DunedinDragon

I think kpsion's reference to the active speaker inputs had to do with him having too high line input sensitivity on his FRFR speaker. If you look up a few responses you'll see where he turned it way down and things began to clear up for him. Basically he was overdriving the line input gain on the powered speaker.

If the POD had 80% less features you wouldn't need it....or at least it wouldn't be worth having.

I have to agree with ts020572. If you're not going to use the POD the way it was meant to be used, then you're probably going to be disappointed. Can it be used that way? Absolutely. But it will be like taking the heart out of the design purpose out of it and eating around the edges. At least in the way you're talking about using it. Clearly lots of people have been very happy using the full range of the POD's capability (inluding modeling) with tube amplifiers as their output mechanism. That is designed into the system. But in that case you're only using your Marshall as a flat response amplifier and cabinet and nothing more. To get the very best out of the POD you have to make the leap into pure digital sound production, and that's not for everyone. That's a complete change in your paradigm of how you play music that comes with a fairly significant learning curve in order to be successful with it. And you have to be very sure that you can really exploit the advantages of the flexibility of that kind of setup into your performance. Those of us that have made that leap would never go back because we use the POD for all those specific advantages it provides and it would be very hard and expensive to duplicate what we get out of the POD in a non digital world. If I were to characterize the type of person that gets the value out of the POD and FRFR setup they would fall generally into two categories. Those that tend to play a range of musical styles and different tones and want to easily exploit various studio crafted setups into their music, and those that are more soundscape creators that use extensive effects and sounds in their music. If neither of these descriptions sound like you, you probably aren't the type of person that will get the value out of the POD that it's designed to provide.

A word of warning, you can get enveloped in creating patches you find out over time you really have no use for them. I did that on my last modeling rig and it took me days to weed through and clean out unused patches to clean things up at one point. But, I have to admit it was a useful learning experience. This time around, however, I decided to organize my efforts up front. I'm really hoping it pays off without having to go into cleanup mode at some point. We'll see how it goes this time....

I haven't personally felt much loss in reverb, but I suppose that's dependent on the type of reverb you use. Generally I stick with the plate reverb for most of what I do, but yours may vary depending on what you use. That's personally why I leave myself some pretty good headroom on setting my GEQ. I could probably lower the high cut similar to what smashcraft has, but I use a wide variety of patches along with different guitars. Some of which I may want more top end particularly when finger picking on a hollow body electric for example to get a bit more articulation. If I don't want that much top end I can always cut it within a given patch using some other EQ effect. As far as your other question about opening up the sound I'm unclear what you're asking. I'm assuming because you said low mid you're talking about 300Hz to 800Hz. You could address that pretty easily on a patch by patch basis with a parametric EQ, or if you wanted to apply it to all patches on the POD you could do that in the GEQ by setting the mid band frequency at around 550 hz and widening the Q to maybe a value of 1.5 then lowering the gain to taste. You might have to play a bit with the Q value to confine it to what you're looking for. Again, I limit what I do in the GEQ because that will apply across the board to every patch, and I want to leave myself some latitude for fine adjustments within each patch, but your needs may be different than mine.

Good luck on your journey. I also go direct into the board from my HD500X, but I still use a separate floor monitor also from a line out of the HD500X. I'm just not ready to put my full faith and trust in the sound engineer for my stage sound.

Using an FRFR system can be tricky. I too was frustrated at first when I started using my unit plugged into my DXR12 active monitor. But here's a rundown of what I found worked for me: Set the volume on your monitor to 50% (12 o'clock position) Leave your DSP controls on their default settings and make all your corrections on the POD Use the 1/4" (mono) line out from the POD into the ZLX-12P input. Access the global settings on your POD (press and hold the View button) and use the right arrow to page over to page 11 and set your Low Cut to 100 Hz and your High Cut to 8.5 Khz. These may vary a bit depending on your speakers response but this takes out the very low and very high frequencies so the speaker responds more naturally to the frequencies used by guitars. Use the left arrow to go back to page 4 on the setup menu and ensure the output mode is set to STUDIO/DIRECT. Press the View button to exit the setup menu. Make sure your guitar in switch on the POD is set to normal and your 1/4" out is set to line. After setting things up this way you should be able to use your amp models (not pre models) and effects normally. Typically the master volume on my POD stays around the 11 o'clock position when I'm using it stand alone to setup patches, and slightly higher at just below the 12 o'clock position when I'm playing live. When I set up a patch I normalize the volume output of the patch to get the same relative volume between all patches. Generally speaking I prefer to not max out the volume setting on the amp. I first get everything sounding right as far as gain and effects, then once I get the general sound where I want it, I'll normalize the volume. Typically I always have a Studio EQ as the last effect in my chain to make final tweaks on low frequencies, high frequencies or overall gain. I'll also sometimes correct the volumes between patches using the volume on the mixer. Sometimes it's a combination of both mixer and Studio EQ. Anyway, that's about it for how I set things up and it works pretty well for me. You may have to fine tune a bit for your monitor's response characteristics, but that should get you close.

I think a lot of that discrepency comes from what our ears are "trained" to hear in a live environment. In most cases we expect to hear the ambient noise from the drums, or even guitar amps, which is typically all filtered out in studio recordings, which is what is used for all sampling and modeling. So therefore when we hear the filtered out sound typical of a studio recording being played live our brain tells us something is missing. But our brain wouldn't register the same complaint were it to hear those same drums or amp on a studio recording played through a PA because it's not "live". At least that's my theory.

I would agree with cruisinon2 that downloading tones can actually end up being counter-productive. You have to remember that there are so many variables outside of the POD such as type of guitar, type of pickups, whether you're output is to an amp, or FRFR speaker, and so forth that ultimately have a HUGE bearing on what a tone will sound like. Your best bet is to download a few patches and them examine them in detail to see how they were set up. Then play with the parameters a bit to examine how it affects YOUR rig. In my opinion you'll never get the best out of your POD until you can begin to master the settings yourself and understand how to create and maniputate patches to match your specific needs. This comes with the dual benefit that when you do take the system live and need to make adjustments, you'll know what you need to do and how to do it.

Maybe you need to back up a bit and get your bearings. When I first got my POD I was a bit frustrated at first trying to flesh out settings. One set of videos that really helped me get a good handle on things were the ones by Peter Hanmer. In particular the one entitled 'POD HD500X Demonstration Part 2 - Peter Hanmer". You can find it on YouTube, just search for the name. I'd post a link to it but apparently there's a problem between my configuration and what the forum software expects in that regard. In that particualar video he goes through step-by-step in how he set up his Marshall JCM 800 sound using a Les Paul Standard. You could use this to go through each step and duplicate what he's doing and compare the sound he's getting with what you're getting. I will say that I did make a couple of corrections outside of what he's covering due to the fact I'm using an FRFR speaker setup. So I needed to tame some of my high end and low end outputs across the board for all amps using the Global EQ. But his video has really been a hallmark in helping me understand how to approach building my own patches.

True the XLR outs from the HD500 are mic level, but that's no problem for a mixing board. You just gain stage the signal during sound checks in the mixing board's pre-amp appropriately as you would all other line level or mic level signals line level or mic level and there's no risk whatsoever of overloading. Unless, of course, you change you master volume on the POD.

You're far more at the mercy of the soundman with an acoustic kit if you're going through the PA than you would ever be with an e-kit. At least with an e-kit you have total control over the mix, timbre, EQ, resonance, sensitivity (to address your dynamics problem) etc. of each piece of the kit which is FAR more control than any soundboard has. And even if you don't go through the PA, sending the e-kit through a good FRFR on-stage speaker will still project better than any un-mic'd kit but with perfectly studio-tuned samples and mixed to perfection if you're adept at the controls of the e-kit brains. I run into drummers all the time that downplay e-kits because they "tried" them, yet when they play our kit which has been setup by our drummer who knows his way around the controls, they love it. It's kind of like the guy that plugs in and "tries" an HD500X and says he didn't like it because he couldn't get the sound he wanted. Yet he never took the time to understand the parameters and how to set things up to get the sound he wants. An e-kit is basically a HD500X for drums. It takes some investment of time in order to understand how to get the best out of them.

A funny, sad, but true story about electronic kits.... A few months ago we had a guest band come in. And rather than bring all their equipment we let them use some of our setup. The group was actually a very good country band with fiddle, steel guitar, and an excellent nashville style guitar player. The drummer had opted to use our electronic kit so our drummer set him up with a good patch. While going through sound checks the steel guitar player made a comment about how bad the drums sounded, so I told the drummer to select his worst sounding, trashiest patch he had, so he selected a kit named "Garage Kit" which sounded like something you'd find at a pawn shop. The steel guitar player said, "yeah, that's MUCH better"!!!! I guess if you've played with nasty, trashy drum sounds your whole life being on stage with kit that sounds like you're in a recording studio with a perfectly tuned and mic'd drum kit must sound like crap to you....

I just center the panning. Most soundboard folks don't like to pan anyway because of the limitations in representing stereo in a live environment.

I agree with you Old-Rocker. There's a lot of talent out there in many of these bands. My concern is that the market has become so fragmented and specialized that I wonder if it will ever again produce artists who are willing to branch out and expand their reach and creativity into other styles. I truly miss the days when a noteable artist from a popular band would sit in as a session player on someone else's album from a different genre. That doesn't seem to happen so much anymore.

I'm fortunate in that I get to work with younger musicians in their 20's. Our drummer is 25 and our occassional fill in bass player is also 25. And up until recently our soundman was 18 until he left for college. I'm encouraged for the most part by these young musicians in that they are curious and want to learn and grow their skills. For the most part they agree about the dismal state of the current music business, but are still determined to make their mark despite it all. I think due in part to having grown up in a technology savvy world, some tend to focus on technology as a key part of their musicianship. In some cases, like our drummer, this is a great advantage. He's an incredible drummer regardless of the equipment he uses. But being technology savvy he's really mastered the tuning and setup of electronic drums to the point that his live sound is indistinguishable from any studio level recording. At the other end of the spectrum is our fill-in bass player (who also plays guitar in other bands). In his perspective the technology is the answer to his ability, or lack thereof, to play. Convincing this type of young person that the latest and greatest amp, pickup, pedal, or whiz-bang feature will NEVER make him a better guitar player and that only practice will do that is like talking to a wall. Although he readily agrees with that logic, he continues to focus his effort on equipment rather than practice. And guaging from some of the posts I've seen on various boards this is not an uncommon approach by many younger players. If there's any one thing that is holding back this generations growth as well rounded musicians it's probably that sentiment. In some ways we older musicians maybe set the wrong example by focusing too much attention on the technology, but for different reasons. In most of our cases we grew up in a world in which we could play every night of the week if we chose to, so we were able to develop and hone our skills, and now we adopt these technologies because it makes our life simpler and easier, not because it will help overcome our technical deficiencies. If we have any obligation to mentoring younger musicians this is surely a key message for their growth.

It doesn't surprise me at all that the power conditioner didn't work if the HumX didn't work. They're both doing the same thing which is eliminating ground loop differences. So my guess is the problem is in the grounding of the pickups, the plug, or the cable. Or potentially in the headphone plug.

My personal preference is to go direct out of the HD500 1/4" to my stage monitor and XLR from the HD500 to the board. My logic on that is that I need direct control over my stage mix in order to manage by blend with the rest of the band. I'm not using stereo since it really can't be effectively represented in a live environment for most of the audience.

I think it's a nice heavy tone particularly for that song. The overdrive is strong but not overdone so it's still very clear. Good job.

Some of the older artists from the 70's and 80's have downsized and are doing quite respectable concerts in smaller concert venues with 2000 to 5000 seats to rave reviews. Two of the best I've seen in the last couple of years are The Boys of Summer tour which featured Micheal McDonald, Donald Fagan, and Boz Skaggs as a band doing their various hits from their previous bands and solo acts....as well as The Orchestra which is an ELO tribute band made up of prior touring members of ELO accompanied by a full orchestra. The great thing about these concerts is being able to see the precision and polish of very well respected, professional musicians in professionally produced shows at venues with great acoustics, comfortable seating, and extremely appreciative audiences. I'll take that over your typical concert mosh pits anyday.

It's actually interesting to me that the music industry at this point is far more like the 50's Elvis era than the later 60's through the early 2000's in that the marketing machine is oriented toward selling singles and the album is secondary. Likewise the sale of those downloads depends a LOT more on touring and not as much on airplay. Even at my age I have to admit there are some pretty decent artists that have come out and a certain level of creativity I hear beginning to emerge in some of the modern songs. Some of it I'll probably never appreciate and that's okay because it's not meant for me. The thing that gives me the most concern in today's music environment is the segmentation of styles. This tends to cause younger musicians confine their efforts to very specific sub-genres. They often acheive considerable skills in that genre, but their skills are very narrow in scope. This tends to limit how much creativity they can incorporate into their music to differentiate them from the rest of the people performing in that genre. Part of what happened in the past were artists that incorporated various influences outside of pop and rock which provided for great diversity in the music. I fear this polarizing effect is not terribly healthy for the music industry in general and certainly has been a significant limitation on younger musicians developing a full range of skills.

I can't see any technical reason it wouldn't work, but it depends on how you intend to use it exactly. I owned the Bose L1 model 2 for some time with the B1 bass when I was playing a solo act. They're pretty decent in that regard, but unlike a typical FRFR speaker, the line arrays distribute the sound in an entirely different manner which is meant to cover a large area evenly, not so much "in your face" like a typical FRFR speaker. I have no doubt the Fender Expo would provide a very even and clean representation of the guitar signal out of the POD. But depending on what style you're playing and what other signals you're sending through it in addition to your guitar, I don't know if you'd get adequate sound coming back to your ears onstage without augmenting it with a floor monitor. Again, a lot depends on the style of music and how you intend to use it

Leisure, As I said before...apples to oranges. This discussion here deals with live sound reinforcement which is not about reproducing sound under acoustically ideal situations to listeners positioned appropriately. It's about creating clear, frequency-rich sound under a wide range of challenging acoustic scenarios and distributing it evenly to potentially thousands of people at the same level of clarity regardless where they are located. Dismissing DSP in that picture as if it's only purpose is to correct for deficiencies in the amp would dismiss the tremendous progress that's been achieved in live sound in pretty much every large venue in existence today. Fortunately for us that technology has been effectively down-sized and through economies of scale is now available at a reasonable price to working musicians at all levels of performance. To go on about the benefits of high-end amp design only invites the discussion of who are you trying to appease with your choices? Yourself and maybe the tiny fraction of audiophiles that may or may not exist in the audience, or the masses of people that would never be able to discern the difference? In live sound reinforcment the choice is simple. Clearly you yourself have adopted that same approach by moving your rig to modeling/FRFR. It's not a question of credentials at all. But don't mistake me for some young pup enamoured with only the modern technology that's been around in a limited lifetime. To the contrary, the bands you opened for came to popularity about halfway through my music career, and IBM Unix was the latecomer from my perspective. I was a BSD and ATT Sytem V guy after cutting my teeth on IBM 370's and PDP-11's. But I'm also a guy who built a successful career by recognizing, adopting, and applying new paradigms enabled by advances in technology that have tremendous mass appeal through the years. That's where all of this kind of stuff really pays off.

I can't imagine what amps you're talking about leisure, but the internal class D amp circuits we're referring to in reference to FRFR powered speakers are custom designed with intelligent DSP processing to match the specific characteristics of the enclosure and custom speaker/horn arrangement. I think you're talking apples to oranges. Pretty much the days of separate unpowered speakers driven by an external general use power amp as applied to live sound reinforcement was left behind about a decade ago. It's still out there but it's a tiny fraction of the market as it really can't compete price-wise or performance-wise with the integrated powered speakers.

I absolutely love the Jazz Rivet and the Jazz Rivet cab from the vintage pack for jazz, R&B, funk, and clean BB King style blues. I use it quite a bit for those types of songs in our songlist and each song has it's own patch (I don't re-use a patch from one song to another, each one is slightly customized). It can be a bit light on volume, but no worse than some of the other amp models. I'd say it's pretty easily equalized with either mixer volume or Studio EQ at the end of the signal chain. I only use a single signal path in my patches with the Jazz Rivet and I would suggest you might have an out-of-phase issue if you hadn't mentioned removing the dual path and it not fixing the issue. The rest of your setup sounds pretty standard although I rarely use compression on mine and if I do it's something very simple like the Vetta Comp for funk style stuff, but I don't use it to boost volume...just light compression on the guitar. One thing you might try is rather than create the patch from scratch, take one of your good patches and copy it to a new slot and make your modifications to that patch. That way you could better identify what is introducing the difference in the behavior.