Digital Igloo (Eric Klein, YGG)

Stone said:
Hello Eric, great podcast with Steve,
I am curious and asking what is the future of the Powercabs, without of course not crossing your NDA
are there new models, revamped platforms in the works?
Click to expand...
We're definitely not finished with PowerCab.
BahamaDada said:
Nothing to ask. Just as @Stone said the podcast with Steve was extremly entertaining. In depth talk without boring everyone out with too much tech babble.
Click to expand...
Steve's always easy to talk to. Great guy, great player.
the swede said:
In the video with Steve you mentioned throwing together mockups of the XL. Did you ever “draw” a version with screen oriented to the left? Would be cool to se a mockup like that. In my mind that would’ve looked better somehow. I guess I/O and stuff might have steered the design to what it is now?
Click to expand...
IIRC, yeah, we did mock up a version with the screen on the left, but traditionally, our TAP/TUNER and MODE/EDIT/EXIT switches have always been on the right because most right-handed players edit with their right hand and tap tempo with their right foot. In this case, the functional precedent won over aesthetics.

Here's what it might've looked like:

XL_UIClusterLeft.jpg
 
Digital Igloo said:
IIRC, yeah, we did mock up a version with the screen on the left, but traditionally, our TAP/TUNER and MODE/EDIT/EXIT switches have always been on the right because most right-handed players edit with their right hand and tap tempo with their right foot. In this case, the functional precedent won over aesthetics.

Here's what it might've looked like:

View attachment 24710
Click to expand...
I feel so weird, but I have to say that the left oriented screen version appeals to me more. Even though I am right handed/footed, I’ve always tapped with my left foot and also always placed the stomp top left on pedalboards. Well, that’s me haha. I totally understand though, why it is what it is now.
 
Sascha Franck said:
Possibly not a big deal to replace it yourself.
Click to expand...
The thought crossed my mind, but it’s way low on the priority list. I just brought it up because I’m pretty sure a lot of people are using the PG in churches and a lot of those spaces are designed to project every little creak. Not an issue with the Helix switches, but the PG enclosure is more hollow and the switches are traditional clicky ones.
 
Is Line 6 working on anything for guitar that would provide pitch to midi conversion that rivals anything currently in the market?

And if you are would you be free to answer “yes”?
 
  • Like
Reactions: zib
Sascha, yes, ok, for the moment but if a NAM player module was implemented, even if it seals the whole DSP power ?
 
zib said:
Sascha, yes, ok, for the moment but if a NAM player module was implemented, even if it seals the whole DSP power ?
Click to expand...

The issue with NAM captures would likely be that they require different amounts of CPU, depending on how accurate their training process was. At least that's my understanding.
So, in order to be in line with the HX series "philosophy", if there was a NAM module, it'd always had to assume you were loading the most CPU intense capture there is.

However, I just tried out some things (nothing scientific) and couldn't notice much of a difference between NAM captures labeled "feather" and ones without that label. Also, I compared with some HX amp models (using HX Native), and while I'm perfectly aware of different amps using different amounts of CPU, the "average" difference between randomly chosen NAM captures and randomly chosen HX amps doesn't seem to be very large - so my guess would be that adding a NAM block wouldn't need too much CPU overhead, regardless of the used NAM file.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zib
the swede said:
I feel so weird, but I have to say that the left oriented screen version appeals to me more. Even though I am right handed/footed, I’ve always tapped with my left foot and also always placed the stomp top left on pedalboards. Well, that’s me haha. I totally understand though, why it is what it is now.
Click to expand...
I think the way it puts all controls on the right makes it look more harmonious, but for practical reasons the way Line6 did it makes sense. Plus you don't risk bumping one of the knobs when stomping around.
 
Sascha Franck said:
Huh? The positioning of the mode/tap switches in relation to the knobs is the same on both.
Click to expand...
But not for the other buttons. You are unlikely to hit the knobs when pressing the footswitches under the display, but might do so if you stomp on the upper row switches if the footswitches were on the right side.
 
laxu said:
but might do so if you stomp on the upper row switches if the footswitches were on the right side.
Click to expand...

Hm. Why would that be any different from them being on the left?

Edit: Oh, I seem to see - you're talking about the two "main" encoders, right? In that case, yeah, I agree.
 
zib said:
Is Helix able to run NAM easily?
Click to expand...
Theoretically, yes. But...
Sascha Franck said:
So, in order to be in line with the HX series "philosophy", if there was a NAM module, it'd always had to assume you were loading the most CPU intense capture there is.
Click to expand...
...I'm not sure any hardware multieffect could run the most CPU-intensive NAM captures, especially considering that NAM keeps getting burlier as it evolves. Traditional hardware-based solutions will have to sacrifice a bit on paper, even if the delta isn't audible to the vast majority of musicians.
 
Digital Igloo said:
...I'm not sure any hardware multieffect could run the most CPU-intensive NAM captures
Click to expand...

The hardware NAM player seems to run all of them sort of easily it seems.

But as said, I get it that the (possibly vastly?) different CPU consumption of the same block type doesn't fit well into the general consensus of the HX block ecosystem.
However, personally I'd be fine if it just loaded things until it just doesn't anymore, even in case these "oh sorry, can't load that anymore" moments would happen within one block type.
 
Digital Igloo said:
Theoretically, yes. But...

...I'm not sure any hardware multieffect could run the most CPU-intensive NAM captures, especially considering that NAM keeps getting burlier as it evolves. Traditional hardware-based solutions will have to sacrifice a bit on paper, even if the delta isn't audible to the vast majority of musicians.
Click to expand...
I promised somewhere to eat my shoe if L6 didn’t include some form of capturing in their offerings within 2 years…so for the sake of my health, and my shoe collection…plz keep looking into capturing tech out there ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top