What's the next Helix Stadium SKU you'd like to be released next?

[molul]

I guess - if it ever happens - it will be a completely new product that has to be paid for (and I‘m 100% fine with that).

Me too. An "upgrade from Helix Native" discount would be welcome too, or at least the current discount for owning a Helix Stadium device.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Me too. An "upgrade from Helix Native" discount would be welcome too, or at least the current discount for owning a Helix Stadium device.

I think this is one area that they need to play right - if the overall look and feel doesn’t feel like a huge step up, and if a lot of the content is similar, I’m not sure they can justifiably charge for a totally new product.

No qualms with an Agoura Amp Farm (as long as it shares the Alien Ant Farm logo).

 

[Sascha Franck]

Lack of graphics,

Wouldn't matter if it was different on the plugin.

limited number of controls

What limited controls? What would you like to see on a plugin that the hardware doesn't have?

sliders, the overall look,

See above, both could be different than on the hardware. Besides, there's no sliders on the hardware.

method of building presets.

No idea what you mean with that.

Even the way the plugin oversamples is done to match the HW, when they could potentially do things in a way that sounds better by not keeping it 1:1 with the HW (for instance, check the phase response of an empty Helix Native patch).

Well, that could possibly be changed anyway.

Really, I don't see any singfe point that would be against my hypothetic proposal. Unless you'd actually think it'd be a good idea for the plugin to not be compatible with the hardware anymore. Which I think would be the worst idea ever.

 

[Sascha Franck]

But I highly doubt that it will be just an update to the existing plugin. I guess - if it ever happens - it will be a completely new product that has to be paid for (and I‘m 100% fine with that).

I actually must at least be a completely separate product, simply because otherwise older units wouldn't be supported anymore.
And in my book it's pretty obvious that you have to finally pay something for an entirely new product. After all, HXN gave us tremendous updates over the years without them ever charging any update fees.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Fwiw, another thing that would speak strongly in favour of direct 1:1 communication between hardware and plugin: Recording any parameter movements.
Even if you own both the hardware and the plugin, it's quite a PITA to do something such as simple as to record, say, a wah (obviously without recording it as audio data) that would then be played back by the plugin. Requires Command Center and DAW actions.

And now, let's take that a step further. Let's assume the hardware would be, say, Mackie HUI (or whatever is the latest most common DAW controller standard) compatibel. You could then as well just control pretty much anything with it if you wished.
And with HXN, there'd be complete bidirectional communication.

I really can't see any downsides to this approach (others than the developers having to spend quite some labour to do the initial work), unless someone wanted the plugin to be something entirely different from the hardware - which IMO would be quite a step back.

In fact, the not-100%-compatibility right now is what's forcing you to always re-load your patches in HX Edit, just to make sure they're still properly working in the hardware - and vice versa. Because in case you have lots of stomp switching happening on the hardware, that isn't represented in the plugin. The other way around, if you started in HXN, you'd still have to set up all the switches and what not in HXE or on the unit.
All that would be stuff from the past.

Add to this: With the Stadium, Line 6 seemed to have upped their interface game quite a bit (which is at least great on paper, only time will tell about the actual udio interface performance). Then there's the option to already send out keyboard commands, so you could possibly control most of what you'd otherwise do manually during DAW recording. The hardware controlling HXN directly IMO would be the next level of that.

Very obviously, I have no idea whether any of that would even be possible, but I'd defenitely dig it a lot.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

What limited controls? What would you like to see on a plugin that the hardware doesn't have?

Stuff like having to split amp channels into seperate devices, or not having all of the available switches and modes to conserve DSP. Computers don’t need those constraints. There could also be internal parameters on a plugin that might be OTT for a pedal designed around live performance that might get in the way which could be cool to edit.

Check the deeper parameters on UA’s Dumble model, you can do circuit tweaks and things.

No idea what you mean with that.

Helix Native and its routing+devices is all constrained by what’s possible on the HW. Doesn’t need to be the case on a plugin.

Well, that could possibly be changed anyway

Only if Line 6 is open to the possibility of being able to do things with the plugin that can’t be done on the flagship HW. This would be a fairly drastic change of course as so far the HW has been the flagship model, and everything else is treated as “the same or less, but never more”.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Besides, there's no sliders on the hardware.

They’re literally all over the new HW?

I was led to believe part of the reasons of sliders existing the way they do in the first place is (partly) for parity and consistency with the HW. Much less present in Metallurgy, FWIW.

Unless you'd actually think it'd be a good idea for the plugin to not be compatible with the hardware anymore. Which I think would be the worst idea ever.

I don’t think they have to be mutually exclusive. There’s already a mode that can limit presets to run on certain devices. I think it could easily have a mode that won’t run on any device. I’d be totally fine with simplifying things to work on HW, they don’t always need to be 1:1. The HW (or whatever has weaker CPU processing) should not be treated as the ceiling, if possible.

 

[laxu]

Stuff like having to split amp channels into seperate devices, or not having all of the available switches and modes to conserve DSP. Computers don’t need those constraints. There could also be internal parameters on a plugin that might be OTT for a pedal designed around live performance that might get in the way which could be cool to edit.

The Stadium will already combine amps into one with selectable channels. I hope they do this even for old Helix models.

If the hardware and software products differ in what they can do, people will be crying "Why can't I edit the flux capacitor on my Stadium? Isn't this supposed to be super powerful?" Similarly loading presets created in "Stadium Native" and Stadium hardware would become incompatible if their features differ.

Check the deeper parameters on UA’s Dumble model, you can do circuit tweaks and things.

Helix Native and its routing+devices is all constrained by what’s possible on the HW. Doesn’t need to be the case on a plugin.

Only if Line 6 is open to the possibility of being able to do things with the plugin that can’t be done on the flagship HW. This would be a fairly drastic change of course as so far the HW has been the flagship model, and everything else is treated as “the same or less, but never more”.

To me a huge appeal of the Helix Native plugin has been that it does exactly the same things as the hardware. You are able to limit its capabilities to one of the hardware units, which is a great way to make sure your preset created in the plugin works on your hw unit without issue. Or if you know you will only use it in Native, you can remove those limits and put 10 amp blocks into one preset.

Could they remove block count limitations on the next gen plugin when compatibility is set to Off? That would open some interesting options.

But to me there's no need to offer additional controls or a whole different UI. The familiarity to the hardware is valuable so you don't need to learn two things. What they need to solve is a better control system because the sliders thing was a bust.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

The Stadium will already combine amps into one with selectable channels. I hope they do this even for old Helix models.

Post in thread 'Line 6 Helix Stadium'

Sunday at 1:19 PM

I know Igor mentioned you are running full amp models now instead of separate channel models which I think is great

Depends on the amp. All amps were single models at one point, but certain DSP-intensive ones (like the Revv and Bogner) had to be split into two.

• Digital Igloo

• 

Some have had to be split in two I believe? Unless I’ve misunderstood.

If the hardware and software products differ in what they can do, people will be crying "Why can't I edit the flux capacitor on my Stadium? Isn't this supposed to be super powerful?" Similarly loading presets created in "Stadium Native" and Stadium hardware would become incompatible if their features differ.

I don’t think the lines need to be hard drawn. It just needs a HW compatibility toggle, or a smart way of porting presets. “Isn’t this supposed to be super powerful?” isn’t ever really a fair comparison to a computer. Some uses for plugins may never have any practical use or need to do live, I don’t see the benefit of imposing limitations on one medium to protect another for absolutely all times. In the same way that someone with a Stomp or HX One shouldn’t complain that their device can’t do something the full fat units can, I think the plugin should be able to do things that the platform allows and lends itself for. Live presets have their own requirements and needs that don’t need to constrain other uses.

 

[laxu]

Post in thread 'Line 6 Helix Stadium'

Sunday at 1:19 PM

I know Igor mentioned you are running full amp models now instead of separate channel models which I think is great

Depends on the amp. All amps were single models at one point, but certain DSP-intensive ones (like the Revv and Bogner) had to be split into two.

• Digital Igloo

• 

Some have had to be split in two I believe? Unless I’ve misunderstood.

Didn't know that. That's a shame. I hope they can figure out a solution before launch because it would have been so nice to just choose any channel for all amps and not have to think about separate amp models again. I guess it might be a Revv ch1/2 and ch3/4 split?

I don’t think the lines need to be hard drawn. It just needs a HW compatibility toggle, or a smart way of porting presets. “Isn’t this supposed to be super powerful?” isn’t ever really a fair comparison to a computer. Some uses for plugins may never have any practical use or need to do live, I don’t see the benefit of imposing limitations on one medium to protect another for absolutely all times. In the same way that someone with a Stomp or HX One shouldn’t complain that their device can’t do something the full fat units can, I think the plugin should be able to do things that the platform allows and lends itself for. Live presets have their own requirements and needs that don’t need to constrain other uses.

Extra features for the plugin come with a development cost. Could they expose e.g more internal parameters for amp models? Or offer a higher oversampling option? Maybe super high quality offline render option? Sure, those are pretty easy. But I don't think they will develop a very different UI, or make the models different because that's a much bigger cost. More likely is a "you can just run more stuff at once" scenario like Helix Native.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Didn't know that. That's a shame. I hope they can figure out a solution before launch because it would have been so nice to just choose any channel for all amps and not have to think about separate amp models again. I guess it might be a Revv ch1/2 and ch3/4 split?


Extra features for the plugin come with a development cost. Could they expose e.g more internal parameters for amp models? Or offer a higher oversampling option? Maybe super high quality offline render option? Sure, those are pretty easy. But I don't think they will develop a very different UI, or make the models different because that's a much bigger cost. More likely is a "you can just run more stuff at once" scenario like Helix Native.

Yeah. I’d just say things that have been done due to the constraints of the HW needn’t necessarily apply to the HW “just because”. A plugin doesn’t need limitations on how the amps are split up, or how long an IR is or what sample rate it operates at internally. I think it’s worth exploring the possibilities of what each platform offers - the HX one can do things other products can’t because it suits the concept of the device.

Development time is always going to be a trade off, but it’s also a product that brings in revenue so there’s justification in making it have its own merits.

 

[Sascha Franck]

They’re literally all over the new HW?

The "sliders" are just visual representations of the values. The "Focus" feature is not a slider but an XY-Pad, something very different.

Others than that, what you're asking for HXN would cause it to become incompatible with the hardware. For me that'd get the strictest "no" ever.
Sure, there could be a "super" mode (as we have right now by switching off CPU limitations), but if it went as far as in your proposal, they could as well just program an entirely different plugin.

And regardless of whatever things may end up to be like: 1:1 hardware compatibility with an option for bidirectional communication would trump any advanced geekery by more than just a mile in my book.

 

[Sascha Franck]

But to me there's no need to offer additional controls or a whole different UI. The familiarity to the hardware is valuable so you don't need to learn two things.

Absolutely. And as said, if anything, I'd actually prefer to have the two become even more of the same.

And cpu-wise I have yet to run into a situation where a patch exceeding the full OG HX compatibility would actually make sense, especially given that in a DAW context, quite some things such as delays and reverbs are taken care of by already bus-loaded plugins anyway.
Personally, I also really don't need, say, dual amps in most DAW scenarios (at least not in case I'd switch between them anyway - parallel use obviously is something else). I'd rather load a new instance on a new track. And fwiw, I even do so when using parallel amps (which I rarely ever do), simply because the levels can be controlled way easier in a DAW mixer.

 

[Eagle]

If you’re chasing the high end of the market too and that does help sales of the whole range I think you should target Axe 3 users with a rack unit.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

The "sliders" are just visual representations of the values.

Yes, that’s what sliders are no matter whether you use a mouse or a knob or touch screen or anything else. Only you would claim that these aren’t sliders

Others than that, what you're asking for HXN would cause it to become incompatible with the hardware. For me that'd get the strictest "no" ever.
Sure, there could be a "super" mode (as we have right now by switching off CPU limitations), but if it went as far as in your proposal, they could as well just program an entirely different plugin.

”Could” cause issues. But the user could be aware of this from the beginning. It can be optional, not all users need parity with HW. Not all users are playing live. I’m not averse to a seperate plugin either, especially if it makes more sense. But as long as they actually support it, because Metallurgy has been totally neglected.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Yes, that’s what sliders are no matter whether you use a mouse or a knob or touch screen or anything else. Only you would claim that these aren’t sliders

The offense most people take with the sliders is about how they act, not necessarily about how they look like. And for the onboard UI they're actually doing a nice job. But I guess we can agree that in HXN knobs should better replace them.

But the user could be aware of this from the beginning.

Well, over the years I've developed a pretty good idea about what users "could be aware of", to put it politely...

It can be optional,

If everything you're asking for would be optional, that'd be just fine.

But at the same time, 1:1 interaction with the HW could be optional - and would be as fine, too.
As said, for me the compatibility between plugin and HW has been *the* killer aspect (and quite the USP, too). Just that they hadn't even taken it far enough IMO.

Anyway, my guess would be that we'll end up with something pretty different from either proposal.

 

[Sascha Franck]

If you’re chasing the high end of the market too and that does help sales of the whole range I think you should target Axe 3 users with a rack unit.

Not exactly sure why "high end" would equal "rack". IMO that's quite an antiquated thing.
Sure, studios have racks, but even in case you use the thing for recording only, you might still want to control things on the floor, add pedals to your board and what not. Sure, doable with a rack as well, but most people I know prefer the floor versions.
Anyhow, I'm sure there's gonna be a rack version, but as the various floor versions have been vastly more popular (and that's likely by any margins between 10x-100x, maybe @Digital Igloo could share a little bit of insight here), it possibly would be the best idea to release those first.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

I can totally imagine there being some Nexus based rack peripherals that could make I/O routing a lot tidier for a live rig or studio. I could totally imagine a modular setup where the I/O is rack based, the foot controller is just switches (and scribble strips!) and the screen can be anywhere. I certainly prefer all the cabling to be hidden away and nicely secured than a whole multicore of cables following the board around on a stage.

I think UA are actually going this way a bit with their new Dante devices.

 

[Sascha Franck]

I certainly prefer all the cabling to be hidden away and nicely secured than a whole multicore of cables following the board around on a stage.

Fortunately that's a thing of the past for me. 1 power in, 1 guitar in, 1 XLR out to FOH, one TS out to my monitor, done. And unless I feel adventurous one day and build a laptop based setup (which is causing some sort of "must try again one day" itch for me), it'll never change again. No more real amps, no more rack devices, just a pedalboard and off we take.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Fortunately that's a thing of the past for me. 1 power in, 1 guitar in, 1 XLR out to FOH, one TS out to my monitor, done. And unless I feel adventurous one day and build a laptop based setup (which is causing some sort of "must try again one day" itch for me), it'll never change again. No more real amps, no more rack devices, just a pedalboard and off we take.

Sure. But the Helix line is catering to a lot more than just that, and certainly most who want the benefits of a rack system wouldn't just be using it in such a basic way.

If someone wants to use all of the I/O at once, a rack is way tidier. Or if someone wants a rig hooked up to a patchbay, its still kind of clunky to have so much cabling going to a floorboard (especially if people are walking around it or if its exposed to any kind of unpredictable elements. Or if you need a backup/redundancy rig ready to go quickly.

Many of the new stadium features are things that would cater to more than just the guitarist - it could be stems going to multiple outputs, or various musicians using one unit at the same time (especially considering how flexible Nexus has the potential to be). I'd argue a rack format possibly makes more sense on this generation than ever before.

FWIW I had an FM-3 on my desk and permanently hooked up to a patchbay and it wasn't long before I sold it and upgraded to the rack version. It's just way neater to have all of the cabling and looms going to a patchbay like that. The rack Kemper is quite popular in these scenarios (over the floor models) for the same reason.