Jump to content

cruisinon2

Members
  • Posts

    8,004
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    229

Posts posted by cruisinon2

  1. 32 minutes ago, HonestOpinion said:

    I suspect this will be justified by Apple citing enhanced security...

     

    Of course. That's now the default justification for any and all instances where the rights of the electorate are trod upon, the endless expansion of the surveillance state, etc etc etc. "Pay no attention, there's nothing to see here... this is all about your safety. Now shut up and obey."

    • Upvote 1
  2. 52 minutes ago, HonestOpinion said:

    From my cursory reading on the subject so far though I can definitely see where there is a need, particularly in the best interests of the end user, to find some more rational middle ground. The laws governing this issue appear also to vary widely by state/country.

     

    It is easy to see the complexities and challenges involved on both sides of the issue - corporate and consumer.

     

    I can sum it up in for you:

     

    The companies are not concerned with consumers' best interests. The lawyers are not concerned with the consumers' best interests. And the politicians sure as $hit are not concerned with the consumers' best interests. Yet these are the three entities that will argue amongst themselves, grease each other's palms, and ultimately decide how the cookie crumbles for the rest of us serfs...you do the math.

     

    • Upvote 2
  3. 3 hours ago, HonestOpinion said:

    Does the EULA expressly forbid tinkering for your own fun and folly?

     

    It shouldn't, but unfortunately I think the answer to that is sometimes "yes"... Google the "right to repair" legislation, and you can read for days (and probably become alarmed) about what you can and can't legally do to things that you've paid good money for, and own outright.

     

    As far as I'm concerned, if I want to buy 100 Helixes (Helices?) and fill them with maple syrup, I should be able to do exactly that... but that's not necessarily the world we live in.

     

    • Haha 2
    • Upvote 1
  4. 10 hours ago, musicmanD123 said:

    Hello Helix Community,

     

    Has anyone experienced a huge change in preset sounds after changing pickups in their guitars?

    I just had a Seymour Duncan JB installed in the bridge and a 59 in the neck of my PRS SE Custom 24. These replaced the originally 85/15s pickups which I thought were ok, but never satisfied with the sounds. I play lots of different styles from Steely Dan to Tool to Opeth to Porcupine Tree, so versatility is important for me. 

    The clean sounds from these pups are amazing, didn’t know this guitar could sound so beautiful. But, any tones with gain or distortion sound absolutely terrible in every position.

    I usually only use the bridge for high gain and it sounds flat, harsh with no punch. Every preset with gain sounds the same no matter the amp model or different signal chain.

    Thanks so much for your help.

    Best regards,
    Derek

     

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but if your experience wasn't typical, there would be no reason for anybody to bother experimenting with different pickups, and the gazillion aftermarket options out there wouldn't exist...

  5. 2 hours ago, DunedinDragon said:


    I think the only thing good about not publicizing those kind of technical details is it would give users the opportunity to bash or promote one modeler over another based on technical trivia they have no clue about.  I often find it hilarious when users that struggle to understand the concepts involved with building signal chains or the use of snapshots and presets, or how to route different signals in and out of the Helix get fixated on the one thing that even highly technical trained engineers sometimes don't completely understand.

     

    Exactly my point. I could care less if one chip has 11 extra phemtobytes (or whatever esoteric units in which one wishes to measure) of DSP.

     

    Does it do what I need it to do?  Does it sound good? If the answer to those questions is "yes", great. Sold. If not, moving on...

    • Upvote 2
  6. 14 hours ago, HonestOpinion said:

    To state the obvious, in many respects current modelers are a computer specialized to generate and process sound. Although modelers have in common the identical goal of emulating amps and effects and often providing a recording interface, where they differ from computers is the higher degree of specialization in the UI, firmware, and software that sit on top of the hardware. These can vary wildly from one manufacturer to another and seem, to some extent, have lent license to companies not being particularly forthcoming about the hardware that underlies them. You don't just slap the identical version of Microsoft or Mac OS and Office onto every single modeler. There is no comprehensive benchmarking application for modelers. Not having an identical yardstick applied to all hardware makes it less compulsory to provide hardware details that make it easier to predict how different hardware platforms will perform . In many respects this is a good thing as hardware is hardly the sole factor in providing the mojo that makes for a great modeler. Protecting intellectual property probably plays a role here as well.

     

    Although modeler manufacturers tout certain specs they are particularly proud of, often they are not very comprehensive about listing just what is inside the box. When you purchase a computer/laptop there is almost always a description that informs you, in some measure of detail, exactly what parts it has inside - make, model, type, and speed of the CPU, memory, storage, I/O, MTBF, etc. Those specs give you a better idea of how much you should be paying, what kind of performance to expect, how long till the devices EOL, and what sort of processing and storage it may be capable of down the road.

     

    Ok... but a laptop might be called upon to do any one of 10,000 very different tasks, the success or failure of which might really be dependent on genuinely knowing what's under the hood so that you don't find yourself in a "you can't get there from here" scenario...but a modeler either does the one thing it's designed to do, and do it well, or it doesn't. And the assessment of said performance is almost entirely subjective and directly related to an individual's personal experience with these kinds of tools.

     

    In the end, I fail to see how a reading a spec sheet beforehand will aid in the above determination one way or the other, for one simple reason:

     

    I'm no dummy, but I'm also not tech savvy on a super granular, component level, either... you could almost tell me that Helix's innards consist of a really smart hamster named Lou, who manually implements whatever changes I make in real time on a tiny laptop, and I'd be hard-pressed to disagree. Similarly, you could rattle off the name(s) of the latest and greatest processing chips, and it wouldn't mean any more or less to me than if you called them Fred and Ethel... and I know I'm not alone in this regard. So it's not hard to understand why they don't bother to publish the majority of those specs...Joe Average neither knows nor cares, and for the minority who do, some are bound to whine loudly and publicly (just like Captain Video, above) about anything they've judged to be substandard. So if you're Line 6, what's the upside?

     

    The only question I need answered is "will 'Device X' serve my needs, or not?"... and I can't get that from a spec sheet. There's exactly one way to find out. Just my 2 cents. 

     

     

     

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  7. 9 hours ago, AMountain said:

    Well, why - i described at least one cause; ...

     

    Yeah, I get that... however, it's a safe bet that the overwhelming majority of users own just one Helix product. And even for those who do have more than one, it seems rather cumbersome to try and edit both simultaneously. So I'll stick with my original assessment...I would not have assumed that such a feature would exist, and it wouldn't surprise me if it never occurred to the guys who wrote the software, either.

    • Upvote 1
  8. 2 hours ago, MGW-Alberta said:

    Just curious about the difference between free ones on CustomTone and paid ones on MarketPlace.

     

     

    For the former, the only cost is the time you'll have to spend turning the patch into something you can actually use... and the latter requires you to pay for the privilege of doing exactly the same thing...;)

     

    Save yourself both the time and the money, and do it from scratch... in the long run, you'll waste less time and have extra beer money.

  9. 1 hour ago, rd2rk said:

    Also, consider how happy you'll be when the next MAC OS breaks Soundflower.....

     

    Truer words have never been spoken, lol...I don't even remember what Mac  OS I'm running now...At this point I only update if forced to by an application that won't run on whatever I have. Grew tired of every update $hitting the bed for everything else I connect to the damn laptop...

    • Upvote 1
  10. 3 hours ago, PierM said:

     

    I agree with many things here (it's all correct), but I'm assuming we are talking small venues here, so easy situations. Not talking complex FOHs, or stadiums etc.. 

     

     

     

    Don't feel bad...nobody's asking me to play Madison Square Garden, either...;)

    • Haha 1
  11. 1 hour ago, PierM said:

     

    Disagree with that.

     

    Modeling is just like a recording; there is a mic, an amp, a cab, a room and pedals. The great thing of modeling, is that you can work your presets as if they were a mix in a daw, and the first rule for a good mix/master, is to make it sounding good and solid, in any speaker configuration. You dont do a different mix/master for every single speaker, or room size. Without that concept, modeling wouldnt make sense.

     

    The volume variable can be easily managed through global EQ, to compensate the Fletcher Munson curve.

     

    As soon as you have a good room correction (mandatory), and a good pair of reference studio monitors, I can garantee that 80% of the job is done, and it will work good in any condition, given the EQ for room and volume compensation. Of course Im not talking stadiums. That's a completely different beast, but I dont think it's the OP's problem atm...;)

     

    That's a bit an oversimplified version of what Im saying;

     

     

     

    Ok... so I'm not exactly sure where we disagree...

     

    Volume is critical as you said (global EQ, Fletcher Munson, etc). Speaker choice perhaps less so, but still significant. No patch that I've ever tinkered with at a nice comfy living room volume through a pair of 5" monitors or headphones has ever worked at stage volume without significant adjustments... and that's difficult, if not impossible to do at home and outside a mix. If there something wrong with my ears or approach, so be it... but that's been my experience for years on end. As such, I've kept different set lists for each scenario forever... all of them tweaked in context.

    • Upvote 1
  12. On 10/8/2021 at 7:55 AM, Maxy71 said:

    What I intended is ... I work for example on a patch at home, get a sound that looks fine to me....

    Then I go to studio with my band, where I plug helix into the mixer that is connected to a couple of Alto TS312 

    I try the patch... and it sounds horrible or completely different if I am lucky! 

     

    This will always be the case, and the issue is two-fold:

    1) You are switching to a different output device(s)

    2) You are almost certainly playing at a much higher volume than at home.

     

    Patches must be dialed in as you intend to use them, meaning through the same (or at least similar) speakers, and at or close to the same volume. There is no substitute for this... especially the volume, which is an ENORMOUS variable. This cannot be stated emphatically enough.... perception of tone varies drastically with volume. Nothing that you dial in at home with headphones will translate to live use without significant adjustments.

     

     

     

    • Upvote 1
  13. Well that's new

    7 hours ago, ericrardin said:

    When I try to download something, this is why I can't download: 

     

    image.png

     

    Well that's new... on the bright side, Line 6 has actually done you an enormous favor. They have saved you countless hours of downloading and auditioning patch after useless patch from the Sewer of Wasted Time that is Customtone...;)

     

    On a side note, I'll give 8 to 5 odds that you've purchased a stolen unit...

    • Haha 1
    • Upvote 3
  14. 17 hours ago, Paulzx said:

     

    Agree with your conclusion, you do just have to work around it, and accept you can't totally reproduce some stuff like that, I had actually said that before anyway.

     

    To be totally fair, if I get closer to the monitor speakers and listen a bit more carefully, I can hear that the basic tone through the speaker is more like the thing I'm chasing, but by the time you've stepped back into a more suitable listening distance from the speakers, it's not as obvious, so maybe those HS5's are just too small to really project that detail in the sound. Unless you have an endless supply of speakers to compare against, it's hard to know what the differences would be to comment on that.

     

    I'll know next week, at least compared to the HS7 as I'm swapping over to those specifically to test this

     

    Let me save you the suspense...you can't "new gear" your way out of this problem.... because the monitors are not the problem. And the headphones are not the problem. The problem is that the monitors are monitors, and the headphones are headphones...you could spend the rest of your life trying to make one behave like the other, and you will fail. Every time. You must adapt to what they are capable of doing, because they're not gonna change...their frequency responses and projection capabilities are what they are. As such, you could invest in a pair of every model of studio monitor on earth, and none of those will sound just like your headphones, either. It's a losing battle. The need to make EQ adjustments from one output to another is inevitable, and that will never change. Learning to use different pieces of gear as they are intended to be used, and accepting the strengths and limitations of each, is the only way to get happy results. Anything else is an unattainable fantasy.

     

    Either way, good luck...I have no intention of repeating myself any further. It'll either sink in eventually, or it won't.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 2
  15. 9 hours ago, Paulzx said:

     

    This is where I disagree with you. I don't think any tweaking will replicate that sound. It's not an EQ thing, it's more like a completely different device is creating the distortion. Try it and you'll see what I mean

     

    A completely different device IS creating the sound. Your chosen output device accounts for a tremendous % of your tone...headphones are not studio monitors, and studio monitors are not a PA. And like it or not, EQ is the way out. The only way. Will you ever achieve 100%, indistinguishable continuity between headphones and other output methods? Probably not... because they are very different, they're used in different ways, and that will never change. If you want to though, you can get damn close... but not until you accept what's happening in the first place.

     

    I have successfully navigated around this issue for years, not because I'm omniscient or some kind of savant, but because I learned how... stumbling along the way like everybody else. You can disagree all you want... but your predicament is not new, nor is your reaction to it... the steadfast rejection of what's actually going on is the default response of many. You'll find 1000 other threads around here documenting the exact same sequence of events. The same initial question, the same answers provided, and the same "Nope. Can't be." blanket rejection of said answers... it actually gets rather tiresome. We'd all love a miraculous solution that allows for identical tones to emerge, completely independent of what we're monitoring through, and the volume at which we're listening, but that isn't gonna happen, because it's impossible. Your only option is to make it happen with the appropriate adjustments. It's work. Annoying, time consuming, and at times difficult work... but on the bright side, you only have to do it once.

     

    You get used to monitoring with one particular output method, and when you switch to another it's a gut punch, because all of a sudden it sounds nothing like what you're used to hearing, and initially it can be a bit confusing as to why. But that doesn't change the fact that  there's precisely one answer, which multiple people have already provided... and it is straightforward: Dial in your sounds through the same output, and at or close to the same volume as you intend to use them. Hit 'save'. Often. 

     

    Or keep searching for a magic bullet that doesn't exist. No matter how convinced you are that you'll be the guy to find it, you won't. This is all about the physics of sound production of various different devices, how and at what proximity they interact with your ears,  and the biology of perception. You can't win a fight with any of those things... you can only learn to work around them, and manipulate your gear so that it produces something useful.

     

     

     

     

    • Upvote 4
  16. 12 hours ago, Paulzx said:

     none of it sounds like that direct headphone sound

     

    And it's never going to, not without (often significant) adjustments,... that's the whole point.The sooner you accept that, the easier this will get. Different output = different sound. End of story. There is no magic workaround, no push-button solution. Patches must be tailored for their intended use. That "perfect" sound that you dialed in at a nice comfy volume with headphones will not sound the same through studio monitors, or cranked to stage volume through some other FRFR/PA speaker.

     

    I keep three set lists... one tweaked for headphones, one for studio monitors, and one for live use. EQ is your friend... and the need to make adjustments based on how you intend to use a given patch will never go away.

  17. On 10/7/2021 at 7:44 AM, Paulzx said:

     

    Absolutely - ear phones are not what you would normally use, but it's what I had to hand at the time - but that's not really the point, I experienced the same thing years ago when I did have head phones. Yes you'll get different quality on better headphones but the point is, the sound is completely different.

     

    Yup... and that's the way it'll always be, for all the reasons that everyone has already outlined. It's not supernatural, there's nothing "wrong" with your Helix, nor is it deficient in some way compared to anything else on the market. You are simply comparing two completely different kinds of output devices.  They will never sound the same. Period. Pick any other modeler on the face of the earth and conduct the same 'experiment'... and you'll get the exact same results. 

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  18. 12 minutes ago, Paulzx said:

    Why is this the case that the Helix can produce this tone via the headphones but not to real speakers as such?

     

    It's perfectly capable of doing both...

     

    But different output devices will always yield different tones... it's inevitable. Headphones and studio monitors are fundamentally different. The cans are right on top of your ears... monitors are a mile away, relatively speaking, and positioned off-axis. The miracle, would be if they actually did sound identical... In fact, that's the fantasy that is requested time and time again on these very forums... but that magic formula doesn't exist. If you change the output, your tone will change. Period.

     

    EQ appropriate to the task will forever be the only way to take a patch designed for one scenario, and successfully adapt it to another.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
×
×
  • Create New...