Helix Needs a Capture Block: Hear Me Out.

[EOengineer]

Those of us that regularly interact with this wonderful forum (and those other hell holes that shant(?) be named) know that L6 is deeply invested in modeling electronic circuits. We all love that stuff, so I just want to make clear this is not a modeling vs profiling debate. But there’s a use case that I feel is being ignored and I guess we will see if I’m way off base. Some backstory…

When Tonex arrived I grabbed the hardware. Through successful early experiments with that device I enticed some friends to also grab Tonex (sorry guys ). Of late, an interesting thing has started happening - we’re capturing our collective gear and passing those captures around like we’re trading baseball cards.

Now sure, you can do the same with Helix presets, but IMO there is something to be said for having MY 2204, MY Dual Rectifier, etc represented with all the inherent flexibility in Helix. Being able to load up MY amps in a profile/capture block would be AMAZING paired with the FX and routing capabilities. Furthermore L6 would likely be able to create a capture process less ambiguous than the Tonex where the gain staging is controlled by their amazing hardware to ensure properly calibrated levels.

I’m not knocking Helix amp modeling. I use it. It works well for me. Being able to incorporate my own amps into that mixture would IMO offer a level of fun and flexibility that few others can offer in this space.

 

[[Nathan]]

I think it’s inevitable and will be a welcome addition to all modellers. I know the people making NAM pedals are needing to invest in some pretty beefy processing for a pedal so I’m wondering if the current hurdle of adding it is just processing. Surely some new hardware will solve this problem but it might be the current reason for the slow uptake.

On a side note I really hope NAM is adopted as universally as possible. It will be super annoying to make captures and then start learning the quirks of 10 different platforms. If there’s a defacto standard then it really streamlines things across the board.

 

[BenIfin]

Those of us that regularly interact with this wonderful forum (and those other hell holes that shant(?) be named) know that L6 is deeply invested in modeling electronic circuits. We all love that stuff, so I just want to make clear this is not a modeling vs profiling debate. But there’s a use case that I feel is being ignored and I guess we will see if I’m way off base. Some backstory…

When Tonex arrived I grabbed the hardware. Through successful early experiments with that device I enticed some friends to also grab Tonex (sorry guys ). Of late, an interesting thing has started happening - we’re capturing our collective gear and passing those captures around like we’re trading baseball cards.

Now sure, you can do the same with Helix presets, but IMO there is something to be said for having MY 2204, MY Dual Rectifier, etc represented with all the inherent flexibility in Helix. Being able to load up MY amps in a profile/capture block would be AMAZING paired with the FX and routing capabilities. Furthermore L6 would likely be able to create a capture process less ambiguous than the Tonex where the gain staging is controlled by their amazing hardware to ensure properly calibrated levels.

I’m not knocking Helix amp modeling. I use it. It works well for me. Being able to incorporate my own amps into that mixture would IMO offer a level of fun and flexibility that few others can offer in this space.

If (?) I understand you correctly (?) ........ you want to run static profiles "in" the Helix -or- similar (?) ..... if so .... just run the Tonex Hardware Pedal into one of the Helix Loops .. connect the Midi ... boom ... done ..... I did this for a few months with my ex-Helix and ex-GT1000 ... %100 worked a treat / perfectly !

Yep it is a bit physically *messy* in terms or running power and I/O Loop Cables and Midi Cables but it works perfectly.

I dumped it when I re-realized I hit the same wall as when I first ran my Kemper back in the day with static KPA profiles ..... ie:- tweaking the Static IK Captures via their onboard Tonex Box hardware controls starts to take you away from the "amp" tone very quickly ..... and alternately ..... hitting the "front" of the Tonex and the "back" of the Tonex Box with Helix blocks / EFX etc.... is slightly better, but your still in the same paradigm.

In terms of an "industry" standard .... i.m.h.o .... it wont ever be an "open sourced" program like NAM.

I just cant possibly imagine L6 / Fractal / Boss etc.... implementing an "open sourced" program like NAM which can be changed / added to / modified for better or worse by "anyone" and then it becomes "their" headache to adapt and support .... and/or then it branches out into differing-competing "claimed" better "versions" or "builds" etc..... "I want to install Linux .... no worries just pick one of the 3,247 distro's and go for it"

Its a logistical, high risk and "uncontrollable" drama waiting to happen for them ..... why the f$ck would they do it (?) .... to keep a few people on obscure forums like here and TOP who debate about ESR results and Epochs -vs- Tonex -vs Kemper -vs- QC (?) ... the people that produce and run these companies aren't morons.

Never forget ....... %99.99999999999999999 [and more] of guitarists have no idea what a "TGF" or a "TGP" is .... and even if they did, they almost certainly wouldn't give a flying f$ck about it / us. Even those that have and use modelers don't even always keep the FW up-to-date ..... or "sh%t their pants when a "big" new FW comes out" .... see the avalanche of FW 25 BETA Thread Posts at the Fractal Forum

At this point in time .... if you had to bet on one option it would - in my view - be Tonex ... with KPA and NDSP continuing to do their own things.

In theory ...... L6 / Fractal / Boss could easily negotiate "licensing" Tonex Capture usage from IK ..... IK maintain and update and support and keep the code so no headaches for anyone .... I stress "in theory" as IK may well be planning their own "all in one" modeler + capture player pedal (?) and could well tell L6 / Fractal / Boss to "go away" politely :)

Anyway ... that's my 2c worth .... if I did understand you correctly (?) ... your "temporary" solution is already here :) ..... and I say "temporary" as L6 / Fractal / Boss etc... have more than enough resources and skill and knowledge to build and implement their own "perfect" Capture / Profiling process which they would control and own and be able to %100 support with certainty ...... as you say .... "idiot-proof" pre-done gain staging and calibration would be a nice start.

Ben

 

[Hapless]

If (?) I understand you correctly (?) ........ you want to run static profiles "in" the Helix -or- similar (?) ..... if so .... just run the Tonex Hardware Pedal into one of the Helix Loops .. connect the Midi ... boom ... done ..... I did this for a few months with my ex-Helix and ex-GT1000 ... %100 worked a treat / perfectly !

Yep it is a bit physically *messy* in terms or running power and I/O Loop Cables and Midi Cables but it works perfectly.

I dumped it when I re-realized I hit the same wall as when I first ran my Kemper back in the day with static KPA profiles ..... ie:- tweaking the Static IK Captures via their onboard Tonex Box hardware controls starts to take you away from the "amp" tone very quickly ..... and alternately ..... hitting the "front" of the Tonex and the "back" of the Tonex Box with Helix blocks / EFX etc.... is slightly better, but your still in the same paradigm.

In terms of an "industry" standard .... i.m.h.o .... it wont ever be an "open sourced" program like NAM.

I just cant possibly imagine L6 / Fractal / Boss etc.... implementing an "open sourced" program like NAM which can be changed / added to / modified for better or worse by "anyone" and then it becomes "their" headache to adapt and support .... and/or then it branches out into differing-competing "claimed" better "versions" or "builds" etc..... "I want to install Linux .... no worries just pick one of the 3,247 distro's and go for it"

Its a logistical, high risk and "uncontrollable" drama waiting to happen for them ..... why the f$ck would they do it (?) .... to keep a few people on obscure forums like here and TOP who debate about ESR results and Epochs -vs- Tonex -vs Kemper -vs- QC (?) ... the people that produce and run these companies aren't morons.

Never forget ....... %99.99999999999999999 [and more] of guitarists have no idea what a "TGF" or a "TGP" is .... and even if they did, they almost certainly wouldn't give a flying f$ck about it / us. Even those that have and use modelers don't even always keep the FW up-to-date ..... or "sh%t their pants when a "big" new FW comes out" .... see the avalanche of FW 25 BETA Thread Posts at the Fractal Forum

At this point in time .... if you had to bet on one option it would - in my view - be Tonex ... with KPA and NDSP continuing to do their own things.

In theory ...... L6 / Fractal / Boss could easily negotiate "licensing" Tonex Capture usage from IK ..... IK maintain and update and support and keep the code so no headaches for anyone .... I stress "in theory" as IK may well be planning their own "all in one" modeler + capture player pedal (?) and could well tell L6 / Fractal / Boss to "go away" politely :)

Anyway ... that's my 2c worth .... if I did understand you correctly (?) ... your "temporary" solution is already here :) ..... and I say "temporary" as L6 / Fractal / Boss etc... have more than enough resources and skill and knowledge to build and implement their own "perfect" Capture / Profiling process which they would control and own and be able to %100 support with certainty ...... as you say .... "idiot-proof" pre-done gain staging and calibration would be a nice start.

Ben

I gotta be honest, man...I'd like to read what you wrote but all the weird punctuation, superfluous bolding and font color changes, etc. made my eyes glaze over.

 

[Achilles]

I gotta be honest, man...I'd like to read what you wrote but all the weird punctuation, superfluous bolding and font color changes, etc. made my eyes glaze over.

Same!

Where's Cormac McCarthy when you need him?

 

[BenIfin]

I gotta be honest, man...I'd like to read what you wrote but all the weird punctuation, superfluous bolding and font color changes, etc. made my eyes glaze over.

Fair call ! All colour, B, I and U-Lines removed :)

 

[2dor]

In theory ...... L6 / Fractal / Boss could easily negotiate "licensing" Tonex Capture usage from IK ..... IK maintain and update and support and keep the code so no headaches for anyone .... I stress "in theory" as IK may well be planning their own "all in one" modeler + capture player pedal (?) and could well tell L6 / Fractal / Boss to "go away" politely :)

Don't think this is preferred by any player entertaining the idea of getting capturing / profiling tech in their next-gen units.

Given the fact that NAM's code is already open-source and the licensing model allows / encourages third-parties to reuse it in their own (even commercial) products, makes me feel that whoever's interested in getting this done in hardware, will come up with their own derivative from NAM or Proteus.

That said, if L6 bring profiling or even just playback of NAM profiles to their hardware, they have my full attention.

 

[ian_dissonance]

If I can’t have a “dynamic” profile of hardware that reacts exactly throughout settings adjustments, I don’t want it. A static snapshot of someone else’s stuff is useless to me, personally. Selfishly, I’d prefer they refine their modeling and value-added features like unique settings controllers or fx and amps that can’t logically exist in the real world.

 

[Whizzinby]

I’m increasingly landing on captures being a massive tail chase and ultimately a complete waste of time for the average user on any platform that has a robust selection of models.

 

[laxu]

I'd honestly be interested in a system capable of fitting one of the existing models to match your amp, with something better than tone match.

For me captures have been unnecessary when it doesn't take that much effort to dial a similar model to sound like your real amp. I've done it plenty with Fractal with amps the unit doesn't even model. Most guitar amps just aren't that unique.

 

[Rewolf]

An AI patch creator… built into HX Edit?

 

[EOengineer]

Jesus do people just read titles and then type whatever they thought 4 seconds ago? We really are dumb, shaved apes.

To reiterate my original post - I’m not advocating L6 REPLACE modeling with profiling, nor am I advocating they get involved in dumping significant resources into creating a library of captures.

As several others who bothered to read have noted, it’s starting to look like NAM is positioned to become the path forward and is creating a runway for companies to adopt their standard. If this continues, then what we’re looking for is a block that can play profiles in that standard format and, if we’re really lucky, a way to capture them that takes some of the guess work out of gain staging if you have L6 hardware.

 

[ian_dissonance]

Jesus do people just read headlines and then type whatever they thought 4 seconds ago? We really are dumb, shaved apes.

To reiterate my original post - I’m not advocating L6 REPLACE modeling with profiling, nor am I advocating they get involved in dumping significant resources into creating a library of captures.

As several others who bothered to read have noted, it’s starting to look like NAM is positioned to become the path forward and is creating a runway for companies to adopt their standard. If this continues, then what we’re looking for is a block that can play profiles in that standard format and, if we’re really lucky, a way to capture them that takes some of the guess work out of gain staging if you have L6 hardware.

I understood your point just fine. If adding a NAM block doesn’t take any resources from any other programming, sure. But I can’t imagine you just stick a NAM player in there without some serious coding. Of which I prefer the time spent on control and unique effects, because modeling works really well and captures/profiles aren’t necessary.

 

[norminal]

I understood your point just fine. If adding a NAM block doesn’t take any resources from any other programming, sure. But I can’t imagine you just stick a NAM player in there without some serious coding. Of which I prefer the time spent on control and unique effects, because modeling works really well and captures/profiles aren’t necessary.

And I highly doubt the HX Stomp could run captures without a significant hit in performance. Perhaps a capture, delay, and reverb block. But 8 blocks? IMO, forget it.

If this ever happens, I’m guessing they’ll be saving it for the next generation hardware.

That said, it would definitely breathe new life into the floor and rack models. Of course this is completely speculative.

 

[mbenigni]

Jesus do people just read headlines and then type whatever they thought 4 seconds ago? We really are dumb, shaved apes.

 

[mbenigni]

I know the people making NAM pedals are needing to invest in some pretty beefy processing for a pedal so I’m wondering if the current hurdle of adding it is just processing. Surely some new hardware will solve this problem but it might be the current reason for the slow uptake.

And I highly doubt the HX Stomp could run captures without a significant hit in performance. Perhaps a capture, delay, and reverb block. But 8 blocks? IMO, forget it.

If this ever happens, I’m guessing they’ll be saving it for the next generation hardware.

I’m not sure this is true. Can anyone here say with authority that a NAM profile is more CPU intensive than a component-based model? When Kemper first hit the scene, everyone was amazed at how good it sounded despite its not being an especially powerful platform, and the explanation was that black box transfer functions were more efficient than real-time multi-component modeling. At least that’s how I remember it. (And it’s what intuition/ common sense would suggest.) Similarly, I can get away with running more captures on a QC lane than models.

 

[KHAAAAAAANNNNNNN!!!!!!!!]

 

[[Nathan]]

I’m not sure this is true. Can anyone here say with authority that a NAM profile is more CPU intensive than a component-based model? When Kemper first hit the scene, everyone was amazed at how good it sounded despite its not being an especially powerful platform, and the explanation was that black box transfer functions were more efficient than real-time multi-component modeling. At least that’s how I remember it. (And it’s what intuition/ common sense would suggest.) Similarly, I can get away with running more captures on a QC lane than models.

You can change the parameters in NAM when training to make things more or less intense. So in theory someone could make a super light model and someone else could make a super dense model which is 20x more intensive. A good analogy is a digital image, you can have a 2bit jpg thats 1kb or you can have a 24bit jpg thats 50megs etc. This is why some on the market pedals can now run NAM feather/lite captures but they wont be able to run the "standard" captures.

QC/Kemper dont use the same technology, they are using distortion/amp models running through a bunch of secret sauce filters, its not an actual neural model, so the end result is probably less intense to run than a standard NAM model.

I just loaded up a standard NAM model in reaper followed by a few modelling suites. I turned off the cab sections in these so we can compare amp models alone, just a quick look at the CPU usage

 

[Deadpan]

Those of us that regularly interact with this wonderful forum (and those other hell holes that shant(?) be named) know that L6 is deeply invested in modeling electronic circuits. We all love that stuff, so I just want to make clear this is not a modeling vs profiling debate. But there’s a use case that I feel is being ignored and I guess we will see if I’m way off base. Some backstory…

When Tonex arrived I grabbed the hardware. Through successful early experiments with that device I enticed some friends to also grab Tonex (sorry guys ). Of late, an interesting thing has started happening - we’re capturing our collective gear and passing those captures around like we’re trading baseball cards.

Now sure, you can do the same with Helix presets, but IMO there is something to be said for having MY 2204, MY Dual Rectifier, etc represented with all the inherent flexibility in Helix. Being able to load up MY amps in a profile/capture block would be AMAZING paired with the FX and routing capabilities. Furthermore L6 would likely be able to create a capture process less ambiguous than the Tonex where the gain staging is controlled by their amazing hardware to ensure properly calibrated levels.

I’m not knocking Helix amp modeling. I use it. It works well for me. Being able to incorporate my own amps into that mixture would IMO offer a level of fun and flexibility that few others can offer in this space.

Been on this forever! Direct.

 

[EOengineer]

And I highly doubt the HX Stomp could run captures without a significant hit in performance. Perhaps a capture, delay, and reverb block. But 8 blocks? IMO, forget it.

If this ever happens, I’m guessing they’ll be saving it for the next generation hardware.

That said, it would definitely breathe new life into the floor and rack models. Of course this is completely speculative.

I do agree that if this ever happens it will be a different product or next gen, just being a realist. A man can wish though.