Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About littlespaceman

  • Rank
    Just Startin'

Profile Information

  • Registered Products
  1. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/LINE-6-POD-GO-MULTI-EFFECTS-PEDAL-9V-3A-POWER-SUPPLY-ADAPTER-REPLACEMENT-UK/164036024339?hash=item26314f1813:g:V~MAAOSwvx1bqlj- I've just been looking at these on ebay - has anyone used one yet? I like the fact it has an in-line plug rather than a 90 degree one, and the wire does look a bit stronger than the OEM one, which I agree is too short and too flimsy
  2. Thanks again, a very helpful reply. Overall, I agree with you, I'd like to use the Go as my main unit - after all it's the one you can sling in a bag and take anywhere, and it's more capable than the Mustang in most ways (although I do like the way that the Mustang looper is global - shame they didn't do that on the Pod Go) - and I think the amps are probably a bit better. Don't underestimate the Mustang (at least the GTX version) for tone though, IMHO it really is a great sounding amp... ...buuuut, as you say not using the Go's amp section kind of defeats the point of having it, so all I really want is to justify keeping the Mustang by using it to add to the number of effects the Go has (and also adding a looper that doesn't use a block within the Go's signal chain) And if that's too complicated then maybe the amp is off to eBay ;o) 'You could plug to Amp effects in to bypass everything'; I've tried this and it does sound great, and works well - and I can use both the Go and the Mustang loopers independently (I presume the Mustang looper must be after the FX loop, and is also global) so I think I'll probably stick with this method... "Note that effects connected to these jacks are “global” (not preset-spe-cific) and will act as the last elements in the signal path. Well not sure if it works exactly as it says in the manual, but if it does, that would be quite limiting..."; It does seem to work exactly like this, and it is a bit limiting. Would you agree that by designing it this way, Fender assume that you don't need extra distortion or gain and that you only might want to add external modulation effects? "What are you trying to use off the Mustang?"; I think I was just in pursuit of the satisfaction I get from making something work as I think it should. And it seems to two fx loops are incompatible, so I failed in this particular quest!
  3. Hi, yes I did - it was set to 'instrument' (is that what you meant?) If I use the amp with another pedal I can get sound using the send/returns in mono or stereo. If I use the PG with another pedal I can get sound using the send/returns in mono or stereo. BUT If I connect the send/return of the PG and the amp to each other, I can't get any sound at all; plugging cables in to the amp send and the amp return kills all sound unless you complete the send/return 'circuit' by placing a pedal in the loop. Plugging cables in to the PG send and the PG return kills all sound unless you select the FX loop block to on (in either mono or stereo depending on whether you are connected in mono or stereo) But when the two are connected together I get nothing at all, it's really odd...
  4. Thanks for the reply; I can use the Mustang as power amp and speakers very nicely by plugging the guitar in to the PG and using the PG send to the amps return (and not plug the amps send in to the PG return) The beauty of that is that I can use both the PG looper and the Mustang looper at the same time (if I put the PG looper before the FX loop) The downside though is I can't use any of the Mustang's effects to add to what the PG can do, in which case I'm starting to wonder if the Mustang is now surplus to requirements - it does sound great and is very capable but not as user friendly as the PG. One thing that is really weird is if I connect the PG to both the send and returns (the amp has a stereo loop too) I can't get any sound out of the amp at all. I've proved that the amp send/return works by plugging in a different pedal in to it's FX loop and that produces sound exactly as you'd expect, but when I plug the PG in, there is no sound at all (I have checked that the PG FX return is set to 'RETURN' and not 'AUX IN'. Could that be just some weird incompatibility issue between the two digital units?
  5. Hi. I usually use the PG through a pair of monitors, as a home substitute to set patches for using a PA. However I also have a modelling combo (a Fender Mustang GTX50) and I'm struggling to get my head around trying to come up with a good set up that would allow me to use the PG and amp together; and I should say that what I really want to do is make the PG my main unit, and add the Mustang to it to bump up it's capabilities a bit, rather than the other way around. Part of the problem is that the Mustang (stereo) FX loop is at the end of it's signal chain; as far as I know this is unusual as on a traditional amp with an FX loop, the loop will between the pre amp and power amp stage. So the problem I want to work around is the limited number of blocks you can use in the PG (4, because for some reason EQ is a fixed block, and the looper is not global) and I want to solve this by adding some of the effects that the Mustang has built in. I'm a bit confused though; my questions are; 1) if i connect the PG to the amp FX loop, am I right in thinking that the only thing that decides which is the 'master' and which is the 'slave' is which of the two (PG or amp) I have my guitar plugged in to? What I mean here is when the two are connected, what is the difference between the PG being in the amps FX loop, or the amp being in the PG's FX loop; is it just dictated by which unit I've got the guitar plugged in to? 2) If the Mustang FX loop is at the very end of the signal chain, then am I right in thinking; a) I can use the PG to expand the number of FX in the Mustang, but any of the PG FX that you would usually place BEFORE the preamp (such as distortion pedals) will probably sound rubbish, because the Mustang FX loop is at the end of the signal chain, so they will be downstream of the preamp. But PG modulation and delay should sound ok. In this example my guitar would run straight in to the Mustang input. OR... b) I can do things the other way around and 'expand' the number of blocks I have in the PG by putting the Mustang in the PG FX loop, and for example use Mustang distortion stomp boxes (and they should sound ok IF I set the PG FX loop to be BEFORE the PG amp/cab blocks) In this example my guitar would run straight in to the PG input, and I would be using the PG amp/cab models and modulation fx. 3) Is this confusing situation a generic problem if you are trying to use a multi FX unit with a modelling multi FX amp - because the assumption is that most of the FX you will use will come from the amp itself (And if the FX loop is at the very end of the signal chain, is Fender assuming you don't need more distortion, only more delays etc)? 4) Would the 4 cable method overcome this problem? (I'm not super keen to use that method as it's messy, and with young children at home, too many cables lying around = more risk of one of them breaking something attached to one of them!) 5) Would I be better with a more traditional combo with an FX loop, rather than trying to make very simple use of the Mustang, which is actually very capable (and good sounding) amp? I hope that all makes sense and hasn't confused you as much as I am! Thanks folks
  6. The top right foot switch on the Pod Go has 'MODE, EDIT/EXIT' written under it. I get that the word 'MODE' shows that you can use that button to switch between Stomp and Footswitch modes, and I get that the word 'EXIT' shows that you can use the button to exit the looper or Snapshot mode. However, why is the word 'EDIT' written there too? I can't see any way of entering the EDIT mode other than using the Home button (and annoyingly I can't see anyway of exiting the Edit mode by using anything other than the Home button too ie you can't seem to exit the Edit mode with a foot switch. Am I missing something here?
  7. Just go my Pod Go after the whole of the UK was out of stock, worth the wait - I'm having lots of fun with it (I actually sold my Helix to buy this; and I've already used it more than I used the Helix; loved the Helix but it was actually too capable for my needs!) One thing I really don't like about the Go though is the power supply 90 degree plug; when all the other I/O cables are straight, I find the 90 degree plug is really inconvenient - it gets in the way of the on/off switch (which is a nice touch by the way, as I understand not many Pods have had one? Switch is a bit flimsy feeling though) or the USB cable if you feed it in from the other side. I've seen pictures online of Pod Go's with straight plugs from the power supply, does anyone know if these are available, or is anyone using a 3rd party non-OEM supply? (I do know Line 6 recommend you don't...) Thanks folks
  8. Silverhead, actually that's a really good point, and something that also affects my experience of the looper as it is on the Helix. Datacommando, unfortunately I may have to return the Ditto, has a weird glitch where the volume of the already recorded loop drops completely when you play / record something else over it. Now THAT is making me go loopy!
  9. Thank you, I appreciate that - and the reason I've continued this thread is that I've only just come across it (actually whilst doing a Google search for how to implement a Ditto stereo looper in to the FX loops, as that's what I've at last decided I have to do) Perhaps the fact that I've decided to comment on a thread from 2016 actually in itself makes a statement - that the the original point that started this topic is no less valid now, and in fact is possible more valid as people's expectations evolve? Again, let's see when Helix 2 comes out (which can't be that far off?) If competing products are all including longer loopers, then to some degree that 'forces' Line 6 to at least consider that doesn't it?
  10. Because the Helix LT didn't exist when I bought the Helix...
  11. I didn't - I bought a unit with a huge number of internal effects of a very high quality. The FX loops were in no way a part of the decision making process for me...
  12. Thanks for all your opinions guys. I have to say I'm always a bit bemused by how many people on these forums go on about how the Helix is high-end pro-musician kit and use that to justify why it doesn't have several really useful 'everyday' features - but how many of us play in front of 20,000 or more every time we use it? Not many, I bet. And if the Helix did have a longer looper, and some other consumer-user conveniences, I don't think you'd actually complain about it, you just might not use them - but at least you have the choice. The acid test is what Helix 2 has - and I'll be amazed if it doesn't have a longer looper amongst other improvements...
  13. Well it's good to know we're not the only ones! :D
  14. But the whole point of the Helix for me is that it's a one-box solution, and I've deliberately purchased it to slim down my rig. So I don't want extra gear plugged in to it - point I'm making is that while some people do and some don't it would have been easy to have included a longer looper - after all many £100/$100 fx units can loop for at least as long as the Helix. It's up there for me with the lack of an Aux-in socket... (we're not all writing our own material, some of us play in cover bands, so an aux-in would be really really useful for working out guitar parts/tweaking patches specific to particular songs you are covering...)
  15. Not sure you understand how small and close together houses in England are!! :huh: But thank you, sounds like I made the right choice :)
  • Create New...