Brazzy Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Or did I miss something? This may have been asked before but I was curious if anyone else has asked themselves this question. Are there any modelers that work this way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_m Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 The Helix allows you to do this, well essentially. You can have the amp and cab be separate blocks, so you can put effects between the amp block and the cab block. I think technically, the power amp modeling occurs in the amp block so the effects are after the power amp modeling, but in reality, it would probably not make any sonic difference. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazzy Posted July 17, 2015 Author Share Posted July 17, 2015 The Helix allows you to do this, well essentially. You can have the amp and cab be separate blocks, so you can put effects between the amp block and the cab block. I think technically, the power amp modeling occurs in the amp block so the effects are after the power amp modeling, but in reality, it would probably not make any sonic difference. Thanks Phil! Who knows I may end up with a Helix someday. :) I'm really happy with all my Line 6 purchases and with their customer service and tech dept. I've been really enjoying the DT50HD lately and as I get better with dialing it in I'm liking it even more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazzy Posted July 17, 2015 Author Share Posted July 17, 2015 dear friend Brazzy, about 1 year ago I posted this idea on ideascale.. link here: http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Traditional-amp-Fx-Return-emulation-for-POD-HD-series/544872-23508 I got 9 votes, that's all I have got.. considering how many we are, 9 votes is like saying zero interest for that idea.. IMO it would be a really nice feature, something faithful to reality, and really missing from many modelers.. don't worry to vote for my idea or not, doesn't matter for me, I'm not going to post anymore ideas over there for awhile, given that even if some of them were of any interest for someone who take decisions, they would be implemented only in the next device, even if was possible to do it with the device I'm already using.. so, if you want pay more money to see your ideas becoming reality, ideascale is the perfect place to do it, nothing wrong with it, just you should know how it works before you spend your time.. IMO the HD500/X is EOL, even if has not yet been said officially.. you don't even get a decent model gallery for the model pack you payed for.. does this tell you something?? Thanks for your input on this friend! I missed that idea scale post or I would've voted it up for sure. I understand what you mean concerning the rest of your post and value your opinion. I'm enjoying what I got now and am getting to have more fun than ever jamm'in to drummers every now and then. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartnettle1 Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 I missed the idea too, definitely worth a post and it is as it is in the real Amp world. Good point and one that gets overlooked. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stumblinman Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 The Helix allows you to do this, well essentially. You can have the amp and cab be separate blocks, so you can put effects between the amp block and the cab block. I think technically, the power amp modeling occurs in the amp block so the effects are after the power amp modeling, but in reality, it would probably not make any sonic difference. Good up sell Phil! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NucleusX Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 Electronically there's a huge difference, the tonal characteristics of both points in the real world differs just as much too, the modelling should reflect that. I brought this subject up a while ago in a thread but no-one had anything to say about it lol, better late than never. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazzy Posted July 18, 2015 Author Share Posted July 18, 2015 Electronically there's a huge difference, the tonal characteristics of both points in the real world differs just as much too, the modelling should reflect that. I brought this subject up a while ago in a thread but no-one had anything to say about it lol, better late than never. Sorry, I must've missed your post on this. I knew I couldn't be only one thinking about this since I might be the most inexperienced music guy here but I know there is a difference when going Pre or Post with Effects 'cause I'm hearing it and so I thought the Pod being a modeler it should reflect that, so I just created a new thread. Suppose this happens often, lol. And Yeah, better late than never right. :) 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NucleusX Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 Post #6 http://line6.com/support/topic/14522-compressor-before-or-after/ Its hard to say, even though graphically the GUI displays its signal chain the way it does with respect to amps and fx loop, mightn't mean that that's exactly the path the signal is taking. Intuitively, the cabinet and mics should be right at the end of the signal path. This would all be guess work at best till some "on the inside" Line 6 egg head steps in and straightens us out with actual facts. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_m Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 I completely disagree with the above statement.. it could never be that a FX sounds the same before or after any amp stage (pre or power)... that's not how it works It would depend on how much saturation is coming from the power amp stage. In a typical guitar amp, more distortion isn't actually occurring in the power amp tubes. The would be especially true for master volume amps with effects loops. The whole idea behind a master volume amp is that you have the saturation occurring before the master volume control so you can have amp distortion at a more reasonable volume. If you think about it, that's why effects loops are where they are in the signal chain. They're after the preamp, so you can run a saturated signal through your post effects. The power amp is actually going to be pretty clean. That's why I don't think there would be much noticeable difference between placing the effects loop between the modeled preamp and power amp or placing it after the power amp section. In some ways putting the loop after the power amp is actually probably better because it ensures that you won't have time based effects before distortion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazzy Posted July 19, 2015 Author Share Posted July 19, 2015 It would depend on how much saturation is coming from the power amp stage. In a typical guitar amp, more distortion isn't actually occurring in the power amp tubes. The would be especially true for master volume amps with effects loops. The whole idea behind a master volume amp is that you have the saturation occurring before the master volume control so you can have amp distortion at a more reasonable volume. If you think about it, that's why effects loops are where they are in the signal chain. They're after the preamp, so you can run a saturated signal through your post effects. The power amp is actually going to be pretty clean. That's why I don't think there would be much noticeable difference between placing the effects loop between the modeled preamp and power amp or placing it after the power amp section. In some ways putting the loop after the power amp is actually probably better because it ensures that you won't have time based effects before distortion. Good explanation of why you say it doesn't effect much. I can understand your thinking on this and thanks for input. I run a Beat Buddy into the power amp section of my DT50HD while I'm sending my guitar signal into the preamp and I get great tone from both things the guitar and the drums. I can crank the Beat Buddy's drums up and it stays clean going through the power amp section and I can crank up the guitars preamp distortion. In this case of course I'm not even using the Pod although I could and I do sometimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazzy Posted July 19, 2015 Author Share Posted July 19, 2015 I understand your point, but I still believe that there would be a significant difference depending on where you put your FX (before or after the power-amp) because even if the power amp is not distorting that much, is still amplifying the signal coming from the pre-amp and the following FX would be affected by that increased level, and also by the frequency response of the power-amp which I don't think is linear at all I think your right as well, as is why I was thinking about this and raised the question again unknowingly. I think there is a sonic difference as well although it might be little as I think is Phil's stance on this. I still think it would've been cool if the modeling went along the lines of the real way an amp works at least if the signal chain went according to a real chain. Don't get me wrong I like Line 6 modeling as it gave me the ability to learn how a signal chain works as I had no previous experience. I think the Helix addressed this as I'm being led to believe it. Either way I'm glad ya'll are posting your thoughts on this, it helps me and anyone else understand what's happening better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radatats Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 I'm just speculating here but if I understand the new routing features properly, you should be able to put all your PRE fx in front of a Preamp block with no cab and feed that output to your POST fx and then to a full amp model with a cab IR. That way you can dial in your preamp and if you keep the full amp model very neutral and just tweak the DEP it might do the trick. Any thoughts from the experts or DI? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinDorr Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 In all likelihood it is computationally cheaper and code/data-size-wise smaller to utilize an aggregate model concept of a full amp and Mic and Cab and ER than using individual, user configurable models for preamp, power amp, cab, mic, and ER. At the end of the day the same tone transformation functions (although with different parameters and to different dgrees) exist in all those model components. I think there is a very practical reason behind why all those things are in the amp section on the HD, i.e., L6 simply tried to make the most out of limited compute resources. My take is that there would be very little if not no difference in sound IF the individual models existed in the HD and if they would be sequebced in the same fashion as they are hard-wired into the HD, just more DSP and memory consumption. Obviously everything is changing if other models get inserted somewhere in between and probably also if the sequence is changed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazzy Posted July 20, 2015 Author Share Posted July 20, 2015 In all likelihood it is computationally cheaper and code/data-size-wise smaller to utilize an aggregate model concept of a full amp and Mic and Cab and ER than using individual, user configurable models for preamp, power amp, cab, mic, and ER. At the end of the day the same tone transformation functions (although with different parameters and to different dgrees) exist in all those model components. I think there is a very practical reason behind why all those things are in the amp section on the HD, i.e., L6 simply tried to make the most out of limited compute resources. My take is that there would be very little if not no difference in sound IF the individual models existed in the HD and if they would be sequebced in the same fashion as they are hard-wired into the HD, just more DSP and memory consumption. Obviously everything is changing if other models get inserted somewhere in between and probably also if the sequence is changed. Thanks Martin, your take makes sense too. I can understand the programming part, even though I'm not a programmer. I can only imagine what it takes to make a Pod work the way it does. I still like my HD500 and I continue to have fun with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewolf48 Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 One reason for the relatively low number of votes might be because it is just a subset of other ideas that were already there such as this one which had 75 votes: http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/POD-HD-Split-preamp-Poweramp-cab-in-seperate-blocks/493760-23508 Or this remarkably similar 22 votes: http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Separate-preamp-poweramp-cab-blocks/551666-23508 As well as allowing one amp to drive 2 cabs, the same idea allows fx blocks to be put between them including the FX loop. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aerosol_d7 Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 dear friend Brazzy, about 1 year ago I posted this idea on ideascale.. link here: http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Traditional-amp-Fx-Return-emulation-for-POD-HD-series/544872-23508 I got 9 votes, that's all I have got.. considering how many we are, 9 votes is like saying zero interest for that idea.. IMO it would be a really nice feature, something faithful to reality, and really missing from many modelers.. don't worry to vote for my idea or not, doesn't matter for me, I'm not going to post anymore ideas over there for awhile, given that even if some of them were of any interest for someone who take decisions, they would be implemented only in the next device, even if was possible to do it with the device I'm already using.. so, if you want pay more money to see your ideas becoming reality, ideascale is the perfect place to do it, nothing wrong with it, just you should know how it works before you spend your time.. IMO the HD500/X is EOL, even if has not yet been said officially.. you don't even get a decent model gallery for the model pack you payed for.. does this tell you something?? I totally agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauritzSA Posted July 28, 2015 Share Posted July 28, 2015 You can achieve this with adding something like the Two Notes Torpedo C.A.B. http://www.two-notes.com/en/hardware/torpedo-cab/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdkane Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Post #6 http://line6.com/support/topic/14522-compressor-before-or-after/ Its hard to say, even though graphically the GUI displays its signal chain the way it does with respect to amps and fx loop, mightn't mean that that's exactly the path the signal is taking. Intuitively, the cabinet and mics should be right at the end of the signal path. This would all be guess work at best till some "on the inside" Line 6 egg head steps in and straightens us out with actual facts. I think you are on the money here. Whilst the gui does not display it this way it makes sense that putting the fx after the amp block is emulating it being after the preamp. I'm pretty sure it's not modelling what happens with fx if you somehow place them after a mic'd cab.... Also by my ears reverb and delay sound like they are in the fx loop of a real amp. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdkane Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 I'm just speculating here but if I understand the new routing features properly, you should be able to put all your PRE fx in front of a Preamp block with no cab and feed that output to your POST fx and then to a full amp model with a cab IR. That way you can dial in your preamp and if you keep the full amp model very neutral and just tweak the DEP it might do the trick. Any thoughts from the experts or DI? I would say if you put your effects after a preamp amp, then add fx loop block after the effects and output from the loop to an external poweramp you could achieve this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartnettle1 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 I'm just speculating here but if I understand the new routing features properly, you should be able to put all your PRE fx in front of a Preamp block with no cab and feed that output to your POST fx and then to a full amp model with a cab IR. That way you can dial in your preamp and if you keep the full amp model very neutral and just tweak the DEP it might do the trick. Any thoughts from the experts or DI? From a Pre model to a full Amp model you are pre amping twice. Can be done on the Hd500x Simply dual Amps. Path one with pedal FX and Pre amp model, out FX send and physically cabled to aux in which has full amp model. For recording of course just preamp model with pedals before hand and into the DAW with IR loaders for cabs. Getting back to the idea scale the volume on an amp with an FX loop while it is way cleaner than the pre amp some models including some famed vintage amps got their sound driving the output stage which usually has a output transformer as well a tube stage. Peavy Revalver is an amp simulator that lets you tweak these amp stages tubes and transformers. While it is a bit of a gimmick it nevertheless enables someone who knows tube amps etc to create a wholly custom amp model. I have revalver II and I didnt go that far tweaking the component level. Who knows maybe in the near future the component level modeling is where it will be at. Meantime POD HD sounded better in detail then the Amp sims of a few years ago so where I am going with this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauritzSA Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 can you explain where it would be the separation between the pre-amp and power-amp by using the above solution? where you would get the typical FX loop send return circuit placement?.. i.e. the topic of this thread Pre-amp Pod HD - FX loop - Torpedo C.A.B. The C.A.B. does power amp simulation and cab/mic simulation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazzy Posted July 29, 2015 Author Share Posted July 29, 2015 Some good posts and ideas Y'All, Thanks! I think that while the Pod doesn't actually show the FX Loop in the arrangement the way I would like to see it on the screen the sound is good like the FX Loop is working properly. I suppose I just want the arrangement to look like it would in an actual situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauritzSA Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 thanks for clearing up.. to be honest I knew that some IRs include power-amp, which in this case wouldn't be tweakable at all having no controls available like master volume etc.. but as an external solution could work, like it could work using an external real power-amp/cab/mic.. hopefully one day will be possible to model also the traditional FX Loop behaviour, or more simply will be possible to have the separate power-amp models.. which would be a fantastic solution to mix and match things even more as you like, just using 1 device With the C.A.B. you can load external IR's, but it has it's own cabinets and adjustable mics and positions. Therestart is also a selection of modulated power amp sections with a choice of 4 tubes which are all fully adjustable. These can be switched off or on and used in conjunction with third party IR's. The EQ section is also very usable. It's all midi switchable. Hopefully end of this month there will be an update on the cabs were reverb will be added to the cabs so you can free up another slot in the POD. In my opinion the power amp section surpasses the POD vastly. I use the POD only as preamp and the C.A.B. for the cab and amp sim 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazzy Posted July 29, 2015 Author Share Posted July 29, 2015 IMO the actual FX Loop included into the HD is a very useful tool as it is, because it allows to integrate external equipment in a very flexible way.. it shouldn't be changed or replaced.. as I said previously, what would be very nice ideally for me, would to have separate power-amps models, but I'm quite sure it wouldn't be possible with this device.. I imagine that it would require at least double DSP resources and rewriting a lot of the code.. I believe that having separate pre-amps and a power-amps to be combined to constitute a full amp would require almost the same DSP resources needed to run 2 of the actual full amps models Makes sense to me, As usual your input is always a pleasure to read as is everyone else's. Thanks "H" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.