DunedinDragon

I'm probably at the far end of this spectrum in that I create a patch for every song our band does. That being the case I use a fairly wide range of amps and cabinets, but not all of them. I do have my preferences when it comes to certain types of sounds. But I guess I approach each song with a "what works best with this song" mindset. The reality is that many of the patches end up being somewhat similar. I say "somewhat" because I may have used a similar amp and cab setup in a different song, but the EQ (amp EQ, EQ effects, and cabinet EQ), and effects will be slightly different based on the sound I think will best fit the feeling of the song. The difference may be subtle sometimes, but it's more of a convenience in that by default the patch is customized to the song when it's selected. For example, I have a "Santana" type sound on a few of the songs, but on one song it starts with a solo, so in that case the Tube Screamer is selected when I load the patch, rather than have a patch that I need to remember to turn on the Tube Screamer before we start. The advantage to this customization is that I only have footswitches defined for the specifics of each song. Therefore most songs only have one or two footswitches so there no pedalboard dancing. Admittedly this probably isn't an approach that would work for a lot of bands. But in our case the variety of song styles and genre are so broad that it's actually beneficial.

I think almost everyone ends up applying hi/lo cuts to some degree on cabinets or IRs. Sometimes that's not the case particularly if you combine cabinets or depending on the which setup of an IR you use. But the hi/lo cuts applied vary from amp to amp and based on the cabinet/IR used. That's why it's a really bad idea to put hi/lo cuts in the Global EQ. Just use your ears and adjust it to taste in each patch.

While I agree with your premise regarding guitars, I think you'd have an extraordinarily hard time supporting the idea that there are more new guitar player or guitarists in general than any time in history. Particularly when you look at the absolutely MASSIVE surge in guitar sales and music stores in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Every kid wanted to be the next Buddy Holly, or The Beatles, or the Monkees, or Jimi Hendrix, or The Clash. Those were social movements in society which you don't see now. But I would agree that the article may be off in it's measurement of guitar sales because the variety and sources of guitar sales is so broad at this point. In the end, however, it's the music that's popular to the masses that determines the interest in music. A good example is all of the "American Idol" type shows that spotlight singers. You don't see any "Guitar Idol" shows out there, do you? In fact, I'm not sure the Guitar Idol game is doing so well right now.

That's true, but only because of a special situation you described in which 1) you're using an amp and passive speaker setup and 2) you want what you hear to best represent what the audience hears. However, it likely won't have the same articulation and clarity as what you heard using your studio monitors. It's not surprising at all that your presets coming through your studio monitors surprised you compared to modeling you may have heard previously. Modeling like any technology has advanced considerably based on advancements in the underlying DSP chips that are being used. Without knowing what studio monitors you're using, there's a pretty good likelihood that some form of DSP processing is being used in those as well to maintain a relatively flat frequency response across the entire range of the frequency spectrum. This type of full range flat response (FRFR) in conjuction with the advanced DSP used in the Helix modeling provides an extraordinarily accurate audible representation of the amps, cabinets, mics, mic placements and effects being used in your patch. This is also the reason why passive style systems have fallen significantly in the marketplace in favor of active systems because you really can't apply the DSP type processing used to achieve FRFR response in a system in which the amp and speaker aren't married together in a single enclosure because that type of processing is based on the known and measured behaviors of both the amp and speakers, not to mention that DSP is an electronic digital type processing which requires a power source. All that being said, what you were listening to on your studio monitors (assuming those are powered studio monitors) is a true FRFR response. That's the typical arrangement many of us use on stage with the Helix using higher end powered speakers like the Yamaha DXR or QSC K sereies speakers. As you likely heard in your experiment with your studio monitors, this gives you a polished studio sound in a live environment. It's not exactly the same as a true guitar amp or what some people refer to as an "amp in the room" sound. However, the amp in the room sound isn't what your audience hears once it's mic'd and sent through the PA. The mic and placement of the mic changes the sound somewhat, for the good or for the bad. So the choice many of us have made to go to a full FRFR setup will be different than a traditional guitar amp setup, but it will be a more accurate reflection not of the traditional stage sound, but of the sound heard on a typical professional recording...and that can be a big adjustment for some people. Were you to implement that type of FRFR system as your on stage system, you still have the problem that what you send direct to the FOH will be different because you're not dealing with FRFR speakers in that case. It may be acceptable because there are some pretty decent passive PA systems, but it won't be as accurate a representation as what you heard on your studio monitors or from a FRFR monitor setup on stage. Hopefully this all gives you enough information about the logic of the discussion we've been having about your setup that you can make some decisions about how you want to go with your setup rather than blindly following advice from a bunch of strangers on the internet. :blink:

I'm not sure that's exactly true. The higher end powered speakers come with a significant amount of DSP processing power to help manage the frequency response curve (i.e. flatten it out for different situations) which is much more extensive than a simple crossover. But in this case since the main PA is using unpowered speakers and he's wanting to match that sound, I think the idea of using a monitor amp and unpowered speaker will come closer than a higher end FRFR speaker.

Don't get discouraged if at some point they tell you they aren't interested in music. Both of my sons were exposed to music and to me performing with bands from the time they were very young. They liked it at first but at some point their interests diverged into THEIR interests not mine. Neither took up music seriously, but my youngest did become a professional dancer...so at least the performing bug got to him....

You don't have to use the command prompt. You can export individual presets to a specific folder if you want to keep track of them. Unfortunately the only link that a preset has to it's IR is the location of that IR in the IR list, not the IR itself. What most of us do is export either the individual presets or the setlist to a specific backup folder. For IRs we rename the ones we have loaded isomg a three digit number that designates their position in the IR list as the first thing in the IR name. We then export our IR list to a different folder. Because the IR name now has the 3 digit number at the start of the file name, they remain organized in the file system in the same way they're organized in the IR list. Therefore, if you need to do a firmware upgrade at some point (which wipes out your IR list) you can simply select all of the IR's in your special IR folder and drag and drop them in mass onto the IR list to restore them to their designated location. Then when you load your backed up presets, they're still pointing to the correct IR.

I think you're exactly right about them not being mainstream, and that's the issue. They are all great technical guitarists, but not in the context of music that appeals to the masses. Some of the problem lies in the fact there's not much variety in popular music, but also in the fact that talented guitarists such as you mentioned aren't being drawn to create music that appeals to anyone but a special market of people that appreciate what they do. The guitarists I mentioned created great music that appealed across the board to the masses, but didn't necessarily focus solely on their guitar work. Their guitar work infused the music with great style which helped differentiate their music from the pack. But their music still appealed to the masses, not just guitarists. There's always been a limited market for instrumental music. Although a few folks like Chet Atkins were able to establish a sizeable niche for themselves by his stylistic instrumental interpretation of popular music, the greater market wants a song they can identify with and sing along to. That's not where the action is in the current crop of guitarists, and thus it limits the reach of their music. Queen or The Jimi Hendrix experience weren't exactly "mainstream" when they emerged onto the market, but the quality of the songwriting drew the mass market, and the guitar work inspired others to want to play guitar, or bass, or drums...or become singers even. I once saw an interview with Joe Walsh and he mentioned that his greatest ability was that he was able to sing. Without it he would have just been another guitar player.

I have two rigs, one for live and one for recording. On my live rig I have a Yamaha DXR12 which matches the speaker I use for live performances. The other rig is used just for recording and is attached to the computer. There I have two Yamaha HS7 studio monitors. You can get the dimensions from any of the online music stores or Amazon.

I'm not sure there's that much difference in economic terms of the 60s and 70s and now. I'm 65 and it took two of us working to have the income and lifestyle we wanted. The big difference is in the music industry itself. You have to remember at that time rising above the noise floor meant getting signed by a record company. Accomplishing that it took something pretty unique and special along with a considerable degree of talent and determination. Then there came the internet and home recording meaning that anyone could pass something off as "special" when it really wasn't. In those days we had the natural filter of the record companies which reduced the ambient noise and gave us the cream of the crop. There's probably some cream out there somewhere, but finding it is going to be a massive challenge because the record companies also committed serious funds to marketing their artists. But they were making some serious money of the sale of LPs and CDs...which is no longer the case. There were certainly economic differences also. Particularly when it came to music. There's an entire generation of musicians now that never experienced making a full-time living as a musician. For several years I toured and played 6 nights a week before I quit and got married and had kids. It wasn't unusual at all to have 5 or 6 clubs even in a smaller town that had live music Monday through Saturday. That's not the case anymore as there's too much competition for people's time and attention. Cable TV with hundreds of channels, unlimited streaming of internet content, etc. have pretty much decimated the live performance environment. Add to all of that the change in attitude within the musician culture that it's unacceptable to play cover tunes and you end up with what we have today. A live performance environment where it's almost impossible to make enough from playing gigs to cover your expenses. Even if you play a paid gig 2 or 3 times a month after you factor in equipment prices, band rehearsal time, load-in, setup, and tear-down time you're not even making minimum wage. Given all of that, If I was a young person now I'm not sure I'd take up the guitar either.

I think one of the things that may be making you feel a bit uncomfortable here is that the design of the Helix tends to match the studio recording paradigm more than the live performance paradigm. Much of what you do in a live setting is based on the limitations of time or equipment whereas in the studio that's not really the case. That's why many of the options regarding layout of effects (pre-amp, post-amp but before cabinet, post cabinet, split signal processing) aren't necessarily familiar to you. This is especially true when it comes to cabinets, mics, and mic placement. One thing you might consider as you explore these various options is to get some decent studio monitors or high quality studio headset and attach them to the Helix at home to better explore and understand how these things affect your sound. Some of these options can be pretty subtle and are much more evident through a more precise output. That would give you an lot more confidence in how to use the Helix and is a straightforward transition to FRFR monitors.

A parallel patch will isolate the effects so that the reverb doesn't affect the delay, or the delay doesn't affect the reverb resulting in a better blend of the two. You can also use the split to determine how much signal you want going into each of the effects.

You may be asking the wrong group. Most of us either will use the Helix itself as an interface or other audio interfaces we've had for a long time. I'm sure the market has progressed significantly in simple single interfaces, but not many people here would be aware of them.

The first question I would have is whether or not you can see the actual clicks and pops visually represented in the track itself. If not it may be something in your output stream that's causing some digital clipping.

In all likelihood this is something cyclical and guitar will regain some if not all of it's stature at some point. But that's going to be at the mercy of whether or not someone can come up with something innovative that will capture peoples attention. Right now what guitar playing that's out there is simply a re-hash of what people have been doing for decades. You've got to have people like Jimi Hendrix, Joe Walsh, Mark Knopfler, Andy Summers, or Brian May and many others that create completely original sounds and techniques that excite and inspire people to play the guitar. I haven't seen much of that out there in a very long time.

I can't remember when I started carrying a DI box with me, but it's been over a decade I'm sure. It's not that I've used it that much anymore, but I can't count the number of times I've loaned it to a harmonica player that shows up with a harmonica mic that only has a 1/4" plug or to an acoustic guitar player that didn't bring an acoustic guitar amp and needs to go through the FOH. Or even to a sound crew that needs an extra one for something. Just an inexpensive handy thing to have on hand.

This: https://www.amazon.com/Sescom-Inline-Phantom-Blocker-Sescom/dp/B00A6ZE7A8

There's nothing wrong with having an extra DI box. I carry one around with me all the time and you'd be surprised how often someone needs it. I used to use it on every gig just to be safe in case phantom power was enabled on the mixer, but I replaced it with a phantom power blocker. Much smaller and a LOT more convenient.

I don't think "convenient" is the word I'd use to working with the stock cabs. There's an awful lot of tweaking of parameters that I can bypass by just loading a single IR.

If I remember correctly I believe the k10.2 has a special setting for Studio Monitor which I've been curious how that works. In all likelihood either the Stage Monitor 1 if it's on a pole or Stage Monitor 2 if it's in a wedge position on the floor. But I'd be interested in your opinion of how the Studio Monitor setting works in comparison to the others.

I think of lot of people underestimate the power of speaking the language of live sound men. I never have a problem getting what I need from the sound people because I can explain what I'm doing in detail and how it gets handled on their end in their language. Also, there's a distinct advantage you have by being able to call them on their BS. B)

Clearly this could be accomplished the "old school" way with simply the expression pedal as a volume pedal, or even older school by rolling the volume knob. I've also done something very similar using the autoswell and finger picking multiple strings simultaneously.

Or, alternatively you can just go here -> https://helixhelp.com/

If that's the case you have something messed up in your setup. Most likely too much gain on the amp when engaging the overdrive or too hot a signal. There is also a significant difference in the way certain amps work together with an overdrive. I've found the HiWatt to be much more "overdrive friendly" than something like a Mesa for example.

First, I'm not sure the features of any kind of unit should dictate how you use it. The way you use the features should be determined by the requirements of the music and the performance. And I think that's what's causing your confusion. Here's the questions you should ask yourself. How complex are the songs you play? Are there a variety of movements in the song (changes in the basic flow of the song) or are they fairly standard verse, chorus, instrumental break? Within your set of songs does one song flow into the next or does each song have a definite begginning and end? Do yo interact with the audience between songs? Do you generally play just one style of song or does your songlist consist of a variety of genres and styles? If you generally play in one genre and style of music with a lot of complexity of different sounds or movements in each song, or the songs tend to flow together then snapshots is the obvious answer. The more distinctive and standard each song is the more likely presets would suffice. In my case each song is fairly distinctive and standard, and we cover a lot of genres such as rock, blues, jazz, country, rockabilly, ballads etc. Since each song stands on it's own I use a preset per song. However, I have my setup so that my upper row of buttons are reserved for snapshots in case I need them and my lower row is setup per preset. In practice I rarely need to use more than 2 or 3 buttons and very often combine mulitiple effects on a singe button using assignments. I've yet to encounter a situation where I need to use snapshots so this arrangement works well for me, especially since each song has its own beginning and end with a pause between songs. This also works well because I use certain guitars for different songs so each preset (which equates to a song) is designed to be used with a certain guitar (Les Paul, Strat, Tele, or Gretsch hollow body). One key advantage to presets is that you don't need every effect in a preset assigned to a button. Often many of my presets are similar as far as amps with only slight changes in things like amount of gain or EQ or cabinets/IRs, reverbs, delays or compressors. That makes it very simple to apply those things differently for each song and the only buttons I need to have active are the ones that need to be modified during the course of the song. In most cases I end up with only one button active in a preset which is the one I engage during a lead break. Sometimes I may need two if there's something special that needs to happen in a chorus or bridge. I'm not sure why there would be a difference between what you hear from the K12 and the FOH PA system. I use a Yamaha DXR12 as my personal stage monitor or amp and almost always go through the PA as well. One of the main reasons I prefer this setup is because I know that what I'm hearing on stage will match what the audience hears. The same should be true for you with tke K12. The only reason this might not appear to be the case could depend on your positioning of the K12. If you're too close to the K12 it might appear harsher than the PA. I tend to leave about 5 feet of distance between me and my DXR12 and I have it positioned behind me as a floor monitor pretty much in the same way as I would a traditional amp. This makes it much easier fore everyone to gauge the stage mix with the other instruments and vocals. The only reason I can see for the PA to sound different would be if the sound man is monkeying around with your EQ at his end. I make sure the sound man knows to keep my EQ flat and the sound matches quite well. The other factor that could come into play is how you use that monitor to setup your presets. I always use my DXR12 at home when I'm dialing in presets. I keep it at close to stage volume and I have it positioned vertically about 5 or 6 feet from me. This gives me an accurate representation of what I will sound like through the PA. At home I also route my output through a small mixer so I can normalize the volumes between presets using the mixer's signal meter. In rehearsal I may make some slight adjustments to the preset, but generally I don't have to touch it. I think it's also important to bear in mind, especially if you're coming from a traditional amp setup, that dialing in your sound is going to be different. I find it easier and more effective to have the mindset I'm dialing in my sound as if I'm getting ready to record it in a studio rather than dialing it in for a live performance. That's because in this setup that's the sound you're targeting, a polished studio sound in a live environment. That gets me much closer to what I want the audience to hear rather than what I want to hear.