Anderton

True, but there could be a possible workaround. I did an article for Guitar Player magazine on interfacing guitar with the 1/4" dynamic mic input in Native Instruments' Maschine. The "interface" was a guitar cable with a 390k resistor in series with the output jack's hot lead. IIRC the mic input was maybe 10k (?), so it acted like a voltage divider for the 390k resistor, which brought down the guitar level so it was a better match for mic preamp gain. The 390k input impedance prevented dulling. You could probably do the same thing with the Helix XLR connector by creating an adapter with a 1/4" jack at one end for the guitar, and a resistor in series with a lead that goes into the mic in's pin 2 hot. Then connect ground to XLR pin 1. I'll try it out if I get the time, and see if it works...but I don't see any reason why it wouldn't.

IIRC the two amps that draw too much processing power to be used in parallel with HX Stomp, regardless of whether you're using other effects, are Brit Plexi Jmp and Das Benzin Lead.

A well-done audio/video demo worth watching is always welcome :) I particularly like that you can easily see the amp being covered in the YouTube thumbnail, so you can go back and forth easily for an A-B comparison. To answer your question, I have an emotional attachment to the Ampeg B-15, it was THE bass amp for me for so long. I also like the Woody Blue cab a lot. I do a lot of parallel processing, and Helix even makes stereo bass viable because you can process the highs in stereo, while leaving the bottom centered, in mono. I also use Note Sync quite a bit to tighten the drum and bass.

That's excellent advice for all pieces of electronic gear. Spin up inactive hard disks from time to time, too.

Another consideration is that the Helix effects are as well-suited to keyboards, vocals, and electronic drums as they are to guitar. Most of the people using those instruments don't feel the need for amp sims and cabinets.

FWIW when I get a unit for review from any manufacturer, the first thing I do is check whether there are any hardware or software updates. Most of the time, there are. As background, the "just in time" inventory strategy is designed to keep inventory to a minimum and prevent capital from being tied up. This results in all inventory being recent. But the Achilles Heel is obvious - we're having worldwide shortages. If you can't get component X just in time, then you can't build unit Y just in time. A variation is to use JIT to keep excess inventory to a minimum. As PierM points out the Helix hardware remains valid, so it behooves Line 6 to take full advantage of economies of scale, build lots of Helixes, and keep inventory on hand, because they know they're going to sell them. So it's not excess inventory. Toyota stockpiles a supply of chips for the same reasons, which is why it's easier to buy a Toyota right now than other cars. Once something is packed up and in a warehouse, a company isn't going to take it off the shelf, unpack it, update it, then go through the whole packing and QC dance all over again. Anyway, I thought this might explain not just what's happening when you buy a Helix that's a couple years old, but why you can't buy some things at all. Probably boring as hell, right? :) I'll go back to playing with Helix now...

Technically, the Horizon Gate isn't a gate in the conventional sense, it's a noise filter that responds to signal level. That's probably why turning down the tone control gives it an extra assist, because lower levels drop the cutoff down further. In the screen shot below, with an input signal of -20 dB, the top image shows Sensivity at 5.0, the bottom one shows it at 10.0. That extra sensitivity is definitely taking down the highs. The next experiement is to try flatwound strings...maybe that will help further!

Thanks for chiming in, that makes sense. I had roughly equivalent results with turning down volume or tone, but I'm using humbuckers, so they're naturally dark anyway.

Did you try the Horizon Gate? At least for me, it's been a "magic bullet" for making the synth track better.

I appreciate the interest, the preset is attached. Note that unlike a physical 12-string, the upper two strings are an octave higher as well. I consider this a feature, not a bug :) It gives a sort of "12-string-meets-Nashville-tuning" sound. (FWIW, this is one of the presets that's included in my upcoming Helix eBook.) Hope ya like it! Gourmet12-String.hlx

One of the important aspects to a 12-string emulation is to delay the octave strings by about 20-25 ms. That's about how long it takes the pick to go past the fundamental string and hit the octave. I run the poly block in parallel, processed sound only +12 semitones, in parallel with the dry guitar and add delay and processing to the octave-higher sound.

I think I found something that helps the Synth track better, but was hoping to have some people try this out to see if it really does make a difference. I'm hesistant to mention this as a tip in my upcoming Helix book unless other people can confirm it helps...it could be guitar-specific. So I figured I'd ask the Line 6 Community Braintrust. Note: This doesn't seem to work with Filter Preset 3 (Glide), which appears to follow its own rules of engagement compared to Filter Presets 1, 2, and 4. 1. Insert the Horizon Gate before the Synth block. 2. Choose the Horizon Gate's Extended Range. 3. To get familiar with this, play mostly in the 7th to 12th fret range. Use your neck pickup. This is where it gets tricky. Reduce the Horizon Gate Sensitivity to where it feels like it's tracking better. 4 or 5 works for me with an input signal that uses up the full Helix headroom. Then, this is the twist...turn down your neck pickup's volume control. I don't know why this is important, it seems like the Sensitivity parameter should be all that's needed, but...you'll (hopefully) find a magic setting where when you play, the crud that normally happens at the end of synth notes disappears. With my humbuckers, the sweet spot was around 6 on the volume knob. I'm not sure how single-coil pups would react. There's interaction between the Sensitivity parameter and the guitar's volume control, so it's worth experimenting with both their settings to nail the best tracking. I also found that for doing synth bass parts, if I keep my hand on the bridge so the strings are heavily muted, the tracking is really good. But, I have to say, I was shocked when I bypassed the synth block and noticed that the guitar notes were so muted they were just little blobs of sound, not sustaining notes. Anyway, I hope this helps. I'm still looking into how to optimize it, but I figure y'all might figure out some clever variations on this theme. Meanwhile, I now find the synth actually useable. If only it had a resonance control for the filter...I so want to turn it down!

It sounds like there might also be frequency response issues. I'm not familiar with those pickups, but the new ones might have fewer windings, which would give a brighter sound. You might want to play with the input impedance - lower it a bit, and see if that helps. A lower impedance might solve both the level and harshness problems. Emphasizing the lows a bit more may also give back some of the punch....worth a try.

I wonder if a small box with a three-position switch for +2 dB, 0 dB, -2 dB would be helpful for a quick tweak? When I master a track, I often ask for three versions of a mix - identical except one has the vocals up +1 dB and the other has vocals -1 dB. Doing so has been a life-saver on several occasions. As to measuring levels with LUFS to get a baseline, remember that LUFS metering integrates over time. It's best to take a reading after playing for at least 15-30 seconds. As to the comment about the guitar volume control, some people simply don't realize the full implications of the interaction between a guitar's electronics with what follows it.

FWIW - this doesn't help you now, but in the future, this kind of thing should be commonplace. MIDI 2.0 changes MIDI from a monolog into a dialog through a protocol called "MIDI Capability Inquiry." For example, a DAW could query an outboard device a) whether it speaks MIDI 2.0, and b) if it does, ask for a list of parameters and put them onscreen. This basically eliminates the need for editor/librarians. I've seen some of this in development, where a DAW received synth parameters and put them on-screen, then tied them to a hardware controller (which if MIDI 2.0, can let the DAW know what it is, and configure itself accordingly). This won't be common for a while, but the kind of functionality the OP is asking for has been ratified in the MIDI 2.0 spec. Of course, it's up to manufacturers whether they implement that aspect of the spec, but the sense I get is that manufacturers see this as something worth implementing.

Well, the good news is that the reason why they're eBooks is they get updated, like software, every six months to a year. The equivalent of "point" updates are free, new editions are half-price to current book owners. This gets around the problem of technology books getting out of date so easily - especially with the frequent Helix updates!

FWIW I wrote a blog post for PreSonus on how to generate mono or stereo impulse responses of amp sim cabs. The directions are based around Studio One, but the same principles apply to other DAWs (I tested the process in several DAWs, including Cubase). Part of the reason for doing this is that Studio One's "Ampire" sim can play back stereo impulse responses, but the impulse responses that come with it are mono. The other reason is I wanted to be able to mix and match cabs and amps from various amp sims, especially after finding out what can happen by putting different cabs in parallel, and out of phase. There's a free download link in the post for impulses you can use in your DAW to generate impulse responses. It's really simple if you follow the directions. (If you use Studio One, there are also two free stereo cab impulse responses for Ampire.) Hope this helps!

Sure, no problem - the fastest way is to do it with Helix Native in a DAW, with an LUFS meter plug-in inserted. I've recorded several clips of "typical" guitar playing - chords, single notes, and chords + single notes. Then I loop them while watching the LUFS meter (I use Waves WLM but the Youlean works too; both are VST/AU/AAX-compatible) at the Helix output. The output with Helix bypassed is -18 LUFS, so I enable Helix and adjus the preset level to get -18 LUFS. If I expect to be switching effects in and out, I adjust the levels of individual effects so that the output remains at -18 LUFS when different effects are enabled or bypassed. Then I use HX Edit to transfer the sounds to the hardware Helix. To do this with hardware Helix, you would feed the output via USB into a DAW or digital audio editor where you can insert an LUFS meter. The Clarity Stereo meter recommended by PierM earlier in this thread is a hardware device that can connect directly to the Helix output, so you don't need a computer. However, it costs $300. Having a consistent input signal at the hardware input will save you a lot of time. You can record a clip into an smartphone or similar device, loop the clip, and use that as an audio input. There are free DJ apps that can load clips and loop them. Again, let me emphasize I don't do this to walk on stage, dial up a preset, and not have to worry about it! The advantage is you don't have to worry about it as much, because many of your preset levels will likely be at a good level, and then you can tweak the ones that need tweaking. In the studio with Helix Native, you'll always be changing the track level up or down anyway with a fader, so this might seem less important. But, when going through presets to decide which sounds best for a track, it's very convenient that they all come in at the same perceived level, so you don't end up choosing one because it's a few dB louder and sounds "better." Hope this helps!

That would be effing awesome! Not sure how to send a private message on these boards, but I do have an email dedicated to tech support for my Helix multiband presets - it's craig.tech.center@gmail.com. We can figure out the logistics there, if you're up for pursuing this. Thank you!!

FWIW...I'm writing an eBook called "The Big Book of Helix Tips and Tricks" for Sweetwater Publishing. It includes pretty deep descriptions of the parameters for the more complex effects, and I've also done a lot of testing - for example, there's a frequency response graph for the three different tape speeds in Retro Reel. I've been working on the eBook for months, but I hope to get it published either end of October or early November. If nothing else, I needed to figure out what the parameters did for myself!! I think Helix is awesome, but felt I needed to know more in order to take full advantage of it.

I once needed to emulate a warped record sound (don't ask!). Anyway, here's how to do it: Vibrato effect, delayed sound only, speed 1.33 Hz to warp a 33 1/3 RPM record, or 1.80 Hz for a 45 RPM record. The more you turn up the vibrato width, the greater the warpage. I've heard if you leave Helix out in the sun the virtual record will warp more, but I suspect that's an urban legend. :)

That's why measuring perceived levels with LUFS is an improvement over conventional meters. For example, if you increase the EQ around 4 kHz, where the ear is more sensitive, it will register as a louder perceived level even though a traditional meter might not show much difference. If something sounds subjectively to your ears as lacking overall body and punch, it will probably register a lower LUFS, even though a meter shows the same peak (or even RMS) levels. Although I totally agree that "ultimately the best and final measure is always going to come down to using your ears," I've found the fastest way to get there is by having a consistent baseline level, and LUFS provides that. It's especially helpful when building a chain of effects, or a collection with dozens or hundreds of presets, to make sure the level stays at the same perceived value when you enable and bypass effects, or switch from one preset to another. Of course there will be times when you'll want an effect to come in louder or softer, and there will be times when you need to tweak presets live based on what other musicians are playing (e.g., masking from keyboards or whatever). Still, I find I hit the right levels faster when the presets start from a standard level for perceived loudness. Think of LUFS as giving you a mix...but you still have to do the mastering :)

Very true! It's a big advantage to be able to hook it right up to the Helix output, and not need a computer. But $300+ is kind of expensive, and if you're careful about managing levels in a DAW, I think something like the Youlean or Waves WLM is good enough to know what your presets are doing, especially because they can integrate readings over time. My "test signals" are 30 second loops of leads, bass parts, chords, etc.

Sorry, saw this after writing my previous post. -15 LUFS is a happy place for Helix. That's what I get from running a guitar with passive humbuckers through it as hard as I can hit the strings, with everything after the Helix set for unity gain. Personally, I aim for -18 LUFS with "normal" playing. But, this is all subjective and depends on how you use Helix, your guitar, playing style, how loud your amp is, etc. Remember that LUFS was designed specifically for matching levels in broadcast, so while it's applicable to guitar, with broadcast it sets rules. With guitar, it offers suggestions.

Very cool! The crucial aspect is that loudness meters work differently from conventional meters, because they measure perceived loudness. I use LUFS (loudness) metering for matching bypassed/enabled levels in an FX chain, so that I can bring effects in and out without perceived level changes, even though the levels measure different peak values. Of course, you want some effects or presets to be louder or softer, but I find it's easier to deal with getting the right preset levels and such when they start from a standard baseline. The analogy I use is pickup pole pieces - it's easier to adjust them if you start with them all screwed in halfway. Then you can raise or lower as needed. If you want to know more about LUFS, I wrote an article for inSync that you might find useful. It could be TMI because it covers LUFS more in terms of mastering and recording, but you may find some of the tidbits helpful. The part about true peak is also of interest to guitar players. Unlike standard peak meters, which measure the level of digital samples, true peak extrapolates the level after going through D/A converters. The conversion's smoothing process can produce levels that exceed zero (this is called intersample distortion), even if the meters measuring the sample levels indicate levels below zero. Then again, if the audience claps, none of this really matters! But audio is a fascinating subject, particularly when it comes to guitars. I've just always loved the sound of guitars, and finding out what creates that glorious sound has held my attention for decades.