Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by HonestOpinion

  1. Just saw your question but @molul provided the correct response.
  2. Once you have adjusted the positions for the frequency bands per @craiganderton's info (+/- 12db vs. +/- 15db) I might focus on the two sliders/bands adjacent, left & right, on each side of the 1k band. They may overlap with the 1k band somewhat differently than the original pedal and might account for some of the difference from the original MXR pedal's response.
  3. Are you navigating to your backup files via the 'Restore From Backup' command under the 'File' entry in the HX Edit menu? If it is not working, assuming the backup file is not totally corrupt, you can try the 'Extract Files From Backup' command on your backup and at least rescue and restore the presets you most want to retain. Btw, your backup files should have a suffix of ".hxb". Also, are you getting any kind of error message when you try to restore the backup?
  4. Just wanted to note there is a 3.15 update to Native available now for download as well. The gift that keeps on giving, more innovation and yet another awesome update. Thanks Eric, Ben, and everyone else at Line6!
  5. Did you uninstall everything first as @datacommando indicated? If not, you could be invoking an earlier or broken version of an app or driver. Trying alternate USB ports and USB cables as @SaschaFranck recommended has resulted in successful updates for countless users so that would be one item high on my list before my next reinstall attempt. Make sure you don't have any unnecessary SD cards mounted, flash drives, or other peripherals connected that might interfere with connectivity or cause conflicts. Unplug everything but your USB cable from the Stomp(expression pedal, guitar cable, etc.). When all else fails, using another computer, as you indicated for your next step, is definitely an advisable way to proceed. You may even find that if the update using another computer succeeds in getting you up to 3.11 on the HX Stomp, that subsequent firmware upgrades may be able to execute properly on the computer that wasn't working previously.
  6. This song is not exactly, as you say, my cup of tea, but an interesting pop song nonetheless and generous of you to do a video detailing some of the techniques you used to get there. Nice execution on the jumps up from the low riff to the one high up on the neck as well.
  7. If your "workflow" you refer to is to set up several presets that have exactly the same blocks, start designing snapshots in one and then decide you want a snapshot from another, I can see why this might be useful. Think about the mechanics of what you are asking for though. A snapshot is as you know simply a variation of the blocks' parameters and bypass states in a given preset. You cannot alter the contents of a block, e.g. an overdrive to a phasor, from snapshot to snapshot. That means at a minimum to do what you are requesting, the snapshot routine would have to examine the target preset, do a comparison with the source preset, and then reject any snapshot assigned parameter or bypass states for blocks that don't exist in the target. Add to that the fact that routing parameters can be assigned to snapshots. I can see where copying that to a preset with different routing set up would wreak havoc on the preset. It would add computational overhead and additional coding for a snapshot copy. To top it off the snapshot you copied might sound quite completely different from the source as several blocks that had snapshots assigned in the source preset might not even exist in the target. Let's say you decided to allow snapshot copies only between presets with the same blocks and routing. I could envision that being useful if the use case I laid out in my first paragraph accurately describes your workflow. My guess though is your Ideascale submission may not be compelling enough to acquire the development resources required when most people use preset templates for reuse of snapshots they employ repeatedly, particularly once they get more experienced at anticipating what they will be using in a preset/snapshot. Albeit, templates may not be as easy when the snapshots you want to use are spread across multiple templates. In that case cross preset snapshot copies (under very specific conditions) might be easier but they would also be a lot more prone to causing confusion due to the complexities described above as well as requiring the aforementioned additional development(and QA) resources. An alternative concept occurs to me that more users might use, and it might get you most if not all of what you want in the way of workflow. They could add a grouping function to Favorites that allowed you to paste in multiple blocks simultaneously with the parameters and bypass states set as you wish. This would expedite preset construction. You would create a Favorites "Group" with your preferred blocks, bypass states, and settings, name it, and be able to paste in those multiple blocks in a single click. For example, a group named "Clean Snap" composed of the EQ, chorus, Reverb, and delay blocks and settings you frequently use in a clean snapshot. This approach also has its challenges though as the path would need to have enough slots and DSP available for your "Group" and the blocks would have to be sequential (although you could move them around after the paste). Again, not something Line6 might want to devote development resources to. Nonetheless, I could see it being very handy.
  8. Props for mad good research skills! Thanks for digging that post up. Impedance, headphone sensitivity, construction quality, and other factors including the user's personal listening preferences, can figure into what sounds "good" with any pair of headphones used with the Helix. The better matched to the device the headphones are, which is I think the point Digitalgloo was making, the more likely they are to play nice with the headphone amp and also sound good. This is a critical thing to point out due to the fact that low impedance headphones can be so much louder; that can be deceptive and muddies the process of selecting the right headphones. There are a wide range of headphones that can work with the Helix, but a narrower range that sound great. The same as most other devices. This is where impedance matching comes into play. Recognizing how high impedances as well as low sensitivity may reduce the headphone's volume helps to remove confusion in the selection process. It also helps to explain why too low an impedance headphone(like cheap earbuds) with decent sensitivity may require less volume/output from the headphone amp but may also result in less accurate, consistent, and lower quality sound reproduction. Most studio engineers tend to opt for flat headphones or studio monitors over bass-boosting options like "Beats", for example, for some of the same reasons Helix users do. They want the headphones/monitors to accurately represent their tracks. That baseline helps ensure that their recording will more accurately reflect their "artistic" vision and sound decent with a wider range of devices used for sound reproduction. Even after recording using flat headphones/monitors though, a studio engineer will then often proceed to listen in the car, on a pair of HiFi speakers, on a pair of Beats(heh), and on a pair of phone earbuds, to see how the recording translates to different listening sources. Followed by making any required adjustments that represent a compromise that works on a wider array of sound sources. Much the same way some Helix users might take some presets designed on headphones and adjust them on an FRFR or guitar amp for stage use. Better IMHO at that point though to just copy a separate set of edited presets for stage, instead of trying to create a one-size-fits-all preset. Unlike a recording engineer Helix users have the luxury of creating different versions of presets intended precisely for what they will be played through. If volume is the listener's sole criterion for "quality", then a more accurate and better matched pair of headphones may seem like an inferior choice, even when it isn't. The player's intention or goals for using the headphones impact their preference. Maybe they have a pair of headphones laying around they want to leverage, or they may just be looking for something loud that sounds good to them. Louder can easily sound better(and also destroy your hearing) and there is something reassuring about not having to max out the headphone amp. Lower levels on a headphone amp can also equate to a better S/N ratio. I can see where a loud and a subjectively "good" sounding pair of headphones may be just fine if you only intend to listen to your presets on those headphones and don't care how accurately they reflect the preset or how consistent the sound is. The problem is that too low an impedance, although potentially louder, impacts consistency, and personally, that lack of consistency is not something I want in a pair of headphones. There is already an array of factors that can impact the consistency of a preset's sound without me adding an avoidable one. For my purposes and preferences, it makes sense to find headphones that sound good but are also as accurate and consistent as possible without requiring me to fight the headphone amp and run it at full volume and/or necessitate that my presets be boosted. Impedance matching and sensitivity appears to be part of that puzzle. Apologies for proceeding to 'Beats' this point into the ground.
  9. Great test of different string gauges but outside of extreme cases there are just so many other factors at play in determining how the guitar will sit in a mix. Also did the video show the impact of the string gauge in a mix? I kind of fast-forwarded through parts. It seemed to be more focused on the sound of the strings in isolation. I always liked the full rich tone of heavier gauge strings, but I prefer lighter gauges for their easier bendability and vibrato. Lighter gauges also seem to have a sharper high end and cut through a mix more to me. I find that preferable for many styles of lead playing but they do lack some of the bottom and punch of a low gauge set, which to me can sound richer, particularly on a rhythm track. I look for strings that present a compromise between playability and tone as well as delivering a good tone for both lead and rhythm. Definitely not looking to spend 7 hours a day in the finger gym just to consistently get a bend up to pitch over a long night of playing. I generally use 9's or sometimes 10's on electric, but if it did not mean sacrificing the low end growl, not to speak of more frequent breaking on the high strings, I would probably consider going even lighter just for easier playability. Hmm, 7.5 gauge(if you could even find them) as Zappa was purported to have played in the video. They no doubt make overbends and vibrato a breeze and are probably incredibly easy on the hands. I think my tone would take a hit though. Hard to argue though with the sound that some of the famous players referred to in the video got playing lighter gauges(did they use them in the studio?). I think you should play the strings that work for you, EQ your tone as needed, and look for other issues in the mix. With that said, if a certain gauge always seems to work for you better in the studio, have at it. Now if you put bass or banjo strings on your guitar you are definitely gonna get a "different" sound and all bets are off :-).
  10. I get the same results as you when I mix & match the stereo and mono 1 Switch Looper across presets. The loop does not persist when changing presets. Mono to mono or stereo to stereo do persist. The Helix seems to treat the stereo and mono 1 Switch Looper as separate entities. Changing position however does not prevent looping but can affect the tone as you would expect. I keep my looper at the first position(for the presets that have one) for auditioning presets with a looper.
  11. According to the link below the Helix's headphone output is 12 Ohms. 4 Best Headphones for Helix – Music Gear Zone If that rating of 12 Ohms is accurate for the Helix's headphone output that means, using the 8:1 rule's recommended ratio, a headphone with an impedance of around 96 ohms should be well matched to the Helix. You can of course go higher(or lower) but the more the headphone's impedance exceeds that 96 Ohm mark, the more you may have to turn up the headphone volume. As you up the impedance rating of the headphones there can be a point of diminishing returns, where you feel as if you are not able to get adequate headphone volume anymore. This will depend to some extent on the construction and sensitivity/efficiency of the headphones. Headphones Ohms Ratings Explained - zZounds Music Blog Update: I always try to use the equipment I will be using on stage to design presets intended for stage. I use an FRFR primarily as a monitor as it is most similar to a PA speaker. Stands to reason the results are just more predictable. If you do use headphones though, it occurs to me that in addition to the quality and inherent frequency response characteristics of a given headphone, that impedance mismatches may contribute to why some users get worse results than others when taking those presets, designed with headphones, directly to stage(usually a bad idea anyway IMHO). The Fletcher Munson Curve, as usual, is probably a big factor in this as well. See the quote below from the second link provided. "Why does the 8:1 rule matter? If the source output impedance is more than 1/8 of the headphone impedance, you’ll get distortion in the form of audible variation in the frequency response. Highs, lows, or mids may get extra emphasis. These variations in frequency response can range from subtle to easily audible, and often unpredictable."
  12. Yes, use the Custom selection for every preset/snapshot, even if it is a Standard tuning. This is what @waymda was recommending and it is the most reliable and best strategy for using a Variax with the Helix. Also, and it seems like you already have this set properly, the 'Variax Settings' parameter should be set to "Per Preset".
  13. Were you recording direct or using your HX Stomp with an amp/cab? If as has already been mentioned this is not just a case of bias against modelers by your studio, then it might just be a case of you needing to take a more collaborative approach with them. In a studio, with a strictly analog setup, depending on your level of experience, they might be assisting you in dialing in your tone on an amp and effects, getting it up to the proper volume to get the cab resonating properly, swapping mics and changing their position, etc.. If you are just providing the output from a preset on your Stomp that interactive process might not be in place. Not sitting in the mix is extremely vague. I would ask them for more detail and exactly what they thought was not working as well as your other guitarist's analog equipment. Because the analog amp was working fine in the mix my first thought would be a problem in the EQ, particularly in the mids or the usual problem many run into with modelers - too much brittle high end due to the lack of a physical guitar speaker with its restricted frequency response and range. A high cut or as others have indicated swapping IRs or mic choices might help here. Hopefully you are sending them a dry DI feed in addition to any Stomp preset affected output when you are recording. That should at least enable you to work with them after the track is laid down to get exactly the tone that works for the engineer and you.
  14. Exactly the kind of idea I was getting at except even more sophisticated. No need for hardware modules, just enough DSP and memory to accommodate offerings from a range of modeling companies. This type of innovation is exactly why I am so keen on and have been advocating for the ability to agnostically incorporate plugins from different developers into modelers.
  15. Overdesign, room to grow. It shows Line 6 took a very welcome gamble on the product's odds of succeeding and left themselves the capacity to improve their initial offering. Good on 'em. The same objectives might be leveraged even more with hardware expandability. I hear you on the movement towards less upgradeable computers(and compactness) with the advent first of the iPad and now the Surface, Chromebook and others following suit. Granted there may be efficiencies, speed increases, and functionalities gained in some areas, but I sincerely believe this is mostly profit driven to the detriment of the consumer. It is all about ridiculously short upgrade cycles like Apple's where a new version of the iPad or iPhone comes out every year. Underestimated your future memory requirements, too bad! Buy a whole new device or pay a ridiculous sum to have someone pry open your old device and upgrade it. This sales model can easily feed into gross consumerism with little tangible benefit to the end user. In fact, it actually contributes to decreased value for the end-user because technological advances are parsimoniously doled out in order to drive the buyer into a whole new device. Essentially encouraging developers to sit on already created or conceived innovations that are already "in the can" in order to leverage them down the line for maximum profit. Sorry to sound cynical about that but I believe there is some truth to it. Thankfully that dynamic is somewhat mitigated by the competition to be the first to get out the latest and greatest. That mitigating tension is not enough though in many cases not to stifle timely innovation and inclusion of all existing current developments in a new offering. Just too much profit incentive to parcel it out. With that said I truly appreciate how long Line6 and some other companies have maintained their commitment to products that are now several years old. They didn't have to. When it comes to an audio workstation many still prefer a computer that sits on the floor with the capacity to grow in capacity and capability as the need arises. I have a nice laptop but nothing beats my loaded up PC(or Mac if you prefer) for throwing raw computing power at recording. Anyway, your points are well taken and definitely provide some insight into why a modular approach isn't available in the modeling world(yet).
  16. LOL, indisputable, yet somehow the PC industry has made it work. Not however without many a CPU returned or trashed for bent pins on installation, "bricked" computers that were nothing more than poorly seated RAM, etc.. Definitely plenty of room for user error with this model. I would say that for many guitarists who are not that facile with updates, they are however good with their hands and might find seating a couple of parts considerably easier than, for example, an early days Line6 firmware upgrade. Please, no soldering, down that road lies madness. Still, the capacity for hardware upgrades incorporated into modelers has a certain appeal. One alternative approach to this, particularly rack-mount friendly, might be a "universal" chassis with standardized modular seating for parts with a dead-simple slip in module approach like the Synergy amp in the link below. No disassembly or soldering required. If you really want to get far out, cross manufacturer offerings - a modeler that is a Helix today, a Fractal next month, a Quad Cortex the month after that, and then back to the Helix. Almost certainly never going to happen but if there is any place to speculate on next-next gen modelers the Helix 2 topic seems like it. Synergy SYN-50 50-watt 4-channel Tube Head | Sweetwater
  17. This^^^^ Very likely the issue. Should have mentioned global expression settings... heh, gettin' rusty
  18. You may also want to set the Position setting down a few percent to make it more tolerant of any variances in the calibration - say 95%. Regarding the unusual behavior on certain presets I might consider recreating them. PITA I know. Perhaps there is a setting in them that is different, they are corrupt, or something in their DSP utilization is delaying the auto-engage. Another thought strikes me, perhaps, although contrary to intuition, setting a slightly higher 'Wait' time than your current setting of 0ms might help. Depending on how the algorithm is handling the wah's engagement it could be engaging and then disengaging before you have a chance to move beyond the 98% setting in the sweep. Seems unlikely as I would think that the alogrithm would not be active for disengagement until it had passed out of the engagement "window" set by 'Position', but something I would probably test to be sure.
  19. Would love to see the capacity to load large Reverb IRs! It is interesting that in the modeling world we readily accept and embrace the idea that the unit we purchase today may/will receive firmware/software updates to increase its functionality and performance but the notion of a modeler that allows hardware upgrades still for the most part is rejected as heresy. It would be great to see a top tier modeling company at least attempt an offering of a modeler that takes a modular approach, where a user can upgrade the parts in addition to the firmware. Add more or faster RAM and DSP, or a daughterboard if you need/want more capability, leave it stock if you don't. The same approach PC's have been taking for decades. Eventually, even with swapping in more/faster memory, DSP, etc., your modeler might become outdated or obsolete but in the meantime you would have greater flexibility to add the capacity for more hardware intensive processing - features other players might not be interested in, for example loading larger IRs, addition of polyphonic blocks without compromising what can fit in a preset , additional banks of presets or IRs, less latency, additional or alternate I/O options, etc.. Ultimately you might be swapping out even the mainboard to take advantage of a manufacturers next generation of modeling. Still probably less expensive than buying a whole new device. The modeler's developers would be able to take advantage of the beefed-up hardware by designing more advanced features for the segment of their user base with the upgraded hardware to enable it. Just the way other types of computer based software work ok on a basic hardware platform but execute more rapidly or have more capability on upgraded hardware. You would be able to tack on a few years of usability and increased capability to your modeler. Same way you can keep a PC chugging along for a bit longer by upgrading the parts. Once you have found the hardware chassis with the types of switches, buttons, lights, display, durability, form factor, etc. that you like, why not be able to swap out the guts periodically and keep it current? I suppose one hurdle would be ensuring that the system was flexible enough to take advantage of the upgraded hardware. A huge drawback and disincentive for modeler companies would also be the potential for third party manufacturers to undercut their prices for part upgrades. Or worse yet, provide an entirely different main board with all of the attendant support issues that might instigate. Third-party RAM or DSP offerings that were incompatible would provide a similar challenge. I can see the potential for this being a support nightmare, especially in the early days. Still, I think eventually someone will attempt this approach and if they get it right it might have quite a futureproofing appeal to musicians. I don't think this is a unique or original concept, it must have been batted around in a few design meetings by now. Anyway, that is quite enough for tonight's episode of 'Mystery Science Theater'.
  20. I just have to say how freakin' delighted I am to see Craig Anderton contributing to this forum and now with an eBook. Mr. Anderton is truly the equipment OG and I have fond memories of visiting his site, definitely hundreds if not thousands of times, decades ago when it was the ONLY decent place to see actual users' reviews of guitars and related effects and equipment. Truly it was the sole outpost in the wilderness of an Internet newly emerging out of the message board era. He provided such an invaluable service for so many musicians for so many years and helped guide me to excellent pieces of gear as well as lending an assist in avoiding klunkers. I hope 'The Big Book Of Helix Tips & Tricks' sells like gangbusters. He deserves every bit of the acclaim it is garnering!
  21. I can recommend the Tri-Flow Dry lubricant. It doesn't pick up dirt the way many of the WD40 type lubricants do. I simply loosened the nut using the Line6 supplied Allen wrench and applied this, then retighten(don't overtighten). It has lasted several years without requiring any additional application. No need to take apart the chassis. No squeak and minimal hassle to apply. There is also a retrofit washer kit Line6 has for owners who got the original kit that was more prone to squeaking issues. The Tri-Flow worked perfectly for me though. Just make sure you get the "Dry" version. : Tri Flow Dry Lube (2 Oz Drip Bottle) : Bike Oils : Sports & Outdoors
  22. Clicking once on FS6 should toggle back and forth between modes for you. Maybe there is something in your settings that is preventing this from working, or I misunderstood the question, but here goes anyway. In Global Settings set 'Footswitches' --> 'Preset Mode Switches' = "your preferred setting" and set 'Stomp Mode Switches' = "10 Switches". Now clicking FS6 ('PRESET STOMP'), the footswitch on the far right in the top row, should toggle you between stomp mode and whatever mode you selected for 'Preset Mode Switches', for example, Snapshots, Presets, Snap/Stomp, 8 Snapshots, etc.. Clicking FS6 again should put you back in Stomp mode.
  23. It is definitely there in HX Edit 3.11(currently the latest HX Edit version), as @Pers and @datacommando pointed out. I would check under 'Help' --> 'About HX Edit' and ensure I was running HX Edit 3.11.
  24. I think @cruisinon2 gets to the heart of the issue. Using an FRFR at rehearsal at something resembling gig volumes, is probably the most accurate predictor of what your Helix will sound like through a PA, although as @DunedinDragon pointed out, older analog PAs introduce additional possible variances to the sound that would be produced by a modern, powered speaker, PA. As you state you don't own an FRFR and you seem to like the sound and "pressure" you get with your tube amps. Given your almost entirely analog signal chain - both PA and monitor - at least with your current setup, miking your amp might actually be a better approach for you than direct to FOH. Personally I prefer going direct to FOH from the Helix. There are many advocates on the forum for using an FRFR monitor(at or close to gig volume) to design presets that will translate most easily to stage. It is a fairly simple equation, powered FRFRs just sound more like a modern PA, they are essentially PA speakers, so it is more like using a PA from the gitgo to design your presets. That is the approach I have used for years and it works well but it is not the only way to go about things. If you want to stick to a more analog approach there is no reason you can't if that is what best suits the equipment you will be playing through. If you do decide to go direct to FOH rather than miking your amp, you will almost definitely find that you need to EQ things differently and make modifications to your patches, although some players get lucky, and the tones they dial up for their tube amp represent a compromise and sound great through the FOH as well. Ultimately the formula is, the closer the monitor you design your presets on is to your PA, usually, the less tweaking and translation your presets will require when playing out.
  • Create New...