An inquiry for Line 6 POD owners

[SeanW]

Since I am on a tight budget and can't afford to buy various equipments, I'm trying to find a single unit that contains everything you need to have decent recording on your computer. One of the ones I was looking at was the MBox. The unit that was mostly recommended to me was the Line 6 POD xt. I'd appreciate it if any owners out there or knowledgeable persons could tell me what they think about this product, how the direct recording function works and the quality of the recording.

Thanks

[skunkyfunk]

Since I am on a tight budget and can't afford to buy various equipments, I'm trying to find a single unit that contains everything you need to have decent recording on your computer. One of the ones I was looking at was the MBox. The unit that was mostly recommended to me was the Line 6 POD xt. I'd appreciate it if any owners out there or knowledgeable persons could tell me what they think about this product, how the direct recording function works and the quality of the recording.

Thanks

Here is my serious view on the subject as both a guitarplayer and a procucer/sound tinkerer...

I honestly believe NOTHING STILL BEATS MIKING DIFFERENT AMPS...  yes DIFFERENT AMPS for DIFFERENT FOLKS.  One of the major faults of recordings in the local music business is the absence of a holistic approach to finding one's tone.  It stems from the "I gig with pedals, a guitar AND NO AMP..." kind of attitude.  Convenience is superior to finding godly tone... Hence the big de-emphasis on amps as being a major investment of guitar players.  So how does that affect the production and recording values of most?  We settle for "puwede na yan" type of gear.  IMHO, the Line 6 PODXT and all other modellers still fall short to one thing - THE ABSENCE OF "AIR" being pushed, and the unexplainable desirability of the topology of the circuits of different amps. 

While I deem digital modelling as a big step for impoverished musicians like me, I still don't think they sound as good as what they model. Much worse if you don't know how to use them.  And for you to use them well is to know how real amps behave in real life in the first place.  I hear a lot of studio engineers abroad who re-amp (i.e. using the dry guitar signal through an amp/DI modeller setup) through PODs who still get desireable results because they know how good amps and godly amps sound when recorded.  It is pretty much like using keyboards versus real instruments... the digital samples are getting better and better through time, but you still feel the difference.  But for the poor pianist, his way to get a Bosendorfer sound is through Bosendorfer samples in his keyboard...  Same thing with synth software if you wanna get a MOOG or a Hammond B3 without spending as much.

Ask yourself, are you after more tones, or specializing a few specific but great tones?

[SeanW]

I agree with you on several points, and prefer actual amps over digitized effects but like I said its not in my budget to buy a high-end amp. My main interest in the POD is for its recording capabilities, not so much on its hundreds of different effects I find unnecessary in my music.
I'm also very flexible on the sound this device will give me. I don't expect the amps to sound as good as the real ones, because thats okay for me. My only concern is that they are decent sounding.

[xjepoyx]

Shinji Tanaka (astrobog) the owner od Sound Creations Studio uses Line 6 POD ... i dont know exactly the model but i think its the PODxt. AFAIK most of his recordings he uses this. Most of it are already released in Major Record Label.

IMHO as long as you have the "ears" on what really sound you want to have and come out on your track... No need to do the hassle of miking the guitar amp.

[abyssinianson]

Since I am on a tight budget and can't afford to buy various equipments, I'm trying to find a single unit that contains everything you need to have decent recording on your computer. One of the ones I was looking at was the MBox. The unit that was mostly recommended to me was the Line 6 POD xt. I'd appreciate it if any owners out there or knowledgeable persons could tell me what they think about this product, how the direct recording function works and the quality of the recording.

Thanks

the POD would be good for you. the POD line for bass and guitar get the job done and it would be more than enough to start recording with it to produce great sounding tracks. Personally, I have nothing against PODS; i enjoy them and I have more than enough amps and recording gear to choose from when I work on projects. The bottom line is, I ain't no purist so I will use whatever works to get the job done and Line 6 makes great stuff that will get you started. Pros use Line 6 products a lot and, as jepoy pointed out, as long as you have the ears to produce great sounds, you will be more than equipped to produce great tracks. However, the MBox is a full blown digital audio interface while the POD Xt Pro or whatever is not. If you want, you can buy the MBox and use the programs that come with it until you cna get a dedicated processing DI gadget like the guitar or bass POD. This way, you can have a proper sequencing environment to record, mix and edit your songs.

[rakrakan]

Based on your situation, the POD will serve you well, fantastic emulations of guitar heads and cabs - lots of parameters to tweak and control. That it's a hardware box means less overhead on your DAW, too.

I have tube amps in my studio but oftentimes a seasoned guitar player will just ask for the POD to go direct to ProTools - and produce really beautiful tones and music - it's on the player's hands as well.

(hint) if you can (actually you must) get a nice tube preamp (mono is ok - stereo/dual is better) and run the POD through it ....

good luck with your quest for tone!

btw, I'm a proud dad to 3 PODs. POD v1. POD v2 and a Bass POD. 

[brianb]

SeanW, you should have attended the M-Audio demo of the Black Box last week. I snapped a pic of Mike Elgar's setup with my phonecam:

Click on the thumbnail for a closer look.

You'll see a Zoom effect box used for boost only (so he says), a Digitech Whammy (because he uses a hardtail guitar), and the Black Box in the middle. The rightmost box is a pedal board that controls the Black Box.

According to Mr. Elgar, this is the actual setup he uses both on stage and when recording. The Black Box has a built-in audio interface, and connects to your computer via USB.

I'm actually trying to go even further, eliminating external effect boxes altogether and doing everything in software (recording thru a decent audio interface, of course). Check out the sticky thread for free VST plugins. I tried the ones from BTE Audio and they sound pretty good to my ears.

[starfugger]

yeah id like to try the pod too. looks very promising. there are days when u simply wanna plug and play diba? 

[abyssinianson]

yeah id like to try the pod too. looks very promising. there are days when u simply wanna plug and play diba? 

same here. i am actually thinking about picking up the bass and guitar Xt Pro modules. i've played around with both and find them very  versatile.

[xjepoyx]

how bout Native Instrument's Guitar Rig 2?

[brianb]

how bout Native Instrument's Guitar Rig 2?

Or Amplitube.

[x_taxi]

i'd personally recommend the sansamp, it's another cheap alternative.  works very well with stomp boxes and multi effects.  but you'll still need an audio interface to get stuff recorded.

but if you're loyal to line6, maybe the toneport's a good option:



 

[xjepoyx]

i'd personally recommend the sansamp, it's another cheap alternative.  works very well with stomp boxes and multi effects.  but you'll still need an audio interface to get stuff recorded.

but if you're loyal to line6, maybe the toneport's a good option:



 

ive heard lots of great stuffs about the toneport. i know a  friend /forumite (phoenix_rising) who uses it alot. Mico post mo naman experience mo with the tone port

[skunkyfunk]

I think I am quite OC about guitar tone.  Here are some of my experiences with software:

Guitar Rig - great emulations, but if you have a not-so-nice sound card, you might deal with latency issues.  The finger response is so flat, the high gain sounds are so noisy... not the hum type of noise but the problem with amplifying decimation noise.  It's that SHHHHHHHHHH sound you get from digital multi-fx, only more apparent.  Use ASIO for best results.  But what I like is the number of fx you can put, and I loved the synth emulations best.  But for distortion, forget it... it shouldn't be a problem to use distortion pedals in front of the PC, except if you want to track the guitar dry and later on send it for reamping.

Amplitube - I prefer GR to this, and I don't recommend it at all.  The emulations are not as good as GR, and same noise + latency issues. Use ASIO for best results as well.

I do have to admit that versatility-wise, modellers do the job well. 

 

[abyssinianson]

how bout Native Instrument's Guitar Rig 2?

I use the Guitar Rig for my laptop stuff. Great for working on projects out of the studio. The pedal board is sturdy too. The emulations sound decent - not too bad. I use the thing with ableton live and I am a happy camper.

[KitC]

The thing with software amp sims is that no matter how good your soundcard is, you will always have latency issues whenever you monitor through software. These should be used 'reamp' style where you track the clean signal simultaneously with an amped signal. This gives you the flexibility to put the clean signal through whatever amp sim you prefer during the mixing/production stage. To merely concern yourself with setting the ampsim only during tracking is severely limiting, IMO.

As for the 'decimation noise', it sounds like either low bitrate files or, possibly, dither. If you set the gain too low in a digital device, in both input and output, you aren't utilizing the more important bits... literally. Low levels don't utilize the full 16- or 24-bit bandwidth of the A/D/A converters; it's at the 'lower' end where the so-called 'quantization error' noise exists that's why it's recommended that you adjust gain to to a few db below clipping when recording in digital. With analog, the rational for this was to avoid the noise floor. Take care with input distortion, however, since digital distortion isn't as 'warm' sounding as analog distortion (translated: digital distortion sounds like crap).

[skunkyfunk]

The thing with software amp sims is that no matter how good your soundcard is, you will always have latency issues whenever you monitor through software. These should be used 'reamp' style where you track the clean signal simultaneously with an amped signal. This gives you the flexibility to put the clean signal through whatever amp sim you prefer during the mixing/production stage. To merely concern yourself with setting the ampsim only during tracking is severely limiting, IMO.

As for the 'decimation noise', it sounds like either low bitrate files or, possibly, dither. If you set the gain too low in a digital device, in both input and output, you aren't utilizing the more important bits... literally. Low levels don't utilize the full 16- or 24-bit bandwidth of the A/D/A converters; it's at the 'lower' end where the so-called 'quantization error' noise exists that's why it's recommended that you adjust gain to to a few db below clipping when recording in digital. With analog, the rational for this was to avoid the noise floor. Take care with input distortion, however, since digital distortion isn't as 'warm' sounding as analog distortion (translated: digital distortion sounds like crap).

Well, actually THAT is the problem.  Guitars, when plugged straight to anything, can yield a huge range of dynamic response.  It seems that it is quite prone to peaking at 0dBFS, hence the need for a compressor before the signal hits the disks.  But that can also be another problem - the loss of finger/playing response. 

[KitC]

Well, actually THAT is the problem.  Guitars, when plugged straight to anything, can yield a huge range of dynamic response.  It seems that it is quite prone to peaking at 0dBFS, hence the need for a compressor before the signal hits the disks.  But that can also be another problem - the loss of finger/playing response. 

This sounds more like playing technique than anything else. Some others do put a limiter just before the converters, so that is the first line of defense against clipping. As long as compression/limiting is done in the analog domain, there should be no problem.

As for dynamic response, unless you are tracking jazz or classical, most distorted guitars hardly have a great deal of dynamic response. More often than not, you have to hit an amp hard to get the response you want. Where's the dynamics in that?

[skunkyfunk]

As for dynamic response, unless you are tracking jazz or classical, most distorted guitars hardly have a great deal of dynamic response. More often than not, you have to hit an amp hard to get the response you want. Where's the dynamics in that?

Say you wanna record chugg riffs, and do some lead passages somewhere in the middle of the riffs, in a legato fashion or maybe in an arpeggiated fashion.  The dynamics of the palm-muted E strings need a lot of punch, and when you do power chords, the volume becomes way too loud.  And during the time you do the lead passages, your signal becomes tinny.

Experience tells me that a great tube amp can have very musical compression which leads to better playing... I just can't get it with software.  Maybe some folks cannot tell the difference between a real JCM800 boosted with a TS808 AND a GR JCM800 emulation with the boost on.  But the noise really gets in the way of my playing.   

[KitC]

Say you wanna record chugg riffs, and do some lead passages somewhere in the middle of the riffs, in a legato fashion or maybe in an arpeggiated fashion.  The dynamics of the palm-muted E strings need a lot of punch, and when you do power chords, the volume becomes way too loud.  And during the time you do the lead passages, your signal becomes tinny.

You mean to tell me you put all that on one track?  No wonder your signal becomes tinny.

[skunkyfunk]

Say you wanna record chugg riffs, and do some lead passages somewhere in the middle of the riffs, in a legato fashion or maybe in an arpeggiated fashion.  The dynamics of the palm-muted E strings need a lot of punch, and when you do power chords, the volume becomes way too loud.  And during the time you do the lead passages, your signal becomes tinny.

You mean to tell me you put all that on one track?  No wonder your signal becomes tinny.

If you do a lot of prog stuff, yes sometimes that calls for one track.  Of course one might argue that you need to punch here and there, but in reality, amps don't behave like that.  Software seems to be treated much differently compared to amps and their hardware stompbox counterparts.  Pretty much like comparing real pianos and sampled pianos. 

Put it this way... mic a jcm800 marshall with an sm57 and a U87. Use a good mic preamp. Then from your guitar, use a DI box and get a para out to get that signal and send to the amp. In addition, get the DI out of the guitar and send that to your DAW and use Guitar Rig. If both setups behave the same, I rest my case.

[BAMF]

I respect both approaches, and both have their place in the world.

IMHO lang however, it's a "use what works" thing.

Like, if the guitar parts are just comps or small riffs and are set at the background, and the real "bida" is the vocals...it might be too tedious and overkill to mike a JCM800 with 57's and a U87. That's where DI's and VST's and PODxt's shine. Yes I've used those and at best they do sound pretty good, if not awesome.

But if you're recording a guitar god, who's very particular about his tone, recording his blistering solos... then I believe, you gotta give him what he wants else he will look for a studio that will. 

Wow. That sounded cliche'. Then again, I'm more of other things than I am a recording engineer

[BAMF]

Well, actually THAT is the problem.  Guitars, when plugged straight to anything, can yield a huge range of dynamic response.  It seems that it is quite prone to peaking at 0dBFS, hence the need for a compressor before the signal hits the disks.  But that can also be another problem - the loss of finger/playing response. 

This sounds more like playing technique than anything else. Some others do put a limiter just before the converters, so that is the first line of defense against clipping. As long as compression/limiting is done in the analog domain, there should be no problem.

As for dynamic response, unless you are tracking jazz or classical, most distorted guitars hardly have a great deal of dynamic response. More often than not, you have to hit an amp hard to get the response you want. Where's the dynamics in that?

Amen there Bos Kit. Analog stomp distortions, by nature of their circuitry, require a squashing of the signal to get through that "gain wall". Although there are instances din where a very good amp or stomp will have a certain clean headroom (sometimes controllable from the guitar volume control) and will hit the clipping stage when the guitarist opens up (either with his volume knob or picking technique). If the guitarer is the type that plays with this kind of dynamics, then a clean-up stomp or tube amp will have its place in the set-up.

But if the guitarer plays straight distortion, the very nature of distortion will result in compression and a limitation of dynamics.

Hmmm...2nd edit...in our studio experience, we've never had to put a compressor after the mikes . Just setting the guitar amp's volume and then levelling on the pre's / board is generally enough. So long as you don't have a guitarist who steps on a gain stomp in the middle of a take, everything is always fine with this setup. It shouldn't matter because the "clean" and "hi-gain" portions are almost always taken in different takes and tracks, complete with their own levelling routines.

[starfugger]

I respect both approaches, and both have their place in the world.

IMHO lang however, it's a "use what works" thing.

Like, if the guitar parts are just comps or small riffs and are set at the background, and the real "bida" is the vocals...it might be too tedious and overkill to mike a JCM800 with 57's and a U87. That's where DI's and VST's and PODxt's shine. Yes I've used those and at best they do sound pretty good, if not awesome.

But if you're recording a guitar god, who's very particular about his tone, recording his blistering solos... then I believe, you gotta give him what he wants else he will look for a studio that will. 

Wow. That sounded cliche'. Then again, I'm more of other things than I am a recording engineer

true.  there are times when micing is juuuuuust a pain... or budget simply wont allow.  this is where the pod/amplitube/GR comes in 

[abyssinianson]

As for dynamic response, unless you are tracking jazz or classical, most distorted guitars hardly have a great deal of dynamic response. More often than not, you have to hit an amp hard to get the response you want. Where's the dynamics in that?

Say you wanna record chugg riffs, and do some lead passages somewhere in the middle of the riffs, in a legato fashion or maybe in an arpeggiated fashion.  The dynamics of the palm-muted E strings need a lot of punch, and when you do power chords, the volume becomes way too loud.  And during the time you do the lead passages, your signal becomes tinny.

Experience tells me that a great tube amp can have very musical compression which leads to better playing... I just can't get it with software.  Maybe some folks cannot tell the difference between a real JCM800 boosted with a TS808 AND a GR JCM800 emulation with the boost on.  But the noise really gets in the way of my playing.   

you ought to have a rhythm track and then a lead track separated for two reasons. both parts of a song are subject to different eq settings to bring out the best of the parts. live this is not possible but it ain't a big deal since playing at 100db for the metal genre is less about subtleties when playing live. bottom line is, what works for rhythm playng does not necessarily translate well to lead playing when you are talking about eqs, compression settings and whatever else you want to apply to a guitar signal. in my experience working in a studio, all parts of a song are broken down to separate tracks no matter what genre you are working with - dance, rock, folk, metal, pop, whatever - lumping guitars together into one track creates more problems than solutions. the same applies to drums and, in some cases, bass where a resulting bass mix is actually a blend of a DI or multiple amp setup.

i suspect that the tinny result of your track is because of you lumping together everything for guitars into one channel. it might work for convenience sake but to give yourself more headroom, flesh your parts out to different channels for better results and more flexibility.