DunedinDragon

If you want small and light you can also consider the QSC CP series which is a bit lighter but appears to my ear to have much the same sound and adequate DSP preset contouring options.

The simplest fix is to hook the output up to a mixing board or a DAW and manage the signal level output from the Helix. This is how I dial in all my presets using a small 6 channel mixer. This isn't just for gain staging but helps in leveling out the volume levels in all your presets/stomps which makes you very popular with the sound crew. Short of that the easiest way is to make sure that when you add a block you're not constantly increasing the output level of your signal chain. So you can do this by simply listening to it without the block turned on and with the block turned on to make sure you're maintaining the same general volume level throughout the preset.

You have to be careful when combining IRs and stock Cabs as you can sometimes run into phasing issues between them. This is true even with IRs from different vendors. Quite frankly I'm not sure there's any real advantage to combining different cabs as you're more likely to muddy up your sound than to get anything useful out of it.

That depends on how you have your floor unit configured in your global settings whether it be a mixture of stomps and snaps, all stomps, or all snaps.

Well, you're covering a lot of different things here, but I'll see if I can give you some perspective. First, as far as balancing your volume levels. This is most commonly due to the fact that the amp models are simulations of the actual behavior of the amp circuits. Therefore the levels will be different on each of them just like the real amps would be. You can do this by ear just comparing them to each other. I personally use a small mixing board so that I can compare the signal levels not just as an aid to matching volume levels, but also to better ensure the signal I send to the FOH remains consistent across all my various presets and snapshots. Another approach is when you add a block to the signal chain you check the signal chain with the block turned on and off to make sure you're not building up additional volume over the base volume level of the signal chain with no blocks added to it. In all cases once you get all the volumes matched up you use the Helix master volume knob to control your output. In my case I disengage the Helix volume knob from the XLR output which then sends a signal to the FOH the same as if the volume knob were turned to full max. Then I just use my Helix volume knob to control the 1/4" output going to my FRFR speaker. As far as the distortion you heard at your friend's house that would most likely be do to overdriving the gain level of the speaker. The generally accepted way of setting up a powered speaker is to set it's gain knob at unity or 12 o'clock. That means that the amplifiers in the speaker will operate at their normal maximum volume level without anything being added or subtracted from the incoming signal. If you get too much gain going into the FRFR powered speaker either from the signal being too high on the Helix or too much gain on the speaker itself the signal will clip on cheaper powered speakers and on more sophisticated powered speakers it will kick on an internal limiter to protect the speaker. I personally haven't used Rockit speakers but there are a number of people that dial in their tones on studio speakers. It's not optimal but it can work if you have enough volume to rise above most of the limitations of the Fletcher Munson effect. Generally that's going to be around 80 to 90 db or the equivalent of standing on the side of the highway with traffic passing, so not really all that high. What is a limitation with using studio monitors is that they are designed in such a way that the speakers need to be positioned optimally and you need to be positioned between them optimally in order to get the most accurate representation of the tone. Powered live speakers are much more flexible in that they have tonal consistency across a wide area if they're in an upright position (not floor monitor) but can sound harsh if you're positioned too closely to them due to your close proximity to the horn. I personally don't have to "fake out" anything with my setup at home. I have a small mixing board which I route my signal through so I can visually see my signal level and I'm attached to a Yamaha DXR12 in a vertical upright position at roughly chest height. With that setup I get a very accurate representation of my tone and have a consistent signal level going to the FOH so that it only has to be gain staged once on any of my presets.

I play about 100 shows per year, some touring but mostly local with my Helix floor over the last 4 years. The only failure I've had was in the first year when the joystick quit responding to pushes. I sent the unit in on Monday and got it back on Friday fixed. I wasn't sure about getting it back in time for my weekend shows so I bought a second Helix floor as a backup, but I ended up not needing to use it and used my original repaired unit. That original units is still my active live unit to this day. I have the backup and use it in my studio, but I've yet to need to use it for a live show, but it gets used pretty much daily in the studio.

I have two Helix floor units and never had a freeze on either of them, but they're not always connected to HXEdit either. In my case one is connected to a desktop PC and one to a Laptop both running Windows 10. Never had any issue with with either of them freezing. In fact the Helix that connects to my desktop computer is the only sound card for that computer and it's never failed in the past three years. But it could also be a latency issue coming from your USB connection depending on how it's connected to your PC or what background tasks might be running on the computer. A LOT more things can go wrong there than on the Helix.

That certainly hasn't been that much of a limitation to me either. I have a number of presets that incorporate differences like that. Save the old preset that works correctly to a new location, rename it and make any changes distinctive to the new preset. Just a few minutes work and you're done. I don't see the problem. Been doing it for years.

From Bill Leverty's website: "I was always a huge fan of layering guitars to get a huge guitar sound in the studio. For the first two FireHouse albums, I recorded six separate passes of guitar tracks. Our producer, David Prater, first had me record a pair of tracks with his Fender Bassman. Each one of these tracks was a separate "pass" or performance, so it sounded like there were two guitars playing the same thing. Next, I recorded another pair of tracks using my mid 70's 50 watt Marshall. After that, I recorded yet another pair of tracks with my Soldano SLO 100. A mix of those six tracks are what made that wall of sound on the debut FireHouse album. Our second album, HOLD YOUR FIRE, had the same amps layered, but we added another pair of tracks with David's Music Man amp, so that album had eight tracks of rhythm guitar tracks just for the dirty rhythm sound." Given the extensive multi-tracking of the guitar, you'll probably need to combine a couple of amps with different cabs/IRs at least to get close to the sound you want. I might suggest mixing two amps in parallel and start from there. Maybe start with the Marshall and the SLO and tweak them to get the right feel. Maybe even tweak the BIAS and BIAS X parameters on each amp differently which might give it that wall of sound blended feel. Interesting problem I'll admit. As far as the 90's sound, I think you'd have to be a bit more specific due to the variety of styles. You want something more Weezer, or Foo Fighters, or Green Day or Rage Against The Machine? They're kind of similar in a couple of ways with a more controlled level of gain, but using fairly tight compression for more sustain and grunt and very definitely dry (little to no reverb). Personally I'd probably start with the Cartographer as that has a lot of flexibility built into it for managing that kind of sound.

I just find it interesting that the folks that have the most experience with the Helix seem to havethe least amount of problems with upgrades or various anomalies. Kinda makes one go..."hmmmmmmm..." The only "disaster" I've seen appears to me to be people that aren't quite prepared for the more technical nature of a premium modeler and don't spend adequate time reading the documentation or version release notes...not to mention a very poor grasp of their own computer operating systems. I've been on 2.81 for at least a month and it's performed consistently with zero problems gigging generally at least twice a week, the same as with all previous releases over the last four years. If you're struggling with it I might suggest the problem might not lie in the equipment.

Now THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^ makes a lot of sense. I often end up forgetting that a fair number of people running their own mixing boards don't even understand the most fundamental aspects of gain staging the channel inputs, which is Mixing 101. It never even occurred to me because that's such a basic aspect of dialing in a mixing board I forget the chaos that can create if you don't do it. This is a VERY likely candidate for something like what's happening to the OP.

If you're really serious about this I'd encourage you to look into the vast area of version control systems already out there. They seem to do most if not all and more of the same things you want this to do.

Are you absolutely sure you didn't accidently hit the mode button and it's waiting for further input on which mode?

Quite honestly I seriously doubt that. Typically there's no real reason to make make a lot of EQ adjustments on a soundboard for aux or monitor outputs. At least not any that would make the kind of difference that would account for the difference between a monitor and an in ear. The first suspect would the the bandwidth of the transmission going to the beltpack, then the in ears themselves. But the in ears should be able to be easily checked by simply plugging them directly into any recorded music source to see how they respond.

I guess I'm not sure I'm getting the drift here. In the last 4 years I've never had to touch my global EQ. I leave that to the sound crew if something needs to be adapted for the acoustics of the room. That's because whatever acoustic differences are affecting me, they're equally affecting every other channel on the mixing board so that type of global adjustments should be done solely on the master FOH outputs for the room. What am I missing here? In fact, in most cases nowadays with digital mixers, they have a way to save their presets for each band in a given room.

I rarely use stock cabs myself, but when I do I generally use the default cab for that amp as a starting point, but I always use a dual cab so I can mix dual microphones and distances. That may vary however depending on which guitar I'm using and the style of the song. But I generally start with the default. That's why it's just so much simpler for me to use an IR because there's a LOT less tweaking of values to get the sound I want.

I don't really use either of those amp models that much, but I have used them in the past. My experience was much the same with the Peavey, but it was easily resolved with using a nice mic combination of a 409 dynamic and 121 ribbon mic as well as some tweaking of the sag and bias to give it a more natural sound. I also kind of remember cutting down the drive parameter quite a bit compared to what it would normally be on the real amp in order to get better articulation into the sound. I didn't use if for long as some of the newer models tended to be MUCH better and easier to dial in. I think most people who were fans of the Peavey have tended to adopt the Badonk as a better replacement.

Oddly enough, after 3 1/2 years and over 200 presets It hasn't been much of a drawback to me. In fact, I can't even remember a situation in which I thought I could use such a thing. However, it does you no good to post it here. Post it to Ideascale and the users will vote on it. That's the only place Line6 will look for things to incorporate into future releases.

The question is, how much would you be willing to pay for it? By the time you get the full Helix processing capabilities and a few more footswitches you're probably within a couple of hundred dollars of a LT. And certainly adding footswitches will automatically make it a bigger footprint.

I think you're looking in the wrong place. It's not saying blocked because of your USB connection, it's probably saying blocked because of file access rights on your computer or maybe you're trying to import the wrong file type such as a ZIP file.

I've hesitated to get involved in this conversation because in reading the original post it's clear to me that the OP is interested in one unique sound which he's been able to cobble together with a set of gear and wants to replicate on a Helix. My first reaction to such a thing is, "what's the point?". Don't get me wrong. I have absolutely no doubt given a recording from the OP's setup any number of people familiar with the Helix would be able to replicate it. If I can replicate the totally unique and original sounds of people like Joe Walsh or Brian May or Chet Atkins or Mark Knopfler, I doubt I'll get stumped by something the OP came up with. But that's really not the point here. The point here is, why would I invest in a Helix rig if all I was going to do was come up with one single sound? That seems like an awfully expensive way to do one very specialized thing. Of course it bears mentioning that the unique sound the OP came up with won't be the same once it gets recorded or played in a live environment. It will only be the same when he's standing in the same room with his rig, and of course that sound will vary considerably depending on where he's standing relative to his output device. If you want to hear fizz, place your ears directly over the cap of your speakers, you'll hear plenty of it. Once it's recorded, or presented to an audience in a live environment it will be much more like the Helix version because that's what the Helix does. And to set matters straight, I don't think there's any particularly great learning curve associated with the Helix. In fact I think the presentation of the options is pretty easy to understand compared to most other modelers. The learning curve for a lot of people has to do more with how to capture and present your sound either on a recording or in a live environment..unless, of course, you want to make a career out of playing in your bedroom. For that you need to understand a LOT more fundamentals such as the type of pickups and style of guitar (hollow body, semi hollow, solid body, acoustic) being used and their effect on your input into the signal chain, the differences in the designed behaviors of different amplifiers, the the differences in different types of speakers, mics, and mic placements and mixes necessary to capture and present the sound, as well as how to gain stage that signal chain appropriately so that the amp and effect models act and respond predictably. None of these things are unique to the Helix and have been a part of music production for about 5 or 6 decades. It's just that many people have chosen to be oblivious to it.

I'm not sure what the point would be of an output level control. You already control your output level with the master volume. If you disconnect the XLR from the master volume it sends the signal at full volume (ideally to a mixing board). The mixing board then controls the level of the incoming signal to match it with all the other signals coming in on other channels. It's not your responsibility to gain stage the mixing board signal. That's what the mixing board does best. The idea of being able to control one output such as the 1/4" outs via the master volume separate from the output to the mixer is simply to allow you to have control over your on stage level of volume without affecting the signal volume going to the mixer.

I think you'll have to be more explicit about "the update keeps failing". What exactly happens?

I understand. I try to be as patient as possible as I know there are many people that aren't good with technology out there which limits their ability to not only troubleshoot their problems, but also understand and follow technical directions. But I have to admit it's a real test of my patience. It's interesting to me that it used to be the case that younger people whined about trying to teach their older parents or grandparents how to use modern technology, and now that seems to have been flipped. I'm turning 67 in another month and now I seem to constantly babysit MUCH younger people than myself in how to understand and use their technical gear. Maybe it's just that some people really don't have the patience, desire or concentration to do much more than plug things together and if it doesn't work correctly for them to blame everyone but themselves.

If you followed he same process you followed in the past rather than the process outlined in the release notes, I don't doubt you have problems. This is a core re-write of the Helix firmware and carries with it some things you have to be clear on doing. I don't know what process you went through, but the first step is to install HX Edit for the version of firmware you're loading. If you installed HXEdit for 2.81 and then decided to install FW 2.71 without going through the entire process of installing HXEdit for 2.71 you have the wrong Helix driver installed on your PC as well as the wrong Line 6 Updater. You have to go through the entire process each time because running the installation of the correct version of HXEdit installs the correct drivers and version of the Line 6 Updater. That's just a guess of course because you weren't very thorough in giving any info on what happened in the process of installing 2.81 and 2.71, so it could be any number of things.