NucleusX

If you want a true representation of what the HD500 sounds like without colouration from the Marshall, then connecting headphones to HD500 would be the better way. In this config without the Marshall, output should be set to *Studio Direct*. Then again, if your also connected to the Marshall at the same time and want that running simultaneously with your headphones, the output settings will conflict. HD500 > Headphones = Studio Direct HD500 > Marshall (front end input) > Headphones = Combo Front HD500 > Marshall (front end input) = Combo Front HD500 > Marshall (FX loop return) = Combo Power Amp

@ Digital_Igloo Could you please tell us exactly what model of processor is in the HD500/HD Pro ? I want to further investigate their specifications and costs.

I could pick another, but what would be the purpose of this exercise ? not as if anything will change now lol, it'll just generate another point of attack on me. And might I add, the other 3 big MFX companies like Boss, Digitech, and Zoom don't seem to impose proprietary additions anywhere near as much as Line6.

@ stumblinman Digital_Igloo created a list of items they could've altered to make a better DSP chip viable and i'll quote "• Remove parallel signal paths", this is why I assumed it could be a cost cutback that would've allowed it, nothing more.

Ahhh Nuno, one of my influences of youth, never tried to replicate his sound, maybe because his skill is hard to replicate with it lol. Funny you mention Nuno, I've had the track *get the funk out* stuck in my head for days lately !

My needs ? such a professional response, no need to be rude. I'm not telling anyone to buy it, it was a great example of striking a balance between hardware vs software, that was the point.

I'm not complaining cause I knew what I bought from day one with flaws and all. I bought a glorified amp sim and that's about it, and I'm fine with that. But as a thrifty FX consumer, I certainly know what I want and what I don't want and not shy to say so. The day I let a company tell me what I want is the day I stop thinking for myself. Wether its a voice in the wilderness or not is another story, but it would pay to hear what your customers would have to say if a company is to keep the peoples respect and loyalty, that really is a no brainer.

@ brue58ski I guess in the end, this is all down to definition. Sure id agree to categorize the X additions as "Upgrades". But as far as the %20 incrementation of performance they offer, i certainly wouldn't consider them a true evolution in the HD series.

The midi implementation is a bonus I never considered and am currently without that bonus. I know DSP wise my layout would be over-kill to most and I don't use ALL the available slots on the HD Pro and Zooms at the same time, but I find this flexibility immensely handy by using the HD Pro mainly for its amp-sims and Zooms mainly for surrounding FX before and after the amp-sims, plus the extra choice of FX that the HD Pro will never see, and opens up my experimentation options. Raw DSP performance isn't my only concern, Ideally I'd like to get off the floor and install another rack unit into the HD Pro's fx loop to deal with its limitations and be done with it in that manner, but another HD Pro/X would lump me with the same selection of fx and amps as the HD Pro I already have. Also, these Zooms that I use max-out @ a 48khz sample rate, so I'm not doing the HD Pro's 96Khz sample rate any favours by bottle-knecking it down with the Zooms. Been considering an 11R, but all these current options are about to be rendered obsolete soon, if not already, so maybe I should sit and wait with patience for the new products to dawn on us.

Personally, I believe the X versions of both the HD500, and the HD Pro, are a silent admission from Line6 that they failed with the non-X versions. If they where so great in all their entirety and confident with the products, then the X versions wouldn't even exist period, and would've moved onto bigger and better things apart from their continued software/firmware support for the HD Series. You might argue that these where better targeted at consumers not already owning the non-X versions, but how many senario's have you seen play out this way ? A rare sight for me in the better part of 2 decades that I've been an FX consumer. And for the very small handful of senario's that did play out this way, always without a doubt, caused a flurry of debate from people and consumers knowing how a successful series flows. One example from memory was the debate over the Boss DD-2 Vs DD-3 which caused a bit of a stir in the guitarist community. In their own right, the HD500 and HD Pro are a fine bit of kit. In the context of an evolving series, I consider them to be a failure.

Currently im front ending the HD Pro with a Zoom MS-100BT, one in the fx loop, and one at its outputs. It has stereo ins and outs and the added DSP helps, this is my current work-around.

Well that's a pity but I wont be buying a HD Pro X for the little extra it offers. I was just hoping for a cheap out to improve its short-comings.

A quote by marcwormjim on page 1 (proper quoting isn't working for me at the moment) "Thanks for clearing things up in that regard. I'll revise my post." Did anyone else notice that he was detracted a point for this statement ? I mean seriously this point system is ridiculous herding people into certain directions. I bet the experts clock points up to each other just to strengthen their arguments, WTF. I'm not trying to offend anyone or start an argument, but I see room for abuse with it. The man humbly posted a recant, taking a point off him was totally un-necessary. Watch for my points detractment, coming soon.. lol, not that I ever cared for them.

I suspected these where surface mounted devices but wasn't motivated enough to crack it open to check, pity... Anyone got a definite answer on this ?

Can the DSP processors in the non-X versions of the HD500 and/or HD Pro be simply swapped out and replaced with the chips currently installed in the X versions ? And if so, what would this entail procedure and cost wise ?

I decided to let this thread go for a while so I could monitor future posts of various peoples experiences concerning this fault, and it seems to be quite the common fault without a doubt. I believe I took the necessary steps to approach this logically and fairly, as a technician would. 1. Search and confirm that others are experiencing this same issue. 2. Took all the required steps to assess and rule out the expression pedal first. 3. Had a discussion in this forum to gather more information and evidence. 4. Contacted other technicians to cross reference and validate the fault. 5. Contacted Line6 tech support as instructed to further investigate the matter. I don't think I could've approached this in a more concise and thorough manner and have proven without a shadow of a doubt, that this is a fault within the firmware coding.

I've put all sorts of Zoom pedals in my POD HD Pro's fx loop and loving this combination. The G5 does NOT have an internal fx loop so you will only be able to do a mono send, stereo return, which might be limiting to you as opposed to having full stereo send/return. I find Zooms fx algorithms and choice more appealing than the HD Pro's, but then, I find the amp sims on the HD Pro more appealing, so I combined the best of both worlds. Personally, if money wasn't an issue, id be opting for the 11R out of all your choices.

I noticed you posting on quite a few threads at that time, that's all.

I've had many guitars over the years with both passive and active pickups that i always custom wired myself, and my experience's with EMG's have been great in ALL setups. If your certain your patch or preset isn't contributing to your noise, then this would suggest to me a problem with the internal wiring of your pickups. Sometimes the stereo TRS jacks that comes with EMG pickup kits can cause noise if this jack isn't seated well for all 3 conductors of that jack to your cable. Move the plug around at different angles while its in the socket to see if this corrects it, if so, the jack needs attention, if not, the problem may lay deeper in the wiring/switch/pots. With active pickups, there isn't a grounding connection made to the trem. Is it a custom after fitting, or bought it loaded with the EMG's ?

This configuration is also possible. Mono to 2x Mono Y splitter cable. (no buffering) One end in the guitar, one end to the G5 Input, and the other to the HD500 Input. Stereo G5 Output, to the Aux Input on the HD500. There would not be a need for an FX loop block in this configuration and both the G5 and HD500 should be considered as 2 completely separated signal paths. Magnetic pickups are the prefered type.

If you intend on a mono send/return with the G5, then you should be sending the L (mono) send of the HD500 to the G5 input, and the G5 L (mono) output back to the HD500 L (mono) return. If your not getting any output from the HD500 to your amps in this config, then your problem will be somewhere in the internal settings of either G5 or HD500. There are many settings in both that this could be attributed to.

Sending your POD's output into your amp's FX loop return rather than the amp's input, will result in a completely different tonal character as-well .

Yes it should be possible. Guitar Output. > HD500 Input. > HD500 Mono FX Send. > G5 Input. > G5 Stereo Outputs. > HD500 Stereo FX Returns. > HD500 Outputs. > Amps. Then, you must assign an FX block in your HD500 to the FX loop and place it along your HD500's internal chain where you need it. I can imagine in that configuration, its going to be most useful with the FX loop block placed just before, or after the amp(s) or mixer in the HD500. Set all your levels to suit within the FX loop block Send and Return.

You have the option to either put the POD HD500 in series before, or after your Zoom G5. You also have the option to put the G5 into the HD500's FX Loop but not vice-versa, as the G5 does not have an FX loop. OR, you can split the signal just after the guitar and send to both inputs of the G5 and HD500 with a Y cable and then send your outputs from there into both amps front end input, or fx loop returns in on your amps. There are a few more exotic wiring approaches I could think of but Im not exactly sure of what your trying to achieve signal chain-wise. Keep in mind, you will have trade off's to make in all configurations. Like, where your mono and stereo lines are available for your chain(s).

Ahh ok that explains it then thanks duncann, ive just recently upgraded my windows 7 with IE11, I guess its a glitch Line6 need to look at.