DunedinDragon

I'm assuming the computer environments question relates to the stability of the USB connection disrupting things? Is there any validity to removing all previous Line 6 tools before the upgrade as some have indicated? If I have to choose between doing the upgrade with Windows 7 or Windows 8, which seems to be having less problems?

I've owned my Helix for several months now, and to be honest I'm a little leary of upgrading at this point until I can get some input from some of the Line 6 folks regarding the issues people have been having with the upgrade. I'd like to know they've sorted things out or can point to some common misunderstandings about the installation that have been behind some of these failures. Of course I now depend on my Helix weekly for playing gigs, and I'm not sure I want to take the chance of losing it if something goes wrong. I sure wish DigitalIgloo or one of the other folks that frequent the board could give us some reassurance so I could feel more confident in doing this upgrade.

Just want to confirm, you have the Guitar In Pad in the Global Settings turned on? Also, what is your setting in the Global Settings for Guitar In Impedence?

What signal level does your meter show when you PFL the channel on your PA?

I have used my Helix direct XLR into the into my powered speakers or my mixing board from the day I first got it and it works perfectly every time...and I've never used 4CM. There's one catch however, you have to know how to turn the gain knob on the mixer and PFL the channel to gain stage it. But then, that would be the same with every input on the board...even an Ax8. I've even run it into the board with phantom power on, and it didn't affect my signal. This was before I'd learned about the phantom power issue. There's no trick at all to running XLR to any board I've ever encountered unless the person running the board has no clue about managing input signals...but then they'd be having the same problems with any and all inputs on the board. This is like saying your car is broken because you don't know how to put gas into it....

The real issue here is what are you using at home to dial in your presets? Apparently it's not sufficient for simulating the frequency response range of the FOH system. You might want to think about getting a speaker for home use that will give you a better picture of what to expect live. To start, I'd make sure your soundboard channel EQ is set flat. Secondly, I'd suggest adjusting EQ at the preset level based on the guitar being used. Your Gretsch is likely to be more boomy at the low end than most of the other guitars (at least it is on my Silver Falcon). Each one of the guitars will most likely have some nuances on the lows and highs you might want to evaluate. So that's a good reason to have a good FRFR speaker at home to determine high and low cuts. I'd agree with what others have said that you can START on the low end at cutting around 70-90 Hz, but that's not likely to be enough in some cases. I've gone as high as 140 Hz on my Gretsch, especially if I'm finger picking to tighten up that low end so it doesn't get covered up by the bass and kick drum. Similarly my Les Paul tends to need more adjustment on the low end than most for high gain presets. But that really all depends on the type of pickups you have. At the high end a lot is dependent on your guitar as well as effects and style of song. Generally speaking, not much of interest happens on an electric guitar above 5000 Hz, but sometimes certain styles of reverb may sound better with more top end. I have gone as low as 3500 Hz for some styles of music (like funk and R& B ) in order to tame the highs, but that's fairly rare, and is very dependent on the amp and the cabinet being used. Again because of all these factors I shy away from Global EQ adjustments and tend to use just the cabinet high and low cuts on a preset by preset/guitar by guitar basis. But that will only work if you have a decent simulation of the response you'll get from the FOH speakers when you're setting up your presets. We use QSC KLA-12's on our FOH system and I find the Yamaha DXR12 to be a very accurate representation of what they will sound like.

There are a number of us in here that upgraded from the HD500X. I myself was skeptical because I was getting pretty good results with the HD500 and I wasn't totally convinced it would be worth the upgrade as I had a significant amount of time invested in building the presets I was using. I went ahead and did it and I couldn't be happier. Although the sound alone could have probably justified it, what really made it worthwhile was the savings in time for building patches. Some of that relates to the more advanced interface, but a lot has to do with the accuracy of the models and cabinets and less time having to tweak settings. And I'm pretty picky about my sound. I think you'll find a lot of what you know from your experience with the HD500 will translate pretty easily. But you'll also find there are much better options for making adjustments to your sound as well as for the routing of that sound to your onstage system as well as the FOH PA. Personally I'll be selling my HD in a couple of months as I don't think I'll need it. I use my Helix at home for building my patches and setting things up for performances, and use it at rehearsal and at the performance. In my case I go through a Yamaha DXR12 as my onstage monitor and for rehearsals, and I have a second DXR12 at home for building my patches and setting things up for the performance. This way everything is consistent both with my onstage sound as well as the FOH sound since all the soundman needs to do is set my EQ flat and gain stage me with the rest of the band and I know the audience will be hearing exactly what I'm hearing on stage. One minor adjustment I had to make was put a direct box in line to feed my monitor as well as the FOH. The reason is we have mic's that use phantom power and some folks have had problems with the Helix if it's fed phantom power. I never experienced it, but better safe than sorry.

I think this depends on your output method. Having owned a Deluxe, a Twin, a Mustang IV, and now a Helix there's no doubt in my mind that Helix got the Deluxe and the Twin dead on. But then I have my output going through a FRFR speaker. The Mustang IV did them well although I thought the Twin was a bit too bright.

What's mystifying in this is that for most of the cases in the Helix, the default settings on the amp models, cabs, effects are pretty good and typically only need minor tweaking if at all to provide a decent tone. I have close to the same speaker setup in my studio as you do using HS7's, and the sound is nice and full. I occassionally need to slightly tweak the upper and lower ends as HonestOpinion states, but even without that the tones are very accurate. Maybe try going a step at a time with setting up a patch. Start with a fresh empty preset and select adding an amp (not amp and cab) and as you roll through the different amps audition them without actually adding them to the signal chain and see if you find one that best represents what you're looking for. Once you add that, go through the same process with cabinets. Maybe somewhere in the process you can discover what seems to be throwing things off from the tone you're looking for. One thing that can sometimes throw you off is that what you're listening to in the case of an amp and a cab is the sound is being modeled based on a mic'd cabinet and so it depends a great deal on the mic used and it's placement relative to the cabinet. If you're looking for the "amp in the room" sound, you probably won't get that. You'll get the studio-ready representation of the sound which can be fairly different to some ears. You can tweak this considerably by changing the mic's and their distance, but it will always be the studio sound of the setup and not the live amp in the room sound. That may take some getting used to, but it's a much more precise and accurate sound than the "amp in the room" which gets flavored by the room acoustics and placement of the amp relative to you. This could be what's leading you to feel it's "thin". I use my Helix for both studio as well as live work, and I can't say it has ever sounded thin, so it may be your ears need to adjust. Or, perhaps, you need to set the mic on the cab a longer distance away to get a better ambient feel to the tone. Honestly, the best advice I can give anyone is to approach the Helix as if it's a virtual recording studio and the process is pretty close to the same as you would use in real studio of building the right signal chain to achieve the tone you want.

I would second the idea of exploring the compressors included with the Helix before deciding to use the external one. Of particular interest if you're looking for a studio level compressor, try out the LA Studio Comp which is modeled after the legendary Teletronix LA-2A optical limiting compressor design. Here's a pretty decent writeup on it's heritage: http://www.uaudio.com/blog/la-2a-analog-obsession/

By that measure every computer, software product, automobile, electronics unit, you name it...has been shipped incomplete. Because someone somewhere will likely find something that doesn't work the way they expected it to. Welcome to the universe of integration. If all manufacturers settled on a standard interface, and implemented it exactly the same way, it might not be a problem. Unfortunately, many manufacturers opt to use proprietary implementations hoping that it will ensure customer loyalty for after market parts. It's a very old game, but one that still gets played a lot. And the end result is that their customers get upset if outside manufacturers don't adapt to the proprietary implementation used by the piece of gear they bought that doesn't adhere to common, standard implementions. No manufacturer can afford to chase every, tiny, proprietary implementation and keep their price point at something reasonable. The best anyone can do is chase the major ones. If that's a bug, then there is a bug in every product you've ever purchased that integrates in some way or another with outside vendors.

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Technically speaking modern FRFR speakers ARE PA speakers, and it's probably not fair to think about them as having crossovers exactly. A crossover generally refers to a specific point in the frequency range below and above which all output is redirected specifically and solely to a speaker or speaker system. The only time an actual hard crossover like that tends to come into play nowdays is between a subwoofer and mains and tends to be pretty low (around 100 to 125 hz). Above that there's not typically any hard crossover, just the natural response of the speakers with a little help from the DSP design built into the powered speaker. I think the issues you're running into here have more to do with passive speaker designs that don't have the benefits derived from modern DSP driven amp designs built into modern powered speakers.

To be honest, this is really what causes me to roll my eyes when I come across threads like this. I find it hard to believe that given the models currently included in the Helix, along with the built in flexibility of cabinets and amp configurations, that one could not achieve an acceptable tone without having that "one specific amp" in the lineup. I would have a bit more compassion for this stance if something like a Marshall Plexi, or Fender Twin, or Vox AC15 were missing from the lineup. But that's not what we're talking about here. At best we're talking about amps that are marginally unique and in the final analysis would anyone in your audience ever say, "well that guy sounded great, but he would have sounded so much better if he had only used a Mesa Mk IIc+". It makes me wonder whether the motivation of the poster was really about an actual operational limitation, or if they are just being a Prima Donna.

Nah...it's really not a "take what they give you" response. It is a reminder that good things take time. I'm pretty sure L6 is well aware of user's anticipating new amps, as they are some key bugs that really need to get addressed. They're also a substantial enough company to understand how important the quality of what they issue will be on the reputation of both the company and the product. You don't have to research very far to hear complaints about the quality variance in many of the amp models in both the Kemper and the AxeFX. This is exactly what happens when you elect to produce quantity over quality. I wouldn't mind some additional amps and effects, but I'm not willing to have them at the cost of them being less than stellar implementations just to be able to say they have them. L6 established a pretty high level of quality in all their implementations on the Helix. I very much want to see that maintained even if it's at the cost a less amps and a little more time. If you need any reminders of how bad things can be when you sacrifice quality for getting something shipped out the door, I'll point you to the releases of Windows Vista and Windows 8 as vivid reminders of the price one pays for such fiasco's.

I understand what the OP means. It's so frustrating having to wait for STUFF.....after all 5 months is almost a LIFETIME!!! We want it NOW!!! (insert sound of stomping feet and tantrum throwing)..... It almost killed me to wait a whole 9 months for a baby to be ready. Next time I'll use two women and have a baby in 4 1/2 months!!! Or maybe next time when I bake a cake I'll turn the oven up to 700 degrees so I can have it in half the time!!!!

I think a lot of it has to do with training one's ear to listen to the guitar as if it's a professional recording rather than a live performance. It's a bit of an adjustment but it can really have a prominent effect in a band situation so that everything has the feel of a professional mix and everything can be heard clearly without having to depend on volume. Worth the effort in my opinion, and a real differentiator for a band from the masses.

This is the main reason we ALWAYS take our instruments through the FOH. It's the great equalizer to make sure everything projects across the entire audience. However, I suspect you could also fix the problem to some degree by placement of your FRFR on a pole projecting straight out into the audience. Here's the reason: The powered FRFR speakers that many people are using are nothing more than FOH PA speakers. As such they're designed for the efficient projection of sound. This means they are designed to send the sound in a wide pattern horizontally, and a narrow pattern vertically when positioned in an upright position with the horn at the top. This limits the loss of sound energy being directed into the ceiling and floor and projects it better across the area of the audience. But this vertical position on a pole also comes with a downside. Because it's positioned at the back of the stage you're far more likely to get the guitar cross-feeding into the vocal mics. For that reason as well as I just don't like the looks of a speaker on a pole behind me, I'll fix it all by putting it on the floor in it's monitor position, and use the FOH to handle projecting to the audience. I'm happy, the singers are happy, the soundman is happy, and the audience is happy.

To each their own. But I would like to interject one observation I've come to with modeling that may be a useful consideration here. It seems to me after a number of years working with modeling that people that tend to get the best out of their modelers come at it from a different perspective than many. People that perceive a modeler as a replacement for a traditional amp setup will often chase after different physical setups, many of which work against the best benefits a modeler brings to the table. A modeler really has FAR more in common with a recording studio than it does a traditional plug and play amp, and if you approach it that way and understand that the goal is to provide studio quality sound in a live environment you'll probably get much more out of your modeler than if you chase after physical setups that would be more appropriate to a traditional amp. When you look at the facilities provided by the Helix for routing, signal path design, cabinet and mic'ing options, etc. it's clear to me that the more time you spend understanding recording techniques and how to best apply them, the more you'll get out of the unit. And you don't really need a lot of complexity on the speaker/amp side. Just a simple, clean, faithful reproduction of what comes out of the Helix.

This isn't really a surprise to many who have been using modelers and FRFR setups for some time. There's a fairly long thread on another forum discussing this exact thing and asking what cuts people are making on the low end and the high end. I personally have a standard low cut of around 125 hz and a high cut of around 6 khz. In many cases I'll tighten that up even more on the low end depending on the patch and the guitar I'm using, sometimes as high as 150 hz if I feel the lows are too mushy or boomy. The consensus seems to be that everyone generally always cuts the low end, and sometimes they cut the highs. On the Helix highs seem to be less of a problem due the better cabinet models than modelers like the HD500X. Although the GENERAL frequency range of the guitar is considered to be 80 to 1200 Hz, in practice it's a lot wider than that when your dealing with different types of electric guitars and effects and personal preferences like pick attack. For example, a Gretsch hollow body strung with 11's has a considerably deeper frequency response on the low end than most guitars, and a stratocaster strung with 9's has a considerably higher frequency response than most. Ultimately it comes down to your ears and what works best for the type of rig you use....and some trial and error. The main consideration for me is how I sit within the total frequency range of the band. This is one of the reasons I tend to tighten up more on the low end since I want to give the bass guitar and kick drum plenty of space, but I want my low strings to still be heard adequately.

I create my presets with the speaker facing me about 6 feet away. When I play I have the speaker placed in a monitor position behind me so that the rest of the band can hear it. It sounds different than when it's facing me, but I trust what I heard when I created the preset and I know what's being fed to the audience is exactly what I designed with my speaker facing me. I rarely, if ever, modify my presets once I get to the stage. I simply match up the master volume to match the rest of the band and that's it. But I'm depending on the FOH system to get the sound to the audience. In your situation I would probably opt to set my speaker on a speaker stand behind me so that it projects correctly into the audience as well as to everyone on stage. A lot depends on the room and the type of speaker you have, but I can't imagine needing more than one speaker on a stand. Powered speakers by designed are optimized to project sound over long distances unlike traditional guitar cabinets, so I can't imagine any reason you would be underpowered unless your speakers are underpowered. But my real question is, if there isn't a PA how will you handle the voices?

I'm not a huge fan of headphones in general because of the inherent limitations when compared to speakers, but I agree that if what your hear through your HS8s sound good, it should sound at least acceptable through your studio headset. Most manufacturers will "sweeten" certain frequency responses in headsets to make them sound better listening to recordings. The idea with studio headsets is they aren't supposed to do that. But in my experience they ALL tend to do something to the sound. No two headsets I've ever tried will make the source material sound exactly the same. Because of that I simply don't trust them and prefer to listen to my source with speakers. I have a pair of HS7's that I commonly listen to with my Helix, and I can't hear any difference between them and my live rig that uses a Yamaha DXR12 (other than projection issues if I stand too close to the DXR12). To be honest, the only time I use headsets is when I'm doing a capture for a recording. Playback and mixing is always through the speakers.

My experience with such a thing wasn't so good. Because we're always going through our PA (QSC KLA12 Line Array) in our shows, what sounded good to me through the tube amp sounded entirely different to the audience once it came through the DI to the board in the FOH. I could never get them to match up correctly unless I mic'd the cabinet and then the mic added it's own coloration to the sound (as well as cross feed noise from other instruments). So I just gave in and went with a standard FRFR setup and haven't had any of those types of problems again. Perfect match every time.

That's a double-edged sword my friend. There are about a thousand things I SHOULD be getting done, but because my home practice rig is strategically setup so that I have to pass by it no matter where I'm going in the house or when I come in, I always seem to put off the job I'm supposed to be doing while I jam for a bit on my Helix. Of course "a bit" can be anywhere from 30 minutes to a few hours.

I just personally think anything less than a really decent FRFR speaker is wasting a LOT of the potential in the Helix. I understand how some people can miss the big air movement from a big guitar cabinet, but sound-wise it just can't compete with the tonal palette an FRFR speaker provides. I was doing this before with my HD500X so I've long since adjusted. But once you adjust your ears to the sound it's amazing the studio-like quality you can achieve on-stage in a live environment. I don't think I could ever go back.

Now is probably not the time to mention it...but....I waited 4 days for mine. It was a return from a customer (one of four) who had I guess tried it out and decided against keeping it (the only way you can get to try them out). It was 4 days...but the wait was INTOLERABLE!!! :wacko: