qwerty42

Thanks :) But I also want to emphasize I don't see one as superior over the others. (I used to, but I realized it made me a bit of a d*** so I reassessed those beliefs and changed my attitude.) Depending on a person's values and priorities, choosing a leap of faith might make a lot more sense than stopping where logic can go no further. I think in some ways, the human psyche thrives with spiritual beliefs and the positive outlook they can create. So, IMO, there's a strong argument for choosing to believe in something if it improves your life, even if you can't prove it to be true. If your goal is just to have the most fulfilling and happiest life, that could be the most practical choice for many people.

Ah, interesting, I wasn't aware of that difference (atheism vs anti-theism). Thanks for clarifying that.

Not only that, but somewhere there would exist a world where 2.9 turned all the Helixii into AXE FX's, and vice versa. Imagine the chaos and consternation that must be going down there. Probably the end of times for that particular timeline! lol

Apologies to those who don't like the philosophy! :) But I just wanted to say, this has been a genuinely fascinating discussion for me, and I've really enjoyed contemplating all the logical reasoning and obvious detailed thought that has gone into your beliefs too. Hands down, the best discussion I've ever had on this kind of topic with someone who has different beliefs. For what it's worth, I don't see your ideas as any less valid or any less 'correct' than mine. I have the utmost respect for believers of all faiths who have thought it through and arrived at those conclusions like you have, rather than just taking what somebody else told them and then trying to make everyone else believe it too. Would love to see it. Added to my mental list. Actually, the catacombs I saw and referred to is underground in Paris. Also a definite must-see if you haven't already! A bizarre and fascinating experience for sure. I enjoyed following all of your logic there, and find it well-reasoned and completely valid in its context. I think the key difference in my explanation vs. yours is the initial premises, and the support they require to satisfy the conclusion. I think I can easily explain this one in the context of my beliefs by saying, from an evolutionary perspective, humans fare better when they work together and form communities together. So, not only does that equate to the idea behind the passive form of the golden rule (don't do unto others), it also provides a motivation for the active form of it. By stepping out and choosing to intentionally do good to others, or be charitable, etc., you are actively growing a supportive community. Simply not hurting others does not imply societal development; just non-harming societal isolation. That said, I definitely see the challenge in your rationalization and how to satisfy that second part. Maybe it could still be answered with my same idea above--if God created an inherent 'goodness' in the design of everything that underpins human behavior, then social cooperation to support a thriving human race (and ensure offspring are produced) could be part of that built-in design. So, the active form of 'doing unto others' could be a very natural outcome of that design, in your context. Absolutely a great question. In my view, this is one of the most fundamental questions of existence that all the other ideas (religions, spirituality, philosophy, atheism, agnosticism etc.) stem from. I think the conclusion one makes from this is the stepping stone that guides their beliefs that follow from it. One person might (very reasonably) arrive at your conclusion, and from there, spirituality or religion is the likely path. Or another person might say, 'I don't know, but I don't think anyone really does, and I'm ok with leaving it there,' which is where you get agnosticism (I consider myself in that group). Then there's outright atheism, which denies the existence of any God or higher power, which to me is less rational, because in my view it also falls into the category of 'you don't really know that for sure.' To me, religion and atheism have a similarity in that they both choose to place a more concrete belief in an unknown, but one is more optimistic than the other--so why not choose the more optimistic one (religion and an afterlife)? I guess what I'm trying to say is given the choice between religion vs. atheism, I actually see more practicality in religion, if one must choose a concrete belief. Saying there absolutely, for sure is *no* God or higher power, to me, is as much a faith as saying there is--so why not take the one with an everlasting future? lol, I hope for both. Because then it knows it's loved, but it also knows that love takes work, commitment, and emotional investment of many different forms :D

I think even if you started a new thread it would quickly devolve into unrelated discussion again :) The new features have already been discussed. All we can do is wait for its release, which could be days... weeks... months?

First I just want to say I really appreciate your very interesting and thoughtful response, too. These kinds of beliefs are so fundamental to an individual's overall worldview and identity, it's not often that people can hear out others' ideas without their own feeling threatened or challenged, and becoming defensive or judgmental. I love to talk about these things with others who have different worldviews but can talk about them from the perspective of sharing ideas instead of trying to make others believe whatever we believe ourselves. Your questions are actually a pretty relevant breakdown of how I got to what I believe now, and some of the things I had to ask myself too. For what it's worth, I did believe in some kind of god, and innate purpose in life, and afterlife, etc. until my early 20s (I'm 35 now). Being raised with a concrete foundation and answer for every question of 'why,' and then losing that altogether, was not an easy or comfortable transition, but that was mainly due to me having to find many answers to questions I'd never previously considered. Your questions involve a lot of complex ideas and I'll do my best to fully answer them: That's a pretty good synopsis of what I believe, indeed. Except depending on the scale at which we view it, I think we are both unique and not unique: I think we are not unique in that we are all made of atoms, bits of the universe, scattered around like dust in the cosmos. We're all just the same ingredients getting re-mixed over and over. That's the macro view. However, at the scale of our individual lives and experiences, I think we are incredibly unique. No two people are ever exactly the same; the sum of their ingredients and their experiences creates a completely unique person. And because of that, I think every individual person has a hugely significant innate value, even though we're just well-organized dust, or meat and water like I jokingly referred to earlier. Regarding that there would be no "why" to our existence: I sense your discomfort with the idea that no one will remember it after we're gone, and that there would be no higher meaning of "why", and I absolutely understand that discomfort. I think that was one of the hardest things to come to terms with when I lost my belief in religious ideas and a single higher power. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized... in believing that there has to be a "why", I'm assuming that human existence must be something created of primary importance, and it's my own ego needing to feel that reassurance. If our existence is a consequence of some random chaos, or even some other process we have no comprehension of, there might not be any why. There might just be an 'is.' I don't know if I explained that well, or of it makes any sense, but essentially I came to reason that a need for 'why' was simply a need to satisfy the human ego, and how we understand cause and effect in the world to provide direction and motivation. If our understanding of our existence is wholly incomplete and shallow, and mainly rooted in just how to ensure our survival, 'why' might be an overly-simple question, rooted in instinctive need, to a much more complicated concept that might not even be understandable by human reasoning. So to summarize this first part, my belief is that there may indeed be no 'why,' and that feels like a shock to the system at first but I'm quite at peace with it now. It's an acceptance of the unknown, and being ok with not having answers, while realizing the need for answers is a human construct where there might not even be any answers. Our existence might be part of something much bigger where ultimately we are an insignificant by-product that is just along for the ride. Yep, and I think that's also a pretty good capture of what I now think, although with a few important clarifications which again operate at the macro and micro level: Fundamentally, at the macro level, I don't think I really matter one iota. At least not in the sense that I used to when I believed I was a unique being lovingly crafted by God. I think I'm just another well-organized collection of dust that for whatever reason has formed into my being, for a short period of time that I get to experience as existence. I think in the grand scheme of things, I am no more significant nor any more memorable than the billions of other life forms that came before me. If you've ever visited a catacombs and see the thousands of skulls and bones piled up inside, and you realize--every one of these skeletons were once people like me--that's a very visceral way to take in how I view my overall significance. But at the micro level, I matter very much, because of all those human connections and bonds I have made. Regardless of how we got here, or why (if there is a why), the love I feel for my family and friends is real for me, and it is real for them. This is why I think fundamentally our shared humanity and the way we feel are the single most important aspects of human existence. Even without any purpose or 'why,' there is still incredible relevance in our relationships with others that are as real and as meaningful as anything you could find, and they need no other definition/purpose/reason to be so. They just are. The above is also why, no matter how insignificant I felt, or even if I felt I had zero purpose, I would never end my own life. Empathy dictates that doing so does not remove pain or suffering, but instead just multiplies it and places it on everyone else who cares for you and loves you. (Important side note here; I do feel differently about this in regards to some kinds of terminal illnesses, etc., where forcing somebody to keep living can be regarded as a lack of compassion for their suffering.) I think I view myself *not* as central to the Universe as I inhabit it, but rather the opposite. I think the universe doesn't know that I exist, and I don't need it to. I don't believe it owes me a 'why', nor do I think it could necessarily give me one. I just, am. And in that incredible void of losing all meaning (which I'll admit will really mess with a person's head for a number of years), eventually you come out light as a feather. You enjoy life for what it is, take in whatever it offers, and appreciate the experiences without the weight of why they must be. Once you make peace with not having answers, and accept that they might not even exist, you can define what you want your own path and meaning to be without any of the weight that other belief systems carry. You get to evaluate everything on its own merits, and truly think for yourself. It's the ultimate mental freedom. You don't even need a why, but you can create your own, because, why not? One last bit--I'd like to comment about 'shaky moral baggage' because I understand that it's hard to fathom how people could be innately good without a belief system like religion to provide moral foundations. I completely understand this and used to think the same way. But when I no longer had the 'fear of God' driving my decisions, I had to start evaluating my ethical foundations based on their own merits too. And surprising as it may seem, there are plenty of very logical justifications for ethics and moral behavior, completely absent of a belief in a higher power. In fact, I feel like my need to be good to others and act ethically is stronger now than ever, because I came to the conclusions about why it's necessary and beneficial to act that way through my own rationalizations. It is no longer something forced on me, but instead based on an objective view of what is best for other people, and the way that affects their feelings and my relationships with them, as well as the overall societal good on the larger scale. There is one concept frequently found in religion that I still hold onto, because as of yet I've found no single principle more true without any need for extra rationalization. In fact, for me it might be the closest thing I have to a 'why', now. And that thing is the old well known 'Golden Rule' -- treat others the way you would like to be treated. This goes back to understanding that our shared humanity is something of utmost significance as I described above, and really is just a statement of empathy. We care about one another because we all feel, we all hurt, we all share joy, we all love, and if we try to nurture the positive sides of what we feel in one another as much as possible, everyone ends up better off for it. In my set of beliefs now, this is the core principle that all of my ethical beliefs flow from. I hope I answered your questions in that long response. The things I believe now are the product of many years of pondering these exact ideas over and over so it's tough to distill it into concise points. Thanks again for your interesting and thought-provoking questions and I'm quite interested to hear your responses or differences of ideas if from your own views! :) (This is quite a thread for firmware updates, lol ) Edit: Just had to add one more thing I ponder a lot: rather than 'why', you can also view life as an infinitesimally-unlikely opportunity. I think even if you believe in God or a higher power, you can still argue that every single one of us has won the most unfathomable lottery with odds so mind-blowingly small that they are incomprehensible. For any of us to exist, it took thousands, millions, billions of years to get to this point, the extremely unlikely odds of our parents meeting at whatever moment in their life brought them together, the even more infinitesimal odds that that one specific sperm cell and egg cell to combine, out of the billions of other possibilities just for those two people... for each of us that made it to life, the odds are pretty much incalculable. So even if you have no why, maybe just the sense of how extreeeeeeemely lucky we all are to have our moments of existence is enough motivation to do things with it!

Yep, it's all how you look at it. I grew up in a very religious social environment, so beliefs like mine can seem pretty disappointing at first. But, it's actually not all bad, and can even be positive: If you believe you only have this one life to live, it's easier to appreciate every moment of it because it all counts. Even if people are just animals, we're all in this confusing world together, and have an immense shared connection of humanity if we choose to see it. We may be made of just meat and water, but the fact we can reason, communicate, feel and love makes us all so much greater than the sum of our simple meat-parts. Every life holds value for the same reason. We experience empathy, and even if it's just an evolutionary survival trait, it's beautiful and amazing. A sense of shared absolute mortality helps to show that all of our differences are petty and superficial, and can create a desire to help each other instead of harm. If there's no pre-defined reason or purpose, that gives us the incredible freedom to define our own purpose. And last but not least...! We live in an absolute GOLDEN ERA for guitarists; we have amazing technology like the Helix to give us every expressive color of auditory paint imaginable, and we'll all get to experience 2.9 together when it finally drops. Well, hopefully... 2.8 did take a while... ;) jk

Well this escalated quickly, lol! Since we've all shared our unsolicited opinions on existence, perception, and reality, here's my current set of beliefs (stressing these are my beliefs only, not saying anyone has to agree!): People are just animals with highly adapted brains. We're developed enough to 'see behind the curtain' and recognize our own existence. Brains are big meat computers. Input goes in, thought goes out. When we die we turn back into the dirt that spawned us. Poof, that's it. Our only concrete idea of reality is based on our ability to perceive it, which is quite limited. We take in the world via our 5 senses, and that's it. Scientific tools we've made allow us to peer a bit deeper and see that more is going on, but there could still be a *LOT* more phenomena that we have yet to discover, perceive, or even postulate could be. Nobody knows why we're here, what existence is, if there's an end-game, or if we'll ever know. Many claim to, however. The idea of 'why' is probably the wrong question anyway, because the need for purpose is an evolved human construct. There might not be any purpose. There might not be any 'why.' If there was some kind of answer, it might not be anything that we could even understand with our human-brain logic systems. We are fundamentally part of the universe, whatever it may be, and in a way are it experiencing itself. Think of how many times the universe has jacked itself... errr never mind. Drugs don't let us access anything new in terms of whatever 'reality' may be. Taking a drug isn't going to let you pick up a radio broadcast in your head. They are like crossing wires in our brain to get distorted pictures out of our mental television because it's not working as designed. However, this experience may let us think and perceive within ourselves in different ways than normal, which brings about different ways of thinking and understanding. Arguing about whether you can define what "now" is, is a debate for the sake of debate. It's absolutely definable, but you have to define the context of definition. In the colloquial sense, "now" is the general region of time around our most immediate experiences. It's doesn't have an exact value assigned to it; it's conceptual. In the precise sense, it's like taking a limit in calculus -- the precise instant along the dimension of time in the universe that is currently being crossed, which you can only get infinitesimally close to, but not hit exactly. And just like a mathematical limit, it does exist, but you can only express it in terms of a limit. My worthless $0.02 :)

No prob. If you do end up trying this, maybe report back here to let others know how well it worked. I think the biggest unknown will be what that line output from your amp really sounds/feels like, when running it through an IR. Also, as a final check you should confirm the amp's effects loop is instrument-level. They usually are, but if it's higher, then my suggested routing into the guitar input might not work so well.

Yes, that is how it works. The signal routing on these units is very flexible. What I suggested leaves you with the standard L/R stereo output free to run to FOH, as well as the stereo headphone jack to use. You can get the audio straight into your DAW via the USB connection (and still get hardware monitoring from the Stomp with super low latency if you plug into either of those two outputs I just mentioned).

Ok, gotcha. With the LT or Floor, you could do this no problem. With the Stomp, you run out of effects send/returns. That said, I think, maybe, you could do it like this: Guitar -> Amp Amp FX Loop Send -> Stomp Guitar In Stomp FX Loop Send -> Amp FX Loop Return Amp Line Out -> Stomp FX Loop Return Then for the patch layout in the Stomp, you have it start with the standard guitar input as the front of the chain, your effects you wanted, then an FX loop block, and an IR block at the end. Then the output would go to the stereo outs of the Stomp. If there's a flaw in my logic, others please correct me, but I *think* that would work.

I'm not sure I really understand what you're asking, based on your latest reply. Are you saying you want to: (1) Use the Stomp in the effects loop of your amp, and use the return of that as an output by itself, bypassing any additional processing; and (2) Run the line out of your amp back into the Stomp, through an IR block, and have that be another output? I'm kinda confused by this is this is really what you're asking. That first output will just be your amp's preamp sound + Stomp effects, but no power amp or cab emulation, and won't sound good for anything unless you're running it into something else that does those things. Are you really asking for this?: the effects loop of your amp goes into the Stomp, gets some effects processing done, goes back into the return of your amp, and then the line out of your amp goes back into the Stomp into an IR block? And then a single output of all that? If so, yes, that should work just fine. Wait, maybe not. Lemme think...

Here are some samples with my strat (2019 American professional), neck pickup, volume and tone both 10, using Jason's patch from the youtube video. This is the 'clean' snapshot, with the expression pedal fully up (tipped back on the heel). In some of the bits I varied the dynamics between soft picking and forceful chunking so you can hear the difference it makes. (Sorry to Jimi for butchering his song, and I hope you like Chili Peppers... lol)

On my Helix Floor it has more resistance, but it's not exactly stiffness per se, it's damping. It feels like a high-quality pot with some kind of damping grease or similar that makes it resist quick movement. As duncann stated, I wouldn't be surprised if the big volume knob was the same, but just feels less so because a big knob provides more mechanical advantage. As for it getting stuck and breaking off... really?! That's wild. I can't think of anything in the way a typical potentiometer is constructed that could even do that. Are you sure it hadn't lowered itself to the point it was interfering against the front of the Helix chassis somehow?

Are you actually getting 5ms round trip latency with the Helix? If so, please tell us how -- I certainly can't get that myself, and I'm not a novice with this stuff. I would love to get 5ms round trip latency out of my Helix as an interface for use with other plugins.

Same for me. The Helix is great for recording via hardware monitoring, but if you're using it to play other VST plugins live, it's pretty poor for it due to the latency. I have a verrry old NI Rig Kontrol 2 with ancient drivers that has half the latency of my Helix. I don't get why the Helix has such ridiculous latency as an interface--anyone know? Is it just the driver?

Before you do anything drastic, I'd really recommend finding another strat with 'known good tone' and try it with your Helix patches. While it's definitely possible the pickup was damaged, usually the damage is of the type that it doesn't 'sorta work'--it barely works or not at all. Also, try experimenting with the overall height of the pickup too. I've found that lowering single coils pretty low usually helps to get that 'spanky' strat sound. If you have an ohm meter and know how to use it, you can measure the pickup to see if it's damaged. Also, if you share your patches here, I can try it with my strat+helix and record it for you to see how it compares. Edit Edit: I see you said you tried a friend's strat it and you didn't like the tone either. I think posting the patches you're using here so we can try would be best at this point, so you can at least have an idea how it sounds on other people's gear.

I don't know if it's related, but why are the pole pieces on your neck pickup like that? Are you sure they're the original pickups for that guitar, and haven't been messed with? I'm referring to the height of each pole piece. The way they are staggered is wrong for Texas Specials. Edit: the stagger on your middle pickup is weird too. Did you buy this guitar new? If you're not the one who changed the height of those pole pieces, I suggest you take the pickguard off and see if those are even Fender pickups...

I don't think that's correct. The input impedance is an analog circuit that affects the load on the pickups, so it should impact the dry tone. I'd expect a bypassed effect first in the chain with a low input impedance to definitely affect the dry signal.

Here, give this a try. I compared the Helix Floor preset and your Stomp preset and there were a lot of differences, especially with the stereo routing and imaging. Note I only matched the first snapshot (edit: it looks like it's actually Snapshot 2 for the Stomp preset, which loads first with the preset), I didn't check the others. A/B'ing the floor preset and this stomp preset sounds identical to me, and it sounds like the youtube vid you linked. VH One Stomp v2.hlx

Haha, I had a feeling that might happen! That cable is 100% for sure the one that came with my Helix, but I've noticed this before on other hardware that use those types of cables. Even the OEM vendors seem to source from a variety of places. If it's long enough and it works, it's definitely not worth losing sleep over :)

The max input impedance of the Helix (and I'm assuming the Stomp too) is 1 MOhm. It is variable, however, and can be changed to a lower value, which definitely has an impact on tone (even if recording dry tone for re-amping later). So, I'm still not sure you've found some root cause, because the Stomp input you thought sounded great wasn't more than 1 MOhm impedance. If 4.7Mohm sounded better on some other device, you're not comparing apples to apples. FWIW, I have done essentially the same thing you're doing here, using my Helix as an ASIO input for dry recording, and also using a Native Instruments Rig Kontrol 2 with its ASIO driver for dry recording, and then run them both thru Native in FLStudio as an A-B compare. They sound almost exactly identical once you get the input levels into Native to match for each of the clean DI guitars. The only difference I can really notice is the Rig Kontrol has slightly less dynamic range with its A/D, but that's something you feel more than you hear. If I have time tomorrow I'll repeat this with your preset, and the latest version of Native to seem if something wonky has happened recently. But I still don't think you've really found the cause of the tonal differences you heard, and I don't think it's Native. I think it's something with either your hardware, drivers, or signal routing within your DAW.

In the third clip, I'm 90% sure I can hear the dry pick attack of unprocessed guitar in the background, so if it really is all DI then maybe you didn't mute the dry track... which makes me question how you've routed the audio in your DAW. Are you sure you don't have multiple tracks playing at once? (E.g. Wet DI from Stomp, dry DI from Stomp, and also wet plugin processing from Native?) The first two clips and especially the second has some kind of weird crackly artifact occasionally that sounds kinda like CPU underrun but not quite. Could be your input levels too high, could be a driver problem (you are using the manufacturer's ASIO driver for the other devices, yes?)... Which DAW are you using? I think sharing the DAW session is more likely to find the issue than just sharing the preset. The difference sounds like more than just levels and fizz to me, it doesn't even sound like they're using the same cab simulation. I realize you say they are, so there is some fundamental problem in the setup, somewhere.

LOL... My first college roommate did the exact same thing, and even *I* thought he was weird for it, and that's saying something. Maybe your wife and I have a mutual friend...

From a particular weirdo who understands your particularity, here's some help :) https://www.dropbox.com/s/w6s9h7sj367rp22/20200109_185054.jpg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/tq9xvuysr0n1yka/20200109_185034.jpg?dl=0