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


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by willsmythe37

  1. Looking back it would turn out I had needn't been so concerned about patch change times. At the moment I'm using patches that are very light when it comes to effects blocks. In 4CM with just a Pre-Amp (instead of a/Amp and b/Cab), patch change appears to be pretty damn fast. Yeah... theres a small dropout. Similar if not better to the old Pod XT some content with that. I'll test other methods out soon... just needed something solid to get through band practice. Someone suggested instead of using 4CM... to use the Amp and Cab emulations, but go direct into the Power-amp In... (Or effects return). I'll give that a shot next I reckon!
  2. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Perhaps I should have the way positioned after the 'low gain' Minotaur? Maybe that's where I'm going wrong?
  3. An unusual question I'm sure. Gave my helix its first run through my 2x12 yesterday using he 4CM. Sounded pretty awesome in my opinion. I essentially, used one of the pre-amp blocks before the Helix send and no cab emulation, I was rather impressed how well it transformed the sound. One slight niggle I found was with my Wah pedal. I have it position at the start of the chain, closely followed by a Minotaur and Angl Pre amp... When I brought the Wah in, clarity was going out the window. It was pushing frequencies that quiete literally make the waters in my ears move, not pleasant. On the global EQ I had original planned setting the high cut as low as 10kHz. But I may have to bring it down further when using with my 2x12 combo. Originally I used just the standard fassal wah... And the setting sounded good through the studio monitors. I wound up switching to the Chrome pedal. With 400hz lows and 1.2kHz highs.... I set the mix to 50%.... (High focus was around 2,2kHz as standard, but that was the point where my ears were dying.) This definitely took part of the shrillness away. Has anybody else come across how sharp the Wahs are? I would've liked to have achieved a wah similar to Zakk Wyld... Or Petrucci... Don't seem to be even close at the moment :3 Having said the above, our bass player was at a wedding, so perhaps next week everything will cut through in the right place... Just seemed like unexpected behaviour
  4. Hello all, Figured my previous thread had progressed past its use by date so decided to create a new one. Day one I've set up a hand full of presets that can be changed between, these are just big standard presets to get audio in the DAW. I was relatively happy with them. I saved duplicates of each patch and altered the output. Then fed the cable into an old 1x12 combo I had. First thing I noticed was the level that Helix was putting out was monstrous, this is probably down to not having used the regular output so it was maxed out at 100%, instead of being subject to the volume knob. There's obvious no typical (combo front/stack front) selectable a that have been present on previous units. Ive had a brainwave, perhaps I should adjust my patches in the studio without the Global EQ enabled. Then wheb in happy, plug direct in and adjust the global EQ so that it matches. I will be changing the outputs of each channel again as it doesn't strike me as being "right" having it the other way around. After all, the level coming out of the amp was way louder than that of the standard "guitar-direct-into-combo" volume I tinkered with the removal of the amp and cab, I found it best to keep it enabled. We'll see what happens when I run through my 2x12 hot rod deville on Saturday morning I guess!
  5. Hello all. So... Today... I got my hands on a Helix. Spent a fair old bit of time rocking through the stock presets. I kinda realisedafter a couple of hours, that I wasn't going to "finish" then so decided to hop onto a fresh preset. I just ran through the 1/4 out into a mixer/studio monitors and I was quiete impressed. I stumbled upon a slight boo boo, where everything was super fizzy. Turned out I'd managed to run a delay block around the selected cab. With regards to patch change time, it wasn't quiete as bad as some have made out. It actually bears resemblance to my old pod XT. So just tolerable, it's a shame there wasn't a noticeable improvement. I won't know what it's like really until I'm at practice. I managed to set up my 'standard' 4 channel setup. I'm wondering if removing unused blocks will speed things up? Next step is to try it through an amp. I know 4 cable method is the way to go, but it kinda means I'll need to invest in some new cables. I'll try 2 cable through a practice amp and see how I get on. Does anyone have any tips. There's no point reinventing the wheel eh? I presume I'll need to change my 1/4 output setting to a mic level signal? Back with the old pod XT, I found that a really nice tone through my studio monitors never transferred well to my amps... But an amp setup, transferred "okay" back to the studio monitors (minor studio tinkering afterwards) Also worth mentioning, with the XT, I used to still use cab emulation. With the helix, should I use just the pre-amp/head/ or Head&Cab?
  6. Hello all, Just a quick message to to thank you for all your time spent reading through my essays. I'm actually going to pop over to PMT in Cambridge, UK and put a deposit down on a Helix. Apparently I'm looking at a waiting list of 4 weeks... they have said that there is a 30 day grace period so if I don't get on with it, then I can take it back (providing it's in pristine condition). I'm sort of excited but also feeling down right awkward about it. Here goes nothing eh?
  7. hmmm.... It's like 1) have only barebone setups in 4 channels (one bank) and accept a penalty of patch change time. 2) have an elaborate patch, with all the bells and whistles, but in the most drastic moments expect to have to bosh a couple of pedals before leaning towards your wah wag pedal. At the end of the section, cancel your wah, remove lead boost and switch your A/B back over. (Sorry guys, on the mobile phone this time)
  8. It's good to know that that sort of thing will actually work. The thing that's bugging me is: Say I have a tune where I bust out 3 lead breaks. 1st) Say I want to switch from (rhythm clean) to (lead high-gain) ... That's two presses to switch too the lead, and back, each point. 2nd) is a middle-8 section, this time I want to use a harmoniser too: instead of adding another pedal press to the mix, I'll setup another custom pedal to add and remove fx blocks. Still 2buttons in and2 out. 3rd) Somebody mentioned earlier that there might be a limit to the amount of parameters pedals/scenes that can be used? What about if I wanted to do a similar thing, this time with a octaves and an whammy. I suppose, we'd be setting up a 3rd pedal, to help minimise the pedal presses? If there's a limit to amount of programmable pedals, does that mean we have to start duplicating patches and making minor alterations. 1 patch for 3 songs or something? Also the image I drew wasn't supposed to be difficult. It was just an example. In all fairness, I suppose in a compositional perspective, a player is more likely to change in a linear fashion around the channels. So. Clean rhythm. High gain rhythm High gain lead High gain rhythm Clean Clean lead. I imagine there will still be difficulty, removing a lead boost (interrupting delays and reverbs) then switching to cleans with different verbs and delays. Each button-press interrupting the effect behaviour?
  9. Re: Scene mode This is interesting. So you could in theory narrow down multiple pedal presses down to two? I wonder if this image will attach? - So, A/B to switch between two different Amps - Different Gate/Comp settings as required per channel. - A Lead boost switch (Disabling other verbs and delays, enabling specifics stomps on both channels.) - Still have individual pedals per channel. Would this work? So essentially you have one lead boost button that can be turned on/off. The A/B switch to change back to clean. To go from High-gain-Lead to Clean, it's two switches. To go from High-gain-Rhythm to Clea-Lead-Boost is two switches To go from Lead, to lead it's one switch. To go from Clean rhythm to High-Gain Rhythm, it's one switch. Also, I missed out EQ's from each channel. Can you assign two wah to the expression pedal? Or would I put this before the A/B split? Side note: I didn't give the signal chain THAT much thought. However it is raising other questions :S
  10. Quote Hideout's Qoute: So far, no one really knows the status of the editor for Helix outside of Line 6. Mike SKB: The Editor is due out shortly.. there is a long thread about it, but bottom line.. I saw it at NAMM, but it wasn't quite ready and will be soon. Peter Hamm's Qoute: The Editor is due out shortly.. there is a long thread about it, but bottom line.. I saw it at NAMM, but it wasn't quite ready and will be soon. My response: I'm glad there is something actually on the way. The longer it takes, the better it will be. It's not a deal breaker, just knowing it's in the pipeline is a great thing. Quote Hideout: As with all modelers, there is a slight delay going from patch to patch. I guess I've learned to work around it because it's a total non-issue for me. Mike SKB: The Patch Latency... some converting from other and/or older units say there is. Two points on this. It depends on what is loaded in the patches AND most importantly... Helix is a different animal. In MOST of the cases I have seen, switching the patch could be AVOIDED by creative use of the routing and signal paths where you just switch path instead of patch. While on this point.. I will also add that there are many tips and tricks for reducing DSP load... little things like why add a gain block when you can just control the gain of any of the current blocks with a switch or pedal? FWIW your effects list is pretty basic. PeterHamm: You might not have to worry about patch latency. You can EASILY have the equivalent of 2, 3, or 4 signal chains in there in multiple ways so that you can switch FX on and off and change settings of them with a footswitch. for me, one patch gets me through a song and usually a set. Patch latency does depend on how much is being loaded, but the latest Rack firmwares at least have been noticeably quicker in switching. My Response: Thank you all. Quiet different responses here. There seems to be divided opinions. In my own mind, I like to press very little to switch channels. I prefer just a one-button alteration to switch between preset patches or parameters. Currently I run. Currently I run (Without elaborating too much) a) Clean - Delays, medium reverbs, Amp Sims, Cab, Gate, Comp, EQ b ) High Gain Rhythm - Octava, short reverbs, Amp Sims, Cab, Gate, Comp, EQ c) High Gain Rhythm/Lead boost - Volume boost, Sustain, Short reverb, Amp, Cab, Comp, EQ Wah d) Lead - Large delays, Reverbs, Gates, Comp, Sustain, Wah, EQ, Volume Boost, Amp, Cab For what I like to do, I don't want to press multiple buttons to switch in between my settings. Life shouldn't be difficult of course! I think I'm struggling to get my head around: programable switches - Turning on/off multiple effects etc (If you A/B switched to another line, will the stay enabled, or if you switch away, to they return to a default setting?) Peterhamm, was talking about 2/3/4 signal chains. Is there a way of assigning multiple adjustments {within a patch} to a single button? I don't understand how an A/B switch (or multiple A/B's) can used to switch between 4 separate signal chains? (Are you referring to the 4 sends?) To simplify what I'm referring to. 4x one touch switches, switching within a single patch? Quote Hideout: Yeah, I don't agree with doing that either. The most I want to do is have two types of sounds in one patch and A/B switch between them. Mike SKB: Glen and also Scott (TheHelixChannel) do some amazing patches. I use Scott's stuff to learn how to be thrifty on DSP useage and get amazing tone. If you want to add boost, just find an appropriate parameter (gain or level) of an existing block and route it to a switch or pedal. PeterHAMM: It has not been a problem for me at all. I get what took me 3 patches on HD 500 and get them into just one with Helix easy. My response: By the sounds of it, there is plenty of headroom to play with and you should be able to squeeze even more versatility into your patches. I'm wondering if part of my difficulty contemplating the routing etc, is down to the way the systems changed when the HD500 was introduced to the mix. The XT didn't give you freedom to adjust/visualise the positioning of many of it's emulated components. It did however allow for entirely different settings and parameter settings to be stored as a patch. Then a one button switch with tolerable latency/patch-change-delay, was incurred. As the Helix is emulating everything in an individual, modular manner. Perhaps I need to familiarise myself with the traditional 20x Stomp box pedal board mentality? Quote Hideout: Not that I can tell. Mike SKB : Depends on the IR and everything else. PeterHamm : Custom IRs are < using dual cabs in the box imho. I don't even bother with them anymore except for my acoustic sound. My response: So regarding patch change latency, the delay is similar then. I would probably go with Peter's advise here. Unless I'm recording in the home studio where I may opt for something with a bigger spatial emulation. I hear the Piezo IR is still in the pipeline too... not a deal breaker for me ;) Quote Hideout: One way is to run the output of Path 1 into Path 2. The amp and cab can pretty much go wherever. All: Summed My Response: This seems to be the most logical way of taking care of things, but does this forego the possibility's single stomp preset's within a patch? I also presume this halves the potential signal chains available? I'm honestly not trying to be difficult. I expect that with great power, flexibility and versatility in design, the more and more complicated things become. Quote Hideout: I'll likely get a lot of push-back on this but I'm of the mindset that it's simply not a good idea to run a modeler, especially one as good as the Helix is, into anything other than a full range system. An amp is just going to, as you put it, mush up the FX and it'll never give the true sound that the Helix is trying to put out. All : Summed. My response : Predominantly, I'll record at home direct into the mixer/interface. Live, I'll likely use the guitar amp. I understand for best/accurate representations, FRFR speakers are the way forward. I'm an amp man through and through ;) Previously with the XT, I could get close to the sound I wanted, I would simply run out of EQ and have to start compromising all over the place. I've been happy with that and I'm not prepared to switch to FRFR speakers. Nice know someone else is in the same boat and it still sounds great. Quote I think that's the Path 1a/1b A/B switching setup. All it does is redirects the signal to either A or B so yeah there's no delay. I see, so this preset template might not be the answer? Summing up all: It's all very confusing but I think we're getting there. -Line 6 edit concerns are alleviated. The longer it takes, the better it'll be :P. -Patch change delay may be tolerable providing you're not trying to load in two amps, two cabs and multiple complicated stomps, effects and routing switchs? -Similarly to 2) Latency is respective of patch complexity. If you find a way of getting exactly what you want, whilst being reserved in adding blocks, the delay can be minimised. Sounds risky to me. I also wonder if the unit de-loads Amps/Cabs even if the block is present in the next patch? - IR's have the same effect as separate Cab blocks. - I think I may need to review control block availability and their use. I'm not sure simple A/B switches will be what I'm envisioning? Can anyone elaborate as to the actions of currently stomped switches, when switching between different groups of stomp boxes? when switching away from a signal chain, can you adjust whether stomps return to default positions? (Helping to prevent "pedal tap dancing". - I don't fear using it with a Tube amp ;) - Im still unsure whether one stomp switching is possible? A massive thank you to all who have taken part in this discussion. I apologise again for my horrendous forum etiquette and this huge body of text. I'm most gracious for your assistance and the sharing of knowledge and experience with the unit.
  11. Thanks so much for such enthusiastic informative responses all. I'll try and respond to each person individually. This is going to take a while!
  12. Hello all, I don't usually frequent gear forums so I apologise if my forum etiquette is sub standard. I've been really excited about the Helix since the reveal of the device. I've been waiting for you guys to drop a new modern unit since the HD500x. So, I've been nurturing use of a Pod XT for many years now and it has served my playing routine greatly since purchase. No to mention that I've had very little problems with the unit. I hit my tone limit a long time ago. I need more control over the signal chain to be able to really suss my guitar tone out. I'm seriously tempted to take the plunge on the Helix and have the funds to do so. I have my doubts though, especially considering it is such a great deal of money to drop on a pedal. Could I trouble some knowledgable users with some questions? 1) Line 6 edit I think I saw that Line 6 released a "Gear Box" Win/mac user interface for the Helix unit. How is this coming along, is it good quality? I can't find any screen shots at all. Nobody is hailing it as god's gift, if it has been released. I understand the larger display and functionality might completely over-rule the use of something like this. I'm curious as to it's current state of play. 2) Patch latency This is something that's been raised a few times on here. I understand the nature of loading process for patches. As I've dealt with the XT live, I do understand THIS IS modelling. With the XT, there was a noticeable delay in switching patches. It wasn't terrible but it was noticeable. I'd argue it is literally the longest patch latency I'd be willing to put up with. Can anyone clarify if it is an improvement? Some have said the time it takes to load a patch is directly related to the amount of "blocks" you have in your patches. I'm not looking for multiple cabs and amps per patch. The XT had Comp, Gate, EQ, Amp Sim, Cab, Delay, Mod, ​Reverb. Considering that as a base line. What sort of latency are we looking at as standard? Better or worse? Painfully delayed? 3) Further talking about patches delays. Some have suggested loading everything into one patch and using that? I saw Glen Delaune's, 3 channel amp patch and I wasn't THAT sold on the "method". Surely you can run into instances where both, your clean channel is running and your boost is on? Surely your tone is going to more of a compromise instead of what you actually want to here? 4) Do custom IR's perform better or worse re: quality and patch latency? 5) Spreading blocks over to "Both CPU processors"? How is this actually done? Do you run the amp and cab on a separate line with links between. How effective is this reduction? 6) Direct into a Tube Amp I use a 2x12 Fender Hot Rod Deville. Can anyone elaborate as to how will this pedal plays with standard Tube Amps. I don't need a processed video from Chappers, I've seen it already. You know what I mean. My query is the ability to sculp the sound and fix mushyness. Sustain at volume, deliberate feedback etc. 7) Some people in other posts have suggested using 8 Template <02c ... XXXXX as a base line for your tones, to avoid latency problems. I don't own one yet, so I can't exactly investigate as to what these patch templates have to offer. Can anyone elaborate as to what these templates have to offer and how they work? I know there's a lot going on above regarding my questions. If you'd be so kind as to weigh in where possible, I'm sure others will review this thread to help put minds at ease. Please be as honest, clear and descriptive as possible I know it's a pain... although they're not "Million dollar" questions, they are the "Thousand dollar" questions that I would really appreciate clear answers for. I really appreciete you taking the time to review this thread.
  13. Hi there, I'm a POD XT Live user and have been waiting for you guys to release a newer pedal board for years! The HD500x had been out for a good while when I started thinking about upgrading so I'm glad my patience has paid off. My questions are maybe a little less menial then others and maybe more comparative to my current pedalboard. 1) EQ's - Obviously we haven't seen a great deal of information about individual modules yet. Could you elaborate on some of the EQ modules that will be available day one? i.e The Pod XT has a 4 band parametric EQ. Two shelving and two notch EQ's and although they're very helpful, they aren't enough to either compensate for guitar amp coloration, or trying to pre-mix your tones to fit the rest of the band mix before hitting the stage. 2) High Gain Amps - I saw the big list of amps and cabs, can you elaborate on the high gain amps available? They're all codenamed something bizzarre so it leaves only speculation of what is available. (Mesa, 5150 etc) with the XT live, I use the "Modern High Gain" amp as it doesn't require distortion pedals to get a typical tone, freeing up a spare stomp box slot for something else. i.e, I'd hate to splash so much money on a pedal, to find out that I'll have to purchase unreleased content at a later date just so I can get back to square one again. 3) Tweaking settings to match the guitar amp - Has this function been changed/improved. I'm referring to when you change your output settings of the pedal to say "Combo front" and setting focus frequencies to try and get your pedal to react the same way as when the signal is directly injected into a mixer/PA. i.e Is it simple to switch between various output settings? are particular pedal outputs always setup for particular global settings? Do you have to use a 4 cable method as I don't think my Hot Rod Deville has an effects send return? I understand this is an extensive list, but as I'd be spending my old man's inheritance on it, I wanted to make sure I knew what I was dealing with. Best regards, Will
  • Create New...