Does the POD have a 30, 60, 90 second loop (Not EX loop)

[Guitar_Mike1]

I have not seen anything in the documentation that talks about a actual recording looper or the length of available recording time. So my question is...

 

Does the POD have a 30, 60, 90 second loop pedal built in? A recording loop so I can record tracks and play them back and jam over them, not referring to the FX loop.

 

 

 

[phil_m]

Looper time is 80s mono/40s stereo at 1/2-speed (so 40s mono/20s stereo at full speed).

[Guitar_Mike1]

Thanks for the feedback, @phil_m Can you point me to any Line 6 material that says this? I could only locate that info from another forum, but not from Line 6 them self. Not sure why it is not listed on their main page, unless I am just missing it.

 

40s mono/20s stereo at full speed is kind of lame. Memory is cheap, seems like an odd effect to cut corners on when a loop pedal is a highly desired. Oh well, I'm going to buy it either way, I am still super excited about this product!!! Just hope they increase the time capacity with a patch down the road.

[phil_m]

5 hours ago, Guitar_Mike1 said:

Thanks for the feedback, @phil_m Can you point me to any Line 6 material that says this? I could only locate that info from another forum, but not from Line 6 them self. Not sure why it is not listed on their main page, unless I am just missing it.

 

40s mono/20s stereo at full speed is kind of lame. Memory is cheap, seems like an odd effect to cut corners on when a loop pedal is a highly desired. Oh well, I'm going to buy it either way, I am still super excited about this product!!! Just hope they increase the time capacity with a patch down the road.

 

It's in the manual:

[voxman55]

For me a looper isn't key, but aside from the very short loop time what is disappointing is that the looper is not globally available and you have to incorporate it manually within each patch. Not only is that time consuming and inconvenient but it also means using up one of the four assignable blocks that are already in somewhat short supply.  You can switch patches whilst looping but only to another patch that has been set with the same looper settings. 

 

Zoom adopted a similar approach in it's G5n (which I had), whereas in the previous Zoom G5  (which I still have) the looper is global and does not impact on assignable blocks and you can immediately loop and switch from any patches. At least the G5n had 9 assignable blocks whereas with only 4 in the Pod Go it means you can't use the looper on any patch where you've used all 4 assignable blocks.  I suspect this is likely to be most patches especially where users have added effects to make the most out of snapshots, and this means you'd have to do away with one of your selected effects. 

 

The restricted DSP processing power from its single chip is my single biggest reservation with Pod Go.  Don't get me wrong, I think it's a cracking unit, but I really do think it ought to have had 6 assignable blocks or at least 5 plus a global looper.  Units like the Mooer GE300 utilise a second smaller chip to handle the UI, leaving the main chip dedicated to deal with FX processing.  Using a single chip for everything is clearly more limiting. The cost of an additional Sharc chip is minimal, and as I've mentioned elsewhere I'd have gladly paid £100 more for Pod Go if it had more processing power. However, I appreciate that this was the price point Line 6 wanted to aim at and that integrating a second chip would have upped the price for it's target market.  Although the current Pod Go's DSP is now set, I'm pretty sure that when Line 6 does its next incarnation of Pod Go (and knowing Line 6's constant development & innovation I'd be amazed if this isn't already on the drawing board even now!) I'm sure Line 6 will opt to give it a bit more DSP power. 

[Digital_Igloo]

On 5/24/2020 at 3:11 AM, voxman55 said:

For me a looper isn't key, but aside from the very short loop time what is disappointing is that the looper is not globally available and you have to incorporate it manually within each patch. Not only is that time consuming and inconvenient but it also means using up one of the four assignable blocks that are already in somewhat short supply.  You can switch patches whilst looping but only to another patch that has been set with the same looper settings. 

Blame your fellow Line 6 users. Before Helix, the top two looper-centric IdeaScale requests—by far—were:

1. Get rid of the dedicated Looper footswitch so I can use it for something else
2. Let me delete the Looper so I can use that DSP/block for something else

We did exactly what our customers overwhelmingly wanted us to do—make the looper not global.

On 5/24/2020 at 3:11 AM, voxman55 said:

The restricted DSP processing power from its single chip is my single biggest reservation with Pod Go.  Don't get me wrong, I think it's a cracking unit, but I really do think it ought to have had 6 assignable blocks or at least 5 plus a global looper.

There is no "restricted DSP processing power." Helix amps and effects simply use more sophisticated DSP tools than other boxes at POD Go's price point. If you believe the number of blocks is more important than sound quality and feel, you could request we make a special version of POD Go that has, say, 12 blocks, but omits all HX amps and HX effects. Y'know, like POD HD500X, with its global looper. Which is still available.

 

The notion of "just add another DSP" is a non-starter. There's SO much extra design and infrastructure work involved in supporting multiple DSPs and it all but precludes the ability to use clean serial paths like the one in POD Go. In fact, it's so involved that a company copied EXACTY how we manage blocks across two DSPs in Helix (at least UI/UX-wise), because they couldn't figure out a more elegant solution. And no, we're not going to shoehorn Helix's multi-path signal flow into POD Go.

On 5/24/2020 at 3:11 AM, voxman55 said:

Units like the Mooer GE300 utilise a second smaller chip to handle the UI, leaving the main chip dedicated to deal with FX processing.

POD Go doesn't use any of its SHARC for UI. Its MCU handles all of that, just like in the Mooer.

[Guitar_Mike1]

Great feedback @Digital_Igloo  mad respect for a company that listens to the request of the people!

 

I just go my Pod in and I LOVE it!!! This thing is awesome. You mentioned that a lot of people asked for the looper to be removed, but is there a way to universally apply it back for those of us that would like it? I figured out how to make it part of a patch, but didst see a way to do it globally. 

 

Thanks!

[Digital_Igloo]

48 minutes ago, Guitar_Mike1 said:

Great feedback @Digital_Igloo  mad respect for a company that listens to the request of the people!

 

I just go my Pod in and I LOVE it!!! This thing is awesome. You mentioned that a lot of people asked for the looper to be removed, but is there a way to universally apply it back for those of us that would like it? I figured out how to make it part of a patch, but didst see a way to do it globally. 

 

Thanks!

There's no way to add it globally, because what happens if a preset is already at the limit and doesn't have enough DSP to accommodate it? What if all your stomp switches are assigned? In POD HD500X, we had to dedicate (some customers used the term "waste") X% of DSP just for the global looper, and those who don't care about the looper (or prefer to hook up their favorite 3rd-party looper) can't use that DSP for anything else. So it sits there, wasted. The Global EQ's the same way, but it's less than 1%, so it's not nearly as big a deal.

 

With Helix/HX/POD Go, our solution was to make it easy enough to copy/paste a looper block into as many presets as you may need it. And ensure that as long as you use the same type of looper (mono vs. stereo, 6 Switch vs. 1 Switch), you can change presets without the looper stopping.

[voxman55]

Thanks @Digital_Igloo for the comprehensive response. Had to laugh when you explained why you made the looper non-global. Just proves the old adage...you can please some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time, but you can't please all the people all the time!  Fair do's, you've tried to take on board what the majority seem to want.  

 

Re blocks, I'm certainly for quality and in no way wanting or suggesting tone quality to be compromised.  Nor does Pod Go need anything like the options in Helix/Helix LT which have huge, huge processing power.  But 4 assignable blocks does feel a tad restrictive. If you create a fairly basic patch with a distortion (eg tube screamer), a reverb, a delay and a modulation (chorus, phaser etc) say, then that's it. If you wanted to add a pitch shifter, compressor or looper, you can't (at least not without releasing one of your existing four blocks).  It may not seem a lot, but just one extra block, effectively giving an extra 25% flexibility, would have been really useful and added a lot more flexibility.  However, I fully appreciate you've worked hard to come up with a quality, flexible product and tried to get the best balance of quality & features within a specific price point, so I'm still aiming to go for a Pod Go once these are out in the UK.  

 

 

 

 

[Digital_Igloo]

16 hours ago, voxman55 said:

Re blocks, I'm certainly for quality and in no way wanting or suggesting tone quality to be compromised.  Nor does Pod Go need anything like the options in Helix/Helix LT which have huge, huge processing power.  But 4 assignable blocks does feel a tad restrictive. If you create a fairly basic patch with a distortion (eg tube screamer), a reverb, a delay and a modulation (chorus, phaser etc) say, then that's it. If you wanted to add a pitch shifter, compressor or looper, you can't (at least not without releasing one of your existing four blocks).  It may not seem a lot, but just one extra block, effectively giving an extra 25% flexibility, would have been really useful and added a lot more flexibility.  However, I fully appreciate you've worked hard to come up with a quality, flexible product and tried to get the best balance of quality & features within a specific price point, so I'm still aiming to go for a Pod Go once these are out in the UK.

If Analog Devices made a thousand different SHARCs, all at different clock speeds, there wouldn't be an issue—we'd look at what your normal user would want to achieve with a signal path, look at the average DSP usage of a block and pick the appropriate speed for the cost. Unfortunately, the next notable step beyond POD Go's SHARC is either dual processors or a 1GHz Griffin, either of which would've pushed POD Go's price much higher, not just because of raw parts cost (and often additional components to manage, heat dissipate, and maintain EMI and ESD compliance with said faster processors), but because of development time and complexity. Also, dual-core processors like the Griffin aren't plug-and-play, and you run into many of the same pitfalls with dual processors (less flexible routing without incurring latency, etc.).

 

One of the unwavering goals of POD Go was to make it affordable—without sacrificing sound quality—and that precluded anything other than the SHARC our system architect chose for it. We've also learned that the vast majority of our users don't use more blocks than what POD Go provides anyway. Yes, you may not be able to nail the massive swirly parallel shoegaze tone in your head, but that's why we also make Helix Floor, Rack, and LT. Or let you add pedals in POD Go's FX Loop.

 

It's also important to understand what POD Go isn't. It's not a mini Helix. It's not even the successor to POD HD500X (which is really Helix LT). It's closest spiritual relative is the original POD bean from '98, which had one amp, one cab, a couple of effects max, was super easy to use for customers of all experience levels, and was portable enough to be taken anywhere.

[voxman55]

Thanks @Digital_Igloo that's a really helpful post that makes much clearer the challenges and considerations you guys have to consider.  For my needs I think Pod Go will be just about as near perfect as I could reasonably hope for, especially at this price point, and I'm dying to get hold of one to try out for myself.  It's size & weight will be an absolute godsend after my Vox Tonelab SE which, including its heavy duty PSU, weighs about the same as Helix.  Price wise I could certainly go to Helix LT if I wanted, but regardless of how brilliant it is I just didn't want another big, heavy unit, and I'd also much prefer something less complicated with a ton of stuff I just don't need.   So from what I've seen & heard on videos, forums (inc here) I think Line 6 has got Pod Go pretty much right, and I'm 'sold' - I'm pretty sure there will also be a few extra firmware tweaks from Line 6 here and there - as mentioned before by others, if you can possibly find a way to allowing names for each snapshot that would be very useful on stage. 

 

Just wish we had Pod Go in the UK to help make life a bit more enjoyable during this awful lock-down.  It's been a while since I've done a demo on my 'voxman5' youtube channel so I might well be enthused to do one on the Pod Go. 

[LostinME]

On 5/27/2020 at 8:24 PM, Digital_Igloo said:

If Analog Devices made a thousand different SHARCs, all at different clock speeds, there wouldn't be an issue—we'd look at what your normal user would want to achieve with a signal path, look at the average DSP usage of a block and pick the appropriate speed for the cost. Unfortunately, the next notable step beyond POD Go's SHARC is either dual processors or a 1GHz Griffin, either of which would've pushed POD Go's price much higher, not just because of raw parts cost (and often additional components to manage, heat dissipate, and maintain EMI and ESD compliance with said faster processors), but because of development time and complexity. Also, dual-core processors like the Griffin aren't plug-and-play, and you run into many of the same pitfalls with dual processors (less flexible routing without incurring latency, etc.).

 

One of the unwavering goals of POD Go was to make it affordable—without sacrificing sound quality—and that precluded anything other than the SHARC our system architect chose for it. We've also learned that the vast majority of our users don't use more blocks than what POD Go provides anyway. Yes, you may not be able to nail the massive swirly parallel shoegaze tone in your head, but that's why we also make Helix Floor, Rack, and LT. Or let you add pedals in POD Go's FX Loop.

 

It's also important to understand what POD Go isn't. It's not a mini Helix. It's not even the successor to POD HD500X (which is really Helix LT). It's closest spiritual relative is the original POD bean from '98, which had one amp, one cab, a couple of effects max, was super easy to use for customers of all experience levels, and was portable enough to be taken anywhere.

 

Hello,

 

I'm looking forward to buy POD GO but there are certain functionalities that make me hesitate. 

 

1) As other say the looper duration seems very restricted for no reason... a Mooer GE100 has like 180 seconds recording time. Is it possible to increase it via a software update?

2) As an all in one effects pedals, there is no drum machine or rhythms that other pedals in this price range and way below have. Is there a reason for this? Is it possible to add it in an update?

 

Thanks!

[Billabong17]

I too found some of the perceived limitations a bit frustrating to start with. However, you have to realise what the device is and isn't at this price point. For the price, to me it's a simple choice of functionality vs tone. You can get  alternatives with more functionality, but tone is more important to me.

 

What I have also recognised is that you can be a bit creative with how you use the device; yes it would be nice to add a couple of extra devices in the chain, but it's very, very rare I need all FX switched on at the same time so you just set up another patch with a different configuration - that's still only one button to activate (the same as activating another stomp). If you need 180 seconds of looper time, maybe a dedicated looper with the PodGo would be a good compromise, or go for the Mooer and sacrifice a bit of tone. 

[LostinME]

I'm looking for a practice amp, I will not gig or record with it... I just find these 2 limitations a bit frustrating at this price point, otherwise it would be a bit of no brainer. I don't want to add more pedals and hassle, a single unit should do.

 

I do play with the computer next to me... not sure if a VST with drums will do without it being cumbersome, and for the looper.. no sure how long i need, but it just feels short on this unit.