Jump to content

zappazapper

Members
  • Content Count

    163
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

zappazapper last won the day on October 26

zappazapper had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

41 Neutral

About zappazapper

  • Rank
    Iknowathingortwo

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

145 profile views
  1. Ya I think I need to sit down and figure out a better way to present the idea. I read it today and had a hard time understanding it myself. Your "like" goes a long way, Phil XD My initial thought was "What difference does it make what they're called?", but I get what you're saying. A "Snapshot" IS a control layer, a single control layer, and multiple control layers is a valid concept, but if you have just one then it really is a snapshot of the preset. And so now we have an established naming convention within the Helix universe that we have to deal with. If, hypothetically, this idea were to be implemented, would it make sense to keep the word "Snapshot" for the sake of consistency, familiarity, or would it make sense to abandon the word to highlight the evolution of the feature, at the risk of confusing/alienating users? How about we use both? Since a Snapshot is just a single control layer, there's no reason why we would have to abandon Snapshots to have control layers. There could, for example, be a global setting that lets users choose between a single Snapshots control layer and multiple control layers.
  2. But that's what I'm saying. Regardless of the manufacturing cost, why would L6 give you the option to spend less money to get the same processing power as the Floor? Especially since they've already made 5 different products in the line for different budgets? By the way, the only "modular" system that ever had any widespread success was the IBM- compatible PC, and that's because they released their patents (I'm paraphrasing... I'm sure what actually happened is much more nuanced and complex), and because the market for a general purpose computer is potentially every human on earth. Purpose-built, proprietary devices that are only even remotely interesting to a small fraction of MUSICIANS, let alone people in general, are not ideal for modular designs, as much as I can see the theoretical advantages.
  3. I used an X3 Live for over 10 years before I got my LT, and my reason for updating had nothing to do with tone and everything to do with control. When I got my LT I gave my X3 to my bassist, and his tone is killer and he has no complaints at all. The X3 isn't antiquated, it's just a previous iteration of the same thing. Still completely usable, still completely relevant. I still use PodFarm in my studio because it sounds great. You'll see POD 2.0, XT, X3 and stompbox modeler rack units in studios all over the world. The Helix will always be an incredibly powerful, versatile unit well after they've made an even more powerful, versatile unit.
  4. Re: $600 Think about it. The Stomp is one DSP chip compared to two in the Floor/Rack/LT. Any DSP expansion is going to require another DSP chip. So another DSP chip and some switches. It's already a Stomp. OK so you want it to just connect digitally without having to patch it in and hook up MIDI. The problem for L6 is that the customer base for such a product is limited to owners of a Stomp. And it's going to cost $600 anyway because why would they sell you the same DSP chip and the same switches for less than what it would cost you to buy another Stomp? There's lots of things I want too (VST Wrapper?!) but at some point we have to accept that they are a for-profit company and some things just aren't good moves for L6 from that perspective. I just don't see them making this, ever. But like I said, a second Stomp or an HX Effects would kinda be the closest thing to what you're talking about, except that they aren't connected at the "OS level" or whatever. They would communicate via MIDI. Sonically it would achieve the exact same thing. Workflow would, of course, be a little different, but nothing that complicated.
  5. zappazapper

    Metal Zone?

    K but like I said, the X3 has a Metal Zone model (Killer Z) and it has the Mid Freq control. And I seem to remember the stompbox modelers appearing quite a bit before the XT and X3. Kidney Bean or 2.0?
  6. So, no love at all? Not even hate? C'Mon... I can handle it...
  7. zappazapper

    Metal Zone?

    XD thanks, I was just pointing out a typo. In the 3.0 manual the list of effects now includes the legacy effects, and under "Heavy Dist" it says Boss Metal Zone. Maybe it's the Metal Zone model from the DM-4? I know the X3 line has a Metal Zone model that includes the Mid Freq control and it's called "Killer Z". Anyway like I said, I just assumed it was a typo and it was a previous version of the HM-2 but the HM-2 doesn't have a mid control at all, so that's why I think maybe it's the Metal Zone model from the DM-4, which didn't have enough controls for it. I think all the legacy effects are from the stompbox modeler series.
  8. https://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Snapshot-Layers/1003644-23508
  9. Fair enough, but there's fantasy and there's reality. There's been no such product mentioned, and even if they liked your idea it would take them years before you'd see it in stores. For $600 you can have more DSP and switches now.
  10. AFAIK you can't do it with stomps. I often find myself wishing that there were multiple "layers" to snapshots. Like in your example you already have other things controlled by snapshots, and I'm assuming you've turned off Snapshot Bypass on your delay blocks so that they're not controlled by snapshots. Imagine if instead of only being able to turn off Snapshot Bypass, the option instead was, say, "Snapshot Assign", and your options were Off, A, B (maybe 2 layers is enough). "Off" would be the same as turning Snapshot Bypass off, "A" would be the same as current snapshot behavior, but "B" would be a second layer of snapshots that are independent from the first. So in your example, you could control your delay blocks with snapshot layer B and it wouldn't affect anything being controlled by snapshot layer A, and vice versa. I think I'm gonna make an IdeaScale post.
  11. zappazapper

    Metal Zone?

    Just checking out the 3.0 manual. It says the "Heavy Dist" in legacy distortions is a model of the Metal Zone. Metal Zone has a parametric mid control, "Heavy Dist" does not. L6 is cancelled.
  12. There is a modular DSP expansion for the HX STOMP: another HX STOMP. It's the right size, is fully programmable with MIDI, has a few built in switches and loads of connectivity options. I can't imagine a better way to get more DSP in a compact package.
  13. My apologies. As I was walking down the street to get food, I started thinking about it and how wrong I was. A line-level signal is still AC. The signal wire carries both positive and negative voltages, and like you said, reversing the connection on one end will just short the signal to ground, not reverse the polarity of the signal. I'm guessing there is no way to reverse the polarity of a signal by modifying an instrument cable. Seems like modifying one of my speaker cables is my only option. I don't have an A/B/Y, and AFAIK I don't have a 1/4" unbalanced splitter. I checked both the instrument cables and the speaker cables to confirm correct wiring.
  14. I'm experimenting with a stereo guitar setup. I was previously using 4CM with my Mesa Boogie .50 Caliber+, but right now I just have the Helix 1/4" outputs connected to the FX Return of both the Boogie and my JCM 900, with the speaker outs of each amp going to either side of a Marshall 1960A cabinet (300W stereo 4x12). "But... you should be using an FRFR setup or a Powercab!!" I know. Not an option right now. I'm using the gear I have. Moving on. So the problem I have is that the signal is out of phase - if I pan the signal to either side, the signal sounds full, but if it's panned to the center, it sounds thin and like it's coming from behind me. If I use a dummy block to engage the B path, pan either path hard left and right in the Merge block, and flip the polarity on the B path, a signal panned to the center now sounds as full as it does panned to either side, and coming from in front of me. But using a dummy block and having to diddle with the Merge block in every preset is not a very elegant solution. Since there are no polarity options in the Output block, a hardware modification seems to be my only option. The likely culprit is that for whatever reason the power amp (or whatever line-level circuitry exists in between the FX Return and the power amp itself) in one of the amps flips the polarity of the signal. Doing an amp modification isn't something I'm interested in, so forget that. My remaining two options are (as far as I can tell) are to rewire either one of the 1/4" instrument cables connecting the Helix to one of my amps to reverse polarity (wire connected to sleeve of one end wired to tip of other end), or to rewire one of the speaker cables. Is there any reason why one approach would be better than the other? I'm leaning towards modifying the speaker cable. It seems to me that in an instrument cable, the two wires have different purposes (one carries the signal, the other provides ground and acts as a shield), and rewiring them in reverse might compromise the shielding. In a speaker cable, both wires are essentially doing the same job, as a powered audio signal is AC, and neither wire acts as a shield for the other one. I'd appreciate any thoughts on my situation, my proposed solutions, and any potential solutions I'm not thinking of. Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...