# Line 6 Pod Question



## Destropiate (Jan 17, 2007)

Hi

Right now Im using Amplitube Thru Logic on my Mac Ibook.....I like the sounds I get out of it but it eats up alot of processing power and i can only record a few tracks without it getting crashy. My Mac is a workhorse normally & when im just micing amps I have no issues with ALOT of tracks at once, unfortunately I cant mic my tube amp at 2 AM. 
A friend of mine wanted to sell me his original POD, will it eat up system resources as much? Im guessing since the sounds are inside the unit that it wont at all, and therefore i should get it. I just figured id check here first.
Thanks.


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

A POD will certainly remove the processing load on your computer, as the POD itself is doing the 'tone modeling'. The only question is if you'll be satisfied with the guitar tones that the POD can produce. I use a POD for all of my guitar recordings (direct into my PC soundcard) and I love it. But, I've never used a modeling program such as Amplitude, so I can't offer any comments on whether the tones produced will be comparable.


----------



## jcayer (Mar 25, 2007)

Destropiate said:


> Hi
> 
> ...A friend of mine wanted to sell me his original POD, will it eat up system resources as much? Im guessing since the sounds are inside the unit that it wont at all, and therefore i should get it. I just figured id check here first.
> Thanks.


Are you talking about the original POD 2.0 ? If so, I don't think that there is a USB port to plug it to your Mac. 

Somebody correct me if I 'm wrong !!! Maybe there are other ways to do it tho...


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

jcayer said:


> Are you talking about the original POD 2.0 ? If so, I don't think that there is a USB port to plug it to your Mac.
> 
> Somebody correct me if I 'm wrong !!! Maybe there are other ways to do it tho...


Thats correct - mine is a POD 2.0 and it has no USB out port - it's just Stereo Line Outs. The OP will still need some kind of USB/Firewire type interface. I don't know anything about MACs/iBooks etc so I might have misled him there.


----------



## Guest (Mar 3, 2010)

jcayer said:


> Are you talking about the original POD 2.0 ? If so, I don't think that there is a USB port to plug it to your Mac.
> 
> Somebody correct me if I 'm wrong !!! Maybe there are other ways to do it tho...


 You can just run the left and right analog outputs from the Pod into the line in on your computer or audio interface and record it that way.


----------



## Destropiate (Jan 17, 2007)

jcayer said:


> Are you talking about the original POD 2.0 ? If so, I don't think that there is a USB port to plug it to your Mac.
> 
> Somebody correct me if I 'm wrong !!! Maybe there are other ways to do it tho...


I actually have an Mbox that I use to get all my sounds through the USB port of my computer so i dont think ill have a problem with that, thanks for bringng that up though cause I wasnt even thinking about how the thing connects..


----------



## Destropiate (Jan 17, 2007)

bagpipe said:


> A POD will certainly remove the processing load on your computer, as the POD itself is doing the 'tone modeling'.


Awesome thats pretty much what i needed to know. 



bagpipe said:


> The only question is if you'll be satisfied with the guitar tones that the POD can produce. I use a POD for all of my guitar recordings (direct into my PC soundcard) and I love it. But, I've never used a modeling program such as Amplitude, so I can't offer any comments on whether the tones produced will be comparable.


My friend is selling me his for 50 bucks so even if Im not ridiculously impressed for 50 i think it'll do the trick. Im basically just going to be using the POD for when I have ideas to play with and theres someone in the room, or sleeping and I cant mic my amp. Ive heard Amplitube and the Line 6 stuff are supposed to be fairly comparable and I like the way Amplitube sounds......I just wish i could double track rythms to write leads to before it starts gumming up my sytem . I
ll be using it as more as a "silent writing tool" than a "record my whole CD" with it kinda thing so as long as its not dragging my processor under it should be perfect for what i need.


----------



## itf? (May 27, 2009)

The original POD is okay but doesn't hold a candle to the newer models IMO. You won't find the tone mind blowing if it is the old 1.0 version. I had one and eventually called Line 6 and they sent me out a 2.0 eprom upgrade which was a pretty significant improvement. If it is indeed just a writing tool you'll be fine and hey, there have been some pretty well known guitarists that have been using the POD to record for a long time. Personally, I find digital modeling units don't really "sound" digital as much as they "feel" digital. Once it's recorded and mixed few can tell the difference. Sorry if I veered a bit from the original question.


----------



## Vincent (Nov 24, 2007)

I used amplitube 2 for a long time and I also own a line 6 pod.

What I would suggest with amplitube is once you recorded a track I would render that track down to a WAV file...then remove the amplitube VST from that track...then mute that track and keep it because thats your original recording.

Now import your new rendered WAV file into DAW...now you have your recorded track without hogging up the CPU because the plugin is gone now.


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2010)

Vincent said:


> I used amplitube 2 for a long time and I also own a line 6 pod.
> 
> What I would suggest with amplitube is once you recorded a track I would render that track down to a WAV file...then remove the amplitube VST from that track...then mute that track and keep it because thats your original recording.
> 
> Now import your new rendered WAV file into DAW...now you have your recorded track without hogging up the CPU because the plugin is gone now.


Good suggestion. Most modern DAW software have a track freeze function. That essentially turns the track into a bounce and removes all the processing and latency from any effects on that track.


----------

