HonestOpinion

That might just work. I am hesitant to try things like that with vintage equipment until L6 gets all the "Ext Amp" issues sorted out.

The not breaking up issue on the Marshall reminds me of what happens when I don't have the volume knob on my guitar set high enough into a distorted patch. This points me to thinking that the issue could be related to gain somewhere in your signal chain. You may want to try just your guitar into the Helix and out into a pair of headphones. Select an "Amp + Cab" model. Make sure you have the noise gate on the input block set to off. Check your "Drive" and volume in the amp and the output block and crank the volume on your guitar all the way up. If you still can't get any gain, try swapping out your guitar or guitar cord (assuming you have not already tried that). After you hopefully get the expected results through headphones try plugging directly in your Yamaha monitors as phil_m suggested and then once you get the sound right there, ultimately back into the Scarlett. Good luck!

A few questions about the new 1.06.5 firmware update: Do we need to backup our old presets with the Helix App 1.03 or should we backup our presets with the new Helix App 1.04? Do we need to restore our old presets with the Helix App 1.03 or should we restore our presets with the new Helix App 1.04? Is it recommended to run the 9&10 global reset procedure or is this strictly optional?

Have to agree with you here but it seems to be getting better with new firmware updates, I hope they don't put on the brakes.

Absolutely, I expect to see Workbench approaches to amps in just the same way users currently create their own virtual guitars on the Variax.

Darn good point about multiple amps. This tip just changed the way I set my volume on my patches. So it begs the question, what is unity gain or a suggested guideline for where to set the "Ch Vol" parameter on the amps if you use the Output block for overall volume? Is there a ballpark number to set for "Ch Vol" or does it vary too much from amp model to amp model to have a rough default setting?

LOL, you bring up an interesting point. Perhaps the Helix will need a hybrid approach to modeling in the future, if they don't have it already, where they can provide both real circuit based amp models and models of created "virtual" amps that never saw a circuit board. More great "virtual" amps are being created and users are starting to request that models of them persist across hardware generations and different devices. In the future we may see models of Boss, Line6, Kemper, and Axe-FX virtual amps being requested the way we currently request Fender, Marshall, Boogie, etc.. Personally I am old school and prefer models of the great tube amps but I am seeing these kinds of requests fairly frequently for amps that started life strictly as models on other MFX devices.

With some interfaces hitting return doesn't give you a blank line but holding the Control(Ctrl) button and then hitting Return will. Not sure if this will work for you but it's worth a try. Btw, there was some great stuff in that "Wall of text", just a bit hard to read.

+1

Great tip, thanks!

My proposal changes nothing in the current Helix operation, it simply allows the preset to come up in the same mode in which it was saved.

Thanks very much for the technical details on how DSPs operate vs. a conventional CPU/GPU. I did do some reading up on DSP operation and I see that they do indeed store the program as well as data so I can see where the analogy to a CPU is not necessarily apples to apples although comparisons probably are appropriate in some limited respects. I will absolutely keep the differences in mind in future discussions. I clearly need to get better informed on how DSP works, it is still a bit of a mystery to me.

I agree, I do not want to sacrifice flexibility or see a significant increase in the Helix price for the sake of spillover. I am not sure however that there is not an option "C". DI hinted in earlier posts that there may possibly be some strategies down the road to give a limited form of spillover between presets. The focus of this topic has not been inter-preset spillover however but whether or not a "multi-channel" amp could be implemented in a single preset in a way that would actually use less DSP than loading several single channels. This would be a great option if it is technically possible. Additionally, I don't think it would be confusing to users. I can even potentially see some mix and match "multi-channel" amp options, for example a clean channel based on a Fender twin with a lead channel based on a Soldano, although I would think mix & match multi-channel amps would use up more memory/DSP as they would have different amp circuits modeled. As always I think the Helix community provides thoughtful discussions on these issues and prevents us from running too far down the rathole. I think some of these ideas may make their way into the current Helix and some provide food for thought for future Helix generations.

One thing that has been consistently bothering me in these discussions of DSP usage has been that they do not jibe with my experience with how program execution works. In my experience with other software, when we want things to run more swiftly, we preload them into memory, not into the processor, or in this case, not into the DSP. Processor usage does not begin until a feature is actually in play and being used. I can understand where we would require more memory to load a "mult-channel" amp but not where it would necessarily require more DSP as only the channel you have selected, just like any single channel amp model in the existing single channel architecture, would actually require processing. I understand on the Helix that essentially everything is in memory as it does not have a hard drive but often with this kind of architecture there is an area of memory, sometimes faster memory, that essentially acts as the staging area for what will be processed.

Great stuff!

'Sokay (spoken like one of the characters on "The Sopranos")! If worse comes to worse you can always mime, tap dance, and tell sordid stories from your youth.

It fits without removing foam as long as you pack the case's included pedal board separately. You will have to remove some foam if you want to pack the pedalboard inside the case along with the Helix.

You can use the Quote button for one response, or use MultiQuote for multiple responses. A lot of people have trouble getting it to work in Internet Explorer. I use Chrome.

You will notice I said "a backup unit of some kind", not a "full Helix backup", chuckle, that is definitely out of my tax bracket. Backing up your presets on a laptop is a good idea though.

It is an incredibly heavy duty case and can be locked. It would probably survive the trip although I have literally watched the luggage handlers drop my bag 25 feet to the ground while loading it into the cargo hold of the plane; not sure if it would survive that. If you are really concerned about it maybe you should consider an even more hard core case from Pelican or G-Tour or whoever. Perhaps one made out of molded plastic instead of plywood. I would definitely have a backup unit of some kind as well as insuring it and have my presets backed up on a laptop in case you needed to buy another one and have it sent to the nearest port. But you sound experienced with the cruise thing so you probably already considered that.

I have the G-Tour LWG case and I have not tried to fly it so I can't answer definitively whether it is small enough to carry on. It does however roll which makes it a lot lighter to carry to the last gate at the airport and the padding should be more than adequate (although you do need to custom modify the bottom foam "posts" if you want to carry the included pedal board inside as well). It is heavy, don't know if that would incur an extra charge or impact your ability to carry-on on any of the airlines.

Strongly agree, Line6's approach provides maximum flexibility given the current architecture. But architecture and building materials can change.... :D

As a matter of fact, it appears that Texas Instruments already has an eight core DSP, the C6678. I have no idea if this processor is even remotely suited to Line6's requirements but the price is about $79 per processor so this technology is probably going to keep coming down in price. Analog Devices, the company who makes the SHARC "ADSP-21469" DSP chips in the Helix (at least last time a reviewer opened up a Helix) also makes multi-core DSP chips although I don't believe the one in the Helix is. Digital_Igloo would know for sure. http://www.ti.com/lsds/ti/processors/dsp/c6000_dsp/overview.page?DCMP=DSP_C6000&HQS=ProductBulletin+OT+c6000dsp

We may be saying the same thing but I wanted to clarify just in case. I am not suggesting one processor doing "double duty" although I do think down the road we will see multi-core DSP processors. In a way, what I am proposing is the opposite, that two or more processors do "single duty". That internal input/output (throughput) and processing tasks be split across and simultaneously executed by multiple processors. I am speculating right now on the possibility of performance increases, additional routing capabilities and ease of use, and latency decreases, by pooling of multiple DSP processors (I realize "DSP processor" is redundant as the "P" in DSP stands for "processor").

Exactly! That would be one of several possible scenarios where it is more of a challenge to use the DSP with two routes (one DSP each) than it would be with one pooled route across two processors.