zappazapper

Why is the setting on the output volume relevant in terms of clipping? If there's clipping, there's clipping, regardless of what the setting is. If it's set to -60 and there's clipping, there's clipping. If it's set to +20 and there's no clipping, there's no clipping. Almost every effect on the Helix is a model of a hardware unit, many of which don't output at unity when supposedly set to unity, so an output volume is essential, and while a setting of +20 means you probably could use better settings somewhere earlier in the signal chain, it's better to have more gain available and not need it than needing more gain and not having it.

The feature works as described, but in my case, presets that used Snapshots and were created before the update were broken, in the sense that the assignments I defined only carried over to Snapshot 1, and all the Snapshot assignments for all other Snapshots had to be manually redefined - that preset has 7 Snapshots, so I had to make 42 settings adjustments to get my preset to work the way it did before. This isn't the end of the world, but I'm surprised that L6 allowed an update to go out that would break presets like that. I think the default behavior needs to change - instead of the "Press" value of every Snapshot defaulting to "Next Preset", they should default to the value defined by the first time it's set. So, for example, if you're in Snapshot 4 and you set FS2 to call Snapshot 6, FS2 should be set to call Snapshot 6 in every Snapshot until you change it to something else in a different Snapshot, or maybe even until you leave the current Snapshot and go to another one. Really it should be this way for anything in Command Center. Having to define every Command Center assignment for every Snapshot adds a lot of work that shouldn't be necessary if the default behavior was tweaked a little. At any rate, I started this thread because the Stomp Mode display saying "Next Snapshot" when Press is set to "None" is an actual bug. You can make the argument that the "None" setting wasn't intended to allow us to cancel out a Snapshot assignment, but it does work if you try it, it's just that the footswitch is labeled incorrectly. I hope you'll agree that the Stomp Mode display should display accurate information no matter the situation.

Ya I haven't figured out exactly what's happening, all I know is that it broke all my presets that use Snapshots, which in my case is only two, but one of them has 7 Snapshots and I had to make 42 settings adjustments to fix it. And I'm actually starting to think that maybe there's an issue with how the update happened on just MY unit because it seems to me that if I had such a problem with just one preset, we'd be hearing a lot more about this from other users who have multiple Snapshot-heavy presets. At any rate, it's working now, I have a rehearsal tonight and a gig on Tuesday night so I'm not gonna go poking around until that's all done with.

That's what this is. Maybe they're doing more with it in 3.2 but right now this feature allows you to change your Snapshot layout on the board per-Snapshot, and it's in play whether you choose to use it or not. What I'm finding is that it defaults to "Next Snapshot" on all other Snapshots other than the one you were in when you set it. So, for example, you're in Snapshot 1 and you set FS8 to call Snapshot 1, FS9 to call Snapshot 2, and FS10 to call Snapshot 3. Then you hit FS9 to call Snapshot 2 and because those assignments haven't been explicitly defined for that Snapshot, they all default to "Next Snapshot".

@themetallikid If you're not aware, they added a new feature to Snapshots that is probably the cause of your problem. From the release notes: Per-Snapshot Command Center > HX Snpsht Values Command Center > HX Snapshot command parameters can now be controlled by Snapshots themselves. For example, imagine that you are on Snapshot 1 and create an HX Snapshot command on FS2. You set it so that pressing that switch recalls Snapshot 3. You then switch to Snapshot 3 and set the same switch to recall Snapshot 6. Recall Snapshot 6 and set the switch to recall Snapshot 2. Finally, you recall Snapshot 2 and set the switch to recall Snapshot 1. Now, you go back to Snapshot 1 and begin pressing the switch. Each successive press recalls the assigned Snapshot and you would cycle Snapshot 1 > 3 > 6 > 2 > 1 > 3 > 6 > 2 and so on for each switch press. NOTE: this assumes that the Snapshot Edits global is set to Recall. If it's set to Discard, you'd have to save the preset after each set in order for the changes to stick I had a similar issue to you. I have a Nirvana preset with 7 Snapshots laid out in a particular way in Stomp Mode. Once I updated, as soon as I hit a FS to select a new Snapshot, all the FS's that had Snapshots assigned to them said "Next Snapshot". I had to go through all 6 affected Snapshots and reassign the HX Snapshot parameters for every Snapshot. I think this is another case of L6 having a great idea but not implementing it quite as well as they could. Of course, this is part of the process for identifying bugs so hopefully someone sees this and comes up with a solution.

What I'm saying is that the "Press" parameter is set to "None" but the display still says "Next Snapshot", and pushing the button doesn't cause the unit to select the next Snapshot; it doesn't do anything, as intended. It functions correctly, it just doesn't present the user with the correct information on the display, which has the potential to cause confusion.

In Command Center, if you set the "Press" parameter of an "HX Snapshot" command to "None", the label in the Stomp Mode display will keep its previous label, despite the fact that it no longer does anything.

I was making a joke. I'm eager for the update but most of the users around here know that I'm really not interested in most of the things that are being speculated to be in that (every?) update, for example more amps and more reverbs, and the people that are typically into those kinds of things seem to be the most impatient. I'm more interested in improvements to control, more interested to see if my relatively unpopular Ideascale suggestions got any notice by the developers and might have made it into the update based solely on merit. The Helix has more than enough toys inside for me to be excited to use it, I'm just looking for some rather minor changes to how the thing can be controlled, and yes, the sooner that happens the better for me so yes, I am certainly eager for it to go live to see if those improvements are there, but no, I'm not in that group that thinks L6 isn't doing the job of providing updates properly. Fundamental disagreements on priorities aside, they're doing a pretty good job of doing what they choose to prioritize.

Oh I'm with you. When properly tested, "golden ears" don't preform better than a coin flip on anything. Having said that, I think there will always be improvements that can be made. But yes, the gap between modeling and reality has certainly shrunk and there's not a ton of room there anymore to improve. But the new poly effects certainly make a case for a unit with more processing power. And then if you're going to make an entirely new unit, you have a chance to evolve the control paradigm. So there are still reasons to design something new, even if the modeling has become nearly perfect.

Uh. I don't want to get sucked in to this either, but... There was that video of DI going through various conceptual designs they had done over the years and the reasons for not pulling the trigger on them, and there was at least one product that shelved on the basis of global economic factors, which resulted in a more simplified product in the HD line, and then when the bottom fell out of the silicon market they were able to quickly pivot to the HD500X. The point being, we're currently in a situation of global economic uncertainty and a lack of supply in the silicon market. Most definitely there are various designs in the works but considering the factors that exist, we might actually want to wait a few years for a new product because what they would end up releasing today would most likely be something that wouldn't be much of an improvement over the first generation Helix. Competing in this market segment doesn't always mean having the "best" product on the market. L6 has a product on the market that is still relevant and which makes them money without incurring any design costs, testing, etc. Their profit margin on the products that exists is probably higher than any of the competing companies, and until those economic factors change, they're probably going to hold tight and just continue to bounce around conceptual designs of what they would make if/when the situation improves.

Well this was a mistake...

Soon like when?

Just when?

You probably want to use an external microphone preamp for connecting a mic to the Return 1 jack. Yes, you can connect it with just an XLR to 1/4" TS cable, but that doesn't mean the signal level or impedance will be ideal for what that jack expects. Adding a gain block will increase the signal level, but also the noise that comes along with it. Microphone preamps are designed to add gain to microphone signals in a way that results in a cleaner output signal, partly because the input impedance of a microphone preamp will be different than a jack that expects line-level signals. The Aux jack also probably has a different impedance spec than the Guitar Input (apart from the fact that it doesn't come with the ability to control the input impedance) and will likely also behave differently than the Guitar Input, although I suspect this will cause less of an issue than plugging a mic into a line-level jack.

I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad idea. What I'm saying is that once you've been around this forum long enough, you start to see that development resources aren't unlimited and most of these types of ideas never even get considered, much less implemented. In the whole scheme of things, using an external MIDI controller is a much more realistic solution than expecting L6 to address your issue in a firmware update in any kind of timely manner. You might wait a long time for that to happen, if ever, but you can buy an external MIDI controller TODAY and your problem will be solved.

It's not that the Stomp has the effect of darkening the tone of your pedals, it's that your pedals have their own input impedance, which when plugged directly into your guitar, load the pickups in a particular way that affects certain properties, mainly frequency response. Now that your guitar is no longer directly connected to your pedals, your pickups are being loaded differently, which makes your signal sound different. Also, there could be an impedance issue with how the FX Loop interacts with your pedals, which can be adjusted in Global Settings > Ins/Outs. Since your pedals are designed to be plugged into a guitar directly, you might want to use the "Instrument" setting here instead of "Line". The point is that there is no inherent incompatibility issue between your Stomp and your pedals, it's just a matter of finding the right settings. Many have gone through the same headaches trying to get 4CM working, which is essentially the same thing as putting a distortion pedal in an FX Loop. I've been trying to get it working properly for 15 years and I'm still not sure I got it. Just keep experimenting and asking questions. You'll get it working properly sooner or later.

Because there's 10 physical footswitches. Have you considered the possibility that if your preset needs 15 footswitches, it's possible that your need to rethink your approach to building presets? At any rate, you can always add an external MIDI controller. I don't think you'll find the appetite within the user community, much less in the development team, for multiple pages of footswitches. Adding a MIDI controller is a much more realistic possibility than multiple pages of footswitches ever happening.

Haha. I mean, your block order isn't wrong, but you keep saying things that are incredibly confusing to me. What does "sucked up" mean? When you say "sent left" do you mean it's being sent to the FX Loop Left? Please use very specific language because we're discussing a rather technical issue and it seems that every post comes with a potential misinterpretation that is making it hard for me to help you.

OK so you're talking about full Amp models. You do understand that because we're talking about 4CM, which involves separating the preamp and the power amp sections of an actual real-world guitar amp, just saying "power amp" leaves a lot of room for misinterpretation. I thought you were talking about the power amp in your Mesa. Well, where do you think it goes? Sorry, I know you're looking for easy answers here but I'm trying to get you to understand what's going on so that you can figure it out for yourself, because ultimately nobody is going to be able to really help you build presets unless they're in the room with you. You already have a pretty good general idea of how a typical signal flow for guitar works - guitar > compression (maybe) > distortion > preamp > modulation > delay > reverb > power amp. You just need to figure out how to extend that general idea to the Stomp's specific workflow. You know your distortions are in the FX Loop Left and your Mesa preamp is in the FX Loop Right. So you tell me what the Stomp block order is then...

I still don't know what you mean by "in the power section". The power section of what? Your amp? That's kind of the point of 4CM, is the choice to use your amp's preamp or not. So no, you don't HAVE to run your signal through your Mesa preamp. Your signal will always make it to your power amp via the Stomp outputs and the chorus and delay pedals. You only use your Mesa preamp if that's the sound you're looking for, otherwise you can use an amp model. Again, I don't know what you mean by "into the power section".

No, you can't do that. Your Revival Drive and your TC Spark are in a loop together. You can't put anything in between them and you can't change their order. You can only turn the loop on or off, or turn the individual pedals on or off with their own switches. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean a full Amp model, which includes power amp modeling, as opposed to a Preamp model? You didn't mention that you wanted to use your Mesa preamp in your desired signal chain, so you don't need to route signal to it via the FX Loop Right block.

Right. It's essentially the same thing. Your pedals are in FX Loop Left and your Mesa preamp is now in FX Loop Right. It doesn't have to be in that order, that's just how I would do it because it makes it easier to remember which is which, since signal goes left to right in the Helix. To get your signal go to your pedals and then to your preamp, you just create two FX Loop blocks, first Loop Left then Loop Right. The output of the Stomp is always going through your chorus and delay now so you would control them manually, like with their own footswitches, since they're not in a loop anymore. Absolutely. The only difference is that the FX loops on the LT are on their own discrete jacks, so no splitter cable needed, and they are called FX Loop 1 and FX Loop 2. So guitar > LT guitar input > LT FX Loop 1 send > Mesa front panel input > Mesa FX send > LT FX Loop 1 return > LT output > Mesa FX Return. And then you create FX Loop 1 block to route your signal to your preamp.

Well, it's really just a matter of what you want to do. You bought an XL to integrate into your existing pedalboard, which is an inherently linear paradigm, but you're trying to do 4CM, which is really about the freedom to route signal from wherever to wherever you want. So now because you're doing 4CM, you're trying to make your pedals work the same way, but you can't because you don't have enough FX loops. So you have a few options: 1. Stick with the XL and use it in a more linear fashion, without 4CM... guitar > distortions > XL in > XL out > chorus > delay > amp... this is the option that should sound closest to what you're used to... the XL is just another pedal that does a whole bunch of things. 2. If you want to do 4CM with the XL and all your pedals, this might be the best way to do it... guitar > XL in > XL loop left send > distortions > XL loop left return > XL loop right send > Mesa front panel input > Mesa FX send > XL loop right return > XL output > chorus > delay > Mesa FX Return... it puts your distortions in a loop so that you can plug your guitar into the input of the XL and take advantage of the variable impedance control, which should help to make both your distortion pedals and your Mesa preamp sound better... the compromise is that your chorus and delay are the very last thing in the signal chain, which in a lot of cases is the right place to put them, and if it isn't you can just turn them off and use models on the XL in the order you want, assuming you have the processing headroom to do it... 3. You stick with the XL, using 4CM, but you ditch your pedals... I mean, if you're going to do this then you may as well do #2 because a little extra processing headroom gained by using a pedal when you can goes a long way... 4. You buy an LT. The LT isn't going to it make it any easier to run 4CM and your pedals at the same time, because it's still only got two FX loops. But with twice the processing headroom, your pedals become far less useful, especially given the lack of control that the models enjoy. I have an LT and that's it. The only other piece of gear I have on the floor is a 2-button footswitch for my amp that both sends and receives MIDI because my amp doesn't properly respond to EXT AMP commands. Occasionally I use an external expression pedal. The LT is the best option for me because I want LESS devices, not more. I don't have any pedals to integrate so I don't need more FX loops. 5. You buy a Helix Floor. It has four FX loops. Best option if you're dead set on doing 4CM and your pedals at the same time. Everything goes in an FX loop. You can even split one of the pairs of pedals into two separate loops. Probably best to split the chorus and the delay. But again, now that you have all the processing power, do you really need all the pedals? Especially since they're stuck on one setting? Do they sound that good on that one setting that you need to spend that much more money to have four loops? You can't find something inside the Helix that sounds just as good and is infinitely more versatile because you can control it? So ya, you might be right about the LT. It should do everything you need. Some Mesa Boogie amps, like mine, don't respond properly to EXT AMP commands. This is what I bought: https://amtelectronics.com/new/amt-fs-2midi/

Let's start here. There is only anecdotal, subjective testimony on the existence of an audible difference between analog and digital sound. There is absolutely no objective reason why analog devices and digital devices can't function properly together, and in fact, analog and digital devices are used together every day, all over the world. The only people who can't make them work are people who think good gear is boiled up in a cauldron by wizards, and refuse to accept that good gear is actually DESIGNED by ENGINEERS who actually KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING and use well-document SCIENTIFIC PHENOMENA to achieve their intended goals, and that the solution to "why doesn't it sound good?" is ALWAYS going to be rooted in fact and reason. So just forget about that one. By "tone suck" I'm guessing that you're referring to a loss of high-frequency content. This is typically related to impedance. Every device has its own impedance, and often times an impedance that "sucks tone" is an integral part of how that device produces the sound that it does. Right now you're comparing the way your pedals sound when you have an empty preset vs when you have the Stomp bypassed, right? Are you aware that there are two types of "All Bypass" for the Stomp? From the Helix Stomp manual @ https://line6.com/data/6/0a020a418962611d636e7c51b/application/pdf/HX Stomp 3.0 Owner's Manual - Rev D - English .pdf , page 14, "Bypassing HX Stomp Completely": "NOTE: There are two types of All Bypass in HX Stomp: Analog bypass (sometimes called 'true bypass'), where mechanically switching relays route your signal directly from the inputs to the outputs with no processing or A/D/A conversion, and DSP bypass, where any delay echoes and reverb tails decay naturally. By default, HX Stomp is set for Analog bypass, but this behavior can be set from 'Global Settings > Preferences'." What the manual doesn't mention is that "True Bypass" will also bypass the Stomp's impedance, and your signal will now take on the impedance of the device that is connected to the output of your Stomp, which is the FX Return of your amp if you're connected in 4CM. I bet that if you connected your pedals directly to the FX Return of your amp, your pedals would sound the same as if you bypassed the Stomp. But of course, you would never connect distortion pedals directly to the FX Return of your amp anyway, right? So what you're actually hearing when you bypass the Stomp is a sound that you would never intentionally do anyway. A better comparison is how your pedals sound through the Stomp with a basic 4CM preset, like just the FX Loop Left block that has your Mesa preamp in it, and then how it sounds when you unplug the cable between your pedals and the Stomp and plug the output of your pedals directly to the front panel input of your Mesa (leave the FX Loop Left block active because even though it's no longer sending signal OUT to your Mesa preamp, it's still receiving the signal from the output of the Mesa preamp). Your Mesa preamp has its own impedance that was probably "sucking tone" all along but because you've never heard them connected directly to your Mesa's FX Return, with it's likely less "tone sucking" impedance, you wouldn't have noticed. And you know what? There probably still is a difference between when the Stomp is connected and when it's not, although probably much less, and this difference can probably be corrected by using the Variable Impedance control on the Input block. I have no idea what the input impedance of your Mesa is but to get my own Mesa Boogie amp to sound properly in 4CM, I have to use the 230k setting. 1M doesn't "suck tone" enough and my amp sounds like a screamy mess. They are routed to wherever you have told it to be routed to in the Output block, which is most likely the 1/4" outputs as a stereo pair, which will be summed to a mono signal if you only have a cable connected to the Left jack. That would theoretically make them behave in a way that you're more familiar with, as now they will be taking on the impedance of your Mesa preamp's input. Of course, now your guitar signal will be taking on the impedance of the Stomp and NOT your pedals, so that might make things sound different (although, again, you can probably correct that with the variable impedance setting on the input block). Not to mention that now you can only use your pedals when you're using your Mesa preamp, since now they're in the loop. I'll be honest. I think you should just ditch your pedals. I know you spent money on them, I know you've made them part of your sound. It's a hard move to make. But the Helix has, what, FORTY distortion models to choose from, and none of them come with these impedance issues. The power and flexibility of the Helix doesn't come without a price - it's a bit of a pain to try and integrate it with other gear and have that gear behave in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY, and it even has a pretty well thought out way of dealing with the problem (variable impedance control). I've spent a lot of time and money trying to get my vintage Mesa Boogie to sound right in 4CM, because that's not negotiable. But a distortion pedal? I'd throw the thing across the room at my cat before spending any amount of time trying to get a distortion pedal to sound right when I can just use one of the 40+ models in the Helix. Or I would just accept that this is the way they sound now. Whatever. It's a distortion pedal. They're negotiable.

Sounds like you're getting it. Good job.