Jump to content

BBD_123

Members
  • Content Count

    572
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Everything posted by BBD_123

  1. Yes, agreed. In fact I now use the gain block rather than turning the input pad on. Decibels are decibels.
  2. +1 I used to use the input pad but now do this for the reasons you state. IMHO the key point here is that there can be a need for input gain control depending on pickups / active guitar preamps. So long as that requirement is recognised and incorporated into the relevant patches, all will be well. If it isn't, then players may struggle to get the tone they want.
  3. There's a full list of all amps, cabs, mics and FX on Helix (and therefore Stomp) at the link below. It seems to get updated fairly regularly with the new stuff included in each new firmware release and is showing entries for 2.9 already. Scroll to the end for links to cabs, FX and mics: https://dshowmusic.com/line-6-helix-amp-models/
  4. >>afraid of doing a disservice to the product +1 Humility is a vanishing art.
  5. There are indeed. Also lots of unhappy bunnies pitch up here complaining that Helix doesn't cut it, perhaps blaming the tools prematurely. My experience has been as yours: the amp modelling is excellent assuming that the patch is optimally set up. A big assume, unfortunately, as there are so many things that can go wrong, not least cab and mic choices. Anyway, very glad you hit the nail on the head first try, and thanks for saying so in public. Makes a refreshing change :-)
  6. Nothing. Hear what you say about a looper, but I don't use one so not even that. I need to get organised and sell my pedals. I've had Helix long enough now (over 2 years) to know that I don't and won't need them any more. I've learned through trial and error that if Helix doesn't sound 'right' in its replication of a pedal (or amp) then I haven't dialled it in properly yet ;-)
  7. Did not gel with that LW cover... :-( But on a positive note, you could try this patch to get you in the zone. Neck pickup may work best, and ride the guitar volume pot for clean - > OD. Fender glassy.hlx
  8. What guitar are you using (looks like a Strat in your avatar, but can't really tell), what are you monitoring through and please post the patch(es) you are using. Otherwise very difficult to know what is going on... :-)
  9. @BlueD Just following on from Phil_m, here's Line 6's Ben Adrian on how he created the Litigator model:
  10. BBD_123

    Helix 2.9

    That's Pascal's Wager. It assumes that a deity would actually reward such expedient calculation rather than punish it :-)
  11. BBD_123

    Helix 2.9

    We didn't evolve to live in a technologised, industrial, metropolitan society either, but that's what we got :-) What worked on the veldt might not work so well in a democracy, which goes a long way to explaining some of the weirdness of the current era. Logic is an under-appreciated tool for parsing reality.
  12. BBD_123

    Helix 2.9

    It is indeed the only logical position but that does not mean that all humans adopt it :-) As rd2rk rightly observes.
  13. BBD_123

    Helix 2.9

    Agreed. It's what you *do* that matters.The underpinning is less important than the result. Golden Rule rulez, amen.
  14. BBD_123

    Helix 2.9

    querty24 nails it. Logic requires agnosticism. From there, it is a leap of faith, either way :-)
  15. BBD_123

    Helix 2.9

    If the many worlds hypothesis is correct, then elsewhere, 2.9 will already have arrived and this thread never happened. And in all universes where L6 updates exist, they are a gift that keeps on giving :-)
  16. BBD_123

    Helix 2.9

    All a misunderstanding I suspect. And you didn't 'lose' nor did I 'win' an open-ended discussion about the nature of reality :-) Peace & love BBD
  17. BBD_123

    Helix 2.9

    Perfect. [Claps loudly] :-)
  18. BBD_123

    Helix 2.9

    Of course it is. And all I was ever trying to point out was that 'now' cannot actually be defined. The closest you can get is to define a space within which 'now' occurs (between the future and the past), but it is impossible to define more exactly than that. Dark is the absence of visible spectrum radiation. Light is the presence of vsr. Musical notes can be defined by frequency of vibration. Love is the strongest form of mutual attraction, hate the converse, etc. These are all closer to the mark than any fundamental definition of 'now'. No, it doesn't. See above. This was only ever meant to be a fun diversion into a philosophical kick-about while we wait for 2.9 to drop. It's stopped being fun, which is a shame.
  19. BBD_123

    Helix 2.9

    This discussion was intended to save us from the 2.9 discussion :-) And it can finish right now, if no longer entertaining for all.
  20. BBD_123

    Helix 2.9

    Well, I read that as aimed at me. Here's your definition: The problem here is that this is not a definition of now. It's a description of time passing. What I'm trying to get at is that while everybody talks about 'now' it is in fact impossible to define it. You can't stick a pin in 'now'. You *can* say it happens between the future and the past, but that falls short of actually defining any instant in time as 'now'. And since you cannot define 'now' then it is possible to argue that it does not exist. It's subtle, as I said at the outset.
  21. BBD_123

    Helix 2.9

    If the universe did not exist, then we would not be able to perceive it. While I leave proofs to mathematicians, I think the probability of the statement being correct is extremely high :-) No, statements aren't dispositive. I can claim to be the king of Old Siam without actually being so.
  22. BBD_123

    Helix 2.9

    While nobody would dispute that children perceive reality differently to fully acculturated adults, that's where I part company from AH. Different ≠ better. Different = different. And it's been a good many years since I read AH, so I too might not be 100% accurate in my memory of what he said :-)
  23. BBD_123

    Helix 2.9

    I read what you said. The problem is that I'm not sure what you intend by the words existence and reality at this point. If we use definitions that I am comfortable with then if there is no reality (objective, external, universal) then there can be no perception as there would be nothing to perceive...
  24. BBD_123

    Helix 2.9

    You can't define now. It's impossible. So you cannot have a definition that is accurate... :-) If you read what I wrote again, you'll see that I was stating Huxley's position, not my own. I also mentioned that he had no evidence for his belief that psychotropic drugs opened the doors of perception - in other words improved our perception of reality. Maybe slow down a touch?
×
×
  • Create New...