Helix Talk

[EOengineer]

I also got the impression that Line 6 wasn't particularly interested in captures, but at the same time, their tendency to omit switches and deeper editing parameters prevents them from taking full advantage of the flexibility of component modeling. For example, the Big Muff is one of the most commonly modded circuits, but they don't include any of those options on any of the variations.

Interesting point. They are getting better at this of late, but yeah I guess its a little lame to use the completeness of white glove modeling as part of the reasoning for not adding newer tech, and then model the amps incompletely.

 

[Lysander]

Interesting point. They are getting better at this of late, but yeah I guess its a little lame to use the completeness of white glove modeling as part of the reasoning for not adding newer tech, and then model the amps incompletely.

Note also that not all modeling is created equal. Helix models are based on tonal building blocks...

...whereas Fractal simulates audio circuits based on schematics in real time; the latter is much easier to tweak parameters for.

 

[EOengineer]

Note also that not all modeling is created equal. Helix models are based on tonal building blocks...

...whereas Fractal simulates audio circuits based on schematics in real time; the latter is much easier to tweak parameters for.

...and to think all this time I assumed L6 was debigulating the amps and packing them into each Helix hardware unit. Are you saying I should stop work on my rebigulator? I thought I was about to game the system big.

 

[Lysander]

...and to think all this time I assumed L6 was debigulating the amps and packing them into each Helix hardware unit.

Nah, just noting that if you want every knob and switch Fractal f.ex. provides, where you can adjust shit like the mains frequency or core saturation for output transformers, it might not even be doable in Helix It's not like they're holding out on us.

 

[Exluthier]

A reasonable case might also be made that none of those brands have a history of being early adopters of technology that isn’t proprietary.

Obviously that doesn’t mean they won’t eventually make their way there but I wouldn’t expect it any time soon.


I agree with you.

I’m sure I’m wrong because both Cliff and DI are very intelligent people, but I really challenge their treatment of capture technology as a competitor to white glove modeling.

Capture tech’s true value for many people using it is its ability to capture and transport a user’s own personal rig. It’s not a replacement for white glove modeling and I believe they are making a gross miscalculation treating it as such.

Honestly I was a little disheartened by how short sighted their stance seems. I have a Marshall clone that I've personally modded and love and the ability to capture it and load it into the Helix with all its effects and flexibility would be huge since I don't want to risk that amp on the road and the Helix takes up less space/ weight. I guess their counter would be I could probably get close with one of the stock amps but tone matching like that is a frustrating process for me.

 

[EOengineer]

Nah, just noting that if you want every knob and switch Fractal f.ex. provides, where you can adjust shit like the mains frequency or core saturation for output transformers, it might not even be doable in Helix It's not like they're holding out on us.

Do you use those extra parameters much?

In a perfect world I would like something that sits between Helix and Fractal in that regard. Give me the channels, switches, pull knobs, etc but I don't really need to get into speaker excursion settings, transformers, and all that. They did a really good job with the new Bogner, for example. I would love to have seen that attention to detail on many of the prior models. I suspect that's a lesson that makes its way into the next gen stuff from the start.

The level of granularity in the Fractal stuff is awesome and I keep meaning to scoop up an FM9 but I've been slowly migrating away from modeling the last year and might just let things simmer for a generation or two.

 

[Lysander]

Do you use those extra parameters much?

Oh, never

In a perfect world I would like something that sits between Helix and Fractal in that regard. Give me the channels, switches, pull knobs, etc but I don't really need to get into speaker excursion settings, transformers, and all that. They did a really good job with the new Bogner, for example. I would love to have seen that attention to detail on many of the prior models. I suspect that's a lesson that makes its way into the next gen stuff from the start.

Agreed. I know i'm kinda playing devil's advocate here, but i presume that modelling some knob/switches changes in Helix is very expensive compared to Fractal. This is also why Fractal has dedicated DSPs for amps, too - all products are balancing acts.

 

[EOengineer]

Oh, never



Agreed. I know i'm kinda playing devil's advocate here, but i presume that modelling some knob/switches changes in Helix is very expensive compared to Fractal. This is also why Fractal has dedicated DSPs for amps, too - all products are balancing acts.

No its all good I agree with most of what you are saying and appreciate the input - definitely not firmly entrenched on this particular topic! It will be interesting to see if L6 changes methodologies down the road for the sake of expedience. On one hand, I really appreciate their dedication to the authenticity of THEIR amp specimen, but yeah...its a process that at least from an engineering perspective does not scale well.

 

[Lele]

their tendency to omit switches and deeper editing parameters prevents them from taking full advantage of the flexibility of component modeling. For example, the Big Muff is one of the most commonly modded circuits, but they don't include any of those options on any of the variations.

Even if I agree with you to a certain extent, when the topic is a simple circuit like an overdrive, often you can make your own digital mod using additional block(s) in your modeler. More often than not, the OD pedal mods lie in different equalization (cutting lows, pushing mids, cutting highs, and so on) and in reducing the level of the first gain stage. So a parametric EQ or an EQ block before the OD to make your customized changes (and maybe to cut also the gain by some dBs) can replicate the core of several expensive and highfalutin pedal mods.

Maybe I'd like anyway to get some missing ODs that have a different type of circuit, not covered by the current choices in my Helix, such as: Riot (imho the most advanced Marshall Guv'nor od type), Boss OD-3, Boss BD-2, Barber Gain Changer, Skreddy P19 (ok, I know this is a Muff with more mids and less gain in some stages, so I could get it with my recipe of additional EQ blocks, but please forgive me: I loved it so I included it here), Emma Reezafratzitz, Blackstone Appliances Mosfet Overdrive and maybe many others I don't remember now.

 

[Sascha Franck]

And now: given the FACT that capturing/profiling is becoming a facility (just as IRs or any other effect type), and that every brand will feature it (I think only Fractal, Line6, Boss and Zoom are left)... do you think Helix is going to get into it?

Not this hardware generation.

 

[Sascha Franck]

We no joke had to kick out the other guitarist in my prior band because he insisted on chorus and spring reverb 100% of the time, even when using lots of overdriven tones.

So you kicked John Scofield out of your band?

 

[EOengineer]

So you kicked John Scofield out of your band?

 

[Byrdman]

I also got the impression that Line 6 wasn't particularly interested in captures, but at the same time, their tendency to omit switches and deeper editing parameters prevents them from taking full advantage of the flexibility of component modeling. For example, the Big Muff is one of the most commonly modded circuits, but they don't include any of those options on any of the variations.

Interesting point. They are getting better at this of late, but yeah I guess its a little lame to use the completeness of white glove modeling as part of the reasoning for not adding newer tech, and then model the amps incompletely.

I would just be happy if they re-worked some of the more popular amps that have been out since the beginning.

I was dialing in a Jumped Plexi the other day and certain dynamics seemed to sound good and others, not too much. I guess I'm just spoiled with the new 2203 they reworked.

 

[Digital Igloo]

Honestly I was a little disheartened by how short sighted their stance seems. I have a Marshall clone that I've personally modded and love and the ability to capture it and load it into the Helix with all its effects and flexibility would be huge since I don't want to risk that amp on the road and the Helix takes up less space/ weight. I guess their counter would be I could probably get close with one of the stock amps but tone matching like that is a frustrating process for me.

It's not a stance, per sé—just how our modeling methodology works. AFAIK, Line 6 and UA are two of very few companies that brute-force model everything from the component up, for every model. So if our real amp doesn't have that mod, it won't be in the model either. The only way for our model to have a bunch of mods is for us to physically mod the amp (perhaps in multiple ways) and remeasure (almost) everything for every possible mod combination. Doable, but extremely time-consuming. Even un-modded amps can take a month or longer.

Whereas if we were going purely by schematics with a black box-type methodology, we'd just add the mod code in as an extra Lego or set of coefficient changes. Much easier, but it rarely accounts for unpredictable or hyper-accurate behavior, for better or worse.

 

[Vic Winters]

It's not a stance, per sé—just how our modeling methodology works. AFAIK, Line 6 and UA are two of very few companies that brute-force model everything from the component up, for every model. So if our real amp doesn't have that mod, it won't be in the model either. The only way for our model to have a bunch of mods is for us to physically mod the amp (perhaps in multiple ways) and remeasure (almost) everything for every possible mod combination. Doable, but extremely time-consuming. Even un-modded amps can take a month or longer.

Whereas if we were going purely by schematics with a black box-type methodology, we'd just add the mod code in as an extra Lego or set of coefficient changes. Much easier, but it rarely accounts for unpredictable or hyper-accurate behavior, for better or worse.

Do any portions get reused when you model a different channel of the same amp or is it a complete rebuild? Revv Purple vs Revv Red for example.

 

[Digital Igloo]

Do any portions get reused when you model a different channel of the same amp or is it a complete rebuild? Revv Purple vs Revv Red for example.

In that particular case, yes, some stuff is reused.

 

[Hush]

Note also that not all modeling is created equal. Helix models are based on tonal building blocks...

...whereas Fractal simulates audio circuits based on schematics in real time; the latter is much easier to tweak parameters for.

@Lysander I don't think what you wrote is true.

It's not a stance, per sé—just how our modeling methodology works. AFAIK, Line 6 and UA are two of very few companies that brute-force model everything from the component up, for every model. So if our real amp doesn't have that mod, it won't be in the model either. The only way for our model to have a bunch of mods is for us to physically mod the amp (perhaps in multiple ways) and remeasure (almost) everything for every possible mod combination. Doable, but extremely time-consuming. Even un-modded amps can take a month or longer.

Whereas if we were going purely by schematics with a black box-type methodology, we'd just add the mod code in as an extra Lego or set of coefficient changes. Much easier, but it rarely accounts for unpredictable or hyper-accurate behavior, for better or worse.

 

[Lysander]

@Lysander I don't think what you wrote is true.

Um, i don't see how the two statements contradict? I also recall Ben Adrian mentioning this is how Helix modeling (roughly) works under the hood.

@Digital Igloo , is there any chance we might get a blog post / whitepaper on Helix's tech at some point?

 

[Digital Igloo]

Um, i don't see how the two statements contradict? I also recall Ben Adrian mentioning this is how Helix modeling (roughly) works under the hood.

@Digital Igloo , is there any chance we might get a blog post / whitepaper on Helix's tech at some point?

Perhaps. I sure as hell wouldn't be able to write it, tho'.

 

[laxu]

Nah, just noting that if you want every knob and switch Fractal f.ex. provides, where you can adjust shit like the mains frequency or core saturation for output transformers, it might not even be doable in Helix It's not like they're holding out on us.

At the same time, Fractal has their own issues with this. There's plenty of amps that don't have all channels, or all switches modeled, or there are separate models for different switch combinations because it has a lot of effect in the overall sound.

This is what Fractal says about the Mesa Triple Crown model:

“The actual amp’s “Tight” switch engages a built-in Tube Screamer circuit which can be replicated using a Drive block or the Amp block’s internal Boost feature.”

For the end user this is "need to know stuff". For user friendliness Fractal could provide a "Tight" switch toggle that turns the input TS boost on for you.

Line6's system seems more flexible for adding custom amp specific switches, but they offer less under the hood tweakability.

As it is, neither company manages a complete "all switches, channels, bells and whistles so you can use the amp model like the real thing" modeling. Granted, some things like half power switches, fx loops or solo boosts might not make sense to model in the first place because they are somewhat irrelevant in the virtual realm.

Hopefully next gen they both offer something closer where things like amp model changes can be stashed under the hood so you pick e.g a Mesa Mark IV model, and not a "Mesa Mark IV Rhythm 1" or "Mesa Mark IV Lead" model.

I find the extra tweakability of Fractal amps is cool...but I never use it. Not even once have I managed to make a better amp model than what it was at default, and a lot of those controls are very subtle.

That's why if Line6 wants to add some capture-like tech to their next gen, I think it would be better off as something like "figures out the settings for you" thing that is more advanced than tone match, but more authentically tweakable than straight up captures.