HonestOpinion

Catchy! Alfred E. Neuman would approve. I guess "All Presets Are Subjective And Relative To Your Guitar, Monitor, Playing Style, and Tonal Preference" is too long for a t-shirt.

Set the Global Settings 'EXP Pedals' --> 'EXP Pedal 2' = "Global" if you want all your presets to reflect the current position of the expression pedal. Assuming there is a volume pedal block in the presets and it is assigned to EXP 2(the default). There is also a 'Per Preset' and 'Per Snapshot' setting available.

Another way to have minimal impact on the tonal character of the preset is to use one of the less over the top overdrives like the Teemah or an even simpler model like the 'Scream 808'. Crank up the volume on the overdrive with the drive turned down to zero,then slowly bring the drive up, leaving it on a relatively low setting. This method can deliver overdrive with minimal coloration to the tone.

True and short of some new quantum mechanical approach to modeling that would leverage but not violate other laws of physics I understand there are physical constraints on what can be done; but I believe it is possible to emulate those laws more accurately and comprehensively in the modeling world than we are currently. Modeling has already come along quite a bit since we started and it ain't done yet. Yup, well aware that multi mic IRs exist. I have many of them. I fully acknowledge that getting room reflections that sound good can be difficult and that there are plenty of reflections you don't want to capture but a properly designed room can sound great and I don't see anything wrong with capturing those reflections. Recording artists frequently select specific studios or even old castles to capture the way certain spaces reflect sounds. I think digital modeling can ultimately use those kinds of signature rooms/spaces to good effect for quickly and efficiently getting a great tone. Perhaps a more advanced IR or call it something else if you want(IR+?) might include a certain amount of reverb, EQ, and post processing built in to more faithfully render a given tone in a specific room or even outdoor space. That would also require a modified "IR+" processing engine. I agree. With the sort of more complex and comprehensive IRs I am describing there would be a "baked in" result that would make them less conducive to customization. That is not necessarily a bad thing though. Not everyone relishes the prospect of having to dial in an IR and manually add the attributes of a great room. Many would prefer to "point and shoot". I believe there is an appreciation and need for more complex IRs that require little to no tweaking although there are some that already hit that bar. This will still leave literally hundreds of thousands of IRs available for those who prefer to add their own finishing touches after the fact. Again it goes back to catering to not just studio savvy users and tweakers who prefer extensive control over their sound, but additionally getting a great sound quickly for those who prefer a simpler, faster, and more straightforward approach. You may well be performing in a completely differently constructed room or space than the advanced or more complex IR you select that included room/space reflections, but this "venue to IR" inconsistency applies to other effects as well. Reverb jumps immediately to mind. In much the way you might not want to select a cavern or stadium reverb when you are playing a small club, or even just too much reverb, you would have to be judicious in your use of IRs that included audio information from the room/space. You could argue that it is completely inconsistent and nobody playing in a 50 seat bar should be modeling an 8x12 Marshall stack but that's never stopped anyone and surprisingly it can sound great on the right tune and preset, all without hitting 140 decibels. :-) I think the jury is still out and it is a matter of opinion as to whether or not these more elaborate and larger IRs "haven't proven worth the effort". Even if I were to concede the point that they haven't yet, I don't believe that means that they won't in the relatively near future. As far as expense goes, computing power continues to increase(as do prices) but we may find that the cost of the hardware necessary for this kind of processing will decrease even if it does not deliver exactly the same price point of the current Helix. I believe that we WILL at some point get so close to the sound of a live environment that most listeners will be unable to distinguish it from the real thing. That probably will accompany a gradual change as to the expectations for what a "live" sound is. It will probably require modifying how we build our PA speakers and monitors(if we continue to build them at all, see next paragraph) and listening technology along with how we do our modeling, cab creation, and IR capture. I think it is fair to say that the PowerCab is one of the first in a generation of hybrid equipment that seeks to meet that challenge. It may only be science fiction now but there may come a day where an entire audience is wearing IEMs and there is no PA. If that ever happens we will be having a very different discussion regarding issues like "amp in the room" and horn dispersion and how the sound changes depending on where you are standing in relation to the speaker/PA/monitor. When listening with IEMs, changing where you are standing doesn't change the sound. Everyone gets their own customized mix at the volume they prefer and it remains excellent no matter where they are seated in the stadium or room. Nosebleed section would sound just as good as the seats behind the centrally located FOH mixing board. Outdoor stadium concerts could last until 3am with nary a neighboring homeowner complaining to the cops. I agree you can do incredible things with the technology and IRs available right now but it is enjoyable and I believe can be productive to meander as to where modeling can improve and may move towards in the next generation. I know but making my own IRs only has limited appeal to me at the moment. The wealth of inexpensive or free IRs available already, made as you pointed out under much more ideal circumstances than I would probably provide, has not compelled me to do that yet although I find it intriguing and will probably get around to it at some point. Probably starting with some of the apps that allow you to mix, match, and modify existing IRs rather than making them from scratch. For the most part I agree with your points regarding the abundance and excellence of what is already available as well as the flexibility to engineer it to our preferences. I also like to speculate on what might come next. Particularly when I see new parts of the puzzle being innovated regularly by various modeling companies including Line6. Call it a proletarian approach to tone design but getting a great tone, at least on stage, is something that any guitarist with a decent ear and a fairly modest level of technical proficiency has been able to produce in the past. For live use I would prefer not to see that level of tone production excellence move to being reserved solely for technocrats and engineers although that is certainly the level of expertise I prefer for a finished product like an album or even a live performance done for thousands(or in pandemic-speak, groups over ten people) :-)

Great discussion! Thanks Don Kelley for one of the most informative and well stated topics on fizz I have seen on the forum. Your explanations sound plausible and correct. Tips and techniques about how to get a great tone are incredibly helpful but I truly appreciate getting a better fundamental understanding of how speaker technology works.which you have provided here. This kind of information really helps inform how I construct my presets. At the risk of being reductive it sounds to me like Impulse Response technology and the capability to process it on the Helix and other devices still has a ways to go. In general it would appear that we need much more complex IRs to get closer to capturing all of the nuances the human ear picks up when a guitar speaker is played "in the room". Creating those would require multiple mics at various proximities and axes to the cone, including mics placed further back that pick up the room's reflections. Granted there may be already some IRs out there like this but I don't think the Helix has the capacity(yet?) to handle them. IRs need to be of longer duration and larger file sizes and the equipment that uses them is going to require the capacity to handle them. Not to pick on the Helix but the current 48kHz, 16-bit, mono, .WAV type IRs of up to 2,048 samples is probably not going to cut it if we ever want to get to IRs that get closer to capturing the sound of an amp in the room without requiring additional EQ and processing. At some point either the firmware on the current HX line or the Double Helix when it comes out needs to be able to handle larger IR sizes. Not to say that there are not plenty of IRs that sound great now on the Helix as well as the native cabinets. As you point out though it is the darker cabs/IRs, used alone or combined with a brighter one, that tend to play better with FRFRs if you don't want to have to EQ to limit the fizz. I have to mention that my experience in years past with analog mixing boards and passive speakers largely echoed that of robbieb61. A decent guitar amp/cab set properly with a single SM57 in front of it could sound great, often with little to no tweaking at the board. It was almost as if the old mixing boards and speakers inherently did what a guitar speaker does which is limit the frequency response(and range) on the mid/higher end of the frequency spectrum in a very musical way. When I eventually switched over to digital boards and powered speakers, it was like a blanket was lifted off of the PA and everything gained more clarity and got really crisp and defined but also got much more easily brittle and ice pick on the mid/high end. This applied to vocals and instruments. I found my digital boards generally required more EQ to sound "warm". A highly subjective adjective I know but I think most musicians know what I mean. It took more adjustments than the older analog equipment, particularly to the mids and highs, to dial them in so as not to cause listener fatigue over the span of a few hours. The same sort of requirements apply when using an FRFR as a stage monitor. I honestly think we have not quite evolved enough yet with native cabinets or impulse responses. Until we have I agree that either EQ or a darker cab&mic/IR without EQ is often the way to go if you are looking for a warmer sound with minimal fizz when playing through an FRFR, be it the PA or your monitor. How much if any EQ'ing you need to do, as you have pointed out, depends to some extent on your playing style, tonal preferences, other elements in your signal path, choice of monitors, mic selection and position/distance, room, hands, genre, etc.. Ultimately although the Helix has been provisioned with a wealth of EQs - graphic, high/low cut, parametric, Booogie, tilt, the amp's tone stack, etc., dialing out the fizz by just chopping the high end to provide a more guitar in the room sound can take some of the tone with it as others have pointed out and many of us have experienced when designing presets. You often have to look for more more subtle methods that may not even utilize EQ, like for example changing cab/mic parameters or using multiple cabinets and other tricks that can diminish or eliminate the amount of EQ required. If for whatever reason you still have fizz when you have dealt with other elements in your signal path, it would be great to be able to select an automated EQ option or just a factory EQ template that might provide a more complex and natural sounding EQ to shave fizz than what a typical user might dial in. These "templates" might be specifically designed for FRFR use. You shouldn't have to think or design presets like a recording engineer if you just want to be a guitarist and I think digital equipment has the potential to meet the challenge of providing a great sound more quickly and easily to a wider range of users. It would be particularly useful to new users. Automatic EQ or EQ templates are just a proposed workaround though until native cab design and IR technology gets sophisticated enough to at least diminish the need to EQ when using an FRFR. It is impossible to believe that the current status quo will remain in stasis for digital modeling. I doubt anyone in 1980 could have anticipated an interface as streamlined and intuitive as HX Edit or an HX device. I think options will get deeper and wider but setting up a great sounding preset more easily will also progress, good as it may be already.

You are correct, it is not available on the Downloads page. Are you sure there even was a 2.6 version of the firmware? The bigger question is why would you want to revert back to such an old version of the firmware even if it exists? My advice would be to work with people on the forum to get your device upgraded to the latest firmware version. What problem(s) exactly are you experiencing when trying to move to the latest 2.92 firmware?

Although there are some things I would have preferred be done with different hardware such as the joystick, in toto(not the dog) I cannot believe what a well built piece of equipment the Helix is. It is absolutely awe-inspiring from the quality of the case to the screen and scribble strips, even the rough pebble coating on the incredibly solid expression pedal. Almost everything about it feels robust and fantastic. What a remarkable piece of kit. It is a beast! As I posted before I only wish I could upgrade the components when the time comes because it is one truly impressive piece of gear that I would prefer never become obsolete. For anyone waiting I would say get off the fence and just get one!! I'm sure the "Double Helix", whenever it comes, and it could be years, will have more capability but with the build and quality of the Helix as it exists already the new Double Helix will be hard-pressed to deliver at the current price point as materials and manufacturing continue to get more expensive. This device has captured my intense interest, served me flawlessly for years of gigging, and cured my lifelong G.A.S.. I have said this before but I truly believe it has saved me bundles of cash over the years. My constant purchase and search for other equipment decreased dramatically after getting the Helix. In the long run it has saved me thousands, so if you are just looking at the economics of it you may be surprised at how your lowered net expenditures on other gear may end up more than justifying the purchase. Even if you decide to sell your LT for less than the purchase price when a new device comes out to displace it, you may well find that you have saved a lot of money on other gear you would have bought otherwise. In the interim you will definitely have missed out on just how much fun and creativity this device delivers, especially when integrated with a Variax and/or PowerCab, delivered with an intuitive interface that makes using it a pleasure. With a major firmware upgrade coming(3.0) it will soon have even more toys and functionality under the hood. I am not shy about critiquing things I think could be done better on the Helix but overall the experience has been overwhelmingly positive.

I think there is a bit of a consensus here. Time is the most precious commodity we have. There is no debate that the next generation of modeling equipment will bring greater capability but you can waste a whole lot of time better spent creating than waiting. As has been said no matter when you buy, the next great thing will always be around the corner. Gotta dive in sooner or later.

This perspective is why a component based approach for a modeler where I could upgrade or add memory, swap out a main board, replace the DSPs with faster and better etc. has always appealed to me. Maybe replace a faulty footswitch, pedal, or LED now and then. Has worked out for me with my computers. Trick out your Helix!

I look at the changes to tablets, phones, smart watches, laptops, etc. over the last five years and there have been some major improvements and a few things that have just plodded along. Fits and starts but five years can definitely bring a lot of change .Add to that the fact that the Helix was in design for a few years prior to its release. They may have selected at least some of their hardware based on what was available towards the beginning of the design phase. The current Helix does provide a great platform to build on and has some life in it yet according to Line 6. I guess they'll put out the Helix II when they think the time is right. The next generation of hardware will put a lot more horsepower under the hood.

No setting I know of like that on HX devices yet. One possibility is doing backups and dumping out all your presets out to files and doing a batch edit on them. I believe there are some editors/utilities that users have written, or if you are a programmer you could write one yourself. Don't know if anything has been written for the latest backup format and as always exercise a high degree of caution if you decide to edit your backup files directly.

Really depends on your preferences regarding weight, volume, price, size, and tone. I use other FRFRs for gigs and rehearsals(not since covid19, sigh) but I also have the Headrush 108. So far I have only used it for practice and small jams because it is ultra portable. Unless your band is really loud in rehearsal I think it would work fine if that is the one you prefer. Both the 108 and the 112 have the same power rating so the volume difference is probably not that great anyhow excepting the larger speaker on the 112 pushing more air. Both models can get quite loud though. Mounting either one on a short speaker stand would make it easier for the band and you to hear. You could go to the board from the Headrush 108's XLR out but you can also just have two separate feeds from you HX device. One to the 108 and one to FOH. Although you can mic the 108, IMHO there are better alternatives going direct. You could easily put your 108 in your bandmates' monitors but if you can't do that and think that your band will be too loud live on stage for the 108 or more to the point if you prefer more bottom end I would just get the 112 and use it for rehearsal and live. Or you could just get a Powercab :-)

Should you do a global reset after the update? Good question! The update notes do not require it for the 2.92 firmware, so at least according to Line6 the answer is "no". You do however need to do a backup and restore according to the 2.92 notes. Note: Phil_m a more than reliable source stated that he believed that the backup and restore was probably only required for the global settings which apparently could sometimes get wonky without this step performed after the 2.92 update. I did a full restore myself including my setlists, taking the Line6 update notes literally. In past updates the only way you could get the latest Factory and Template setlists was to do a global reset and then restore only your User setlists by unchecking the Factory and Template setlists in the "Restore From Backup" dialog. Yup, that option is in there although you may have to expand the setlists directory in the "Restore From Backup" dialog window to see it. I don't know if there is anything new in the 2.92 Factory and Template presets but if it there is, unless the new update process did it for you automatically, and that would be new to the process, I would imagine you would have to follow the old reset and restore procedure to get the latest and greatest. Not sure what if anything may have changed in the old process since the firmware update procedure switched over to working semi-automatically from within HX Edit rather than being done from the Updater. I don't believe HX Edit is updating itself to the latest version that matches the firmware, which you can now update directly from within HX Edit. Personally I downloaded and installed the "HX Edit 2.92" bundle manually just to be sure. At some point in the update process renovations hopefully HX Edit will update itself and the firmware, perhaps simultaneously along with Native, and become a fully mature install process. Yes you should and can safely uninstall the "Helix" app. If anything goes wrong just reinstall "HX Edit 2.92". Here is the link for the Helix reset options: https://helixhelp.com/manuals/helix/reset-options.html#helix-floor-lt

Good luck with this! Barring an actual defect or electronics failure with the Blackstar amp hopefully you will be able to get this working correctly. It is a bit concerning that it worked correctly and now it does not but that sort of thing is often due to an inadvertent change in settings on the LT(especially if you have been through multiple firmware updates) or other peripheral items failing or changing. Please let us know if you get this figured out.

The requirement for a full restore in the last update may have been to ensure proper restoration of the global settings and/or the setlists and presets. Either way an explanatory note would have been great to have. There is still something disconcerting about the preset rebuilding process in general. I am not particularly concerned about the one that happens after a firmware update. I agree it seems a little redundant as you would think the rebuild would happen during the restore but it is not such a terrible idea to build an additional catchall process that only happens once after an update. What is weird is the rebuilding behavior we see with imported and copied/moved presets! I would potentially expect the import of presets, particularly ones created in other firmware versions or by other HX devices to rebuild, preferably dynamically and immediately when they are imported, not when the Helix is restarted. If the preset really does actually require a rebuild that can only be executed upon a restart that preset should be locked and not allow editing until that rebuild occurs. At least that would be the way things work in most software. What many may have noticed and what I don't understand and find a little concerning is that if I just copy and paste presets to new locations, I get a rebuild upon my next restart. This is without importing any new presets, just moving existing already previously rebuilt presets around to different Helix preset slots. Don't know about anyone else but I don't feel warm and fuzzy editing something that needs to be rebuilt upon restart until it undergoes the rebuild first. Apologies for commenting on this ad nauseum but this bizarre behavior has existed for years and Line6 should probably straighten this out so that when you move or copy a previously rebuilt preset it either gets rebuilt during the copy/move operation or has a flag that lets the Helix know it does not require being rebuilt upon restart. Again, if it really does require a rebuild upon restart then that preset should probably be locked and you should not be able to edit it until the Helix is restarted. To me there is something clearly wrong, inexplicable, or just unnecessary and redundant with not only how imported but also how existing and previously rebuilt presets are flagged again for rebuilds after copy/move. At a minimum the current process creates a bit of an unnecessary delay and head-scratching upon restart and worst case scenario it is allowing presets to be edited that won't be ready for prime time until their rebuild at the next restart. In other software products, editing things when they are betwixt and between and before they are upgraded to the current version can potentially cause issues with those presets down the road. My guess is that somewhere along the way the current rebuild process was devised to handle several possible scenarios that could otherwise result in corrupt presets as people mixed and matched presets from a variety of firmware revisions and sources and moved through the firmware updates. Maybe the "rebuild" message should be changed to "registering". I have no idea but perhaps the process is strictly location oriented and the Helix is actually just registering which presets are in which slots rather than actually rebuilding them. That would make more sense to me than multiple redundant rebuilds. As a longtime IT person though the current rebuilding process is highly unusual and looks like it could be streamlined or at least have the messaging improved and the necessity for it better explained.

The first thing I would think was my signal was too hot but it sounds like there are other mitigating factors here. Here are a few questions that may or may not help narrow things down. Have you tried the ground lift button on the back of the LT? Does this happen with a different guitar or with no guitar cord plugged into the LT? You mentioned that "unplugging the Helix" stops the squealing. Does that mean that just turning off the Helix while still plugged in does not stop the squealing. If so it almost sounds like something is picking up radio frequencies . Does the main volume knob on the LT control the 1/4 output you are using and if so does the squeal stop if you turn it down? Does the squealing happen on every preset? It sounds like you are using the Blackstar's "MP3/Line In" connection. Are you doing that to feed it a stereo signal? Are you running in mono or stereo out of your LT? If your global settings 'Ins/Outs' --> '1/4" Outputs' is set to "Instrument", try setting it to "Line". I believe MP3 and CD players usually provide a line level signal so that might be what that input circuit is expecting. Last but certainly not least if you are using the "MP3/Line In" connection have you tried configuring it to be a loop per the section below from the Blackstar manual? That might make the input work better(?) than leaving it in its default "MP3/Line In" mode. Appears the loop is mono if you go this route though. "Mono Effects Loop Switching on the Effects Loop via the free Blackstar INSIDER software transforms the Emulated Output and MP3/Line Input sockets into ‘Preamp Out’ (for sending a signal to your external effects) and ‘Power Amp In’ (for returning the effected signal to your amp). This means that in addition to using the studio quality effects within your amp, you can place your own external effects and stomp boxes ‘in the loop’ for the best sonic performance. When the Effects Loop is activated, you may still use the USB audio interface as a line in/out."

Microsoft owns Skype now. They paid 8.5 billion for it so by golly they're gonna push it on ya. I think it installs itself as part of the Windows 10 install although the latest update seems to have made it more noticeable. I believe it comes preinstalled on a lot of Android devices too. https://www.reddit.com/r/skype/comments/ht5dl1/skype_just_installed_itself_on_my_windows_10_pc/ https://www.addictivetips.com/windows-tips/disable-skype-on-startup/

There are many listed in the link below and an inexhaustible supply to be found on the web.

One difference on how IRs and cabs can be used with HX devices is that cabs have many parameters such as selecting different mics or their distance. These parameters can be switched from snapshot to snapshot. You can achieve a similar result by swapping out the entire IR used by the snapshot. Just different ways of getting there.

As underwoodblog said just plug the headphones into the Stomp. That is the easiest way to get started. Here are some suggestions from the Gear Page for headphones that work well for the HX Stomp. https://www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php?threads/headphones-for-hx-stomp-recommendations.2019995/ Btw, if you are only using the HX Stomp for effects into your Marshall JVM215c when you use the HX Stomp alone with headphones you are going to want to dial up some presets with amp and cab or IR blocks or things won't sound right in your headphones. The simplest way to proceed is what underwoodblog recommended. Later if you get more ambitious and want to try some alternatives another option is to use the HX Stomp connected to the JVM215c, as you are already, and use the "Emulated Line Out" XLR out on your Marshall and connect it to a soundcard, headphone amplifier, or small mixer and then to headphones. The advantage of that might be that you would not have to alter the presets on your Stomp. You would have to leave your amp on though. A final option if you want to be able to preview effects-only presets at headphone levels would be using the HX Stomp through an amp/cab plugin(e.g. Native) on your computer's DAW and plug the headphones into your computer's soundcard output. Don't really see any necessity for reamping in this scenario although that is an option too. You can select an amp/cab plugin that sounds close to your Marshall so that hopefully the presets will be usable on the amp, perhaps with minor modification. That requires a more complicated setup and this might not be something you want to attempt straight out of the starting gate.

The key is matching the firmware and HX Edit versions. Look under 'Help --> About' in the HX Edit menu and make sure both firmware and editor have the same version. The firmware version will be displayed across the top(as long as your device is connected properly) and the HX Edit version across the bottom.

Btw, here is a page on how to fix the exception code you were getting in the Windows log excerpt you posted. https://www.stellarinfo.com/blog/how-to-fix-error-code-0xc0000005-in-windows/

Good luck with this and good on ya for running the test. At least you have eliminated one possible cause which is what troubleshooting is all about.

Wanted to repost this link I posted above as it will actually walk you step by step through how to resolve this issue if it is a "disk 0" problem. Actually a fairly painless way to resolve this. Of course there are other reasons it may not be working but this one is easy to check for. Here are the relevant parts of the fix provided by Camelot_One's excellent troubleshooting. "And this is really easy to check: open a command prompt as Administrator and type the following commands: DiskPart List Disk You should get a list of the drives in your system. Look on the left for the Disk number and make sure the list starts at Disk 0. It doesn't have to be the drive your OS is on, it just needs to show up as Disk 0 and show a status of Online. When my Storage Spaces drives are detected first, my drive numbers start at 1 or above, Drive 0 isn't listed at all, and HX Edit/Native won't work. I am able to consistently reproduce both the problem and the fix by shifting the bios drive detection order. I think what is happening is that the software does some sort of quick hardware detection at startup, and gets hung up if Disk 0 isn't online. (The emulated Storage Space drive will show up as a separate, higher Disk number) I suspect the same problem might occur when the first disk is part of a RAID. So if DiskPart doesn't show a Disk 0 with a status of Online, go into the bios and try to re-order your drives. On my ASRock Z390, I was able to do this by just disabling both SATA controllers, restarting, then turning them back on. That shifted the NVME drives to the front of the line, with the SATA storage spaces drives at the end. (Note: this is the drive detection order, NOT the boot order) You could also try changing the physical port your drives are connected to. Or if all of your drives are part of a storage space or RAID, you could try adding another drive to the mix."

The Mimiq pedal appears to vary both the pitch and delay(at least according to the review in the link below). I thought about mentioning varying delay as well as pitch in my original post but thought I would keep things simple. I should have know better around here :-) Haven't played with the Helix's Double Take 'Slop' setting enough to know whether it handles both delay and pitch? A randomizing algorithm, be it on delay and/or pitch can really help when stacking parts, vocals or guitar. When two duplicated parts get too tight they can sound more artificial and I think it's worthy of note that Line 6 included a 'Slop' feature although I have no idea how they implemented it or if it includes randomizing. Since the 'Slop' feature is already on one Helix effect, maybe it can migrate over to a couple of others. If not there's my own internal 'Slop' setting and its always available :-) http://performermag.com/best-instruments/best-guitar-picks-accessories/tc-electronic-mimiq-doubler-review/