billlorentzen

A no compromise approach would be to place the amp after the mixer and the first two fx in the top loop and the second two in the bottom loop and use the pedal to pan from one loop to the other. Start with pedal back, all fx off, then hit switch to engage first 2 fx, then pedal forward to access next 2 fx, which are already turned on, for metal sound.

Hm, that's actually a darn creative idea! Other than distortion, the fx in the HD all work fine post amp, so it might be a cool solution for a Larry Carlton type rig. He runs right into the amp and then mics it and into a mixer for his fx.

I use the hell out of my gear, playing several gigs a week, and I really can't complain about the value I got from my HD. I'm finally getting modeled tone pretty damn close to my old rack of Mesa amps and outboard fx, at a tiny fraction of the cost and weight, so I'm a happy camper. Honestly I was pretty impressed with the original bean. It could do some things no amp could do.

I've never played a Pacifica, but I doubt they would throw it in a junk axe. I wouldn't mind one of the Mike Stern Teles.

I was at my local Sam Ash today. The manager said that he heard the next Variax will be in a Yamaha guitar. I suppose it makes sense. Why pay Tyler to build your guitars in Korea when you already own a guitar factory? This is the kind of synergy I was hoping to see with the Yammy acquisition. It means the Variax will have greater viability and probably more marketing budget to get it into more hands. I've always been well satisfied with Yammy products, and I've owned and worked with a lot of them.

I've never heard the fizz. Is it a high gain phenomenon? I don't use much high gain, so that may be why I never heard it. Or it's because I lost a bunch of high end hearing over the years!

Most studio recordings are made with a compressor or distortion pedal into an amp, followed by delays, modulations and verbs. Pedals before an amp are a compromise. That's why most modern amps have an fx loop, so you can route out to fx that sound funky into an amp.

With single coils the screamer into the /13 gives a really sweet lead tone. You can adjust the amount of drive (screamer and amp) to get a wide range of great lead tones.

I second the screamer. It's very versatile depending on drive and output and doesn't destroy your guitar tone. Color drive is cool too, but sort of limited for me. Don't forget that a compressor, especially the LA2A tube comp, can boost your signal too.

I've been gigging with an HD 500 for a few years and absolutely love it. While it's very capable of increasing sustain, there is still an instrument factor that is important to me. I guess I need to spend some real time with a JTV to find out what it can do - somehow I have a hard time with the idea that it really can do what people say. I've got a Buscarino Starlight for sale, and once that goes, I'm finally getting a 69.

Thanks for the reply. I'm not so much concerned about the feel of the neck, although I do like a thinner feel. I'm most concerned about getting a nice solid feel and good sustain. I don't like a guitar that feels flimsy or of too soft a wood. I prefer single coils, or SSH configuration so the 89 wouldn't be right for me. I love the sound I get with EMG SAs. It sings.

My main gigging guitar is a custom made "super strat" type guitar (ebony fingerboard, chambered body, flame maple top, EMG SA pups, original '80s Floyd Rose). It has tons of sustain and a very solid feel to it. To me Fender Strats feel more flimsy and sort of dead, with less sustain and kind of a softness to them. (I don't mean to put Fenders down -- obviously a lot of players love them, but that's not what I'm looking for.) If you own a Korean or American JTV 69, would you say it is more of the Fender feel or more like an Anderson or other high end super strat? I realize it doesn't have a Floyd, and that could be a sustain factor -- low mass bridges give less sustain. Obviously it doesn't have EMGs either, but that's not really relevant to the question; I just mentioned that to fully describe it.

I've been largely disappointed with the mutron. It was never a great sounding unit for guitar, but nice on clav. I think the problem is that it has too full frequency a "throw" if you will. There are much more guitar centric autowah pedals on the market that IMHO would have been better choices for L6. But, hey, that's just my opinion.

Been using it live for years, and couldn't be happier. I will probably never go back to straight up amps. I get so much versatility that I would be hard pressed to match with an amp or even two.

You can get a similar tone with deluxe, twin or /13. I would also add some direct guitar - one of Nile Rogers tricks - for that crystal clear cut.

Virtually all my patches use the pedal to go from rhythm to lead tone and level. Sometimes I have different amps. Sometimes the same amp, but with a pedal on one channel and none on the other. And some just boost gain on a particular amp. I also have the pedal changing many other settings, from the amp tones to the compression settings, to the ambience and modulation. Also, I am able, with some rather complex settings, to get in between tones, such as a cleaner, but still loud sound just before the full distortion at the end of the sweep. I have MANY hours of tweaking invested in these patches for my main two guitars, but I'm a working musician and it's well worth the effort, because I sing and I can't be always looking down at the buttons. Also, I can instantly rip out a lead line just putting the pedal to the metal. Frankly, I don't think I could,ever,go back to real amps, with all the versatility and control I would lose.

Thanks for the insight. That's kind of how I figured it. I would appreciate if on the next iteration (is that even necessary?) you guys would include a flat Omni mic option. By the way, do you know if the samples were made at different volume levels on the cabs?

Since we have a Line6er on the thread, I've got a couple questions which I hope are not asking for proprietary info: When the cabs are modeled are they sampled at various volume levels? Is it possible to "subtract" an element from a sample, e.g. the mic? If that's not possible, I really support the idea of adding a flat omni mic or a test mic to the list. As a recording engineer, I realize they may not always be pretty, but I've gotten good results with fairly flat condensers like an AKG 414, and even a 451. By the way, another option I think might be cool to explore is the binaural head mic. It would probably work best in a pretty dead room, but if you want realism and the true sound of the amp, nothing could be closer, IMHO.

Some interesting and thoughtful replies! Nico, you suggest that the mic is a necessary feature because something needs to capture the acoustic energy. When I read your post, at first I thought you had found a flaw in my suggestion, but on further reflection, I think I disagree. First I have a question, which may only be answerable by Line6, but some of you guys seem to know more than me and maybe you can answer: Was each cab models captured by each microphone? In other words is every cab/mic combination a unique model or are the cabs and mics discreet individual elements in the signal chain? For both simplicity and fidelity, my guess would be that they should be complete combinations, but my gut tells me they are not. Either way, there is a solution. If they are a single component, then they could be modeled with something like the Neumann KU 100 Dummy Head Binaural Stereo Microphone System, in an anechoic chamber. Or alternatively just use a flatter mic (though it may not flatter the sound ;-) If they are each integrated mic and cab models, the mic could be subtracted from the model by some crude method like reversing phase of the mic model. I'm sure software engineers would blanch at my simplistic approach and could come up with a more sophisticated and probably more accurate approach, but I think we get the concept. In any case, my ears tell me the mic models are largely just adding EQ and as such they should be removable, and I would like the option. For engineers capable of developing such a wonderful system as the HD, this should not be an insurmountable problem.

I'd like to suggest for future versions of Pod, that there be a No Mic option. This could be considered, "What your ears would hear" and would add no color to the sound. When users set up a patch, they typically start with the amp model, tweak the drive and tone, then if they're not quite satisfied, the cab, then the mic, then if necessary add an outboard EQ. Quite a few steps, but I suppose in the quest for realism, it makes sense. I think I am what one would call a power user after several years of steady gigging and some recording with the Pod HD. I recently swapped out pickups in one of my guitars and started from the ground up with new patches. I found that selecting both the amp and cab models was intuitive, gratifying and fast. However, I found the mics sometimes more in the way of the sound I was looking for than helping with it. Sometimes none of their EQ curves were what I wanted. Let's consider this logically. In the physical hardware world, amps and cabs and FX are part of the tone creation process and frankly part of the art. However, the mic used by the live or studio engineer is actually more of an obstacle or X-factor to the player than an asset. To the engineer, it is a necessary evil and is used as a shaping tool (although, as a professional engineer with decades of experience, if I had an option of a perfectly flat and non invasive mic and pre, on most sources, I would probably try that before anything else). So, why not give that option to the Pod user? For my purposes, if I need more tone shaping after setting the amp and cab, a finite impulse response (FIR) EQ with no phase distortion would be the perfect last step in the tone creation process, rather than a copy of the EQ of a mic. After all, we are in the digital realm, so why not use its advantages? Even one of the EQs in the HD is acceptable, although I am not a big fan of their interfaces to be perfectly honest. What do you all think?

The /13 is my favorite, especially with my strat. Very crisp cleans and extra nice with a tube screamer. The Dr Z is good for bluesy stuff. I like the Soldano for really ballsy stuff. And the Deluxe is good too, but the 13 sort of sounds the same, but better.

It's still attached, but is loose and floppy - it feels like the plastic shaft is broken. It still works if I push it down and turn. I'm afraid it will require a replacement of the pot assembly, which is probably on a circuit board. Yikes. I use this thing several days a week, so I'm nervous about taking it apart, and I'm nervous about it dying on a gig! I think I'll just tape it down for now since I never change set lists on gigs, until I have a chance to put it in for service or get the balls to take it apart.

Dang, I broke my set list knob. Any suggestions from y'all about the best solution. I gig with it all the time so I need a solution where I can fix it myself if possible.

I have about 20 presets for each of two guitars I mainly use. Most of my presets use the pedal to go from the rhythm sound and level to the lead sound and level. I usually have a modulation effect and delay effect (or pitch, etc) on the top row of buttons, to spice things up, however my presets also usually adjust the primary delay and verb as I depress the pedal (more ambience for the solo). I play several gigs a week, with a wide variety of styles, from reggae to jazz, so I don't mess with set lists. I know my priests cold so it's just a moment to switch them. I don't use more than one set list. I usually have presets I'm fooling with on the other set lists.

You can also use the pedal to go from one amp to the other. The beauty of this is that you can have very useful in-between positions as well as the full on at either end of the arc. I would also mention that you can program the amps to have different levels at different points of the arc. In other words, you can set an amp to lower its volume as you decrease the pedal, so the blending positions are optimized. In addition you can simultaneously have your effects settings change with the pedal, so you could, for instance, increase delay as you go to the louder soiling amp, or increase a distortion pedal, etc. The possibilities are pretty endless and the control is very useful for gigging players. Most of the time I use only one patch per song. My patches are set up to go from, eg, a clean Slo to a distorted Slo, or a broken up /13 to a full on, etc. etc. I never have to dance around on the switches. I just rock the pedal. This can be very useful when you're comping and want to throw in a line here or there, and if you sing too, it's a god send to not have to always look down at the pedal board, or hope that you're hitting the right switch. IMHO this is one of the most useful and valuable features of the HD.