PODs. Regular or XT?

Rainer Hackstaette · Post by **Rainer Hackstaette** » 24 Oct 2003 1:12 pm

David,

the POD has stereo outputs, as the modulation effects (chorus/reverb/delay) are stereo. No Y-chord is needed.
http://www.line6.com/podxt/ins_and_outs.htm

Rainer

------------------
Remington D-10 8+7, Sierra Crown D-10 gearless 8+8, Sierra Session S-14 gearless 8+5, '76 Emmons D-10 8+4, Peavey Session 400 LTD

Jon Light (deceased) · Post by **Jon Light (deceased)** » 24 Oct 2003 1:34 pm

I can't know the relevance of this info to XT but Pod 2 manual recommends power amp in as the best first choice, bypassing the tone stack and gain stages of an additional pre-amp on the front end of a combo amp. Second choice would be the guitar input in the front with the tone controls set as neutral as possible. If you haven't tried this, David, maybe you want to check it out. Could be that you are sending too hot and dense a signal to the NV power amp. You might tame the sound some this way. Just a thought.
Actually I seem to recall that in spite of this, Gary Morse said he was going into the front of his PVs too so what do I know.

BTW---if you all haven't, search the forum--there's some useful posts from Gary.[This message was edited by Jon Light on 24 October 2003 at 02:35 PM.]

Eric West · Post by **Eric West** » 24 Oct 2003 1:48 pm

DD. Indeed it does have two, and looking at the "pro rack mount XT" it also has Balanced plug lines out too, ( not the regular xt) thought I dont see a need for them since I have a balanced out on my Session 5 and with an adapter I can fool most soundmen into taking it directly out of my 400.

I *imagine* that the headphone out could be Y-ed to another stereo out, but I'll leave that til later to find out. Maybe to the PA...

Boy I hate waiting...

Still wondering about a dobro patch that would fly...

I'm gonna search the GM posts my durn self here.

EJL

Graham Bland · Post by **Graham Bland** » 26 Oct 2003 12:28 am

Question for David Spires,

I was just wondering if you had used the
Pod xt pro which is the rack mount version and how it compares to the regular xt.

Thanks
Graham Bland[This message was edited by Graham Bland on 26 October 2003 at 01:29 AM.]

Brad Sarno · Post by **Brad Sarno** » 26 Oct 2003 9:24 am

Well after a pretty thorough run with both the Genesis 3 and the Beheringer V-Amp2, now the new POD XT is getting a test drive. I have to agree with the POD XT fans that this thing is at a whole other level of performance. It's got no detectable IM distortion, which the Vamp2 had a lot of. The outputs are very quiet, which the Genesis wasn't. The POD XT is so far the hands down winner. I haven't even tested the older POD or POD 2.

The models are good and the intense tweakability is what I like. Reverbs are great. Delays are great. The stomp pedal models are great. The modulation models too. I played a gig last night with the day old POD XT and I had a little bit of trouble when I got loud. I ran it into my Twin/Black Widow amp. If I used a POD model with speaker emulation, it only sounded cool quiet, but when crankin, it got weird. Today I've been messing around with it and it seems to do much better loud with the speaker model and AIR turned completely off. This way the POD XT is being treated more like a tube preamp and less as a complete combo amp. I'm barely into this thing but it seems that's the way to go in a live/steel amp situation, even thru a clean amp like a Session 400. That's what I'm using today to see what happens.

I think that since our steel amp speakers already have serious coloration and voicing, by trying to push the voice of a modelled speaker thru that, it gets a little too complex and loses something. I do have the POD XT set to a 2x12 destination, not direct. Maybe we can bug them into adding a 1x15" selection.

So far my favorite setting is the Marshall JTM-45 run real clean. Funny thing is that was also my favorite model on the Vamp2. It's based on the old Fender Tweed Bassan circuit so it's pretty fendery if you keep it clean. Then the vintage plate reverb set a bit long.

Another cool trick is to use the envelope filter, Mutron III, but set the threshold so you can actually control the open/close of the envelope with your volume pedal. Instant wah wah without moving your right foot from the volume pedal. Since the signal strength is what opens the wah, you have control over that. If you pick with the pedal open, then you get the classic bwow bwow envelope sound. If you pick with the pedal back and then let it on, you've got a wah pedal.

The XT is quite impressive so far. It's in a whole other league. But so is the price.

What's also cool is to use the Twin amp setting and drive it pretty hard. I was able to get some old Lloyd Green Twin grunge with my real Twin at a safe volume. Twin Twins.

Brad Sarno

Brad Sarno · Post by **Brad Sarno** » 26 Oct 2003 11:04 am

Ok, check this out. On the XT, under vibe settings try the hi-cut 9dB. This seems to take that bright crispiness out of the sound. I just tried this so no conclusion yet. Give it a shot.

Brad Sarno

Eric West · Post by **Eric West** » 26 Oct 2003 1:21 pm

Another question before it gets here tomorrow:

Are just the delay, flange, and sweep true "stereo" when using two amps? IS the reverb that way like the Rv3? Is the Leslie model stereo?

Just wondering.

Can't wait.

EJL

David Spires · Post by **David Spires** » 27 Oct 2003 12:13 pm

Hi Graham,

I haven't tried the rack-mounted XT Pro, but my understanding of the unit is that it is the same "guts", but with different I/O options (XLR outs, balanced, etc.). To me, the biggest benefit of the amp modeler is to get rid of the rack for a normal setup. My XT fits in my seat, so for recording direct - it's my steel and my seat. For a normal live gig, I run my XT into the power amp in of a Session 400 / Nashville 1000, etc. Only in the case (like a steel show) where I want to run stereo, do I bring my racked power amp and speaker cabinets.

The XT just gives me a lot of tools in a size smaller than a rack.

I don't know if that helps...
Thanks,

David Spires

Rich Weiss · Post by **Rich Weiss** » 27 Oct 2003 12:45 pm

I think I'll get one of these XTs and scrap my old Pod. I just talked to a guy that ditched his POD XT for something called a Tonelab, made by Vox. They're $500. Same deal as XT, a tube modeler. I'm gonna go to Sam Ash and demo it. It got raves in this months Guitar Player magazine.
www.voxamps.co.uk

Earnest Bovine · Post by **Earnest Bovine** » 27 Oct 2003 12:55 pm

It got raves in this months Guitar Player magazine

If guitar players like it, it is probably useless for steel.

Brad Sarno · Post by **Brad Sarno** » 27 Oct 2003 2:23 pm

I doubt that Vox could deliver to the degree that Line 6 has with the XT. Line 6 has really pioneered the modelling thing and their products have evolved and been refined up to this point. I dont think it's a simple science. I think Vox, like everyone else, is just getting on the wagon. I'd like to hear the Vox though and not pre-judge it any more than I already have.

I just sent Line 6 a long e-mail bugging them to consider seriously the PSG market. I requested that they do a model of the JBL D-130 speaker in an open back cabinet. Also suggested they model the Session 400 but that's a longshot. I also bugged them to add a numerical cents readout on their tuner so we can more accurately tune our steels with their tuner. I also bugged them to model the JBL D-120. I cant believe they haven't already. That's the speaker that made the Allman Brothers' sound so famous, also Jerry Garcia, Chuck Berry, and I understand that even Hendrix used JBL loaded amps for many recordings, and tons of session guys have a D-120 in their Fender Deluxe Reverb. It's THE clean Fender sound if there every was one. In the PSG world, you've got Byrd, Brumley, Buddy Cage, many others, and tons of recordings from 30 years ago all using the D-120. If we bug them enough, maybe they'll consider us and incorporate some more steel-friendly features. If they can be convinced we're a viable market, then what's to stop them? Maybe they could model the old Standel amp too. Hmmm...

Brad Sarno

Brad Sarno · Post by **Brad Sarno** » 27 Oct 2003 2:33 pm

Here's the link to the Vox Tonelab.
http://www.voxamps.co.uk/products/tonelab/tonelab.htm

Pretty interesting piece. It has a tube in it that emulates an output power tube. Cool idea.

Brad Sarno

Rich Weiss · Post by **Rich Weiss** » 27 Oct 2003 3:47 pm

The thing that confuses me about the Tonelab is that it's A/D and D/A conversion is 20 bits as opposed as the Pod XT, which is 24 bits. I record in 24 bit and I wonder if there's a difference in sound between the two bit rates. Probably not much, if any.

Earnest Bovine · Post by **Earnest Bovine** » 27 Oct 2003 4:06 pm

20 bits as opposed as the Pod XT, which is 24 bits. I record in 24 bit and I wonder if there's a difference in sound between the two bit rates. Probably not much, if any.

I think the difference is somewhere around 4 bits.

Brad Sarno · Post by **Brad Sarno** » 27 Oct 2003 4:34 pm

The leap from 16bits to 20bits is huge and audible. The move from 20bits to 24bits is often neglegible. However with digital, the bits refer to the resolution of the total dynamic range of signal amplitude, from silent to loudest. For example, if you record to DAT, 16bits, and you have very low recording levels, you may be only using 10-14 bits or so, maybe less. A 20bit device may have you in the 14 to 16 bit range if you have safe levels with headroom left. With a 24bit device you are probably using 18 to 20 most of the time. Contrary to popular belief, getting the highest possible levels really matters in digital. Even on a digital guitar effect like a POD or a Profex (16bit), you want to feed the device the hottest signal you can safely get away with without clipping the A/D converter. That's why 24 bits is so popular now. Even at low levels you've still got pretty high resolution. If you look at the math, the orders of magnitude of improvement from 16bits to 20 or 24 are huge.

The easiest way to demonstrate this is to record something into a digital device at extremely low levels and then take that low level file and crank it way way up to loud. Then record the same thing at a hot level and compare the two. You'll hear the loss of detail, unpleasant graniness, reverbs dissapearing, weird overtones and subharmonic distortion, etc. on the low level one.

So short answer, the 20bit VOX shouldn't really suffer for not being 24bits. 20 is adequate for something like that. IMHO.

Brad Sarno

Rich Weiss · Post by **Rich Weiss** » 27 Oct 2003 5:26 pm

Thanks Brad.

Earnest, leave me alone.

[This message was edited by Rich Weiss on 27 October 2003 at 05:27 PM.]

Earnest Bovine · Post by **Earnest Bovine** » 27 Oct 2003 6:22 pm

You're welcome, Rich. I majored in math so this kind of ciphering just comes natural. Let me know if I can help with anything else.

Eric West · Post by **Eric West** » 27 Oct 2003 7:31 pm

Well I've been fooling aroune with the monster for about 4 hours, and I can't make heads or tails of a lot of it.

I started out with the blackface super, and got it tweaked up real nice and hot.

I'm going to have to weed through the delays, only one of which is stereo, and can't be programmed to have just one echo. The reverbs aren't stereo either.

I like the auto-pan, and the "leslie type" phase shifter. ( The "leslie: isn't stereo either, nor are the "vibes".)

I don't have the slightest idea what a steel player would use 90 percent of the stuff in this thing for. Make that 95 %.

The other 5 however seem to be worth is presuming I can get about 5 settings that I really like and easily switch them.

Considering I've owned about three stomp boxes, and just a noisier than heck RV-3, I think I'll get along with this thing just fine.

I'd really rather still use my korg inline tuner as the tuning function shuts off the output.

It'll be a day or so til I put the USB in and see how my computer likes it.

So far, it's prety damn quiet wih the output down to a reasonable level, and I like what I've gotten out of it.

We'll see. Maybe it'll just be a two month test run.

EJL

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 27 Oct 2003 10:16 pm

The POD XT tuner doesn't work well below about the 6th string.

Eric West · Post by **Eric West** » 28 Oct 2003 1:28 am

Well after a few hours I think I'm getting the hang of it. The USB doesn't give a strong enough signal for Sonic forge, but we'll see if Cajewalk does any better. Took awhile for the downloads, and JEEZ there's a lot of amp models.

Everything I've come up with has been better than my original amp settings so it looks good so far. Just gotta get rid of those surprise overdrive channels when "surfing" or they'll take your ears out..

Tomorrow's another day..

EJL

Rich Weiss · Post by **Rich Weiss** » 28 Oct 2003 11:01 am

Well, I'm an idiot. I just went and bought a Tonelab, ($467) nothing like going against the herd.

I figure I've got 15 days to demo it. If I don't like it, full refund.
30 days, if I don't like it I can swap out for and XT. Now to plug it in and see what's up.

Jon Light (deceased) · Post by **Jon Light (deceased)** » 28 Oct 2003 12:35 pm

re: the Pod tuner (as always, I'm referencing the Pod 2 with no knowledge of the similarities/differences in the XT)--although I find it useless for my tweaked tuning--I want a readout in cents/hertz--you can choose whether the tuner function mutes the signal or not. I think--not certain I'm recalling correctly--that it involves turning down the channel volume while holding down the tuner button? Or holding the tap button and turning down the channel while in tuner mode? Something like that.

Gino Iorfida · Post by **Gino Iorfida** » 28 Oct 2003 2:01 pm

As for the VOX tonelab, ti's basically the preamp from the Vox Valvetronix amp. I"m getting my Valvetronix back by the end of the week and it will be for sale (in short, I used it for guitar for a while and it did a pretty good job of emulating a twin, but with some flexibility) but the Peavey Transformer definitely was more it for what I wanted on 6 string (better footswitch, better laid out efx for 6 string, more power-- and best of all, it is a Peavey

.... was OK for steel, but nothing great. seemed a bit thin, and had no headroom, however, if it ws used infront of a better/larger power amp.

Personally, I think the POD XT would be a better choice for steel than the Vox Tonelab, but then again it's only from experience with similar products (i.e. Pod 2.0 vs Vox Valvetronix)

Brad Sarno · Post by **Brad Sarno** » 28 Oct 2003 2:34 pm

Rich, we expect a thorough report on our desks by monday on the Vox Tonelab.

Sincerely,

The XT Board Members

Rich Weiss · Post by **Rich Weiss** » 28 Oct 2003 5:37 pm

Do I have to wait till Monday?
Well, here's a first impression. It's a good sized box with lots of knobs, which I like. It's very easy to use and it's intuitive, especially if you're used to a Pod.
It sounded very good just being played through my little Peavey Rage practice amp. I knew I liked it because I didn't look up for three hours. It's obviously meant for guitar players, cause it want's you to use the valve distortion feature. There's 48 presets and they are mostly fuzzy sounding. It does have some clean presets, one in particular is called Nashville, which I like, and which can be tweaked any number of ways. You can use a four Fender amp models and the same amount of cabinet models to mix the sound. So that's a lot of possible combinations from one clean sound. The rest of the simulations are all bsed Vox models.
3 different reverbs and 3 ways to tweak them. A lot of effects...

When I plugged it into my Neve 1272 preamp and recorded in Pro Tools, I thought it sucked at first, everything was distoring, then I remembered to switch from 'amp' to 'line', in the rear of the unit. I switched the button and it sounded good again. I like it so far, especially as a direct box for line recording. It might be a bit overkill for a steel player, but who knows? But for my studio, I think it will will work.... so far. :}

[This message was edited by Rich Weiss on 28 October 2003 at 06:05 PM.]