NucleusX

Can someone please advise us of the frequency bands the new Global EQ possesses, thx ! Disregard if its a "Parametric EQ"

Hmm, a very interesting and revealing post. I'm glad there's people here motivated enough to go to those lengths.

@ pianoguyy I'd say the main reason people require multiple EQ's, is that the provided EQ's have a 6db roll-off, which gives subtle change's to its centre frequency in comparison to an EQ with a roll-off of say 12db. A 6db roll-off also has a greater effect on the neighbouring frequencies either side of centre-point, as a consequence, reducing or increasing the amplitude of frequencies you would rather no change to. A 12db roll-off has less effect on neighbouring frequencies, but more effect on its centre frequency in comparison to a 6db roll-off. High roll-offs such as 12 - 24db can usually be obtained by a Parametric EQ if certain narrow frequencies need adjustment. Personally, I require at-least both a Graphic, and Parametric EQ to deal with unwanted frequencies, its not uncommon. A more ideal solution is a 30 band Graphic EQ with a 12db roll-off, and should be all you'd need without stacking multiple EQ's together, but I doubt we'll ever get one of those, so stacking EQ's is inevitable. My main issue with the EQ's aside from the common ones we all share, is the set frequency of the very last band, I always felt they where too low. You might argue anything above 3Khz is useless for guitars, but that's not the case for direct chains without an amp, they can implement the entire 20Hz to 20Khz spectrum. Mic inputs on particular HD models could also benefit from a broader EQ band set, for vocal or acoustic tasks. Also, one might want to express more EQ control over input sources when presented with full spectrum audio, such as an iPod or music player device. It would make sense to at-least have one EQ that covers the entire spectrum, especially when one thinks of the "HD" title, that's designed to be interfaced with an FRFR speaker system with full-range capabilities, the lack of one perplexes me. :wacko: Does anyone know what frequency each band is set at for the global EQ, or the very last band at-least ? Edited.

Personally, I would take the amps pre-amp out of the equation and run your 1/4 outs straight into your amps FX loop return. Usually ends up sounding the best, without the added hassles of how a pre-amp and 4CM can further complicate things. Keep in mind bypassing the pre-amp renders most of the amp controls useless, and be careful with the initial volume of the POD, as master volumes will be controlled by it instead.

pianoguyy "I've seen people trying to set up patches so that they will only use one patch their whole life. They set up to turn the fx on and off as needed, instead of creating separate patches. Now, of course, not everyone does that, but that is why a lot of people run out of DSP. " This is exactly how I personally approach my chains, and have done so for over a decade. I would happily forfeit my 512 patch memory allocations to maintain this system, but unfortunately that wouldn't change the DSP limit issues, as my chain demands won't change, so I'm forced to supplement the POD HD with extra equipment. Creating another patch isn't a solution either, as the same limits apply, there's only a compromising solution. Edit Actually, I'd have to forfeit 511 allocations, I'd still need 1. :D

I have a POD HD Pro, and i'll say it was an absolute b#tch dialing in solid high-gain tones. By the time I add all the surrounding FX around the amp block to EQ stuff out, and get it to a respectable tone, I've run out of DSP, I feel sorry for you on a HD300 having less potential. I'd say your on a futile quest without at-least supplementing the HD300 with extra pedals, goodluck with that. :blink:

Yup ok, I should start a new thread on this subject.

When you say "dry", are you suggesting that the POD produces a flat response across the spectrum with all cab parameters zero'd off ?

It was quite some time ago, and I think rads explains this best, but I think someone was referring to cab parameters in that regard, where there was more bass and treble boost present than it should have and likened it to a maximizer effect, rather than the flat response you would expect from these parameters being set to zero. I've tried searching to no avail tho. Maybe someone else remembers this conversation ? In any case, wouldn't it be nice if we did in-fact have an exciter to play with. Nice to see new amps for sure, but FX seem to get neglected. I apologize for the confusion, thanks D.I. for your clarification.

I'm curious about something. Having read that the POD HD has an maximizer/exciter that can't be modified parameter-wise, did Line6 code monkeys remove this feature to fit the Global EQ in, or does the maximizer still exist when the Global EQ is disabled ? I aim to do some spectrum analysis on this when I get around to the update when its released, but I wouldn't mind knowing now if possible ?

The best way I know to achieve this with the least amount of artificialness, is getting a Sustaniac pup. These things give you infinite sustain and feedback @ any volume. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6ZVou9eYnU - Jeff Loomis demo. The Boss FB-2 is also designed for this purpose. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNouWh0mCxM

cruisinon2 "Or entire economy is based on this premise...cheap, mass produced crap with a deliberately short lifespan, guaranteeing that you will replace everything you own a dozen times over before you finally crap out yourself. The fact that "they don't make anything like they used to", is not an accident." Sounds to me like your describing the "Planned Obsolescence" business model.

You would like to think "surpassing" would be the main reason to "replace" a technology. Why would anything be replaced with something inferior ? Common sense would suggest that these 2 definitions are inextricably linked in the context of progress, regardless of contradictive examples.

Its one thing to trick the senses and muddle through blind tests, its another when these things are scrutinized and analysed with oscilloscopes and specification measurements are made with proper test equipment. This is where digital flaws become apparent. Mr_Arkadin "Sometimes it feels like the old NASA joke about spending millions developing an ink pen that could write in zero gravity, whilst the Russians used a pencil!" :lol: Brilliant analogy to this subject.

Mr_Arkadin "So ironically it seems all our technical advances are aiming to get us back to where we already were with CRT." Exactly, and it seems there's many parallels of the digital vs analogue debate in different technologies where digital still hasn't surpassed analogue in all specifications.

There are some die-hards out there that will still argue that a CRT television produces a better picture than most digital televisions today. And to some degree, alot would agree with that, since CRT televisions have spectacular response times and contrast ratio's in comparison. When digital televisions (like modellers) where first introduced, their quality results where clearly inferior, and still yet to catch up in certain aspects of the underlying technologies to surpass CRT in EVERY specification. http://www.displaymate.com/crtvslcd.html

markcockerill "As a side note, I have bought a Zoom G5 pedal on the strength of the quality of the G3X and I set the G5 up just for jamming along with my Sessionette 75 SS amp. Within 10 minutes and I was not far away from my full gig sound and and for jamming, that is near enough. Their software interface is incredible." I had a Zoom G5 for about a year till I sold it to help fund my POD HD Pro, and completely agree with you on that. The firmware/software solution in it was a treat, plus its ease of use. It didn't require a lot of tweaking to summon great tones out of it. I kinda miss it now that I think about it. Its a shame Zoom never made a successor to it and just stopped at the G5. I still have a bunch of multi-stomp pedals tho, which uses the same ZFX4 DSP chip and firmware solution as the G3/G3X/G5.

cruisinon2 "And now it's a semantics thread...lol" Well, the subject was started within the POD HD section of this forum. Just clarifying. :P

In studio's that may be, but I think this thread is more focused on guitar FX and amps, rather than the tech that's used to sample and record them.

A quote from a post I made in a current topic I started recently. "After painstaking tweaking that is. The only bad thing I'm left to say about it is that it took so long to get there. It'd be nice if the POD HD didn't require so much tweaking from the get-go to craft ideal sounds. Might have something to do with the default parameters each effect starts off with as you add them." Like you, I'm no idiot when it comes to operating technology, and this above all would be the only thing I'd like Line6 to take a hard look at next go round.

If its JUST relying on the midi sequencing alone then it wouldn't be as bad I suppose, but even that can be at the mercy of the operating system Ableton runs within. Introduce VST's into the mix and the risk becomes greater. I'd personally keep it all within the studio realm at the moment and manually control my gear live. Yeh ok, maybe us guitarists really are control freaks. :lol:

Agreed, the idea of Ableton running/automating the show would make me nervous too. I can imagine a scenario where the Ableton crashes or the OS blue-screens, and that god-awful looped sound you get with the BSOD. Seems to me its at the mercy of too many possible things to go wrong. Edit. Although, when it comes to general robustness, I think analogue and digital are on par, its just as easy enough to blow tubes on the fly.

smrybacki "Absolutely no disrespect intended my friend. Just playing Devil's advocate I guess. I am an analogue man in a digital world as it turns out even as I work in the digital realm. It's a great subject for spirited debate which is repeated daily around the blogosphere...." :) S'all good.. I guess the main reason I started this topic was to probe for answers that will be apparent in the near future, and what new tricks we might expect from our digital multi-fx gadgets to keep them competitive in the next generation, which will undoubtedly have them rival the analogue alternative even more.

smrybacki "My counter question to the OP and DI's later suppositions is why would you want that to happen?" I never said I "wanted" this to happen, nor did I imply it. I thought the topic itself made basis for a good conversation, nothing more, 3 pages later...

The Morpheus Droptune pedal is about the best pitch-shifting pedal on the market and it isn't cheap. Pitch-shifting and polyphonic tracking is another department digital fails in. Auto-tune was made by the devil, evil software that magically creates talent out of untalented vocalists. :huh: Everyone is super with Auto-tune.