gunpointmetal

Home is just through my Tannoy Reveal 502 monitors (big bang for the buck on that series!). Live I have two Mackie Thump 12s, one is on a pole and the other is on the floor behind me as a wedge. If the venue we're playing has good sound I won't even bring speakers.

My experience is usually if you have to call the sound guy out on some BS, he's already to stubborn/uneducated/belligerent to be dealt with anyways.

It's too bad so many of the other sound guys with "many-many-years" of experience don't feel that way. "Hurguhdur, you wanna go direct? What? You a keyboard player now? You wanna be a bassist? Why don't you just mic up that PA speaker back there? Hurguhdur."

Is there like a sign-up page or something? I wanna beta-test all your new gear with my sub-octave guitars!

I like Snapshots for Live use for the spillover and gapless switching. I use a lot of different sounds in a set some times, but I rarely need to have 5 different delays available in each song, so I can just copy my "Master Patch" with my clean and mean amps and change out the drives/mods/ambiance FX and then change patches between songs. As far as consistency from the FOH to your QSC, the best bet is to make sure you're building your patches at a relatively high volume to compensate for the frequency anomalies that occur with volume, and no matter how "FRFR" most speakers claim to be, the all have different crossover points and impart some sonic character. I find that though my FOH sound may differ from my on-stage monitoring, its rarely a HUGE difference and mostly comes down to how the sound guy handles my signal and the gear it's being reproduced on. I definitely have different versions of my patches based on whether I'm using an active or passive-equipped guitar, with minor EQ and gate tweaks to make them as similar as possible.

I would figure out a way to use your IEMs with your own mixer, because once you're used to IEMs playing without them sucks donkey balls. And I totally agree that you should just take the XLR off the cab mic and plug it in to the Helix. If the sound guy can't deal with that, he's not a real sound guy.

That's crazy! I carry my board, my laptop, about 6lbs of cables, power cord, and a variety of small set-up tools in mine for the last year and haven't had an issues, certainly no tearing. I would definitely contact L6.

After hearing recorded demos, seeing it action in the videos, even without putting it through paces myself, I'm of the firm belief this is a $400 modeler with a $600 upcharge for a $70 touchscreen interface. If all you care about is the UI, this is cool. If you want the best product for the money, the LT is miles beyond it. I was really interested when it was announced, but watching Headrush post terrible GC cell-phone video after terrible "shill-like" text reviews, no thanks.

I've not tried this, but can the SPDIF output be set so that it outputs at the beginning of the chain instead of the end?

Ok, that makes sense. I was responding as though you were recording guitar only.

Why would you need your interface do that? The Helix USB Driver will allow you record up to 8 input channel simulateously, with 7/8 ALWAYS being a dry, DI signal. So you can set up four mono tracks in your DAW and set the first two to Input 1 & 2, then set the next two to 7 & 8. Record all four at the same time and you have two DI tracks and a stereo "wet" track of each take.

It's pretty easy to do with your DAW, too. Open DAW->Add Native to Track->Set input Settings->Save Project to Desktop as HELIX NATIVE.RPP (for Reaper, of course). When you want to run Native, double click on that project, BAM, single track sessions with Native loaded. And that way if you get inspired, you're already in your DAW to add tracks and record.

lol at the people complaining about having to open your DAW and set-up ONE track with a VST to use this.......

Sounds like really dirty power from what you're describing. I used to live in a house built in the 40's and I'm guessing a lot of the wiring was almost as old, and I had one little practice amp that would make a consistent, almost cyclical clicking noise. There wasn't another piece of gear that would reproduce it the same way, but for some reason that little amp picked it up when the guitar was plugged in.

Yeah, I get that. What I'm saying is, if tracking latency is an issue, its pretty easy to monitor with a full tone off the Helix and record a dry track you can process with whatever software you want. If you're talking about just using it as an input to play/jam through software, Helix seems like hardware overkill anyways. And wouldn't the machine's processor/RAM dictate the ITB latency, anyways?

You guys should grab that Studio Cat Mesa OS IR pack and use one of the IRs thats of a mic on top of the cab. Sounds pretty close to what you'd expect it to sound like if you're standing out of the beam of a guitar cab. If it's a matter of feel and projection, why not just run it through a practice amp or something when you're jamming at home? \ But please, for your audience's sake, keep a nice DI tone to use live so we get a GOOD guitar sound when we come see your band.

So you mean if you're monitoring through your DAW? I guess for my use, it hasn't been any issue because I can't see any reason to monitor through the DAW instead of direct off the Helix. I'm having a hard time seeing where it would be necessary, even if you're going to use ITB effects on the final track.

Latency in regards to what? You can set-up an effects chain in Helix and then record dry with direct monitoring and have no latency in what you're hearing, then reamp your tracks back through your effects chain or do your effects ITB after the fact?

"Amp-in-a-room" is an ever-moving target that varies greatly from person to person. Some people like the sound of an Orange 4x12 coupled to floor at full-volume, but they only like that sound when they can stand 10' in front of it. Some people like the sound of a 1x12 on a stand on one side of the stage pointed directly at the side of their head...other people like four 4x12 running at moderate volumes each, but only if they can stand 25-30 degrees off-axis. I personally don't like the sound of any of those things. I didn't get into guitar because I heard my neighbor jamming through his garage door with a loud-lollipop stack, I got into guitar because I liked a sound I heard on a record. Point being, everyone's idea of "cab in a room" is different, even when people are referring to the same pieces of gear, even in the same room. If you really want your FRFR rig to sound like a 4x12 on stage.....just take a 4x12 on stage and let the sound guy mic it up (effectively eliminating the "amp in a room" sound from the FOH anyways...) People get overwhelmed by the amount of IRs available....image if every version of "amp in a room" was available....

But err'body wants their 1x12 PA speaker with a horn to accurately recreate the feel of the position of a 4x12 cabinet exactly 9.3' away and 3' off axis with room reflections of their specific space they like the sound of their amp at the exact volume they really start to "feel" it. That doesn't seem unreasonable or pointless at all........(heavy sarcasm, in case there was any confusion)

Exactly. Guitarists often forget that MOSTpeople couldn't give a flying F about how we hear our sound.

Having this same discussion on TGP. That "in the room" sound will be HP/LP and EQ'd within an inch of life a by any FOH or recording engineer that is more worried about the overall mix than just what the guitar sounds like. I think it would be cool to have that "room" sound available, but in reality it would rarely be useful (or more useful) than a close-mic'ed sound because ultimately, its not about how the guitar sounds by itself, its how the guitar sounds mixed with all the other instruments. If that was the "ideal" FOH sound, there'd be be amp cabinets in every decent sized venue with some flat stereo mics five and half feet off the ground, ten feet away from the cab, facing away from the cab to capture the sound as the guitarist would like to hear it.

Yes, it is, however Helix has two separate DSP paths (the two lines for effects on the display) and its possible to have them both process the incoming signal in entirely different manners, then output one to the left channel and one to the right channel, or both out both channels. Or you can run the output of path A into the input of Path B for one long continuous chain. If its set so path A and Path B have the guitar (or multi) set as the input, its possible that one whole path is passing the dry signal to the outputs, and by using the L/Mono out, both would be summed to mono, giving you your effect on path A mixed with the dry Path B at the output.

Try setting the output at the end of Path A to the Input of Path B. I think that maybe you're sending the input signal down both paths and then using the L/Mono output is combining both paths. Please feel free to upload a patch, though, as it is helpful.

Upload your patches so someone can take a look, might be an overlooked routing issue. Do you mean dry as in not being effected by the preamp of the amp you have it hooked up to?