Jump to content

HonestOpinion

Members
  • Content Count

    4,117
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    50

Everything posted by HonestOpinion

  1. Keep in mind that if the last block in your signal chain is mono, e.g. an amp block(all of which are mono) or a mono effect, it won't matter if you have stereo blocks before it; the HX Effect output will still be mono even if the Strymon's output is in stereo. That may be fine for you but if you want stereo effects from the HX FX as well you need to keep the placement of mono blocks in mind.
  2. @burningyen Great writeup on the fix and I agree with Lone_Poor_Boy, that trick with organizing the parts on a piece of tape is worth the price of admission alone. Heads up. For some reason even though the two links that you included for the parts look like they point to Full Compass, they don't. They are circular and point back to this topic page on the forum. Try clicking on them.
  3. His new band's name is "Hill" :-) Saw him some years ago on tour opening for Deep Purple and he was still great.
  4. Heads up. There is a new 1.93 version of Native out with bugfixes. Btw, the title of this topic should probably be changed to reflect the latest versions of HX Edit and Native.
  5. Sorry I have not confirmed your bug. If this is confirmed you should open up a ticket with Line6 so it can get resolved. Just wanted to comment that I am grateful for the title of your post. Call me oblivious but I had not been aware that there was a 1.93 version of Native. I thought that 1.92 was the latest(due to the out of synch naming correlation between HX Edit 2.92 and Native 1.92) . Appears there is a new 1.93 version with bugfixes so I downloaded and installed it. Thanks!
  6. Great reference, thanks! Looks like he has updated his webpage to also include the PodGo allocations. One very important note for anyone using this dynamic spreadsheet. The DSP percentages listed on this webpage are for a single DSP. The Helix for example has two so you can fill up both paths(1&2) to 100%. In other words double what the percentages would indicate when you take both paths into account; the limit becomes 200%. I did a quick test to confirm this and for example on the Helix you can put five stereo Ganymede reverb blocks(5 x Ganymede[17.67%] = 88.35% of total for a single DSP) on Path1 and another five on Path2 for a total according to this spreadsheet of 176.7%. That is due to the fact that it is calculating only for a single DSP. You could of course continue to fill up both paths until they are at or close to 200%. Another thing worth noting is that although his video mentions that "there are no mono reverbs on the Helix". That situation has been remedied in firmware versions subsequent to when he released his video. There are now mono HX reverbs. His updated web page reflects that fact. His latest update to the DSP allocations is for the 2.91 firmware but if you scroll down all the way to the bottom of the page he has some links for allocations for some earlier firmware revisions(hopefully people are on the latest firmware revision though). This is actually worthy of comment because different firmware versions mean that the allocations can change due to more efficient code or other changes that affect DSP usage. I would think any future changes to DSP allocation in upcoming firmware releases would be to decrease the DSP used as increasing it would mean that presets from previous firmware revisions that were close to or at the 100% total path usage limit could go over the limit and no longer work or load properly. Btw, for anyone wanting to check out the DSP web page directly it can be found here: http://benvesco.com/store/helix-dsp-allocations/
  7. In addition to the headphone's construction/sound it may be the impedance value of the headphones you have tried that is determining which one's sound best to you.
  8. I tend to look at the the looper on the Helix more as a "Previewer". It lacks two critical requirements IMO - the ability to store loops and a longer loop time. It is great however as datacommando pointed out for throwing a few chords and leads on to roll through, preview, and dial in presets. At 120 seconds set to half-speed it has more than enough memory to pull this task off. It will also do for simple looping tasks of medium-short duration. For anything else you are going to want an external looper pedal. I have an old Digitech JamMan Solo that serves me well for my minimal looping requirements.
  9. I think this is a great approach. There are some perfectly decent, especially just for practicing, wireless setups that can be had inexpensively off Amazon and adapted to this purpose. Just avoid Bluetooth if you don't want latency. Even Bluetooth 5.0 still has perceptible lag.
  10. That "synth like" sound was part of what made that tone sound so fresh for the time. Also like the way he took advantage of the somewhat muddy tracking to great effect particularly during the faster more jumbled sounding passages in the solo.
  11. Forgot about that old thread. Some good tips to get that tone in that topic but I wouldn't mind if someone posted up a good example to CustomTone some time. That is still a somewhat elusive sound to me. Page was deft in the studio.
  12. LOL! Guess it comes down to whether you have more time or more money. For a lot of folks right now it might be more time.
  13. There is supposed to be a Template on the HX Effects for 4CM. This is an excerpt from a post from Line6's DigitalIgloo: So HX Effects supports 4-Cable Method? There are two mono effects loops (or one stereo effects loop) for inserting your favorite pedals anywhere into HX Effects' signal flow and/or connecting to your amp(s) via 4CM or 7CM. There are even templates to get you started. Don't own an HX Effects but if it is anything like the Helix it should be in the Templates setlist.
  14. Also found this link on Reddit advising Chrome OS users search for Linux users who have gotten it to work. Included a couple of other links from folks who got it to work or sort of work under Linux. There are probably more out there. https://www.reddit.com/r/chromeos/comments/6dw2rv/recent_chromebooks_with_usb_sound_output/di5ytvr/ https://line6.com/support/topic/55461-i-got-helix-to-work-as-an-audio-interface-in-linux/ https://line6.com/support/topic/30896-helix-as-interface-on-linux/ Chrome OS is running a Linux kernel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrome_OS
  15. Opening a ticket sounds like the way to go but despite the fact that it seems unlikely have you have tried swapping out guitar, guitar cables, and trying a different pair of headphones to ensure that this is a problem with the HX Stomp?
  16. This sounds similar to some of the questions about running on Linux. The link below has some approaches towards installing a virtual Windows machine or a compatibility layer like WINE on Chromebook. I have no idea whether anyone has had success with this or if it allows any of the device drivers necessary to work but it might be worth looking at. https://www.howtogeek.com/173353/how-to-run-windows-software-on-a-chromebook/
  17. HonestOpinion

    Set lists

    Catchy! Alfred E. Neuman would approve. I guess "All Presets Are Subjective And Relative To Your Guitar, Monitor, Playing Style, and Tonal Preference" is too long for a t-shirt.
  18. HonestOpinion

    Volume pedal

    Set the Global Settings 'EXP Pedals' --> 'EXP Pedal 2' = "Global" if you want all your presets to reflect the current position of the expression pedal. Assuming there is a volume pedal block in the presets and it is assigned to EXP 2(the default). There is also a 'Per Preset' and 'Per Snapshot' setting available.
  19. Another way to have minimal impact on the tonal character of the preset is to use one of the less over the top overdrives like the Teemah or an even simpler model like the 'Scream 808'. Crank up the volume on the overdrive with the drive turned down to zero,then slowly bring the drive up, leaving it on a relatively low setting. This method can deliver overdrive with minimal coloration to the tone.
  20. True and short of some new quantum mechanical approach to modeling that would leverage but not violate other laws of physics I understand there are physical constraints on what can be done; but I believe it is possible to emulate those laws more accurately and comprehensively in the modeling world than we are currently. Modeling has already come along quite a bit since we started and it ain't done yet. Yup, well aware that multi mic IRs exist. I have many of them. I fully acknowledge that getting room reflections that sound good can be difficult and that there are plenty of reflections you don't want to capture but a properly designed room can sound great and I don't see anything wrong with capturing those reflections. Recording artists frequently select specific studios or even old castles to capture the way certain spaces reflect sounds. I think digital modeling can ultimately use those kinds of signature rooms/spaces to good effect for quickly and efficiently getting a great tone. Perhaps a more advanced IR or call it something else if you want(IR+?) might include a certain amount of reverb, EQ, and post processing built in to more faithfully render a given tone in a specific room or even outdoor space. That would also require a modified "IR+" processing engine. I agree. With the sort of more complex and comprehensive IRs I am describing there would be a "baked in" result that would make them less conducive to customization. That is not necessarily a bad thing though. Not everyone relishes the prospect of having to dial in an IR and manually add the attributes of a great room. Many would prefer to "point and shoot". I believe there is an appreciation and need for more complex IRs that require little to no tweaking although there are some that already hit that bar. This will still leave literally hundreds of thousands of IRs available for those who prefer to add their own finishing touches after the fact. Again it goes back to catering to not just studio savvy users and tweakers who prefer extensive control over their sound, but additionally getting a great sound quickly for those who prefer a simpler, faster, and more straightforward approach. You may well be performing in a completely differently constructed room or space than the advanced or more complex IR you select that included room/space reflections, but this "venue to IR" inconsistency applies to other effects as well. Reverb jumps immediately to mind. In much the way you might not want to select a cavern or stadium reverb when you are playing a small club, or even just too much reverb, you would have to be judicious in your use of IRs that included audio information from the room/space. You could argue that it is completely inconsistent and nobody playing in a 50 seat bar should be modeling an 8x12 Marshall stack but that's never stopped anyone and surprisingly it can sound great on the right tune and preset, all without hitting 140 decibels. :-) I think the jury is still out and it is a matter of opinion as to whether or not these more elaborate and larger IRs "haven't proven worth the effort". Even if I were to concede the point that they haven't yet, I don't believe that means that they won't in the relatively near future. As far as expense goes, computing power continues to increase(as do prices) but we may find that the cost of the hardware necessary for this kind of processing will decrease even if it does not deliver exactly the same price point of the current Helix. I believe that we WILL at some point get so close to the sound of a live environment that most listeners will be unable to distinguish it from the real thing. That probably will accompany a gradual change as to the expectations for what a "live" sound is. It will probably require modifying how we build our PA speakers and monitors(if we continue to build them at all, see next paragraph) and listening technology along with how we do our modeling, cab creation, and IR capture. I think it is fair to say that the PowerCab is one of the first in a generation of hybrid equipment that seeks to meet that challenge. It may only be science fiction now but there may come a day where an entire audience is wearing IEMs and there is no PA. If that ever happens we will be having a very different discussion regarding issues like "amp in the room" and horn dispersion and how the sound changes depending on where you are standing in relation to the speaker/PA/monitor. When listening with IEMs, changing where you are standing doesn't change the sound. Everyone gets their own customized mix at the volume they prefer and it remains excellent no matter where they are seated in the stadium or room. Nosebleed section would sound just as good as the seats behind the centrally located FOH mixing board. Outdoor stadium concerts could last until 3am with nary a neighboring homeowner complaining to the cops. I agree you can do incredible things with the technology and IRs available right now but it is enjoyable and I believe can be productive to meander as to where modeling can improve and may move towards in the next generation. I know but making my own IRs only has limited appeal to me at the moment. The wealth of inexpensive or free IRs available already, made as you pointed out under much more ideal circumstances than I would probably provide, has not compelled me to do that yet although I find it intriguing and will probably get around to it at some point. Probably starting with some of the apps that allow you to mix, match, and modify existing IRs rather than making them from scratch. For the most part I agree with your points regarding the abundance and excellence of what is already available as well as the flexibility to engineer it to our preferences. I also like to speculate on what might come next. Particularly when I see new parts of the puzzle being innovated regularly by various modeling companies including Line6. Call it a proletarian approach to tone design but getting a great tone, at least on stage, is something that any guitarist with a decent ear and a fairly modest level of technical proficiency has been able to produce in the past. For live use I would prefer not to see that level of tone production excellence move to being reserved solely for technocrats and engineers although that is certainly the level of expertise I prefer for a finished product like an album or even a live performance done for thousands(or in pandemic-speak, groups over ten people) :-)
  21. Great discussion! Thanks Don Kelley for one of the most informative and well stated topics on fizz I have seen on the forum. Your explanations sound plausible and correct. Tips and techniques about how to get a great tone are incredibly helpful but I truly appreciate getting a better fundamental understanding of how speaker technology works.which you have provided here. This kind of information really helps inform how I construct my presets. At the risk of being reductive it sounds to me like Impulse Response technology and the capability to process it on the Helix and other devices still has a ways to go. In general it would appear that we need much more complex IRs to get closer to capturing all of the nuances the human ear picks up when a guitar speaker is played "in the room". Creating those would require multiple mics at various proximities and axes to the cone, including mics placed further back that pick up the room's reflections. Granted there may be already some IRs out there like this but I don't think the Helix has the capacity(yet?) to handle them. IRs need to be of longer duration and larger file sizes and the equipment that uses them is going to require the capacity to handle them. Not to pick on the Helix but the current 48kHz, 16-bit, mono, .WAV type IRs of up to 2,048 samples is probably not going to cut it if we ever want to get to IRs that get closer to capturing the sound of an amp in the room without requiring additional EQ and processing. At some point either the firmware on the current HX line or the Double Helix when it comes out needs to be able to handle larger IR sizes. Not to say that there are not plenty of IRs that sound great now on the Helix as well as the native cabinets. As you point out though it is the darker cabs/IRs, used alone or combined with a brighter one, that tend to play better with FRFRs if you don't want to have to EQ to limit the fizz. I have to mention that my experience in years past with analog mixing boards and passive speakers largely echoed that of robbieb61. A decent guitar amp/cab set properly with a single SM57 in front of it could sound great, often with little to no tweaking at the board. It was almost as if the old mixing boards and speakers inherently did what a guitar speaker does which is limit the frequency response(and range) on the mid/higher end of the frequency spectrum in a very musical way. When I eventually switched over to digital boards and powered speakers, it was like a blanket was lifted off of the PA and everything gained more clarity and got really crisp and defined but also got much more easily brittle and ice pick on the mid/high end. This applied to vocals and instruments. I found my digital boards generally required more EQ to sound "warm". A highly subjective adjective I know but I think most musicians know what I mean. It took more adjustments than the older analog equipment, particularly to the mids and highs, to dial them in so as not to cause listener fatigue over the span of a few hours. The same sort of requirements apply when using an FRFR as a stage monitor. I honestly think we have not quite evolved enough yet with native cabinets or impulse responses. Until we have I agree that either EQ or a darker cab&mic/IR without EQ is often the way to go if you are looking for a warmer sound with minimal fizz when playing through an FRFR, be it the PA or your monitor. How much if any EQ'ing you need to do, as you have pointed out, depends to some extent on your playing style, tonal preferences, other elements in your signal path, choice of monitors, mic selection and position/distance, room, hands, genre, etc.. Ultimately although the Helix has been provisioned with a wealth of EQs - graphic, high/low cut, parametric, Booogie, tilt, the amp's tone stack, etc., dialing out the fizz by just chopping the high end to provide a more guitar in the room sound can take some of the tone with it as others have pointed out and many of us have experienced when designing presets. You often have to look for more more subtle methods that may not even utilize EQ, like for example changing cab/mic parameters or using multiple cabinets and other tricks that can diminish or eliminate the amount of EQ required. If for whatever reason you still have fizz when you have dealt with other elements in your signal path, it would be great to be able to select an automated EQ option or just a factory EQ template that might provide a more complex and natural sounding EQ to shave fizz than what a typical user might dial in. These "templates" might be specifically designed for FRFR use. You shouldn't have to think or design presets like a recording engineer if you just want to be a guitarist and I think digital equipment has the potential to meet the challenge of providing a great sound more quickly and easily to a wider range of users. It would be particularly useful to new users. Automatic EQ or EQ templates are just a proposed workaround though until native cab design and IR technology gets sophisticated enough to at least diminish the need to EQ when using an FRFR. It is impossible to believe that the current status quo will remain in stasis for digital modeling. I doubt anyone in 1980 could have anticipated an interface as streamlined and intuitive as HX Edit or an HX device. I think options will get deeper and wider but setting up a great sounding preset more easily will also progress, good as it may be already.
  22. You are correct, it is not available on the Downloads page. Are you sure there even was a 2.6 version of the firmware? The bigger question is why would you want to revert back to such an old version of the firmware even if it exists? My advice would be to work with people on the forum to get your device upgraded to the latest firmware version. What problem(s) exactly are you experiencing when trying to move to the latest 2.92 firmware?
  23. Although there are some things I would have preferred be done with different hardware such as the joystick, in toto(not the dog) I cannot believe what a well built piece of equipment the Helix is. It is absolutely awe-inspiring from the quality of the case to the screen and scribble strips, even the rough pebble coating on the incredibly solid expression pedal. Almost everything about it feels robust and fantastic. What a remarkable piece of kit. It is a beast! As I posted before I only wish I could upgrade the components when the time comes because it is one truly impressive piece of gear that I would prefer never become obsolete. For anyone waiting I would say get off the fence and just get one!! I'm sure the "Double Helix", whenever it comes, and it could be years, will have more capability but with the build and quality of the Helix as it exists already the new Double Helix will be hard-pressed to deliver at the current price point as materials and manufacturing continue to get more expensive. This device has captured my intense interest, served me flawlessly for years of gigging, and cured my lifelong G.A.S.. I have said this before but I truly believe it has saved me bundles of cash over the years. My constant purchase and search for other equipment decreased dramatically after getting the Helix. In the long run it has saved me thousands, so if you are just looking at the economics of it you may be surprised at how your lowered net expenditures on other gear may end up more than justifying the purchase. Even if you decide to sell your LT for less than the purchase price when a new device comes out to displace it, you may well find that you have saved a lot of money on other gear you would have bought otherwise. In the interim you will definitely have missed out on just how much fun and creativity this device delivers, especially when integrated with a Variax and/or PowerCab, delivered with an intuitive interface that makes using it a pleasure. With a major firmware upgrade coming(3.0) it will soon have even more toys and functionality under the hood. I am not shy about critiquing things I think could be done better on the Helix but overall the experience has been overwhelmingly positive.
  24. I think there is a bit of a consensus here. Time is the most precious commodity we have. There is no debate that the next generation of modeling equipment will bring greater capability but you can waste a whole lot of time better spent creating than waiting. As has been said no matter when you buy, the next great thing will always be around the corner. Gotta dive in sooner or later.
×
×
  • Create New...