amsdenj

Fremen, I was looking at your Variax patches in Workbench HD the other day and had a couple of questions. I see that in your Strat patch overlays the middle pickup on the neck and bridge pickup. That's a common technique for changing the pickup voicing and fattening the tone. But the overplayed pickups are turned off in the patch. Wondered why you did that.

By fader stability I mean that during a mixing, the goal is to establish fader levels that let you hear the most important thing to the least important thing. Fader stability is how stable a fader level is throughout the song. Can you set it someplace and leave it, or do you have to continually move the fader to get the mix right. There are various approaches to mixing based on fader stability techniques. The first is the fader itself, determining the max and min movement of a fader within a track. The next thing is to use panning to separate things to make the fader more stable, less movement is required. Then compression can be used to automate some of that movement by reducing dynamic range. Then EQ can be used to make space for different frequencies so the fader becomes more stable. Finally there's automation to handle cases where the fader can't be made stable with other techniques. Similar techniques apply to live music since this is just playing the tracks live instead of playback from a DAW. The point I was making is that if you use the fader stability techniques first, you might find that each instrument fits nicely in the mix and is distinct. If you start adding "plugins" - in this case Helix effect blocks or pedals - this could result in fitting better in the overall mix, but often doesn't. Effects usually add things - reverb, delay repeats, time and frequency based modulation, etc. These tend to add complexity to the overall sound that can make things less distinct and muddy. We sometimes try to compensate by moving the faders - the effects may introduced additional fader instability making it harder to get a consistent mix. Sometimes less is more.

Helix users have a fair amount of flexibility in how we play live. I'm wondering what experience this Forum community has on FRFR stage amps vs traditional monitor wedges vs IEMs. I'll start with my own experience. Our band uses an X32 Core with two SD16 digital snakes. We're a 5-piece with 2 lead guitars, bass, keys and drums - pretty traditional, playing rock/dance music in clubs. We do a number of out-door gigs in the summer. I have been experimenting with three different setups for myself, and the other band members. Here's my experience so far. FRFR Stage amp - I have a stage amp I made that has two Eminence Beta-10CX coaxial speakers with ASD:1001 tweeters driven by a Hafler stereo power amp. With Helix, this is essentially similar to a traditional stage amplifier that I setup behind me. Sounds fantastic. This is familiar because my guitar tone is behind me where I'm use to hearing it, it has an individual stage presence that provide space for the instrument, and I can hear myself very well and react to the feedback from the amp when playing. The down side is carrying additional equipment, it takes up space, it produces a lot of stage volume especially in small clubs, and can overlap and clash with the FOH mix. Traditional Monitor Wedge - In another setup, I don't use the stage amp and just use a JBL EON610 monitor wedge on the floor in front of me. This eliminates the stage amp, reduces the band's footprint, but still has some drawbacks. First I'm hearing my vocal and guitar monitor from the same speaker, so they're not as separate as with a FRFR behind me. Second the guitar is a lot brighter and in front of me, which is different and a little confusing. I don't hear the same warm tone as I got from the FRFR behind me because I'm looking right at that horn. However, this is more realistic with what is going to FOH, and after a while I get use to having my guitar tone in front of me. But it still has the stage volume issue. With 5 EON610's for monitors in the band, we have a lot of power and speaker surface area pointing at us. This tends to get pretty loud on the stage, forces the drummer to hit harder, and in some cases, bounces off the back wall in clubs and overwhelms the FOH system with a the reflected monitor mix. This is not a good thing at all. It takes a lot of discipline to keep that stage monitor level under control. IEM - This is a third configuration where I use Shure SE215 IEM's connected to the PA through a cable. This is ideal from the standpoint of limiting stage volume. But is seems this needs to be all or nothing. If there's one stage amp, the IEMs don't seem to work that well. And then there's the drummer! Can't get rid of his stage volume unless we use MIDI drums (which we have but don't use). But I'm not really liking the IEMs for guitar. I need my guitar to see the speaker. Its that interaction between the speaker and the physical strings on the guitar that contributes to tone, feel and sustain. I miss that with IEMs. I just don't feel the interaction between my speaker and the guitar. What's your experience? Do you use a FRFR behind you? If so, how to you deal with stage volume in small clubs? Do you use a monitor wedge? If so, does it sound and feel right to you when playing? What about IEMs? You can hear yourself, but do you and your guitar "feel" the tone? With IEMs you also need to mix in other parts of the band because otherwise you're isolated. Can you hear enough of yourself to get the feedback between what you're playing and what the amp is producing? Do you like IEMs? How do you select your monitor mix? Appreciate the insight and advice.

Where are the free updates? At the same URL from the email for downloading my purchases?

Wonder if the mix level was different and the comb filtering was caused by mixing dry and IR tones together.

Ok, I'm willing to admit pilot error and learn. I have figured out what my problem was with my Variax Standard tones. Mind you, the improvements I got balancing the strings, and changing the guitar bodies for the Tele, Strat and Les Paul models to the Masonite Plank were good and worth while. But I was still getting that odd banjo-like resonance tone on the three plain strings when using the models. Here's the lesson learned: I've been using V-Pick Tradition picks for the last couple of years. I love how they feel and sound, and have been using them exclusively. They sound fantastic on my real Strat and Les Paul, and they sound pretty much the same on the Variax Standard magnetic pickups. No problem at all. But those were the picks I was using that were creating the banjo resonance tone that wasn't pleasing. On our last gig, I decided to try using a very different pick to see how it impacted my playing and tone. I had a selection of V-Picks and grabbed a Euro. Its small, light, very stiff, but not nearly as thick as the Tradition, has holes in it, and is shaped and sized like the small Dunlop Jazz III picks I use to use years ago. The Euro still sounded very good, and played different then the bigger, thicker Tradition, but didn't have any negative impact on my playing so I used it the whole gig. The wonders!! The banjo resonance on the Variax Standard models was gone! I was getting a great tone from the Variax, and tended to prefer the somewhat thicker Strat model over the magnetic picks for the first time. It was the pick! For some reason, those Piezo pickups don't like that V-Pick Tradition on plain strings while the Euro was just fine. Its likely due to the thickness and shape of the pick end bevel. But whatever, my Variax Standard tone issues are gone. I said something the other day regarding HTTP and IoT - "Never underestimate the power of simplicity". It appears that applies to picks too.

In the studio, it is not uncommon to apply EQ after a guitar amp, speaker and mic signal chain in order to address issues with the track itself, or more commonly how it sits with the rest of the mix. Applying high and low cuts in an IR is a nice, simple way to address typical problems with electric guitar directly in the IR block: mud in the low bass, ice-pick in the upper trebles, and lack of mid focus to cut through a dense mix. This is a simple solution that can have a nice effect without requiring another more complex block. Regarding high and low cut, any EQ circuit has a slope, usually 6 to 12 dB per octave. So the Helix high and low cut controls also let some frequencies below the low cut and above the high cut to come through, just like your speaker. You can move the crossover point to easily control these key frequency areas. A little change can make a big difference.

Its just that sometimes a small change in volume can have almost the same impact as a lot of signal processing on a track, especially in a dense mix. Double tracking is a great technique for thickening a track. And effects that simulate this can be useful too, reducing tracking time and pocket editing. But sometimes its also nice to keep things simple and solve problems with fader stability techniques instead of more plugins.

Be cautious about the volume effect - we almost always perceive something louder as better. Sometimes as little a 1dB can have a noticeable impact, especially after distortion.

Given the differences in level on different strings on my Variax Standard (using Workbench HD), I'm wondering if there's a lot of variability in the piezos, or impact on how they are mounted that could account for the tone differences I heard. On my guitar, I find that I like the sound of the wound strings pretty well. However, the plain strings have much lower output, and have a banjo/resonance kind of tone and odd attack, like the string is being pinched, that I don't hear in the Line6 samples. I wonder if those piezo should be replaced. I would love to find a way to reproduce those tones. Otherwise I'm not that thrilled with the Variax Standard model tones.

I haven't tried them yet, but have tried others with the Variax tones. They don't work at all. Its because the piezo pickups are effectively going through to acoustic body models. Line6 needs to update the Variax models to give us a no pickup no body, straight piezo output model so that we can use these IRs.

I just got an email from Line6 with a link to some Variax sound samples, maybe you got them to. I have worked very hard to get my new Variax Standard to sound good, especially on the Strat, Tele, Les Paul and Martin D28 models. I must say the sound samples from Line6 are very good. But I'm not achieving that with my Variax Standard, really not even close. I wonder what your experiences are any why there appears to be such a difference between my particular model and the samples from Line6. I'm wondering if its because the Variax Standard doesn't use the same piezo pickups as the JVT models.

Variax patches in Helix that include pickup selection, automation controllers with volume and tone controls, and tunings would be great. These work especially well for changing guitar and open tuning settings within the same patch using snapshots. But there's also a world of things you can do with a Variax using Workbench HD that can make a real difference in tone. For example, I found I can get much better Tele, Strat and Les Paul tones on the Variax Standard using the Masonic Plank body model instead of the stock body models. To me, this body model makes the tones much more realistic and usable (same with the Variax 300). Also balancing the string volumes can make a big difference in overall tone, as well as making sure the overall output level isn't too hot. These are not things Helix can address. But like recording, getting it right at the source is the place to start. So Variax patches in Helix should start with maximizing the Variax output, not compromising for source issues in the amp and block models.

It might be theoretically possible to "subtract" the impulse response of a mic from the impulse response of a guitar cabinet captured with that mic in order to remove the effect of the mic on the tone. That may or may not sound good to us. Almost any recording or live sound we are familiar with was created with a mic in front of a guitar cabinet. Its become part of the tone of the overall source-to-destination system. I like to use the mic choice as part of the tone sculpting. It can have a nice way of presenting the speaker tone in a way that meets your needs instead of being stuck with only one choice. The physical transformation of a vibrating guitar string to moving air through pickups, cables, non-linear preamps and power amps, physical speakers, cabinets and microphones is magic to our ears. But a lot of that is what we've learned to love vs. something necessarily something intrinsic to the particular transformation. However, I think we would all agree that there is nothing that compares to the magic of a real physical Leslie speaker as the speed changes between fast and slow. Sometimes simple physical things, like us, are the real deal. We shouldn't forget that in this progressively automated AI world. People should still matter.

I think we need to focus on effective ways to use the capabilities we have rather than constantly adding new capabilities. There are many tips and tricks, best practices and usage patterns that need to be explored and documented. Functions tend to sell, but usability tends to determine overall outcomes. Line6 with Helix has done a great job balancing the two. Where to go next - possibly focusing on Developing new amp models in the digital domain instead of just modeling/duplicating existing analog amps. Digital is a new world, lets explore using it. Same with effects - what can we do in the digital domain that would be impossible in the analog for a new generation of tones and effects? Time to start thinking out of the box. Providing more flexible control of individual amp models instead of using separate models - we shouldn't need a new model to turn on a bright switch or change a preamp tube's distortion voicing. This should be done with new controls in the amp models, not separate models. Then snapshots can do typical amp switching without having to switch patches. This means the parameters for an amp model should not necessarily be essentially the same. Expanding cab models to include mic position - cap, cap-edge and cone make a huge difference in tone. Mic choice and placement are a significant part of guitar tone.

JOOSTALNICO-G12M-R121-U67.wav

Attached here. JOOSTALNICO-G12M-R121-U67.wav

My goto IR for for the Fender Deluxe is still the one Joost created in this post: http://line6.com/support/topic/16185-my-two-rockfender-clean-tone-presetir/?hl=joostalnico. Its warm and fat because of the close ribbon mics, and a good choice of speakers. This IR is a blend of different speakers and mics to produce the desired tone. This one sounds very nice to me. A lot of the 3Sigma and other IRs sound too bright and thin to me. This can be corrected using the low-pass and high-pass filters. Having extra high and low end that you can carve away does add some flexibility to the IRs. Its also possible that Joost and I just happen to like a similar tone. Cab and Mic models or IRs can have a big impact on tone. There's a lot to sift through and that creates some challenges. But its worth the effort to experiment with what produces the tone for you, then understand why and experiment with slight modifications around a theme to refine your tone.

I have a Fendet Strat Deluxe that has a Hipshot Tremsetter. Properly adjusted this thing works wonders. Bending a string does not cause other strings to go flat requiring additional bending pressure to overcome sag in the tremolo.

I keep all my gear cleaned and well maintained. Its a nice way to connect to your investments and give them the value they give you back.

Possibly... If the input buffer and DAC aren't clipping, and there is sufficient headroom in the digital domain with 30 or 64 bit floating point (which S-Gear uses), then you might not see clipping in blocks. But you might still get clipping at the output DAC, and some of the blocks might not be operating at their sweet spot and may not sound right. I think its a good idea to be a long way away from clipping in the digital domain. There's no good digital clipping.

If you already have an HD300, an HD500 is not going to be a quantitive difference. I'd say stick with that or get a Helix. The effects in Helix are not the same as the HD500X. I had a 500X and struggled to get useful tones out of it. But I have no problem with Helix at all and wouldn't hesitate to gig with it in any circumstance. To me there is no comparison between them. Helix is in an entirely different league.

Input metering isn't that critical for Helix because the guitar input can accommodate a very wide signal range. For gain staging blocks, a good rule of thumb is to simply make sure any block is pretty close to the same level on or bypassed. That will ensure the block is close to unity gain and each block is seeing an input that's designed for its sweet spot. If you need a "boost" block to raise the volume, then compensate by lowering the gain on some downstream block and make up the difference at the amplifier, setting the normal level with the boost off. So "boost" is actually achieved with a cut followed by raising the input level of the amplifier. This is similar in concept to subtractive EQ. I prevents gain buildup that can cause clipping. For metering, you can easily use any meter on your computer, DAWs have great meters that could be used to set level across patches, or to verify unity gain. Once you setup your patches properly, there's little need for metering on Helix. So one could argue that its better to do the metering and gain staging with the editor and your DAW, and save the DSP cycles on Helix for processing audio. That said, putting meters at the input and output of the Helix app would make a lot of sense, are easily implemented, and would have no impact on Helix itself. These could be used as a convenience for setting up the patches instead of having to use a separate app like a DAW.

Were the strings under the two string trees on the headstock? If not, that would explain why the strings were popping out of the nut. The nut may be cut with minimal depth to minimize friction so that the strings return to proper pitch after the bar is used.

The Helix IR blocks also work well for acoustic guitar body images which also don't require a very long IR.