Or would you go straight to something else?
I worded it poorly. The way it ramps into oscillation cant be replicated with other pedals. My dd-500 doesnt do it, the timeline doesnt do it, the flashback x4 doesnt do it. We havent tried with the echo station yet.What feature can they do that can't be replicated on any other delay?
I'd assume the Line 6 m9 could pull off the same sounds also, with more features including 3 delays at once.
Yeah, I've heard they can break.They can do something with an expression pedal that to this day no other delay can (we haven't tried the source audio one, but nothing else has done it).
That said, I've watched dan fix his more times than I care to count - and he's on his 7th?
You are correct, Mark. They are exactly the same. Software is software - and these are all software driven. The M9 does everything a DL4 does - times 25. I've owned both and I think you know which one I still own. Size for size, feature for feature, the M9 is better. It is also twice the price, so there's that.My understanding is that the M5/M9/M13 all include the entirety of the Echo Park, which is a distillation of the DL4. As near as I can tell from the panel, there doesn't seem to be anything "missing" in the Echo Park, withy the exception of what the multiple stompswitches accomplish. Instead of "analog" and "tape" settings being another click on the rotary dial, they are slide-switch mode settings on the Echo Park, and other programs on the M-series units.
What does the DL4 do that the EP and M-series don't? I'm not challenging your contention. I'm just working off something other than user-knowledge, and interested in understanding the quirks of these things.
Line 6 have stated that there were a number of software "massages" and changes (improvements) made to the DL4 algorithms after they were integrated into the M series. The hardware is also significantly different- different convertors, different sample rates, etc.They are exactly the same. Software is software - and these are all software driven.
Sure, I guess it's possible that the improvements they made, many not having anything to do with the sound, could have been seen as a negative effect to some people that really wanted the old version. Much like micro-cassettes are making a comeback in some cultures - they sound like crap but some people want that. The hardware changes just made the software more transparent or saved power - which again I suppose could have been seen as a negative to some people. Not to me, though.Line 6 have stated that there were a number of software "massages" and changes (improvements) made to the DL4 algorithms after they were integrated into the M series. The hardware is also significantly different- different convertors, different sample rates, etc.
M series obviously do way more but I think some people are drawn to the simplicity of the DL4. It's pretty incredible that it's still a viable product for them after what- 18 years?
That's a good question! I'm sure at some point someone will be singing the praises of the original Axe-FX "mojo" lol...I wonder if we'll see people clinging to the first generation of Axe-FX or Helix stuff.
Yep, I agree. Partially the comfort zone. And partially the fact that they have someone to repair them, if in fact they did break down with regularity - something I've never experienced but it sounds like @Budda 's bandmate has. As an amateur, I have to really love it to keep fixing it that many times, unless the repair was as easy as replacing tubes or fuses (and/or I was fixing it myself). LOLPretty amazing the DL4 still shows up on so many pro boards- probably a lot of 'if it ain't broke' don't fix it going on.