Helix Talk

EOengineer said:
I understand that, but realistically how often are people changing the settings on their amps? Out of my 7-8 amps, I can’t think of any where the settings have changed over the last year or more.

It just seems like an excessively broad statement to say modeling is superior for everyone because of that reason. At best we can say it’s a reason why modeling might be better for some folks.
Click to expand...
If you own the real amp and can capture it at your favorite settings there's no problem. Especially if your amps are the kind where you rarely mess with the settings after finding them. I find that I usually adjust at least a bit to accommodate different guitars.

But if you rely on somebody else's captures then you are at the mercy of their preferences or use the available EQ options to tweak those captures, which may sound just fine to you but is not technically accurate to the real amp anymore.
 
laxu said:
If you own the real amp and can capture it at your favorite settings there's no problem. Especially if your amps are the kind where you rarely mess with the settings after finding them. I find that I usually adjust at least a bit to accommodate different guitars.

But if you rely on somebody else's captures then you are at the mercy of their preferences or use the available EQ options to tweak those captures, which may sound just fine to you but is not technically accurate to the real amp anymore.
Click to expand...
Totally get that. In reality though, I’ve just never had much trouble finding profiles/captures that work for me. If I want more tonal control, I’ll grab a direct capture and rotate out impulse responses, which generally is more effective for me than amp EQ anyway.

I really think it comes down to use cases. Those who want absolute control of a tone in the digital realm are better off with component based modeling. Those who want to capture specific sounds (their rig or otherwise) with a very high degree of realism might prefer profiling/captures.

In a perfect world we could have both in the same tech but it doesn’t seem like we are quite there yet.
 
EOengineer said:
Totally get that. In reality though, I’ve just never had much trouble finding profiles/captures that work for me. If I want more tonal control, I’ll grab a direct capture and rotate out impulse responses, which generally is more effective for me than amp EQ anyway.

I really think it comes down to use cases. Those who want absolute control of a tone in the digital realm are better off with component based modeling. Those who want to capture specific sounds (their rig or otherwise) with a very high degree of realism might prefer profiling/captures.

In a perfect world we could have both in the same tech but it doesn’t seem like we are quite there yet.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's why on the surface level the Quad Cortex was pretty great because it had both the captures and traditional modeling support so you can just mix and match.

To me captures are unappealing because it's so much of the same issue as IRs. "Get this vendor's packs, they're great!" or "try the captures from this random guy!" Instead to me having amp models I can tweak myself and cab sims where I can adjust the mic positioning are more intuitive tools to me.

I don't mind captures if I have full control over them from creation to usage.
 
There is a problem with a lot of high gain amp captures where people capture with load boxes and turn the master volume way up, that sounds like compressed diarrhea and there's nothing that can be done afterwards to make it sound good.
That and the complete randomness of gain is what makes shitty captures.
 
Last edited:
James Freeman said:
There is a problem with a lot of high gain amp captures where people capture with load boxes and turn the master volume way up, that sounds like compressed diarrhea and there's nothing that can be done afterwards to make it sound good.
That and the complete randomness of gain is what makes sh*tty captures.
Click to expand...
and particularly for high gain amps, using cheaper reactive load boxes that have weak undefined low end resonance. I love the convenience of load boxes, but for something like profiling, I think it’s worth just blasting your ears out for 5 minutes when reamping and then you have something worthwhile (and more accurate to the real world) to use, rather than a compromised approximation of a real tone.

Measure twice, cut once etc
 
Did folks check out the latest Helix survey from Line6 (for registered users)? The part in the survey about possible future updates to the HX software/new HX based hardware was very interesting! Loved to see Line6 asking the public about the latest trends and their thoughts about it!


Screenshot_20230616-175116.png

I can only imagine what the family of HX 2.0 devices would look like, based on the above survey. Perhaps it is many years from now that we ll see this, but it is very cool to think about it!


Edit: I will add that, I am not parting with my current HX device(s), and I will recommend the current HX modelers to anyone looking for modeling needs (even the ones that go "do you think HX is worth it, will they EOL it soon?"), For 2 reasons:

1. We are still getting updates, and the HX sounds gorgeous+integrates with any workflow like a charm.
2. I want to continue supporting Line 6 to keep giving us updates and the future modeler(s)
 
laxu said:
Yeah, that's why on the surface level the Quad Cortex was pretty great because it had both the captures and traditional modeling support so you can just mix and match.
Click to expand...
But it’s not traditional component modeling. The QC “models” are actually captures.
 
James Freeman said:
There is a problem with a lot of high gain amp captures where people capture with load boxes and turn the master volume way up, that sounds like compressed diarrhea and there's nothing that can be done afterwards to make it sound good.
That and the complete randomness of gain is what makes sh*tty captures.
Click to expand...
Not trying to de-rail this ...... but ^^ this completely true.

I would guess the huge-vast- >%90 of "captures" for Tonex [and NAM] are people who (i) have captured other modelers or plugins and don't admit it and (ii) have captured their amps via a load box..

The brilliant thing about Amalgamaudio Captures - and this is not me "plugging" them in any way [though I only use them] is that they are the only "pro" Capture maker I am aware of that Captures their D.I amps always in "Advanced" mode and always via a DI tap in-line with the real speaker ... the result is a stunning sound with amazing dynamics.

Anyway ... rant over ... back to the Helix :)

Ben
 
kartikg3 said:
Did folks check out the latest Helix survey from Line6 (for registered users)?
Click to expand...

Yeah I just filled it.
I think whoever is going to read it will think my selection is weird for someone who has a Helix Floor, I barely use anything.

I would want one more Guitar Inputs with the super quiet patent trick, if something goes wrong with the only quiet guitar input the Helix becomes an expensive door stopper, edit: for me.
I very often use the SPDIF output from the Helix with other guitar plugins in my DAW because of the excellent noise floor of the Guitar input, and I use the Pad and adjust the digital output volume from the Helix to calibrate the dBu value into the Plugin.
A super low noise floor guitar input is VERY important for digital amp models, especially high gain.
 
Last edited:
the swede said:
@kartikg3

If you thought blue was cool… :rofl

www.thomann.de

Line6 HX Stomp purple special

Multi-Effect Pedal Multi-effect processor with the Helix sound, Over 300 effects and models from Helix, M-Series and other Line6 products, 6 Simultaneously usable amp, cabinet and effect blocks - including looper and IR loading, Colour LC display,...
www.thomann.de www.thomann.de
Click to expand...
I’ve seen them stateside too (can’t remember where), and I thought about it despite having an XL. The purple is just cool.
 
Is there an HX amp model that’s like a modern take on a Soldano? Like how Friedman amps are modern takes on Marshals. I love the SLO amp model for lower gain rock tones and ambient Rabea type stuff. Thinking maybe something similar but different will expand my creative possibilities.
 
I S said:
Is there an HX amp model that’s like a modern take on a Soldano? Like how Friedman amps are modern takes on Marshals. I love the SLO amp model for lower gain rock tones and ambient Rabea type stuff. Thinking maybe something similar but different will expand my creative possibilities.
Click to expand...
Revv Purple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I S
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

gearJunkie
Guilty of modeler neglect
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
Mongillo19
M
Mikael Dez
Need advice (if this is even possible - controlling HX Stomp with Tonex via MIDI)
Replies
0
Views
123
Mikael Dez
Mikael Dez
wharf rat
Helix Floor @ $1399 or HX Stomp + Pedals
Replies
5
Views
492
JCW308
JCW308
Alex Kenivel
Bonex One vs Nana Cotex vs Why Bother?
Replies
17
Views
1K
Alex Kenivel
Alex Kenivel
Mikael Dez
Neural DSP Talk
Replies
19
Views
2K
Jarick
Jarick
Back
Top