mileskb

TOTALLY AGREE and have have voted..

 

The biggest thing for me is the Q.   EQ's like the 10 band or the simple...  don't have any specifc reference for what the Q curve looks like or for that matter what does Low, Mid and High gain do on a SIMPLE eq.   There should be a center freq, q and level... that's it.  

Well, thank you for your posts @amsdenj and @mileskb !

For personal monitors, I have in-ear monitors (wired) that work great for me. And it's very light to bring eveywhere ! :)

But I will keep in mind these powered monitors to replace my fender blues junior in the future !

 

If you're In-Ear already why bother with the Blues Junior or monitor at all? Just curious...    If you are in-ear from the Helix, you can have FOH send you a mix and just bring it into the aux of the helix or one of the returns or other inputs....  specific selection might depend on what you are doing with the Helix for your sound.   I know several bands that only have some front and side-fill monitoring for overall "feel" but the real monitoring is all in-ear.   Stage fill monitors are just cracked open so no worry about feedback or any other issues and just provides a bit more presence on stage.. but not needed.

So I've been running with the editor for a couple of hours...  this really is the best of both worlds.

 

1.  I can play and make full use of assigned switches and expression pedal with my feet, and tweak any parameters easily without having to put the guitar down, or bend over or any of that.

 

2.  Renaming patches is easier with a keyboard, but I guess renaming setlists isn't there yet.  

 

3.  Switching between pre-sets that might be in different setlists, or just scrolling to a preset within a setlist is nice when looking for a sound and just trying presets.

 

4.  The editor did disconnect once and I had to start it.. but I noticed if I just unplug the helix it looses connection and I can just plug it back in and it reconnects... soooo  appearently something ELSE is causing the Helix to disconnect and NOT recover.  It happened a couple of times.  When it disconnects on its own, unplugging and re-plugging the Helix has no effect which is why early I suggested a "reconnect" option, but I'm guessing something else is going on.

 

I sure did find some things I'm going to research on ideascale tho...

1.  When editing on the Helix, it would be nice if the when you moved to the next character you remained at the last letter.  There are other devices I have used that do this, and it makes editing names on the unit involved much faster.

 

2.  Using the Helix barefooted is asking for trouble.  Again that feature of being able to lock a preset comes up.  I could turn off the touch I guess when I'm not wearing shoes and just use the editor to change parameters I guess.

 

Overall, I like the editor and hope they get to a final version soon to work out some of the kinks.

I will be trying my Acer tablet directly (full Windows10) and see what happens.  I need to find a cable first.

Line6 seems to be aware of this issue in the disparity between the instructions between the firmware and the editor for this update. Why haven't they corrected the instructions in the firmware/editor notes or even posted the corrected instructions?  I wonder sometimes if Helix code is outsourced because issues like certificate warnings in the updates, conflicting instructions, and even insignificant small bug fixes seem to take either a long time or sometimes never get addressed. This seems like the kind of stuff that could quickly be corrected in house. I would think somebody would have jumped on this by now, a quick change to the text, recompile, and upload to the repository. Not a huge deal but I don't understand why it has not been corrected?

 

Just you know you're not along, I'm pretty disappointed with their online presence with the exception of this Forum.  Picture the "new-to-Line6" person (me) that goes looking for an update...  they have all this nomenclature and version numbers that until you figure out there's an app, there's and updater, there's firmware, and there's a command center.... and then there's the Line6 Monkey that keeps your Line 6 gear up-to-date with the latest drivers and software updates that seems to have NOTHING to do with Helix but it's on every page...  and lets not forget the License manager...  and and and and...   and of course they all have their own version numbers too...

 

I recently tried to find the difference between the US and nonUS Variax guitars and a price for the US...   finally asked in the forum.  

 

IdeaScale is great for placing an idea... but it's a bear to search and the feedback is cryptic to say the least.

 

But... I came here for the gear.   I'd rather them keep their pricepoints where they are rather than have to charge us another couple hundred on each unit to support a web development team.

I'd say in a blind test, with a little more tweaking, it would be a lucky guess to tell the difference.

 

Thanks for the work.  !!!  Excellent job.

For those looking for a partiular amp that's NOT currently on the Helix, I suggest this.  First remember the goal is generally to find the "mic'd" sound of an amp.   When we listed to our favorite guitarist, we're listening to a "recording"..   when you're at a show, you're listening to the mic'd amp.  Just keep that in the back of your mind.

 

1. Determine the configuration of the amp you are looking for.  12AX7 into 6L6's or EL84's, etc.. and note the type of controls such as gain stage and EQ
2. Find the model in the Helix that is closest to this configuration
3. Add appropriate blocks for gain, eq, reverb, etc..
4. Adjust to taste.

 

You'll be surprised at how close you can get to the mic'd sound of the original amp.

 

 

Oh I completely understand that.

I guess for me it's more is it a vintage version or new. And for instances like the big muff is it the green Russian, Black Russian, triangle, Rams head, little big muff, etc. I am assuming it's the triangle due to the name of the block but I could be wrong. Or on the rat is it an old one with the lm308 chip or modern or white face or turbo? Might be cool to have different models as a parameter.

 

Anyways thanks again!

 

I see this come up often..  

 

Because of the way that Line6 models at the component level, you are actually getting ALL years ALL versions.   As example distortion units change over time with different versions...  they generally don't change the integral component that creates their sound.  They change pots, caps and resistors to enhance and filter differently.  Ultimately, just changing the tone NOT how it reacts to playing.  You can change the tone with some creative use of EQ before or after the block and accomplish the same thing or in the case of some, just change the tone and gain control.

 

With the AMP simulations it's even easier because the overall design doesn't really change, but some supporting parts generally change the tube voltages a little.... well...   we have control over those settings..  

 

As an asside...  when asking what version, you might want to ask what serial number.   I'm serious.   Find someone who as example has 3 TS-808's from the same era/version.   Line them up.  Unless they have been rebuilt or at least re-cap'd, and using a regulated power supply...  set the controls in the exact same positions... you will have THREE different sounds.  Subtle, almost indistinguishable, but if you look at them on signal analyzer, they will be different.     We don't notice cause we adjust the settings to match what we want.  

 

This is especially true with amps, even moreso with hand wired amps.  Someone at NAMM asked one of the Line6 folks why they don't model a Dumble and after the "because no one will loan us one to take apart" answer, I guess the Line 6 guy had aleady had about enough and continud with.. "do you want the one with the Overdrive with the this, that and other thing" and went on what seemed like a 5 minute rant of every Dumble model and every possible modification of each one and then asked the guy which one they should model.

• Every day I practice at home on computer with backing tracks (for now I used Line6 UX2 audio card).
  • OK

Every week I go to the rehearsal music studio with my band. I use an existing amp + cab. It is not always the same (Fender, Blackstar, ...) so I should rely too much on learning the settings of a specific one.

• If possible just tap into the power amp.  Skip the pre-amp.  Sometimes accomplished by plugging into the FX loop return, or AUX in, or Line In.  OR....

I would assume you are using a PA at rehearsal to?  Just send the outs (or out if mono) to the PA and send another line out to the AMP section of whatever is on stage to use as a monitor or just have the PA route the signal from the PA to your stage monitor.

Every month I go to a concert where I usually plug directly into the PA.

• have them route some of your guitar back to your stage monitor or bring along something and provide a send to it.

 

If you really want simple...  get a powered monitor like a QSC 10 or 12 or one of Line6's units.  Frankly any decent powered monitor is likely to sound better for you than any of the options you are currently using.  This is what I would do if I was you..

 

• Every day I practice at home on computer with backing tracks (for now I used Line6 UX2 audio card).
  • Use monitor.  I run my "backing tracks" into my Helix... so if I want to listen through headphones I can, or if I want to hear it from my monitor, I can by just turning it on.

Every week I go to the rehearsal music studio with my band. I use an existing amp + cab. It is not always the same (Fender, Blackstar, ...) so I should rely too much on learning the settings of a specific one.

• Use monitor as stage monitor, send signal to PA

Every month I go to a concert where I usually plug directly into the PA.

• Use monitor as stage monitor, send signal to PA

 

This way... same setup, every scenario and you always hear yourself the way you need to.

 

I suggest a "reconnect" button.  Might not be needed for everyone, but I leave my laptop connected to the Helix.  It would be nice to not have to restart the software every time in addition to turning on the Helix.  Maybe even on the screen that has "device disconnected" have a "retry or reconnect" button.

Just to follow up although I mentioned this in another thread...  It turns out the Windows 10 driver limited the resolution to 1024 x 600 and the fonts were large, so on a lark I reverted to the Win7 drivers I had been using before the upgrade and they worked just fine and do 1024 x 768 which seems just fine.  I'll mainly be using the editor for backups and restores, organizing and making adjustments to patches I have created without having to juggle a guitar while bending over in a small space with a bad back.

 

So far, so good.

I loaded an older driver with oddly has a higher resolution capability.   Back in business !!!!!!   whew..   FWIW... The Editor looks great !!!

 

FWIW, while I will likely BUILD patches on the unit on the shelf it seems like the Editor will work perfect for on the fly adjustments without having to bend down to the floor.   Right off the bat I  see how seeing a long list of presets (until I get the ones I want to use close together) is awesome.  Minimal scroll and just click the one I want...  Nice.

 

 

You probably are running on a very low resolution screen

 

It's running at 1024 x 600.  It's a notebook Samsung NP150 with a 10" screen running Windows 10.  I'm only seeing the top half the app and it doesn't scroll.  

 

Does someone know what the minimum recommended resolution is?    If I have to buy a laptop to be a Helix editor I'm going with minimum I can get away with.

what computer are you on? Even my MBP 13" gives me all the blocks and I can scroll to see all the parameters below.

 

I have a Samsung N150 Plus notebook.   It's been perfect for backups and updates and such.  I don't want to buy a new laptop that is just going to be a Helix editor but I have this feeling.....

I think there might be some display issues,  I just posted in another thread that I can't see the controls when I click on a block.  

 

I'm missing the bottom of the screen it seems and I can't figure out a way to re-size it so at this point... it's still kinda useless to me.  Come to think of it,, I can't even add a block...  as they are off the bottom of the screen.

Could someone else do a screenshot.  I think I not able to see all of the surface on my Notebook because I can't figure out how to modify any parameters..

 

 

Also, when I installed the software, again I couldn't use the latest version of the updater.  I had to revert back to a previous version 1.04 of the updater to install the latest 1.10.0 firmware.

 

Any version of the updater past 1.04 thows a graphics OpenGL error and is unusable.  Not sure how much longer I'll be able to keep using the old updater to update, but it's worked for the last two most recent updates still.

 

 

 

 

They're made-to-order, so you won't find one anywhere, unless someone's unloading one on ebay. You have to order it through L6...what the process is and how long you have to wait, I don't know. Someone will probably chime in.

 

I've never played a US JTV...maybe they're the greatest guitars ever, and the handful of guys who've taken the plunge and commented on here seem to like them. However, imho the extra $3G that they want for them, is insane. As the owner of a boutique instrument, one in which I was involved in every step of the process, from selecting the cuts of wood, to sitting in the guy's shop when it was time to shape the neck so it came out precisely the way I wanted it, I know what you can get for this kind of money. In this case, the extra cash seems to buy you a quarter-sawn neck, a few more colors to choose from, and some vague assurances about more attention to detail. The modeling engine is the same.

 

If you want a real "custom" instrument, all that money can be much better spent. Just my 2 cents.

 

 

The difference is lots of $$.  I agree with cruisinon2!  Not worth the difference.  Same electronics and same limitations.  Better built guitar but not worth the over 3X cost difference.

 

Thanks for these and the other responses.  Yes I also have two custom made guitars by a very well known builder, both were less than/about 3K.  I just had another one spec'd that's closer to 4K but I digress, unless the JTV-89-US is completely hand made...neck thru.. not likely worth over 3K.   I wasn't even able to find a price so thanks for that.  

 

FWIW, Korea can make outstanding guitars these days.   If they are spec'd right.   I would actually consider the JTV-US, if it truly was a custom build, but it sounds like it's just a USA build with different options and I haven't found a single review or reference of anyone owning one which I thought odd.

 

Anyway.. thanks.  Now I just need to get past that I can't have a Kahler bridge on it :(  

Please excuse me if this has been discussed, but I have searched and...

 

1. I can't find any clear differences between the JTV-89F and the JTV-89F-US
    
2. I can't find anywhere to buy a JTV-89F-US or even a price.

 

So to be clear...

 

What is the difference between the JTV-89F and the JTV-89F-US other than country of origin and if the US model is significantly better in some way... where does one find one?

 

Thanks

You make plenty of good points but characterizing users who think that latency and lack of spillover and scene functionality are problematic as "whiners" is perhaps less than charitable or accurate. People often tend to think it is whining until it is an issue they are concerned about, then all of a sudden it is a valid complaint. For some users it is when is the editor going to be out, for others it is all about the models and effects, for some it is core functionality, how well it works with a Mac or the DT or the Variax, etc. ad infinitum. Staying respectful of others' concerns definitely makes it easier on everybody.

 

I also don't mean to sound argumentative, everyone is entitled to their opinion. It does seem a bit incongruous to be someone who claims that "most of their career has been spent finding creative technology solutions" while you seem to find it silly that others are encouraging Line6 to do just that. 

 

I wasn't targeting anyone in particular... and maybe I'm just being a bit of a butt-in-ski.. (sticking nose where it doesn't belong)..  

 

I meant no disrespect...    I think Line6 has done an amazing job.  I also think if they wanted spill-over and zero latency, they would have done it.  That is a design choice. I could see those features by themselves adding at least $500 to the price of the unit and that may be the reason.     Remember they've been working on the Helix for over 6 years now.  Maybe the next unit they release will have spill-over and zero latency if their market research deems those options worth having at whatever pricepoint..  For it to happen in the Helix as it is, would require new guts in the box or at least actual break out the screw driver and replace parts upgrades.  They've also been pretty clear, about what they use "input" for... so attempting to  "encourage" them to do anything.. seems a bit fruitless.   Of course it's not my time being wasted so I should just sit down and shut up..

 

Just so you know... I have two main gripes that I think are huge... that I chose to live with... One is the lack of Editor right out of the chute, but it's coming.. and only one expression pedal.  Demanding them put another expression pedal makes as much sense to me as asking for spill-over and zero latency.  I'm pretty confident it's not possible so I'm not going to bother asking.  I know my FCB1010 will work via MIDI so maybe at some point I'll just get a Rack version of the Helix and use my Behringer FCB1010 to drive it.  I mean I really think it was a MAJOR oversight as two of the best selling controllers of all time are the ART X15 and the Behringer FCB1010 both of which have dual pedals.  But again, would I want to pay another $200 to have another pedal, along with making the unit that much larger and heavier than it already is??  No..  The way they layed out the Exp1 and Exp2 and have the option to plug in a third tells me they thought about the topic long and hard...   and made a choice.  

"There is still no scene functionality in the Helix so if you are claiming that latency between patches is the way that the Helix was "designed" than it is missing a critical design element as many users cannot do everything they want within a single preset without tap dancing"

 

If I was one of those users I simply would have bought a unit that met my needs rather than whine about a unit that clearly does not meet my needs, but that's just me.

 

"I don't think there is anything unreasonable about these requests to make an effort to reduce latency between presets and to add whatever spillover capability possible within the current hardware,"  I will try to explain a little differently than others have...  wish me luck..

 

The speed of which a patch loads is based on processor speed and throughput.  Those two factors ultimately rely on hardware specs. Maybe they will come out with an upgrade chip at some point.  That's not unheard of.  I received a new firmware chip for my Lexicon MPX-1 and I replaced the chip in my FCB1010 footswitch.  Maybe they built Helix with this in mind that when technology gets fast enough (at a low enough price point) they will offer upgrades.  But I wouldn't expect any magic from a routine software update.  If anything, as they improve their modeling technology and maybe add more features I would actually expect patches to load slower.  It's physics, and all the wishing and praying and nagging and begging isn't going to change physics.   I'm sure someone with more intimate knowledge would no for sure, but unless Line6 re-invented computer technology...  it is what it is.   Any previous "speeding up" and maybe a little future "speeding up" from an update is simply fixing errors and maybe tweaking code performance.... but ultimately...  that only gets to the limit of the hardware.   Think filling a bucket with a hose.  You can do a certain amount of tweaking to that hose, but ultimately the bucket is only going to fill so fast.   If you want it to fill faster, you need a bigger hose.

 

As far as spillover...  again..  basic computer design 101.  You essentially need twice as much memory as you are using because it has to be able to continue running the current code while it loads the new code.  It's not anything all that complicated, but it obviously wasn't designed that way and without cutting into current computing power... I just don't see it happening.  Again..  maybe they intend to do a chip upgrade sometime in the future.  Who knows.

 

I will say this.  I came to Line6 recently... somewhat kicking and screaming because of an undeserved stigma I think. But I've done quite a bit of homework in the last 6 months or so and I get it now.  Again, it's a guess, but I'll stand by it.. that the Helix works exactly as designed and they chose to provide certain functionality over other functionality based on cost.  As has been stated often in official channels... they don't "get new ideas" from Ideaspace or these Forums...  They just get validation for what they are already doing or planning to do.   With all the things that Helix IS capable of doing...  I hope they just keep working on making those things better.

 

Bottom line... if it doesn't work for you, get something that does, or if it's that important where Helix provides everything else you need...  get a second unit.  If you're playing out you need a spare anyway.   Value added.  You can then do all the spill-over and instant patch-switching you want.  You could probably even use an expression pedal to setup an A/B operation on the input so you could fade from one patch to another.  problem solved, and you have a backup if something fails.

 

I don't mean to sound argumentative if I do.  Not my intention at all.  Most of my career has been spent finding creative technology solutions, so I'm just trying to help.

FWIW... I'm on WIndows10 on an old Samsung Notebook.   Clicked the Updater..., checked 1.06.5, clicked the yes-I-really-wanna-doits  and let it do it's thing.  A few minuted later... updated.

This is getting silly.  

 

I understand people wanting the Helix to act like a multi-fx device where you can switch patches and it's just like turning pedals on and off without the dance..   It's nice to want that.... but to say that "for the price it should act a certain way" is a bit unfair if you actually think about it.   They are not Banks and Patches, they are presets and SETLISTS!!!!  This unit was designed to address those people like many who play a LIST of songs.   So instead of having to remember what you used on what song last year at that one Irish Music gig... you can just load the songs for that gig. 

 

Think of it this way.... you have TWO songs that use the same blocks set the same way..   You decide on song B you need to modify the EQ to cut through better with the keyboard that's playing on that song as well.   The "old" patch way...  well there was a bunch of ways of doing it, but on the Helix, you just save a patch for each song.   There's plenty of memory, not to mention how easily you can save and load a patch/song.  

 

Lets take it a step further...  You play in three bands with three completely different sounds and obviously 3 completely different setlists.  That's a lot of patches to remember....   or... you can just load all the songs for each band as a setlist.  (group of patches)    Everything is labeled so you know what you need to do for different parts of the song.  (intro, chorus, verse, lead) etc..

 

Just because you cannot use a unit the way it was designed, does not mean the design is wrong.  Maybe you should look for a unit designed for what you need, or you compromise.    

 

The logic seems to be...     I want to take my McLaren off-roading...  for that price I should be able to drive it wherever you want.   Well, yeah... you can..  but when you get stuck in the mud, it ain't McLaren's fault.

My tones are carefully crafted and layered out in patches in logical order (lower row: variation of clean, upper row various driven sounds). Each patch uses its own set of IRs for cabs etc.That is how I have organised my pedalboard for years and how I need to keep doing it.

 

First... Respect for knowing exactly what you want.  

 

Second...  and I'm not being cheeky.  I have said this several times.   If the patch switching delay is that critical, just get a second Helix unit.  Have them either through a mixer or use the AUX or routing to get them together.   There are a plethora of ways to have one unit "staged" and then just switch to it instantly, no lag.

 

However, I have seen some people using some amazingly complicated patches, really putting the DSP through it's paces, with no lag.  

 

If you would share the block lists of two patches that have significant delay I'm sure someone would try to help streamline them WITHOUT going to a single patch situation.   No need to include parameters as they don't affect the over computing consumption.  Just the blocks.  

 

While I don't know for sure, I highly doubt this is an issue that has a "cure" for lack of a better term.  From my IT perspective, it's a hardware/functionality issue.  It's why the patches sound so good.  We don't switch between them, we load them.  Again, this isn't from 1st hand knowledge but more a guess... the only way to improve on the patch loading speed, would be to put in faster processors and faster memory on a faster circuit.   But then it would be a $5000 device, not a $1500 dollar device and people would then complain they couldn't load bitter IR's.

My opinion is the Editor will make it easier to edit Helix. There I said it. Thats my opinion and its just as valid as what you are about to counter with Hamm  :P  :lol:

 

The only way the editor would not be easier is if it required you to put your keyboard on the floor to use it.   

THEN I load the IR that's as close to those settings.

 

Are you talking about the IR as a replacement? Is your initial selection a "temporary sound" ?

 

Or using the IR to "support" your first cab selection?

 

I think im doing what you are now, but i just pull up any ole cab in the beginning,  because choosing the right cab for the amp and more importantly the track, can take some doing, so i rarely waste time (no offense) fiddling with the temporary cab sound.

 

I scroll through the internal cabs and figure out if I want a 4 x 12, 2 x 12, mesa, marshall, etc...  and I audition mics and placement as well.    Once I have the overall sound I'm looking for....   I replace that cab with an IR cab that was done with the mic and placement I'm looking for.

 

I generally don't do a lot of fiddling having been playing through full-range cabs for the better part of 25 years now, and never really having a choice in amps when I played on someone elses, the names and descriptions of the cabs themselves are just gobbledygook to me.  Now microphones and mic placement, that I've been doing for the better part of 45 years.   I hear a sound, I know what mic to grab and roughly where to place it, but I never got the memo that I should have paid attention to what brand/model I was putting the mic in front of.   In a way I find this a blessing as my choices aren't colored by what "should" work, I make my choices by what does work.   On the other hand...  when someone says they prefer the 4 x 12 mesa cab to the 5150 cab...  I have no idea what that means without listening to those cabs.