Pod Go is near useless for me. Any chance this may get addressed?

[Samdbl]

So, I'm a happy user of the HX Effects and the Stomp. I tried the full Helix, but it was way too much for me. The thing is, I have a house full of killer tube amps. So the direct amp modeling thing is just something I use in case of emergencies at a last minute gig, or something. I prefer to use these units as multi effects into the front of an amp. So the extra weight/price/etc of the Helix was just too much for me.

So the Pod Go looked like the perfect compromise. I don't need parallel paths. The block limitations don't bug me as I  only need 6 or so blocks when going in front of my amp. And the sounds on these units are stellar. So the stripped down, all in one Pod Go seemed perfect. Even has the amp models if i do happen to need on an odd gig.

HOWEVER, I did not realize that 5 of the 9 blocks on this thing are strictly reserved for amp/cab/wah/volume/eq. Wtf? As mentioned, amp and cab is irrelevant to me most of the time. And the wah thing is absolutely something Id never use in a million years. Eq... whatever. Sometimes, I guess. Anyway, again, wtf? So really only 5 blocks are useable for me (I do typically use a volume pedal). This makes it pretty useless for me. Or at least I have to sit and think of a bunch of work arounds to get compromised patches. 

So, I'm trying to figure out whether I should return it, or whether this might be addressed in future updates so that at least the EQ and Wah paths can be switched out with other effects. The amps being ever -present, I understand. But Wah and EQ? Meh. 

[silverhead]

The fixed vs. flex blocks in the POD Go is part of the fundamental design of the device and is well documented in the product description pages. The POD Go, like every multi-FX device, has a limit to its DSP processing capacity. The fixed blocks are low-DSP intensive FX while the flex blocks are reserved for heavier DSP-intensive FX. The result is that a certain portion of the overall DSP capacity is reserved by the system for fixed blocks while the rest is dynamically managed by the user with the flex blocks.

 

The total DSP capacity of the device is not going to change, and nor is the overall strategy of a certain number of fixed blocks and a certain number of flex blocks. The actual number of fixed vs. flex blocks could change but would have to be accommodated within the existing DSP capacity. Unfortunately the DSP requirements of a typical flex block are much greater than a typical fixed block. Hence you can’t simply get rid of the fixed EQ or Wah blocks and somehow be able to add a Delay or Chorus block instead. As it is, it’s quite easy to design a preset that can only use 3, not 4, flex blocks due to DSP capacity limitations. Having the theoretical ability to add more flex blocks without a corresponding hardware upgrade (not going to happen) is an empty promise. I suppose there could be an update that increases the number of available flex blocks to 6 or whatever, but you still would not be able to use more than 3 or 4.

This is not likely to be addressed to your satisfaction in future updates. If the POD Go does not currently meet your needs it is not likely to ever do so.

[Samdbl]

That is disappointing as hell. I mean, they’ve expanded blocks on the the other units with success, even with the dsp limitations. Yes, you are still limited to what effects you can choose. But it’s still quite useful. I guess I did not realize that the dsp on the go is *so* much more limited than the fx or stomp. It’s also hard for me to imagine that if you got rid of amp sim, eq, and wah that that wouldn’t at least allow for, say, one more block containing the 808 distortion, or another low dsp option. 
I don’t think any of the reviews I watched mentioned this severe limitation.

[phil_m]

12 minutes ago, Samdbl said:

That is disappointing as hell. I mean, they’ve expanded blocks on the the other units with success, even with the dsp limitations. Yes, you are still limited to what effects you can choose. But it’s still quite useful. I guess I did not realize that the dsp on the go is *so* much more limited than the fx or stomp. It’s also hard for me to imagine that if you got rid of amp sim, eq, and wah that that wouldn’t at least allow for, say, one more block containing the 808 distortion, or another low dsp option. 
I don’t think any of the reviews I watched mentioned this severe limitation.

All of the previous iterations of the POD have had semi-fixed DSP allocation to one extent or another. The HD series probably offered the most flexibility in that the only blocks that had to remain were the amp/cab block and the looper. The thing is that the wah, EQ, and volume blocks combined probably don’t even use 5% of the available DSP, so removing the, from the signal wouldn’t really allow much to be used in exchange - perhaps one of the lower DSP compressor models. There were also a lot of complaints from users with the DSP limit warning coming up. I think one thing Line 6 wanted to do was make it more rare for users to run into that.

 

I really don’t expect to see changes to the basic signal flow architecture either. People don’t understand all the back and forth iterations and deliberations that already went into the design. There was a lot of optimization done to the modeling to get things to work the way they do now.

[silverhead]

27 minutes ago, Samdbl said:

That is disappointing as hell.....

I think your question has been answered, though I understand that you don’t like the answer. Nonetheless, if the POD Go is not currently meeting your needs it is unlikely to do so in the future. I believe that’s what you were asking.

 

Of course you can do what you want with that information but wishing it were different is not going to change anything.

[Samdbl]

2 hours ago, silverhead said:

I think your question has been answered, though I understand that you don’t like the answer. Nonetheless, if the POD Go is not currently meeting your needs it is unlikely to do so in the future. I believe that’s what you were asking.

 

Of course you can do what you want with that information but wishing it were different is not going to change anything.

 

lol. Is there a reason for such a bizarrely dramatic follow-up reply? You sound like Count Dracula.

[Samdbl]

3 hours ago, silverhead said:

The fixed vs. flex blocks in the POD Go is part of the fundamental design of the device and is well documented in the product description pages. The POD Go, like every multi-FX device, has a limit to its DSP processing capacity. The fixed blocks are low-DSP intensive FX while the flex blocks are reserved for heavier DSP-intensive FX. The result is that a certain portion of the overall DSP capacity is reserved by the system for fixed blocks while the rest is dynamically managed by the user with the flex blocks.

 

The total DSP capacity of the device is not going to change, and nor is the overall strategy of a certain number of fixed blocks and a certain number of flex blocks. The actual number of fixed vs. flex blocks could change but would have to be accommodated within the existing DSP capacity. Unfortunately the DSP requirements of a typical flex block are much greater than a typical fixed block. Hence you can’t simply get rid of the fixed EQ or Wah blocks and somehow be able to add a Delay or Chorus block instead. As it is, it’s quite easy to design a preset that can only use 3, not 4, flex blocks due to DSP capacity limitations. Having the theoretical ability to add more flex blocks without a corresponding hardware upgrade (not going to happen) is an empty promise. I suppose there could be an update that increases the number of available flex blocks to 6 or whatever, but you still would not be able to use more than 3 or 4.

This is not likely to be addressed to your satisfaction in future updates. If the POD Go does not currently meet your needs it is not likely to ever do so.

yeah, I know the unit has a dsp limitation that can’t be changed. But such was the case with the stomp as well. And yet they still managed to add blocks with the caveat that you are still under the same constraints of the dsp limitations and many of the effects would be unavailable. Unless you are saying that negating the wah, eq, AND amp models wouldnt equate to the same dsp usage of even *one* other effect on the whole unit, I can’t see why it wouldn’t be done. And reading threads, I can see I’m not the only one wondering this. Line 6 has done this exact same thing with other units. I’m simply asking if they might with this. If not, fine. But it doesn’t need to be taken as some completely out of the blue, unfair criticism.

[phil_m]

21 minutes ago, Samdbl said:

Unless you are saying that negating the wah, eq, AND amp models wouldnt equate to the same dsp usage of even *one* other effect on the whole unit, I can’t see why it wouldn’t be done.

If you look at the DSP allocation charts that people have made for the Helix, this is pretty much the case. The EQs and Volume use almost no DSP. The wahs use a little more, but even if you deleted all three, it’s not like you’d be able to add another distortion, modulation or delay. Some of the compressors might work, but not all of them.

 

You so get one block back with the POD GO versus the HX Effects in that there’s a noise gate on the input block. The HX Effects have that option.

 

When the POD Go was first being designed, they thought there would only be three wild card blocks at one point. They had considered making the reverb block a fixed block as well.

 

The only unit Line 6 has ever added more blocks to is the HX Stomp, and I think that’s kind of a special case. It’s also relatively easy hit the DSP limit before hitting eight blocks if you’re using it for amp and cab modeling. It’s not as easy for effects-only setups.

 

The way I see it, any of the Helix/HX products can do effects-only setups really well. The POD Go is more limited, but it’s also like $150 less than the cheapest HX product. I think it’s fine that it can’t do everything the others do. It wasn’t meant to.

[silverhead]

40 minutes ago, Samdbl said:

..... But it doesn’t need to be taken as some completely out of the blue, unfair criticism.

Nobody’s done that. 

[OmegaSlayer]

I'd really really really be happy with the chance to substitute the Wah with an EQ

I think the DSP usage of the EQ is maybe lower than some of the Wah models, if only because the parameters are set and don't need to be calculated in real time

[voxman55]

Before buying Pod Go I researched it so that I pretty much knew it's good points and it's restrictions. I watched the Line 6 videos, read the manual and read user feedback. Whilst not perfect, it met my fundamental needs and I bought it based on what it could do now, not what it might be able to do going forward.  I could have picked up a used Helix LT but I wanted something light, compact and easy to use and for me Pod Go's advantages outweighed its disadvantages and has been a good choice. 

 

So @Samdbl before buying any gear its always important to do some research first to ensure it will fundamentally meet your needs.  Now, lets be fair, right from the off, Line 6 was completely up front as to how Pod Go was designed especially the mixture of fixed blocks and user blocks which was key to its design and is why Pod Go (even though it utilises Helix modelling) was specifically positioned as a 'Pod' and not a 'Mini-Helix'.     

 

Pod Go is a great unit but in your case it sounds like it wasn't quite what you expected and so unfortunately might not be the best fit for your needs. That's OK, gear is personal and we can all get things a bit wrong sometimes. But your post (repeated 'wtf') kind of gives the impression you feel you were misled. Lets be absolutely clear about this, you weren't!!  You made assumptions and didn't do your homework, which is fair enough, but only as long as you take ownership of that - it's not fair to put your frustration at Line 6s door which is what seems to be coming across from your post.  Sorry if this sounds a tad harsh but I think its appropriate to say how it is.

 

Now, putting that aside, it is possible that going forward Line 6 might (and I certainly hope they do) add one or possibly even two extra blocks to Pod Go. Helix Stomp was updated from 6 to 8 user blocks so it's at least possible. As I commented on elsewhere, I can understand that Line 6 chose 4 user blocks originally because most of the time users can have 4 blocks, and it didn't want to mislead those that lacked experience with this type of DSP allotment. 

 

But through the internet, boards, YouTube etc there is now a ton of info on DSP useage.  Therefore in my view I think Line 6 should now take the training wheels of the bicycle by giving greater freedom so that users can get the most from the available DSP.  So, fingers crossed we will hopefully see enhancements in the next firmware upgrade that will improve user functionality. In addition to more blocks as a gigging player I'd like to see snap shot and multi- switch naming, visibility of F7/F8 external pedals on screen, and the option to use F7/F8 for patch up/down so you can still have 6 blocks visible.  I'm aware that at least some of this is on Line 6's 'to do list'.  If you want some or all of these features to be added to Pod Go, I'd therefore suggest voting for these on ideas scale which is the Line 6 site for fielding ideas for them to consider, here: 

 

https://line6.ideascale.com

 

In the search bar on the right, type in 'Pod Go' and then just scroll through the Pod Go ideas. All the above (and more) are on there (some several times as different folk have posted the same request - in which case vote for each!). 

 

 

 

 

 

[voxman55]

On 3/31/2021 at 1:18 PM, silverhead said:

The fixed vs. flex blocks in the POD Go is part of the fundamental design of the device and is well documented in the product description pages. The POD Go, like every multi-FX device, has a limit to its DSP processing capacity. The fixed blocks are low-DSP intensive FX while the flex blocks are reserved for heavier DSP-intensive FX. The result is that a certain portion of the overall DSP capacity is reserved by the system for fixed blocks while the rest is dynamically managed by the user with the flex blocks.

 

The total DSP capacity of the device is not going to change, and nor is the overall strategy of a certain number of fixed blocks and a certain number of flex blocks. The actual number of fixed vs. flex blocks could change but would have to be accommodated within the existing DSP capacity. Unfortunately the DSP requirements of a typical flex block are much greater than a typical fixed block. Hence you can’t simply get rid of the fixed EQ or Wah blocks and somehow be able to add a Delay or Chorus block instead. As it is, it’s quite easy to design a preset that can only use 3, not 4, flex blocks due to DSP capacity limitations.

Having the theoretical ability to add more flex blocks without a corresponding hardware upgrade (not going to happen) is an empty promise. I suppose there could be an update that increases the number of available flex blocks to 6 or whatever, but you still would not be able to use more than 3 or 4.

This is not likely to be addressed to your satisfaction in future updates. If the POD Go does not currently meet your needs it is not likely to ever do so.

 

Sorry @silverhead but with all due respect, I think that to suggest that Pod Go doesn't have enough DSP for more than 4 blocks is complete & utter nonsense.

 

So allow me to debunk that right now!

 

If you look at the DSP table prepared by Benvesco there is clearly a lot of scope to use one and even two additional blocks. For example, having selected a reverb, delay, modulation and distortion, there is plenty of room to add e.g. a compressor and a second distortion or modulation or delay, provided you make sensible selections ie not opting for jumped amp models and spring reverbs. 

 

Now I realise that Benvesco's chart may not be 100% accurate, but it's going to be pretty darned close even by Line 6's acknowledgement, so let's look at a typical example of DSP useage - and I'm intentionally not going for all the cheapest DSP, I'm mixing in a reasonable selection of DSP useage items  - nor am I using pre-amps that will reduce your amp DSP considerably. And I'm going for 6 blocks for which you still have a surprising amount of choice  - 5 will give you even way more options:

 

Marshall Plexi 100w Super Lead - 34.88%   

Cab (Stock) - 0%

Any 'standard' reverb (room, plate, hall, tile, chamber, echo etc) - 13.61%

Delay - Line 6 Simple Delay - 7.66% (2nd cheapest but an eminently practical & versatile standard delay)

Heir Apparent 12.33%

Modulation Deluxe Phaser (Line 6 original) - 10.63%

Second distortion (for gain stacking) Teemah! - 9.36%

Compressor, 3-band comp, Line 6 Original - 8.51% 

 

Total DSP with 6 blocks = 96.98% - and I've used one of the more popular & medium expensive full amp models.

 

The cheapest DSP cost models?

 

Supro (full amp) - 17.86%

Delay - Line 6 Original 'Ping Pong' - 6.81%

Any 'standard' reverb (room, plate, hall, tile, chamber, echo etc) - 13.61%

Distortion (I'm discounting Megaphone - impractical & not a proper distortion) - 3 options (Vermin 'ProCo Rat', Hedgehog D9, Top Secret OD) all at 7.66% 

Modulation - Tremolo 4.25%

Chorus (Line 6 Original) 11.91%

Dynamics - Deluxe Comp - 4.25%

IR (1024) instead of stock cab - 10.85% (This percentage looks suspect - IR's should only be about 2-3% extra DSP cost in Pod Go - See below)

 

Total DSP with 6 blocks 66.35% - and even with an IR that's still only 77.2% !!  Heck, you could even add

 

Filter -Eventide smart harmony 12.76% (not the cheapest)

Synth - Roland Synth String 9.78% (not the cheapest)

 

And with 8 blocks plus an IR you'd still be under 100% at 99.74%!!  (Actually about 90.74% based on a 1024 IR - the 10.85% looks wrong, see below)

 

My point is that whilst yes of course you need to be sensible and pick your targets as it were, there is a TON of tonal flexibility even at 6 user blocks.  And even sticking with stock cabs there is a 30% range of DSP allowance/choices between the two examples above !!   If you want heavier DSP models in some areas, there's always scope to compromise in others - choosing a pre-amp for example (which I didn't even go with) is yet another option. 

 

Every patch I've created in Pod Go has full amp models and 4 blocks, and loads have an IR too - even those with spring reverb. I'll typically have a reverb, a delay, a modulation, and a distortion. I'd love to be able to add a compressor and a second distortion or second modulation to some patches.  The point is that giving users choice gives us more potential flexibility.   

 

So c'mon - Line 6, it's past time to take the training wheels off the bicycle & give us 6 user blocks in Pod Go - give us, your customers, the choice of how much our bikes can carry, and how steep a gradient we can pedal up before we fall off - treat us like sensible adults, not kids.   Caveat it by all means ie it doesn't give more DSP and you still might only have scope for 3-4 blocks if you select several heavier options etc - but give users the option to maximise Pod Go's DSP useage because a lot of processing power is going to waste! 

 

UPDATE

I'm puzzled by Benvesco showing an IR as an extra 10.85% - IR's should only be around 2-3%.  So I did a test with heavy DSP models:

 

Brit Trem Jump  40.83%

Spring reverb  34.03%

70's Chorus  15.74%

Simple delay  7.66%

TOTAL = 98.26 ie 1.74% spare

 

In theory, I shouldn't have had enough to add an IR (1024) - but I can!   

Which means that re my examples with an IR, there's probably actually an extra 9% spare on top of what I've shown. 

 

IDEA

To give users the most flexibility from Pod Go, why not allow 2 or 3 or even 4 voluntary/optional user blocks that can be inserted if required on top of the 4 standard blocks'?  That way Line 6 can say up to 4 blocks for optimum selection choice, but up to an additional 4 to cater for more restricted options.  

 

 

[Samdbl]

It's true that L6 and reviewers stated the blocks were static. I think my misunderstanding is that not big enough of a deal was made about it. To me, that's a huge deal that ought to be in bold print in every manual, ad and review. I guess since it wasn't, I didn't really make the connection. As, again, I'd think such a large limitation would be a larger deal among reviewers, in particular. Not just a passing note. That being said, ok my bad. My 'attitude' of surprise (WTF) was more from me not being able to believe that there wasn't a better solution to the design than this. It just so happens that the Wah and Eq are two things I never, ever in a million years use. And I know I'm not alone. I cant believe there was *no* other option than to saddle us with these two effects. It just seemed like an odd choice, design-wise. 

[voxman55]

1 hour ago, Samdbl said:

It's true that L6 and reviewers stated the blocks were static. I think my misunderstanding is that not big enough of a deal was made about it. To me, that's a huge deal that ought to be in bold print in every manual, ad and review. I guess since it wasn't, I didn't really make the connection. As, again, I'd think such a large limitation would be a larger deal among reviewers, in particular. Not just a passing note. That being said, ok my bad. My 'attitude' of surprise (WTF) was more from me not being able to believe that there wasn't a better solution to the design than this. It just so happens that the Wah and Eq are two things I never, ever in a million years use. And I know I'm not alone. I cant believe there was *no* other option than to saddle us with these two effects. It just seemed like an odd choice, design-wise. 

 

It was very well explained in the Line 6 videos and the manual. 

 

Regarding wah, I for one was delighted with the ability to automatically switch from volume to wah in every patch globally.

 

I had that on my Flextone II Plus floorboard years ago, and I really missed it on my Vox Valvetronix and Tonelabs. On these you have to select wah from the pedal section but then you couldn't select another pedal effect. 

 

On Zoom G3/5/6/11 pedals it's even worse, as you have to manually select wah from an fx list and then have to allocate a slot to place it in. Horrible design. 

 

With regards to EQ, it's the biggest single weapon on your fx board to shape your tone. I have an EQ on my conventional pedal board and also use an EQ in the fx loop of my Valvetronix amp. If you understand EQ it's brilliant. Folk can often spend fortunes with trial and error on different pickups and speakers, but not realise that even a simple 7- band EQ can often give you very similar tones and way more tonal options that your amp on its own just can't do. But its even more versatile because you can also use an EQ as a clean or gain boost, depending on signal chain placing, or use it to switch your patch tone by making a Les Paul sound thinner, brighter and more single coil like, and fattening up your Strat or Tele to make it sound more humbucker. 

 

Hence it always amazes me when folk complain about having a fixed EQ block...it's your best friend, not your enemy. 

 

But the reason that EQ and Wah are fixed is that these use such little DSP that you couldn't replace them with any other fx.  To put this in perspective and as per Line 6s Eric Klein (Digital Igloo):

 

"The Volume, Wah, Preset EQ, and FX Loop blocks combined use less DSP than a single compressor or drive block. "

 

 

 

[Samdbl]

Yes, I know all of this. I also know how EQ works. I simply don't need it for my tone or for any patches. Ever. I go through any other number of options for shaping leads, pickup variants, etc. 

[voxman55]

13 hours ago, Samdbl said:

Yes, I know all of this. I also know how EQ works. I simply don't need it for my tone or for any patches. Ever. I go through any other number of options for shaping leads, pickup variants, etc. 

 

Which is fair enough, but the Pod Go was designed for those seeking a simpler MFX solution but with modelling quality imported from Helix.

 

However no one product can suit every user.  It sounds like your personal needs might be better served with a Helix product rather than Pod Go. Hx Stomp or Helix LT might better suit your needs because these have no fixed blocks and will allow you to select only what you want in your signal chain, with more processing power to fashion your amp, cab and fx needs. 

 

If you feel that, regardless of your initial understanding or expectations, overall Pod Go still fundamentally meets your key needs and you don't want a different product, then you will just have to accept the compromises that come with it and try to work around these. 

 

From my perspective there are lots of things I'd like to have from eg Helix LT, but fundamentally the Pod Go does most of what I need and I simply don't want the size and weight of Helix LT and I also much prefer the Pod Go display.