mikisb

Hi Zooey, thanks :) What do you mean? Faital 12HX230: 256.- €/pc if you buy a pair of them. I ordered in France, as the driver is brandnew and not listed yet in any shop in Germany. Hypex PSC 2.400D: 339 € XPS: 10.- € (if you don't take the 3D core wich is still prototype and not available - i got a pre-production sample ;) ) Carbon + Epoxi: Hard to say - about 150 € per baffle Corners, Grip, reflex tube, cables, switch..... about 50 € Cups, stirs, brushes, foil.....about 40 € So all together about 845.- € piece + a lot of blood, sweat and tears if you do it the first time. If you replace the Faital by the Emi Beta12CX and the Carbon-XPS Sandwich by poplar multiplex 12mm + heavy bracings, i think it would be about 500.- € but about 2 kg more (wich means about 13 kg and still much lighter as the ligtest speaker on the market in this class) and not as good in different directions. But still a great speaker wich will outperform most of the speakers on the market. My construction is a bit extreme and crazy as i planned to build below 10 kg. With wood: No chance! Since April 2017, the Faital was anounced 4,3 kg. Now, as the first speakers are on the marked, it's really 5,1 kg. :angry: Now, after i gave them a hint, they corrected the datasheet. :unsure: I already think about rebuilding the speakers motor with neodym to reach my target. ;) But it's not easy to work on a speaker motor wich is already magnetized without damaging the voicecoil. So if not any gramm counts, i would propose the poplar multiplex wich is cheaper and way easier to handle than the carbon sandwich, but i would propose a bit more bracing than i use in the carbon version. The Eminence Beta12CX + ASD:1001 is together 4,5 kg. wich will safe a part of the weight you gained with the multiplex. One of the huge advantages is the Amp module, as you can (have to) programm the filters and EQs as you like. You can store 4 complete presets in the module. So you're not attached to 2 or three presets the manufacturer made and wich wopn't work in all circumstances. But you have to do it by yourself means also, that you should have the possibility to measure and that you have to know a bit about how speakers work. It would be not a god idea, to shoot the tweeter with 50 Hz at full level cause you forgot the highpass ;) For the moment i like also the digital link, even if experienced people here advice to use XLR or asymetric line cables. With the AES/EBU solution i only need one cable from the Helix to one speaker and another cable to link the second speaker to the first. I also win a bit less noise, as there are one DA (Helix) and one AD (Speaker) conversion less.

Hi, as the project is finished, i'd like to present my personal idea how an guitarists Helix-FRFR-System should be: Til now, i used a rather cheap 12/1 Coaxial Monitor The Box Promon 12. The sound was quite OK but not great, i had to crawl under the desk to switch it on or off and ist really hasn't the used appearence of a good oldfashioned guitar amp ;). OK, it's light (16 kg for a active 12/1). So i wanted to have it lighter, yet more powerful, stereo, main switches at the front and suitable for guitar, bass and party. I found some inspiration at barfaced (great site!) and in the talkbass forum. So i decided for a a pair coaxial 12"/1 speakers as i often use the cab in small distances.I chosed the brand new FaitalPro 12HX230 for it's great omnidirectional characteristics, relativly light weight (5,12 kg), a bit more than usual displacement (more bass) and reasonable price. The amplification is done by a Hypex PSC 2.400D module in each amp, providing a powerful DSP, 500W RMS (real power, nor marketing wattage) on two channels, resonable price and light weight (1.1 kg). Each cab has a net volume of 50 l and a separate compartment for the amp. Each amp is 50x45x35 cm, weight all together mwith speaker, amp, cables, handle, corners..... about 11 kg. :D (and rigid as a rock) Building the baffles was a bit pain in the lollipop, as i decidet not for wood but an ultralight yet rigid sandwich of carbon fiber and XPS foam. So first, i had to manufacture the raw material, by laminating a special 15 mm XPS sheet (3D-Core with a integrated hexagonal structure wich takes resin during lamination to improve stability of the sandwich) one sided with 300 gr/m² quadraxial carbon fibre (higher strengt than usual woven carbon). Done this, the elements were cutted and glued to a buidsing similat to a loudspeaker The outer carbon laminate was done afzter in one piece to get r real monocoque design and after some other works, the toxic twins were ready to play (By the way: These two monsters together weight less than my DT25. And they can louder. And they can Bass - a lot of bass ;) And they can acoutic guitar, and vocals and.......) No - not ready: I still spent some days for the dsp setup to get these little monsters sound about like good studio monitors but muuuuuch louder :D I've some experience in designing HiFi speakers and with digital crossovers, but these driveres are different beasts and made me a hard time 'til i was satisfied. At the moment, they just play Def Leppard right in front of me and they sound great, but it took me hundreds of measurements in different distances and different angles and dozens of hours to get the sound i wanted. Now i understand, why so called FRFR speakers, even the expensive ones, are so different. In HiFi, you can realize real flat frequency responses even in different angles, with pro audio, it's nearly impossible as there are to many physical differences. An example: In HiFi use, you normally would'nt use a 12" midrage in a 2way speaker as it starts to focus the frequencies still al 1000 Hz. Anyway - compared to the ProMon monitor, there is night and day. Not only from max. level, but even response, less distortion and a way better time-behaviour make a huge difference in listening. It does not matter if i play Flac or guitar, this is just another world. Til tody, in wonderes about a lot of patches wich sounded not really different. Today, i can hear the reason for these patches the first time. But now it's done and i'm really happy and satisfied. Having a single one of them will be enough for a guitar even in a loud band. But two of them are better when it comes to stereo. Just tried some Brian May'ish stereo delay scales - just WOW :wub: Even for a Bass, normally one piece should be enough, but with two, i'll blow the drummer away :ph34r: For Party, i made a special setup with still deeper bass but therefore a bit less maximum level. Works even great. So if you don't find a speaker wich match your needs or taste: Just build your own one! Baffles can be build easier with polplar playwood. A bit more heavy but still light. As speaker, the Eminence Beta12CX + ASD:1001 is not as good as the Faital overall imho but really cheap and worth every cent. With a good baffle and amp, you can build your amp wich will outperform most industrial products at a reasonable price. And - it's uniqie :wub:

You're welcome :) Perhaps a measurement of a C-Switch on a vintage style SC 5,6 KOhm could help you to estimate the right size of the tone capacitor:The red line is without capacitor, the left black curve is with 10 nF. Usual tone capacitors are much bigger so this could give you a picture why most people never use the tone pot ^_^ Hint: A SD SH4 with a standard 5 meter cable has a resonance frequency of about 2,7 KHz. But as the peak level is very weak, it's almost a lowpass 12 dB/oct. at 3 KHz.

Perhaps you can get close to a HB sound with a SC but you'll never hit it really: - most HBs have a lower and less prominent resonance frequency as SCs. So you can lower it with the tone pot - perhaps ;) Most capacitors on Tone-pots are much to big and lower the resonance to much, but you could try a smaller cap to get the result. A 256 pF cap probably could do the job. Or you just double the length of your guitar cabel wich does about the same ;) Lowering the tone a bit kills the resonance because of a highter parallel resistance, just turning to zero brings back a significant resonance at a lover frequency - depending on the SC and the tone cap. In this way, you could imitate the electricals frequency response of a HB. You could do this also by eliminating the resonance frequency with a para EQ and buid a new one with the para EQ, but you have to know the actual value and this depends on various influences - the cable length is the biggest one. Not easy if you have not the equipment to measure pickups. This should be the reason why it's difficult to get the desired results with a effect box or an IR - just because the actual output of your pickup is unknown. So where to start. It may only wirk, if your pickup (together with the pots and the cable mach a "typical" singlecoil. - even with the same electrical frequency respone, the SC will not sound like a HB: Even not regarding the exact position (wich makes big differences), a Humbucker with it's two coils "reads" the string amplitude at two positions. At high frequencies/harmonics, the wavelength is small, so for certain frequencies, one coils sees the peak of the wave and the other coils sees the valley. Both mixed togehter gives: Zero! Other frequencies are perfect additions and the most somwhere in between. These eliminations vary with the string tension and the position you press the string to the fretboard so it's mpossible to simulate by filters but gives a HB his characteristic behaviour. (These Frequencies also depent on the distance between the two coils, what explains, that SC-size HBs can get closer to a SC-Tone but never get the sound of a standard HB.) The effect is stronger on the harmonics of the low strings, as for the high strings, the "zero-frequencies" still are outside of the pickups frequency response. Short: The easiest way to get close is a smaller tone-cap and tone to zero, but you'll never get an exact copy of a HB. But together with the band in live situation, nobody but you will notice the difference ;) (the translation of a german expression for things like this would be probably "ant knee throat analysis" :D)

OK, i did a quick 'n dirty test to see some kind of benchmark for me: Base: A guitar with a pretty high output (selfmade) humbucker at Neck-Position (comparable in output level to a SD SH4). Helix: A completly empty channel , all levels at 0 Hypex DSC 2.400: Gain reduced -24 dB so the rumble in the room stays reasonable. As the gain (adjustable -96 to +18 dB) affects the gain behind the dsp, there sould be no effect on the amps input. XLR cable from Helix to the Hypex PSC 2.400 "playing" continous on the empty E-string near the point where the string starts touching the frets while slowly rising the gain on Helix output-section. Result: At about +16 dB distortion starts. Can't say if it's from the Helix or the PSC but i suppose that the DSC's maximum input level is reached. (18 dBU says the user manual wich means about 6.15 V eff. or 17.4V s-s) Does'nt make a difference if i boost the output block 16 dB or the output block 6 dB togehter with global EQ 10 dB. So just for myself, this ist the first benchmark in the "Helix output question" ;) So if i keep all my presets as they are, i have to add about 10 dB in the output section or the global EQ to get the full power out of the amp module,as they are (supposed) about 6 dB more powerful than the clean signal. I also could rise the gain by software/USB in the amp module, but this gives me more noise even when i don't need the power, so it seems to be more elegant to do this with the Helix only when full power is needed. But after all, this let's me think about general levels in Helix with all the possible gain stages. To avoid level overload at the output, there must be a lot of headroom in the system. But with to much headroom, we have a lack of dynamics and resolution when it comes to digital processing. Wonder how line 6 managed all this (should'nt be a simple task) and renew my wish for level meters at least for the input and the output stage.

Hi Glenn, thanks for your advice! I've set the XLR out at Line level and have to turn the main volume at noon just for bedroom playing, so i will not get full power out of the amp even at max. In understand that the Helix XLR output depends on all the possible gain stages, so my question is difficult to respond. As a reference, we could take your patches (wich are pretty good balanced in level) to know their output at main volume at max. Perhaps a part of the problem is that i does'nt know the range of the Helix concerning levels as there is no visual indicator for it. If for example your patches only use 50% of the maximum output, it would make sense to boost them all up to +6 dB. For the power amps i can increase gain using the DSP software but this will increase noise. So the final quastion will be to rise gain in Helix or in DSP to get minimum noise. Sorry if some things sounds a bit confused, as it's not easy to me to express straight in english.

Hi, i'm buiding a FRFR amp with a hypex 2channel DSP/ampmodule. The module has no hardware volume, just a fixed gain of 16 dB. Volume is variable by DSP config software but this is not usefull everywhere. To get about full power, i would need to feed it with about 6,3V = 18 dBU. Does anybody know what's the standard output level of the XLR outs on nthe Helix? I know that there can be no absolute response as this level will probably depend on the amp, effects... - but there must be a standard level? The Helix actual output with factory presets ans global volume at max is far away from getting all the power out of the amps.

posted about the same quastion in the helix native area - voted your request up ;)

well - i spended most of the time with Helix by trying presets (Line6, Glenn Delaune, Fremen) and tweaking a bit, never really dived deeper into one amp - perhaps a big mistake. So the raw diversity of amps and effects seduced me just to play around and prevented to discover the real substance - i just could'nt resist playing around. Give a big room full of toys to a little child - it will probably never be creative with one thing cause all the others need to be tried out - so did i. The last days i played a bit more with the trainwreck model cause a lot of people praise the original but the factory preset was'nt spectacular to my ears. Now: Just Wow! :o I builded a preset from scratch (how it should be done - i know) beginning just with the amp and a cab - later replacing the cab by a parametric EQ. Playing around with every single parameter, i was more exited with every minute of tweaking. This thing reacts so good on a huge range of input dynamics - it's amazing. It brightens up more and more as i reduce Gain or guitar volume so i can have the whole range from a brilliant clean tone to a midboostet high gain just with a turn on the guitar volume. Even at higher gain, the differences between different guitars and pickup-configurations stay audible - great! To me - this shows the potential of modelling i never 've seen like this before cause i was fixed to switch between hundreds of presets. If i would be allowed to use only one amp - this would be mine :wub: Write this just to encourage others like me to stop switching presets and dive deeper in ONE amp - just like in the real live. Just a few people will have dozens of amps and dozenz of cabs and hundreds off effects at home or on stage and if they have - i bet the most of them are even lost in all the possibilities - never digging the optimum out of a single piece. The few others - i call "pros"- as they probably handle this stuff every single day for years and are experienced enough. Just an idea: Sell the Helix with just one amp unlocked - then unlocking one new amp every week. I bet most people would get a lot more out of this box than today. OK OK - just kidding :D

well - difficult to explain cause it seems to bea bit different sometimes <_< Just tried it again with the looper in front of a simple setup. So i recorded a loop with the volume on the guitar pretty down for a crunchy rythm. (wich works great with the Derailes Ingrid) Then i play this record (ni oberdubs), turn the guitars volume up. When i ply now with the loop, the looped rythm-guitar dissapears completly and comes back immediately when i stop playing. Strange - is'nt it?

Hi, love to have a looper onboard, but probably i'm doing something wrong with it. I record a sequence - everything's fine. I play the sequence back - everything's good. But when i play along with the loop (no overdup, just playing without additional record), it sounds like dropouts in the live signal while the loop seems to playback fine. Happens with different amp models, doe'snt matter if there are plenty of effects or just a simple setup. I have the looper on the first place after the input to make it easier to tweak. What i'm doing wrong?

Thanks for your reply! OK - my question for the globals was a bit stupid - just forget it ;) In fact i looked for an easier way to sync all setlists at once and the IRs wich should stay on the former places - so just like the Helix new full backup and restore setlists + IRs. Perhaps anytime..... :)

Hi, probably there's a simple solution but i'm to blind to see it: Is there an easy way to sync all existing parameters (patches, IRs, global) between Helix Floor 2.30, HX edit 2.30 and Native 1.10.0? I have a complete backup from the Helix Floor but i can't find a way to get this in native? Thanks a lot!!

Can't say anything about Mac, but perhaps my experience with Cubase Elements 9.5 under Windows 10 can help as i had a similar problem: Is Helix native listet in the VST-Plugin-manager, VST-efrfects? A bit hard to find as there are plenty of effects, it's easier to identify if you look for the manufacturer: Most plugins are "Steinberg media technologies", Native is "Line6" If Native occours here, the directories are OK. To get in in a track, you have to create a new normal audio track. To get Native working there, you have to put it on the left side of the screen in the "Inspector" as a insert effect. Choose one of the 8 possible slots, you'll find Native in the opening list in "other" - Helix Native.

I'm trying to replace Cabs or IRs with EQs for a while but this setting sounds really good - thanks for sharing! :wub: I prefer it to get a "amp in the room" sound with my frfr monitor. It's really "in the face" and most stock cabs seem to be distand in a direct comparison. Still can't say if it works as good in recording or PA. As it's often difficult to me to imagine a frequency response with all theese different Qs ans crosss-influences and assuming that the parametric EQ has the same behaviour as the global EQ, i tried to visualize what's really going on with the global EQ and the same settings. Perhaps the image helps others to understand what''s giong on like it did for myself.

my priority wishes: - visualisation of the EQs like for the global EQ - or just adding the global EQ type to the EQ selection - adding 2 positions to the cab/mic settings: Edge and half way edge-center - a dedicated global EQ for the headphone out

Did'nt check all the details, but still the new update process is worth this update. Went from 2.21 - no more confusion with patches, setlists or forgotten global setting - all in one now - great :wub:

well - i learned to do it after soldering a new port in my HD500 while frying some SMD parts located directly beside the socket :wacko:

Great hint, same with the POD HD. I always wondered how standard USB plugs go together with a floor unit in stage use - it's even to fragile at home. Alternative hint: Only plug the USB cable when you really need it.

You already opened the Helix? Had the same problem with my HD500 and it was not an easy job to me to change the USB socket cause of all the smd parts around its solder points. No idea if the Heliy is easier to maintain in this point.

well, regarding the frequency response of a typical guitar speaker as the Celestion G12M Greenback (measured by celestion), there ist a lowpass behaviour at about 4 KHz with 24db/octave (on axis). Perhaps this information can help finding a base for EQ settings. It also shows a peak of about 5 db between 2 and 4 KHz. If using FRFR or PA type options without cab simulation, the reason for the fizz is clear: There is no "equalizing" as a typical guitar speaker does and even more, the high frequencies are spread in a wider angle than a single 12" speaker. Try to power a FRFR speaker directly with a good tube amp and listen directly in front of the cone middle - won't be much better ;) Maybe, the interaction between poweramp and speaker is an additional influence - i can't judge this.

In fact, it's pretty simple: Who wants to use speakers only for electric guitar and wishes a certain speaker sound will be happy with a guitar amp or guitar cabinet. Who wants to use the Helix 's flexibilty to play electric guitar, bass, acoustic guitar... will use a (so called) FRFR amp or speaker with - if needed - speaker/mic simulation. The second way is certainly more flexible and the resulting sound probably will match better the sound from a PA but at the end of the day, it's a matter of taste. Of course there are differences in FRFR (and PA), as there are differences even between premium class speakers for home hifi, wich all should be FRFR. It's not only linearity that counts, but also distortion, resonances, dissipation... Some are more linear than others and i did even see 12" speakers without tweeter labeled as FRFR :rolleyes: . They are certainly not what i mean with FRFR and still get worse if measured/listened off axis. There could be another advantage for FRFR speakers: I allways was a bit pissed on that my amps/combos had a completly different sound on and off axis, wich is the nature of a bigger speaker driver. With a 2- or 3way speaker, the range/angle of higher frequencies can be much wider due to the smaller drivers (midrange/tweeter), so the sound can be more even over different angles. With the right cab sim, this would be my way. As there are a lot of so called FRFR speakers on the marked wich aren't really FRFR for my definition, with their weight and their form factor, i decided to build my amp/cab by myself: 12" coaxial (useful for nearfield use), 2way poweramp, fully configurable dsp in a classic combo form factor and a XPS/Carbon sandwich baffle should mach my needs. All this with less than 10 kg/22 pund and i will be happy. The linearity is'nt a problem with good drivers and a powerfull dsp. As a gimmick, one could rebuild the frequency response of a guitar cabinet as a preset in the dsp (tweeter off, "big mountain" around 2-3 KHz, highpass at 100 Hz) to have the same angle dependent dissipation as a normal 12" speaker. But who should want this? To do the inverse (even dissipation and a wide frequency response) with a 12" or 10" guitar speaker is out of reach ;)

Things that helped me to use every highly sensitive tuner better: - As Klangmaler said - using a single input on Helix - carefuly dampening all strings except the tunded one (i use foam rubber when it comes to intonation adjustments) - dampening long string overhangs as the e string on a Strat-type. - Using the neck pickup - not at all bending the neck during tuning, as this can cause extreme variations (try it!, i coluld'nt believe it the first time i tried. Even a bit pressure on the gear while adjusting causes floating the frequency away) It seems to me that the Helix tuner is extremely sensitive wich is generally a good thing but causes logically jumpyness when the conditions are not perfect, as the tuner reports each small change imediately. When it comes to adjust the bridge or compensate the saddle, a really stable environment is a must. Therefore, the results seem to be pretty precise.

Hi Peter, thanks a lot for this detailed answer! :)

Could you please explain what could go wrong and what do you mean with "that environment"? I'm just building two ultralight active 12" Coax FRFR cabs, where i choosed Hypex 2channel moules as poweramp. They each have have a freely configurable DSP for each of the two channels and a digital in (XLR as well) I bought them hoping to use he digital link Helix-DSP to avoid multiple DA/AD conversions: DA in the Helix for analog out, AD in the amp before the DSP and DA in the amp after the DSP. Using a digital link would avoid 2 of 3 conversions wich normally should'nt be bad. Unfortunally, the cabs are'nt ready to test yet, but in home hifi or car hifi environments as well as using a personal computer/DAW, i never experienced any problems using digital connections. Should'nt a digital link provide some advantages as less cnversions, less noise receiving cables....? Of course, sample rates and bit depth sohould be compatible ;)