Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 241.3K All Categories
- 22 >> Start Here <<
- 12 New Members
- 8 FAQs
- 86.5K Gear
- 39.5K Guitar
- 3.4K Acoustics
- 1.3K Bass
- 14.6K Amps
- 17.2K FX
- 264 Digital & Modelling
- 765 Other Instruments
- 8.2K Making & Modding
- 419 Gear Reviews
- 107 Guitar Reviews
- 73 Amp Reviews
- 118 FX Reviews
- 87 Other Reviews
- 748 Made in the UK
- 972 Theory
- 1.8K Technique
- 2.1K Live
- 3.2K Studio & Recording
- 2.1K Making Music
- 218 Events
- 15 Guitar Show 2018
- 829 Plug My Stuff
- 105K Classifieds
- 41K Guitars £
- 2.8K Acoustics £
- 138 LH Guitars £
- 894 Basses £
- 10.5K Parts £
- 18.3K Amps £
- 34K FX £
- 2.8K Studio & Rec £
- 6.1K Misc £
- 465 Personnel
- 54.6K Chat
- 36.5K Off Topic
- 1.1K Tributes
- 6.6K Music
In this Discussion
Become a Subscriber!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Are manufacturers being sufficiently clear when detailing a product's capabilities & limitations?
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
The key theme here is that with the ever increasing evolvement of technology in products, I think the industry as a whole needs to consider whether it could possibly be doing a bit more to help its customers better understand key aspects of their products that may not necessarily be as clear as they could be.
It's only because I'm looking to buy a Line 6 Pod Go that I've researched it to better understand it's capabilities and limitations. I could just as easily have been looking at a different product from a different manufacturer.
I'm a nerd. I have a science background. I actually know quite a lot about DSP. But I gave up halfway through that mammoth essay because I just couldn't bring myself to care.
And that's pretty much exactly why I think people who just want a plug in and play solution (the target market for the Go) aren't, on the whole, going to be that bothered about this. They'll plug it in and they'll see if it works.
Back in the original Line 6 Pod days (when I was interested) there was heated debate that Line 6 was cheaping people out not using best in class DSP even when there were only a few dollars increase in component cost. When they finally moved on to POD HD range there were, even more, screams about the lower-spec units being underpowered 300 400 from memory
Helix has been a great success and has revamped Line 6's slightly tarnished image under Yamaha.
So these days looking in I sort of think that either line 6's software aspirations exceed the hardware's ability to deliver.
So never buy the more budget-friendly version as it has had serious hardware cuts to make the price point.
Or their business model is and has always been to keep hardware costs as low as possible and market the hell out of an under the specced device.
As @Voxman ;
has said there is little to tell the consumer what they are going to get in the real world or easy way to find out if a piece of electronics is going to crap out on DSP power. Other than basic consumer law and distant selling directives etc.
Forum - nerdery. Check.
Internet - nerdery. Check.
Forum for guitar gear - nerdery. Check.
The people rocking up to Guitar Center looking for something to plug their tele's into .... not so much.
A single component can send the BOM (bill of materials) sky-rocketing, even when ordering components in bulk, so you have to be very careful about adding the next level of quality component to the hardware spec.
You don't always need top-shelf components. On paper they're better, but in the real world application of them there might be a .1% difference in performance between a $1 component and a $5 component. In such a situation you go with the cheaper component because it brings the cost of the entire unit down by a fair margin, whilst keeping quality within tolerance.
Guitar forums hate the Line6 Spider. Its pretty much a meme. But Line6 have sold over a million of them. Guitar forums tend to think that they represent "what musicians want" but in reality we are a tiny drop in the ocean of users.
Then you have to analyse all that data and figure out a direction to head in.
There's a very cool book called The Mom Test which goes into the best ways to make product level decisions like this. When it comes to DSP usage, I think Line6 have done all they realistically can without muddying the waters any further. For instance, I have a DD-500... no idea what DSP usage or quality levels of any of the algorithms are... no idea whether something is a 10 year old algorithm or something newly developed, etc.
With the Helix, you know that X effects are legacy effects from yesteryear, and Y effects are brand spanking new for the HX platform... that's just one example of where we have information to make an informed purchasing decision.
I do wonder if this thread is really about the fact that the Pod Go doesn't fulfill your needs @Voxman - maybe you're a Helix LT guy?
Its really easy to say "line6 cheaped out on the hardware" but a lot harder in reality to just switch out hardware like that.
My concern is simply that in my view sufficient balanced and basic product information is not being provided to the consumer. I'm not talking techy stuff but just some simple explanation so that users can better understand in broad terms where Line 6 is coming from, that it's aim was to give users as much choice as possible but that there is some unavoidable quid pro quo in that by including some of the more DSP hungry models (including the amps/preamps), if you choose and combine these, the less blocks you might have access to. And then to give some simple steer with a little asterisk (which they can caveat, eg may change etc) on the models in the list flagging those that are particularly DSP heavy (eg anything over roughly 30% or whatever). Buyers wouldn't then be surprised/puzzled by seeing grey outs. Hell, it could be positioned as a positive ie rather than withhold models to ensure you could always have 4 blocks, we wanted to put you in the driving seat to choose what you want from everything that Helix has.
I simply cannot understand why ANYONE, newbie, experienced, techy, non-techy would think that's unreasonable? And I will not be moved on this view because it is fundamental to the principal of 'treating customers fairly'.
Don't misunderstand that expression - in this context it simply means what I've explained - giving customers sufficient basic information in a balanced clear way to help them better understand what they are buying & to help them make an informed decision.
Be under no illusions - at some time in the future the disclosure requirements on manufacturers in the music industry is going to tighten up, either through consumer pressure, consumer groups, local authorities, trade bodies, Government bodies, legislation etc.
For some years now we've been seeing greater disclosure on motor vehicle fuel consumption, tighter controls on how loadspace and 0-60 times are measured, horsepower etc that all have to meet tighter standards with the same method of calculating and disclosing this, and on white goods electricity consumption, water usage, capacities, spin speeds, drying times etc. Not just environmental but how goods functions and capabilities have to be disclosed. And there were the same arguments on all of these that its too much info for consumers and they don't need to know it, and its just for nerds - "look at all the great things we've built into our cars and dishwashers at a great price, and we give top customer service so how can you say we're not 'treating customers fairly?' ".
But it has all changed, and it is still evolving. Regulation only kicks in where an industry doesn't adequately regulate itself. Musical Equipment manufacturers are an industry like any other and are not immune. They, like all industries, need to honestly have a serious think and ask and answer 'Are we really doing (proportionately) as much here as perhaps we could be doing? Yes, we might be very good in all sorts of areas - but could & should we be doing a bit better here, especially if we're an industry leader?
Anyway, enough, this topic has gone on long enough - you're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. Nothing wrong with that, no one's falling out with anyone, and each of us is entitled to their views and a key purpose of these boards is to facilitate reasonable discussion.
But, and hopefully all of us and the Fretboard will still be around, it might be interesting to look back on this thread in 5-10 years time to see what might have changed!
As I said, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.
Yes there is.. Page 10
is it crazy how saying sentences backwards creates backwards sentences saying how crazy it is?
You're right that we're going to have to agree to disagree on this but I think its fairly clear to the rest of us that you are absolutely not a typical user. And that's cool, but be aware of it at least.
I've never trolled in my life. - If nothing else please re-read my post of 4 June and try to put yourself in the position of a potential buyer that doesn't go on forums, is lesser experienced, who may not have had an MFX before or perhaps only 'static DSP' versions, and where they are getting their information from the manual and Line 6 videos or what their store might (or might not) tell them.
The suggestion that international legislation is required and even inevitable so that purchasers can benchmark Fractal vs Kemper vs Helix processor performance is frankly absurd.
I never said international legislation. You've added 2 plus 2 to make 5 and added your own spin - that's not what I said. I said 'tighten up' and referred to 'either'.
Agreed, particularly ease of use.
Whilst there may be people who have found Helix unusable because they keep running out of DSP when building presets, I simply don't believe there are many.
Helix is an entirely different animal. It has Dual DSP , is very powerful, and can even cope with up to 3-4 amp/cab models, so grey outs will be less usual & probably only encountered by 'power' users who are creating more complex patches. Pod Go is intended to be simple & has 'fixed' blocks which is a unique feature. By comparison, models take up a disproportionate chunk of DSP space in Pod Go - ie it has a smaller container to put things in and will get full more quickly. The part that has been less than clear is that although amp/preamps are in the fixed block, their DSP is not 'reserved' as for all the other things in the fixed block, but use dynamic DSP that is shared with flexible blocks. As explained by Line 6 themselves, there are actually 3 types of block. This doesn't come across clearly in the manual or in the official Line 6 videos. I'm simply suggesting this ought to be clearer.
As was posted earlier, elements grey out sometimes so you figure out a way round it.
No problem with that. But would users initially have realised before buying that it's their selection of amp model, that they may have thought was 'fixed/reserved' that could be triggering the grey outs? They might play around with the 4 flexible blocks and get frustrated if they weren't aware of this. That could impact on 'ease of use' that you quite rightly highlighted as being of key importance.
If it really is such a big deal then buy a different product which constrains maximum DSP loading in a way that is more to your liking.
It's great to see folk posting to discuss topics, irrespective of whether they agree or disagree with any premise. But I would ask that folk do please read the thread/posts carefully before doing so. It is not acceptable to imply anyone is trolling, or make 'questionable' comments, when it's clear (regardless of your personal opinion on the theme) that the OP (in this case me) has clearly spent considerable effort & time looking into and considering this. My very first line in yesterdays post was: "I agree with all of this guys, but I'm not asking for Pod Go to be better or complaining about the DSP or saying it needs a bigger chip etc. Line 6's absolute No1 immovable priority was to design the best bang for buck they could, within a specific price point and even though I don't yet have a Pod Go, from everything I've seen & heard I think they've done a cracking job and Pod Go's a winner - and I want one!"
I've only learned how Pod Go uses its DSP through quite a bit of investigation and further information subsequently provided by Line 6. I'm now much more comfortable with what I can likely expect from Pod Go - not just all the good stuff (of which there is tons) but also what I need to understand when using it. All I'm suggesting is that this journey would and should have been a little easier had the 3 rather than 2 block types theme been explained a little more clearly. I've no problem whatsoever with how Pod Go fundamentally works, merely that it could have been explained a little more clearly to aid user understanding.
As I've already said I simply don't understand why there seems to be so much resistance here to such a simple theme. But I accept we're each entitled to our own views and perspectives and I'm most certainly not here to fall out with or have a slanging match with any of the good folk here. All I ask please is that folk discuss the overall theme sensibly, fairly and objectively and that this is reflected in their posts.