DunedinDragon

I think a lot depends on how you're approaching something like a Helix. You will hear a lot of comments from people they can't get the "amp in the room" kind of feel from the Helix. And that's true. Because it's not an amp in the room. However, if you were to mic that amp in the room and play it through a FOH system or record it, it would be the same. That's because the Helix is designed to be a complete production guitar system, not just an amp. It will model the amp and the effects. It will also model the cabinet and the mic and the placement of the mic. The best way I've found to think about the Helix is that it's almost the same as having a portable recording studio filled with equipment that you can wire up and capture any way you want. Combine cabinets, combine amps, place effects in creative ways within the signal chain. But you can do it easily and get these advanced/creative setups at the touch of a pedal in a live or studio environment.\ That being said, although it's a relatively easy environment for doing such things, it does require a bit more detailed understanding than simply plugging into an amp and playing. In order to master it you may need to increase your level of understanding about cabinets, mics and mic'ing techniques, EQ, and signal routing that you may never have encountered before if you want to get the most out of it. Nothing HAS to be that complex. You can certainly just plug in and play, but it will ultimately be a mic'd amp sound.

According to Line 6 (and I believe it states this in the documentation), they recommend having the Helix Master Volume cranked to full open for the best signal to noise ratio. Maybe this is where the whole empty signal chain as unity thing plays in as well. It's clear to me that most people, including myself, don't keep the master volume on full. That's for several reasons, but mainly because that's generally where I control my volume, but also because it would be unbearably loud unless I turned down my powered monitor volume to next to nothing. If I were to maintain the volume of the signal chain at the default level of an empty chain then I could keep my master volume full on and control the overall volume level at the powered monitor (which would be a MAJOR pain). However it may be that this type of configuration would provide the best signal to noise ratio. Personally I don't get too wrapped up in the minutiae of signal to noise in a live environment or anywhere else for that matter. The crossfeed from open mics on stage is going to negate any practical value you might get in signal to noise ratio on your channel once everything is mixed. It could possibly be an issue if you were recording, but I think most of the signal to noise level discussions have gone the way of wow and flutter as we've moved into the digital realm. To me the bottom line is, am I getting any clipping or limiter problems due to the strength of my signal? If not, I'm fine and I'll just concentrate on getting consistent levels across my patches and leave my Master Volume as the point at which I control my overall volume output. It's the most practical approach for my application.

I've heard this mentioned in a couple of cases, but I've always been skeptical whether it's true or not, or how it relates to the signal chain in the Helix. If the output of a blank signal chain is unity, then why would the default amp models be so much louder? That wouldn't make sense at all. Particularly when some of those models well exceed 8db above that "unity" level which is generally the range in which clipping begins in most preamp situations. That would mean a basic default amp, in many cases, would automatically clip. Unity, by definitinon is supposed to mean there is no reduction or increase in the signal, so maybe that's where the idea of unity is coming from. But it certainly appear to act or respond in the same way as unity would in most preamps. Personally I'd like to get a better reading on this from Line 6 as to how the engineering works.

When I first started with modeling I used global eq, but that was on the HD500X which pretty much needed the adjustments on any and all of the patches. On the Helix it really wasn't necessary, especially after I began using some decent IR's. Now I rarely even touch EQ and let the IR's do most of the work for me. Every once in a while I may tweak something slightly, but it's more about making slight adjustments to the frequency response profile of my speakers than anything else. There's a huge amount of difference IRs can add to a sound based on the type of cabinet, what microphone(s) they used and how they placed them. It takes a bit to find out what works for you, but when you do there's not much else you really need to adjust.

Although I'd agree generally with what you're saying, like you I've spent my entire career either in studios or on stage, but there is some value in understanding a common reference level, or target level that best suits the performance. When comparing two presets it's pretty easy to tell when one is louder, even slightly louder. The question is, should it come down or should the other go up? Short of playing with the rest of the band there's no real way of knowing. That's when a common reference level comes in handy. It's a courtesy actually to the rest of the band and to the sound man to not have to spend valuable rehearsal time tweaking a patch or knowing you can use any patch for gain staging at sound checks and there won't be any surprises later on. It still happens occasionally because of tonal differences in the patches, but it can certainly minimize the distractions.

I use a standard hand held sound meter on all of my patches to ensure they're at a consistent volume. But that's for live performance.

The bottom line is here, what you're trying to compensate for is your sound man not doing his job responsibly which is creating chaos for you. It will continue to create chaos until he responsibly does his job gain staging signals into the board. If he doesn't understand gain staging there are plenty of youtube tutorial videos. But the bottom line is, gain staging is the very first and most important step anyone running a sound board should do. It's the foundation upon which everything else depends, and he needs to do it correctly and do it every single time you sound check. Otherwise you and everyone one else will be chasing their tails trying to compensate for something he's in charge of. To answer your question, mic level is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than line level. But the XLR output from the Helix isn't exactly like a microphone in that it's been run through a preamp. There is no reason he can't compensate for the difference by simply turning on the PFL (pre-fader listen) on your channel and adjust the gain/trim until the level lights on the console even out at 0db or unity while you're playing a sample of what you'll be playing at the volume you'll be playing at . Technically he should be doing this on each and every channel being used to ensure has an adequate signal coming in that won't end up clipping. At most this takes about 5 or 10 minutes to do at the beginning of the sound check running through each instrument and vocal channel, but it's an essential part of his job in order to get a clean signal to work with.

I think you can get what you're after without breaking the bank on an RCF HD32a. I'm sure it's a great speaker, but it's claim to fame is based on a 3" voice coil compression driver which is great for vocal articulation, a little bit of overkill and somewhat counter-productive for your application. In that upper tier of powered speakers you're going to find a lot of folks here are using QSC, Yamaha, Line 6, JBL, and Electro Voice, and are quite happy with them.

There's going to be a lot of guessing going on here without any information about how you set up the Helix for your lead patches. A little more information about that could be very useful. I would agree with two things mentioned here, placement of your monitor and mids. Generally speaking gulitar leads take the place of the vocals, and vocals tend to live in the same primary range as guitar. So a good mix rule is if the vocals are 5 or 6 db louder relative to the other instruments that's where you need to be, and most of it needs to be in the same frequency range which is primarily in the 1000 - 1800 hz range. If you don't have a lot of other instruments (for example just drums, bass and guitar), the lead also needs to feel a bit thicker to fill in the missing rhythm guitar. That may suggest using a compressor to give it more beef. More importantly, if you're all going through the FOH, why is your stage volume so loud? The simple fact is, the more controlled your stage volume is the tighter your band will sound...and the reverse is also true. The louder and more undisciplined your stage volume is the more it will sound like a glob of mush. In the long run that may be a better place to concentrate your efforts.

The global setting for Volume Knob Controls determines which output (1/4 or XLR) is being controlled by the master volume. If you set the volume knob to control the 1/4 out you would definitely want to check that XLR is set to mic level. Since I've not done this I can only assume that if you set the control to 1/4 out then the max signal is sent to the XLR and would depend on the sound person to manage the input signal level via the gain knob for that channel. I've personally never had a problem using the master volume knob for both. I typically have my master volume at around 12 o'clock. Once I've dialed in my volume to match the rest of the band on stage during sound checks, the sound person gain stages it to the level he wants to match it up with the rest of the band for FOH. He's going to have to do that either way you have it set. The only difference would be if you intend to adjust your Master volume during the performance. But if you've had a good sound check I can't see any reason for doing that unless your working with a bunch of musicians that can't control their volume levels. I've played in tons of various venues and it's never been a problem as long as the sound man knows what he's doing.

I have no idea how this is happening to you. I have the tempo set on every single patch I have and it's never changed on me when I tune. The only way it would change is if you were to tap it multiple times.

I've always been an advocate of KISS when approaching anything like this. Given you want to capture all of the elements of the modeling from the Helix (along with possibly a dry signal) and you're only capturing one guitar in the take, I'd simply opt to have a separate speaker output on the Helix either studio monitors or FRFR powered speaker and simply select the Helix from the DAW. Once it's captured you can switch back to your other audio interface. for further mixing and such For the guitar player it's a more natural way of working, especially for setting up patches. He just plays along with the track in a normal way as in a live performance. No need for any specialized patches. Just a normal performance patch, which could also be used for live performances.

No mystery to me at all. You would be limited to the characteristics of that power amp and subject to only running unpowered speaker cabinets with no intelligence (DSP) on their own. As far as speakers we'd be stuck in the 1970's whereas the market has been moving in exactly the opposite direction with a multitude of FRFR powered speaker options at cheap prices.

I would have to assume the global EQ would be in the final stage of the signal chain given that the actual tone being produced is being highly modified by amp, cab, and various other blocks that might be in the signal chain. This is one of the main reasons I've always applied EQ blocks toward the end of the signal chain which tends to better achieve what I'm looking for. Personally I find I'm using EQ less now that I'm using IRs rather than the built-in cabs. My attitude toward EQ in the signal chain has become rather conservative in that what I'm using it for is simply to compensate for specific frequencies in the output method I'm using. In my case I'm using a Yamaha DXR12, but it's likely going to be different with different speakers. As HonestOpinion noted there are a number of things that affect the output including the amp, mic, and cab being used so you really can't evaluate anything until all of those pieces are in place. In my case, when I feel I need to use EQ, I've found that a small (around -4db) decrease in the area of 4000 hz tends to remove any unwanted shrillness. Occasionally I find using a graphic EQ block instead with a minor cut at 2000 and 4000 also works pretty well depending on the amp and IR. Bear in mind that these things are all going to be specific to your situation depending on what you're using for output and specifically what you're using for the cab/IR and mic.

One thing that may have a bearing on using Helix Native, at least as far as my consideration of it, is the possibility of latency. It all depends on how you record. For myself I have an HD ProX which I intend to replace with a Helix rack shortly. The HD ProX is also used as my audio interface and when I typically record I listen to the source guitar along with the playback of the unarmed tracks. That way I never have any issues with latency. Were I to only use Helix Native my workflow and signal flow would have to change. Obviously I'd need a separate audio interface, and I'd only be able to hear the processed guitar by monitoring the recorded signal potentially introducing latency. Additionally, because my studio monitors are connected at this point to my HDProX, I can work in a completely standalone fashion on the HDProX while I work on presets or compose and work out parts. That wouldn't be the case if I were to be dependent on the Helix Native which would need to be loaded as a plug in. Whether or not I'd actually have latency with the Helix Native is an unknown at this point. I may opt to install the Helix Native in my current setup and simply pass along an unprocessed signal through my HDProX to determine how things work before making a final decision on whether to upgrade my HDProX to the Helix Rack. In any case it's an easy decision to have the Helix Native as it's only $100 for me since I already own a Helix floor unit which is what I use on stage. I'd still gain the benefit of being able to develop patches for original songs and such which could be used live on the Helix floor unit...so that's really a no-brainer.

I use this same type of setup for this same reason. Pretty much I simply use a standard DI box (in my case a Live Wire) which has a 1/4" in and 1/4" out/thru with a pad setting which I set to 0, and then an XLR out to the board. In my case I take the 1/4" out/thru to my onstage FRFR speaker, and run the XLR to the board. The only thing that confuses me in your description is your reference to a TRS line. The standard 1/4" out on the Helix is a TS line, not TRS so it's not clear where the source of your line is coming from on the back of the Helix. In my case I'm simply using one output from the left/mono 1/4" out on the Helix into the DI box which sends one signal to my stage monitor (TS) and another signal to the board (XLR). Is this what you're trying to do?

Yep...me too. I got the email and figured I may as well take advantage of it so I loaded up. Whether I use them or not, they're definitely good enough to have on hand.

However, if you REALLY want to get a feel for who Frank Zappa was (which really helps you get a feel for what's behind his music), I'd recommend watching the documentary "Eat That Question" which is a compilation of Frank Zappa interviews over his career and lifetime that came out last year. Absolutely fascinating and it's available for streaming on Amazon.

Exactly!! I'm not sure why he skipped over this "little" detail. It seems relatively important to me since I can clearly hear the difference between the 2048 and 1024 versions.

I didn't see any such reference in the 2.20 preview document. It talked about some MIDI enhancements in global settings but nothing about file management of IRs.

Wow!!! I can't believe this thread started out so lame and then mutated into one of my favorite subjects....Frank Zappa!!! However, I can't believe with all the Frank Freaks on here that no one bothered to mention one of his most creative double albums that featured probably his most proficient touring band at the height of his creativity. That would be the "You Are What You Is" album. It's probably not as appreciated as some of his others because this was during the Reagan era when Frank got on a rant about the TV Evangelists and probably ticked a lot of people off. But that's just Frank's way. As it turns out he was pretty spot on with his evaluation of that movement which was trying to interject religion into politics. But it sure turned out one amazing album of incredible Zappa compositions his sharp as a razor wit and sarcasm. I saw this tour live (I'd seen him 3 times previously) and this one blew me away. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJqeunh95emACssEs1gYSqG-jaSPHGLGo

I'm with you on that. I run a pretty dense setup with Sonar Platinum and I've got nothing but praise for the performance and stability of Windows 10. I came to Windows 10 from Windows 7 and I saw no difference at all performance-wise or stabilitiy-wise. Some things actually were more responsive.

I wouldn't argue that. These days most guitars in almost every range tend to be built pretty well. Not like the old days. But the ESP's and Les Paul's appeal to fairly different markets and they certainly have a much lower price point than a Les Paul Standard which is clearly boing to be a factor in the decision-making,

Well certainly when you compare against the heyday of the Les Paul back in the late 60's and 70's, they're not at prominent or popular. Gibson and Les Pauls tend to take a lot of criticism on many of the boards due mostly to Gibson pricing, but I don't pay much attention to that. You generally get what you pay for when it comes to guitars. I do think there was a period of time where Gibson got a bit complacent about their quality control back in the late '80s and '90s and that still lingers in some people's minds. But clearly the biggest factor tends to be the shredders that have moved more toward the ESP's, Schecter's and such for lower end dual humbucker type guitars and hotter pickups because that's what their current guitar hero of choice plays. Personally I think it has mostly to do with what's trendy and some level of price consideration. None of that really matters to me. I play what I feel works best for me whether it's popular or not.

Here's the documentation for the MXR Dyna Comp (which is the Red Squeeze compressor). It describes the process you use to get the compressed sound. http://www.jimdunlop.com/files/manuals/M102DynaCompManual.pdf