Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


HonestOpinion last won the day on August 6

HonestOpinion had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,205 Excellent


About HonestOpinion

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Registered Products

Recent Profile Visitors

7,689 profile views
  1. The Variax can use standard Ethernet cables but it is better to get a VDI cable with an Ethercon connector end. VDI are RJ45(Ethernet) cables but much sturdier, tend to be better insulated and coated, and are terminated with the much superior Ethercon connectors. As Silverhead alluded to they, are more robust and attach to the hardware on the Variax and Helix/LT. This exerts much less strain on the more delicate parts of the Ethernet jack than having only a standard Ethernet cable plugged in. Granted, it is no tragedy if you damage a standard $10 Ethernet cable. Quite another matter if you have to repair the jacks on your guitar or device. A VDI cable is road-ready and presents far less risk of yanking out in a live situation. Line 6 makes a good one and there are third party Ethercon cables to be had as well. So...for purposes of testing or even as a backup for your backup VDI cable you could use a standard Ethernet cable. No one can recommend it though due to the risk of equipment/cable damage. Would hate to have to get a repair for lack of a sturdy cable.
  2. Don't remember that episode but then I didn't see the "Human Centipede" film either. Point well taken though.
  3. Agree, in-app purchases might be the issue here. Not too inclined to purchase something that is working already, albeit more clunkily. Not a huge fan of in-app purchases in general although I buy 'em if I need 'em. Didn't I already pay for the app? I suppose they allow basic versions of the apps to be more affordable and provide more R&D money for developers for additional features but I absolutely draw the line at the sub-innermost-post-in-app purchases ;-)
  4. That is why I believe we need to adopt a model where every consumer owns their own personal data. You and only you should get to designate how and by whom it can be used, and receive commensurate royalties, goods, and/or services in return when you do allow its use. Resale of your data to(currently mostly unspecified) third parties should be strictly prohibited without your express knowledge and permission. And let's get rid of these blanket, vague, legalese, fifty page user agreements in microscopic print which you are forced to sign to use almost any app or service that allow sale and resale of your data to anyone and everyone. I think Europe is heading more in this direction but the U.S. appears to be far behind on privacy concerns and way ahead on the wholesale commodification of personal data. Some of it for some very unsavory purposes that do consumers great harm (including purchase by outright criminal enterprises). Simple example, nothing criminal here, just business as usual - There is nothing necessarily stopping your health insurance company from buying access to the data history on your fitness watch and adjusting your health insurance rates accordingly; your car insurance company from using your Google Maps or Waze data to determine your driving habits and apply them to your vehicle insurance rates. You should have the right to make an informed decision about how your data will be used, and if you agree, be fairly compensated. The sad thing is those are examples of some of the more innocuous potential uses of "personal" data. They get a lot worse. There is a whole new generation now that has been born into this model and is ignorant of the value and incredible revenues their personal data generates. Something I believe they are entitled to a piece of the action on. Younger folk increasingly place less and less of a premium on privacy and no longer even expect it, just as they have been conditioned to, even though it is a highly valuable commodity. It can be considered legal tender in the information age. Legality and fairness have yet to catch up with the technology. Apologies to the OP for veering a bit far afield and probably off topic. Off to the lounge with me(who am I kidding? I'm never in the lounge).
  5. This is terrible for consumers and third party repair centers as the article notes! It generally costs so much more to get a phone repaired by Apple, at least out of warranty. I suspect this will be justified by Apple citing enhanced security. Even if it does legitimately enhance security it will also drive increased out-of-warranty repair revenue for Apple and probably much more significantly, AppleCare plan revenue.
  6. Thanks for the reference to "right to repair". I was wholly unfamiliar with it. Some really interesting reading on the subject out there. Lobbyists and lawyers can end up spending a lot of their corporate client's money lobbying on K Street and trying to craft contracts that bulletproof their EULA agreements to indemnify themselves and avoid culpability as well as discourage theft of intellectual property. These agreements can also help to protect consumers from themselves and better ensure ongoing and safe operation of purchased items. Perfectly understandable for the company in the interest of avoiding a frivolous lawsuit or a tragedy. Not so much when it is a legitimate case of corporate negligence or error, although there are laws in place to help hold companies accountable in those cases. Sometimes they protect the consumer but we all know how that can end up working out in the real world though when your rumpled suited, mail order degree lawyer is sitting opposite a top tier corporate law firm. It might or might not help if we were not such a litigious country in getting a more rational compromise hammered out between corporations and consumers. The other side of this though is just greed and profit motive. Sure, there are individuals who make their living off of "slipping" in the lobby and have a dozen outstanding lawsuits going at any one time against any company or individual unfortunate enough to come into their orbit. From my limited reading on the subject though, there definitely also appear to be areas where companies are using the legislatures to pass laws that allow them to unfairly monopolize or increase repair revenue or compel a new purchase by charging unreasonable prices for out-of-warranty repairs and essentially forcing a new purchase as the only sensible cost-effective option, rather than a repair. To be fair though, we live in a throwaway cultural and technological paradigm where often it is cheaper to buy new than the bottom-line economics of repairing an item, regardless of well-intentioned efforts by the company to restrain repair costs. I have personally experienced the frustration and difficulty of trying to procure a service manual or a part when not being an authorized repairman but this issue extends far beyond that. Third party repair centers with legitimate credentials but unanointed by corporate HQ, apparently have also had difficulty getting service manuals, parts, firmware, etc. from a variety of companies as well as sometimes being legally prohibited from performing service without the corporation's permission. It does make sense to me to deny the DIYer access to repair information on some items that pose a serious risk of fire or electrocution but I admit to always finding it frustrating to be denied access to critical repair information nonetheless. Not sure how much safer it makes consumers either. Consumers who are inclined to attempt a repair themselves may decide to wing it, which can be considerably more hazardous than operating with a manual with appropriate warnings and correct procedures. Limiting access to service info may also be more ineffective these days when a lot of those same service manuals are for sale now on various third party sites. Probably operating outside borders where they could be prosecuted or perhaps sometimes serving as a source of publishing revenue for companies but limiting their legal exposure? From my cursory reading on the subject so far though I can definitely see where there is a need, particularly in the best interests of the end user, to find some more rational middle ground. The laws governing this issue appear also to vary widely by state/country. Gonna read up some more on this. These are just my initial impressions. It is easy to see the complexities and challenges involved on both sides of the issue - corporate and consumer.
  7. True but wouldn't that apply more to not profiting by putting out a competing product based on the one you reverse engineered? Does the EULA expressly forbid tinkering for your own fun and folly? Maybe it does to some extent just to indemnify the company from things like accidental electrocution or setting the thing on fire. In that case intended more to prevent a lawsuit against the company than to provide an opportunity to sue the consumer. The EULA doesn't forbid part swapping as far as I know in products like PCs, that are expressly designed to be upgraded. Guess you have to read the fine print. You will in many cases however void your warranty and perhaps create a very expensive doorstop.
  8. Undeniable! I am shuddering even now at the mere contemplation of the potential torrent of posts that would ensue concerning bent pins, incorrectly seated RAM, and the insertion of incompatible hardware. However, somehow the PC industry managed to pull it off and I think it could work in the modeling world as well. I would be shocked if some intrepid manufacturer does not at least attempt it at some point. Maybe one without a forum... or a warranty :-)
  9. To state the obvious, in many respects current modelers are a computer specialized to generate and process sound. Although modelers have in common with each other the identical goal of emulating amps and effects and often providing a recording interface, where they differ from computers is the higher degree of specialization in the UI, firmware, and software that sit on top of the hardware. These can vary wildly from one manufacturer to another and seem, to some extent, have lent license to companies not being particularly forthcoming about the hardware that underlies them. You don't just slap the identical version of Microsoft or Mac OS and Office onto every single modeler. There is no comprehensive benchmarking application for modelers. Not having an identical yardstick applied to all hardware makes it less compulsory to provide hardware details that make it easier to predict how different hardware platforms will perform . In many respects this is a good thing as hardware is hardly the sole factor in providing the mojo that makes for a great modeler. Protecting intellectual property probably plays a role here as well. Although modeler manufacturers tout certain specs they are particularly proud of, often they are not very comprehensive about listing just what is inside the box. When you purchase a computer/laptop there is almost always a description that informs you, in some measure of detail, exactly what parts it has inside - make, model, type, and speed of the CPU, memory, storage, I/O, MTBF, etc. Those specs give you a better idea of how much you should be paying, what kind of performance to expect, how long till the devices EOL, and what sort of processing and storage it may be capable of down the road. Generally speaking, although few/none of them do, it is also a good thing when modeler manufacturers list at least the more vital core components and specifications in their modelers such as the DSPs used, capacity and speed of memory/storage, signal processing latency at the inputs and outputs when used for playing or recording, etc.. For many devices you have absolutely no idea how many presets, IRs, minimization of latency, degree of algorithm complexity, or often even the potential max number and types of effects in a path the device may ultimately be able to deliver. Although you can hope for more/better in a subsequent firmware update, you have to, as has often been stressed on this forum, go strictly by what info you have at the time of purchase. Definitely not trying to imply anything nefarious going on here but it feels like modeling companies have largely gotten a free pass on full disclosure on their hardware. Many musicians didn't used to have expertise in that area or flat out don't care as long as it sounds good. Due to the subjective nature of sound there is something to be said for not getting into a DSP measuring contest, if it sounds good to you that may just be enough and specs can become meaningless. There is room for additional visibility as to exactly what is inside the box when it comes to comparing tech and pricing across multiple devices and manufacturers or even just to assist the ambitious DIYer. More emphasis on hardware components may eventually lead to modelers which are designed to be expandable from the ground up to allow users to update and enhance their functionality, according to their personal requirements, with component swaps rather than buying an entirely new device. Much like you can do now with a computer by throwing a new motherboard, graphics or sound card, faster types of additional memory/storage, or a faster CPU into it.
  10. I believe one cubic inch for every finger of scotch or can of beer consumed per evening is the rule of thumb.
  11. Heh, thanks but my OnSong version does not even have that icon. Wonder how you got that to appear?
  12. LOL, I hear you and that HD500 review was definitely not one of his better moments. I know a lot of people take exception to his reviews, I have seen many a scathing rebuke of him. However he is one of the only reviewers actually deconstructing these devices in such depth. I find his reviews a useful resource for taking a look into the guts of devices I have no intention of taking apart myself. His conclusions on the other hand have frequently been controversial as he seems to heavily weight the overall worth of a device from a component/hardware oriented perspective, sometimes unaware or mistaken about some of some of the device's other features and software or firmware attributes or the fact that it doesn't necessarily need the latest and greatest chip to be worthwhile or even great. Literally that the whole can be greater than the sum of the parts. I know he has skewered some devices I am rather fond of but I still thinks he makes some valuable contributions to the range of reviews available on any given device. Reviews that run the gamut from fawning salesmen to unabashed trolls. Ultimately I am a fan of reviews that take a look at the component level in devices as I find them interesting and I believe they help, if only marginally, to keep manufacturers honest about recycling old technology into newer devices. Not necessarily a practice that condemns the device to inferiority but certainly not a practice conducive to future-proofing either. Some mighty shiny devices that look great on the outside can house some fairly dated technology within. Like most reviews I take his with a grain of salt and weigh them against other opinions, including my own. Note: His review on the Helix was overall positive and quite reassuring as to the quality of the components used.
  13. Note: Yep, I would use the Left output for summing to mono and adjust presets to taste in a copied setlist as suggested already. Stereo effects use more DSP, so if you need some back swap your stereo effect(s) out for mono. https://benvesco.com/store/helix-dsp-allocations/
  14. This is the most detailed look I've seen at the Helix's innards. Have to agree with the other posts here though that this would probably be far more involved than just swapping DSPs out. The review was also done fairly early in the Helix's lifecycle so there is no guarantee some of the parts may not have changed. Here is his writeup with the parts listed: https://tonymckenzie.com/line6-helix-effects-unit-floor-pedal-inside-and-out-review.htm A video review where he went inside the Helix's chassis.
  15. I am not getting the MIDI dialog popup when I press and hold the song title in OnSong. Instead I get a magnifier glass enlarging the text for the song title. I have reset my Onsong settings to default and that did not help. Any ideas as to why this may not be working? MIDI configuration maybe? It (looks right to me) and Onsong sees my Helix. Perhaps worth mentioning that I have had the "Onsong Pro" version on my iPad for years, not the new Onsong "Premium" subscription offering. It is updated to the latest version. Anybody have any suggestions for getting it working so the holding down the title shortcut brings up the MIDI dialog? I think the press & hold shortcut to MIDI settings on the "Onsong Pro" version does not exist, at least not by default. You can get to the MIDI event settings by selecting a song, pressing edit (pencil icon), pressing info("i" with a circle icon), and then scrolling all the way down to the MIDI settings. PITA so I would love to find a way to enable the title press & hold shortcut. At least for now maybe this method will help someone out who is trying to get HX program control switching working with the older(and less expensive) version of OnSong working.
  • Create New...