HonestOpinion

Yes, it does sound better today, just like the graphics look better today. The point is that not only do graphics look better today, they also render much faster. The same will apply to audio. It won't require people agreeing on what is acceptable latency, you simply will not be able to detect any latency in a switch between presets, it will happen so quickly and seamlessly. Improvements in graphics technology followed a curve where at first increasing quality was also accompanied by increasing rendering time. Eventually rendering times started to go down, even as quality went up. I think sound and modeling technology will follow the same curve, it is simply a bit closer to the beginning of its journey. This is an interesting debate and I guess time will tell. Can you tell I read a lot of science fiction in my youth? :)

Good idea, you might want to put this in Ideascale and post the link back on this topic.

You are right in that the envelope will always be pushed by even more sophisticated modeling that requires ever more processing power and memory. But along the way there are paradigm shifts. Latency slips below a perceptible level. Hardware speed and capacity increase by an order of magnitude as cost goes down. I remember the early graphics programs on primitive hardware. Rendering a simple graphic would take many hours or even days. This would be executed on a piece of hardware with less processing power than your alarm clock now possesses and at a cost that rivaled a home mortgage. Along the way there were, to be redundant, major paradigm shifts where rendering moved from days to mere minutes or even [milli]seconds (assuming you weren't George Lucas doing things on the bleeding edge with Industrial Light & Magic; and let's face it, most of us are not that). This shift from things taking seconds to render instead of days completely changed computer graphics artists' workflow in a multitude of ways. All of a sudden you could experiment with 50 different visual outcomes in minutes instead of having to painstakingly plan every step because it would be 12 hours before you could see the result. I know this is a rough analogy but the same applies to the audio workflow of for instance having to plan and design how to do everything within one preset versus just switching instantly to another. I believe the same will apply to sound processing. In many ways we are just moving out of the infancy of this technology. A technology largely advanced by L6 (let's not forget the Vetta). I firmly believe future programming techniques and cheaper, faster hardware will make things like perceptible lags a forgotten issue of the past. We will get to a point where enhancements to modeling will essentially be only perceptible to the theoretical nerd and not detectable by most, or any, human ears. Latency will slip below the levels it can be noticed and sound quality will be in the stratosphere. We are approaching that point already. I accept the limitations imposed by the current state of the art programming and the cost restraints of today's hardware but in no way do I think compromises like latency and spillover versus sound quality versus cost will be issues we have to contend with in the relatively near future; at least not at the levels we do now. In the meantime I have a huge appreciation for the big brains at shops like L6 that are doing incredible things while managing a technical balancing act and public relations challenge with the material, manpower, and knowledge they have at their disposal while persevering to satisfy an ever more savvy and demanding user base, and at a price point that is actually within reach. Even though I understand the current challenges, like many other performing musicians, I still can't help wishing for and encouraging the best possible sound and technology for making it, with maximum flexibility and ease of use. As a pragmatist I also accept "you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometime, you find, you get what you need".

Hilarious conversation and only too true! You guys have convinced me, I am finally going to remove the "Matchless" name plate from my Crate amp ;)

I think we may see some progress on this down the line. DI hinted that they had some ideas that might enable spillover, and who knows, maybe help a bit with latency as well. I think other manufacturers have figured out how to leave some code loaded such that switching a preset that uses for instance the same delay and settings does not require the entirety of the new preset to be reloaded into memory. With reuse and less to reload you get spillover and maybe less latency. At least I think that is how it works? Anyone know how the other guys are pulling it off? If they are indeed pulling it off? I've done a bit of web page and database development and I know that we would reduce page load time by essentially sticking things like pulldown menus and static parts of the page up in memory so that only the dynamic, changeable parts of the page had to reload. Using preloaded memory caches with algorithms that made a best guess as to what the user would look at next (such as the 4 presets on a selected bank) also helped to speed things up. I know the Helix is an infinitely more complex programming challenge with hardware cost constraints but it seems as if the same concepts would apply. It still seems like scene functionality would be the most easily attainable and huge improvement to the Helix. Perhaps as the editor progresses this functionality will come as well. As usual I suspect L6 has the programming talent but not always the programming time and unlimited hardware budget to make this stuff happen at a palatable consumer price point.

Me too, I prefer and expected to be able to have the choice between the two methods! It would be interesting to know what the major source of the latency is - the code, the memory speed, the DSP processor? If the code still has room to be optimized and is the major culprit, maybe there is a way to minimize latency with the existing hardware. And I do think there is a way to preload/anticipate at least the presets showing on the selected bank if there is enough memory. This would at least give people 4 presets that could be switched to quickly.

Agree with phil_m, L6 link from Helix to L2t, although If your FOH mix is stereo I would run both XLRs out to the FOH board. Also if you don't end up processing your vocal through the Helix you are going to want run a monitor aux send (XLR if possible) back to the L2t as you were planning unless you have an additional vocal monitor. If you do have an additional vocal monitor on the floor in front of you can position the L2t behind you more like a conventional guitar amp setup and just run the L6 link to the L2t for guitar. Otherwise you can mix the vocal/monitor mix from the board in with the Helix on the L2t as ColonelForbin indicated above.

Another thing to check might be if there is a gate set on the mixer, amp, or whatever you have the Helix plugged into. You might also want to check the that the mix setting is high enough as well as the previously suggested feedback control.

Yes I have, good point! Some of mine have put the Oklahoma dust bowl described in "The Grapes Of Wrath" to shame. But yeah, moisture and maintenance still an issue.

Is there any chance you have the noise gate set too aggressively? This might cause the echo to cut out too early as the volume of the echos decrease.

This goes back to a concern I had when I initially received my Helix that dirt or moisture might find their way into electronics via the expression pedal slot in the Helix chassis. There is the issue with some users having the pedal scraping against the slot and add to that the hassle of having to remove the Helix's bottom to lube/fix the expression pedal (and maybe someone uses a lubricant that causes issues with the electronics?). I hope this does not void the warranty. Still think a slotless expression pedal would be better located on the top of the Helix where it would be easily accessible and did not provide a point of entry for contaminants. There may be structural, cost, and/or form factor advantages to the slotted pedal but I am not sure they outweigh the disadvantages.

When it comes to people posting a general wish list of unrelated items in Ideascale I would agree with you. Listing only one amp or effect may make it easier for L6 to see what is most compelling, but I have noticed that extremely specific requests for your one favorite amp or effect often get less votes on Ideascale. More general requests within a specific category can appeal to more users and frequently get more votes, for instance, "I would like to see more amps from this manufacturer (insert favorite here, Fender, Mesa Boogie, Marshall, etc.)". The same goes for FX, such as a list of suggested phasers or overdrive pedals. The exception is when you happen to list a single item that has unusually broad appeal, those ideas can garner a lot of votes. I am not sure what formula L6 uses to decide what Ideascale ideas to pick but if it is strictly related to the number of votes, being very specific could work against you in some cases. You may have a better chance to get a "Mark IV" model with say 300 votes for "more Mesa Boogie amps" than if there were only 40 votes for "Mark IV". Having both ideas probably increases your chances with sheer numbers and allows L6 to drill down from the general to the more specific, e.g. "Lots of people would like to see more Mesa amps and the Mark IV seems to be the most popular". At that point L6 may just to decide to include a couple of more Mesa amps including the Mark IV. There is also the issue of voter fatigue, a separate entry for every amp and effect model is a lot of ideas for any individual to weigh in on. Seems like both the single requests and more general requests have their merits in helping L6 determine what users want first and most.

+1

If only :D

I would not be surprised if periodically a new version of the app is required, especially for bug fixes, major firmware revisions, or the addition of something big like a new editor. However, I would not expect to see models that have not yet been added to show up in files in the 'EdLibResources' folder. I would think that it would be a real time and resource saver for L6 to write the editor in such a way that it can pick up automatically on new additions to the FX, amp model, and even global settings, rather than issuing a new version of the editor each time. There probably would be a way to write the code to essentially do a dump of all types & parameters in a given category to a resource file, for example, dump all FX types & parameters, dump all amp model types and parameters. That way the app does not need to 'know' ahead of time what amps and FX already exist. I guess it depends on how they coded the Helix app and ultimately what requires the least amount of time and effort in the long run. At first glance it would not seem efficient to have to rewrite the Helix app and reissue it every time an amp/FX is added.

Not sure if a new app would be required to recognize new amps/effects, hopefully a new app revision is not required every time something got added to the Helix. It should only require a new app for major firmware changes, for instance, with global settings, and even then you could probably code an app to pick up on them. However, it sure would be great to see a new version of the Helix library app if for no other reason than to fix the bug where blank presets cause saved presets to have their names moved to one location while the actual preset settings stay in the original slot; and totally agree, it would also be a huge improvement if it worked offline. The same goes for the editor when it gets here (looking forward to its arrival).

Great band! This is some tricky stuff and you guys are really doing it justice.

I am also more 'amped' about more effects, particularly another phaser option, but there are a multitude of categories where the effects choices can be expanded. Really psyched to see L6 stepping up on this as it was my biggest gripe with the Helix when I received it. Way to go!

Thanks much for the assist! What frequencies did you end up cutting/boosting and what settings did you use for the tube comp?

Nice playing and a great sounding preset btw! Which IRs are you guys using specifically and where can we download them? Also, are you using any preamps like the tube pre or just the IR? What else is in your preset as far as effects, EQ, etc.? Thanks in advance for any info or help you can offer, still trying to perfect my acoustic sound with the Helix.

Very helpful for playing in Dm, "the saddest of all keys".

The GT100 and the HD500X are great devices but the audio quality of the Helix sounds far exceeds these units both in my opinion and probably by any qualitative measure. By physical interface I am referring to the wealth of input/output options on the rear panel, the capacitance sensitive footwswitches, the many options for configuring the footswitches, the SCRIBBLE STRIPS (once you use them you will never want an MFX without them again!), the extremely high quality of the parts and construction, and the list goes on and on. The Helix is in a class with the Axe-FX and Kemper, and I vastly prefer the Helix to both, although there are certainly features on both of these competitor's units that would be wonderful to have on the Helix. The Helix is extremely easy to program and highly intuitive to use once you get past the initial learning curve which was the easiest and most gentle curve I have ever encountered. Overall, I believe it is the best unit on the market and the first device I have used that not only delivers completely convincing and natural sounding models and effects but also wraps them in a package that is exceedingly user friendly for the performing musician at an incredibly reasonable price point. To each their own but for my purposes the Helix is the only thing that fits the bill right now.

The reason you won't see these messages on the GT100 is that the GT100 limits the quality as well as the flexibility of what you can put in a single preset. This means you may not be able to use as high quality (DSP intensive) an amp/cab/FX as you can on the Helix, or that you are limited as to how many distortion/overdrive, modulation FX, etc. can be present in one preset. The Helix has no such limitations, you can put as many of any high quality FX, cab, IR, amp, etc. as you want as long as you remain within the limitations of the maximum DSP provided by the two DSP processors. Line6 opted for maximum flexibility instead of limiting the quality and choice of the blocks you can use. They chose instead to inform you when you have maxed out the DSP. An inspired choice! I would add that the physical interface of the Helix is light years ahead of the GT100 in many respects for the studio and "bedroom" musician, and most importantly for my purposes, for the performing musician.

Agreed, although two separate paths may or may not be an option depending on your input/output requirements and how DSP intensive the amp/cabs/IRs and FX are for the preset you are trying to design. I am just making the point that I think these workarounds will be unnecessary in one or two hardware generations. In the meantime, I agree, there are lots of great sounds to be had. I remember the first time I encountered a "DSP Full" message and was surprised by how few blocks I had used on the path; undoubtedly because one or more of the blocks I had chosen was DSP intensive. A DSP usage screen would be very helpful in this respect. I just wanted to acknowledge that there are sometimes frustrating hardware limitations. Consequently I have great appreciation of all the ingenious methods forum members contribute for maximizing the usefulness and musicality of the Helix which in my opinion is the best designed MFX on the market right now.

I may get some push back for saying this but I don't think you should have to be juggling things to prevent a "...DSP Full" message, particularly with so few blocks employed in a path whether those blocks are "DSP intensive" or not. The Helix like several other manufacturers units (not singling out L6 here) simply does not have enough processing power under the hood to allow you to implement all that the software has to offer. Software optimizations may help but I think we are still a hardware generation or two away from not seeing these messages at this price point. Your only option right now is to work around these limitations as best as possible by using "Super Serial" routes that utilize both DSP processors or alternatively you can use less DSP intensive blocks.