voxman55

@drewdemaioI think you should also be mindful of the 'up to' 4 flex fx that Silverhead quite correctly referred to. Depending on the amp/preamp and/or FX you select you might use up the available DSP and only have three (& in extreme cases two) flex fx blocks. If you need to run an amp/cab plus 6 fx you'll need Helix LT - it costs more than Pod Go (roughly double in the UK) but is a lot less than the full Helix and its a little lighter and smaller than Helix (but not by a huge amount). You've raised some interesting points however re the limitations when assigning footswitches and what you'd assign to eg the two extra footswitches (momentary unlatching) that you can plug in. @silverhead has drewdemaio understood that correctly? Also, if you do plug in extra switches can these control snap shots too or just basic stomp on/off functions for 2 single fx - I ask because the manual refers to these as 'stomp switches'?

Perhaps it's something Line 6 might be able to improve?

Hi, found the vid - it's at 3:30 - and at 4:45 'random tip' use pitch block at the beginning of the chain (he didn't for the vid btw)

I've raised this exact problem of DSP allotment in the Pod Go section here, on The Fretboard and The Gear Page. My specific concern is that Line 6 has not in my view communicated clearly enough how dynamic DSP works. In the Pod Go section there is a link to a DSP allotment chart that if you havent seen yet you may find helpful and informative. Line 6 is not alone here and I think manufacturers generally could and should be doing more to help their customers better understand not only all the good stuff but key limitations that can directly impact on the customer experience.

Obviously I would like to have seen 5 or 6 blocks, but to do this it would have required a lot more processing power which would have upped the cost considerably, and price was a very key target for Line 6. I did try and answer that, but because I dont know your needs only you can decide.

I don't have a Pod Go yet either (I'm in the UK, and like Italy these are not yet available here) but I've been doing a lot of research into Pod Go and recently better understood how it works and allocates it's DSP processing power. There is a thread on this here you might want to read including a link to a table that is very accurate and shows what percentage of DSP processing is being used by each model (see the thread "Pod Go DSP processing power- has anyone yet hit a DSP limit?". So I think it's more correct to say you can have UP TO 4 flexible user blocks (which to be fair is what Line 6 say). The amp/pre-amp models and FX models all share the remaining processing power after the fixed allowance built into Pod Go to run the initial 'semi fixed blocks' (EQ, Volume, Wah etc - you can have any version of these with no impact on processing power left over for amps/preamps/cabs & effects) but each amp/preamp & FX uses different amounts of processing power. Depending on the models you choose you may not always be able to use all 4 blocks if you've selected eg an amp, reverb, and delay that use up particularly heavy amounts of processing power. But with so much choice in Pod Go there will always be alternative similar models requiring lower DSP processing power to choose from if you need all 4 blocks. As a gigging player who currently uses a Vox Tonelab SE & LE, I can have 1 amp/cab, 1 modulation, 1 delay, 1 pedal, and 1 reverb, plus volume pedal/expression pedal and I've always been able to manage with this. Pod Go will actually give me more choice/options and so I think it should suit me very well. Also, you can insert a pedal into the FX loop of Pod Go to give you effectively a '5th block' that you can switch on/off within your snapshots as you need. I had similar concerns but in answer to your question I think you (and I) should be fine. But if you regularly genuinely need more and are into making complex amp & FX chains with more complex routing options then you will need to consider Helix LT which has a lot more processing power and can even let you choose more than one amp or cab. It will still have DSP processing limits but it will allow you to do a lot more although it is a lot more expensive as you say. For me, I can afford Helix LT but I want to get away from big, heavy units (Helix LT is around the same overall size and weight of my Tonelab SE) and what really attracts me to Pod Go is it's compact size and light weight whilst still giving me very good floor control for gigs, with Helix quality tones whilst still giving me sufficient options for my needs.

Even if Pod Go won't necessarily benefit re new models akin to Helix updates, presumably Line 6 will still be committed to tweaking the firmware periodically to iron out any bugs found, and also to enhance user experience/functionality where it is able to?

"Dynamic management leaves you in control and provides much more flexibility while also permitting you to use virtually ALL available DSP when you want to. But yes, it takes user awareness and responsibility. Until you understand how it works it can leave the impression that the device is underpowered even though it is more powerful than its static management $$ competitors." Yup, I think that sums it up nicely!

Thank you guys, some good points there. @malhavok - very impressive piece of work and tremendously helpful in helping my understanding. You'll be pleased to know that I'm not fixated on a single amp and I'm eager to experiment with Pod Go and discover all the things it can do. I picked the Plexi only because it was used by so many artists in the classic rock genre. As I said, I now have a better understanding of dynamic DSP and am now confident Pod Go will suit my needs. Unlike a lot of younger folk (I'm 63 in August...Pod Go is my early birthday present to myself, assuming we get deliveries in the UK by then) , I was brought up on stomp boxes and then mfx units that didn't use dynamic DSP e.g. Yamaha GW33, Boss GT3, 5 anx 6, and Vox Tonelabs. My Zoom G5 is virtually immune from a DSP issue too. My Vox Valvetronix Amp and previous Line 6 Flextone II Plus were also static DSP gear. So for me and others like me who haven't had previous experience of dynamic DSP it does mean a learning curve and a change in mindset. In fact, until I started looking into all this, I'd never heard the terms static DSP or dynamic DSP. I'm clearly getting old!

Many thanks @silverhead, and I really appreciate all your input. Thanks to the BenVisco info and your input, as well as other input gained elsewhere, I think I now have a much better understanding of how Pod Go works and am much more comfortable that it will meet my needs albeit I may need to do some 'creative tinkering' as needed. But with all respect to Line 6, I do feel they should enhance the manual to add a DSP usage figure for each model, with an explanation of Dynamic DSP and to explain that although there are 'semi-fixed' blocks these are not 'compartmentalised' i.e. the amp choices made in these, together with using an imported IR, can impact on the available DSP in the 4 flexible blocks. I didn't understand all of this and I'm pretty sure there are a lot of other potential customers that are in a similar position. Changing the example in their warning eg relating this to an actual amp, reverb, delay, fx combination that use higher DSP would also be very helpful and aid understanding .

Hi Silverhead - many thanks for investing your time looking into this. So, your investigation does seem to confirm that the Pod Go can indeed have unexpected DSP issues, and this can apply even with less DSP intensive amp models. I'm into classic rock & blues and therefore use a number of Marshall tones. Amp For me a Brit Plexi - Marshall Super Lead is pretty much a 'mainstay' amp for classic rock, I can select several options from a 'normal channel' variant that will use up 34.88% of DSP power, or I could go up to a Jumped version that will utilise 40.83% of DSP power. Cab Cabs use no DSP over & above what's already allowed for unless (if I'm understanding the chart correctly) I want to import an IR, when it will use an extra 3.2% of DSP. So, I'll be reasonable here and forego the jumped model and go with the normal channel (If I want the bright channel it requires 35.73% of DSP) and I'll go with a stock cab with no imported IR. Running DSP total: 34.88% Volume, Wah and EQ Treated as requiring 0% DSP over the 'semi-fixed' block inbuilt DSP allowance and which I'm told utilise very little DSP in any event (so switching one or more of these off really won't release any meaningful DSP) Reverb Next, I'd like to add a good old fashioned spring reverb. Both of the available spring reverbs utilise 34.03% of DSP. I could go for a room, plate, chamber, hall etc at only 13.61% of DSP but spring reverbs are pretty classic so let's say I'd like to stick with that. Running DSP total: 68.91% Delay So, a nice tape-echo delay would be something like a Mastro Echoplex EP-3 which uses 24.24% of DSP Running DSP total: 93.15% Modulation Lets go classic MXR phase 90, 5.10% of DSP. Running total: 98.25% So far, so good. Distortion boost Let's stay pretty traditional and go for a mainstay, an Ibanez TS808 Tube screamer. 14.04% Running DSP total: 112.29% - but hold on, that exceeds 100% DSP so I can't have it. So I have a Marshall amp and cab, a spring reverb, a tape delay and an MXR Phase 90. Nothing exceptional. The reverb, delay & phaser utilise 3 of the 4 fully assignable blocks - but I have nothing left for a tubescreamer unless I change the above selections for lower DSP models. But if I go for higher DSP versions, then I could easily find myself having nothing left after 2 assignable blocks (as your test confirms). Going back to my TLSE/LE, and fully acknowledging that it's older modeling technology, I could still have all of this (Plexi, cab, spring reverb, tape echo, phaser & tubescreamer) with my TLSE/LE with no processing limit issues. I mention this just to demonstrate that if you are considering changing your gear, 'dynamic DSP' means you may have to learn to think in a different way and you may be forced into making some unexpected compromises, as your own findings demonstrate. And it's not just older gear like my TLLE/TLSE that doesn't use dynamic DSP, but new gear may not adopt this approach either e.g. Boss ME50/70/80 units. Observation We are being asked by manufacturers to make a decision on spending not inconsiderable amounts of our hard earned money to buy their products. They know everything about their product, we know only what they tell us. We might be able to pick-up further info and user tricks etc from reviews and user feedback & when it comes to sonic comparisons with competitors this is highly subjective and imported IR's and EQ can make huge differences anyway. So none of that 'subjective' stuff is an issue and you can't easily make it qualitative anyway. And feature comparisons are pretty much listed, reasonably easy to compare, and users can look at the spec and decide if they need 'tone capture' or whether 'snapshots' is better for their needs, or if they need an XLR out etc. I'm pretty relaxed here. But I am genuinely concerned where fundamentally important factual information such as DSP usage which impacts directly on customer expectation and 'the customer experience' is 'glossed over' by a single paragraph on p10 of the manual that simply says: "Important: If you encounter items in the list that are greyed out or unavailable this means there isn't enough DSP to accommodate that category or model. For example, if you've selected three reverbs you probably won't be able to add a fourth". The DSP chart is not provided by Line 6 - this was only found following independent research. Without explaining which model uses which DSP how would users understand before buying that they might have some problems e.g. with their favourite selections? The above 'disclosure' is one small paragraph and refers to an unlikely selection choice which in my view gives the impression that users are unlikely to have a DSP issue unless they go for a pretty off the wall selection. Would buyers really have understood that selection of an amp model in the 'semi-fixed' block actually heavily reduces what's left to use elsewhere? I certainly didn't - my initial thought was that amp/cab DSP was 'compartmentalised' and had nothing to do with the 4 flex blocks - re these. I thought 'that's OK, because I'm never going to select three reverbs!' When buying gear most of us will want more options, more flexibility and better tone - and manufacturers focus on this, which is why they list all the things that their latest 'mfx box' has in it and what it can do. But it may not be immediately apparent to prospective buyers, and especially for those who are moving from older gear, that they might actually be restricted when they were not expecting to be. Please don't misunderstand me. I really like Line 6, I think they make great, innovative products, and I am in no way criticizing them specifically - I'm simply using them as an example only because I've specifically been looking at Pod Go and was very impressed with what I'd seen and heard - but was concerned following my research. Nor am I suggesting in any way shape or form that Pod Go isn't a great bit of competitively priced gear that isn't capable of producing some terrific tones that overall represents a very good gigging and home mfx solution. What I am suggesting is that with the growing complexity of products there should be greater responsibility on manufacturers to be a little bit more informative with regards to the product information they provide to us as consumers so that we are in a better position to make an informed decision. Prospective customers should be able to more easily understand their products and be in a better position to compare with competitor products. DSP processing limitations is in my view an absolutely crucial theme. I'm not suggesting the industry needs to be 'regulated' (God forbid!!) but I do feel that customers and the industry would benefit greatly from some agreement led by the 'big boys' like Line 6 on 'best practice/fair customer charter' and that it should consider a way forward as an industry to convey this type of important information to its potential customers in an agreed format like the chart found. It could avoid a lot of disappointment and gear returns too, which has a cost to retailers and manufacturers. It shouldn't have to be up to enthusiasts to put this type of information together and for potential buyers to find this accidentally. It should be for manufacturers to provide this information so that consumers know where they are from outset.

Well, I've been talking to folk about Line 6 DSP processing power on the Gear Page and they pointed me to this very informative breakdown of DSP usage for Line 6 Helix and Pod Go: https://benvesco.com/store/helix-dsp-allocations/ Based on this, it looks like there could be some very worrying DSP restrictions. A Jumped Marshall SP100 model (I like Marshalls for classic rock stuff) uses over 40% of DSP over and above the 'semi-fixed block amp model 'allowance' - and even the non-jumped options for the same amp are around 35% (and that's without a cab!). Most reverbs are around 34% and a good tape delay like the Echoplex EP3 uses over 24% of DSP. So you could struggle to even use just 2 of the flexible assigns!? What I hadn't realised is that although there are 'semi fixed' and fully assignable blocks. that depending on the amp you use in the 'fixed' section, these fixed blocks are not 'ring-fenced' but directly impact on DSP availability elsewhere ie in the assignable blocks. So you could pick an amp, a delay and a reverb and have virtually nothing left - so instead of 4 assignable blocks you've been able to use only 2 before you run out. This means that you could regularly find restrictions very, very quickly which is worrying to say the least. But in no video or review that I've seen has this been mentioned/discussed which I find odd. So, is the chart accurate and is my understanding of how Pod Go allocates DSP processing correct?

Hi @Poopghost64, (re p32 of manual) have you checked the FX loop level and main out level - assuming you are using stomp and not rack units, do you have these correctly set for 'instrument' (stompboxes) and not 'line' (for rack processors)? (if you were ever previously using with headphones, you might have global settings on 'line')

Yup, to expand further looking at the manual it says "Pod Go has nearly all the effects of the award winning HX family of modelers as well as selected effects from the classic DL4, DM4, MM4 and FM4 stompboxes and M13, M9 and M5 processors"

That's a little more reassuring @silverhead , thank you. However I'd still very much like to hear from other Pod Go users to help me put this into a clearer perspective. Whilst I appreciate manufacturers will always want to emphasise what their gear can do, I think it's also important to help customers better understand the potential ramifications of fundamental limitations of this nature. The manual comment referring to 3 reverbs is only there to evidence that Line 6 has raised the theme and is 'covered'. But it's not really giving any meaningful information to its customers so that they have a frame of reference and can understand what percentage of DSP is used by each amp, cab, effect etc and thus where they might run into DSP limit problems. In the manual there are lists of models & FX . Surely it should be possible to show what percentage of DSP would be used by each of these and to flag those that demand particularly high DSP percentage usage? It really oughtn't to be up to users to have to try & figure this out themselves.

Thanks @silverhead. I'm certainly not intending to use 3 reverbs. But with only 4 assignable blocks I'd certainly want to have reasonable flexibility to use all the fixed blocks and all 4 assignable blocks, e.g. an amp, EQ, Volume/Wah, a cab, a distortion, a modulation, a reverb and or/a delay or possibly two delays e.g. one short and one long in a patch, and an FX loop insert stomp neffect. Could I still be limited and cut down to e.g. only 3 assignable blocks? If so I'd like to more clearly understand what combinations or models are particularly DSP hungry and which combinations could cause problems. If this is likely to be a very rare occurrence by choosing three of something that's one thing, but if it's going to trigger more regular issues on reasonable selections then I'm concerned. For clarity, I don't want Helix/LT due to size, weight & cost nor Hx Stomp that only has 3 footswitches - The Pod Go concept of an all in one gig worthy unit is perfect for me and I can manage with 4 assignable blocks - but I couldn't regularly manage 3 or less. This is a very important theme for me and hence I need to understand Pod Go's DSP limitations more clearly. I've therefore changed the thread title slightly as I'd very much like to hear from users with Pod Go that have had an opportunity to spend time with it to see if/where they've encountered any DSP restriction issues in practice.

@thetragichippyThat looks awesome - unfortunately these are a lot more in the UK, if this is the same one it's £135.95: https://www.planostore.com/all-weather-series-black-tactical-36-inch-rifle-case Saw from the video that it cleverly has 'customisable' pluck to fit foam - presumably this means no shape cutting needed? I don't think I need anything that big but I also saw some other options including smaller cases, so I'm definitely going to have a look through. Again, brilliant idea & many thanks for sharing.

I've picked up from watching videos of Line 6 Helix products (inc eg Helix Stomp & even Helix/Helix LT) that depending on the amp, cab & effects selected you can run out of processing power and it will 'grey out' certain options once the DSP processing power reaches its limit. That makes perfect sense where you have very wide freedom to build your patches. With Pod Go, I believe there were three effects Line 6 didn't include specifically because these were particularly demanding on DSP power. Am I correct in my understanding that because Pod Go is already purpose designed to be 'self-limiting' from the perspective of DSP processing i.e. it has a 'fixed' series of blocks including only a single amp & cab option, plus 4 user assignable blocks plus an FX insert, that 'DSP overflow' is not an issue with Pod Go and that you can use it to its full capacity with any combination within the aforementioned framework with no risk of DSP 'greying out' limitations regardless of what amp, cab, effects, insert you select?

Thanks @Digital_Igloo that's a really helpful post that makes much clearer the challenges and considerations you guys have to consider. For my needs I think Pod Go will be just about as near perfect as I could reasonably hope for, especially at this price point, and I'm dying to get hold of one to try out for myself. It's size & weight will be an absolute godsend after my Vox Tonelab SE which, including its heavy duty PSU, weighs about the same as Helix. Price wise I could certainly go to Helix LT if I wanted, but regardless of how brilliant it is I just didn't want another big, heavy unit, and I'd also much prefer something less complicated with a ton of stuff I just don't need. So from what I've seen & heard on videos, forums (inc here) I think Line 6 has got Pod Go pretty much right, and I'm 'sold' - I'm pretty sure there will also be a few extra firmware tweaks from Line 6 here and there - as mentioned before by others, if you can possibly find a way to allowing names for each snapshot that would be very useful on stage. Just wish we had Pod Go in the UK to help make life a bit more enjoyable during this awful lock-down. It's been a while since I've done a demo on my 'voxman5' youtube channel so I might well be enthused to do one on the Pod Go.

Thanks @Digital_Igloo for the comprehensive response. Had to laugh when you explained why you made the looper non-global. Just proves the old adage...you can please some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time, but you can't please all the people all the time! Fair do's, you've tried to take on board what the majority seem to want. Re blocks, I'm certainly for quality and in no way wanting or suggesting tone quality to be compromised. Nor does Pod Go need anything like the options in Helix/Helix LT which have huge, huge processing power. But 4 assignable blocks does feel a tad restrictive. If you create a fairly basic patch with a distortion (eg tube screamer), a reverb, a delay and a modulation (chorus, phaser etc) say, then that's it. If you wanted to add a pitch shifter, compressor or looper, you can't (at least not without releasing one of your existing four blocks). It may not seem a lot, but just one extra block, effectively giving an extra 25% flexibility, would have been really useful and added a lot more flexibility. However, I fully appreciate you've worked hard to come up with a quality, flexible product and tried to get the best balance of quality & features within a specific price point, so I'm still aiming to go for a Pod Go once these are out in the UK.

Thanks for sharing @Digital_Igloo always interesting to understand the initial thought direction and learn what actually unfolds and expands in practice.

Interesting, thanks @Digital_Igloo When are you guys planning to release v3.0 in LT? Any spoilers you can share yet?

Just idly curious (well, we're still in lock down - what can I say! - LOL) as to who Line 6 has specifically aimed Pod Go 'at' and is this the same as where it's now seeing its main customer base for Pod Go (ie type of player) coming from?

You can only add the looper manually within each patch where it will use up an assignable block, so your assignable block options will reduce to 3 blocks plus a looper block. Also, if you want to switch between your chosen paches, the looper type and settings (eg 6 button, full speed mono) must be exactly the same for each patch or the looper will stop when you switch. There is a nice feature in Pod Go whereby you can set up a template for patches that you can load with the fx and settings you like, including a looper, so that you don't have to start from scratch each time, but this only applies to new patches you create. You can create different templates for different purposes eg looper, mono, stereo etc - there's a great vid here re setting up templates:

For me a looper isn't key, but aside from the very short loop time what is disappointing is that the looper is not globally available and you have to incorporate it manually within each patch. Not only is that time consuming and inconvenient but it also means using up one of the four assignable blocks that are already in somewhat short supply. You can switch patches whilst looping but only to another patch that has been set with the same looper settings. Zoom adopted a similar approach in it's G5n (which I had), whereas in the previous Zoom G5 (which I still have) the looper is global and does not impact on assignable blocks and you can immediately loop and switch from any patches. At least the G5n had 9 assignable blocks whereas with only 4 in the Pod Go it means you can't use the looper on any patch where you've used all 4 assignable blocks. I suspect this is likely to be most patches especially where users have added effects to make the most out of snapshots, and this means you'd have to do away with one of your selected effects. The restricted DSP processing power from its single chip is my single biggest reservation with Pod Go. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a cracking unit, but I really do think it ought to have had 6 assignable blocks or at least 5 plus a global looper. Units like the Mooer GE300 utilise a second smaller chip to handle the UI, leaving the main chip dedicated to deal with FX processing. Using a single chip for everything is clearly more limiting. The cost of an additional Sharc chip is minimal, and as I've mentioned elsewhere I'd have gladly paid £100 more for Pod Go if it had more processing power. However, I appreciate that this was the price point Line 6 wanted to aim at and that integrating a second chip would have upped the price for it's target market. Although the current Pod Go's DSP is now set, I'm pretty sure that when Line 6 does its next incarnation of Pod Go (and knowing Line 6's constant development & innovation I'd be amazed if this isn't already on the drawing board even now!) I'm sure Line 6 will opt to give it a bit more DSP power.