3.6 When ?


Yeah, been reading that already. Doesn't say yes or no at all. And I'd say as soon as public demand is rising (which it will, quite inevitably), they will at least have to spend some serious thoughts on it. Same goes for Fractal and whomelse might be planning to play in the Champions League of modeling.
 
How's that?
I mean, it's really pretty much just as IRs. Profiling is an expansion of IRs.
I've only read it again and again that L6 doesn't bend for the current trend. Caps are new and exciting but aren't tablestakes, at least not yet - same as IRs. They'll want to do it "their way" and not just port the feature because it's the flavor of the week.
 
I've only read it again and again that L6 doesn't bend for the current trend. Caps are new and exciting but aren't tablestakes, at least not yet - same as IRs. They'll want to do it "their way" and not just port the feature because it's the flavor of the week.

Hm, guess I disagree with this. Sure, they're not yet tablestakes. But they will be in the very near future. And in case you're running a company doing modelers, you want your piece of that cake for sure. It's not "bending for a trend", either, just following the market in a logical way.
If you were Line 6, would you want, say, IKMM to come up with a bigger version of Tonex, namely AT/Tonex in hardware without having an answer? And as is, they wouldn't have an answer. Just imagine, Amplitube MAX and ToneX Max in a hardware modeler. It'd possibly mop the floor with pretty much anything else out there (maybe apart from Fractal). You don't want to lose that race.
 
And fwiw, I think the Blitzkrieg success of the Tonex (and it really is something like that, pretty much the entire modeling world is all up in furor) is already sort of proving my words. Everybody's like "ok, let me run this with my HX Stomp/FX - but uhm, it'd be much better if I didn't have to go through all the required logistics" already.
And I guess it's as well safe to say that in 10 years from now (likely earlier) each and every of the top tier modelers will have some ways of capturing and/or matching. It's just too good of a thing to pass.
 
Personally, I think that with the release of the ToneX pedal, captures have now become table stakes for any new Line 6 modellers, but not for existing ones.

Might as well be that. But then, they could as well just decide to boost their sales of existing hardware - which a capturing feature defenitely would be good for. Heck, even I could possibly think about re-buying a Floor (or use the Stomp as the amp thing on my board, right now it's just an FX box).
 
But then, they could as well just decide to boost their sales of existing hardware - which a capturing feature defenitely would be good for.
I genuinely can't see that happening - there are an awful lot of HX devices out there, and plenty available on the used market, so I very much doubt Line 6 would see much of "boost" in sales if they updated the current product line to support captures.

I remember DI saying that new hardware SKUs "pay" for updates in the current product lines, or words to that effect, so I seriously doubt captures will ever come to the current generation of Line 6 modellers.
 
Ummm, no. They work very different under the hood.

The Kemper tech likely isn't too different (basically a bunch of cleverly inserted match EQs modfying some baseline models), but as far as neural engines are concerned, you're of course right. But I wasn't specifically aiming at the technical aspect but rather of what it actually results in. IRs represent a given hardware scenario 1:1 and captures bring non-linear functionality to that table.
 
I agree - a hybrid solution, dare I say it, like the QC, is the best approach! ;)
live dangerously mike myers GIF
 
I would absolutely agree that a hybrid approach would be great, especially in case you can run multiple captures with ease (as on the QC). You could then capture drives, preamps and poweramps separately, which allows for a lot more sound sculpting freedom. Add some pre/post EQ options and there's barely anything you couldn't do. And in case there's still things left, well, add a component modeled block.
 
I agree - a hybrid solution, dare I say it, like the QC, is the best approach! ;)

Nothing wrong with the QC itself, I believe. It's the "marketing" and slow support/update plan that puts lots of people off, rather than the unit on its own. It sounds fine, apart from poorly-addressed PSU noise and whatnot. ;)

Anyhow, the way I interpret the bits and pieces of L6 "inside info" that we have, capturing abilities aren't unlikely, but rather coming in future products, than to the current Helix/HX lineup.

And comparing "real" amp captures to IR's, that's the way Mooer understands them. A basic choice of character/voicing, to which you apply an EQ curve. Which makes it a bit more sophisticated than just tweaking a T/M/B/P tone stack, but probably nothing you couldn't do, for example, with an EQ that has lots of bands available, and/or can apply multiple instances of parametric boost/cut.
 
pretty much the entire modeling world is all up in furor
It is right now, but there's always the lurking opinion:
In the end; component based modeling>>>capture tech anyway. Great option to have certainly but Tone-X has not changed my opinion on that at all.
So who knows? Track record has proven that L6 doesn't rush to accommodate the flavor of the week, and having mad respect for Christoph Kemper, aren't itching to encroach on his product.

Im not willing to die on this hill or anything, I'm just reading between the lines. I'll be happy to eat my hat if/when it comes to the HX line.

The means to do it is there. I've tone matched guitar tones with current Helix tech and external tone matching EQ, and I'm sure @James Freeman does it in a much more scientific way than I do.
 
Back
Top