Leaderboard

FYI... the sound guy has trim controls and pads he can work with.... For that reason, I decouple the signal I send to the FOH from the volume control.... he gets full control of my levels regardless of what I do with the volume control (which is assigned to my FRFR) If there is a reason the tech needs me to lower my signal (haven't had that happens in years) I assign my global EQ to that output and just lower the level there. I'm not using it to EQ anything, just decrease the level.

If you use your Helix as an audio interface to record your dry guitar signal via USB 7 and/or 8, you have probably noticed the resulting waveform in your DAW is really wimpy. That can be a pain if you need to do any visual edits, or work with pitch or time-align plug-ins such as Melodyne. On the other hand, if you record your dry signal via an audio interface other than Helix (or normalize the Helix/USB recorded waveform to decent visual levels), you'll overdrive Helix Native's inputs. HXN is really really really picky about input levels, so it's easy to overdrive stuff, especially your amp gain. To make things worse, HXN's input meter is (to be polite) lacking. In short, there's a tradeoff between getting levels you're used to seeing in your DAW vs levels that HXN requires .So....here's what I do: 1) I normalize my dry guitar recorded waveform to -18 dbFS. (Use whatever level you are used to, -12, -6, etc). If you record your dry guitar with an audio interface other than Helix USB, you can simply set you level so its not clipping the inputs (no DAW normalizing needed). This step is intended to provide a "healthy" waveform consistent with your other recorded waveforms. 2) Uh oh! Now your nice-looking waveform will overdrive HXN's input and your tone will suck! What to do? I place Hornet's TheNormalizer plug-in (cheap, $5) in front of HXN, set the desired level to -24 dBFS, and play the guitar track to automatically set the level (or just play the section with peaks). You can use whatever plugin you want, or simply use a meter. You can also use HXN's input meter settings, but I prefer to bring the level down before it hits HXN, and I leave the HXN input level set to 0 dB. The main thing is to make sure the peaks you see in HXN's input don't go above -24. The manual says up to -12 is OK, but my experiments indicate that's too high. 3) Set HXN output level as desired for subsequent plug-ins or DAW level setting.

Just my take - To me the HX Stomp is basically what you're asking for. It's the exact size needed but with MORE, not less. If tomorrow they released a Stomp sized NOT Stomp with amps and IRs but no effects for $400 it would feel like an empty cash grab. At least to me.

If you are more strat or tele, than the 69 because the neck is close to a strat The 59 is more a big Gibson neck About the Sound I had a Standard before strat neck , very confortable now I own a 59, and for me the 59 sounds better, but the neck is bigger No depends the strings quality and the gauge aswell I play for years with 46-10 And one day I decide to change and go for 49-11 and that's it, sounds better on acoustic, metal Now I put always 49-11, but everybody have another opinion!

Very true. Thanks for the post. I wonder if, perhaps, Line 6 assumed everyone would record tracks via Helix USB, so they made those input levels anemic. I'm like you, though — I record via an audio interface (its my input/output/monitoring "hub" for all audio to and from my DAW). Bottom line, folks, keep those HXN input levels low!

The only difference in all the JTV models as well as the Standard and Shuriken, US or otherwise, is in the physical build. The modeling is the same in all of them. The sounds of the models are more than 'pretty similar to each other'; they're identical. Each model has its own set of mag pickups and they do sound different.

thank you very much for responding I I kind of understand what you mean... kinda, maybe, ill keep trying

The Placater isn't a Marshall model (it's a Friedman BE100), but it is very much in Marshall territory as well. I'd venture that more people may be using it for Marshall-esque tones than the actual Marshall models.

Maybe this model list will be helpful. https://www.fluidsolo.com/patchexchange/view-models/Amplifiers,a

I’m guessing it would be the ones modelled on an actual Marshall amp. Here’s a website that can help you determine which ones those are. www.helixhelp.com

While I agree there are a number of real-life models that the Helix still should get (such as the MRX Distortion +, some kind of Fryette/VHT amp, Laney, etc), this isn't an "either or" choice. The models have already been created using HX tech, so this wouldn't take away from time spent on any other models, and honestly, the more we have in Helix, the better. I held off on buying a Helix for 3 years because the list of models at launch was frankly too small. Regarding cannibalizing sales, I don't see that being a factor at all. As others have said, Line 6 clearly wants to make feature-sharing across products a priority when possible. The Catalyst is in no way a "substitute" for a Helix or vice-versa; they fulfill different roles. The Catalyst is very clearly an attempt to use modeling as a superstructure for affordable amps for people who would've otherwise bought a Peavey solid state amp as one of their first amps, or as a decent sounding plug and go amp solution for people who need a backup, or just want something that sounds good enough for a quick gig. The full-on Helix, on the other hand, is aimed at people who have already been playing for a few years, or who have very specific sounds they want to achieve (and will need a lot of options), and will make the call on what type of output solution they will add. As far as NDAs, I'm aware there's no "but" about it; that said, NDAs are usually there to keep competitors from getting inside info that they could use to copy something and rush to market; the difference here is that the Catalyst models are already out in the wild.

While I agree with the rest of your post as well as the bit in your "First Reason" regarding investing in R&D and staff, it is hard for me to see how not keeping these models only in the Catalyst will cause significantly reduced sales. The Catalyst is different enough from the Helix that it will hopefully hold appeal in other ways. One of the biggest pluses, often lauded, about the current crop of HX devices is the "ecosystem", its inter-connectivity, and the ease of transferable knowledge and even presets between devices and also, Native. IMHO the sharing of code, models, features, etc., across devices is to be encouraged. It helps to keep them all current, encourages updates which can be leveraged throughout the entire lineup, and I believe ultimately increases sales for all of the devices. If you like a model or feature enough to purchase a Catalyst to get it, maybe you will purchase additional HX devices that possess that model/feature in other form factors as well for greater flexibility.

Good point. Yeah, Logic has a similar function. If you don't need to do any audio editing in other plug-ins that's good enuf.... I prefer having all my recorded tracks at -18 dbFS in case I need to do use the track with other plug-in (or bus) processing, or if I send tracks out. Also, -18 dBFS is the reference level recommended by most pro audio engineers. For me, this level on all my tracks provides the best headroom when mixing or mastering. Helix Native is a bit of a plug-in anomaly, I just want users to to be mindful of the levels you give it. This may be the true for other amp sim plug-ins, I don't know. UPDATE: Just found this interesting article on amp sims and expected input levels. This guy is recommending a -30 dBFS level. In retrospect, I was finding that -26 dBFS was sounding a bit better (and null-tested better) than -24 dBFS for HXN, so I may drop my normalized input level to -30 to be on the safe side. Here's a quote from the article: "Once you find the correct reference level, the [Eleven free] plugin behaves differently. Gain knobs have smoother travel and wider response. The high end of the distortion can be less harsh, a common complaint. So I went looking into other plugins. But finding the answers proved hard. Not owning a UAD box I found the manuals for their guitar system enlightening. They use a lower level, around -30 as well. I discovered the Plugin Alliance releases of the same emulations do too through experimentation. I initially demoed some of them and didn’t like the tone and play. I figured a Dumble or Diezel, amps I hadn’t played analog, should be more responsive and subtle. Once I tried -30 the amps opened up. I suspect the code was a straight port of the UAD version. But Plugin alliance wouldn’t answer my direct questions. At all. It was actually a little disheartening. So the end result of my research was sadly inconclusive. There are many small amp simulation companies doing amazing work and the field has exploded in the last couple years. But try as I might I cannot get straight answers out of many of them. Some have vaguely admitted to a -20 level, such as some Nembrini products, however he’s not as certain as I’d like. Some, like Neural DSP, never answered me at all. Antelope was unable to get that information from the developers of their amp sims I just got informed. However being aware of this reference level discrepancy can be enough to overcome many issues. You now know that it can be a problem and if the plugin you’re trying isn’t quite responding the way you’d expect or like, this may be part of the issue."