MonkeyXT

(Are you considering adding Helix Control to your rack eventually? I can't recommend doing so enough... not just as a solution to your current situation, but to make full use of many of the performance and convenience-oriented features that are made available to Helix Rack users - bringing things almost in line with Helix Floor (except for the need to add an expression pedal or two...).)

Here's a link that contains an article which seems to have a decent explanation for the intended purpose of most amps' presence controls. http://www2.fender.com/experience/tech-talk/presence-control/ Happy reading.

I suspect what's happened here is that the default assignment is lurking in the background of this - OP needs to go in and probably de-assign the EXP1 from controlling the VOLUME block... and/or the toe switch needs to be de-assigned from controlling the on/off state of the volume block. Sounds like right now the toe switch is see-sawing the on/off states of both the wah and the volume - just need to remove that from the volume block by highlighting the volume block and go into control assignments, and change the on/off controller assign to 'none' so that it's always active and controlled by the external EXP (2 I assume).

Sounds like the EXP1 position parameter issue - is your expression pedal tied to a volume block in your signal paths?

I've found the G50 is quite stellar - being able to dial in the 'cable length' is worth the price of admission alone. With the G50's clean signal combined with the cable length adjustment, it sounds quite invisible to me (and I'm very very fussy about this to be honest...) I'm not totally familiar with the G55 to be honest, but I'm not certain it has the same full-fledged implementation of dial-selectable 'cable-length' parameter. I've even found that, when sound-checking and finding things slightly bright or dark, and quick adjust to the cable length setting on my G50 was often all I needed to 'normalize' things to what I wanted to hear. Since I moved up to Helix, I've had the Global EQ feature in reserve ready to tackle these situations; however, *knock on wood* I haven't had to go to it thus far, instead being able to cable-tone adjust to taste. Depending on your scenario, maybe the G10 would suit - I believe it's hard-wired to be 10-foot cable equivalent in this parameter. Depends on your applications as to whether this might work fine, and it's very affordable. Happy wireless hunting.

My personal experience differs; I pretty much always use a wireless (G10 at home, G50 for gigging) and strictly go into the guitar input on the front with the variable Z - and changing the Z parameter of the input has a very notable effect on the resultant signal. In fact just last week, I was wondering why my sound had changed on an experimental copy of a known preset - I'm almost always on 'auto' for input impedance by the way - and I finally realized that I had flipped the order of a couple of 'stomps' at the head of the chain, so the resultant load being seen by my guitar had changed. Switching the input Z manually to the right value solved it instantly. So, honestly, to the OP I truly suggest running the cable to the front input to take full advantage of the features. I would have really liked a duplicate input on the rear of Helix Rack for this very purpose, but... I keep a few self-made short cables for jumping from wireless receiver to front input. It's worth it, honestly.

Helix Rack / Control, firmware 2.12 Earlier this evening I revisited a few patches I made wherein I set up harmonies and such. For reasons unknown (I have to deep-dive investigate to see what on earth has changed in there), they're notably messed up; they sound horrid (it seems the intervals are screwed up), whereas I'd worked them out in great detail, play-tested and re-tweaked, and good to go. I haven't referenced these patches since before 2.12, but I'm pretty certain after 2.11. Has anyone else noted issues with older patches utilizing twin harmony blocks?

The prototype made in the OP video has an Edge trem; the one directly above appears to be a production version (having the Edge Zero 2 trem) and that replaced pickup is a sustainer unit, as featured on most of his main performance instruments for many years now.

Long ago memory, but if I recall correctly, I believe George Lynch was working on something back in the 80s with a rail system, and a 'tone' control which effectively moved the pickup (which meant it had a motor - likely why it never amounted to anything).

I'd work this by putting an EQ block in front of the amp (try out para, multi, whatever gets you closer), and tweak it out to be as similar as possible to the 'neck pickup' sound as possible going into the front end of the amp - emulating the place where the actual differences would be happening. With some experimentation, I suspect you could arrive at something workable. You'll have a relatively easier time creating a 'neck' sound as compared to the 'blended' sound, being as the true nature of that signal routing within a guitar is a more complex interaction between the two pickups in parallel. FWIW; way back in the day, I was taking my single pickup guitars and outfitting them with a switch with a carefully chosen cap wired in to get me a pretty usable 'neck pickup' type sound. (Worth mentioning; my EVH related origins had me working with single pickup guitars early on, hence my experience on the subject. I did, ultimately, not only start working with neck pickups years back; I became amazingly fussy and specific about them... Are you should you shouldn't consider putting in a single-sized rail humbucker to expand your on-instrument options? ... all that said, I intend on doing an experiment ASAP to try this concept, just for the sake of doing it. I do have a couple of functionally single-pickup guitars still, ones which I won't tamper with (Ed's Baby type...))

Awesome. Noted to try next sit-down with Helix. Thanks for posting; I'm a big fan of Greg's.

(Sorry; quoting just does not work for me on this forum) I was saying that yes, I suspect that putting the same high/low-cut block between amp and cab and after the cab would yield very different end results. I'm yet to test that out; might do so this late late evening.

Interesting subject; something I've wondered about. Here's another experiment I did by the way; I compared a cab block (separate to an amp block) with nothing else in the chain. I did high and low cuts to taste in the cab block. Then I'd also dropped a high/low-cut block right after the cab block. I duplicated the settings in both, and then I compared. The cuts WHITHIN the cab block have FAR less effect on the results than the cuts following it. I just realized; the other test I should've done to compare; put a duplicate high/low-cut block in between the amp and cab, just to see what that would do. I suspect that would be more subtle than the other locations though, being as it would only impart its effects on the signal path up to and including the amp, master and all. I found that, with the block FOLLOWING the cab, I had to drop it almost 3kHz further to get a similar result. Sorry these numbers aren't super-detailed; I was doing this testing in a bit of a hurry this past Friday, with intention of revisiting the topic later. This might inspire someone to do similar experiments.

Agreed completely. That's exactly why I stopped worrying about and 'correcting' my habits. I spent some time looking into Troy Grady, and am very glad that his materials completely freed my good friend in so many ways. I just can't set aside the time it would take me to go through that process... especially when I feel like it might upend something that is 'special' enough to keep, or at least leave to be continue evolving in the organic way in which it has to date. I'm conscious of it enough to stay blissfully ignorant of it =] As long as I'm not finding myself running into obstacles which I feel need to be addressed, I'll likely just carry on as is.

... and, worth mentioning as an addendum, I definitely perceive similar artifacts in the high end from my tube amp experiences. One thing I found; fighting to dial them out entirely - both with amps and with modelling devices - seems to rob the sound of some of its character, that some degree of that high end is a component of the sound which, in the room, adds something positive. I think it's a matter of dosage / seasoning to taste. And as with all things, tastes vary.

I find with Helix high (and low) cuts are often the make-or-break element when it comes to getting the high end artifacts out of there (and tubbiness in the case of the low-cut). In fact, since this thread had caught my interest, and the original poster is clearly intelligent, well-spoken, and is very specific about what he's hearing, I felt inclined to delve in sort of 'ground-up' style. (Additional inspiration for delving in; my good friend talked of getting 'ear fatigue' with POD incarnations - he went POD 2.x (2.3 - awesome!), XT, then HD... in each, the effect was less and less, but he still talked of it eventually setting in on long sessions with the hd. It seems like the OP in this thread is sensitive to the same or similar artifacts.) The video referenced above is actually perfect for that refresher, as I see it. See, I went through that video back when it was a new one, and I followed through and dialed in those same basic tones exactly along-side Sean. I was underwhelmed; I found that my result in my room was quite different in some semi-subtle but important ways. ... now skip to last night; I did the EXACT same process, going along and dialing new empty presets. The one difference; I did the high and low cuts, and in the case of the clean, I put a compressor in place to smooth what I found for me was a flubby, tubby low end. And what I wound up with... I sat and happily played for QUITE some time last night, even saving a couple of those results to re-examine for inspiration next session. I shut down and almost immediately went to bed, feeling very happy with that. It had allowed me to demonstrate to myself that I now know where to go, and the simple tweaks, to begin tailoring a sound to my liking in the room, in my environment. I'm hoping that the OP, joseroys, has taken the approach of hitting it from the high (and low) cuts. It seems likely, but just in case, thought I'd mention.

Indeed - my picking 'method' is certainly odd. Someone once said it reminded them somewhat of George Lynch. I semi-anchor with the other fingers of the right hand while I'm at it... so it seems. This all came from some people commenting, which got me actually self-examining... since otherwise, I wasn't really conscious of it much. I recently swapped in a photo for my Facebook ID pic; I was playing, and noted one of these odd moments of picking, so I 'froze' and grabbed my phone to catch the posture. Pick is oddly held in middle finger and thumb, with the index finger sticking out reminding me of Gonzo's (the Muppet...) nose... MAB is definitely unique and efficient. Marty Friedman; that looks uncomfortable and odd to me. Cool that it works for him. Fascinating details being discussed in this thread by all.

Great ongoing discussion here. I'm self-taught essentially; Dad showed me the chords around the campfire, and genetically gave me some kind of innate musical core that I've managed to tap into - thank-you, Dad (and yes, I've told him this, and remind him often =]). I was worrying over my self-evolved manners of doing things - especially holding the pick, which has baffled various onlookers (and myself, truthfully), and I'm pretty sure would cause a vein to pop in Troy Grady's forehead if I could video my picking methods and send them to him... I've had people enquire, and I warn them off immediately; whatever you do, don't try emulating this 'hot mess' as it's likely holding me back. However, having attempted to 'correct' it; without fail, it negatively affects my playing. I stop sounding like me. I won't bother trying to explain much, except to say that the tips of my picks never wear out; they wear away high on the side, and it basically sits up high between index and thumb - and often enough shifting to middle and thumb (likely came from observing Eddie Van Halen intently early on, and now pops up like a submarine) - and the point of contact with the string is /way/ behind my actual grip-point on my digits... Strange... When I try to adopt a more 'textbook-correct' manner of holding the pick, it stays put a few moments, my picking becomes overly stiff and staccato, and soon self-corrects to my odd manner... When playing Telecasters I'm also about 90% fingers only - BUT I won't play without a pick tucked into my middle finger's interior (again, thank-you Ed Van Halen, this is a very important and valuable tool for me in so many ways) even if I don't use that pick the entire set, except to tune the guitar =] That doesn't handicap that finger; still able to pick with it. And no nails; all flesh. Can't play with nails; my nails are weak, and using nails sounds similar to how I sound when holding a pick 'correctly' - go figure.

Awesome!

Funny; I always preferred playing through Line 6's 2 x 10 combos from the past. I quite like that sound... I should hunt up IRs for that, and audition them.

I think you're especially right at the last; I think the goal of working all the nuts and bolts of the technique aspect is to try to 'get it out of the way' ( - as I see it, turning into instinct & muscle memory) to allow the music in your head come on out through the instrument. I think of the instruments the same way; I work to 'get them out of the way' as much as is appropriate for what I'd like (meaning, many will agree that a degree of 'fight' keeps us honest and on our toes, though this isn't necessarily correct for everyone). I minimize that 'fight' quite a lot, as much as I can, so that I can convince the instrument to convey what's going on in my head. Troy Grady is mentioned here, and that's a worthy mention; in particular, my very good friend had his playing quite literally reinvented by digging into Troy's research and results - he felt he'd hit a roadblock within himself, and after spending time with Troy's videos and materials, he's now a better player. And in this case, it got those obstacles reduced or removed; he's able to convey phrasing accurately and without injury to himself, his playing stamina has gone through the roof, and his warm-up requirements became so minimal that it's remarkable. He was already an outstanding player; this jumped him to the next quantum level. Good luck in working the playing; it's a worthy venture for heart and mind.

I'm on 2.12 Helix Rack/Control. When I saw this I popped on my Helix and scratch-made a patch with some effects on both paths 1 & 2, and then popped 8 functions/bypasses to a stomp switch to look for this symptom. I wasn't able to replicate it - perhaps there's something about where the blocks are in the chain, or perhaps you're including doing something like turning on/off the input gate? I know I had an issue with including the gate on/off at one point on an earlier firmware version. Curious to know where the dividing line is on this bug between those seeing the symptom and not. (I've also got presets which go back to the beginning for me (pre-2.0 firmware) with stomp function switches which *knock on wood* all appear to be working fine - the only issue there is that, upon new firmware updates, these seem to all get 'flipped' as to their on/off states as far as LED indicators go.)

(Helix Rack/Control, firmware 2.12, no computer hook-up via USB in general (only for backups, etc.)) There's a topic above; adjusting mics within an inactive cab block gives audible dropouts. Further to this discussion: I have a preset, my main gigging preset, which is my catch-all. I have been refining a particular sound option within it, and more recent additions and developments got me looking at this again. So I of course made more 'scratch' copies of the preset to test options, and have noted some oddities along the lines of the other discussion. The important parts; there's an amp in path one, with a split feeding into 2 cabs, one on path 1A, the other of course on 1B. Then Path 1 feeds into Path 2. Down there is a second amp, with a split feeding into cabs on 2A and 2B. These amps are in series, as they are always toggled; this second amp/cab set is meant to handle different jobs. That's been working fine; it's just that I've been refining some sounds which I wanted to insert in this place to test-drive on upcoming sit-ins. My recent modifications have simply been to replace that 2nd amp with a different one, and I also replaced those A/B cabs with IRs. All routing is unchanged. All other blocks are unchanged. The oddities; - changing the chosen IRs in the inactive IR blocks when the OTHER amp set is active gives the same audible drop-out (confusing given it's an inactive block of the sound path) - there is an elusive 'something' negatively affecting the sound; to my ears, it's a loss of fidelity or something of that nature. I have rebuilt the new version of the preset again from scratch - same result. I have a copy of the previous version along-side a copy of the modified version, jumping from one preset to the other demonstrates that 'loss' to me, even after much testing. I admit to having some 'ear fatigue' at the moment from digging into this for the past long while this evening, so I have to re-create this test tomorrow after my ears are less burned-out, but it's possible that rolling the MIX parameters of the IRs to 0% when inactive might actually change/remove this factor.

Input impedance, connections, etc.; would it be worth considering creating an interface device as a companion to Helix Native? The 'Helix Native I/O interface; input(s) with the same impedance selection analog circuitry that we're used to hearing with our Helix hardware, and perhaps some patch points that would correlate to loops? I know this would require its own interaction software to get it talking to Helix Native - certainly raises the questions of where things like Loop Send/Return blocks will be pointing within Native... I know I may be oversimplifying, and perhaps overlaps some with reinventing the wheel, but at minimum, it would be great to have the input impedance solution in a little box to plug into...

.. and where's the Canadian love? =]