Headrush Flex Prime

Sedaxel said:
Now, if the capturing itself is inferior, there's not much good here.
Click to expand...

^ Their pre-existing "cloning" was audibly shit .... didn't even need "null tests" to hear it.

Maybe its gotten better ?

F.w.i.w ... given its a 90 sec process for a clone with the Flex, it almost certainly isnt going to be anything A.I / M.L based
 
Sedaxel said:
GuitarML has this feature (mix of several captures with different settings) since a couple years. Also, I think NDSP is supposed to do something like that in their models.

What is new here is that this device allows to make those "parametric" captures by the user, and load them in the units.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that you can't make it parametric for anything but the gain control.

While in theory you could have the gain control churn out models that work more accurately throughout the circuit for gain knob settings, or you could make models where you have "optimized" the amp EQ knobs for e.g low, mid and high gain, ultimately I don't think this results in much relevant difference for the amount of work needed, and the model EQ knobs will still work on the wrong things compared to the amp.
 
BenIfin said:
^ Their pre-existing "cloning" was audibly shit .... didn't even need "null tests" to hear it.

Maybe its gotten better ?

F.w.i.w ... given its a 90 sec process for a clone with the Flex, it almost certainly isnt going to be anything A.I / M.L based
Click to expand...
I don´t know. NDSP captures take a couple minutes, and they are AI based (aren´t they?). Some said over here that HR is only making match EQ. I don´t know that either.

But yeah, their cloning fetaure was a letdown when launched. If it remains the same, it´s a subpar technology compared to whatever capturing device in the market. That said, the MT15 capture of Taylor Danley sounds great in his vid, in my opinion.

As said, I´m curious. HR never has been an option for me, for all the reasons We already know. But I´m open minded... Who knows if they could find the way back to the game sooner or later.
 
Stone said:
Someone mentioned Elitists, what does he mean bye that?? Because were passionate about great gear that performs amazing and is backed by an ethical company, then fuck yeah then I'm an elitist

:guiness
Click to expand...
That was me. And no, you're not elitist because you're passionate about a piece of high quality gear from a certain manufacturer - you're elitist if you feel the need to sh!t (sorry, poo) all over every piece of gear that is not from said manufacturer and always implying that this is the only viable option. Ever.
paisleywookiee said:
I think he means “people that like latency that was attainable after 2010 “
Click to expand...
No, I didn't. And if the latency is really as bad as people here make it out to be, than I'll definitely steer clear of it. Although, I don't really have a need for clones/captures/profiles. I'm fine with using "just" amp modeling. I have one single 100 watt tube amp that's nothing special but gets the job done and I have no intention of cloning it. I also don't have a vintage 60's fuzz or klon that I feel the need to have duplicated in my floor modeler.

Like I've said multiple times: I was able to getter "better" tones from my Headrush Pedalboard than from my HX Stomp. And much faster and more easily than with the Stomp. I say "better" because that is obviously subjective. I just felt that the tones were more immediate, natural and reacted better to the volume control of my guitar. The Stomp just always felt a little too "hi-fi" to me.

I guess that must mean that the Headrush/ElevenRack/Revalver/whatever modelling is more to my personal tastes than Line 6's. Granted, this was a couple of years and Helix firmwares ago so I don't know if that has changed. But the thing is, I'm that happy with the interface of the Pedalboard that I really can't be bothered spending a whole evening trying to match those tones on my Stomp and seeing what I preferred. Because even if I end up marginally preferring the tones of the Stomp, I know I would miss the ease of use of the Headrush Pedalboard too much.

And I guess that's my point. For some of us, ease of use trumps features and in some cases even quality of sound. That's why, in my mind, there's still a place for Headrush products on the market. And if there wasn't, they'd be long gone by now. And if you're the kind of person for whom the quality of sound is everything, that's fine too. Luckily, there's a product for you too.
 
Had a quick morning jam with the free Revalver version (only used the two amps included, didn't look for any captures-or-whatever-they-call-it) and it felt really well while playing. Listening to is still ok but not as great as the playing feel sort of suggested.
Quickly recorded some bits, all core tones Revalver, lead pushed a little by a Logic compressor, slight low cuts applied to pretty much all takes (the GEQ in Revalver is "premium" - muahaha), delay and reverb courtesy of Logic, too.


Should those sound the same in the pedal, I could pretty well live with it.
Won't keep using the plugin though as I won't purchase it and you have to click twice through their nag screen ("yes please, let me continue using this glorious free version") each time you open the UI, go figure. Very annoying.
 
Last edited:
Psst, don't tell anyone: I'll capture 2 or 3 of their amps via Tonezone3000 and I will as well snag some IRs of the internal cabs which IMO sound decent (as said, the free version is too much nagscreen-hell).
 
laxu said:
My understanding is that you can't make it parametric for anything but the gain control.

While in theory you could have the gain control churn out models that work more accurately throughout the circuit for gain knob settings, or you could make models where you have "optimized" the amp EQ knobs for e.g low, mid and high gain, ultimately I don't think this results in much relevant difference for the amount of work needed, and the model EQ knobs will still work on the wrong things compared to the amp.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is weird - so they've gone to the effort to interpolate static captures across a range, but its only for the Gain setting range.

I cant think of a time when I've changed the Gain on a real Amp or digital amp and not had to correspondingly at the same time make adjustments to the B/M/T/P so it sounds "right" as you either jack-up or jack-down the gain.

Maybe that requires just too much juice and memory for the hardware unit to handle ? Or maybe they just don't know how to do it ?

The Web Editor *only* is also just dumb ...... someone has gone to the effort to create it and code it for web-use but they couldn't be bothered coding it for desktop as well ?!?!?!?
 
MadMaxG79 said:
That was me. And no, you're not elitist because you're passionate about a piece of high quality gear from a certain manufacturer - you're elitist if you feel the need to sh!t (sorry, poo) all over every piece of gear that is not from said manufacturer and always implying that this is the only viable option. Ever.
Click to expand...
Oh good, I’m not elitist then. I like stuff from a lot of manufacturers. Just not Headrush. :bagSorry, they’re just way behind, IMO. If you dig it, then great.
 
paisleywookiee said:
I mentioned it in another thread, but weirdly I’ve gotten really good tones out of the Boss IR-2/IR-200. Whereas I don’t care for the GT-1000 that much.
Click to expand...
Yup, it's a legit unit.

Might've mentioned it already somewhere else, but a good friend of mine swears by his IR-200 for home recording, and always manages to coax pretty cool "100% believable" studio toanz out of it, even with external pedals.
 
BenIfin said:
The Web Editor *only* is also just dumb ...... someone has gone to the effort to create it and code it for web-use but they couldn't be bothered coding it for desktop as well ?!?!?!?
Click to expand...
Most likely to save development time as you only have to create a web page which can be read by all devices on all browsers. Developing a desktop app that has to work on multiple OS on multiple devices is no small task. And whenever there is an update to an OS, your app has to have an update as well.

On the plus side, you can connect to the editor without having to connect with a cable. On the down side, you can't connect your editing device to the Headrush via cable when you're on a gig without having both units on the same wifi. Which you might not have access to. But I guess you could easily overcome that by making your smartphone a wifi hotspot and just connecting the Headrush and your editing device to the that hotspot. Would require you to bring two mobile devices (i.e. a smartphone AND a tablet, laptop, another smartphone, whatever) though.

I actually think doing a web editor was a pretty clever way to give Headrush users the number one requested feature. Without a high price in development and upkeep.
 
MadMaxG79 said:
Most likely to save development time as you only have to create a web page which can be read by all devices on all browsers. Developing a desktop app that has to work on multiple OS on multiple devices is no small task. And whenever there is an update to an OS, your app has to have an update as well.
Click to expand...
You can run web applications in a container app via e.g Electron. So not having a "desktop app" you can open that in reality just renders a webpage is a weird thing to do. Especially when browsers can have different capabilities which may cause issues with the web app.

MadMaxG79 said:
I actually think doing a web editor was a pretty clever way to give Headrush users the number one requested feature. Without a high price in development and upkeep.
Click to expand...
The development effort is likely pretty similar compared to using e.g Juce or QT framework apps, just different areas where you have to spend extra effort.
 
laxu said:
The development effort is likely pretty similar compared to using e.g Juce or QT framework apps, just different areas where you have to spend extra effort.
Click to expand...

I don't have enough knowledge to comment on that, so I just believe you, but still, for me as a user, my observations are that dedicated editors seem to be more common than web editors - and that some companies don't offer their editors for certain platforms. For instance: There's no mobile editing in FAS and L6 land. Had they done web editors, it'd possibly be different.
 
Sascha Franck said:
I don't have enough knowledge to comment on that, so I just believe you, but still, for me as a user, my observations are that dedicated editors seem to be more common than web editors - and that some companies don't offer their editors for certain platforms. For instance: There's no mobile editing in FAS and L6 land. Had they done web editors, it'd possibly be different.
Click to expand...
Since the current gen Fractal and Line6 Helix products were released, there's been a lot of development in cross-platform tools where you can basically develop your app once and deploy it to everything from desktops to mobile. Most of the UI and business logic code can be the same. That already saves a ton of time.

That said, for all of these, there can be platform specific quirks and issues you need to solve, and that might require people who are experts in say Android or iOS development, which not every company has. On top of that your mobile app should work different to your desktop app because you won't have a mouse cursor to work with, so it's a whole other consideration if you want it to be elegant and user friendly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Foxmeister
Headrush "FRFR"-GO
2 3
Replies
40
Views
5K
BuleriaChk
B
B
Joyo AC20s and modeller
Replies
0
Views
108
BuleriaChk
B
Iron1
I was absolutely SHOCKED to discover this one thing a pedal maker doesn't want you to know!
2
Replies
23
Views
901
Desertdweller
Desertdweller
B
Aux In as ""FRFR""
Replies
3
Views
285
BuleriaChk
B
L
Headrush Firmware
Replies
4
Views
3K
likitlikeyoulikeit
L
Back
Top