Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by HonestOpinion

  1. Thanks again for your answer phil_m, it took a while for all of the implications of your post to sink in. So, at 25% I should have a mix with more direct/less effect, at 75% I should have more effect/less direct. When you factor in the point twpmeister is making about how a chorus and many other mod effects work, the perception of max effect at somewhere around 50% makes perfect sense. It also took me a while to wrap my head around the fact that the "Mix" control on foot pedal emulations is essentially implemented the way it would work on many rackmounts. If at "Mix"=100% I am only hearing the slightly detuned and delayed signal with absolutely no direct signal it most likely would be perceived as having little to no chorus sound. I am just not sure why Line6 chose this implementation for footpedal emulations. On footpedals the "Mix" control usually results in the most perceived level of effect at 100%. The operation of the "Mix" control on the Helix footpedal emulations is more like you would see on a rackmount effect where 100% is usually only affected signal such that the effect can be used inline or sidechained. In the case of an effect like a Chorus this results in 100% sounding relatively unaffected depending on the severity of the Chorus settings such as rate or depth of vibrato.
  2. This is a good hypothesis and was what I initially assumed the problem was. I think there is more to it than that though. Even if this were the case this would be a very unconventional and non-standard way to implement the mix control. Most mix controls on foot pedal effects do not operate this way. Most mix controls appear to be their "wettest" with the most perceived level of the effect at 100% (even if under the covers this is the result of mixing the dry and affected signals such that the listeners perception is that they have the max effect sound). On many rackmount units I believe the wet(100%) sound is just the max affected sound with no direct signal mixed in which would tend to support your hypothesis. Just not sure how much sense this makes for users accustomed to standard foot pedal operation, and after all, these are foot pedal emulations. I mistakenly started this topic when another similar one already existed. Please see Duncann's topic below.
  3. An optional daughterboard with two extra SHARCs would be awesome! Not only would this give the option for spillover but I suppose it could also serve to turn the Helix into a, heehee, "Double Helix" with monstrous and excessive amounts of processing power for incredibly complex presets when not being used for spillover. This topic of being able to plug in optional hardware as well as software packs has come up before and I imagine sooner or later the industry will provide units with this capability to cater to "power" users. Not that the Helix isn't already spectacular. I suppose the trade-off for the company making an "expandable" product would be "can we make enough money selling the optional hardware versus the upgrade cycle of selling the latest and greatest new version of the entire unit?".
  4. Spillover is not a huge deal to me either way although it is a great feature and makes for a more organic switch between presets. I am curious as to what is physically required for spillover DSP. Is it just an additional SHARC processor or is there much more required physically? Obviously there would be all the additional programming. The SHARC DSP processor(s) in the Helix, the ADSP-21469, is I believe relatively inexpensive ($15 per processor in bulk is what I thought I saw on the Analog Devices SHARC page, assuming they are listing the same version of the ADSP-21469 the Helix is using). I have no idea how much the PC board it is attached to costs or what expense would be involved in designing a custom board and adding a third processor just for spillover (assuming that is all that is required which I doubt). No clue on this topic, not an electronics guy, just curious what the actual cost of additional hardware would be to add true preset spillover capability without sacrificing any of the current processing power? Very comprehensive and positive review here that shows the SHARC processors and some of the other parts/components on the inside of the Helix, apparently the Helix is built with top quality construction and parts, from the chassis to the components: http://www.tonymckenzie.com/line6-helix-effects-unit-floor-pedal-inside-and-out-review.htm
  5. A couple of notes in addition to the instruction posted by Digital_Igloo in the link phil_m provided. You can also use Global Settings/Controller Assign to accomplish this. One thing that may or may not seem immediately obvious is that in, for instance an amp block, you can assign several parameters to the same footswitch. Scrolling through parameters allows you to assign several to one controller. Picking one parameter does not "undo" parameters already assigned to that controller/footswitch. The "Min"/"Max" settings determine what the parameters setting will be with the footswitch in the on or off position (Min=off, Max=on). Let's say you want the X/Y state of the amp to maintain a steady volume level when you increase the "Drive". You want the "Drive" to increase and the "Master" volume to decrease when you turn on the footswitch. Do the following using the command center or you can apply digital_igloo's instructions to take advantage of some shortcuts: Select the amp block Go into Global Settings and select Controller Assign Select the "Drive" setting with the "Parameter" controller Select the footswitch you want with the "Controller" controller (redundant I know) Use the "Min" controller to select the drive setting you want with the footswitch off Use the "Max" controller to select the drive setting you want with the footswitch on Go back to the "Parameter" controller and select "Master" Select the footswitch you want with the "Controller" controller (redundant I know) Use the "Min" controller to select the master volume setting you want with the footswitch off (NOTE: in this example you want the volume to decrease when the "Drive" is increased (footswitch on) so the "Min" setting will actually be higher than the "Max" setting for the "Master" parameter) Use the "Max" controller to select the master volume setting you want with the footswitch on Customize the footswitch name if you like. Save your patch, you are done! You can repeat this process(steps 7-10) for up to I believe eight parameters, you will notice that both your "Drive" and "Master" assignments are retained. Now when you click the footswitch on, the "Drive" setting on your amp should increase and the "Master" volume decrease. When you turn it off, the drive should return to the values you set under "Min" for the "Drive" parameter and the volume should should increase to the "Min" level you set under the "Master" parameter. Remember the "Min" and "Max" refer to the footswitch state, on/off. The "Min" can be set to a higher number than the "Max" and this will determine what happens when the footswitch is toggled off.
  6. Make "LED Ring Brightness" setting variable instead of on/off. This setting is under Global Settings/Displays. Right now you only have a choice of on/off, instead of being able to vary the brightness of the rings around the footswitch when it is in the "off" position. It would be great if you could vary the brightness of the footswitch ring when it is "off". This would accommodate different light levels on stage (dark, daylight, etc.). I also find the default dim level in the off mode to be just a little too bright for my eyes and it can sometimes make it difficult to tell if the pedal is on or off at a quick glance. With a variable dim setting the ring brightness could be customized for different eyes. I love the footswitch ring feature! Please retain the ability to turn the ring all the way off in the "off" position but add the ability to vary the brightness (assuming it is physically possible with the LED's you are using). Thanks! You can vote for it here: http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Make-LED-Ring-Brightness-setting-variable-instead-of-on-off/792849-23508
  7. I agree! I love the way the Helix has so many preset slots that they were able to provide empty User lists for me to populate with my own presets or modified presets copied in whole or in part from factory presets. I find this liberating as I don't feel like I am blowing away or modifying factory presets that I may want to refer back to. Granted you could always refer back to original presets by restoring them from the Librarian but I love having an area that is not already populated to copy and modify to, at least initially. I really like the approach Line6 took to not pre-populating every preset slot!
  8. Aaargh, the Helix has such an embarrassment of riches when it comes to knobs and controls for volume attenuation I am finding myself confused. I may well be misunderstanding DI's post but it sounds like the Helix should be run with the large physical volume knob turned all the way up and the "Level" parameter on the merge/mixer/output block set to 0% for unity gain (all other things being equal). Is this correct? This would be a serious change to the way I operate the Helix as I assumed unity for the large physical "Volume" knob would be with the white line straight up at 50%. I am wondering what or if there is a generally best method to level a preset using the following controls: The physical large volume control at the top of the Helix, The "Level" control on the output block The "Level" control on effects The "Ch Vol" on amps. The "Master Vol" on amps. What is the ideal method or rule of thumb for combining the settings (level of attenuation) on each of the five kinds of controls above for achieving unity gain or just the best sound? Including the "Master Vol" probably throws a monkey wrench into the question but it does have a profound impact on a preset's overall volume so I thought I would include it. Additionally this is probably a dumb question but I wanted to confirm that my understanding of the "Ch Vol" on amp blocks is correct. Does the "Ch Vol" in essence alter the ratio of amp block volume to the rest of the amps/effects in the preset? It is my understanding that the "Master" and "Drive" settings are what determine the grit and volume of the amp (like a physical amp). I would expect a significant increase in "Ch Vol" to have a psychoacoustic effect but outside of that it should not alter the amp's tone or grit, etc.. In other words, how do I ideally balance the "Ch Vol" to the output block volume and the physical Volume control? I guess at the core my question is how do I appropriately balance/use the "Ch Vol" setting on amp blocks, the "Level" setting on the output block, the large physical volume knob, and all the other available controls that impact a preset's volume?
  9. I would echo that stereo mixes provide much more interesting mixes for recordings and are pretty much the standard there. However we generally run a mono mix live. The problem we have found with stereo mixes to FOH in live situations is that we can't depend on having a scenario where everyone in the room is roughly in the center of the stereo image. This means that audience members on the right or left predominantly would hear the half of the stereo signal from the FOH speaker(s) on their side. They lose part or all of the other half of the signal, in the case of many effects that means they may only hear the dry or wet part of the signal, or one singer too loud and the other barely at all, or worse yet with rotary or delay effects they can end up hearing almost nothing when the harmony, rotary, or delay switches or is mixed to the speaker on the other side. Phasing issues can also become more pronounced in a stereo mix. But..., if you find yourself in a scenario where you can use a stereo FOH mix they offer way more flexibility and some incredible potential for Brian May, Leslie type moving delays and harmonies and speaker rotation, more sophisticated and often pleasing blends of sound, and all sorts of cool musical mayhem and guitar sounds. We just rarely play gigs where we find ourselves able to run a stereo mix, so we have focused on our mono mix. Maybe it comes down to which is more important to getting your particular band's sound across as well as the size of the venue. You may prefer a stereo image that may capture the band's sound better but not always be perfect for listeners not in the center of the stereo image, or, a mono image that provides a more consistent but perhaps also a less interesting mix. If you use a lot of guitar harmony, rotary, etc. or just plain prefer stereo no matter what, I suppose that may end up dictating your choice.
  10. It still seems to me that parallel loop operation could be achieved with proper routing and still maintain a more intuitive 0% dry, 100% wet operation on the "Mix" parameter, but I would be the first to say that I may not understand all of the ramifications of using a parallel versus a serial loop. Here is an explanation of the two: http://www.soldano.com/amp-help/whats-the-difference-between-a-series-and-a-parallel-effects-loop/
  11. I agree, the loss of granularity/resolution, the counter-intuitive operation, and the lack of standardization in methodology used on different effects does not make sense to me. Wouldn't standardizing all mod effects to the usual 0% dry, 100% wettest make the most sense and be the simplest way to proceed?
  12. Thanks! Should have done a better job searching on this topic, did not realize you had already started a thread on this.
  13. Thanks for the response phil_m. You may well be right but this does not seem like either an intuitive or conventional implementation of a "Mix" parameter. When I turn the "Mix" parameter to 100% it sounds like it is still wet but less wet than the 50% setting. Is there no difference then between setting the "Mix" to 25% or 75%? Are 0-50% and 50-100% just redundant settings? Wouldn't this approach reduce the available granularity and turning radius of the "Mix" control? Is there an advantage to having 50% be the max setting? Why was the "Mix" implemented this way? This is different from every other rack and pedal effect I have used. Lots of questions, sorry, just trying to get my head wrapped around why the "Mix" control operates this way.
  14. I have noticed that the effect sound for the 70's Chorus and ScriptModPhase are strongest at the 50% "Mix" parameter level. This does not make any sense to me. On most non-Helix effects when you turn up the mix level, you get less direct guitar and more affected signal. At 100% you get the most effect available in the output. On the Helix, turning up the "Mix" to 100% decreases the effect signal to almost zero, such that the chorus or phaser sound pretty much disappear. Turning the "Mix" to 0% also results in almost zero (which is what I would expect). I am using the XLR (left) mono ouput direct to my mixing board. I brought this issue up in the Bugs topic and got a couple of good speculations as to why the "Mix" parameter is operating this way but I am still unsure as to whether this is a bug or not. This does not seem to be normal behavior. Can Line6 please weigh in on why the chorus, phaser, and I presume several other (all?) effects are showing this behavior. If it is intentional, what is the difference between running the "Mix" parameter at for instance 25% versus 75%? How is the "Mix" parameter implemented on the Helix?
  15. You could not be more correct silverhead, it is apparently much more effective to use the CS support ticketing system. See the first quote above from Digital_Igloo who works for Line6.
  16. I don't think you can assign the bank switches to presets but there is a global setting to allow you to use the bank switches to move up or down one preset instead of up or down banks. Not exactly what you are asking but it would give you in effect access to two more preset settings.
  17. I think this is yet another great alternative for addressing this issue. I still prefer one of the following two options because all of the current functionality remains largely unchanged: Global setting to increase the required radius of turn on the joystick required to scroll through pedals/amps. For example 1/16 thru 1/4 turn (2 clicks - 8 clicks). 2. Global setting allowing a variable delay, for example 100ms-2000ms, before joystick starts scrolling though pedals/amps. Vote for it here: http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Make-joystick-require-larger-turn-before-effect-changes/788248-23508
  18. Would love to see more amp/cabs, effects, and presets for the acoustic guitar. Electric through the "Guitar" input and acoustic through the "Aux" input. One stop shop, nice! You can vote for it here: http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/More-amp-cabs-effects-and-presets-for-acoustic-guitar/791672-23508
  19. This is not one of my top priorities as I will generally be using the amp/cab modeling capabilities of the Helix but the points DI makes about a global indicator on the home screen, and the the point jayekim makes about automatically resolving routing implications when the amps/cabs are disabled, are good ones. Implementing the capacity for globally disabling amps/cabs might be a win for Line6 as it helps to position the Helix in the marketplace as an effects only unit as well for those who want to use it that way. The more Helix units that are adopted by the musical community the more support we can hope to see for this incredible processor in the future.
  20. We run a mono mix in the PA and I usually only connect the left XLR (mono) out to the mixer. I assume this automatically sums the left and right stereo outputs to mono. Is this correct?
  21. I agree! "Just get used to it" does not need to be how we address this UI issue. This issue is easily remedied with a global setting in a way that could leave it as is for those who like it and make it easier for those of us who find it to be an issue. Everybody wins! The sensitivity is definitely even more of an issue when you are at a gig bending over the Helix with a guitar in one hand and don't have time to carefully make adjustments.
  22. I agree that it is also very productive to use the official reporting method and would encourage everyone to also open a support ticket but I assume and hope that there are also representatives from Line6 keeping an eye on this topic, particularly in the early stages of the product's release as the firmware releases are more geared to resolving issues than adding new features.
  23. Outstanding and helpful video and great playing!
  24. This is an astounding contribution to the Helix forum! Big thanks to mdmayfield for being the first to post on this and thestratmanblues for writing a script to help leverage it. Thank you!
  • Create New...