HD500 owners

[stevevnicks]

hello,

 

being a bit of a tech head (been into computers and related hardware for about 14 years as hobby and private work)

I like to get into the tech side of hardware and see what hardware is worth buying, not based just on the hardware spec's listed on the products website,  but also the chips that are used to create the product i'm buying.

 

after starting to get into guitars and effects just lately and buying a second hand, Mint condition (still boxed) HD500 for only £260, I decided to have a look at the chips being used to create the effects/tones in this device, after all its these important parts that will decide the end result being produced, oh and the skill of the software programmers to get the best use out of the hardware. 

 

it turns out Line 6 choice of ADSP that's being used in the HD500 is a really good choice for this product even more at the price point of the HD500 second hand price, for all the haters of the POD HD500, Who will say they are rubbish or over hyped etc, I hate to break this to you .. but the hardware being used in the HD500 Is really good and proven tech.

 

 POD HD500 owners should relax, knowing the tech Line 6 is using and giving us, at such cheap prices, its a steel. The  ADSP-21369 used inside the HD500 is used in other audio devices such as :

 

  http://www.analog.com/en/education/education-library/creamware-audio-reproduces-vintage-sounds.html

 

I will quote :

 

"SHARC: You Never Have to Compromise"

As previously stated, CreamWare has been using ADI's SHARC DSPs since 1997, and most of the company's SCOPE line includes the processors. "We are enthusiastic about SHARC technology and love to spread the word," said Hund. CreamWare's SCOPE is a highly flexible studio system that can be configured, adapted, and used according to specific needs such as recording, mixing, and mastering. It is a flexible powerful digital mixer with latency-free real-time DSP plug-ins and other quality features. It includes SHARC DSP boards, software packages, recording tools such as mixers and effects, and exclusive sound machines such as synthesizers and samplers. SCOPE is fully expandable. DSP power, I/Os, and software can all be updated thanks to its modular structure. One can implement configurations comprising as many as 42 SHARC DSPs and more than 100 I/Os.

"The considerable DSP power of the platform itself allows for implementing only sophisticated top-notch algorithms — we have always focused on quality. For example, the synthesizers on our platform rarely provide extensive polyphony but the sound just blows right into your face. There is, however, one more technological motive: The employed SHARC DSP was specifically designed to perform high-resolution audio processing. It always processes the audio with a 32-bit resolution, and algorithms and parameters are computed with a floating-point resolution of even 40 bits," said Hund.

"If there are no such powerful structures at hand, programmers will have to make compromises regarding the resolution (accuracy) again and again for performance purposes; so the weakest link in the processing chain will often determine the sound. With SHARCs, however, you never have to compromise — the highest resolution is maintained during the entire process without affecting the performance," Hund said. "You can hear it in the results."

 

 

 

would love to know what ADSP the HD500X is using.

 

 

sorry just add :

 

this should be good news on the longevity of the product so money well invested in the hd500 and probs even more so in the HD500X

[Charlie_Watt]

HD500X uses an upgraded version of the DSP that is in the 500.

[NucleusX]

2 Questions.

 

1. Do you have the technical/engineering knowledge to conduct internal/external analysis of DSP chips ?

2. What areas of DSP "specifically" are you using to make comparisons to other DSP chips ?

 

This wouldn't be an easy assessment for an amateur hobbyist, so excuse my tone if I offend.

I believe the chip used in the X versions are simular to non X versions, just clocked higher...

I remember about a year ago I priced the DSP chip in my HD Pro @ about $20 :o just saying.

If you search hard enough, you'll find discussions about this topic through this forum. :)

Also, try to steer clear of documentations such as those, they all have an agenda to sell, and

they all claim to be better at this and that, but at the end of the day, its all just marketing hype.

Instead, focus on the technical documents and specifications for a more objective comparison.

[stevevnicks]

the info that im reading is about, the ADSP-21369 inside the HD500 it's the same based SHARC DSPs used in £2k and upwards costing devices, the dsp used in the HD500 is proven tech used in other devices, although those devices use 18 or more SHARC based DSP's like the albeit only 1 Used in the HD500 and HD500X, so I was just saying its good tech to have, read up about the ADSP-21369, I thought at first maybe the tech inside this was going to be dubious ? after I had read, what a few people have said, when in fact its based on proven tech, that should give longevity to the end user, what wrong with saying that, if your the expert ?

 

oh and the fact Analog Devices who make the chip should know what they are doing, thats a good hint.

 

 

http://www.analog.com/en/about-adi.html

 

oh and about the HD500X I was wanting to know the model number of the ADSP that's being used

 

 

I am guessing ?? and only guessing the HD500X uses the :

 

ADSP 21469  High Performance Fourth Generation DSP running at 450Mhz ?maybe?

 

http://www.analog.co...roduct-overview

 

 Line 6 does not build the DSP from the ground up or anywhere really, they have just sourced the best parts they can get for the buck and build/design us a very fair product for the money based on proven hardware, its down to line 6 to get the programming correct for the device.

 

I guessing they Line 6 among other companys are similar to the like of asus, msi, gigabyte who all build computer parts but the chips they will use for say for graphics cards from low end to high end are made by NVidia or AMD, the said companys buy the same chip and put there branding on it some charge more than others for the same chip but the board will be using higher end japanese capacitors etc.

[NucleusX]

Correct, its VERY dubious lol, and correct, Analog Devices make some fine chips.

 

In the interests of objectiveness, which is paramount for assessments such as these, technical specifications and documentation

are crucial for objective comparisons. Just because the chip was used in a more expensive unit, doesn't automatically make it

superior to "X" comparison. Price is a highly deceiving indicator to DSP performance, and companies will tend to set prices based

on what they think people are willing to spend, rather than the exact production cost of a single unit in materials and labour. 

[stevevnicks]

oh I have no dout line 6 make a nice buck on there device, after all that's business, I am just trying to say that the HD500 should be up to the job Line 6 intened it to be used for and quite nicely for most people, although they will always be those who expect\want more for there money.

 

 

doesn't automatically make it

superior to "X" comparison

 

I was not comparing to anything, I was reading about the tech behind the chip and the chip is a good choice for the job.

 

some people will try and make the POD HD500 sound like its made out of old cheap parts like those found in an stylophone if they don't like it. just how some people are I guess?

[NucleusX]

Just dug through some old threads to find what you may already have.

 

HD500 DSP http://www.analog.com/en/products/processors-dsp/sharc/adsp-21369.html

 

As for the HD500X, I'm not quite sure if that's had official clarification with the exact

DSP chip model, but higher clock speeds was definitely discussed at some point.

[NucleusX]

I might be wrong, so someone correct me if needed please.

 

The ADSP-21369 Sharc has gone through a few generations, with an increase of clock speed with every next generation.

 

HD500     = ADSP-21369 KSWZ-2A (333MHz)

HD500X   = ADSP-21369 KSWZ-6A (400MHz)

 

All specifications and variances can be found in the "Data sheet".

 

http://www.analog.com/en/products/processors-dsp/sharc/adsp-21369.html

[spaceatl]

I would guess the tooling kits are not nearly as mature or specialized yet, but I wonder about the new kid TI C66x...That thing is pretty darn powerful...

 

http://www.ti.com/lit/wp/sprabn8a/sprabn8a.pdf

[stevevnicks]

spaceatl that's the sort of info I like to read and look at lol im the same with GPU's APU's, CPU's and now audio DSP's, the tech behind the chip.

 

I will look to see what rev. ADSP my HD500 has give me 5 mins I will look for numbers on the chip..

 

 

the chip in my HD500 is the ADSP-21369 I think it says KSWZ-2A cant quite make it out :/ me old eyes failing me heeh

 

I cant find any info on a gen 1 or 2 ADSP-21369 only the 400Mhz gen 3 I have look futher into it.

 

one odd thing the Main PCB in my POD HD500 says POD X4 Live Main PCB Rev c, 11.01.2010

[NucleusX]

stevevnicks

 

"I am just trying to say that the HD500 should be up to the job Line 6 intened it to be used for and quite nicely for most people"

 

I think we all work this out eventually after we've explored our new modellers. The difference you'll find with others is that some

with relatively simple chains, say the DSP solution is plenty for them and rarely run into DSP limits, and others with higher

demands from their chains say its not enough, so really that outcome is subjective for each person, and how they put it to use.

[stevevnicks]

ok your correct the HD500 uses the ADSP-21369KSWZ-2A  333 MHz 2M bit 6M bit 208-Lead LQFP_EP based chip

 

 

and I guess the HD500X is using the ADSP-21369KSWZ-6A 400 MHz 2M bit 6M bit 208-Lead LQFP_EP based chip

 

so I am happy to keep with my HD500 :)

 

tech data behind the HD500's  Gen 3 ADSP-21369 (333Mhz)

 

 (The HD500 and HD500X are using the Gen3 ADSP as its in the number eg. ADSP-21(3)69KSWZ 333mhz Gen 3 )

 

http://www.datasheetlib.com/datasheet/47373/adsp-21369kswz-2a_adi-analog-devices-inc.html?page=3#datasheet

 

The ADSP 21(4)69 is an 4th Gen ADSP

[NucleusX]

I could've saved you some effort by just saying the X versions bring about %20 extra DSP lol.

I have the HD Pro (non-X), and didn't find that %20 appealing enough to lay out the cash.  

[Dshow]

I still own my HD500 and don't find any reason for an update to the HD500x. I'm using minimal setups anyway and run out of DSP very rarely. Maybe if a next generation is comming out I'll consider an update.

[stevevnicks]

put it this way now I know the full tech behind The HD500, I am more than happy with what they have come up with, and so should everyone who owns the HD500 its good tech, keep it I would say.

 

would I buy the HD500X ?

 

 not now I own the HD500

 

if I was in the market for a new Effects pedal would I buy the HD500X ?

 

100% yes should last a fair while (as should the HD500) all in all not a bad investment.

 

the good news for me (or all) at least  is the HD500 uses exactly the same ADSP Generation tech as the HD500X apart from an 66Mhz Speed bump which I guess is a bonus for new adopters of the POD HD series of products deffo not really a reason to upgrade from the HD500 for me.

 

HAPPY DAYS I ONLY PAID £260 :)

 

and for those who say they cant get a good tone out of the HD500 then? ... I would of thought it would be hard not to find a  tone you like with all the options this thing has, must be doing something wrong or other hardware not suited ?? gwad knows,  you have so much choice .. surly they could find something they like with it lol?  after reading in to the ADSP's tech, I now know that not being able to finding the "tone" is deffo not down to the hardware tech that's inside the of HD500 lol ...

[BillBee]

Eh... the DSP % increase would be nice and I've hit the wall a few times in my HD (500 & bean) but judged selling and upgrading to the X not cost effective ATM. I would only recommend a non-X new if it was an insane deal. Its not only the DSP increase its the footswitch upgrade which would tilt my favoring of the X.  

 

That said still love my HDs :)

 

-B

[stevevnicks]

To have made the HD500X a worthy reason to upgrade for the HD500 owners, they should of used the ADSP 21469 (450Mhz) the fourth Gen. ADSP Sharc

 

http://www.analog.com/en/products/processors-dsp/sharc/adsp-21469.html#product-overview

 

although in fairness the HD500X's ADSP-21369 KSWZ-6A 400Mhz is still classed by Analog Devices product  life cycle rating stattus as : Production 

 

meaning :

 

"At least one model within this product family is in production and available for purchase. The product is appropriate for new designs but newer alternatives may exist."

 

the bad news for my HD500 is its full of Fujicon Cap's http://www.fujicon.com/en/company_history.php :/ which along with quite a few companys have less than a stellar history for the quality of the caps they made back in 2010, so as for the quality of the Cap's in this unit I can see where the cost savings for Line 6 have been made.

 

although I am sure Fujicon have changed there way's these days ?

 

 A sure sign your product/investment is of high quality build is seeing good brand of Japanese CAP's chances are if they used cheap brand of Cap's then well... were else did they cut back on build quality? in order to make a profit viable item to sell?

 

http://www.capacitorlab.com/low-esr-capacitor-manufacturers/

 

 

even so, after seeing what parts are being used inside of this box of tricks I would have no hesitation in recommending

 

the HD500 or the HD500X based on the Tech its using

 

(not so much the on the parts like the Fujicon Cap's but they haven't failed so they must be of the good batch if this unit I own was built in 2010)

still happy for what I paid :D

[silverhead]

Let's remember - the HD500X was not intended to lure Hd500 owners to upgrade. It's essentially the same product, manufactured with a new and better chip because the old one was no longer available. It also has improved footswitches, but is the same cost as the Hd500. A more expensive chip was not a profitable option.

[stevevnicks]

yes I agree, and can see that now.

 

I am just glad to find out the hardware tech behind the Line 6 HD500\500X range is, in fact quite good, and I have made a good choice to buy one,  Not just an expensive toy (my biggest fear lol)

 

the biggest problem I have found with the reviews about the HD500X

 

 they have failed to go into detail about the CHIP and the history/pedigree of its tech that's being used, often just relying on company released spec/info.

 

when really they should do a tear down first to sum up the product.

 

giving the poss customer\end user, a much more informative buying decision, knowing what the full story is with the product as such.

 

if I was Line 6 marketing I would be Screaming about the tech behind the ADSP-21369 (400Mhz) the HD500X is using

 

at least in the spec's on the box PUT using the powerful ADSP-21369 (400Mhz) DSP lol or words to that effect :)

 

 that would be a nice little bit of tech info to know about the effects box your going to buy

 

its proven, the more tech info you give to your customers the more you will tempt them, even those who don't understand it lol

[BillBee]

yes I agree, and can see that now.

 

I am just glad to find out the hardware tech behind the Line 6 HD500\500X range is, in fact quite good, and I have made a good choice to buy one,  Not just an expensive toy (my biggest fear lol)

 

Hee hee it is really priced well and not too expensive once you get the G.A.S. going. Ask my wife..... on second thought its best she not know :ph34r:

 

That said - just wait until you run across a guy who with a $20 stomp and cheap amp makes you want to throw the guitar out the window. Humbling.

 

-B

[NucleusX]

I try to buy audio gear loaded with gold Nichicon capacitors and motherboards/GPU's with aluminium Solid capacitors

whenever possible, but they do add to the cost, so the final production cost was probably too high for Line6 to consider.

[stevevnicks]

yeah im the same with PC hardware, I don't skimp out on things and think nothing of spending £130 just on things like the PSU.

 

I often tear down some items, just to take a look if I cant find the info im wanting to know, im a geek like that.

 

saying that im trying to sell an intel i7 PC based PC, which would cost at todays internet prices (using same parts) over 2k (comes with triple screens  AOC monitors) only built 7 months ago, and cant even get £1K for it lol .. (I want spend the money on an varizx guitar if I can sell it :/)

 

getting more into guitars and effects so I feel the Line 6 HD, HD500\HD500X Range has a lot to offer and a good place to start.

[stevevnicks]

Quote BillBee

 

"That said - just wait until you run across a guy who with a $20 stomp and cheap amp makes you want to throw the guitar out the window. Humbling."

 

lol yea I cant play the guitar yet, but you wait till I can, umm can ya wait around 20 years lol ..

 

so at the moment a 2 year old with an elastic band over a cardboard box can put my guitar skills to shame, but at least I will have the better tone :P

 

what would be nice is a POD HD/UHD based on 2 x ADSP-21369 KSWZ-6A 400Mhz or even better the ADSP 4th Gen chips..

 

wonder what such an item would cost ? 

 

the only reason the HD500X exists is because line 6 decided to use the 333mhz version ADSP for the HD500, which ADI no longer makes.

 

 

 

the only ADSP option line 6 would have at this point to keep cost production low and stick with same PCB layout of HD500, was to move to 400mhz ADSP using the same Gen 3 architecture.

 

the 400Mhz ADSP 21369 gen 3 is the only Gen 3 ADSP still being made, all other Gen 3 ADSP's (333mhz versions) have past ADI's life cycle for the product.

 

it has nothing to do the being newer Gen Chip, just the fact they cant buy the 333Mhz ADSP anymore, the HD500X seems to me to be is a simple re solder of 400mhz ADSP with Firmware update for Line 6,  and new buttons\lights\screen ...

 

sorry about all the adds (heh)

 

just like to end on the software side of things.

 

there are no difference in the software HD500 or HD500X can run, other than the HD500X should have the slight upper hand in amount of effects/amps that can be run at once.

 

so really there is no reason for the HD500 not to be supported for as long as the HD500X

 

maybe the HD500X might end up with slightly better Versions for HD AMPS or EQ options that the HD500 owners will have live with out, who knows lol im just guessing now :)

 

im sure the ADSP's share the same amount of resourse but the speed the HD500x gives it the edge at a guess.

 

simply put, the HD500X's ADSP can do the same job\effect as the HD500, only process the data faster to move on to the next process\task

 

HD500 uses the 3rd Gen ADSP 21369 chip, running at 333Mhz can calculate 333Mips (Million Instructions per Second)

 

HD500X uses the 3rd Gen ADSP 21369 chip, running at 400Mhz can calculate  400Mips (Million Instructions per Second)

 

how that will pan out in the real world, will be depending on how many instructions are used for any give task\s per clock cycle, so obs the 400Mhz version will end up in front of the 333mhz version, at same given task\s, give the fact they are exactly the same architecture and Gen DSP .

 

ADI has a new flagship DSP to replace the Gen 3 ADSP 21369 series, being the Gen 4 ADSP-21469 series chips, running at 450Mhz can calculate  900Mips (Million Instructions per Second) same price range as the gen 3

 

that's a nice DSP upgrade path. (cost of chip per unit £19.58) couple of those in 1 device and call it the POD UHD or something, then you could have silly amounts of fun.

 

Benchmarks results

 

http://www.analog.com/en/design-center/landing-pages/001/sharc-benchmarks.html

 

as some people have pointed out they feel it could do with more DSP power, the cost of the Chip its self you might think that's a cheap part!

 

you have remember the amount of time/money it would of taken in R&D alone to bring us the HD range from scratch based on the ADSP 21369 chips which are still very capable chip's and very well suited to the task at hand.

 

I can honestly say at the Price point of the HD500X the Quality and the control of the sounds you have is very good value for money.

 

just imagine the leaps forward in raw power the DSP would of made in the next 5 years purist will probs hate it, the new will probs embrace it.

 

the tech will only ever keep getting better, giving people the chance to be creative in ways they haven't been before.

 

there will aways be a need for the real thing though.

 

 

 

and for the Axe-FX Users they also Use an ANALOG DEVICES made chip The ADSP TigarSHARC  which has more power than the ADSP 21369 chips.

 

http://www.analog.com/en/products/processors-dsp/tigersharc-processors.html#tigersharc-processors

[NucleusX]

The AxeFX II incorporates 2 x 600MHz dual-core TigerSHARC's, 2 x ADSP-TS201S I believe.

 

1 DSP is in charge of amp modelling tasks, the 2nd is dedicated to FX processing tasks.

[stevevnicks]

yea, you can see why the AxeFX II is so tasty with 2 of those chips, still it's out of my price range :( so the POD HD is the next best thing for me.

 

an Axe FX II running 2x ADSP-TS201S 600mhz chips can calculate 9600Mips (Million Instructions per Second) (but costs 10x More per DSP than the DSP inside the HD500x)

 

HD500X uses the 3rd Gen ADSP 21369 chip, running at 400Mhz can calculate  400Mips (Million Instructions per Second)

 

you can see the why the AxeFX II is so good, with 2 DSP's 4800 MIPS per DSP on tap vs the POD HD500X with 1 DSP and 400MIPS on tap

 

 

still the reality is the cost, and that where the POD HD500\500X shines, in its price range it's robust build quality, effects, sound quality, wealth of inputs and the ability to tweak the sounds and effects along with long term support, its a no brainer.

 

im not saying the POD HD is a budget device, because its not, the POD HD is a quality device, your just getting what you pay for in the terms of  hardware processing  power.

 

the POD HD500\X is still more than viable an option, I know I made the right move buying one, and i will not be get rid/selling it. this device is a keeper for me. just to much fun to be had with my HD500 for the money.

 

like I have already said being new to the line 6 and the POD HD500, I was worried I bought an expensive Toy after reading a few half assed reviews.

 

this prompted me to look into the chip Line 6 chose to go with and the tech behind the chip. all in all I happy with what I found out.

 

this brings me back to the reviews found on these devices why dose the reviewer never talk about the hardware inside the box in any depth ? I want to know what chip the unit is using and the tech behind the chip, not that you pulg it in twist this twist that sound like this lol

 

at least if they going to review a effects device or any digital device, go into some detail about the Chip\s Used to create  the sound, because they are what count the most .

[Kopfschmerzen]

Hardware is only as good as algorithms fed into the chip.

[smrybacki]

Hardware is only as good as algorithms fed into the chip.

Yep.

 

Great tech capabilities does not (necessarily) equal great sound.  While I have enough former professional electronics background to follow this discussion, I think this point trumps all of what prceeded it.

[cruisinon2]

Yep.

 

Great tech capabilities does not (necessarily) equal great sound.  While I have enough former professional electronics background to follow this discussion, I think this point trumps all of what prceeded it.

 

Well it's garbage in, garbage out, right? Although I suppose with a nice speedy chip, you could get faster garbage, no? :P

[smrybacki]

Well it's garbage in, garbage out, right? Although I suppose with a nice speedy chip, you could get faster garbage, no? :P

Actually it could be super efficient garbage.  Bad programming practices can absolutely overcome great hardware.  See ANYTHING MADE BY MICROSOFT lol....

[radatats]

so I was kinda starting to wonder what I might be missing with Axe FX so I figured WTF? download the Axe Edit program and see what's up.  Holy bat$hit...  If you think tweaking a POD tone is tough just look at the myriad of things to adjust on there.  Not to mention auditioning different IR's and effects, routings, etc...  tweaker's nightmare...

 

I would NEVER get any playing time with that thing...  :wacko: