wicker_man

Got a reply to my ticket, acknowledging a bug that the DT won't pass through data to the L3t, so speaker mode can't be saved with my configuration. However, I got the unsatisfactory response that I have to log it on ideascale. Surely the purpose of ideascale is for product enhancements rather than bug fixes? Anyway, the idea is here if anyone would like to vote ;) http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Allow-L3t-speaker-mode-save-when-L6-linked-to-DT-amp/579806-23508

I have exactly the same problem as ukphonebook. The Line 6 documentation states to always put the DT amp first in the L6 link chain (if you don't it won't save the topology settings). If I just connect the L3 and leave the DT disconnected, the speaker mode is saved. If I re-connect the DT, the speaker mode on the L3 stays in the last used setting. With electric guitar, I wanted to used my DT and L3 for amps A and B and with acoustic I wanted to mute the DT and use acoustic guitar or reference/PA mode on the L3. Sadly, it looks like I'm going to have to compromise with the electric guitar and just use the DT. Is this a firmware issue or a hardware problem? Presumably, if you have more than one DT amp in the L6 link chain, the topologies are properly save if you assign them to different amp blocks? Edit: I've just raised a ticket on this with Line 6. As far as I'm concerned, I was expecting them to work together properly and they do not. This limitation should at least have been documented so any prospective buyers are aware of it. Not that it would have prevented me from buying the L3t - I wanted it primarily for the acoustic and PA features. Let's hope it is fixed in the next POD HD firmware release....

I get spiking on my S/PDIF channel if I have both input and output connected simultaneously between my HD Pro and Presonus Firestudio Mobile. I've still not worked out why this is - at first I thought it was because of a naff breakout cable for the S/PDIF on the Firestudio. However, re-amping works a treat if I record dry via S/PDIF by connecting just one cable and then swap the input/output over from for the re-amping.

Hmm... Not for me - I'll stick with my DT25 & LT3 thanks. And my Android phone.

I think Andy has said he just uses the L series for acoustic. I have tested and my L3 will save the speaker mode with the patch it if is connected directly to the POD, but not with the POD > DT25 > L3 as per the recommendation in the manual. I have also tried POD > L3 > DT, and the speaker mode is saved but the DT topology isn't., I guess the only way at present is to connect the L3 via XLR out and use the full range setting as per Andy's recommendation. Cheers.

It certainly saves the speaker mode OK if the L3t is 1st in the chain. Sadly, the POD doesn't recognise the DT25 at won't let me save the changes to the topology :angry: (or, presumably any other parameters that can't be set in the POD). Seems like we've found out the reason why the manual says to always put the DT amp first in the chain... What I don't know is whether this is something that can be fixed with another firmware update.

radatats - I have an L3t and DT25. If you select the Electric Guitar speaker mode on the L2/3 it sounds good with the POD set to Stack Power amp output mode. My issue is that I am on the latest POD HD firmware (2.20), and the speaker mode doesn't seem to be saved with my POD patches. It always seems to stay set on the last selected speaker mode which is fine if you're playing electric guitar all the time, but I want it to switch over to acoustic sometimes.

I have a Pod HD Pro > L6 link > DT-25 head > L6 link > L3t. Am I right to think that I should be able to save the speaker mode of the L3t per patch in the POD? I've tried setting the required speaker mode then saving the patch, but if I then change speaker mode manually the L3 does not return to the 'saved' mode when I re-select the patch. A I following the right procedure? Firmware 2.20 on the POD, 1.03 on the L3t.

Well, I've just taken delivery of an L3t today, so I've given this a go... You've got it pretty much spot on. The key is having the L2/L3 speaker mode set to electric guitar and not reference PA. That accounts for the POD output mode being forced to STACK PWR AMP when connected to the DT via L6 link. I put pan pedal after the mixer to pan between the DT and L3 and although they sound slightly different (which might be expected as I was using my own cab with the DT), both sounded really good. I just used a JCM 800 model with everything set to 12 o'clock on the pre- and full models. I can see myself spending hours setting up some nice dual and stereo patches now :D

I'm assuming sedgey means via L6 link from the POD HD. I would think the issue would be that the output mode of the POD will default to STACK PWR AMP when connected to the DT25, which would make the output from the L2t sound poor. Line 6 advise to connect the DT25 first in the L6 link chain - I'm not sure if connecting the L2t first would force STUDIO/DIRECT mode. To me, this would make more sense as you could assign the DT25 to one of the amp models and select "no cab" to inhibit the cab and mic simulation. There isn't really much guidance from Line 6 about how to use these two amps together in a guitar rig, although it is inferred in the POD HD Pro Advanced Guide page 2-17: "Note: It is necessary to always place the StageSource speaker(s) last in the L6 LINK signal chain (e.g. - POD HD Pro > DT50 > StageSource L3). For more about using the L6 LINK connection, DT Series amps & StageSource speakers, please see the additional documentation available at http://line6.com/support/manuals/." And for the life of me, I can't find anything more on this topic at the URL quoted in the manual. The L6 link connectivity guide only covers DT amps.

I assume you're using the direct out from the DT25 for the electric tones? I have a similar setup but take the FX send from my HD PRO to a DI box for acoustic tones and then use either the Direct out from the DT25 for the electric, or mic up my cab. You can adjust the send level in the FX loop block to level out relative patch levels.

Thanks for your replies. I gave it a go through my guitar cab at low volume and it sounded good. If I can get a good deal on a bass cab I might go for it, but I'm happy to know that it works with the guitar cab at these levels without damaging anything.

Thanks. I use the POD direct with the Flip Top model for bass - it was more a question of whether the DT25 would be OK. I wouldn't really want to use my guitar cab for bass, which is why I was thinking of getting a bass cab to use with the DT25 for this purpose.

I have a POD HD pro linked up to a DT25 head via L6 link which I use to drive a 2x12 cab. I am very happy with this setup as a guitar rig, but I want something to play my bass through (at home) without going to the expense or hassle of buying a dedicated bass rig or L3m/t. I was thinking of possibly getting a small bass cab and using that with the DT25. I guess it's just the frequency response of the drivers that would be the issue in getting a good sound with bass. Am I right to assume that it would be safe to use the DT25 head in this way? Has anyone tried it, and if so does it sound any good? Cheers!

I set up patches for different parts of each song and assign them to the ABCD switches in each bank. I try to keep each bank to one or two songs, so I don't have to change banks within a song. If there are specific variations of one of the patches required in a particular song, I'll assign it to one of the FX stomp controllers. As far as set list goes, I use one (or two) for a gig. I synch the patches in using HD edit in the right order for the gig which keeps the switching simple between and within songs, I keep a 'working' copy of all my patches in other setlists in case I want to make some tweaks without affecting my gig set, One set list is kept for work in progress for new patches. Works really well, especially with the DT25 head and JTV.

Well, I rolled back to 1.9 last night and spent a couple of hours playing today going through the models and my patches. Felt a bit lifeless, so I reinstalled 2.0 to make a comparison and have decided I definitely prefer 2.0 so will be sticking with it. I guess it's all down to personal taste in the end and what works for you.

Thank you Zap!

Where do I find the poster for v1.9?

Can't you just take the direct out from the DT25 into one of the inputs on the L3M?

I currently have v2.0 on my JTV-59. Initially, I was excited to get the update (as, I expect, was everyone else). After the playing through the models, I've got to admit I was not blown away by it like I thought I would be and over time I'm beginning to think that I preferred the sounds the way they were before the update. I've tried tweaking my patches, but it hasn't made it sound any better and now I'm thinking I want to roll back to v1.9. Just to satisfy my own curiosity, I'm going to record some samples before and after I roll back to A/B the tones. Perhaps then I'll be convinced I've made the right decision.

It wasn't too bad after all. Just seemed like a lot of fiddling around to tighten one pot. 10 screws in all, including 2 tiny ones that were on a small PCB that had to be removed to get access to the nut. Thanks for the advice all.

I like this thread! This is my rig (the laney is spare, no longer used). I'm the happiest I've ever been with my rig, but the emergence of the L series speakers has me in a quandary. I've heard great reviews of them and undoubtedly they will offer great flexibility for live use. Here's my dilemma. I want something that can handle acoustic, bass and vocals for practice at home (rather than my studio monitors) that can also be used for small gigs. The L2t/L3t seem to fit the bill. I would need to sell the DT head to fund it - is it worth me considering?

Apologies - I didn't attach the picture!

I don't think so. Apart from the flange there is a small plastic piece between the flange and the nut that I need to get to (at the bottom in the pic attached - not the greatest of pictures, I'm afraid). Unfortunately, this would obstruct a socket. I'm not even sure it would be possible with a thin walled socket. I need some sort of caliper that I can get in the hole that would give me enough purchase on the nut to tighten it without taking out all the electronics. It's not a major issue - it's not really loose yet, and I do most of my switching via the POD, but it could get annoying if it worked any looser.

Tightening up a loose pot on a conventional electric is not normally a big issue, but on the JTV59 the nut holding the 'pot' in place is submerged in the body of the guitar and there is a flange preventing access to it. The only way I can see to tighten it is to go in through the back, but than involves moving PCBs etc, which I'm a bit wary of. Any suggestions?