NucleusX

@PRSGuy I would say that the kind of people (like me) looking for a "SAG" control, are the kind of people that want to see more and more of the actual hardware environment, mimicked in the software DSP environment, which brings us one step closer to making the experience as good as the real thing. In that respect, AMPLIFi is a step back, geared towards simplicity. Now if I think about it after digressing, I would say a lot of us POD HD owners feel a bit let down watching Line6 abandon us for a simplistic toy targeted at a different kind of guitarist. We feel (or at least I do) that its final developments where cut a bit short. Sure, The POD HD is ok as is, but it could've went further in the firmware/ampsim department. Bit of kick in the face when even a request for a simple EQ % issue to be rectified is ignored, how hard is that to fix ? I doubt it's as hard as modelling a new amp. Where's sedgey in this discussion lol, finish what you started !

Well if your mostly running amp-sims, FRFR speakers will provide transparency to all your amp-sims, and the final product in your tone won't be "coloured" in any particular way, like it would be in a traditional amp/cab setup. I guess the primary specification to note in active FRFR speakers, is their frequency response curve, which can be directly translated to a higher cost as the response curve gets closer to a perfect flat-line, which is impossible in the real world, but they can get close. The flatter the response curve, the more expensive, simple as that. I can't personally pitch any accurate idea's to you, as we all respond to tone in different ways, but I can suggest you do thorough homework on them by going to the manufacturers websites and make individual comparisons, HD (1080) Youtube video's might help too. And also looking at Pro and User reviews published online, with searches refined to the metal genre.

Just as a side note, I keep one of these hum destroyers just in-case I run into grounding issues that's common to guitar gear when interfaced with other gear. http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/HD400.aspx Not saying it will definitely fix it for you, but its a worthy last resort, and cheap. As for mains grounding, technically this is an "earth" connection rather than a grounding. Typically, an earthed power socket/plug/cable will consist of 3 pins/wires, as opposed to the 2 pins/wires on non-earthed power connections. Also, I would take a hard look at the power supply that Line6 supplied with your HD500X, it may be defective. Hope this helps.

If all else fails, try swapping every single element simultaneously, including your guitar and amp, at least then you'll know its a high possibility that the problem just may originate from the mains power at your property. Or alternatively, go to another property away from your mains CCT, and see if you can replicate the problem there. If the problem is still there, it HAS to be a problem somewhere in your current equipment. Back to square one.

I would give this question the same answer I would give someone that was asking for an ideal amplifier best suited to the POD HD. There is no right or wrong answer, ultimately, this is a personal voyage you should investigate on your own, through practical experimentation with all of the options you posted. Sure you can sit here all day splitting hairs with brands/costs/specifications, but they wont tell you what your ears will tell you, and we're all unique in that regard. I will say tho, I think most would agree that the POD HD series performs best in an FRFR environment, so go try them all !

A grounding mat isn't really a solution, just a side step to the main cause. And I don't think throwing new gear at it is a solution either. You really need to hunt down the suspect causing your noise first, then start looking at specific solutions, which I have many to throw at you, lol, but first things first, do your process of elimination till your sure.

@TheRealZap There seems to be fine line's between things taken as an opinion/debate/argument. Whatever definition YOU choose to interpret is up to you, but on a forum, i'll only go as far as a "debate". Also, Its hard to know what angle of perspective your working with, seen as tho most of my comments are met with an element of negative feedback suppression, which is how most admins come off most of the time, rather than neutral. My intelligence can only read so far into your text, which has massive limitations as far as accurately communicating/interpreting with other human beings is concerned. This has always been a general problem communicating and chatting online since day dot.

First thing I would've tried if this happened to me, would be switching to 1/4 outs for a test. I've seen many cases where XLR caused noise issues, which is contradictive, seen as tho XLR terminations where designed for better noise cancelling properties, XLR outputs are hotter than the 1/4 outs. Could be a loose GND wire at one of the sockets inside the POD itself ? Simple process of elimination should nut it out. Swap cables (1/4 and XLR), no ? put cables back Swap with a diff guitar, no ? put guitar back. Swap POD for another MFX or stomp pedal, no ? put POD back. Swap guitar amp (if in use as-well as PA), no ? put amp back. You get the point. As for the noise fix in the firmware update, I believe it was just for a USB audio issue. Ultimately, my instincts tell me the POD is at fault, with a bad ground connection at one of the sockets.

Is it usually common for Line6 to first debut their new products at NAMM ? Cause as far as I know, one just passed, so it won't be happening for another 6 months.

@Digital_Igloo Hahaha, thanks for the response, least someone here has a sense of humour :)

I'm about as resentful about it as the OP is, but anyways, thanks. I asked D.I. because he seems to know more about the ins and outs of what Line6 are up to than anyone else here, not that I expected a solid answer based on what he can and can't say, but it's worth a shot don't you think ? Even Microsoft make EOL information publically known. No assumptions usually needed around that question in most cases. :ph34r: Here lurks the Line6 Anti-Christ. lol.

@Digital_Igloo Are we to assume that the POD HD has finally hit its EOL ? or are we to expect some unexpected things for it in the near future ? All this speculation based on the unknown makes it hard for some of us consumers to know how to make our own next steps. I'll add that I am also grateful for your input, but I believe I should also treat you as I would any man, not as a god, as some do. :P

I understand what your saying about future development, and it makes total sense to me, don't get me wrong. But in my position, as a one shot customer fully focused on my single purchase with my hard earned cash, how much foresight should be expected from me ? How much should I care about the things i'll never own ? I'm all for a growing company, but the kind of consumer your talking about, is a loyal long-term one, willing to bend.

@TheRealZap I DEFINATELY know the AMPLIFi is not for me, and I say this without argument by the way. Is it ok by you that I have a customer opinion ? you don't have to agree with me, but I do have a right to participate in this discussion, no need to be condescending.

I guess that's all well and good for a company and its loyal customers that continue to buy their gear during the highs and lows of that company's over-all success, but I thought this particular thread subject had finite limits between AMPLIFi and POD HD. In that context, I don't really see how AMPLIFi will ever benefit me, especially when I'm not an ongoing loyal customer. I'm more concerned with what I have right now, which is a POD HD Pro, and not what "might be" presented in the future.

@RIblues Mind explaining to us (or me at least) how the selling statistics of AMPLIFi, directly benefit POD HD users ? I must be missing something. Edited.

@Rewolf48 You make a very fine, and relevant point in regards to iOS devices, and I believe you delivered your message neutrally without anger. Sadly, Line6 aren't the only company getting into an exclusive bed with Apple, Digitech and Zoom are also buying into this path and also leaving a massive gap to those who rely on Android devices, but my form of protest against this move won't be to get *angry*, it will simply come from my refusal to buy into it, and saying so. Being a POD HD owner tho, I see this move cutting into the good things Line6 could've put into future-proofing the HD series with a bit more continual focus. End of the day, our needs and business is the "lifeblood" of any company pitching idea's, we will go where our needs are met, brand-name loyalty never meant much to me personally.

Amps. 1. ENGL Powerball 2. 2. Peavey 5150. 3. Diezel VH4. FX. 1. TC Electronics, Corona TriChorus. 2. Better EQ with more bands and tunable above 8khz. (in Hz not %) 3. Sonic Exciter.

You will need a 10K Resistor rather than a Pot. You only want the resistance of both extremes of the Pot positions, in this case, 0 Ohm (heel) 10K Ohm (toe).

Sounds like you running inputs and outputs in a serial fashion. The HD500 also has an FX loop you could put the XT in, if you haven't already tried it yet. EG: Guitar > HD500 Input > FX Loop Send (L Mono) > XT Input > XT Outputs (L+R Stereo) > HD500 FX Loop Return (L+R Stereo) > HD500 Outputs > Amp. Then you would need to add an FX block in your HD500's signal chain, assigned to the FX Loop, and set your desired Send/Return volume levels to suit.

Misinformation ? bit dramatic and inaccurate don't you think ? I wouldn't say I was "misinformed", nor am I trying to "misinform" anyone.

*Insert hysterical laughter here* :P On a serious note, I wouldn't mind putting a bump on this... Not saying this "should" be done, but maybe in the future one day it "could" be done if it where to be implemented into the design of the architecture to help "manage" DSP usage. In any kind of DSP, its processing bandwidth limit is set *fixed* by the hardware architecture. Where you have "more" available DSP slots in an 48khz environment but lower definition, and "less" available slots in an 96Khz environment at higher definition, would it be correct to assume that they both roughly balance out evenly, thus requiring roughly the same raw processing bandwidth requirements ? And If so, wouldn't the possibility of halving the sampling resolution, also halve the processing bandwidth ? Could in theory open up the possibility of more slots one would think, for about the same DSP demand ?

Another thing I'll mention. In Australia, the approximate prices are as follows. (AUD). POD HD Pro X around $920, POD HD Pro around $699, and POD HD500X around $950. Not sure what's happening elsewhere, but we aren't seeing the *$500* market point some people have been referring to. Personally I paid AUD $699 for my POD HD Pro. The Shortboard MKII pedal board to go with it, was about AUD $350.

@ Rewolf48 @ RIblues We all spend our DSP budget in our own way, there is no "right" or "better" way. I've already stated that I have solutions in place, but thanks for the suggestions that wasn't required. And for the record, I never said I was stringing 8 reverbs together, not that the personal tastes of the user's combination of chosen FX or AmpSims should be a factor in this debate. For the average player with simple chains, you won't be confronted by DSP issues half as much as someone running a rack in a home studio recording situation, like I am. There are no extra FX on the floor for me either, only control pedals, which is how I like it.

Not saying this "should" be done, but maybe in the future one day it "could" be done if it where to be implemented into the design of the architecture to help "manage" DSP usage. In any kind of DSP, its processing bandwidth limit is set *fixed* by the hardware architecture. Where you have "more" available DSP slots in an 48khz environment but lower definition, and "less" available slots in an 96Khz environment at higher definition, would it be correct to assume that they both roughly balance out evenly, thus requiring roughly the same raw processing bandwidth requirements ? And If so, wouldn't the possibility of halving the sampling resolution, also halve the processing bandwidth ? Could in theory open up the possibility of more slots one would think, for about the same DSP demand ?