mileskb

Slightly off topic but maybe not..  Rather than audition cabs till my ears are numb, I use the built in cabs to get close.   I adjust the mic's and positions and get the best I can get, THEN I load the IR that's as close to those settings.

I've only done this twice as a "proof on concept" but it worked really well.  Granted the IR does sound slightly different, but so far in a good way.  Bigger, fuller etc..

Been following TheHelixChannel for awhile.  I've purchased some patch sets and been learning so much just seeing how he creates the tones and uses IR's when appropriate.  

I see people keep throwing around the term "amp modeling" with the Helix.    It's my understanding that they model components, so I don't really see a 3rd party being given access to the code to accomplish this.  On the up side, there is PLENTY of room to add more of these component modeled amps to the Helix so as long as they can find people to give them amps, and allow them to take them apart and put them back together again, I think they will keep adding to the catalog.

Someone mentioned how Kemper uses several basic amp models to "Profile" new models.  I think Helix has taken this a step farther.  When it comes down to it, there really are only a few amp designs, especially when you come to Tube amps.  Once you have those down to component level, you should be able to come close to creating just about any sound.   

AxeFX is popular with touring musicians, but I think Helix is now starting to give them some friendly competition.     

I have seen references in many cases to the "cost" of the Helix.  For me while 1500-ish may be a lot for a single outlay, I find that in the long run the Helix is somewhat of a bargain mainly because I can't reproduce any of my rigs over the years for $1,500.

Here are some examples..  Most DO NOT include the amps because that is something we need regardless if it's FRFR or a combo or whatever.

RIG #1

I used to have a pedal board.

Vox Wah

LP-1 Booster

Mutron II

AD-80 Delay

CE-1 Chorus

Boss Sustain

Boss Noise Reduction

That's pretty much $1,500 right there, and I still haven't bought cables, battery eliminator system of some sort, no routing options, no programability, and... well it broke down a LOT..

RIG #2

SGX 2000

Hush IICX

X15 Ultrafoot controller..

Yep... with tax, tags'n license..  that rig was about $1,500 smackeroonies.  This was a pretty flixible rig, but I never really got the sound I wanted out of it.  I wish Line 6 would have taken a que from the X-15 foot controller and put TWO pedals on the Helix.

RIG#3

Now this one I feel I HAD to add the amps because it was integral to the sound. I used this simple setup for many years.

Rockman X-100

Two Roland Bolt 60 amps.

The Bolt 60's were configured with different speakers (and miked separately live) so I had to include them. Just the amps in this configuration are more than $1,500.  While this was flexible enough for my gigs, I had just a few tones and that was it.

RIG #4

Rockman Sustainer

Two Rockman EQ's

Two Rockman Chorus/Delay

Rockman Echo

Rockman MIDI Pedal

Rockman MIDI Octopus

Rockman Smart Gate

Yeah... $1,500 is in the rear view mirror here for sure.

RIG#5

This rig got the longest run with me I think

Rockman XPR

Hush IICX

Yamaha EQ

Lexicon MPX-1

The XPR was almost $1,500 by itself...  so...

RIG #6

Helix.     

I listed the Helix just to show the potential reliability factor of not having a gazillion cables and intricate MIDI routing devices as points of failure.  If I start gigging again, I'll just get another Helix and have it has backup.   

Now your mileage may vary, I get that...  but for me, especially when I consider everything I can do with the Helix outside of the gig from using the same gear to rehearse as play, to recording, the myriad of configurations, The ability to inject external devices into the chain, etc etc. etc...   YMMV but I see the Helix as somewhat of a bargain.

Your thoughts?

I still want to actually hear what Scott's definition of his sound is with an actual audio example.  At least something close.  Because once he stated what he thought of the tone in the "Glenn" video as fairly opposite of what it actually was...   I don't think anyone can really wrap their head around it.

In my professional opinion, the Helix doesn't have a tone unto itself... it sounds like however you program it to sound and with the amount of EQ and texture options, well....  I was thinking it, but didn't have the nads to post it.. but the more I work with the Helix... the more I have to agree "'If you can't get a good tone out of either one of these units, it's your fault. Plain and simple. It's not that your ears are that discerning, you just don't know what you're doing."

Honestly I love a challenge.  I'm still going to get a Scholz Hyperspace Effect out of this thing yet...  but I'd also like to understand what I'll refer to as ScottAyersTone and try to reproduce it..... just for fun.

As far as I know, I'm the only one lucky enough to own a Helix on the island. I play every weekend at Rosario Resort and sometimes show up for open mic at Random Howse - like I will tonight.  There are a couple of other taverns with music periodically.

Been looking for an excuse to pop over to Rosario Resort.  Our boat is at Twin Bridges.  Now if I could just predict the weather a little better.....  :(

Personally I would love to see an example of the sound you are looking for.  Doesn't have to be you, but any youtube video or clip of what you are looking for.  

Honestly, Glenn (the guy in the video above) puts his guitars further in the FRONT of the mix so we can hear the patch.  Just the opposite of what you are describing you hear.  I call it don't-let-the-guitar-player-do-the-mix syndrome but in Glenn's case it's applicable because he's showing off the guitar patch.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, but at a technical level, the video posted pretty much an example of the opposite of what you are describing so I'd love to see/hear a post of what you think is "in front" or at least "in" the mix.   And yes I realize you already returned your unit, but simply for the sake of curiosity..  

Miles

Hey Scott.   I'm not sure why you even bothered to post, other than you're just really disappointed and would like some closure, I would be too.  But to the point, what you described sounds like phase cancellation.  You may have had a faulty unit.    I'm guessing if you are like most of us, you listened to lots of clips and heard sounds you liked which caused you to buy the Helix in the first place. Did your unit sound like all the clips you heard?  I'm guessing not.

Taken from a couple of sources that have more clear descriptions.. "The relationship in time of two or more waveforms with the same or harmonically related periods gives us a measurement of their phasedifference. Phase cancellation occurs when two signals of the same frequency are out of phase with each other resulting in a net reduction in the overall level of the combined signal."  and  "Phase and phase difference is a real-world issue in areas such as electrical wiring of audio equipment, signal path, and microphone placement during the recording process. Phase reversal can be a serious compromise of sound quality or a special effect affecting the perceived spaciousness of the sound depending on the context of its occurrence."

I lot of people think audio cancellation can only happen with microphones or complete miswiring.  But it can actually happen WITHIN audio gear via a faulty component.  In older gear filter caps and diodes could and did cause it.  

We don't know what kind of speakers or headphones you were testing with.  That certainly is a factor but as you seem to have been in the game for awhile, I'll assume you tried a few different things to rule those out.  The sentence that got me was you said "the sound was always."   The way Helix is designed, there are very few components (for lack of a better term) that apply even most of the time and fewer fit into the always category.  

Anyway.. I think you had a faulty unit based on the info you have supplied. 

Son of a gun - that had never occurred to me.  Interesting point.....

Is this a fact?   It just seems odd that the OS would be interfering with the DSP at all.   I'm familiar enough with computer design to question this... and if it is as stated, I'd be curious why as I'm sure they would have a good reason.

Let me give you some short answers till the tech dudes explain further..

1.  The Editor is due out shortly.. there is a long thread about it, but bottom line..  I saw it at NAMM, but it wasn't quite ready and will be soon.

2.  The Patch Latency... some converting from other and/or older units say there is.  Two points on this.  It depends on what is loaded in the patches AND most importantly...  Helix is a different animal.  In MOST of the cases I have seen, switching the patch could be AVOIDED by creative use of the routing and signal paths where you just swtich path instead of patch.  While on this point.. I will also add that there are many tips and tricks for reducing DSP load... little things like why add a gain block when you can just control the gain of any of the current blocks with a switch or pedal?   FWIW your effects list is pretty basic.

3.  Glen and also Scott (TheHelixChannel) do some amazing patches.  I use Scott's stuff to learn how to be thrifty on DSP useage and get amazing tone.

If you want to add boost, just find an appropriate parameter (gain or level) of an existing block and route it to a switch or pedal. 

4.  Depends on the IR and everything else.

5.  I'll let someone else handle this.. But essentially in each patch you start with 2 paths, which each have 2 signal chains.

6.  Again, I'll leave this to someone else.  But yes..  you can control just about every aspect of your signal.

7.  I'll leave to someone else.

Bottom line.  Helix is a different animal.  While it's touted as a modeler, you must remember you are modeling at component level.  It's also designed to run through some sort of FRFR system, but also plays well with regular amps and cabs.  

I had to read this thread a few times.  To me, the Helix was clearly A without question.   Now I'm listening an a decent system and I wonder if that makes the difference?

The cleaner passages, the A version are clearly fuller and more ambient.  The higher gain parts it was so much that A shined but that B sounded like it was already EQ'd for mixing as they were "punchier" but to me missing the fullness of the A counterparts.  

Now to say one is better than the other...  that's tough especially using my observation about the highgain samples.  If they are assumed to be "raw" tracks, "A" is fuller, where "B" sounds like an isolated track from a mix.  

So to add more to the A/Bness of this... I wonder if the listening medium makes a big difference in the results.  I noticed a lot of folks saying it's "hard to tell" and on my system, they are completely different.

Oh Crap !! I finally got it...   Dokken - Young Girls     Sheesh...    and you'll be happy to know... I was on the can when it dawned on me.  :)

Hmmmm that would be me... I thought it was Looks That Kill by that Motley Crue from LA... but not??   

It seems to me that the concept you're talking about of having a static set of factory presets and another set of user presets is kind of outdated when it comes to things like multi-fx and keyboards. I can't think of any other recent product that work that way. I think there are two things driving that. Users don't want to have a bunch of memory slots for presets that they never use, plus with flash memory and USB connections, restoring factory presets and backing up your own presets is pretty easy. I suppose if someone was really worried about it, they could have the same setlist saved in multiple slots in the Helix and keep one as an archive/backup, and the other as a working/live version (assuming, of course, they have the extra space).

I guess I didn't explain as well as I thought, but you almost hit on it near the end of your comment.  Helix has potential to be a "best of both world" where rather than "factory presets" I would like to create my own set of "locked presets".   Yes, what I do now is copy them to another bank that's only used for back up.  I have them on the computer, but just in case I don't have the computer with me... I have the originals in another bank.    It's really not a big deal...  like many things I consider this "lock" idea a creature comfort and nothing more.   But it might be a low hanging fruit implementation that one can choose to use.... or not.   

Well, you have to hit the save button twice to actually save a preset... Seems like a relatively small chance that you'd do that by accident.

If you do a lot of editing, this is actually easy.  And if you're at a gig and accidentally do it, you might be screwed.   I (and I assume many others) are in the habit of essentially double-clicking the save button.  Once I found out I didn't have to click the OK button I thought this was a cool feature, but now it's second nature. Make a change... tap-tap.   I can totally see wanting to save to a location, maybe forgetting for the moment you already put something in that location.  With me, it would be gone at that point.

I certainly don't want any EXTRA steps... Save should work as save...    But nearly every other programmable effects unit I have owned enabled you to lock a preset from being edited.  This is the first I've seen without that feature actually.    With most others, you start programming by "recalling" one of the locked presets into the user patch area.   The Helix is far ahead of others in that you can use the entire unit if you want, which is awesome, so a way to lock specific patches.

And if I haven't "made the case" yet.... one word...  ROADIES !!!!   he/she may get fired for accidentally overwriting the patch, but that may not make recreation any easier if it happens at sound check...  Of course, I guess you could just drop in the backup unit at that point.. but that seems a bit extreme.

I would like to see a "lock" of the presets that just disables the ability to save over a final.   Patch based of course, so when you are ready, you just save and then from a separate menu do a lock.   If you want to unlock a preset, that's fine..  or you can just copy it to a new spot.    I can actually envision dumping all of the built in pre-sets at some point and just having a nice clean array of pre-sets I use, locked so I can't accidentally overwrite them.   Again, this would not even prevent editing, just overwriting.   Lets say you were at a gig and you needed to adjust something on the fly, no problem, you can make the change and if you want to keep it, save it to an empty preset, or if it was just a one-off change...  don't worry about it.

How did you get to the Aura images?  I couldn't find a way to save them out of the Aura software?

I've had my Helix now for a few months, and the more I work with it the more I find how powerful it really is.

So like in other things I try to find someone else that has already done the heavy lifting and work from there.  Without sounding like an advertisement for Scott at TheHelixChannel I wanted to share why I have found his patches to be most useful to me and maybe provide tips I found useful so you can find your favorite source of patches.

While I have had a guitar in my hand for the better part of 50 years, and I've owned a couple of studios and do live sound, I've never paid much attention to the nuts and bolts of guitar amps.  If I wanted a particular amp's sound either for myself of someone in the studio, or a cabinet or a mic, I just bought or rented the gear I needed and done.

So when I started creating patches with the Helix, I was at somewhat of a loss.  As with anything, there are usually a few ways to achieve the same result.  None really right or wrong until you try the "next" thing and realize you should have done the first one differently.

Enter Scott at TheHelixChannel.  Now you may have your favorite person to get patches from.  That's great. I think we'd all like to hear about it, but there are a few things about TheHelixChannel patches that speak to me and I thought others might find useful, even if it's just the Freeset Friday patches.

Things to consider when choosing patches to download:

1.  Simplicity while thinking outside the box. - Scott seems to be a master of the proper use of Sag, Ripple, Bias, etc..(see bottom of post)  Where other patches use gain stages and compression and distortion pedals etc...  He seems to be able to get these amazing tones from mostly (not always of course) but mostly just tweaking the amp and cabinet settings.   Not only is this helpful for learning how to create my own patches, but it keeps DSP usage at a minimum so there is plenty of room for adding time based effects or IR's.

2.  Tips and Tricks... - Mapping the gain controls to a switch for boost as example.  Again, sure you could add a volume block, but that's another block not needed in most cases.  Just one example of many.

3.  Effective use of the paths.  -  This sortof falls under tips and tricks, but for those looking for "scenes" seeing how to effectively use paths and switching may be very useful to you.

4.  Consistency -  Scott takes all of his patches and adjusts them for consistent level.  

5.  Demonstration -  Like a few others, TheHelixChannel demonstrates in video form what the patch sounds like in the mix.  

6.  Use of 3rd party IR's - Starting out, you may not want to use patches with 3rd party IR's yet.  What is important about finding a source is that if you have a favorite cabinet, 3rd party or built into Helix, if the patches are consistent, you can add a 3rd party IR or just drop in your favorite Helix Cab block and you're good to go.  Scott uses the Ownhammer IR's and also supplies patches that don't need the IR's.  In either case, you can use the description of the recommended IR to select a built in cabinet.

I want to mention that I have found some great patches on Customtone as well.   However, until I started using TheHelixChannel patches, which I use as my tutorials,  I wasn't really able to tweak the Customtone patches if I needed to. Glenn DeLaune has some amazing and complex patches that sound spot on, but again, when it comes to tweaking them, knowing how sag, ripple, bias, etc works and interacts goes a long way.  

One final note to consider when looking for patches... are you looking for an "Artist" based "Tone/Style Based" sound.  As example Scott's seem to be a bit more tone/style based, where Glenn's seem to be a bit more Artist based.  One isn't better than the other, but it's just something to think about when looking for patches even from Customtone and other sites.   Are you looking for a particular artists tone or are you looking for a particular style.

Hope this was some help and again, I cannot say enough how much understanding the below (although I'm not quite there yet) has helped in making patches...

Master - Adjusts the amount of power amp distortion. This parameter is highly interactive with all other power amp parameters—the lower the Master is set, the less effect the other controls will have.

Sag - Lower Sag values offer a "tighter" responsiveness for metal and djent playing; higher values provide more touch dynamics & sustain for blues and classic rock riffs.

Hum/Ripple -  Controls how much heater hum and AC ripple interacts with your tone. Ripple At higher settings, things get freaky.

Bias - Changes the Bias of the power tubes. Lower values achieve a "colder" Class AB biasing. At maximum, the amp is operating in Class A

Bias X - Determines how the power amp tubes' voicing reacts when pushed hard. Set low for a tighter feel. Set high for more tube compression. This parameter is highly reactive with the Drive and Master settings.

Sweet

Rather than turn on/off individual blocks, can't you assign multiple blocks to switches to effectively create what I believe people are calling scenes.  The only restriction which I'm not sure of is how many blocks you can toggle with a single switch.

Electric Eye... Mr. Rob Halford and the gang...     

A buddy of mine in the day used to climb the lighting rig and sing the whole thing hang'n upside down from the lightbars...   ahhh the good'ol days.

The biggest problem with using headphones or IEMs instead of speakers is not EQ, imho.

 

It is levels of compression, mix ratio for delays, and amounts of gain.

 

But eq is an issue, too.

 

There isn't, in my experience, a "fix" for this. You HAVE to do your final tweaks with a speaker if you want it to sound good through a speaker.

 

Oh, and headphones for mixing? No. Just no. Simple basic mix start? Sure, final critical mix? Never.

Yeah, just want to reiterate.. no MIXING with headsets.  Even if they have the frequency response, as stated... they inherently are compressing the signal.  Good headsets are great for adjusting mic placements, soloing channels for live sound, etc..  essentially listening to a single instrument.  I assume it's common knowledge, but maybe it isn't.  You should mix to as many speakers as you can find.   I had 4 sets in my studio.  the Event 20/20's, NS10's, a pair of those little Radio Shack 3" cubes, and a pair of Radio Shack small 3-way indoor/outdoor speakers.   Mix to the 20/20's first, but then listen on everything...  then, put it on the home stereo, take it out to the car, the wife's car, earbuds, headsets (in this case you're just listening, not mixing)...  If anything sounds off.... back to the 20/20's and start again.

I have these headphones and use them always for my baseline tones. But, I also create the tones within the confines of a mix. When I think I have the tone I'm after for one particular track, I'll listen to it, within the mix, on other audio systems, from cheap to not-as-cheap, but nothing high end. I find I rarely, if ever, have to EQ anything depending on listening medium. Everything sounds remarkably similar regardless if it's listened to on the headphones or not.

 

I don't find a lack of low end on these headphones (7506s). The low end may have an apparent weakness, maybe not as much oomph as compared to a speaker system with a sub-woofer, say, but I've come to the conclusion that it's because it's clearer, more defined, and better balanced.

 

So, to get good results across multiple speaker systems, I guess I do EQ things, but I EQ at the source, which is Helix, to get a good final balance. This way, EQing is not necessary with the final output whether listening on headphones or something other.

What he said (I guess we were typing at the same time)

I'm forced to wonder what the point of having a frequency response outside the range of human hearing is...is it supposed to somehow be comforting to know that the frequencies are there, despite our inability to perceive them? Or is Sony after the much coveted whale and bat demographics?

The best way I can explain...  Lets say you have a speaker that just covers a particular range, like a tweeter or a woofer or a mid.  If you use a crossover to send the applicable frequencies to the applicable speakers, all sounds good.  But if you were to remove the crossover and send ALL of the signal with it's full range of tones... things would go south quick because although the speakers can only reproduce a certain range, it's not like they aren't receiving the full range and trying to reproduce it.  This is very evident if you've ever hooked up the speaker output to a sub-woofer without a crossover.  It sounds bassie but not sub-woofery and when you try to push it, it gets all distorted.

A lot of headsets ( I just happen to like the Sony ones) get around this issue by making the frequency response of the speakers as wide as possible.  The range on these is rated at 10hz - 20kHz.  So while we mortals might not be able to hear all the way down to 10hz the speakers in the headsets don't mind getting frequencies that low and it just processes them..  I actually hooked up an analyzer and sent tones down to 3hz that they reproduced.   

how the listening is compared with a pair of near field monitor? Do you have to equalize to match the monitors? I've tried several headphones (about 70$ models) and what I've found is that there is a lack of low frequencies.

Well they aren't as articulate as my Event 20/20's and they aren't as sloppy as the NS-10's either, but they do a nice job handling the bottom end and have a fairly nice dynamic response.  

I just did some experimenting and did a bunch of playing around with putting the headsets partially on and playing with turning the main volume on the Helix up and down to the speakers and turning the headset volume up and down, and while there is obviously a difference, I was really kinda surprised I could hit levels where I really couldn't tell if I was hearing the cabinet or the headsets. 

The headsets aren't as articulate as the speakers, which is expected, but the tonal range is very comparable.  So far my experience has been that if I work out a patch with the headsets on, it just sounds better through the speakers. Speakers are just more dynamic/articulate in response than the headsets...  I have not found the need to change the eq for headsets vs speakers.

YMMV

I use Sony MDR7506 headphones.  They are the professional phones you see in nearly every studio that say Studio Monitor on the top of the band.  There is a reason they are in so many studios and used by so many DJ's.  Aside from the clarity, frequency response way beyond what humans can hear, and as little coloring as you can get from headphones... they can handle insane volume levels.