Helix 3.7: The Freeman Update

[Foxmeister]

If the brainiacs at NDSP can figure this out, I’m sure L6 can. I imagine it’s more about priority at that point.

You mean like how Line 6 didn't replace the Vermin Dist model with the revised one when they released their Rat pedal was faulty, and instead created a new model for it...

You don't see Fractal users crying about improvements.

I have definitely seen Fractal users "complaining" that updates have changed how their presets sound from version to version, so I'd have to disagree with this.

There is no "right" approach IMO - just differing approaches.

 

[eggpl@nt]

You mean like how Line 6 didn't replace the Vermin Dist model with the revised one when they released their Rat pedal was faulty, and instead created a new model for it...

Um, sure. That just enforces the notion that the lack of refinement to existing models is probably more about priority than inability or the inevitability of changing existing presets.

 

[dk_ace]

Didn’t NDSP handle this by keeping the “legacy” models from the newer models that were supposedly improved?

If the brainiacs at NDSP can figure this out, I’m sure L6 can. I imagine it’s more about priority at that point.

Of course L6 could revise a model and keep the other one under legacy if you’re just talking about one revision. If you think that has anything to do with what I posted, you just don’t understand what I was talking about.

D

 

[eggpl@nt]

Of course L6 could revise a model and keep the other one under legacy if you’re just talking about one revision. If you think that has anything to do with what I posted, you just don’t understand what I was talking about.

D

the conversation was about updates to existing models changing the sound of existing presets, was it not?

I simply offered an idea that would allow L6 to both update existing amp models and avoid changing the sound of existing presets.

Edit: I see @Sascha Franck posted the same idea on the previous page. That has nothing to do with whether or not I understood dk, but my idea isn’t exactly unique or novel. Seems like an obvious option.

 

[JiveTurkey]

You are so wrong. Fractal users have learned to accept it and know it is part of using a fractal device. More than a few people left fractal products or rarely or never update for this reason.

I’ve been a fractal user from the Gen 1 units and it has been a major source of frustration. It is one of the things I appreciate most about the L6 approach, they do not break or alter existing presets with their releases.

I’m going to buy an FM9 if they bring the gapless switching and new spring reverb to it, and this is one of the few things I dread about the switch. If I want the goodies in an update, I may have a bunch of presets that have to be revised. For the Fm units, that’s more like something I’ll deal with once or twice a year which I can stomach.

I much prefer the L6 approach and I’ve seen a lot of mirrored comments from other users so I know I’m not alone.

D

Overblown POV is overblown.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Fwiw, re: Keeping patches using legacy content intact

With Logic Pro, backwards compatibility is handled so that all older plugins are still there under the hood but they're not wasting space in plugin menus anymore. That way old projects load fine but you likely won't start a new project with old plugins anymore (you can still access them holding the option key when entering the plugin pulldown). IMO that's a pretty decent solution.
Ok, at one point in time the old model code will possibly clog up too much storage space on a hardware unit with a fixed amount of memory, so that might not be in favour of always keeping all older versions.

 

[eggpl@nt]

Ok, at one point in time the old model code will possibly clog up too much storage space on a hardware unit with a fixed amount of memory, so that might not be in favour of always keeping all older versions.

That’s another possible reason we haven’t seen an amp overhaul while keeping legacy amps intact on the Helix platform. The easiest way to choose which amps to update while maintaining the legacy version is to do none at all, otherwise someone will be upset their model of choice didn’t get an update.

 

[Byrdman]

View attachment 15721


the conversation was about updates to existing models changing the sound of existing presets, was it not?

I simply offered an idea that would allow L6 to both update existing amp models and avoid changing the sound of existing presets.

Edit: I see @Sascha Franck posted the same idea on the previous page. That has nothing to do with whether or not I understood dk, but my idea isn’t exactly unique or novel. Seems like an obvious option.

Plus, I thought I read on a post somewhere that @Digital Igloo said they didn't like to do it because the new amp could bust up DSP limits on heavier presets, but I think having a legacy amp folder for updated versions is a great idea!

I'm sure they could code it in an update so that old presets would pull (for lack of a better non-tech term) from the legacy folder instead of the new version.

 

[eggpl@nt]

Plus, I thought I read on a post somewhere that @Digital Igloo said they didn't like to do it because the new amp could bust up DSP limits on heavier presets

A THIRD REASON!

Pack it up, bois. Our work here is done. Case closed.

 

[Elf]

What amp adjustments did you use? The default parameters? and with or with no cab?

Yes default and no cab.

 

[Elf]

What's the purpose of sweeping amps?

In my case I wanted to compare the frequency response of an amp that I’m modifying to various others amps.

 

[dk_ace]

Overblown POV is overblown.

If you think that’s overblown, you probably don’t keep presets that are song specific with automated switching for song parts that you plan to reuse in the future…

D

 

[dk_ace]

View attachment 15721


the conversation was about updates to existing models changing the sound of existing presets, was it not?

I simply offered an idea that would allow L6 to both update existing amp models and avoid changing the sound of existing presets.

Edit: I see @Sascha Franck posted the same idea on the previous page. That has nothing to do with whether or not I understood dk, but my idea isn’t exactly unique or novel. Seems like an obvious option.

Yeah, they could do it that way once.

Fractal models have updated in ways that sounded different way too many times for this approach which is why he chooses to just change the model/modeling and move on. You can update and accommodate the changes or not.

D

 

[JiveTurkey]

If you think that’s overblown, you probably don’t keep presets that are song specific with automated switching for song parts that you plan to reuse in the future…

D

You can't have it both ways. Complain that nothing ever gets updated or complain that the 147 presets you have that could be boiled down to 4 if you do update fw. Pick your poison and live with it.

 

[KHAAAAAAANNNNNNN!!!!!!!!]

 

[JiveTurkey]

I'll award myself with this prestigious title

 

[DrewJD82]

I feel like we’re 2-3 posts away from “I want my presets password protected”

 

[holoholo]

I feel like we’re 2-3 posts away from “I want my presets password protected”

 

[spawnofthesith]

I feel like we’re 2-3 posts away from “I want my presets password protected”

2 factor authentication or gtfo

 

[ragingplatypi]

You don't see Fractal users crying about improvements.

Tears of joy? I’m sure there’s been a few.