DunedinDragon

For the last few years I've been using my Helix in the same manner with external tracks but I quickly began to understand the deficiencies that can arise using an external MIDI clock. So in my case, because I have a separate preset for each song, I save the tempo to be consistent with the track it will be used with and that works flawlessly. There may be other ways to configure it to share a common clock, but my approach is bullet-proof, so I've never pursued anything else. I know the MIDI clock definitions and functions will be changing soon with the new MIDI specifications now coming out, but that won't affect me.

You're exactly right. You've stepped up into the current generation of modeling in a BIG way with the Helix. I've had mine since they first came out in 2015 and haven't needed anything more than that for both the studio and live performances. Of course it's still relevant in 2025 mainly due to a great design but also due to the firmware updates that keep it current and expanding it's abilities. The way you intend to use it live is exactly how I use mine. In the studio it's just a simple USB connection to the computer and you're off to the races on pretty much any DAW you can imagine. The biggest challenge you'll encounter is how to configure the Helix and your presets in such a way that they're consistent from song to song. Not everyone does it that way, but I've found it the easiest way to do things and never run short on DSP memory because I've tried to overload a single preset to make it useful on several songs. But that choice is up to you. In my case I have a separate rehearsal space setup in my house with a decent mixing board (QSC TM30) and powered speakers the same as what I'll be using on stage (Yamaha DXR 12). That allows me to gain stage every preset so it will always be consistent for a live mixing board. It also allows me to setup my amps and effects, EQ and compression so there's really nothing that has to be done at a live setup on the mixing board other than to plug my Helix into the appropriate channel and double check my gain level on the mixer and I'm good for the whole performance. There are a vast amount of capabilities you can also take advantage of on the Helix with it's MIDI capabilities if you want to pursue it. You can use the Helix to automate other devices and/or have the Helix automated by an external MIDI controller (which is how I use it in conjunction with backing tracks I record in my studio). The possibilities are extraordinary, but it takes some time and effort to learn about them and how you want to use them. So good luck with your new unit. Now the fun begins!!!!

Most likely you have your Helix output configured for sending Mic signal level rather than Instrument signal level.

It sounds like you might have it set for 4 snaps/4 stomps rather than the 8 snapshots setting

The idea of using the Helix, or any guitar modeling system, to handle vocals has always been foreign to me and never made much sense. The value and purpose of live or recorded sound mixing falls well outside of the design intentions of the Helix which is to handle the processing of one instrument, the guitar, and it does that job exceptionally well. Likewise handling all instruments and vocals in a performance to satisfy the needs and requirements of everyone involved in a live or recording production falls into a separate domain of technology only addressed specifically by a mixer. And today's mixers are just as advanced at doing that as is the Helix at managing the needs of producing the correct guitar sound for any song. Why would I try and force the Helix to do something it's not particularly good at given how easily and effectively I can do that with a Helix and a mixing board? That makes no sense to me in the real world of music production.

Aside from Global EQ you can most likely get the appropriate level of "sizzle" by simply using the new Helix cabs with the appropriate mic and positioning parameters much more precisely than doing it artificially through EQ. My presets seem to sound pretty close to the same played through our stage monitors (Yamaha DXR 12) and our front end speakers (QSC KLA 12). Using the right cab setups with the new cabs and I only need to make very small minor EQ adjustments with a final parametric EQ at the top end and everything's fine regardless of the volume. Making room adjustments is a different animal and there are specific automated tools on modern mixing boards that allow for such things using white noise generators.

I guess this doesn't surprise me given the architecture of the Helix where real-time processing of an entire signal chain takes priority over everything else which is not the case on a standalone pedal which has a much smaller job to do. Add to that the heavier processing incurred by most delay effects and you have a perfect setup of that kind of situation.

The simple fix if you're going to FOH with the L/Mono output is to have your mixer simply send that signal to your floor monitor on a separate monitor output. That's what's usually done. Simple and works flawlessly every time.

When it comes to recording a bass track I don't think there's anything better than using virtual instruments. I finally sold off my Fender precision bass a couple of years ago because it simply pales in comparison to the flexibility and control I get using various plugins for standard electric bass, upright bass, picked/plucked bass, even orchestral bass sounds I can get through using my MIDI keyboard and various sampled bass and professional EQ'ing tools like iZotope's Neutron 5.

THIS is why it works so well if you go direct to the mixing board in a live setting.

https://helixhelp.com/tips-and-guides/universal/midi

To further clarify things, that tone on the video was produced in a recording studio and it's highly unlikely he played that through any kind of amp. The tone you hear is representative of the type of microphone used to capture the guitar for the recording. The tone of the guitar sounds great to me, but I'm listening to it through a pair of Yamaha HS7 studio monitors. If you were to listen to that video through any of those amps you've mentioned it would probably sound good, but not nearly as clear and precise as I was hearing it because amp speakers aren't that sophisticated due to the fact they have a limited frequency response range. And in all likelihood, with your guitar you would be hearing it through the piezo-electric pickups in your guitar, not captured on a high quality recording studio mic setup. With that in mind the HXStomp would provide you with all the same capabilities used for studio recording including the selection of cabinet, mic and mic placement which will give you a greater degree of consistency with how his guitar was captured and playing it back through studio monitors would come very close. When it comes to acoustic guitar I've never used an amp as it's just not the right tool for the job. I always, even to this day, go direct to the mixing board and in a live setting pretty much ALL PA's use FRFR style speakers for the reasons cited above.

IR's aren't really audio files even though they're distributed as WAVs. They capture the "impulse" of the sound as it interacts throughout the room it's recorded in with the specified mic. But, of course that affects the audio frequencies when you play audio through them. The mic and the position of the mic when capturing the impulse response have different effects on the sound coming out of a given cabinet. For example if it's captured near the center of the speaker cone it will be brighter than if it's captured at the outside rim of the speaker which will be darker. That's just the physics of sound from the speaker. Distance from the speaker and angle of the mic have similar effects. You can of course add EQ after the sound of the IR, but I generally just depend on the mic and the position and maybe a couple of small EQ tweaks at the end of the signal chain if needed to correct something. IRs are used for other purposes as well such as recording orchestras to recreate the natural reverb in a performance hall. In fact I have one such plugin from Spitfire Audio that captures the environment of AIR Studios at Lyndhurst Hall in London that I commonly use on various instruments such as percussion or string ensembles.

Each of those WAV files represents different configurations of microphones and microphone placements that were used to make that particular IR. Generally not all of them will be relevant to you and you would tend to settle on the ones that fit the kind of sound you want given whatever amp you decide to apply it to. When I was using IRs I ended up having way more IR entries in my list on my Helix than I ever needed. That all disappeared when I started using the new Helix cabs that are actually IRs but you can easily adjust the mic and mic positions without having a ton of different IRs loaded

What @rd2rk said... Things that factor into it are music styles, band makeup, types of guitars, types of performance venues, etc. all have a bearing on what will work best in any given situation. For example, I'm at the far end of that spectrum because I have no amp or cabinet on stage. I go direct into the mixing board and use floor monitors coming from the mixer. But my application is probably not anything like yours. Mine is more like a pit musician in a stage production. Works perfect for me, but probably not what you're looking for.

Your signal path isn't visible or compatible for anyone to be able to see it because it's an .HEIC file.

What you have to understand is that each amp modeled in the Helix is modeled directly from the circuitry of the actual physical amp. Amps rarely behave the same way and a 100 watt amp set to 5 will be a very different volume than a 50 watt amp set to 5. The most accurate way to level out these situations is to do as has been pointed above and do it the way it will be done in a studio or live performance through "gain staging" which is the process of adjusting the signal level of the output coming from the Helix so they're exactly the same on a channel receiving the signal. The easiest way is to have either a mixing board or a DAW that will display the signal strength on a meter and, as it has been mentioned above, adjust the channel volume and/or the level of the output block until the signal is always at the same level. That's the only way to make sure everything is at the same level without affecting the tone and makes it very easy for any sound engineer to gain stage your Helix.

What I've found for years now is, IF you have a proper cable that fits correctly, and IF it's plugged into a REAL USB port and not an internal hub port (which depends on the computer) I've never had a problem with either of my Helix Floor units. I do know those type of USB B hub can be particularly picky about when you plug into it, but mine have always worked fine as long as I'm careful when I plug into my Helix. It's important to understand that not all ports on a computer are direct USB ports. Sometimes they're often defined as part of an internal USB port collection which acts as a hub and not a pure connection. Typically the only way to really be sure is to examine the way it's defined in your Device Manager. As long as it's a standalone USB entry it's always worked for me even if I use an external hub. Currently on both my PC and my laptop I plug in my hubs to a powered USB Type A (3.0) and have no problems using any of those ports to plug into my Helix.

The VAST majority of folks doing PC studio work tend to use 48000Hz because it's quicker and faster to perform the mathematics on the conversion and therefore avoid latency. There's generally no audible advantage to higher rates at least as far as humans are concerned. Your dog may disagree.....

The problem is the Helix, as good as it is, isn't a mixing board. I use a similar setup with my band and have been using it for several years now. The main issue is you have to be able to gain stage the backing tracks as well as the Helix. That's why I send the backing tracks from Ableton (gain staging the individual tracks to the right mix) as two XLR stereo outputs into the mixing board along with my separate Helix guitar signal and vocals on their own channels so I can gain stage all or those things to achieve the appropriate mix for the audience as well as for the stage monitors. I send the MIDI control outputs to a MIDI foot controller that converts the MIDI internally to the right combination that goes to the Helix or other devices. That way if I trigger pedal 1 on the foot controller it converts it into any number of MIDI sequences and isolates the Ableton track from those intricacies. For example I send a stock MIDI command to trigger the A footswitch in the MIDI foot controller which then might send two or three specific Helix commands to the Helix and a separate set of commands to the stage lighting controller. I realize that's a LOT more complex than you're wanting to do right now, but certainly a mixer is vital to be able to consistently get the right mix between the backing tracks and live Helix guitar and vocals as a first step.

The only true way you can achieve the amp in the room feel is to do the same as is done with an orchestra or ensemble which is to capture the performance using three different types of mic setups just to capture the ambience of the room with near, wide and far microphones and blend them appropriately to create the room ambience. Fortunately there are convolution plugins like Spitfire Audio Essentials Reverb that can fully simulate the effect accurately at least as it would happen in a world class studio such as Air Studios in London. Seems a bit obsessive to me for just an electric guitar.

Would you support charging a fee for a native Linux based HX Edit to offset the development costs of this FREE software? Or would you just prefer to spend other people's money for your personal benefit?

That may be the case in non-professional, non-commercial deliveries. And I did refer to that in the second part of my statement, and that's why I spent a good portion of my career teaching organizations like those how to organize teams and the necessary cycle and critical guidelines of iterative development and delivery, of which actual code-work is about 1/3 of the process. Those organizations that don't follow those process and team elements generally have about an 80% chance of failure or rejection by end users. Sorry you seem to have been limited to working in one of those.....

I can only say I will be eternally grateful you were never a developer on any of my projects given all your statements here. You're allowed your opinion, but certifying it with your claim of being a software developer given your obvious lack of technical knowledge regarding DSP real-time programming and the process used in professional team-based, versioned commercial delivery of products only serves to embarrass you further.....

The MIDI required to make changes to a different preset and/or snapshot as well as enabling different stomp buttons and such is pretty well documented. A great source for such things would be the Helix Help web site as it has a section dedicated to the various MIDI actions available and the ways in which you use them. I will say, from someone that operates my Helix solely in conjunction with backing tracks you probably want to separate the MIDI interaction from the playing of the backing track because of timing constraints. It takes a moment or two for the Helix to change presets and be ready to be played whereas starting a backing track is pretty much an immediate thing. Your backing track player may provide a delay between the commands sent and starting the track, and if so that would probably work fine. In my case I use a dedicated MIDI footswitch controller where one switch sets up both the Helix and selects the backing track, and another footswitch starts the backing track. That way I know the Helix (and all other stage automation components) are ready before we start the song and it's worked flawlessly for many years now.