steelstringer

I’m working on a stereo live patch, and I want to bounce this approach off of the folks who avoid stereo patches in live settings. My current patch has a dry path (amp/cabs/eq) being sent via 1/4 to my mixer (not panned L/R). The second path has the stereo effects and splits at the end. This path is sent via two xlr to the mixer (one panned L/one panned R). So it’s a wet/dry setup. And yes, it requires 3 channels on our mixer ( I run the board, so no angry sound guy; well sometimes I get angry at myself ). As long as I mix the dry amp so it’s louder/more prominent and treat the stereo paths as “icing on the cake,” mixed a bit lower, no essential sounds would get lost if audience members weren’t in a perfect spot. Right? It just sounds so much fuller than my mono patch.

I’m using the Double Take (stereo) block to fatten up a few presets. Anyone have any advice on placement? My gut says right after the cab, which makes it the first stereo effect, and before any other effects. Thoughts?

This YouTube channel is a great place to get awesome Helix tips, including the W/D/W question that you have posted here.

I agree that a second snapshot for your lead tone is the way to go. One easy way to make snapshot 2 your lead tone is to add an eq block after your cab. Then, you can boost your volume and change the dynamics of the tone without having to change your amp settings. That is how my patches are set up, and it works well. I also use a delay to fatten the lead tone (and sometimes the Tubescreamer, as well).

If I were in your shoes (and I was 2 years ago), I would sell the amp/effects and get the Helix LT. From the sound of your post, you want simplicity- walk into a gig with the fewest amount of cables/components/amps. Plug in. Play. Sound good. The LT is perfect for that. I’ve used tube combos, analog pedal boards, modeling amps, etc, and I’m happier with my LT straight into our PA/mixer than with any other previous setup. Full disclosure- I kept one tube amp and one pedal board. Just in case...

Thanks for the correction. I had a SpiderValve for a bit, and I always understood that you couldn't just use it as a tube power amp (I remember that being one of the major complaints). I guess I should have played around with the inputs/outputs on the back a bit more...

I do use in ears, but I always run two monitors just in case. Both methods work for me. And I am finding that feedback issues tend to be more prevalent with loud stages (loud amps/drummers), so it easier to raise a modeled amp level or vocals without feedback, in my experience. The audience members only hear my modeled sound from the main speakers (again, in my opinion, the less that the stage volume bleeds into the front of house mix, the better). One thing that I have to admit is that I have switched to modeling because I am more focused on the listening experience of the average bar/club/outside party goer. I'm not going to say that a modeled JCM 800 sounds BETTER than a cranked tube amp. But I'm not really terribly focused on the listening pleasure of guitar/tube amp experts because, let's be honest, most people don't know or care what the difference is between a tube amp and a modeler. Professional musicians make up a very small portion of crowds that I play for. So, my opinion on this matter is biased because I have found modeling as a great way to quickly and effectively provide a great guitar sound to people who are mainly wanting to drink and dance (sad but true).

Consider this information/perspective: Last night, I set up and ran sound for two bands (one of them was my band) for a large outdoor gig (around 1000) people. My band uses all modeling amps direct to the mixer; I use the Helix, specifically. I was able to set levels quickly, keep the stage volume at a rocking, but not painful volume, and provide a clear, clean listening experience to the crowd. I have received so much positive feedback on this setup in the last 6 months that I wish that we had switched over earlier. As my band wrapped it up, I started getting the second band set up. They used 4 tube amps, each of which had to be mic'd. This was unbelievably time consuming, but I got it done. Then, it was time for a sound check. Surprise! They had an unbelievably loud drummer, so, of course, the guitarists wanted to turn up. Then, of course, the singers couldn't hear themselves. As I brought up the vocals in the stage monitors, feedback became an issue. The stage volume was ridiculously loud, and that sound bleeds into the front of the house mix.The gig went well, and they sounded good (after much tweaking), but I am a believer in the power of the Helix (or modeling in general) for excellent, easy to dial in live tones on guitar and bass. My Helix setup uses the JCM 800 model, and it replaced my Marshall tube amp (DSL 40) that I have used for quite a while. It takes time to get used to the sound of a modeled amp; as these comments suggest, it sounds like a mic'd cab, but I have come to love that particular tone. As long as you have high quality powered monitors onstage, or a nice in ear system, the Helix will sound awesome in the mix onstage. As for front of the house (which is really more important in my eyes), I think my modeled tone sounds better than my mic'd tube amp. Seriously. I have many friends and co-workers who play guitar, and none have said anything but positive things about my guitar tones onstage. Hopefully, this gives you a bit more info as you make your choice.

This is a fun patch. Thanks for your time and effort on the YouTube video. I tweaked the patch a bit to lower the amount of delay so that it is more like a slap back effect. Then, of course, I had to run it through my mixer and main speakers just to see what it sounds like. It's a great tone! I changed the dry amp path output to XLR and kept it dead center on the mixer. Then, I changed the outputs of the wet amps to 1/4 and I ran them to two separate channels on the mixer; I panned one amp hard left, the other hard right. Basically each amp got its own input on the mixer. So, would you guys agree that this would be the best way to use this Wet/Dry/Wet patch through a mixer and two main speakers or is this a flawed approach? Thanks for any feedback.

Thanks for your response; this is the exact situation that I will probably run into.

Thanks for your review. I am on the fence right now about buying the Powercab Plus to complement my Helix. Your quote above is the aspect that I am the most confused about. I currently run my Helix XLR out to a mixer, which is connected to 2 powered speakers (Yamaha DXR series). It sounds amazing, but it isn't portable if I want to go jam on a whim. I do use the stock cabs, as well. But, if I understand the point of the Powercab, one could run it in FRFR mode and leave your presets alone (with those cabs on). Now, if you want to use the speaker modeling on the PC, you should probably bypass the cabs on the Helix because you would not want to run stock cab emulations into speaker emulations on the PC. So, your quote above makes it seem like you wanted to run Helix cabs and the speaker emulations simultaneously, which, if I understand the PC, would not sound right. Any further feedback on this topic would be great from PC owners.

The Lonestar is a good one to check out for sure. I just had a gig last weekend, and I used the Cartographer model for most tones. It’s very versatile.

Cool. Thanks for the tip.

I figured it out. I needed to not bypass the cab; I needed to change the A or B path to 100...

Yes. And this is why I would like to split them (especially to use the A/B balance feature). What I am running into is that I would like to mute/bypass one cab while I dial in the other, but when I do this, the active cab sounds muffled/distorted, and I am not sure why. When they are both on, it sounds nice, but I want to dial them in separately, and then blend them. This will let me dial in a bigger, warmer tone on one cab, and a more focused, treble-heavy tone on the other. Thanks for the feedback.

Hello all. Is there a difference in tone between these two approaches to using dual cabs after the amp block? Approach one: simply use the dual cab block. Approach two: split the cabs using an A/B split path. I swear that the built in dual cab block sounds better, but I don’t understand why. Thoughts?

You might try the Kinky Boost (gain - 0, boost - on, bright - on) into a Minotaur (gain-3, tone -4, level - 6) into your high gain amp of choice (gain around 3-4, master around 5-7). This works well, and it doesn't change the tone/character of the amp as drastically as the Rat or Screamer. I was so excited to try the Rat into the JCM 800 model when I got the Helix, and it just doesn't sound great to me. Just a suggestion...

On your 2203 model, the tone will sound fuzzy if the master volume is low. Try it around 5 or 6 (out of ten).

The only time that I’ve experienced pops while changing snapshots is when I try to control bright switches on amps with that feature.

Sounds great. I look forward to hearing it.

I recently bought a Martin acoustic IR from 3 Sigma in hopes of creating a patch that blends an acoustic sound with a clean electric tone (top path is the acoustic ir, and the bottom path is a clean Lonestar). I’m using a Carvin electric guitar. I was thinking of the tones that Alex Lifeson and John Petrucci get using piezo equipped guitars. I threw a patch together quickly, and it sounds pretty cool. Has anyone else tried this approach?

No problem! In particular, it’s his use of the Y crossover split that makes a big difference. I actually use it at the beginning of path 2 since I like to blend 2 cabs (3 Sigma irs actually) on path 1. To my ears, this approach makes the amp models more lively and easier to dial in than doing drastic high and low cuts on the cabs.

Someone earlier mentioned this YouTube series. Have you checked it out? Jason’s approach has helped me dial in great tones. I use my Helix direct to PA in a live band setting (rock cover band). My Marshall and vintage Fender tube amps stay home, which means this unit can deliver tones that (at least in my eyes) are comparable to a typical amp/pedal board set up. https://youtu.be/2oSUj8oK6Pg Check this out...

I like this approach because I am not making hi and low cuts on my cab/ir and I can leave my amp settings in more familiar/realistic places (in the real world, I would never have the bass on 1 or 2). The parametric eq and compression at the end is also key to his setup. This guy has put some serious time into his Helix!

Yep. I just found this YouTube channel today, and he is using a crossover split - not an a/b or y split.