DunedinDragon

When it comes to modeling I think it would be hard to argue that the number of data points and their effect on each other is more than just an engineering miracle. It may not be quite so obvious in amplifier modeling as it is in visual modeling, but the same transition of realism from CGI in the 90's to today speaks to the viability of this approach. That's why it's the most common approach when modeling almost anything whether it be an amplifier, or the landing of a rover on Mars. Because it's really the only practical way to get to a reasonable model of behavior from the real world. That doesn't mean profiling doesn't have it's own benefits. Even in CGI they use texture maps from real life in order to profile (through convolution style logic) the digital representation of surfaces, so there's no doubt both have their place. In many ways the interactions within and between elements of an electronic circuit is FAR simpler to quantify than the acoustic variables involved in a speaker and mic that would have to take into account the materials, acoustics of the cabinet design, and the dissipation of sound energy, and other environmental influences that go beyond the simple electronics of the speaker and the microphone. At least to me it makes sense, given the state of technology and it's limits, you more or less need to rely on both to get a detail approximation of the real world.

To be honest, my poke at the "millennial engineer" was all in fun....sorta. He's no different than most of us were at his age. Eager to show our expertise, and totally unaware of how limited our expertise was at that point in our lives. The big difference in the case of those that are older is we can think back on those things now and be embarrassed about our foolishness and naivety, but at least we didn't leave any recorded video evidence of it to follow us through history.... ;)

I think one of the things that tends to differentiate my process a bit really has to do with deciding which guitar to start with. That pretty much determines a LOT about the sound I'm going for. I suspect my process would change a bit if we weren't playing such a divergent set of musical styles in the different songs and I was using mainly one guitar all the time. As far as compression, I tend to use that mostly on very clean presets and all the time on finger picked songs to even out the sound. Like you, if the dynamics change to a more gain driven sound I set up my footswitch that introduces the gain to turn off the compressor, and vice versa when I go back to the more clean sound. I'm not really looking for gain out of the compressor as much as I am an even tone and volume across the strings, or occasionally to introduce some "pluckiness" for a more country twang sound.

Well...hopefully they have a "safe space" on campus..... ;)

The thing that most jumps out at me is this guy's apparent lack of understanding about the technical aspects of how modeling is achieved, which pretty much invalidates his testing approach given the targeted results. When an amp is modeled the signal is measured along various points of the signal chain to understand the impact of how a change in one element affects other elements. The more points you measure, the higher the accuracy at the cost of higher DSP to duplicate the signal path in more detail in the model. What this means is that two amp models that were measured differently and set on the exact same setting are not very likely to sound the same. One of them will be working off more detail in order to model the original amp signal. The question is not which amp model sounds better at a given setting, but which amp model best duplicates the behaviors of the original amp as inputs and settings change. How this appears in the Helix as compared to the POD is the dynamics of a change in the settings. In my experience with both the POD required a MUCH more aggressive change in many of the parameters be it drive, EQ, etc. in order to achieve a noticeable difference. Not the case with the Helix. What he also seems to miss is that because of more data points and where those data points are collected certain aspects of the signal chain such as touch responsiveness are affected (which is a highly prized element) isn't tested at all. But that's what one should expect I suppose from a millennial "YouTube" engineer.... ;)

I think I start out with a general idea in my mind of what type of tone I'm looking for which will determine which guitar I'll be using (Les Paul, Strat, or Gretsch hollowbody). From there I have a rough idea of how the preset should sound in my head. Typically this will relate to a tone I've heard on some recording I've heard from some artist or song that I has a sound I want to emulate for this preset. That will then lead me to one of a few different candidate amps I think might be good at achieving it. I then start with a blank preset and add a volume pedal block and then create a serial path from A to B to have ample space and DSP for what I might end up using. I then start with an amp block and IR block switching through the few variations I have in mind before settling on the one closest to what I've been thinking of. Add in any EQ adjustments needed. The eventual goal is to get the basic sound of the amp where I want it before I start making decisions about other effect elements. The next area I'll address will be the lead tone for the preset if necessary using an appropriate distortion or gain block and harmony effect. Finally I'll start looking at things like delay, reverb, chorus, etc. if the preset needs such things (some don't). The very last step will be compressor if I feel it's necessary.

I think you mean to say Android needs to send some love Helix's way. Line 6 did nothing in the case of the iPhone. Just provided a standard USB interface.

By the time someone decides to upload one, then lets you know, then you download it....couldn't you just have built a patch on your own?

I think a couple of things happen the longer you own the Helix. First, you really begin to get a feel for how to precisely manage your sound to get what you're after. Secondly, because you spend more time on the details of the sound, you tend to hear more detail in the sound and your ears naturally pick out the differences...the things you like and the things you don't like about guitar tones. If you then go back to a traditional amp you feel that something is off in the sound, but there are no tools to fix it. To me the Helix has always been about articulation and clarity of tone. I can go back to a traditional amp and get passable tone, but it always seems a bit muddy with notes and sound blending together. The Helix in conjunction with a good FRFR setup stands out in this regard. In fact, it's so efficient in this regard I've found myself spending considerably more time working on various aspects of my technique because on a traditional amp I could get away with a bit of laziness. The Helix/FRFR setup doesn't really allow that.

The reason the PA sounds different than your studio monitors is, although your studio monitors are flat response they are ultimately a home stereo speaker with a tweeter and (typically) bass reflex speaker arrangement. This is very different from the powered FRFR speaker which is designed for projecting sound across long distances. I don't have OCD, but I do know that when I create a patch using my Yamaha DXR12 I can turn the PA speakers which are QSC KLA12's and I hear no difference at all in the sound....other than loudness. The fact is flat response is simply a term designating a very wide and even range of response, but all speakers will have varying differences in the frequency response profiles. However the major differences come in what they are designed to do. Traditional guitar amp cabinets radiate sound across a wide area including sometimes to the rear which can fill a space with sound, but isn't very good at covering long distances as the energy gets dissipated into floors, walls and ceilings. Not to mention, of course, they aren't designed to have any real "flat response" characteristics generally and focus most of their response profiles in frequencies used mostly by guitar. Studio monitors are designed for a flatter response profile, but again are not designed to cover long distances. They often have ported cabinets which depend on their placement for bass response characteristics. However they do tend to have the most consistent sound across the vertical and horizontal axis. PA speakers or FRFR monitors (which are basically the same thing) are designed to be a flatter response but are designed for focusing sound energy in a fairly tight vertical axis and a very wide horizontal axis. This helps ensure sound energy is retained across longer distances and not wasted being projected to the rear, floors and ceiling, and walls. Headsets are an animal unto themselves and are greatly dependent on who they are marketed to. Studio headsets tend to have the flattest response, but will appear to be more like studio monitors than PA or FRFR monitors. Of course if you have OCD....all bets are off as far as maintaining consistency in different environments.. ;)

I honestly doubt the YouTube videos are post produced as most of them are simple microphone captures. But even then the mic will somewhat color the sound a bit. Quite honestly trying to evaluate a sound from YouTube is always going to have some inherent limitations as it will be limited to what your computer playback system is capable of. As rvroberts stated you should expect the sound to be that of a studio recorded guitar as that's what the combination of Helix and FRFR are meant to provide. You will probably need to apply a high cut filter around 5000hz or above either globally or within your patch to tame the highs which can sound pretty shrill. You may also find you need to apply a low cut filter at around 100hz or higher to tame some of the boominess of the lower strings. I haven't really had to do this low cut so much anymore once I began using some decent IRs, but just be aware of it. Along those lines you may want to experiment using different cabinets or IR's with different mic's and placements of those mics as they can very often reduce a lot of tweaking with EQ blocks. If I were you I'd just start very simple on a patch with just an amp, cab, and mic's so you can really evaluate the sound you're getting. Make sure you have it up to ample volume (not blasting) so you get an accurate representation of the patch at typical stage volume. Other than that you should be getting a pretty decent reflection of a studio produced guitar sound as if you were listening to playback in a studio of the guitar track.

Why not just pole mount the L2T? It will still project to the audience and get it up where you can hear it?

Try a different amp and cab in a very simple patch and see if it does the same thing. Try the WhoWatt and turn down the Bass and see what happens.

Voting on an idea to helps someone out is not what Idea Scale is about. It's about getting some marketing feedback so they can prioritize their efforts. Campaigning for what YOU want doesn't actually reflect the realities of what others want and messes up the results. Ideas should stand on their own merits.

Try listening to it through some headsets to ensure it's not a problem with the K10

Not something I think I would use that much. So you and DI can vote for it if you like...;)

I just completed a successful upgrade to FW 2.10. No problems at all with the update process or presets. But I want to outline some specifics of my procedures for folks doing this upgrade so that can maybe choose how to set up the process for their situation and possibly not encounter some of the issues folks are having. In fact this might be a good place if others want to add in the specifics of their process and setup if they think it might be useful to others. First, I don't use any snapshots, only presets. I keep all of my presets constantly backed up as individual files, NOT bundles or setlists. It may take more time to import them this way, but for me it's no problem since I only load the presets I need before each performance. However this ?may? be a factor in some of the issues folks are running into. I keep all of my IRs backed up in a separate directory on my PC and have renamed them using 3-digit numbers at the beginning of each IR name which designates the order in which they need to be loaded into the Helix. I followed the procedures outlined in the guides posted here starting with the Helix application. The Helix downloaded and installed the Line 6 Updater. However when I went to run the updater, the first time through I got a HTTPS//Invalid Response error on the download page. I exited and tried again, but I got an HTTPS//Invalid Response when I entered my username and password. This indicated to me the problem wasn't in the Updater but in the Operating System, which is Windows 8. I rebooted the laptop and when I re-ran the Line 6 Updater it downloaded and started the install of the FW. After the download of the FW, and the update process completed, I exited the Updater and powered off the Helix unit. Following the directions I turned on the Helix unit holding down the FS8 and FS9 which then cycled through all of the presets and rebuilt them. Once that completed I again turned off the Helix Floor unit and rebooted it just to be sure everything was in good shape and reconfigured all of my Global values to the way I normally have them set. I then ran the Helix application and first loaded all of the IRs and followed by a group of presets of varying complexity and verified all of the functionality. I saw no anomalies in the function of the presets and I tested a variety of editing functions to ensure everything worked fine. I then built a preset from scratch using some amps, IRs, and effects, saved it off to disk, deleted the preset on the Helix and restored the one I'd saved off to disk and found no anomalies. I then imported the patches I'll need for the upcoming performances this weekend and verified all of the functionality. That's about it. Hopefully someone might find the details here useful.

If you're new to the Helix you might end up being underwhelmed by the patches posted on Custom Tone. So much of the sound of a given artist depends a lot on the guitar they use, the pickups, and of course the output device. Someone can build a Hendrix tone using a Les Paul and some headsets but it probably won't sound right through a Strat and a FRFR speaker. Just sayin.......

I believe L6 has previously made it clear that amp+cab and separate amp and cabs are functionally equivalent. Operationally there are a number of reasons to separate them. 1. Placing effects processing post amp. 2. Using a split for multiple cabs 3. Ability to use IR's rather than stock cabs 4. Separate routing of pure amp signal from cab/mic'd signal to different outputs There are probably others, but I myself prefer to build my patches with separate blocks in order to have the flexibility...not to mention I'm a pretty big user of IR's.

Although I do almost all of my interaction with the Helix through the Helix interface rather than the editor, and I do use the capacitive touch feature, I'm not sure I'd be a fan of taking it much further knowing that each additional feature further reduces computing resources that could better be reserved for operational features such as amps and effects.

Ideally you want to run into a pure amp with no pre-amp. Since I'm not familiar with the Spider V I'm not sure if it has that type of configuration. Ideally this is why many people simply plug the output of the Helix into a loop in on a traditional amp to bypass the pre-amp stage.

Is the low cut on the speaker turned on? Most modern FRFR speakers have a low cut switch for either 100 or 125 hz. Some have both. You may be getting a resonant buzz from the speaker cabinet or something in the room. Try raising the low cut on the IR and see if that gets rid of it. I've had this happen in our rehearsal space and it ended up being a shelf on the wall that had a response to a certain frequency. Once I got the speaker on the stage it disappeared. Chances are you don't need any of those low frequencies anyway.

There's been a lot of talk about various inconsistencies with the FW update including import/export problems and footswitch issues. Is there any way we can get an ongoing update regarding any of these issues, i.e. if they're actual problems or appears to be related to individual circumstances? Like some here, I'm waiting to do the update until I'm confident there are no actual known issues yet to be resolved.

Don't get me wrong, I don't HATE any of the older technology. And I'm okay with car or transportation analogies because I think that helps capture where I'm at. My first "real" motorcycle was a 1951 pan head Harley when I was 16. I loved that bike, and I still have fond memories of riding it. I've owned may bikes including more modern Harley's over the years and I've enjoyed them. But there comes a point where I can no longer be satisfied with the deficiencies of the "vintage" design. It's not that I dislike them, but they can no longer satisfy my expectations for how a motorcycle should perform. So I got rid of my last Harley for more modern engineering in a Victory motorcycle. That doesn't mean I hate Harleys. I recognize that in making decisions about something whether it be music gear or motorcycles for many people it's about non-quantifiable things such as image or the "feel" of something. But I'm just not that type of person. For me, once I've taken the next step forward I can still look back with fondness on those things, but I personally recognize I could never recapture that thrill because, in my mind, it's lacking the things I've now become accustomed to. I fully realize that's not the case for everyone and I can appreciate it. But it's simply not for me. Maybe it's the engineer in me that can't forget the problems that were overcome by moving on to the newer design that increased efficiency and resolved many of the old issues. That's why "vintage" has never been much of a selling point to me. But I'm okay with people that feel differently, as long as they don't try to convince me it's raining when all they're doing is peeing on my shoe. ;)

Sorry...but I just don't buy it. My first amp was a Supro back in 1965. Since then I've gone through an array of Fenders, Magnatone, Kustom, Marshall, Vox, and a few others I can't recall. I can't say I was displeased with any of them at the time, I do CLEARLY recall the almost constant problems with noise/buzzing, inconsistencies in volume, inconsistencies in tone, and general lack of clarity in comparison to recorded studio material. Not to mention of course the maintenance issues. If you guys want to reminisce and call that "tube warmth" I'm personally glad to be unshackled from it. The other thing I clearly remember was back in 1979 getting my hands on the Ry Cooder album "Bop Till You Drop" which was my first exposure to a digital recording. I bought the Japanese pressing which used much thicker base vinyl which allowed for fuller response without "track kissing" along with greater durability and it was amazing in comparison to everything I'd been listening to over the years not only in terms of clarity, presence, dynamic range, and yes...even warmth and it served as a revelation to me about what could be possible with the emerging technologies. I recognize that people have a natural tendency to long for the "good old days", but they also tend to forget the bad things about the "good old days" when they do it.