Digital Igloo (Eric Klein, YGG)

This is probably more of a Ben or Brandon question.

My understanding is that our preamp and power amp models are intrinsically tied together, and they were measured that way, so I'm not sure how good the experience of any ol' preamp block going into a generic power amp model (or handful of generic power amp models) would be. I imagine it wouldn't meet our standards of accuracy. Plus, there's currently no way for one block to communicate with another. For example, what would happen if two preamps were fed into a single power amp? Or a single preamp into two power amps? Many opportunities for user error to result in "what is Line 6 smoking?"
I don't think "some preamp block going into some generic power amp block" has to be accurate to anything, just as some preamp into a generic power amp (Fryette Power Station, etc.) isn't accurate to anything. Users just want the ability to have a power amp block that responds like a power amp...

It would certainly help me if I want to use preamps in my rig/pedalboard. I don't want to have to put down a Two Notes pedal just to get some (dubious) power amp modeling when I've got an awesome HX Stomp. The ethos of the HX Stomp is that it plays nice with everything, it should play nice with preamps (pls)!
 
Users just want the ability to have a power amp block that responds like a power amp...

Exactly. As said, something like the AFB poweramps would likely be sufficient for most people.

Also, many poweramps, especially those of somewhat more modern tube amps, work just nicely on their own, they don't need their dedicated preamp to function. Think Boogie and what not. Let alone the various rack power amps. You can just run anything into them, a modeler should hence offer such options, too.
 
Even a single poweramp block with a few different topologies (different power ratings+valves, Class A, Class A/B, variable NFB, presence & Depth) and maybe even a handful of impedance curves on its own would be really awesome and a unique offering that would add to the Helix platform in a really useful way.
 
You can just run anything into them, a modeler should hence offer such options, too.
You mean like modeler modeling a real power amp? Take ENGL 850 for example. AFAIK it has two phase inverters and one tube for boost. It can be overdriven. So it's kinda preampy.
 
Even a single poweramp block with a few different topologies (different power ratings+valves, Class A, Class A/B, variable NFB, presence & Depth) and maybe even a handful of impedance curves on its own would be really awesome and a unique offering that would add to the Helix platform in a really useful way.
Basically the Line 6 DT's power amp but modeled :p
1704734543325.png
 
Understood. I suppose that might scratch enough itches, sure.

Don't want to speak for DSP and Sound Design, but I imagine the consensus would be to... do it the right way.

Even if I have no idea about any programming, I could imagine that doing a poweramp (at least a rather simple one with not much switches and/or parameters to chose from) is almost trivial compared to a full amp. I mean, in laymen terms, it's just half of it...
 
Yeah if their code and tooling have quality I expect they are able to tweak and test their models very fast. Especially with Helix Native. It's not a development concern for sure. More like product - support commitment, exposing right knobs, etc
 
Even if I have no idea about any programming, I could imagine that doing a poweramp (at least a rather simple one with not much switches and/or parameters to chose from) is almost trivial compared to a full amp. I mean, in laymen terms, it's just half of it...
Perhaps. What we don't want to do, however, is some half-assed "here are a handful of power amp models that don't respond in the exact right way." It's not that we're opposed to developing something simple; it's that if we were to eventually do it right, we'd have this legacy code in there from when we didn't do it right, just to maintain preset compatibility. We've learned a lot since Helix first shipped and I imagine if a new platform ever sees the light of day, there'll be debates as to whether we keep, say, Legacy cabs around. On one hand, we don't want to break presets that use them; on the other hand, Hybrid cabs aren't nearly as good as our new cab engine and personally, I'd rather we not bring them forward.
Yeah if their code and tooling have quality I expect they are able to tweak and test their models very fast. Especially with Helix Native. It's not a development concern for sure. More like product - support commitment, exposing right knobs, etc
A lot of other companies build their models from schematics. They'll find an amp's schematics online, and then build a model using their bespoke building blocks/tools (and some companies' building blocks/tools are much better than others). There's nothing wrong with this approach.

Line 6 (and UA, and probably a few more), on the other hand, is all about brute force. The real amp is on a bench, meticulously torn apart, and Sound Design will measure everything. Sometimes they'll reference a schematic if something's not clear (or they suspect the amp might've been modded), but the process is just measure, measure, measure, measure, measure for up to 4 weeks per channel. Not saying our process is empirically better, but unless we screwed up along the way, it's generally more accurate to that particular amp because schematics aren't always 100% and they rarely account for quirky but interesting behavior.

So to do Helix power amps right, that means pulling the amps out of our museum, ensuring they're still in peak condition (and if not, spending time or money fixing/biasing them), and hacking away again. Don't want to speak for Ben and co., but at that point, we might as well remodel the preamp too with any improved tools we've made over the years.
 
When I see word "meticulously" wrt guitar stuff I can only think about 200-300% markup :-) You guys don't do it I'm pretty sure. love your pricing.

But wait, why you have to remeasure things? you already have the virtual models?
 
What about just modeling rack poweramps rather than the poweramps of current amps? I understand people wanting to get poweramps of whatever model, but I think rack poweramps would satisfy people who want to add poweramp modeling to e.g a preamp they own.
 
I personally don't need a model of existing poweramp, not from rack not from head. I'm ok or even actually prefer what say two notes offers. Generic power amp model. Phase inverter, that many tubes, transformer. Let me select tubes, impedance curve, give me presene depth knobs. I will be complete
 
I would like to think that someone like Fryette could understand Line 6 modeling their power would just be free marketing. But then again, humans.
 
Hi Eric,

Whilst I get that Line 6 don't like to straight up copy features from other manufacturers units, is there a technical reason why Line 6 couldn't come up with something akin to Fractal's channels, if only for a block or two per preset?

Consider a dual amp block, where only one amp is active at any one time.

You select two amp models to go into the block and the DSP allocation for the block would be set to the model with the highest DSP requirement. Each models parameters would be separate and distinct and the block would still have a single bypass state, but also have an "active" state for the one of the models.

The reason I ask is because you can select a new amp model via HX Edit, or by turning the model selection knob, whilst playing and the model change is essentially seamless, so it does seem to be that the Helix could switch at least one block model seamlessly.

Obviously if this worked for two amps in a single block, it should work for more than two, but I think keeping it at two would be sufficient and make a lot of people extremely happy, especially those with the HX Stomp.

I could also see some potential for dual effect blocks too (e.g. dual distortion, dual reverb etc), but I'd imagine you would eventually start experiencing audio gaps the more "dual" blocks you add to a preset.
 
Hi Eric,

Whilst I get that Line 6 don't like to straight up copy features from other manufacturers units, is there a technical reason why Line 6 couldn't come up with something akin to Fractal's channels, if only for a block or two per preset?

Consider a dual amp block, where only one amp is active at any one time.

You select two amp models to go into the block and the DSP allocation for the block would be set to the model with the highest DSP requirement. Each models parameters would be separate and distinct and the block would still have a single bypass state, but also have an "active" state for the one of the models.

The reason I ask is because you can select a new amp model via HX Edit, or by turning the model selection knob, whilst playing and the model change is essentially seamless, so it does seem to be that the Helix could switch at least one block model seamlessly.

Obviously if this worked for two amps in a single block, it should work for more than two, but I think keeping it at two would be sufficient and make a lot of people extremely happy, especially those with the HX Stomp.

I could also see some potential for dual effect blocks too (e.g. dual distortion, dual reverb etc), but I'd imagine you would eventually start experiencing audio gaps the more "dual" blocks you add to a preset.
Good idea there, but DSP-wise I suppose the software would still have to keep both amps loaded and ready at all times, to enable seamless switching - at least that's my understanding of how it's built.
 
Good idea there, but DSP-wise I suppose the software would still have to keep both amps loaded and ready at all times, to enable seamless switching
That is my point - I don't think they *need* to keep both amps loaded simultaneously because you can switch amp models via HX Edit or the hardware whilst playing, and there is no audible gap when you do this.

There could be other technical reasons why they can't or won't do this, hence my question.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top