DunedinDragon

Hughanico, If you do decide to delete the post, I think it would be worth a different post at some point that recaps some of this procedure, but maybe not as an absolute fix-all, but as a tool that can be used to "un-muddy" certain situations. I know I've personally benefited from the awareness of these two parameters and their combined effect on some of my patches, and I think it's worth documenting it in some way for newer users. At least if people are aware of it they can experiment with it and possibly find what they're looking for in their tones.

Helix IS the budget stop gap between Line 6 and AxeFX. I can't see any reason they would do this, at least at this point, and possibly threaten the growth of the marketplace for the Helix. Maybe after they've recovered their R&D costs on the Helix if they feel there's some marketshare to be gained in the gap between the POD HD and Helix, they might consider that. But that seems like it would be at least a year away from making that kind of decision and probably well more than a year or maybe two for design and development of the new product. Even that is a pretty optimistic prediction I think. No matter what, it wouldn't expecct it to be too soon if at all.

It makes me wonder if there's not something in the global parameters area that got messed up with all the updating. Have you gone carefully through each of the screens and verified all the settings there?

You're kind of dealing with a mismatched pair here. You're right in that in this case the audio in would be about the only way to bypass the modeling on the Roland. As the user manual states you need to carefully manage your output level from the POD when you do this. I suspect the easiest way might be to use the headphone out on the POD to the aux/in jack on the Roland using an appropriate patch cable. If you carefully manage the master volume output you should cause any problems. In this configuration you shouldn't be using anything on the Roland other than it's pure amp output the same as you would plugging in an MP3 player, so you'll only get the modeling and effects being produced by the POD.

The cutting out of sound momentarily between different patches is a normal situation on every modeler I've ever worked with. That's because it has to unload the DSP for the current FX and amps and load the next ones for the new patch. There are other various ways to approach this within a patch including multiple signal paths and having multiple FX or even amps assigned to one footswitch. The documentation provides a good description of how to go about such things. Suffice it to say, modelers tend to favor staying within one patch per song. That's not saying you can't do it otherwise if you can live with the slight delay. By the way, to help other people with understanding what you might be saying, it seems you're using the term 'bank' and 'patch' interchangeably. A patch is typically controlled by the front four footswitches whereas changing a bank requires you to first select the up and down buttons to select the bank, then one of the front 4 footswitches to select the patch within that bank.

Any new product gets an initial surge, that's not surprising. The test comes after the initial release and somewhere within the next year as far as how it sustains it's momentum. I'm not really sure Line 6 would make a statement other than what they made at this point. If things go quiet over the next 6 to 12 months, strategies could change. I rarely believe press releases, but I do believe quarterly reports.

IndianRock, I think a lot depends on how well the Helix ends up selling, and the jury is still out on that. I would agree that if the Helix proves to be too expensive to gain adequate market momentum, L6 will be faced with either lowering the price (which will infuriate the early adopters) or do a slimmed down Helix/upscaled POD to attract those of us that can't justify the price point of a Helix. In any case I doubt that will happen soon.

Personally I don't see the manuals as overkill. I keep a copy of the Pilot's Guide with me as a handy reference in my gig back with my HD500X. As manuals go it's pretty well organized and is pretty good at addressing the little memory farts when I forget the sequence of button presses required to do something. The Advanced Guide, on the other hand, may seem like overkill to some, but for me I keep a PDF copy handy on my computer as well. You can learn a lot of stuff through experimentation, but going through the Advanced Guide is very helpful at giving you a pretty decent understanding of how all the pieces work together. I strongly urge new folks to spend some time with it to preclude going down the wrong path to try and solve problems you might run into. As with all computers (and the POD HD definately qualifies as one) there are LOTS of ways to do some of the same things, but some things are better done one way than another. The Advanced Guide gives you enough info to make those types of decisions in 90% of the cases. The other 10% are likely to be answered here.

Yes, the physical EQ knobs equate the the knobs you would normally find on an amp. There are a number of reasons why you would use digital FX EQ's depending on the effect. For example, the EQ knobs for the amp are somewhat wide scoped in frequency range and vary from amp to amp. In some cases you may want to accentuate or deaccentuate a certain specific and tighter range of frequencies within the frequency range than what's set by the amp, so you might appy one of the many, various parametric or graphic EQ FX at the end of the signal chain. In another case you might want to change the tone when you kick into a lead, so you would adjust the EQ knobs on a boost or overdrive pedal to get that effect. Basically the EQ settings on many of the FX are there for fine tuning, but they will all be subject to and affected by the base EQ set on the amp.

FRFR setups aren't ADDING articulation and clarity, they're only revealing what a less well-engineered cabinet/speaker arrangement is physically unable to reproduce. If that were not the case then playing an MP3 recording through a guitar cabinet would sound just as good as if it were being played through a set of studio monitors.

I think the best solution is to normalize the volumes on your patches ahead of time with a sound meter, then set your master volume appropriately at soundcheck time. If you have to bend down and change your volume at performance time, you need to have a LOOOOOONG talk with your bandmates about beind disciplined with their volumes.

Just remember, when you're pointing your finger at someone else there are three of your own fingers pointing back at you. Don't you find it ironic that the one group of people (musicians) most typically obsessed with the getting the greatest and the newst whiz-bang stuff are complaining about new stuff replacing the older stuff??

There's no doubt making the transition to a FRFR rig is scary. I made the decision back in December to do it and am really just now getting to the point of being able to get the clear benefits of the setup. I can't imagine going back to a traditional amp setup at this point because I know what I would lose. But it takes some time and an open mind to adjust to the differences. Here are some lessons learned from my transition. Will you get the same feel as you get from an amp? No. Most of this is due to the difference of how FRFR works in comparison to a guitar amp cabinet. You hear a lot of people talk about the loss of moving air. That's true. Guitar cabinets are pretty rudimentary acoustically in comparison to FRFR speakers. Guitar speakers lose a lot of energy by radiating sound in a broad pattern as compared to FRFR speakers which tend to tightly manage the direction of the sound. The benefit is that the dropoff of that sound over distance is much less with FRFR. The on-stage effect is that it cuts through the mix much better with less volume. Will your existing patches need some adjustment? Absolutely. Guitar amps to my ear sound mushy in comparison to the clarity and articulation provided by FRFR. Again it's a function of very different designs. Basically a guitar amp sends everything through one speaker or several of the same speakers. Higher end FRFR systems have separate speakers to handle different frequencies and typically use DSP and drivers to better manage the frequency range response of the cabinet. For a guitar player this means much greater articulation and clarity in everything you play. But because of these differences you'll no doubt have to change the EQ, presence, and possibly things like the bias of your patch to better match up with the tone your wanting. You'll probably also have to work on your technique a bit more as FRFR speakers are very accurate and sloppy technique that was covered up by traditional amp mushiness will no longer be covered up. One last note or lesson learned. If you go with an FRFR keep a good sound meter on hand when you're creating/modifying patches as a last step to normalize the volume between patches. The human ear has a lot of problems accurately assessing volume. With the clarity and projection of a FRFR system this can be very deceiving and your patches can end up wildly different in terms of perceived volume. Using a sound meter to adjust your final volume to a consistent level fixes this problem.

Okay...all in fun, but two things I've always thought would be useful: A DSP % used display. A last modified/saved date-time stamp on each patch.

For me it would just be easier to see everything in one place to make comparisons about settings for planning purposes.

A lot depends on what your intentions are for the HD500X. In essence, do you intend to eventually use it live or is this just for practice at home? The reason I say this is because the output mechanisms do make a difference in setting up the patches. If, for example you intend to use your Marshall as the live output mechanism for the POD, that's going to be an entirely different setup than going direct to speakers (or what we currently refer to around here as FRFR - Full Range, Flat Response) and there will be some significant differences in the configuration of your patches. As far as the speakers, I haven't personally owned any of the speakers you referred to, but I can give you some generalizations about the differences that may help you decide. Most consumer stereo equipment whether it be headphones or speaker systems aren't typically flat response. The manufacturers add a bit of coloration to accentuate certain aspects of modern music such as heavier bass and mid response. The PA speakers you provided a link for generally are much flatter in their response, but are specifically designed for projection over a longer distance. The effect this can have is the sound can vary if you're too close to them because the sound cone they produce tends to be more rectangular than circular so they don't waste energy projecting toward the ceililng or floor as much as they project wide across an audience. Sitting somewhere between these two are studio monitors which still project in the same type of sound cone as a traditional speaker but are designed for flat frequency response similar to a PA speaker. There are some pretty efficient studio monitors in your price range of under $100 that might work pretty well, but they tend to be mostly designed for dual purpose music, studio reference and have, in some cases, a bass boost circuit that can be enabled for a more consumer-friendly audio output. But you could potentially keep that turned off to get a more flat-response for adjusting your patches on the POD. I personally use a higher end set of studio monitors at home which are specifically designed for flat response, the Yamaha HS8. But that's because I use a FRFR system for live performances and those match up pretty well to what I use there. Eventually no matter what speakers you get, if you're going to go through the Marshall for live performances be prepared to do some changes in the POD when moving from FRFR speakers to an amp output.

You probably went through some weird permutation of unhooking the POD from the software, or some other strange sequence. At any rate...don't do it again!!! ;) Honestly, I think it has something to do with using the "All" button to sync. Not sure what that would be, but I think the process most people follow is to simply sync each patch to the POD once they've got it dialed in and before moving on to the next patch, and then just press the POD's save button to ensure it's written to the POD's memory. I think anything other than that is pretty dangerous if you're modifying a group of patches. That seems too prone to failure if you lose power or something. To be honest, the only thing I use the Edit program for is to save a setlist or a specific patch to my computer's hard drive. The Edit program is nice, but it's not going to be there with you in rehearsal or when it's time to play live. So you might as well learn to modify the patches from the POD interface. Once you've learned the POD interface there's not much reason to use the edit other than to save them.

The problem seems to revolve around using the 'All' selection for saving the Edit setlists to the POD setlists. Unfortunately the HD500X edit manual doesn't say anything about this function, so I'm not sure how it's supposed to work. What is curious to me is that, from your description, it sounds like the setlists on the Edit program displays the correct patches even though the POD itself doesn't. I would think that when you connect the POD to the Edit program, the program would re-sync with the POD and the erroneous patches would be reflected at that point in the Edit program the same as they are in the Pod. But from your description that doesn't seem to be the case. At any rate, if the Edit program is displaying the correct patches AND you have the Pod connected to the Edit program, you might want to try selecting each setlist individually in the Edit program and syncing it with the Pod using the Setlist button rather than the All button. Try it one at a time and see if it changes the setlists on the Pod correctly. Since I've never used the All button to sync with the Pod there may be some odd bug there I'm not aware of.

The main problem here is understanding what you did. First, are you working with the edit program on the computer attached to the POD? When you say you created a new setlist, do you mean you renamed a setlist on the POD to "worship" or that you saved the setlist to a file called "worship" on your computer? It's really not very clear at all what you did exactly from your explanation. Why don't you take some time and compose it more completely and specifically as far as the steps you went through and how you went through them, and exactly what tools you were using to do it, then maybe we could tell you what happened.

I just use the phone mic which is placed in front of me about 3 to 4 feet from the speaker. I don't point it directly at the speaker, but rather towards the room to get the ambient level, which seems to be about right for my purposes.

I also output 1/4" to a Yamaha DXR12 monitor as well as an XLR to the mixer. In my case I keep the DXR12 set at 50% and use my POD master volume to set the appropriate volume for the stage which generally tends to be just below 50% on the POD master volume for live performances and about 43 - 45% in rehearsal. With my stage volume set to appropriately blend on stage, I then gain stage my channel output at the mixing board to match up with the mix for the front of house. In our case we pretty much know where our gain staging levels need to be at the mixing board to have a correct mix, so the only thing that varies venue to venue is the master fader on the mixing board. The reason this works for me is because I normalize the volume levels on all my patches when I build them. I do this by first creating the patch for the sound I want, then using a sound meter app on my phone, fine tune the volume and final EQ for the patches. Generally at around 48% on my POD master volume all my patches normalize at rougly 80 dB. In this way all my patches are at the same relative output level so that if I turn up the POD master volume, they all stay in sync volume wise. Of course I only adjust the POD master volume one time at the beginning of the setup and PRIOR to the sound check and gain staging process on the mixer. Doing it this way I've been able to adjust to any number of different venues. Because 99% of the time the instruments all go through the PA all we have to worry about is getting our stage mix balanced appropriately. The PA does all the heaving lifting. Even in the largest of venues both indoor and outdoor I've never had to go much above 50% on my POD master volume. But that also requires everyone in the band to have some discipline over their sound volumes so they mix appropriately on stage. The added benefit to doing things this way is that you almost have a studio quality output at the board. If I split off a signal from each channel into a multitrack recorder I only have to make very minor adjustments to have a pretty polished result. Here's an example of one such recording: http://www.soundclick.com/player/single_player.cfm?songid=13203974&q=hi

Boy, would this ever make a WONDERFUL utility program. I might even be interested in building it myself if there were some reference somewhere to the formats used for preset and setlist files. Obviously the person that developed the conversion program decyphered them, but I don't know of any place that documents them.

LOL...Good Response.. :lol: In all honesty I understand wanting to get up and productive quickly, but modeling equipment is very different than just a typical effects board. There are a LOT of nuances in not only how you arrange things, but also how you tweak them. I pick up new ideas in this forum almost weekly that help me in refining my patches. But I'm only able to do that because I've become conversant in the language of POD and I understand what's being referred to. This is why spending a little bit of time reading the manual and other helpful aids and videos are crucial to you getting the most out of your rig. I've always made the comparison that the guitar modeling world lies somewhere between the traditional setup of an amp and footswitches, and a full-fledged recording studio in a package. If your intent is to use this live, particularly if you tend to play a range of styles, you need to first understand the technical details and then spend a bit of time planning how you want to implement things to keep your life simple and not make it more complex than it needs to be. I think we see a lot of people that show up in here and get so frustrated that they're ready to dump their POD within weeks of getting it. It doesn't have to be that way if you'll just invest the time and learn how to best configure and use this equipment.

Why read the manual when you can post a question to a forum and what could have been answered in 5 minutes from the manual will take 24 hours?

The XLR output is roughly comparable to that of a microphone which is low impedence as compared to the line level signal on the 1/4" output. Ideally XLR outputs because of their low impedence signals allow for higher current and therefore better signal to noise ratio, and are designed to be sent over longer distances to a mixing board which have pre-amps and can gain stage the signal level appropriately. But going XLR into a powered monitor or speaker which doesn't have a built-in pre-amp will drop the volume considerably due to the lower impedence. Using the 1/4" line out on the POD isn't typically a problem since the distance when going direct to a powered monitor are very short.