Helix Talk

[BahamaDada]

I haven't used the amp modelling in my stomp in a while but I've always struggled with the orange amps in helix. There's nothing specific about them I don't like but also nothing that I really like either.

I do like that orange 2x12 cab they have in there though.

The Orange 2x12 to me is the real versatile hero in the Helix. Tried it again this morning, it just works. Haven't even twisted a knob in the cab parameters. Just the stock 67 Condenser mic it starts up with is enough to play on my own. For a band this could change dramatically, but I can't try it at the moment.

In the same vein for me: The Interstate 2x12. Also V30, also super versatile.

Extra point for me is:
If I ever want to recreate such a rig in real life a 2x12 is a) smaller, b) most of the time lighter and c) most of the time less expensive (compared to a 4x12).

 

[mercifulfuzziness]

I actually play quite silent unloud with headphones. It can occur, that I turn them loud if it's a preset I want to try live, but most of the time the DT770s isolate so good, that I don't have to turn them up loud to "feel it".

You mean the Beyerdynamic DT 770 Pro, right? They are not even that expensive! I thought Boss Waza-Air was pretty much the minimum.

 

[SillyOctpuss]

In the same vein for me: The Interstate 2x12. Also V30, also super versatile.

Yeah I really like the interstate 2x12 too. It was also one of my favs in the old legacy cabs.

 

[mercifulfuzziness]

I now have the Fender deluxe + York, delay very short and reverb.

Seems like I finally sound a way to make it sound to my wanting.

So tweaking the cabs must be more difficult than most people assume.

 

[laxu]

I now have the Fender deluxe + York, delay very short and reverb.

Seems like I finally sound a way to make it sound to my wanting.

So tweaking the cabs must be more difficult than most people assume.

With Helix cabs, I'd always use the dual cab option and blend two mics. If you like York Audio, you most likely use the mix IRs, which are all multi-mic mixes. Do the same on Helix, and you can get similar results. Granted, it is more work to do it like that.

I kinda like the simplified version of the movable mic thing on my Hotone Ampero 2 Stomp. It's not "move mic A and B separately to wherever you want", but basically "put both mics here" where the difference is mostly brighter/darker, which is what you usually want anyway.

It would be nice if Helix had a "link mic position" feature as a shortcut.

 

[BahamaDada]

You mean the Beyerdynamic DT 770 Pro, right? They are not even that expensive! I thought Boss Waza-Air was pretty much the minimum.

Depends? IMO 150€ for a pair of headphones is rather pricey, but they are worth it.

 

[mercifulfuzziness]

With Helix cabs, I'd always use the dual cab option and blend two mics. If you like York Audio, you most likely use the mix IRs, which are all multi-mic mixes. Do the same on Helix, and you can get similar results. Granted, it is more work to do it like that.

I kinda like the simplified version of the movable mic thing on my Hotone Ampero 2 Stomp. It's not "move mic A and B separately to wherever you want", but basically "put both mics here" where the difference is mostly brighter/darker, which is what you usually want anyway.

It would be nice if Helix had a "link mic position" feature as a shortcut.

Yeah I need to experiment with that. But really, is "all" that York does then pick a dual cab and move the mics around a bit??

 

[laxu]

Yeah I need to experiment with that. But really, is "all" that York does then pick a dual cab and move the mics around a bit??

He puts in a lot of work to find the right mic placement with real mics and cabs. York packs come with a whopping ton of individual mic IRs and you could use those to build your own custom mix. But most people, including me, like York's mixes so why not take it easy and just use those?

Not sure if he does any post processing like EQ on the IRs recorded, or the final mix. You'd need to ask York that.

If you want to learn the Helix cabs, start with some common pairing like a 57 + 160 or 57 + 121 mics. You can't go too wrong aiming those somewhere around the edge of the dust cap, then fine tuning. Close to center = brighter, closer to edge = duller. Then mess with the mix of the two mics. I like using a 57 to get the right sizzle and bite, then a 160 or 121 to give it some body.

Another neat combination is two 57 mics where one is straight and one is angled 45 degrees, pointing at roughly the same spot right next to each other. This is called the "Fredman technique". I use this at home with my real cabs because it's easy to setup and two 57s are pretty affordable.

 

[mercifulfuzziness]

He puts in a lot of work to find the right mic placement with real mics and cabs. York packs come with a whopping ton of individual mic IRs and you could use those to build your own custom mix. But most people, including me, like York's mixes so why not take it easy and just use those?

Not sure if he does any post processing like EQ on the IRs recorded, or the final mix. You'd need to ask York that.

If you want to learn the Helix cabs, start with some common pairing like a 57 + 160 or 57 + 121 mics. You can't go too wrong aiming those somewhere around the edge of the dust cap, then fine tuning. Close to center = brighter, closer to edge = duller. Then mess with the mix of the two mics. I like using a 57 to get the right sizzle and bite, then a 160 or 121 to give it some body.

Another neat combination is two 57 mics where one is straight and one is angled 45 degrees, pointing at roughly the same spot right next to each other. This is called the "Fredman technique". I use this at home with my real cabs because it's easy to setup and two 57s are pretty affordable.

Well, this exactly. I have zero experience with it. So I decided to buy the York package because sure, fiddling around with the EQ of the amp might be doable for me... (even there i have my concerns) but what do i know about mic position etc.

Makes me think about this story:

A giant ship’s engine failed. The ship’s owners tried one ‘professional’ after another but none of them could figure out how to fix the broken engine.

Then they brought in a man who had been fixing ships since he was young.
He carried a large bag of tools with him and when he arrived immediately went to work. He inspected the engine very carefully, top to bottom.

Two of the ship’s owners were there watching this man, hoping he would know what to do. After looking things over, the old man reached into his bag and pulled out a small hammer. He gently tapped something. Instantly, the engine lurched into life. He carefully put his hammer away and the engine was fixed!!!

A week later, the owners received an invoice from the old man for $10,000.

What?! the owners exclaimed. “He hardly did anything..!!!”.

So they wrote to the man; “Please send us an itemised invoice.”

The man sent an invoice that read:

Tapping with a hammer………………….. $2.00

Knowing where to tap…………………….. $9,998.00

Effort is important but experience and knowing where to direct that effort makes all the difference.

 

[Sascha Franck]

I do like that orange 2x12 cab they have in there though.

Has become my go-to cab for pretty much anything, at least as a starting point. Even shot an IR of it, so I can abuse it elsewhere. Another favourite of mine is that very Mandarin 30 cab mixed 50:50 with the 4x12 Greenback 25 (both almost at stock settings). Grabbed an IR of that combination as well (even using it within the Stomp to save blocks).

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Micing a cab really isn’t as straight forward as there being one magical sweet spot or blend that is better than the others. It’s all context dependent with a ton of moving parts, and most of all personal preference.

I think it’s popular because it makes decision making a bit easier, and avoids some from being overwhelmed. But I don’t really like that limitation, it’s like only having 4 colours vs 4000 shades in between. You might love those 4 colours, but sometimes something in between will work even better, if you’re prepared to look for it. I quite like the idea of everyone using different colours on every project too rather than things ending up somewhat similar.

A big reason why dynacabs are infinitely better than the individual IR’s, or why helix’s cab engine is so much more useful than before.

 

[laxu]

Well, this exactly. I have zero experience with it. So I decided to buy the York package because sure, fiddling around with the EQ of the amp might be doable for me... (even there i have my concerns) but what do i know about mic position etc.

I think this part is what stumps many guitarists who move to using modelers. You're used to the amp being the amp, and the cab being that box where loud noises come out and you don't need to think about it much more than that. Guitarist turn amp knob, noise box make good sound!

Then you are thrown into the modeler world where you are suddenly given the keys to a virtual studio and told to have fun. But everything in the virtual realm is built to mimic the analog world with increasing realism. It's no wonder people look for shortcuts whether it's 3rd party IRs, presets or captures.

We started with stock cab sims that represent cab A with mic X at Y position, then moved to multi-mic mixes, then movable mic systems.

But none of that makes any sense if you've never miced a cab in your life. Wtf is a 57, 160, 121 mic? What does position/distance do? It's intuitive only to those who have worked with this, but many have not. So I wonder if future modeler products should try to figure out different user interfaces paradigms to do all this stuff, ones that make more sense to an average user.

 

[Sascha Franck]

So I wonder if future modeler products should try to figure out different user interfaces paradigms to do all this stuff, ones that make more sense to an average user.

The synth world is already doing so quite a bit. There's things such as "Easy Edit" pages (for instance on NI's FM7/8), there's multiple X/Y pads in some synths (for instance Alchemy, Zebra) and there's simplified controls (for instance on many libraries based on Kontakt). Sure, the core patch had to be programmed by someone, but as each unit comes with presets, that'd have to happen anyway. And having any such easy ways to control a preset would possibly make them non-sucky. For a sound a little too dark, you wouldn't have to reverse engineer it anymore but just play around on an X/Y pad, moving the cursor between soft/hard and dark/bright.
I actually plan to control some stuff on my new setup that way using TouchOSC.

 

[dronerstone]

I think this part is what stumps many guitarists who move to using modelers. You're used to the amp being the amp, and the cab being that box where loud noises come out and you don't need to think about it much more than that. Guitarist turn amp knob, noise box make good sound!

Then you are thrown into the modeler world where you are suddenly given the keys to a virtual studio and told to have fun. But everything in the virtual realm is built to mimic the analog world with increasing realism. It's no wonder people look for shortcuts whether it's 3rd party IRs, presets or captures.

We started with stock cab sims that represent cab A with mic X at Y position, then moved to multi-mic mixes, then movable mic systems.

But none of that makes any sense if you've never miced a cab in your life. Wtf is a 57, 160, 121 mic? What does position/distance do? It's intuitive only to those who have worked with this, but many have not. So I wonder if future modeler products should try to figure out different user interfaces paradigms to do all this stuff, ones that make more sense to an average user.

100% agree.

Thai said, some mics are easy to use/place, but some are a PITA, depending on volume levels and which room they're in.

With modelers, I usually start playing through a power amp or effects loop into a real cab, at volume levels that I can "feel". When I'm finished tweaking to a sound that I personally like, I change to cab sim and headphones and try to at least get in a similar ballpark.

 

[mercifulfuzziness]

Micing a cab really isn’t as straight forward as there being one magical sweet spot or blend that is better than the others. It’s all context dependent with a ton of moving parts, and most of all personal preference.

I think it’s popular because it makes decision making a bit easier, and avoids some from being overwhelmed. But I don’t really like that limitation, it’s like only having 4 colours vs 4000 shades in between. You might love those 4 colours, but sometimes something in between will work even better, if you’re prepared to look for it. I quite like the idea of everyone using different colours on every project too rather than things ending up somewhat similar.

A big reason why dynacabs are infinitely better than the individual IR’s, or why helix’s cab engine is so much more useful than before.

Makes sense. And I also notice that taste seems to change "per night". I can have 3 hours of playing and tweaking around, find it awesome.. and the next day... have a way different feeling about it.

 

[mercifulfuzziness]

I think this part is what stumps many guitarists who move to using modelers. You're used to the amp being the amp, and the cab being that box where loud noises come out and you don't need to think about it much more than that. Guitarist turn amp knob, noise box make good sound!

Then you are thrown into the modeler world where you are suddenly given the keys to a virtual studio and told to have fun. But everything in the virtual realm is built to mimic the analog world with increasing realism. It's no wonder people look for shortcuts whether it's 3rd party IRs, presets or captures.

We started with stock cab sims that represent cab A with mic X at Y position, then moved to multi-mic mixes, then movable mic systems.

But none of that makes any sense if you've never miced a cab in your life. Wtf is a 57, 160, 121 mic? What does position/distance do? It's intuitive only to those who have worked with this, but many have not. So I wonder if future modeler products should try to figure out different user interfaces paradigms to do all this stuff, ones that make more sense to an average user.

Yep this is really how I experience it. I bought the Stomp + monitors because I thought there was no way I could use a small tube amp in my own room. But indeed, there are many, many variables and sometimes I would prefer it to be "gain, master volume, bass, treble" byeee haha It's almost like my hobby is guitarplaying AND sound engineering.

 

[laxu]

Micing a cab really isn’t as straight forward as there being one magical sweet spot or blend that is better than the others. It’s all context dependent with a ton of moving parts, and most of all personal preference.

I think it’s popular because it makes decision making a bit easier, and avoids some from being overwhelmed. But I don’t really like that limitation, it’s like only having 4 colours vs 4000 shades in between. You might love those 4 colours, but sometimes something in between will work even better, if you’re prepared to look for it. I quite like the idea of everyone using different colours on every project too rather than things ending up somewhat similar.

A big reason why dynacabs are infinitely better than the individual IR’s, or why helix’s cab engine is so much more useful than before.

I'm always for the right sweet spot between versatile, but still relatively easy to use. Fractal/Helix/QC movable mics are maybe already past that point, even if I like using them myself. I consider the Dyna-Cabs and Helix cabs probably the biggest upgrades they have made to their respective devices.

I'm surprised how much I liked the dumbed down version on the Ampero 2 Stomp. 6 single mics, 4 multi-mic mixes (always the same mics) + 6 positions from center to the edge of the cone. But there's a whopping 60 different guitar cabs, though some are the same cab with different speakers. It still manages to cut down a lot of those "do I like this mic moved a bit closer, or this mic mixed a bit lower better?" rabbit holes.

Like you said, there's never a "perfect" option, or something that works great for everything.

 

[mercifulfuzziness]

I'm always for the right sweet spot between versatile, but still relatively easy to use. Fractal/Helix/QC movable mics are maybe already past that point, even if I like using them myself. I consider the Dyna-Cabs and Helix cabs probably the biggest upgrades they have made to their respective devices.

I'm surprised how much I liked the dumbed down version on the Ampero 2 Stomp. 6 single mics, 4 multi-mic mixes (always the same mics) + 6 positions from center to the edge of the cone. But there's a whopping 60 different guitar cabs, though some are the same cab with different speakers. It still manages to cut down a lot of those "do I like this mic moved a bit closer, or this mic mixed a bit lower better?" rabbit holes.

Like you said, there's never a "perfect" option, or something that works great for everything.

Because less is more. Not everybody wants to spend most of their evening time tweaking around with the cabs.

it's also a bit addictive. I could just accept my Fender Deluxe sound for what it is.. and practice practice practice... but yeah.. Then I feel like checking out a Marshall

 

[laxu]

it's also a bit addictive. I could just accept my Fender Deluxe sound for what it is.. and practice practice practice... but yeah.. Then I feel like checking out a Marshall

Absolutely. It's the "what if an even better sound is lurking just around the corner?!" rabbit hole that you can apply to literally every block in your signal chain. It puts a lot of personal responsibility on the user to say "this is good, I will use this, I will not tweak more."

 

[mercifulfuzziness]

He puts in a lot of work to find the right mic placement with real mics and cabs. York packs come with a whopping ton of individual mic IRs and you could use those to build your own custom mix. But most people, including me, like York's mixes so why not take it easy and just use those?

Not sure if he does any post processing like EQ on the IRs recorded, or the final mix. You'd need to ask York that.

If you want to learn the Helix cabs, start with some common pairing like a 57 + 160 or 57 + 121 mics. You can't go too wrong aiming those somewhere around the edge of the dust cap, then fine tuning. Close to center = brighter, closer to edge = duller. Then mess with the mix of the two mics. I like using a 57 to get the right sizzle and bite, then a 160 or 121 to give it some body.

Another neat combination is two 57 mics where one is straight and one is angled 45 degrees, pointing at roughly the same spot right next to each other. This is called the "Fredman technique". I use this at home with my real cabs because it's easy to setup and two 57s are pretty affordable.

With the edge of dust cap, do you mean the edge of the center with that? Or the edge?