kylotan

I agree that a little more directed documentation would be great. Maybe a flow chart that asks what your output destination is (amp front, amp return, audio interface, headphones) and then suggests which block types to use (e.g. Pre/Amp/Cab) along with certain warnings (e.g. if your output is going into the front of an amp, you're not going to get pristine-sounding reverbs from the Helix). I also think - and have said this several times before - that metering and gain staging in the Helix is a problem that needs to be addressed. In the real world different units can act very differently at instrument or line level (never mind mic level) and this is potentially very important for effects like overdrive/distortion/saturation that respond dynamically to the input level - but we don't have any guidance on how to get the best out of these.

I've attached a simple patch to demonstrate. If I switch the distortion block off, the amp sounds fine. If I switch the amp block off and turn the distortion level up, it sounds fine. If I have both on, it's fuzzy-sounding, and I get significantly different frequency content if I adjust the level on the distortion. High Gain Test.hlx

Sorry for the cross-post, but I put this over in the general Helix forum before thinking that it might be more suitable here: The full detail is over there, but the short version is: if I put a distortion block before an amp block, the sound starts breaking up as if I was using a fuzz pedal. I suspect the levels might be wrong somehow, but there is also a weird phasing effect when I change the distortion pedal's level which implies something else is going on. Does anyone know what might be happening?

My input levels are fine (well within the ranges on the video you shared), and work well with other VSTs, including freeware and Guitar Rig. They also seem to work great with Helix Native most of the time - just not when I put a distortion block in front of an amp block. Just to be clear, it's not boominess or woofiness I'm getting - it's definite fuzz, similar to what you get from a fuzz pedal or block, like it's breaking up. Possibly related - when I have the Vermin Dist before the PV Panama, I play a chord, and I adjust the level on the Vermin block up and down, I hear something like a phasing sound, or an extreme low cut at low levels (with no low cut at high levels). If I turn off the amp block, the level on the distortion works exactly as I'd imagine again.

Hello all, I'm slowly migrating a bunch of old VST chains over to Helix Native presets, so that I can take my studio settings out on the road with my Helix Floor unit. I play extreme metal with a lot of gain, and what I'm finding is that while the individual models in the Helix are close tonal matches for the VSTs I was using before, putting them in series often ends up with my tone sounding very fuzzy (literally, like I'm using a Fuzz pedal). I suspect this is something to do with my gain staging in the Helix, but in the absence of any guide on the 'expected' level for each block, and the absence of any sort of trim/input setting for each block, the trial-and-error approach to fixing this isn't working well for me. Example: This chain has a LOT of gain and gives extreme feedback, but the tone is perfect and exactly what I'd expect: Guitar in to interface -> TSE R47 VST (Rat distortion simulator) with drive 50% and volume 50% --> Emissary amp VST on Lead channel, gain at 33%, master at 50% > cab sim But this similar chain, on Helix: Guitar in to interface -> Vermin Dist with Gain and Level at 50% --> Brit 2204 amp, gain 33%, master at 3.6 (default) > cab block ... this sounds like it's breaking up with a hint of fuzz. Any suggestions on addressing this? I don't have the original gear so it's hard to know what it 'should' sound like, but I don't think the Helix sound is what I'd expect here.

It's not impossible to describe reverbs in a useful way. Valhalla are perfectly capable of doing it: https://valhalladsp.com/shop/reverb/valhalla-room/

And for those of us who don't own a Big Sky (or an RV6) - can anyone describe the differences? (To be honest, I'd appreciate much more information about the models and effects in general. There are so many parameters to play with that it takes too long to learn the whole unit by experimentation.)

Yup, the effected signal level is way too low on these new reverbs. It's been a problem for me in practice trying to find this ideal level because the total output level is very sensitive around the 50% area. I might drop the reverb into a parallel block with mix at 100% and see if it's more manageable as a 'send' by adjusting the output level. It would also be great to find out what L6 intend doing about the odd-and-arguably-broken stereo field on the Glitz. It's fine for live where I'm in mono but it means I can't use the same effect in the studio in stereo.

I gigged with a GT-10 for years, as the Pod XT Live I owned didn't have a send/return loop for 4CM, and the Boss selection of effects was better in those days anyway. I found the amps on it barely usable, and clearly very digital-sounding when listened to closely - quantisation artifacts all over. I never upgraded to the GT-100 because they were obviously dumbing it down and 'streamlining' their units when I was in the market for something more powerful. But even back then, at least on the high gain amps, I would have chosen the XTL over the GT-10. Maybe not on blues and crunch but I don't use those amps so can't comment.

I had some situations where transitions between snapshots sounded abrupt or had a small pop, and I usually managed to narrow this down to dynamics changes in the chain. Try removing other parts of the chain and seeing if your problem goes away.

I'm not interested in quibbling over the definition of 'laziness' but documentation is important, and if you significantly change the capabilities of your hardware then you should be reflecting that in the documentation provided. Given how minimal the Helix documentation already is - relative to earlier units where each simulation was explained in depth - this is a relatively trivial task that could and should have been done with every patch.

To be fair, Line 6 have been very lazy with the manual over the last year and none of this is in there.

Any indication that the weirdness with the mix level and the stereo space on the new reverbs has been addressed?

I voted for it over 3 years ago. https://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Helix-Guitar-Signal-Metering/741210-23508#idea-tab-comments But with only 1366 votes, it is undoubtedly a low priority compared to getting another 3 or 4 Marshall clones modelled...

The plus-minus sign has the code 177 in most Western 8-bit character sets. 177 in decimal is B1 in hexadecimal. Presumably the unit shows the hexadecimal code for symbols it isn't able to otherwise show (probably any symbol above 127).

Well, maybe! Depends on the mic, depends on the gain on the desk, etc. But yeah, this is my point - we're simulating hardware and parts of the chain that intrinsically amplify and attenuate the signal. So the concept of 'unity' gain implies counteracting some of those changes which in turn is going to affect certain sonic characteristics of the blocks that come later in the chain. I don't think there is any "one size fits all" solution here but the fix would be (a) having guidance from Line 6 on what the input level to each block should be, and (b) getting realtime feedback from the unit on whether we're successfully doing that or not.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that first sentence, but I think it reinforces one of the issues here. Basically, we have a system which allows us to arbitrarily rearrange blocks in whatever order we like, but those blocks sometimes simulate real-world hardware that is very sensitive to the absolute input level - for example, amps which only start to break up or saturate when the signal is hot enough. This alone tells us that we shouldn't expect there to be one 'true' signal level that is going to work across every block throughout the whole chain, and that in turn means that striving for unity gain on each block is only going to work if we know that every block is calibrated broadly the same and that we're getting enough signal in the first place. Some of this would be helped by there being better documentation from Line 6 regarding expected levels... with my programmer hat on I assume it's all floating point data in the pipeline so you don't get any hard clipping before it hits the output, but it certainly does have some nasty sounding distortion in some blocks when the level is too hot. So if that's part of the model, let us know so we can attenuate accordingly.

I found a problem literally the other day where one of my cleaner amps had some crackly top end that I had initially put down to me not understanding how the amp was meant to sound - but it went away entirely when I turned the amp channel and/or master volume down. But there was no other indication that I was overloading any of the blocks and the final output level was way below 0 dbFS. Line 6, can we please, please get some sort of clip/high signal indicator on each individual block? As for the unity gain idea, I don't think it's very practical. An amp block should amplify the signal - the hint's in the name. Even if it can be persuaded not to do so, a cab block following it is almost always going to significantly attenuate the signal. If I have the 2 blocks next to each other then I try to make sure that what comes out of the cab is not much different from what goes into the amp, but I think there needs to be better metering for all of this.

I actually did something a bit similar to try and tone match with my old Pod XT sounds. I'd create a Helix preset that would attempt to mimic the same gear used in an old Pod XT preset, but they would obviously sound quite different given the 10 years of development since then. So I would load in an old recording from the XT preset into my DAW and play the same thing through the Helix, then use EQ-match on those 2 tracks to show me where the tone differed. That would give me an idea of which dials to change on the amp model, or which mic/cab to try, and when I couldn't get any closer with just those controls, I could dial the rest in via a parametric EQ block or two.

Reverb before the cab block is a perfectly legitimate chain to use. It's what you're going to have if you have reverb on your pedal board, and isn't going to affect the overall balance of the reverb, unless for some reason you're relying on a lot of top end. I just wish the unit provided a wet gain rather than just the mix% because it's obvious the reverbs differ a lot in terms of how loud their relative output is at 50% mix.

It's not exactly the same issue as the OP, but I definitely did observe that even at 50% mix the amount of reverb in the signal is a lot lower than I would like. On the old Pod XT anything above 40% would start to mask the regular tone, but with these Helix reverbs you can get up to 50% and it's still relatively dry - until you switch to a clean tone, where the original note decays faster than the reverb does so you really hear it.

I've only spent literally 5 minutes with it, but I've noticed that the new Glitz reverb stereo model seems to want to put more of the reverb tails on the right hand side. This seems to be something to do with the Modulation - it seems to only be the frequencies above Xover level, and if Mod Mix is turned down to zero, this goes away entirely. Is this intentional? And are there any instructions for these new reverbs yet?

To be fair, although they have a lot of decay on them, they still sound very 'dry' in the sense that the un-effected notes are still very audible and distinct. For some ambient styles it's interesting to know whether it's possible to turn the mix up to 100% wet and get some subtle swells, almost bowed sounds. What was the mix/wet-dry balance on these samples?

From the Preset selection screen (the one with setlists on the left and presets on the right), select the preset you want to move, then turn the third of the six dials to reorder it in the list.

The metal zone is a big one for me - most of the distortion in the Helix feels closer to overdrive and doesn't have the bite I'm after. I'd prefer the metal zone to be remodelled for the Helix but this will do at a push. Of the other older effects, I'm just looking forward to them helping me with a migration path from my old Pod XT Live. I've been able to port over some of my old tones by trying to match the gear, adding matched settings, and then going on a listen/analyse/tweak/repeat mission for quite some time. Having more faithful reproductions of the older effects will cut a lot of the uncertainty out of this process - and I can always upgrade to HX effects later once I've got the baseline in place.