DunedinDragon

If you want an idea of what open beta testing is like, just look at all the people that ran into problems on the last update by not following the directions for installation. User error is NOT a bug..... ;)

Well, church settings can differ quite a bit actually. I play in a church setting as well, but I know I couldn't do some of the stuff I need to do with the Amplifire due to it's limitations on signal path construction in comparison to the Helix. But I'm pretty sure I'm at the far end of what people do in a church setting. For most of the typical contemporary praise songs, I'd suspect the Amplifire might work pretty well. But if you get fairly diverse you might feel a bit limited. Bottom line, it's never a problem to use fewer features than what's provided. But it's pretty hard if you need more features than what's provided.

As far as balancing patch volumes here's how I do mine. I keep my monitor volume at 50% and my Helix master volume at 50%. Then using a db meter I target just under 100db on each patch. I don't worry so much about whether or not I max out the amp master volume, I just adjust it to get to the volume I want it. 100db is pretty loud, but often I'll turn down my Helix master to about 40% to work on a patch to get the sound I want then crank it up to 50% and tweek things to get them set in at 100db. Depending on the venue 100db may be about right, but sometimes I bring the Helix master up or down to better match the venue and the rest of the band. The result is all the patches stay in sync as long as the Helix master is the only thing I touch. Occassionally on some patches with amps that don't reach 100db even if the amp volume is maxed out, I'll adjust the output block volume to get to 100db. Although I always assign a volume pedal on each patch, I only use it for fade-in/out effect or if I need to switch guitars. Once your patches are normalized they should stay fine for the whole gig unless the volume of the band goes up. Then just adjust the master. For leads I target about a 4db boost. How I do it depends on the patch. Sometimes it's just a gain block or a compressor, but on patches with more gain I tend to use various distortion effects to get the boost I want. I have a couple of patches where I switch to a different amp and IR cab for leads and have it set a bit louder. So I don't think there's any specific answer to how you boost your volume for leads other than "it depends".

The K10 had a couple of optional settings that may be useful to look at. I know the left A input as you're facing the rear is for either mic or line inputs. If you're using that make sure you have it set to line on the switch next to the inputs. The B side is for line input only so you could just use that if you want. Your LF switch can be set to Ext Sub which I believe turns on a Low Cut filter at around 125 hz, which you probably will need to stop any boominess and not have to worry about setting low cuts on your patches. The HF switch should be set to flat, but if it's set to vocal boost it slightly boosts the mid-range frequencies for vocals. Probably not optimal for guitar. Beyond that there's not much to it. Undoubtedly you're going to hear far more upper range than you're used to hearing on a traditional guitar amp. A lot of people use high cuts in the 4000 hz range (and even lower) to get rid of some of the shrillness. Personally I use IR's as they tend to provide a MUCH better representation of the cabinet, mic, and mic placements than do the stock cabinets. I personally use OwnHammer IR's because they come with such a wide array of mic and mic placements which allows me to correct the signal without doing much of anything on the Helix as far as high cuts and such. I do still keep my global EQ with a high cut of around 7 or 8000 I believe as there's nothing up there of any interest to me.

Hardly a miss at all. The USB ports on both the XT Live and the Helix are type B so by definition that type of connection would mean both units are upstream units. You couldn't get a cable for that anyway.

You may very well work in QA, but it's clear to me that your concerns are pretty much unfounded in this case. That may be due to the limits of what you're exposed to in terms of the whole product development and feature prioritization cycle from your view from QA as compared to Program Management, but it's very clear to anyone that bothers to research the release history of the updates that they clearly reflect the high volume voting on features from IdeaScale. There's also little doubt that (in spite of the 2.0 to 2.1 rapid release to address problems with one of the effects and some minor issues), the testing has been very thorough, particularly given the scope of features in the last release. These facts all speak to the idea that they are doing several things correctly such as prioritizing based on the most demanded user needs, releasing products only when testing suggests they're ready, and given the product cycle time involved in these releases, realistic and manageable feature sets on each release. All of which, by my estimation, suggests a pretty healthy development culture. What you have seen in other companies has little relevance as each company has it's own dynamic when it comes to their corporate culture in product development. And in my 30+ years of doing this sort of thing and teaching these types of disciplines to corporate america, I can say I'm pretty impressed with what Line 6 has been doing. Rather than focusing on fears you might have encountered in various other scenarios, I'd advise looking at each company individually and track their metrics before jumping to conclusions or worrying about problems that may or my not exist at Line 6.

Quite frankly I'm amazed at the job L6 has done in testing given the complexity of the environment these machines are meant to integrate with. There's an old saying we had in my development and program management days, "The reason God was able to create the world in 7 days is because he didn't have an installed base." I guess that's why I tend to be more patient (and forgiving) when it comes to these sorts of releases. Most users have a very confined and parochial idea of how a new release is supposed to act based on their unique universe of setup and needs. But when you factor in all of the potential ways the Helix may be setup and used, plus the variety of platforms the editor runs on (not just software but hardware platforms and the accessories that might be attached and used), not to mention testing the installation procedures in that environment, it boggles the mind they can get as many new features done in each release in as short a period of time as they do given the breadth of testing that must be done.

I wouldn't worry about this one too much. Only a handful of posts, and given his statement above, if Line 6 disappoints him all he's likely to do is seek out a "safe space" for a good cry... ;)

Apparently you're not familiar with how Line 6 works. Although the do somewhat monitor this forum, they never reveal future plans or very much, if any, detail on the inner workings at the company. Some of the answers to your questions can be found in the various interviews.with Marcus Ryle and Paul Foekler as it pertains to the merger with Yamaha. Other than that you'll likely have to be patient just like us and the rest of the music industry to find out what's in store once released. But don't expect much in terms of inner workings. That's just not their style. Sincerely, Mr. Peanut

You may have inadvertantly simultaneously pressed the patch up and down switches that changes into edit mode. All you have to do if that happens is hit the far upper right Edit Mode switch to exit edit mode and back to stomp mode. Happened to me a couple of times.

The logical first step is to remove the Helix from the 4CM arrangement into a direct amp setup and see if it persists. A quick way would be headsets, but that is most likely not a good indication that it's on in the Helix output signal path. If it persists that would focus you on the Helix. If not, the problem lies (most likely) in the 4CM setup.

Apparently, for some people, the count of the number of amps in a device is equivalent to the size of your manhood... ;)

I think a lot of folks prefer the 10" because it's not so boomy as the 12". The 12" works better for me because I use a Gretsch hollow body on a lot of songs that I finger pick, and I need the extra bass response. It really depends on the style of music you play. You can always dial out bass. It's lot harder to dial in what's not there due to the speaker.

When I got my Yamaha DXR 12 it was a toss-up between that and the QSC K12. I went with the Yamaha simply because they were running a $100 rebate, but there's really very little difference at all between the two units. The QSC is a bit more feature-rich and flexible in it's setup options though. I'm pretty familiar with those options since they're the same setup options as we have on our QSC PA which is based on KLA-12 speakers. One thing you'll have to consider if you've been using a valve amp is you may need to do some adjustments to your patches. The response profile on these speakers will be MUCH heavier on the low end and high end than what you're used to on your valve amp just due to the nature of how FRFR differ from traditional amp speaker cabinets. The easy way to handle this without too much bother is to use the Global EQ to Low-cut and High-cut the frequency response. There will still be some differences in articulation and clarity over what you're used to on a traditional cabinet. Personally I like this, but it bothers some people so you'll have to gauge this for yourself. Due to the nature of how these speakers are built for projecting sound in comparison to traditional speakers, you may need to make some adjustments to how you position it on stage. I place mine behind me about 5 feet in a traditional monitor setup so it allows the speaker and compression driver some space to blend. Otherwise it can sound harsh to your ear. These speakers weren't designed expecting it to be blasting into someone's ear right next to it. But some folks set them up on low stands, so you may have to experiment with what works best for you. They're also a lot more powerful at projecting sound than what you might think. Because they're designed to project sound over long distances it may be deceiving to you if you're used to the volume levels you use on a traditional amp to fill the room. A little bit goes a long way.

I'm not sure why you would consider a Roland VGA-7 to be FRFR, even through the aux in? It certainly has no compression driver nor does it have the same type of frequency response profile of a true FRFR speaker. I can't imagine you would think a commercially recorded song would sound as complete and full through your VGA-7 as it would through a pair of decent studio monitors...and that's the big difference. There's no doubt your sound would be different going through the FOH speakers, but since you tailored your patches to the VGA-7 rather than a true FRFR I would imagine the FOH speakers might not sound very good either. I've played along side any number of tradtional amps with my FRFR rig and the most common issue I've had is not overwhelming them. It's not so much volume as it is clarity and articulation even on overdriven patches. They very often can fill the stage better, but my signal cuts through the mix better, so it's somewhat of a wash out front. But since I build my patches on an FRFR rig I know pretty precisely what my sound will be through the FOH.

I'm one of those guys that made the jump from traditional amps to FRFR and never looked back. Since doing it I often wonder in awe at the permutations the folks who insist on holding onto their traditional amps seem to need to go through to get what they want from the Helix. In my mind, there's nothing really that special about traditional amps, and there are some serious deficiencies in them as it relates to frequency response characteristics. As standalone, stovepipe systems they work quite well. But a lot of that has to do with controlling the whole picture of preamp, amp, and speaker setup. You can pretty much just plug in and play. Once you begin to dissect and separate all those elements from each other, they don't necessarily play that well together and lack consistency and efficiency. The fact is, modelers like Helix or even HD500X benefit considerably by allowing you to exploit different arrangements of preamps, amps, effects, cabinets, mic and mic placements, as well as underlying electronic tweaks and all that's needed is an efficient and effective way to project those custom arrangements sonic-ally into the world. That's exactly what FRFR systems are designed to do...be efficient and accurate at amplifying and projecting their inputs to the world. High end headsets like the DT770 can do it as well, but for those of us that don't particularly enjoy working with headsets, FRFR systems are the most satisfying way to do it. The benefit is a level of clarity and articulation that's well beyond what a traditional amp can produce. For some that can be a big transition because their ears have grown accustomed to the inherent limitations of traditional guitar amp cabinets. I myself went through that initially when I began using FRFR through my HD500X and had to constrain and limit some of the frequency response of my FRFR to get it to match with what my ears wanted to hear while still maintaining the benefits of clarity and articulation. As time has gone on and I've moved to the Helix and better IR's, I find that's less and less the case. I still apply certain limits on the high end frequencies, but it's very slight by comparison, and it's become easier and easier to gain the full benefit of the advanced modeling technology to produce sounds that are better than what I ever could through a traditional amp. But it's a complete change in the paradigm of how one produces guitar tone. I often say it's much more similar and familiar to the way things were done in recording studios in the 70's and 80's. It's all about constructing signal chains using various amps, cabs, mics, mic placements and effects and listening to those results through studio monitors or headsets to get what you want.

I commonly run the same patches through a Yamaha DXR12 powered speaker and Yamaha HS-7 studio monitors. There are some slight differences but nothing I'd call "horrible" which is a bit too subjective to really understand what you're hearing. The studio monitors aren't as brash and bright as the DXR12, but that's somewhat expected. They're built for a different purpose. But they are easily recognizable as the same patch, just slightly mellower on the HS-7's. A lot of that has to do with the engineering differences in studio monitors and PA speakers. PA speakers are designed for projection and significantly limit their interaction with walls and such that may be to the rear or sides of them, whereas studio monitors exploit such things and therefore their placement is much more critical especially if they are bass reflex such as the Yamaha's. So it could be what you're hearing is related to where you are in relation to the speakers and how the speakers are positioned. On powered PA speakers I tend to stand back from them 5 or 6 feet to get a more accurately blended sound between the speaker and compression driver. On the studio monitors I'm relatively close (maybe 3 or 4 feet) in a triangular arrangement between the two speakers and myself. I have walls within 2 or 3 feet both behind and and to the side each of the studio monitors to help with the bass response. One other issue I've noticed is that the differences are much more pronounced if the patch uses stock cabinets versus IR's (OwnHammer in my case). I'm not sure the stock cabinets capture the nuances of the sound in the same way as do the IR's and it's the nuances of mic placement on the IR's that make the patches more consistent I believe.

I was pleasantly surprised by the Helix in how it more accurately reflected the differences in my guitars. Prior to the Helix I was using an HD500X. I make extensive use of different guitars for different songs, using my Les Paul, my Strat, and my Gretsch hollow body. I immediately noticed the Helix more accurately reflected the core sound differences between these guitars than did the HD500X, which played right into my strategy for how I use the guitars. For me it's not a problem as each of my patches is designed for a specific guitar to be used with it. I'm a bit surprised the differences are that prominent on a 4CM setup. I guess I always assumed the fuller range and precision of a FRFR setup played a bigger part in helping distinguish these differences.

I think this is key. When I look back over the last couple of years I learned FAR more about best practices and approaches for building patches by watching a video. MUCH easier, more informative and more efficient than dissecting someone else's patch.

Chances are you have your buffer size set too low in Logic 9 to limit latency, but your computer either isn't fast enough or have enough memory to keep up with it.

I've never purchased any patches and only downloaded a few from custom tone in the very early days of owning my HD500X. The reasons for this are multiple: 1. The sound of a patch is highly dependent on what your rig consists of, type of guitar, output/monitor mechnisms. 2. The workflow I use is likely different than the person who created the tone. For example, I NEVER use snapshots. I use a patch per song. I only enable stomp buttons I will need to turn on/off within that song. I have a consistent placement for these enabled stomps on my board from song to song. It's highly unlikely a downloaded patch will match my workflow so why should I pay for something I would have to so heavily modify? My time is worth something too. 3. I can likely get the tone I want on my own in a much faster way than to dissect someone else's work. 4. By creating all my own patches I'm fully in control of what I may need to do to modify them if need be when I get to a gig or at rehearsal. I guess I can understand why some people may not want to invest the time into learning how to create their own patches. You don't have to be a computer programmer to use a computer. But that's just not me. If I spend the money on a Helix, I expect I should be able to master the use of that unit in whatever ways I may need to without being dependent on others.

There's a lot of Joe Walsh sound in that song. You might want to start with a similar rig setup as Joe. He had a preference for Fender amps and Fender amp clones...particularly Dr Z and Frontman amps along with a tube screamer with a predelection toward lower mids in the 1200 hz range. Pretty much a humbucker based guitar.

I suspect the people that complain the most about delays and reverbs are those that use more heavily laden effects in their setups. For people like myself that use them as subtle enhancements to the basic tone of the guitar, what's there is more than adequate. But then I've never felt the need for a floorboard full of effects which could be the difference.

My first reaction is what amp and cab are you using? Typically a 4x12 works better on things high up on the neck. I'm assuming you're using humbuckers on the semi hollow body. You might want to try the free download of the Mesa IR from Ownhammer and try using the version with the mic placement further away from the cone.

Personally I shoot for keeping my Helix master volume at about 50%. I know DI has mentioned the S/N ration issue, but that's less of an issue live especially when faced with setting the stage volume in different venues. It's a whole lot easier to adjust the Helix master than get to the volume on the back of the FRFR speaker. This does tend to result in certain amps needing a pretty high volume level on the amp master volume. So far I haven't really experienced a problem in keeping levels set evenly across all the patches. But I tend to do almost all of my fine tuning using the volume adjustment on the output block if needed.