kronda

I'm not asking how to do something, just why some feature in Native is limited the way it is while it would make perfect sense (to me) to implement it differently. Doesn't matter, perhaps Line 6 will extend this functionality in a future version.

On 7/14/2018 at 8:39 PM, soundog said:

In Logic Pro (my DAW), a user normally assigns a single "thing" (plug-in parameter, volume, pan, send, etc) to a single automation lane. It keeps things more predictable and manageable. I imagine its the same in Cubase, unless Cubase lets you create macros to group automations under a single control. Snapshots are really the best thing to use for what you want to do: if you add 1 or 2 more blocks later, edit your HXN snapshot accordingly, and you shouldn't have to change the Cubase snapshot automation.

 

Another option to play with would be MIDI control — you might be able to assign a MIDI control to multiple "things" in Cubase, and use MIDI to control Helix (now that HXN supports MIDI control).

 

Thanks for your reply but that's not what I'm asking about. Of course that a single automation lane in any DAW will usually control only a single parameter. But in case of Helix Native this parameter to control is an abstract Switch or Knob. And if you look automating, say,  Switch 1 as automatically pressing Footswitch 1 on Helix Floor that you can imagine that multiple actual block toggles could be assigned to Switch 1 similarly as multiple actual block toggles could be assigned to Switch 1 in Native.

 

My question is why did Line 6 resort to this indirect parameter automation while not allowing to assign multiple actual parameters to individual Switch X and Knob X abstract controllers? Rather then exposing all the actual parameters directly (like Amp [Slot A1-3 Drive, Reverb [Slot A2-6] Mix etc)? I guess it's kind of easier to like this, otherwise finding the right parameters could be a nightmare. I would just love if they made that one more step and allow multiple actual parameters assigned to individual abstract controllers...

 

I guess IdeaScale is the only way to get this noticed by Line6.

Hi Guys,

 

so I noticed I cannot assign multiple blocks to one automation Switch to toggle multiple blocks at once by a single automation lane (in Cubase in my case). It's even mentioned in the manual so I get that it's intentional. Could anybody explain why? It would directly correspond to how Helix Floor footswitches work so I'm a bit puzzled.

 

I would often use this feature because whenever I start automating I feel I'd like to make that change more pronounced (say switch on drive and mod and delay at the same time for a solo). Currently I end up with multiple automation lanes having exactly the same shape just to control 2 or more block toggles (or min-max parameter value changes) at exactly the same time. I guess I should use snapshots but I always start with a simple one block switch and then just want to add 1 or 2 more blocks to the same switch so it's not convenient to change the lane in Cubase...

 

Just wondering, I can live with it, just this seems like an inconsistency in otherwise perfect system.

 

Thanks for any opinions.

I haven't heard about that. Is that confirmed somewhere?

 

The only hint I've seen is the survey sent out couple months back by Line 6 to current Variax users (asking about which features we dont/use and what new we would like to see in new Variax models). I still take it they may or may not decide whether it's worth making a new gen. I'd love to see it. Only have Variax Bass and Acoustic (so gen 1) now and except for Shuriken the gen 2 models (JTV and Standard) are aesthetically too repelling for me and Shuriken is just reusing the 4(?) years old gen 2 tech which simply cannot justify the money spent.

 

But not to steal this wonderfull topic: Let's get back to moaning about not getting the new Helix firmware today...

I was pretty much repeating what DI said here: https://www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php?posts/24636213/

 

Cool, so it's already been turned down by Line 6. Thanks for the link. If I understand it correctly DI still offered the IdeaScale way of pushing it forward but doesn't seem likely to happen even if it made it to Top 10 requested...

Not the same, but makes it each block work as intended. https://line6.ideascale.com/a/idea-v2/862873

 

Yes, that's a possible simpler way of enhancing our options. But would have to be switchable - e.g. the current behavior stays as Impedance setting AutoFirst and they could add a new option AutoFirstActive or something. Otherwise current presets using Auto would change sound completely....

 

Agree, great idea, put it up on IdeaScale, I'd vote it up.

 

Here you go: https://line6.ideascale.com/a/idea-v2/907926

 

That would make things confusing IMO. A better way for ultimate flexibility would be to make the impedance track the first active block, but at the same time add the input impedance as a parameter for every effect. Some people seem to prefer how the amps react and sound with a 230k input impedance, that would allow it and, if anyone happens to prefer all impedances the same, that would easily be accomplished. 

 

It's really in evetyone's HO what's more confusing - true/false bypass for each effect or a specific impedance for each effect (if I understand you correctly). 

 

 

Tracking the input impedance of every block along with the on/off state of each block is quite a bit more data to deal with. The thing with all these little subroutines is they add up and end up making the gap when switching presets longer. Right now the input impedance can be tied to a snapshot controlller, so it's pretty simple for people to set it how they want it.

 

Yes, everybody knows the code inside out here :) For me it doesn't seem like a big deal (I'm a programmer, of course) but could be wrong. So let's conclude with "maybe it can be done, maybe it can't, only Line 6 know and they wont tell"?

 

I just don't get it why people make these negative conclusions without knowing the code ("Yes, that's too DSP intensive, forget it"). We're just creating inspiration for Line 6 here, how about letting them be the ones turning it down if it doesn't make sense...? Creates unproductive discussions ("Hey, but my phone's app can do it! It can't be that DSP intensive...") about something (Helix code) that nobody here knows. IMHO, of course. And full respect for everybody's opinion.

many thanks - sorted it - I am using the same switch to turn the fuzz on & off to now change the z setting - in effect it creates the impression of a a true bypass pedal now - awesome help on here 

 

It would actually be very cool if Line 6 added a "True Bypass" parameter to every pedal. That way we'd have perfect control over the impedance propagation thru the pedal chain... If a fuzz would be first in the chain with True Bypass set to true and the preset would have Impedance set to Auto, then switching the fuzz off would mean the impedance would be dictated by the next pedal in the chain. 

Don't hold your breath. Variax guitars in general don't exactly fly off the shelves, much less one with a baritone scale neck and styled to appeal to a very specific demographic. I'm a bit surprised they made it at all...and judging by the fact that days to weeks routinely go by without any posts in the Shuriken forum, I'd say guys aren't exactly lining up to get one.

 

I don't disagree with this but it's interesting to check out the Facebook page "Shuriken Guitars". Recently there were some posts asking about preferred other finishes and also which bridge to use for a regular scale Shuriken (should it ever be made...). May not happen at all but it at least shows people are thinking about it. And that there are more than 6000 people following that page...

Please excuse the misunderstanding. I failed to specify that the product has been deleted from the online store of the two biggest online retailers in Germany, Thomann and Musicstore. Two days ago both still showed the product with "available 8.8.2017" (in Thomanns case) and "ships 27.8.2017" (Musicstore) – 

I just want to know what is going on and when I can expect to get a Shuriken.

 

If you check "Shuriken Guitars" on Facebook there is a bit of info there - basically something about the CITES procedure (rosewood imports) and that delivery in Europe is expected by mid-September. But someone with Shuriken on order from Thomann also said there that he got an update from Thomann recently - delivery Oct 31 :(

 

Hard to understand these delays when there are Shurikens available in stock in US (Sweetwater). But I also understand that the European eshops decided to pull the product from there webpage since the distributor is evidently unable to provide a reliable delivery date. 

Think about the sequence of events here, tho. Helix Native 1.0 is essentially aligned to Helix 2.21. If they release a new firmware before Helix Native, they're resetting everything to then bring the engine improvements and everything else up to parity. So, Native gets delayed even more and people get pissed off about THAT.

 

The development is multi-threaded, which is why there is a backlog of finished models just waiting. But they're never released in a vacuum. They come with DSP changes and tweaks to fix existing issues and to make the new models possible. Those changes and tweaks must be tested, but that can only be done once there is a single firmware target across all of the platforms.

 

The alternative to all of this is that we get piecemeal releases like Fractal does where there is a public beta for the Axe-FX, but not for the AX8. Then, the AX8 gets the latest official version, but not the Axe-FX, and so on and so forth. And they don't even have a VST plugin to code for.

Hm, if the new models are indeed complete for some time then (if I was the dev lead and the whole architecture was in a good shape) I'd merge them in and release 2.30 firmwares before starting Native beta testing and then iron out all bugs in that version and release Native with Core 2.30. I understand if they chose not to merge but then it just shows that the current architecture of Helix Core needs to be fixed first to allow smooth merging of new models while working on platform enhancements.

 

But I understand that multiplatform development is always messy so not saying I'd be able to do it better.

 

So again, no problem here, just the delay explanation describes "fixing" as exciting news...

To be fair, there have been two major architectural developments that are months apart that have necessitated the delays.

 

The first was Snapshots. The second is Native (and a new editor shortly thereafter). After Native, it should be relatively downhill from there. The new models for 2.3x are supposedly just about done and sitting around.

Wasn't there also a similar explanation why the current Helix Editor took so long? I'm not sure, just feels to me it's been 3 times so far.

 

Anyway, in almost 2 years of Helix history there have probably never been a fast and simple "routine" update just adding new models (amps, fx...). For example when 2.20 firmware was being delayed, Digital_Igloo said that Ben already started working on 2.30 models. That was in February I think. So why haven't these models been published yet? If because of Native then the development stream is essentially single-threaded, which isn't something to write home about since different people are working on very different things.

 

Anyway, in principle I'm not mad about it and not trying to say Line6 is doing a bad job. I'm just a bit immune to excitement some users here experience when reading "explanations" of why delays are happening.

Knowing that there are a bunch of architectural changes that went into Native so that future development can be done in tandem and at a quicker pace is exciting. Thanks for sharing that info.

Well, as a software developer I know I went this rabbit hole many times - spending awful amounts of time refactoring things so that possibe future improvements are so easy... But these improvements never happened and the time was wasted.

 

 

As a Helix user I'm not sure if (or better "how much") this is the case with Helix but so far I've seen much more news about "delays happening due to faster future development" than, well, faster developments.

 

But in any case, Helix is making me happy and I'm starting to need Helix Native about now (album recording starting) so it should all work out.

Even though the manual says to not use phantom power, you won't hurt the hardware by trying it. If the signal-to-noise ratio drops precipitously, you know there's a problem. If it appears to sound the same, you're in the clear. The difference will be obvious.

 

So Helix and Helix LT are really the same in this regard? I thought you'd sort it out for LT release...

You misunderstand. 

 

...

 

No, you misunderstand... :)

 

Alright, we can do this all day. I think that it's totally pointless to think in terms of "primary functions" when it comes to a piece of gear such as Helix which was I believe designed mainly to be "flexible".

But it wasn't designed to be the hub of your whole band. It was designed to be the hub of your whole guitar system.

...

 

I mean, who said so? (rhetorical question...)

 

There's no point arguing here, I just wanted to express disagreement with your previous statement which sounded like "this is more than Helix can handle/was designed for..." and backed that with my argument about independent processing paths and extensive I/O options. Because I don't see a single reason (other than "my feeling is..." which is not a reason) to limit myself from using Helix to its full potential. And based on my (great) experience with Helix I'd like to encourage others to do so as well.

Here's a suggestion.

...

 

That said, I think this is asking more of Helix than it comfortably can do, but you could make it work.

 

I don't know what makes you say that. Helix has 4 independent processing paths and a lot of inputs and outputs. I read that as a clear message: "hey, I'm Helix, I'm here to work it out!" :)

 

Seriously, when I'm processing 3 inputs independently at once it's the only time I feel I have a scenario worth Helix's capabilities.

I wasn't initially going to share my setup since timmyo expressed desire for the simplest setup possibly but seeing the discussion so far, perhaps somebody might find mine helpful. It is probably TL;DR for most of you so sorry for that. Story short - I use Focusrite Scarlett 6i6 with my Helix floorboard and can do 3 (or 4 if needed) totally independent processing lines in Helix and have all 3 (or 4) processed inputs on separate balanced XLR outputs.

 

Ok, here it is:

 

I am in a pretty much similar situation - need two mics and a guitar (acoustic variax) to go into Helix (floorboard, non-LT) and process each of them separately. Moreover I wanted to have 3 separate outputs to the PA for each of these inputs (so that the soundguy can control the balance) and preferred to have all of the outputs balanced (i.e. XLR, not simple/instrument unbalanced TS jacks). Also thinking into the future I might need laptop as well and would like to have mono or stereo outputs from it ready for the soundguy, again preferably balanced.

 

So I figured - in addition to the variax input and helix mic input together with the two XLR outs on Helix (for guitar and first mic) I'd need:

1) a mic preamp for the second mic so that I can plug it into one of the return jacks

2) di box to make balanced (jack->XLR) the processed second mic signal coming out on one of the send jack

3) small usb audio interface with stereo balanced outpus for laptop output

 

Well, in the end I combined these 3 points into one - I use Focusrite Scarlett 6i6 for all of them: it has two mic preamps (need just 1 for now), 2 line inputs and 4 line outputs, it's perfect for my setup:

 

Second mic processing:

- plugs into Scarlett mic in

- gets routed from Scarlett line output 3 to Helix return 1

- Helix processes and outputs on send 1

- this unbalanced signal goes back into Scarlett line input 1

- gets routed to line output 4 - this is balanced TRS jack and I use short TRS->XLR cable just to have it physically ready for soundguy's XLR cable

 

This could be replicated for a 3rd mic/2nd guitar if needed but I use laptop instead (no Helix processing needed):

- usb connected laptop to Scarlett, uses Scarlett's line outputs 1&2 for stereo - again it is balanced so 2 short TRS->XLR cable make it ready for the soundguy

 

The hard part was to make the Scarlett routing work correctly. And then remember where all cables are supposed to be plugged! :)

 

The only thing I regret is that Scarlett is not USB-powered, so I need an adapter for it but I havent found any USB interface that would have enough connections and routing flexible enough which would be USB-powered.

 

Hope somebody finds this helpful.

Have you actually played Shuriken so that you know its scale is a dealbreaker? Just wondering if it feels that different...

You really think it's a huge latency? I have verified the behavior, but what I noticed was certainly not a "huge latency". It was actually very subtle, and I had to test it out like half a dozen times to make sure...

 

Anyway, rest easy... It's being fixed in 2.21, which will be out shortly.

 

Yes, I think it's very annoying. When I need to switch a thing on precisely for, say, the downbeat of chorus when there is no pause just before it: before the update it was very natural to hit it. Now I miss it all the time. I don't care if it's 100ms or what (probably a bit more I'd say), no point in measuring it, it just doesn't work. I guess it might be related to the volume knob lag, that could have been a sign of something being wrong internally.

 

I get it, bugs happen but I just don't feel easy about downplaying this issue. This is really breaking a performance, what else is more important? It's a ball dropped on QA side in my opinion and it takes a month to fix. Of course, people professionally relying on Helix shouldn't have upgraded or should downgrade, the rest of us can discuss here.

Apparently these are currently being delivered in the US. In Europe, however, it's a different story - June if it goes well, it seems.

Funny, I don't recall any promises, just a hopeful projection. 

 

But then again I'm just a user that's grateful for an evolving platform that I don't have to continue paying into to benefit from future improvement.

 

I'm not one caring much for word play so will let everybody to make their own opinion whether "Available in February" is a promise or not. I'm definitely not angry with L6 delivering later and my post was meant as very neutral in its sentiment, understanding it's impossible to predict timelines accurately. I'm very happy with Helix in general and with the firmware updates we're getting. At the same time I don't feel like we own anything to L6 for these as it's a business-customer relation and we paid (quite a lot, actually) to get into that relation :)

Uh, the first day of spring was less than two weeks ago... Doesn't end until June.

 

Moreover, we were promised 2.20 in February and got it very end of March so I won't hold my breath for this one (yes, I need want it, badly). That said, my estimates for our own IT projects' timelines suck as well. That's why I support L6's "no release date given" policy... ;)

Thanks for your input! :-)

Just to clarify further, does "force model" work? Like described earlier in this thread, I have no way of changing anything manually, since my Variax electronics are rack mounted.

I have everything working the way I want it with my HD500, but the sound quality really seems to be much higher in the Helix.

 

Yes, you can switch presets on Variax with settings stored in Helix preset. To be honest I don't use this feature very much and just tried this quickly and it works. However, the Variax model Names in Helix are the ones from JTV guitars so it's kind of hard to be able to select the right model. I did this on Helix directly, not in the editor, maybe it's different there. But if you change the model on Variax it will be updated in the Helix preset currently selected (if connected via VDI) so you can then just save the preset and you should be good.

 

But honestly, I would suggest you contact Line 6 support directly and I ask them explicitly about all this to have it confirmed with them. I can do some additional testing for you if you have specific questions but as I said I'm not using Variax model switching from Helix presets in real life so I might be missing something...

 

But I can confirm Helix is an awesome piece of technology, it allows me to do almost anything I ever dreamed of and both the sound and build quality is just excellent :)

Sorry, didn't spot your question before (weird, as I'm here really permanently).

 

I've been using my Variax Bass with Helix over VDI for almost a year and half now without any issues. Since there never was any Workbench support for Variax Bass there isn't even any need to wait for the upcoming firmware 2.20 which will add support for Workbench via Helix for JTVs and Standards (sadly not my older Acoustic 700...).

 

So go ahead, your Bass should work with Helix!

Unless it's a small mixer, that just seems silly in this day and age.

 

I don't know much about it but it seems to have 12 XLR/TRS combo ins plus some more inputs (probably 20 channels altogether). But I think that what's silly in this day and age is that Helix cannot really tolerate phantom power on its XLR outs. For such a wonderful piece of technology it seems really ridiculous. The inability of M20d to work together with Helix is just completing the joke. I'm a huge fan of Line 6 and Helix in particular but Line 6's inability to explicitly admit they've dropped the ball here is really... hurting my feelings :)