Digital Igloo (Eric Klein, YGG)

Digital Igloo said:
Oh, there are plenty of great YouTube creators. (I particularly like Leon Todd and John Cordy.)

The cadence at which YGG writes, shoots, edits, approves, and deploys its own content is sorta the antithesis of what makes a great channel—quick, timely, and consistent—so I've been flirting with the idea of starting my own (non-monetized) channel that's nothing but under-3-minute-walk-throughs for power users. No intros, no "like and subscribe and ring the bell," just "learn this shortcut, step two, step three, done." Then instead of writing down steps in a forum, I can just link to the video. It'd look super low effort tho', as I have zero video skills; that dumb video I made for Sweetwater took forever.
Click to expand...
As long as the head is shiny, I aint gonna whinge.
 
zib said:
maybe they will be great,
Click to expand...
Maybe? I'm going by the fact that Catalyst is significantly cheaper than Helix, so I'm guessing some corners had to be cut in its modeling?

zib said:
I found Ventoux pretty cool, what about you ?
Click to expand...
Not really. Not at all actually. I can see why some people like it for clean / cleanish sounds, but I didn't find it any better than options that were already in Helix, especially for anything heavier than cleanish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zib
the-trooper said:
Maybe? I'm going by the fact that Catalyst is significantly cheaper than Helix, so I'm guessing some corners had to be cut in its modeling?
Click to expand...
Nope. Line 6 Original Amps do generally take up less DSP than models based on existing tube amps, but not for the reason you may think. A healthy chunk of MIPS is used to perfectly replicate idiosyncrasies that may not be aesthetically pleasing at all, but need to be there for the sake of authenticity and accuracy. When Ben, Sam, and Ryan make original amps, they can focus only on making it sound interesting and cool, which requires less DSP.

Catalyst is significantly cheaper than Helix because of parts, development, labor, and economies of scale. Its ARM chip can run the same DSP as its SHARC-based brethren, albeit with fewer simultaneous blocks.
 
Hi DI and forumers.
Is it Relevant to release an updated hardware model, with the same software "core" ?
I mean Helix Mk2, the same with newer DSPs...
Of course, there are pros and cons. Fractal have success with Mk2 and turbo versions.
So why not ?
 
zib said:
Hi DI and forumers.
Is it Relevant to release an updated hardware model, with the same software "core" ?
I mean Helix Mk2, the same with newer DSPs...
Of course, there are pros and cons. Fractal have success with Mk2 and turbo versions.
So why not ?
Click to expand...
If the same software is ported to a new architecture (a significant feat in itself) and now the same algorithms that used to require 70% DSP usage take only 50% on the new system, it's still going to sound exactly the same.

A good example is the Strymon V1 vs V2 pedals. The V1 runs on an Analog Devices SHARC DSP chip and the V2 runs on an ARM processor. On paper the ARM is significantly faster, but CPU architectures are not necessarily comparable this way as there's a whole number of things in those architectures that might mean the less MHz SHARC chip does some things faster than the ARM processor and vice versa.

The V1 and V2 Strymon models sound pretty much the same - unless Strymon has gone a bit further and upgraded the software running it to make better use of the new CPU. For example the BlueSky was revamped with new features but the Flint is pretty much the same.

So if everything else remained the same, a faster CPU Helix would just let you put more stuff in a single preset but that's about it.

Fractal's Turbo versions exist mostly because there is a faster processor of the same architecture. It doesn't require a huge effort to swap to that faster processor so they can sell it as a premium option (Axe-Fx 3 Turbo) or simply get around supply issues of the slower CPU (FM9 Turbo).
 
laxu said:
Fractal's Turbo versions exist mostly because there is a faster processor of the same architecture. It doesn't require a huge effort to swap to that faster processor so they can sell it as a premium option (Axe-Fx 3 Turbo) or simply get around supply issues of the slower CPU (FM9 Turbo).
Click to expand...
Is the Analog Devices SHARC+ in both the Fractal FM products and the Quad Cortex not "close enough" to the Helix chip, architecturally (at least for the DSP cores) to simplify the porting process?
 
Foxmeister said:
Is the Analog Devices SHARC+ in both the Fractal FM products and the Quad Cortex not "close enough" to the Helix chip, architecturally (at least for the DSP cores) to simplify the porting process?
Click to expand...
I have no idea.

Ultimately the processor choices are more based on things like availability and cost for whatever the manufacturer wants to do with it. I expect that the reason e.g Strymon made the V2 pedals was that they had a harder time securing the SHARC chips in quantities needed. The ARM chip might end up being more available and cheaper. They haven't replaced some of their newer SHARC chip pedals like the Volante, Nightsky and Iridium. Potentially they won't either if the current situation lets them have the supply they need for those models when everything they make is not using the same thing.

Fractal had to make the Axe-Fx 3 partially because the Axe-Fx 2 DSP chip was discontinued. If the SHARC chips used on the Helix become hard to get or get discontinued, then Line6 would also need to have a replacement product. As I understand it they have had their own challenges securing all the components needed for the Helix range but seem to have solved those problems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zib
According to the description in the video below, the Aristocrat is based on the Litigator amp found in Helix. The Kinetic amp is based on the Cartographer. Maybe the other amps are based on existing HX amps and adding them to the Helix would be redundant.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top