Jump to content

HonestOpinion

Members
  • Content Count

    3,922
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    45

HonestOpinion last won the day on December 9 2019

HonestOpinion had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

742 Good

About HonestOpinion

  • Rank
    Guru

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Registered Products
    1

Recent Profile Visitors

4,570 profile views
  1. I thought it sounded pretty good as well, particularly the clean and crunch tones. Don't know if it was just really well recorded, the Quad Cortex, or a bit of both, but it sounded great for an initial listen. As always it is really tough to tell how this thing will sound in a room when listening through a PC's speaker system. I think this device has potential but who the hell knows until it is delivered and has been out in the wild for a little while. I will say one thing. Given the fact that they announced that they will be adding to it in perpetuity, a bold claim unless they discovered the fountain of youth, at least we won't be hearing "you shouldn't have bought it unless you were prepared to settle for what it had in the box at delivery". I do wonder how much of that post development will be free and how much will be "hey, buy this new plugin".
  2. LOL. Sounds like a Bond villain working in the hospitality industry. I believe the marketing department had "Goldfinger" and "Happy Ending" lined up if this one didn't test well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Stavro_Blofeld Edit: Just saw Arkieboy got to it before I did.
  3. Then I guess I should hurry up and patent the idea :-) You're right I can't think of any devices that deliver analog/digital via XLR off the top of my head. I was just spitballing as to how it could possibly be done with just the hardware already present on the device but maybe SaschaFranck and you are correct that it would be challenging and convoluted as in "Why not just add more digital connections?".
  4. Good points regarding the joystick. Definiely hope L6 retains some version of a joystick which works very well although I would prefer one of those flat designs like you see on the Roland GR-55. There doesn't seem to be a good analog pointer control on the Cortex or anything that could be dual use unless the volume knob becomes a joystick. Why not just add one at that point? Users will just have to commit to the touchscreen approach and some won't like it. Better hope the touchscreen works well. If it does it could make several operations easier, particularly moving and adding blocks.
  5. I grant you that it is not SPDIF and if that's what you want/need it doesn't look like it will be on this device. Just speculating on one of the only ways, other than USB, that they could deliver a digital signal with the hardware that they are currently showing in their literature. If by convoluted you mean that it will cost you the use of your XLR connectors for other purposes, as you point out, then I agree. Technically it is not convoluted as XLR connectors are used to deliver an AES/EBU digital output signal all the time. Just saying they could potentially leverage those XLR outputs for an additional digital output method with only the currently spec'd hardware. Agree that additional digital outputs like SPDIF would be nice to have for some users. When it comes to connections, price and footprint allowing, the more the merrier.
  6. I wonder if they will be able to provide AES/EBU through the XLR outputs or if digital output will be strictly limited to USB?
  7. Sorry to hear that, it would be way more exciting than any light show we ever put on and lighting guitars on fire has already been done.
  8. Agree, announcing this early with some specifics regarding the device does gives a lot of lead time to competitors. They must need to raise more up-front capital. Yup, might not be quite ready for a crash-free demo in the wild. They are still many months away from delivery.
  9. Your post inspired me to go back and read the whole thread and it is amazing how little the conversation has changed and mostly between the same parties with which it started. Getting off my hamster wheel now :-)
  10. There are trails between snapshots, just not between presets.
  11. You may be correct but I have to say that if the Editor broke things more than incredibly rarely when I used it I would be on to the next device. That just has not been my experience. Like other users here have reported the particular combination of backup/saving, computer hardware, preset design, attached devices, firmware upgrade process, etc. that I use has left me pretty much problem free for the duration of my Helix ownership. With that said after years of reading through the forum, I would observe that Line6 needs to do a better job of bulletproofing the editor software and maybe their driver as well as their firmware upgrade process. I mention the upgrade process, driver, and editor in the same breath as problems with one may well be affecting the other. And then there is the problem of accommodating the incredible range of computer hardware out there which is partly out of L6's control...
  12. All good points but seeing as how they provided knobs and touchscreen, depending on the implementation, there is at least the potential to accommodate most users regardless of their level of skin conductivity :-)
  13. Definitely agree that snapshots is a fantastic feature and I would not want to replace it with gapless preset switching. Having both would be optimal. Being limited to only one or the other is the compromise I was referring to.
  14. Have to disagree. It is both a feature and also a compromise driven by the current state of hardware and programming and the price point and time-frame they need to be delivered at. I know that "compromise" seems pejorative but I don't mean it that way. Matter fact, isn't that part of the problem these days in our larger discourse, that compromise is viewed as a negative? It is one choice right now, some would say the best one, selected by some fairly heavyweight and inspired programmers for top of the line modelers. There will be better options coming down the pike, and there's no shame in acknowledging that and working towards it. I can't see any reason to submit to the tyranny of low expectations that there will never be a time where users can't effortlessly slide between switching presets or snapshots/scenes with minimal latency and more than adequate sound quality and number of available blocks. In the meantime the Helix is a fantastic piece of kit
  15. It seems to come down right now in the modeling world to two primary choices made by modeling companies. Devote all DSP resources to amp/cab, effects, and miscellaneous processing, provide scenes within a preset for spillover and gapless switching. This solution dictates that only the same blocks can be used when switching. Devote half the DSP resources to amp/cab, effects and miscellaneous processing and the other half to gapless preset switching. This allows different blocks to be used when switching but allows less DSP resources to be used for either more blocks in a path or potentially limits the use of more complex algorithms for amp/cabs, effects, etc.. A third option that seems to be either too difficult to program or much more likely is not perceived as worth the effort(at least right now) would be to add the flexibility to provide the user with a device that that has the option to select between the two methods above depending on their requirements for a given song. There is probably no inherent reason you could not program a single device to allow both approaches. As an example use both cores on a two core machine for your entire path, or have the option to design two presets using half the DSP resources each and use one core for your first preset and the second one for a preset you load up in tandem with the first preset. Obviously this gapless two-preset option would limit each of the presets to approximately half the DSP resources that could be used in the single preset option. I would think it is just a matter of the level of programming effort required and whether there is enough of a perceived demand to justify it. Sooner or later I think this ability to choose between the two options will probably be out there in a device. In the meantime most manufacturers appear to opt for either option #1 or option #2 but not allow both/either on the same device. My guess is the industry will eventually slog through the programming and hardware setup required for both options and that will become the new standard offering in most devices. We have definitely seen times in the computer world when new CPUs, GPUs, or faster RAM drops where the hardware outstrips the software and it takes a while for programmers to catch up and write apps that fully exploit the new hardware. There may also be windows of time where the DSP hardware gets so cheap and powerful that until the firmware/software catches up it is easy to provide both options, gapless presets and maximal block processing without having to make a choice of number and quality of blocks vs. gapless preset switching. The average power user simply won't be able to throw enough at the device to overtax it. If they do the device throws them a "DSP limit reached" message with confidence that almost none of the users will ever reach that limit. So, if you purchase a unit like a Digitech DSP1101 or the Headrush, be prepared to have gapless switching but fewer resources allocated to the number of blocks you can use and possibly the quality or complexity of those blocks. If you select a device like the Helix that allocates all resources to allowing maximal blocks and maximal complexity of those blocks be prepared to have to use scenes(one set of blocks) for gapless switching. If you are perfectly satisfied with the sound and operation of a device that uses gapless preset switching, pick that one. If not, select something like the Helix where the focus is on devoting all the DSP to your signal path(s) and their blocks. Limiting factors in technology are constantly being overcome. Why should this one be any different. Maybe it can be addressed on the Helix by offering both options, unlikely, or maybe by some newer device that hits the market. My only gripe is when people insist that the status quo is the only choice that will ever exist. Lastly if you have the Helix and are not exploiting snapshots(scenes) you are missing out on the compromise that companies like Line6 and Fractal determined would be the best and most preferred way to leverage DSP and existing hardware when their devices were manufactured.
×
×
  • Create New...