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


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    ...Winston Salem NC
  • Interests
    Beer... Guitar... Beer... amps... Beer...
  • Registered Products

Eric_Harbauer's Achievements


Apprentice (3/14)

  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In

Recent Badges



  1. Please keep post if you get this sorted out. I have been considering doing this myself.
  2. I had a similar experience when I put a preamp (AMT ss-10) in the loop. The clipping I experienced seemed to be on the return from the preamp. I also didn't like the way the unit sounded when I messed with the send and return levels. The fix for me was to set the loop to Instrument level, go into the front (High z) input on the pre and come out from the effects send from the preamp, instead of the line level out. Maybe lowering the output level from the zoom effects might help. Oh yeah I also added a LA studio comp at the end of my chain to bump up the overall gain.
  3. Get a 2 notes torpedo. put it in a loop, tweak for days.... Plus you can use it with your amps.
  4. Its an Interesting discussion for sure. I'm just not really sure you could prove where an IR came from. At the end of the day IR's are really just A speaker EQ curve, summed with a mic EQ curve, and then exposed to a very short reverb to create the phasing effect of multiple speakers and a room and a cab. I'd imagine It would be very hard to prove you owned any of that chain. To my way of thinking... if you made a blended IR, using your gear to create a sweep file and recording it with your own gear, and your own EQ settings.... At that point, you have made something entirely new, and it would be yours. Again I'm no lawyer... Now if you include the original .wav file (source code or whatever its called) then it would be a no no, and dishonest if not illegal. But using an IR, installed in my gear, measured by my gear, to create my own sound... I don't see how anyone could legally lay claim to that. Just my opinion tho...
  5. Just my thoughts on the subject... I'm no lawyer... Here is my understanding of IR's IR's are an artistic measurement of an acoustic space. They are created by using a microphone to record either an artificially generated frequency sweep or an impulse, typically a balloon pop. They are often used to measure reverb, and to re-create the reverb effect of different spaces, halls, churches and the like. Mic placement, type(s), impulse used, recording gear... and many many other factors create an IR. The files are then run through a software package that uses a process called deconvolution. Guitarists use them to measure the frequency response of different mic/cabinet/room combinations. They are recorded with the specs (mic placement) etc and sold commercially. That file is the Intellectual Property of the seller (redwirez, Ownhammer, etc) and selling that or distributing that would be a no no. Now if I buy an IR from Redwirez, and one from Ownhammer, and blend them with a cab from helix, and maybe add a bit of lexcon reverb, do a frequency sweep, deconvolve the output file, convert it to .wav format IMHO thats now my IP, my musical interpretation of an IR that suits my musical style. It would be no different than buying some cabs and mics, and creating the mix myself. If I measure my Marshall cab with an SM57 does Marshall own my output file? no. Now to be clear, I'm no lawyer... and I may be incorrect on this whole IP subject, But I cant see how sharing or selling my own musical interpretation of a particular blend of my gear that I purchased, and created a musical file is anyone else's property. That said. Just re-naming and re distributing someone else's files as Definitely out, plus I'm quite sure you'd get caught. There's lots of ways to digitally track IP. And if not illegal, is super shady.
  6. Please notice the amp under the cornford. It is clearly the Dual Showman in question. As far as mods go I have no idea. He said it is like a cross between a fender and a marshall, so maybe fender gain structure/ tone stack and EL34 tubes... IDK . These days he is playing DV mark amps. and the Carl Martin pedal he just developed this past year.
  7. My Apologies. I read the timescale wrong. Oopsies Anyway I updated the numbers as measured on my Helix. They seem a lot more reasonable now.
  8. Fair enough. It is entirely possible I screwed up my measurements. I may have got the scale or the pulse width wrong. It's the first time I've tried to figure out timescale. I'll check it as soon as I'm back in front of my gear. If that's the case I'll update the numbers in my post. The interesting thing to me was that SPDIF is slower than the the regular send and returns. And the fact that adding blocks had a negligible effect on the latency. I ran 2 simultaneous signals one thru helix and the other was looped back on itself. So essentially I was comparing a to b. My goal being to find out which one was faster. As far as the time measurement went I just read it off the o scope screen which was set to 2 ms per subdivision. I may have gotten the scale wrong. If that's the case the round trip latency should be around 1.8ms per A/D conversion whose does seem more realistic. As I said I'll check it out and update the post
  9. UPDATED AND CORRECTED!!! My apoligies for the incorrect numbers (I read the timescale incorrectly on my Oscope screen) In the original post. I'd like to begin by saying I've been very impressed with my helix so far. I'm really enjoying it, and I am not posting this to bash it in any way whatsoever. But I'm naturally curious, and mostly unhappy with the SPDIF I/O, and wanted to really understand why, which is what prompted this whole experiment. With all the connection possibilities I have been experimenting hooking different pieces of gear I own to the various I/Os, with some great, and some not so great results. One of the biggest questions I've had has been with the digital I/Os. Is it actually faster to use SPDIF? Logic would say yes. No A/D conversion. It has to be faster right? Well I haven't been so happy with Helix in that regard. My 2 notes torpedo Hasn't sounded as good as I think it should through the SPDIF I/O. So I started digging online. What I found was a lot of nonsense. Threads saying that each foot of cable added 1ms of latency (this is wrong by the way) and people claiming that Helix is sub 1ms latency. hmmm Just a few quick numbers, as tested on my Helix floor with an O scope straight thru on a blank preset. Each and every time you convert A/D -> D/A it's 1.8 ms ...Yes that means each loop you engage adds 1.8 ms So to be clear. guitar in + 4 loops (in series) + 1/4" out = 9ms maximum of latency due to A/d conversion 4 cable method should clock in at around 3.6ms (assuming no other effects in circuit) SPIDIF I/O appears to not run as fast as as the standard I/Os 48k runs slightly faster then 44.1k 88k or 96k I tested this by looping spdif send and return to itself. As you add gear latency will increase due to the outboard gear. Other interesting notes about the SPDIF I/O there is no option for sync (internal vs spdif) and it connects to my two notes torpedo and transmits and receives audio even when the two units are set to entirely different sync and sample rate settings. There's also other spdif weirdness but as I said it's not my intent to bash Helix, so I won't go into them here. On the positive side, adding blocks does not appear to slow the unit down much. like less than .2ms for an amp. I haven't thoroughly tested this but a real quick check loading blocks up till I started to run out of DSP and very little change in latency. IR Blocks may have more latency associated with them but that is probably more due to the nature of what an IR actually is rather than processing power My takeaways. Use the internal blocks in helix as much as possible. Minimize A/D conversion. Stereo loops (parallel) are 1.8ms for both Serial loops are 1.8ms each Avoid using SPDIF for live playing (it's fine for re-amping etc) Anyway... I thought I'd share this. Rock On ✌
  10. Mine did it twice now. ...But not every time so far. But I've got an eye on this too. Update: Mine did it A total of 2 times. When I first Updated the firmware, and a second time when I powered it back on the next day. Since then its been fine.
  11. First Column is labeled all products. Second one is labeled all software. Its Helix, not pod farm, it confused me. Maybe they should name it Helix Editor. Just a thought... ...And now where's that Mezcal.
  12. I gotta say I totally agree with all of this . In fact when I first got my Helix (3 weeks ago) I had a hard time finding the editor. Why are there 2 pulldown menus where you can select Helix. It's just confusing. It's amazing, great, wonderful, easy to use, and all of that. But it's also, a little bit glitchy, lacking the depth and volume of models that the competition has, and annoying to update mostly because of easily fixed navigation BS on your website. Cmon.... this is your flagship product. Can we add easy to follow hyperlinks?
  13. IDK. A level meter block would be nice tho.
  14. light up the effect block by moving the joystick, touch and hold the button you want to assign it to until the green checkmark pops up on the screen, press the knob with the green checkmark, highlight the next block and repeat the process. the scribble strip should read multiple (2) after you assign the second one.
  15. I'm having this issue as well. I'm running my helix top signal path via spdif out into a two notes torpedo vb101 and then returning via spdif to the lower signal path then out to XLR. It's a new unit I just purchased from Sweetwater about a week ago. Additionally when I first power up my studio (everything runs off the same power conditioner to eliminate ground loops) the level meters start pegging on the torpedo. It doesn't stop until I switch patches a few times on the Helix. Clock Sync issues? I have both units set at 96k.
  • Create New...