The fractal models do sound consistently solid, but I really hate how the Mark series amps are spread over different models for each mode of the amp. You lose the feel of the real thing when all your settings reset when you swap modes. I think Line 6 (and Fractal) would both need more DSP to have have all the push pulls and channels within the same model, something I hope the next generation of modellers takes care of.
Kind of wish Metallurgy went a bit further with this - they combined some channels from various models into the same amp but (for instance) the Mark IV still only has the fixed modes. Would be cool if Line 6 fully took advantage of what’s available when not constrained by physical HW.
No such things to worry about with a 2203/2204/1959/1987 - one channel of a simple circuit. I’d love a no compromise take on that circuit
IMO the Mark IV is a perfect example of L6 making a poor choice given the known limits of their VERY comprehensive modeling process. In this case, they selected one the most complex and feature rich amps on the planet and probably created a really accurate model…in a configuration not representative of the tones most people look for when they reach for a Mark series amp.
If you know you have a long process not conducive to getting every switch and pull option accounted for due to the extreme effort it would take to execute that properly with their measurement process, you either choose a simpler version of that circuit with less options (Mark IIC+ or Mark III) or you double down on your user research to find out how that amp most often gets used before measuring ANYTHING.
Line 6 obviously did neither, and that’s what concerns me. Who is making these decisions and why is there no functioning set of checks and balances to make sure the right amps are selected, and that those selected amps are configured in the form where they would do what they do.
If that is really the case, Line 6's need to figure out how to market fixes, updates, and revisions.
Take Fractal's 'Cygnus' or IK's "Remastered Classic Gear" and many more examples of Remodeled, Redesigned, Revised, Revamped, Reimagined, etc. words that are there to re-spark your interest in the same product, often with very little change.
I can only speak for myself but Original models are not something I care about in the slightest, but I would be very excited for revised Marshalls.
Obviously take my assumptions there with a grain of salt. I don’t purport to know their development and prioritization practices. I’m just at a loss to come up with more reasonable explanations as to how they can get so many things so right in Helix, and then miss some other ESSENTIAL low hanging fruit so badly.
In 2023, a manufacturer absolutely CANNOT have a modeling product out there with poor Plexis, 800s, Mesa Mark, and Mesa Rectifiers and expect people to stick around and invest in the platform when others are doing it so well, and in some cases for far less money.
Grabbing the Tonex earlier this year dramatically dropped my sense of peace and satisfaction with Helix in large part due to coming across great examples of those circuits, realizing what was possible with current tech, and realizing how far off Helix is from that.
