mileskb

First... I agree with you, or at least your premise. I used the word bypass, cause that's what the little button reads.. here's a little closer to what's really happening. When you pre-compile two subroutines, one with two functions, one with one function. If you have code that doesn't execute the first function, both subroutines should have the same output. This is what you video proves and I agree... It's not right. There's no impedance, bypass or any other ANALOG routine in the code stack. I find it hard to believe they modeled what a fuzz does in bypass. Maybe they did... but it seems silly considering, "turning off" something in the chain should mean that code isn't executing at all. Further it would mean they modelled all of the devices in the off position as well, or that "off" means different things to different devices... that's just seems silly to me. Possible, but a bit silly. In any case... I still agree with you... something is not right.

I have been holding off on saying anything.... as I don't think referencing "impedance" is the issue. However... especially in a digital world, the video is very clearly unexpected behavior. This could be a real issue with complex snapshots and likely is. Bottom line... I agree... If you have a preset setup... with an amp, and another preset setup with an effect and an amp... if the effect is bypassed, both presets should sound the same. That's simple logic. An option for Bypass (True or Buffered) on the appropriate pedals might be a good solution, as well as many others suggested. I find the Line 6 folks are pretty smart, so at this point I assume they see the problem (if they see it as a problem) and will address it in some clever way none of us thought of.

I may have responded to this thread before... it's an old thread... anyway.. Aren't we ALL artists? I guess the OP meant "Professional Touring Musician" and if he did, that IS different than an artist endorsement. When I see/hear pros actually using something I'm interested in, it adds a bit of comfort factor to my decision. In fact, and I just realized this, of the musicians/artists I admire the most, they ARE using a Helix. Blue Oyster Cult and Garbage... Both have a wide-variety of tone in their catalogs, and they have to sound like the album when they hit the stage. Both bands have tone junkies both on stage and back stage that just would not tolerate any gear that didn't create the sound needed. Of the many other guitarists I admire, I can't imagine most them ever using a Helix. Maybe a Kemper because they have a particular tone that they use and don't want to haul their delicate amps around anymore, but that's about it.

I have a Focusrite Scarlett that I actually purchased in anticipation of getting the Helix before the Helix was actually fully shipping. While a lovely unit, at least for guitar, the Helix blows it away. And if I may... when people do these comparison's of modelers, I think it's things like this that are soooo overlooked. Not just the quality of the I/O for recording, but the fact that it even exists.

Actually video has a "feature" that when you take a high amount of data and put onto a smaller screen or output size, it actually appears to improve. It doesn't actually improve, but it looks like it's sharper. but i digress True enough. However for example, voice-over for things like Computer Based Training are done at lower resolution because it just sounds better for that, but yes.. for mastering it's nice to have the extra bits for the compression and eq to use. However, if you aren't mastering, for whatever reason, then recording at the same rate it will be played back "may" be better. For those who think the IR's that are presented at multiple bit rates are recorded at the highest then downsized, I would not make that assumption at all especially if it's the same people who do room IR's. I would guess, as they state, they are "recorded" at the different bit rates. I hate to rain on the general party of "bigger and faster is always better" but in audio, it isn't. I'm gonna stick with the "fewer conversions is better" thought process. I admit, the likelihood of actually hearing the difference is unlikely, but no need to do a conversion that need not be done. And while intended to no one in particular some of the responses reminded me of the famous quote... "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."

This has come up before, but I'm wondering if one of the "inside" guys could address this.. In the Manual "48kHz, 16-bit, mono, .WAV type IRs of up to 2,048 samples are natively supported. But the Helix app allows you to import IR .WAV files of different sample rate, bit depth, length and stereo format, and the app will convert these attributes automatically before sending to the Helix hard- ware" which makes sense. However, as example when recording, if my destination media is a CD, I try to record at 44.1Hz 16 bit unless I plan to do a lot of processing because 44.1kHz/ 16bit is the standard sampling and bitrate for CD's. The reason I do this is because even though an algorithm is used to downsize from lets say 96HZ you are GETTING RID OF DATA. So my thought that I'm looking for confirmation is... If you can get 48kHz 16bit IR's, you should use them and NOT use any other size as while the conversion loss is probably not audible... why throw away data if you don't have to.

I am curious to see what people get out of this. My opinion is that, Wow, the Helix is super accurate and easy to tune. As soon as you see the > and < light up together... move on. This does take a little practice, because your eyes want to look at the big bars across the bottom, but as an experiment, other than the low E string thing which is weird.. watch this video again, but take an envelope or piece of cardboard and hold it over the bars so you only see the NOTE and the > < marks. You will get a whole different perspective. The fact that the little bars are drifting is meaningless. If the two >< are lit... you are in tune. I know it sounds silly... but go ahead and try it. Watch the video with something covering the bars... and you'll see it's spot on with the Petersen as it should be.

LOL... will do... you too. I need to modify mine so the models are in the same order as they are in the Helix.. That'll make things easier to find too. I might do that tomorrow.

Thanks Per !!! Your's is much prettier than mine, I just needed something in hurry... Didn't realize you were already on it... Thanks !!! This is awesome.

Hey Guys, Here is a pdf you might find useful. helixreference.pdf

In another thread Per stated he's be updating his dropbox files. I'll patiently await that :)

Please post when it's updated. Like you... I need a reference when not around a computer, or computer not booted up... I actually printed an earlier version on larger paper and have it hanging on the wall for a quick reference. So THANK YOU !!!!

Per, How up to date is your cheat sheet. I have been looking for something specifically as you have done. I need a reference for when I'm NOT at a computer, the helixhelp is great when at a computer, but I just need a printout like you did. I just noticed the badonk amp wasn't on there, so that's why I'm asking how up to date it is.

I used my powerblock for a little bit too. The dullness you are getting is likely because you're signal chain is set up for the FRFR solution of the Alto's. Just removing the cabs isn't the solution. You need to tweak the presets for the powerblock/4x12 option. Global EQ "may" be the answer, but not likely.

A couple of things.. My reaction would be to tell them to find a new guitarist. Period. However, if that is not your choice.. I'll worry about my own gear and ability to hear myself thank you very much and based on the seeming lack of a monitor system, you could bring your own wedge to hear yourself. That's what most folks do. Or you could run a line to backline amp too... or if he really can't hear you, run a line to a backline amp behind HIM !!! but seriously... why play with people who don't take you for who you are. Life's too short. They call it "playing" music, cause it's supposed to be fun. There is NO need for you to defend your choices of gear. This is what you got. they don't like... get someone else. done.

I have searched and searched and found websites with the info, but I'm looking for something I can print out of the latest lists of models. This http://dshowmusic.com/line-6-helix-amp-models/ seems to have everything, but before I consolidate it into something I can print out, I'm checking to see if anyone else has done this yet.

I agree on the "hard to tabulate aspect".. However, if you look at YouTube, it's like all there are is young guitar players... 1000's upon 1000's of them. I think it just just depends on where you look. And... maybe more importantly... most of those guitars (I think it's safe to say just most) sold in the 60's 70's and 80's are still in service, on top of the plethora of new guitars out there. That's the premise for my comment about more now "playing" then ever. There are just so many instruments out there, it's mind boggling. Ovation, a smaller one of the big guitar makers, was making 600,000 instruments per year in the 80's. That's just one company, and they're still cranking them out. Fender, PRS, Gibson, Ibanez, Yamaha.. I think it's safe to say that if spread out evenly, a good portion of everyone on earth could have a guitar at this point.. Remember, the brands I mentioned aren't even the tip of the iceberg.. think of all the brands that have come and gone worldwide... There are a LOT of guitars out there.

Amen... And you'd be surprised at how affordable custom, really nice custom guitars can be had. Not cheap, but not any more than a new production line guitar unless you go over-the-top with options.

While I agree with the title of the article, I DO NOT agree with the reasoning. There are more new guitar players, or guitarists in general than any time in history. In the past few years there's a whole gender of rock guitarists popping up that was almost non-existent 10 years ago. But what has changed is a combination of lack of need or care about "high-end" pricey guitars and looking for the "holy grail" of tone. The want a guitar that's playable. You don't need to spend more than a few hundred bucks for a decent guitar anymore. Will it last? who cares.. if it falls apart they'll get another. Sorry, but that's the hard truth. There are of course exceptions to the rule, always, but I've been to NAMM and purposely sat back and watched "the kids" and what they go after. Honestly it's impressive and inspiring to see that they could give a rats patoot about what "hero" played what guitar... they want what they can play and what they think looks cool. It's truly inspiring.... and mind you... if a kid is at NAMM, they are not "typical" because they are there because a family member or friend etc.. is in the business. That makes in more poignant. They have been likely exposed to the best of the best, all the hype, the artists... and yet... they just want what they want. No, I do not think the Electric Guitar is going anywhere... The companies that are smart, are already making, or working toward making, quality affordable guitars. What we will see are less and less of are the guitars in the $1000+ range on the rack... but... there are literally millions of these instruments out there already. They will find homes, switch homes, etc.. And lets give a nod to the local luthiers.. The guys that make a few guitars a year. THAT business is booming and on the upswing like never before. I believe because many younger players, who are the exception to the rule and are looking for tone, and woods etc etc.. recognize that they can have a better quality guitar built to spec than many of the high-end "production" guitars on the rack, for equal or in most cases, much LESS money. If they are discerning enough to care about build quality... names like Fender and Gibson mean nothing to them.

Or the "non-solder" crimp connectors on the board the switch is attached to. :(

I had a similar issue. While I fixed it myself, it is not what I consider a DIY unless you are very experienced. More importantly, support NEEDS to know about what I believe is a minor design flaw.

This is definitely a perception thing. First off... At not point was your guitar actually "out of tune" but the two tuners displayed different things... I prefer the Helix or my Peterson Strobe. Neither will ever come to rest a note, or very briefly... as that is the nature of the guitar string. I have an older Sabine, and while it's not as granular as the Helix or the Strobe, I don't think it ever locks on a note like that Korg does, and I prefer it that way... because I know the guitar is fluctuating as well. Maybe Line 6 could put a "response" control on the tuner so it's response can act like other tuners.

Visit Toys R Us and fine a kids umbrella. They have'em in everything from Hello Kitty to Vampire and Skull themes. Gaff't to an old gooseneck mic-stand base. Looks cool, makes a statement, fun.. I don't generally play outdoors, but I might get one anyway..

On paper (spec sheet) these look pretty nice.

I think we're zooming in on this issue. If the technology was built into the Helix to accommodate microphone axis... I highly doubt it would be just a $1500 unit any longer and as many people, I dare say most, are rather happy with what's built in, they may have been going for what they can in a price-point. In other words, while you and I (yes I was surprised to not see the axis control until I realized what it would entail),... I'm guessing the average joe wouldn't want to pay $1,800-$2,000 for that feature. There is also another layer in that I know pro artists that have their IR's, that's what they use. So maybe it's a go-big or stay home kinda thing and maybe that factored in as well. But at the core... yes, it would be a great, feature, but I don't think enough people would be willing to pay for it.....