Digital_Igloo

Agreed. Wasn't talking about you, NucleusX. :)

Oh, I wish it were that simple! Many Line 6ers read this Community, IdeaScale, and other gear forums every day, so we always know what's going on, but interacting takes a lot of time and effort. It's not uncommon for us to rewrite posts ten times—we're owned by a publicly traded company, after all, and representing the Line 6 arm of Yamaha on a public forum is not without its share of potential pitfalls. It's not like we have degrees in Public Relations; we're just huge gear nerds who value our jobs. :ph34r: Pro Tip: I can be summoned, almost magically, if you spread misinformation about AMPLIFi and POD. But don't do that. ;) Happy 4th, everyone!

No inside information here, but I'm guessing it represents the original test mic Fractal used to capture the cabs.

I totally get mapping incoming CCs to parameters, but is another layer required for program changes? Can setlist management accomplish the same thing, or is there a real desire to have presets in the same setlist support two mapping protocols simultaneously—local, via the switches, and remotely, via MIDI?

meuch011 said the MIDI files (hence, Program Change values) aren't to be touched. For example, say the sequence spits out a PC value of 009 during the chorus, and you want POD to switch to preset 12C. POD cannot tell 12C to respond to PC 009, but you can easily move 12C to 03B (or copy it into a different setlist at 03B), which responds to PC 009.

Sample rate has (almost) nothing to do with it, at least in embedded DSP systems. Theoretically, a box could be built that allowed the user to disable certain functionality reliant on DSP to eek out maybe an additional 10, maybe 20%, but to be perfectly honest, that's bad news. Embedded hardware is known for its predictability and consistency, and when Bob can't use the same Custom Tone presets as Joe because one of them went in and changed a few deep DSP management parameters, that's a terrible experience. So even if we could, we wouldn't. Here are the primary reasons Line 6 may not have implemented a feature: • We'd love to do it, but the current architecture won't let us (very rare) • It'll take a really long time, and therefore, hinder development of other, more important features • It'll undermine the spirit of what the product is meant to be • It'll make the product harder to use • After countless interviews with guitarists of all skill levels, it turns out almost no one really cares (the gear forum vs. meatspace debate) • We actually are working on it—you just haven't seen it yet

No. POD HD500X's presets respond to specific PC messages. Its setlists can also be switched via specific CC32 messages. You can, however, reorder presets to accommodate custom PC values pretty easily from the Setlist menu.

Oh man, drop bears are the worst...

To be honest, none of them (by design), but I'm probably pickier than most. :)

SM57s aren't transparent at all (a good thing!), but they're used to mic amps on more records than the others, so people are probably most familiar with their sound.

I definitely find myself in the NucleusX boat on occasion—sometimes eight zillion effects just work. That's why we'll run multiple UAD cards (and before that, PT|HD) so the Mac can run dozens of POD Farms and Reaktor ensembles. Live, though—at least for my band—all those effects tend to get lost in the room. We'll strip things way back and let the tracks do the heavy lifting. I run into DSP Overload more often than most Line 6'ers, and won't pretend it's never irritating. But I understand the reasons behind it (both from a user and technical perspective), and would never suggest limiting the box for others just so my band can drown in shoegaze heaven. Doesn't matter how fast a box anyone makes—some people will always push it past its limits.

Mics are definitely a critical component in the way we capture and model cabs, but that's not to say an extremely flat, transparent mic (such as those made by Earthworks) couldn't be included in the list.

You can't just say "Okay, run at a lower sample rate and magically get more DSP horsepower." In fact, sample rate has exactly zero impact on DSP resources in POD, and never could. Even if you could, presets made at a lower sample rate would suddenly be incompatible with your friend's POD—or even your own POD, if set differently later! That experience is much more egregious than the occasional DSP overload message, as is every single item in my aforementioned list. We know, because we've asked the question hundreds of times. If one must string a ton of spring reverbs or pitch shifters together, they can always connect an HD500X to an HD500 ProX via S/PDIF. Hook up a MIDI cable as well and switching presets will sync automatically. And it's still way less money than some alternatives.

• What audio interface are you using for Ableton Live? What MIDI interface (if different)? • How are you monitoring the click? • How do you start/stop tracks during a show? Cheers!

Do you mean tethered to a Mac or PC via a USB cable, just with a GUI refresh? Or an entirely new Bluetooth-enabled POD line?

It's a real impedance circuit that's digitally controlled. Only on the Guitar Input tho'; the Aux in doesn't have one.

Personally, I leave mine on 1M Ohm, but trust your ears. :)

When set to "Auto", POD looks at the first processing block in the signal flow and sets its input impedance circuit to match the pedal (or amp) modeled for that block. The default setting is 1M Ohm.

Not going to get into how parts costing (and cost of development for major architectural changes such as dual processor support) affects end user pricing, but here's the Tiger SHARC price list: http://www.analog.com/en/processors-dsp/tigersharc/products/index.html#TigerSHARC_Processors Summary: POD HD 500 was never underpowered, but its specific SHARC DSP was discontinued and replaced with a faster one. We didn't want some HD500s faster than others, so we made a new box.

Earlier in the thread: http://line6.com/support/topic/1493-hd500x-dsp-limit/?p=8854

Not sure what this means. A better DSP viable? For years, Line 6 modelers have utilized SHARC DSPs. To meet a desired price point, we choose a specific DSP chip (usually the fastest non-Tiger SHARC available at the time) and push it to the limits. Cost cutbacks don't really come into play—features, models, block limits, etc. are accounted for from the very beginning. Sure, we could've put in multiple SHARCs—or Tiger SHARCs—and then charged hundreds (or thousands) more. The problem then is that people who build traditional tones without four pitch shifters or spring reverbs are forced to pay a premium for effectively no reason. Short version: most people feel the occasional DSP overload message isn't reason enough to entertain a single item from the list. That said, don't think we aren't actively pursuing ways to make DSP management less obtrusive for the user.

No offense implied; the point is that claiming to speak for "the customer" at large is disingenuous, especially when our research echoes the exact opposite sentiment. POD HD users want dynamic model allocation and the best-sounding (read: DSP-intensive) effects from Line 6, even if it means they can't string four spring reverbs or pitch shifters together. Here's my list again from the previous page: • Remove half the block locations so the user can fill each one with pitch shifters or spring reverbs • Limit the user to only one of each type of effect • Remove the more DSP-intensive models entirely • Use a less DSP-intensive modeling architecture, or limit the quality of the more DSP-intensive models • Remove parallel signal paths • Restrict the order in which blocks can exist • Remove non-model features that also take up DSP, such as input routing, output routing, Variax VDI, L6 LINK, USB audio, the Looper, etc. • Charge a lot more for multiple processors and the cost of developing for multiple processors • Charge a LOT more for Tiger Sharc processors and the cost of developing for Tiger Sharc processors Please pick three. Again, if the occasional DSP Overload message gives one the feeling that their product is underpowered—even when it's not—there are alternatives, even from Line 6.

Replace "customer needs" with "NucleusX's personal needs", and your question is more accurate. Zoom makes a great box. I would never tell someone not to buy a competitor's product if it happens to better fulfill their needs.

What do you think of the AMPLIFi workflow for future Line 6 products (except on Mac/PC, obviously)?