ColonelForbin

That sort of works; but when using L6Link from the HD to a DT, if you only have one amp model (instead of dual), and you define that amp block as 'no amp', the pre-amp then defaults to whatever channel the DT is set to. radtats came up with a quite clever bypass to this; though and actual dedicated model that would 'play nice' with the JTV acoustics is what I think most peeps here are referring to. rads idea, was you define a patch with dual amp models. Make one of them "Amp -x", (in his scenario, he used the flip top). Turn that amp to "mute" in the mixer. Then the second amp model, which is defined as "no amp" becomes the main signal level control. It's all been detailed in other posts by radatats. I briefly toyed with the idea of creating acoustic patches using the FX loop, befpre amp model block, out to go to the DT fx return; but the two amp / mute channel idea seems to accomplish the same basic end result, without resorting to extra D/A and A/D conversions, and without needing extra 1/4" cables in the mix.

-DT+JTV acoustic-model-friendly preamp / amp option. Right now, when using the L6Link with a JTV to the DT, the acoustic tones require some serious manipulation of the patch parameters. It would be great to have an option to have a clean / straight forward "preamp" option, where the DT power settings are more closely configured to emulate a flat response standard power amp. Something akin to plugging your JTV directly into the fx return on the back of the DT, but while keeping the same basic setup as would exist when using VDI>HD500>L6Link>DT25.

Did a jam on Saturday after work. Had to use up the XLR cables running mics and feeds to recording, so ended up one XLR short when it came time to connect the JTV+HD+DT25. So, I ended up setting the HD500 into 'studio direct' mode, and ran a 1/4" from the HD500 out to the FX return of the DT25. Then had XLR out from the DT25 to the recording. For what it's worth, you can get really good sound running your rig this way. It's not ideal, since you aren't taking advantage of the full-on Bogner switching L6Link side of things, but works great in a pinch, and for what it's worth the DT25 sends that signal just fine via XLR out when wired in only through the fx return.

Try this: 1.) plug the (L) HD500 1/4" out into the FX return on your Valveking. 2A.) option#1 - plug the HD500 XLR outs into your speakers. If needed get some RCA to XLR cable adapters. 2B.) option#2: - plug a 1/4" headphone jack on HD500 to cable adapter to your speakers 3.) set the HD500 output mode to "studio direct". 4.) plug your guitar into the HD500 5.) plug the USB from the HD500 into your computer As you noted, the HD500 must be set as the soundcard to the computer. At this point, no audio output should be coming from the computer, the playback for recordings will be sent out from the HD500 to the Valveking and the speakers. The master volume on the HD500 controls the speaker volume / playback volume. It does not impact the recording signal level. To increase or decrease the recording level, use the + or - dB boost / cut in the MIXER portion of the HD500 signal chain (the block after the amp model).

There are several ways to approach that concept, so I will share with you my personal experiences. I bought an HD500 in 2010 to replace an X3Live. From 2010 until last month, I always used the HD in 'studio direct' mode. I would use a combination of means to amplify it, sometimes just plugging direct into a mixer going to PA / monitor speakers. As far as using a guitar amp with it, I have three solid state amps, which all have fx return 1/4" jacks. Two older Fenders, from the CBS / Paul Rivera era when he was still with Fender, before they did the big changeover, and a Marshall valvestate, all 1x12's. If I wanted to go stereo, I would use any given two of those amps. With the mixer / PA, same thing, two XLR's to the board. THEN, in January of this year, I threw down and bought a DT25, followed very shortly after with a JTV. Using a DT25 is a very different approach to how patches need to be constructed, and adding the JTV furthur altered my thinking. For example, my other main guitar is a HSS USA strat, and the power in my apartment (upstairs apartment in an old 1890's two flat chicago house) is horrible, and always induced nasty hum and noise - so every patch I built used a noise gate first in the chain, on always. With the JTV going VDI to the HD500, and the HD going L6Link to the DT, it all changed. Now, I use the "pre" models for all my patches, don't even attempt to run stereo, and use the XLR off the back of the DT25 for the mixer / PA feed, and for recording. I sort of miss the simplicity of running the studio/direct mode, so for you - for starters, you may want to get your hands on a keyboard amp, or a guitar amp with an fx return, or a powered PA / monitor type speaker with XLR or 1/4" ins. Use the same patches you have built using headphones, make sure the HD is in 'studio/direct', and see what you think of what you hear through actual air as compared to what you are used to hearing in headphones. It will be different, though it should be close. The reason I say that, is something like a PA speaker, or a keyboard amp will be 'full range / flat response', so it's not trying to 'shape' your tone the way the front 1/4" jack on a regular guitar amp will do. In terms of the DT, big investment of $$. The DT25 is a $1,000 amp, and if you want to do dual amps or stereo signals using the L6link, you need two of them. The DT50 just goes up from there in price, same for the head and cab combos. BUT, they are really the most amazing means of letting your amp and your HD tallk to each other. I prefer to think about the DT amps as "Bogner". The analog tube amp part of the DT is all Bogner; the digital interface, and the Link system is Line6. When your HD changes to a Marshall plexi model, the DT changes itself in the analog / tube / poweramp stages to emulate what a Marshall would be, and if you switch to a Fender, it changes actual relays, switches, and analog components, on the fly. I am still working with creating new patches, because none of my old patches were set up right to properly utilize what the DT is going to do to your tone. As it is, with no DT - the HD is going to model the preamp, and the poweramp and the cabinet and the microphone, in order to emulate an amp, a speaker, a room, and a mic. That's the studio/direct. When you L6link to a DT, it changes the output mode to "combo/poweramp" or "stack/poweramp". This just removes the mic modelling. When you build the patch using the "pre" models, you then also remove the power amp modelling that the HD would normally do, and the DT then does *actual* poweramp changes. If you can get your hands on a regular guitar amp, with an FX return, try a patch in studio direct, then with the same patch, change the output mode to "combo/poweramp" or "stack/poweramp", but keep the "full" (regular) amp model choice, not the PRE. This just removes the 'room' and 'mic' modelling, which will give you a sound that will work great in the amp, but you would then have to actually mic the amp to send a proper signal to the mixer, recording, etc. I often would dial up a tone in studio direct, then switch to poweramp/combo in order to 'tweak' the sound of what that amp would be like with no mic. Then when I like it, I switch back to studio/direct, and start tweaking the mic choices, and the mic settings to best represent what I think that amp model should sound like, if it was in a real room with a real mic. Sorry for the extended rambling response! Most important: HAVE FUN! :)

That just provoked a thought in my brain, about some cool ways to utilize the Amplifi in a stage setting.. Use it as a monitor, facing toward you, instead of toward the audience. Run an extra output from whatever your rig is into your iDevice, and then Bluetooth that to the Amplfi. It could be placed anywhere on stage for a sound reinforcement speaker system. Maybe the drummer needs a dedicated monitor to hear you, or any other band member. Maybe the keyboard player is on the far side of the stage, with drums and bass between you, and they need to hear your guitar parts up close and personal! Lots of options, and it's not like major bands don't already use laptops, iPads, etc on stage, like STS9 and the like.

This is actually a very important point. This could be totally subjective, but I do notice a difference in the quality of signal when using the JTV>VDI cable going to the HD500, which I L6Link to my DT25, vs. using a 1/4" into the HD500. Essentially, you skip an entire analog to digital conversion process, and the ability to achieve dead silent hum free sound is only an option when using the VDI. Previously I had literally programmed every single patch in my HD500 to have a noise gate on, first in the chain, on all the time (my 100+ year old house/apartment has never played nice with my electronic equipment..) With my recent purchase of the JTV and DT25, all that went away, and I have basically started from scratch with patch building, not using the noise gate anymore. This may seem like a subtle issue, but when using the VDI, even when using the mag pickups on the JTV, the Analog to Digital conversion is occuring in the JTV, instead of in the front input of the HD500. Also, while I haven't utilized this feature as much, you may want to - when using the VDI cable, you can program your HD500 patches to change guitar models on the JTV as you switch patches on the HD500. I am with you on the "get two DT25's", and the idea you had about setting up dual amp chains, and then putting alternate FX into the analog FX loops of each DT is a great idea! Especially since with the programming of the HD, you can literally tell one DT to become as you said, a Marshall and the other a Fender. As soon as I get done paying off the DT I just bought, I will definitely look at getting a second one.. As far as analog pedals go, I only have one word: KEELEY!!! :) I used to have a lot of fun with my Keeley 4-knob comp in various parts of the HD500 signal chain, in front, in the FX loop, in the amp fx loop. Great stuff, some of the best pedals you can get. Now with my current rig, I have loaned the Keeley 4-knob comp to the other guitarist I jam with, his rig is all analog pedals, and a Fender Tweed. You can do some amazing things with an amp like that, and Keeley type compressor in the fx loop. Turn the master volume on the Keeley all the way down, and then turn the amp drive and volume up louder than normal - a typical 40watt Fender like that is usually too loud around 2.. So turn it up to 5. Then dial up the Keeley master volume *slowly*, also dialing up some compression. This allows you to drive the tubes hard, use the compressor to keep your volume even, and keep the speaker volume where you want it. Turn down the guitar volume knob, and instead of less volume, it just "cleans" up your tone, at around the same overall speaker volume. Brilliant stuff. I heard they are doing a Keeley bass compressor too!

My best guess going from the description on their website as it being: "Modern, High-Gain/Resonant NFL" IV – Setting IV brings the NFL back in and adds a low frequency resonance that pairs quite well with high gain voicing applied to the Channel Controls. Unfortunately, that description above is woefully vague! According to this thread, it's the Mesa Boogie Double Rectifier: http://line6.com/support/topic/2700-amp-models-in-dt25-standalone/ In that thread they discuss the impact of changing the cabinet models, and the output modes, which may be playing a factor in how you are hearing the difference between the HD500 and the DT by itself. In terms of the L6 Link connection, I would guess that when the HD500 is L6linked to the DT25 head, it defaults to stack/poweramp - though I don't know if that also matches what you would hear from the DT by itself.

Yeah, I would. RIght now I have the tobacco JTV59, Korean. My 'backup' guitar is my USA strat, 3 tone sunburst; but it's the weird model, with the roller nut and the humbucker. So, I would lean slightly toward a 69S, but more likely, I'd go bat-lollipop-crazy and grab a USA /Custom shop. Because what else would I need a spare $5,000 for ? ;) I realize this probably makes no sense to most, but my #1 turn off to the 69 is the Variax graphic on the headstock... I realize they were probably under the gun to make sure it didn't infringe on the Fender neck / headstock design, but they just went a little over the top with the multiple overlapped logo thing. Like I said, literally has nothing to do with playability, sound, etc. I guess I like the feel of the 59 neck; I had gotten used to the strat scale and feel, so this was a nice alternate to that vibe. The USA Gretch orange color is interesting, though I lean toward more "classic" colors for no reasonable reason. Looks like they did the same graphic thing on the USA headstock too (pic attached)

HAHAHHAHAA! That made my day :) I can TOTALLY hear Neil Young saying "lollipop goosebumps", right??

4-track cartridges are in all likelyhood much higher resolution as compared to Mp3! Vinyl records most certainly are. Whether it takes off or not, is the question. I think we'll see a shift in how music in general marketed. That's why I put this conversation in the Amplifi forum - because PONO is coming THIS MARCH! For example, the success of Jimmy Iovine's "Beats Audio" and how it's been hugely successful, and even being integrated into various phone and tablet platforms. Pono March2014 Release For me, the conversation comparing Amplifi with the HD / DT series is quite relevant. PONO is beyond what the HD / DT has to offer, and it's way, way, way beyond what Amplifi has to give. Amplifi, however, could with some minor tweaking, and adjustments, fit in VERY nicely with something like Pono. Since their take from the start is that it will be cross-platform compatible, Android, PC, IOS, etc. - I can see them being able to turn the corner. Probably not with this version of the gear, but believe me - someone, somewhere at L6 is looking at PONO, and figuring out what to do to keep Line6 relevant if the idea blows up and takes off. From Neil Young's SXSW speech: "Being impressed by something, and how cool it is, and how sharp it is, and how snappy it is, is one thing, and that translates into almost any media. But when you’re singing something very soulful from your heart, and the echo is perfect and everything’s great and you’re using maybe an acoustic chamber and everything sounds great. And then you listen to it and you love it, but you hear it somewhere else and it’s gone – that’s terrible. We don’t like that. Not many of us like that, we’re not happy about it. So we’re trying to change that, and we’re trying to make it better. We’re trying to make music sound technically better, and that’s what I want to do. So we have a player that plays whatever the musicians made digitally, and that’s going to come out. We’re announcing that at SXSW, we’re introducing it, it’s called Pono, and that’s my commercial, thank you very much." "Digital is not bad. But Xerox is not good. I always like to say Picasso was really happy to see original Picassos everywhere, but when he went into some places and saw Xeroxes of Picassos, it didn’t make him as happy, because he thought people thought that we was making those things. The thing we do is, we make great stuff in the studio and then we kiss its lollipop goodbye, because nobody’s ever going to hear it. That’s unfortunate, and it didn’t use to be that way. That’s something that happened to us – that’s an injury we sustained, and it deeply hurt us. So the time has come for us to recover and to bring music back to the people in a way that they can recognize it in their souls – through the window of their souls, their ears. So they can feel and vibrate and so that they can get goosebumps. We cherish those lollipoping goosebumps. We really need those."

From the PONO website: Hi Friend, There's an awfully good chance you heard about a revolution we're working on. Something that will significantly improve the way you get to hear and feel your favorite music. Shocking you say? That perhaps the promise of "Perfect Sound Forever" propagated by the inventors of the Compact Disc was a bust? And that "CD Quality" promoted by the likes of iTunes and the creators of the MP3 was only an inkling of the flawed format they were hoping to emulate? We're here to say it's incredibly true! Miraculously, there's a wealth of music & soul (or if you must, "data") trapped on millions of recordings made over the last half century, that we're hoping to unleash for the very first time. Can you imagine? Your own personal time machine, to take you back to the place and time of the original musical event, and let you feel music in ways you've only felt seeing it live? We here at Pono are listening to it now and assure you, IT'S AMAZING!!!! We ask dear music lover that you root for Pono bringing this very real technology to the world. We're still toiling away on making this happen (yes, there are record labels, artists, publishers and more to finalize with), but we wanted to share our excitement with you. In the meantime, please follow us on Facebook or Twitter for updates. Rescuing an art form, -The Pono Team

Not hear to talk lollipop about what it is or isn't.. :) Done enough of that! It's not an HD and it's not a DT, big whoop. The conversation I am interested in, is the future of audio sound quality in general, and the place and role companies like Line6 and Apple will have in that future. Now, we all know that .MP3's are the bedrock of the iTunes business model. What is the top resolution on any given professionally mastered .MP3? 320kbps or something? Now, take a sideways gander at Neil Young, and his idea - which seems to be going forward, but not very quickly. Among his various projects, including the LincVolt, is his music player idea. I am not sure what the current name is, I think it's "PONO". To summarize, Neil Young wants to make iPod sized devices that will use music files rendered in Studio Master quality, iE, 24bit /192k. Here are a couple of links discussing this project: Pono - website Pono - Forbes Pono - Cnet Pono - Rolling Stone Ok. So, the future is BRIGHT for music! But the "powers which be" are going to need to change and adapt to stay current. I for one, have a huge library of music in MP3 format, and I rarely if ever listen to any of it. It's convenient, it's easy, it's portable - it's just not satisfying. That there is truly something lacking in music dumbed down to MP3 is fact, evident, and real. It's not just a small percentage of the population with advanced ears who can tell the different between a 24bit .WAV file, and a 320kbps MP3. That being said, Line6 is already on their way to higher definition, higher resolution audio. The HD series amp modelling is their first serious foray into that market. The Amplifi, for all it's next gen conceptualization, is not. Because it is built on the premise that MP3 is acceptable. Now, you don't HAVE to use MP3's, I would imagine if you put a .wav file on your iPad, and stream it Bluetooth, it should still all work, and if the metadata can be saved with the .wav file, then tone matching should work. But what about a 24 bit / 192k .wav file? Because that is what PONO is trying to do. According to the Rolling Stone article, major studios are already on board with this concept, and have already begun the process to render their catalogs in the higher definition audio. To quote Neil: "The simplest way to describe what we've accomplished is that we've liberated the music of the artist from the digital file and restored it to its original artistic quality – as it was in the studio," wrote Young. "So it has primal power." "PONO starts at the source: artist-approved studio masters we've been given special access to," Young continued. "Then we work with our brilliant partners at Meridian to unlock the richness of the artist's music to you. There is nothing like hearing this music - and we are working hard to make that experience available to all music lovers, soon." From my perspective, the Amplifi will quickly find itself at a cross roads if something like this gains traction, and for my $$s, I am 100% onboard. MP3's are horrible, for quality listening. They are the fast food of the music industry. MP3's take everything special about music and distill it to a bland, low quality snapshot, lacking in the true essence of why music moves us all, and motivates us to spend so much time and money on gear to MAKE music. Sooner, rather than later, companies like Line6 and Apple are going to need to quickly change their tune, and gear like the Amplifi will be caught in that cross current. I think the idea of Amplifi is great. I find the execution lacking, but that doesn't really matter. It's how Line6 responds to what is coming, and still yet to be that will define them going forward.

Nice! Got my first "-" mark for calling it a BoomBox. :) I absolutely do not think calling it a BoomBox is demeaning in any way. It's a throwback term! A term of endearment. And yes, no BoomBox out there has a Celestion. (well, the 150 has a Celestion, not sure what the 75 has, since it's an 8" or 10" speaker?) While my distaste and distain for the L6 marketing team has subsided on this gear release, I am still really confused/curious about the product itself. As they say, "curiosity killed the cat"... So, no more negative energy from me. I was actually quite hopeful it would be able to do things that built upon previous gear releases, but in defense of L6, it's a different price point / budget perspective. Once I got over the "it's not an HD and it's not a DT", then I settled down a bit. It sits well in their Spider market. Personal perspective - my first piece of L6 gear was the X3Live. And I used it for home recording, and when I played electric bass with my band. It replaced a total piece of garbage Boss ME50B pedal board. So, I have a skewed perspective on things. Replaced the X3L with the HD500, and more recently added a JTV and a DT25. So, yeah, anyone who is thinking in that price point and quality of gear is bound to be all, "What the Lollipop?" when they call this such a novel reinvention of gear. And it is, no arguing that! I suppose it's a good lesson in life. Support what you love, don't spend energy on what you don't like. It's better to be able to speak positive about something, that negative about something else. So color me guilty of the latter. It's not an HD, it's not a DT, and they are not it. Does that matter? No, not really. Price point! It's easy to forget, that for an existing IOS and ANDROID market base, the external third party device, while expensive on it's own, is not actually factored into the cost of owning an Amplifi. Sure, an Ipad costs $600. And the external floorboard is not terribly expensive -shortboard is around $200? So, the 150 Amplifi is $500, the shortboard is $200, total around $700 - and let's pretend you already own an iPhone or iPad. By comparison, the DT25 is $1,000 and the HD500x is $500. That's more than DOUBLE! Add the JTV for (on sale) $1,000, and you're looking at a $2,500 investment in equipment, which is now more than three times the cost. I guess that extra money is why the Amplifi doesn't have all those bells and whistles, like XLR in, Variax, XLR out, recording function, etc. I'd LOVE to see this idea down the road figure out how to incorporate recording. That would be really, really cool. USB out from the Amplifi to your DAW, or possibly a way to split the signal, so you can record just the guitar parts, not the playback. Or, even next gen, the idea of "wireless recording". Bluetooth recording interface>? Or even just an SD card slot, like the Stagescape mixers have. But I digress - none of that is going to occur in a $400-$500 price point, so it's pointless for people (like me) to drag on about it! Cheers people, may Spring be upon us sooner, rather than later. I for one am ready for warmer weather. ALL Nature seems at work. Slugs leave their lair, The bees are stirring, birds are on the wing. And WINTER slumbering in the open air, Wears on his smiling face a dream of Spring! And I, the while, the sole unbusy thing, Nor honey make, nor pair, nor build, nor sing.

Found some posts in the forum archive, and a YouTube video which may be of some help. The original poster is also active on these forums, he would be a good resource for chatting this over with~ http://line6.com/support/user/381227-rowbi/ From YouTube: From archived support forum: http://line6.com/supportarchivenew/thread/55328 Re: Pod HD 500 4 cable method by Rowbi on 2011-01-28 05:36:05 the 4 cable method is a way of using an FX pedal to give you some OD/gain/boost FX infront of your tube amp's preamp, and then to put some time based FX in the loop of your tube amp, like delay and reverb. if you want to use the amp models in your POD HD500, then the 4CM is not the best way to do it. if you do decide to turn off the amp models on the POD, you should use studio mode, and then you may want to play with the FX loop send and return levels on your POD to get those levels right. i would suggest you would need the FX loop at line level but reduce the send level to -14db to balance the instrument level in on your amp and the line level fx send on your amp. if you want to use the POD's amp sims, set it to combo power amp in the output mode, then on the switches, select live (not amp) and live(not studio) and use the pre models. then connect the output of your POD to the fx return on your tube amp.

Score! Great deal on some seriously LOUD gear!! Nice, very nice. I won't discourage you from using the 4CM, it may end up being the way to go with a rig like that. Doing a quick image search of the back panel of the Rivera definitely looks good - I see level controls for both the send and return of the FX loop. Something you will definitely want to experiment with, will be 1.) do some recording, direct from the HD500 to a recording device. I typically use the USB to my PC. Set the HD500 in "studio/direct" mode. 2.) then, with those same tones, use a 1/4" cable from the out of the HD500 to the return of the Rivera. Keep the HD500 in studio/direct mode, and if possible, also use the same recording method. 3.) then, change the output mode of the HD500 to "stack/poweramp" or "combo/poweramp". This removes the microphone modelling, and just emulates the preamp / cabinet / poweramp tones with the HD500. The first two items I mention will give you recording and main mix friendly signals. This option #3 will not; the recording will not sound right, nor will a direct feed off the HD500 in the non-studio-direct modes. From there, use what your ears tell you, and the ideas you read up on for what you want to do with the 4 cable method. In a nutshell, the 4 cable method bypasses either the Rivera's preamp tones, or the HD500's preamp tones, based on whether the FX loop is on or off. When using the Rivera's preamp, you are using the HD500 for FX modelling only. When using the HD500 preamps, you bypass the Rivera preamp, and create a signal path similar to items 2 and 3 that I mentioned. Either way, you utilize the Rivera's poweramp. For example, dial in a tone you like with the Rivera, then find amp models on the HD500 which sound similar. Tweak them back and forth until you get a comparble A/B between the two tones. I have used the 4CM in the past, but then once I moved on to a DT amp, that's been my go-to for everything. You got a good deal on that HD500, it will just take you some time thinking about making patches based on the connections you will use. If you create studio/direct patches for direct recording, they will also sound fine going into the FX return of the Rivera. In terms of optimizing patches for the 4CM, you will need to think about them in a different way. For example, when using a DT amp with L6Link, you only use the "PRE" models on the HD500, not the full models. In that instance, the DT handles all the poweramp characteristics and the HD500 handles the pre-amp and FX. Have fun!

Tell you why! 'Cause she's sweeter than an apple pie And when she does her shaky rockin' dance Man I haven't got a chance I call her Lollipop Lollipop Oh Lolli Lolli Lolli Sweeter than candy on a stick Huckleberry, cherry, or lime If you have a choice she'd be your pick But Lollipop is mine... Lollipop Lollipop Oh Lolli Lolli Lolli Crazy way she thrills-a me Tell you why Just like a lightning from the sky She loves to kiss me 'Till I can't see straight GEE, my Lollipop is great! I call her... Lollipop Lollipop Oh Lolli Lolli Lolli Lollipop Lollipop Oh Lolli Lolli Lolli Lollipop Lollipop Oh Lolli Lolli Lolli Lollipop *POP* :)

Yo! charlyg Can you do a test with your Amplifi? Try connecting the USB port to your computer, and testing if it allows you to record to any recording software.. Thanks!

This is the Million / Billion Dollar Question!! I was just thinking about that today. I recently revisited the HD500 > PC usb recording interface, and was thinking that should have been one of the prime slot marketing tag lines to the whole thing.. They talk about the mega DSP onboard; it would be nice to hear exactly what that processor power is, in a direct comparison to the HD500 DSP, and the HD500x (which claims to be more DSP than the HD500). It has been speculated that the Amplifi uses the PodFARM / X3 / XT era models and FX. But it's not implicitly stated or documented anywhere. Common sense would dictate that if the Amplfi was using HD modelling, they would have proclaimed it loud and clear; however, common sense doesn't typically apply when discussing Line 6 Marketing... So yes, would LOVE to hear if that USB port on the back of the Amplifi does indeed turn the device into a soundcard / interface for your computer.

No. Not really. The same argument remains, there just isn't specific data from Line6 explaining why the HD amp models are better / higher res / or in what way they are "HD". The presumption, is they came up with a new way to model the amp characteristics, which would imply in some way, that the HD amp models are higher quality than the X3 / XT. For instance, the dreaded 'DSP max' issue on the HD500 series. The X3 offers way, way more amp models, and uses a DSP prior to the HD release. Hence, the less amps, and the issues with stacking two full amp models with dual pitch shifters. One thing, that has never been addressed with the Amplifi - and perhaps L6 will clear this up with some more specific info, but nowehere - not anywhere - does it state that the Amplifi is using the X3 / Xt technology. For all I know, all that is totally not relevant. In which case, it really just comes down to what inspires your ears! Don't mistake my picky ness for negativity, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't curious about plugging into an Amplifi, and giving it a spin. It looks like it's loads of FUN! As far as future expansion, who knows! For all we know, firmware updates may arrive for the Amplifi offering the HD amp models, including some or all of the M-class FX. I suppose that type of A/B comparison is valid. The M-class pitch shifting FX are so much better than what the X3 offered. Not sure if Amplifi has any octave up / down, or anything like that? If it does, you can probably figure out relatively quickly what you have on board. Though, again to play Devils Advocate against my own assumptions - perhaps the expanded DSP power of the Amplifi rivals, or eclipses that of the HD. Do we know? No.. It just might! In which case, the era of the FX will matter less, than the processor power rendering them. I remember the X3 always struggled with tracking when doing pitch shifting. While the HD isn't perfect, it does track way better, and the overall sound quality ofthe pitch shifted (up and down) seemed better. That could be a DSP factor - that effect will max out the DSP on the HD500 faster than most any other effect, for sure. I would suggest original poster get their hands on both, and try them side by side. For me, I owe way too much $$ on my JTV and DT25 to even *think* about the Amplifi. I was getting myself fired up to grab the Pro Tools 11 + Eleven Rack bundle that's on sale right now, but have thus far resisted the G.A.S... Three way shoot out! HD500x vs ElevenRack vs Amplifi!! :)

Here's a concept: The HD500 series acts as a soundcard as is now, so can be used for direct to computer recording. I actually plugged in the JTV on my recent free time, and went direct to recording software. The future of Amplifi needs to be recording oriented, and with the advent of the Bluetooth tech, makes me wonder what kinds of recording options would/could be included in future releases. Perhaps onboard SD cards? Similar to the Stagescape mixer system, which records multi-track to an SD card. The current iteration of Amplifi has a USB port - will recording be a function that gets added on in future firmware updates? How about wireless / bluetooth recording? THAT would be sweet. Arm a track in your Garage Band software, and transmit the dry and FX version of the signal wirelessly to the recording unit. As it is now, I don't know about any recording functionality. With regard to the original posters question, I personally would choose the HD series - in order to minimize cost, the 500x. That would allow them to record direct, as well as output to the FX return of their Marshall amp to hear both "while playing" and also playback from their recording unit. When the HD500 is set as the soundcard, it also runs playback, and the master volume attenuates output level to the amp / speakers, while not impacting the recording signal. To boost recording levels, you turn up the level (up to +12db) in the mixer portion of the signal.. I was actually quite pleased with the JTV acoustic tones, firmware 2.0, going through no amp, with minimal FX. Sounds stellar in headphone and through desktop speakers. For me, the Amplifi could have been an awesome, unreal, amazing device. I can say, firmware updates may come down the line in the future which expand offerings. For instance, whats preventing them from offering a free or pay-to-upgrade firmware update that would offer the HD amps in the current Amplifi offering? It's feasible. Not likely, but not impossible. That being said, the same could go for adding USB soundcard / recording options. I think alot of folks would be taking a much closer look at this Amplifi with just those two items alone - which could potentially come as firmware upgrades. Something tells me, no, not likely - it's far more realistic to hope for an upgraded Amplifi in the future with the HD amp models, the M-class FX, recording to DAW via the onboard USB, XLR in and XLR out, S/PDIF in/out, etc. Wireless / wiFi would also be an interesting concept too! Anyhow, after revisiting my HD500 going studio/direct to recording, I can say that would be the best choice, both in terms of quality of models (HD / M-class), floorboard footswithches, recording, Variax input, and DT Line6 Link capability. Please excuse my verbose, rambling posts. Being succinct is not my strong point! ;)

Well, actually it was directly from my personal experience! I had the X3L for a long time. Then I bought an HD500. I owned both, and compared them side by side for quite a while. Then I sold the X3L to a bass player. To each his own, of course! That I will never argue with. The entire crux of the point, is that while the Amplifi is a next-gen idea, the actual product and end result is not. I am not trying to bash or support - the comparison essentially, is like apples and potatoes. Comparing the Amplifi to anything, is difficult - they never really offered an X3/XT era option of the FX+Amp Models inside an actual amplifier. So, in that regard, there really is nothing out there quite like the Amplifi! IOS or Android apps aside, the price point is stellar on the Amplifi, and as far as original poster is concerned, most likely their best choice. The "HD" gear is 24bit. The Amplifi gear is not. The HD is a built in floorboard, the Amplifi needs an external controller. But, I mean - the HD rig, if one were to only get the HD500x + DT25, would still cost (new) around $1,500. Is it $1,000 more rig than the Amplifi? Maybe, but for most, that is a huge dent in the budget! Again, original poster says "not gigging". Maybe they want to use it for home recording. In that case, the HD by itself would be more than enough, and will likely sound amazing through the fx return of their Marshall amp. Again, also personal experience - that was almost identical to the rig I used when I had an X3L, and for about 4 years, the same as what I ran my HD through. Having done ALOT of recording, everything from MiniDisc back in the day, to DAT, to the Nomad JB3, to computer multi-track, to a newer, standalone, battery powered Tascam that can do 24bit/96k, for me, I recognise without need for listening or debate, that 24bit is better than 16 bit. By a whole lot. We don't need ears to know that, basic math makes that decision. So, the future of Amplifi is BRIGHT! Just, for some, not yet. For this original poster? Maybe! Sure, even for those who already have a 24 bit Eleven Rack processor, or a 24bit HD500. But, to compare like with like, that was my original point - the HD500 is leaps and bounds ahead of the Amplifi, and no amount of 5 speaker Bluetooth iTunes interface is going to change that. For reference, there are lots and lots and lots of articles on the internets explaining the mathmatic distinction between "bit depth" and "sample rate". For example: "The easiest way to envision this is as a series of levels, that audio energy can be sliced at any given moment in time. With 16 bit audio, there are 65,536 possible levels. With every bit of greater resolution, the number of levels double. By the time we get to 24 bit, we actually have 16,777,216 levels. Remember we are talking about a slice of audio frozen in a single moment of time." http://tweakheadz.com/16-bit-vs-24-bit-audio/ EDIT! : Looks like I was totally wrong on the 16 bit vs 24 bit, my BAD!! From the XT release note: ""Another significant difference is that our processing is now 32-bit floating point (as opposed to 24-bit fixed point, as found in Pod v2.0 and lots of other places). This extended dynamic range is quite valuable, since there is so much potential gain within an amp model circuit.""

Makes me glad I snagged my JTV59 when it was on sale! I am not 100% certain on this- but I believe the JTV59-P90 version only comes in two finish options: Gold top and Black? One other minor oddity, which I didn't really pay complete attention to until I re-read the manual last night, is the pickup selection switch - which in terms of accessing the JTV models is relevant. On the JTV59, the pickup select switch is a THREE WAY toggle. On the JTV69, it is a FIVE WAY toggle. On the JTV59, to allow you access to all the options per model, you have to press down the "alternate tuning" knob. The configurations then shift. Knob not pressed = 1, 3, 5 Knob pressed = 2 , 3, 4 SO, when in the center position on a JTV59, you always get pickup / guitar model choice #3. With the button in (turns blue), you get options 2 and 4 on the outside switch positions. WIth the button up (turns white) you get options 1 and 5 on the outside switch positions. One last thing, on the JTV69 - the suffix "S" stands for single coil. For instance, Zzounds has "shoreline gold" and "black" JTV69S, new, for $999 right now- but the other finish options on same guitar cost more: http://www.zzounds.com/item--LINJTV69S It looks like they also have the JTV69 on sale right now too, in all (except for blue) finish options for $999. Including the three-tone sunburst. http://www.zzounds.com/item--LINJTV69 You will notice in the photos, that the JTV69 has a humbucker in the bridge position, where the JTV69S has a standard strat-style single coil in the bridge slot. Going down the JTV69 road, you will find some info on the forums from people who have looked into replacing the JTV69 neck with an actual Fender strat neck, just in terms of options, a cool idea!

That Marshall should work well for use with an HD500; do you know if it has an FX loop / FX return on the back? I have a similar Marshall valvestate, and I used it for a long time with the X3L and then the HD500, always plugging the POD out into the Marshall FX return. By using the FX return, you bypass the tone stacks, and give yourself a clean feed to the power amp, thereby allowing the HD to do what it does. Now, if you don't want to spend a minimum of $1,500, and possibly $2,500 - stop reading RIGHT NOW.... You are still reading.. Last chance! Ok. So, I bought an HD500 to replace my X3Live back around 2010. The tonal quality of the HD500 is so far beyond the X3 amp models and FX that it's difficult to compare them. For reference, the amp models and FX used in the Amplifi are the X3/XT era models, all the pre-HD stuff. Very, very recently (couple months ago) I decided I needed to upgrade my amp, and picked up a Bogner/Line6 DT25. "Wow" is what happened, it's a friggin amazing sounding rig. Then, I got G.A.S. even worse, and snagged a JTV59. Why you ask should that inspire you to go out and spend $2,500 on gear? Take a little time to read up on what the HD500 + DT25/50 + JTV can do. If any of that seems exciting to you, your budget is DOOMED! In a good way! :) For me, the HD does a great job of modelling ,and I loved using it in studio/direct mode, sometimes using the Marshall (fx loop return) with another 1x12 Fender combo (also using FX return) to run a stereo rig, and keep the XLR out from the HD as a PA / Mixer / Recording friendly signal (Studio/Direct). Sometimes I would even use the same connections, and set the HD to "combo/poweramp". This makes the amps sound like the models they are emulating, just omitting the microphone / room modelling. And while all of that HD goodness sounded worlds better than the X3; that rig option paled in equal quality to the HD connected to a DT using the L6 link. At some point, I am 100% going to get another DT, to be able to run them in stereo - or in dual amp mode. What the DT and HD do together departs the realm of modelling ,and enters the world of Dr Frankenstein. "IT's Alive".Overall, I have been impressed by the XLR out from the DT. If I get a second DT, I would run them in stereo, and take XLR out from both, and mic both. Just 'cause! So, that's where you have to decide: do you spend $400-$500 on an Amplifi, or do you go bat-doo-doo crazy and spend two months equivalent of rent on a bunch of high tech gear that will most certainly make you go insane with the too-many options..? I plugged it all in in living room last night, and using the low power mode, had a good time just jamming to loops and watching TV. Because once you have the HD500x, you will be looking at the empty L6Link socket, and the empty Variax socket, and start wondering what happens when you connect all three. For me, the Amplifi was never a contender since I had already gone down the HD road 4 years prior. Why they chose to exclude the HD models, I am not sure - I suppose so as to not compete with their Bogner gear. Because that is the key distinction: The Amplifi is an X3 /XT inside of a Bluetooth speaker system. Except that the X3 offered an XLR out, XLR in, and a Variax port. So, not only is it outdated amp and fx modelling, it is also severely lacking in the basics of Input and Output. I was not surprised to read that the Amplifi does not support the older IOS devices, such as iPad 1: it requires IOS7. So, if you already have a newer IPhone or iPad, then you could utiilize all that the Amplifi has to offer without needing to spend a chunk of change on the IOS gear to make it work. If you don't already have the appropriate Apple device (or in the future, at some undisclosed time, a supported Android device...) then you will need to factor that cost in as well. Does it compare to the Bogner-L6 tube amp, and the latest and greatest HD amp and M-class FX? No, not even close. But - I would imagine, it's not supposed to.. Lots of pros and cons for both - going down the HD road will likely make you want to open Pandora's box, and then there's no going back! The lightest of the DT amps, the DT25 is still ALOT heavier than the 150watt Amplifi. Solid state vs Tube. The JTV is an amazing guitar, but programming it is a bit over my head, I am still just flabbergasted at what it can do, and how much tonal range you can get with it. So, there ya go. I think you get what you pay for. If I could have afforded it, would have bought a USA JTV. But, at +$4,000, really, really not in my budget! Not yet..... ;)

You could put the looper into the FX loop of the HD or the DT. If using in the loop of the HD, put the FX loop block last in your signal chain. A sidenote pertaining to the HD500 looper: -set it to half speed before you start the loop and you will get twice the length of loop time