Jump to content
mralmostpopular

Hd500x Dsp Limit

Recommended Posts

A point was taken from me cause I said it was a sub $20 DSP chip ? its the truth !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I should've said was.. "Any forum MEMBER that detracts points" lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at the very least it seems most of your questions. comments, theories & thoughts have been answered and addressed. Essentially the HD series is not going to change to what you want it to. I prefer the higher definition amps as opposed to lowering the definition to add more stuff. My X3 live had more of the options I like so I can always go back to that but I personally think the HD series sounds better. And that's more important to me. You have some interesting and desirable points and have every right to express them. But it seems like a dead horse is being beaten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would've been nice, would be an option to throttle down the internal sampling rate in

stages to give us more control over this balance between definition and available slots.

EG: 96Khz, 88Khz, 48Khz, 44Khz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol. I said "what would've been nice", as in *in theory* and is not an expression of expectation. I never implied it was a common feature

available in every other MFX unit known to man, It is although, a feature you will find in certain audio electronics out there, so it exists.

I find it amusing that you would quarrel over a trivial statement such as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't just say "Okay, run at a lower sample rate and magically get more DSP horsepower." In fact, sample rate has exactly zero impact on DSP resources in POD, and never could. Even if you could, presets made at a lower sample rate would suddenly be incompatible with your friend's POD—or even your own POD, if set differently later! That experience is much more egregious than the occasional DSP overload message, as is every single item in my aforementioned list. We know, because we've asked the question hundreds of times.

 

If one must string a ton of spring reverbs or pitch shifters together, they can always connect an HD500X to an HD500 ProX via S/PDIF. Hook up a MIDI cable as well and switching presets will sync automatically.

 

And it's still way less money than some alternatives.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds nice, but I'm not sure I'd pay twice that amount for the same set of FX and AmpSims.

I have solutions in place to address (in my view), what was the lack of DSP horsepower in my

rack, so its not really a concern now. Was just a thought on DSP management in general.

I Imagine the 96Khz algorithms demand more hardware intensive requirements than that if 48Khz.

Although seems common to 48Khz units, especially these days, that they allow you to fill more over-all 

slots with FX ect. If we have to lose over-all slots in favour of the 96Khz definition, then so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To NucleusX.

 

Well this thing won't let me quote but regarding your response to me a couple posts ago. I wasn't quarreling with you. It sounded like a good idea and I sincerely wanted to know who else has it. Since you brought it up, it led me to believe you knew of other units that had them. Is everything a quarrel with you?. I was merely inquiring, wondering, asking; not testing, debating arguing, quarreling, or anything confrontational AT ALL. C'mon man lighten up. You seem to be wound a little tight. And your little jabs like, "I find it amusing.....". What a pretentious, arrogant thing to say. I gave you chuckle? Was it more like an evil cackle? And, it was over an innocent question, not an attack. You bring up some interesting points, but you seem to always want to make it a fight. I'm guessing you'll have some clever quip in response to this to put me in my place and perhaps I've given you another cackle, but this I know, my question was not confrontational and was not worded in any klind of confrontational way. So only someone looking for a quarrel would take it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ brue58ski

 

Fine, no offence intended. And in answer to both your questions, there is no *Guitar MFX Unit* that has this feature. I

just assumed that you where already aware of the kind of balance that was being struck in regards to 96Khz vs 48Khz.

The question seemed pretty sarcastic to me at the time :P. Don't know if the AxeFx or Kemper has this feature tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how I could have worded it so that a person looking for a quarrel wouldn't have taken it as sarcastic or whatever. Fine. Whatever. Moving on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol only a person looking for a quarrel would say something like that :P lighten up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not saying this "should" be done, but maybe in the future one day it "could" be done if it where to

be implemented into the design of the architecture to help "manage" DSP usage. In any kind of 

DSP, its processing bandwidth limit is set *fixed* by the hardware architecture. Where you have

"more" available DSP slots in an 48khz environment but lower definition, and "less" available slots

in an 96Khz environment at higher definition, would it be correct to assume that they both roughly

balance out evenly, thus requiring roughly the same raw processing bandwidth requirements ? And

If so, wouldn't the possibility of halving the sampling resolution, also halve the processing bandwidth ?

Could in theory open up the possibility of more slots one would think, for about the same DSP demand ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one must string a ton of spring reverbs or pitch shifters together, they can always connect an HD500X to an HD500 ProX via S/PDIF. Hook up a MIDI cable as well and switching presets will sync automatically.

 

 

Uef6DD7.jpg

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If one must string a ton of spring reverbs or pitch shifters together, they can always connect an HD500X to an HD500 ProX via S/PDIF. Hook up a MIDI cable as well and switching presets will sync automatically.

 

And if that is not enough you could string as many HD ProX together as you have rack space for (S/PDIF out to S/PDIF in). B)

 

[or buy an AxeFX-II XL :ph34r:]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not an oddball, I do the same thing.  Noisegate, compressor, a little delay, and very little reverb.  Then actually play the guitar not the effects.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Rewolf48

@ RIblues

 

We all spend our DSP budget in our own way, there is no "right" or "better" way. I've already

stated that I have solutions in place, but thanks for the suggestions that wasn't required.

And for the record, I never said I was stringing 8 reverbs together, not that the personal

tastes of the user's combination of chosen FX or AmpSims should be a factor in this debate.

For the average player with simple chains, you won't be confronted by DSP issues half

as much as someone running a rack in a home studio recording situation, like I am.

There are no extra FX on the floor for me either, only control pedals, which is how I like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing I'll mention. In Australia, the approximate prices are as follows. (AUD).

POD HD Pro X around $920, POD HD Pro around $699, and POD HD500X around $950.

Not sure what's happening elsewhere, but we aren't seeing the *$500* market point

some people have been referring to. Personally I paid AUD $699 for my POD HD Pro.

The Shortboard MKII pedal board to go with it, was about AUD $350.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely find myself in the NucleusX boat on occasion—sometimes eight zillion effects just work. That's why we'll run multiple UAD cards (and before that, PT|HD) so the Mac can run dozens of POD Farms and Reaktor ensembles.

 

Live, though—at least for my band—all those effects tend to get lost in the room. We'll strip things way back and let the tracks do the heavy lifting.

 

I run into DSP Overload more often than most Line 6'ers, and won't pretend it's never irritating. But I understand the reasons behind it (both from a user and technical perspective), and would never suggest limiting the box for others just so my band can drown in shoegaze heaven. Doesn't matter how fast a box anyone makes—some people will always push it past its limits.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing I'll mention. In Australia, the approximate prices are as follows. (AUD).

POD HD Pro X around $920, POD HD Pro around $699, and POD HD500X around $950.

Not sure what's happening elsewhere, but we aren't seeing the *$500* market point

some people have been referring to. Personally I paid AUD $699 for my POD HD Pro.

 

In the US, the street price for the HD500X (and 500 when it was being made) was $500 pretty much everywhere. With sales, it wasn't that difficult to get for $425 or sometimes less. The price for the Pro X (and Pro, again, when it was being made) is $699.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Australia ?  I have some friends down there.  They keep telling me to look out for the Drop Bears.  Then there's the 4,000 other living things down there that will kill you.  On top of all that the water in the toilet goes the wrong way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Insert hysterical laughter here* :P

 

On a serious note, I wouldn't mind putting a bump on this...

 

Not saying this "should" be done, but maybe in the future one day it "could" be done if it where to

be implemented into the design of the architecture to help "manage" DSP usage. In any kind of 

DSP, its processing bandwidth limit is set *fixed* by the hardware architecture. Where you have

"more" available DSP slots in an 48khz environment but lower definition, and "less" available slots

in an 96Khz environment at higher definition, would it be correct to assume that they both roughly

balance out evenly, thus requiring roughly the same raw processing bandwidth requirements ? And

If so, wouldn't the possibility of halving the sampling resolution, also halve the processing bandwidth ?

Could in theory open up the possibility of more slots one would think, for about the same DSP demand ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not saying this "should" be done, but maybe in the future one day it "could" be done if it where to

be implemented into the design of the architecture to help "manage" DSP usage. In any kind of 

DSP, its processing bandwidth limit is set *fixed* by the hardware architecture. Where you have

"more" available DSP slots in an 48khz environment but lower definition, and "less" available slots

in an 96Khz environment at higher definition, would it be correct to assume that they both roughly

balance out evenly, thus requiring roughly the same raw processing bandwidth requirements ? And

If so, wouldn't the possibility of halving the sampling resolution, also halve the processing bandwidth ?

Could in theory open up the possibility of more slots one would think, for about the same DSP demand ?

 

Sample rate has (almost) nothing to do with it, at least in embedded DSP systems. Theoretically, a box could be built that allowed the user to disable certain functionality reliant on DSP to eek out maybe an additional 10, maybe 20%, but to be perfectly honest, that's bad news. Embedded hardware is known for its predictability and consistency, and when Bob can't use the same Custom Tone presets as Joe because one of them went in and changed a few deep DSP management parameters, that's a terrible experience. So even if we could, we wouldn't.

 

Here are the primary reasons Line 6 may not have implemented a feature:

 

• We'd love to do it, but the current architecture won't let us (very rare)

• It'll take a really long time, and therefore, hinder development of other, more important features

• It'll undermine the spirit of what the product is meant to be

• It'll make the product harder to use

• After countless interviews with guitarists of all skill levels, it turns out almost no one really cares (the gear forum vs. meatspace debate)

• We actually are working on it—you just haven't seen it yet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll second the above, thanks for taking the time to interact with us. Happy 4th of July to the Line 6 folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting debate..

 

but I'm writing here only to say that I (and I'm sure also many other people here) really appreciate that in addition to the useful Line6 experts, you Line6 staff finally decided to interact with us customers

 

it's a good sign for the future

 

Oh, I wish it were that simple!

 

Many Line 6ers read this Community, IdeaScale, and other gear forums every day, so we always know what's going on, but interacting takes a lot of time and effort. It's not uncommon for us to rewrite posts ten times—we're owned by a publicly traded company, after all, and representing the Line 6 arm of Yamaha on a public forum is not without its share of potential pitfalls. It's not like we have degrees in Public Relations; we're just huge gear nerds who value our jobs.  :ph34r:

 

Pro Tip: I can be summoned, almost magically, if you spread misinformation about AMPLIFi and POD. But don't do that.  ;)

 

Happy 4th, everyone!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Misinformation ? bit dramatic and inaccurate don't you think ?

I wouldn't say I was "misinformed", nor am I trying to "misinform" anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Misinformation ? bit dramatic and inaccurate don't you think ?

I wouldn't say I was "misinformed", nor am I trying to "misinform" anyone.

 

Agreed. Wasn't talking about you, NucleusX.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

I've been using my POD HD500 since 2011 for live purposes with a Tech21 Power Engine.

I'm very satisfied with the tone but sometimes the DSP limit is disappointing.

My main tone is based on the treadplate model (not pre, but Full model) and is not possible to use Smart Harmony with it.

I'd love to try the New Helix, but it is too much for my budget.

 

Could you HD500X owners help me?

I'd like to know if you can create in your HD500X a patch with  Treadplate model and the Smart Harmony effect.

If it is possible I'll immediately update my HD500 to HD500X.

 

Thanks a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×