NerdOfTheYear

Oh lollipop yeah! Is it time to talk Zappa again?

 

1. Just engage the tuner with the tuner's 'Output' parameter set to Multi or your choice as long as it is not 'Mute'. This will output only the guitar's signal without the rest of the blocks in the path. The signal will however still be passing through the Helix's tuner so that may not be the "true" bypass you are looking for.

Assuming no signal loss, this is the smartest solution! Stealing this one for future use thanks HonestOpinion.

If by a single "stomp switch" you are referring to a snapshot then you are correct. Otherwise your method would require assigning all his effects to a single stomp switch. Not only are assignments limited up to eight  for a single stomp switch which might not encompass all his blocks but additionally a block can only be assigned to one stomp switch, not multiple switches, which means he would not be able to use other stomp switches individually to control those blocks. A snapshot would be a better way to accomplish bypassing all blocks at one time. That or one of the routing solutions proposed above.

Oh, I agree, in most use cases snapshots are strictly superior. The option of doing the dual FX1 Send routing is more a way to bypass all your effects not because the effects are turning on or off, but because the send is going out BEFORE the signal hits any of the effects.

The use case is only really in a situation where you need to go from "Absolutely Clean" to a lot of different set of stomp combinations that exceed the number of snapshots over the course of a set. Unlikely but possible.

No he needs the send to be after the fx he wants to be in front of his amps preamp.

Going to sleep now haha

I think he wants everything before his pre. I don't know whether he is 4cable method or not  - we'll have to wait and hear back from OP - but the routing I was suggesting is basically just a "bypass all" stomp switch.

 

The only potential challenge with this method is that you require a second input to your amp in addition to the one being used for your signal when it is not bypassed. Otherwise this would work fine.

 

I mean, he could always have an "FX Send 1" as the first block in DSP 1" and a "FX Send 1" as the last block in DSP 2, run it in super serial and have a footswitch that toggles the bypass between the two of them.

(a) There is currently no option to universally turn cabs/amps off. So you best bet is to either create two sets of patches OR include them in each patch with a footswitch to turn them on/off. (that'll soak one of your footswitches though.

(b) As to how to run to your amp, you plug your guitar into your helix, then plug the "1/4 inch output L(Mono)" output to your amps guitar in. This will perfectly simulate a pedalboard going into the front of your amp. If you would rather use the effects loop of your amp, same deal you're just going FX send -> helix -> fx return.

© As to effects, if you just get a blank preset and plug the helix in as described above, you should just be getting the sound of your amp without any toneloss/change. Then you can start adding blocks as you'd like, and assigning them to footswitches by holding your finger on them for a couple of seconds then selecting "assign".

Anything else we can help with?

 

LOL, when are we going to see the first Cruisinon2 HBO Comedy Special? Somebody needs to start compiling your comments. Thanks for the laugh!  :D

 ^ THIS. Almost every thread I drop in on, there is something that makes me chuckle. Check the user? Yep, it's Cruisinon2.

Hello fellow bass friend! Glad that you're loving the helix :D

Is that the dingwall I see in the background? NG-2?

Own Fremen's big pack. I got it fairly on in the helix to help get use out of amps that I'm unfamiliar with (lots of the marshalls and such). We ended up using a couple of his patches as the starting point for some reamping on my band's album. We had real mic'd amps, but wanted to round out a few sections that sounded thing, so we got a couple of Fremen's (one of the AC30 ones from memory) and just reamped those section.

So, they're definitely usable.

At this point, we don't know what the DSP requirements is on all the Legacy effects, but some people have already confirmed that the HX Tube Screamer uses less DSP than the Legacy Tube Screamer. It seems reasonable this could be the case for all of them?

Yup, each IR is a picture/capture/snapshot/recording/clone of a certain cab with a certain microphone in a certain position.

For example: a Mesa 4x12 with a sm57 at 3 inches from the cone on axis.

What? No love for the Thrifter? I did a quick 5 minute run of all the things they added and it was the thing that caught my attention the most. It's the first fuzz on the Helix that had the sound I was looking for :D

I’m really struggling to imagine what you could be adding to the Helix that would cause side eye other than “pay for add-on†content, and even then: if it’s good content people will pay the dollars.

You can easily take one source in and do anything you'd do with that one source in Helix. So, you could record a bass track and then have it go through 2, 3, 4 bass amps in ONE instance of Helix. It's no problem. But Helix Native responds to ONE input and has ONE output... so...

 

 

 

 

...you can easily eq two different amp paths WITHIN HELIX NATIVE but there's only one external EQ available on that track.

 

So, if you wanted to use your DAW's channel EQ, you could simply create two instances of Native, then you could "freeze" them if you need to free up CPU horsepower.

 

Here's what you CAN NOT do... you can't take ONE instance of Helix Native and use two different inputs or send it to two different outputs. So all my fancy two-voice stuff has to be done with two tracks, and two instances of Native.

 

Does that make sense?

Yep makes sense.

I have a couple of patches on the helix at the moment that I use for reamping, where I'll take a guitar through three paths to USB 3, USB 4 and USB 5, and then blend to taste in my DAW. So it just means that's still probably my best bet instead of having to run 12 instances of Native for my rhythm guitars :)

Quick question: what are the routing/output options for native.

For example, say I've recorded a bass DI to a track, and I want to run parallel paths on Path A and Path B, sending one path to my "Bass Grime BUS" and the other to my "Bass Low-Mid BUS", where I've already applied processing.

Or, two different guitar amp paths to different busses for EQ-ing.

Is this possible? Or will I have to bounce the track down and move it into the appropriate track/bus in my DAW?

I also tested it last night (as per the list I made above) but didn't get a chance to snap pictures. What you asked for is totally doable. Like predicted, path B was pushing at the DSP limit. I didn't hit it, and could have fit more things on, but definitely not an IR or a third reverb.

That being said I ran everything in Stereo on the second path, so that also contributed to the DSP bump.

Anyway, buy with confidence friend, you'll be able to achieve what you hope for.

It really depends on how you construct the snapshots and what you re-use I imagine.

 

You have to remember in snapshot land it's all just one preset, so everything needs to fit within the DSP limits of a single preset.  Therefore if you're careful with how you allocate blocks you'll likely be fine.  For example, reverb tends to use a LOT of DSP.  However if instead of using different reverb blocks for different snapshots, you simply reuse the same reverb block with some changes to the parameters you're saving a lot of DSP space.  You also left out what you might be doing with cabinets and mics at least on snapshot 2.  This can be another area where you can eat up a significant amount of DSP if you aren't judicious in your use of cabinets.

It sounds like he's running out into an Amp. So the cabinet/Mic settings don't impact.

To answer you question, yes, I believe this is possible but if you're trying to fit everything in one patch you may just be bumping against it. My understanding is that your total routing (based on the things that you asked for) would look something like this:

PATH 1A

(1) Noise gate in input block

(2) Tube Screamer

(3) Clean Amp Sim

(4) Compressor

(5) Gain Block

(6) Send/Return

(7) Delay

SEND TO PATH B

PATH B

(8) Chorus

(9) delay

(10) Reverb

(11) Rat

(12) PV Panama

(13) Reverb 2

(14) Volume Pedal

OUTPUT

Path 1 probably has a touch more DSP space in it, and Path 2 would be bumping up against the limit.

The important take away (or rather, the thing that limits block placement) is that AMP, CAB, IR and REVERB blocks take up the most DSP, so you want to share them across both paths as easily as possible. My band frequently create patches with 2-3 amps, IRs and Reverbs across snapshots, but it involves laying out all our amps on Path 1, and our IR on Path 2.

EDIT: When I get home from work, I'll try to build a patch similar to what you're asking and see where the DSP wall hits.

Just to voice the flip-side of this argument:

2.20 was the worst update so far. Not because it had bad amps (I love all of them), or bad features (I'm a variax user so Workbench is a Godsend) or bad effects (B7K announcement literally saved me the price of a B7K I had in my online music store ). 2.20 was the worst update because once I knew what was coming, I spent every single day checking the forums multiple times a day waiting for it to release. It drove me mental with excitement, and there was nothing I could do to get there quicker. I also found myself using my helix less in the interim, because I didn't want to build patches that became redundant once the Badonk and Obsidian were out. I think for a lot of people, if we knew what was coming next it would be excitement in an ultimately negative way.

To paraphrase Pete's always excellent advice: use the device you have now. Anything else is just a bonus.
 

Oh thank goodness! I was sure this was going to have a link to a video of Message In A Bottle...

Given the fact that this is taking longer than expected... why don´t we ask Line 6 for a couple more models to be included in the 2.20 firmware update? I guess that the huge delay has primarily to do with the Variax Workbench HD stuff coding... which is not even remotely interesting to those who don´t own a Variax guitar... So... who would like to join me with this new mantra????

 

Too damn long, we´d like to have some more

Too damn long, we´d like to have some more

Too damn long, we´d like to have some more...

 

Until we finally get the update... hahahahaa. Put the Diezels and the "Evil Randy" amp models and I´ll forget about everything... I promess.

 

Love you guys from Line 6.

Or we could just get it when we get it? If we ask for more stuff in there, that'll just take even LONGER for it to arrive. We know they're working on more tasty treats for future releases, and those releases will also come when they're properly finished and tested.

That combination causes Helix to boot up a preset that exactly nails the Message In A Bottle tone.  

This is my favourite post on the forum in a very long time.

It is not my fault you amateurs cannot replicate what you consider to be a basic tone

Hi mate. Just wondering whether you have samples that you consider faithful replications of this tone? Don't particular mind what gear was used to get the replicas, just want to get a feel for what elements you're particularly looking for. 

This is amazing and just what I needed to get my band's live presets going!

Yeah, I updated it because a few people were looking at the original thread date and thinking that's when we last updated Helix. That's all.

That makes sense. You must get so sick of the weird dichotomy of reactions to the helix: the rabid hounds sniffing after any new information or update (myself included), and those who want to find grounds for criticism (like a last update of Feb 2016).

Did anyone see the Firmware thread get it's name updated to include the date at the end? (Jan 9, 2017)

I got so excited seeing it was different, then realized it wasn't THE update. Can't wait!