laxu
Rock Star
- Messages
- 7,513
But you can't even tweak the amp params and see the nipples wiggle accordingly.
Line 6 Helix Stadium
- Thread starter Lysander
- Start date
Frodebro
Rock Star
- Messages
- 2,923
How about a “tone barometer?” Use AI to rate the quality of your tone. The better it sounds, the bigger the titties get. Boobometer.
Sleezy E
Rock Star
- Messages
- 2,558
Yo dawg, I heard you like racks...
That's actually a huge point. A lot of people associate a certain amp sound with its visual. Either they've seen it played live and absolutely loved the sound or just saw a video of it. I've been playing guitar for years but still mix up or forget the names of the numerous Fender amps, which sound absolutely fantastic (Tweed Deluxe for example). I end up skipping over it in a list of amps so many times just because it's often labeled as "Tweedy" or "Fullerton" or just "US combo amp" which doesn't sound inspiring at all.
HotRats
Shredder
- Messages
- 1,322
Never thought about it this way and I'd say you made a good point here.
- Messages
- 1,220
Which, if the specific goal is to slow someone down to explore your IP, thoughtful perspective renderings go a lot further than hundreds of identical top-down 2D flat images where little more than the color, tolex, and knob styles change.
But you can go too far. Despite really loving the sound of most UA and Brainworx plugins, I really don't enjoy using them because they follow the original products' layouts, warts and all. So if a real-world outboard EQ/comp has upside down knobs, the plugin version does too, which can be maddening in the heat of a session. The Distressor is my favorite compressor of all time but I rarely use the plugin because it's as annoying to use as the real hardware.
Now I 100% understand WHY they do this and would never suggest they do otherwise; this is nothing more than a personal gripe I have and so many more people love that it behaves like the real thing. But still, it's the reason I gravitate toward FabFilter—consistency, predictability, efficiency, and ease-of-use—even if they have none of that real-hardware-in-your-DAW vibe.
So how might one embrace consistency, predictability, efficiency, and ease-of-use while still scratching that "Oh, I want to see pretty pictures of the real thing" itch?
It depends how you look at it. For a person used to a specific piece of gear, a model that actually has all the quirks compared to the real thing will be more consistent, more predictable, more efficient and easier to use compared to one that does not.
- Messages
- 1,220
Except:
- The most experienced studio engineer in the world still has to context switch when jumping from gear to gear, which measurably slows the process down.
- The most experienced studio engineer or session musician can't remember the intricate "quirks" of more than a couple dozen amps or effects that might be in a single multieffect, and quirks of the remaining hundreds of items have either been forgotten or not yet learned at all.
- The vast majority of multieffects users aren't experienced studio engineers or session musicians.
MirrorProfiles
Rock Star
- Messages
- 4,513
Interesting. Some UAD GUI’s work better than others but I think they mostly strike the right balance.
Interestingly I find the Distressor is a particularly good example of a HW design that translates well to a plugin. The main controls to use are very clear and draw your attention to them. Less important controls that you might not want to adjust as often are smaller or require slightly more work to adjust. Same is true for 1176 and LA2A and Pultec’s.
Something like this is the sort of thing that slows me right down:
You get everything looking roughly the same no matter if it’s a compressor, EQ, reverb or delay. And the knobs all look the same, the same sizes, and very little to draw you to any single part of it. And worst of all, the controls all have really massive ranges and nothing has been optimised for any particular use. And everything is small and crammed wherever it’ll fit.
Often the constraints of HW force the manufacturers to consider what matters most and how you use it, rather than dumping everything onto a screen and calling it a day.
Fabfilter do a great job, but they’re coming at things from a very different angle to modelling analog gear.
- Messages
- 1,220
Anything with Fender volcano-style knobs—including the Distressor and SoundToys' Devil-Loc—drive me batty. Y'know the ones that show values on the knob instead of an indicator line? It's impossible to know where everything's set at a glance.
Indeed. I really like the UI of Logic's compressor plugin—you get the vibe of the type of compression engine chosen, the UI/UX is highly consistent across them (where appropriate), and they add helpful additional metering and feedback not present in the original hardware (including compression graph and gain reduction history), which don't get in the way of everyday use. It's sort of the perfect amalgam of vibe and utility IMO, and you don't need to switch out plugins for a different compressor type. If Logic's Compressor had a Distressor mode, I'd never open the UA plugin again, even if the latter sounded a bit better.
Last edited:
EOengineer
Rock Star
- Messages
- 3,136
Logic’s compressors also sound so much better than they get credit for.
MirrorProfiles
Rock Star
- Messages
- 4,513
I’m not sure I totally agree but I accept your point. Out of the logic compressors, the most effective ones are the ones that closely resemble the HW. I’d say dedicated models of each of those compressors are even better because they can hone in on what makes each model distinct, and they lose less important or generic features that deviate from the original design.Anything with Fender volcano-style knobs—including the Distressor and SoundToys' Devil-Loc—drive me batty. Y'know the ones that show values on the knob instead of an indicator line? It's impossible to know where everything's set at a glance.
Indeed. I really like the UI of Logic's compressor plugin—you get the vibe of the type of compression engine chosen, the UI/UX is highly consistent across them (where appropriate), and they add helpful additional metering and feedback not present in the original hardware (including compression graph and gain reduction history), which don't get in the way of everyday use. It's sort of the perfect amalgam of vibe and utility IMO, and you don't need to switch out plugins for a different compressor type. If Logic's Compressor had a Distressor mode, I'd never open the UA plugin again, even if the latter sounded a bit better.
For instance, the dbx160 UI removes controls that don’t make sense for that style of compressor. The look of it instantly informs your brain of what to expect. IMO the additional controls and ranges often take away from what makes an 1176/LA2A/SSL bus comp tick and leaves you with something in between. The more you deviate from a specific piece of gear, the more you might as well just go straight for Fabfilter C2 (or whatever “generic” compressor of your choosing).
Interestingly, I feel like the HW distressor is a bit like a hardware version of a plugin. It’s emulating different styles of compressors within the same box. In plugin form, if you need specific settings for controls, I’d reach for something else. Much like an 1176, I don’t think specific values mean much. Even an SSL bus compressor’s values are somewhat dependent of all the settings and program material. Usually I just treat HW compressors (or models) settings as “faster or slower” rather than targeting a specific value. It’s almost an advantage to remove the temptation of all the options and minutiae of settings and using something that gets you there fast (think SSL channel compressor, dbx160, LA2A) which don’t offer much fine tuning. Expanding them to do that makes them worse imo, and takes away the main thing they offer.
Strip away the visual design of a distressor, and then expand the available parameters and ranges and you basically end up with Fabfilter Pro C2. IMO, that takes away from what makes a distressor a good choice to begin with. HW modelling is so much more than just emulating the sound of the unit - the way you use it is of equal importance (which may need to be adjusted slightly in a digital model).
To bring back some points you made earlier:
This is often an advantage. It would be a nightmare if HW looked the same regardless of what it’s actually doing. I’m not sure being slowed down is always a bad thing either, particularly if it means you make less mistakes and do things with more purpose. Speed can sometimes mean doing things unnecessarily or making mistakes.
If you have one fairchild 670 in your studio and it’s on your lead vocal, you’re probably not going to adjust it by mistake. If you have 8 1176’s or channel compressors, maybe you’re more prone to adjusting the wrong one. There’s a lot of instances where more gear with fewer controls beats less gear that is more flexible.
With your 2nd point, I think it’s MUCH easier to learn the quirks of different pieces of gear when they look more distinct and have fewer controls. This is where the benefits of a visually unique design really pay off, and why it’s often worth copying them when making a digital model. Learning the nuances of an SPX90 or 480L are not particularly fun - lots of menu diving, looking for parameters, and they’re annoying to adjust.
If it’s an EMT140 or a spring reverb or a DM-2, you can learn what it’s about instantly and the controls are dead simple to familiarise with. Digital models that take as many visual cues as possible from the HW, and make sensible decisions on what controls to give the user really take the benefits of the HW design.
Last edited:
Sascha Franck
Rock Star
- Messages
- 9,097
Agreed, they really nailed that (IMO they're generally doing pretty well with UI design in Logic - with some exceptions of course, such as Ultrabeat)
Sascha Franck
Rock Star
- Messages
- 9,097
- Messages
- 1,220
Holy crap, I didn't realize the Auto Release wasn't full auto release. Thanks for the link! Bookmarked.
I could argue a bit over a few points, but overall I don't really disagree. My point was exactly this, it depends on the point of view, there's no 1 correct answer.
For me I prefer the model to work as the real gear. The transferable knowledge is more valuable IMO. What you know from the real stuff is useful for the models and it also works the other way around, what you learn from the models can be used with the real stuff.
- Messages
- 1,220
Outside of this thread, sure.
But within the context of Helix Stadium's UI/UX/GUI, which of the following goals should Line 6 strive toward?
- To educate people on the myriad operational quirks and foibles across hundreds of different amps and effects pedals, the vast majority of which they'll never encounter in real life? Or...
- ...to give people tools to get great sounds as quickly as possible?
Sascha Franck
Rock Star
- Messages
- 9,097
Add to this that (unlike quite some others) they don't come with additional latency on their own.
Honestly I'd take a more detailed approach and judge one for one if each of these quirks are really something that slows anyone down.
The first thing would be to define what actually is a "quirk" in this context. One could consider the fact that the EQ on a few amps can change the overall gain quite a bit a quirk.
One quirk Helix mimics that I've argued against many many times is the default value for the input impedance for a few effects. I see absolutely zero benefits having a low input impedance for a delay or a chorus, and yet it's there.
guyonthefox
Newbie
- Messages
- 11
Honestly this sounds like a whole lot of extra work for inconsistency of UI/UX,.
I don't think the opportunity cost of this is worth model fidelity and an inconsistent experience.
