DunedinDragon

For a long time I used only stock cabs and they worked fine for me. The only serious limitation I felt they had was the lack of mic cement options relative to the cone of the speaker. In real life cabinet mic'ing that's always been a big deal for me. But I could find ways to compensate. Once I tried out the OwnHammer IR's with all their various options it sold me in spite of the additional use of DSP. I rarely run into DSP problems in my patches...they just aren't that complex generally. However using the right configuraition of IR with mic and mic placements has DRAMATICALLY reduced the amount of time I need to have to tweak the sound of a patch. I'm don't think of myself as a tone Diva by any stretch of the imagination, but if I can get the tone I want with just an IR and no additional EQ blocks, I'm way ahead of the game.

I won't say it would be of NO use, but certainly of limited use at this point. There are times I would like to quickly check what amp and IR I used on a given patch. Pulling it up from a file would be handy. But it think it's pretty naive to think the drive for more amps and effects is only because people can't find the tone they want. I suspect people that fit into that category might be significantly less than you think. I've never been a big pusher of a whole bunch of new amps, but even with the delivery of the small additional pair of amps in the last update I found a use for them. Simply because in certain situations of type of song and type of guitar being used, they provided elements that were better than what I was using. I agree I don't need a whole bunch of amps, but I would like to begin seeing some re-working of the older ported amps because I think they've learned a few things now and could probably do a much better job on them (particularly the Fender amps). Some of those I don't use because they aren't up to the standards of some of the built from scratch amps. Given a choice between those two things, the rebuilt amp models would be FAR more useful. The fact that something doesn't get votes on Ideascale isn't necessarily because the idea has no merit (although some of them qualify in that regard). At least in my voting I understand the limitations of time and resources available for such things, so unless the usefulness has some immediacy in my world I'm not likely to vote for it.

I had the same experience as several others here. It sounded very trebly and thin in comparison to the OwnHammer version of the cabinet using a combo SM57 and ribbon mic.

I think you have to clarify a bit more what type of clean country you're looking for. As mentioned above there's quite a range covered between Brad Paisley and Chet Atkins. As for myself, I tend to use my Gretsch Silver Falcon for most country I play, so I tend to move either toward a Twin Vibrato or a Soldano Clean. I've even used a Matchless Ch 1 with the Strat to get a little more bite like a Brad Paisley tone. Typically Twin's seem to dominate modern country when using a Tele to get that super twangy sound.

In this regard I think one of the most useful things L6 could do would be to openly document the format of the patch files so people could develop their own utilities for offline management. For example one could build a utility for determining your most used amp as well as amps you haven't used. Or find consistencies in how you set up certain effects or amp settings. And of course determine what IR's you have loaded that are never used. I could easily think of about a dozen more without even scratching the surface of what might be possible. Obviously, those formats could change, but by carefully constructing the code it wouldn't be that much of a problem to fix things from version to version. I realize L6 isn't known for revealing such things, but opening up the architecture to outside contributors is, after all, what allowed Microsoft to dominate the market. As they always said, "capture the hearts and minds of developers and the rest of the world will follow":

There really isn't any difference between feeding the return into a power amp from feeding into a dedicated FRFR speaker. Both should be relatively clean amps unless you're driving the power amp to clipping....but the same would be true on an FRFR speaker as well except it would engage the limiter. I tend to be relatively conservative in the signal level I send, so I keep my Helix Master set right around 50% and the amp/FRFR at 50% as well. I then construct my patches master, amp vol, gain, etc. and normalize the measured output with a sound meter to 100db SPL which is more than enough for most any venue. I can always turn up the Helix Master volume slightly if I need to knowing I've got plenty of clean headroom and all my patches will respond accordingly.

I'm not really sure what you're asking here. When using the Helix as the recording interface I simply plug it into the PC with the DAW via USB and as long as you have the ASIO driver configured you get a good, decent signal at the DAW on the various USB channels as described in the documenation. The USB level can be adjusted on the Helix, but I've never found the need to do so. There's only one Aux input on the Helix which is typically used for active pickup equipped guitars or bass and controlled as part of the Helix signal chain..But since you referred to inputs (plural) I'm not sure what you are talking about.

I hope everyone realizes that there are some of us that barely ever use the editor, right? My only use for it is to export and import presets, so users like myself would gain absolutely no value at all from a massive investment of time and energy into a restructuring of the Helix app. Personally I didn't invest in the Helix to have a cool app on my PC. I already have plenty of those. I want cool stuff like amps and effects in my Helix.

My first question is about the gain staging of the inputs into your mixing board. Are you coming into the board via XLR or 1/4 inch and are those outputs set to line or mic? When you solo or PFL that input line what kind of signal strength are you getting? The presets that come with the unit aren't horrible, and you can probably build better presets. However they should still be decent enough to determine where the problem lies. Obviously none of us would be using the Helix if it produced the sounds you describe. If you want to get a feel for the basic sound of the Helix just select any empty preset, and load any of the amp+cab blocks. That's all you need to hear the basic modeling sounds of each of the amps. The first thing I would do is plug your studio monitors directly into the Helix outputs and see what you get. This will help determine if the problem is on the Helix end or somewhere in your mixing board/DAW signal chain. Use the global settings and ensure you have outputs set to line when you do this. You can also try using a pair of headphones and see what things sound like from that end. Things like creating presets and IR's and such are improvements to the sound. What you seem to be describing are much worse than that.

I think you have the basic idea of what an IR does as far as putting a signal chain together. In order to really get a feel for what they do you have to kind of put yourself in the mindset of what typically would happen in a physical recording studio. In the days before modeling artists would have their preferred guitar and amp, but often in order to tweak the sound to exactly what they wanted, they would drive that amp through one or more various cabinet configurations and different mic'ing options. These combinations would help to generate the actual tone they wanted to capture on the recording. Some cabinet and speaker combinations might be darker, or brighter or more articulated and the way it was mic'd might give it more presence or fullness. All of that has now been wrapped up into IR's, which are not created specific to any guitar, but are captures of how a given cabinet, speaker set, and mic and mic placements might affect the tone coming out of the amp. Think of it this way, a Marshall amp sounds one way through a Marshall 4x12 cabinet, but will have a completely different feel and sound through a Vox 2 x 12. By choosing an IR carefully you can craft a tone closer to what you want without having to do it all through EQ. As far as the amp packs, I don't own any but the descriptions I've seen he uses an existing Helix model and applies IR's and EQ to simulate the sound and response of that specific amp.

I'm not sure what you're expecting, as is everyone else here. Clearly what you're hearing is a function of how you hooked things up as there are plenty of folks here that use the Helix quite successfully in both live and studio applications. If you really want some help you need to be a bit more explicit in how you hooked things up (inputs and outputs). Any advice we give you at this point would be a waste of time only knowing you have a Helix.

I've used most of the headsets listed here in different situations. My personal headset of choice is the DT770, but that's primarily because it's used for recording and when I use them I'm using them for long periods of time. They're the only ones I've every tried that I can honestly say I've sometimes forgotten I have them on (I'll get up to walk away and forget I have them on till they get yanked off my head). If you're expecting to be using them for extended periods that may be important.

Loudness isn't really a matter of wattage, it's a matter of SPL. A typical loud rock concert weighs in at around 120 db. Of course that's measured at the audience perspective at the point of projection. If you were producing 120db on stage it would be physically painful. A Yamaha DXR12 is rated to produce 132db at 1 meter on axis so it's easy to see most modern, reputable FRFR solution will easily "keep up" with a typical loud band. They have to. They're often used as FOH solutions. That being said, SPL and perceived loudness are two different things. Most standard FRFR solutions like a DXR12 is far more directional than a cabinet. A lot of what people are referring to in terms of loudness has to do with the dispersion of sound. That's what cabinet based FRFR solutions try to resolve by dispersing the sound in a similar manner to a standard amp cabinet. I like to refer to that as "bigger" sound rather than louder sound. But that bigger sound comes at a price in cabinet based FRFR solutions because much of the sound energy gets dispersed in a very wide pattern rather than directionally focused sound so much of that wattage gets spent unproductively. Using two standard FRFR speakers correctly positioned can give you the same "bigger" sound without wasting energy, but that's also twice the gear to move. I only bring this all up so you understand the nature of what you're trying to do in a FRFR setup. I play in a 7 piece band and one DXR12 measured at 100db output is more than sufficient for keeping up with the stage sound which is really all you should be worrying about, unless you expect to be playing in venues with inadequate FOH systems.

I personally think everyone seeks out certain differences in IR's based on what they like to hear. I only have about 11 IR's loaded but in reality I probably only really use 5 or so consistently depending largely on the style of music, and the specific guitar I'm using (Les Paul, Strat, Gretsch hollow body). All of them are OwnHammers specifically because I can audition the various versions of the IR (mic, mic placement, or mixes) and pick the one that best suits what I want from it. I'll try to put it into context as far as style of music, type of guitar and the cabinet version I tend to use most: Clean, ballad/country typically Gretsch: Super Reverb 4x10 cab w/ Jensen C10R speakers, using MD-421 dynamic mic and Royer R121 ribbon mic about halfway out on the speaker. Jazz on Gretsch, Clean Blues on Strat: Vox 2x12 w/ Celestion Alnico Blue spkr, Combo SM57 and Royer R121mic about halfway out on speaker. Dirty blues/slide Crunchy Rock on Strat or Les Paul: Gibson Super Goldtone w/ Celestion vintage 10 spkr, using MD-421 dynamic mic and Royer R121 ribbon mic about halfway out on the speaker. Classic Rock/Punk on Strat or Les Paul: Mesa Boogie 4x12 w/ Celestion vintage 30 spkr, w a special multi-mic configuration by Scott Peterson about midway out on the speaker. More modern rock and heavier classic rock on Les Paul: Bogner Shiva 2x12 open back, blend of Celestion G12 Alico Silver and Gold with Silver dominant using SM57 and MD421-5 dynamic mic mix midway out on speaker. I found these IR configurations have fairly distinctive effects on the overall tone of different amps so it really reduces a lot of tweaking of EQ when I build a patch.

Natural capitalism takes care of that without any intervention from any of us....

That's why, before you make the investment in time and energy to go stereo, you should make sure the sound crew you work with are willing to go to the trouble to set it up. Most won't simply because it will never appear as real stereo for people unless they're perfectly positioned between the speakers and not too far back in the venue where all the sound mixes together anyway.. It can be done, but it's typically done with a LOT more speakers positioned in the venue than just two stacks up front.

I don't know about anyone else but I'm really pretty sick of this constant comparison of modelers. I own a Helix. I have no desire to chase after something better. I'd rather spend my time and energy using it than endless cycles subjectively comparing the nuances of two modelers that has been done already hundreds if not thousands of time. Do people really have all that much extra time to invest in this kind of fluff? I don't, and I'm RETIRED!!!

Did you first download the Helix Editor ver. 2.01 before running the Line 6 Updater?

You know Peter, I think it's about time you did another one of your patch building videos like you did on the HD500X. Personally I get more insight out of things like that than I do downloading a preset. Especially when you talk about the process you use and general tactics for developing the sound you want. That's really useful insight I think a lot of people would appreciate.

I guess for me the "amp filling the room" or "moving air" became more of a distraction than an inspiration. That's only a good feeling if it doesn't drown out what you hear coming from the rest of the band and it makes it hard to blend what you're doing with what everyone else is doing. My personal opinion is using FRFR actually improved the band by getting rid of some of the sloppiness and overlap in the instruments. It helped me to hear them and them to hear me. I'm hoping some day I can convince the other guitar player to go this route.

From my observations it seems like the discussions on non-FRFR setups comes and goes in waves around here. We can go several weeks without a post on non-FRFR systems, but then within a week have three or four discussion topics posted. Most of the time it's pretty easy to identify non-FRFR discussion topics from the title. It just seems to me that it's a whole lot easier to identify a non-FRFR topic by title than to go to a separate topic that may not have a post for weeks. As DI and Silverhead both point out, although I'm an exclusive user of FRFR (and am certainly not even close to the classification of a bedroom player) I have to say there are still some discussions on the topic that interest me and I've learned things from. I'd hate to miss out on those opportunities because I didn't check out a topic area that's not terribly active most of the time. In a way it's kind of like snapshots. I'm not a snapshot user and likely never will be simply because of my chosen workflow. That puts me apparently in the minority around here. But I certainly don't think it would be useful to separate out a topic designated for non snapshot users. That would just be counter-productive in my opinion.

Sounds like "much ado about nothing"....what's the point? Just to see if you can do it? It doesn't sound all that practical to me given how easy it is to mix two different amp models within a preset.

The higher the impedence the lower the volume, but the clarity and definition increase. So I use the 80 ohm with a headphone amp. It matches up very nicely to my FRFR system that consists of a Yamaha DXR12. I wouldn't spend a lot of time tweaking the patches for your current headphones unless you don't mind re-tweaking them once you get a new pair. By the way, you don't have to use the Global EQ for the low cut. If you're using an IR you can just use the low cut there rather than affect everything.

Here's the deal. The frequency response range of a pair of headphones is less relevant than the response profile of a pair of headphones. Consumer grade headphones generally don't have a flat response but tend to have certain frequencies accentuated in order to make commercial music more pleasing to the user. But this really works against you when it comes to dialing in a preset. This may be exacerbated by the fact that you're using a pair of headsets designed to be used for gaming. Most people are using high grade commercial level headphones designed to be used in recording studios that provide a fairly flat response across it's frequency response range. For example I personally use a pair of Beyerdynamic DT770 80 ohm studio headphones along with a small headphone amp which resembles the response profile of my FRFR speakers. That being said, you should be able to tweak the frequency response from your Helix to compensate for many of these differences. Typically to get a tight bass you would use a low cut filter. This is different just cutting the lows. A low cut filter cuts frequencies below a certain point, so a low cut between 100 to 150hz will reduce the response from that point down. Likewise a high cut will have the same effect on the high frequencies and can be useful being set anywhere from 5000 hz and up. What I'd suggest is starting with a stock setting on the Helix of a known high gain amp such as the 2204 or even the new Archetype Lead amp. If you have the free Ownhammer Mesa cabinets use the variation that uses the SM-57 mic placed at the 3, 4 or 5 position. As you move out from the cone you'll get a less brittle sound on the high end. Set your low cut on the cabinet to around 125hz and high cut around 5000hz and see where that gets you. Concentrate on the mic placement on the IR and the low and high cuts until you have a tight low end and a high end that's not too brittle. Then make adjustments to the EQ controls on the amp to begin dialing in the core sound. Remember that graphic EQ or parametric EQ adjustments are for fine tuning. You might also want to play with the BIAS controls on the amp to get better definition on your attack. Once you get close to what you want use graphic or parametric EQ's for fine tuning. Take frequent breaks while dialing in a tone to avoid ear fatigue. Personally, I'd strongly suggest you get a pair of professional headsets to start with because I'm not sure the pair you have are giving a very honest representation of the sound.

The tracks I've done by myself I've used a little of both. By and large the basic guitar sound is Helix as far as the amp and very basic fx elements such as OD, chorus and such. Things such as EQ, compression and reverb/delay I'll apply in the DAW just to make sure I stay consistent. Very often I capture the recording in a live recording session of the whole band in the old school ways from back in the 70's with a separate mobile multitrack recorder then bring the tracks individually into the DAW for mixing. In that case it's generally only EQ though I might add some touches of reverb or delay.