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


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by HonestOpinion

  1. 7 hours ago, wicker_man said:


    Really pleased with the 3.15 update - looking forward to getting stuck into it, but I can't find where to download the Native update.  The downloads page seems to still show version 1.00 as the latest release.  Grateful for any guidance, thanks.


    7 hours ago, molul said:


    You need to leave the hardware dropdown blank. Only choose software and OS, and it will appear. The same happened to me this morning :)


    Just saw your question but @molul provided the correct response. 

  2. On 2/2/2022 at 10:31 PM, KFyock1 said:

    Hi all!


    About a year ago, I was using an MXR 10-band EQ in the FX loop of my amplifier and it sounded amazingly good. I noticed it was giving me some bad hiss though, so I switched it out for a Source Audio EQ2 about 6 months ago, which also sounded good. I wanted to add delay, reverb, and an amp modeler into the amp's FX loop along with the EQ, so I ultimately decided to sell the EQ2 and put an HX Stomp in the amp's FX loop to do all of this. Currently, this is how my HX Stomp functions and here is my signal chain:


    Guitar > front of amp effects > preamp > FX loop send > HX Stomp 10 band EQ > HX Stomp digital delay > FX loop return > power amp


    The problem is that upon switching out the EQ2 for the HX Stomp, when I set the Stomp's 10-band EQ parameters to what the previous EQ's were set at, I realized there was an extremely noticeable jump in some of the frequencies. The signal immediately sounded very nasally. Through messing with the frequencies, I realized there was a boost in frequency right around 1K Hz. To give an idea of how different the frequency hike is, 1K Hz on the old EQ was set at +2 dB (I run a little hotter for more gain in the FX loop). On the HX Stomp, I have to run this same frequency at -2.0 dB to achieve a comparable sound. However, running this frequency this low on the Stomp's EQ is causing some fidelity issues; coming out of speaker, anything around 1K Hz sounds like it coming out of an AM radio. You can imagine this is frustrating.


    Has anyone had this issue and/or does anyone have any thoughts, suggestions, or advice on how to fix this?


    Thanks in advance.




    On 2/4/2022 at 12:25 PM, craiganderton said:

    The MXR's bands cover +/- 12 dB, while the Helix does +/- 15 dB. So if you set the sliders to what appears to be the same position, Helix will be applying more gain. Also note that both devices introduce phase shift due to splitting the audio up into bands. So they won't respond in exactly the same way.


    If you have recording software with a spectrum analyzer or can load a VST/AAX/AU plug-in like Voxengo's Span (which is free), you can feed in pink noise (free file downloads are available on the web), look at the MXR's actual frequency response and level, and set the Helix sliders to duplicate that response. Or, you may be able to get the same sound with the Parametric EQ. HTH


    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. 

    • Upvote 1
  3. 42 minutes ago, jerryratpack said:

    Update went great, did everything according to the instructions, but, When i went into import , to restore my backup, for some reason it wasn’t showing the files, i finally found them, but I cant open them. Anyone having this issue ? 


    I was going to start from scratch anyway, but there were certain presets i wanted to clone , and of course re importing Ir’s is easy enough, but just curios if this happened to anyone else ? 


    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?

    • Upvote 2
  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! 

    • Upvote 2
  5. On 1/29/2022 at 8:01 PM, salazarben said:

    I downloaded the Flash Memory from Google Chrome and Safari. I also tried the offline mode update and I get the same problem. It's stuck on the update. I'm not using a hub, nothing else is open, HX Edit and Updater are all up to date. I don't understand what I'm doing wrong!



    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.

    • Upvote 1
  6. 11 hours ago, dsmall2112 said:

    Thanks for response and opinions.


    I disagree on usefulness. I would expect "paste Smapsot" action to completely replace routing, blocks, etc (ie, identical copy).  Having the capability to customize/design presets with snapshots snips from this or that other preset would be very helpful to my workflow, and arguably to others.


    As a new user I'm still figuring out my workflow as well as best use of the controllers.  Snapshots are a powerful feature.  Copy/pasting snapshots between presets will save me a LOT of time as I build out my personal presets (so would other snapshot edit functions, such as a clear/reset snapshot).  I am also experimenting with A-B switching within a snapshot which is also useful and a bit more transparent to user. 


    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.

  7. 7 hours ago, datacommando said:


    Here's a quote from Digital Igloo (Eric Klein - Chief Product Design Architect at Yamaha Guitar Group, Inc. / Line 6 / Ampeg)

    posted way back in 2017 in this thread - 





    "A well-known recording engineer friend and I were talking a while back and he mentioned that some older professional recording gear might get worse reviews today simply because headphone impedances have been dropping steadily. Back then, there was a much better chance that any over-the-ear headphones would be high enough impedance to sound great on gear at the time. Now it's all about blowing kids' eardrums out with their $200 Beats that are designed to push enough bass from a phone's puny headphone amp.


    Helix is professional gear "designed for professionals" and we weren't about to dumb down our headphone amp because everyone happens to have white earbuds in some drawer in their house. Feel free to use consumer cans, but don't expect it to sound great.


    BTW, a lower-impedance doesn't necessarily mean worse specs; it simply means the cans were designed for a different purpose. There are amazing-sounding, über-expensive low-impedance cans that sound amazing on phones but terrible on pro gear. And there are amazing-sounding, über-expensive high-impedance cans that sound amazing on pro gear but terrible on phones."


    Hope this helps/makes sense.


    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.

    • Like 1
  8. 10 hours ago, MGW-Alberta said:

    Watch this and then decide for yourself what will sit in the mix better.



    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 :-).

  9. 1 hour ago, RTATKINSON said:

    Hello all, first post here...

    I've been doing searches everywhere, including on here on how to keep a recorded loop going when you change to a different preset. 

    I'm using the Helix LT with the 1 Switch Looper.....and have placed a looper an every preset I want to use for looping.  

    It did work at one point, but for some reason, it shuts off now when I go to presets that once worked, and I don't know why. 

    As I type this, I realize that I changed some of the 1 Switch Loopers from Mono to Stereo.  Are these considered different loopers with will not recognize the fact that a looper is there when you change to a new preset?  I'm going to check that out just in case, but if anyone has any "secrets" to share that must be in place for loops to continue when you change a preset, that would be great.....thanks.


    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.

  10. On 5/2/2021 at 5:01 AM, ThomThom098 said:

    Hi, got a 250 Ohm DT-770 and to get decent volume I have to increase Output block by ~+12dB (w/ HX Stomp box knob on max). Used to have a 30 Ohm headphone, but very low quality, hence the change and output was on 0dB with ok volume in headset.


    Is it a problem to have to increase output dB like this?


    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."

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  11. On 1/22/2022 at 5:23 PM, aed1421 said:

    "The other tip is make evey patch force tuning" 


    Is this--Input Variax> Custom> Preset Variax Tuning?.  I only have Custom and Don't Force.  


    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".

  12. 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.

  13. 25 minutes ago, theElevators said:

    Time to introduce the concept of an open source guitar processor box, where you can run a VM with Helix, Kemper, Fractal, Zoom, whatever firmware... Wouldn't that be wild?


    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. 

  14. 4 hours ago, craiganderton said:


    Interestingly, Helix was deliberately overdesigned, with a lot of memory that was unused initially. It put the unit at a price disadvantage when it was introduced, but that's also the reason why Line 6 can keep updating it. So I guess it qualifies as a gamble that paid off.


    There have been memory expansions and ROM updates for synthesizers over the years, but computer-based devices are becoming less modular in general. The soldered-in RAM in the Mac M1 laptops isn't just to encourage you to buy more RAM initially, it also improves performance. System-on-Chip (SoC)-based devices integrate what used to be disparate elements into a single piece of silicon. Although many Android phones allow for memory upgrades using SD cards, those are really just holding tanks for data, they're not tightly integrated with the phone. 


    Another consideration is that including something like multi-pin connectors to accept a daughterboard, more chips, etc. is not trivial or inexpensive. So, that would raise the price with no perceived benefit until the unit offered hardware updates. Also, remember that Apple makes its own silicon, and Microsoft works closely with Intel. I don't know how much leverage a company like Line 6 would have with a company like Analog Devices to be privy to future plans, or be given priority in terms of expansion options. And you're right on target that it could be a support nightmare!


    Windows desktop machines are still pretty modular, but becoming less so in terms of being able to mix and match disparate components. I'm not saying upgradable hardware is impossible by any means, just that it's gotten more complicated than when you could add a Radias board and FireWire ports to a Korg M3 :) It also may be a problem in a market that has become so price-sensitive. So I think those may be some of the reasons why companies are reluctant to get into hardware upgrades. 


    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).

  15. 3 hours ago, cruisinon2 said:


    I wouldn't call it heresy... but it would almost certainly be a logistical nightmare. Who would actually be doing these hardware upgrades, and at what cost?... surely not the end user. Hell, there's a sizeable contingent for whom successfully navigating a completely non-invasive firmware update is a bridge too far, because on a good day they can't find their own a$$ with both hands and a hunting dog.... and now we're handing them a Phillips head and a soldering iron? What could go wrong? ;)


    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

  16. 3 hours ago, theElevators said:



    Check Global Settings / EXP pedal.  If you have Expression pedal 1/ 2 "per preset" or "per snapshot", then there's your answer right there.  Until you move the pedal, regardless of the actual physical position, the pedal will at the "saved" percentage amount. 


    This^^^^  Very likely the issue. Should have mentioned global expression settings... heh, gettin' rusty

  17. 8 hours ago, themetallikid said:

    So I typically only use my expression pedals for wah/whammy (any volume differences I program into snapshots as I dont do any swells really).   However.....what I've noticed on presets is an odd delay or lack of engaging on presets I do this with.  I'll try my best to describe it.   


    I set my auto engage up so its backwards then most, toe-down is 'off'.  I have it set to 98% as the threshold to engage the block, 0ms delay.   I do it this way as I tend to favor the lower part of a wah sweep and accidentally turn it off a lot less this way.   By default, I set up any other effects like whammy the same way just for consistency with my poor brain for live use.  


    When I first turn the Helix on, I notice that I need to rock my pedal(s) back and forth at least once, sometimes twice for the blocks to engage properly or there is a lag in engagement.  For my acoustic gigs this isnt an issue as I only use the pedals to reduce input signal between sets or turn off delay/reverb for between song banter.   However if Im playing a gig with full band and I dont use the pedals for the first few songs and forget to 'calibrate' (lack of a better term)....then when I get to the song with the expression pedal use, there is a clear delay or change in the engagement of the bypassed effect.  


    Now the strange part (for me)....   Usually once I do this 'calibration' after the helix is powered up, it seems to be fine across presets.  However there are a few presets where it seems I need to do it once the preset is engaged regardless of any previous 'calibration'.   



    Am I on crack?  Is there something I'm missing in setting up my auto-engage settings or something?  Or am I really just slacking on engaging the pedals properly upon boot up and any issues I'm having are associated with that?  




    (I apologize for my rambling, its band practice day.  First practice with a new group and I'm all excited and my mind is going over every little thing about my presets i've noticed in my head that doesnt seem 'perfect')


    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.

  18. On 12/15/2021 at 5:47 PM, SaschaFranck said:


    - Reverb IR loading. It completely escapes me why none of the top modelers allows for that, expecially given that even on my aging 2008 Macbook I can run a whole bunch of them simultaneously. Reverb IRs can be an endless source of joy in terms of sound design, especially in case you roll your own (which I happen to do a lot). ...


    Would love to see the capacity to load large Reverb IRs!


    On 12/16/2021 at 10:10 AM, Anderton said:


    The amount of memory needed for reverb is far more than a cabinet (especially if you want decent high-frequency response). I make my own reverb impulses; a 4-second tail requires about 170,000 samples. Several of my impulses use 300,000 to 400,000 samples. Perhaps manufacturers think not enough people would use this feature to justify the cost of additional memory, especially if a device already includes multiple algorithmic reverbs.



    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'.

  19. 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!

  20. 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

  21. 9 hours ago, mykejb said:

    On the Helix Floor is there a way to switch from 10-button Stomp mode to snapshot mode without going back to the preset mode and pressing up/down at the same time? I can't find a command to assign to a button to make the switch or a MIDI mode change command


    -- MIke


    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.

  22. On 12/5/2021 at 7:08 PM, TheDarkKnight1 said:

    This does not exist in the latest version of HX Edit I have. "Extract Files From Backup" is not an option in my file menu. I have the latest version of HX Edit.


    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.

    • Upvote 1
  23. 22 hours ago, Axxxeman said:



    I have no FRFR yet and I won't buy one, unless I am convinced, that going with a HELIX into FOH really will get me a great sound and not laughter from my band mates. But I am far from being convinced after all my bad experiences. Friend of mine has a Kemper, just plugs in, sounds great from the start. Forget Fletcher Munson, it just works! Furthermore, on no PA did I get adequate pressure like with my tube amps. Only volume ... Did I buy the wrong gadget???




    18 hours ago, cruisinon2 said:


    You can ignore this if you want, but the fact is that this very likely a large contributing factor to your problem. And I assure you that your friend's Kemper is not a mystical device, somehow immune to the effects that volume has on the human perception of loudness of different frequency ranges. It doesn't "just work" for him by accident... he dialed it in that way.


    You've made no mention of what you're listening through at home (or at what volume), to dial in your sounds. But I promise you that if you're using headphones and/ or studio monitors at comfy living room volume, then Fletcher- Munson is indeed an issue... and a big one. Worse would be running Helix through a traditional guitar amp at home, and then expecting those tones to translate to stage volume, through a PA... because then you've got two issues, completely different output devices and a large volume discrepancy.


    Your live tones need to dialed in through similar speakers (read: FRFR) to what your playing through live, and at or as close as possible to stage volume. Otherwise you will wallow in $hitty tone limbo forever. There are no shortcuts or universal settings that will be a guaranteed solution for you.



    No, you just don't know what you're doing yet... nobody does when they first start fooling around with modelers.  But the connections are not your problem... all they do is deliver a signal from A to B. The issue is learning to dial in sounds for a specific purpose. And if you can create sounds that you like through whatever you're using at home under those conditions, then you can do it live too. The process is no different, but your EQ curve will just have to do it. But expecting one to translate to the other without making the necessary EQ tweaks is...unfortunately for us all... a fantasy, and will forever be a losing battle.





    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...