Page 1 of 2
#3
The line 6 guy sounds like he's about to burp the whole time...

nothing can replace tubes though...not yet.
LICKY, LICKY LOLLIPOP


Quote by soundjam
Which is why you eat funions. All the deliciousness of fried onions without disgusting lukewarm onion snake.
#5
Sounds OK. The new models don't add much. Did the guy play direct into the PC or was the floorboard connected to a mic'd external cabinet? It sounds worse than when I play Pod Farm through my headphones, so I hope it's just because they've mic'd an external cab/speaker.
Fender 1996 Floyd Rose Standard Stratocaster
Epiphone SG G-400

Laney TT50-112

Ibanez Weeping Demon
Marshall RG-1 Regenerator
Electro-Harmonix/Sovtek (Black) Big Muff Pi

Visit my site for some FREE RE-AMPING! http://www.wix.com/reamps/reamp
#6
Sooooooooooooo dissapointed in the JCM800 model... Defs wont be replacing my gear.
Guitars:
Gibson Les Paul Standard
Gibson Explorer New Century
Gibson RD Artist
Fender American Standard Telecaster

Amps:

Framus Cobra
Marshall JCM800 2203 - 1960A

Pedals:

Crybaby 535Q
Rockbox Boiling Point Overdrive
#8
Quote by BrokenDstring
The line 6 guy sounds like he's about to burp the whole time...

nothing can replace tubes though...not yet.


I beg to differ,

the axe fx is pretty much considered to be just as good tonally as tube amps, it's just difficult to use live, complicated, and can have issues getting the EXACT tone wanted, all of which spawn from the thing being very deep and complex, but by being that complex, it can have excellent tone
Ibanez RG5EX1
Ibanez RG7321
Peavey XXX-->Avatar 4X12(2 V30's 2 G12H30's)

BARE KNUCKLE PUPS RULE!
Quote by gumbilicious
thanks for making an old dude feel like his advice is actually taken into consideration
#9
I think I'm going to grab one when it comes out. Tried my Pocket Pod into the clean channel of my So Cal 50, sounded pretty sick.
#10
I'll reserve judgement 'til I can actually play one. I was quite satisfied with my Pod X3 and I would be shocked if this somehow sounded worse than that. The key to Pods is just like anyother modeller, you have to be able to play with it yourself to know if it sounds good or not. The presets never cater to anyones exact tone desires.

For anyone wondering, they were playing it into a Line 6 DT 50 (their new tube amp) which was likely comming out a Line 6 Cab.
#11
Quote by luitanent_dan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-C7TbcEglY

The ultimate question.. is it as good enough to replace your tube amp and pedal collection?



not until they can make it sound like a tube amp. maybe it'll replace some pedals, but I like being able to fix my stuff without a degree in computer sciences.
Quote by patriotplayer90
Lolz that guy is a noob.

Egnater
Leave it on the press, Depress Depress Taboot Taboot.
#12
Not too impressed, but it's probably worth mentioning that the POD is best experienced after a LOT of tweaking, and they're probably just going through presets.
Board:
Pitchblack - Fulltone Octafuzz - Hardwire OD - Blakemore Effects Deus Ex Machina - MXR Micro Chorus - Diamond Memory Lane Jr - EHX SMMH - Neunaber Wet
#13
Quote by IsThereLoveInSp
Not too impressed, but it's probably worth mentioning that the POD is best experienced after a LOT of tweaking, and they're probably just going through presets.


I agree. The first time I toyed around with Pod Farm I hated it so much I didn't touch it for a whole month. Once you start adding in EQs, playing with mics, cabs, pedals, it really starts to sound good. Now I do all of my recording through the Pod.
Fender 1996 Floyd Rose Standard Stratocaster
Epiphone SG G-400

Laney TT50-112

Ibanez Weeping Demon
Marshall RG-1 Regenerator
Electro-Harmonix/Sovtek (Black) Big Muff Pi

Visit my site for some FREE RE-AMPING! http://www.wix.com/reamps/reamp
#14
That’s a hell of a lot of amp and effects models. I realize how useful that is to anyone who doesn’t have a recording studio the size of a warehouse, but it better come with an incredible software interface for sifting through it all.

As for the tone…they really should have posted a lossless audio clip instead of a YouTube clip. There’s no way these thing actually sound that compressed.

I do love that big, solid, no-bullshit design. They got a lot into a solid little box, so it justifies one of these units over just buying software and a MIDI foot controller.

But for the money, these look like a damned good deal.
#16
Not a fan but could work well through a tube amp.

1977 Burny FLG70
2004 EBMM JP6
2016 SE Holcolmb
#18
I think it sounds pretty good, but I'd need to know more about the recording set up to know how much of the compression and fizz is youtube and how much is the modeling. Also I'd need to play it, since the best thing about a tube amp is its dynamics. That's what modeling has always lacked.
Quote by Cathbard
Quote by Raijouta
Unless its electronic drums.

BURN THE WITCH!!!!!
#19
Quote by IsThereLoveInSp
Not too impressed, but it's probably worth mentioning that the POD is best experienced after a LOT of tweaking, and they're probably just going through presets.


i wouldn't want to believe that

they had the entire development to tweak patches for a demo. for a demo unit, as the manufacturer, i would want it tweaked and fixed up so it sounds the best it can.

if the line 6 rep said let me show you the presets, that would be clear and definitive(and expected to show off how presets generally sound bad)


still falls under tone is subjective tho
Last edited by iampeter at Sep 30, 2010,
#22
Quote by Shabadoo
TO anyone interested, the HD site is up on line 6 now. Bunch of demos up on there to.

http://line6.com/podhd/

i didnt listen to the youtube video but the sounds on the line 6 site actually sound pretty good, looks like it could be promising.
Guitars
Amps
#25
Quote by Metalmaker
I beg to differ,

the axe fx is pretty much considered to be just as good tonally as tube amps, it's just difficult to use live, complicated, and can have issues getting the EXACT tone wanted, all of which spawn from the thing being very deep and complex, but by being that complex, it can have excellent tone


Meh. It's good but tonally it still has that screwed up high end that digital amps have. Pete Thorn did a demo recording of his Friedman Marsha and the AxeFx model of it set as close as possible and the difference is pretty obvious.
E-peen:
Rhodes Gemini
Fryette Ultra Lead
Peavey 6505
THD Flexi 50

Gibson R0 Prototype
EBMM JP13 Rosewood
Fender CS Mary Kaye

WTLT

(512) Audio Engineering - Custom Pedal Builds, Mods and Repairs
#26
Quote by iampeter
i wouldn't want to believe that

they had the entire development to tweak patches for a demo. for a demo unit, as the manufacturer, i would want it tweaked and fixed up so it sounds the best it can.

if the line 6 rep said let me show you the presets, that would be clear and definitive(and expected to show off how presets generally sound bad)


still falls under tone is subjective tho

That's not really true though. The demos/clips they've done for the previous POD incarnations are been pretty lame, but I've heard recordings of them (direct, not with a power amp or anything) that have been really convincing.
Board:
Pitchblack - Fulltone Octafuzz - Hardwire OD - Blakemore Effects Deus Ex Machina - MXR Micro Chorus - Diamond Memory Lane Jr - EHX SMMH - Neunaber Wet
#27
the high gain models were disappointing, clean to mid gain sounded alright
Warning: The above post may contain lethal levels of radiation, sharp objects and sexiness.
Proceed with extreme caution!
#28
I was kinda surprised, the lower gain models sounded pretty good IMO. But the high gain sounded like shit

The Treadplate sounds decent on their website, but over-gained.
Quote by Dave_Mc
I've had tube amps for a while now, but never actually had any go down on me
Quote by jj1565
maybe you're not saying the right things? an amp likes to know you care.





www.SanctityStudios.com
#29
Would the price of the other pedals drop now they released these pedals?
Gear:
----------------------
Jack and Danny Brothers Ls-5
Ibanez Gsa 60
----------------------
Zoom g9.2tt (for sale (NL))
----------------------
Blackheart Little Giant
#30
I'd speculate if they did anything other than talk. Not sitting here for ten minutes waiting for some assface to quit yappin' and play the damn thing. If he has to sit here for ten minutes just talking about it (and I skipped through 20 different intervals and didn't hear ANY guitar playing other than the intro) then no. Won't even humor them.
Quote by fly135
Great list Rutch. On re-reading this one I'd have to say Solid State means not liquid or gas.

I figured it out.
#31
Do you guys think that somewhere around the corner our beloved tube amps will become obsolete? I am saving up money for the rig of my dreams but when I listen to those samples (even if they may not sound as good as the real deal) I wonder if these modelling amps will replace a mesa boogie in the near future. I am not saying, that they are there yet. But it may happen one day...
#32
Even if someone managed to digitally recreate every nuance and inconsistancy of the valve sound id still rather do it old school tbh. And i think many people would too.
#33
Let's hope so, 'cause I love me some tubes :-D And I don't want to see tube amps just vanish into none existence.
#34
everytime one of these new modelers/47-amps-in-1 pedals/breakthorugh in modeling technology threads come up, it inevitably comes to "ZOMG! Do u guize evar thunk that it'll replace t00bz?!".

No, they won't. the work they'll need to put in to recreate the sound and the feel of tubes outweighs the pros of modeling, which is cost effective variety. If you want the tube sound, get a tube amp. the majority of modelers will give you some cool sounds, don't get me wrong, but they'll never be spot on.

there will always be inconsistencies with tube amps, and that's what i love about them. you'll always have one golden child in the production line, and you'll always have lemons. It's like a hunt for the grail, to find the best of the best.

Modelers are computers, and computers need to be consistent. You'll never pick up an AxeFX with that slight difference in the programming that will put it heads and tails above the rest. That would be bad on the company's part.

It like Jack White trying to be as old school as possible just to be old school. Yeah, it's cool to have old gear and use old recording techniques for interesting sounds, but when you have to go out of your way and complicate things to get a shitty, lo-fi sound, you're just wasting time.

Similarly, if you're trying to use new technology to get a sound that has existed for years (JCM800s, Plexis, Dual Recs, Tweeds, Blackfaces, etc, etc, etc) and that are widely availiable, than it's just kind of silly to me.

Quote by patriotplayer90
Lolz that guy is a noob.

Egnater
Leave it on the press, Depress Depress Taboot Taboot.
#35
Quote by Jhachey22
the majority of modelers will give you some cool sounds, don't get me wrong, but they'll never be spot on.

there will always be inconsistencies with tube amps, and that's what i love about them.


Why don't you combine an AxeFX with an AC-30 and get the best of both worlds. Meaning, you can spend time perfecting each effect with the AxeFX, but still have the 'inconsistency' of the tube amp?

just a thought..
My Effects Chain: Boss TU3 > MXR Comp > Micro POG > Blue Boy > Sparkle Drive > MXR Micro Amp > Boss FV500H > Eventide Timefactor > De7 Delay > Vox AC15

My blog: www.rockyourguitar.com
#36
hmm i am actually a fan of multi FX pedals but i dont take em as a REPLACEMENT of all the other gear.. all i like em for is that you can have a nice toob amp or whatever amp it is and just use those for.. like chorus, delay, reverb... such stuff. not as an amp modeler or something...
so bassically its a cheaper or more comfortable way to go than the big pedalboards... separate pedals might be better but lets admit it not everybody can actually afford big pedalboards... and all those transportation things..
#37
Quote by Jhachey22
everytime one of these new modelers/47-amps-in-1 pedals/breakthorugh in modeling technology threads come up, it inevitably comes to "ZOMG! Do u guize evar thunk that it'll replace t00bz?!".

No, they won't. the work they'll need to put in to recreate the sound and the feel of tubes outweighs the pros of modeling, which is cost effective variety. If you want the tube sound, get a tube amp. the majority of modelers will give you some cool sounds, don't get me wrong, but they'll never be spot on.

there will always be inconsistencies with tube amps, and that's what i love about them. you'll always have one golden child in the production line, and you'll always have lemons. It's like a hunt for the grail, to find the best of the best.

Modelers are computers, and computers need to be consistent. You'll never pick up an AxeFX with that slight difference in the programming that will put it heads and tails above the rest. That would be bad on the company's part.

It like Jack White trying to be as old school as possible just to be old school. Yeah, it's cool to have old gear and use old recording techniques for interesting sounds, but when you have to go out of your way and complicate things to get a shitty, lo-fi sound, you're just wasting time.

Similarly, if you're trying to use new technology to get a sound that has existed for years (JCM800s, Plexis, Dual Recs, Tweeds, Blackfaces, etc, etc, etc) and that are widely availiable, than it's just kind of silly to me.




It's all about perspective. If you invest in modellers expecting to nail the tones of sought after amps you'll be sorely disapointed (hence them being named modellers and not replicators). In a sense they'll get you a similar sound but never get it exact. For example, the Diezel models on my X3 sound like a Diezel, but more like a Diezel being played through a cab that's been wrapped in several blankets and has slashes in the speaker cones. However it does have many models, be they modelled after another amp or originals, which do produce good tones.

I for one enjoy modellers because the go above and beyond most amps. Typically a modeller or ME unit serve purposes beyond amp modelling like recording interfaces or sound cards. On top of that they have versatility which is unmatched by the majority of amps. It might never sound as good as the real thing (though I'm not totally sold on that), but its the application it servers is far more horizontal than vertical.
#38
I got abit excited seeing all the amps that it models. Then I got EXTREMELY let down when I heard it.
"In modern music, a lot of people are really stuck on the example, asif it were the idea. It takes millions of examples to articulate an idea, so don't get stuck on the f*cking example." - Joshua Homme, 2008.
#39
Quote by Jhachey22

Modelers are computers, and computers need to be consistent. You'll never pick up an AxeFX with that slight difference in the programming that will put it heads and tails above the rest. That would be bad on the company's part.


If its one thing computers arent, its consistant. One minute theyre fine, next all of your college work has evapourated and been replaced with porn.

Fo srs tho, i dont see any reason why inconsistency and randomness cant be part of somethings programming. Infact, it definitely can.
#40
Quote by Vendetta V
hmm i am actually a fan of multi FX pedals but i dont take em as a REPLACEMENT of all the other gear.. all i like em for is that you can have a nice toob amp or whatever amp it is and just use those for.. like chorus, delay, reverb... such stuff. not as an amp modeler or something...
so bassically its a cheaper or more comfortable way to go than the big pedalboards... separate pedals might be better but lets admit it not everybody can actually afford big pedalboards... and all those transportation things..



Which is the reason I will be buying the 1st HD500 that i see going on flea bay.

I think that plus the clean channel on my amp = pretty good fun and even if the models arent perfect then effects will be everything i could wish for, well under what I would be spending on an old school pedal board.

1977 Burny FLG70
2004 EBMM JP6
2016 SE Holcolmb
Page 1 of 2