njglover

This may or may not be helpful, but in terms of the use case, a Y split is generally used when you want both paths to be heard at the same time whereas an A/B split is used when you want to hear one or the other but not both. So for a Y split, you would typically use this in your scenario where you have one signal that you want to split to two amps. As mentioned earlier, an A/B split would be if you want to switch from one amp to another, though you could also use it to send the lows direct and the mids/highs to a separate path with fuzz on it as you might do with bass. You could also use it as a Y split if you really wanted to. I have typically used these where I have a clean amp on one path and a dirty on the other and want to toggle between them, but I have also used it in the bass fuzz example. I also used it once to make a doubled guitar effect - in one setting, only one path was used, but when I hit the switch, that path pans left and the other path, panned right, is toggled in. In this case, I would also set both paths to -3 dB on the merge so that I don't get a volume increase.

You'll have to forgive me as I am not familiar with the band, but as I listen to it I don't hear any synth bass. Just a whole lot of funky slap bass. Does it only happen briefly on one particular section that I skipped over or something?

Honestly try out the free Mesa pack from Ownhammer: https://www.ownhammer.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=181&products_id=411. The IR I use is from that pack, so I haven't found much need to purchase a different one :p

Yeah, a 2x12 (~60 lbs), a 100-watt tube head (also ~ 60 lbs), and a PT Pro with flight case (~40 lbs maybe). That's why I bought the Helix in the first place, can carry everything in one trip now. Could barely even fit it all in my car before, so you'll have to excuse me if I don't think an inch or two is that big of a deal.

So... a Helix LT or Floor, then, since they've got the expression pedal built in (which eliminates the need for one of your expression pedals). I do not see why you are still arguing this, you are just asking for an LT or Floor but with two less buttons. That makes no financial sense for Line 6 to make and frankly doesn't even make any sense in your use case. You could also, you know, buy a slightly larger pedal board...

The new tuner is a bit more sensitive, particularly on the low end, so it's entirely possible that it is reading so low frequency hum. You can test it for sure by cranking the volume way up (don't play anything, you don't want to hurt your ears!) with the tuner off and listening for the hum. There are a number of causes that could contribute to it, really. It could be that particular circuit in your house is noisy, so moving to another outlet could help (you might be surprised how much difference that makes). Angling your body differently can change it, using LED bulbs instead of fluorescent, checking the grounding in the guitar, adding more shielding to the guitar, and yes, maybe adding a power conditioner can all help (or make it worse, depending). Passive pickups, especially single coils, are very susceptible to interference. Just one of those things to deal with...

If I recall, WDM drivers typically have lower latency because they operate at an OS level. Same with Core Audio drivers on OS X.

I'll concede that the LT is a little bigger, but in terms of what it offers... it would be the logical "stomp but like an HX Effects" choice. They both have 8 stomp switches (but LT adds the bank and preset switches as well as an expression pedal) and you'd need to have the screen that the LT has. And actually I guess you would need to add the scribble strips, so the Floor would be the closer option. So the only thing you could feasibly change is removing the expression pedal and a few switches. This would cut down the size of the unit by a few inches, sure, but it doesn't make a lot of sense financially for Line 6 to spend time creating it when it probably only costs them about $20 in parts less to make. Your cost savings would be similarly meager.

A lot of the issue is tied into USB 2, I suspect. So hands are kinda tied there. CPU is also factor and a 3rd gen i5 is what, 4 generations behind now? Truthfully, to bring latency down much more it would probably need to be USB 3 or C and that would require a complete hardware revision. So yeah, maybe the driver could be updated to bring it down to the levels you are seeing with ASIO4ALL but... probably not much more beyond that. For example, look at comparable (8 in/8 out USB) interfaces in the article you linked to. The Focusrite Saffire 6 USB is only a few ms lower than Helix, others are maybe a little faster than that but still not any faster than your ASIO4ALL results. That's just the limits of the technology. That's why interfaces always include a direct monitor option. It's certainly not ideal if you are trying to monitor with Native, but that's just the way it is. Rather than worry about round trip latency of Helix (which, as you say, is moot anyway since you can monitor your effected signal on the device), if the goal is to use Native than pick an interface better suited for that. USB3 or Thunderbolt, for example. There's simply no pressing need for Helix to have lower latency.

Do you mean the Helix LT? :D

Maybe I'm just too stuck in the early 2000s where 256 samples was on a good day :p I will have to experiment and see what I can do. I do know that I get pops and clicks trying to record on my Surface Pro with an i3 if I try to do anything less than 256, so that's probably why I set it there.

This depends entirely on your setup. In my case, using the Helix Floor as my USB interface I typically set the buffer size to 128-256 samples to avoid any clicks/pops. This might be a little overkill, but since I haven't typically needed low latency, that's what I use. That's with an i7 and 32 GB of RAM. I suspect many people are less well-equipped with their computers and will not be setting the buffer to 16 samples without significant problems. So the point is that yes, it is theoretically possible to get low latency, but realistically it can be a factor for many people. To be clear, I was never talking about latency added by Native, I was talking about the computer and interface.

Just for jamming, Native is not a great choice because it does not have a standalone program. I really wish it did, but it only exists as a plugin for a DAW. With that in mind, it is most useful as a recording tool. In my band, we've recently decided to basically stop playing shows and focus on writing and recording, so a lot of what we do is going to be done independently. My bandmates can record their DI signal and send me their Helix patch and now I have everything I need to process their sound, but I still have flexibility to tweak it to fit (without having to rely on EQ, etc). So it's really great for remote collaboration. If you are okay with it being plugin only, also keep in mind that you will want a reasonably nice interface and a good computer because you need low latency. Native sounds great, but even with only like 20 ms round-trip latency is feels off to me. So for my own use, I will still be using my Helix Floor to create patches and monitor while recording (even though I will probably just record the DI and reamp it with Native). From that standpoint, HX Stomp is probably the best low-cost solution since you get no latency for monitoring purposes and you can still reamp later if you want.

I feel confident that if the jacks were balanced, they would have said so. It's not typically something a company doesn't bother to mention. The XLR jacks, for example, say "balanced" even though there's hardly any reason to say that they are since basically every mono XLR connection ever made is balanced. In either case, I absolutely get noise running from the 1/4" outputs, even when using nice Mogami Gold TRS cables, that I do not get when using the XLR outs. So that's a clear enough indication to me.

Huh, I had also thought they were TRS jacks. But in deed, the manual says: "Use unbalanced 1/4" TS cables to connect to your guitar amp, FRFR speaker(s), studio monitors, or other playback system. When using a single amp or speaker, connect only the LEFT/MONO 1/4” jack." 'Scuse me while I rewire my studio monitors :p

The Helix itself, at least the Helix Floor and Helix Rack, use 3-prong power plugs (at least here in the US), so it should be grounded just by plugging it into the wall unless you are using an adapter to remove the ground.

There is a setting for snapshots where changes are saved whenever you make them. I believe that's the default. The other option is to not save any of your changes until you manually save the preset. You might check that and see if that's what is going on.

Keep going! It's worth it. I know you mentioned you were experimenting with EQ and high and low cuts, but definitely keep going with the cuts. I find that I have to be pretty aggressive to get it to sound right through a nice pair of speakers. Usually low cut up to about 120 Hz and high cut all the way down to 7.3 kHz. Makes a huge difference in the fizziness. Once I go in the DAW I might cut even more than that, honestly. Just depends. I actually really like that Uber V30 cab with the 409 mic, but I go for more aggressive sounds and am not real keen on dark sounds, so that probably makes sense. Never really liked the ribbon mics, honestly. You might also want to mess with IRs if you haven't. I've been going back to stock cabs more recently, but IRs are a good way to add some "realness," for better or worse.

I was thinking more like save your favorite settings to your computer and load them in from there. Kinda like loading in presets or setlists, but for individual blocks.

Shoot, even if it was only in HX Edit, that wouldn't be so bad. I don't see any (technological) reason why they couldn't do it there.

An IR is just an audio file. It is not platform specific and indeed you could use them with Axe-FX, too. Sometimes they will have different files because of length requirements or something, but otherwise there is no difference. HLX files are Helix bundles. You'd be putting a whole new preset/patch/setlist/whatever on your unit isntead of just an IR. Not what you want. If it says to put it in a specific slot, that's because you are loading up someone else's patch and they saved it with that IR in that slot. So if you load up their patch and it has an IR block that is looking at slot 6 but you put that IR in slot 4, it's gonna be looking at the wrong IR and will sound different than what the person intended. There are quite a few resources out their on IRs. You might check the vendors like Ownhammer since they do a pretty good job explaining what they are selling you.

That would be awesome. Then I could stop copy and pasting between patches when we write a new song...

Huh, I'd think that would actually make you like IRs more. They seem more traditional to me in that I think, "Here is a cab that I know I like with a mic and positioning I know I like." The reality, for me, was that most of the people making the IRs aren't using the exact cab I like or putting the mic exactly where I wanted it, of course, so YMMV. That Interstate 212 was a close second, honestly. I was specifically looking for a good cab to pair with high gain as honestly I think there are plenty of good choices for clean sounds and even mid gain. I generally go for a mids-forward sort of high gain (a la Lamb of God), which I think is probably a little unusual in the genre but I like to be heard. For that, the Cali V30 would do fine, but I liked the Uber V30 a little better. The Interstate 212 was a little light on bottom end for me as was the Cali IV 112, though all of those could probably work in context with other things going on. I wasn't as keen on the more scooped-sounding cabs, but I might still use those for doubles in a recording situation so things sum to mono well. In short, definitely pays to think outside the box sometimes.

As far as delays go, you can probably set your tempo to global and have the pedals just follow your global tempo, then you don't have to think about it so much. If you just want a quick comparison of how one thing sounds generally compared to how another sounds generally, honestly I would just leave the settings as they are , should still get you a pretty good feel. If you want a really in depth comparison of the two, I'd just put them on two different blocks and switch between them.

That's really interesting. Maybe it's just because I've never used the 1024 IRs? I think the stock cabs take up less DSP than the 2048 IR blocks, anyway. I definitely agree about the dual cab block, though. Really wish that a) an amp+cab block could have a dual cab and b) panning could be adjusted on dual cab blocks. I dunno, I spent hours (quite literally) going through just about every single IR in my IR packs to find the one I wanted. Even then, I ultimately ended up using high and low cuts because it was just too trebly and nasty coming out an FRFR. Less options to futz with once you have picked an IR, but so many more options in terms of actually picking an IR. In that sense, the stock cabs are easier since you can just mess with it on one block. I think in either case, once you know generally what you are looking for (ie once you've done the initial futzing), there's not much you need to tweak after. For example, with IRs I nearly always cut up to 100-130 Hz and down to about 7.3 kHz and lower the volume to -21.5 dB. Generally I look for an IR with a 57 on it. With the stock cabs, I generally put my cuts about the same, put the reflections somewhere between 25-35%, and might mess with the mics and distance but usually gravitate toward one of the Neumann models (67 or 87) or, more recently, the 409, 57, or 421 models. Never messed with a 409 in real life, but it seems to have a smoother top end and almost a blend between the 57 and 421 sounds, so it's a pretty nice choice for my purposes. I guess the point is, in some ways stock cabs have fewer options to deal with.