HonestOpinion

Now that you mention it, I don't really have strong feelings about it either. I think both approaches are valid and definitely don't want to see auditoriums and bar floors littered with the burnt out carcasses of Boogies and Atomics left over from the 'Great Modeling War'. :huh:

The size of an IR is 9KB after you export from the Helix which is post processing into Helix's native format. I have presets over 40kb so I assume you can have an entire setlist of presets all of which are over 40kb. So from what I can see the IRs/wavs are actually smaller than the presets and would take up less room then the presets. If my math is correct one User list's worth of space might accommodate as many as something like 512 IRs (IR being a 1/4 the size of a preset). I suppose presets could be stored on the Helix in a more compressed format than an exported preset so I am just basing my math off what we know which is the size of exported IR and preset backups. Lastly, I used to feel 128 IRs was enough until I started gathering some up free ones and purchasing a few packs. I would say my IR collection is probably way smaller than many users here and I still find 128 slots to be woefully few for allowing me to truly exploit the ones I have. Not looking to load my entire collection up, but two or three times as many IR slots would be much better. :)

Your first priority before you download anything new or flash any firmware is to backup your presets and IRs. You don't want to go accidentally installing the new version of the Editor before you get your backups using your current version of the Editor. The instructions are clear about this. Backups first!!! I updated to the new version 2.11. Everything went smoothly. Thanks Line6 for getting this out!

I'm confused, you say you agree with Silverhead who stated he does not think there should be a sticky topic for non-FRFR solutions but you then state you think there should be one. IMHO I do not think this should be a sticky topic for several of the reasons Silverhead stated.

Even if there is a slight delay between the two signals of less than say 30-35ms (5-15ms would be better) it may actually thicken up your sound. Although it is most effective when one signal is panned right and the other left, a trick that is often used in the studio to thicken up an instrument's sound is to double a track with the second track slightly delayed, up to a max of about 30ms or thereabouts or it starts to sound like a perceptible echo and you are in danger of some degree of phase cancellation. Another way this is executed is to double the track and nudge the second track a bit right so it is playing ever so slightly, just a few milliseconds, behind the first track. In essence you might be doing this by introducing two signals to your power-amp that are just slightly out of time with each other. I could see this potentially providing some extra 'thickness' to your sound without causing any perceptible phase cancellation. Note: It occurs to me that this studio thickening trick could also be use by people in standard setups who are for instance using a separate path for a second cab or whatever by inserting a delay block with a setting of 5-15ms on the second path. I will have to give it a try.

Pressing the Alt key and clicking on the parameter will assign it to the Snapshots (you will see the brackets appear around the parameter value). Pressing Shift+Alt+Click will unassign it.

I am not a beta tester and I feel the same way. I have pored over the manual, played with the Editor, and experimented with the Helix more than any piece of equipment I have ever owned simply because the interface is so well conceived and user friendly. Every time I feel I have achieved a great tone I learn something to make it better. Taking the time to work on the presets continues to yield tangible positive results on stage. I am not someone who enjoys spending endless hours spinning knobs to get a good guitar sound but the Helix's design makes the process painless compared to equipment I have owned in the past. A relatively small investment of time delivers big benefits with the Helix and that encourages me to make the effort. For the first time in years my G.A.S (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) has abated and the Helix has actually been a savings rather than a cost for me.

I agree with PeterHamm's post about install and re-install of the Editor. Have you updated your firmware to 2.10 as well as the Editor?

Tried some additional presets including Templates 06A and definitely seeing the strange behavior you were seeing now. I think this is a legitimate bug. You should submit this one to Line6.

I certainly hope they don't delete this thread. You are entitled to your opinion and additionally a conversation about non-FRFR methods for using the Helix would probably be helpful to plenty of folks who use it that way. I am simply pointing out that using one method or the other does not pigeonhole someone as being a bedroom player and I don't think that is what is primarily driving the FRFR/powered-speaker bias you are observing. If you don't want the topic to be full of people defending the FRFR approach, starting off by characterizing them as 'bedroom' players is probably not the best approach. Anyway, I don't want to hijack your topic any more than I already have, my apologies for that. Back to the topic at hand....

I hear that you prefer a preamp/power-amp or guitar amp/cab setup to an FRFR or PA cab on stage and therefor would like to see more discussion of these approaches. Some of the more experimental types here actually like going back and forth between the two approaches (amp/cab vs. FRFR). I support whatever method people prefer to get their sound although I prefer using a powered cab or FRFR myself. I strongly disagree with your characterization (if I am understanding correctly what you are trying to say) that FRFRs and PA cabs used with the Helix are primarily for 'bedroom' players. I feel exactly the opposite. I am in a couple of bands and perform live on a regular basis and I feel that using an FRFR or powered speaker to craft your tone as well as monitor it on stage gets me a lot closer to being able to predict what is going out the the FOH and is vastly preferable to using a guitar amp or some variation thereof. I think using an FRFR or powered cab is an eminently professional approach to sound-crafting and monitoring (as are alternative methods). As I said though, I have no issue with people using what works best for them and wish you good luck encouraging discussion of other approaches. Btw, although what kind of player you are definitely may influence your decision I think part of the reason you may see so many people talking about powered speaker and FRFRs with modelers has nothing to do with whether they are a studio, bedroom, or performing player. In addition to the FRFR/powered-speaker ability to often be a more accurate predictor of the sound in the FOH they usually offer more power, headroom, more even frequency response, and a wider frequency range which puts them in a unique position to exploit some of the features of a modeler. If a preset is setup properly they also tend to yield a more uncolored version of the amp they are modeling than a traditional preamp/power-amp or guitar amp/cab setup. You have probably heard all this before though and still prefer an alternate approach which probably works best for you.

Heh, you and I are definitely on the same page Silverhead. I said almost exactly the same thing in an earlier post. :)

I can see where having the same settings stick from model to model might be cool under some circumstances such as cabs where the parameters remain exactly the same. I like your idea as well. In the example referred to in the previous posts we are not talking about transferring parameter settings to the next model when you switch to another model. We are talking about retaining your settings from the last model (those settings would apply only to the last model not the one you are switching to) such that you could switch back and forth between say a Vermin and a Minotaur where you have customized the settings, perhaps differently, for both pedals for comparison. If you switched away from the block only the settings on your last model choice would be retained (same behavior as we currently have).

To me Beck's sound as many other players and more than some is in his 'fingers' and technique. Among other things the particular way that he uses his volume knob and simultaneously works the whammy gives him a unique sound. Apparently he stopped using a pick in the late 80's and did at least one tour relatively recently using the Klon Centaur. My favorite work by him is definitely in the 70's when he made 'Blow By Blow' and 'Wired'; both of them masterpieces IMHO. Here is a great article on his technique: http://www.guitarplayer.com/miscellaneous/1139/under-investigation-jeff-beck/23068

DI has clarified that this feature proposal has been resolved as not having any advantages due to the fact that low latency and trails are advantages yielded by pre-loading all blocks into DSP. Unless they figure out a way to preload inactive blocks that uses less DSP (may not even be possible) there is functionally no difference between putting 32 blocks in one preset (not preloaded into DSP) and just switching presets. I respectfully retract my idea until someone figures a way around the inactive DSP loading issue, or eternity, whichever come first. ;)

Agreed! ^^^ This in a nutshell.. :)

That essentially sums it up and makes perfect sense. If all blocks have to be preloaded to avoid switching latency and allow trails, and inactive blocks do not use less DSP than active blocks when preloaded, then there is no advantage to allowing 32 blocks to be assigned, even if many are inactive, they will exceed the DSP limit. If you allowed 32 blocks that exceeded the DSP limit (but were not all activated) in a preset they would not gain the advantage of low latency as you would still have to load them into the DSP when a subset of them was activated just as you do with a current preset. You might as well just switch presets. Thanks very much for the answer and it puts this debate firmly to rest!

This makes sense to me for parameters such as 'Time' in the delay where pressing the parameter button simply switches back and forth between milliseconds and note subdivisions. I suppose Line6 could have made a conscious decision that there is no 'default' mic for a cabinet and had it jump back to the first selection in the list intentionally although that behavior does not seem to be consistent with most other parameters. What other parameters other than binary ones with only two choices and the already mentioned Cali (Mesa) EQ have you found on the Helix that don't jump back to their default when the button is pressed?

LOL, even 'jumpy'... ;)

I have not had any issues on the 2.10 firmware with the tuner not working. I hate to participate in restarting the tuner debate or see the OP's thread hijacked but I also think that although the increased sensitivity is awesome it is still too jumpy. I had some fresh strings on my guitar for the latest update and I thought it had stabilized but that was just the 'new firmware placebo effect'. I agree with those who feel that it still moves around like a seismograph at a Nevada test site or a Calico in a catnip factory. I believe it still needs to have a moment where it settles. It absolutely causes my tuning to take longer during practices and performances.

I have always been a huge fan of the way Line6 decided to implement its DSP by not having as set number of preassigned 'slots' for each amp/effect category and instead allowing the user maximum flexibility. To me it was a thousand times 'YES' the right decision. This post is of particular interest to me right now. I am having a conversation on another thread about whether it would be possible on the Helix to populate but not activate all the blocks in a preset and then select and activate subsets of them that come in below the DSP limit for assignment to snapshots or multiple stomps. Not exactly an apples to apples situation as doing this could potentially have a user trying to go to a configuration during a performance that exceeded the DSP limit but I think the same principle of providing maximum flexibility applies to some extent. Would it be possible to even do this on the Helix? I understand if you can't or don't want to answer this question.

Hope I am understanding your question . Are you saying you want to get a mix in your IEMs of both your bandmate's guitar as well as your guitar and vocals without using a mixing board, just the Helix? People have definitely set IEMs up for their own guitar and vocals and I see no reason you couldn't add another feed in from your bandmate as well. You could use one of the Helix's returns or drag a split block down to create a separate input block and path. Then send that return or path to the same output you are using for the IEMs for your own guitar and vocals on the Helix. Have you set your own guitar and mic up on the Helix yet to output to your IEMs?

It might be fair to classify this as a bug as most effect parameters revert to their default when pressed. I can verify that this is the same behavior I see. The mic always reverts back to the first one in the list (57 dynamic) when the parameter knob is pressed. Along those lines I would love to see blocks keep their parameters in memory until you shifted focus to another block. In other words, if you are trying to select a distortion block, you modify its settings and then want to compare different models, each time you switch to a different distortion model the parameters change back to their defaults if you return to the one you just modified. For comparison I would prefer that the different distortions retain the settings I choose until I switch away from the block. This would be handy for most of the block categories. Right now the only way to do comparisons that have your own custom settings within a category is to set up multiple blocks and switch between them. Not always convenient or even possible if you are running low on DSP. This particularly applies to amplifier blocks where just a couple of them with a few effect blocks consume all the DSP. It would be great if at least the editor had this capability.

Followed your instructions to the letter and I cannot replicate this bug. I am also running firmware 2.10.

Were you using them before the Helix and if so were you monitoring your guitar with them and were they getting a good sound then? Or, were they purchased for use with the Helix? Could just be a matter of EQ'ing them properly with the mixing board although you may have already tried that. Does recorded music, vocals, or other instruments from the board sound decent in them? Often a bad fit with IEMs can be responsible for a thin sound. Trying some different sized/shaped in-ear molds if they sent you multiple choices may help dramatically improve the bottom end.