All user reviews of 3/5 for the Line 6 POD 2
|42 reviews||60 %|
|20 reviews||29 %|
|6 reviews||9 %|
|1 user review||1 %|
That being said, there is one major feature that the original POD can perform that is not found on the XT: On the XT, if you are using a patch with a delay and you switch to another patch (say, one without the delay), even if you already struck the note and the delay is expected it will not play. There is no way to enable the delay to play until it naturally decays on the XT. The original POD (and 2.0) POD, switching patches will still allow for a delay of up to two seconds, again if memory serves me correctly.
Getting this thing to sound great is easy - you either set it up for connecting directly to a recorder or to an amplifier. How you set it changes the type of cabinet simulation that is used, in order to make it sound more accurate for the circumstances at hand. The manual is very easy to follow, but the POD is so intuitive that anybody can dial up some great tones just by fooling around with it. Even by breaking the rules by using the wrong output setting can get some interesting results.
Although this is now the outdated POD, some of the tones are still emulated on the later POD's with little to no change. In the hands of a gifted user, some excellent sounding tones can be dialed up, and the nice thing about this POD, when compared with the XT and later models, is that fewer options means fewer, more simple to make choices.
This was my first serious piece of guitar gear, as I bought it when I still only had a practice amp. I think it's great for what it is, but looking back, and knowing what I do now, I wish I had instead taken the money and purchased a solid, used tube amp.
I haven't had my POD 2.0 for years, but I do have a POD XT Live (and formerly had a POD XT). The only feature I really miss from the 2.0 is the delay I was talking about in the very top section.
In my opinion, the POD 2.0 is nearly useless live, unless you separately purchase the floorboard. At the same time, I'm not really an advocate of using any POD in a recording studio, unless the recordist has volume restrictions and can't use a real guitar amplifier. The real deal, especially under the microscope of the studio, always sounds so much better, so unless you don't have access to a real guitar amplifier (including solid state) or are lazy, I wouldn't advocate for its use in the studio.
1 people did not find this review helpful
mooseherman's review"Effective, but Dated amp modeler"
Utilizing this piece of gear is definitely pretty easy at least to get a tone. Eventually though, it gets more complicated. The only issue comes if you want to change tones mid-song. If using this in the studio, you could just change tones. But if you wanted to use it live, it would require MIDI programming. For some this won't be an issue, as they are familiar and used to MIDI programming. Many of us, though, would rather be able to have more flexibility.
I have tried this amp modeler out with a Tele, a Strat, and a Les Paul. I have found that, overall, the tone between guitars doesn't change. This is digital, and digital doesn't exactly leave a lot of wiggle room in terms of tone. This piece of gear is great if you have nothing in the way of good amps. Basically, it doesn't hold a candle to a great amp. You can get far better tones in any decent tube amp (or solid-state if that's what you prefer). The effects get pretty whacky, and there are a ton of possibilities there, but I don't know if they can compare to a great pedal in any respect. The distortions are great digital distortions, so fans of Industrial music or techno-rock or whatever will dig it, but don't expect to play classic rock, or even alternative stuff. This is another case of quantity over quality.
I definitely would recommend the POD to a studio owner, simply because there are going to be people who want these types of tones. However, I don't recommend that most people use them as they don't respond very well to individual taste, players' touch, guitars, etc. They also tend to get pretty generic. It's decently priced, but this is mainly because it's been updated a lot. I've played a few of these and I like the newer models better, they've at least come closer to getting real tones. I would not make the same choice again, I'd go for the update. I believe the newer ones can even be updated online, which makes them far superior.
1 people did not find this review helpful
The effects editing is fairly easy via a couple of knobs and buttons on the front of the unit. The general configuration is fairly simple and everything is written out on the unit for you to find and edit fairly quickly. I wouldn't recommend trying to edit live though unless you have enough light to read it. The manual is clear enough and should be able to answer all of the questions you need to know.
I use this mainly for guitar and occasionally I would run a synth through it. In my opinion, I didn't like the Pod very much as I felt it sucked the tone out of my Parker Fly guitar. All the effects were fairly tinny sounding and once I started using true analog effects, I sold this unit immediately. There were some pretty cool distortions on this thing but for the most part, I didn't like most of the effects.
Besides the poor sound quality, one of the things I really didn't like about this unit is when you tried to do some editing in a live situation, you ran the risk of selecting a distortion that was preset so hot, you would feedback and/or blow out your ears (and the audiences' ears too) if you weren't careful. In the end, the only thing I liked about this unit was using it for headphone practice, or just laying an idea out on my recording unit without needed to set up all my gear and a mic for the amp. I paid $100 used for this which was not too much money but it never really impressed me. I was able to break even on it when I sold it so that was good. I give it a 6 out of 10 for sound quality. Pretty tinny and no one could be fooled into thinking it was analog technology. I bought the Boss ME 50 shortly after and it was much much better. No, I would pass on this unit in a heart beat.
1 people did not find this review helpful
redcarp's review (This content has been automatically translated from French)" good at the time, now is correct."
loloche's review (This content has been automatically translated from French)" Not bad in 2001, but there is much better now"
Guitars: Gibson Les Paul Studio Fender Strato US
- Easy to use. it is not a gas factory! Most of the settings are accessible from the front via the pots.
- HP simulations that are profoundly changing the color of its
- Clean sounds simulations are not bad
- The price of floorboard pedals (over nine € 300 at the time, or a set to almost € 600)
- We quickly forget the factory presets are blah
- Simulations crunch and overdrive unrealistic
- Not transcribed game dynamics
- It "clip" with a Variax 600 (too much input gain)
- The relatively limited effects.
In summary: In 2001, vendors said it was what was best in the market for amp simulators, hence my choice.
I did not regret it because it allowed me to touch a lot of sounds. But but but I was aware that techno could do better and that I was missing something. So I sold.
I was even going to direct me to the analog pure when I came across a combo Fender Mustang II, and here I confess that I found what was missing in the POD 2: realism in overdrive and crunch sounds. When to clean (twin reverb), what a treat! In short, I quickly upgraded with a mustang floor pedal to make a little scene.
So if you find one of secondhand for a few tens of €, why not if you want to make models. But be aware that Fender is best to not very expensive in nine, that Line6 has undoubtedly improved the POD as well with HD500x putting probably (I have not tested -still-) to POD2 spanked by its versatility (full effect) but provided you do not drown in the settings.
1 people found this review helpful
amleth's review (This content has been automatically translated from French)
MIDI IN / OUT for saving patches
Mono input jack 6.35
Output Left / Right Jack 6.35
Software Publisher: Sound Diver (there is also something Studioware for Cakewalk and a great free VSTi to control the beans in your sequencer)
Funny shaped red bean (it's nice to see and use)
Pots of good quality and practical
Screen ridiculous (2 LEDs), but in fact, that's enough
There are thirty amps "legend", plus a few basic effects, even if they make good service to flesh out a sound, no substitute for a true multi-effects. In fact (!), The simplicity of the settings and the inability to use multiple effects at the same time makes the experiment impossible. Knobs freak, go your way.
The number of amps is itself very attractive.
Hence my note on average for this section.
The POD XT is clearly more comprehensive (but more expensive).
The Line6 pedal is expensive (2000 balls) (you can also use a Behringer 1010 instead).
The small Line6 pedals (with 4 buttons) on the other hand seems to me unnecessary.
Gone are the days when we tinker with switches for som amp with a switch plastoc purchased from Leroy-Merlin.
The systematic use of the key 'TAP' to access functions not directly usable in my opinion, makes the use of POD-very tedious.
Unable to tinker on stage, you have to work all presets previously.
Software Sound Diver is itself complete.
I also have a Digitech RP2000, and editing presets seems much better bloody (even if the POD is not specifically designed for the same purpose).
This applies to much of the digital machines in the category of POD.
I much prefer the interface of the Sansamp Original (Classic now).
In short, the POD does not allow me to rave as with analog pedals by turning the knobs all over the place "to see how it feels."
It's a different philosophy, more home-oriented studio, I was very fascinated at first, but ultimately deprive myself of feelings that I really wanted with analog gear.
Special mention for the manual, clear, informative, well written, good quality (at a constant Line6).
Tastes and colors, I think it's the only thing that can be discussed. Let's go then.
The effects are effective, responsive and realistic enough, but it's annoying not being able to use 2-3 at a time. The number parameter is either too small or too difficult to access in the interface to allow such extreme outcomes qu'avaec my old analog pedals or RP2000.
I use the POD with a Vigier anniversary (silver sparkle, but the details have little impact on the sound). I do not really find the nuances of the instrument as clearly with my amp (a Marshall JTM30, very precise and not fat). And I'm just swell. Besides the gain is not always easy to differentiate between two microphones on distorted sounds.
Sounds "very" difficult to obtain clear, there is always a bit of crunch, which is annoying in some situations. Crunches are fine. The quality of saturation varies greatly depending on the amp model emulated. Overall, they lack serious potato, and one may say, the lamp seems to me the most absent. It has a warmth and a complimentary grain pattern on some clean (I like the Blackface I), but we are not at the Sansamp for saturations.
I find the digital grain loadings just disgusting. It does not react as a single-lamp, but it renders services to the recording. Finally, a Sansamp of 10 years ago has better sound, is more direct in its use, can be simply integrated into a stage rig, and is not outdated because of its successor.
And yes, I do not find the disgust of the development computer in the world of guitar. Since the POD XT came out, I find my POD 2 a little weakling. To break this spiral, I will make a return to safe values. The digital allows especially to lower costs, which is fine, but the overall quality of saturation has been improved in any way. That's my opinion, nothing more.
Finally, I came back to record with the XLR output from my Marsahll JTM30 ...
I cons by many simulations of HP, very convenient. I wonder also if I will not keep my POD for that. It's funny to put a big distortion in and set up a 12-inch single. This kind of experiments can be done with the analog gear (unless you have time and money to set all existing models of HP), and this is that digital offers more: get quick lots of sound situations.
We will do this more square:
- How long have you use it?
Approximately 2 years
- What is so special that you love
most: the simulator HP, really effective and practical appeal of the original 30 amplirs have on hand, sounds very nice crunch, form, aesthetics
the least: the sound too digital on some gum and overruns the nuances of my super Vigier, the interface makes me regret the separate pedals, effects too small can not be pushed to their limits because they do not
- Have you tried many other models before buying it?
I listened to its competitors at the time, J-Station, V-amp ... bcp sounds so good on bright / crunch, maybe a little more on the Satus couillus ... but hey, the pod is in my opinion the best by far of the lot.
- How would you rate the quality / price?
Very nice for so cheap to have as many amp tones ... a real good history lesson
- With experience, you do again this choice? ...
NO, I would buy a Sansamp and Electro-Harmonix pedals.
I understand being a little harsh, I admit that my tastes have changed. I no longer wish marvel devan the last digital machine that can simulate everything from the early history of the guitar ...
I like when digital offers other things, that the analog can never give. Here, the effects are too conventional, and quality of Satus changes from model to model ... of asymptotically to the stuff that I now want to acquire.
1 people found this review helpful