JohanSmith

and I think some people here should put in their sig-line that when they say 'dry' they don't really mean dry.

Probably a good idea, so why did you try to start with this:

I'm one of the audio engineers who has had no recent use for SPDIF, but I still have every need for high-fidelity audio processing; so now you know that not all audio engineers have SPDIF. Really, and why does it seem that way to you? I was trained here: https://ccrma.stanford.edu/ I've worked for Intel and Creative Labs. Were Stanford, Intel, and Creative Labs all mistaken to consider me an audio engineer, since I don't have SPDIF? What do you know about audio engineering that Stanford, Intel, and Creative Labs don't know?

It's like this: If you have 16-bit and 24-bit versions of the same thing, and you play them on your speakers, you probably will not hear a difference. But if you process them heavily, adding distortion and other FX, you will hear a big difference in the results. If you start with 16 bits and process it heavily, the results will include tons of noise. This is why just listening isn't always a good way to decide whether something is right for your purposes, and the math underlying the sound is important.

Something's wrong with your thinking then, but you knew that when you took a simple issue and made it your platform to give speeches about your theories on how everyone should make music.

If you really believe that, you must have missed the part where people tried to convince me a not-really-dry signal would suffice for my purposes. Here's something you didn't know about professional audio engineers: most of us don't know whether the Line 6 POD HD can send a dry signal over USB. Most of us give relatively little thought to the POD HD.

Not at all. First I was wondering if there's a straightforward way to set the POD HD to send a truly dry signal over USB. POD XT has such a way. You just tell it you want a truly dry signal from USB, and it gives it. Later I was wondering if I can get a truly dry signal out of the "dual-path capability" you described. I'm still wondering that. I'm wondering something about the numbers in the data stream. I'm not going to be able to tell just by listening. Like, you couldn't tell if an audio sample was 24 or 16 bit just by listening; but does that mean you should do everything in 16 bits when 24-bit options are readily available? Can't imagine why you're perceiving it any other way. I see things are very confused here, and I'm an audio engineer not a Woodstock concert-goer, and I get paid to engineer audio the nitpicky way.

"Truly dry" allows for A/D conversion; "truly dry" for purposes of this thread was defined in this post: http://line6.com/support/topic/7125-how-can-i-record-a-dry-signal-from-pod-hd-desktop-via-usb/?p=48862 If you look at the internet and the world in general outside this forum, you'll find people discussing truly dry digital signals without all the confusion and doublespeak appearing in this thread.

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the truth.

If it's not TRULY dry, it won't be fine for my purposes. I'm not trying to get a signal that's good enough for what Rob or Joe is doing with their signals. I'm doing my own thing. My thing requires a truly dry signal. My thing is different from your thing. I don't want to do your thing; I want to do my thing. This didn't register last time, so I'll try it in bold this time: I'm afraid it would only be a waste of time to try to convince me that I don't really want to record a perfectly dry signal. I'll record one with one interface or another, and my only question is whether the POD HD has this capability.

Yes, I think so. They might want to look at the POD XT for ideas how to do it....

Okay. It's time I stop typing and try this. Brazzy was helpful in describing the process, but then I became alarmed by the suggestion that this method works well enough to satisfy stoned people who can't hear when a guitar is out of tune, and that wanting a truly dry signal is somehow 'nitpicking'.

I'm happy to shut down all the amps / FX if it enables a dry signal to go over USB to the computer. If that means I hear just a dry signal while monitoring / recording, that's fine with me. My only concern has been, would this send a perfectly dry signal (which S/PDIF would make easy), or just a kind-of-dry signal. In other words, will I get the same numbers in my WAV file as the guys who have S/PDIF and set their S/PDIF Output (Knob 1) to "Dry Input"? I suppose no one but Line 6 knows the answer for sure.

My computer doesn't have an S/PDIF interface. The only connection between my POD HD and computer is a USB cable, so I'm asking if the POD HD is able to send the dry signal through the USB cable.

That's what I was getting at with my earlier statement: "I'm concerned about maximizing audio quality of the recorded dry signal." I didn't mean that audio quality should matter to your listeners and you; I just meant that it matters to my listeners and me. I'm afraid it would only be a waste of time to try to convince me that I don't really want to record a perfectly dry signal. I'll record one with one interface or another, and my only question is whether the POD HD has this capability.

Thank you, I will try it. If people who don't believe this makes a 'dry' tone would say why they believe that, it would help me figure out what to do. My ears aren't always the best judge, so any info besides what I hear would be nice in trying to understand why there are differences of opinion on this issue. The POD HD manual (p. 2-9) notes that "recording a dry signal in your DAW, to which you can add a Plug-In or 're-amp' later" is "handy", and it says this can be done via S/PDIF, but I have to wonder why they don't mention how to do it via USB.

That's what I'm trying to do too, which means trying to get to the facts so I know whether I need equipment in addition to the POD HD in order to record a dry signal.

By "dry", I mean, take the analog signal coming out of my guitar on that analog guitar cord I plug into the base of my guitar, convert that analog signal to digital, and record the digital signal in my DAW. The simplest possible analog-to-digital conversion; so I can later run the recorded signal through any number of amp-simulators, and then on to FX. If you want more detail getting into the differences between various DAC's, I don't know enough to answer. I need a solution that records what comes out of my guitar, on that guitar cord I plug into the base of my guitar. I can't imagine what else "dry" might mean. Is their opinions based in any facts? Does the POD HD perform some processing on the digitized signal before outputting it via USB to the DAW? Is it dry enough for people who want to record exactly what comes out of the hole in the guitar via the guitar cable?

Assuming I figure out how to do it, after looking at the manual and trying it, is there a drawback, like any reduction in sound quality? If it works, why don't people like it? Sorry for the questions, but I'm concerned about maximizing audio quality of the recorded dry signal.

This is less good than what I thought. I did not think to check whether POD HD could do this before buying it, since POD XT did it, and since re-amping is so common I thought it went without saying.

Thanks. My computer doesn't have a S/PDIF interface. It seems there is not a specific POD HD setting to have it send a dry signal over USB to the computer? I thought the POD XT did that? But from this post: it seems I can accomplish what I want by using "dual-path capability"? I will have to review the manual about "dual-path capability", because I don't know what that is; but I'll work on that unless I'm on the wrong track here.

How can I record a dry signal from POD HD Desktop via USB to my DAW? How do I set the POD HD Desktop to send a dry signal to the DAW?