Helix Talk

[MirrorProfiles]

it might stir up some trouble among those mainly using the hardware. Kinda like "Boohoo, see, Line 6 can do all that stuff - why don't we get it on our shiny hardware boxes?"
Still, I understand any such wishes.
But - sorta like the opposite - I'd also like to see some simpler versions of the stuff included in HX Native. If I, say, only need a delay, it's pretty much overkill to instanciate a fullblown version of HXN. I'd really love being able to call up all of the FX separately (or maybe in some sort of sub-category plugins, like all modulations in one plugin, all delays, etc.).

I think the people who want all the advanced stuff in a HW unit buy a Fractal - that’s basically what they can offer that currently no one else is. They won’t seem to budge on releasing a plugin version though and I think Line 6 are pretty well positioned to do their own take on it (or better).

Metallurgy does do the simpler interface stuff quite nicely ITB, and Line 6 also reissueing the DL4 shows they can easily do it for the FX if the demand/market is there.

 

[ragingplatypi]

Not necessarily. Imagine an at least sort of "modular", stackable system. The core unit would only feature the minimum stuff for it to make some sense in standalone mode, anything else could be expandable. And there should be absolutely nothing too fancy onboard.

1) Connectivity. Need some more I/Os? Connect an additional breakout box to a toslink I/O.

2) Switchability. Need more than the, say, basic 3 switches of the main unit? Connect your additional strip of switches. Or two.

3a) Controlability. Need more knobs on the unit? See (2).

3b) Controlability. Ditch all fancy onboard screens, especially touch screens. Give me a simple, great to read under all lightning conditions, monochrome screen that is super rugged. Who needs a tablet alike screen on the floor, exposed to stage divers, drunken singers and what not? And who needs a touch screen just there? Crawling on the floor to adjust things never makes you look smart, so don't even waste your time and my money for that kinda stuff. Instead, we need mobile platform editors. With those, you have a choice of size, price and placement - it doesn't get any better, really. If you really wanted, well, mount your iPad on your pedalboard - but nobody would do that, simply because (see above) it's the last place on earth where you wanted to operate a rather delicate touch screen.

With such a scalable system, you'd only have to shell out a bigger amount of money for the initial unit.
Ok, admittedly, within such a system, there'd be no room for 7 iterations of what is basically the same thing (in the case of Line 6: Floor, LT, Rack, Stomp, Stomp XL, HXFX, Pod Go) but possibly just 2-3 (Floor, Floor "basic" (less CPU juice perhaps) and desk/rack), but on the upside, that'd also mean less development and support costs.
The main unit would possibly be comparable to a GT-1000 Core in size and functionality. Then add to it as you see fit.

In theory, I’m with you. But I’ve come to realize Line 6 isn’t there philosophically and the market doesn’t really support that sort of thing. You can look to Roland to see many examples of proprietary modular gear. Often the technology works great sonically, but the gear itself winds up being expensive, clunky and quickly outdated.

Really 1/4” jacks and midi are the best we got for modularity at this point, and it will take another 70 years to universally implement something else.

 

[laxu]

Not necessarily. Imagine an at least sort of "modular", stackable system. The core unit would only feature the minimum stuff for it to make some sense in standalone mode, anything else could be expandable. And there should be absolutely nothing too fancy onboard.

1) Connectivity. Need some more I/Os? Connect an additional breakout box to a toslink I/O.

2) Switchability. Need more than the, say, basic 3 switches of the main unit? Connect your additional strip of switches. Or two.

3a) Controlability. Need more knobs on the unit? See (2).

3b) Controlability. Ditch all fancy onboard screens, especially touch screens. Give me a simple, great to read under all lightning conditions, monochrome screen that is super rugged. Who needs a tablet alike screen on the floor, exposed to stage divers, drunken singers and what not? And who needs a touch screen just there? Crawling on the floor to adjust things never makes you look smart, so don't even waste your time and my money for that kinda stuff. Instead, we need mobile platform editors. With those, you have a choice of size, price and placement - it doesn't get any better, really. If you really wanted, well, mount your iPad on your pedalboard - but nobody would do that, simply because (see above) it's the last place on earth where you wanted to operate a rather delicate touch screen.

With such a scalable system, you'd only have to shell out a bigger amount of money for the initial unit.
Ok, admittedly, within such a system, there'd be no room for 7 iterations of what is basically the same thing (in the case of Line 6: Floor, LT, Rack, Stomp, Stomp XL, HXFX, Pod Go) but possibly just 2-3 (Floor, Floor "basic" (less CPU juice perhaps) and desk/rack), but on the upside, that'd also mean less development and support costs.
The main unit would possibly be comparable to a GT-1000 Core in size and functionality. Then add to it as you see fit.

I would be on board with this.

I sold my Helix not because I didn't like it, but because I can't use floor modelers anymore due to some health issues. The control surface with screen and knobs has to be pretty much higher up, footswitches can be on the floor. Ok, that leads me to the Helix Rack + Control. I considered it, but then I'd still need to crouch down for those capacitive footswitches and hauling it around would be a bit of a chore. Put a Helix Floor on a table? It takes the whole table because it's so large. If only there was a Helix unit that was not the compromised UI, DSP and I/O of the HX Stomp or the much larger size of the Helix Rack/Floor/LT...a Helix Mini.

I loved the NeuralDSP Quad Cortex form factor. What made it better to me than Fractal and Line6 as a desktop unit was the smaller size and having more knobs/switches on the front panel paired with the touchscreen. Tap a thing on screen, turn a knob. Can't get much easier to work with. Unfortunately the software is not quite there so I have no interest in owning it again and reluctantly settle on Fractal and deal with the inconveniences of its onboard UI.

For me an ideal modeler would be made of 3 different boxes - the "brain", the foot controller and the control interface. The brain contains all I/O and processing. The foot controller does switching/expression stuff. Still not far off from rack stuff, right?

The control interface is the most interesting one because to me this would be basically taking the front panel of the QC into its own unit. Put it anywhere you need and have easy access to tweak parameters.

Could you do it with your favorite MIDI controller and an iPad or phone or desktop app? Yes, but there is a lot of value in having a manufacturer's own solution. Sort of like a Helix Control or Fractal FC will do better than a generic MIDI controller, same would be true with knob controls.

Frankly turning virtual knobs on an app just plain sucks compared to having tactile, real knobs to turn. Unfortunately none of the modelers on the market can pair with a MIDI knob controller in a manner that would be intuitive for editing and can keep the controller and modeler params in sync across preset/snapshot changes etc.

Compared to synths, the knob control capabilities of modelers are pretty crap. I think taking more cues from that world would do them good. As an example my Hydrasynth Explorer's UI makes a helluva lot more sense than Fractal or Line6 do most of the time. The clever thing about it is how it arranges 4 knobs around a small LCD to show 4 params at a time, but also has buttons around it to turn things on/off and similarly page navigation is right next to them rather than having to move your hand all over the place because the navigation and knobs are spaced so far apart.

 

[Sascha Franck]

For me an ideal modeler would be made of 3 different boxes - the "brain", the foot controller and the control interface.

Exactly. And in an ideal world I'd be able to a) sort of scale them (4 vs. 8 switches) and b) place them wherever I feel like. As said before, for me a touchscreen on the floor is serving no purpose but to possibly break one day (just ask @Orvillain...). Needs to be extra thick glass, too, adding to the expense. And depending on your usage, you might want your I/Os on the floor, in a rack or maybe on your desktop.
And even if things are as @ragingplatypi said (and they likely are exactly that way), companies could a) offer a format that'd be open to third party stuff (via MIDI, toslink and what not) while coming up with their own proprietary solutions at the same time - the latter possibly being a little more elegant. Think TC and the G-System (which I used for a while), you could either have everything on the floor or just grab the rack unit from the downside of the unit. Excellent.

Could you do it with your favorite MIDI controller and an iPad or phone or desktop app? Yes, but there is a lot of value in having a manufacturer's own solution. Sort of like a Helix Control or Fractal FC will do better than a generic MIDI controller, same would be true with knob controls.

Well, this depends on what the company has on offer. With Line 6, it's actually not too much, you pretty much have to buy a new unit for each use case.
I actually tried to "hack" something together, making things more comfortable. This here was my first attempt, I found a little Android app throwing out MIDI CCs through a USB-OTG cable (Touch OSC would've been way more elegant but it only communicates wirelessly and I didn't feel like buying a Bluetooth MIDI interface). Please note that this is just to quickly show how things *could* work, excuse the lousy quality and what not...


Now, I really found that promising. But I also wanted to "hack" something kinda like "global blocks". Within the HX platform limitations it'd work like this:
- Save a patch containing all things you'd like to control globally.
- Assign MIDI controls to all the parameters you'd like to control globally.
- Only work on copies of that patch.

Now, let's assume you'd changed something via MIDI CCs in Patch 1. You'd then load patch 2 - and *blam*, all your changes are lost. But as patch 2 is just a copy, using the same assignments, as your external controller would still sit at the settings you've used for patch 1, all you'd have to do was to perform a "send all controls" action. Impossible with that Android app, bummer! But *wohooo* - around came my trusty Behringer BCR2000, that I remembered to still own (had to search in the basment almost endlessly but finally found it). Not only that it offered quick, knob-based and instant tactile control over 32 parameters, it also has that very "send all controlller values" feature.
So I was setting everything up pretty much as in the video above, just using the BCR this time. Worked really well.
Now, would it be practicable having to "send all CC values" after each patch change? For me, defenitely yes. Something to remember, sure, but it's a quick thing and I really didn't plan to use much patch switching (and never within one song), so that would've been quite doable.

Ok, but that's where the fun ended. Abruptly even. So I was setting up one main patch with all things I'd like to access globally, thought about some nifty things (such as wild delay actions and what not). And then I configured some snapshots. And that was it. Because there's been *no* way you could use snapshots and external MIDI CCs with the Helix as they were using the same internal set of parameters (in lack of better words). As soon as you control any parameter via MIDI CCs, it's automatically controlled by snapshots as well. And as I couldn't create patches without using snapshots back then (which in fact also had to do with the miserable visibility of the Helix), I had to ditch all my plans.

Long story made short(er): What I'm trying to say is that the software infrastructure needs to be suitable as well. In case of the Helix, it wasn't. Fwiw, ever since 3.5, you cn do what I wanted back then, but the day after it was released, I sold my Helix (and the Stomp isn't worth the trouble).

Interestingly enough, the GT-1000 Core would likely be able to do all these things. But as said before, for the time being, I prefered to stay within the HX ecosystem, at least partially.

 

[Stone]

Damn I love My Helix ....
I can get any tone I've wanted so far ....

 

[FAKA!]

So the other day I finally fired Helix Native. I haven't tried to load it up since v1.8. I kept getting all these errors like 8207 and not finding or reading the favorites etc.

I ended up having to uninstall it, then use an uninstaller program to remove the older versions that failed to uninstall, then remove all the left over folders manually (program files/%appdata% etc), used a registry cleaner to remove all other line 6 helix stuff in the registry, deauthorize my pc and start over... after messing with all that, I was finally able to use native again... Am I the only dude that ever had to go thru all that?

 

[Alex Kenivel]

So the other day I finally fired Helix Native. I haven't tried to load it up since v1.8. I kept getting all these errors like 8207 and not finding or reading the favorites etc.

I ended up having to uninstall it, then use an uninstaller program to remove the older versions that failed to uninstall, then remove all the left over folders manually (program files/%appdata% etc), used a registry cleaner to remove all other line 6 helix stuff in the registry, deauthorize my pc and start over... after messing with all that, I was finally able to use native again... Am I the only dude that ever had to go thru all that?

No I had to basicly do the same thing on my son's computer. Had a back/forth with CS for a few days before we figured it out.

 

[pipelineaudio]

So the other day I finally fired Helix Native. I haven't tried to load it up since v1.8. I kept getting all these errors like 8207 and not finding or reading the favorites etc.

I ended up having to uninstall it, then use an uninstaller program to remove the older versions that failed to uninstall, then remove all the left over folders manually (program files/%appdata% etc), used a registry cleaner to remove all other line 6 helix stuff in the registry, deauthorize my pc and start over... after messing with all that, I was finally able to use native again... Am I the only dude that ever had to go thru all that?

Lucky you, a lot of us just plain can't get it to register on certain computers and tech support has pretty much given up on those...I still LOVE Helix and Helix Native

 

[Sascha Franck]

Fwiw, just to make sure: Soundwise, I'd likely never need anything else but the Helix (I'd like some more synth-ish stuff, though). Got nothing but positive feedback on my sound during the years I was using it.
But in terms of usability, there's plenty of things left to be desired IMO.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

big fan of jason and his channel, lots of thorough content and information. that said, this one is a total car crash and has the old youtube cliche of calling something scientific that has tremendous flaws.



The SC20 sounds like ass here, and really he should have first used the Helix model to validate roughly what his amp should sound like. If the difference is that big then it should be a red flag that something is wrong. I'm pretty sure he's using the DI output on the amp which seems to have a cabinet/filter applied over it. No idea what load he is using either. The Helix model isn't my favourite but even in this video it sounds WAY more like what a 2204 should sound like than how he has the real amp set up.

 

[Stone]

big fan of jason and his channel, lots of thorough content and information. that said, this one is a total car crash and has the old youtube cliche of calling something scientific that has tremendous flaws.



The SC20 sounds like ass here, and really he should have first used the Helix model to validate roughly what his amp should sound like. If the difference is that big then it should be a red flag that something is wrong. I'm pretty sure he's using the DI output on the amp which seems to have a cabinet/filter applied over it. No idea what load he is using either. The Helix model isn't my favourite but even in this video it sounds WAY more like what a 2204 should sound like than how he has the real amp set up.

I like the 2204 Mod in the Helix that and Placater sound really good to me
I dont really listen to tones from YouTube, i use my ears to get whatever sound im looking for

 

[MirrorProfiles]

big fan of jason and his channel, lots of thorough content and information. that said, this one is a total car crash and has the old youtube cliche of calling something scientific that has tremendous flaws.



The SC20 sounds like ass here, and really he should have first used the Helix model to validate roughly what his amp should sound like. If the difference is that big then it should be a red flag that something is wrong. I'm pretty sure he's using the DI output on the amp which seems to have a cabinet/filter applied over it. No idea what load he is using either. The Helix model isn't my favourite but even in this video it sounds WAY more like what a 2204 should sound like than how he has the real amp set up.

Can't believe I'm now defending the Helix 2204 but I couldnt help myself and just made a short video showing the Helix 2204 sounding pretty similar to my 2203. Not saying they're exactly the same but less than a minute of adjusting settings and they're definitely a hell of a lot closer than what Jason's video may make people believe. The Helix may not be a perfect sounding 2204 but Christ alive, give me the Helix 2204 over that neutered SC20 tone in the video.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Helix experts please chime in! https://thegearforum.com/threads/the-100-dollar-matching-bias-tones-in-helix-challenge-mkii.1446/

 

[James Freeman]

Ahem,

The XLR port is sitting there doing nothing, plenty of I/O (4 FX loops), plenty of memory for IRs (now using 80% less DSP) as we've seen with 3.50 update.
Most amp topologies are already modeled and don't change with updates, a rock solid foundation for tone matching.
A gazillion youtube videos and forum posts proving that Helix CAN sound identical to anything.
Excellent Preset, IR and Backup management and sharing across every platform.

Line 6, you sleeping? (he said with love)
Play your ace.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

View attachment 4171


Ahem,

The XLR port is sitting there doing nothing, plenty of I/O (4 FX loops), plenty of memory for IRs as we've seen with 3.50 update.
Most amp topologies are already modeled and don't change with updates, a rock solid foundation for tone matching.
A gazillion youtube videos and forum posts proving that Helix CAN sound identical to anything.
Excellent Preset, IR and Backup management and sharing across every platform.

Line 6, you sleeping? (he said with love)
Play your ace.

Are you suggesting something that’ll make IR’s to match between the source and a model with a similar topology?

while it can work reasonably well, I WAY prefer matching with the given controls as close as possible first so the IR is doing less heavy lifting. When the IR is doing all the work, I feel like things fall apart quickly when you change anything in the chain.

I think it’s much more powerful if the IR can be used with accuracy in any context. There’s also potentially enough amps in Helix to cover most amp styles to be able to match without needing to brute force IR’s

 

[Sascha Franck]

I think that, apart from EQ matching and baking that into an IR (or something similar - which is possibly already anyway), proper matching would have to include at least a dual EQ setup, one pre, one post. And that's the very moment when things aren't that easy anymore.

 

[Deadpan]

So the other day I finally fired Helix Native. I haven't tried to load it up since v1.8. I kept getting all these errors like 8207 and not finding or reading the favorites etc.

I ended up having to uninstall it, then use an uninstaller program to remove the older versions that failed to uninstall, then remove all the left over folders manually (program files/%appdata% etc), used a registry cleaner to remove all other line 6 helix stuff in the registry, deauthorize my pc and start over... after messing with all that, I was finally able to use native again... Am I the only dude that ever had to go thru all that?

I have had to do it acouple times. I haven't messed with the registry but did uninstall and delete all files.

 

[James Freeman]

Are you suggesting something that’ll make IR’s to match between the source and a model with a similar topology?

Yes.

proper matching would have to include at least a dual EQ setup, one pre, one post.

Yes, that's my experience with manual tone matching.
That doesn't mean it's an entirely a hands-off procedure, the user still has to choose a model with similar topology+gain and adjust so it sounds, feels and behaves reasonably close to the source before the matching, it can't match the character of the distortion (harmonic content) or any dynamic phenomenon like compression, sag, crossover, etc., that's up to the user.

And that's the very moment when things aren't that easy anymore.

It will be easy for a machine, it requires a few iterations going back and forth between pre and post until the difference in gain and frequency response is close, that's what I do manually.

EDIT:
Tone matching may not sit very well with how Line 6 approaches things, the 'creating' part might be power user only and the "download and play" for anyone who wants a specific tone.

Generally, we approach each new feature design less like "let's do this to appease our power users" and more like "how do we make this power user feature so simple that anyone could use it—but cool enough that everyone wants to use it?"

 

[Sascha Franck]

it can't match the character of the distortion (harmonic content) or any dynamic phenomenon like compression, sag, crossover, etc., that's up to the user.

Well, basically, that's at least sort of what the Kemper does. But then, it's only using a carfully curated assortment of "baseline models", so the software already knows which parameters to adjust when there's, say, more sag or whatever happening. With that rather large collection of vastly different amps in the HX family, things will obviously be much harder for any automated thing to work.

Fwiw, even if the QC and TONEX are doing a better capturing job than the KPA, all this still goes to show how much of a marvellous piece of great engineering skills that thing is. In theory, it's rather easy to imagine what's happening behind the scenes, but once you get involved into manual tone matching, you instantly know that their "kind-of-AI" is still doing a kickass job on what is 12 year old digital hardware.

 

[the-trooper]

Little titbit about Helix, and The other unit™.
Timestamp: