Crito

Has anyone tried using a volume pedal in the Catalyst's FX loop? Any issues? High or low impedance (I assume low)? Any recommendations for brand? I'm considering buying an Ernie Ball 6181 VP JR 25K (low impedance).

Actually, there is no Rename function in Catalyst Edit. But I think you might have resolved my issue anyway with your last note; I wasn't hitting the ENTER (on my Mac, the Return) key after typing a new name in the editable field, I was just typing the new name and then going straight to the Save Current Preset To File and/or Save Current Preset To Catalyst function in the menu under the three guitars icon. I think that was the problem (maybe I was hitting Return occasionally; that would explain the apparent inconsistency of the results). I'll continue to experiment, but unless I post here again, consider the issue is resolved. Thanks!

Thanks silverhead. Actually, it seems to work sometimes (inconsistently). I guess the question is why they would allow you to edit the name in that field if, after doing so and saving either to the amp or the computer, it wouldn't save that information in the amp or the file on the computer. Sometimes it does, but other times immediately after saving the patch to a bank on the amp, it reverts back to the previous name. Very strange! (to quote a line from Penny Lane).

There seems to be a bug in my Catalyst Edit software (v. 1.01 running on my Mac). There is an editable field displaying the patch name, but when I change the patch name and then save the patch to the amp or to a file (using the new patch name), the name change doesn't seem to stick. When I load the patch from the file into the bank, the patch name has reverted back to the original patch name (even though the settings reflect any changes I made). Similarly, when I save the patch to the Catalyst bank and then quit the program, when I run the program again and the program loads the Catalyst sounds, the patch name has again reverted to the original patch name. Also, sometimes patch names display as gray and other times as red, but this does not depend on whether I've made any changes. What's going on?

So... Line6 has explained the situation: I'm sorry you had an unprovoked password reset prompt from us. It was not a fishing email or anything nefarious. It seems that another user with a very similar user name mistakenly typed in yours and requested the reset, pinging your account instead of theirs. You still have a secure account and all is well. Let me know if you have any further questions. I still hope they fix the language of the 'prompt' so that it doesn't mislead the recipient into thinking that their password has already been changed. (It will appear to be a phishing expedition only if the recipient has not initiated the process, which may be very rare). Thanks to Line6 for responding quickly and tracking down what happened.

Sure, but they can determine what the automated response should be. 'Processed' sounds like the password had indeed been changed, not just that the process of changing it had begun. If they want to communicate 'the process of change has begun', they could have the automated system use that phrase instead. I've called Line6, and they're are going to look into this further. I'll post again once I here back from them.

Understood, cruisinon2. But I also think it's important for other users to be aware of this issue, hence the post here.

Right Hurghanico. I always am very careful about my accounts. I use 1Password to generate very secure passwords, and never use the same password for two sites. And I have already done what you suggested. Perhaps I didn't make it clear that I am very familiar with all the standard security protocols, and I wouldn't have clicked on the link or changed my password (the first time) after doing so if I weren't 99% convinced that I was on the actual Line6 site. Perhaps I should have been 100% convinced, but so far the situation is: no harm has been done. I still think Line6 should modify the email I received from their site, especially the use of the word 'processed'. That was needlessly scary, and does not seem to have been literally true.

Thanks for the feedback, Guru. So... you're theory, which seems plausible to me, is that the email was generated by Line6, but that the process was started by someone trying to hack into my account. If that is right, I'd still like someone from Line6 to confirm it. I'd also like to point out to them that the email looks like a phishing email, and they should consider making it much more transparent and explanatory!

Sorry pianoguyy - not following you.

Yes, but the URL was authentic (behind the printed link), and it did allow me to change my password on the Line6 site. So what bothers me is that the wording of the email includes the phrase "A request to change your account password was received and processed. Click the link below to enter a new password. This link will expire in 1 ( one ) hour and you can only click it ONCE." This is very unclear. Who made the request? For what reason? What does 'processed' mean (it sounds like my password had already been changed). If no one from Line6 responds to this thread, I will call their support number to complain.

I just received a suspicious-looking email stating that "A request to change your account password was received and processed. Click the link below to enter a new password. This link will expire in 1 ( one ) hour and you can only click it ONCE." and providing a line6 URL (I checked, it really was a line6 URL) that allowed me to change my password without first entering my old password. What's more, it seems to have worked! However, I never made such a request. Could anyone explain to me what this means? Did I receive the email because someone unsuccessfully tried to change my password?

Thanks for the idea, guitardad123. I've been avoiding using the PEQ because I'm never sure how it will affect tone in real-world settings, but if I can use it for volume boost I will. Do you just boost all frequencies equally to get the volume boost?

I gigged with my new Spider V 120 for the first time last night. I'd previously used a Spider IV 75 with the same band in the same club (using the same guitar), and had had no problems cutting through, but with the Spider V 120 the guitar was buried despite being maxed out on both the volume pedal and the Master volume, on all patches. (I play jazz funk-fusion and generally use clean sounds, but even the patches that had Classic Distortion it didn't cut like I expected; the only sounds that were as loud as I'd expected were those using a Synth sound). Given that the Spider V is supposed to have 45 more watts than the Spider IV, I was very disappointed. (I doubt that the difference has to do with the tweeter in the V...). Has anybody found an effective way of boosting the overall output of the V 120? I'd rather not run through the PA (which is already overburdened).