LINE 6 FLOOR POD (Guitar Processor) - NOW WITH CONCLUSIONS!

[BeowulfKingsley]

Well, I got the sound clips working...thanks for the info! They sound great, too. Man, for the price it's a pretty tempting alternative to the big pile 'o pedals on a board, and the programability is a great thing in itself. How many user presets are there, and can you scroll through them easily?

[Anderton]

There are a total of 64 presets. They come loaded with factory sounds; you can overwrite any/all of them, as well as reset to the factory defaults.

Program selection is done with up/down footswitches. There is no way to do random access, for example, jump instantly from preset 32 to preset 56. Each time you press a footswitch it increments or decrements one preset, or you can hold to scroll through them faster.

[Anderton]

Regarding the sound clips...glad you got it working, and thanks Jonmatifa for the additional info.

Just remember that the clips are MP3, 64kbps, so the actual fidelity of the box is considerably nicer. However, I do think the examples gets across the "attitude" of the various models pretty well.

[Anderton]

Now let’s get to the other controls. We’ve already covered the Amp Model control, but there’s a cluster of controls immediately above it – click on the attachment to see them.

These controls all do double-duty. The default functions are Drive, Bass, and Treble, but if you hold down the Save button while turning the knob, they take on their “alternate identities” of Compressor, Mid, and Presence respectively.

The feel and sound of the controls is very much like the passive, analog controls found on older amps. In these amps, the tone controls were usually lossy, with gain being made up elsewhere. The filter curves were fairly gentle and broad; you didn’t get the “plastic” sound you sometimes hear with active, fairly resonant tone controls.

It did seem that the action of the controls varied somewhat with different models, but I couldn’t really tell if this was deliberate, or just a byproduct of how the amp model affected the tone (e.g., if the amp isn’t as bright, then it seems logical that turning up the treble wouldn’t produce as dramatic an effect). I know that with the “big brother” PODs, there’s a fair amount of attention paid to having the tone controls emulate the tone control action of the amps being modeled, so it wouldn’t surprise me if that’s a part of the Floor POD gestalt as well.

As to the tone controls, rather than provide audio examples – you probably know what turning up a bass or treble control does to a sound – we’ll look at frequency response charts that show where the action is happening, and to what extent. But first, let’s cover re-amping with the Floor POD, as that’s a vital aspect of conducting these tests.

[Anderton]

For those who aren’t clear about the concept of re-amping, this is a studio technique that allows putting off decisions about tone until mixdown. Recording your guitar part used to set its sound in stone. Although you could add processors like EQ, reverb, decay, and the like while mixing, they altered the basic sound, but couldn’t provide an entirely different sound.

However, re-amping is a way around this. Maybe you wish you’d recorded through a more modern, overdriven sound than a “blackface” vintage type of sound: No problem. Although much re-amping is done these days with software, the technique had its origins in hardware, and the Floor POD is excellent for doing re-amping.

The basic idea is that while recording, you record the straight (unprocessed) guitar sound while monitoring through your processed sound (in this case, the Floor POD). Typically, you’d use a preamp or buffer to split off the unprocessed sound.

To change the amp sound while mixing, you feed the unprocessed track into the Floor POD, patch the Floor POD output to an open track, choose the sound you want, and re-record the processed sound to a separate track.

So why does this matter in the context of this review? Because I needed to use the exact same source signal in order to conduct valid frequency response tests. I didn’t trust myself to play the exact same riff at the exact same level with the exact same style each time, so I recorded my part with the Floor POD set to bypass (no amp model) into Sonar. The tone controls have no effect when the amp models are bypassed so I knew they weren’t influencing the sound.

I then routed the track out through the Floor POD (set to the Clean Red amp sound), and was careful not to clip any levels at any point in the signal chain. I then played back the Floor POD sound into a Sonar track using a particular tone control tweak, and monitored the results with Sonar’s Analyst plug-in to see which frequencies were being affected.

[Anderton]

Click on the attachment to see how the bass and treble controls affect the sound. The top graph shows a flat response, with the tone knobs and their “alternate identities” set to their mid-positions.

 

The next graph down shows what happens if you turn the bass control up full. The response is pretty much the same as the upper graph above 320Hz. There’s a bit of a boost between 160 and 340Hz, but check out the response below 160Hz: The response at 80Hz is almost 10dB above the flat response, and about 7dB higher at 40Hz. This is enough to give a really full, bassy sound if that’s what you want. Of course, this is at the maximum setting; turning down the bass control a bit trims these settings.

 

The bottom graph shows what happens when the treble control is up full. Below 640Hz, the curve is almost identical to the flat curve. Most of the treble-boosting action occurs in the region from about 1kHz on up, with the most dramatic increase occurring about 1.3kHz. Interestingly, even though the response is still boosted considerably at 10kHz, the sound doesn’t become shrill, just brighter.

[Anderton]

Click on the attachment to see how the mid and presence controls affect the sound. The top graph shows a flat response, with the tone knobs and their “alternate identities” set to their mid-positions.

 

When I first started experimenting with these controls, it became obvious why they were “alternate” controls: They don’t affect the sound anywhere near as much as the bass and treble. This isn’t to say you can’t hear the difference, just that it’s more subtle. They’re the kind of controls where after you’ve dialed in the model, bass, and treble, you might want to tweak the sound just a little more.

 

The middle graph shows what happens if you turn the mid control up full. This gives a fairly gentle lift (it appears to be a little under 5dB) in the 160Hz to 1.3kHz region; what I didn’t expect to see was the apparent lift above 5.1kHz. I’m not sure if these are artifacts, an actual intended effect of the control, or some issue with the way I did my measurements.

 

The lower graph shows the results of turning up the presence control all the way. This bears out what I heard with my ears: Not much difference, although you can see a little bit of a peak between 2.6kHz and 5.1kHz. I’m going to check out whether this has more of an effect with other models, but in my experience so far, it’s pretty subtle.

[Anderton]

Well, the mid and presence definitely have different effects with different models. For example, with Class A red, the presence boost doesn’t do much, but cutting presence does. With Class A green, the presence control seems to make no difference at all, but mid does.

On one hand, I kind of think the manual should have described what to expect in a little more detail. On the other hand, it seems that Line 6 has made some deliberate choices here, as the effect of the tone controls on the models can definitely make the sound “brasher,” “sweeter,” “fuller,” etc.

I think the bottom line is that it’s best to tweak things in the order that Line 6 has designed the interface workflow: Choose the model that comes closest to what you want, then tweak the bass and treble, and finally, put the “icing on the cake” with the mid and presence controls.

[Anderton]

As I was playing back guitar riffs into the Floor POD and adjusting the tone controls, I was again keeping things pretty basic -- just the amp model and tone controls, no additional modulation. And I was again struck by just how good the models sounded when stripped down to these essentials. It was really quite cool to be able to listen back to the track, and tweak controls in context.

I realize that Line 6 has concentrated on the live performance aspect of the Floor POD rather than the studio element, but it's a pretty cool studio tool for basic re-amping. It's not hard to do gain staging to interface the Floor POD with an audio interface.

(Detail: In case anyone wondered, I'm using the TC Electronic Konnekt 24D as the interface, because I'm also doing a Pro Review on that so it's set up and ready to go. The way I have it set up is with the Floor POD outputs patched into Konnekt inputs 1+2, and Konnekt output 3 patched into the Floor POD. The straight guitar track sends its signal to Konnekt output 3, and another track records from inputs 1+2.)

[Anderton]

The Drive control does what you'd expect: Make the sound more distorted as you turn it up. But in the process of playing with it, I recorded something that I think really gets the point across about these models.

One of the hardest things for an amp sim to do is provide a smooth, convincing transition from a clean to overdriven sound. All sims have gotten better at this over the years, probably due to programmers getting more savvy, but also to them having more powerful DSP at their disposal. The Floor POD does an extremely credible job of providing this sound; download the attachment to hear a guitar chord go from clean to overdriven. As you'll hear, the transition is very smooth and convincing.

[Anderton]

If you hold down the Save control, the Drive knob becomes the Compressor knob. I was skeptical whether a single knob would do the job -- I'm used to juggling threshold, ratio, attack time, and all the rest -- but I'm convinced. When turned fully counter-clockwise (no compression), the sound is very articulated and dynamic. Turning the knob clockwise all the way gives a smooth, singing, Santana-esque kind of sustain that is ideal for lead lines.

I would use the full compression setting only for leads; it's a bit much on power chords, as you lose a lot of the dynamics and expressiveness of a rhythm part. Pulling back to about halfway seems about right, assuming you want to use compression. The "flattening" effect of some of the amp models due to distortion can actually take care of a lot of the dynamics processing for you.

Once again, the interface gets it right: You indeed want to adjust Drive first to get the desired amount of crunch, then do the Compressor to fine-tune the amount of sustain.

[Anderton]

Before signing off for tonight, a few more thoughts about the Floor POD are coming into focus.

First of all, this is obviously a device that places price point first: No editor/librarian, no USB port, no updateable chips, and a pedal that controls no parameters other than volume and wa. Now, I'm a real tweak fan, and having gotten used to a high degree of tweaking with the PODxt and even the TonePort UX2 audio interface, I was at first put off a bit by the simplicity and lack of flexibility.

But it's important for a reviewer to review a piece of gear for what it is, and a sub-$200 box has to make some compromises. I thought it was a point in the Floor POD's favor that the compromises involved bells and whistles that, arguably, not all guitarists use as opposed to compromising on the construction, which is surprisingly solid.

However, the more I play with the Floor POD, the less I feel a need to tweak. I'm getting what I feel are really solid, musical, and most importantly, inspiring sounds with very little effort. As I've pointed out previously, just dialing up an amp model can sound excellent all by itself. Coming back from hard disk, it sounds very convincing and musical as well.

So is this a box for advanced tweakers? No (unless you don't want to tweak, and just play ). Does it put really good sounds into the hands of those with limited budgets? Yes.

Next, we'll check out the modulation section. I'm keeping my expectations in check, as there's simply one knob for modulation, and one for delay/verb -- and I'm the kind of guy who worships at the alter of step-sequenced wa filters and tempo-synched delays. But so far, every time I've thought something was going to be too basic, I've been surprised at how effective it actually is. We'll see if this trend continues in the modulation section, or whether it's someplace where the need to hit a price point is evident...or maybe it's somewhere in between. In any event, we'll find out soon. Stay tuned..................

[MudFlaps-1]

Originally posted on page 1 on 20061128:

It would be interesting to do a shootout between the FloorPOD and Digitech RP250 and Zoom G2.1u. The Digitech and Zoom have way more amp, cabinet and effects models plus USB capability for less money. I know the RP250 has editing software, can't recall if the Zoom does, but because they have USB they both make good guitar to computer interfaces. To it's credit the FloorPOD seems to have more knobs for easier tweaking.

Compared to the new RP250 and G2.1u, the FloorPOD should either cost $100 or include USB. Or sound a heck of a lot better (and maybe it does). The new Digitech RP350 costs the same as the FloorPOD and spec-wise blows it away. Where are the Rotary and Uni-vibe effects in the FloorPOD (to name just two)? Reverse-delay? Where are the drum patterns for practice?

If PODxt-level sounds are newer/better than POD2.0 sounds, why use the POD2.0 sounds in a new unit?

[MudFlaps-1]

Wouldn't it be easier for everyone if you renamed attachment.php to green.mp3 for each sound sample?

[Squier Fat Telecaster]

Originally posted by MudFlaps-1 Originally posted on page 1 on 20061128: Compared to the new RP250 and G2.1u, the FloorPOD should either cost $100 or include USB. Or sound a heck of a lot better (and maybe it does). The new Digitech RP350 costs the same as the FloorPOD and spec-wise blows it away. Where are the Rotary and Uni-vibe effects in the FloorPOD (to name just two)? Reverse-delay? Where are the drum patterns for practice? If PODxt-level sounds are newer/better than POD2.0 sounds, why use the POD2.0 sounds in a new unit?

 

 

I'm probably going to get the RP250 since it also models stomp box od/distortion pedals. I'd buy the Floor POD if it was $100. IIt's really just the Spider III preamp with a Wah/Volume pedal.

[Anderton]

Wouldn't it be easier for everyone if you renamed attachment.php to green.mp3 for each sound sample?

 

When the samples are uploaded, they DO have the MP3 names. The software converts it automatically...I'm talking to IT today to see if anything can be done about this.

[Anderton]

If PODxt-level sounds are newer/betIter than POD2.0 sounds, why use the POD2.0 sounds in a new unit?

 

I assume it's in order to hit a price point. The POD 2 technology is pretty mature, and has been amortized over a greater number of units. The construction on the Floor POD looks like it wasn't cheap.

 

I find the PODxt sounds to be more detailed than the original POD, but I never got rid of my original POD. It has a brasher character that I still use frequently. I think the audio examples of the amp sounds, and also the breakup audio exmaple, show that the sounds in the Floor POD don't have to make any excuses.

 

I still haven't looked at the RP250, but I will. I'm interested mostly in finding out what the differences are.

[Anderton]

I've spent the last hour checking out the amp models on the RP250 and generally checking out the unit. But first, a bit of background.

For my own personal use in the studio, I share processing duties among three devices: The PODxt, DigiTech GNX4, and Adrenalinn. The Adrenalinn is in a class by itself; nothing is like it, what with all the tempo-synched options and cool drum machine sounds. As to the PODxt and GNX4, the reason why I use both is that they have rather different sound qualities, both of which I like, and both of which are appropriate for different types of material.

To use a visual analogy, I find the PODxt to be more like a photograph, and the GNX4 to be more like a painting. Or to use a keyboard analogy, the PODxt is a sampler, and the GNX4 is a synthesizer. In other words, the PODxt models and effects sound extremely accurate to me, and have a real presence in a track. The GNX4 models sit in a track very well, are more malleable, and offer more processing options, but don't have quite the same degree of detail. The DNA2 chip in the RP250 has increased the level of detail compared to the GNX4, but the sonic character remains considerably different from Line 6's products.

I see these two differing philosophies carried over to the Floor POD vs. RP250 question, but there's also the matter of the user experience. The RP250 definitely has more features: More models, more effects, more preset locations, the ability to control parameters other than volume and wa with the pedal, USB interfacing, a software editor, and drum machine for practicing. However, increased complexity also means a more complex user interface and experience. While I feel DigiTech has done an excellent job of making the interface as easy to use as possible given the options, there is no question that the Floor POD interface is easier to grok -- there are seven knobs to the RP250's four, and three footswitches to the RP250's two. For those whose frame of reference is something like a Fender Twin, they should have no problem relating to the Floor POD's "twist knob, get sound" way of life. Those who are comfortable with selecting parameters, editing values, and so on will have no problem with the RP250 once they learn the syntax.

So basically, I'd say there are two main differences: The Floor POD has more limited options, but that's what makes it easy to use. For some the RP250's flexibility will be daunting, while others won't have a problem at all; but I can't imagine anyone finding the Floor POD daunting, especially if they read the 9-page manual.

The second difference is the sound, as they are indeed different. This gets into Strat vs. Les Paul territory for sure, as sound is highly subjective. I consider myself fortunate to own both DigiTech and Line 6 processors; I wouldn't be happy if I HAD to choose one over the other, although of course, that's what many people need to do.

When comparison shopping, I suggest the following approach.

1. Run through the presets on both units and see which ones you prefer.
2. Audition JUST THE AMP MODELS on both units, and see which ones you prefer. IMHO I think the RP250 does better on clean amp sounds, but the Floor POD does better on the heavily distorted ones. They both do a good job on the "in-between" sounds, although they have different sonic characters and what matters is what your ears tell you.
3. Try to tweak some of the sounds and see if you're comfortable with the interface.

After doing all that, you'll probably gravitate toward one or the other.

[Anderton]

Hmmm, the ease of use thing just went up a notch. The modulation effects are done very cleverly.

The two effect knobs are toward the upper right of the unit; click on the attachment, and you'll see that each knob actually has mutiple functions.

The knob to the left rotates through three different "zones," Flanger/Chorus, Phaser, and Tremolo. Each of these "zones" covers 1/3 of the knob's rotation; rotating the knob fully counter-clockwise bypasses the effect. You can use any one of these modulation effects in a preset.

The knob to the right also rotates through three zones, Delay, Sweep Delay, and Reverb, so you can have one of these effects in play as well. This means you have a total of four possible simulaneous effects: Compressor, one of the three mod effects, one of the three delay effects, and Noise Gate.

What accounts for the "ease of use" thang is that with each zone, the effect varies, sometimes considerably. For example, when you first hit the Flanger/Chorus zone, you get a strong, wide-range flanging effect. As you continue rotating the knob clockwise, the amount of modulation lessens, the initial delay lengthens, and the speed increases slightly, yielding a very sweet chorus effect.

In the Phaser zone, it seems all you really get is a speed increase as you rotate the dial more clockwise. But with the tremolo, again, several changes come into play. The tremolo starts out slow, without much depth. As you turn the knob clockwise, the depth increases as does the speed; toward the end of the zone, it sounds as if the tremolo waveform becomes more of a pulse, given a very sharp, defined tremolo sound.

[Anderton]

The three effects covered by the Delay/Verb knob work similarly, but tie together fewer parameters. Each zone just basically varies the mix of the three effects.

Delay is a standard delay, while Sweep Delay seems to have a filter in the feedback path that changes subtly over time. This gives a sound that's much more like an old tape echo. Reverb sounds like a spring emulation, and the knob just varies the reverb mix.

With the delays, delay time is set by the tap tempo button. This cannot be accessed by your foot, so changing delays during live performance is inconvenient, as you would need to bend down and adjust it by hand. It would have been a lot nicer if the footswitches could have somehow been used to do the tap tempo function...maybe by holding down two footswitches at the same time to enter tap tempo mode, or something like that.

Anyway, once more with effects, the Floor POD keeps things really simple, yet effective. The controls give you most of what you want from these effects. About the only improvement I can think of is that when using the phaser, if the depth was decreased as the tempo increased, you'd have a pretty convincing rotary speaker effect thrown in.

[Anderton]

The Channel volume control (which is saved with each preset, so you can balanced out levels among presets) also has a second identify as a noise gate threshold control. Again, you access it by holding down the Save button. Basically, you just turn the control clockwise unless the noise goes away when you're not playing.

[Anderton]

The three footswitches also do double-duty. In their default mode, two control program up/down as mentioned previously (what I forgot to mention was that the presets do wrap around -- if you go up from 64, you come back to 01, and if you go down from 01, you end up at 64) while the third is a bypass switch.

If you press and hold the bypass switch, the three footswitches control effects on/off. One footswitch handles the Mod effect bypass, another the Delay/Verb bypass, and the third provides a gain boost -- convenient when going from rhythm to lead, for example.

[Anderton]

Well, I think we've pretty much covered every feature in the Floor POD at this point. Before getting to the conclusions, though, I want to record some clips with the various effects...but that has to wait a while, because my computer is tied up rendering a video and it still has a while to go. So, I'll meet you back here in a bit, and we'll carry on from there.

[Squier Fat Telecaster]

Thanks for doing some comparisons. In some ways, I do like the Floor POD's simplicity and in other ways I like the stomp boxes that the RP250 models as well. Hard decisions!

[Squier Fat Telecaster]

Can you prove/disprove this review from the review section:

I need to edit this review! I use a MexiStrat HSS with custom pickups I ordered from the American Lone Star Fat Strat.. My review on this unit was a bit premature, and I apologize.. Though I do love the feel, color, and ease of use with Line6's Floor Pod, I found that there was an incessant high pitch I could not get around (I mentioned to solve it by turning the tone button down on the guitar.. this was a mistake). After more testing, I found that even in BYPASS mode, my strat lost a good part of it's low to midrange (testing it by going straight into amp, then through the POD using bypass mode)..

Does the Floor POD have a good bypass or not?