Posts posted by mileskb
1 hour ago, DunedinDragon said:
I guess for me I've never experienced this issue with either of the amp models simply because there are so many other factors that come into more serious sonic variation in the arrangement of blocks in the signal chain such as the right type of cabinet, mic, and mic placement that the placement of the reverb on either of these two models is not something that jumps out at me as being "off" in any way. For me I've always placed the reverb very late in the signal chain after the amp and cab as I would in a typical studio setup regardless of the amp. But I do hear some people prefer the results of placing it after the amp but before the cab/mic setup. It's all a matter of what your ear tells you as far as do you want the reverb effect to be colored by the cab/mic or not. I prefer it not be colored and be pure once the amp/cab/mic tone has been fully formed. To me it just has a more professional polished sound like that of a recording.
I agree about the more polished sound... however, in many cases, it's not about polished or not, it's more about just "the" sound. I guess the reason I and some others notice it, and miss this feature is Helix, as far as I can tell, with the component level modeling is the only one that could do it. Using the Fender as an example, the dynamics of your playing and the level of the amp, change the texture of the reverb. It's subtle (well, unless you don't want it to be) but it's there. If you "up pick" a chord on the higher strings the reverb accentuates that breakup that is almost not noticeable without it. It's a cool sound, used a lot. It's kinda easy to reproduce running the 'verb on another path with some sort of gain stage in front to taste... and maybe a bit of eq after to accentuate what you what... It's pretty close that way... just not as close as I'm pretty sure it could be.
Of course.. if they did have a separate amp block... imagine the combinations, in general, being able to use one pre-amp with another power amp.
Wow, I killed my own thread... that's impressive. Am I the only one who is curious about this, or am I missing something so stupid no one is willing to say anything? :)
Not being able to put things like Reverb or other "built-in" effects where they "belong" in the chain has bugged me since day one.
I'll admit, it's a little picky, and 90% of the time it doesn't really matter. But to me at least, it matters on at least a couple of amps and I'm sure others and I wondered what the workaround is.
Specifically as an example, to keep it simple. The "reverb" on a Fender Deluxe goes after the input of the preamp and exits before the early stages of the power amp. This makes getting that "Fender" sound a little tough because we can't put the reverb there. The best we can do is split before the pre/amp and put it on a parallel path and it's helpful to put some tube distortion (very subtle) in front of the reverb on that path and maybe an EQ after then bring the path back before the cab block. This is close, but in this specific case, the Reverb does not get the elements of the Fender input circuit nor does it get treated to going through the amp. It's close, but on the real amp, the reverb, for better or worse, has a sound of it's own, because it's IN the amp between the pre-amp and amp.
Another example is the JC-120. The reverb and chorus are affected by being IN that amp, and while you can put the effects on a parallel path, the signature interaction between the pre-amp, the effect,
and the actual amp is lost.
Based on how many updates there have been, I'm guessing just having an AMP block just isn't going to happen. So what is the BEST solution for getting this signature tones back into the amps they came out of.
19 hours ago, spikey said:
Using mine after the amp and before the compressor. In that way I can control the overall volume of the feedback from the chain.5 hours ago, guitarnstuff said:
Are you having noise issues with this implementation?
No it's clean if after the amp... just don't like the tone and the way it works when after the amp.
9 hours ago, specracer986 said:
Thanks for doing the experimenting for me. I've really wanted a Freq Out, and I'm surprised I haven't bought one. But I mainly play my Variax with the VDI cable. Looks like that's not a good combo.
Yeah that's the issue for me. I'm not "feedback crazy" but my style (for what it's worth) is a lot of run-and-hold kindof riffs where I stop the note and move on just as it's starting to feedback, or hold a chord until just as it starts to feedback. I have some good sustain patches that were close... but the FreqOut is perfect for what I do. I think I'll probably leave it in the "natural high or natural low" setting so I can just set it off when I feel the mood. But getting it into the chain is becoming a chore or sorts.
6 hours ago, phil_m said:
I had the FreqOut briefly, and when I tried it an effects loop, I didn't notice any additional noise. Do you have the loop set to instrument level? Where do you have the FX Loop block in your signal chain?
I had it first in the chain, then moved it to after the compressor. I did switch to line level and that quieted it a bit, but still "hisssssssssss".
EDIT.... there was a distortion right after it... I moved the loop to after the distortion and all is well now.
EDIT #2.. actually it doesn't sound as good after the distortion. Hmmm
Got a Freqout for my birthday and just got a chance to check it out. I really like it.... but... I'm using it in FX loop 1 and getting HISS any time I turn the routing block on. :( I'm using a Variax jtv89F with the Variax cable so I can't really put it between the guitar and the helix. It sounds great, I just don't really think I should have to put noise suppression in the loop. Has anyone else has this experience or place it elsewhere in the loop or some other idea of what I might be doing wrong ?
I can confirm that in 1977 at the Hartford Civic Center he was using much more than a couple of Marshall's and a power soak. He had Rockman branded Cabinets (they were actually Marshall cabs originally with Rockman Stenciled on them). There were Carver (before they were branded Rockman) amps in the rack.
Not to belabor this topic, but... hey... it's fun stuff.. Here's a concert from 1979 where he's already using the Hyperspace pedal, maybe there are some shots of what else is on the floor in front him.
3 hours ago, HonestOpinion said:
Btw, just wanted to mention and apologies to any hardcore Boston fans, their music was always a little light and pop oriented for my tastes although some of their tunes were fantastic and they put on a great concert. My primary admiration for Boston is the innovative album production and the brilliance of the technology that Scholz produced although I would not want to use it on every song, far from it. Tom Scholz is just one of those fascinating examples, like Les Paul, of art and technology intersecting.2
I'm with ya... although I am a Boston fan, it's specifically because of the "light and pop oriented" aspect, but at the same time, I don't think I've ever played a Boston tune in a band. My rig was all Rockman, and I'd get asked.. but I wasn't a good enough guitarist to pull it off, especially with a 3 piece... and if a singer could tackle the vocals... they weren't going to be caught slumm'n it with me. It seems like Brad Delp almost constructed the tunes specifically to mess with singers... I mean, I think most singers can sing "most" of their songs, except for one or two signature notes.. It would be like playing a riff-based rock tune on guitar, without the riff... it just doesn't work.
One must remember when talking about Mr. Scholz, (and most folks who are into the electronics like I assume some of the folks at Line 6 are) modding gear for him is like changing strings for most of us. He has a workbench in his studio. So when most of us want a new set of strings... we grab a new set of strings. When his Distortion pedal isn't quite giving him what he needs, or the compressor isn't breathing enough, as easily as we would change strings when we need to, he'll swap a cap and resistor or transistor without even referring to it as a "mod".
Kinda like "the Rockman 500 amps are just Carver PM175 amps with different covers" I've owned both the Rockman 500 and the PM175, and while the guts are "essentially" the same, there's a difference. Most notably a mod that allows one to switch the output from "full range" speakers to "guitar" speakers. I only mention this because remember this was the early 90's.
I found the guitar player interview which was one of the ones I was thinking of. He kinda glosses over the parts that are always in front of his amp. " ’70s Marshall head I’ve used from the beginning—which, as always, I run with equalization, gain, and compression ahead of the amp, and an [SR&D] Power Soak after the amp and before the speaker cabinet. I run miked signal from the speaker into an EQ with narrow bands that let me select the frequencies I want to emphasize. That’s the sort of sound I designed into the Rockman stuff"
And that EQ that the miked signal is run into....
5 hours ago, brue58ski said:
Here it is, right from Tom's mouth. He did use a power soak prototype but, as I said, I just guessed at that. I found the mic choice (was it a choice?) interesting.
GW You would later go on to develop the Rockman headphone amplifier, a device that also revolutionized the process of recording guitars directly into a mixing board. Were any of the guitars on Boston recorded direct?
SCHOLZ No. They were always done with a prototype of my Power Soak power attenuator, at low volume, through a standard cabinet close-miked with an Electro-Voice RE16. I was using mostly a Marshall head that sounded like doo-doo on its own, but with a Crybaby wah pedal, an EQ and these old Maestro Echoplex tape delays in front of it, it sounded really good. It was noisy as hell, so I’m sure that I was getting some preclipping before it got to the head. For guitars, I had two Gold Top Les Pauls that both sounded very similar, and that was it.
Here's the whole article. It's a good read.
I don't have the links handy, but he has said things that pretty much contradict this. I believe the Hyperspace pedal existed on the first album, which is a crybaby pedal, eq, and Maestro Echoplex all modded together with a reverb I believe. Also, I'd be real surprised if his amps weren't modded too.
2 hours ago, HonestOpinion said:
Regarding the OP's original post phil_m is right, the Helix is already for all practical purposes a digital power soak. It allows you to emulate the sound of an amp with everything cranked at whatever volume you choose. However, I have a Scholz power soak and that alone is not enough to give you the iconic Boston tone. Not even close! It requires the rest of the electronics Scholz produced**.
**That's an understatement.
I think a lot of the power of the Helix is overlooked. In the traditional sense, it's not practical to tweak the bias settings and such on an amp for every song, but on the other hand, want to put your distortion between the power amp and cab... I wouldn't recommend it IRL but on the Helix.... why not? Heck, put a cab after your Wah into an amp, into a compressor... woo whoo !!! Seemingly limitless possibilities.
Hope no one minds but here's a link to Scott's Hysteria patches demo which is pretty spot on to what you can do with a Rockman when you're NOT playing a Boston song and Glenn's demo artist patch for that Boston tone. These are the closest I have found as someone who has been playing Rockman gear since it came out.
And here's a link to Glenn's demo of his Boston tone.
19 hours ago, codamedia said:
Keep in mind the Rockman came after the first two albums, those were just an attenuated Marshall Super Lead.
The tone is easy to replicate with something like a Helix....
Choose the Marshall Super Lead (1959).... crank it in every manner possible then turn down the overall volume. For added reality, throw a 10 band EQ and a chorus in the mix. Be sure to supplement the lead tone with a half cocked wah. The recipe of the Marshall tone stack and 10 band EQ is the trick and sort of like the 11 herbs and spices.... there is a lot of internet folklore about it, but nothing definitive. Spend some time with that setup and you'll get really close.5 hours ago, codamedia said:
The Rockman just emulates a recorded chain (ie: it's a modeler itself) and all the ingredients for that chain are already in the Helix. Yes, the Rockman has a warmth/creaminess to it but so do most of the amps that were modeled for the Helix. If you don't believe the Helix can do it already, I'm not convinced a modeled version would fair much better.
I suggest you create a Boston patch and show us... I sold most of my Rockman gear in hopes of nailing the sound in the Helix. As I stated above, a few have come reasonably close. The reason we (me and others, not the royal "we") that Line 6 could model it, is because of the interaction of the components in the sustainer. As example, how the compressor interacts with the distortion and the EQ and the Cab Sim. Then there's the issue that it's not just "any" compressor, or any eq or any cab sim. All of the models in the Helix have their own characteristics at the component level, so at best, we can just get sorta close.
Yes and no. It turns out a "Rockman" sound really isn't too hard to replicate, but I've really only heard one person do it and that's Scott of TheHelixChannel. He recently released a set of Def Leppard presets from Hysteria and that album was almost entirely done with a Rockman for all guitars. He pretty much nailed it. That isn't the sound most people think of when they think Rockman. They think "Boston" which is the "Boston" sound, but NOT the Rockman sound per se. It's so layered that it created that "sound" but @codamedia is right, the first albums, Rockman didn't exist yet. However, they were so produced that Tom had to create devices to help the live show sound like the album.
The problem reproducing the "Boston/Rockman" sound in the Helix is more than just the Marshalls stacked up with an eq in between. The Sustainer, which is the key to the sound, is a Sustainer, Exciter, Distortion, EQ, and Cab simulator all in one. I'm pretty sure Line6 could (should) model that device, but until they do, there's really no way to get the dynamics created between the components. Glenn also has a "Boston" patch, which sounds great for the specific sounds it's designed for, but when one starts making adjustments, it doesn't quite act like a sustainer, because the interaction of the components just isn't there. It's a great Boston tone patch tho... highly recommend it.
7 hours ago, hideout said:
I’ve only had one experience with a bad sound person and it was at a community theater. Not sure if he was paid or not but attitude for days when I mentioned in-ears. He didn’t like them because he couldn’t hear them and be able to tell whe the sound was coming from. Utter BS and I called him on it. I said, are you the one on stage struggling to hear yourself sing? No reply. I told him his preferences are secondary compared to the needs of the performers. His boss was there, heard it and agreed.
I'm glad you called him out. There is only ONE acceptable reaction when I or any decent sound guy hears the words In Ear Monitors..... HAPPY DANCE !!!!!!!! Nothing on stage to feed back !!!! (or minimal fills) Woo Hooo!!!! I can concentrate on mixing !!!!! Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Sorry but I was guilty of it myself.... standing in front of my guitar speakers blaring at my back, complaining to the monitor station "I can't hear my vocals"... DUH!!!! And then came in-ear monitors.... life was good for everyone.
This might be a little off-topic, but it seems every couple of weeks we read a horror story about some sound guy that doesn't know which end is up, or they have an attitude that makes you wonder why they chose mixing live sound for a profession in the first place. For a variety of reasons, I wanted to share the blog of a "real" sound guy. I'm proud to call Steve "Woody" La Cerra a friend. I've known him for many years and I've learned so much from his articles, occasional conversations, and watching him perform in the heat of battle. One of the nicest guys in the business too. If you want to read about how a "real" sound guy handles all of life's little curveballs, his blogs are a fun read, and I generally learn something new every time I read one. The next time you run up against a barely tenable situation with one of "those" other sound guys..... (the ones NOT like Steve) know with confidence that not all soundman (or women) are the same.
4 hours ago, cruisinon2 said:
Please tell me that you don't teach math for a living....;)
9 hours ago, jbuhajla said:
Umm... That's not how it works. When you returned the $1000 microphone, you got your money back, correct?
Sorry guys... It sounded off when I read it initially then I remembered we had to leave the $700 on the table as s store credit. I forgot to mention that important detail. So we end up with spending the same amount of money, but the store gets to sell the merchandise twice. We have a credit for emergencies and to try stuff out. It was great if you had a studio which is why I picked microphone. Need a special mic that you're only gonna use once.. just get it, do your thing, return it. You always have the store credit in place. Not sure if they do this anymore, but I had about 2K on credit for several years when I opened my studio back east. Finally bought a mixer that was on sale.. it was nice to be able to jump on it.
Someone mentioned Guitar Center... their return policy was actually very lucrative for them at the time. They did other things that are sinking them but...
Picture this... buy a Microphone at $1000.
Return it and get a $300 microphone.
Then they sell the original mic as a refurb for $900
You get the mic you want for $300, they sell a mic twice totaling $1600. (the 700 balance of the original return plus the new retail price).
On 5/10/2018 at 11:30 AM, HonestOpinion said:
IOh, and btw, on a less serious note, thanks for "Lord Of The Rings", "Once Were Warriors", and "Flight Of The Conchords" :-)
And Mad Max and all the SciFi films etc etc etc..
Sorry... I may have confused things so I edited my above post... and here is it again below.. This is what I recommend.. The ONLY thing connected to the iLouds is the HELIX.
1. Two 1/4" to RCA from Helix Left and Right out to iLoud (this is the ONLY thing connected to the iLouds)
2. Helix connected to PC via USB, select Helix as default audio. (this is only so you can record on the PC or playback from the PC)
Guitar to Guitar in on Helix. and you should be able to play along with tracks, record, whatever.. all coming out the iLouds. (no need to boot PC)
The following two hookups enable you to put the fender into one of the paths. The Fender is hooked to the HELIX only.
3. Send 1 out of Helix to the rear "guitar in" on Fender ( 1/4" > 1/4" )
4. Headphone Out of Fender to Return 1 and 2 on Helix. (1/8" TRS (stereo) to RCA left and right).
The possibilities are endless at this point. You could have the guitar (remember it's plugged into the Helix) used the helix effects on one path and split the signal to the fender and return the fender signal to the other path and even add more stuff there... or or or or or or or...
It's late, but I think I have it right this time.
This post edited to correct mistake..
1. Two 1/4" to RCA from Helix Left and Right out to iLoud
2. Helix connected to PC via USB, select Helix as default audio.
Guitar to Guitar in on Helix. and you should be able to play along with tracks, record, whatever.. all coming out the iLoud
3. Send 1 out of Helix to the rear "guitar in" on Fender ( 1/4" > 1/4" )
4. Headphone Out of Fender to Return 1 and 2 on Helix. (1/8" TRS (stereo) to RCA left and right).
Sorry make that:
4. Headphone out (front of Fender) to Return 1 and 2 on Helix. (1/8" stereo to > two 1/4" )
5. #4 eliminates the need for the dummy plug.
Don't bother with the USB from the Fender as an Audio device. Select the Helix. You can use the USB to the Fender to change settings with the software etc.. but for Audio, select the Helix. This is likely not the "only" setup (the one I described) but it is the simplest that I believe gives the most flexibility.
Getting those Amps with Effects just right.
Great ideas one and all for the workarounds. They all work to some extent.
Just a keep-in-mind thing, is that this isn't about "getting a tone"... It's about getting the Dynamics. I heard reference to people not likely the Reverbs... well that's fine.. If I wanted nice lush reverb I wouldn't be looking at a tank with springs in an old amp... But what I like is how the reverb (and the whole tone in fact) changes with playing dynamics and input volume.
Those dynamic changes are what brought me to Helix. Kemper and AxFX just don't have it, it's not how their amp modeling is designed.
Let's move off Reverb for a moment... I just picked it but maybe it's not obvious enough. The Chorus in a Roland JC120 it worthy of being an effect on it's own. Lots or nice Chorus and other modulation effects in the Helix and in the world... but only one JC120 Chorus... especially when mixed with the reverb... it's a sound all it's own, and it changes with your playing.. and frankly sometimes not in a good way... but that's kinda the point too.