DunedinDragon

As far as EQ it tends to vary and is somewhat subjective, but there are some common points to consider. Obviously high and low cuts and you'll find the high and low cuts in the Parametric EQ to have much steeper slopes than the ones in the cabinets so they're a bit more accurate for getting rid of piercing highs but still retaining some of the good highs. Strats and Teles can sometimes benefit from slight cuts in the 2000Hz range to give them more beef, and 500Hz is a good place for cuts to reduce muddiness. Other than that it's all by ear and varies guitar to guitar, amp to amp, cab to cab and mic to mic....so just use your ears. Because I swap guitars quite a bit in performances I've just found it easier to kill the sound using the volume pedal when I swap guitars so I don't have to worry about cable noise. It's either full on or full off as I don't use it at all to control volume. Actually I feel you'll benefit greatly from this new group and develop an entirely different set of guitar skills and techniques which will add to your value. Personally I think the value of a guitar player is based on how flexible and adaptable they are, not on how much they've mastered one specific style. At one point many, many moons ago I was firmly committed to being a Rock God. Once I branched out a bit I found a LOT more opportunities in different bands and in studio work. So good luck.

Brue58ski is correct in that many of us that have been doing our own presets for a while tend to approach them more like you would in a studio than you would for a live performance even though they are going to be used live. This has the benefit of presenting a more polished, professional studio version of the sound live which is what people are used to listening to on recorded music. This is why you see some of the extra elements you see in a lot of presets. I've always preferred to build my own presets, and the blocks I tend to use are determined more by the genre or feel of the song. A rock feel will be different from a jazz feel or country feel. So this not only determines the amps, cabinet, and other blocks I use but also determines which guitar I will use on it, and that's where the tone starts. You can try to compensate for different guitar sounds, but unless your using a Variax or an actual guitar you're never really going to capture that sound regardless of the EQ you apply. For example a Brad Paisley sound and a Keith Richards sound really depends on a Telecaster sound. Likewise an old school jazz song or finger picked song like James Taylor or Chet Atkins really requires the resonance of a hollow body guitar, so I would start with my Gretsch Silver Falcon. Just like the genre or feel of the song determines the guitar, it also pretty much determines which amp (and for the most part) what cabinet I'll use. Sticking with my example above, for Keith Richards I'd probably turn to a Vox or a HiWatt whereas Brad Paisley I'd start with a Dr Z. For Jazz I'd start with the Jazz Rivet and classic style rock probably some version of Marshall or variation. For cabinets I'll typically use an IR, not because it's any better than a stock cab, it's just more convenient. I have a collection of IRs that use a mixture of mic's so I can simply drop them in rather than have to tweak anything. Most often after the cab I'll drop in a Parametric EQ block to clean up any frequency problems that need to be accentuated or reduced. The first thing in all of my patches will be a volume pedal. I generally prefer to place all my modulation and distortion effects just before the amp. In some cases that require some "squishing" of the main sound such as with Rolling Stones, Who, early Doobie Bros, or funk/motown sounds I'll use a Red Squeeze or Deluxe Compressor right after my volume pedal. Toward the end of the chain after the parametric EQ is where I put my harmonic effects such as a Dual Harmony. If I'm not using a compressor up front, I generally place a LA Studio compressor at the very end of the chain to add the final polish to the sound. Just prior to that is where I put my delay and reverbs. If I'm going to have both delay and reverb mixed I'll split the chain and mix them just before the final compressor. That's more or less a general outline of how I construct my patches, but there's still a lot of variation depending on the style and genre of the patch. Since I build a patch per song, there's a pretty wide variety of different components and amp/cab/mics I'll use as well as effects.

I think we're saying something of the same thing here. I remember years ago when I was first trying to work as a studio musician having to battle and clean up a lot of my technique once I got into a studio and everything was getting captured on my track. Once my sound was completely isolated and captured verbatim, it was a LOT noisier than I was ever used to on stage. Some of that may have been reflected in the PA's of the time, but the PA's then, as they are now, were dealing with a much higher noise floor on stage than in a studio. What we have now witj an FRFR type setup is MUCH more similar to playing in an isolation booth in a studio than it is any kind of live stage performance. In my case I just accepted it in the same way as I did back then realizing I needed to adjust some of my technique to minimize it. I could be wrong in that regard in that there may be some sort of digital filter that could minimize it, but it's just the way I chose to adapt to it. Acoustic however seems to be another animal altogether. I've seen a number of great acoustic performances on YouTube in which there's a lot of string noise, some of which probably could be mediated by mic and mic placement....and probably the same could be done on the Helix. I've included an example below that I shared with a friend and all he could say was the string noise was a distraction for him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA7vUi3ZZ8w

I can't imagine how the sequence of processing comes into play any more than it does on any hardware effect. The signal enters the block from the signal chain and the same electronic circuit transformations take place to that signal but done mathematically before it gets passed back to the signal chain. The only thing the settings affect are the variables in the math which have been determined ahead of time by the configuration. The same as it would be were you to turn the adjustment knob on any hardware effect. If you're not concerned about the sequence of processing in a hardware circuit, you shouldn't need to be concerned with it here. Especially since we're talking about EQ which is the simplest of all effects processing-wise.

I have to agree that I don't experience this any more than I have with any amps I've owned. However I do tend to experience this problem more with acoustic than with any of my electric guitars, and I can mitigate it to a large degree by managing compression a bit better. But I also have to admit that I've had quite a few technique issues I've had to come to terms with on the Helix over the last couple of years where the lower noise floor and better articulation and clarity of my setup brings some of these noise artifacts into play more than they were through traditional amps. I'm not so sure if it's the Helix as much as it is the output method of using better and more efficient speakers. Either way it's forced me to clean up some sloppiness which I view as a good thing.

I think one of the trickier aspects of things like this is that the coupling of HXEdit and the Helix is such that you have to account for the fact that at any time the user may interact with the Helix, which then has to be reflected in the HXEdit program. So this interrupt driven behavior becomes a problem with any long duration processing in HXEdit. Of course you can define ways of overcoming that behavior such as blanking out the Helix, but I personally think if you're going to go that far you may as well go all the way and define an offline and online modes of operation that would provide for a wider variety of librarian capabilities in offline mode that simply interacts with storage whether that be presets, setlists or even IR management. But that's a MUCH larger effort but one that could be more broadly useful.

Oddly enough when I switch to 2.50 all of my patches are silent. In 2.30 they sound great though.... ;)

Quite honestly it doesn't matter as long as all of your presets and snaps have the same relative volume levels with the master volume set to a consistent setting. As long as the volume is set consistently within the patch, your signal from the XLR will be consistent and the overall volume level in the mix will be determined at the sound board when they gain stage it against all other channels, and that's exactly how you want it. What's important to the sound man is that he can count on a consistent signal level so that when he sets the preamp gain he can be assured you won't be deviating much from it. I use pretty much the same setup as you do and when my channel is gain staged at the board it pretty much falls in line with the other signals coming into the board via microphones and other DI's

Part of the problem here is that, other than computer storage and access functions, the HX Edit app is just a control surface that accesses the native functionality in the Helix. Therefore, just as the Helix only has one patch loaded at any given time, that's the way the HX Edit works. So in essence it really isn't a full fledged application on it's own. There's been talk that may change in the future, but I haven't heard of any specific plans to do so. It is possible for anyone with a minimal amount of programming expertise to develop offline functionality that could do things similar to what the OP is talking about since the storage structures for presets and setlists are saved in a common human readable standard format on disk. But no one to my knowledge has stepped up to develop anything.

To be honest, I really don't think about it much. I rarely use the HX Edit app other than to backup presets or the system and load new firmware releases. I've always edited directly from the Helix since I certainly don't want to have to haul around a laptop at a gig if I need to make some adjustments. I suspect it might be a hard sell to convince Line 6 to change the icon layout on the Helix screen as that would make it inconsistent with the rest of the Line 6 line of products, I have to say it's really convenient and quick when the rhythm guitar player needs me to make some adjustments on his Spider V amp and it presents a consistent interface with my Helix.

The Helix doesn't show individual custom icons for different types of distortions or compressors or amps because it's assumed we all know how to read. A distortion block or compressor block shows up as the same type of icon in a specific color in the signal chain as a quick identifier for what that block does in the signal chain, even though you might have to select that icon and READ what type of element is used in that block. Those icons are consistent across ALL of Line 6's product line. I didn't buy my Helix to be entertained by cutsey icons and pictures, I bought it to dial in signal chains quickly and easily, and it does an exceptional job at doing that....even though it requires that I be able to read....

Gee...and just to think I'm able to get all of those positive attributes on my rhythm and lead sounds being heard clearly without all the mess and permutations of separating them onto different channels and only having to have my FOH channel gain staged one time across any of my presets!!!! I must have a very special version of the Helix indeed!!!! :o

I stand by my previous comments and I'm blown away by all the things you guys have been able to accomplish with the Helix over the last 12 months. I tip my hat to you guys.

Having been a software developer, as well as project manager, and finally a program manager in the field of commercial software I don't necessarily disagree with most of what you're saying. However there are a few significant differences to take into account in what's been happening here and versioned releases of a singular project, or even a singular product. The Helix has been transitioning over the last year from a discreet product to a family of cohesive, integrated products, and I can certainly appreciate the difficulties in doing that as that's the world I came from. In the last year we've seen the introduction of Helix Native, Helix LT, and now Helix FX. All working within a consolidated framework and architecture. We've had two versions of the core firmware delivered in 2017, the latest being in November...roughly 2 1/2 months ago. In the 2.30 release we were also made aware that a considerable amount of re-architecting of the core software had been accomplished to enable easier and better cohesiveness between the products in future updates. And now 2 months after the completion of that effort we see some of the significant results of that effort which is a Helix unit that can co-exist and be compatible with the other platforms even with key functionality removed, as well as the importation of quite a large array of legacy capabilities. I'm not making excuses for Line 6, but I have to admit I subscribe to the sentiments that HonestOpinion verbalized above about this seeming "sense of entitlement" with no appreciation for the achievement Line 6 has accomplished in a mere short 12 month period. In my 40 plus years of developing commercial products I've never seen such a comprehensive expansion of a platform in such a short period of time. Given the variety of environments and uses this product is exposed to both in firmware, Windows, and Apple not to mention integration with the wide array of input and output devices, I'm quite astonished that the integration testing alone didn't take a year. What is most astonishing above all is that all of this work was done for FREE to existing users and even at a discount on new platforms....and still people whine. I love my Helix, I'm just not sure I have a lot of respect for much of the Helix user base quite honestly.

Oh I worked on quite a variety of old school stuff through the years, PASCAL, FORTH, ALGOL, LISP, SQL, Smalltalk, Motorola 68000 assembly, ..... I'm lucky I still know how to speak english!!!

There must be something genetic in that combination, and it's an interesting journey when you examine it across a lifetime: Music: First amp - Magnatone MP5 ----> Helix Motorcycles: First "real" motorcycle - 1951 Harley Davidson Panhead ----> Victory Highball, Honda CBR1000RR Technology: Writing COBOL and FORTRAN on IBM 370 mainframes ----> writing C++ network transaction objects for Microsoft platforms

I think what's happening here is a difference in understanding about the very nature of modeling. First, anything Glenn can do, you can do. He's starts with the same amp model, but everything changes after that. He may be selecting certain IR combinations that give it more of an in-the-room feel to produce the sound you expect to hear. But that still leaves another question of, what are you hearing it through??? Because what sounds correct to your ears will not necessarily sound the same to someone else using a different output device (FRFR powered speaker, FRFR cabinet, FRFR studio speaker, traditional cab, etc....). Change your output device and you may not be quite so happy even with Glenn's preset and find it needs a bit of tweaking. I get a very realistic and satisfying Marshall sound using the Plexi Bright model with a Celestion Redback IR using a mix of a R121 and MD421 mics with a Les Paul that has Burstbucker Pro II pickups and output through a Yamaha DXR12 speaker applying a high cut of around 9000Hz with the parametric equalizer post cabinet. But change any one of those elements and the end sound will not be the same. In the modeling world you're ALWAYS dealing with a signal chain, unlike the plug in and play real world. So it always comes down to this. It's not the precision of the amp model, it's the ability of the person doing the modeling in crafting the signal chain given the environment he's using it in. This isn't just a Helix thing, it's a modeling thing. In order to be successful in getting the sound you want with your particular setup you have to approach this in the same way it would be approached in a studio environment rather than in a live room, because that is what you're configuring.

I would tend to agree the Boss unit isn't really in the same category as the Helix, and certainly isn't as flexible. But being a techno geek I can't help but be impressed with the Axe-FX III. It's really quite the accomplishment, but again appeals more to a different market than the Helix. It appears to me the Helix seems to be in the meat and potatoes part of the market where most dedicated musicians tend to live. I'm not sure a lot of people using the Helix are hitting any kind of technical ceiling at this point that would call for the type of upgrade represented by the Axe. But that doesn't mean I can't help but drool over the possibilities....but drool I must as I don't think I could possibly find the justification for investing that type of money. And that's what I mean by "meat and potatoes" because I'm pretty sure most of the Helix marketplace would feel the same way about that sort of investment. Heck, we had a hard time justifying the Helix at first!!!!

Yep...nothing earth-shattering here...

I think the confusion here is you seem to be referring to the new product as HX, but the product is actually HXFX and it's not some sort of variation of a full Helix unit. It's specifically the effects portion of the Helix that's been split off into a specialized multi-effects unit. It doesn't contain all the amp and cabinet models of the Helix nor does it have all the routing and signal path options. Therefore it doesn't appear to be compatible with Helix patches. HXFX has it's own way of being configured that appears to have nothing to do with how it's done in Helix at least at this point.

Unfortunately you can't really use the Orange to simulate the cabs/IRs and mic's from the Helix, because you already have a cab in the Orange. In effect you would be layering a cabinet/mic combination from the Helix on top of the Orange cabinet which wouldn't be an accurate representation. However, all is not lost. It's entirely possible to send one signal to the Orange that doesn't have the cab/mic emulation through the 1/4" out, and a separate signal to the FOH that does have the cab/mic emulation via the XLR. The technique for doing this has nothing to do with global settings, but is handled in the way the signal chain is constructed in each patch. There are several people doing this that can outline their techniques better than I can because I don't do this as I use a FRFR speaker on stage, but the concept is pretty simple. You have a main signal path that contains all your regular blocks for your patch including cabs and specifically uses the XLR out in that signal path's output block and into a DI or a phantom power blocker, then on to the mixing board. The main signal path branches off to a secondary signal path prior to the cabinet block and goes specifically out to the 1/4" output via the output block for that signal path and into the Orange effects return.

I do play a LOT of genres, so that's how I got hooked on the Celestion IRs. Each of their speaker designs has fairly specific traits that work best for certain types of genre's. That makes it a it easier to select the one's most likely to work best for you.

I doubt it would do much beyond the TS212 than add just a bit more mid and low beef to the sound due to the more robust magnet on the speaker. My guess is this allowed them to add more headroom before the limiter clicked in which was kind of a notorious problem with really loud bands. But honestly, none of these speakers will do their best job once you dial them much up above 12 o'clock, so it should be useful in that range for sure for generating higher SPL at that point than the previous design.

My guess is you'll probably see an upgraded Alto TS212 at NAMM or shortly thereafter. The powered speaker market seems to be generating a LOT of hot competition these days. Probably competing for the expansion of the market with demand for these speakers in the modeling area.

I have over 60 different patches and I've never used anything other than Auto. I figure at best it may make some tiny nuanced difference, but there are so many other elements in the signal chain that make HUGE differences it doesn't seem worth the bother.