Are manufacturers being sufficiently clear when detailing a product's capabilities & limitations?

Voxman

Apologies in advance for the length of this post, which I've had to split into two parts, but this is a theme that I thought was worthy of airing and spending a bit of time on, with a specific example. 

Part 1
 Background
Regular attendees here may be aware that I've been looking for a modern MFX unit (and I'd virtually decided on the new Line 6 Pod Go) to take-over from my big and heavy Vox Tonelab SE (overall akin to Helix size & weight inc its heavy duty power-supply). My TLLE is largely similar but lighter & smaller albeit without the extra expression pedal,  no A/B options (akin to a limited form of snapshot facility in the same patch), & no cab select dial (its in the menu instead). Although both units still sound great, these are older tech & arguably the biggest game changer today, as I think we're all now familiar with, is RI's.  The TLSE/LE were way ahead of their day, both sonically and for sheer gigability/tweakability on stage. I can freely select any amp/cab combination, and any one selection from each of the reverb, modulation, delay & pedal sections, plus noise-reduction & presence.  

Modern MFX units
Many modern units however work very differently; these typically now utilise 'Dynamic DSP' where each component selection utilises a portion of the available DSP power.  As modelling has got more sophisticated and detailed, the chunk of processing power required increases almost exponentially.  Which leads me on to the thread topic which has come about following my most recent research of Pod Go with the help of a Helix DSP Allocation Chart that I discovered on the 'Gear Page'.  

https://benvesco.com/store/helix-dsp-allocations/

I'm focussing on the Pod Go only because it's a piece of gear that I'm very interested in buying, and because it has purpose designed restrictions, and is marketed as a much simpler, albeit less powerful tool than Helix. It has 4 fully assignable effect blocks, and '5 semi-fixed' blocks for amp, cab, volume, wah, & EQ. You can choose from any amp, cab, EQ etc available in Helix (everything Helix has except 3 particularly hungry DSP effects) but you can't change an EQ block into anything other than an EQ, etc. Apart from a one-liner in the Pod Go manual saying you might struggle to add a 4th reverb, everything suggests you can have 4 assignable blocks in addition to the 5 semi-fixed blocks.  

Pod Go DSP usage

But let's consider this more closely - and remember, this table was prepared by a third-party, not Line 6. (Note: all the following represent the percentage remainder DSP processing power after the set DSP allowances in the semi-fixed blocks).  Let's consider a reasonable and typical gig patch. I'm into classic rock & blues and therefore use a number of Marshall tones. 

Amp
For me a Brit Plexi - Marshall Super Lead is pretty much a 'mainstay' amp for classic rock, I can select several options from a 'normal channel' variant that will use up 34.88% of DSP power, or I could go up to a Jumped version that will utilise 40.83% of DSP power. 

Cab
Cabs use no DSP over & above what's already allowed for unless I want to import an IR, when it will use an extra 3.2% of DSP. 

So, I'll be reasonable here and forego the jumped model and go with the normal channel (If I want the bright channel it requires 35.73% of DSP) and I'll go with a stock cab with no imported IR.  Running DSP total: 34.88% 

Volume, Wah and EQ
Treated as requiring 0% DSP over the 'semi-fixed' block inbuilt DSP allowance and which I'm told utilise very little DSP in any event (so switching one or more of these off really won't release any meaningful DSP)  

Reverb
Next, I'd like to add a good old fashioned spring reverb. Both of the available spring reverbs utilise 34.03% of DSP.  I could go for a room, plate, chamber, hall etc at only 13.61% of DSP  but spring reverbs are pretty classic so let's say I'd like to stick with that.  Running DSP total: 68.91%

Delay
So, a nice tape-echo delay would be something like a Mastro Echoplex EP-3 which uses 24.24% of DSP
Running DSP total:  93.15%

Modulation
Lets go classic MXR phase 90, 5.10% of DSP. Running total: 98.25%

So far, so good.

Distortion boost
Let's stay pretty traditional and go for a mainstay, an Ibanez TS808 Tube screamer. 14.04%
Running DSP total: 112.29% - but hold on, that exceeds 100% DSP so I can't have it.

So I have a Marshall amp and cab, a spring reverb, a tape delay and an MXR Phase 90. Nothing exceptional.  The reverb, delay & phaser utilise 3 of the 4 fully assignable blocks - but I have nothing left for a tubescreamer unless I change the above selections for lower DSP models.  But if I go for higher DSP versions, then I could easily find myself having nothing left after 2 assignable blocks.   

Going back to my TLSE/LE, and fully acknowledging that it's older modeling technology, I could still have all of this with my TLSE/LE with no processing limit issues.  I mention this just to demonstrate that if you are considering changing your gear, 'dynamic DSP' means you may have to learn to think in a different way and you may be forced into making some unexpected compromises.   And it's not just older gear like my TLLE/TLSE that doesn't use dynamic DSP, but new gear may not adopt this approach either e.g. Boss ME50/70/80 units.   

Voxman

Part 2

Now, I think this is pretty important stuff. Manufacturers are terrific at telling us what their product can do and there are umpteen (in this case Line 6) videos plus a pretty comprehensive  (Pod Go) 39 page manual in which there's a little 'get out of jail' disclosure that merely says: 

"Important: If you encounter items in the list that are greyed out or unavailable this means there isn't enough DSP to accommodate that category or model. For example, if you've selected three reverbs you probably won't be able to add a fourth". 

I work as a compliance manager for a large insurance broker and we are highly regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Insurers have to explain what is not as well as what is covered, communications must meet 'clear, fair and not misleading' criteria, and we have to treat customers fairly.  OK, I know the music industry isn't 'regulated' and it's different. But if I were for the sake of this post adopting similar criterion, would in this example Line 6 (& I acknowledge similar questions may be asked of other manufacturers too) satisfy these requirements?  

• The DSP chart is not provided by Line 6 - this was only found following independent research. Without explaining which model uses which DSP how would users understand before buying that they might have some problems with their favourite selections?  Is Line 6 really being 'clear, fair & not misleading here?  
• The above 'disclosure' is one small paragraph and refers to an unlikely selection choice which gives the impression that users are unlikely to have a DSP issue unless they go for a pretty off the wall selection.  Is that potentially misleading? Is it 'treating customers fairly'?  Would buyers really have understood that selection of an amp model in the 'semi-fixed' block actually heavily reduces what's left to use elsewhere?  I certainly didn't - my initial thought was 'that's OK, because I'm never going to select three reverbs!'. 
•   When showing everything Pod Go can do but not communicating a pretty fundamental theme like this in a way that is meaningful and provides value, once again is this clear, fair and not misleading, and treating customers fairly?

We are being asked by the manufacture to make a decision on spending not inconsiderable amounts of our hard earned money to buy their products. They know everything about their product, we know only what they tell us.  We might be able to pick-up further info and user tricks etc from reviews and user feedback. Now, when it comes to sonic comparisons with competitors this is highly subjective and imported IR's and EQ can make huge differences anyway. So none of that 'subjective' stuff is an issue and you can't easily make it qualitative. And feature comparisons are pretty much listed, reasonably easy to compare, and users can look at the spec and decide if they need 'tone capture' or whether 'snapshots' is better for their needs, or if they need an XLR out etc. I'm pretty relaxed here.   

But I am concerned where fundamentally important factual information such as DSP usage which impacts directly on customer expectation is 'glossed over'.  When buying gear most of us will want more options, more flexibility and better tone - and manufacturers focus on that which is why they list all the things in their latest 'box'.  But it may not be immediately apparent that, and especially for those who are moving from older gear, that they might actually be losing something that they are not expecting. 

Please don't misunderstand me. I really like Line 6, I think they make great, innovative products, and I am in no way criticizing them specifically - I'm simply using them as an example only because I've specifically been looking at Pod Go and was very impressed with what I'd seen and heard - but am now concerned following my research. Nor am I suggesting in any way shape or form that Pod Go isn't a great bit of competitively priced gear that isn't capable of producing some terrific tones that overall represents a very good gigging and home mfx solution. 

What I am suggesting is that with the growing complexity of products there should be greater demands on manufacturers to be a little bit more balanced and fairer with regards to the product information they provide to us so that we are in a better position to make an informed decision.  Prospective customers should be able to more easily understand their product and be in a better position to compare with competitor products. 

I'm not suggesting the industry needs to be 'regulated' (God forbid!!) but I do feel that customers and the industry would benefit greatly from some agreement on 'best practice/fair customer charter' and that it should consider a way forward as an industry to convey this type of important information to its potential customers in an agreed format.  It could avoid a lot of disappointment and gear returns too, which has a cost to retailers and manufacturers. 

Because we often don't know what we don't know until we've bought gear, whilst we all want to get a good deal, I'd strongly recommend to anyone looking to buy gear like this, that they buy from a known, established & reputable outlet that offer a sensible trial period of at least 30 days (although 60 or more would be better, to allow for the initial 'honeymoon' period) and pre-paid postage via an organised return process, if you ultimately discover something isn't for you. I'm aware of at least one UK retailer that offers an option to extend its standard 2yr warranty and 30 days return policy to 6 yrs warranty and 180 day return option for a modest additional cost.  And this can be just as relevant for folk who buy 'top of the line' gear only to discover that whilst the hype sounded terrific and other users raved about it, that in practice it's way too much for their needs. 

Apologies again for the length of post but I wanted to discuss and share my concerns as objectively as possible.  What does everyone else think here?

siremoon

As all processors have a finite throughput then manufacturers have to impose a strategy for ensuring that configurations inserted by users remain within that throughput. There are a number of ways of doing that all of which impose constraints of one type or another either on the throughput budget of the individual amp/cab/FX elements themselves or on the number and/or combination of elements that the user can employ at any one time.  Pretending there isn't a throughput ceiling for a given processor setup simply isn't an option.  

Products on the market employ various different static or dynamic approaches to this.  Line 6 have, for Helix anyway, chosen a dynamic strategy which treats the system resources as an empty container which you can fill up with what you like and as you fill it up it adjusts what you can continue to add to reflect the resources remaining.  Other manufacturers and systems have different strategies but they all have a strategy of one form or another.  Different users favour different strategies and that's a personal choice and therefore a factor in selecting which system you prefer.  I'm not sure if you're inferring that the Line 6 approach is somehow a con but it really isn't, it's merely a design choice which in the majority of realistic use cases gives the user greater flexibility than some of the other approaches, and tbh it's hardly a secret that Helix works like this. 

Voxman

To be clear, in no way @siremoon am I even remotely suggesting this is a con. But never having used Helix products and coming from static dsp gear, I didn't understand how this worked and the manual doesn't really help new users understanding here. 

Btw I liked your analogy of an empty container that you can fill up with what you want. But without knowing how much of the container is filled by each option, you're fighting blind so to speak. 

 

ICBM

I found that an annoying limitation of the Zoom B3/G3 too - you get used to it, but when you've come from using separate pedals and then old-school multi-FX, it can be very frustrating. Just an old person/young person problem I suspect .

siremoon

Voxman said:

To be clear, in no way @siremoon am I even remotely suggesting this is a con. But never having used Helix products and coming from static dsp gear, I didn't understand how this worked and the manual doesn't really help new users understanding here. 

Btw I liked your analogy of an empty container that you can fill up with what you want. But without knowing how much of the container is filled by each option, you're fighting blind so to speak. 

 

Yes and no.  It is true that Line 6 don't publish the system requirements for each element and it is also true that the early adopters, such as me, had to figure it out by trial and error.  However it has been around a few years now and there are a ton of presets and tutorials on it out there which give you a good idea of the art of the possible and it doesn't take you long to figure out the types of preset layouts which will work and which won't. 

Also if you have a DAW then Helix Native is available on a free trial for a period (2 weeks I think) and this has a mode which will mimic the hardware limits.  So if you are contemplating buying a Helix unit you can play around with the blocks in Native in the hardware mode and get a feel for what you can and can't do.

Musicman20

Interesting thoughts.

I assume the Stomp has a little more processing power? I've fiddled with the HX stomp a lot and created a lot of different patches, and so far, I've only hit the wall once.

fretmeister

It's an interesting point.
I've never run out of DSP on my Helix but I am aware of people wanting more complex patches that do.


If I buy game for my PC, the game will give minimum and recommended specs to be able to run it. Some will also suggest a spec to run it at max levels on everything.

But the nature of the game is that it is a specific task with known requirements for sub-tasks.
I don't think that is possible for a MFX unit as there are too many variables. For many players wah>overdrive>amp>reverb>delay will be what they are looking for with a little variation. But then there will be the prog rock guys stacking 4 or more delays and verbs for sonic soundscapes rather than trad guitar sounds.

I don't see how any MFX maker can predict a patch like that. But at the same time it is not practical to build a unit that can have 1 of each FX / Amp / etc etc all active at once because nobody has 50 amps or 25 drive pedals on at once, and the cost of that power would be astronomical.

As Siremoon said - The free demo of Native can limit itself to the same as the hardware unit. It would be a goo idea if there was an option to limit it for Pod Go as well so at least there is a free trial of actual capabilities.

@digitaligloo What do you think?

Until then I suppose a buyer can use the Consumer Protection Regs to buy online and test it out for a couple of weeks. Modern MFX units are too complex to try properly in a shop for 15 mins.

EricTheWeary

When I was watching some of the TC Plethora X5 videos I realised that it could run out of processing power. Although it is up to 5 effects at once for more complex algorithms it's three. It seems reasonably possible that someone would spend £400 thinking woohoo I can run five delays at once and then be disappointed that they can't. On the other hand because that's probably considered to be an unusual use is it buyer beware? 
I was thinking of an analogy like someone buying a Ford Mondeo and the quoted top speed is, I dunno, 110mph and they take it on a race track and only get 100mph can they get their money back from Ford or can Ford say really we didn't expect anyone to drive it like that? 

WiresDreamDisasters

There's an underscore Paul

@Digital_Igloo ;


To answer the question, yes I believe that manufacturers are being open and fair when detailing MFX details and limitations. 

The reason they give you dynamic DSP as an approach is to offer the user more flexibility. Maybe you want a wah in your patch, but maybe thousands of others don't. Maybe I don't mind "paying" (dsp-wise) for 6 delays. But maybe you don't need that?

Dynamic DSP allows you to cover more ground whilst maintaining high quality models.

Look at the Boss GT-1000. Delay-wise it doesn't do half of the things that the DD-500 does. That's a compromise that puts that particular unit out of my field of interest. It may not do for you and others however. So there is a choice there.

Fixed architectures in my view are limiting. Whilst they might give you the impression of "this unit has more power because it can do all these things at once that the competition cannot do", that may not actually be the case. It may be that the algorithms are just reduced in quality or scope in order to fit into the hardware architecture.

Also don't assume those DSP measurements are accurate or true in perpetuity. They may very well not be in either case.

Finally, from what I know, one of the most computationally expensive things that these modellers computer are non-linearities; the things that make them sound better than previous generations. You can only optimize that stuff so much.

fretmeister

Good point about the measurements not staying accurate.
With each update there is optimisation going on, for all I know maybe some models are even scrapped and started again if that is the better way of doing it.

monquixote

As someone who has worked with audio processing applications you only really have two choices:

• Artificially cripple the product
• Have configurations that won't work because of DSP limitations
  

I think with Helix and HX Stomp it makes sense as you have a processing budget you can spend making chains of FXs however you like. You understand that it works like a PC DAW. Eventually when you keep adding plugins it will run out of CPU. However it is much better than a PC DAW as you don't just start getting dropouts and glitches when you overload it.

With POD Go it's a bit trickier because it's a more restrictive device with a more fixed chain so you don't really expect it to run out of DSP.  The reality is that the only way to way you can have X blocks of anything you like would be to offer fewer blocks.  In that way of working you may have enough DSP to have another block, but you are prevented from having it just so the UI is easier to understand.

I don't think it's really possible for L6 to publish exact CPU numbers because it's likely to change between firmware revisions and other factors. It's also possible if they've done any silent hardware mods between versions it's not exactly the same on every unit.

UnclePsychosis

Blimey, an exception to Betteridge's Law of Headlines!

Taking Helix as an example.

Firstly, measuring and publishing DSP usage would be a massive pain in the arse for Line6. Any time they tweaked the underlying code they'd have to update all the numbers. Plus they'd need to build in some margin, so they'd be forced to underplay the unit's capabilities. Just increased costs and made the unit look worse than it is. That's not good. 

Secondly, the vast majority of users right now just don't care. Helix does what they want. The unit is flexible and a majority of users will never hit the limits. So why bother? 

Anyone who cares about creating insanely DSP heavy patches can either download Native for free, head to a dealer and try out a hardware unit, or take advantage of Distance Selling regs to try one themselves. Plus, any obsessive who isn't going to buy a Helix because "I can't run this insane patch exactly this way" is just not a customer that Line6 need to be worried about, they'll probably never be satisfied regardless. 

Plus, a thing that I could see happening if Line6 published all the numbers is people would obsessively go through the list and devise patches that wouldn't work. Then use that as a stick to beat Line6 with, despite the fact that if they'd just sat down with a Helix they'd never in a million years have actually tried to make that patch. 

Voxman

ICBM said:

I found that an annoying limitation of the Zoom B3/G3 too - you get used to it, but when you've come from using separate pedals and then old-school multi-FX, it can be very frustrating. Just an old person/young person problem I suspect .

Some truth in that I think @ICBM. I'll be 63 in August and similarly I've been brought up on stomp boxes, and later on 'statis DSP' devices inc Yamaha GW33, Boss GT3,5,6, Vox Tonelabs, Line 6 Flextone II Plus/Vox Valvetronix AD120VTX etc. Even my Zoom G5 is virtually static DSP.

In fact, it's only by going through this research that I've discovered the terms static and dynamic DSP!  

Voxman

@monquixote ; said: With POD Go it's a bit trickier because it's a more restrictive device with a more fixed chain so you don't really expect it to run out of DSP.  The reality is that the only way to way you can have X blocks of anything you like would be to offer fewer blocks.  In that way of working you may have enough DSP to have another block, but you are prevented from having it just so the UI is easier to understand.

I don't think it's really possible for L6 to publish exact CPU numbers because it's likely to change between firmware revisions and other factors. It's also possible if they've done any silent hardware mods between versions it's not exactly the same on every unit.

UnclePsychosis said:

Blimey, an exception to Betteridge's Law of Headlines!

Taking Helix as an example.

Firstly, measuring and publishing DSP usage would be a massive pain in the arse for Line6. Any time they tweaked the underlying code they'd have to update all the numbers. Plus they'd need to build in some margin, so they'd be forced to underplay the unit's capabilities. Just increased costs and made the unit look worse than it is. That's not good. 

Secondly, the vast majority of users right now just don't care. Helix does what they want. The unit is flexible and a majority of users will never hit the limits. So why bother? 

Anyone who cares about creating insanely DSP heavy patches can either download Native for free, head to a dealer and try out a hardware unit, or take advantage of Distance Selling regs to try one themselves. Plus, any obsessive who isn't going to buy a Helix because "I can't run this insane patch exactly this way" is just not a customer that Line6 need to be worried about, they'll probably never be satisfied regardless. 

Plus, a thing that I could see happening if Line6 published all the numbers is people would obsessively go through the list and devise patches that wouldn't work. Then use that as a stick to beat Line6 with, despite the fact that if they'd just sat down with a Helix they'd never in a million years have actually tried to make that patch. 

I'm not familiar with 'Native' but I take your point @UnclePsychosis re trying to maintain a detailed list.

But perhaps (a) manuals can be made a little clearer (e.g. using the earlier container analogy), giving a more reasonable example of an amp, delay, reverb & effect, and at least putting an asterisk on models that use higher DSP as compared to the 'norm' with an explanation that, whilst this might change from time to time with updates, these models might give rise to DSP limitations when combined. It just needs something a bit more helpful.

And I think @monquixote is spot on when he said "With POD Go it's a bit trickier because it's a more restrictive device with a more fixed chain so you don't really expect it to run out of DSP."   Helix is different as its hugely powerful, but Pod Go is designed with 'self limits' to try & mitigate DSP issues so I think there is a need for a bit more info here. Also, Helix users have often progressed from other dynamic DSP gear and are likely to be more knowledgeable & experienced here.  But as Pod Go is more likely to be purchased by customers whereby it might be their first MFX or are coming from a non-dynamic DSP 'background' I think looking to manufacturers for a bit more information/help is not unreasonable.

 

UnclePsychosis

Honestly, I think giving more info would actually just confuse the prospective target market.

Pod Go is aimed at those who want a straightforward, no hassles, all-in-one, just plug the damn thing in and play solution. Line6 explaining the subtleties of DSP and outlining which blocks can or can't be combined with which other block will just confuse and turn off the vast majority of those users.

Honestly, Line6 would be doing more work, at higher cost, to make their own units look worse than they really are, and the only people who would really care are an absolute handful of---being blunt---obsessives who probably aren't the target market anyway. 

skunkwerx

Not with A-Plan are you dude?

NelsonP

I agree with this, but it would be quite hard to regulate in any meaningful way.

I've never hit any dsp limits on my Amplifire. It isn't as flexible as a helix but it has many more blocks than stomp or go. And whilst these are on a predefined signal flow they can be moved about within it.  E.g. effects can be assigned pre/ post, several positions for drives/boosts, 5 positions for the loop.

I've never really understood why the atomic doesn't hit dsp limits. Maybe the hardware is more powerful than I imagine or the code more efficient. Or the fact it only allows 1 instance of each effect. 

I recently bought (and returned) a fender mustang gt40. The UI was a million times better than the amplfire and the effects were so much more straightforward. But I hit DSP limits pretty quickly and that was a bit disappointing. I should add that this was not the reason that I returned it.

Voxman

Amplifier has dual DSP, Pod Go only has a single DSP.

But there are different chip ratings and the processing in Atomic Amplifier uses quite powerful chips. So it can cope with a fair chunk of processing.  Line 6 confirmed that chip ratings jump hugely and if they jumped to a 1Ghz chip the price of Pod Go would shoot up, and price control was paramount. 

Voxman

UnclePsychosis said:

Honestly, I think giving more info would actually just confuse the prospective target market.

No it wouldn't, and let me explain exactly why.  

From the Line 6 Pod Go overview official video here:



At 2:12 - each preset has 9 blocks...preloaded with go to effects like wah, volume, EQ as well as the amp and cab models
At 2:50 each preset also has 4 flexible effects blocks

Line 6 has tried to keep explanations simple by referring to TWO types of blocks. The first are those that are semi-fixed whereby you can change the type, but you cant make e.g. an EQ an amp/preamp and vice a versa. Then you have up to 4 flexible blocks. It places the amp/preamp in the first category.  

But that isn't quite how it works and by describing the amp/preamp in the first category is why I and others have been confused. Firstly, there are more than 5 fixed blocks (or 9 blocks total according to the Line 6 vid).  Per Digital Igloo (Line 6):

"There are actually eight fixed DSP blocks in POD Go: Input Gate, Wah, Volume Pedal, Preset EQ, FX Loop, Cab/IR, Global EQ, and Output level/pan. All of these MUST exist in a preset, and each one dedicates a section of DSP to accommodate its largest model and if you use a less DSP-intensive model, you won't get that DSP back. (In practice, it's not a big deal because most models in fixed blocks are very close to each other in DSP usage; IIRC, all Cabs and IRs use the exact same amount of DSP.)

Conversely, the Amp/Preamp and four additional effects blocks share the remaining DSP and are effectively dynamic. The DSP usage of these often vary wildly from model to model."

But by being overly simplistic, referring to two types of blocks, and putting the amp/preamp/cab in the first block category I and others were under the impression that the 'fixed' amp/cab block were also using reserved DSP independent of the 4 flexible blocks, and were confused when the DSP chart showed that there were not only huge variances in amp/preamp DSP, but that whilst partly there was an 'unfixed allowance' of DSP for amps/preamps, this was based only on the lowest possible DSP preamp, and above that you were using extra DSP that had to be shared with the 4 flexible blocks. So there are really THREE block categories:

1. Semi-fixed where the DSP usage is set to the maximum within each relevant category so you can have any EQ, any wah, etc - hence the 0% rating in the chart for all of these 8 blocks.
2. Semi-flexible (amp/cab) but where the DSP is not fixed as per 1 above but where the remaining DSP left over after category (1) is dynamic and is shared with category (3)
3. Near-fully flexible, where you can literally pick any effects in the list you want (but you can't pick a second amp/pre-amp or cab - hence 'near' fully flexible)

 By not giving a clear explanation of that middle category, how the DSP is allocated simply isn't clear.  You don't need complex tech details, just a clearer description to explain that the amp/preamp/cab are a different category and share the remaining DSP.  And you don't need complex charts.  All the manual has to do is to explain that although the amp/cab/preamp are semi-fixed, unlike the other semi-fixed items your selection will share the remaining DSP with the 4 flex blocks and that if you select particularly heavy DSP amp/preamp models you might not have enough left in the tank so to speak to use all 4 flex blocks. And to help users, an asterisk is simply added to eg the top 10 models or so that use up the most DSP, so users understand that there's more chance of their options being a little more limited if they go for more than one of these.

And none of the above is explained in the Line 6 Pod Go manual, in the Line 6 official videos or (to my knowledge) any other video or review. 

Now, if the blocks had been more clearly explained and there was some helpful indicator re DSP heavy usage models, all would have been way clearer, & I wouldn't have needed to do this type of research and write this post.  And I've already had appreciative feedback from a number of folk who've thanked me for helping to make this clearer because they were confused too, so it ain't just me.   

(Oh, one other thing. Digital Igloo said "all Cabs and IRs use the exact same amount of DSP". However, according to the DSP allotment chart, when you load IR's in place of the inbuilt cab models it uses another 3% or so of DSP.)

(BTW, I changed the thread title slightly to avoid possible misunderstandings of its intention).

Cookiemonster

Out of interest have you asked line 6 about this.