DunedinDragon

I know for a fact that the Helix device driver for HXEdit on the PC is different between 2.8 and 2.7. If you run a Helix with 2.8 and try to connect with HXEdit 2.7 it won't even see the Helix because 2.8 can't successfully run the device driver for 2.7. That very fact tells me you're tempting fate at the device driver level. Who knows what might happen then?

You do understand the protocol being used for communications is a high speed, highly dense two-way communication protocol. This is why when you change a value in HXEdit it gets reflected immediately in the Helix, and if you change the Helix value it gets reflected immediately in HXEdit. Not to mention the rapid enumeration and reflection of values as you move dials and such, or limitation on the allowable range of values for each given control dictated from the Helix to HXEdit. Standard MIDI would never be able to accommodate such things because it wasn't designed for such things. It was designed for simple control commands delivered sequentially. Not exactly a great choice for tightly bound, two-way applications and hardware integration in the 21st century.

I have a pair of HS7 studio speakers and from my experience they can be very sensitive in terms of placement due to their bass reflex ports being in the rear. It sounds to me like you are getting a sympathetic frequency getting generated somewhere. Try moving the speakers further away from any walls and see if that helps. My speakers are about 1 foot from the back and side walls and I get a very even response. You could also try some acoustic dampener pads under the speakers to see if that helps also.

Normally I use a fairly aggressive Deluxe Comp toward the front of the signal chain when I want to emphasize pinch harmonics.

Short of exporting the 125 presets individually from 2.71 then importing them one by one into the 2.81 environment, I'm not sure there's any way to identify which ones are problematic. By the way, importing 2.71 presets into 2.81 is not a problem. I've done that quite a bit testing my 2.18 Helix configuration.

Sorry for the confusion. I have two Helix floor units. I upgraded one from my desktop computer to use for testing, the other one which I use for live performances wasn't upgraded and is attached to my laptop using 2.7. I decided to take my 2.8 upgraded Helix floor over to my laptop to do some testing with my live presets. That's when I discovered the incompatibility with the older driver.

My guess is this is the same situation i ran into when I tried to connect HX Edit 2.70 to a 2.80 updated Helix unit. When I investigated the Helix USB device driver in the Windows device manager it had an error which stated it was unable to run. Switched the Helix unit back to the previous one with 2.70 and HXEdit and the device driver worked fine.

As a gigging musician working at least once if not twice a week, I see no need to rush into any update Helix or otherwise with any of my gear. If everything is working fine and there's no specific feature that would make a huge difference in my performance it can wait as far as I'm concerned. For example, I have a QSC TM30 mixer. An upgrade came out about 2 months ago with the most important feature being that it allows you to combine multiple faders under a single fader, and another feature that would allow me to use it as a control surface for my recording studio. In my mind those are feature I could see some great uses for, but I still haven't upgraded. What you have to remember when you're a gigging musician it's not just the stability of the update, but the process of incorporating the features into your performances. I have no doubt the upgrade would go flawlessly, but I also need to have the off time during the week to play around with that feature to discover the best way to use it for my purposes. That's a lot of planning and some hours investigating, which I don't really have right now with my other responsibilities. The same thing applies to the Helix. Although I have some interest in a few of the models and effects, there's nothing that jumps out at me other than getting aligned with the Helix core architecture which I see as a significant benefit over the long term. Those few models and effects might be beneficial in some of the music I play, but again that requires experimentation with them, so that's more hours during the week I don't have. I have two Helix floor units, one for the studio and one for live performances. I had a strategy that I might upgrade one and test it out and possibly use it for in a performance before upgrading the other unit to make sure it was rock solid. I upgraded the unit from 2.70 (notice I didn't see any benefit in upgrading to 2.71 because the fixes there didn't affect me), at the beginning of the week. Once I got a feel for it and verified it seemed to be stable, I went to swap it out with my other unit and ran into the obvious reality that an HXEdit 2.70 won't work with a unit using FW 2.81 because the Helix device driver is incompatible and fails to start. Because I store my presets on the hard drive and import them into setlists as needed, I'll need to rethink my planning of how to do that swap. At that point it's already mid-week and I can't spend any more time on it as I needed to get things ready for this week's performances. So in essence I'll still be doing live performances on 2.71 until I decide how to prepare my live rig from my studio setup. Not a big problem, but one I need to think through and plan so I can get it done quickly with no hitches. The reason I point this all out is that life using any kind of gear operationally comes with a much broader range of considerations and requires a lot more planning than just willy-dilly jumping into an upgrade. I'll get there, but it takes some thought, consideration, and planning. That's why I've never had any problems with my upgrades...it's called "planning", and comes as a result of 3 decades of launching new software into Fortune 500 accounts with thousands of end users conducting business critical operations and where failure is not an option. But it's good discipline for anyone that wants to keep things stable.

This is pretty much the essence of how I've done it over the last 3 years and it's never failed to provide a consistent level every time. The difference is I don't try to match the gain knob's unity setting as that is expected to vary with every channel input. I do target a consistent signal level between patches and snapshots as far as the meters are concerned, which can then be tailored to the mixer's unity level via the gain knob on the mixer the same as as is done on all other channel inputs. I also do a comparative volume check by ear after setting my basic signal level to account for perceived loudness levels. At sound check time it's just a matter of playing through any one of my presets so the signal level can be adjusted via the gain knob to whatever the sound crew wants (typically unity)

The obvious way provided by the Helix for incorporating tracks without processing them in the signal chain is the through the USB interface. As rd2rk mentioned, there is evidently a camera kit for the iPhone to connect to the USB port. Likewise there are other cabling options for tablets that would provide the same interface.

There are people that certainly have problems, but the vast majority of us that didn't. The thing is, the only ones you hear from typically are he ones that had problems. If you are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN you followed every step of the directions in order, then you probably need to look at your PC and see if there's some funny stuff going on there. Particularly with your USB port, your Internet connection, and your user security rights. I have two Helix floor units, one on a PC and one on a laptop, both running Windows 10, and both in perfect running order. No problems on either of them. I upgraded from 2.71 to 2.81 in about 30 minutes, most of which was cross-checking against the instructions to make sure I knew what to expect and followed the correct procedures.

I think you're trying to compare two different types of processors. Generic processors like those in a PC use multiple core designs. Specialized high speed or real time processors like the SHARC chips do high speed mathematical calculations for use in dedicated single purpose machines where maximum throughput is essential, so they would actually be at a disadvantage to have multi-core features which are designed to benefit multi-threaded and/or multi-process environments. The dual DSP chips on separate dedicated paths help facilitate rapid throughput on the different paths so this allows more blocks to be in a signal chain without causing noticeable latency. Don't be confused by Line 6's reference to Helix Core which is really just a software architecture that allows for a simplified and compatible code base across the entire Helix line.

I can see both sides to this argument, but I don't think they're mutually exclusive at all. I personally tend to favor the use of a meter simply as a tool to establish a stable starting point, not a replacement for adjusting by ear. The value is being able to see what the mixing board is going to see when they gain stage your signal, and some assurance that gain staging will be stable across all of your presets and snapshots. Beyond that you still have to do some comparative work by ear so that your presets will work in context with an actual band. Generally, in my experience, that type of adjustments won't be enough to throw off your signal enough to cause problems at the board, but it will help to level out the perceivable differences between vastly different tones such as clean, crunchy or lead and lend itself to a better stage mix. This becomes very important for those that run their own PA's (no soundman) as it helps to stabilize the FOH fader as well as the stage monitor fader (if used for your guitar signal) on your channel throughout the performance. For example, the perceived loudness of a lead doesn't necessarily need a boost on the faders if the overall tone and character of the lead changes producing a jump in the perceived loudness.

Well, one thing I did discover (which is not a bug by the way) is that the Helix PC device driver for 2.8 and 2.81 which is downloaded/installed as part of the HX Edit 2.80 install, is functionally different from the Helix device driver in 2.7 and 2.71. This may have been pointed out in one of the documents and I just missed it. But what it means is that a Helix loaded with 2.8 or 2.81 will not connect to the PC for sound or for HX Edit unless you've done the install of HX Edit 2.8 and it's driver. In fact according to the Control Panel, the older Helix device driver will not start if you plug in a Helix loaded with 2.8 or 2.81. I discovered this when I took my Helix Floor unit from my studio setup which I had upgraded to 2.81 and plugged it into my laptop which is normally connected to my Helix floor unit I use for live performances and is still on 2.70. This may account for a number of problems people are having with HX Edit working with 2.81. In spite of what they say, they may not have run the HX Edit install for 2.8 so they don't have the correct driver.

I don't know where you got the idea that the EV ZLX-12P is mainly for acoustic gigs. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's a general purpose FRFR powered speaker, and a quite good one at that.

Assuming you made a backup of your Helix prior to doing the upgrade, just run HX Edit and select Restore Backup from the File menu. There you can specifically select to restore only Globals. If you didn't do the backup....well, I'd have to say I'm impressed you were able to ignore the 3,000 warnings in the instructions and in the update. Either way, you'll have to figure out what's messed up if it is in the globals. My money is on the USB or USB cable. If HX Edit is unable to detect your Helix, that's likely the problem and you probably need to change to a different USB port on your computer. If you're on Windows the last pace to look is in you sound configuration to see if Windows has the Helix selected as it's sound device. None of the above is related to your update other than ignoring the instructions that the globals would be re-set by the upgrade so you should restore them from your backup.

Nice job!!! Sometimes it's the simple things escapes us. Great idea!!!!

I just finished my update to 2.81 on one of my Helix units and everything went perfectly as has every update I've done over the last few years. The only difference I encountered was a rebuilding of my presets after I had loaded some exported presets built on 2.70 and power cycled my Helix...but that's somewhat to be expected. I hasn't done it since and don't expect it to until I repeat that sequence of events. But then again I'm one of those people that makes sure my internet connectivity is solid, my USB ports are rock solid, and my computer as a whole is very healthy and maintained that way. Amazing what a difference that sort of thing can make.....

That's one of the main problems I think people don't really understand. Even though the Helix supports two operating systems (Windows and Mac), there are literally millions of possible permutations of how those operating systems can be configured both in terms of hardware and software. That makes it impossible to test every variation of setup. Both of my computers are somewhat specialized in that one is reserved for studio work and one is reserved for video editing. Those aren't standard pieces of software used by everyone, but both of them tend to never have a problem with updates, primarily because my internet connection is absolutely bulletproof as is my usage and configuration of USB ports as is the way my security rights are administered and my networking between the computers. Because those fundamental things are rock solid it dramatically reduces the possibility of unexpected problems along the way. Your updates will only go as well as the health of your computer will allow. If you download weird little shareware programs or use advanced hardware configurations for gaming you should probably expect trouble. One of my computers is a gaming laptop because it's needed for video editing, but I NEVER mess with the clock rates or fiddle with video refresh rates at the OS level. That keeps me out of trouble for things like the Helix which I absolutely depend upon.

Well I finally decided this afternoon to take the leap and upgrade from FW 2.70 to 2.81 on Windows 10. I followed each step of the directions so I felt fully prepared for what i was going to see in the upgrade process and there were absolutely no surprises and it all took about 30 minutes..and I was going slowly and carefully to make sure I didn't make any missteps. Loaded my presets from my backup and everything seemed to work as expected. No problems with any snapshots, no problems in converting any presets, and even presets with the LA Compressor at the end of the signal chain worked as expected. Even importing 2.70 presets worked smoothly with no delay in switching so I didn't really need to do a reset. Granted this was on my studio Helix Floor, not my live unit so I still have a bit of testing to do before I update my live unit, but so far so good. I only mention this to make sure everyone's aware that just because there are some people having problems, that doesn't mean the update is unstable or unusable. I still have to check out the DAW and several other things, but I'm not expecting any problems from what I've seen so far. We hear a lot from the folks that seem to have problems, but never from people that everything went well...so I'm filling in the gaps.....

In my case I have my XLR output disengaged from the Helix master volume knob, so my output is always sent to the board as if the volume knob were at full volume as recommended by Line 6. I individually set the output levels of each of my patches using the signal meter on a mixing board and adjusting the channel volume on the amp blocks in my preset to produce around -8db and further tune them by ear to adjust for perceived loudness. This allows me to adjust my stage volume separately using the Helix volume knob going through a 1/4" output to my stage monitor and it will remain consistent across all presets. I use that same setup and flexibility when dialing in my presets at home. This ends up giving me both consistent levels on stage adjusted by the volume knob and consistent levels at the board that can be gain staged appropriately for my channel. This technique has worked flawlessly over the last 3 years on well over 200 presets I've built for my performances.

By the way, one trick I use for having multiple presets that share the same snapshots and settings. When you export a preset to disk you typically save it under a given name, in my case the name of the song it applies to. What you can do is add identifiers to the file name on disk. When it's recalled it will still only have the original name of the preset. So I have multiple presets of the same song saved on disk, each one geared to the guitar I'll be using on it for example. So on disk I might have "My Song - Gretsch:" and "My Song - Tele". Both of these will show up as "My Song" once it's imported, but will be different variations of the same preset.

My Helix bag contains the things that apply to the Helix and it's connectivity to the world with a few exceptions. My guitar cases tend to have the things related to the guitar I use such as strings, capo's (on acoustic and banjo), extra picks, and 1/4" instrument cables. The Helix bag contains a fairly long 1/4" cable for connecting from the Helix to the my on stage monitor, a long XLR cable for connecting to the board, a phantom power blocker, a DI box and a small flashlight. I carry a separate briefcase style kit that contains all my power cords, a power strip and wireless parts for the guitar.

It sounds to me like you want to apply a snapshot structure across multiple presets, and if so that's not something that falls into the domain of what the Helix does as the Helix is only aware of the one preset it has in memory at a time. To apply some function across presets would require an external operation similar to that used in the Line 6 Updater for cycling through the presets in your Helix or your Helix setlist to apply those changes. Even then I have a hard time imagining how you would designate how a snapshot gets applied given that a snapshot is constructed around the blocks in a single preset. If an amp block is different in another preset, the snapshot wouldn't know that's the one to be used or what to do with it. This is why you can't just copy a snapshot to another preset or save a snapshot. Essentially it only exists within the context of the preset it was created in. It's not a separate entity.

That's because you're listening through headsets which are controlled via the headphone volume knob.