billlorentzen

I also bought mine at Sweetwater. I spoke with them and they are promising to cross ship me a new one when they are back in stock. I'd still like to know what the actual problem is (I'm curious that way), but I'm not going to open it and void my warranty.

What a cool idea!

Who are you playing with (or for)? Five year olds? I ask because I've been playing professionally for 35 years and no one has ever stepped on one of my pedals.

Nice tone! I learn a lot from your vids. Thanks!

I think it may be important to explain pan law a bit to understand how it impacts helix users. In a perfect world, a mono signal should be at maximum when panned hard left or right, and should be reduced by half (-6dB) on both the left and right sides when panned center. In a typical record mixing scenario, a level bump in the middle position is useful because room acoustics usually cause the outside positions to seem louder. Apparently the difference has a lot to do with how well the room is tuned. Disney studio determined a 3dB drop was optimum - BBC chose a 4.5 drop (perhaps their rooms were tuned better.) In live Helix usage, most of the time our signals are summed to mono when we output to amplification. In recording, frankly, none of this really matters - if you record a stereo signal, you can balance it however you wish in the mix process. Here is some more data on pan law, if you're interested: http://prorec.com/2013/05/the-pan-law-of-the-land/ As I see it there are two important uses for panning in Helix. One is to split a signal to two different paths for things like two amps, two speakers or two discreet effects chains. In this case, the pan law is not really critical, as you can adjust the final balance at various points to get the desired levels. The other usage is to be able to actively change the panning across two paths as you play. In this case, the pan law is critical. If you get a level bump in the middle (which -3 gives), the sweep across is unnatural and sounds bad when summed to mono, as it usually is. I generally use panning to go from one sound to another with an exp ped. I need to be able to acces the full changing range of the sounds as they change from one to the other. A level bump in the center makes this option far less workable. My conclusion is there should either be adjustable pan laws for splits, or the -6 pan law should be implemented universally. I hope L6 gives some attention to this!

I'm having two problems with it: For about 90% of its throw, it is quite stiff, compared to most volume pedals, wah wahs, etc., but at the heel down position, it has a lot of loose play. In fact it won't even stay in place - it falls with gravity for about 10% of its throw. In the forward position, as I rock it back, it's stiff at first, then hits a loose range and then gets stiff again. For most of its range, It's a little too tight for a wah feel - my ankle feels the effort uncomfortably. I have adjusted it with the wrench, and it's about as loose as I can get it without gravity completely taking over. As it is, I doubt it will stay up on a stage with drums and a bass amp working. The other issue is that on the left side it is less than a 32nd of an inch from the top plate. If I exert the slightest lateral pressure, it rubs. There is lots of clearance on the right, so I'm thinking maybe it's not mounted properly - a missing washer or something? This could conceivably also be the problem with the inconsistent friction of the action. Anyone else had this issue? I'm reluctant to take it apart - it's only 2 weeks old and should still be swappable if this is a manufacturing fault.

I have to say, the L6 pedal is cheap but is not a pro piece. It's inaccurate in its sweep and at the back position it does not send consistent data, and it's flimsy. I wish I had bought a Mission.

In use, I assign an exp pedal to a split, one side with a distortion on it, the other without, and merging in front of the amp. The amp is also controlled: as the pedal increases, I juice up the drive and sometimes pull back the master. The distortion pedal is optional - in other words, I use it when I want more dirt. A lot of the time, just pushing the amp is the desired sound, and in that case, I'm still panning across the split, but it's not adding a distortion pedal, just passing signal. I noticed that the middle position was as loud or louder than the full forward, which seemed wrong (and is also undesirable in this usage). I tested it by starting with an empty patch and making a split with an EQ (normaled) and panning across with a pedal. It definitely was significantly louder in the center position; I didn't measure, but it sounded like it could be about 3 dB.

I tested for it by starting with an empty patch and making a split with an EQ (normaled) and panning across with a pedal. It definitely was significantly louder in the center position; I didn't measure, but it sounded like about 3 dB. I agree, it seems like it should be a standard feature. Thanks for checking on it. Because of the way I use splits, it's quite important to me.

Pan law is a term used in audio for an intentional drop in volume when a pan pot is in the middle position. Usually it's 3dB of reduction, so that the center doesn't sound louder than L or R. When I use a split and pan between them, there is a louder hot spot in the center of the pedal sweep, which is both unnatural sounding and prevents a graceful, gradual change from one sound to another. I put a suggestion on ideascale if you want to support the addition of a pan law feature. http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Pan-Law-Option-for-Splits/819820-23508?submitted=1

Ok, thanks, I just figured this out myself, too. I'm learning!

I guess I don't know the difference between these two splits. The only way I've found to do this is by dragging an occupied block down to make the split. Is there another way?

Hmm. There's definitely something wrong or something I don't get. Sometimes when I have a split I can assign a controller to it, but sometimes I can't. In one patch I was just working on, I have a split in the upper path, with a distortion pedal on one and nothing on the other, then it merges, followed by an amp, then it loops down to the lower path where I have another split with different cabs on each, then a merge followed by some more fx. This patch has a pan pedal before the first split, but it wasn't working (the dist pedal was in the line regardless of the panning. I tried to remove the pan pedal and assigning a pan to the split, but when I hit controller assign, it does not give options for controllers - it just shows there is a split. Does this have something to do with using both upper and lower processors in serial? Or is it from having two splits in a single patch? Or is it just a bug?

I posted this as a bug report, but I thought I might ask if anyone else has seen this issue and maybe knows if I'm doing something wrong. I have created three patches in which I used a pan>Y with a dist. pedal in the parallel path, returning to the main path in front of an amp. On 2 of them the panning did not change the path at the Y. On one of them it worked as expected. I could see the panning change from left to right, as I rocked the pedal (pedal 2), but it did not route to different paths. I cannot identify anything different about the working and not working patches.

I have created three patches in which I used a pan>Y with a dist. pedal in the parallel path, returning to the main path in front of an amp. On 2 of them the panning did not change the path at the Y. On one of them it worked as expected. I could seethe panning change from left to right, as I rocked the pedal (pedal 2), but it did not route to different paths. I cannot identify anything different about the working and not working patches. I'd be happy to email the patches to tech support.

Very creative!

I don't mind tweaking and fine tuning. If my helix patch with cry baby, screamer, deluxe, la2a, tape delay and plate is relatively true to the original gear, it should be pretty close in helix2, right? As DI said, more powerful processors will allow more granularity. I don't see why more power must mean completely new architecture and different sound, at this stage in the game. If helix 5 comes with AI and 3D laser projected rigs, it should be smart enough to convert my patches into an approximation I can still use.

Dear L6 Development Team, Thank you for your brilliant work developing Helix! My new Helix is my 4th digital modeler (Pod 1, Tonelab, Pod HD 500, Helix). Every time I get one I have to create all new patches - a lot of them. I'm a working musician and I need a lot of different patches to cover the very wide range of styles I play, and the various guitars I use. With each new modeler, I have had more choices and made more individual patches. For my Pod HD, I have over 25 unique patches. I have spent at least 100 hours creating them. Now I have a Helix and I have to recreate every patch. Before I can use it on a gig, I will have to edit for at least a month and I will continue to refine patches for a few months after that. I NEVER want to have to do this again. I've been playing professionally for 40 years. I've built, owned and managed a full scale recording studio. I've owned many hundreds of pieces of music and recording gear, and I dare say I have a very high gear IQ, and no back-off on technical matters. I used to get excited when I'd get a new amp or compressor or some cool new piece. Today, when I get new digital kit, be it software or hardware, I no longer get a thrill - I dread the learning curve I will once again have to work through. And the more powerful the piece, the more options, the more time is required to master the array of features and come up with my optimum setup. Line 6, when you develop your next modeler, please, please, PLEASE, figure out a way that Helix owners can continue to use existing patches! Give us more power, better sound, etc., but don't obsolete all the work we have invested in Helix. Thank you, Billy Lorentzen

I use Yamaha DXR 10s and really like them. I go direct to the house and monitor on stage with the Yammys, usually one just for me and one aimed across the stage for the band, esp the drummer. They're 1100 watts and plenty loud.

My two work guitars are a super strat and a semi hollow. They're world's apart, and need completely different approaches. I don't put them in separate banks, because I sometimes need to switch rapidly from one to the other on gigs.

With my semi hollow with passive hums, it cut highs. It was night and day - totally dull. However, my EMGs sounded fine in the aux, and didn't overdrive amps as quickly.

DI, any advice?

In my Pod HD, I did that on every patch. I just got helix and I'm sussing out the best way to accomplish it. My patches generally are for going from rhythm level and sound to a lead sound. I control many parameters: all amp settings, EQ, distortion levels (or put the dist on a parallel path and use panning to bring it into the chain), delay, verb, compression, modulation, etc. with the exp pedal. It might have been my patch that the OP mentioned.

In the manual it says active pickups for guitar and bass should be plugged into the aux input. EMG SAs are the single coil model which came out in the '80s or so, and are just slightly hotter than regular humbuckers - these are not hi gain metal pups. I just got my Helix and I'm still sussing things like this out. Anyone else using these pups and have any advice about them? I know it's about impedance, but I don't know much beyond that - I've always plugged them into regular guitar inputs.

As a singer, I feel the OP's pain. You have enough to do playing, singing and communicating to the audience and band, without having attention on how you change patches. For me, looking down in the middle of a vocal to see which switch I'm hitting, and timing patch changes to avoid latency are unacceptable. This may work for you. On most songs I use two sounds, usually the same amp for both. I have them both in the same patch. I use the exp. pedal to toggle between them. My foot knows where the pedal is when I'm on the mic, without even thinking about it. No latency. No tap dancing.