zappazapper

OK so I tested it on my LT and I'm not getting the same behavior as you are. The first thing I'll point out is that I had to change the output block from "Multi Output" to "USB 1/2". "Multi Output" sends the signal to the 1/4" jacks, the XLR jacks, the Digital Out (not on your XL), and the USB 1/2 channel, which appears in Reaper as Input 1 and Input 2. The Phones jack by default mirrors the Multi-Output, as well as what is fed into Output 1 and Output 2 in Reaper. In that case you would be hearing both the internal signal in the Helix, AND the signal being fed into Reaper and back to the Helix, which would be 6 dB louder. I'm assuming that you are aware of this, set the output properly to USB 1/2 when doing your Reaper test, and that the preset you sent me was the original preset that you were using when you had your Stomp plugged into your interface. Anyway... I did not get audible distortion with the output volume set to 0. I did not get audible distortion with the output volume set to +5. I did not get audible distortion with the output volume set to +10. I DID get audible distortion with the output volume set to +20, and the distortion was 100% correlated to the output block turning red to indicate clipping. There's an almost 100% possibility that the output circuitry in the Stomp is different than the output circuitry in the LT, although it would surprise me if L6 didn't optimize the clip indicators in the Stomp to turn red when it's own specific circuitry clipped. I still maintain that there is some aspect of your setup that is adding gain and causing you to hear audible distortion that the unit is not causing itself.

Would you mind sharing your preset so I can test it myself tonight when I get a chance?

That leads me to belive that the clip indicators are based on RMS and not peak level. At any point in your test did you hear audible distortion? Because if you didn't, it might be interesting to see whether the clip indicator goes red at around the same level it takes to create audible distortion. Like I said, peak clipping past full-scale digital is not necessarily a bad thing if you don't hear distortion.

Fair enough. It begs asking what exactly triggers the block going red. Is it a peak meter or RMS (maybe someone with accurate info can chime in)? Signal peaks going past full-scale digital doesn't necessarily manifest itself as audible clipping. I'll second the suggestion to take as much gear out of the equation to see if that changes anything. What you hear might not be the output of the Helix clipping; it might be the input of your interface clipping. AFAIK a DAC isn't simply a ADC wired in reverse, not to mention that even if it was, it's unlikely that both devices have the same brand and model of chip. Different devices behave differently. My recording rig is two MOTU firewire interfaces with 3 Behringer ADA8200s connected via ADAT Lightpipe, and I can say with confidence that audible input distortion happens at different levels on the MOTU gear than the Behringer stuff. And I'm not even sure if that has anything to do with the converters most likely being different brands and models. The preamps themselves are different, as are the anti-aliasing filters. Any of these things could affect what you hear, and taking everything out of the equation besides your guitar, your Helix, and your speakers/headphones is going to tell you more about clipping in the Helix output than the way you are currently connected.

If they would have added your preferred amps, there'd be someone wondering why they didn't add any Sunn amps. There's very little consensus from the user base as to what amps should be added next. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for your preferred amps to make it in, because at this point most of the big name stuff that people expect to be there is already there, and the L6 guys are really just adding what THEY want now. Like, the Cartographer (I think?) is the L6 modeling guru's personal, highly modified test amp that nobody even knew about, much less asked for. They're not really consulting users on new amp models anymore, and they probably shouldn't be, because the stuff they add is usually pretty unique compared to what's there. Morgans are Vox clones, I gather, and Friedmans are Marshall clones AFAIK? There's already plenty of Vox and Marshall models in the Helix.

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".