NucleusX

That list of your's would assume the GT-100 and HD500/X are low tier products, which they're not, it goes even lower.

My guess is, Line 6 wouldn't have been in a good position to make the Helix gamble without the previous success and momentum of the POD HD series. I've noticed this trend in many sectors. Graphics cards would be a good example, where the bulk of their profit was made by high volume sales of the low to mid tiers, and make less on the small volume higher end in general. If Line 6 does well enough with Helix, they might just take their profits and re-inject it back into the lower tier's again, just my theory.

I emphatically disagree. With what other offers there is around, I'm left to assume that you think that because your number one go to company for FX is Line6 only. Sounds like a high stakes gamble to me, but i wish them all the best. I expect such venture's cuts off options in the lower tiers. This isn't a permanent shift where every MFX pedal is gonna be $1000 + from now on, which I'm sure they'd enjoy if true.

I think the OP has objectively made the correct observation. We haven't seen a refresh of mid-tier products (POD HD) yet, and there seems to be a gaping wide hole for other manufacturers to capitalize on. Wouldn't call the LT a mid-tier product either. I would certainly consider a refreshed POD if they can make it cheaper that the LT, but not too much more than the POD HD. Now Boss has stepped up into the top tier stuff with their new GT-1000, which is squarely aimed at Helix. Seems a lots been going on in the top tier scene the past few years, and mid-tier is being neglected. https://www.boss.info/us/products/gt-1000/

Not sure about this. That would suggest that Line 6 intends on killing off the POD series entirely, which has gone through many iterations. My assumption was, Line 6 created the Helix series as a high end series to compete with Fractal and Kemper, and demoting the POD series to mid end and would continue making them. That's what the pricing points suggest to me anyways, i could be wrong. Has there been any official statements from Line 6 that they're retiring the POD brand ?

Post #8 http://line6.com/support/topic/8091-set-footswitch-to-un-latching-momentary/

How do you "know" this ? And more importantly, where exactly did you read this ?

The image that you posted, is the FBV "Express". As I understand it, the FBV Express/Shortboard/Longboard foot pedals are only compatible with the POD HD "Pro" and other various Line6 amplifiers and gear ect. They can't be connected to the POD HD 300/400/500/X. There isn't even an FBV port on the back of the HD500/X for it to connect to in the first place lol. Not exactly sure where you read that ? but Line6 have done a good enough job to be clear about compatibility there.

I can say with a lot of confidence that you won't be able to use the FS-6 with the POD HD. The EXP 2 interface can only deal with "expression" pedals with 10K pots (including the Boss FV500's). It wasn't designed to receive momentary or latch footswitching. Some months ago I created a simple schematic by request for a footswitch with a 10K resistor that would give partial functionality mimicking the extremes of an expression, but I doubt you will find it useful, it won't give you the kind of functionality you are desiring unfortunately. The POD HD FS footswitches themselves are quite configurable tho, there's a lot you can do with them.

Don't forget about the delay trails if your gonna do some foot-switching during it... Delay repeats can get washed out and diminished easily if its before a gain'ed up amp. They sound the clearest right up the end next to your reverb. If that's what your doing then all I can think of is setting decay/feeback parameters higher. The out of phase swooshing sound with modulations (especially with stereo FX) that just doesn't sound right, is sometimes attributed to improper stereo connections or faulty output cables. If you can get the POD to sound great with other patches that include stereo FX, then It won't be that. On a side note, I bought a (a few lol) Zoom MS-100BT's which have some pretty sweet modelled delays and modulations from well established hardware references. They even modelled some Line6 FX. I don't think the FX selection in the POD is extensive enough to cover all the FX you might want be creative with, so I had to extend my options using the Zoom. Between the POD and that, I haven't been caught out by a spontaneously needed effect yet. All there so far ! Goodluck, hope you get your desired result without buying another gadget.

The main option for increased sustain, is a compressor before OD/Distortion or amp stages in the pre area. If this isn't enough for you, you might have to start thinking outside the POD for a solution.

My only helpful thought is that most, if not all active PA's rely a line level signal usually as its primary source. The inputs on guitar combo's (or any other guitar amp) are the much more sensitive stomp type levels and easily over-driven with a line signal. So I think for the most part, your volume differences are due to the differing input types you're comparing with. A better comparison would be going straight into the FX return of your combo from the POD's 1/4 outputs. You also have the different output mode settings in the POD which need to be set according to the input you'll be jacking into. Anyways, its no surprise to me that the combo seems to have more headroom than the PA, its input is more sensitive.

My apologies, I didn't realize the HD400 was limited to that extent and never actually used one, I have a HD Pro. Googled a pic of the back the unit and it seems to have the CD/MP3 input. You could also try that, although, I'm not sure if its a mono or stereo input ? Be nice if it was stereo, that jack won't interfere with your guitars signal chain.

Was never an issue for me configuration wise, was just a curiosity that suddenly came to mind, so I thought maybe Line6 had a specific intention or reason for making it possible that wasn't obvious to me. Even if there isn't, I'm glad the option is actually there at my disposal.

I think its safe and do-able as long as you have the FX Loop block active in your chain. With the mixer block after the amp block, the path I would try first is instead of running dual amps, run a single amp, and the FX Loop block placed where the 2nd amp would be, parallel to the 1st. Then set "send" to zero, and "return" to whatever volume you desire, then use the mixer to balance your volumes between guitar and keyboard. If your keyboard has Line outs, set FX Loop switch to line and you should be set. Hope this helps.

My 2 cents. First thing I think of after reading this, is the saved default volume expression pedal settings (if in use), could be in conflict with the current pedal position while transitioning from patch to patch, and thus defaulting to an unexpected volume level ? If this idea is on the right track, I suggest you do a system reset, and recalibrate your expression pedal in the POD, then closely recheck volume settings for the pedal for each patch, and be mindful of current pedal position while programming the settings. As for the PSU, the primary input is AC, but the secondary output is 9VDC @ 3amps. As long as you have those specs right, and the polarity of the plug is correct, your good to go. Its not absolutely set in stone that you have to use a Line6 HD500/X PSU either, but it would sure as hell be a lot simpler for you in the end. Oh, and if you happen to come across a PSU with an output current rating "above" 3 amps, that's fine to use as-well, but if its "below" 3 amps, steer clear of it. In other words, 3 amps (or 3000mA) minimum.

Its an general annoyance most people have to deal with concerning pitch-shifters. Deal with it, or get something expensive dedicated to it, which aren't perfect either. You might want to get the guitars intonation checked out too.

I remember when I first got my POD HD Pro and getting around to using the FX Loop thinking "Damn, the FX loop send and return are tied together in the same block." Wouldn't it be cool if....

There is no analogue in the real world where a cab is directly front ended by a pre amp. As for the DT, it has its own cabinet, so a cab sim before a real cab would be an inaccurate representation too wouldn't it ? Pre amps would be useful for any amp with an fx loop really. Least we can bypass cabs with pre amp sims to keep things logical if needed.

No idea if this has been asked before, but what's the story here ? We all know this isn't how things work in the real world. As strange as it is, I actually like this feature. Pre's help to save DSP and the cabinets help to mitigate the thinness.

lol, I like how the OP started with "It doesn't hurt to ask...not illegal" as if he was preparing for an onslaught of criticism. Its ok buddy, I don't blame you for asking. ;)

The Hard Gate is particularly useful for the "start-n-stop" type rhythm playing mostly found in Djent metal.

After installing the model packs, I felt there was a fair set of amps that where ported over to the POD HD. I'm guessing there's a balance to be struck here. Too many ports and people start complaining about the point of having a HD unit filled with lower resolution amps and the value concerning it. Apparently they modelled the new HD model pack amps with the Helix modelling and then ported them to the POD HD.

I've seen many examples where a company will produce a flagship device first off, and then subsequently release the cheaper less capable models later, but based on the same architecture as the flagship model. I'm not going to speculate wether or not this might affect the POD series, but it wouldn't be a surprise to me. Interesting times, guess we'll have to wait for Line 6 to unveil those kind of particulars when they see fit.

A sample buffer size of 4096 is going give anyone grief, anything over 512 will. Keep in mind you will have to increase the buffer size again if you decide to increase the sample rate to say 96khz. If you set too low, you will hear glitch artefacts. If you set too high, and the latency increases. Its a balancing act.