HonestOpinion

Thanks, I didn't realize DI did the documentation, he is excellent at it and that is a rare skill! Something tells me jnysen could have his pick of tech jobs, I am just happy we have him as a resource on the forum and I concur with willjrock, please chime in any time. I learned a lot about DSP thanks to this topic, glad it was posted.

Sorry to hear about the failed joystick. I have not experienced this particular Editor issue. Maybe you tried it but I wonder if rebooting the computer and perhaps trying other USB ports might have been a less destructive way of getting things working normally again and completing the backups. I know one thing, I am grateful to you for sharing a potential bug in the Editor (assuming a busted joystick does not potentially impact it, seems unlikely), as well as the results of a method for working around it that I will not be using, chuckle. Thanks! :D

I think this may be due to a well known quirk in the Helix firmware as it pertains to the Variax. You need to go to any preset where "Variax" is selected for the Input block and change the 'Variax Settings' parameter on the second page of the Input block to "Per Preset". The quirk is that although this parameter is set at the preset level it acts like a global setting. Now all of your Variax presets will honor your 'Preset Variax Model' parameter selection when they are set to something other than "Don't Force". You will need to do this for the foreseeable future every time you do a firmware update and global reset as the value for the 'Variax Settings' parameter currently gets reset to "Global" after the update/reset.

At the risk of being redundant I just wanted to list the rules from the Helix manual that datacommando referenced along side the ones I posted as they complement each other and the ones from the manual are written quite clearly (thank you Helix documentation person). The ones I posted are in essence a superset of the ones from the manual as they paraphrase the manual (unintentionally, thanks dc, I had not looked at those in a long time) but also include the current limits on combining cabs and IRs. I suppose you could infer those combinations from the Helix manual although they are not listed explicitly but I came to them the long way, through experimentation. Off-topic note: I laughed when I saw the point in the Helix documentation regarding only having one looper. I tried a while back to do an experiment with one looper block at the beginning of the signal chain and one at the end. No go, no matter how little other DSP the preset was using! I did eventually figure out that there was a one looper per preset limit but just remembering that from the manual would have been easier, RTFM. From the Helix manual: Amp+Cab, Amp, or Preamp blocks Any combination, up to four (two per path) Cab blocks (includes Amp+Cab blocks) Up to four (two per path; Cab > Dual blocks are considered two) Impulse Response blocks Up to four 1024-point IRs (two per path) or two 2048-point IRs (one per path) Looper block: One Current max combinations of IRs/Cabs allowed on a single path in the 2.21 firmware One 2048 IR [No additional IRs, neither 1024 nor 2048, are allowed on a path that already contains a 2048 IR. You can add (1) Helix Dual cab or (2) Helix single cabs to a path with (1) 2048 IR.] One Helix dual cab [No additional Helix cabs, dual or single can be added to a path that already has a Helix dual cab. You can add (1) 2048 IR or (2) 1024 IRs] (2) 1024 IRs [a third 1024 IR is not allowed although additional Helix cabs are] (2) Helix single cabs [a third Helix cab is not allowed although additional IRs are] (1) 2048 IR + either (2) Helix single cabs or (1) Helix dual cab (2) 1024 IRs + either (2) Helix single cabs or (1) Helix dual cab

Sorry I had not gotten around to testing this until now. I don't know if I see the same bug as you but I definitely see some behavior Variax/Helix users need to be aware of. Here is what I am experiencing. Firmware: 2.21 Guitar: Variax JTV 69s Set up Helix preset with an alternate tuning. Input block set to "Variax". The parameters are 'Variax Settings'="Per Preset", 'Preset Variax Tuning'="Custom" and 'Preset Variax String 6'="-2". This should give you a Drop D tuning when you bring up this preset and it does. The preset comes up properly with a Drop-D tuning for me regardless of how the Variax guitar tuning knob is set or how many times I restart the Helix. However, once you select the preset, turning the tuning knob on the Variax guitar to any other tuning (excepting Drop D of course), seems to lose the custom tuning dialed up in the preset and the preset now defaults to whatever tuning the Variax guitar is set to. You cannot get back to your custom tuning via the Helix without switching away from your current preset and then returning. This may well be as designed as it makes a lot of sense to do it this way but I was not aware of this behavior until you posted. Is this what you are seeing? It sounds like you were seeing some more inconsistent behavior than this. I suppose if the Variax input block had a "Tuning Knob" option under the 'Preset Variax Lock Control' to lock the tuning knob this could be prevented and turning the tuning knob on the Variax guitar would not change the alternate tuning designated in the Helix preset.

Enthusiastically voted!! :)

Wow, no kidding datacommando, that is one impressive post by jnysen and potentially sheds a bit of high level light on why the max cab/IR combination rules operate the way they do!

Thanks for the kind words but you guys seem to have this sussed this out pretty well. There do seem to be some rules that have been imposed by the Helix firmware rather than the apparent capacity of the DSP although it may well be that they are somehow informed or dictated by the Helix's DSP capacity, architecture, firmware, or hardware in some way that is not obvious to us. There appear to be special rules regarding 2048 IRs and Helix dual cabs. You cannot add either a 1024 or a 2048 IR to a path with a 2048 IR already present nor can you add a dual or single cab to a path with a dual cab already present. You can however, for example, have (1)2048 IR / (2)1024 IRs + (1)Helix dual cab / (2)Helix single cabs on the same path. It seems you can mix and match cabs and IRs to get combinations that would appear to consume the same amount of DSP that would be consumed by for instance two Helix dual cabs on the same path(which is prohibited). This would seem, at least on the face of it, like a limitation or rules imposed by the firmware rather than the available DSP but I dare not assume too much as to the arcane machinations of the Helix alchemists. Current max combinations of IRs/Cabs allowed on a single path in the 2.21 firmware One 2048 IR [No additional IRs, neither 1024 nor 2048, are allowed on a path that already contains a 2048 IR. You can add (1) Helix Dual cab or (2) Helix single cabs to a path with (1) 2048 IR.] One Helix dual cab [No additional Helix cabs, dual or single can be added to a path that already has a Helix dual cab. You can add (1) 2048 IR or (2) 1024 IRs] (2) 1024 IRs [a third 1024 IR is not allowed although additional Helix cabs are] (2) Helix single cabs [a third Helix cab is not allowed although additional IRs are] (1) 2048 IR + either (2) Helix single cabs or (1) Helix dual cab (2) 1024 IRs + either (2) Helix single cabs or (1) Helix dual cab

Try the Deluxe compressor with anywhere up to a 6:1 ratio. Make sure the release is at least 250ms or longer and the threshold is allowing the compressor to kick in when you need it. You can also use one of the overdrives with the Gain set low and the volume boosted a bit. Also make sure your noise gate is not killing the sustain by kicking in at too low a threshold.

Seconded!

Ha, ha, nice one! Clearly another Zappa aficionado. :D

Yes! This would be incredibly useful for going to a short lead or fill and not having to worry about stomping the correct footswtch to come out of it back into the rhythm or whatever, you would just release the switch. I could see this becoming my preferred method with any song that did not have a longer lead. Would also be fantastic for up-tempo tunes where your switching has to be fast and timed perfectly. It would be great as well on songs/presets that require more tap-dancing with multiple snapshots switches. I am 100% for this as long as it does not add audible switching latency between snapshots. This is one of the best and most useful ideas (to me) that I have heard recently. Would be awesome and I would use it frequently! :)

LOL, to quote Frank Zappa "stinkfoot, I ain't lying". The twisted thing is I am sure there is probably more than one website dedicated to this small in-home "cottage (cheese) industry". This could prove to be more lucrative than you suspect. ;)

Any decent AES/EBU cable will work. My advice is to find one that combines good quality without being overly pricey. A lot of cable pricing is hype. Also keep in mind that if you connect via the L6 Link the global EQ will not affect the signal to your L2m. I prefer the analog 1/4 output so I can hear what is going to the FOH when I have the global EQ activated.

:)

Makes perfect sense to have an optional performance view on the Helix for stage use. Good idea! You could see all the snapshots, stomps, or presets in one place at a glance which is easier than scanning across ten scribble strips. Don't get me wrong the scribble strips were one of the defining features that convinced me to go with the Helix, love 'em. Performance view would give you an additional visual cue and probably make stomping on the correct switch on the fly even easier. I think performance view would be a lot more useful for performance than the current screen with its small icons that are almost invisible when you are standing up. The current screen is more optimal for editing although I love the large font for the preset name and quick access to amp/effect parameters. If you need to edit something you are probably going to kneel down to the Helix anyway and you could switch from performance view to the current default screen or leave it as it is now all the time if that is your preference. Most people already have their presets pretty much dialed in when they actually hit the stage so a screen optimized for performance would probably be more useful for many users during a show than a screen optimized for editing.

The responses on TGP were interesting and somewhat reflective of what we have been seeing here. One thing for sure is that we have two forums that have confirmed that there is a certain and IMO substantial percentage of users that think the tuner has a problem. As always the forum users tend to represent a larger constituency or users who do not post.

Despite my reservations about it, the results so far for the poll are quite interesting. Have only checked it a couple of times but I have seen the number tip over 40% at one point for people who think the tuner is too jumpy. I don't want to come off as overly critical of the poll as I appreciate the effort but I did want to point something out and this goes back to how important the formulation of the poll question is. Here are the two questions in your poll: Helix's Tuner Stability is Steady Enough for Me! 40 vote(s) 62.5% Helix's Tuner Stability is Way Too Jumpy and Erratic for me! 24 vote(s) 37.5% You will notice that the first question asking essentially "who likes the tuner as it is now" is phrased in very neutral language, e.g. "Helix's Tuner Stability is Steady Enough for Me!". In other words 'Does it hit a minimal threshold of usability?'. The second question asking if there is a problem with it uses language that requires a response to a much more dramatic and extreme question, e.g. "Helix's Tuner Stability is Way Too Jumpy and Erratic for me!". The use of "Way too Jumpy" as well as the word "Erratic" require the user to have a much more substantial level of dissatisfaction with the tuner, than the moderate level of satisfaction required for the other question. Might seem like splitting hairs but the impact of those two questions is quite different and again, they will skew the results. I think it is significant how many votes for jumpy tuner there have been despite a poll that could use some editing. I guess the one benefit of having phrased the question this way is we will discover how many voters are extremely and "way too" dissatisfied with this tuner. ;)

I have not noticed whether it is doing it in the 2.21 firmware but the rebuild messages on the older versions of the software would often appear on restart whenever you either copied a preset or loaded one from backups or CustomTone.

Thanks for starting the poll! I do have a couple of reservations about it and they are the same concerns I have with political polls. The way you phrase the question has an enormous impact on the poll's results. Who you end up sampling makes a big difference as well. In this case my concern is that the group that needs to be sampled are those who are using the tuner for stage. That is not specified either in the question nor is that specific group targeted in the poll. You would need to either poll only those using it for stage or ask the question a bit differently, e.g. "Does this tuner perform up to the general standard set by other commonly available tuners for stage use? : Yes, No, or I don't know." I could probably refine the verbiage there a bit better, but you get the idea. I think we have already established that the tuner may be ok with a lot of folks for studio usage and those people will skew the results as they have been included in the poll. We are primarily looking to find out how people who use it for performance and band practice feel about it; situations where there is substantial pressure to tune quickly. Still, this does give us some new data points from all types of users and I appreciate that you took the initiative. I do agree with robbie61 to a certain extent though. We don't need no stinking polls, if it walks like an ugly duckling, and quacks like an ugly duckling, it is probably a beautiful swan. Wait a second, mixing metaphors and fairy tales here. Anyway, let's hurry up and get to the swan part of the tuner's life cycle already.

LOL :)

I think this statement applies much better to more subjective things like the sound of a particular amp or effect. To me the observation that the tuner is jumpy and unusable for a wide swath of guitarists who are trying to use it for performance seems much more objective and cannot just be relegated to the realm of different "tastes".

Sorry but I don't think either of these statements is entirely accurate (or granular ;) ). I agree the "tuner sucks" does not fairly recognize its strong points but I understand the sentiment and those very words have rolled around in my own head more than once. If these folks had "golden hearing" they would tune without a tuner. Most of them are not claiming to have hearing that rivals the treasure troves of Aztec kings. I know a couple of guitarists whose innate pitch detection is so dead on that they just reach up during a song and tune their strings almost perfectly. No tuner required. That is not me, I am envious of that talent and how good their ears are. I can tune pretty quickly with harmonics but don't want to subject an audience to that through the PA. So I need a decent tuner, it does not need to be perfect, just reasonably accurate, granular, and most of all it needs to settle down for a long enough moment for me to have a solid reference point. Regarding accuracy and granularity, sure there are some "measurebaters" out there, no doubt. I am not a huge fan of their posts either as I believe they undermine the push to get the tuner fixed, but they are entitled to their opinions. A lot of users though are just noting the differences they find between the usability of their other tuners and the lack thereof with the Helix tuner. Most of those complaints are valid and some not so much. I disregard the true measurebaters but you are in jeopardy of suffering the same fate of being marginalized as you are starting to behave a bit like a tuner"baiter". As in you keep baiting your fellow forum users by throwing out unnecessary posts that diminish the opinions and observations of many of the users regarding this issue. You have clearly lost objectivity on this issue or have not experimented with a wide enough array of guitars during a performance. How can you honestly dismiss this many users' opinions about something that is so visually and starkly obvious to so many of us? C'mon Peter, put down the Kool-Aid and wake up and smell the coffee, it's very "granular" but won't settle down and keeps splashing out of the cup. You are having way too much fun with this topic, please help us get this thing addressed. That would be way more fun for everybody.

Bummer, I feel ya. I had to replace my Helix a while ago for two failing switches but was able to wait until I had sufficient time between gigs. It was still under store warranty and the retailer got a new one back to me quickly. I do think they could have chosen a better control arrangement than the joystick they went with. I much prefer that flat rotating clickable "disk" surrounded by four buttons setup for instance on the Roland GR-55 and think it is less prone to impact damage. I also would not be at all surprised if the Roland controls fail far less often although nobody is releasing those numbers. Overall the Helix is really well built and of the highest quality and if there are a couple of parts that fail too often or should be improved on in future generations I don't see any percentage in sugar-coating the issue (not saying you are). I think the joystick comes under that heading. Besides its design, and the fact that it has to be used in tandem with the Preset knob, which is in my opinion sub-optimal, I have never liked the feel of it or how easy it is to turn it accidentally. It is like somebody took a sleek Maserati sports car and put plastic door knobs on the doors instead of recessed handles. I have gotten used to it over time though.

Voted! Redundancy is a beautiful thing. Have never been a fan of the joystick design to begin with. One of the few parts of the Helix's physical design that seems to be behind instead of way ahead of the competitors.