Hd500x Dsp Limit

[TheRealZap]

my point is if it doesn't meet your needs move on...

your complaint has been heard...

the 500x is not the next generation new model...

its a slightly updated version of the same model...

much like a regular tv... this years 200$ tv isn't much different than last years 200$ tv

 

No capiche, then. You know that question you asked, about why the tired old arguments are popping up again? It's because the company you're an expert on just released the cause of those tired old arguments for the second time. That other stuff about its popularity and redeeming qualities must be over my head - They don't seem to be a point of contention anywhere in the thread.

[phil_m]

I'm not bragging when I say I can debate you into the ground, and be re-registered in a day if I'm banned for calling Expert Users out on posting irrelevant, rambling attempts at ad-hominems to extinguish valid criticisms I'm damn-well entitled to express, in whatever terms I want.

 

[TheRealZap]

terrible at nothing....

by your own admission the hd500 and hd500x doesn't meet your needs...

no analogy required... why are you still here? just to be a negative nancy....?

you have expressed your opinion... but to present the expression of your opinion as some sort of fact... is simply wrong.

 

You're terrible at this. You're drawing all these irrelevant analogies between PODS and Mcdonald's and televisions to supplement your exasperation and butthurt over a relevant complaint about a product that hasn't been on the market a week, yet.

Take your own advice: If I don't meet your needs, move on. I'm not bragging when I say I can debate you into the ground, and be re-registered in a day if I'm banned for calling Expert Users out on posting irrelevant, rambling attempts at ad-hominems to extinguish valid criticisms I'm damn-well entitled to express, in whatever terms I want. And this is coming from a fan and endorser of the company's products.

[dennisrford]

I think the HD500X is a work of engineering genius.  Their goal seems to have been to maximize flexibility and the quality of the models--which is what most users would probably prefer.

 

They could have cut corners on the spring reverb and other models in case someone wanted to put 8 of them in their signal chain, but they didn't.  They could have disallowed dual amps to keep the dsp utilzation down, but they didn't. They could have made other compromises to avoid the dsp limit, but they didn't.  I think they made the right engineering decisions.

 

Having said that, I don't know if I'll get one.  I had an HD500 for a while and didn't really bond with it. 

 

 

[gunpointmetal]

or, marcwormjim is simply pointing out a "DESIGN PROBLEM" with the POD HD500-whatever....I agree if you are going to have eight freely assignable FX blocks and two amp positions, your device should be able to handle any combination of those eight blocks and two amps. Other wise you have "sometimes eight, sometimes three, depending on how many amps you use and if they include cab and mic modeling, freely assignable FX blocks" and "sometimes two, but mostly one if you like lot of ambient FX or pitch shifting, amp positions".

 

What they should be doing is putting R&D and time into coming up with reasonably priced (read sub $500) FRFR solutions for GUITAR PLAYERS (hey guys, target market for your products here) and working on more amps and ways to maximize the available DSP in the underpowered modeler you release a few years back instead of a "re-launch".

 

You'ld think some of these experts were like dating Line 6 or something....."Don't pick on my girlfriend, guys! I know she's only half as smart as I said she was and she doesn't do a lot of things I told you she does, but that's not reason to tell me she's not good enough!"

[scheater5]

[smrybacki]

Again, the HD500x market is NOT current HD500 owners. There's no reason for existing HD500 owners to be disappointed because they were not targeted for a vast improvement. Also, as you say, you are not having any problems with DSP. Why are you disappointed that a problem you are not having may not be fully resolved?

 

It's more the notion that there may be new amp models and other firmware upgrades that the (now) older 500s won't see that has me disappointed.  One of the reason's I went with Line6 versus competitors was theirpropensity to update existing firmware to give your product extra life for no more outlay.  This blows that right out of the water for me anyway.

[TheRealZap]

then you have NO worries... they've publicly said that they will not have any special models or hd500x specific upgrades...

anything the 500x gets the 500 will also get... the only difference is that the 500x may be able to run an extra effect here and there.

 

It's more the notion that there may be new amp models and other firmware upgrades that the (now) older 500s won't see that has me disappointed.  

[smrybacki]

then you have NO worries... they've publicly said that they will not have any special models or hd500x specific upgrades...

anything the 500x gets the 500 will also get... the only difference is that the 500x may be able to run an extra effect here and there.

Then that'd be better for sure.

[TheRealZap]

indeed... by making the hardware more current and getting more new users, this will mean more incentive for them to continue to make firmware upgrades that we can all enjoy.

 

Then that'd be better for sure.

[smrybacki]

indeed... by making the hardware more current and getting more new users, this will mean more incentive for them to continue to make firmware upgrades that we can all enjoy.

 

Agreed.

[robsangg]

• I was just pointing out to my own practical purposes, and financial means it's not feasible.  By all means if anyone desires to be that creative and string that much ambient noise and modulation together and get it to sound good, go ahead.  I won't go into what you have to pay to have that ability without reaching your DSP limits(ahem, AXE-FX), but I don't see the expense for the moderate upgrade.  The downside is of course that Line 6 can and probably will make more amp/effects models available for the 500X that won't be available for the 500, but that's what happens.  I believe the 500 is about 3 yrs old, I may be wrong because I wasn't standing in line to get one when it came out, but the company had to release something new to keep the marketplace open.  Just good business on their part, but until there is a major upgrade, I can't justify the expense for the same modeling tech, even if it does have a more powerful processor.  It still sounds the same.

[SiCantwell]

If you take Line6 at their word that they won't release upgrades incompatible with the 500, then the X is good news because it means they're extending the life of the HD500/500X line. It's better than having them come out with an HD1000 and abandoning the 500 line altogether. Take it from me: Apple left my original iPad high and dry with their latest IOS, which I can't use.

[TheRealZap]

Yup, they've done the same to me a number of times... PPC, ipod, ipod touch, java, etc... apple is a good example of how to tee off customers, yet somehow still fuel the zealots.

Apple left my original iPad high and dry with their latest IOS, which I can't use.

[hansvaneven]

Wait, seriously, you can hit the DSP limit on the X that easily?

 

What a total joke.

 

I thought the HD500X had twicethe power, not sure where I read that, but yikes 20% more is not much :(

 

Cheers,

 

Hans

[robsangg]

Christian Arnold has a video on youtube, and I think someone has posted the comparison here in this forum as well, comparing the 500X & 500 side by side.  Slight change in the DSP, which he demostrates.  Not much in IMHO.  If I am to upgrade later it will be for the footswitches, which I definately like.

[perapera]

• Christian Arnold's video is well done

[ exept for the +5 semitones which is a 4th not a 5th ;-) ]

 

so +20% means one heavy DSP effect block more,

that could be useful but not game changing

 

• I'm really happy if the firmware upgrades will continue for hd500/hd500x and I can understand this could mean extending the life of the 500* line,

 

but I don't think that creating an HD1000 would mean "abandoning the 500 line altogether", look at the M5, M9 and M13: they just have different targets;

 

it seems like line6 thinks none of their customers would spend more than 500€ for a pedal...

 

or have they fear to compete with other brands in the 1000€ range?

Actually there aren't many, because the most are on the 1500€ range or more: DV Mark Multiamp, Kemper, G-System (1200 without ampsim)

 

only the Eleven would be a direct competitor...

 

• anyway I'd like to see the interior of the HD500x to see how "professional" theese switches are... like the DL4 ones? even if they seemed pro switches, they actually were "actuators"

http://www.mylespaul.com/forums/pedals/120245-line-6-dl4-repair.html

[phil_m]

it seems like line6 thinks none of their customers would spend more than 500€ for a pedal...

Well, I'd say they think that not enough of their customers would be willing to spend that much to make it worth their while. It's obvious that it's not simply the price point that they're concerned about because they do sell stuff that is still higher priced. Their PA equipment, the DT amps, and the JTV guitars are all higher-priced items. I just think in the floor-based modeler category, it's a harder sell. Personally, I do like the idea of a more powerful HD product, but I don't know that I'd be willing to spend $1,000 on it.

 

anyway I'd like to see the interior of the HD500x to see how "professional" theese switches are... like the DL4 ones? even if they seemed pro switches, they actually were "actuators"

 

Virtually every switch on any every digital multi-fx unit is an actuator of some sort. There's no actual analog circuit to open or close in most cases. In the ones that offer true bypass as an option, even then the actuators are triggering relays.

[perapera]

Well, I'd say they think that not enough of their customers would be willing to spend that much to make it worth their while. It's obvious that it's not simply the price point that they're concerned about because they do sell stuff that is still higher priced. Their PA equipment, the DT amps, and the JTV guitars are all higher-priced items. I just think in the floor-based modeler category, it's a harder sell. Personally, I do like the idea of a more powerful HD product, but I don't know that I'd be willing to spend $1,000 on it.

 

 

Virtually every switch on any every digital multi-fx unit is an actuator of some sort. There's no actual analog circuit to open or close in most cases. In the ones that offer true bypass as an option, even then the actuators are triggering relays.

 

yes they have higher-priced gear, but I wrote "more than 500€ for a pedal"

 

and when I talk about actuator vs real switches I'm not talking about analog vs digital anything (the pod is all digital),

I'm talking about this (the circled one is the DL4 original actuator, the other one is a heavy duty *professional* switch):

(image taken from http://www.ebay.com/itm/Line-6-DL4-Double-Presets-Mod-Service-/320764764006)

 

as you can see the DL4 switches *looked* like real switches from the outside of the unit but they weren't,

I was wondering if this is the case for the HD500X too

[NucleusX]

A quote by marcwormjim on page 1 (proper quoting isn't working for me at the moment)

 

"Thanks for clearing things up in that regard. I'll revise my post."

 

Did anyone else notice that he was detracted a point for this statement ?

I mean seriously this point system is ridiculous herding people into certain directions.

I bet the experts clock points up to each other just to strengthen their arguments, WTF. 

I'm not trying to offend anyone or start an argument, but I see room for abuse with it.

The man humbly posted a recant, taking a point off him was totally un-necessary.

 

Watch for my points detractment, coming soon..  lol, not that I ever cared for them.

[brue58ski]

I'm not sure if anyone posted this here but the HD500X was not a purposeful upgrade. The chip the 500 used was discontinued. The chip they had to replace it with had more DSP. Instead of a bunch of new 500 owners saying "hey I have more DSP than you guys say you have" and the inferno of controversy that would create, they gave the 500's with the new chip a new designation. HD 500X. They also decided to upgrade the switches while they were at it. No bait and switch, no screw the consumer plot. Just a more powerful chip that they had no choice but to use. I think it was good that they did that but I think they should have been more upfront about why what happened, happened. Just to avoid confusion and threads like this.

[NucleusX]

Personally, I believe the X versions of both the HD500, and the HD Pro, are a silent admission

from Line6 that they failed with the non-X versions. If they where so great in all their entirety and

confident with the products, then the X versions wouldn't even exist period, and would've moved

onto bigger and better things apart from their continued software/firmware support for the HD Series.

You might argue that these where better targeted at consumers not already owning the non-X

versions, but how many senario's have you seen play out this way ? A rare sight for me in the better

part of 2 decades that I've been an FX consumer. And for the very small handful of senario's that

did play out this way, always without a doubt, caused a flurry of debate from people and consumers

knowing how a successful series flows. One example from memory was the debate over the Boss

DD-2 Vs DD-3 which caused a bit of a stir in the guitarist community. In their own right, the HD500

and HD Pro are a fine bit of kit. In the context of an evolving series, I consider them to be a failure.

[Charlie_Watt]

I disagree.  I think they upgraded to the 500x.  The 500 is a fine unit - the 500x is slightly more capable and has much better switches.  I call it progress!  DSP horsepower increases with time.  It may be as simple as supporting a higher processor clock speed.

[brue58ski]

Personally, I believe the X versions of both the HD500, and the HD Pro, are a silent admission

from Line6 that they failed with the non-X versions. If they where so great in all their entirety and

confident with the products, then the X versions wouldn't even exist period, and would've moved

onto bigger and better things apart from their continued software/firmware support for the HD Series.

 

 

So you don't believe the chip they were using wasn't available anymore and that's why they used a chip with more power? The fact that it was such a minor upgrade leads me to believe this. Why go through all that hassle it entailed to do this for such a small increase in power. That, and that the story I told, came from someone who would know. It's been so long I can't remember who I heard it from but I do remember it being a very reliable source. It's in a thread somewhere.

[JTSC777]

I play paying gigs in all kinds of situations 4 to 6 nights/days a week.I also record and am a paid session guitarist. For working players who play 80 per cent covers as a chunk of their living all of these modelling devices in the 500 dollar price range are a great thing.I think that is who Line 6 is mostly aiming at customer wise. For me personally to not have to transport/maintain/tube amps/speaker cabs etc... to most of my gigs(their are of course exceptions) has been a great thing and has increased my profit per gig. I think that a few players who maybe don't have the best skill set and think they need a bunch of gimmicky( 8 reverbs/ 3 tremelos/4 phasers/3 amps etc...) effects are looking to the HD units when they should be buying a bunch of pedals and cables to make those silly sounds. In the hands of a good skilled player with a well maintained well setup instrument these HD units are tough to beat.I just don't think they are made to do 6 choruses/3 reverbs/ a helicopter rotary flanger etc...and IMHO I have heard enough of those silly sounds from  few recent records my son listens to. I gave him a Cream album/a Hendrix album and a few others so he could get some perspective on what the guitar should sort of sound like. If you want to sound like a synth get a Roland GR55 like I do and play weird envelope follower/phasey/moog type sounds with it. I am very grateful that Line 6 and Boss/Roland still make such inexpensive powerful units for us to use in the field. Man we are so spoiled.

[NucleusX]

 @ brue58ski

 

I guess in the end, this is all down to definition. Sure id agree to categorize the X

additions as "Upgrades". But as far as the %20 incrementation of performance

they offer, i certainly wouldn't consider them a true evolution in the HD series. 

[Digital_Igloo]

Personally, I believe the X versions of both the HD500, and the HD Pro, are a silent admission from Line6 that they failed with the non-X versions...

No.

 

Line 6 has chosen (and continues to choose) open, dynamic block assignment for its flagship modelers. There will always be situations where, depending on the types of models assigned, DSP limits are reached. Alternatively, more than one—likely several—of the following scenarios would need to take place:

 

• Remove half the block locations so the user can fill each one with pitch shifters or spring reverbs

• Limit the user to only one of each type of effect

• Remove the more DSP-intensive models entirely

• Use a less DSP-intensive modeling architecture, or limit the quality of the more DSP-intensive models

• Remove parallel signal paths

• Restrict the order in which blocks can exist

• Remove non-model features that also take up DSP, such as input routing, output routing, Variax VDI, L6 LINK, USB audio, the Looper, etc.

• Charge a lot more for multiple processors and the cost of developing for multiple processors

• Charge a LOT more for Tiger Sharc processors and the cost of developing for Tiger Sharc processors

 

If one is still more concerned with the occasional DSP Overload message than with the items above, AMPLIFi FX100, POD HD300, and POD HD400 all utilize fixed block assignment.

 

HD500X and HD ProX were opportunities to incrementally improve on the already immensely successful POD HD platform. They were never a "oh no, we need to do this"; they were a "this is cool—why don't we do this?"

[gunpointmetal]

 I think that a few players who maybe don't have the best skill set and think they need a bunch of gimmicky( 8 reverbs/ 3 tremelos/4 phasers/3 amps etc...) effects are looking to the HD units when they should be buying a bunch of pedals and cables to make those silly sounds. In the hands of a good skilled player with a well maintained well setup instrument these HD units are tough to beat.I just don't think they are made to do 6 choruses/3 reverbs/ a helicopter rotary flanger etc...and IMHO I have heard enough of those silly sounds from  few recent records my son listens to. I gave him a Cream album/a Hendrix album and a few others so he could get some perspective on what the guitar should sort of sound like. 

Just cause you don't "like it" or have no use for doesn't mean that Hendrix/Cream were the beginning and end of guitar tone or reasonable effects chains. Maybe I don't want 4 spring reverbs in a row, but maybe I want a spring and particle stacked with different settings on BOTH sides, or maybe I wanna run two harmonizers with different settings on BOTH SIDES. The whole reason to get a multiFX (aside from the modeling/home recording aspects) is to GET RID of all those cables and individuals pedals to stomp. If I wanna turn on all four of my reverbs on a pedalboard, thats four stomps on, four stomps off...not exactly the same thing.

 

"Back in my day you got a fuzz box, maybe a chorus, a tube amp, and you had to carry it up hill through fifteen feet of snow to the gig AND back."

[PRSGuy]

Yeah I tend to agree with gunpointmetal. Just because it may not be your cup of tea doesn't mean it indicates someone can't play well. I actually do not use a lot of the effects but I can overwhelm the DSP with dual amps and fairly common effect setups.

 

Your comment really is you being comfortable and confident with your skills and sounds, which is great, but it certainly is not the end all.

 

There are some excellent contemporary players that use fairly sophisticated signal chains...

[Charlie_Watt]

The dual paths are cool but they do use lots of DSP horsepower.  The extra 20% really helps.  I like the improved footswitches too.

[jandrio]

.... In the hands of a good skilled player with a well maintained well setup instrument these HD units are tough to beat.....

 

+1

[joel_brown]

Good post but other than Kemper and AXE for way more money, I don't see any other viable choices.  I would think Line6 knows, or atleast believes this too.  Otherwise they'd be scrambling to do what you said.  With that said, you'd think the competition would be scrambling to bring something out that would lure Line6 customers away.  But all I see is stuff that's almost as good for the same or less money.  I already spent the money, I'm not going to spend it again for something that's almost as good as what I already have.

[NucleusX]

I'm not complaining cause I knew what I bought from day one with flaws and all. I bought a glorified amp sim and

that's about it, and I'm fine with that. But as a thrifty FX consumer, I certainly know what I want and what I don't

want and not shy to say so. The day I let a company tell me what I want is the day I stop thinking for myself. 

Wether its a voice in the wilderness or not is another story, but it would pay to hear what your customers would

have to say if a company is to keep the peoples respect and loyalty, that really is a no brainer.

[Digital_Igloo]

So where is the line drawn in the sand where a customer needs, and company delivers?

 

Replace "customer needs" with "NucleusX's personal needs", and your question is more accurate.

 

Zoom makes a great box. I would never tell someone not to buy a competitor's product if it happens to better fulfill their needs.

[NucleusX]

My needs ? such a professional response, no need to be rude.

I'm not telling anyone to buy it, it was a great example of striking

a balance between hardware vs software, that was the point.

[gunpointmetal]

It think part of the issue NucleusX may be trying to get at is that a lot of us (myself included) were expecting the HD series to pickup exactly where the previous generations left off, in regards to model packs, recording features, amount of useable effects, etc. And honestly, a lot of the language used was not super accurate (Dynamic DSP doesn't MEAN anything until you have the manual or the product in your hands). I was expecting to get all the I/O for recording that came with the X3/XT in regards to dry/wet recording, multiple input channels, etc....But Digital Igloo does make a point, you (and me, on a few things) have certain wishes to see in this product, but no meeting all of them is not a total failure (although I'd say the DSP limitations and EQ layout are pretty close to a fail) or a bad product.....as much as I don't like it, it makes total sense for them to put proprietary stuff on there to connect to their other gear...just like Apple...buy more licensed dongles, buy more official L6 accessories.....

[Digital_Igloo]

no need to be rude.

 

No offense implied; the point is that claiming to speak for "the customer" at large is disingenuous, especially when our research echoes the exact opposite sentiment. POD HD users want dynamic model allocation and the best-sounding (read: DSP-intensive) effects from Line 6, even if it means they can't string four spring reverbs or pitch shifters together.

 

Here's my list again from the previous page:

 

• Remove half the block locations so the user can fill each one with pitch shifters or spring reverbs

• Limit the user to only one of each type of effect

• Remove the more DSP-intensive models entirely

• Use a less DSP-intensive modeling architecture, or limit the quality of the more DSP-intensive models

• Remove parallel signal paths

• Restrict the order in which blocks can exist

• Remove non-model features that also take up DSP, such as input routing, output routing, Variax VDI, L6 LINK, USB audio, the Looper, etc.

• Charge a lot more for multiple processors and the cost of developing for multiple processors

• Charge a LOT more for Tiger Sharc processors and the cost of developing for Tiger Sharc processors

 

Please pick three.

 

Again, if the occasional DSP Overload message gives one the feeling that their product is underpowered—even when it's not—there are alternatives, even from Line 6.

[stumblinman]

@Digital_Igloo.

 

Nice to see Line6 finally defend something with technical referencing from a someone that knows his stuff, pity you

weren't there to give such a statement to my thread and investigation about the broken firmware present in the

Shortboard MKII I started months ago which can be found here. http://line6.com/support/topic/4992-pod-hd-pro-shortboard-mkii-external-exp2/

 

As for your response to my post in THIS thread, I will put this to you.

 

1. Customers are in need of a product.

2. Company's are in need of customers money to survive and expand.

3. Customers are in need to be heard by that company for them to

deliver the features for customers to part with their hard earned money.

4. Company makes hard decisions to satisfy or go bust.

 

Pretty simple right ?

 

Now with this in mind I will put to you the Zoom G5. (no I don't work for Zoom lol)

I won't claim that it has the 96Khz clarity as the HD500/HD Pro as it has 48Khz processing.

BUT, I will point out that the unit HAS "dynamic block assignment", 9 simultaneous FX, 12AX7

tube booster, looper, drum machine, headphones, XLR, 4 LCD screens, Z pedal, a 2nd TRS

socket for another expression, USB interface, PC editing software, no proprietary connectivity,

no licencing, doesn't run out of DSP as easily, blah blah blah. And the most important part, they

delivered the product for about %50 of the price of the HD500, but has about %75 of the sound

quality and sounds quite decent for its price point, that struck a perfect balance for hardware

that the software required, hardly much juggling with DSP here. Not a bad effort for a unit that

has everything you'd want, and no extra crap you don't need adding to the price. I would've

happily paid the extra few dollars for an up to par DSP chip in the HD Pro. Or better still, add

the better DSP chip, removing dual paths, remove all the proprietary components such as

Variax VDI, L6 LINK, FBV interface that all only serves to lock you into MORE line6 gear that's

not mandatory for standalone operation, and would STILL keep it roughly at the same price point.

 

I understand these are 2 totally different beasts, but the point im trying to make is...

Did line6 create these products with their customers needs in mind and actually listen ?

Did customers want a lack of model packs most of us assumed where to be put forth ?

Did customers really need to throw away %80 of their DSP away on dual amp sims ?

Did customers want proprietary connectivity or licencing ?

 

From what ive been reading all over this forum, these where things most didn't care for.

So where is the line drawn in the sand where a customer needs, and company delivers ?

Seems some lose their focus on delivering a product with the customers concerns in mind.

Money is top priority to company's and customers aren't blind to that fact.

It SHOULD be the company satisfying the customer, not the other way round. We are all in

a symbiotic relationship, and one cannot survive without the other... Unless of course, the

customer goes elsewhere ? Seems they need us more than we need them in the end.

You'd think this would be a big concern to a company's revenue rather than launching

ideascale to placate their customers into thinking they are actually being heard.

 

If I where to think of an analogy for the DSP chip in the HD500/HD Pro, I would say it was like

dropping a 4 cylinder engine into a lamborghini diablo ! in a disproportionate kind of way.

You would probably need an adapter to put a 4 cylinder into a Lamborghini, as it's probably not compatible. Email them and let them know this doesn't meet your needs.

 

Why wouldn't a company with a long-term product and marketing plan want to lock you into their gear? You think they don't already have the next generation (or two) product in mind at the very least, and maybe already in basic manufacturing?

 

While you're at it, ask Microsoft to make a PS4 emulator so you can use the competitor's discs instead of theirs. This is the nature of the beast. Product integration is a smart business model.

 

I'm no fanboy, but I knew what I was buying: a modeler with 16 amps, 100+ effects and multiple I/O options. They gave me extra amps down the road, and I appreciated it. I bought a DT25 knowing it would integrate with my 500, but doesn't have to. Each piece of gear works on it's own just fine, or can work better together. I bought and returned a JTV59 as it didn't suit my needs and I wasn't happy with it.

 

You do realize you don't have to use two amps, right? Line 6 doesn't have to eliminate the option just because you don't like seeing a DSP limit sign.

[NucleusX]

@ stumblinman

 

Digital_Igloo created a list of items they could've altered to make a better DSP chip viable

and i'll quote "• Remove parallel signal paths", this is why I assumed it could be a cost

cutback that would've allowed it, nothing more.

[Charlie_Watt]

I like the flexible use of DSP that Line6 designed into the PodHD's.  Just because you can run out doesn't mean it's underpowered!