HonestOpinion

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.

:)

You absolutely can do this and it is actually another example where depending on how complex and how much DSP your preset uses you can be forced to juggle due to having two DSP pools instead of one combined pool. To be honest though I generally find that my acoustic path requires so much less DSP than my electric path that it is not an issue. I posted a template to do exactly what you are asking about in CustomTone. You can find it here: http://line6.com/customtone/tone/1460280/

I actually have seen the out of DSP message on several occasions, but some users may never see it, depends on how you use the Helix. Although the convenience of not having to juggle is nice, that is not my main point. The placement of high DSP usage items like amps which is determined by the max DSP available on each route actually dictates how much DSP there is before or after your amp placement. That issue has nothing to do with convenience, it is about the balance of how much DSP is available before or after multiple amp placements. Right now, in order to use multiple amps you generally have to split them across routes. This leaves roughly an even amount of DSP available before and after the amps for FX placement. Sometimes you don't want an even amount of DSP before and after the amps. Sometimes you need more DSP after and sometimes you need more DSP before the amps, it depends on which FX you are using and where they are most ideally placed in the chain. That is the issue.

See my point above about not having to juggle high DSP usage items like amps. You would just slap them wherever you wanted without worrying about having to split them across routes which also dictates how much DSP each route has left for effects before or after the amp(s). That way for instance, if you wanted more of your mod effects to be placed after your amp(s) and less before, you would not have to worry about where your amps were placed. You cannot generally for instance place three amps on the first route, even if you have few FX placed before the amps, you have to split the amps across routes because they are so DSP intensive, which means you have less DSP on your second route for FX after the amps. Absolutely, more splits and merges allowed would be great! I have also wished they allowed these, they are particularly useful when you can't do scenes. They would have made programming several presets I would like to do possible. You are right to retain a healthy skepticism regarding latency until this approach has actually been attempted. I only know that pooling multiple processors (or cores) has a huge impact on throughput and program execution speed with other software and hardware. I suspect that DSP processors and audio software are not so different from other processors/software that they would not ultimately benefit from an approach that is time tested, yields huge benefits, and been around for years with other processors and software.

I just noticed that I also mentioned the possibility of improved performance and reduced latency from pooled processors when I originally posted the Idea in Ideascale. "Pooled processors can also potentially reduce latency issues like switching between presets, and the time it takes to process the guitar signal. The throughput speed can be increased because more inputs and outputs are available to pipe the signal with multiple processors pooled." Data that might be piped through lets say for the sake of argument 8 input/outputs on one processor can now be split across and simultaneously sent to 16 input/outputs on two processors. In other words, you get the benefits of additional "pipes" on each processor, similar to the way many operating systems and software leverage multiple cores and even multiple processors on modern PCs.

Not yet.

I think this point is actually one that could be addressed by adding level metering for the blocks to the Helix.

I actually have an Idea in Ideascale for this: http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Dynamically-allocate-DSP-resources/795206-23508 I see at least two potential advantages, one is more flexible routing. I find that sometimes I have to alter the order of whether I put an effect before or after my amp(s), or start juggling the placement of my amp(s) depending on how the DSP fills up on each route (1 or 2). The second advantage is that when you do fill a route(pool) up, you probably don't use exactly the amount of DSP available, you just get close enough to the limit to not be able to fit another effect in. If you had both of those fractions from each route summed, it might be enough for an extra effect, especially one that used a small amount of DSP. I grant you the potential "extra" effect is of less note than the routing flexibility but the routing flexibility limitation is definitely one I have encountered in regular use.

I still love the idea of optional daughterboards with additional memory and DSP that could be purchased for added functionality. As has been discussed before however, they would require additional software development, and I am not sure if they would be profitable for companies that depend on customers periodically purchasing the latest and greatest new version of the hardware.

I have to agree with you I have to agree, despite all its numerous attributes and superior physical interface, the fact that the Helix does not have scenes and does have latency between presets really needs to be addressed in the short run with scene functionality. I am also somewhat frustrated with current state of the art DSP still limiting how many amps, cabs, and effects I can have within a preset although this applies to all MFX currently on the market. Granted I like a lot of flexibility within a preset but I am not trying to stuff the kitchen sink in. I found myself juggling a preset like crazy yesterday trying to get everything I wanted within it set up. I finally managed to get all three of the Matchless amps going through one cab with a few effects but I really had to pick and choose and leave one or two FX out I would liked to have included. And of course, ultimately the preset still requires some small degree of tap dancing, also switch LED rings states don't clearly reflect which channel of the Matchless is on due to the lack of scene functionality. The Helix is amazing but it needs scenes! I know Line6 can't tell us what is coming because it would commit them to something that perhaps can't be delivered but any bread crumb leading us to believe scenes are in the Helix's near future would be enormously appreciated!

Thanks for this, a very well made comparison video. I have to say though, the issue I have been having with getting great acoustic sounds through any modeler is not so much on finger picking where they seem to excel, but on chording. I have spent hours across many days working with all kinds of acoustic IRs, effects, etc.. and the biggest problem I have is getting the chords to sound rich and thick.

I am very cautious about a buggy version. The last thing I want to find out after a couple of months of using a buggy editor is that none of my tweaked presets can be restored to the next version of the firmware or that something subtle has been altered in every preset that I edited. I would be happy to use one that has features that still need to be added or obvious bugs that can easily be addressed but I would rather wait for an editor that is somewhat solid than have it negatively impact my presets. I also hope that the codeline for the editor has been written with an eye to easily keeping it in synch with firmware upgrades. Otherwise my experience has been that the editor can actually slow down or even eliminate firmware fixes and upgrades as the editor often has to be modified in tandem with the firmware.

Certain frequencies being accentuated also seems to contribute to ear fatigue, particularly in the higher registers.

LOL, yes "soul sucking" was perhaps a bit of hyperbole to acknowledge the fact that this kind of compression can suck some tone and attack but I like that sound nevertheless. I am glad you brought this topic up. Despite the fact that I like the compressors on the Helix I would love to see one of these "muddier" compressors with a ton of sustain on tap added. Maybe I just need to play with the ones that are already there a bit more.

The Red Squeeze kind of gets it for me but if I had my way there would be yet another choice that had all the soul sucking, tone destroying, sustain of some of the old Boss and other less "transparent" offerings. Often that is just the tone I am gong for; just a personal preference thing for me. I like having a note that goes on forever until I mute it for legato phrases and I don't want it to sound brittle. I have always liked that warm almost slightly muted sound I think you are referring to. If you put a tone control on it for restoring some of the highs that can get removed with these kind of compressor-sustainors, all the better.

I also like a little bit of squish in my compressor for most guitar sounds. I like having a transparent one available for acoustic guitar and some presets but usually I prefer a little bit of squish in both the feel and the sound, especially when it is accompanied by improved sustain.

Thanks for figuring out a way to get that extra "M" in there :D

Curious as to whether the capacitance sensitive switches on the Helix could detect a double tap. This question is inspired by the user Jeff Miller who was interested in a quick method to move from one block to another, regardless of whether it was already assigned to a footswitch, without having to use the joystick. If the cap-sensitive footswitch can detect a double vs. a single tap (sort of like a mouse double-click), this seems like it might be a great function to apply to it.

Man do I get your point about simplicity and ease of use, I have often seen the best or most efficient technical approach sacrificed for those goals. If most people only use one channel then the effort certainly isn't justified, but if a significant number of people are going to try and cram multiple channels from the same amp into a preset anyway, then perhaps as you say, even if the channels are still loaded separately, there would be a way to optimize them (reduce the code and load if they are all from the same amp), or in my way of thinking just consolidate them into one amp. Anyway, I feel like a medicine man waving a sprig of witchhazel over the crops for a better harvest. I have no idea idea how you fellows over in the lab grow the Helix, just advocating for a feature that another has suggested and I would love to see. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

I know we have a different vision of the future evolution of DSP/memory (albeit you are the expert on the topic) but what about the concept of "amp circuit spillover" or in other words the elimination of redundant code and processing for multiple channels on the same amp? Is that a software solution that might potentially use less DSP and be something that could be implemented on the current hardware?

mileskb, on 12 Feb 2016 - 06:28 AM, said: I've always heard it stood for "Not available mother******, shut your mouth, Shaft" (I know missed an "M" but mileskb did refer to poetic license and I can't resist the opportunity for an Isaac Hayes quote :D ).

I guess the hope was that simply by changing the parameters on an already loaded "multi-channel amp", you would have potentially several channels available and avoid having to flip from one preset to another. I have no idea what the technical challenges are currently, but if the Helix amp models are based on models of the circuits, the DSP and memory changes might be minimal as most of the modeled circuits in the amp might already be in play. I guess in a way taking the same approach to amp channel switching that some MFX take to spillover by reusing the same reverb with the same paraameters for example across presets. Except in this case you would be reusing the same modeled amp components, but within one preset. This would hopefully result in a DSP savings over the more costly current process of loading multiple preamps with redundant modeled circuitry. Being able to have a multi-channel amp in one preset would not only enable spillover and avoid the latency associated with a preset change but also be an experience more akin to a multi-channel amp in the real world. No more sorting through several amp channels in the amps models list, just load up the amp of your choice and all the channels would be available within that preset. Perhaps a more elegant and intuitive process and one that I am sure is headed our way at some point down the line. Of course, everyone also loves to mix and match amps within a preset so the current separating out of channels is perhaps a DSP savings and more beneficial when you want to mix and match. Maybe eventually when DSP and memory is cheaper and more abundant we will see both styles, the separate amp channels and also a multi-channel amp option. I just wonder if this notion of "amp circuit spillover" could be implemented sooner. I can see benefits to both approaches, separate channels and multi-channels.