cruisinon2

There's obviously an issue, but I doubt that the edit software is responsible, because it services multiple devices...I think there'd be a whole lot more bricked units if HX Edit was somehow "infecting" the hardware.

With the exception of deliberately trying to mimic a specific tone, for a specific song, I suspect most of us fall into this same loop. We all have likes and dislikes with respect to tone, and you'll naturally gravitate towards what you like....(unless you're nuts, heavily medicated, or both ;) )

The dreaded "piezo plink" is a disease that can afflict all the models. Target demographics don't matter much... the technology is all the same, and unfortunately the shortcomings are what they are. The are numerous contributing factors, many of which you can find discussed at length in an epic years- long thread titled "Do you have the same problem with the 6th string". One big factor is the use of high gain tones... this can really exacerbate the problem. So I'd argue that an 89 owner might be more likely to notice plink issues for that reason alone... at least compared to the guy with a 69 who's playing SRV and Clapton tunes all day long.

I get it, and I get caught in that loop too... but it's very easy to makes things worse, the more you muck around. Tone can't get "better" infinitely, especially if you've been at it a while and your ears start getting tired. Personally, I thought the clip sounded pretty good balance wise... might need a little polishing, but I could pick out the individual parts. I don't know about everybody else, but I gravitate towards just a handful of amps and tones...I suspect most of us do, unless you're a separate patch per tune cover band guy who meticulously tone matches everything in a 200 song repertoire... just the thought of that exhausts me, lol. I really only use 4 or 5 amp models consistently...a tiny fraction of what Helix can do. EQ, or grabbing a different guitar does the rest.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this might be part, if not all of the problem. That's a lot of stuff all occupying the same sonic space... I'm not surprised that the tracks are tripping over themselves. Yes, there are a bunch of classic albums that boast some ridiculous number of stacked rhythm guitars... the "wall of sound", as it were. But that's hard to do without a great deal of experience and/or a million dollar facility. I don't mind admitting that I'd probably have difficulty trying to balance even 6 rhythm guitar tracks. I do a lot instrumental stuff, generally doubling the primary rhythm parts, panned hard L and R, and maybe a complimentary rhythm guitar part somewhere else in the stereo field, or perhaps a (really) simple keyboard line, then the lead stuff on top, drums, bass, etc... and even that limited number of things can be a real challenge to mix.

It's OK if the guitar sounds like $hit solo... that's the whole point of what many of us have been trying to say. If your tones are disappearing in the mix, poke around and boost the low-mids.... just don't be surprised if the result is a nasally sounding mess on its own. But who cares? How it sits with everything else is all that matters. I have one low-gain, edge of breakup-ish patch that I often use with a Strat for bluesy leads...by itself it's kinda bright, tinny sounding... almost hollow. In other words, "yuck". But I've used it on several tunes because it just happened to fit perfectly with the rest of the track You're trying to make the entire track bend to a guitar sound that you like, as opposed to achieving a balance amongst everything... it's an approach that will almost never work, except through the occasional episode of dumb luck.

Yup, to all of that... it's trial and error every time. Heavy on the "error". Forgive the use of the ridiculously overused term, but it is an "organic" process, that can't be reduced to an equation, or list of magic frequencies to boost or cut. One thing that does help me is that almost everything I write starts with improv over a drum loop... so right from the start I have something to balance the guitar tone against. Sometimes it means changing that to fit the drum sounds, and sometimes I'll leave the guitar alone and pull up a different kit, or maybe just change out the kick or snare to make everything play nice together. But whatever one's personal approach is, it like building a house... if the foundation sucks, sooner or later something's falling over.

You're right, an isolated guitar sound that may be somewhat less than inspiring might sit just fine in a mix. The converse can just as easily be the case...but what else is there to use but one's ears? Listen back, and EQ when necessary. Every instrument you add to the track makes a difference to the overall mix too(to a greater or lesser extent), and each tune you record will have its own set of EQ issues that'll need to be dealt with after the fact. And if that wasn't enough of a PIA, no two tracks are ever gonna be the same, lol. Frankly, getting a final mix to sound good is every bit as much of an art as being an accomplished player/songwriter. You start with a tone that's in the ballpark, and you go from there... but you'll never find a magic formula that'll guarantee a tone you've dialed in solo will be perfect for any given mix. It's just doesn't work that way...

Helix has the auto-engage wah feature you're looking for, but the POD does not.

Depends on what you're playing it through, I suppose... but I think just about everybody around here would argue that point all day long. One of the top 3 complaints is the need to get rid of the everything above 6KHz ... if it ain't there, where is the much maligned high end fizz coming from that we're all dialing out constantly?

Well it sounds like you've already come the factory reset, and that's about the only "user serviceable" thing there is to do. Hopefully it was a one-time hiccup...but there really isn't anything you can do to guarantee that it'll never happen again. It's a computer... sooner or later, they all freeze up.

To each their own... but its still $1500 worth of anything else. I'd rather buy another guitar, or food and rent, lol... On the off chance that Helix craps the bed at an inopportune moment, the POD will suffice...hell, it worked day in/day out for me for about 5 years. A gig or two of HD nostalgia won't kill me....and that's if it ever comes up. Helix has yet to give me any issues live, and the POD never did.

For years on end, the backup to my current rig has been whatever I had been using immediately prior.... so my Helix backup is my 500X. Works just fine, and I can still get perfectly decent tones out of it. Is it ideal? No... but after nearly 50 years of roaming the earth, I've come to the conclusion that nothing ever is. I'd love a second Helix "just in case", but I can't justify the cost. If I had limitless funds, or if I were a touring pro, I'd probably look at it differently, and be able to justify the investment. That, and I'd be writing it off on my taxes...;) Till then however, the POD will have to do in a pinch.

All one needs for the "amp in the room" sound is an amp and a room...;) If you know what your doing, go ahead and hack away... but if not, performing surgery on a device in an attempt to turn it into something other than what it is, may not end well. Even if you don't destroy it, it still won't be a guitar amp, and there's no guarantee it'll produce the results you're looking for...but a guitar amp will do what you want, and is certainly the path of least resistance... just my 2 cents.

Bon voyage...

I'm currently using one of those as a coaster...;)

Personally, I've yet to hear a pair of computer speakers that sound "great". Any decent pair of studio reference monitors will do what you want, won't break the bank, and will be more than adequate for your volume needs. Stick with the big boys...JBL, Sony, Yamaha, etc. https://www.sweetwater.com/c405--Active_Monitors

You can whine about it in here until you turn blue and it'll never make any difference. This is a user forum. Nobody in here has any control over how things are organized, and official L6 personnel seldom make an appearance. Ideascale in the place for requests.

Yup... it's the whole "give a man a fish/ teach a man to fish" thing. If you understand how and why things work the way they do, then you don't need somebody else's "magical" settings... your own will be better by default. Does it suck at the beginning? Yup. But so does everything else. The only thing we're all good at from day one is breathing... the rest is a learning curve.

In principle, I agree... but my experience says otherwise. The payoff is way less than 1%...I've auditioned 100's of patches with Helix, and my 500X before that.... and there are a grand total of 2 that I've kept and used...and even those are pretty heavily edited. It's just not worth the time or the effort for me. As always though, ymmv. But imho, just about anybody will be better off learning the process of creating tones that work for them, as opposed to just acquiring 200 "square" patches that then have to be shoved into round holes.

Pete Thorn can play, and I'm sure he's an all around swell guy. However, I think... strike that...I know that reality is VERY unlikely to live up to your expectations. Trying to use patches created by somebody else, no matter who (or how wonderful) they are, is mostly an exercise in futility. You will always always end up having to tweak them to the rest of your rig, guitar(s), needs, playing style, etc. etc. Even if they were free (which they wouldn't be if L6 is cutting the guy a check), you're still chasing your tail. And yes, to confirm my suspicions I've tried (repeatedly) a bunch of downloaded patches...some free, some not... including some of the most talked about ones around here. The free ones were a waste of time, and the paid ones were a waste of money.... so I don't bother anymore. Mine work because I made them with my guitars, monitors, headphones, PA, etc... and all at the volumes at which I intend to use them. When all of those other factors are a complete mystery, and Helix the only common denominator, you're pi$$ing in the wind.

My point was simple: If you're currently happy with your sound...however the hell you got there... then why reinvent the wheel? Pulling my patches apart in favor of a more complicated process of getting right back to where I already was, has absolutely no appeal for me. I'd be changing things around, just for the sake of changing things around...I got enough to do. Do what you like though... either way, continuing a philosophical debate on whether or not this is a swell idea makes even less sense than undoing the last year of work I've put in with Helix, .... I surrender, lol.

Never seen one...

That's pretty much what I was trying to get across... but you said it better, lol.

Well I guess going about it this way makes it appear as though we're leaving more frequencies intact, but to what end? When all is said and done, we're still subjectively determining whether or not something sounds good, and sits well in the mix. This seems like a whole lot of extra manipulation, just to arrive at the same place... last thing I need are even more parameters to tinker with.