Helix Talk

[James Freeman]

I'd love to see a 5 band parametric with additional HPF/LPF and where the outside bands could be switched between parametric and shelf

Yep, 5-6 bands so I don't have to use 2 or 3 eq blocks and the outer bands should be assignable to either Peak, Shelf or LPF/HPF with slope controls (dB/Oct).
Narrow Q is very important to me, I use it to accurately notch the offending peaks of the raw cab captures for a record-ready sound, if I could do that in-the-box with just one eq block that would be amazing.
Advanced parametric eq is not something normies would use often but it should be available as a tool for the producer minded tweakers to create a polished guitar sound in a single HX preset.

 

[DieSchmalle]

Yep, 5-6 bands so I don't have to use 2 or 3 eq blocks and the outer bands should be assignable to either Peak, Shelf or LPF/HPF with slope controls (dB/Oct).
Narrow Q is very important to me, I use it to accurately notch the offending peaks of the raw cab captures for a record-ready sound, if I could do that in-the-box with just one eq block that would be amazing.
Advanced parametric eq is not something normies would use often but it should be available as a tool for the producer minded tweakers to create a polished guitar sound in a single HX preset.

No, optional additional HPF/LPF. I don't want to decide whether to use a shelf or a cut. The rest I agree with.

 

[James Freeman]

No, optional additional HPF/LPF. I don't want to decide whether to use a shelf or a cut. The rest I agree with.

I often don't use LP/HP filters, I would rather have them as more Peaking bands, that's why I asked for these bands to be switchable.

Another solution is to have several new parametric equalizer models, the EQ category has only 8 models so there is plenty of room for more.

4 Band + L/H Pass Filters (w/ Slope, dB/Oct)
4 Band + L/H Shelf
5 Band
6 Band

EQ is cheap (DSP), there is no reason to not have plenty of it with advance parameters.
Yes, I know about NDSP, lol, kek, funny stuff.

 

[dronerstone]

this is kind of old at this point but man I'm still rocking and loving the Horizon drive. I don't play metal so this isn't a pedal I would've thought to try out IRL but I haven't been able to kick it off my presets. I've read some stuff online, looked at the schematics, took a look at it's frequency response and it seems like just a modified tube screamer with a variable low cut but this one just works for me. I like that I can even use it in front of whatever backline amps and it works in front of super clean amps too as the only source of dirt. The downside is it takes a shit load of DSP and you can't turn the gate completely off (for example, when using it at lower gain settings).

BUT: the Horizon Gate was the first gate I ever loved, after 25 years of noisy playing

And yeah, totally agree, the Horizon Drive is surprisingly versatile, considering it's "main" purpose is heavy stuff

 

[pipelineaudio]

Horizon gate is the one I use too...but of course, I am extremely partial to multi band gates

 

[Perrymusica]

One of Petrucci's IRs Vs a Helix "new cabs". Not bad at all, great job by Helix!

 

[norminal]

One of Petrucci's IRs Vs a Helix "new cabs". Not bad at all, great job by Helix!
View attachment 9404

So someone matched the Petrucci IR using the Helix cab block? Any sound comparisons?

 

[paisleywookiee]

I spent a lot of time yesterday with Helix Native (and ToneX). It's been 6 months since I've really used Helix Native, and wow, I'm impressed. While the modeling quality of Fractal is well known, I gotta say the Helix stuff gets mighty, mighty close on a lot of models. The Deluxe, Twin, Mark IV, and SLO models are absolutely outstanding.

Given what Helix Native, a complete Helix in your lappy, it's a ridiculous value.

 

[SillyOctpuss]

I spent a lot of time yesterday with Helix Native (and ToneX). It's been 6 months since I've really used Helix Native, and wow, I'm impressed. While the modeling quality of Fractal is well known, I gotta say the Helix stuff gets mighty, mighty close on a lot of models. The Deluxe, Twin, Mark IV, and SLO models are absolutely outstanding.

Given what Helix Native, a complete Helix in your lappy, it's a ridiculous value.

I love the Princeton, placater and litigator models too.

 

[littlemusicbox]

+1 for a more advanced parametric eq. Would be nice to use it to „correct“ headphones. This website displays is easily: autoeq.app
Pick your headphones, chose custom parametric eq. Add or limit it to fewer filters. Harman curve may be a bit bass heavy. Adjust to taste. And of course every filter introduces phase issues, but sometimes it helps using different headphones.

 

[SwirlyMaple]

+1 for a more advanced parametric eq. Would be nice to use it to „correct“ headphones. This website displays is easily: autoeq.app
Pick your headphones, chose custom parametric eq. Add or limit it to fewer filters. Harman curve may be a bit bass heavy. Adjust to taste. And of course every filter introduces phase issues, but sometimes it helps using different headphones.

FWIW, the autoeq site has correction curves in the form of pre-made IRs, too. You can use a stereo IR block at the end of your Helix path with these, as long as you have enough free DSP for it. Easy to do on a Floor or LT; tricky or impossible on a Stomp.

 

[laxu]

FWIW, the autoeq site has correction curves in the form of pre-made IRs, too. You can use a stereo IR block at the end of your Helix path with these, as long as you have enough free DSP for it. Easy to do on a Floor or LT; tricky or impossible on a Stomp.

I do the same on Axe-Fx 3, except I made my own IRs out of Sonarworks Reference ID profiles. I put them in the IR Player block only available on the Axe-Fx 3.

That said, I feel like AutoEQ graphic/parametric EQ settings get you like 98% of the same result. I just have the horsepower to do it with IRs but could easily just use global EQ for this.

 

[James Freeman]

I use EQ with a lot of narrow notches and boosts to shape IRs and/or a real SM57.
Q of up to 20 and Gain range of +-24dB is very useful for cab tone shaping and matching.
The power of a good EQ is overlooked in most modelers including the Helix.

 

[James Freeman]

I recommend watching the full video to every recording guitarist, but here I linked the 'eq trick' part which I also use a lot to shape my cab/IR tone.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

I recommend watching the full video to every recording guitarist, but here I linked the 'eq trick' which I also use a lot to shape my cab/IR tone.

definitely one of those things that is easy to go overboard on if you listen loud and in isolation. I think often 2-3dB can be enough, and only one or 2 cuts to the most prominent areas can be plenty (as Zach mentions he does). Tight Q, deep notches, lots of EQ moves=phasey mess, if you aren't careful.

Very context dependent on how much gain there is, what the parts are doing, what other parts are playing at the same time, what other instruments are playing etc. I don't actually mind some limitations with EQ because it forces you to focus on the biggest problems and it helps stop you overdoing things when changing the IR or settings a bit would be more effective. For guitar tones, its arguably more valuable in a mix context after the fact when you can assess whats going on, rather than in a "performance" scenario where things might be out of your control and someone else further down the line would be better placed to EQ.

(Not that I use them, but) There are some guitar focused plugins that have a single notch band as well as filters and (analog style) shelving bands. I could imagine something like that being useful where you have things pre-mapped a little, and saves you having to choose filter types and Q values and things. For only guitar processing, I could probably live with:

- a single notch band
- HP and LP (12dB/octave or 18dB/octave)
- 10k high shelf (something like API/Neve/Helios/SSL style)
- low shelf (maybe more Neve/Pultec style where there is a little overshoot so frequencies above the boost get dipped slightly)
- (not necessary but maybe an upper mid band, either like Helios or Neve. I like how Helios adjusts the Q relationship with frequency).

I'd probably find that more useful for EQ'ing electric guitars in 90% of situations, it would save having 10 identical bands that all need assigning, and would make scrolling through menu's a bit nicer. Just checking the Helix Simple EQ, I wish the mid band could go above 4k, and an asymmetrical Q would probably be more useful (so cuts are narrower, boosts are wider). The high shelf is also REALLY low IMO (seems to be centered around 10k).

Not to say a studio style parametric EQ wouldn't be useful, I love the idea of the Helix line not necessarily being used in a traditional way, I think they make great "problem solvers" in various areas and it would be a worthy addition. I can absolutely see the likes of Sadites piling on a shitload of unneccesary EQ and compression (totally out of any context) and lots of beginners assuming "thats just what you do".

 

[HotRats]

I use EQ with a lot of narrow notches and boosts to shape IRs and/or a real SM57.
Q of up to 20 and Gain range of +-24dB is very useful for cab tone shaping and matching.
The power of a good EQ is overlooked in most modelers including the Helix.

View attachment 9532

be careful with all those notches, they can destroy a well recorded sound.

 

[Orvillain]

I remember Joe Baressi saying in that 10,000 Days interview that he didn't EQ the guitars. But I've never had that confidence!

Barresi used minimal processing when recording. “I tried to get by with as little as possible,” he says. “There was no EQ on guitar. There was really no EQ on the bass either. I EQ’d a little bit on the vocal. But if there was an effect on the vocal, then it would be drastic EQ’ing. I used a slight bit of EQ on drums, but I mainly got the drum sound by changing mics out: Like if I needed a little top end, I’d find a brighter mic. If I needed more bottom, I’d try a bigger diaphragm mic.”

The Making of Tool's "10,000 Days"

Engineer Joe Barresi and mastering engineer Bob Ludwig discuss the making of Tool’s 2006 album “10,000 Days”

www.mixonline.com

I've stopped automatically applying low and high pass filters to everything, for a long time now. I think they introduce phase problems in both the lows and highs that you don't always notice at first, but cumulatively they affect how powerful your mix is. I tend to use shelving filters for the lows and highs instead. There's less phase-fuckery going on when you do that. I also either automate them from part to part, or I have a dynamic EQ. So the lows are all there when they need to be, and reduced by about 3-6dB depending on how everything sounds together.

People EQ guitars to death, and you can really hear it, especially in modern metal. Even since the early 2000's there has been a drastic shift in guitar tone rawness, let alone comparing something from 2023 to 1975.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

now I'm looking at the Helix High/Low Shelf module in Plugin Doctor. It can do some API style shelving, but 15k on the API is around 2.2k on Helix. 10k on API equates to around 1.6kHz on Helix. Most of the useable range of high shelves are in the lower portion of the taper, and whats worse is the EQ behaves VERY odd at high frequencies. Above 4k or so, the EQ starts developing a (very) resonant peak around Nyquist. IMO a different definition of frequency values would have been more useful so you get a wider range to dial in (and more familiar to commonly used EQ's).

Neve style 10k boost is around 1k on Helix, but you don't get the overshoot.

Helios style high shelf boost would be 1.4kHz on Helix's Shelf. The shelf module is much more "analog" style but if someone says they boost 10/12k on an API/Neve/Helios, then its closer to 1k on Helix. Do not boost a shelf on Helix with it set to 10k ha.

EDIT: in fact, I'd say the high shelf starts behaving a bit strange after around 2k. The 400hz-2.5kHz portion of that taper is probably the most useful. The rest of the taper is probably never going to be useful.

EDIT 2: The parametric EQ is kind of similar in that the Q at 0.1 isn't THAT wide (narrower than Neve/SSL/API/etc). Most of the taper is dedicated to tighter Q's that are more similar/of less benefit, and the tightest Q isn't THAT tight). The difference between Q=2 and Q=10 isn't that important to me but it gets most of the taper to dial in. Between 0.1 and 1 there is a way bigger difference that would be more apparent and useful to have finer control over. Compare this to an SSL style console EQ (each half of the taper is useful in a progressive and logical way, rather than being bunched up in one portion of it). Same goes for modern parametric EQ plugins, such as Pro Q (or really most plugin EQ's these days) where the Q changes in a gradual and useful manner

 

[James Freeman]

definitely one of those things that is easy to go overboard on if you listen loud and in isolation. I think often 2-3dB can be enough,

be careful with all those notches, they can destroy a well recorded sound.

Yep, I use an analyzer when adjusting these notches and boosts, definitely not by ear.
My goal is a smoother curve with less poking frequencies between 2k-6k, Celestion speakers are known to be randomly spiky in this region even between consecutive production units.
I believe some IR producers 'polish' their IRs using this technique form what I see, the curve is way too pretty to be a straight up SM57 on a cone.

 

[SwirlyMaple]

People EQ guitars to death, and you can really hear it, especially in modern metal. Even since the early 2000's there has been a drastic shift in guitar tone rawness, let alone comparing something from 2023 to 1975.

I just assumed this was because all modern metal was secretly using the Big Bottom (aka Badonk) from the Pod HD