duncann

If you get good results with the digital delay, I'd probably stick with that, since it works for you. Plus I have no experience with actual amps and cabs, so the pitch glide might royally screw the tone. The phasing effect you mention sounds familiar. I remember getting something like that when using dual cabs. As another alternative to the digital delay, I remember trying one of the reverbs once. Can't remember which one it was, but the concept is the same as the digital delay. The advantage is that you can have a delay less than 20ms by using pre-delay. This can help to minimize the slap-back type echo you get if the delay between speakers is too much (for me 20ms is too much), while still retaining a good separation. Another thing that might enhance the effect is in addition to a delay, try putting a very subtle modulation on one of the paths, probably so subtle that it's nearly inaudible. Maybe a phaser or flanger. Just that little something extra to differentiate the tone on the other path.

It's certainly true that we as a species have always been like this throughout history, making it seem like we're doomed to keep making the same mistakes. Ignorance. Ignorance by itself is bad enough, but lately, it seems to be amplifying some of the worst qualities and emotions in human nature. If it's sustained long enough, when combined with a growing population and technological advances, there's a tasty recipe for something most likely not good for anyone.

They sound good to me. Something I could certainly use. I would maybe use the 57 off axis instead of the 4038, which seems a little to dark and soft. The 57 off axis has extra brightness while still retaining the basic tone of the 4038. In place of the digital delay for stereo separation, perhaps try a pitch glide with plus or minus 0.1 pitch and 100% mix. Might make it sound a little bit less sterile.

I don't really have any sort of strict outlined procedure I use to build presets. The process is somewhat dynamic and unknown to me because whatever a preset ends up as is dependent on whatever it is I happen to be writing musically. Makes things fun and adds a persistent sense of discovery. I assume one preset for each track of a song. The presets usually start out as something like an amp, cab(s) or IR(s), delay, and reverb. Simple. Often they stay simple, especially for bass. Sometimes not. I don't mess around very much at all with the different amps. I have a favorite for a given category of tone and just stick with it. During the writing of a song, I find the right IR or cab so that the tone clicks in place with the song. Sometimes that doesn't happen until I'm halfway done with a song. Then I'll agonize over what delay I'll use and how, such as the time, feedback, spread, scale, modulation, etc. This also has to click in place with the song, and sometimes change within the song. Same for the reverb, only this is easier because of less parameters and variations. Sometimes I'll just start messing with different effects to see if I can find anything interesting and useful for the song I'm working on. A lot of times I just stupidly stumble on interesting things and go with it. Once I think I'm satisfied with everything tone-wise, I'll configure the switches and snapshots, if needed. Everything I do is for original music. If I was building presets for existing music, I'm sure I would do it much differently.

https://youtu.be/k8xipvEWQjc?t=271

Have you tried the Cali Q Graphic? I know it's not really designed for bass, but I find it works really well to set the base tone. It's kind of like the active EQ on the bass, but with the ability of putting it wherever in the signal chain.

Can anyone having clicking issues narrow the location inside Helix? An unlikely thought might be material expansion, as certain parts get warm?

You might actually be able to make one using effects and a parallel path. Rather than try and describe the idea, have a look at this preset: Lead Pulse.zip The key to making the click would be messing with the bottom path effects.

Sucks that you have a problem with your Helix. But hey, at least it's something original. Have you been using CC128 lately (see the last page of the manual)?

I wonder if Helix's cabs, which I can recall reading somewhere that they are a hybrid IR or something, are similar to this whole idea. Maybe they could use that and apply it to longer length IRs. Or if someone really wants higher quality IRs, it might be worth looking at a dedicated device, such as this.

Would there really be much of an improvement with higher definition IRs? Right now you can fit four 1024 IRs in one preset, but that's distributed across both processors. Obviously they aren't going to change the way they use the DSPs, so I don't see how they could go with more than they already allow without severely crippling what else you could add to a path. I suppose they could allow for dedicating an entire processor, or path, to a single IR, but how many more samples would that allow for? Another 2048 (4096) or 3072 (5120)? At 48KHz, that would be 85.3ms or 106.7ms, respectively, where 2048 is 42.7ms. Is that enough to really notice any sort of difference in the end result? I have a hard time noticing a difference between 1024 and 2048. Not to mention, where would the delay and reverb blocks go now? As far as I'm concerned, a tone isn't a tone without those two blocks! Particularly delay. :) One of the biggest functional improvements I can think of them doing is multiple splits per path. For amps, I must admit I'm glad they add the occasional amp as well. For example, the newly added Mesa Mark IV and Archetype Clean. Those two could be the only amps Helix has and I'd still be a happy camper. But I wouldn't be surprised to see them adding more amps that don't exist in the real world, like the Litigator (am I the only one not impressed much by this amp?). Lol. If they have the memory for adding more IR slots, they probably should do that. And an easier, more foolproof way of backing up/restoring IRs, for sure. The way it is now can become messy quickly.

Lol. Already tried that. After all, she is wearing Helix around her virtual neck. I guess she's just suffered too much neglect. Is that my fault?

You won't be disappointed! I still have my 500X sitting on my desk. It's hooked up and ready to go in one of Helix's FX loops. I rarely even turn it on anymore.

The Iceman?

Can't say I've come across this. Perhaps you could build the framework for your preset first, before doing any work on the snapshots and then copy that preset to another location and then work on the snapshots. That way, you always have something to go back to.

A big part of it is probably the constant requests for amps, amps, amps, on ideascale and other forums. Amps are unfortunately popular. At some point, better sooner than later, I hope Line 6 decidedly dumps the idea of adding more amps, despite their popularity, and uses that gained resource of time for a more focused intent on functionality and currently missing effects. Helix is not just an amp modeler, but a multi-effects (it's how they categorize it on their website) guitar/bass processor.

Your Helix should be completely silent. The only thing I can think what might cause this is the power supply. Try it on a different outlet, preferably in a different location. I would probably contact customer service or the place you bought it from. It shouldn't be doing that.

Same here. I use them for everything, although I do not have them plugged directly into Helix. You can usually find these for less than $100.

I think you're right in it being reintroduced. I can vaguely recall trying tap-tempo via midi pre-2.10 and got results that were at least reliable. When I tried with 2.10, I was getting tempos that were completely off and seemingly random.

They just added this feature in 2.10.0.

That does sound messy. Lol. It makes my head hurt just reading about it.

I can confirm that this bug is still present in 2.10.0. I've been using the snapshot method and find that it usually works. I suppose usually working would qualify it as glitchy. I don't see the messy part of it though? It's only two midi events (two snapshot changes) sent from the DAW.

Depends on what I'm doing or if I need something specialized, but I like the sweep echo the best. For general purpose, most anything will do, but I might tend more toward the vintage digital.

Have you tried putting a delay, probably just the simple delay, on a parallel path, 100% mix, and then the bit crusher distortion after the delay? Adjust the mix using the merge block's level parameters.

You should be able to do this by getting something like one of these: https://www.amazon.com/VicTsing-Cable-Converter-Keyboard-Adapter/dp/B00ACGMOA6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480535289&sr=8-1&keywords=midi+to+usb I've successfully used one of these devices (a cheap one) with the HD500X and Reaper. Not specifically for controlling the transport functions of Reaper but to toggle effects from Reaper. Going the opposite direction would just be a matter of sending a midi cc though this device from the HD into your DAW. Once the DAW sees the midi cc it's probably just a matter of defining what happens in the DAW.