Helix Talk

[laxu]

I think that works if the Phaser or Flanger is always on, but how would you manage toggling the effects on or off.

You probably need to toggle to another snapshot where it's off. I didn't say it was perfect by any means.

 

[Foxmeister]

The other solution would be having multiple foot switch pages, something I've suggested several times.

I agree that this could be "fixed" entirely within the Helix, but if it is a real issue for you, an external MIDI controller would probably be beneficial.

 

[ragingplatypi]

I've this silly idea, a new feature for our beloved Helix, somenthing intended for live use.

The idea is being able toggle between two different blocks assigned to a footswitch by long pressing the footswitch.
Not somenthing I'd use while playing but between songs.

I know, know, you can save different presets but I believe that would be awesome to be able expand the number of effects at your disposal without the need to maintain several presets.

I mean we all have a block we use in one or two songs in the entire setlist. Imagine your self simply long pressing your, let's say, phaser switch and voilà! a flanger appear for that only song where you need it.

I know you don’t want to make another patch, but if you have the spare foot switch, control center has a nice feature where you can assign a switch to jump to a specific patch. You can use the same switch to jump back and forth between patches?

 

[HotRats]

I know you don’t want to make another patch, but if you have the spare foot switch, control center has a nice feature where you can assign a switch to jump to a specific patch. You can use the same switch to jump back and forth between patches?

I know, I know, I've used that a lot with my previous band. At the time I had a preset per song, go figure!

It's just thought I had yesterday while playing a song with the band and decided I needed a whammy and had to save a new preset and replace a block with the whammy.

Fast and easy nonetheless fractal channels seems to be a nicer solution.

 

[Lysander]

I'm not familiar with fractal products but yeah, it's cool they can do that. Is a great feature in my opinion.

There's more available dsp power than foot switches, especially if you use it for fxs only and it's a kind of waste.

There is not. Fractal channels are not magic: they just allocate multiple blocks on the DSP, which get switched in an out. When there's no enough horsepower, you get a (large) sonic gap with a channel change - because you're effectively changing patches, and reloading the DSP in the process.

This is particularly noticeable if you use channels on amp blocks on the FM3/FM9, and it is even noted in the manual.

The existence of snapshot/scenes obey limitations on how DSPs work on most units. Changing the contents of a patch inevitably means an audio gap.

 

[HotRats]

There is not. Fractal channels are not magic: they just allocate multiple blocks on the DSP, which get switched in an out. When there's no enough horsepower, you get a (large) sonic gap with a channel change - because you're effectively changing patches, and reloading the DSP in the process.

This is particularly noticeable if you use channels on amp blocks on the FM3/FM9, and it is even noted in the manual.

The existence of snapshot/scenes obey limitations on how DSPs work on most units. Changing the contents of a patch inevitably means an audio gap.

Understood and that's fine. Instead of changing presets, which cause a gap too, you change a block in the signal chain.

What I was thinking is something meant to reduce the amount of presets needed to cover a full setlist.

 

[James Freeman]

Hmm, I think I want the next gen editor to have full rig gui where I can zoom-in individual elements and adjust them like the physical counterparts.

 

[Foxmeister]

Hmm, I think I want the next gen editor to have full rig gui where I can zoom-in individual elements and adjust them like the physical counterparts.

With virtual cables you need to "wiggle" from time to time because one of the virtual solder joints is dry!

 

[laxu]

Understood and that's fine. Instead of changing presets, which cause a gap too, you change a block in the signal chain.

What I was thinking is something meant to reduce the amount of presets needed to cover a full setlist.

The Fractal channels feature works well when you want to e.g change between clean vs overdrive while also changing for example cabs, which drive pedals are used in front of each or what type of reverb is used.

In your preset this still looks something like:

IN - Drive - Amp - Cab - Reverb - OUT

Whereas on Helix it could be one of:

IN - Drive - Drive - Amp - Amp - Cab - Cab - Reverb - Reverb - OUT

IN - Drive - Amp - Cab - Reverb ----- OUT
|_ Drive - Amp - Cab - Reverb _|

IN - Drive - Drive - Amp+Cab - Amp+Cab - Reverb - Reverb - OUT

The more complex the switching the more the channels feature makes sense. I would love to see something similar on next gen products from Line6.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Fwiw, what HX Edit could really do with was a visual representation of the switches. Would make assignments a lot easier.
Same could be true for HX Native, which is even ignoring all assignments.

 

[HotRats]

The Fractal channels feature works well when you want to e.g change between clean vs overdrive while also changing for example cabs, which drive pedals are used in front of each or what type of reverb is used.

In your preset this still looks something like:

IN - Drive - Amp - Cab - Reverb - OUT

Whereas on Helix it could be one of:

IN - Drive - Drive - Amp - Amp - Cab - Cab - Reverb - Reverb - OUT

IN - Drive - Amp - Cab - Reverb ----- OUT
|_ Drive - Amp - Cab - Reverb _|

IN - Drive - Drive - Amp+Cab - Amp+Cab - Reverb - Reverb - OUT

The more complex the switching the more the channels feature makes sense. I would love to see something similar on next gen products from Line6.

That's exactly what I had in mind but eventually mixing the type of effect assigned to a block.

IN - mod - mod - delay - Reverb ----- OUT
|_ mod - auto wah - drive - Reverb _|

 

[yeky83]

 

[James Freeman]

I would like a better Marshall 4x12 with their G12 Vintage speakers, the one we got (4x12 Brit V30) is a dud in my honest opinion, I still think something went wrong while capturing this cab.
Also, with slant 4x12 cabs try to capture the bottom speakers, they have more of the 600Hz standing wave that is characteristic to 4x12 cabs and contributes to the thicker/richer sound.

Hmm, I think I want the next gen editor to have full rig gui where I can zoom-in individual elements and adjust them like the physical counterparts.

Funny that I pre-guessed how the TMP UI is going to look like before it was 'leaked'.
Skeuomorphism does contribute to the perception of sound in some weird way, I don't care for skeuomorphism in the modeler if it complicates things, but nothing stops the PC Editor from looking much nicer... except maybe time and money.

 

[BahamaDada]

I would like a better Marshall 4x12 with their G12 Vintage speakers, the one we got (4x12 Brit V30) is a dud in my honest opinion, I still think something went wrong while capturing this cab.
Also, with slant 4x12 cabs try to capture the bottom speakers, they have more of the 600Hz standing wave that is characteristic to 4x12 cabs and contributes to the thicker/richer sound.

The Marshall V30 in the Helix just sucks. Plain easy. I love the Cali V30 and the Uber V30 and even the ENGL V30, although not my thing, sounds good, but the british one sucks. Everytime I try to love it I fail.

 

[DieSchmalle]

The Marshall V30 in the Helix just sucks. Plain easy. I love the Cali V30 and the Uber V30 and even the ENGL V30, although not my thing, sounds good, but the british one sucks. Everytime I try to love it I fail.

I agree. It needed some serious eq to bend it into something I like.

https://line6.com/customtone/tone/6086821/

 

[BahamaDada]

I agree. It needed some serious eq to bend it into something I like.

https://line6.com/customtone/tone/6086821/

I just don't use it. Tbh most of the Marshall V30 cabs and IRs I heard sound rather meh. Compared to other V30 simulations (HD500, HX and IR).

Maybe it  is just, that the Marshall V30 sounds meh? Never played one for more than a quick "I'm at the guitar store and have 2.57min to demo amp XYZ.

Can't be the V30 itself, I guess. I normally like V30s and gigged with them for some years. (Although in a 2x12)

 

[MirrorProfiles]

I would like a better Marshall 4x12 with their G12 Vintage speakers, the one we got (4x12 Brit V30) is a dud in my honest opinion, I still think something went wrong while capturing this cab.
Also, with slant 4x12 cabs try to capture the bottom speakers, they have more of the 600Hz standing wave that is characteristic to 4x12 cabs and contributes to the thicker/richer sound.

Hard agree on L6 finding a better 1960AV/BV. Disagree on the bottom speakers sounding better though. That standing wave thing around 500-600hz often sounds weird to me. Sometimes its cool, but usually the top speakers sound best in my experience. The ideal is to offer several speakers from the same cab, that way everyone can pick their personal preference (between speaker tolerances, and position in the cab which can be quite case dependent). Amplitube (sigh) offers the ability to choose between top and bottom speakers.

IMO all about the slope of the baffle, 1960B style cabs have a slight angle, so even the bottom speakers aren't 90º to the rest of the cab. In an A cab, the bottom speakers are at right angles. So IMO, in an A cab, the top speakers sound less weird than the bottom. In a B cab, they're much more even sounding, and the bottom speakers sound much better than in an angled cab. If you want the right angled tone, Mesa/Orange/Diezel straight cabs all have that design. IMO the slight slant is what makes the Marshall 4x12's distinct, and its a deliberate design choice.

Maybe it  is just, that the Marshall V30 sounds meh? Never played one for more than a quick "I'm at the guitar store and have 2.57min to demo amp XYZ.

The L6 Marshall V30 cab is by far the worst example of that cab I've ever come across. Amplitube (sigh) has a pretty reasonable sounding one, which sounds fairly close to my own IR's of one. The Line 6 one is extremely fizzy and lacking low end punch.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Fwiw, RedWirez has a pretty decent Marshall1960B with V30s. 607 IRs from 15 mics, you better be a Logic user and have those converted to Space Designer presets to actually make decent use of them. Apart from the fact that RedWirez is history.

 

[Perrymusica]

For me the problem with the Marshalls is not the cabs, but the emulation of the amp. I make my own IRs, and it's actually much more difficult to make the Brit 2204, for example, sound like a real Marshall than the Cali IV emulation, which is very well made.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

I'd love to see HX Edit and Helix Native start to incorporate (optional) graphics for the models. Quite a big undertaking, and IMO, they would need to look excellent too (as in, better than Metallurgy).

I TOTALLY understand why it is the way it is, and the benefits of it being 1:1 to the HW. The counter argument is, when using HX Edit/HX Native, you aren't constrained by the same things and the use of editing software should add value and offer a different way of doing things.

Its so much more than just having pretty graphics for the sake of it, or to trick people (not sure how that works but nice graphics seem to make some people suspicious). As things stand, every single amp model has the same appearance, the controls are laid out in the same order and all share the same visual importance. Some even have additional controls added to the bottom of the list that is different to where they are situated on the real amp.

If each amp has its own distinct look, we are given more visual clues on how the amplifier was designed. The controls that have a greater bearing on the experience of the amp can be given more visual prominence. Controls can be positioned in logical places in a more visually instructive way than a list of 10+ identical looking bars.

Generally speaking, on a real amp, the circuit of the amp typically follows the layout of the pots from the input gain through to the poweramp (lower noise when the signal makes shorter journeys). This could give clues on how to expect a certain master volume to act, or where tonal switches might be affecting the signal. When people say that a uniform UI forces you to listen, thats absolutely valid and true, and the same argument implies that there is a difference to how you operate gear when you have a UI, and I think that makes having graphics at least equally valid. If we are taking emulation in a literal since, then we should be trying to emulate the experience as closely as possible. Even if the sound is 100% the same, if something makes us use the emulation in a different way, its almost becoming something else.

The other justification I have for it, is one doesn't need to replace the other. I see it as something where users can be offered both UI's, either one or the other or at the same time. There is something to gain by having all options available. Nice screens, wireless control, software editors, plugin versions etc, are here to stay. Graphical representations are here to stay, whether you are a fan or not. They absolutely have something useful to offer and it would be great to see it done right.

Something TMP (and many plugins) really got right is having the reverb and/or tremolo from the amp inside the model. Those features are part of the amp design, and may have had a bearing on the type of gain/tonestack/master volume used in the amp. Some of those controls MAY make more sense when you have those FX in the circuit.