DunedinDragon

LOL...yeah. But it might also on the plus side indicate they've determined the hardware failure points on the joystick and the newer units have the newer hardware. At least I hope so...

I'm kind of suspecting that Line6 may be simply replacing the units with joystick failures as that's simpler and faster. It's not that it's irrepairable, just faster logistically.

I just sent mine off this morning for repairs to Line6 for the same issue, but the message I got from them when they sent the RMA and UPS shipping notice was that as soon as they receive it they'll be shipping my new unit. I certainly hope that's the case as I really don't want to get a credit and have to go about getting a new one shipped from a dealer. Here's what they said in the message to me: Mine was still under warranty however by a few days... "We have written Replacement RMA 60022656 for your Helix A UPS label will be sent to you via email shortly. Please box up the entire unit safely and drop it off at a local UPS store. Once we receive the unit, your replacement will be sent out from our warehouse."

It probably would have been more accurate to say "flatter" in the rise as the frequency profile graph is simply a static representation of how a speaker responds at any given frequency in the frequency spectrum and has nothing to do with time. If you were to compare the two pictures I've attached here, you see more clearly what I mean. The 1st picture is the Redback and you can see that in the 20Hz to 100Hz it somewhat levels off until it gets past 100Hz, then it starts to rise pretty quickly up to 200Hz. Compared to the 2nd picture of a Creamback response profile in which the line rises at a pretty steady rate all the way from 20Hz up to around 200Hz. That's why the Redback doesn't feel as "boomy" or "mushy" on the low end and a bit more articulated. You'll also notice a difference between the two graphs in the area above 1KHz up to about 5KHz which is really the main area where we hear the meat of guitar sounds. The Redback stays much more level in that range than does the Creamback which has a significantly greater amount of response, meaning less harshness on the high end of the guitar spectrum with the Redback. Hope that helps.

Or....just tune up a half step if you don't like capo's. That's what the rest of the world has been doing for about a thousand years...... :P

I use various combinations throughout my patches of Redwirez, OwnHammer, and Celestion. All fairly evenly dispersed across my various patches. I would agree to some extent that the Celestions tend to be more similar than the others with only slight variations in the overall sound. To me they seem to be more pure speaker and less cabinet coloration. In some cases that works well for me, in other cases I prefer a bit more cabinet color and choose either OwnHammer (which has the most coloration difference to my ear) or the Redwirez. I have noticed more of a tendency on my part to use the Celestions on higher gain patches particularly with my Les Paul. These Redbacks respond much better on the higher gain patches than the others due to the tighter and more articulated bass response and faster top end drop off. The other Celestions like the Blue Alnico or Creambacks I seem to use more often with my Gretsch, particularly for finger picked songs and sometimes jazzier tunes as they give me a bit more clean pure sound that brings out the hollow body characteristics.

A little phone video a friend of the band took yesterday at an outdoor festival event. A little tune by the Blind Boys of Alabama. Gotta luv that funk!!!

You could probably do it but I'm not sure there's going to be much of an advantage. More likely it will distract your attention from really getting the most out of the Helix. There's more than enough in the Helix to get whatever you want....unless you're just looking for a way to distract you from actually playing the guitar. :rolleyes:

Very mysterious. The only thing I can think of given the circumstances is there may be some overload situation being caused inside the Behringer by the daisy chaining of the signal going from the Helix into the Behringer then from the Behringer into the board. First thing I'd try is going to the Behringer via the 1/4 out and separately to the board direct from the Helix XLR out. I think that's the more typical arrangement most of us use. See if that makes any difference.

Just wanted to share some info on a new set of IRs from Celestion that just came out for those that might be interested. They just recently introduced the Redback IRs as an addition to their set of IRs available. I'm a big fan of the Celestion IRs and use them quite often. The Redback IR from their description is designed to handle higher power settings, or what I would consider higher gain situations. The difference being they are a bit slower in their rise at the low end, a slight bump between maybe 2k to 4.5k, and a fairly rapid drop-off on the high end. For reference I've included their response profile chart. Presently I've only been able to use this on a couple of my higher gain patches, but I have to say I'm pretty impressed. In one case I matched the 4x12 high gain IR with a Marshall Plexi on a patch for Pat Travers 'Boom Boom (Out Go The Lights)' and was very impressed with how the IR cleaned up some of the low end muddiness and gave me greater articulation on the low end. I also used their 2x12 closed back IR balanced version using a R121 mic on a Joe Walsh patch that uses a HiWatt amp. It trimmed off enough of the high end that I was able to get rid of the hi-cut altogether on the patch, but it still retained all the high-mid bite that Joe Walsh is known for. I have to say I'm pretty impressed with this IR and it might be worth it to you if you work a lot in higher gain patches.

I'm not sure how long you've had the Helix, but I can't imagine it's been too long. But it does sound like you've tried a lot of options. I can't see it being the Helix as there are a TON of folks using setups like yours that are perfectly happy with it...and we can't be all crazy. But it could simply be that you're not able to adapt to the difference in overall sound from a traditional amp sound to more of a studio production amp sound which is what you'll get from this type of rig. There are some idiosyncrasies in this type of rig that you have to adjust to, and there's a lot to learn about how to effectively build an effective signal chain which takes some time, but for some it's just too much of a change...and that's okay too.

The Shure Beta 87A is a condenser mic and requires phantom power. You need to configure the mic input to provide phantom power which I believe is an option in the global settings.

The truth is there are plenty of people that achieve the amp in the room feel using the Helix by using full range cabinets such as mission engineering, friedman or atomic and others. The amp in the room isn't a function of the Helix, it's a function of the speaker. What started this whole discussion was the concept that a modeler like the Helix should be able to model an amp in the room sound. The Helix models the amp, and the term "amp in the room" is a misnomer. It would be better stated to say "the cabinet in the room" sound.

If after doing the above you're still confused, read the manual.

Well apparently you missed the opening part of my statement which said "I can only speak for myself in this regard" which would indicate I'm only speaking for myself, not for you. Nor am I suggesting my way is the only way to do things. In fact I believe it indicates it's the only way I want to do it. You can pursue whatever trips your trigger. All I was doing was correcting your statement regarding spending thousands of dollars to get an amp that sounds like a live amp in the room, as that's not what I want. As far as the sound engineer adjusting my mix...in practice that's certainly not true. I tell my sound engineer what works best for me on my channel and that's what they do. And I do care profoundly about how any amp sounds. That's why I carefully select which amp or amps I'll use in my patches the same as I'll carefully select the cabs, the mics, and the mic placements. That way the sound engineer doesn't need to adjust or correct my tone. You see, the concept is simple for me. It's the same as a computer "garbage in, garbage out". If the stage mix of the band is balanced, articulated and clean on stage, there's not a lot the sound man needs to do to get it projected correctly into the room other than make corrections for the acoustics of the room. And that's not something you would typically do on a channel by channel basis as that affects all of the channels equally. But again...that's just how I prefer to do it. Your mileage may vary.....

In a way you're really using opposing terms here. What generally makes a FRFR speaker FRFR is that it has it's own internal DSP processing that can level out the response across the entire frequency range. You have to have power going to the speaker in order to power the DSP processing.

In my opinion, better IR management that would give us the tools to determine what IRs are being used with what patches would negate the need for additional IR slots. I have about 100 or my IR slots filled right now, but I suspect that I'm probably only really actively using less than half that number in all my patches. Give me a way to easily clean that up and 128 slots would be more than adequate.

i can only speak for myself in this regard, but I'm absolutely NOT spending thousands on gear to sound like an amp in the room. After 50+ years of playing...mostly through amps in the room...the last thing in the world I want is an amp in the room that comes with all the limitations I've had to deal with all those 50+ years. And a major part of why I don't want to endure those limitations is because of your second point of being dependent and at the mercy of a sound engineer to achieve a sound I should be able to achieve without his help. For the first time in my career I've finally gotten the opportunity to confidently know that the sound I'm producing on stage will be accurately portrayed to the audience. I honestly can't understand this love-fest for the amp in the room sound. What I remember from those days is my sound changing every time I set it up. Having to adjust for stage setups, problems with getting a good stage mix between me and the rest of the band, and general inconsistency performance to performance. What I spend my money on is consistency and manageability. But I have to admit I may be the odd duck here because I'm not inspired by the sound of my guitar through a trouser flapping, air moving amp. I'm inspired by being part of a well-mixed stage band.

Just a question here. What do you think is the reference sound used by 99.9% of the world's population when comparing it to the sound they hear live? It's certainly not an "amp in the room", because they've likely never heard that. What they've heard in every recording, every radio broadcast, every TV appearance, and even every concert is an electric guitar and amp captured by a microphone. Chances are, were they to actually compare an amp in the room sound to a professionally mic'd sound in a double blind test they would likely prefer the mic'd sound because that's what sounds "normal" to them. The reality is that the only ones in the world that ever seem to care about the amp in the room sound are guitar players who are used to standing in a room with the amp. Of course that sound itself varies considerably depending on where the person stands in relation to the amp since the sound changes dramatically once you move off-axis to the cabinet. Wouldn't that be an interesting artifact to make an audience member endure in a live or recorded performance!!! Don't worry, it'll sound great as long as you stand RIGHT HERE and don't move off to the side!!!

So if I'm reading this correctly, if the volume knob control is set to 1/4" then you can still control the level of output of the XLR to the mixer by changing the level on the output block? If so, that also affects the output of the 1/4" to your stage monitor, but that can be compensated for by the volume knob. Correct?

This shouldn't be a problem. That's exactly what the gain or trim knob on a mixing board is for, and that's exactly what sound checks are supposed to accomplish which is to gain stage the input signal. That's assuming, of course, that you're dealing with a competent and trained person running the PA. Just make sure during sound checks and gain staging that you send the FOH guy the loudest signal you'll be sending by maxing out the foot pedal.

I hadn't really thought of it this way, but you're actually right. Once I moved into the Helix and my current rig all consideration toward getting something different or new just disappeared into the wind. I've got everything I need and will need for a very long time. I'm not saying that really saved me money though. Because I'm not looking at amps or pedals or such it just encouraged me to upgrade my guitars. Then, of course, I had a joystick failure on my Helix which freaked me out because I've got no real backup to it, so I bought a second Helix which will be permanently attached to my recording system, but can be used as a backup if something happens. All my presets work everywhere and I don't have to hook up my gigging Helix when I want to record. So I guess I can't say I saved any money....but...what the heck. You only go 'round once in life.....

It really depends on how you construct the snapshots and what you re-use I imagine. You have to remember in snapshot land it's all just one preset, so everything needs to fit within the DSP limits of a single preset. Therefore if you're careful with how you allocate blocks you'll likely be fine. For example, reverb tends to use a LOT of DSP. However if instead of using different reverb blocks for different snapshots, you simply reuse the same reverb block with some changes to the parameters you're saving a lot of DSP space. You also left out what you might be doing with cabinets and mics at least on snapshot 2. This can be another area where you can eat up a significant amount of DSP if you aren't judicious in your use of cabinets.

Probably the biggest thing you need to be aware of starting off and going direct to the board, is you'll likely experience more upper and lower end response than you're used to. If you're a sound engineer it should make sense to you in that you realize the speakers used FOH are going to be full range flat response (FRFR) style speakers. That being the case without any intervention on your part on your patches you may experience shrillness or boominess in your patches that you're not used to. It's easily addressed, but don't be shocked by it. It's all simply an artifact of speakers that respond more efficiently at the high and low end of the frequency spectrum than does a traditional guitar cabinet. A lot of that will depend on the PA setup at your church. If there's a subwoofer cut over or if they have the high pass engaged on your channel you may not see too much of the low end boominess, but you'll most certainly hear the high end shrillness. This can be managed in a number of ways. You may hear people talk about adjusting the global high and low cuts, but I think that's a bull in the china closet approach. The amount of boominess or shrillness varies with the amp model and especially with the cabinet and mic model/placement that are being used. You can always use the high and low cut parameters of the cabinet being used in the in the patch, but you can often mitigate it initially with a different mic and placement option. Being a mixing engineer I'm sure this is no surprise to you. What may be a bit surprising is the stock Helix cabinets don't provide a way currently to position the mic further from the cap into the cone of the speaker. Instead you simply vary the distance of the mic. But if you're more familiar with the effects of positioning outward from the cap as well as off-axis placements there are plenty of very good IRs on the market that provide those capabilities. I personally use a combination of OwnHammer, Celestion, and Redwirez IRs. Additionally, you can adjust some of these artifacts by combining different cabinet/mic arrangements using a split block. That can very often get you where you want the sound to be without the shrillness or boominess. Of course in the end you may end up tweaking things a bit with the parametric EQ for more precise control. The issue that you will most likely encounter in this regard has been brought up by a number of folks that play in churches in that they setup their patches to sound fine at home, but are surprised when the plug into the main FOH system. That's generally due to not having a way at home of sufficiently mimicking the performance behaviors of the main speakers at church. Therefore it may be in your best interest to invest in a powered FRFR speaker to be used at home to dial in your presets so there's no surprises once you plug in at church. I personally use a Yamaha DXR12 to dial in my patches at home and it's a pretty good match to our QSC KLA12 line array. And if you do it right the sound man should be able to leave your channel completely flat because you've already adjusted for the FOH speakers. If there are differences in the room I'd suggest using then using the global EQ to adjust for those differences. That's really the main thing you most likely to encounter out of the box.

I would assume it is by the definition of the law. However the issue would be PROVING it's your intellectual property...which becomes dicey. Given that anyone can turn knobs and place blocks on the Helix, without some form of embedded notation there would be no way to prove the person didn't just come up with it on their own.