stumblinman Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 You only chose 2. @ 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NucleusX Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I could pick another, but what would be the purpose of this exercise ? not as if anything will change now lol, it'll just generate another point of attack on me. And might I add, the other 3 big MFX companies like Boss, Digitech, and Zoom don't seem to impose proprietary additions anywhere near as much as Line6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_m Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 And might I add, the other 3 big MFX companies like Boss, Digitech, and Zoom don't seem to impose proprietary additions anywhere near as much as Line6. Uh, what do mean by the term "proprietary addition"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digital_Igloo Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 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. Not sure what this means. A better DSP viable? For years, Line 6 modelers have utilized SHARC DSPs. To meet a desired price point, we choose a specific DSP chip (usually the fastest non-Tiger SHARC available at the time) and push it to the limits. Cost cutbacks don't really come into play—features, models, block limits, etc. are accounted for from the very beginning. Sure, we could've put in multiple SHARCs—or Tiger SHARCs—and then charged hundreds (or thousands) more. The problem then is that people who build traditional tones without four pitch shifters or spring reverbs are forced to pay a premium for effectively no reason. Short version: most people feel the occasional DSP overload message isn't reason enough to entertain a single item from the list. That said, don't think we aren't actively pursuing ways to make DSP management less obtrusive for the user. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NucleusX Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 @ Digital_Igloo Could you please tell us exactly what model of processor is in the HD500/HD Pro ? I want to further investigate their specifications and costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digital_Igloo Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Earlier in the thread: http://line6.com/support/topic/1493-hd500x-dsp-limit/?p=8854 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NucleusX Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 So apparently its the ADSP-21369 which costs $19.69 and I assume even less in bulk. How would this justify hundreds, or thousands of dollars in increase ? seems overly exaggerated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digital_Igloo Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Not going to get into how parts costing (and cost of development for major architectural changes such as dual processor support) affects end user pricing, but here's the Tiger SHARC price list: http://www.analog.com/en/processors-dsp/tigersharc/products/index.html#TigerSHARC_Processors Summary: POD HD 500 was never underpowered, but its specific SHARC DSP was discontinued and replaced with a faster one. We didn't want some HD500s faster than others, so we made a new box. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NucleusX Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 None of those DSP processor models on that 2nd link refers to the ADSP-21369 that's in the HD500/HD Pro from your first link lol. Which is it ? It can't be both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_m Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 None of those DSP processor models on that 2nd link refers to the ADSP-21369 that's in the HD500/HD Pro from your first link lol. Which is it ? It can't be both. He's saying that if they went with the Tiger-SHARC processor (which is what the Axe-FX uses, btw) the cost would be significantly higher than the $500 price point. And that's the kind of processing power they'd need if they were to create a unit that could maxed out dual signal paths and have it be impossible to hit the DSP limit. As far as adding a second SHARC processor, I'd say that there are probably significant tooling and programming costs that go into adding a second processor. I'm sure it much more complicated than simply soldering a second chip to the board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NucleusX Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I'm sure its more than the cost of the chip itself as-well, surrounding electronics would need some attention, but that clearly wasn't my question. There's a conflict of information here and I'm just trying to quantify all this with specifics. 2 x ADSP-21369 chips wouldn't increase the cost all that much I would imagine, especially if they are under $20 each. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NucleusX Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 *Crickets Chirping* lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digital_Igloo Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Not going to get into how parts costing (and cost of development for major architectural changes such as dual processor support) affects end user pricing... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stumblinman Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I see now why so few L6 employees chime in on these boards: They just get hammered. Thank you Digital Igloo for as much info and patient guidance you have provided. It is appreciated. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stumblinman Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I'm still waiting to hook my Boss amp up to my new Zoom guitar. They don't make all these categories man, so what are they going to need proprietary connections for? Also, as far as I can tell: L6 Link uses XLR. VDI uses Ethernet. What is proprietary about those? I could pick another, but what would be the purpose of this exercise ? not as if anything will change now lol, it'll just generate another point of attack on me. And might I add, the other 3 big MFX companies like Boss, Digitech, and Zoom don't seem to impose proprietary additions anywhere near as much as Line6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NucleusX Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 @ stumblinman I shouldn't dignify such a stupid question with an answer, but ill entertain it. Try connecting devices other than Line6 gear to those connections and you'll see what proprietary really means, and blow your gear up in the process, i can't say I'd feel sorry for you if you did lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie_Watt Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I don't know anything about L6 Link but I know for sure that VDI is not Ethernet. The cable might be the same but the interface isn't even close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_m Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I shouldn't dignify such a stupid question with an answer, but ill entertain it. Try connecting devices other than Line6 gear to those connections and you'll see what proprietary really means, and blow your gear up in the process, i can't say I'd feel sorry for you if you did lol. I still don't know what you're complaining about, really. You're upset that Line 6 has connections on its equipment that will only work with other Line 6 equipment? Is that it? Why on earth is that a bad thing? It's not like you can't use the standard connections (1/4", XLR, etc.) to hook it up with other equipment. Honestly, to me it seems like for some reason you're just choosing to be angry and suspecting Line 6 of having nefarious motives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Arkadin Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 The propriety argument is silly. None of the connectors disallow other means of useage: you can use MIDI for foot controllers, normal 1/4" for Variax audio and normal audio outs instead of L6Link, so these properiety connectors you hate so much add features for some, but take no features away that the Bosses and Zooms offer. Also if you already have a foot controller and Line 6 took away the connector on new products there would be more people annoyed than not. You don't have to use the propriety connectors if they offend you so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NucleusX Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 No-one is offended, its simply discussing the trimmings that could've allowed for a better DSP chip, simple. But I should know better than to debate this with experts by now, your biased to ALWAYS say positive things about Line6 gear, that's your job even if you dis-agree with some of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Arkadin Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Please don't start getting personal again, this happened before and the thread got locked, let's not do that here. I doubt removing a few connectors would offset the cost of extra DSP and the necessary development costs(hardware and software). I do not agree with all of Line 6's decisions, but I can't see how you can complain about connectors that people actually use and help integrate the various devices. That's my honest unbiased opinion. Oh, and my job is in broadcast television, I don't work for anyone else (including Line 6). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_m Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 No-one is offended, its simply discussing the trimmings that could've allowed for a better DSP chip, simple. But I should know better than to debate this with experts by now, your biased to ALWAYS say positive things about Line6 gear, that's your job even if you dis-agree with some of it. Well, you certainly are coming off as offended... And, as far as the Expert thing, it most certainly isn't our job. None of us our employees of Line 6, nor are we here to be cheerleaders. As far as this particular conversation, though, that's really immaterial. You're speaking on a purely hypothetical level about things that have no bearing on reality. These designs decisions were made years ago, and, really, they are what they are. You like the product or you don't. Nothing is going to be changed regarding the physical design of these units at this stage in the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NucleusX Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Show me a single thread with either of you 2 as experts at the time discussing something negative about a Line6 decision, all i'll concede and admit defeat... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_m Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Show me a single thread with either of you 2 as experts at the time discussing something negative about a Line6 decision, all i'll concede and admit defeat... Show me one where you aren't complaining, and I'll do the same... :P Really, though, there have been a few times where I've expressed that I wished Line 6 would have done something differently, but even then, it isn't my nature to go around publicly complaining about things I have no control over. It's simply not productive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NucleusX Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I could show you several... you first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Arkadin Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 The only way that argument could work is if I had said something positive about every single negative subject. This obviously can't happen as I don't have enough hours in the day. I have a life.For example I am not a fan of, say, AMPLIFi, but rather than waste my life posting my negative thoughts about it I just don't post on that forum (plus I don't own one anyway).I'm not going to b1tch about stuff just to appear cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stumblinman Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Ohh... You don't like their communication protocols, not the actual connection points. My bad. I thought you were upset because they used a standard XLR input for the L6 Link, a standard Ethernet port for VDI, and an Ethernet port for FBV. Those components are actually very inexpensive and don't add more than a pittance to the cost at all. I'd bet they cost less than a second DSP chip, so I doubt that's a big cost saver there. If you are saying that they should lay off programmers and engineers that designed these products and features (since, obviously they won't be needed)so you can have a more powerful Pod at the same price point, then that's a much greater savings than 3 generic input ports. 4, if you count the L6 Link out. /sarcasm Please lock this useless thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTSC777 Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I have been a loyal Roland/ Boss user for over 20 years.From the GR-1 synth and GT-3 to the GT10/GR55 these days. This is how many model packs and updates upgrades I was offered during all those years=1.1 for the GR55 which was nothing to crow about mostly presets and piano tones behaving a little better. I have never been mad about that and have never complained about it I just learned to work with whatever limitations the units I was using at the time had to get my work done.This is Rolands philosophy regarding upgrades/model packs/firmware changes/piano sounds being glitchy and a whole bunch of other bugs etc....with every thing they have ever offered to musicians-" It's perfect when it comes off the line.We(Roland)do not need to ever improve on anything we make as it is already better than anything else". No I'm not kidding.That is how they deal with customer dissatisfaction and quibbles about bugs/upgrades etc...Do I still buy/use their gear?Yes. Do I appreciate Line 6 offer to update/fix bugs/give me killer customtone patches etc....?you bet I do. I will roll out my HD500 for the first time this weekend with my trio at a large casino for a two night engagement.I will use it with my Roland GR55. I programmed and tweaked my Boss GT10/Roland GR55 for almost a year before I was able to use them at a gig. I have had the HD500 for about three weeks and it was actually ready to gig last week but I left it at home and used my other stuff. Tone wise for amp modelling/effects and cover gigs it kills the GT10 and I can't wait to use it. If you really want to get upset start using Roland /Boss gear and wait for nothing as far as support forums/upgrades etc...oh and yes you get to use 3rd party editor software that crashes before you can even perform a patch write. Sorry but some of you don't know how good you have it. My 2 and a half cents Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NucleusX Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I'm sorry if my disappointment disappoints you, but when you have an under-powered DSP chip coupled with a lack of model packs coupled with being jumped on for expressing disappointment coupled with knowing i'll never be taken seriously, what have I got to lose ? The mere fact that this topic is being resurrected over and over again over years and years is proof enough that there's something a-miss, I'm just simply stating the obvious. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NucleusX Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 @ stumblinman Those connections where one of 3 of Digital_Igloo's list items I chose to remove. You realize we're talking about a sub $20 DSP chip here right ? LOL 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NucleusX Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 A point was taken from me cause I said it was a sub $20 DSP chip ? its the truth ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristianArnold Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 No-one is offended, its simply discussing the trimmings that could've allowed for a better DSP chip, simple. But I should know better than to debate this with experts by now, your biased to ALWAYS say positive things about Line6 gear, that's your job even if you dis-agree with some of it. The HD500x fits my needs perfectly, and I'm no expert! lol. If these "trimmings" occurred, I'd be ticked because I wouldn't have my dream rig with my JTV and L3t speaker, but I could have 4 pitch shifters and 4 spring reverbs. *Ba da ching*. If you like the other brands so much, please leave all of us grateful and satisfied Line 6 customers alone and go join a competitor's forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NucleusX Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 What makes you think I haven't already ? As far as i'm concerned, any forum that detracts points from people for stating the truth is run with a nazi mentality. I didn't come here to put down Line6 products, I came here to speak my mind like all the other forums ALLOW. You want me to act like a fanboy sheep that sings nothing but praise and awesomeness about EVERYTHING Line6 ? your sorely mistaken, I'm a free man with an opinion just like everyone else, you don't have to agree with me ! Jesus, am I the only one that HASN'T lost all his critical thinking faculties ? Some of you need to get out more and taste the variety, it's a bigger world out there, sounds like some of you know nothing else but Line6 gear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel_brown Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 What I saw was the current DSP chip is $20 and the better DSP chip was around $200. Fairly significant jump in price. Factor in development costs and it could make things very expensive. Of course putting in two $20 DSP chips sounds like an option but other unknown factors of how difficult it is to run that particular DSP chip in a multi DSP environment could have made that cost prohibitive. Memory and other support chips also come into play. This isn't Windows or Unix. You just don't plop in another chip and go faster. Yes it would have been nice if the PODHD picked up model packs and connections that the previous one had. Personally it didn't do anything for me but I don't know if I'm the typical customer or not. I'm the happiest I've been with any modeler so far in this price range. Could it be better ? Sure. My biggest gripe is the EQ. I don't run dual amps and have plenty of processing power. The routing is awesome and was the biggest feature, other than tone and price point, that got me to buy it. Do I say bad things about PODHD ? Yes I've complained about a number of items. Will I buy another Line6 product ? Sure, unless there's something else better in my price range. Thank you Digital_Igloo for posting. I know what it's like to be on the other side. I retired from a large and sometimes controversial software company. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NucleusX Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Some of you have fairly simple and straight forward signal chains, others (like me) run fairly complex signal chains, it's people like us that will constantly run into the *DSP Limit Reached* fairly often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stumblinman Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Hahahahaha. Godwin's law ftw! What makes you think I haven't already ? As far as i'm concerned, any forum that detracts points from people for stating the truth is run with a nazi mentality. I didn't come here to put down Line6 products, I came here to speak my mind like all the other forums ALLOW. You want me to act like a fanboy sheep that sings nothing but praise and awesomeness about EVERYTHING Line6 ? your sorely mistaken, I'm a free man with an opinion just like everyone else, you don't have to agree with me ! Jesus, am I the only one that HASN'T lost all his critical thinking faculties ? Some of you need to get out more and taste the variety, it's a bigger world out there, sounds like some of you know nothing else but Line6 gear. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NucleusX Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 @ stumblinman LOL I remember you once compared me to the leader of North Korea, don't be hypocritical now lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stumblinman Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 You are mistaken. That was WaubinHood. I just checked all of your content that I was also involved in and found the thread. He compares you to a North Korean dictator and then starts into an analogy about a guy named Mr. J and another named Mr. X. I replied in response to that example, which was about the products the two fellows wanted and made no mention of the dictator portion. Check your facts. I'm done with this thread. @ stumblinman LOL I remember you once compared me to the leader of North Korea, don't be hypocritical now lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NucleusX Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Sorry, you are correct and I was aware of that. I've been trying to delete the post but it just sits there and hangs, it won't let me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stumblinman Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 It's all good. ;) 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.