duncann

Your mom's so fat she fell down the stairs and used the POD to break her fall. There. No more POD to argue about.

No difference really. Just a different way to do it than dual cabs. Instead of messing with two cabs, two mics, and positions, there's only one. Just have to pick a good IR. So it can diminish slightly, or appear to, the overwhelming amount of combinations. Another reason is maybe you're looking to maximize the DSP usage but don't have enough for dual IRs, but just enough for a cab and IR.

To put things in perspective about Helix being intuitive or not, try downloading the manual for another product that's comparable, or maybe even not comparable, and just quickly read through it. Have an objective in mind for what you want to accomplish on Helix and then imagine the steps you'd have to take on the other device, absent a computer editor. There also might be an expectation that because Helix does so much, has so many options, that in order to accomplish some things, it will naturally be complicated, and the more simple way of doing something might be easily overlooked.

Some good advice there. I like the idea of finding what you like and sticking with it. As you said, that's easier said than done to actually get to that point. But once there it's easier. A lot depends on the individual's obsessive tendencies. There's always a need in some to see what's just over the horizon or lurking around the corner. Oddly, I don't have a hard time at all selecting amps. Most of them end up having very similar tonal characteristics for me. So it's easy. Cabs/mics are different. They affect the sound more than an amp and sometimes my poor little brain quickly becomes overloaded and confused, basically shutting down the decision making process.

The only drawback of using dual cabs is now you have to sift through all the different mic-mic distance-cab combinations. What if the one I haven't tried yet is better than the one I just tried? And so forth and so on. On the other hand, maybe that's easier than trying to sift through thousands of IRs. Or you could easily combine an IR and cab block. I do that sometimes with good results.

Peter got the answer. If I use a low/high cut, I'll usually use it right after the cab block. The low/high cut on the cab blocks work as well, but I find the separate EQ block to sound better. They have different slopes, with the EQ block having more of an affect.

A good example of keyboard actions done right is Reaper. However I really don't expect anything that elaborate from the Helix editor. There's always third party programs, or keyboard/mouse software, that could possibly work to force customizations. Line 6 is responsive to user feedback for sure, but as mentioned above I think the people working on the editor is a different group of people from the Helix group. So with an extra layer of bureaucracy thrown in there, that might change things. Hope that's not the case.

Scenes are definitely on Line 6's radar: http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Helix-Scene-Mode/727231-23508

Here's a good place to start: http://line6.com/support/topic/17076-links-for-free-impulse-responses-ir-here/?hl=free+impulse+responses The factory state of Helix doesn't contain any IRs.

I keep hearing that the editor is just like Helix's interface. That might be nice to say, and people tend to agree with it because Helix's interface is easy to use, but when you actually start to think about it, little things like the above start to creep in and now it doesn't sound so good. I just hope that the people who're designing the editor realize that although Helix's actual interface is nice, it won't translate well to a mouse/keyboard/monitor computer system. One objective of an editor is to make the workflow easier for some? I don't see how this is possible when the starting point is to say let's make it just like Helix's interface. Hopefully I'm completely wrong about this.

I always change it. That doesn't mean it won't be the same as the default. But you never know if something might sound better unless you try it. What the mic distance ends up being depends on the tone type and context.

I hate them as well. They work absolute wonders if you want aggravate your carpal tunnel. The sliders might be marginally better. Best is a single click, or better the TAB button on the keyboard, to select the focus and just input the numbers with the keypad. That's one reason I hope that for effects with a lot of parameters it doesn't put a stupid scroll bar on the 'sliders' page to be able to get at them.

The topic title suggests wanting to assign the same effect block to multiple switches. As a sort of workaround, you could assign an effect block to one switch and the mix parameter (if it has one) of the same effect block to another switch. I think in effect you're wanting something like scenes. Which Helix cannot really do, yet. A combination of what hideout, silverhead, and the text above here is about the best you do.

No reason not to have both knob/slider and numeric inputs. Seems like a trivial idea in both concept and implementation. The screenshot above has me a little worried though because what's pictured is the script phase, which just happens to have only a few parameters that fit quite nicely on one screen. What happens with something like the harmony delay? Now all of a sudden these huge slider controls - designed for a touch interface - are a big drawback. Just like HD Edit is disappointing in a lot of ways, I have a feeling the editor for Helix is going to disappoint as well (but better than bending down). I remember reading that the people who work on this software are not the same people who designed Helix. I hope they're not the same people who made HD Edit. Let's say I'm hoping for the best, but preparing for something less. It would be nice to know the last part of the previous sentence could be dropped.

Only have to buy once. It can be used on up to four devices I think.

I have these headphones and use them always for my baseline tones. But, I also create the tones within the confines of a mix. When I think I have the tone I'm after for one particular track, I'll listen to it, within the mix, on other audio systems, from cheap to not-as-cheap, but nothing high end. I find I rarely, if ever, have to EQ anything depending on listening medium. Everything sounds remarkably similar regardless if it's listened to on the headphones or not. I don't find a lack of low end on these headphones (7506s). The low end may have an apparent weakness, maybe not as much oomph as compared to a speaker system with a sub-woofer, say, but I've come to the conclusion that it's because it's clearer, more defined, and better balanced. So, to get good results across multiple speaker systems, I guess I do EQ things, but I EQ at the source, which is Helix, to get a good final balance. This way, EQing is not necessary with the final output whether listening on headphones or something other.

Perhaps there's more going on than just marketing gibberish. Maybe it's to do with the materials used to construct them and because of this there's no way to suppress the frequencies beyond the human range without actually affecting the frequencies in the human range.

Try and spread things out across presets if possible. This will allow for much more freedom when assigning things to switches. For example, if you're playing a song that uses the pitch glide, but not a wah or volume - or only one of these - there's really no need to try and cram them all in one preset. Also note that there are only two expression controllers in the HD at one time. So adding a second physical pedal is not the same as adding a third expression controller. The onboard pedal would control EXP1 and the extra pedal would control EXP2. If the above doesn't work, I have the Mission Engineering EP1-L6, which is great for wah, and possibly controlling the pitch glide depending on it's use. It would be good for when used the way Vai and Satch use it. It's bad for volume control because of it's short throw. Don't know what your budget is, but this pedal is a bit more than others at $130.

Same here, Windows 7, since about October of last year. Tried in Windows 10 also with no problems.

Glad to help out.

I've noticed this as well. I have the big volume knob dimed when I use the spdif, which is always. When I did try some of the other outputs I had to turn the big knob down a bit.

Sorry. Never actually used the m-audio midisport. But it's manufactured by a company that's a little more well known for stuff like this. Whether or not that means it will actually work for you, no idea. I used to use (have Helix now which has built in MIDI over USB) a used and very cheap one, $5, I picked up from a local store that sells second-hand music equipment. It worked fine for me with Windows 7 and the HD500X. Never had to install any drivers. I plugged it in and the OS just used a built in driver, which is called USB2.0-MIDI in device manager.

Interesting. I have one of those cheap ones. Don't know what exactly it is, but it looks like the ones that come up for less than $10 when you search on Amazon for usb to midi. It works fine for me with Windows 7 and an HD500X. There's this one that's probably more well known: http://www.amazon.com/M-Audio-MIDISPORT-Multiplatform-MIDI-Interface/dp/B00006I5HD/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1456490137&sr=8-13&keywords=usb+to+midi

If you have a lot of presets to reorder, the librarian app is still tedious. You can't work with blocks of presets within the list shown, only one at a time. You can reorder multiple presets using the import button at the top of the list, but that brings up an extra dialog and is ripe for making a mistake. Another thing that's annoying is no way to shut off that little confirmation dialog that pops up when copying and pasting things. I don't get why little workflow things like this seem so hard for Line 6 to implement. I hope the editor doesn't have a bunch of these little quirks.

It's not possible to do what you want, except within the confines of a preset. You said the HD500X was able to set a global min and max? How so?