Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Jose7822

  1. This is the kind of thing that baffles me.  Of course everything works fine on older versions of Windows, but not on older versions of the Mac.  One is an open system and one is a closed system.  L6 can easily test on the various versions of Windows, but has to purchase different hardware to test older Apple versions.  This isn't an L6 problem, it's a problem with Apple.  Don't ask L6 to compensate for Apple's corporate policy of abandoning their user base if they don't upgrade.

    I never said this was a Line 6 problem, nor am I asking them to purchase anything. Otherwise, I agree with you :-).

  2. Ha! I bet D.I. now regrets saying that.


    It's like the next firmaware update must live up to the hype. Maybe that's partly why it's taking so long (I understand that the editor is the main reason for the delay)? I'm sure we'll find out soon though.

    • Upvote 1
  3. You got a point but i have requested a voting for porting the Editor and Driver for older version of Mac OS like Lion or even Snow Leopard..

    Not many use older those OS these days that means noone voted for it.

    But heres the thing

    I cant afford a newer mac (And i cant install newer OS than 1.7.5 on my Mac Pro) hell i just bought a Heiix it willk take many years before i can buy a new Mac Pro..

    So i NEED help with many votes so L6 is rewriting the Editor so it accept older version then OSX 10.8 i would say 10.6 as the oldest many studios still run on 10.6

    But they can of course have several computers so no need to use the dedicated studio computer to hook up the Helix on..

    So i still think we can HELP eacother on important issues even if we dont need that option..

    That's the one thing I loath about the Mac OS environment. Sometimes updates requires new hardware. I bet you I could use the Helix driver on a Windows XP machine, or at least in Windows Vista (which is still an older OS than both Mountain Lion and Snow Leopard). That sucks!

  4. Why? :-(


    They're good ideas that would benefit people who like the new Mesa JP-2C amp, or who own a Kemper/Axe FX II and want to connect it to the Helix via S/PDIF. That way you don't go through several A/D and D/A conversions. Keeps the signal pristine!

  5. I agree with you Agbiggs, except that a lot of people will not agree with it only because of the precedence (of free updates) that Fractal and Kemper have established in recent years. If they charge for new amp models, Line 6 risks the potential of not attracting new customers. So free updates could be thought of as a way to get people into buying Helix.


    Having said that, I personally wouldn't mind a small charge if it includes amps and effects that I want, given the lower price point of Helix. It also depends on how frequent they update and improve Helix. So far, it seems they are on the right track, given the update they just released.

    • Upvote 1
  6. Well I guess I'll have to try it but from my understanding you can't control everything from the controller. I'm always changing between different amps and cabs(or IRs) and things besides just the amp controls.

    I believe that IR loading and preset (set list) backup are the only things you'd really need the software editor for. Everything else can be done with the hardware itself.


    BTW, are you seriously doubting what DI said about the speed of the hardware? :-P


    And what was the purpose of this thread? LOL

  7. It was never going to be "POD HD2". We just needed a code name for the metric ton of project management tools and files that are sent worldwide, and that's generally done first thing, so... not long after HD500 came out. Yeah, it's about the least inspiring code name ever.


    Most of our older wireless projects have early 1900's scientist-based code names. There are a bunch of Star Trek-based code names too.

    I see. Thanks for that insider note :-)

  8. Hmm... If I understand what you want to do, yeah, it looks doable. If your Variax and Guitar use the same processing blocks, you can do it with only two of the four paths:


    • Set the input block to Multi.
    • Split the signal right before the outputs.
    • Move the merge block down to create two outputs (one set to Multi, which includes both XLR and 1/4", the other set to Send 3/4).
    • Place a Return 4 block on Path 1B, right before the Output > Send 3/4 block.
    If you need separate processing for your Variax and Guitar, you'll need all four paths:

    • After performing Steps 1-4 above, duplicate Paths 1A and 1B to 2A and 2B.
    • Set Path 1A's Input block to Variax and Path 2A's Input block to Guitar.

    Hmm, I was pretty close, though I forgot to include the duplication of Path B (duh!).

    • Upvote 1
  9. Blondiedk,


    From what I understand about Helix's routing so far, you could probably do that, but in a slightly different way from your graph. I think you won't be able to merge Path 1A into Path 2A as per your graph, but you could simply copy the FX chain after the merge in Path 1A into Path 2A. That will give you the same results, though it will cost you more DSP to achieve. I'm sure Helix has enough processing power as long as you're not using too many Amps and Cabs, which doesn't appear to be your case.


    Having said that, please take what I just said with a grain of salt. I don't own a Helix, but I'm sure someone who does (or from Line 6) will answer your question. Just thought I'd give your question a stab :-).

    • Upvote 1

    If @Digital_Igloo can answer that, thank you very much! :)

    DI is on vacation, but he may still answer your questions. If not I'm sure someone else will.

  • Create New...