Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Jump to content

qwerty42

Members
  • Posts

    258
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Everything posted by qwerty42

  1. FWIW, I tried exactly this and can't hear any difference in the treble freqs. I made two identical presets, one with a fuzz bypassed and one with the fuzz deleted completely. I set the input impedance to 1M on both. If you're still having this issue, can you share a preset that you're sure shows it? To bring this back on topic with the original problem, what the original poster described in this diagram above should *not* sound any different. Scenario 1 should be no different in tone than Scenario 2, if the input impedance is indeed manually set to a fixed value. Duplicating the above on my Helix as a test, I hear no difference. If the OP is still hearing a difference, their problem isn't solved, and more troubleshooting is needed.
  2. No it's not, because it's still being misunderstood how it works and what is actually happening.
  3. You're misunderstanding. Each model in Helix has an input impedance value included with it. Whether the block is bypassed or active, that input impedance still applies, and it is actually switching an analog circuit inside Helix at the instrument input. I'm going to explain with an example to make it clearer: The '70s Chorus' pedal has a 22kOhm input impedance. This is a built-in property of the model. You have the signal input's path Input Impedance set to 'Auto'. You put the 70s Chorus as the first block in your path, after the input. The input impedance (set by the switchable circuit inside Helix) will now be 22kOhm, because of the 70s Chorus pedal and the 'Auto' setting It doesn't matter if the pedal is active or bypassed. As long as it's there and the Auto option is selected, it will have the same input impedance with the corresponding load on the guitar's pickups in the circuit. If you delete the pedal with 'Auto' still chosen, then the next block in the path will set the new input impedance. If it's an amp, it'll probably be a much higher input impedance. If you override the input impedance value instead of using 'Auto', the override value applies no matter what. It no longer matters which models are in your chain. Lastly, just to really make this clear, the input impedance is a switchable circuit on the instrument input of Helix. The lower the chosen value, the lower the impedance in circuit with the pickups, which creates a low-pass filter that chops off treble. You can set this value to whatever you want to hear the difference. If you're still confused, this has been discussed endlessly on this forum -- you can search and there are LOTS of old posts that explain it ad nauseam. This is the point I'm making: that statement is not correct. There are no modeled bypass characteristics except the impedance (Z), and it absolutely matters what the setting of it is. With 'Auto', it gets assigned by the first pedal in the path, regardless of bypass state. With a fixed value, it ignores anything in the path and just sets it to whatever you choose. If you have anything that proves otherwise, please share it, because nothing any of the Line 6 staff have ever said that I've seen disagrees with what I've just stated.
  4. He has two setups. One is guitar ->pedal ->amp. The other is guitar ->pedal ->Helix. What difference would a buffer in the pedal make? The pickups of the guitar are loaded the same in both cases. Are you implying the input of the Helix doesn't like a buffer before it? To the OP: When you say you max'd the input impedance, you set it to 1MOhm, correct? If what you're hearing is loss of treble, then 1MOhm should give your best chance of keeping it. How long is your cable run between the Paisley and Helix vs. your pedal setup? Long cables can filter high frequencies too. Try to match the physical setup as close as possible. Is the input pad turned on in the Helix? That can change the sound and dynamic response a bit. I think you'd want it set to OFF but try it both ways, see if it helps. If the output of that pedal is a lot greater than the pickups alone, maybe it's a level issue. Try putting it into an effects return jack instead of the guitar input, and use the return as the input of your Helix path. Then go into your Global Settings and change that return to line level instead of instrument. I think this is unlikely to be the problem, but worth a try.
  5. FWIW, Helix's input dynamic range is 123dB***. So if you're looking to match that, the Clarett is closer. Honestly the Helix is a great ASIO input device, it just has pretty poor latency (higher than most modern interfaces). ***for the instrument input. Not sure if it's different for the various other inputs.
  6. One little clarification -- if you use a Dual Cab block, it is in stereo, with one cab panned hard left and the other hard right. You only get this dual option if your cab block is separate from the Amp block. Otherwise, yes, single cab blocks collapse everything to mono at their output.
  7. Are you certain of this? If so, what's the source? I've never read this anywhere before -- everything I've seen previously said bypassed vs. not bypassed retains the same input impedance values and only turns the model on or off.
  8. I'm kinda confused by what you're implying... the input impedance is an analog circuit inside the Stomp/Helix, which changes the actual impedance at the input jack. In other words, it's changing the way the pickups are loaded. The lower the input impedance, the more treble gets cut. That's not a buffer phenomenon, that's simply what happens with a low impedance input in circuit with the pickups--it creates a low-pass filter. On 'Auto', the input impedance is set to the value of your first block (it's baked into the model--it won't tell you anywhere what it actually is). For fuzzes, 'Auto' sets it to a pretty low impedance, because the real pedals also have low input impedances. That's where the treble loss comes from; that's what makes a fuzz sound the way it does. If you override the input impedance to 1MOhm, you've now changed the fuzz model itself because fuzz pedals in real-life don't have high input impedances. Thus you end up passing way more treble frequencies into the fuzz. It doesn't have anything to do with a buffer vs. no buffer in the Helix/Stomp, but this same thing is essentially what happens if you put a buffer before a fuzz in the real world. TL;DR: you're not hearing a switchable buffer; you're just hearing the difference between a low-impedance and high-impedance input on the same fuzz pedal. Real fuzzes have low input impedance which filters treble.
  9. FWIW, I tried exactly this and can't hear any difference in the treble freqs. I made two identical presets, one with a fuzz bypassed and one with the fuzz deleted completely. I set the input impedance to 1M on both. If you're still having this issue, can you share a preset that you're sure shows it?
  10. It seems very solid to me. There were a handful of bugs in 2.90 and 2.91, but 2.92 seems to have fixed all of the notable ones. One thing though -- I was one of the people who had the new output meters and compression meters get laggy, after the Helix was powered on for a while (hours). This continued even after updating to 2.92. It was fixed by making a backup, doing a factory reset, and then restoring the backup. I don't know if it matters, but when I restored the backup I did not restore globals, because resetting them is apparently what fixes it. I figured if there was some corrupted value in there, I wouldn't want to restore it, so I just reset all my global options manually. Probably not necessary, but just including that detail for thoroughness.
  11. I agree, either a double line or a different colored segment, something like that would be nice. I think a lot of new users probably don't even realize when their path is stereo or mono, which is unfortunate because it makes a big difference for recording.
  12. It's a feature, not a big. Those are the new signal present / clip indicators. Green = signal; red = clipping. If you select the output block, or any compressor block, you'll also see new signal meters and gain reduction meters.
  13. I just noticed you said this is an HX Effects, which I don't have, so unfortunately I can't test for you. A couple recommendations: (1) definitely report this as a bug to Line 6 to get it on their radar. If you don't, it's not going to get fixed. Do this via a support ticket--only takes a second to submit. Link them back to your post here because you've already explained it quite clearly. (2) Before you submit the ticket, you probably should update to 2.92 first and see if still does it. Maybe it was a problem that has already been corrected. Good luck!
  14. What you're describing sounds like some kind of issue with Pro Tools to me. I don't use Pro Tools, so I can't help further there, but I can say for sure that when I record the DI track in FLStudio, I can select MONO USB7 as the source (without including 8), record the track, and then pipe it straight back to the input of Helix on USB1/2 (or 3/4 or 5/6, however you want) and it is identical. That said, FLStudio records everything as stereo anyway, even when it's a mono source (it just duplicates the track between channels), so when it sends back to the Helix it is sending dual-mono on USB1/2. EDIT: Oh, now I realize you meant that you can only select a stereo pair for the input source for a path in Helix. Maybe I just got lucky with FLStudio and how it works by default then (how it records all mono inputs to a dual-mono stereo track). FLStudio won't even let me send the recorded dry signal back on a mono channel, it only lists stereo pairs as options for sending it back to Helix.
  15. I posted this on TGP but thought I'd share here too. I've been experimenting with making stereo tonematches with Helix, and I'm getting some pretty awesome results. In a nutshell, using original studio stems as reference, you set up paths for the L&R channels in Helix that get as close as you can to the original. Matching the gain characteristics, proximity traits (near mic or distant), and roughing out the EQ is most important here. Next you run the L&R channels of the original stems through a good matching EQ in your DAW (I use Izotope Ozone, it works great), and then independently run the L&R channels from Helix through the match EQs to generate the matches. Lastly, you sweep the L&R eqs, record the output, and generate MPT IRs for the L&R channels. Put those IRs on Helix, drop them into the end of your chain, and presto. Here's a tone I really like and had been trying to match with other tools for a long time -- the outro guitar of Sir Psycho Sexy by RHCP. Here's the Helix patch in a mix -- the first section is the original studio recording, the second section is Helix Patch B, and the third section is Helix Patch A. Here's the tone isolated. First is original; second is Helix Patch B; third is Helix Patch A. Here are the patches and tonematch IRs for anyone who wants them: https://www.dropbox.com/s/26dx0exib36i3ck/SirPsychoOutroHelix.zip?dl=1 The guitar used was a 2019 American Pro strat, all stock, neck pickup, volume knob ~6.5, tone knob ~9.1. These settings are very important. This guitar has a treble bleed circuit from the factory, so if yours doesn't, you'll have to crank the tone knob to 10 probably. P.S. the Helix Patch B and A just have different amounts of compression on each channel. The original studio recording is heavily compressed and Patch B is closest to that, though still not quite there. Patch A probably 'feels' better to play through for all you 'feelers' out there ;)
  16. Something is mis-configured. I've re-amped stuff many times before and it sounds identical to the original wet recording if you run it back through the same patch. The two biggest things I can think of are (1) when you recorded it, were you monitoring via hardware and software at the same time? That will make things sound louder than they actually are. You should only be monitoring direct or via software, not both. (2) Making sure the levels match is critical. The dry signal that you record from Helix on USB7 needs to be sent back to Helix at the exact same level it was recorded. Some DAWs have master volume controls that effect output to USB devices, so make sure that anything that effects playback/send levels of your dry track is at unity when you record and afterward. In my DAW this is done by leaving the track and master volumes at the default position which is unity, and routing the recorded dry signal through a track with the send set to USB1-2 (or whichever USB channels you're using as your re-amp inputs).
  17. Hmmm... I'm still seeing lagging on the gain reduction and output meters with 2.92, as before (only happens after Helix has been powered on for a while). Anyone else still seeing this on theirs? FWIW, I've been editing patches in HX Edit the whole time, don't know if that's related. I think before people saw this happening from nothing more than being turned on.
  18. You guys rock! Nice list of fixes there. Thanks D.I. and the rest of the Line 6 team!
  19. Also, if it helps, here's your patch with my strat (2019 American Professional), neck pickup, volume 10, tone 10. It's definitely less bright than yours, but it sounds like you're getting a touch more noise too, which is odd considering your pickups should be 'noiseless' on the Elite. Maybe you ran the bit you recorded through a compressor or limiter? If not, I'd look into your signal input (cable, nearby R/F sources) -- something there might be adding harshness too. patchsample.mp3
  20. Hmmm... this is a bit of a long shot, but based on what you've described and the pic of your setup, I'm wondering if you're encountering phase cancellation issues from your speaker arrangement. Pointing two speakers almost directly at each other is not a good practice. You mentioned that only the ping pong delay sounds good. That delay bounces the delay effect from ear to ear, making phase cancellation less likely. However a small stereo delay offset with two speakers aimed right at each other could be just enough of a phase shift to make things cancel and sound like *** where they mix. I can tell you with the utmost confidence that there's nothing audibly 'digital' sounding about the delays and reverbs in the Helix. Try pointing your speakers forward, and get the stuff out of the way of their projection. Also, as a listener, you need to be more out in the middle of their stereo field, too.
  21. Hmmm. My general feeling is that liquids and electronics are universally bad, especially ones that contain amounts of sugar like beer and mixed drinks. I don't know if the boards in Helix are conformal coated, but even if they are, that kind of stuff getting into pots, knobs, and jacks is always bad news, no matter the device. I don't know of any covers but I'm sure something must exist. How about a laser-activated stage guillotine right at the front? Once a hand or beer breaks the beam, THWACK!!! ;)
  22. This issue is a computer one, not a Helix one. Things that can affect this (there are others, but off the top of my head): -buffer set too low in ASIO settings for Helix (this is a computer setting, not Helix setting) — I don’t know if Mac lets you adjust this but PC does -CPU overloads from background processes -OS updates that broke something -WiFi or network adapters (WiFi is especially prone to causing this and it’s typically recommended to disable WiFi adapters on computers built for audio processing) -Sample rate mismatch between OS and other apps trying to access Helix for audio (like Smj7 said above) -Misbehaving apps that are hijacking the audio output (again, don’t know how it works on Mac, but on Windows there is an ‘exclusive control’ option that can affect playback outside of a DAW) -Nearby things that emit R/F like tablets and phones and fluorescent lights, which can inject all sorts of digital noise into signals In short, look for recent changes to your computer and environment, not your Helix. Do you have new devices plugged into USB ports that weren’t there before? Recent OS updates? Phone sitting on desk next to your audio processing gear?
  23. Thanks, and yep, I have tried that approach as well. It did give me slightly different results but I didn’t spend much time with it; I’m sure it was just a flaw in my method. Thanks for sharing those files, I’d like to give this approach another try, although the convenience of generating MPT IRs from Voxengo is handy too.
  24. I, for one, applaud the idea. Don't listen to all these curmudgeons above. You might find a new unknown quantum physics particle.
×
×
  • Create New...