Digital_Igloo

I was going to change it to Audi R8 or even a Tesla P85, but thought "m'eh. No one's gonna notice." So, so mistaken. :D

We still want to add some level of DT support to Helix, but there's no way it's going to work like HD500X. It can't; they're completely different engines. The amount of work that went into POD HD/DT integration was staggering (documenting it all was one of the first things I did at Line 6), and the number of people who chained more than one DT from POD could probably be counted on one hand. I honestly don't think a single user on the planet connected three DTs for wet-dry-wet, although we designed for it. Unless you're chaining multiple speakers/amps, there's almost no advantage to L6 LINK on full-range systems. Since we don't expect anyone to use two Firehawk 1500s (as one amp is already stereo wet-dry-wet), L6 LINK would be a complete waste on that product. Or think of it this way: The guys who could've spent a month adding L6 LINK to Firehawk 1500 can now spend a month making Helix better. :)

Nope, sorry—no scenes. The good news is that the next firmware update is probably early next week. Pretty much all bug fixes.

Losing aplomb or simply understanding the market? If one is looking for a cheap ($300-500?) playback system, there are lots of boxes that look the part and sound relatively decent on microscopic stages and in rehearsal rooms. If one is looking for a full range playback system that looks the part and wouldn't be the obvious weak link with Helix and other high end modelers, there's Firehawk 1500 and excellent options from Mission, Matrix, Atomic, and Friedman. I've mentioned this many times before, but the market for FRFR speakers is TINY compared to the market for amps with tones. It'd be unspeakably foolish for us to waste precious time and resources developing an $899 model-free Firehawk just because some people can't wrap their head around bypassing the $999 Firehawk 1500's modeling. It'd be even more foolish for us to desperately try to hit a $499 price point when the result could never properly reproduce Helix's sound and feel. It's the same reason you don't put $50 tires on a Bugatti. Besides, Line 6 has zero interest in playing "me too," especially when the only advantage might be that the modeler and speaker logos match.

Out of curiosity, what would be the advantage of a Helix amp with Helix Control over Helix floor with a high-quality FRFR? Both systems would be around the same size and weight and have a similar setup time, but the Helix amp all but locks you into a single playback system. Not sure the world is ready for another $2000-$2500 Line 6 amp, but if enough people demand it...

The whole point of L6 LINK is to build a network of multiple speakers for stereo or wet-dry-wet setups. Firehawk 1500 is wet-dry-wet stereo by itself and it's stupid loud; there's not really any need to run more than one—certainly not enough to warrant developing L6 LINK for it. The protocol is expensive and can be insanely complex; we don't add it unless it's really necessary. As far as digital connections go, modern A/D/As and clocking are so good, an extra pair of conversions isn't going to suck any tone.

The stereo coaxes are still used for post effects, so you can get Wet-Dry-Wet with just one guitar straight into the top.

If one says: "Helix through a full range system doesn't sound or feel exactly like a tube amp. Modeling still has a way to go." they might as well be saying: "When I crank a 24-bit/192kHz recording of my girlfriend's voice through my $49 desktop speakers with broken 4-inch woofers in my cement block basement, it sounds and feels nothing like when she's actually whispering in my ear at the park. Digital recording still has a way to go."

If a speaker's truly going to be FRFR-level, there's certainly a threshold it needs to reach or surpass, so yeah, it's going to be expensive for the time being. I guess what I've been saying is that FRFR isn't a type of product, it's a standard of quality applied to a product. Which, at least today, is expensive. The biggest hurdle is the market, as FRFR is still extremely niche. We'll wax poetic about FRFR nonstop, but few musicians outside of gear forums knows what it even is. Line 6 is obviously bigger than companies that make little more than FRFR speakers. Our overhead and development costs are much higher and therefore, we need to sell at a much higher quantity to make a product viable. So our boxes need to attract a much wider swath of customer, which means including features that Bob and Linda might appreciate, even if Joe, Ed, and Carol couldn't care less about 'em.

He should be happy, as excellent powered cabs already exist. Here's another angle: Firehawk 1500's at $999. Say we remove the modeling engine (which really only means less expensive versions of the DSP and MCU that have to stay in there for speaker management), remove bluetooth and a few knobs and jacks and somehow squeeze the price down to $899—maybe. Considering how tiny the FRFR market really is (literally 90+% of guitarists we surveyed had never even heard of the term), what percentage of people in the market for either product would prefer the $899 version? Even for guys who are in the market for an FRFR speaker (again, WAY fewer guys than in the modeling guitar amp market), how many would gladly pay an additional $100 for a backup HD modeling rig, Stereo/Wet-Dry-Wet, Global EQ, bluetooth streaming of backing tracks, USB audio streaming of backing tracks, blended-in stereo keyboard/synth/vocal amplification, and spillover delay and reverb on top of their external modeler? We know, because we did the research. We've also had people demand we make a $199 version of POD HD500, with all non-high gain amps removed, but otherwise with the exact same hardware. Never mind the fact that there's literally zero development or manufacturing cost savings in adding fewer models. Some people just feel they can cherry-pick features and magically pick a price. Product development and manufacturing doesn't work like that. Parts cost what parts cost, development costs what development costs, and those dictate the price of a product, not some nebulous "market strategy." Some people will say "Hey! You'd sell a lot more if it was $499!" as if we make up product pricing out of thin air. If that were the case, I bet we'd sell even more if it was $399. Or $199. Or $49. I used to work for Roland US. No idea what their followup to GT-100 might be (if anything), but historically, Roland's been known to throw curveballs. Nearly all of Helix's design was baked long before AxeFX 2 and Kemper were even announced. The only overlap might be when users demand features that may already exist in competing products; otherwise, we go out of our way to design and develop on our own terms.

Back in the day, studio monitors were ridiculously expensive. Then someone made a cheap, crappy box, threw the word "studio monitor" on it, and everyone said "yay!" Except it had unbalanced drivers, huge crossover notches, didn't translate well, and had horrible definition, detail, and transient response. It was far, far from "studio monitor"-level. This isn't about deciding to market a box as "FRFR," which is literally as easy as swapping silkscreen and packaging graphics files and search-replacing words in the press release. It's about making a box that is truly good enough to be called that. If one is happy with the sound they get from a $300 PA speaker, supercool. Just don't call it an FRFR speaker.

Perhaps, but this is a bit like hanging out on the ATC, PMC, Barefoot, and Augspurger forums claiming they should make a pair of high end studio monitors for $500. Maybe they can; it'd just be really pushing the definition of "high end studio monitor." And it's not really what those companies do. Any powered speakers Line 6 could make for $500 wouldn't be good enough for us to call "FRFR," although some others might. Instead of helping marginalize the term, we'd much rather make products worthy of it.

Digital Igloo: You know, I had an idea like that once. A long time ago. Phil: (nonplussed) Oh really? What was it, DI? Digital Igloo: Well all right. It was a... Jump to Conclusions processor. You see, there would be this guitar processor... that you would put on the floor. And it would have different... conclusions written on its scribble strips.... that you could jump on! Phil: That is the worst idea I have ever heard in my life, DI.

Line 6 speakers aren't just a driver in a wood box. There's a lot of complex stuff going on, and in the case of Firehawk 1500, the electronics are shared across both the modeling engine and speaker management. If you already have 90% of the parts required to include an HD modeling engine (chassis, DSP, MCU, boards, memory, ribbon cables, LEDs, knobs, USB, I/O, A/D/As, clocking, power supply, etc.), why not go all the way?

Indeed, and if Helix had four SHARC DSPs, or next-generation SHARCs, I'm sure we'd have no problem finding more granular elements of amps and pedals to model. I'll betcha $100 Ben and co. already have a list of things they'd love to do that Helix won't currently let them. No snake oil here. It's not just about measuring stuff, tho'. You need a DSP and sound design team that understands why an amp or pedal component sounds and feels the way it does. Behavior modeling is much, much more complicated than measuring points in a circuit. Spreadsheets are easy; blending math and art is hard. My posts are vague because I'm a product designer, not an engineer. Slightly helpful insight might be had on Helix's blog page.

One might argue we have one already. Because Firehawk 1500's 6-speaker driver management already requires a burly DSP and MCU, removing the modeling engine from FH1500 (use a less powerful DSP and remove the display, some knobs, and some jacks) might save one $100—we haven't done the math, honestly. There wouldn't be enough people willing to pay $900 for an FRFR when $100 more gets them the same thing with way more flexibility and a backup/all-in-one HD modeling engine. Just like how "studio monitor" means almost nothing anymore, the term "FRFR" is quickly being marginalized. Random PA speakers are NOT FRFR speakers. There's an average SPL, frequency range, transient response, transparency, and flat response threshold one must first surpass to legitimately call their speaker "FRFR," and it's up to us to hold manufacturers to a higher standard. The more crappy $299 PA speakers we allow to be called "FRFR," the more ammo traditional dudes have in undermining the whole modeling > FRFR experience—the more we'll hear "Oh, modeling sucks because it doesn't sound like an amp." Mission, Matrix, Atomic, Friedman, Line 6, and a small handful of others make FRFR speakers. Almost no one else does. EDIT: fido083 beat me to the punch.

Everyone hears offending frequencies differently, but here's a fairly common trick: Add an EQ > Parametric block after the cab. Turn Page 2 > Knob 3 (High Gain) all the way up to +12.0dB. Things will sound horrible. Sweep Knob 1 (High Freq) up and down until things sound really horrible. You're now boosting the specific frequencies we're trying to remove. Press Knob 3 (Turn Gain) to return it to 0.0dB and then keep turning it lower until the offending frequencies begin to disappear. Optional: Turn Knob 2 (High Q) down for a smoother cut; turn it up (to 5.0 ~ 8.0) for a more surgical notch that affects fewer adjacent frequencies.

Global parameter biases were originally in Roland boxes.

We often tweak presets and model defaults before a firmware update. At one point we dropped the Master Volume in a bunch of presets and leveled everything. Before that we fixed a bug that made the SM57 the default mic for every cab (OUCH!). One or more could be enough to explain the difference.

Again, this is not accuracy. It's GRANULARITY. And again, if both Helix and the Korg tuner are showing different notes, it's most likely because Korg defaults to something other than equal temperament, which is fine. +/– 1 cent isn't going to make something sound out of tune, but attempting to match two guitars referencing different temperaments will absolutely, positively sound wrong. ]You can create a custom tuning in Helix (page 2) that matches the Korg, if you prefer its temperament. Sorry to obsess over what may appear as semantics, but I don't want a bunch of people spreading misinformation about Helix's tuner's accuracy. EDIT: Double-checked with engineering. Helix's tuning engine has ~ 0.05-cent accuracy, twice that of Korg. It just doesn't have the extra bar of LEDs (Pitchblack + only) that can display sub-cent granularity. Regardless, we added the ability to automatically route Helix's audio to your favorite tuner (Tuner screen's Knob 2 [Output]) because people love their tuners. If one prefers the Korg or Peterson stuff, we designed Helix to easily incorporate them. G70's wireless receiver has this feature as well.

I think you might be confusing accuracy with granularity. Helix's tuner is absolutely, positively accurate, and our ridiculously expensive test equipment proves it. When only the green box is lit, your note is within +/– 1.5 cents; when both bracket arrows are lit, your note is within +/– 1 cent (1/100th of a semitone). If you'd like higher granularity, that is, additional bracket arrows that show when your note is within +/– 0.5 or even +/– 0.1 cents, you can always request this in IdeaScale. Or check out the numerous articles on tuning temperaments. Perhaps Korg's tuners default to something other than equal temperament. Doesn't mean one works and the other is broken. And either way, with Helix's tuning offsets, you can create your own tuning, or even match that of Korg's.

That's a pretty large vitriol to helpful suggestion ratio. What exactly is wrong with the tuner?

You guys would be surprised how many people hate global blocks, as they eat up DSP that could be used for other things. The number one request we received about the looper was the ability to remove it so it doesn't waste DSP, a footswitch, and a block location. Hmm... Guess I like loopers more than most. Global EQ is the exception. It's always available. If going through the model list to add a Volume pedal is annoying, you can always copy and repeatedly paste it into all your presets from the Action Panel. Way faster.

Guess so, although it's more fair to say that demand is outstripping supply. We're still building way more Helices than we expected to, but aren't willing to sacrifice existing test or quality control processes to ramp things up any faster. To be honest, I kinda like that someone can't walk into any random Bob's Guitar Emporium and hear what the last dude's greasy fingers did to make it look and sound horrible on the show floor. I'd much rather people try out a factory fresh Helix in their own studio or practice space and if they don't connect with it for whatever reason, return it to the dealer. Obviously, I'm a product design guy, not a sales/marketing guy.

Only stomp switches' colors can currently be customized. Preset switches are always red.