POD XT

[vintagevibe]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b]<> Okay, I always thought the Roland gear was not "pure" DSP-based digital modeling, but if it was, I certainly stand corrected.[/b][/quote]My understanding (I could be wrong) is that the COSM (Roland's Modeling) is pure DSP but that they the built in stomp box sounds (Dist, O/D etc...) are analog. When I first heard the POD I bought it on the spot. They have a certian "real" quality that I didn't immediatly hear in the Roland stuff. After working with the Roland I found that 'in the mix' I got way more sounds that worked than I did on the POD. Also theFX in the Roland totally blew away tye POD IMO. Now the XT might be another story. I'm quite interested in hearing one.

[Salyphus]

Hey Craig, thanks so much for your thorough responses! :thu: The main reason the battery thing is an issue for me is because mine did in fact die after less than 2 years :( I opened the thing up to replace it but I'm not comfortable enough with my soldering skills to risk frying the thing. So the only option at that time was to ship it back and pay to have it serviced, which I still haven't done. At least now there is a service center in the Bay Area, back then mailing it was the only option. Still need to get that done (note to self) I will say that Line6 are really good about sending out OS upgrades for free though.

[Duhduh]

[quote]Originally posted by guitplayer: [b]And what's the story with the two pedals being nearly as much as the PODxt itself. Whoa. That's not a good thing. I can't imagine using my POD classic without the pedal board, but that makes the PODxt nearly $800 with the nicer "two pedal" board. That ain't right! guitplayer[/b][/quote]Actually, they came out with a new, smaller floorboard for the PODxt. I think its cheaper...?

[Jotown]

[quote]Originally posted by Dylan W: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Jotown: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Dylan W: [b]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jotown: Does the Pod XT have a digital out?.[/b][/quote]The only type of digital I/O it has is a USB connection for your computer. There is no AES/EBU or S/PDIF type output.[/b][/quote]Excuse my igonrance but does that mean that I will need a USB supported audio interface? Or can I just plug it into the USB port on my computer? Thanks in advance.[/b][/quote]The XT acts as a stan-alone soundcard in the same way that the Guitar Port does, so there is no need for any other hardware.

---

Thanks, again excuse my ignorance. I have never used a USB audio device. So, I could just plug into my USB port and record right into Pro tools? I didn't think that PT allowed any other hardware to talk to it. I also have CubaseSX and Sonar, with a RME Hammerfal Digi 96/24. Do you know if I could just find that USB port in the software, like a USB midi device? Sorry for all the questions, just a bit confused. Thanks again.

[pbognar]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b]I'm getting one any day now to review for EQ. Basically, its ancestor is the Vetta amp, which has a lot more dynamic range and is considerably cleaner than the Old School POD. What I heard at AES sounded very "hi-fi," especially in terms of getting rid of that aliasing at high frequencies. I'll keep you posted.[/b][/quote](Long winded message to follow...) I downloaded the pdf owners manual, and one thing that was either not in the manual, or not in the product was the ability to change the order of the effects - eg. in my opinion, a phaser sounds much better before distortion... Also, if memory serves, the location of the volume pedal left something to be desired (for me) - my optimal position for the volume pedal is after distortion, but before delay/reverb, so that you can swell in/out a fully distorted sound into delay/reverb with full on distortion, rather than affecting the gain of the distortion. The product does sound cool, if the models and effects are cool. Right now I've got a Boss GT-5, and you can reconfigure just about anything in that box. The two features I miss are Rotary Speaker and a decent tube-like solo distortion tone. (I use the GT-5 through a keyboard amp with good results, and I know box inside out). I also have a DG-80, which has excellent lead tone and feel, but it's clean tone isn't as Fender or Jazz Chorus "spanky" as I'd like it to be. (The Celestion speaker probably doesn't help the clean tones...) I have tried using the DG-80 in conjunction with the GT-5, but the preamp out of the DG-80 (for distortion only) is too hot, and the the GT-5 doesn't have a trim function in the effects return loop... I should have bought a DG-Stomp when Yamaha had the $50 rebate... Sorry, I digress - I was hoping that the PODxt could be used live to go anywhere from a squeeky clean Jazz Chorus sound, all the way to a Recto sound, along with some order assignable effects (including rotary, and well placed volume pedal. They can put a man on the moon... My ideal rig would be a DG-80 which could reproduce spanky clean sounds, and have some additional effects, such as compression, phaser, auto wah, rotary speaker, and the ability to order the effects - is this too much to ask? Pete

[GeorgeVW]

[quote]Originally posted by pbognar: [b] I downloaded the pdf owners manual, and one thing that was either not in the manual, or not in the product was the ability to change the order of the effects - eg. in my opinion, a phaser sounds much better before distortion... Also, if memory serves, the location of the volume pedal left something to be desired (for me) - my optimal position for the volume pedal is after distortion, but before delay/reverb, so that you can swell in/out a fully distorted sound into delay/reverb with full on distortion, rather than affecting the gain of the distortion. Pete[/b][/quote]There's a reasonable amount of flexibility in the routing in PODxt. Modulation effects, delays, and reverb can be placed pre or post amp modeling, as can the volume pedal. The post volume pedal is before the post effects (ie. between the virtual mic'd cab and the mod, delay, and reverb), so your scenario is what it was designed to do. George

[michael saulnier]

I picked up a PODxt this weekend to evaluate. My first impression. An improvement in many ways from the original POD. I hear less "artifacts than with the POD, although it's still not quite a replacement for a "real" amp. Like most, the first thing I did was make a quick tour through the presets. This is usually NOT a good way to evaluate the true merit of something like this, since the presets tend to be chock full of overdone effects and wierdness. Generally speaking the PODxt is no different. Out of the 60 presets, I found about 10 that would be immediately useful for me. I don't know if that's good or bad. BUT, When I started tweeking my own sounds I found MANY more interesting sounds. Of the new features, there are a few that seem to make a big difference compared to the previous model. Other than the newer generation chip,(which gives an "overall" better model), the inclusion of stomp box models and mic models offer a whole set of tones not available before. The stomp box models combined with the various amps HUGELY increase the number of available sound options. I could quickly create useable clean sounds with many of the models, (I especially liked the new Marshall variations), and then using a stomp box, create a version that was boosted, overdriven, distorted, flanged, phased... well you get the picture. There's a lot here to play with. The mic models, (only 4... wish there were more), each provided a distinct change in the sound quality. So you can think of this as giving you yet another "set" of options... Here's how I think about it. - First all the individual models and their parameter settings for drive, eq, presence. - Then mix any of these with all the cab models and the change in tone they provide. - Then try any of the 4 mic models and the way THEY change the sound. - Then some set of stomp boxes, modulation, delay and reverb types. - Then the decision to go direct, into a poweramp and speakers, or into a regular amp... It's almost a little TOO much... if there's such a thing. :eek: The flexibility of these options alone probably justifies keeping this for me... primarily as a recording device. If you're totally opposed to modelers or just can't find a way to use the sounds they make... then the PODxt still won't be for you. If you mainly play live, don't record much, and have a live rig you love the sound of... this probably won't help you much. If you DO like to record, like to experiment with lots of different effects, sounds, amps, cabs, mics, and so on... then this is a world of fun. Who knows if they've reached "exact" models of these amps and pedals? I personally don't use this as my criteria. I ask, can I make some cool and useful sounds? So far, my answer is yes. Is this a major improvement from the POD 2? IMHO, absolutely. Am I going to get rid of my POD 2? No, I'll keep it for "bi-amping" purposes. I do wish they had a "sound diver" type software package to catalog patches. With so many options, I'm sure to develop many and other than storing them in the device, I'm left to writing them out? :eek: And I KNOW I'm going to want one of the pedal boards. Damn. That's gonna make the whole thing REAL expensive. Oh well. guitplayer

[Anderton]

Fed Ex just dropped off my XT, and surprisingly, the foot pedal too. Hopefully, I'll be plugging it in later tonight.

[Jotown]

Hey Craig, If you get a second check out my previous post and clarify the USB thing for me. I am still not sure how that works. Thanks in advance.

[Jotown]

Bump,.

[RABid]

Here is a bit different perspective. I have a POD v2 and it is good enough to practice guitar through headphones. My intended use, however, is to play keyboards through it. My primary accomplice to the POD is a Nord Modular Rack. The Nord frequently benefits from the fattening and mangling of the POD. In the keyboard world the POD v2 is considered a great accessory. It gives us just what we want, a different sound for our synths. Does anyone really know what a synth sounds like through a vintage Mesa Boogie? I would not even ask my friend if I can blast my Nord through his circa 1980 Boogie. I also have to wonder how the percentage of guitarists with PODs compares with the percentage of keyboardists with PODs. Robert

[monster]

I played a Tele into a Podxt last weekend for about an hour. On the surface, the sound was ok. People into tweaking programs will like it as far as mixing effects and amps. I didn't really care for the way the buttons were laid out except for the basic ones like on a Pod 2.0. I use a Pod 2.0 at home and prefer the simpler operation and it sounds better to my ears.

[Anderton]

Okay, got some answers for ya. There is a USB port that currently does...nothing. I understand drivers that allow PODxt to serve as an audio interface are just leaving beta, and that PODxt will also be able to do all the things GuitarPort does. Cool. There is no digital out per se, but given the ability to use it as an audio interface that can blast signals directly into my DAW, that works for me. Another tidbit of info: there is no editor/librarian packed with the unit, but I hear there will be a flash-based editor on the web, sort of like an online "tone locker." However, I'm sure "studio panels" for PODxt will start cropping up soon, like the POD one for Sonar. Also, a lot of the parameters are MIDI-controllable, so you can use a hardware fader box for programming, and save the results. As to the PODxt itself...I think the 4-line LCD is a major improvement. But I also have to say that the sound quality is really great, very refined. I still like the POD's "brash" sound quality, though; it has its own charm. But the PODxt is way more focused in its sound. Also, you can tweak everything from the front panel -- with the original POD, the ONLY way to access some parameters was via MIDI. Bottom line: it costs more, but does a whole lot more (the stomp box emulations are great) and the sound quality reflects the higher bit resolution and faster processors compared to "POD classique." Yummy!

[D. Gauss]

does it sound "thinner" than the original POD? seem to have heard some folks complaining about that on harmonycentral...... -d. gauss

[Jotown]

Hey Craig, Thanks for answering the USB question for me. I have a J-Station, and a Roland VG8. I was putting off my Pod purchase, but I think that the Pod XT is what I have been waiting for from Line6. Thanks again.

[Anderton]

<> That's not the word I would use. The original POD had more "splatter" from some of the artifacts and aliasing, which some people like. PODxt is cleaner, but to me, it's far more focused. I think it cuts better in a track because of that; it claims a particular sonic space, and fills it to the edges. The original POD claimed a larger sonic space, but some of that space is more diffused. Also remember that you can program the hell out of the PODxt. It is possible to get thinner sounds if that's your thing, but there are plenty of chunky sounds. I found that the 1x12 cab models tended to give the fattest sounds. This may sound weird, but playing through it puts a smile on my face, it just sounds so damn pleasing. I really like it. As some of you may remember, though, I still like splitting guitar into two devices and combining them. I'll be interested to see if mixing another box in with the PODxt makes the sound better or worse.

[Jotown]

[quote]This may sound weird, but playing through it puts a smile on my face, it just sounds so damn pleasing. I really like it.[/quote]Wow! A gizmo that puts a smile on your face. That is a pretty strong endorsement. My original stuff doesnt usually have much heavy guitar on it. Focused and clean are words that appeal to my specific needs. Can't wait to get mine. Thanks again for the feedback. Now Craig, if you were just editing this forum we would miss out on valuable stuff like this. Don't go away.