gunpointmetal

Scribble strips and the inputs and outputs on the Helix are more full-featured than the LT, otherwise from a sound/software point of view, they are exactly the same. As far as sales, it depends on the retailer you're buying from.

I had no idea switching was such a physically complicated endeavor. Who knew?

I like the stock cabs, I just wish we could "dual-mic" a single cab without having to use two blocks. I find I like them best when I can mix a bright dynamic mic with a fuller-sounding condenser/ribbon mic. It's the same with IRs actually, but most IR packs have a lot of really good pre-mixed selections so you can do it one block.

Why is this better and not just different?

So, I went to work on learning some music last night with the Firehawk connected to my laptop like I've done a few times a week since I got it well over a year ago, guitar pro was coming out of the headphones just fine, connected to the app no problem. Then I wanted to work on some original stuff in Reaper, again like I've done so many times since I got the Firehawk, and when I went in to Reaper's settings menu and selected the Firehawk driver I got a BSOD and a restart. Tried multiple times, same thing. Tried to open L6 Updater to see if I missed something, and got a BSOD again. Unplugged the Firehawk USB, opened L6 Updater, plugged in the Firehawk...and BSOD. My Helix worked just fine, my Behringer X-Air loaded up just fine, and Firehawk is functional as the Windows soundcard for other programs when its connected, but the Updater and Reaper (and Audacity, figured I'd try everything) would crash if I tried to access the Firehawk. I could access my Helix connected to another port with the Firehawk connected, tried mutiple USB cables, both ports on the laptop, power cycling, etc. I have a support ticket in, just curious if anyone else has seen this or fixed it?

You might wanna make sure that some of your trem/EQ settings aren't being linked to your pedal that the volume is set to. I don't have that behavior at all. If I were going to set up a lead boost that wasn't a "tone" boost, I'd probably just pop a gain block after the amp/cab with the level set wherever you want it and toggle it on/off with a switch, or assign the channel level of the amp model to a snapshot.

Yep, so far I can't figure out how to route a USB output anywhere without making it an Input, which IMO is kinda dumb considering its 8x8 USB interface. I would love do this with mine since I don't use any of the loops. Just route the audio from my laptop to FX 1/2 and 3/4 and have stereo backtracks and sub drops on their own channels, but Noooooo, lo.

IME stereo works best if you're using two separate mono signal chains with slightly different FX on each side. Sounds more like two guitarists than one big stereo guitar, and the sound guy can run both channels only partially panned (like he probably would for two guitarists) without worrying too much about phase issues. Makes it even easier if you can spread your speakers apart on stage so its more like two separate cabinets than one stereo cabinet. If you're going strictly direct from the Helix the PA, the sound guy can adjust the panning to fit the room if need be. If you're monitoring on-stage with a single speaker source like a guitar cabinet, I'd probably just stick to mono even if the cab supports stereo. You can always blend your amps together in mono, then add a stereo reverb at the end of a little space. For me, I just go mono live. We don't usually do our own sound and I'm still having a hard time convincing sound guys to take my DI feed half the time. They'd probably have a small stroke if I started asking for TWO lines for guitar.

Stacking preamps is usually a recipe for mud. I could see a good clean bass amp having a useful EQ section running into the front end, though. Usually people will use preamps/drives on the helix and use the amp as a power section and speaker, so the Helix replaces all the amp controls.

They do, for the most part, recreate the actual responses of those cabs with those microphones. I think a lot of people don't like how the stock cabs feel, instead of not liking how they sound. It's due to the fact that on every recording of a guitar ever, there is some EQ (either with multiple microphones and placement, board, or DAW) and IME, most guitarists have no idea what a real cab actually sounds like when you're at the level a microphone is when it is placed. Guitar speakers are actually awful sound reproduction systems, and most guitarists that are used to playing with a real cab adjust it to sound good as to where they are standing in reference the cabinet, which is usually 5'-10' in front and anywhere from 3'-5' off-axis. What sounds good coming from a very, very directional speaker at that position, is more often than not REALLY shrill and boomy or boxy right in the beam of that speaker. It's one of the reasons so many guitarists have certain spots on stage relative to their amp where they will prefer to stand, because the guitar tone isn't great, its just great right there. The best place to apply the HPF/LPF filtering, for me, is right after the cab and before any time-based FX. The input signal can also be manipulated, if you're not getting what you want out of the amp (which is why a lot of high gain guys will use a boost front of a distorted amp, which usually cuts some of the lows and pushes the highs/mids into the amp louder where the sound "cuts" in a mix"). There's really no right or wrong, but in a "recording" signal chain, I'd say after the cab/IR.

I've seen SO many people over the last 10 years of using modelers buy one, click through presets and then be disheartened when it doesn't sound exactly like the artist they saw using the gear, or the YouTube demo video or whatever. They're just tools. Very, very, very advanced tools with lots of parameters and settings that need to be adjusted for every nuance of each individual player, just like an amp and individual pedals. Nobody just plugs into a Diezel with the settings wherever they are at random and achieves tonal nirvana, why would you expect to do that with a modeler. That's why people can make money selling artist packs and tone packs, because its easier for someone else to do the work.

Unless you're mixing pre-amp with IR, or your IR's are not great, those ARE the sounds of a mic'ed up cab. Guitar cabinets don't just stop producing sound a 5kHz, those frequencies above whatever range is nominal for the speaker are just quieter the further away from whatever the optimal response of speaker, so even a mic'ed cab is still reproducing frequencies above the "cut off" of the speaker. Every amplifier has different areas where they sound harsh or boomy, so adjusting EQ and then sticking an amp model behind it isn't ideal for a good tone, either. Some amp/IR combos will sound fine with little to now HPF/LPF going on, certain combinations will need a LPF at 8k, some might need one all the way down to 4k. "Pre-EQing" for recording seems like a bad idea to me unless every song has the same dynamics, the same accompaniment instruments, the same drumming styles, the same bass tone, and the same collection of notes you're using on the guitar. I would suggest using complimentary microphones/positions and a couple of IR's (close-up SM57 with a further back ribbon or condenser microphone or similar) and level those two to get the EQ profile you're looking for, and even then I'd still expect to do fine adjustments ITB depending on the song/part/additional instrumentation. There are no "magic" cuts that work for every amp/cab/gain configuration.

I also built several "starter" patches that have an EQ set-up that way with my prefered gate settings, and routing set-up so I can just copy them over and change amp models and FX. Makes life easier.

ヘ( ^o^)ノ＼(^_^ )

Useless probably isn't quite accurate, but knowing how something is going to work for you versus how it works for someone making a video is not really all that accurate, IME. I really enjoyed the Kemper on the few occasions I've had to use one, but I didn't like that I needed to find another profile if I wanted to do anything even remotely drastic with gain or tone settings. I prefer the control available on devices like Helix and AFX, but I don't like AFX editing (or price tag, or foot pedals, or waiting lists, lol). I think the cabs are the biggest issues with the Helix, because you can only move the microphone forward or back, instead of up or down the cone from center like most people would. With stock cabs I've had the best luck using two cabs and having one with a bright dynamic mic up close and a darker condenser or ribbon mic moved way back with lots of room reflections, then blending them till its fills out the way I want. It's good for playing alone, but most of the "room" mic sound gets EQ'd away when I'm trying to fit a band mix. I personally prefer to use IRs for the cabs and get a lot closer to what I'm expecting just dropping in an IR of a V30 cab with an SM57 mic about an inch and a half up the cone from the dust cap.

The helix only sounds cold and lifeless if you set it up that way. Recording it sounds like a mic'ed cabinet in another room coming back to you through studio monitors. Demo videos on YouTube are all but useless for deciding how well something will fit your own personal needs, so I can't really speak to that, but I will say that not every tool works the same for everyone and sometimes concessions need to be made (complicating a solo rig with a mixer and using a Kemper or other modeler that sounds "right") if some part of the setup isn't doing it for you.

If you think the Helix is a tweaker's nightmare, don't open the deep parameters in the Fractal-verse. Seriously, this whole "show me you clips" thing is kind of like when you tell someone you don't like their favorite band and they say "well, what does your band sound like?" Totally irrelevant. If you like something, can afford it, and want it, buy it. I'll admit Fractal gets about 3% more "feel" in their amp models (when they're run through a real cab, DI into a PA I can't tell the difference from a playing perspective with equal cabinet modeling), but I can't justify a 100% price difference for a 3% feel difference.

What is the purpose of the thread? Do you own a Helix? Do you own an AFXIII? The only way to ACTUALLY know which one you prefer is to use them.

I can dial in just about ANY modeler to sound like what I want it to. If they would have updated the cabs in the HD500X, I'd still be rocking that, but I wanted to get all my IRs and tones in one box. I also like having digital gear that I can walk into GC and replace. There are lots of reasons to buy an AFX III, just like there are lots of reasons to buy a Helix. If you really want THE BEST digital amp tones, you buy a Kemper (and then hope someone made a profile that's pretty close to what you already want, because even that device has a variety of shortcomings.)

Ok. Pointless thread is pointless. I hear the people over at the Gear Page like to debate for no reason.

So buy a AFX III. I haven't heard anything that would convince me that its worth the extra $1600 dollars (at least, if you want the official foot controller and an expression pedal, since for some reason the foot controller doesn't have one). If gear inspires you, use it. Pointless thread is pointless.

I saw them last spring and there were at least two Helix Racks in their big stage rack along with the X32 they use for IEMs. I believe Skyharbor had one Helix Rack and one AFX in their guitar rack, too. I'm not sure why someone's budget would determine if they use a Helix or a Fractal modeler. IME the difference in tone from Fractal to Helix is nowhere near worth the price difference, and allowing IR loading pretty much makes it a preference thing. I haven't used an AFX III yet, but even if I had the money I'd have taken a Helix over the flagship AFX that was available at the time, just because the Helix UI and user experience is 10x better. Even guys in big bands like to get their hands on the gear and Helix ease-of-use for how powerful it is whoops AFX lollipop for functionality, for me, anyways.

Yeah, I didn't get that at all, lol. We're not like stoner-doom loud, but we're pretty freaking loud, and what it really comes down to is that we're pushing A LOT of low end (I'm playing a guitar with 9-strings tuned to A an octave below the A you'd have if you tuned a seven-string guitar down a step) which automatically require a little more juice to get loud. The standard Powercab would probably work fine for me in my other band that's instrumental and little dialed-back as far the gain goes, but when I auditioned my heavy tones on one (even with the input level adjustment) it was still quite a bit quieter than my single 12" Mackie PA monitor, of which I put two on stage when PA support is lacking right now (one on a pole, one below it in monitor position). I just want a Powercab that can do what a Orange/Mesa 2x12 guitar cab can do in a room.

It's a very music/location/genre dependent thing. We're playing downtuned, high-gain, aggressive music and a single 12" guitar speaker isn't gonna carry a room in that context. It's fine for practice when we're on our IEMs and the speaker is behind me close enough to give a little push, but live in an room not designed for sound, not happening.

That was pretty much how I felt when I tried out a couple (in store and in someone else's rig). If I was in a radio rock band going direct, that would be a great monitor solution. For a math/core/death metal band playing live on the floor of a bar with no real PA, its not gonna cut it on its own. I just really hope they don't go too crazy and make it a dual-IR, stereo, do-it-all box and charge $1500 for it. I'm really tempted to just grab a Spider V 240 combo and run into the front of it with no amp/FX running.