Line 6 POD HD Thread

[Paolosev91]

Now I found out an even better 4CM method:
same result, LESS LATENCY!

Leave cables as they are in my previous guide.

Just switch input1 and input2 so that you have:
input1: variax
input2: guitar
then swap paths: pre-effects on path B, post effects on path A.
then cross the mixers: path A fully panned right and path B fully panned left.

(alternative solution, should give you the same results: you may also leave them panned as they were before and send pod's left output to the input of your amp and pod's right output to the amps' fx return)

I really don't know the reason why, but I feel even less latency in this configuration. Noise remains the same.
Please try it and tell me if it works!

EDIT: The only drawback is that you cannot use the tuner since it works only on input1! Not bad, just select "inputs setup: preset" on the pod create a blank patch with input1: guitar and input2: variax to use the tuner. You may also use a patch with a single path (for example, with a pod amp model in it) and use it with input1: guitar input2: same (you may also use variax if you prefer but I do not recommend it on pod amp model patches), as I do when using amps in pre-position to get a realistic feel out of them.), so that the tuner works .

Hi, I'm new to the forum and a new POD HD500 user. Yes, I've read all 346 pages so far, and the post quoted above is probably the best and most useful tip that I've found yet. I'm not that interested in copying other people's patches, matching tones, etc.- I just wanted to get a nice tone of my own out of my amp with the POD, instead of buying several separate pedals.

I was thinking of shelving the POD as I was planning on using it for some simple effects through my 5150, but something wasn't clicking. I was having a hard time putting a finger on it until I read this post. Latency... aha! That's what I'm feeling. Of course the noise was kind of annoying as well, especially at low volume, but I could live with that.

Amp sounds fantastic now rigged in this fashion, and the feel and responsiveness is so much better. The effects sound clearer and less muddy, and noise is reduced, as advertised. Maybe the POD has found a home after all.

I probably won't post much from here on out, but I felt strongly enough about this that I signed up. Great post, Paolosev91, kudos from this old fart.

 

[kevink2]

Now I found out an even better 4CM method:
same result, LESS LATENCY!

Leave cables as they are in my previous guide.

Just switch input1 and input2 so that you have:
input1: variax
input2: guitar
then swap paths: pre-effects on path B, post effects on path A.
then cross the mixers: path A fully panned right and path B fully panned left.

(alternative solution, should give you the same results: you may also leave them panned as they were before and send pod's left output to the input of your amp and pod's right output to the amps' fx return)

I really don't know the reason why, but I feel even less latency in this configuration. Noise remains the same.
Please try it and tell me if it works!

EDIT: The only drawback is that you cannot use the tuner since it works only on input1! Not bad, just select "inputs setup: preset" on the pod create a blank patch with input1: guitar and input2: variax to use the tuner. You may also use a patch with a single path (for example, with a pod amp model in it) and use it with input1: guitar input2: same (you may also use variax if you prefer but I do not recommend it on pod amp model patches), as I do when using amps in pre-position to get a realistic feel out of them.), so that the tuner works .

I just had a chance to check this out, and again, congrats Paolosev91, you are correct- even LESS latency. I didn't think it could get better, but it did. Great work, way to think out the box.

Thanks again for this discovery, it rocks!

 

[Tones]

I'm going to try to keep this short and simple, really hope you guys can help me out here!

I have an HD500, and I've been using my rhythm patch for a long time and I loved it until recently. i wanted a thick and saturated tone with a lot of bite and attack.

Line 6 | CustomTone

My Rig:
Guitar -> hd500 --(unbalanced output)> Peavey ultra + head's Return loop > avatar 2x12 with Vintage 30 drivers

If you see my patch I use the xxl cab sim with the POD output settings at studio output. Sounds thick, but now I'm thinking it has way too much low end. A lot of people suggested turning off the cab sims and put the settings to POWER STACK, but no matter what I try it sounds so dry and fuzzy.
Maybe I'm doing something wrong? If anybody has a tone they'd like to share with me or give me some pointers on how to make my tone sound good for a live performance situation.

Or should I just go full FRFR rig

 

[Paolosev91]

My recent discovery, useful also for people who are not using 4CM method.

Path B is processed before Path A, even if there are no effects on it.
I am 99% sure about that.
The best way to use the pod and reduce latency is to use only the "right" (in fact it is full stereo!) signal that is processed in path B.

If I want to use a Pod model I build my patch in such a way:

pre-effects->amp model (pre-path)-> then if you want a mono signal put the post-effects in path B and pan the mixer full left or full right. If you want a stereo signal you may use post-effects both in path b or after the mixer (panned at center).
The difference in pod computation may be caused by the fact that the pod's A and B paths are full stereo paths. That's why the pod is not able to process them in parallel.

Therefore it first processes Path B signal and then Path A signal. If you output a signal that passed in Path B, you will notice it to be, in fact, more responsive to your playing!

 

[shredwoodforest]

So I just got my POD HD Pro today, and it's in great condition other than the fact that it's missing a knob. Realistically speaking, it's not a big deal, but if you guys are like me with my gear, I want it all there, no matter what! I was looking for replacement knobs, and this came up on the Line6 website. Are these the right ones? (its missing one of the 4 knobs under the screen).

https://www.globalfulfillment.net/gfsnet/line6/10Expand.aspx?ProductCode=98-030-0008

Could I just find the right sized knobs elsewhere? I really dont want to pay for 10 when I only need one (or 4 if I choose to be OCD about having those 4 match). I don't necessarily need that EXACT same knobs, so long as I can find 4 of the same style knobs that will fit. Is there some knob supercenter somewhere out there? Haha

email Line 6 customer service. i had a knob break and they sent me a pack of 6 for free

 

[jmeezle]

Hey guys,

My band Replicas just released our first EP. I produced and mixed it and used the HD500 for all of the rhythm guitar tones on here. Hope you guys dig it!

 

[leechmasterargentina]

Hey guys,

My band Replicas just released our first EP. I produced and mixed it and used the HD500 for all of the rhythm guitar tones on here. Hope you guys dig it!

Sounds great man! It's not easy, but the HD500 is a great tool for those who can afford 20 Mesa/ENGL/Diezel heads and pay an expensive studio.

Good work.

 

[Heizt]

So I just replaced my 6505+ with a POD HD Pro X and Matrix GT800 power amp. Have these running into my Mesa 4x12. So far I am impressed, not used line 6 products since my old XT Live.

I will most likely miss my 6505 sound at times but I can get great sounds out of the POD and I can record with it and use it on the go. Overall happy with my decision

 

[Lord Voldemort]

https://soundcloud.com/david-mcd/aggressive-pepsi

I'm really, really happy with this guy.

All Pod HD Pro

 

[leechmasterargentina]

POD HD500 live sound:

[SC]https://soundcloud.com/noosfera_arg/roots-bloody-roots-cover-de[/SC]

You Tube live video:

 

[Ocara-Jacob]

So a while ago, I said I had fallen back in love with the HD series... Here's the tone I was talking about.

[SC]https://soundcloud.com/jacob-jung-1/sd2-3-1-and-pod-hd500-metal[/SC]

 

[Paolosev91]

UPDATE:

my thought on Path B being processed before Path A may be partially wrong.
Switching between my 2 patches I felt I had more delay when I had pre-effects in Path A and post in Path B and less delay when viceversa.
So I thought that the pod processes Path B before Path A!

Now I decided to try a different configuration (even less latency!!!!!!!).
Instead of using the fx loop return of the pod, I am using its Aux in.
Seems strange, but except from a 4db loss (easily corrected adding +4db at the pod mixer), it has more or less the same noise level, but less latency!
Then I built my 2 patches, 1) input1:guitar input2:aux with pre-effects in Path A and post in Path B, 2) vice-versa.
And also now the tuner works without chaing patch! ;-)

What did I discover? I have even less latency then when using pod's fx loop return, and solution 1) gives me even less latency then solution 2)

Try it, you may be surprised of how responsive will be your pod in 4cm mode now!

My thought (I am not 100% sure about that, just wondering...) is that the pod was programmed by line6 to process the signals I am using in this sequence:
Path A -> Path B -> Fx loop return signal. (seems like line6 programmed the pod giving less priority to the fx loop signal)

If true, this may confirm why when I am using fx loop return on Path A I have less latency than using it in Path B!
The pod did Path A -> Path B -> Fx loop return -> Path A (4 processing "steps") ,
instead of Path A-> Path B -> Fx loop -> Path A -> Path B (5 "steps").

And it may also confirm why I am getting less latency using no Fx loop, and even less when using pre-effects on Path A.
pre-effects in B, post in A: pod does Path B->Path A-> Path B (3 "steps")
pre-effects in A, post in B: pod does Path A->Path B (2 "steps"!!!).

My thoughts on WHY this happens may be wrong, but however, the latency reduction is really noticeable, please try it!:

Summary:
Guitar -> pod Guitar in -> no pre-effects on pre-path -> path A with pre effects panned left -> pod left output -> amp front -> amp fx send -> pod aux in -> path B with post effects panned right -> right output -> amp return (mixer volumes both at 4db, pod's master at full, output switch on Line.)

 

[kevink2]

UPDATE:

my thought on Path B being processed before Path A may be partially wrong.
Switching between my 2 patches I felt I had more delay when I had pre-effects in Path A and post in Path B and less delay when viceversa.
So I thought that the pod processes Path B before Path A!

Now I decided to try a different configuration (even less latency!!!!!!!).
Instead of using the fx loop return of the pod, I am using its Aux in.
Seems strange, but except from a 4db loss (easily corrected adding +4db at the pod mixer), it has more or less the same noise level, but less latency!
Then I built my 2 patches, 1) input1:guitar input2:aux with pre-effects in Path A and post in Path B, 2) vice-versa.
And also now the tuner works without chaing patch! ;-)

What did I discover? I have even less latency then when using pod's fx loop return, and solution 1) gives me even less latency then solution 2)

Try it, you may be surprised of how responsive will be your pod in 4cm mode now!

My thought (I am not 100% sure about that, just wondering...) is that the pod was programmed by line6 to process the signals I am using in this sequence:
Path A -> Path B -> Fx loop return signal. (seems like line6 programmed the pod giving less priority to the fx loop signal)

If true, this may confirm why when I am using fx loop return on Path A I have less latency than using it in Path B!
The pod did Path A -> Path B -> Fx loop return -> Path A (4 processing "steps") ,
instead of Path A-> Path B -> Fx loop -> Path A -> Path B (5 "steps").

And it may also confirm why I am getting less latency using no Fx loop, and even less when using pre-effects on Path A.
pre-effects in B, post in A: pod does Path B->Path A-> Path B (3 "steps")
pre-effects in A, post in B: pod does Path A->Path B (2 "steps"!!!).

My thoughts on WHY this happens may be wrong, but however, the latency reduction is really noticeable, please try it!:

Summary:
Guitar -> pod Guitar in -> no pre-effects on pre-path -> path A with pre effects panned left -> pod left output -> amp front -> amp fx send -> pod aux in -> path B with post effects panned right -> right output -> amp return (mixer volumes both at 4db, pod's master at full, output switch on Line.)

Wow, thanks again Paolosev91. It works great, seems to be every bit as responsive as going direct. I like how it gets the tuner useable again. Pretty amazed at how you are finding different ways to use the 4 cable method. You should do a youtube video, it's a note worthy discovery and it's a noticeable difference compared to the conventional 4cm method IMO. Congrats!

 

[atoni]

UPDATE:

my thought on Path B being processed before Path A may be partially wrong.
Switching between my 2 patches I felt I had more delay when I had pre-effects in Path A and post in Path B and less delay when viceversa.
So I thought that the pod processes Path B before Path A!

Now I decided to try a different configuration (even less latency!!!!!!!).
Instead of using the fx loop return of the pod, I am using its Aux in.
Seems strange, but except from a 4db loss (easily corrected adding +4db at the pod mixer), it has more or less the same noise level, but less latency!
Then I built my 2 patches, 1) input1:guitar input2:aux with pre-effects in Path A and post in Path B, 2) vice-versa.
And also now the tuner works without chaing patch! ;-)

What did I discover? I have even less latency then when using pod's fx loop return, and solution 1) gives me even less latency then solution 2)

Try it, you may be surprised of how responsive will be your pod in 4cm mode now!

My thought (I am not 100% sure about that, just wondering...) is that the pod was programmed by line6 to process the signals I am using in this sequence:
Path A -> Path B -> Fx loop return signal. (seems like line6 programmed the pod giving less priority to the fx loop signal)

If true, this may confirm why when I am using fx loop return on Path A I have less latency than using it in Path B!
The pod did Path A -> Path B -> Fx loop return -> Path A (4 processing "steps") ,
instead of Path A-> Path B -> Fx loop -> Path A -> Path B (5 "steps").

And it may also confirm why I am getting less latency using no Fx loop, and even less when using pre-effects on Path A.
pre-effects in B, post in A: pod does Path B->Path A-> Path B (3 "steps")
pre-effects in A, post in B: pod does Path A->Path B (2 "steps"!!!).

My thoughts on WHY this happens may be wrong, but however, the latency reduction is really noticeable, please try it!:

Summary:
Guitar -> pod Guitar in -> no pre-effects on pre-path -> path A with pre effects panned left -> pod left output -> amp front -> amp fx send -> pod aux in -> path B with post effects panned right -> right output -> amp return (mixer volumes both at 4db, pod's master at full, output switch on Line.)

Mind sharing patches?

 

[Paolosev91]

If you need it, I can share my patch!
However, is pretty simple! You may build it in less than 1 minute using your favourite effects.

4CM Pre and Post effects patch:
No effects at the beginning of the chain -> Empty amp block -> upper path with wah, dist, comp and other pre effects, lower path with delay, reverb, eq and other post effects. Both mixer channel are +4dB, upper path is panned left, lower is panned right. -> No effects post mixer.

Amp Model Patch:
If you are asking me for a pod amp model patch for 4cm method, then just follow the same routing method and:
put your amp model in path A (higher) and pan it at the mixer fully to the Right, +4db gain, mute path B (lower) and be sure you are sending pod's right output jack to your amp's fx return. Really easy. No need of changing cable configuration/input settings!

However, if you need patches, please ask. I will post them here

 

[jmeezle]

POD HD500 + Ibanez TAM10

[SC]https://soundcloud.com/jm2484/3-1-14-idea[/SC]

 

[Robby the Robot]

Well, the D/C port to my POD broke yesterday. I have a guitar shop here that can probably fix the problem, but do you guys think I'm gonna need a new power supply as well?

 

[bouVIP]

POD HD500 + Ibanez TAM10

[SC]https://soundcloud.com/jm2484/3-1-14-idea[/SC]

Wow that sounds great

 

[Spinedriver]

Well, the D/C port to my POD broke yesterday. I have a guitar shop here that can probably fix the problem, but do you guys think I'm gonna need a new power supply as well?

Probably not. Back when I had my Pod XTL, I had the D/C in jack go bad on me twice (under warranty both times fortunately) and basically all that happened was that the jack's soldering had broken off the main board. There was nothing wrong with the power supply at all.

 

[Robby the Robot]

Probably not. Back when I had my Pod XTL, I had the D/C in jack go bad on me twice (under warranty both times fortunately) and basically all that happened was that the jack's soldering had broken off the main board. There was nothing wrong with the power supply at all.

From what I gathered the silver part of the port somehow got attached to the power supply, like it's out of the port. Still don't need a new power supply, right?