NucleusX

From what I can tell, the Helix is Line 6's first attempt at the high-end market for multi FX, and the POD HD would be mid-market. I might be wrong, but I don't see the Helix replacing the POD series, and there as a high-end option ? Maybe Line 6 will use the Helix architecture/platform on smaller lower priced versions ? Not exactly sure what this means for their future product structuring.

While we're at it, someone could post an idea at ideascale and petition for Line 6 to model the Helix for the HD ? lol, good effort Jandrio. :)

Post #6 http://line6.com/support/topic/14522-compressor-before-or-after/ Its hard to say, even though graphically the GUI displays its signal chain the way it does with respect to amps and fx loop, mightn't mean that that's exactly the path the signal is taking. Intuitively, the cabinet and mics should be right at the end of the signal path. This would all be guess work at best till some "on the inside" Line 6 egg head steps in and straightens us out with actual facts.

Electronically there's a huge difference, the tonal characteristics of both points in the real world differs just as much too, the modelling should reflect that. I brought this subject up a while ago in a thread but no-one had anything to say about it lol, better late than never.

Being a metal shredder, I personally found the metal pack to be a nice supplement to the already existing high gain amp collection in the POD HD, but I also found myself wanting the vintage pack just for the Roland JC-120 amp, to add to the fewer clean amp choices we had. All in all, I'm quite happy with what I have now, even if Line 6 don't release another update or model pack, I feel like I'm now enjoying a full package experience.

I agree, digital algorithms seem to introduce their own kind of fizz apart from the natural fizz you would expect, and i would find it hard to believe anyone that made the claim "digital modeling has %100 conquered all things analogue". There are still improvements to be made as digital hardware specs are increased in the future. I started a thread a while back you might find interesting. It was just meant as a general discussion around the digital vs analogue debate, and not entirely applicable to this subject. http://line6.com/support/topic/12197-will-digital-modelling-ever-replace-analogue/ I've tried pretty much all the VST type software modeling, and they are about as superior as you can get in a studio situation. The DSP chips installed in these pedal modelers just don't have a chance at competing with desktop or laptop computers and their sheer processing potential, but a completely different story when it comes to live practicality unfortunately. Its good that you have found your solution even if it isn't gear from Line 6. Personally being a metal guitarist, I find myself scrutinizing gain and distortion more than any other effect in my signal chains, and have found Zoom to hold my subjective approval of what I consider satisfying distortion, regardless of its cheaper price point. Each to their own as they say.

In respect to A/B tests where the algorithms reflect the same fizz in modeled amps, whats you take on the Line 6 amp creations that weren't modeled on any specific real world amp ? Wouldn't it be desirable for them to take the opportunity to create those algorithms with none, or as little fizz as possible ? I don't think I, or anyone has ever said to themselves "hmm, this tone requires more fizz" lol.

Interesting and plausible theory. I've always wondered this myself as I've always struggled to dial fizz out of the POD HD, and could explain why the fizz is less noticeable on lower res units that are able to mask the fizz to a reasonable degree. Makes me wonder if the Helix suffers from this even more seen as tho its res would be at-least equal or better compared to the POD HD one would assume.

Most pitch shifters can handle a 1/2 step without noticeable artifacts, but starts to become noticeable at a full step up or down, gain or clean.

I thought this was a reasonable and obvious solution, nothing more needs to be said. Specifically a Parametric EQ dialed to around the centre frequency of "D" 146.83Hz.

Its still ok to run, or turn on/off the POD HD while connected via USB, just don't have Edit running.

Ahh ok, I wondered if you intended on using the built in speakers of that amp, or just the pre-amp section, the signal path routing would differ a lot. And your welcome ! I'm a sucker for routing discussions lol, too easy. I've never used the Aux in on my HD Pro tbh yet, but its kinda surprising to learn that its mono only, that sux.

Another solution. You could send the FX send out to the amp input, and then from the stereo out of the amp back to the Aux input on the HD500X, instead of the FX return. Doing it this way could allow for some interesting dual parallel path configurations, if you wanted to. It would also leave the dry out and FX return free for another path, or side-chain ! :D Although, I'm unsure wether the FX loop send or returns on the GK 250ML SS are both mono, or mono send stereo return ? This would play a big factor in routing possibilities. It seems to have stereo FX built-in, but that doesn't necessarily mean a stereo return.

Line level is typically around 2V. Stomp level is typically around 100mV. Problem with what your doing, is that the amp input requires Stomp level from the FX Loop send of the HD500X, but the FX Loop return would see a Line level signal from the stereo out of the amp, causing a conflict with the switch setting on the FX Loop switch on the HD500X. Possible solutions. 1. Start with the HD500X FX Loop send and return volumes at a minimum, and then slowly turn them up and try to achieve a good balance without clipping. 2. Using the FX loop on the amp would keep it consistent. FX loops on most amps require stomp level signals. Switch FX Loop on POD HD500X to "stomp", done. Unfortunately in this configuration, you will be restricted to mono signals only.

Your solution would make sense if the amplifier you intend to use has an FX loop of its own, so you can FX return back to the POD HD. Where does your FX send go from there ? and where do the 2 amp paths sum together ? As long as its working for you, I'm just curious with how exactly you went about routing your signal paths.

I think this is do-able if you use FRFR speakers in Studio Direct, the POD HD cannot run in 2 different output modes simultaneously. I imagine the signal chain would look something like this. |-- AmpSim --| Guitar > POD HD Input --< >-- POD HD Ouput. |-- FX Loop --| 2 ways to go about inputs. 1. Connect the dry output from the POD HD to your real amplifiers input. 2. Connect FX Loop send to real guitar amplifiers input. (options depend on if amp has fx loop) I don't think any combination will allow you to sum both amps before the outputs in the POD HD easily. Personally, I would re-amp from the POD HD dry out, and leave it at that. Then you could set the POD HD to any output mode and not have it conflict with the real amp. FRFR will open up your options here.

Come to think of it, isn't there particular MFX pedals out there that automatically reduce sampling resolution/quality as the DSP load increases towards its full capacity ? I'm sure they exist, not that it matters anymore. And I'm certain these units don't allow any manual control over this process, it's an automatic process that occurs in the background. I'd dare say this a feature within static allocation architecture's, as opposed to the POD HD's dynamic DSP allocation ?

Personally I'd use the global EQ, cause its at the end of the signal chain, isn't patch dependant, doesn't take up an FX block... oh, and cause I'm a DSP hungry fat bastard.

In the POD HD's system menu, go to the input settings and leave input 1 source on guitar, and try experimenting with input 2 source, input 1 can be directly affected by input 2 settings. By default, most people set input 2 source to "Variax". Also turn off the padding switch, if its on.

Thankyou Arislaf, definitely handy for the recording side of things.

Haha Tweaky, I like it ! @ ColonelForbin Are you a metal shredder by any chance ?

:rolleyes: Am I the only one that thinks the word "hijacked" after reading this thread ? lol

Yeh all good Brazzy, I wasn't comparing my knowledge to anyone else's, thought I'd mention I'm no amateur when it comes to these things, it just perplexes me that I'm having some difficulty here. Knowing I can't apply that knowledge specifically to the POD HD in every sense, and there's so many amps and FX to try in a myriad of combinations, its a bit frustrating. Could take forever in experimentation to finally find that "AHA!" moment, so I thought someone might have a shortcut to bypass all that experimenting, we all know what its like to spend too much time tweaking and not playing. Its reasonable to expect that %99 of analogue knowledge can be transferred and applied to the digital realm, my personal experiences verify that to a good extent. And yes, I have Meambobbo's guide here somewhere I can go back over, its been a while, and its a big read from what I remember. I guess I should read it again, thanks for reminding me. Originally I thought maybe the compressor was the key to it all, now I'm not so sure lol. :)

Reason i mention the FX Loop, is that when using traditional guitar amps, the ability to place certain FX smack between the pre-amp and power-amp, gives the user more options and flexibility for shaping their tones more accurately to how they require it. This was a major make-or-break factor for me while building signal chains with traditional pedals and amps, I avoid amps without FX Loops. That limitation aside, i still use the FX Loop in other parts of the chain for other FX units i have, and to expand on the DSP potential for my entire signal chain over-all. So its still useful to me in other ways. Bypassing the FX Loop won't improve distortion character for me, as its always placed after the mixer block anyways. I really think the problem lay from the amp block back. What do you mean when you say "jumped" ? I'm all for learning another trick if i don't know it. Most of my experimentation has been done with the Red Comp and Tube Comp, with all various parameters adjusted. I'm no idiot when it comes to building FX chains outside the POD, like i said. But I'm starting to get the feeling that the POD plays by its own rules when delivering results, so my trusty old knowledge doesn't seem to be of much help, so i'm guessing there's something unique to the POD i need to discover thats key to building great high-gain signal chains. I've conquered every other genre tone on the POD HD, no problems, its just the high-gain metal tone that trips me up, and custom tone presets are a bit "eh" to me to be honest. Theres a million and one ways to use an EQ, and where to put it, so my experimentation isn't hugely extensive with EQ's within the POD HD, but yes, i have tried them. Still, i appreciate your input, and thanks for the interesting link by arislaf ! If there's any metalheads around that have persevered with this, and have a good deal of experience playing metal with the POD HD (which seems to be a minority) and have unlocked a great tone with a non straightforward combination of FX in your signal chain, by all means join the conversation. I'm chasing the brutal bone-crushing tone dragon here, and I've lost my way !

When I'm fast picking muted notes for a rhythm section, I'm finding that the distortion tends to muddy out the notes, rather than hearing a clear definition in and between every note. On other gear, I go about it in either of these 2 ways, which always seems to work well for me. 1. Guitar > Compressor > Distortion > Amp (Clean) > or 2. Guitar > Compressor > Tube Screamer > Amp (Gain) > I gotta be honest here, I really have a hard time nailing a solid metal tone with the POD HD for some reason, I don't usually have this much trouble dialling gain tones up on other gear. Another thing I find a little confusing is the FX Loop. Traditionally an FX Loop on a real amp is located right between the pre-amp and power-amp sections. On the POD HD, I see no indication this can be done, it can only go before the pre-amp, or after the power-amp, and no option to put it right in-between. I'm wondering if this is detrimental to the flexibility of signal chains. Sure you can put a pre-amp in the chain, but you cant separate a pre-amp from an entire amp-sim to use its power-amp section alone. Btw, I run into an FRFR setup, so I don't use any traditional hardware guitar amps or cabinets with this rig, so that's out of the question. Not that the FX Loop confusion has anything directly to do with the compression subject, but I'm also trying to think of other factors that might limit my ability in shaping gain stages to an acceptable standard for live use. A clipping indicator to monitor each FX block would be nice.