Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/31/2020 in all areas

  1. You've just discovered why mixing and mastering are entire skilled professions unto themselves ;) The recorded tone you're comparing against is a polished and produced mix, likely with careful eq cuts and boosts to fit everything into the mix and also make it sound consistent at different volumes. Your Helix tone, on the other hand, probably isn't as close to that recording as it seems. It likely has some frequencies missing or boosted in a number of places, such that at a certain volume, it sounds in the ballpark, but those subtle differences get magnified as you move away from that volume. This isn't because the Helix is doing a bad job, nor you for that matter. This is because crafting final, production-quality album tones is an ability most people don't possess. Also, if you're comparing your tone soloed against the original guitar still in the original mix, that'll also be misleading. Mixed guitar often sounds pretty awful by itself because of what is done to it to make it sit nicely in the mix, but when you add all the parts together it sounds nice and full. If you have a match eq plugin like Izotope Ozone, it can be pretty fascinating to compare your closest matches to original studio stems. In my case, I've gotten things that sounded very close to my ear, but the match eq applied a bunch of tiny tweaks that I never would've keyed into otherwise, and they made all the difference when my tone-matched recordings were dropped into the original mixes.
    5 points
  2. This confirmation of polyphonic processing coming is just awesome! I would never have anticipated this being added to an existing product when I first purchased my Helix five years ago. This is a shockingly substantive addition. What a huge bonus and gift to users and an incredible and significant enhancement to the HX platform. I have been buying Roland guitar synths for years and although I don't expect that level of synthesizer processing on a device dedicated to so many other functions, the ability to at least at some level incorporate polyphonic processing and all of my control, amp, and effects modeling in a single device is truly tantalizing.
    4 points
  3. Thanks for the kind words regarding https://helixhelp.com, @cgar18 and everyone else. @Lynxpaw Helix Help has been a passion project of mine that I basically created for myself. It just happened to be picked up by a large part of the Helix community over the years. If its not your cup of tea, that’s ok, there are other options already available and you can always create your own personal guide. If you’d like to improve the crappiness of Helix Help instead, please feel free to send me some suggestions or a feature list you’d like to see and I’ll see what I can do to make it happen (just use the contact form on the site). Your ideas would likely make Helix Help way better and that is really all I care about. Lets make it awesome and more helpful for the community together! I hope you all have a great day! Keep on playing.
    3 points
  4. Dude, I have actually *proven* that the Stomp delivers pretty much exactly half the CPU power of the Floor - as in "scientifically proven". I actually could have deleted the guesswork paragraph but kept it for completeness (it was just a little sidestep speculation anyway, about why the Stomp could possibly deliver slightly less than half the CPU juice - which, in the end, it doesn't). The last paragraph was kinda like a "hold on, let me quickly try that" thing. Which is what I did.
    3 points
  5. I saw a very simple difference in the points he was contributing as guesswork in 2nd paragraph to the facts about how it works in the last paragraph. Seemed really clear and interesting to me.
    3 points
  6. Well, I thought it was pretty much common sense. From all that is "officially" known, the Stomp seems to have half the processing power of the bigger units, so to me it absolutely makes sense to assume the block limit wouldn't be caused by DSP limitations but rather by design decisions. Now, there might be some more points to consider (plain guesswork on my part, but still), such as there being other tasks the DSP is needed for. Things such as controlling the audio interface portion, the I/O routing and what not. With the stomp, the CPU overhead caused by these might be somewhat higher than with the Floor. Also, due to the smaller size, maybe Line 6 doesn't want to get the CPU taxed as much because it might heat up too much otherwise. And yet, in the end we're talking 6 vs. 16 blocks, which is a *huge* difference - a difference that couldn't be justified by my speculation above. Someone owning both units could actually compare things quite easily by loading some the most CPU intensive blocks into either unit (which will easily bring the DSP of a single path on the Floor down to it's knees with just 3 blocks). Thinking about it, I could even try that myself with Helix Native in Stomp/Floor compatibility mode. Well, in fact, I just did so. HXN in Stomp compatibility mode is offering the same amount of CPU as a single path of the Helix Floor. And as HXN patches are 1:1 compatible with the respective hardware, it should be pretty clear that the block limit is *not* a result of DSP limitations. There we go, no guesswork at all, plain facts.
    3 points
  7. Common sense. I agree with codamedia. The Stomp has one chip, but the same one used by the all the Helix family (at least from what I've read). The HX also has one chip and can do 9.(12 in v3.0?) A single path on the floor can do 16. Sure seems that was by design, not necessity. Six blocks fit well in the display, but we have to scroll for most parameters anyway. I can do most things I need with the 6 (and other pedals) but it would be nice to have the full use of the DSP to add effects in the loops or an additional controller to the 6 blocks.
    3 points
  8. Poly is what is exciting to me. Whether shift or synth, although I would imagine the solution for tracking one could help the other with the similar poly tracking issue too, so possibly both could become poly trackers. But mostly, a poly shift removes my need for yet another of my external pedals. That's a win right away! Based on history, you'd think there will be another amp model or two as well, just seems like they try to do that when possible in an update. And... just for my friend DataCommando... I'm going to be looking for any type of looper improvement. I know DC is excited about such things.... :-)
    2 points
  9. I wouldn't happen to know why HXN wouldn't profit from gain reduction meters any less than any other unit featuring them (such as a compressor). In fact, I have already been wondering why they're not existing in HXN.
    2 points
  10. Regarding Helix Native and processor usage Digital Igloo said on the FB Helix group. “Produced a new track this past weekend. At least two dozen instances of Helix Native.” In another comment on FarceBuck regarding HXN and the “dark horse”, someone said that it appeared “Helix Native had been thrown under the bus”. In reply, Eric stated - that was not so, plus he was a daily user of HXN. I guess Native, using your computers processing power, just doesn’t need this “feature”. O.K. From reading all this other stuff, DI also made this remark regarding his mentioning of “Blues Laywers”. “Just that the fun new models would likely raise an eyebrow or two during a blues gig. AS INTENDED.” I would think that must indicate some damn fine replication of a classic blues rig - good enough to get the lawyers sniffing around. Furthermore, it would seem a certainty that polyphonic pitch shifting is in there - judging from a comment made by “phil_m” and comments about the DSP power allocation/stacking etc. were brushed aside by “Peter Hamm”. Surprisingly neither of these beta testers have posted any insights here. Mmm... “silverhead” is conspicuous by his absence also. Dunno why, seems their NDAs are no longer in peril right now. Anyhow v3.0 can’t be too far off now, or we will all be flogging a dead “dark horse”.
    2 points
  11. I also would prioritize more synth and polyphonic options over amps and distortion right now but hey, if L6 were to throw us more synth/polyphony AND also more amps and effects, well, I definitely wouldn't question that decision. :-)
    2 points
  12. I'll give one example, I always have to have a higher MIX setting on any delay I use in a live setting and maybe one more bounce from the FREQ dial to have it cut through the mix coming out of a large PA. I usually have the point of break-up on the amp pushed a little more as well. I've gotten good at documenting all these 'adjustments' but sometimes but I have a habit of over-tweaking too. So this 'song' will now have two patches. One I used to record the thing and a new LIVE patch. I'll practice with the headphones on and get used to that sound, then head to rehearsal next week and plug it into the PA and get all frustrated with the live patch because I was sure I had the delays and the crunch in patch 2 set up properly. Endless argh. I tried to use the Global EQ to adjust for the difference and tweaking as I moved from location / system to the other. It made some difference but it was easier to find my own formula. Now, I just record with my software amp sims and get the sound I want, then try to program it in the multi-effects later.
    1 point
  13. Giving examples of patches for different uses/scenarios IMO would not be very useful, as the best thing to do is to build them on the spot by yourself based on your instrumentation, way of playing, and the context in which you are at the moment. Eg: - recording of a track to be inserted among others of other instruments, where therefore a certain equalization helps you to hear your own instrument and all the others in a distinct way, and obviously the equalization changes according to the song and the instruments already present. - live at high volume, the general equalization of the various channels of the various instruments is up to the sound engineer (if any). as for the guitarist's live sound (compared to the low volume sound at home or in the studio) it is often necessary to boost the mid frequencies (or lower the bass and treble a little and turn up the volume which is more or less the same thing ) to ensure that the guitar signal does not get lost among the other instruments and is well present in the overall mix (for the scientific explanation of why you need more mids at high volume see The Fletcher and Munson Curve). _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ All about POD HD500/X help and useful tips
    1 point
  14. Funny, true, but also a bit hypocritical, don't you think? After all Line6 is making money by making sonically indistinguishable copies of devices owned by other brands.
    1 point
  15. This is what happens when your company name is "Line6" and not "Behringer"... ;-)
    1 point
  16. Yep... It's called re-amping. It's described on page 55 of the manual:
    1 point
  17. Thanks for the input Eric. It feels a little bit like the "wastelands" in here waiting for information any on progress.
    1 point
  18. Could you record some snipplets of the sound you're not happy with? Ideally along with: - A DI track (just your guitar as snagged from the Helix' USB 7/8 signal path). - A kind of description of what you don't like (and how you would like it instead). That way, people could a) get an idea of what might not be after your likings (verbal descriptions only go this far) and b) possibly have a go at some improvements.
    1 point
  19. I havent gone on that site in awhile who ever did it good job.It has alot of info nice upgrade!!!!
    1 point
  20. Three things spring to mind :- you, your guitar and the input pad! If you're chasing his OD sounds then your guitar needs to have a comparable output level to Jason's and the i/p pad affects that too, I don't know if Jason has it on or not. Your playing makes a big difference too, I've yet to find a patch that can make me sound like David Gilmour! Craig
    1 point
  21. Are you using a filtered power strip? Are there appliances/fluorescents/rheostats on the wall circuit? Is your cell phone or router near the HX? Have space aliens been spotted nearby?
    1 point
  22. Just a speculation: A loose input jack?
    1 point
  23. I don't have a problem with a difference of opinion, I have a problem with disrespect. You have made your voice clear....
    1 point
  24. Correct, but there is a difference! On the hardware each processor is dedicated to a single path. In Native, the processor allocation is distributed as required. As I said earlier in the thread, I think the dark horse feature is better DSP allocation. The advantage would be no more balancing act between path A and path B, and no more wasted DSP power. If path B isn't using it, path A can access it and vice versa. EDIT TO ADD: I just saw on the FB Group that this theory has been completely discredited by someone with authority. Never mind :) I guess it's time to jump on the Variax (VDI port) bandwagon.
    1 point
  25. Since datacomando said that the "dark horse" won't be in Native, that slightly reinforces my huge guess that it's going to be Variax related. Of course, obviously, time will tell. I can't think of anything else that would only apply to those 3 products.
    1 point
  26. Ha ha He’s saying the update could use the larger screen which is only found on those units- or the command center which is another Floor, Lt, rack exclusive. However the command center is coming to stomp in the same update so it’s not really an exclusive.
    1 point
  27. Hx stomp does so much that it’s insane. I often debate in my head how two stomps can have unique advantages over a floor. So I have an unsubstantiated guess for thought about 3.0 - What if dark horse is two smaller presets, instead of one, where you can switch the preset of one dsp chip while you play on the other? Not sure how possible that is on a single unit but it’s possible with two stomps, an external switcher and some timely foot switching. It’s a cool performance-based advantage of two smaller units and if it were updated to a bigger unit then it would require two dsp chips(technically already does). Had to throw it out there!
    1 point
  28. I thought this update was just something you get free for the hardware you already own? a bigger screen could be the bestest download ever!
    1 point
  29. Or could be the larger screen or command center, also only featured on those three units. Who knows, time will tell.
    1 point
  30. FYI a resource that puts some dsp usage percentages to the table: http://benvesco.com/store/helix-dsp-allocations/ It was discussed on this forum before.
    1 point
  31. More than enough distortion/fuzz and guitar amps. More bass choices would be nice. However synth,filters and pitch I would consider the MOST important areas to add effects. Reverb could use some new models too.
    1 point
  32. The block limit on a Stomp is not directly related to DSP power. It might have been carefully chosen by Line 6 in order to market the product against the others in it's line, but it was not related to the processing power. Contrast that with a Helix Floor, LT or Rack. We can have 16 blocks on a single processor (32 in total). How many we can actually use will vary with the amps/effects choices we make, but it's our choice to make.
    1 point
  33. Yeah im sure you ARE happy. If youre new to IRs (and thats all i use, HX cabs dont work for me at all) i think you'll find over time you'll develop a bit of a catalog, for lack of a better term at the moment. The cool thing is that redwirez, ownhammer, york G12M25 IRs sound completely different from one another. Ive owned Helix for 5 years now and stumbling on to a stunning new IR can really open up a lot of doors and make playing super fun. Just when you think your tone is pretty damn good, i'll end up finding a new IR that takes it to another level. Good luck with all that.
    1 point
  34. I hope you are right about this... I am certainly in the "yes please" camp as well!
    1 point
  35. I totally agree. I don't need another amp or distortion box. If you can't craft the sound from the existing helix offerings, what will another amp or distortion box do? I also want more polyphonic options! Also more of the specialty pedals would be great too - like the Jangle Box or Hedris offerings.
    1 point
  36. Respectfully I think there may be considerable interest in better synth options. Hard to tell without a poll. I cast my vote "Yes please".
    1 point
  37. - Global tweaking options for individual blocks. This is a huge one for me, possibly the most important one. For the gigs I play, I often need to adjust sounds on the fly and soundchecks don't allow for that throughout multiple patches. Let alone doing anything during a gig. As a result of that, I only use one patch per gig with the Helix, which - obviously - is quite limiting. - Sort of along these lines: Patch switching on the GT-1000 is way faster and at least the main reverb and delay typically allow for spillover when switching. Along with the global adjustment options this makes using different patches even more convenient. - Better visibility under diffuse daylight conditions. It's quite likely that I'll be doing plenty of outside gigs during the next 2-3 years and anything regarding visibility is downright horrible with the Helix. A major design flaw, looks as if they haden't even remotely tested the unit under such conditions. Admittedly, I have only once seen a GT-1000 on an open air stage, but I have compared the two to each other in a rather well lit shop (daylight through windows included) and the GT-1000 looked *much* better. - Smaller footprint. Unlike the Helix, the GT-1000 fits nicely inside, say, a dual gigbag, some standard backpacks and what not. I may have some use for that next year, too. Yeah, as a tradeoff, it needs an external PSU, but I can live with that (in fact, I even own at least 2 suitable ones that I could spread around in my gigbags, should I forget the one delivered). - Availability of a mobile editor. I don't have much of a need for a laptop anymore (basically not at all), on the road a tablet usually just suits me fine. But you can't edit the Helix from a tablet (and yes, I know my way around on the unit itself quite well, but I hate crawling on the floor). So far, Line 6 refuses to come up with anything like that (would be easily possible using the USB port) and I doubt they will ever change that. - Hardware quality is likely a tad better. Didn't have issues with my Helix yet, but my unit had the tap tempo switch replaced under its previous owner already. I owned quite some Line 6 and Boss devices over all these decades, some of the Line 6 things broke (Pod XT, Shortboard, M13, POD 2 got kinda wonky as well) whereas I didn't have a faulty Boss unit even once (and both my GT-5 and GT-10 have seen plenty of decent beating). Whatever, Boss has a tradition of building things that last, which is sort of the opposite of my Line 6 experience. As said, I will likely not have to sell the Helix but could just buy a GT-1000 in addition (I won't be doing it right now with the C19 dilemma in full effect anyway). Might give me the best of both worlds.
    1 point
  38. FWIW - the Redwirez site has a very fine download called "Dialing in your tone with Redwirez IRs". This is an EXCELLENT intro to using IRs in general AND real world cabinet mic'ing, with descriptions of the characteristics of each mic type and suggested starting points for mic placement.
    1 point
  39. Hey folks. I've had this exact issue for a while, and this seemed to help make it much more responsive for me: - Navigate to your Logic Pro X app in Finder, Applications folder most likely. Right click on it and click Show info. Tick the "Open in Low Resolution" checkbox. - Next time you open Logic it will look a bit worse but performance should increase slightly. I tried this step to fix an unrelated problem, I was getting audible pops and clicks during recording that wouldn't be present during input monitoring. And it seemed to help both cases. Hope it works for you as well.
    1 point
  40. I don't know if this is the software bug or intended functionality, but when the "Mute Mains for Mic Record" (POD Farm->Preferences->Hardware) option is activated, listening monitors are muted - not just for the Mics (sensible feedback protection) but for instruments/line inputs also (for what?). I think the instruments/line inputs should not be muted. tested on: OS: Windows 7 SP1 x64 audio: UX2 (driver: 4.2.7.7, USB firmware: 1.02, POD Farm: 2.59) hardware: Xeon W3690, 48GB RAM
    1 point
  41. Exactly. That's why I say that this function, acting in this way, is slightly senseless. In my opinion, this function should silence listening monitors ONLY when at least one of the activated input sources is a mic. It would have 2 real advantages: - automatic feedback protection (not only when recording where the user behaves cautiously, but also when the source is switched to a mic accidentally resulting in a loud explosion) - it would eliminate the need for continuous manual adjustment of the speakers volume when switching between the signal sources (mic <-> instrument / line).
    1 point
  42. For the benefit of anyone else who might have this problem, what was the solution?
    1 point
  43. -1 points
  44. Shut up, Meg. Being a forum ‘vet’ is about the lamest thing one can lay claim to.
    -1 points
  45. That's not common sense, that's you making a wild guess. Try again.
    -2 points
  46. 2nd paragraph; ‘plain guesswork on my part’ last paragraph; ‘no guesswork at all, just plain facts’ So which one is it, armchair computer genius?
    -7 points
This leaderboard is set to Indiana - Indianapolis/GMT-04:00
×
×
  • Create New...