whereas control goes both ways.

At the end of the day though, you are assuming the DT50 amp tones are better than the POD HD amp tones.  from my own test I know that isn't true (I will be doing those other tests and recording the results too I hope).  So the question of why Line 6 didn't allow audio both ways, and that they missed a trick there, is a meaningless statement.  IF you believe what Line 6 and I am saying, which is that the POD and DT preamp tones are the same, then you never need to just use the POD for FX, so the fact that this means all your FX are before the preamp is irrelevant.  Line 6 have provided us with a way to hook up a POD HD with a DT50, and expand the tonal abilities, whilst not losing anything the DT50 could offer.  with all that in mind, you start to undserstand that using the DT50's amp tones with the POD HD FX, is the same thing as using the POD HD for amp and FX, running into the DT50 power amp... there's nothing else to ask for... you can do what you want... maybe it takes a while for people to come around to this way of thinking, but I fail to see why just for the sake of it, people must have it setup in another way, and if they can't it's crap???  it's the users expectation that's at fault, not line 6... as they provided a way to get just what users are asking for, with the only bit that's perhaps missing, is some official guidelines for how to achieve it (which I think they're working on internally).

Hopefully I've not waffled on too much, but it is just so frustrating that each week at band jam I get so many great compliments from my band mates about how good my rig sounds (HD400 into DT50 head, and custom 2x12 cab with stock DT50 speakers, V30 and G12H90)... yet others are saying they just can't get the tones.  i guess it's each unto their own (as the saying goes)... but I feel some of it is down to misunderstanding by the users of how to setup both together.  maybe they're not reading teh manual enough, or maybe it's a lack of clarification on how they should work together... not for me to say really.

Cheers

Rowbi



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by arcticman on 2011-01-25 02:33:27

Thanks for the reply Rowbi,

I missed the "digital" routing diagram in the L6 connectivity guide.

I had already tried your 50% tone stack method to compare the tones. The Blackface is the only model that sounds the same with my HD500 vs my DT50 112 "voicing". (I must still be missing something). Look forward to seeing what you come up with when you get your HD500.

from your other post:

Voicing IV: Dual Recto (on the DT50 this uses NFL IV, on the POD HD, it defaults to III... remember I said the DT50 sounds were voicings... this is perhaps why they're called voicings.  so on the POD, select treadplate, and then change to NFL IV to sound like the DT50 voicing IV)

This is puzzling:

If the models are identical why is the Treadplate topology different?

Which model is actually the "authentic" Treadplate? The HD500 using Topology III or the DT50 using Topology IV?

Also, I'm not assuming the DT50 tones are better than the HD500... just different. (maybe it's just a volume/level issue). I agree with you, the HD500/DT50 tones are fantastic. Fortunately, I haven't had the problems others have posted (except for the few verified bugs) with either my HD500 or the DT50. No plans to return either one. However, I do wish the Line 6 techs would participate more in these discussions.

Thanks again,

Cheers



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by Rowbi on 2011-01-25 02:33:43

I just found this: http://line6.com/l6link/

it'san FAQ on the Line 6 link and does confirm some of the things I've said.

I'm surprised I hadn't noticed that before



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by Rowbi on 2011-01-25 03:56:34

arcticman wrote:


Voicing IV: Dual Recto (on the DT50 this uses NFL IV, on the POD HD, it defaults to III... remember I said the DT50 sounds were voicings... this is perhaps why they're called voicings.  so on the POD, select treadplate, and then change to NFL IV to sound like the DT50 voicing IV)

This is puzzling:

If the models are identical why is the Treadplate topology different?

Which model is actually the "authentic" Treadplate? The HD500 using Topology III or the DT50 using Topology IV?

I am not sure.  BUT here's how the POD HD gives you more ability than the DT50.  with the POD you can select the amp (the treadplate) and although it selects NFL III, Class A/B and pentode, you can change all of those.  on the DT50 tie NFL selection is also the selection of the amp voicing and so can't be split up.

arcticman wrote:


Also, I'm not assuming the DT50 tones are better than the HD500... just different. (maybe it's just a volume/level issue). I agree with you, the HD500/DT50 tones are fantastic. Fortunately, I haven't had the problems others have posted (except for the few verified bugs) with either my HD500 or the DT50. No plans to return either one. However, I do wish the Line 6 techs would participate more in these discussions.

Thanks again,

Cheers

ok, fair point.  I think some others are assuming they are superior.  on the level thing, I assume you're using the pushed in master vol on the DT50, and you're not using pad input on the POD HD?

@Line 6 participating... trust me, they are hearing you guys, but they will only come in and say what I am saying, which obviously is either not helping some people (like yourself... you can't get the same tone) or others are just ignoring some of the advice perhaps.

I'm looking forward to doing some more testing that's for sure.



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by Lespaulidas on 2011-01-25 04:46:33

I mean no disrespect but you are making assumptions of how others have their gear setup in order to discredit their claims the tone is different.  Would you care to come use my HD500 and DT50 and show me?   You claimed yourself, you've only tried it on your hd400.   Sorry as I appreciate your help on these forums, I'm a little put off by your constant assumption we are "crazy" about the tine difference if the Dt50 alone and the POD.   Plug in with my Les Paul and in my setup and I'll prove it.  We've all spent hours tinkering on these things and not all of us are Crazy.  It's a software based product, there's going to be flaws.



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by Nick_Mattocks on 2011-01-25 09:31:30

Hi Lespaulidas

It would be very helpful if you could maybe set up 4 simple presets in your HD500 using the 4 Pre amp models that are the same as the ones in the DT50 and also make sure that the topology switching, Class switching drive, bass, mid, treble, presence and channel volume are set the same as the settings on the front panel of the DT50.  Then if you could take a DI out from the DT50 and plug it into an audio interface and record some like for like short clips for each of the 4 presets you have set up in the HD500 against the same settings direct into the DT50.  It would help to be able to compare the results you get with results of similar tests done by others.  If you could also post your four HD500 presets too that would be helpful.  Basically when conducting a test like this you are better to set and forget the controls on the DT50 itself just matching them to your four HD500 presets so that you are comparing like with like pairs of tests.

I ran through exactly this scenario this morning as it happens as I'm interested to try and find out what's causing some users to apparently notice a difference between the HD500's PRE model and the four in the DT50.  I am working today and took twenty minutes to conduct my fairly rudimentary tests but I didn't have time to drag a separate audio interface out to record any clips - I may do this at the weekend possibly if and when I have more time to spare.  However I had a very good listen and went back several times to double check what I was hearing.

I know my HD500 was properly configured to reproduce the same preset sounds as in the DT50 - nothing clever or different.

I realise as an L6 Expert I'm probably putting my neck on the line with some of you who aren't getting the HD500 to match the DT50 pre-amp sounds - that's not my intention at all, but in all truth I was satisfied that with the HD500 and DT50 212 that I have here that I really could not discern any differences, which may be no surprise as you may expect me to say that as an Expert.  If I had noticed a difference I would say so and that's all I can say on that particular point.  Now my tests aren't by any means conclusive of course as they were done by me on the gear I have here and definitely 'by ear'., but nevertheless the tests were done in a reasonably scientific manner.  There's nothing wrong with my ears - they are just average ears, and using my average ears the results I got were enough to prove to me that the PRE models on the HD500 sound the same as the four PRE models in the DT50 I have here.

It's true I don't know you, your HDx00, your DT50, your guitar or how you would normally set up your gear, but the point here is to try and determine, when comparing apples to apples with your system whether there really is a difference with your gear rather than what I'm using here, and to try and determine that, the more proof that you can offer in support of your personal experience along with audio clips as, examples the better.  There's no guarantees that we will get to the bottom of it, but there will be a much better chance with some documented evidence from users like yourself if obtained in a reasonably scientific way

If and when you do conduct your experiments - I'm not pressuring you here, but it would be useful I'm sure because other people are interested too - it would be good to know when going direct into the DT50, what guitar, which pickup and which input (High or Low) you use on the amp, because to me, your choice of input there I guess could affect how the guitar sound is perceived, and I wonder if this might offer some clues as to what you might be hearing.  In my tests this morning I made sure that there were no effects active in the four patches I made for the HD500 or on the DT50 (reverb).

Had I decided to turn the amp cabs off for instance in the HD500 presets as I think maybe some people who are having trouble matching the HD to the DT50 might have done, then I would have expected a difference in sound.

I have no answers on this other than what I've said here.  I've been following Rowbi's replies to related threads and that's the same information I based my tests on this morning.  I'm certainly not trying to insinuate craziness here on anyone's part and I'm sure that wasn't Rowbi's intention either.  As L6 Expert Users we are here to try and help and that's my intention.

If you don't wish to go to the lengths of recording clips etc... as I've suggested, that's fair enough, but in all honesty I do think it might help get to the bottom of your particular issue.

Thanks

Best regards

Nick



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by Lespaulidas on 2011-01-25 10:12:05

Nick,

I appreciate the effort you are making.  Unfortunetly, I am at work today, and have a busy couple of days ahead of me where I won't be able to spend much time with playing with my gear.  On top of that I don't have a good recording setup at my home to perform the tests and get you what you need.  My band's studio has a nice setup and when we gte back there, I will give it a go then if permissable.  Other than that, this is not a deal breaker for me, and I'm ready to move on.  However, I would like to keep the issue alive to see if something becomes of it, or maybe trigger new features in the future firmware.

One thing I've noticed in these forums is it's very political... LOL  God forbid someone disagree with an expert!  J/K..  I only come on these forums for support not to increase my status so I can get freebies and become a beta tester.   Sometimes others motives are apparent which leads to biased support IMO. 

I've tried with Cabs, no Cabs, tweaking tone knobs.., matching amp voicings, pentode, triode,  the whole gamit.  I did not try to put an EQ, YET, in front which is what Wolbai reccomends.  He also finds the tone mismatch as a problem...  See this thread.. http://line6.com/community/message/233438#233438.  I'm not so sure it's a tone thing, or a responsiveness thing.  I definitly notice my guitar is much more alive with subtle nuances and harmonices with bypassing the hd500 preamp and simply turning the amp on and off via a footswitch, letting channel B through on the DT50.  This is the easiest way in my opinion to try and match the tone.  Like I said I can get it real close, but lose the nuances or "aliveness" I spoke of.  Maybe my ears are more sensitive, but I had some other people in the room and they agree as well.  It is noticeble.  It just stinks I am craving the tone the POD cant get me, YET.  I'll sort it out though and carry on.  This by no means is the end of the world to me, or made me think differently about Line 6.  It's just frustrating.

Don't get me wrong I am not saying this gear sucks, or I regret my purchase.  IMO, It just should be easy to dial in a DT50 tone, and reverse save it back to the pod.  Afterall, if what you guys claim is true, that there is no difference in the PREAMPS, then the POD should be able to decipher what the DT50 is set on and save it, should it not? Then there should be no difference at all after a save, and the POD takes over?  I have suggested this as a feature request a few times and crossing my fingers it will make it in.   In my opinion, it would be nice to dial in my amp sound on the DT50, have the pod recognize which internal preamp matches what the DT is closest too, note the topologies,.. etc, and STORE it.   Seems reasonable to me, and would negate this whole issue.    Instead we have to "reverse engineer" what we think we hear in the DT, and argue on the forums about which are the right ways to go about it..

Thanks again for chiming in.



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by TheRealZap on 2011-01-25 10:18:54

Lespaulidas wrote:


One thing I've noticed in these forums is it's very political... LOL  God forbid someone disagree with an expert!  J/K..  I only come on these forums for support not to increase my status so I can get freebies and become a beta tester.   Sometimes others motives are apparent which leads to biased support IMO.

dude... that's totally below the belt...

all of us experts where on this forum and the one before this one, just trying to help people....

more or less because we enjoy our gear and topics revolving around it...

long before an "expert" existed...

it's not anything of a political thing... L6 picks the experts...

we don't have any mandate to say anything except our own opinions...

also... an expert doesn't mean beta tester... that's up to the product managers at L6 individually.

i'm going to assume that you really didn't mean any offense...

but seriously... off the mark none the less.

which is particularly sad... considering how many experts brought up this issue on yours and everyone else's behalf here....

just saying... sometimes we are trying to help even when we aren't approaching you directly.



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by Lespaulidas on 2011-01-25 10:24:09

Dude relax!  Did you see the "j/k"  (just kidding).. Your super sensitive response is exactly what I meant!  We all appreciate the time you spend here, and it's ALOT.  With your expert status comes some leadership in how you handle people.  Don't be so thinned skinned.   If you cant see how PC this forum is, then you've been here too long.  Nevermind.. let it go..  It was a joke about politics, with some truth to it, as you've demonstrated.



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by TheRealZap on 2011-01-25 10:32:13

i saw the j/k

and i make plenty of jokes myself... but some are cleverly disguised truths...

anyway...

i still disagree with you...

and i'm far from thin skinned...

but i do put effort into helping people here sometimes, and don't have any other motives...



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by Lespaulidas on 2011-01-25 11:09:17

"

which is particularly sad... considering how many experts brought up this issue on yours and everyone else's behalf here....

just saying... sometimes we are trying to help even when we aren't approaching you directly."

You brought this up on my behalf?  Really?  I never saw that communicated.  If so, I appreciate that.  Next time PM me.

This is the problem here...  Yes the expert advice is good and all and appreciated.   So you guys have power to influence Line 6 because of direct communications?, therefore, you are support people in a way (you just held that over my head in your own words)  and yet you want no responsibility of adhearing to any kind of conflict of interest.   Riggghhtt.

What we have is a communication breakdown...  Its all good bro, I accept you disagree with me, and I disagree with you.  We'll agree to disagree. 



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by Nick_Mattocks on 2011-01-25 11:30:21

Lespaulidas

No worries.  If you can somehow get a clear set of clips recorded - they don't need to be done on top notch gear here - I think what I'm getting at is it would be good to have 4 dead simple presets that are set up on your HD500 to match the four PRE presets in the DT50 in some kind of apples to apples comparison.  For that we don't need it EQ'ing up at the recording desk - all we want to know here is for example does patch A with the Blackface Dbl Pre in the HD match the sound of the DT50 in Topology I setting and everything else equal.  Anyhow - no pressure whatever - if you can - great and do it when you can   I work for myself and this is not my job in any way LOL but have spent far too long here today so I'll have to play catch-up tonight to make up LOL.

Yep - these forums are some of the best I've ever used and contributed to, but occasionally it can appear to get a little political and over sensitive.   It is very different communicating via a text medium where there's literally just text and a few smileys to try and convey the intent of a remark to actually sitting down face to face and holding a reasonable discussion about a bit of gear; its srtrong points; its weak points; problems encountered; solutions to problems; subjective stuff like how something sounds.  People are going to disagree or agree wherever they are, but without the body language to back up what individuals are saying it's easy to reach a suituation where misunderstandings can arise and where people feel personally attacked sometimes.  That almost certainly isn't at all a reflection of what would happen in real life though, but yeah you're right it can sometimes get a little heated and unnecessarily so.

Anyhow if you or anyone else who wants to contribute can get some proper comparitive clips together by means of a DI out on the DT50 it might help in trying to resolve whatever issues people have got in matching the DT50 models with those in the HDx00.  That's all really.

thanks

regards

Nick



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by TheRealZap on 2011-01-25 11:42:32

i really don't have direct communications with L6, but us experts talk among ourselves and every once in a while L6 will read up... we sort of filter things for them sometimes... but have no real influence... and i'm not holding that above anyone...

its simply that they are busy making products and enhancing them etc... and dont have time to read all the forums.. particularly discussion based topics... L6 support does read all of the support forums and they in turn filter stuff for others within the company as well...

and i didn't say that i brought it up personally... i said that the experts, brought it up because of your concerns and the concerns of others...

conflict of interests? not really... i'm very interested in the stuff L6 makes... and very interested in learning more about it...

us "experts" learn just as much from users like yourself, as you might learn from us, and often more.

we simply stick around and pass it on, when it can help someone else...



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by Rowbi on 2011-01-26 00:39:40

Lespaulidas wrote:

I mean no disrespect but you are making assumptions of how others have their gear setup in order to discredit their claims the tone is different.  Would you care to come use my HD500 and DT50 and show me?   You claimed yourself, you've only tried it on your hd400.   Sorry as I appreciate your help on these forums, I'm a little put off by your constant assumption we are "crazy" about the tine difference if the Dt50 alone and the POD.   Plug in with my Les Paul and in my setup and I'll prove it.  We've all spent hours tinkering on these things and not all of us are Crazy.  It's a software based product, there's going to be flaws.

At the end of the day I'm just another use like you.  I've hung around here for a long time (not as long as some others though), and I don't know you or most of the other users on here from jack, but I've been willing to give up a lot of my spare time (as have other experts and users) to try and test this out for you chaps that are having problems.  That's up to me of course, and I do not expect anything more than perhaps a thanks at the end if I help you get it sorted, but I could have ignored your question.  I chose not to.

I don't think I ever called you 'crazy' as such (please correct me if I'm going crazy and can't see the post), but the fact of the matter is that myself and others I've talked to can get their POD HD and DT50 to sound the same as the DT50 standalone.  some of those others have the HD500, and I trust their opinion. So based on my own evidence something else must therefore be the first thing that I suggest.  Also in another thread someone else was saying a similar thing to you, and they were turning off the cab sims on the POD.  Not their fault, but it was still something they were doing wrong.

Based on my experience of issues that arrise on this forum, there is an order in which I usually look at them.  this isn't suggesting that you're 'crazy' or stupid, as I've made mistakes with setting up gear, and will continue to do so.  Hopefully when I do, some other user will hopefully realise what I've done and help me out.

Here's my order:

1. I misunderstood the question

2. you haven't set it up correctly

3. your gear is faulty

4. line 6 totally lied to you and just decided one day to say these things work but really dont.  also they couldn't be bothered to test them j/k.

Nick's got some valid points as well as Zap though, and as long term users, their advice and point of view are valid... just as yours are.  And you're right there may be software glitches with a new product, which some users have and others don't... but if no one can reproduce these issues at Line 6, then they can't fix them, so what Nick said about coming up with the proof and the settings will help people to test this out.

and before I close... keep rockin!!!

Rowbi



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by Nick_Mattocks on 2011-01-26 02:35:51

Lespaulidas wrote:

Don't get me wrong I am not saying this gear sucks, or I regret my purchase.  IMO, It just should be easy to dial in a DT50 tone, and reverse save it back to the pod.  Afterall, if what you guys claim is true, that there is no difference in the PREAMPS, then the POD should be able to decipher what the DT50 is set on and save it, should it not? Then there should be no difference at all after a save, and the POD takes over?  I have suggested this as a feature request a few times and crossing my fingers it will make it in.   In my opinion, it would be nice to dial in my amp sound on the DT50, have the pod recognize which internal preamp matches what the DT is closest too, note the topologies,.. etc, and STORE it.   Seems reasonable to me, and would negate this whole issue.    Instead we have to "reverse engineer" what we think we hear in the DT, and argue on the forums about which are the right ways to go about it..

Thanks again for chiming in.

I just re-read the latter part of the thread and looked again at the part of your earlier reply above.

When I was working on my fairly rudimentary tests yesterday, I set all the controls on Channel A on the DT50 to noon and checked the Topology and Class controls were going to be set the same as the equivalent PRE models in the HD500.  With the HD500 connected by L6 Link, I made sure that the HD500 amp controls shown in its LCD  were in exactly the same spots as the physical controls on the amp itself by slightly moving each control on the amp to register its setting in the POD, I also made sure that the Topolgy and Class settings were sent from the amp to the POD.  It's these settings that were saved in my four POD presets.

No reverse engineering required, here - the amp told the POD what it was doing, and then once stored in the POD the POD could then tell the amp what to do when those presets were recalled.

At the end of the day, my tests were simple 'by ear' tests and there is of course room for error there as it is a remarkably quick process for the ear to forget the previous sound and take on the new one as being the right sound, which is why for some of my testing I had to re-listen to some of the presets several times to be as sure as I could that they did indeed sound the same - and I was completely satisfied that they did.  When testing like that and without rooms full of gear capable of analysing every nuance of the audible spectrum, of course there's going to be an element of subjectivity that's hard to prove or disprove, but for the purposes of getting a good sound - which is what it's all about really, for me the level of testing I employed was certainly more than enough to prove as far as reasonably possible without all the scientific gear, that the sounds of the POD do match the sounds of the DT50.

When testing, all you can do is to test as properly and as scientifically as the equipment available will allow you to do.  In this case the 'equipment' was my ears.  Other people can conduct exactly the same tests as I did in exactly the same manner and everyone will hear things ever so slightly differently, but that doesn't really matter as long as what they hear from the POD matches what they hear from the DT50.  Some people with super sensitive hearing may really be able to detect minute differences, but most won't.  Some people may insist that there are differences of varying degrees whether in fact there are or there aren't.  There's no way of proving or disporoving another person's claims about what they hear without rooms full of scientific testing gear, so trust in the honesty of another person's experience and opinion (i.e. what they are telling you they can hear) has to be accepted.   Everyone who has chipped in to this thread has the same interest and that's to determine whether or not there is a difference in how four POD PRE models sound from those same four models in the DT50.

Politics doesn't come into it.  Line 6 certainly wouldn't want all the experts or people that they have testing the units for them to tell them everything in the garden is perfect and rosy if that isn't the case - they want and need to know in as clear and non-anecdotal way as possible that if there are percieved differences in sound, exactly what those differences are with as much evidence as possible to back up claims that model A (POD) sounds different to model B (DT50).  Don't forget that Line 6 have all the gear to analyse what's going on with all the models, and don't forget that they (Line 6) have developed the amp models in the first place and they know beyond all doubt that the models they put in to the POD HD range use exactly the same code as the models they put in the DT50.  That's why the models in the HD range should (and do from my personal experience and perspective - because I have done the tests as outlined) match the models in the DT50 and when the DT50 is set up in the same way as the POD, that's why they do/did sound the same to me yesterday.   

When the evidence is there in the form of two audio clips from amp model A and amp model B through the same power amp and speakers/DI output into the same recording interface with zero post production EQ/FX being added, along with the POD preset that claims to match the settings of the DT50 model it can all be listened to, analysed and double checked for accuracy.

Or we can just have a quick comparitive listen like I did and make a judgement call decision as to whether the two models accurately reflect the same thing.

I think it's great that stuff like this can be debated openly here without anyone getting too heated or too sensitive about the inevitable disagreements, and I think it's great that whatever you're experiencing in terms of perceived or real differences in the tone between your POD and your DT50 that you see it for what it is, and that you are wanting what everyone else wants i.e.: - the equipment to be as good as it possibly can be.  Line 6 likes to hear all kinds of feedback and they do listen and act on it, which is why we have cool products like the JTV guitars, the POD HD range and the DT50 range in the first place.

Anyway - back to the point, if you have the time some point soon, it would be good to have some comparitive audio clips, test notes and HD500 presets used in your tests so that your specific tests can be recreated as necessary. 

Thanks

Regards

Nick



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by JB1973 on 2011-01-26 11:50:37

I am not sure how one more chime in could help but here I am anyway

Let me say I have been as frustrated as anyone trying to get this stuff to work right. I have spent 2 months with this equipment

and been bothering and harassing these forums trying to figure out what the **** is going on with it. In that 2 months of time L6

has been only minorly helpful and in fact outright threw me off the right track at least once, due possibly (?) to their own employees

not knowing how to work this gear. The answers has come from the "experts" and users here on the forums and my own thick

headed realizations. I am even more committed to getting this stuff worked out cause I am past my 45 day return deadline...

so its mine now for sure, lol.

I was dead set not long ago that the preamps and the dt50 were different but I was wrong,

A L6 employee said this on a forum of my about preamps and in an email to me i'll cut and paste. No offense Perry but it did

cost me and probably several others a bit of frustration.

Hi,
 
  I: Fender Blackface Deluxe
  II: Marshall Plexi JTM 45 MKII
  III: Vox AC30
  IV: MESA Dual Rectifier
 
  Regards,

  L6Perry

*******crap went to edit and it got rid of 3/4 of my post************ well i'll summerize i guess**

From USERS I found out that II: is JTM 75.....I could never get 45 to sound like the amp...

From USERS I found out that I should use Treadplate model with voicing IV of the amp

   (not the default III) and not the only preamp that the amp says is voicing IV by default

some people say no cab other say yes cab  (cab btw)

L6 is changing their website wording, adding charts and information and changing wording in the manuals.

I know I printed them all off BEFORE I bought my equipment 2 months ago so I would NOT be beating my

head against the wall for 2 months!..last laugh on me?

What really grinds my gears is there is many many forums and tons of customers like you trying to figure out their

new gear. Maybe we get sidetrack and focused on one thing like this..my dt50 sounds nothing like the preamps...

And all L6 had to do was post the 4 freakin patches for us or document how to achieve the sound. How long would

that have taken? Much Much less time than browsing through the threads I would bet. Just one good response that

covers the bases put it in document section and link to it from everyplace that is appropriate.

But instead they let the infighting, and countless hours be wasted on our end on these forums and

tweaking, and risking.. yes losing customers....and not just the one guy who got fed up but that one guy might have

a popular youtube channel, facebook page, reviews etc. One person these days can reach thousands of potential buyers.

I don't play out live right now except for jam sessions every few weeks, thank goodness I didn't have a time

limit to figure this out like some folks did.

Now that I have at least my leg in the door understanding patches for the dt50 ....on to recording and variax soon



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by tommy1170 on 2011-01-26 15:40:29

OK - I am piling on here.  Like most of us, I too was excited about the possibilities of the POD/HD500 and DT50 combination.  And I do think they will eventually figure things out and give us most, if not all, of what we asked for.  I thought the v1.2 firmware models sounded MUCH better in the PODHD and I am sure they will get the integration right with future f/w releases

Having said all that, I vigorously stand by EVERY SINGLE point I made in both of my posts.  I've seen the responses but re-read my concerns/experiences carefully.  We can argue forever whether the preamp models in the PODHD are the same as the voicings in the DT50 but one thing is for sure - whether they are or they aren't - they sure do sound VERY different.  Granted with moderate to extensive tweaking and comparing you can get close, but its never EXACTLY the same.   And there are too many of us here on the boards that can obviously hear the difference.  So whether its the preamp models or something that differs in the preamp digital signal flows between the PODHD and the DT50, something is indeed different.

L6 should remedy this as soon as possible given the cash we are plunking down now that the company's products are going up market.  I have been a huge L6 fan and user for years since the original Flextones came out, but this has been by far my most frustrating and disappointing experience with the company's products to date.

So in conclusion - L6 - we know you read these forums - and APPRECIATE it I might add.  Please do the right thing and give us what we want - the same preamps/sounds between the PODHD and the DT50, the ability to control channels A and B on the DT50 via the PODHD, the ability to use PODHD on the DT50 pre or post, and MIDI implementation guide to decipher how to use the POD to control all of the DT50's topologies and settings, an output mode on the PODHD optimized for the DT50, etc., etc. etc.

We could go from rants to chants of jubilation in a single firmware update!

Tom



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by Rowbi on 2011-01-27 01:27:47

I will agree to disagree with you on this... because it's obvious we're not going to come to a mutual agreement.  although if you read the chap's last post above, he used to say the same as you, but now agrees the 2 sets of models are the same.

but here's what I know:

tommy1170 wrote:

So whether its the preamp models or something that differs in the preamp digital signal flows between the PODHD and the DT50, something is indeed different.

the point is that the digital signal flows are exactly the same, and the preamp models are the same.  that is totally the point of the L6LINK.  if there was differences, then they may as well say just use the 4CM and MIDI.

tommy1170 wrote:

Please do the right thing and give us what we want - ..... the ability to control channels A and B on the DT50 via the PODHD, the ability to use PODHD on the DT50 pre or post, and MIDI implementation guide to decipher how to use the POD to control all of the DT50's topologies and settings, an output mode on the PODHD optimized for the DT50, etc., etc. etc.

here's part of why I was saying earlier that some people aren't listening.

just for a moment, pretend you believe me and Line 6, and Nick, and that the same tones are in the POD that are in the DT50.  why would you need this?  the PODHD300/400 would give you effectively 128 channels, not just 2.  and the HD500 even more... if thesystem works as I believe it does, then you don't need individual control.  if it doesn't then line 6 will fix that, and you still don't need control like that.  can you at least agree with this?

Also the output mode is already optimised for the DT50 if you use live and combo or stack poweramp....



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by spaceatl on 2011-01-27 14:20:09

I am glad you have posted your thoughts here...The only thing that I don't like about your posts is that you often generalize the integration as PODHD/DT-50....I don't agree with that...

My problem there is that I have an HD400 and a DT50 112 and I think they nailed the integration there...But an HD400 is very different from the HD500...much less rope to hang myself with I guess. I am able to get my Channel B to sound EXACTLY like Channel A (HD400 Pre Models)...I have never tried an HD500, but I do know that there are more than several differences between the units...perhaps one of these days I will go down that HD500 road...right now I am pretty darn happy with the HD400 and my DT50 112...

Anyway, I just see the integration differently in regards to the HD400 and the DT50...



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by JB1973 on 2011-01-27 19:44:11

I am going to be very busy this weekend.. My boy just turned 1 and time to celebrate!!

but if I have time I will do a comparison to show they do sound alike. The problem is people

are not using the right models etc. to get the sound and its very hard for the average player

like myself to get this stuff right without help. Most of us are not computer programers or

techies we are guitar players who are trying to get multiple sounds out of one box. We need

good documentation. Some get you started videos, examples etc. to let us average joe's

have some ahaa moments and get to rockin. Line 6 is good about updates and decent

equipment but in my humble opinion terrible about helping the customer learn said

equipment.

JB



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by spaceatl on 2011-01-27 20:56:45

in terms of the Hd400 I think it has a good manual...I can say that for me hd required a different tweaking approach than I had used for years approaching pod 2.0, xt and SV modeling...at first I was trying stick an eq on the patch because that had always worked before...my main mic of pref changed with hd...forever the sm57 off axis was my goto mic...now it's the 409...it's a lot to get under and I can only imagine the extra little things one has to keep an eye on in hd500...I gonna go there soon as I am wanting a bit more in my chain now and would like to get rid of the outboard pedalboard I use with the hd400...the chase never ends...that much is certain...



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by JB1973 on 2011-01-28 09:10:53

Ok I made some comparison files. I did this with a barking dog and a fussy baby crawling around my jam room

so... if the tones are not exact clones you should be able to say this .. it is the same preamp...

also I did not try to impress anyone with licks this is basically some chords to show they are the same preamp.

I will also load up the patches I used. I like many others who have helped me get to this point are probably very

tired of this argument.

And I think it is just a shame that a L6 moderator did not step in and help weeks ago. Because this argument

is on multiple threads on this site and multiple forums on other forums.

apparently there is a file limit i'll post mp3s next

BTW this is no effects from the pod

just one preamp with default cab and mic using a/b to switch between hd and dt50

recorded from the dt50 cab out into my pc.

treadplate pre  with voicing iv on amp

class A-30tb pre voicing III

Brit P-75 pre voicing II

BF double pre voicing I



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by JB1973 on 2011-01-28 09:11:09

here is the sound clips

also forgot to mention this is volume knob pushed in for all clips



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by Lespaulidas on 2011-01-28 10:44:34

Finally back from a busy couple days.. I alos have a newborn (3 weeks)...anyway...

Thanks for doing this JB.  This is about the tonal differences I hear as well..  So I think you captured it well.  It's more apparent on the Lead IMO, which is the tone I was playing with that had me perplexed.  The second sample on the Lead (after the pause) def sounded muffled compared to the first.  This is what I experienced as well.  In a live setting, it's even more noticeable in my opinion.  Maybe someone can describe how to cure this, or explain what we're doing wrong. You'd think countless hours of trial and error would figure it out though....  Although, Wolbai also found what we did, and gave up by using an EQ in front to get that DT50 tone.

Thanks.



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by JB1973 on 2011-01-28 10:54:10

Hate to break it to you bro but the second lead example after the pause was the dt50



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by Lespaulidas on 2011-01-28 11:01:02

It doesn't really matter which way it was. It was different when dialed in as a match- according to what the experts/L6 told you correct?  I also am dealing with a live scenario and my ears, whereas this is recorded.  So not really apples for apples anyway for me to compare.  But anyhow, the differences (according to my ears) sound about the same to mine, and what I was chasing or trying to match, which is what I was trying to explain.



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by Lespaulidas on 2011-01-28 11:08:10

All in all.. thanks for at least posting sound clips.  I wanted to but was limited with my time and resources (also run a business).  I'm pretty sick of this issue, and am going to move on with work arounds.  I'll await future f/w or better documentation and see what happens.  In the meantime,  have fun and keep rockin!



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by JB1973 on 2011-01-28 11:19:25

Sure bro, no problem

for me once I had the correct models used the cabs etc. it all fell into place.

I am moving on as well, but since I started some of this I thought I would try

to put it to rest or calm it down at least.

rock on

JB



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by wolbai on 2011-01-28 14:22:51

Hi JB1973,

Great that you finally fell into place with the DT50/HD500. And great as well how you attemp to bring the discussion - how to control the DT50 via the POD/HD - down to earth. That doesn't mean that I am happy with the "try and error method" several users (like me) have gone through due to an obvisously lack of LINE6 documentation in that context - not at all. I absolutely agree with you in that case. But at the end: the right things will find its way, although sometimes these ways are paintaking.

And the DT50/HDXXX-rig is THE RIGHT ONE. And I am quite shure it will become even better with future fw-releases.

For me as a live-oriented Coverband musician this rig is outstanding to me: the DT50/HD500 makes my guitar singing and crying and: KNOCKING ON HEAVENS DOOR.

So I like to give a little contribution to calm down the discussion too. Attached you will find me jamming to that Bob Dylan song in a way as an old 70/80s classic rocker like to do. I'm  lousy when it comes to recording but I tried my best to bring the Voicing IV (Treadplate) of the DT50 down the road with the POD/HD pre amp model.

Rock on guys!



Re: You can do anything with the DT50!
by Crusty_Old_Rocker on 2011-01-28 14:59:08

tommy1170 wrote:

In any case, getting back to the control issue, other users and experts on this forum (most notably Crusty) have suggested it is infact possible to change the voicings, pentode/triode, operating class, and even volume control using the PODHD500 via MIDI.  However, there is NO available documentation on what MIDI channels the DT50 uses, and therefore how exactly to configure these commands using the PODHD.


Hi Tommy,

What I have referred to is undocumented at the moment but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

I am not going to go into specifics because if I do something silly and it crashes my amp that's fine, but if someone else's amp crashes, I don't want to be responsible for that.

Anyone with a sound knowledge of MIDI can use simple tools like MIDI-OX to learn what CC# control what parameters and the data values to control or trigger those parameters.  That's what I have done with the DT50 and it all works very well.  I can use the HD500 as a MIDI controller for the DT50.

I would strongly suggest that anyone who doesn't know how to collect the MIDI information or program it into a controller really shouldn't be messing around with such things.  That is why I have not posted any details on how to do this.

There is information on the MIDI channel used by the DT50 in the L6LINK Connectivity Guide for POD HD & DT50 documentation.

See: http://l6c.scdn.line6.net/data/l/0a06434d35a94d264bada4bea/application/pdf/L6LINK%20Connectivity%20Guide%20for%20POD%20HD%20&%20DT50%20(Rev%20A)%20-%20English.pdf

__jive_macro_name="quote">The other strong suspicion I have is that the output modes on the PODHDs somehow color the sound, and in fact make it thinner when it hits the DT50.  There are significant variances in the sounds output from the DT50 depending on the output mode selected.  What L6 should have done - and still should do - is to have a "true DT50" output mode. 

They have this already.  The COMBO PWR and STACK PWR in HD500 are voiced for the DT50 because the two are designed to work together no other amp has the L6LINK so why would the output on the L6LINK be "tuned" for a Marshall, Peavey, Fender or Mesa Boogie amp?  They don't have any L6LINK.

Furthermore, there should be (4) new amp models added to the PODHD500 that are EXACTLY the same as those on the DT50 itself (i.e., DT50 NFLI DT50 NFL II, etc.).  The optimal scenario would be you set the output mode on the PODHD500 to "DT50" and then select one of the "DT50" amp models on the POD then - bang - you have EXACTLY the same sound from the POD as you would from the DT50 itself.  Folks could then layer on whatever additional effects they wanted and everyone would be happy.  Since the preamp models in the PODHD and DT50 are both digital, why wouldn't L6 do this?  It just makes sense.

The DT50 can sound the same as 4 of the models in the HD500.

A previous post specified:
 
  I: Fender Blackface Deluxe
  II: Marshall Plexi JTM 45 MKII - This should be the Park 75
  III: Vox AC30
  IV: MESA Dual Rectifier

This information came from a Line 6 tech support person.

When set up the same they do sound the same between the HD500 to DT50 and the DT50 stand alone.  Have you tried switching off the cab modelling?

Anyway, I'm sorry to hear you can't get the DT50 to do all you want it to.

I do, however, want to point out to you that it's not that the DT50 can't do it, because I have proved that it can.  All it takes is a solid knowledge of MIDI and the time and effort to get it done.

Cheers,

Crusty

Message was edited by: Crusty_Old_Rocker to correct the error on voicing II



Re: You can do anything with the DT50!
by
Rowbi on 2011-01-29 00:56:06

Crusty_Old_Rocker wrote:


previous post specified:
 
  I: Fender Blackface Deluxe
  II: Marshall Plexi JTM 45 MKII
  III: Vox AC30
  IV: MESA Dual Rectifier

I think II is the Park 75.  Perhaps the initial voicing II was going to be the JTM45, and was then changed, hence the confusion from L6

Cheers

Rowbi



Re: You can do anything with the DT50!
by Crusty_Old_Rocker on 2011-01-29 01:17:47

Woops, Rowbi is correct, it is the Park and not the JTM45.  Sorry folks.

Cheers,

Crusty



Re: You can do anything with the DT50!
by tommy1170 on 2011-01-31 06:55:00

Crusty-

Thanks for the reply.  Firstly, let me say this to EVERYONE, and especially the experts....  Thank you.  I appreciate all the support and input we receive here on the forums and know that the intent of all the discussion is solely to help.  And also, as I have mentioned before, I am a big L6 fan.

Regarding the PODHD500/DT50 combo, I am beginning to think that there is something different between the PODHD500 and the PODHD300/400 in terms of tone, etc.  Most of the folks that have gotten real close between the POD and the DT50 seem to be using the 300/400.  And I said most, not all.  Perhaps there is something in the signal flow of the PODHD500 that makes it sound different.  For example, the mixer block on the PODHD colors the tone subtly.  In any case, I still stand by my comments that something is off.

Crusty - I release you from any and all liability and complaints if you can show me how to control the DT50 via MIDI using the PODHD500.  PM me if you can.  That would at least hold me over until L6 addresses my major gripes in future FW releases.  If I could use the PODHD for volume control and channel switching, I would be golden - for now.

Thanks again folks and I am glad that others are really happy with this combo.  I am still hopeful for the future, but not exactly thrilled with the present.

Tommy



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by ricksox on 2011-02-03 10:46:28

tommy1170 wrote:

Well folks, I am sad to say it, but I give up on the DT50.  It is an amazing sounding amp by itself but the promise of "complete integration" with the PODHD500 simply was not realized in its current iteration.  I think Line 6 had a GREAT idea but really flubbed a number of the core details of how to make it a reality.  Furthermore, the numerous bugs, etc. have plagued this setup.  What I - and I suspect many customers - really wanted was something akin to a Vetta II Tube Amp.  They really NAILED  the Vetta in my book.  If they took that platform, upgraded the preamp models with the HD models, and used the Bogner Power section, they would have had a real winner.  Especially if they retained the stereo operation.

I'm sorry it took me a while for me to chime in here. And I am sorry the DT50 didn't work out for you. We definitely value your feedback.

Some other interesting observations from my experience that may benefit other L6 users here:

  • Preamp Models - I know L6 says otherwise but I am quite sure that the preamp models on the v1.1 of the PODHD and DT50 firmware were NOT the same.  The DT50 had different, and to my ears, much better preamp modeling.  I know there are posts on the boards that say otherwise, but the differences were too severe for that to be the case.  And I fully understand all the PODHD output modes and DT50 topologies and such.  The bottom line is that they were different.

From what I hear this was not the case and I am certainly not disputing what you have claimed to hear. I can follow up with our engineering teams to see what the deal is here. please keep in mind though, we call the modeling on the DT50 "voicings" because they should be viewed as having characteristics of these famous amps but may not necessarily sound exactly like them. I'll follow up with our product managers to get some better messaging up on what the philosophy behind the voicings are to at least help people understand how they CAN be used...not SHOULD. Also, why exactly was this a problem for you? I'm being serious here. Even if they did not match exactly to the POD why does this pose a problem for you? How did it get in your way of playing? What did it limit you to do?


  • PODHD/DT50 Firmware Update v.1.2 - The second I played the PODHD500/DT50 combination with the updated firmware, I could hear a big difference - for the better I might add - not withstanding the well document complaints with the Uberschall revisions.  I am SURE the L6 Techs read these boards and internally discuss and respond to our feedback.  The 1.2 firmware sounds much better than the 1.1 - especially the cleans.  Having said that, it too is buggy and like many users, my PODHD stopped recalling the DT50 power amp selections I saved.  When recalling presets, all the settings went back to their default values.  I did not have this issue in 1.1, where these functions worked perfectly.  I know they'll eventually get it sorted out, but why do we have to be beta testers to such extremes when plunking down $2K for the "flagship amplification" setup from L6?  They can and should do better!

We do (and did) listen to your feedback and we always try to push that feedback up the chain. In regards to your POD HD not recalling the DT50 power amp selections, that doesn't sound right. That sounds like a bug, assuming you were saving correctly. Can you elaborate on this a bit?


  • Control of the DT50 from the POD - Whether its using L6 Link, or MIDI, they current crop of user manuals are severely lacking.  I would think for the "fully integrated" setup, I could control the topologies, etc. from the PODHD. 

I must be missing something here? You can control topologies form the POD. Do you mean you'd like to see these controls in the POD's LCD GUI? Can you please elaborate? Also, we should have a MIDI implementation manual up very soon for the DT50. I apologize to everyone that it took this long to get one up.

Why can't I use my DT50 preamps and the PODHD effects to free up DSP space and get the best of both?  This combo has such potential, but its just not there yet.  And where the heck is the DT50 Advanced Users Guide?

Again, I'm confused. If you set and save your POD patches with NO amp modeling, you can save the DT50 NFL voicing per patch on the amp's channel B, essentially doing just this. If I'm missing soemthing please let me know. It wouldn't be the first time.   In regards to the advanced guide. What exactly does the POD advanced guide and the L6 LINK advanced guide lack that a DT50 advanced guide would include? Can you please specify?

  • Background Noise - I know this issue is well documented but for a $1300 "flagship amp", the think is way too noisy, in ALL operating classes.  And please spare me the "that's just normal for a tube amp" comments.  I have owned and played TONS of tube amps and NONE of them have the level of hum at rest as the DT50 does.  It is super annoying and from what I understand, L6 is aware of this issue.  I got one of the very first DT50s to hit the market and I suspect I have an early production model that has some kinks, because the amp is way too noisy.

The background noise in the DT50 has been discussed a lot here in house. There are differing opinions and IMO the amp isn't that noisy. Some of the topologies hiss and hum a bit more and to be honest I'm not sure if that's just the way Bogner designed this amp. Not discounting you, just offering up my thoughts on this. I realized you have played tons of tube amps but have you ever played a Bogner? An Uberschall or a Shiva? From what I understand these amps can all be noisy.

  • Interestingly, after applying the firmware updates, I plugged the PODHD500 into my Vetta II Head's effect returns jack, set the output to studio direct, and was BLOWN AWAY by how good the PODHD sounded throught the Vetta Head.  It was infinitely better than any sound I have ever got out of the PODHD with the DT50 and was DEAD QUIET at rest I might add.  I was SHOCKED at how much better it sounded, as I tried this setup with the v1.1 firmware and thought the DT50 sounded better at the time.  For what its worth, I still think the DT50 by itself sounds the best out of all combinations.  They really nailed the tone.  Its the platform and the integration - and the background noise - that sinks the total ship.
The Vetta is a solid state amp and I would have to think it would be much quieter. Apples to oranges here. I'm glad that you are pleased with the sound of the POD and Vetta paired up. At the end of the day, isn't that what we're all here for?
  • My new setup is going to be the PODHD500 going through the Vetta head, which will allow me to really take advantage of the dual amp tones and stereo effects, as I have a (2) L6 Spider Valve 4x12s.  I can't believe how much better the PODHD sounds through the Vetta than through the DT50, and all of the switching and control options I want are in that package.  Line 6 needs to revisint the Vetta III concept.  I think they should come out with the "Vetta HD" and give us what we tought the PODHD/DT50 combo really was
Again, I'm glad you found a tone you love. Tone is subjective and although I think the DT50 sounds light years better then the Vetta I completely respect your opinion.
  • In conclusion, I remain a huge L6 fan but they really blew it on the DT50/HD500 integration.  My DT50 is going back to Sweetwater tomorrow as I've given up.  The platform is just not there yet.  L6 should also revisit its communication policies.  For sure, trade secrets and competitive/future products information should remain highly confidential.  However, if there was better transparency and communication around known issues and plans to address them, foks might hang in with the company and the products a lot longer.  This is especially true as appears that L6 is moving upmarket into thinks like boutique-class tube amps in such.  For a $300 Spider IV, I'll be patient for a good product at a low price point.  For a $2K "Flagship Amplification", "Fully Integrated" platform, my patience is dramtically less.  Something to consider.

It's too bad you gave up Tom but I'm glad you were able to at least find a use for the POD with your Vetta. Have fun and good luck. As far as "full integration" goes, I'd challenge you to find any other setup that can remotely come close to what the POD HD and DT50 can do. I don't want to argue semantics about how I define "fully integrated" versus what you think it is but I still think we've come pretty close. If you have specific requests then please let us know and submit them appropriately via our Product Feedback link.

OFFER TO LINE 6 - I will offer to do beta testing for you for FREE on future products.  And I will be very happy to pay full price for any future products that I might ultimately purchase after providing product testing.  I am a 20-yr. IT consulting professional and very well off so I am not looking for income or product free bees.  I am simply a devoted music fan and longtime L6 user.  I just love making music and L6 products so if you ever need another set of educated ears and thoughtful feedback, let me know.  Thanks - Tom

Thanks for your offer Tom. We will certainly consider this for the next generation of DT50 amps.
Line6Miller


Re: I am done with the DT50!
by arcticman on 2011-02-03 12:49:04

Hello Line6Miller,

Regarding:

Why can't I use my DT50 preamps and the PODHD effects to free up DSP space and get the best of both?  This combo has such potential, but its just not there yet.  And where the heck is the DT50 Advanced Users Guide?

Again, I'm confused. If you set and save your POD patches with NO amp modeling, you can save the DT50 NFL voicing per patch on the amp's channel B, essentially doing just this. If I'm missing soemthing please let me know. It wouldn't be the first time.   In regards to the advanced guide. What exactly does the POD advanced guide and the L6 LINK advanced guide lack that a DT50 advanced guide would include? Can you please specify?

VIA L6 link: I believe what Tom was referring to is when you have NO amp modeling in the POD (or the amp is turned off within the patch) when using channel B in the DT50 all the POD FX are routed PRE to the DT50. So you really don't have full intergration with the POD and the DT50 when using "voicings" on channel B.

By eliminating amp modeling in your patch you would free up DSP space, but again all the FX are roured PRE.

This is my understanding from Rowbi's reply to my earlier post in this thread.

Cheers



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by Crusty_Old_Rocker on 2011-02-03 12:59:20

Then use the 4 cable method and the FX loop on the POD HD.  This will let you have effects before the FX loop as pre and those after the loop as post effects.

Cheers,

Crusty



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by TheRealZap on 2011-02-03 13:02:40

Rowbi is right, but the audio only travels one direction, making it hard to argue that it could somehow be more integrated...

its merely a limitation. the L6 LINK is already sending hi-quality audio and control messages across a simple microphone cable, doing it bidirectionally would be asking alot.



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by arcticman on 2011-02-03 13:13:16

Thanks Guys,

I understand the 4 cable method and L6 routing to the DT50.

I was just trying to help Line6Miller understand Tom's and other users questions regarding integration.

Cheers



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by JB1973 on 2011-02-03 13:24:00

I could be wrong but I think Tom was wanting to be able to use the all 4 Voicings of the DT50 by using the midi

routing existing(?) in the pod. So not use the preamps in the pod, just effects and use the tone, which some believe

to be superior (lets not start that conversation again, lol) in the dt50. As we all know channel B is whatever we set

it up to be and we can turn amp off to get that channel. But what many people at least originally wanted  was to

be able to remotely control everything the dt50 could offer that you could manually change by hand.  As stated

trying to get pre and post effects etc. might be more complicated than most of us realized.

I think much of this could have been avoided with a couple outstanding podhd presets per amp model. But

were here now, and finally 2 months in I am finally getting some of it, lol



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by ricksox on 2011-02-03 13:44:50

arcticman wrote:

Thanks Guys,

I understand the 4 cable method and L6 routing to the DT50.

I was just trying to help Line6Miller understand Tom's and other users questions regarding integration.

Cheers

Yup I appreciate that. Helping me understand what people would like to see or have for functionality is the really the only way we can get improve our products. Again, thanks for clarifying.

Line6Miller



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by ricksox on 2011-02-03 13:58:30

JB1973 wrote:

I could be wrong but I think Tom was wanting to be able to use the all 4 Voicings of the DT50 by using the midi

routing existing(?) in the pod. So not use the preamps in the pod, just effects and use the tone, which some believe

to be superior (lets not start that conversation again, lol) in the dt50. As we all know channel B is whatever we set

it up to be and we can turn amp off to get that channel. But what many people at least originally wanted  was to

be able to remotely control everything the dt50 could offer that you could manually change by hand.  As stated

trying to get pre and post effects etc. might be more complicated than most of us realized.

I think much of this could have been avoided with a couple outstanding podhd presets per amp model. But

were here now, and finally 2 months in I am finally getting some of it, lol

Yes I completely understand now. I just wanted to make sure I understood exactly what the issue was. I can see how losing that kind of control over the DT50 while on Channel B could be frustrating. It's a perfect feature request and I'll make sure I let our developers know.

Line6Miller



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by tommy1170 on 2011-02-03 14:00:19

Forgive the formatting.  I can't figure out how to quote the last comments then add my own.  If someone can show me how I'll make my next post better!  Line6Miller's comments are in purple and mine are in blue....

tommy1170 wrote: Well folks, I am sad to say it, but I give up on the DT50.  It is an amazing sounding amp by itself but the promise of "complete integration" with the PODHD500 simply was not realized in its current iteration.  I think Line 6 had a GREAT idea but really flubbed a number of the core details of how to make it a reality.  Furthermore, the numerous bugs, etc. have plagued this setup.  What I - and I suspect many customers - really wanted was something akin to a Vetta II Tube Amp.  They really NAILED  the Vetta in my book.  If they took that platform, upgraded the preamp models with the HD models, and used the Bogner Power section, they would have had a real winner.  Especially if they retained the stereo operation.

I'm sorry it took me a while for me to chime in here. And I am sorry the DT50 didn't work out for you. We definitely value your feedback.

No worries.  Better late than never!  Seriously though, I appreciate you responding.

Some other interesting observations from my experience that may benefit other L6 users here: • Preamp Models - I know L6 says otherwise but I am quite sure that the preamp models on the v1.1 of the PODHD and DT50 firmware were NOT the same.  The DT50 had different, and to my ears, much better preamp modeling.  I know there are posts on the boards that say otherwise, but the differences were too severe for that to be the case.  And I fully understand all the PODHD output modes and DT50 topologies and such.  The bottom line is that they were different.

From what I hear this was not the case and I am certainly not disputing what you have claimed to hear. I can follow up with our engineering teams to see what the deal is here. please keep in mind though, we call the modeling on the DT50 "voicings" because they should be viewed as having characteristics of these famous amps but may not necessarily sound exactly like them. I'll follow up with our product managers to get some better messaging up on what the philosophy behind the voicings are to at least help people understand how they CAN be used...not SHOULD. Also, why exactly was this a problem for you? I'm being serious here. Even if they did not match exactly to the POD why does this pose a problem for you? How did it get in your way of playing? What did it limit you to do?

All fair points.  Said simply, I just LOVE the sound of the DT50 by itself and was having a very difficult time replicating the sound of the DT50 digital preamp section using the POD.  I wanted all the features of using the PODHD preamps with the DT50 analog power amp.  I have since gotten so close even I can’t tell the difference (will post a separate message on how I did it).

• PODHD/DT50 Firmware Update v.1.2 - The second I played the PODHD500/DT50 combination with the updated firmware, I could hear a big difference - for the better I might add - not withstanding the well document complaints with the Uberschall revisions.  I am SURE the L6 Techs read these boards and internally discuss and respond to our feedback.  The 1.2 firmware sounds much better than the 1.1 - especially the cleans.  Having said that, it too is buggy and like many users, my PODHD stopped recalling the DT50 power amp selections I saved.  When recalling presets, all the settings went back to their default values.  I did not have this issue in 1.1, where these functions worked perfectly.  I know they'll eventually get it sorted out, but why do we have to be beta testers to such extremes when plunking down $2K for the "flagship amplification" setup from L6?  They can and should do better!

We do (and did) listen to your feedback and we always try to push that feedback up the chain. In regards to your POD HD not recalling the DT50 power amp selections, that doesn't sound right. That sounds like a bug, assuming you were saving correctly. Can you elaborate on this a bit?

I know you listen to us.  Never doubted it for a minute.  And appreciate the fact that there is a forum to provide feedback to L6.  My issue was a bug.  I reinstalled the firmware updates on both units and it worked.  The only “bug” that still remains is that the asterisk indicating that there was a change does not show up on the PODHD GUI when you switch the topology for a preset.  They are saving now though, so I consider this “problem solved”.  When I call up a preset on the POD, it has all of the correct settings on the DT50 now.

• Control of the DT50 from the POD - Whether its using L6 Link, or MIDI, they current crop of user manuals are severely lacking.  I would think for the "fully integrated" setup, I could control the topologies, etc. from the PODHD.

I must be missing something here? You can control topologies form the POD. Do you mean you'd like to see these controls in the POD's LCD GUI? Can you please elaborate? Also, we should have a MIDI implementation manual up very soon for the DT50. I apologize to everyone that it took this long to get one up.

Technically, you are correct, the PODHD does control the topologies based on the amp models in the presets.  What I was getting at was I would like the ability to toggle the various settings straight from the POD.  Having access to these configuration settings in the POD GUI would be perfect.  That is what’s “missing” now.  Regarding MIDI, I would simply like to have the option to fully control the DT50 via MIDI (using the PODHD or another MIDI controller).  I just need the manual to walk me through how to set it up.

Why can't I use my DT50 preamps and the PODHD effects to free up DSP space and get the best of both?  This combo has such potential, but its just not there yet.  And where the heck is the DT50 Advanced Users Guide?

Again, I'm confused. If you set and save your POD patches with NO amp modeling, you can save the DT50 NFL voicing per patch on the amp's channel B, essentially doing just this. If I'm missing soemthing please let me know. It wouldn't be the first time.    In regards to the advanced guide. What exactly does the POD advanced guide and the L6 LINK advanced guide lack that a DT50 advanced guide would include? Can you please specify?

Again, technically you are correct, but what I really was after was the ability to control the DT50’s volume and use pre/post effects using the PODHD, while using the DT50’s built in preamp voicings.  Right now, you can’t control the volume of the DT50 using the PODHD (via L6 Link) if no amp is selected.  If there is a way to do this, I haven’t figured it out yet.  Also, as I understand it, all PODHD effects are routed “pre” the DT50 preamps, so you can’t use the PODHD effects “post”.  Think of it this way, what I really wanted was the ability to have the DT50 serve as the “amp model” in the  PODHDs signal flow view (i.e., on the GUI) and mix in pre/post effects and use the PODHD volume pedal.  That is why I was asking for the “true DT50 preamp models” on the PODHD.  Apologies if this sounds confusing.  Does that clarify?

• Background Noise - I know this issue is well documented but for a $1300 "flagship amp", the think is way too noisy, in ALL operating classes.  And please spare me the "that's just normal for a tube amp" comments.  I have owned and played TONS of tube amps and NONE of them have the level of hum at rest as the DT50 does.  It is super annoying and from what I understand, L6 is aware of this issue.  I got one of the very first DT50s to hit the market and I suspect I have an early production model that has some kinks, because the amp is way too noisy.

The background noise in the DT50 has been discussed a lot here in house. There are differing opinions and IMO the amp isn't that noisy. Some of the topologies hiss and hum a bit more and to be honest I'm not sure if that's just the way Bogner designed this amp. Not discounting you, just offering up my thoughts on this. I realized you have played tons of tube amps but have you ever played a Bogner? An Uberschall or a Shiva? From what I understand these amps can all be noisy.

Fair enough.  That was just my perspective.  It’s not so bad that it was a deal-breaker in and of itself.  I just was used to the Vetta and even the SpiderValve MkII, both of which are dead quiet compared to the DT50.  I was not expecting an increased noise floor by going upmarket in the L6 product line.  Again, its not a deal-breaker.  Consider it this customer’s subjective feedback.

• Interestingly, after applying the firmware updates, I plugged the PODHD500 into my Vetta II Head's effect returns jack, set the output to studio direct, and was BLOWN AWAY by how good the PODHD sounded throught the Vetta Head.  It was infinitely better than any sound I have ever got out of the PODHD with the DT50 and was DEAD QUIET at rest I might add.  I was SHOCKED at how much better it sounded, as I tried this setup with the v1.1 firmware and thought the DT50 sounded better at the time.  For what its worth, I still think the DT50 by itself sounds the best out of all combinations.  They really nailed the tone.  Its the platform and the integration - and the background noise - that sinks the total ship.

The Vetta is a solid state amp and I would have to think it would be much quieter. Apples to oranges here. I'm glad that you are pleased with the sound of the POD and Vetta paired up. At the end of the day, isn't that what we're all here for?

I am dead wrong here.  Posted this one too soon.  The sound of something “different” I mistakenly took as better right off the bat.  Truth is, the SpiderValve power amp sounds much better than the Vetta.  Better yet, and I will elaborate in a separate post, I finally figured out how to get “the sound” out of the PODHD500/DT50 combo.  So in fact, I’ll eat some crow here.  The DT50 sounds the best by far.  The SVMkII was a close second though ;-).

• My new setup is going to be the PODHD500 going through the Vetta head, which will allow me to really take advantage of the dual amp tones and stereo effects, as I have a (2) L6 Spider Valve 4x12s.  I can't believe how much better the PODHD sounds through the Vetta than through the DT50, and all of the switching and control options I want are in that package.  Line 6 needs to revisint the Vetta III concept.  I think they should come out with the "Vetta HD" and give us what we tought the PODHD/DT50 combo really was

Again, I'm glad you found a tone you love. Tone is subjective and although I think the DT50 sounds light years better then the Vetta I completely respect your opinion.

Nope – I was wrong.  The DT50 sounds way better than the Vetta.  You guys were right on there.  Wish I could take that part of my original post back.

• In conclusion, I remain a huge L6 fan but they really blew it on the DT50/HD500 integration.  My DT50 is going back to Sweetwater tomorrow as I've given up.  The platform is just not there yet.  L6 should also revisit its communication policies.  For sure, trade secrets and competitive/future products information should remain highly confidential.  However, if there was better transparency and communication around known issues and plans to address them, foks might hang in with the company and the products a lot longer.  This is especially true as appears that L6 is moving upmarket into thinks like boutique-class tube amps in such.  For a $300 Spider IV, I'll be patient for a good product at a low price point.  For a $2K "Flagship Amplification", "Fully Integrated" platform, my patience is dramtically less.

Something to consider. It's too bad you gave up Tom but I'm glad you were able to at least find a use for the POD with your Vetta. Have fun and good luck. As far as "full integration" goes, I'd challenge you to find any other setup that can remotely come close to what the POD HD and DT50 can do. I don't want to argue semantics about how I define "fully integrated" versus what you think it is but I still think we've come pretty close. If you have specific requests then please let us know and submit them appropriately via our Product Feedback link.

Fair points - and you are right.  Nothing else out there is nearly as integrated as the PODHD/DT50 setup.  I think the issue is we all realize how much L6 is onto something here and that more could/should be done to let this combo reach its "true" potential. Truth is, I did not give up.  After cooling down I decided to wait it out for future firmware updates and held onto the DT50 Head.  Surprisingly, another post on these forums got me thinking about another setup option, which turns out is exactly what I was looking for, so in fact, I am back to the PODHD500/DT50 as my main setup.  So I remain a loyal customer and regular DT50 user.  It is some amp.  Its been a frustrating experience in dialing it in though….And I did submit at least (2) if not three feature requests relative to my original posts.  So thanks for providing that option to us users.

OFFER TO LINE 6 - I will offer to do beta testing for you for FREE on future products.  And I will be very happy to pay full price for any future products that I might ultimately purchase after providing product testing.  I am a 20-yr. IT consulting professional and very well off so I am not looking for income or product free bees.  I am simply a devoted music fan and longtime L6 user.  I just love making music and L6 products so if you ever need another set of educated ears and thoughtful feedback, let me know.

Thanks - Tom Thanks for your offer Tom. We will certainly consider this for the next generation of DT50 amps. Line6Miller

Sure thing.  I don’t need any compensation and I’m not looking for free products.  I simply love L6 gear and am happy to provide any feedback that you and other L6 users/customers would find useful.  My offer stands!  Thanks again for your response.  Tom



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by silverhead on 2011-02-03 14:10:49

tommy1170 wrote:

Forgive the formatting.  I can't figure out how to quote the last comments then add my own.  If someone can show me how I'll make my next post better!

If you mean this sort of thing, I got that by clicking on the speech bubble that's above right of the emoticon symbol that appears in the top pane when you reply to a post. Then you edit out what you want to leave the point(s) you are responding to in a previous post.



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by Crusty_Old_Rocker on 2011-02-03 16:58:09

Tommy,

You stated:

What I was getting at was I would like the ability to toggle the various settings straight from the POD.

Regarding MIDI, I would simply like to have the option to fully control the DT50 via MIDI (using the PODHD or another MIDI controller).  I just need the manual to walk me through how to set it up.

I have full control over switching all the switches on the front of the DT50 using the footswitches on the POD HD500.

Take a look at this thread: You">http://line6.com/community/thread/55490

"Youcan switch between the 4  topologies, the 2 classes, pentode/triode, channel A and B as well as  change all the knob settings in real time - all of this can be done  using any MIDI controller (including the POD HD or FBV MkII) or  automated in a MIDI sequence without the guitarist having to touch anything.  Anyone with sufficient expertise in MIDI can quite easily achieve this.   This is not documented, I have not read how to do this in any manual and therefore it would not be something that is supported by Line 6.   But, I am sure that I am not the only person on the planet who is doing this, the more technically minded musos and certainly any competent studio engineer out there would be doing this too.

I'm not going to publish a "how to" on this because this is one of those  things that really should only be done by people who know how to do it.   Inversely, those who don't know how to do this, probably shouldn't even try.  The fact remains, however, that it can be done."

Cheers,

Crusty



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by Crusty_Old_Rocker on 2011-02-03 17:00:45

It might be worth reading several of the later posts in the thread:

http://line6.com/community/thread/55490

Cheers,

Crusty



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by JB1973 on 2011-02-03 17:44:21

Apparently that thread was considered a threat to all mankind and it had to be removed



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by Crusty_Old_Rocker on 2011-02-03 20:13:38

Hmm, for some reason the link mutated.

Try this: http://line6.com/community/thread/55490

Cheers,

Crusty



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by wahwahferrar on 2011-09-14 03:54:37

After having the same frustrations concerning not being able to match the sound of my guitar straight into the dt50 when using the pod hd500 and L6link, I worked out the difference.

If the dt-50 is on low power mode (master volume pulled out), you need to use the full amp model (not just the preamp) to get the same tone. Actually, it's  a very similar tone - I think ithe slight differerence is to do with how the dt-50 'backs off' the power amp modelling as you turn it up.

With the dt-50 on full power mode (master volume knob pushed in), I manged to get identical tones.



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by TheRealZap on 2011-09-14 06:02:22

actually pulling the knob out for low power mode automatically engages the full model instead of the pre model....

this could account for the difference in sound... since its trying to emulate hitting the tubes without the volume...

either way glad you made some sense of it... great amp... just a whole new set of rules



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by relayerjb on 2011-09-26 10:48:02

Zap, do you mean it engages the full model on the DT50?  Or is it able to take an HD preset which uses the Pre model and actually engage the full HD model?

(now that the DT25 is coming out this thread has interested me ;-)



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by TheRealZap on 2011-09-26 10:50:56

it will engage the full model in a preset with the pre selected if the low power mode/knob is pulled.



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by relayerjb on 2011-09-26 10:54:57

Seriously??!!   That is beyond cool.  Does it have a default for the DEP of each amp model?

And what happens if your patch already has the Full model?  I assume nothing would change other than volumes?

ps thanks for the quick reply!



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by Icewind on 2011-11-09 09:39:48

TheRealZap wrote:

it will engage the full model in a preset with the pre selected if the low power mode/knob is pulled.

Ok, wait, wait, wait.  I'm going to make you say it one more time just so I'm sure. 

I created a setlist of 22 patches on my HD500, each having only a volume pedal and the pre for each amp model (and the default cabs).  I use L6 Link to connect to my DT25. 

So you're saying that when I switch my DT25 to Low Volume Mode (which I'm assuming here is the same as the knob-pulling Low Power Mode on the DT50) that my HD500 should automatically switch from the pre models to the full amp models?  Should that be happening visually on the HD500 display as well?



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by TheRealZap on 2011-11-09 10:20:30

i can only assume that the DT25 works the same... (dont have one)

but there will not be any visual way to tell...

but if you are hearing tube breakup at a lower volume... its the full model



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by TheRealZap on 2011-11-09 10:21:43

sorry i missed this...

i'm not sure how it will handle the DEP's

but yeah the full model nothing changes.



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by arcticman on 2011-11-10 03:00:23

I don't know for certain... but I don't believe setting the DT50 to low power mode (pulling the master volume out) while connected via L6 Link actually changes a preset HD500 pre-amp to full a amp model.

Again... I don't know for sure... but what I believe occurs is the DT50's internal "voicings" emulate a FULL amp model of whatever NFL topology currently selected on the DT50 when in low power mode.

I: Fender Blackface Deluxe
II: Marshall Park 75
III: Vox AC30
IV: MESA Dual Rectifier

So if your HD500 selected PRE-amp is say a Bassman or Dr. Z... I don't see how setting the DT50 to low power mode is identically duplicating the FULL amp version of these amps as modelled within the HD500.

From my experience... if you want to use the FULL amp models in the HD500 with the DT50 in low power mode via L6 Link... it's best to set the DT50 Topology to "voicing" 1 for all FULL amp models.




Re: I am done with the DT50!
by TheRealZap on 2011-11-10 03:46:01

it doesn't change the preset... the preset is unaffected... it simply uses the full model behind the scenes.



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by arcticman on 2011-11-10 19:19:40

I understand what your saying...

but my point is the FULL model "behind the scenes" is whatever voicing model you have selected (I, II, III, IV) on the DT50. I don't believe selecting the low power mode on the DT50 is equivalent to changing an HD500 pre amp model to a full model.

The exceptions would be the:

I: Fender Blackface Deluxe
II: Marshall Park 75
III: Vox AC30
IV: MESA Dual Rectifier

Aren't all the other FULL amps modeled in the HD500 unique unto themselves to replicate the orignal amps?

All of this is just semantics... but it is fun to discuss. With all the configurations available with the HD500/DT50 the possibilities appear endless.




Re: I am done with the DT50!
by tshugart on 2012-04-23 18:45:00

I've had a Vetta Head since they came out - the first one, not the second - and almost got a DT50. Instead, I splurged and got a Mark V and am going to disable the modeling on the HD Pro and use it solely for an effects processor. I still thing the DT50 is too digital. IMHO, digital amp modeling, even if it is hybrid, isn't the same as the real thing and I don't think it will be for a long time.



Re: You can do anything with the DT50!
by spikey on 2012-04-27 16:36:56

Regarding the PODHD500/DT50 combo, I am beginning to think that there is something different between the PODHD500 and the PODHD300/400 in terms of tone, etc.  Most of the folks that have gotten real close between the POD and the DT50 seem to be using the 300/400.

Well thats interesting.... I use a Pod HD Pro. Does this mean that my combination might also sound worse than say,  a DT50 and a Pod 3/400?  Or perhaps this tone difference changes between the same models depending on their manufacture date, or the chips that were available, or on and on and on. Speculation? Talk about a can of worms opened if this is indeed the case....  And yes I hope not too....

I'm with Zap on this one.

Rowbi, no disrepect brother, but can you point to the post where you guys were ever NOT in total agreement on something in regards to defending each others remarks on a reply to a complaint here against a product from Line 6? It would be nice to see that here at least once... I mean if tone is so subjective shouldnt you guys differ a bit too? Gives off bad vibes for me when you guys are ALWAYS of the same opinion on every topic ive read... Another conspiricy perhaps?  ; )

It's a software based product, there's going to be flaws.

Exactly.....

The Vetta is a solid state amp and I would have to think it would be much quieter.  ...(then a few lines further) Tone is subjective and although I think the DT50 sounds light years better then the Vetta I completely respect your opinion.

So the DT50 is lightyears better ahead of the 5+ year old vetta tone wise, but its normal for it to be more noisey?

These are just a few of the statements that caught my attention in this thread....



Re: You can do anything with the DT50!
by MerlinFL on 2012-04-27 23:58:54

I just found this thread and I'm completely confused about the discussion here.  It's all over the place and extremely hard to follow the direction of the discussion.

I'm staying out of the Low Power mode discussion as I never use it because I think it is a horrible representation of the Fletcher-Munson Algorithm.

I'm am very curious about..."who is always agreeing with Rowbi when a negative post is written"?

Tube amps in my decades of experience, with Marshall heads mostly, have always been noisier than solid state amps when idling.  My Vetta which is far older than 5 years.  I bought my Vetta I brand new back in 2003 which makes it over 8 years old and still sounding great.

Tone is very subjective, but what's the question or issue being tossed about?  The tone of a Vetta verses the tone of the DT 50/25 with a POD HD pedalboard?  Or the Pedalboards technologically below the HD500 sound better?  I've never heard or touched anything other than the HD500 & HD PRO I have in my rig besides my Vetta and POD X3 PRO.

I guess if anything I wrote is relevant - terrific, if not - please at least tell me who the other person is that Rowbi seems to be "teamed up" with?

See ya,

Neal



Re: I am done with the DT50!
by YesGuitarMan on 2013-04-19 12:54:03

tommy1170,

Can you share what you did to make the DT-50 alsone and D-T50 with the HD500 tones sound identical?




The information above may not be current, and you should direct questions to the current forum or review the manual.