zappazapper

Right. It's the unique feature of that line. Peavey even put it in some of their non-6505 amps, like some of the Valve Kings. The guitarist from a death metal band I record has a VK212 and our standard setup has become the preamp of my Mesa Boogie .50 Caliber Plus into the power amp of the Valve King because that Resonance control just rumbles. It's possible that the non-S 100 has it built-in. Resonance is like the opposite of presence. Presence is high-passed negative feedback on a reversed control (0 is full negative feedback, 10 is no negative feedback), which reduces high-frequency distortion. Resonance is just low-passed negative feedback on a reverse control. Even non-Master Volume Fenders have high-passed negative feedback to reduce distortion, just not that you can control. Whether or not it's standard practice to add low-passed negative feedback to every high-gain amplifier to reduce low-frequency distortion, I imagine it's a primary element of EVH's basic power amp design and it's quite possible that the circuit is there even though it's not on a pot.

Oh I'm not suggesting it's not a good sounding amp, only that for me at least, the Resonance control is what makes 5150s unique enough to bother with them rather than really any other high-gain amp. When I saw that the new firmware had a new 5150 model I just assumed it would have a Resonance control because, like I said, what's the point then? Do I need another high-gain amp sound at this point?

Well then in that case, I should have said "A 5150 HEAD without a Resonance control isn't a 5150 head". That's bizarre. The product page for the non-S 100 even says it has a global Resonance but it's not there. What's the point then?

I'm talking about the new models of the 5150 III

I'm not wrong...

I think that, considering it's a Tube Screamer clone with individual Treble and Bass controls, the Screamer model in the Legacy folder should suffice...

Anybody up for an Ideascale request? XD

He's cranky most days XD @datacommandoyou know a lot, and you help a lot of people out on this forum, but sometimes the way you communicate isn't very helpful. @kaffekaskisn't asking a stupid question, and even the whole "sticking to his guns" routine is reasonable. There are concepts that come with this thing that are foreign to many players and we should have patience with having to say goodbye to one mentality and being forced into another. With all due respect, you didn't buy a pedalboard. You bought a multi-fx with models of a lot of pedals. Like I said before, the answer is that the Helix doesn't work like a pedalboard, or at least not a 32 pedal pedalboard. If you want that kind of behavior, you'll need to buy a pedalboard. On the other hand, if you want to take advantage of the very powerful control paradigm that the Helix offers, that you will probably enjoy more than a pedalboard, there are many helpful users on this forum that can help you. Datacommando is one of them but you sometimes have to sift through his passive-aggressive manner to get at the good stuff. He knows his stuff. But if he's not to your liking, there are many others who know their stuff as well.

Fair enough. The short answer, then, is that the Helix doesn't work like that. The long answer is that the way the Helix DOES work is based on the idea of gapless switching of sounds in those moments when an audible gap would be distracting. Changing presets causes an audible gap. The Snapshots feature addresses this by allowing the user to load up all the blocks (s)he would need for a song in a single preset, and then save different combinations of the bypass and parameter states of all of those blocks so that sounds can be switched without having to dump and load blocks from the memory. Then the user would theoretically select another preset between songs when an audible gap isn't (shouldn't be) an issue. So the Helix is really kind of designed around the idea of "songs" and "sounds". You load up a preset that has what you need for all the sounds you'll use for a song, use Snapshots to do the necessary switching, and then move on to the next preset for the next song. What you're doing is loading up every effect you're ever going to need for your entire life in a single preset. Nothing wrong with that, except ya, how do you control everything? So you might want to think about being more "song" and "sound"-based. I say "more" song-based because even I play multiple songs with the same preset. I have presets that cover entire albums, because I was able to figure out a way to get all the sounds on that album into one preset using a combination of stomps and snapshots. But then I also have presets that are for just one song because trying to pack that in with everything else would make EVERYTHING more difficult to control. It's really about reducing the amount of footwork. You can have all the sounds you want, but if you spread them out over multiple presets and use the switching features available to good use, it'll be FAR less work than even if you could have multiple pages of stomps.

My own experience with the Poly Capo is that it's perfectly usable, especially for a -1 shift. I've used it at -5 (Korn) and while there is latency and artifacts, it beats bringing a whole other guitar to a gig for one song. I don't have any experience with the Drop, other than that the other guitarist in the band used one and it wasn't obvious to either of us that either was better. @SaschaFranck can offer an opposing view of the Poly Capo. He says the latency and artifacts make it unusable, which is a valid position because every player is different. I don't know what he uses for his pitch shifting needs.

Have you posted on Ideascale and lobbied on this forum and other forums concerning the Helix for support from the community? That's the only realistic way to convince the "team" of your thoughts on design.

Here's my Ideascale post proposing extending the ability to reassign Snapshot definitions on a per-Snapshot basis to be able to do the same with Bypass and Controller Assigns: https://line6.ideascale.com/c/idea/1054308/comments/1054470 I will also say, however, that I agree with anyone who's expressed the opinion that L6 has provided some very powerful tools to change sounds that you've chosen to not make use of. Honestly I can't think of a multi-fx that had enough footswitches to control everything it does, but at least with multiple switch assignments and snapshots, the Helix is the easiest multi-fx to control that I know of. But that doesn't mean that there can't be improvements, and the ability to update the firmware allows the unit to improve, and we've been given at least some degree of input on those improvements via the Ideascale website. I encourage you to check it out and post your idea and try to get some support from the community. Sometimes things you want get in eventually. If there was an ability to have multiple pages of stomp controllers, I'm sure I'd use it. In the meantime, there are 8 footswitches that you can assign to control stomps, and if you set Global Settings > Footswitches > Preset Mode Switches to "8 Snapshots", you can press the Mode switch to bring up the Snapshot selection mode, which could theoretically be used to control 8 more stomps if you were careful about how your Snapshot Bypass and Snapshot Control settings were set. At the very least you could use it to select one of eight stomps to be on at any given time. The point is, there's a lot you can do if you spend some time to learn how the features the Helix DOES have work (I feel confident in griping about what it doesn't do because I know every nook and cranny of what it DOES do). Beyond that, the only way I can think of getting 24 stomp switches is to buy a couple of external MIDI controllers and fight with that whole mess.

Yes. Audio is "iterative". Nothing you do at one point in the signal chain is unaffected by every other point in the chain, and going back and forth and adjusting settings from one point in the signal chain to another is essential. In a typical tube amp, the effects return/power amp input occurs before the phase inverter. The phase inverter is almost always also a 12AX7, and it has no less of an ability to color the frequency response and add harmonics than the preamp tubes and the power tubes. So if you run the multi-fx at half volume and the master volume of the amp higher, it's going to sound different than maxing out the volume going into the phase inverter and turning down the master volume, even though both settings might both output the same amount of "loudness". The phase inverter is often the least-considered aspect of a tube amp's sound.

https://www.guitarworld.com/news/kurt-cobain-boss-ds-1-auction ...'cause this one is different...

Ah. Ok. Am I wrong that it used to be on a second page in the Bypass Assign menu? Am I just thinking that because the new Snapshot Control feature is part of the Controller Assign menu, on a second page? Does it maybe make sense that Snapshot Bypass should now be in the Bypass Assign menu for the sake of consistency?