Digital Igloo (Eric Klein, YGG)

Sascha Franck said:
Sure. And it's been Mooer to directly copy EHX' software/firmware for some pedals:
www.ehx.com

Chinese Pirates of Electro-Harmonix Software Walk the Plank! - Electro-Harmonix

www.ehx.com www.ehx.com

In other words, those guys not only live in the shady, grey waters of bordering copyright infringements, no, they're outright thieves. And with the EHX "event" they have cleary (not just legally but morally as well) crossed a line you should really rather not cross.
My personal outcome of this is that I'm trying not to buy any Mooer stuff again. I own 3 of their pedals that I dig and regularly use (and I won't stop using them because that'd make little sense), but I try my best to not buy from them again.
Given I'm pretty much a cheapskater (out of necessity, as a live musician you're not getting along too great these days anymore, too late to look for another profession...) I can't avoid buying some chinese or otherwise far eastern products of rather unknown origin, but whenever things are as clear as above, that gets a strike.
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree. :D
 
It's worth mentioning with all this talk about copies/clones etc, that there is what is illegal to do in different countries and what is morally/ethically wrong. These are often not the same thing and sometimes what the law says goes against what we would like to see in name of justice.

For a company like Behringer doing both illegal and morally wrong things and paying the fines when sued is just the cost of doing business, which is why I won't buy anything from them.

An OEM stamping anyone's name on their pedals is not the same thing, happens all the time. You can go to a grocery store and find that the cheaper store brand product is the same as the slightly more expensive, fancier packaged brand name stuff.

It gets more complicated when we talk about e.g cloning pedal circuits. I built a Browne Protein out of kits using PedalPCB's reverse-engineered (but own PCB design) boards. You could say PedalPCB is benefiting off the work and brand name of the Browne since they list "similar to this pedal" type stuff on their website - maybe not unlike how digital modelers state what they are based on.

At the same time if I look at the schematic for the Browne Protein, it's like 90% the same as a Marshall Bluesbreaker on the blue side and same thing for the Nobels ODR-1 on the green side. Like literally 90% the same components and values. So where does that put the Browne? Just two clones packaged in one box with a few tweaks on top?

With digital it's even more complex as it can be a clone of the sound of an amp, it can be a digital clone of the circuit or it can be a digital version that sounds the same as a particular amp but can then be set up to do things that the original does not.

Or how about you find that the digital version is not accurate but actually prefer that? As an example the Strymon Iridium's "Round" amp low end does not break up like a real Fender Deluxe Reverb, but stays clean more like a Twin. But I actually really like that! It means it takes drive pedals better without becoming woofy or muddy.

I know Line6 guys have said in some interview that they'd rather build their own custom amp sims but the "look at all the classic amps modeled" sells much, much better. This is really unfortunate because a lot of companies now have digital modeling that is excellent in its own right.

But they all bandwagon around making digital replicas of real world amps rather than bringing something new based on those familiar sounds, just because that seems to be what most users are after. Captures are just the ultimate form of that where the company making the gear does not even have to do the models, just the platform to make and run them.
 
wizard-of-oz-judy-garland.gif
 
laxu said:
Or how about you find that the digital version is not accurate but actually prefer that? As an example the Strymon Iridium's "Round" amp low end does not break up like a real Fender Deluxe Reverb, but stays clean more like a Twin. But I actually really like that! It means it takes drive pedals better without becoming woofy or muddy.
Click to expand...

Same with me. I modified the Bman model in my Amplifirebox so much (using a combination of pre- and post-EQ) that it doesn't get as flubby as the original anymore. Wouldn't mind if that was baked into the model.

laxu said:
I know Line6 guys have said in some interview that they'd rather build their own custom amp sims but the "look at all the classic amps modeled" sells much, much better. This is really unfortunate because a lot of companies now have digital modeling that is excellent in its own right.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd like to see a lot more original models. It's actually why I pretty much like Boss' approach. They don't give much of a toss about tons of authentic models but rather come up with their own, excellent and incredibly flexible takes on all kinds of amps.
But as you said, the market seems to dictate something else.
Ideally, we'd have either.
 
Sascha Franck said:
I'd like to see a lot more original models. It's actually why I pretty much like Boss' approach. They don't give much of a toss about tons of authentic models but rather come up with their own, excellent and incredibly flexible takes on all kinds of amps.
But as you said, the market seems to dictate something else.
Ideally, we'd have either.
Click to expand...

100% agree regarding the Boss voicings. In most cases it's obvious what they're "inspired" by, but the no-frills, no-bells'n'whistles approach is definitely a good thing!
 
And fwiw, I'd still like some playground amps. Just let me roll my own. Not exactly on component level but such as being able to select and combine different drive-, compression- and tone-stacks, maybe mutliple ones.
 
Hi DI and forumers. NAM open source modelling profiler seems to be a success.
Can open source projects be used for "profit" commercial products ?
I'd answer "yes", I think that several huge companies do it for ages.
 
zib said:
Hi DI and forumers. NAM open source modelling profiler seems to be a success.
Can open source projects be used for "profit" commercial products ?
Click to expand...

It depends. NAM in particular uses the MIT license so, as long as your product lists the appropriate copyright and license notices somewhere, it can be used commercially without issues.

github.com

neural-amp-modeler/LICENSE at main · sdatkinson/neural-amp-modeler

Neural network emulator for guitar amplifiers. Contribute to sdatkinson/neural-amp-modeler development by creating an account on GitHub.
github.com github.com

zib said:
I'd answer "yes", I think that several huge companies do it for ages.
Click to expand...

Eh... we shall see. NAM is not particularly groundbreaking technologically; the basics of machine learning for audio have been well understood for some time now. It has issues as well, like the fact that it's currently 100% implemented in Python. Not the kind of stuff that's easy to port to DSP-based hardware.

But, who knows. Maybe the project really takes off, and amasses a Kemper-level library of captures.
 
Last edited:
zib said:
Hi DI and forumers. NAM open source modelling profiler seems to be a success.
Can open source projects be used for "profit" commercial products ?
I'd answer "yes", I think that several huge companies do it for ages.
Click to expand...
AFAIK, yes.
 
@Digital Igloo I have a Catalyst 200 and looking for either HXFX, Stomp, or Stomp XL for 1st better control of the amp and 2nd for effects. I really like the sounds out of the Cat so not sure if I will need amps and cabs. Are there any +/- of the different options listed above? I'm open to recommendations and my gut is telling me the HXFX should do what I want and the right option but the more I read, the more self questioning my decisions. Plus it seems there are a lot more tones to DL and activity to get you started in CustomTone for the Stomp/Stomp XL than HXFX.

Since the Cat is a relatively new product, most people already had HXFX/Stomp/XL and added the amp after vs having the amp first and adding later, so not getting a lot of online recommendations there either.

Thanks for any recommendations!
 
zib said:
Thanks DI. Another question "The Axe FX III and the Helix use the exact same converters" is that true ?
Source : #48 : https://www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php?threads/helix-as-ai-latency.2120607/page-3
Click to expand...
Helix A/D: Cirrus-Logic CS5368 (8 ch, 24-bit/192kHz)
Helix D/A: Cirrus-Logic CS4385 (8 ch, 24-bit/192kHz)

Not sure what the Axe FX III is using, but once you get to a certain level of converter chip, there are a good dozen or more things that make as big or a bigger difference: Analog circuitry before/after conversion, clocking, op amps, power supplies, circuit layout, (patented) dynamic range magic, etc.
Byrdman said:
@Digital Igloo I have a Catalyst 200 and looking for either HXFX, Stomp, or Stomp XL for 1st better control of the amp and 2nd for effects. I really like the sounds out of the Cat so not sure if I will need amps and cabs. Are there any +/- of the different options listed above? I'm open to recommendations and my gut is telling me the HXFX should do what I want and the right option but the more I read, the more self questioning my decisions. Plus it seems there are a lot more tones to DL and activity to get you started in CustomTone for the Stomp/Stomp XL than HXFX.

Since the Cat is a relatively new product, most people already had HXFX/Stomp/XL and added the amp after vs having the amp first and adding later, so not getting a lot of online recommendations there either.

Thanks for any recommendations!
Click to expand...
The main advantage of HX Stomp and Stomp XL are that they have amps and cabs. If you're completely satisfied with the amps and speaker in your Catalyst 200, HX Effects will be a bit easier to use and faster to get around. Admittedly, Stomp and Stomp XL may be easier specifically when digging deep into parallel paths and fancy routing, but HX Effects is the closest equivalent to an effects pedalboard we make.

These Quickstart videos should give you an idea of how their workflow differs:
HX Stomp/Stomp XL
HX Effects
 
This question was probably answered many times before, but I still don't quite grasp the process.
How does Line 6 decide what will be in the next update?
I know we all monitor the forums and social media but there are so many requests, suggestion and trends, how things are prioritized?
Some key features and models instantly raise the value of the product to a lot of people, is that a consideration?
 
James Freeman said:
This question was probably answered many times before, but I still don't quite grasp the process.
How does Line 6 decide what will be in the next update?
I know we all monitor the forums and social media but there are so many requests, suggestion and trends, how things are prioritized?
Some key features and models instantly raise the value of the product to a lot of people, is that a consideration?
Click to expand...
And then there’s their own “bucket list” which imo historically has been more interesting than users requests (ok… I admit.. some user requests has been really important too) because of what the L6 dudes wanted to get in there but time wasn’t right… and such.
 
James Freeman said:
I know we all monitor the forums and social media but there are so many requests, suggestion and trends, how things are prioritized?
Click to expand...

If I was to take a bet: Whenever possible, deliver what the biggest target market is asking for. And as the biggest target market defenitely would be home dwellers and home studio users, what they're asking for is high priority.
That's how I'd do things if I had to run the business.

For myself, it's a rather sad thing because I'd love to see vastly different things.
 
Last edited:
Sascha Franck said:
If I was to take a bet: Whenever possible, deliver what the biggest target market is asking for. And as the biggest target market defenitely would be home dwellers and home studio users, what they're asking for is high priority.
That's how I'd to things if I had to run the business.

For myself, it's a rather sad thing because I'd love to see vastly different things.
Click to expand...

I guess you nailed it.
 
James Freeman said:
This question was probably answered many times before, but I still don't quite grasp the process.
How does Line 6 decide what will be in the next update?
I know we all monitor the forums and social media but there are so many requests, suggestion and trends, how things are prioritized?
Some key features and models instantly raise the value of the product to a lot of people, is that a consideration?
Click to expand...
In no particular order:
  • Amp/Pedal/Feature du Jour—What's everyone buzzing about this month? Will it still be cool by the time it appears in the next Helix/HX/POD update?
  • IdeaScale
  • Uniqueness/Unpredictability—Does the amp or pedal bring something new to Helix or is it a slight variation of something we already have that could be easily replicated by, say, tweaking a few parameters or adding an EQ block? Is it something already in competitive products (boring) or would we be first to market (a potential cool story)?
  • Accessibility/Opportunity—One of us may have a particular amp or pedal and is willing to let Ben, Sam, or Ryan tear it apart. Or we found a vintage product in pristine condition. Or another amp or pedal manufacturer wants to work together.
  • Engineer's pet project—"Hey all, I've been working on this thing. Whattaya think?"
  • Artist Requests—"Man, it would really be awesome if y'all added this"
  • Squeaky Wheels (Employee Edition)—"Please please please please please?!" "Okay, fine. Now shut up." This has only happened a couple times, and I'm most often the please please guy.
  • Squeaky Wheels (User Edition)—"Please please please please please?!" "Okay, fine. Now shut up." This can sometimes backfire if a user is rude or annoying, where we actively won't give them what they want.
  • Architecture support—Can the current platform even do this? Will it take up too much DSP, memory, and/or storage?
  • Development complexity—Does the amp or pedal require additional DSP tools or can we nail it with existing tools? Does the feature require weeks (or months) of R&D? Could its implementation cause trickle-down bugs elsewhere?
  • Development time—If we do this, how many other, more important things will need to be deferred?
  • Resource Availability—Which Sound Designers or engineers are free to work on stuff? For example, Sam might be the best Sound Designer to work on X, but he may be busy working on Y.
  • Strategy, or "Is this a Helix/HX thing?"—Does it fly in the face of what we're trying to accomplish?
  • Timing—Would it make more sense to wait until X.XX this particular month, so multiple projects align perfectly and we don't need to run multiple marketing campaigns for what may be perceived to be the same thing?
I'm sure there are more, but the point is there's a lot of juggling. Thankfully, the team's been together so long now that most of the above becomes second nature to us, and there are rarely any vocal disagreements, at least within Products and Engineering.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top