ozarkanatural

So here's an update: I got myself a Line 6 Mission Expression Pedal, and the same thing is happening: The expression pedal connects when the cable connects, but will disconnect on it's own with the cable still connected. I tried other cables, and the same thing happens. Within 2-3 minutes of being plugged in, the expression pedal "disconnects" and is not recognized. Any thoughts? Should I open up the FBV?

I read somewhere that the Fawn amp was a frequently used amp in the studios for many famous musicians before Line 6 fell in love with it an bought it. So we know of at least two amps used by artists that have been modelled in the Line 6 world. That amp room picture is delicious.

Here are some tidbits of the support response I got from Mission (future reference for anyone that might have the same problem): "The GC-EXP1-PRO is a TRS expression pedal as you correctly mention. The Line 6 products are designed to use a TS expression pedal." "The GC-EXP1-PRO may work with some an not with others, the expression pedal interfaces on some Line 6 equipment is more tolerant of different pedals than others." I guess I'm going to have to take the "financial plunge" and purchase another expression pedal. The fact that "some Line 6 equipment is more tolerant of different pedals than others" is curious to me, as I, with my very limited understanding of electronics, can't seem to understand how that would happen. Either way, props to Mission Engineering for responding to my question within 15 minutes of sending a support email.

I just got myself a shortboard mkii to use with my POD HD ProX, and I've hooked up a Mission Engineering GC-EXP1-Pro expression pedal to the expression jack. The FBV will recognise the expression pedal for a limited time, and then the expression pedal led will turn off (meaning, no more expression pedal recognised). Is this typical of a non-Line6 expression pedal? What's odd is that I've been using this Mission expression pedal with my POD HD500 with no problems. So I am inclined to think that the expression pedal isn't the problem. What do you guys think? It's the expression pedal, isn't it?

I also thought the Line 6 reverbs were unusable, but now I think otherwise. Like Joel Brown said, everything requires tweaking. The reverbs might not be as immediately gratifying as a Wet or Flint pedals, but when you know how reverbs work and how each parameter works, the Line 6 verbs are very usable. My favourites are the '63 Spring (for a nice amount of space with a pleasing decay) and the Cave (for rich EMT 250-type sounds).

There's the assumption made that "old" (4-years) = worse than anything new out there. That's a false assumption. If a company gets it right from the get-go, it doesn't matter how old the technology is, it's still better than a lot of the newer offerings out there. This is especially true in the plug-in world. People still use "old" McDSP plugins (admittedly, they have had their updates) over newer offerings. There are many reasons for this, but one of them is surely: "the plugin is just that good". Now are the POD HD models "that good"? I'd say "good enough for me." With regards to amp sims, you have to think about the process of modelling. Do you want to model everything, point-to-point? But then the programming will be bulky and slow. Do you model "chunks" of the circuit that have no audible effect to slim down the code? Do you do the same with parts of the signal that affect the audible parts? How "precise" do you want your algorithm for a tube or transformer and all its irregularities to be? At what cost? I think Line 6 has done a good job making the right programming compromises to give us an excellent amp-sims. Every company has to make their own programming compromises, even with newer offerings. I can think of one example of a newer amp-sim plug-in from another company that people love, but to me their plugin obviously makes compromises that don't make their amp sims amp-like (in terms of how each tone control interacts with other parameters for each unique amp, and in terms of how each amp has very, very different clipping characteristics). For some more reading see this article on plugin modelling. With regards to price, $50 is very, very reasonable. 4 amps and 2 cabs = 6 very unique tone shaping tools. UAD is charging $150 for three pedal sims. Now THAT is ridiculous. My only bummer is that apparently most of these new "package" sims are older-generation sims. I enjoy the HD models much, much more than the older-generation stuff. It sometimes feels like the clipping in the older generation stuff is too similar amp-to-amp. I'm not sure if I'm right or wrong with that assessment.

Thanks guys! These are all very helpful

I remember browsing this forum a while ago, reading of an alternative to the tremol-no. Does anyone know what that is? Is there a reason why you prefer that over the tremel-no? I've been noticing that my 69's modelling (especially with the Twang and Spank) has been "plunk"-y in comparison to the magnetic pickups and my experience with single-coil guitars. I've been wondering if the floating nature of my setup is contributing to that sound. The "plunk"-yness is especially noticeable with the lower E and A strings. I was hoping a system like the tremol-no can "block" the trem and give me a livelier response on-demand (obviously, giving up the use of the trem arm). I should also mention that my guitar has a maple fingerboard, so the all-maple-ness could contribute to the softer response of the lower strings. Regardless, the 69 is an outstanding super-strat guitar. Using the non-locking-nut tremolo is as good as it gets for me: smooth action and doesn't go out of tune. It really makes playing with the acoustic models really, really fun. This guitar was my first foray into trem guitars, and I'm very happy this trem system has given me zero headaches so far!