Finally ran into the DSP limit on my HD500...

[smrybacki]

...and it sucked out loud.

I made a (really good sounding) basic patch with a Fender Twin NRM  and Marshall Plexi BRT dual amp configuration.  Then I panned both amps to the center and put a 63 Spring Reverb in front of the Twin only. Then a volume pedal at the first Pre device and a Vetta juice right after in Pre device 2.   Then I went to add a Dry Platter Echo in Post device 1 and BAM! No soap - DSP Limit Reached.  This is honestly my first real run in with that, except for when I first got the unit and was trying silly stuff for kicks.

Anyone try this same thing by chance on a 500x?  Because I really liked where this patch was going and it's still excellent but I am an avowed delay junkie....

[duncann]

I often run into the DSP limit on a 500X. It definitely sucks, that's for sure. There is always that one more thing you want to try and put in to make it sound just that little bit better. Don't get me wrong, it is tons better than a 500 and allows for quite a bit more flexibility to an already flexible device, but after using the 500X for a while, it's got to the point of being not enough. Kind of the same thing of running into the DSP limit on a 500. I often wonder if the processing power of an axe fx 2 would even be enough for a person like me. After using one of these for 6 months or a year, would I still be saying it's not enough?

 

You could try changing the 63 spring reverb to something else as the spring reverbs take around 20%.

[Brazzy]

I think the full amp models use more than the pre amp models.

[smrybacki]

You know what would be handy?  A detailed listing of what percentage of 100% each amp model or device used.

[Brazzy]

You know what would be handy?  A detailed listing of what percentage of 100% each amp model or device used.

 

So true my friends.

[TheRealZap]

someone did that a while back:

http://line6.com/supportarchivenew/thread/50339

sadly I don't have the document though...

 

You know what would be handy?  A detailed listing of what percentage of 100% each amp model or device used.

[duncann]

I have a couple of pdf files. Don't know if these are the ones you're talking about.

 

hd500 dsp test summary (table).pdf

HD500 Effects DSP Usage Estimations (collapsed version 1 page).pdf

[TheRealZap]

be great if they are....

it was of course unofficial... and more than a few firmwares ago... but should likely still be a good ballpark.

[smrybacki]

Thanks guys, that's good stuff.  I am surprised by some of the findings though, like for example the Dr Z. model being in the least expensive category of the full amp models.  I wonder what effect the mic selection on the cabs has?  Is a 57 on axis less intensive than a 89 off axis for example.

[bjnette]

The ultimate POD HD 500X2

Less then the cost of a used one.

I am thinking by running a second in the FX loop with midi hooked up, the first HD can control the second for syncing elaborate patches and Perfect for HDPROX owner's too who might like a controller for it!

 

 

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/PODHD500

 

Might have more DSP than a Fractal Axe with tone match. 

Now if we had that on the HD models there wouldn't any need to ever leave Line 6.

[duncann]

I have an hd500x and hd500, but I never actually hooked the two together...yet. I know that if I do this, I will be dragged down into a bottomless pit of patch building. So the stupid thing just sits there collecting dust for now.

[Rewolf48]

If running the second via MIDI think about HD Pro which has a digital In into which you send the digital out of the HD500 which means only one AD/DA conversion and less latency, but you will be limited to the two units in serial, so one for pedals (gate, compress, od, dist) and amps, the second for the rack effects (reverb, delay, mod)

[BlueViolince]

Anybody running an M5/9/13 in the loop of an HD? I'm wondering how well MIDI implementation works with that setup.

[TheRealZap]

works great...

ive used my m5 in this manner... select tone on the pod... then select PRESET on the m5... hit save on the pod....

next time you call up the tone on the pod, the m5 goes to the previously select preset.. no other config needed.

i didn't do anything more advanced than that... but what else to do other than build your tone and preset to your liking?

 

Anybody running an M5/9/13 in the loop of an HD? I'm wondering how well MIDI implementation works with that setup.

[BlueViolince]

So the patch that's called up on the M is specific to the fs and the patch you're selecting on the Pod? Meaning that fs1 on tone 1A can call a different M5 effect than fs1 on tone 3B.

[TheRealZap]

I was just saying that recalling a tone on the pod, will recall the preset on the m5.

 

if you wanted to change the preset on M5, that's something you'd have to figure out yourself...

I didn't have the need myself.. was simply offloading the reverb to the M5 so that i could have more DSP for other things on the pod...

 

the m5 is not programmed or controlled by any FS on the pod in my case... (the effect on/off is still easy enough through the FS on the M5)

if i want to change the m5 preset i'd change the whole tone on the pod.

 

but if you are in a pod tone 1A and change to 3B the pod will recall a new M5 setting if one is saved in that tone..

 

 

 

So the patch that's called up on the M is specific to the fs and the patch you're selecting on the Pod? Meaning that fs1 on tone 1A can call a different M5 effect than fs1 on tone 3B.

[BillBee]

I have an hd500x and hd500, but I never actually hooked the two together...yet. I know that if I do this, I will be dragged down into a bottomless pit of patch building. So the stupid thing just sits there collecting dust for now.

 

Yes but think of the sweet cabling option you could come up with - it could be referred to as "The Duncann Method" :)

 

-B

[duncann]

Yea. I'd probably go a step further and build a custom chasis for it, just a little bit taller so that I could internally layer the two mainboards, wire up all the cabling possibilities internally, put a few more switches on it to control the new wiring, and there you go. Now it's not a four-foot wide contraption and basically double the processing power.

[bjnette]

Thinking it thru I can see the M9 pedal would be better for extra DSP especially for live work but they are pricey the $348 HD500 deal seems sweater

[jandrio]

http://line6.com/support/topic/6087-pod-hd-pod-hd500-best-way-to-connect-both/

[bjnette]

I never thought about connecting it like that, simply plugging the first HD into the return of the second and monitoring on the second. You also have the s/pdif outs for recording.

 

Before this I had even sketched it out and just thought of returning the second unit to the first, but it isn't needed. 

 

I can see it being a bit unwieldy for live use but you would get 4 possible foot controllers.

With practice the foot dance boogie!  Probably fine for a MUSE cover band.

Two HD500's wide taking up all the stage real estate! LOL

Being hassled to give one to a mate! hahaha, I can see why dunncan would tier it up somehow.

 

Or if you just had a POD or a HDPro it would be off stage and switched via midi.

 

For the studio I can see using it. Live, the HD500 is already a options fest as it is.

 

The truth is most live patches are simple and under DSP. Most.

[toasterdude]

I tried an M9 in the loop of my HD500 when I first got it. Problem is the m9 only had like 24 preset locations while the pod has 512, so limited if you use more than 24 presets. Was making patches on HD500x last night and hit DSP all the time. Total bummer. IN my rack I use two HD Pros, actually one is an X and I don't use the amp modeling. Theoretically I could use way more FX as the amps are not using up DSP, but still only 8 slots. Total bummer.

[bjnette]

I saw a video of the fratal axe II being demo'd. It has been a while, I remember demoing them when I was getting the POD HD.

 

Anyway even with two HD500s the editing on the unit is still way easier. I could believe how involved it is. The HD onboard editing is leaps ahead especially with the amp controls on the unit. with about the same size screen.

 

No wonder the fractal guys bash the HD's. Anyway, the axe is still better  with a few more FX the HDs don't have and  tone match but the fiddly navigation  just confirmed it for me the HD's are better where it counts. Sound just as good but way more tweakable.

 

Two units is still only about a third of the cost of a fractal.

 

Not that you need two units unless you owned a HDPRO and wanted a floorboard and some additional dsp.It would not look out of place on stage.

 

For recording at home if dsp is an issue, I remove reverbs and add it in the mix.

I'll also use preamp models and run IRs in my DAW, or Recabinet.

[stevedodd]

Ok

 

I never hit the DSP limit, why you ask????? because I dont use any amp modelling.

 

However.....

 

I do run out of FX blocks yet I clearly have loads of DSP available!!! This really P****s me off.

 

Why have 8 footswitches available when its not possible to use the unit as a full pedalboard? if I use a volume pedal, 1 block gone, if I use the FX loop, 1 block gone. Line 6 should make fx blocks available to the capacity of the DSP, if each amp model was the equivilent of an fx block then I could utilise the whole pedalboard.

 

So i'm gigging looking down at a half used pedalboard.

[radatats]

Ok

 

I never hit the DSP limit, why you ask????? because I dont use any amp modelling.

 

However.....

 

I do run out of FX blocks yet I clearly have loads of DSP available!!! This really P****s me off.

 

Why have 8 footswitches available when its not possible to use the unit as a full pedalboard? if I use a volume pedal, 1 block gone, if I use the FX loop, 1 block gone. Line 6 should make fx blocks available to the capacity of the DSP, if each amp model was the equivilent of an fx block then I could utilise the whole pedalboard.

 

So i'm gigging looking down at a half used pedalboard.

 

Sounds like you should have gotten a M13... 

[silverhead]

 

 

.....

 

 

Line 6 should make fx blocks available to the capacity of the DSP.......,

Not sure I understand. Let's suppose that the FX that uses the least DSP demands only 1/50th of the overall DSP capacity. Probably not unreasonable for a single compressor block. Are you saying there should be 50 available fx blocks so that someone might be able to utilize 50 instances of that compressor?

 

If that's not what you mean, please clarify what you mean by the quoted phrase above.

[duncann]

How about they handle it like they do DSP? Dynamically? There is no set number of blocks. And make some better indicators about how close you are to the limit of both DSP and number of blocks.

[silverhead]

Indicators would be great, and I can see how the dynamic allocation with no fixed number of blocks could work. Thanks for clarifying. Is there an ideascale suggestion for this?

[duncann]

Indicators would be great, and I can see how the dynamic allocation with no fixed number of blocks could work. Thanks for clarifying. Is there an ideascale suggestion for this?

 

If there wasn't an ideascale suggestion before, there is now.

 

I gotta say though that the engineers probably talked about this at length, and they probably found a technical reason to exclude it. Maybe something along the lines of why some of the EQs are in percent.

[duncann]

nice idea, but I suspect that also a bigger/longer display would necessary to handle and see more than 10 ( = 8 FXs + amp + looper) blocks in a row

 

You're probably right, and it's more of an idea for the next gen HD, because to do this, if even possible, I suspect they would have to basically rewrite the entire core of the firmware.

 

As far as the display, they should make note of their past mistakes with the edit software and not making the interface scalable. They could do the same - probably more easily - with the lcd screen on the device. Or they could plan for a maximum number of blocks, around 20. Plus, on the FX block view mode, I see a lot of empty space in there.

[silverhead]

Definitely a next gen idea. We may see it someday.

[silverhead]

I think the move to mobile device editors opens up more display real estate but may require a shift in usage habits. Users would need to adapt to a paradigm that uses the device display only for basic live play information, not as an editing platform. The editing platform would be the mobile device.

 

That shift is already underway in the AMPLIFi series. Will it take hold in the next gen 'flagship' multi-FX processors?

[Brazzy]

Interesting "S" although it's no surprise to me, lol. Everything is eventually gong to fit in a "tiny little package" in the future :) I remember a time when my truck was "HEAVY DUTY" and even the car was built like a tank, lol. But now I see people driving 'go Karts" on the very very dangerous roads of today, Hahaaa.

 

I think the move to mobile device editors opens up more display real estate but may require a shift in usage habits. Users would need to adapt to a paradigm that uses the device display only for basic live play information, not as an editing platform. The editing platform would be the mobile device.

That shift is already underway in the AMPLIFi series. Will it take hold in the next gen 'flagship' multi-FX processors?

 

I kinda agree with you "H" although since so many people are mobile the "energy" is most likely going to go into the smaller package.

 

what you said is what much probably will happen for the next generation gear.. we are already seeing this new concept with the AMPLIFì series..

 

personally I don't like very much this new system, as I tend to prefer all in one specific solutions, and having a bigger and better dedicated display on board rather than having to use a tablet or a smarthphone to control the device, would be a much better solution IMO..

 

let the tablets and smartphones receive mails messages and phone calls, and the POD to do its specific work autonomously

[radatats]

on a side note I have to say that adding the Zoom MS-70 CDR in the FX Loop of my HD500 has eliminated all DSP limits for me.  I place it after the mixer and before any other post effects.  The stereo noise gate is awesome and I don't need any of the L6 gates so that frees up DSP and slots on every patch right there.  It has a 7 band stereo graphic EQ that can serve as a global EQ when needed too.  The multiple chorus, delays and reverbs are really nice and I can offload those effects to the Zoom when I get to a DSP limit issue.  It fits right on my board too.  About $120 and well worth it... now if I can only crack the midi nut so it changes with the POD patches...

 

[Digital_Igloo]

Dynamic DSP is here to stay, at least in Line 6 flagships. There will always be a point where you can select certain models and run out of DSP. Conversely, there will always be a point where you can select certain models and run out of block locations. This is just what happens when one block can take up 30-40x the DSP of another; we trust the user to be smart about allocation.

 

Obviously, we want you to get a "more than acceptable" number of blocks before running into the wall.

 

Adding more block locations is tricky, as it'd feel like you're running out of DSP sooner. The GUI doesn't really support it anyway, unless we had a scrolling pedalboard view, which would make everything really clunky and make me a sad panda. Moving the blocks closer together doesn't work either, but I'd have to show you the GUI mockup graphs to prove it. Eight effects blocks is kinda the magic number for POD HD.

 

But for future products? We hear you loud and clear. :)

[Brazzy]

on a side note I have to say that adding the Zoom MS-70 CDR in the FX Loop of my HD500 has eliminated all DSP limits for me.

 

The Zoom interests me too, Nice posts"R"!! As for me at the moment the HD 500 is fine the way it is since I primarily use for recording digitally and playing around with family. As time passes by my appreciation for the POD grows. :)

[Tboneous]

if I use a volume pedal, 1 block gone.

Not sure if you have a second expression pedal. Get one if you don't. Assign the #2 expression pedal to control your amps volume. Now you have your FX block back. What's really great about this technique is that you can assign any amp parameter to one expression pedal. For example, as you decrease your amp volume, I can at the same time increase the presence to avoid loosing high end as you are decreasing the volume. It is the ultimate volume pedal.

 

on a side note I have to say that adding the Zoom MS-70 CDR in the FX Loop of my HD500 has eliminated all DSP limits for me.

 

I took a page from your book and got the Eventide H9 Max. I can't tell you enough just how huge that was for my setup. The Eventide gives me delays, modulation, reverb and pitch. MIDI control to boot. And to be real about it, the FX in the H9 are superior to those in the POD. It cost me $700, but to me and my band with as much as we play, well worth it. Probably overkill but I want my stuff sounding right. And no more DSP issues for me. The Zoom is a great sounding unit as well and for $100 you can't beat it. Lack of MIDI killed that as an option for me.

[radatats]

I took a page from your book and got the Eventide H9 Max. I can't tell you enough just how huge that was for my setup. The Eventide gives me delays, modulation, reverb and pitch. MIDI control to boot. And to be real about it, the FX in the H9 are superior to those in the POD. It cost me $700, but to me and my band with as much as we play, well worth it. Probably overkill but I want my stuff sounding right. And no more DSP issues for me. The Zoom is a great sounding unit as well and for $100 you can't beat it. Lack of MIDI killed that as an option for me.

 

I love that idea too... I have a few other things in the budget right now but the H9 Max is still on the wishlist... ;)

[jipegonzo]

on a side note I have to say that adding the Zoom MS-70 CDR in the FX Loop of my HD500 has eliminated all DSP limits for me.  I place it after the mixer and before any other post effects.  The stereo noise gate is awesome and I don't need any of the L6 gates so that frees up DSP and slots on every patch right there.  It has a 7 band stereo graphic EQ that can serve as a global EQ when needed too.  The multiple chorus, delays and reverbs are really nice and I can offload those effects to the Zoom when I get to a DSP limit issue.  It fits right on my board too.  About $120 and well worth it... now if I can only crack the midi nut so it changes with the POD patches...

 

hi there ! (sorry for my english i'm french !)

 

i just received the zoom ms 70 cdr, but it don't work as well for me : first, i plug it in the FX loop by a mono cable (send) and a stereo cable (return from zoom) and tried a Y cable (double mono from HD send) and stereo return from zoom

on hd edit : "mixer menu" (as usual for me : 100% L and 100%R), "fx menu" : send : 0 return : 0, mix 100%

i have a stereo sound with one mono cable or 2 mono cable but in my headphone, one channel (Left for example) have the dry channel (bypass ?) and the Right one have the effect....

 

any solution ? did i miss something ??

 

thxs guys by advance !

 

jp

[radatats]

i just received the zoom ms 70 cdr, but it don't work as well for me : first, i plug it in the FX loop by a mono cable (send) and a stereo cable (return from zoom) and tried a Y cable (double mono from HD send) and stereo return from zoom

 

You need an insert cable to take the stereo signal from the POD to the ZOOM.  Try something like this: http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/STP201