Digital Igloo (Eric Klein, YGG)

[JiveTurkey]

That sounds rough! Get better DI!

 

[Alex Kenivel]

Thanks! It was really stupid. We were on scooters on Koh Lanta, south of Krabi, and I hit a wet patch on a curve, smacked a cement curb, biffed it hard on my shoulder and smashed my collarbone. The island doctor was great, but it took trains, planes, and automobiles to get back up to Bangkok, where they puzzle pieced it all back together and implanted a titanium plate. Fun times!

Now that's a birthday!

 

[TheTrueZoltan!]

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

I don’t know how much better AxeFx 3 models are than axe 2 ones. So much has changed with firmware improvements but I don’t know if that’s resulted in more resolution in the model.

Its a little easier to use the Fractal history as a barometer here:

Datapoint 1: release of the Axe Fx III in, what was it, 2018? The amp modeling that was included on the Axe III at launch (Ares?) was also ported over to not just the Axe Fx II, but the Ax8. The Ax8 has roughly the same processing power as a Helix, though it is divided up a bit differently, possibly giving more priority to amp modeling, and, obviously, Fractal code and Helix code are different and may be more/less DSP intensive.

Datapoint 2: While the amp modeling has gone from Ares to Cygnus-whatever-the-current-meaningless-iteration-is, by my memory the CPU usage of amp modeling has not increased much if any along that way.

There may be more going on than I'm aware of, but assuming you can work the above datapoints like numerical values, this says that the current Fractal amp modeling would still be within reach of the Ax8 processor from a pure ability-to-crunch-numbers-fast-enough perspective. Which is to say, it doesn't seem amp-modeling-"resolution"/accuracy/whatever-you-wanna-call-it is processor limited at this point.

And @Digital Igloo , much love and healing dude -- that's a lot of stress for you and family on vacation.

 

[Eagle]

So if someone decided to make a model that required 10x the amount of data than Helix models would you easily hear a difference in detail model depth and potential accuracy?

 

[Digital Igloo]

And @Digital Igloo , much love and healing dude -- that's a lot of stress for you and family on vacation.

Thankfully the accident happened after 90% of our itinerary so we missed out on almost nothing; absolutely adored everything about Thailand. For some reason the surgeon let me escape the hospital for three hours so we could go to dinner at Gaggan Anand (we'd had non-refundable reservations for months at that point).

So if someone decided to make a model that required 10x the amount of data than Helix models would you easily hear a difference in detail model depth and potential accuracy?

Assuming one's utilizing a proper and optimized playback system, absolutely. It'd be highly contingent on the amp, however.

I've mentioned this numerous times before, but accurate rarely means objectively better or "more appealing to the ear." If Line 6 suddenly didn't care about accuracy, we could make better-sounding versions of most amps that would use significantly less DSP. To make an amp hyper-accurate, we often have to add math to nail certain idiosyncrasies of the original amp that many would call less-than-ideal. Most modeling companies don't bother with these, and while the result can, yes, sound more record-ready—or "hyped"—in practice, they're far less accurate to the real thing.

Our answer to these are our Line 6 Original amps. No one should sleep on 'em.

 

[quadgear]

Enough resolution to not feel the need to increase... model granularity? It's not about Helix's horsepower/MIPS headroom as much as it is about breaking presets. Any model we improve/replace must fit within the same DSP usage, otherwise any presets right on the cusp can crash. Any new model we make, however, could certainly use more DSP, but we probably wouldn't make an amp that uses more than 50% of a SHARC.

What's nice is that all that extra DSP that goes into making amps sound accurate doesn't necessarily make them sound better, so any of our Line 6 Original amps end up with lower DSP usage because idealized imaginary amps don't require baking in all the crappy bits.

Thanks! It was really stupid. We were on scooters on Koh Lanta, south of Krabi, and I hit a wet patch on a curve, smacked a cement curb, biffed it hard on my shoulder and smashed my collarbone. The island doctor was great, but it took trains, planes, and automobiles to get back up to Bangkok, where they puzzle pieced it all back together and implanted a titanium plate. Fun times!

Any value in creating a set of "sounds good to us" version of these accurate amps? They would try to be the same as the original, but give up on some of the expensive/awkward quirks. But they wouldn't be "original" amps per se.

How about "US Princess (Good enough)". Or perhaps it's the same model in the UI, but there's a "good enough" checkbox? Only sort of kidding.

Good luck on the recovery. Had a similar accident about a year ago with a similar outcome. That bone is nature's fuse that protects the rest of body. ;-)

 

[CBHScott]

Much healing mojo sent your way DI!

 

[Digital Igloo]

Any value in creating a set of "sounds good to us" version of these accurate amps? They would try to be the same as the original, but give up on some of the expensive/awkward quirks. But they wouldn't be "original" amps per se.

How about "US Princess (Good enough)". Or perhaps it's the same model in the UI, but there's a "good enough" checkbox? Only sort of kidding.

Perhaps, but it'd probably be more "sounds better to us," so more "US Princess (Sounds Better, Easier to Play, More Dynamic, and Uses Lower DSP)." Again, highly contingent on the source preamp/power amp and at a certain point, any changes we'd make would become less objective and more subjective.

 

[ragingplatypi]

.

Our answer to these are our Line 6 Original amps. No one should sleep on 'em.

I was just about to post elsewhere here that the recent Catalyst update really starkly displays how good the Original amps are.

 

[BahamaDada]

What's nice is that all that extra DSP that goes into making amps sound accurate doesn't necessarily make them sound better, so any of our Line 6 Original amps end up with lower DSP usage because idealized imaginary amps don't require baking in all the crappy bibits.

Just last week I took a dive into the Catalyst amps. I tried some before but never for more than a minute. I dug deeper into the Voltage and Oblivion. I love the extra tube (?) you can dial in via Boost in the Volt. And the Super OD in the Oblivion makes another boost obsolete. Both were also so lite on DSP.

Just one thing: I saw they don't have master volumes in the settings. Why? Is it like "we already have the MV sweet spot dialed in, Dummy, don't f it up!"? If yes: Thanks, much appreciated to have one knob to f up less.

 

[laxu]

I've mentioned this numerous times before, but accurate rarely means objectively better or "more appealing to the ear." If Line 6 suddenly didn't care about accuracy, we could make better-sounding versions of most amps that would use significantly less DSP. To make an amp hyper-accurate, we often have to add math to nail certain idiosyncrasies of the original amp that many would call less-than-ideal. Most modeling companies don't bother with these, and while the result can, yes, sound more record-ready—or "hyped"—in practice, they're far less accurate to the real thing.

Our answer to these are our Line 6 Original amps. No one should sleep on 'em.

This is one of the weird dilemmas of digital modeling.

• Most people who use modeling, haven't used even a fraction of the real amps on offer. So how do they know if they are accurate?
• Even if they have used those amps, most likely they haven't used it in a way that is comparable to what the modeler can do.
  • You can't run a NMV amp straight into a cab and get overdrive without a lot of volume.
  • Volume changes how we perceive sound in the space.
  • Using attenuators is a compromise that changes the behavior of the amp.
  • Micing up the cab in an iso box or another room is a different compromise because you now hear the cab+mic+mic pre+mic placement+output system.
• The small group of people who might be experts on a particular real amp amounts to less than 1% probably.

I think a lot of us like the idea of "warts and all" 1:1 digital replica of a particular amp, but at the same time what we truly want is something that just sounds and feels great to play.

The Line6 original models do a great job at moving people from the "I must use this real amp model here, because I'm aiming for this kind of tone that was originally made with this amp" mindset towards "this digital amp does the job for me".

 

[BahamaDada]

This is one of the weird dilemmas of digital modeling.

• Most people who use modeling, haven't used even a fraction of the real amps on offer. So how do they know if they are accurate?
• Even if they have used those amps, most likely they haven't used it in a way that is comparable to what the modeler can do.
  • You can't run a NMV amp straight into a cab and get overdrive without a lot of volume.
  • Volume changes how we perceive sound in the space.
  • Using attenuators is a compromise that changes the behavior of the amp.
  • Micing up the cab in an iso box or another room is a different compromise because you now hear the cab+mic+mic pre+mic placement+output system.
• The small group of people who might be experts on a particular real amp amounts to less than 1% probably.

I think a lot of us like the idea of "warts and all" 1:1 digital replica of a particular amp, but at the same time what we truly want is something that just sounds and feels great to play.

The Line6 original models do a great job at moving people from the "I must use this real amp model here, because I'm aiming for this kind of tone that was originally made with this amp" mindset towards "this digital amp does the job for me".

100% to all.

That's why we need more L6 Originals Effects. Preferably OD and Distortion pedals. There are some under LEGACY (L6 Drive and Distortion) I guess?

 

[Perrymusica]

Este es uno de los extraños dilemas del modelado digital.

• La mayoría de las personas que utilizan el modelado no han utilizado ni una fracción de los amplificadores reales que se ofrecen. Entonces, ¿cómo saben si son exactos?
• Incluso si han usado esos amplificadores, lo más probable es que no los hayan usado de una manera comparable a lo que puede hacer el modelador.
  • No se puede conectar un amplificador NMV directamente a una cabina y ponerlo a toda marcha sin mucho volumen.
  • El volumen cambia la forma en que percibimos el sonido en el espacio.
  • El uso de atenuadores es un compromiso que cambia el comportamiento del amplificador.
  • Colocar micrófono en la cabina en una caja iso u otra habitación es un compromiso diferente porque ahora escuchas la cabina+micrófono+pre-micrófono+ubicación del micrófono+sistema de salida.
• El pequeño grupo de personas que podrían ser expertos en un amplificador real en particular representa probablemente menos del 1%.

Creo que a muchos de nosotros nos gusta la idea de una réplica digital 1:1 con "defectos y todo" de un amplificador en particular, pero al mismo tiempo lo que realmente queremos es algo que suene y se sienta genial al tocar.

Los modelos originales de Line6 hacen un gran trabajo al hacer que la gente pase de la mentalidad de "debo usar este modelo de amplificador real aquí, porque mi objetivo es este tipo de tono que se creó originalmente con este amplificador" hacia la mentalidad de "este amplificador digital hace el trabajo". para mí".

This is one of the weird dilemmas of digital modeling.

• Most people who use modeling, haven't used even a fraction of the real amps on offer. So how do they know if they are accurate?
• Even if they have used those amps, most likely they haven't used it in a way that is comparable to what the modeler can do.
  • You can't run a NMV amp straight into a cab and get overdrive without a lot of volume.
  • Volume changes how we perceive sound in the space.
  • Using attenuators is a compromise that changes the behavior of the amp.
  • Micing up the cab in an iso box or another room is a different compromise because you now hear the cab+mic+mic pre+mic placement+output system.
• The small group of people who might be experts on a particular real amp amounts to less than 1% probably.

I think a lot of us like the idea of "warts and all" 1:1 digital replica of a particular amp, but at the same time what we truly want is something that just sounds and feels great to play.

The Line6 original models do a great job at moving people from the "I must use this real amp model here, because I'm aiming for this kind of tone that was originally made with this amp" mindset towards "this digital amp does the job for me".

The problem with Line6 emulations is that it doesn't feel like a real amp, it lacks the punch and feel of a real amp when you use "FRFR" or PA (a feeling that Fractal does give you, the Kemper Boss Gt1000 with its AIRD technology) . The amps are very well emulated and I love that about Helix (that's why I still choose it and spread data and information on how to understand it on my networks) but it just needs to take that step, that of the real amp sensation. When you play at a "FRFR" and your guitarist friend plays with a real amp, it just crushes you! Hopefully they will incorporate it in some update (or perhaps it will be a new generation of Line6), if Helix incorporates this "stuck" or "amp feeling" (which is obviously possible to recreate it) it would be unbeatable, and there would not be so many switching from Helix to QC for example, (as is currently happening in most of the Helix groups I'm in) although I always try to convince them.

 

[molul]

I wonder what the secret sauce for that might be

 

[Perrymusica]

I wonder what the secret sauce for that might be

If you have a "FRFR" to try it out, I can send you an example so you can try it yourself with your Helix.

 

[molul]

I do have it in my rehearsal place. What would the example be?

 

[Perrymusica]

I do have it in my rehearsal place. What would the example be?

there I sent you a message

 

[MirrorProfiles]

I've mentioned this numerous times before, but accurate rarely means objectively better or "more appealing to the ear." If Line 6 suddenly didn't care about accuracy, we could make better-sounding versions of most amps that would use significantly less DSP. To make an amp hyper-accurate, we often have to add math to nail certain idiosyncrasies of the original amp that many would call less-than-ideal. Most modeling companies don't bother with these, and while the result can, yes, sound more record-ready—or "hyped"—in practice, they're far less accurate to the real thing.

Our answer to these are our Line 6 Original amps. No one should sleep on 'em.

What about Metallurgy - that doesn't need to be found to the same limitations does it? It’s already taking advantage of certain things that cant done done (at least easily) with the HW formats of Helix. Would love to see that updated without the Helix DSP shackles attached

 

[Digital Igloo]

The problem with Line6 emulations is that it doesn't feel like a real amp, it lacks the punch and feel of a real amp when you use ""FRFR"" or PA (a feeling that Fractal does give you, the Kemper Boss Gt1000 with its AIRD technology) . The amps are very well emulated and I love that about Helix (that's why I still choose it and spread data and information on how to understand it on my networks) but it just needs to take that step, that of the real amp sensation. When you play at a ""FRFR"" and your guitarist friend plays with a real amp, it just crushes you! Hopefully they will incorporate it in some update (or perhaps it will be a new generation of Line6), if Helix incorporates this "stuck" or "amp feeling" (which is obviously possible to recreate it) it would be unbeatable, and there would not be so many switching from Helix to QC for example, (as is currently happening in most of the Helix groups I'm in) although I always try to convince them.

Might want to give this a read.

Public consensus is that, regardless of whether Helix's amps sound "better" or not, they are still the most accurate, at least to the specific amps we modeled. This is because Line 6 is the only hardware company (except for maybe UA and... Strymon?) that straight brute force models from the subcomponent up. Most other companies build from a schematic (which may be inaccurate!) with DSP LEGOs and often don't even have the real amp to compare against. If our amps weren't accurate, then countless double-blind A/B/X tests with golden ear engineers and session musicians would prove this out. In this particular case, the playback system is identical—a real cab—and in a few cases, we can pass null tests against the real thing. If another company applies some secret sauce to compensate for "FRFR" use, their amps are by definition LESS accurate to the original amp. For example, one company cuts the lows going into the amp, boosts lows coming out of the amp, and sometimes inserts audio compression to exaggerate sag. Whether that sounds good or not, it is NOT accurate—it's applying studio production trickery to fool rubes into believing it's more accurate.

Again, not saying our amps sound or feel objectively better—only that they are nigh identical in sound and feel to the original amps we modeled. Because unlike most other companies, we maintain the real amps in our building and constantly compare them.