Helix 3.8 when?

[Sascha Franck]

Or at least a Out, HP, Out+HP option for Global EQ.

As said, I could've really, really also used a separated L/R-only global EQ some times already. On the Stomp that is.
I'm always sending my signal the FOH way "as is" and only use an EQ for my monitoring path. With the Floor, that was easy (using the separated XLR and 1/4" outs), with the Stomp it's not possible.
I could however imagine this to confuse some people who used this option and forgot to turn it off.
User: "Boohoo, my Stomp is broken, left out sounds different than right out!"
L6 Support: /cue nervous breakdown.

 

[pipelineaudio]

IIRC, each glob EQ output reserves a small amount of DSP that can't be used elsewhere, even when not engaged, which is why it isn't available on all outputs.

I'd imagine that a separate global EQ for headphones would cost a similar amount of DSP, so to add it would reduce DSP available to presets, potentially breaking existing presets, so personally I don't see this happening.

Id be happy if it were ONLY for the HP out. I only need one global EQ, I'd like more options on where to place it

 

[Sascha Franck]

I only need one global EQ, I'd like more options on where to place it

Yeah, this.

 

[molul]

Could be the same block but applying different values, like snapshots do.

 

[CorrosiveMatter]

Could be the same block but applying different values, like snapshots do.

Isn't that just like putting an EQ in your patchs? Real question not some "gotcha" comment.

 

[molul]

Isn't that just like putting an EQ in your patchs? Real question not some "gotcha" comment.

I'd say not. The global EQ is always there, they're pointing out that this is like a block (in the sense that it's taking some DSP), and they're also saying adding a separate EQ for headphones would take more DSP, therefore risking to break existing user presets.

And I was just thinking that the way to handle that functionality would be using the current EQ "pseudo-block" and, with a parameter "Preset" (main/headphones) you could change the parameters and they would stay there whenever you change the "Preset" parameter.

That would imply accepting that you couldn't use both modes at the same time. You'd be either using one set of parameters or the other, in order to be able to keep using a single EQ "pseudo-block".

Unless there's a use case where you'd want to play with your headphones and also play to your main output, and you'd want to listen to both at the same time, this would work somehow. At least it wouldn't force you to change the parameters everytime you switch to headphones or back to main output. If you want to use your headphones, you'd just rotate the "Preet" encoder and you'd have all your parameters instantly applied.

 

[ispunk]

Helix 3.8 update?

Not S O O N enough

 

[holoholo]

 

[pablo retamal]

I want my quarter pounder now!

 

[molul]

Well autumn is almost here...

 

[Sascha Franck]

Well autumn is almost here...

Hm, I was just swimming outside earlier.

 

[TheTrueZoltan!]

Hm, I was just swimming outside earlier.

Hooray for climate change! /s

 

[pipelineaudio]

Hoping for a way to ditch the tonex and external gate from my pedalboard. I use these things because the Poly Capo eats so much DSP

 

[Foxmeister]

Hoping for a way to ditch the tonex and external gate from my pedalboard. I use these things because the Poly Capo eats so much DSP

I'm sure if Line 6 could reduce the DSP requirements, they would.

Perhaps an HX One would solve your issue?

 

[pipelineaudio]

I'm sure if Line 6 could reduce the DSP requirements, they would.

Perhaps an HX One would solve your issue?

Line6 has DRASTICALLY reduced DSP usage in the past on the Helix, its not out of the realms of possibility. The Hx One really kind of feels like an insult to progress to me. I can stick with the external gate and the tonex if that's the option. If it were the size of a tonex one and much cheaper and just ran poly capo and/or had digital I/O maybe

 

[molul]

Line6 has DRASTICALLY reduced DSP usage in the past on the Helix, its not out of the realms of possibility. The Hx One really kind of feels like an insult to progress to me. I can stick with the external gate and the tonex if that's the option. If it were the size of a tonex one and much cheaper and just ran poly capo and/or had digital I/O maybe

HX Nano. Wait for it...

 

[Foxmeister]

Line6 has DRASTICALLY reduced DSP usage in the past on the Helix,

As far as I'm aware, it's only the cabs/IRs that have really seen a significant drop in DSP - the oversampling update was effectively DSP neutral.

Polyphonic pitch shifting is computationally expensive, and Yamaha hired some of the best engineers in town, so I'd be surprised if they could really significantly decrease DSP with the current algorithms.

 

[DieSchmalle]

As far as I'm aware, it's only the cabs/IRs that have really seen a significant drop in DSP [...]

To add to that: the Analog Devices DSPs used in Floor, LT and Stomp have an accelerator that can be used for 2048 (or two 1024) sample IRs. Think of it as a higly specialized internal extra DSP. With the cab update Line 6 started taking advantage of this; it does most of the computation of the new IR / cab blocks.

 

[spawnofthesith]

HX one is awesome for the demographic it’s primarily designed for. Don’t see how it’s an insult to progress at all quite the opposite

I just received my stomp and am enjoying it but it’s a huge learning curve compared to the One and not even remotely as plug and play for integrating into an amp/pedalboard rig

 

[pipelineaudio]

HX one is awesome for the demographic it’s primarily designed for. Don’t see how it’s an insult to progress at all quite the opposite

Because ten years later than the helix, I'd expect a box that size and price to have the power of an entire helix Floor