HonestOpinion

I downloaded your presets and started testing. Here are some things I noticed. One of your preset's output blocks was set to "XLR" the other two were set to "Multi". Don't know if this was impacting your results. If you want the Helix to change to the volume or tone setting you set under 'Volume Knob(preset)' or 'Tone Knob(preset)' you also have to set the 'Lock Control(preset)'="Volume+Tone" The Helix does not dynamically reflect the volume and tone settings on my JTV Variax. So for example if I twist the tone or volume knob manually the Helix does not reflect the new value. In the interest of full disclosure I do not have the latest and greatest update on my JTV Variax as the battery died(bummer!) and I have not been able to update the Variax without it. Line6 really needs to modify future Variax guitars so they charge the battery when plugged into a VDI port on an HX device. To summarize the behavior I am seeing is that both/either the 'Volume Knob(preset)' and/or 'Tone Knob(preset)' have to be set as well as the 'Lock Control(preset)' for the Helix to control the Variax tone and volume properly. Not sure if this is by design but it would not be my preferred behavior. I would prefer that the 'Volume Knob(preset)' and/or 'Tone Knob(preset)' settings always change the Variax unless set to "Don't Force". When the 'Lock Control(preset)' was set it would additionally prevent the tone or volume from changing when manually turning the tone and/or volume knob on the Variax. Can't remember but I think it worked that way in some previous firmware revisions.

Thanks, this is a great resource! Are the input impedance values listed for the original analog effects actually reflected in all the equivalent Line6 effect blocks? Where did you get those values from? I was surprised at how many of the non-fuzz effects I use are not 1M Ohm. Impedance discussions around here seem to focus primarily on fuzz pedals yet there are others, e.g. '70's chorus' and Mutron auto-wah, that appear to enter into the equation as well once you start inspecting all the effects' impedance values. I wonder also if all of these amps actually have a 1M Ohm impedance in the analog world as they do on the Helix? If not, I'm curious why they did not match the impedance for amps as well as effects. The current Helix impedance implementation allows one analog impedance adjustment only for the first block so it would not make much difference anyway. Most people don't put their amp block first in the signal chain. It brings up the question of how to accurately model potentially multiple devices in a signal chain with a non-standard(not 1M Ohm) impedance and also provide maximum flexibility on their placement. Are any of the modeling companies emulating impedance digitally between blocks including between effects and amps? Maybe it doesn't matter how granular you got on the analog circuit impedance emulation if the digital block sounds close enough to the original effect or amp you're going for.

Gotta agree. It is not enough to just add a feature. The implementation and details matter. Here's your ice-cream(dumps a scoop directly into your cupped hands). Sorry there's no cone, cup, spoon, or bowl with it. Eat up fast! What's the matter with you? I gave you ice cream and still you're complaining? I don't want to jump to any conclusions though. This feature may only be half-baked or even three quarters but I could see Line6 adding some tweaks to the meters along the way. Could even be an interim version with modifications planned in the 3.0 firmware. :-) They often do phased rollouts of new features or respond to users' feedback in later firmware revisions when they're not too busy working on the next latest and greatest project. More to come? And yeah! The gain reduction meters are awesome!

Try going to Global Settings and setting MIDI/Tempo>'MIDI PC Send'= "Off".

Since it's easier on the Helix, the environment, and your electric bill not to leave it on for that long the workaround seems pretty painless unless this happens within the span of a gig or recording session.

Appreciate the highlights. Good point about pickup behavior being modified in addition to how the pedal responds when the impedance is changed. You're right. It would be very difficult to capture that interaction between the pickups and the pedal by replacing an analog impedance change with digital processing. I also agree that for example emulating the impedance change in the block's processing via EQ and other means would be a less preferable solution as well as having alluded to the impact changing the impedance can have on different guitars/pickups (my comment above - "In lieu of that the best alternative I can see is that all the blocks be designed to work at the same impedance. Any necessary adjustments to tone as required to faithfully emulate a pedal that achieved its tone via an impedance change in the analog world would have to be rendered by digital means though methods like pre-EQ within the block. That would leave the impedance setting strictly for those who use it to modify their overall sound or accommodate different guitars/pickups.") I also agree that retaining the impedance change is likely to be the most accurate way to maintain the closest emulation of the original pedal. (My comment above - "It seems however that just modifying the operation of the auto-z setting such that it adapted to the first active pedal would be easier and more faithful to the original pedals.") I like your suggestion above for true bypass of each pedal but it has its pros and cons. The pros including as you mentioned that people's existing presets could be left unaffected by a change to the auto-z operation. Another pro might be the provision of yet another option to change the sound of a block. The cons would be having to add a new per block option and using an extra parameter knob to set it. I suppose an alternative to that would be to have a global true-bypass setting. There can be more than one block in a signal chain that requires a modified impedance setting. If we were to go all the way down the rabbit hole I think you might have to consider the potential in the digital world for every block to modify its input and output for optimal impedance matching to the block before and after it. When I say optimal I mean the best sound or the one truest to the original pedal, subjective to some extent I know. I have no idea how much DSP an approach like that would consume and if the changes could be made quickly enough on the fly not to introduce some switching lag. That approach would also require that the impedance changes between blocks be made digitally, not with an analog circuit as it is currently done in the Helix. I suppose you could develop a hybrid approach where the initial impedance setting for the first active block was done using an analog circuit to stay truer to the interaction of a guitar pickup going into a specific impedance on a pedal. The impedance settings for subsequent blocks would be managed digitally. In the end run though I'm not even sure that the benefits to the sound would be substantial enough to warrant the level of effort required. I suspect having a per block true-bypass option would still leave new users perpetually asking on the forum why their fuzz pedal sounded like crap and requiring someone to inform them regarding the true bypass and impedance operation on the Helix. Maybe I am overlooking some other potential benefits for that setting though. Might it not be easier, and require less user intercession just to modify the behavior of the current auto-z behavior to work transparently by adjusting to the first active block and bite the one-time bullet to adjust any presets that required it? Most presets probably would not require modification.

This debate regarding how the auto setting for impedance should work leaves me with a couple of core questions. We start with the premise that for many pedals and amps 1M ohm is a good default per their design although certain pedals e.g. fuzz, function better at a lower input impedance. In practice for pedals designed with a lower than typical impedance, this effectively filters out some of the high range of the input from the guitar that might result in an undesirable tone when passed through the effect. The Helix when set to 'Auto' sets the impedance to the "ideal" impedance as determined by Line6 for the first pedal in the chain, regardless of whether it is bypassed or not. That means that when set to auto-z, if the first pedal is bypassed the next pedal very likely is not receiving an output signal that is optimized for its specific impedance requirements. Sorry to repeat all this for the majority of users here who are already aware of how the auto-z setting works but it leads to my next questions. Let's say you place for example a fuzz pedal in the first position and set the impedance to 70k, the recommended impedance for that particular pedal. It seems that to optimize the sound when it is bypassed, the Helix would have to adjust the impedance automatically so that the next non-bypassed pedal in the signal chain receives signal at the optimal impedance level. As auto-z does not work this way I set up my impedance level to switch according to whether or not the snapshot I'm using has, for example the fuzz pedal in first position engaged or not; a method that was proposed by others on the forum years ago and seems like the best current option. In the most general of terms whether in the digital or analog world, it seems like the goal should generally be for any pedal, located anywhere in the signal chain, to receive input signals that allow it to sound its best and to provide an output signal that yields the best results when processed at the impedance setting of the next block/pedal in the chain. In practice this is almost impossible to consistently pull off in the analog world but certainly much easier in the digital realm where you have greater uniformity and control over a given block's input and output requirements and the ability to instantly shuffle settings virtually. In many ways impedance is a blunt instrument to use to make a pedal sound better, specific filters, buffering, and processing might often be a better alternative. Altering impedance can have such a detrimental impact downstream when a pedal is bypassed. To summarize, I am not sure why there is a debate over how the auto-z should work. What possible advantage is there to the auto-z being only able to set itself to the first pedal in the signal chain? IMHO the only way for the sound to remain "optimal" as the signal is passed from pedal to pedal is if the impedance automatically adjusted the signal being delivered to the first active pedal in the chain. In lieu of that the best alternative I can see is that all the blocks be designed to work at the same impedance. Any necessary adjustments to tone as required to faithfully emulate a pedal that achieved its tone via an impedance change in the analog world would have to be rendered by digital means though methods like pre-EQ within the block. That would leave the impedance setting strictly for those who use it to modify their overall sound or accommodate different guitars/pickups. It seems however that just modifying the operation of the auto-z setting such that it adapted to the first active pedal would be easier and more faithful to the original pedals

Besides the excellent suggestions already posted I am hearing some serious compression on his guitar. At least on the live track I listened to here. I would definitely include a compressor on this preset and not a subtle one like the LA Comp or alternatively an amp model with a very compressed sound. I don't think he is using one but at times it almost sounds like there is a very subtle auto-volume swell in there as well. Who knows with his remarkable technique? Our band used to play "Down To The Waterline" and for some reason even though it seems like a fairly straghtforward sound it took me forever to dial in a tone that cut through the mix properly without stomping on the vocals and also allowed the quick transitions between the riffs and the rhythm parts required for that song. I find so much of Knopfler's tone is in his fingers which makes it more difficult to convincingly play his material as although I do employ hybrid picking when playing his parts I don't do the straight up finger picking technique he uses.

The update note instructions on the L6 Downloads page for "Step 1" in the "HX Edit 2.92" download need to be corrected to indicate that you should download HX Edit "2.92" not "2.90".

Yes, you should be concerned. The Line 6 instructions for the editor are very confusing right now. If you look in the Line6 Downloads section for the Helix there is an HX Edit 2.92 download available that has update note instructions to download the 2.90 version. It would be difficult for this to be written in a more confusing manner. Line 6 is offering a 2.92 version of HX Edit with explicit instructions that you should download the earlier 2.90 version. That can't be right. That text in "Step 1" should be corrected to "2.92". At least the direct links they provided to the HX Edit download point to the 2.92 version.This mistake in the "Step 1" instructions is probably a remnant from the hotfix from before when they only had a 2.90 version of HX Edit but had later hotfix versions, e.g. 2.91 of the firmware out but not a new version yet of the editor. I would open your current version of HX Edit and go to the Help --> About tab and check your HX Edit version. Mine reads "HX Edit 2.92". If it does not match your firmware version then you need to download the corresponding version of HX Edit as well as following the rest of the 2.92 firmware update instructions including the one about restoring from backup.

Thanks for the response! Definitely going to give it a go. I have often wondered when it comes to Ethernet connected controllers what the potential is for damage is when it comes to using a controller not explicitly intended for the amp. I also have an old Mackie Hotwire PB4 footswitch that would be a great fit with the Amplifi but I am hesitant to plug it in and risk damaging something. I just don't know enough about what the potential for shorting and damaging the amplifier or even the controller circuitry is when using unmatched or another brand's Ethernet controllers. Ideally I guess there would be a standard although extensible wiring and command protocol for Ethernet controllers such that they could be used across multiple brands and generations of equipment. More like the approach the Behringer FCB1010 or the Helix takes. It is just insane how many controllers I have ended up with over the years gathering dust. Every manufacturer wants to be able to sell their proprietary pedalboard but it is just ridiculous that at a few hundred dollars a pop they can't work with multiple pieces of equipment. I wouldn't expect every function to be captured by another brand's controller but basic functions like bank and preset changing as well as two way communication for switch state and preset name if the controller has a display should be standardized across equipment brands. These proprietary controllers have been around for decades and it is terrible for consumers. Wish they would all standardize already on Ethernet/MIDI or some other agreed upon protocol as well as a standardized onboard socket and firmware protocol for EEPROMs . The amp manufacturers could then just sell inexpensive EEPROMs or just the firmware for them that allow and extend maximum functionality with their particular amp and let the player pick the foot controller with the form factor and features they prefer from whichever manufacturer produces it. Controllers on a common protocol would be future-proofed for a wide range of amp brands as well as new and/or updated models and generations within brands.

Great info, thanks! Going to try my now ancient FBV with an Amplifi 75. Only one concern. Appears that it should work but is there any potential to damage my Amplifi 75 with the FBV Longboard(MK1)?

Klangmaler is correct, there is no 2.92 firmware (yet). You can edit the title of your topic by going to your original post and hitting edit. This will allow you to edit the title as well as the content of your post. This is one of those cases where it would be helpful to change it to "...2.91..." as there may yet be a 2.92 release and this topics's title might cause some confusion.

I should start by saying I realize that many actions that people may find metering helpful for can be done by ear as well. For others having a visual indicator when used in tandem with your ears can make for some pretty fine adjustments. It may be less important on the Helix which seems to accept a wide range of input levels but I do like visual confirmation of what range of signal level a device prefers to see and responds best to . Since the decision was made by L6 to add input indicators I would have preferred to see actual meters on the input block. Provides more detail on signal level than two colors but that is just my preference. Their approach still tells you the critical information - when there is adequate signal and when there is clipping. I can learn to like them, particularly if they dial up the brightness and you do have to admire the compactness of design. The clipping indicators on the send/return blocks are a nice addition too although there are probably users who would have preferred meters for those as well. Whoa, can see where the meter thing could start to get out of control real quick. If you're not a fan of input meters probably none of the following reasons for why you might want one will change your opinion and that's fine. Different guitars, cables, or just twisting the volume knob on your guitar can change the input levels, sometimes out of the range a device operates best in. I would expect that to be rare though on the Helix which seems to accept and operate well in a wide range of levels. Seeing a signal is particularly hot might encourage you to engage the pad. Too low might tell you you have a faulty pickup or cable issue. Seeing how the meters respond to different guitars can influence how you set your levels when you design a preset. Another reason might be if for example the Helix has a "sweet spot" where it responds best to an input signal that stays between certain levels. So for me there are several other reasons to have more visual feedback on the input level than just determining if there is no signal, although it is helpful for that as well. I would be shocked if you go through all your presets with compressors using the gain reduction meters and don't find at least a few that can be tweaked for the better. I guess the exception might be players who only use one of the simpler "two-knob" compressor models with few parameters. Those are generally easy to set well by ear. Not finding gain reduction meters helpful with more complex compressors with more parameters requires a level of expertise with compressors and/or an ear that a lot of musicians just don't have. I know myself that I instantly found compression settings in some of my favorite presets that weren't behaving exactly the way I expected and sound better now. Changes to the attack and release or threshold using both visual feedback and my ears just makes the task easier for me. It becomes simpler to see how changes in volume, pick attack, and how hard/soft you are playing is impacting the compressor. To sum it up, when it comes to compression I find gain reduction meters incredibly helpful. Probably my favorite addition in this firmware release. Course if you can do it as well by ears alone, go for it and good on ya.

It won't. The rebuilding of the presets occurs the first time you reboot only and is normal behavior. There has been some behavior in past firmware versions where importing new presets or copying and pasting them would cause only those presets to be rebuilt on the next restart. Don't know yet if you will see this in the 2.91 firmware.

That's how I read it and that's what I did. Nope, 2.90 notes did not require that step.

I have seen this come up before. What would be the best way for VDI connections to deal with the impedance question? Have them digitally emulate the ideal impedance for the first block in the signal chain? Is impedance matching somehow not required with a digital input signal(Variax VDI)?

Good catch! I tested it and concur. Might just be the meters and the compressor is still working at low ratios. The meters don't detect any compression at even the most sensitive threshold once you go below 3:1.

I'll grant you that much of what you would use metering for could be done ahead of time when designing your presets but I could see finding them useful for a host of other reasons as well. As far as the two color versus three color meters I could live with either. My main goal is just to get some visual demarcation so I can more easily and quickly eyeball where my signal is hitting. I used a Fractal Ultra in the past and I have to say the input meters were handy for getting input levels right. I don't find a light on the input block that I can barely see from a standing position, and only tells me if I am getting a signal, not how much, near as useful. Definitely no offence taken. I appreciate that different musicians are not all going to prefer the same "dashboard" depending on what they like to see and find useful. Even their own preferences may vary depending on whether they are gigging or recording. Hopefully without bloating the global options, as new features that inhabit screen real estate get added, I like the idea of things like meters being available when users want them on, or being less, or not visible, when they don't.

My guess is that at some point they'll incorporate the old manual update via a downloaded "Flash Memory" file as an option into the new HX Edit. An important alternative for those who have unreliable or even no internet access where their device is located. Until then good to know the old procedure still works.

Just a quick informational message. In addition to the "Check for Updates" text that was showing up at the bottom of the screen as of HX Edit 2.9* you can now also click on the icon with the version number at the bottom middle of the screen and it will bring up a menu that includes a "Check for Updates" button that will allow you to check for firmware/software updates. Great to see updates become a more dynamic process that will allow Line6 to not only inform every user with a message in HX Edit that there is a new update available but also ensure users have a version of HX Edit that matches their firmware. Automatic creation of a backup as part of the process beforehand will absolutely help to minimize or eliminate data loss in the event of a problem with the update. The 2.9* version of HX Edit constitutes a major change for the better to the way updates are executed on the HX family. Bravo!

Already stole this, gave my wife a good laugh yesterday. :-)

Thanks for running this experiment Silverhead. Love the results and how many taps the Helix is capable of averaging. That is great design! Don't think I will be tapping ten times on any regular basis but good to know it will average my first few taps.

@Camelot_One Again just a fantastic job of troubleshooting. IMHO this should be posted under a fresh topic that does not include a title that refers to 2.81 but instead describes the problem, e.g. "Blank Screen When HX Edit or Native Launched". This post deserves to be shared under a broader topic heading. Unless this was something Line6 fixed in the 2.91 HX Edit and firmware, this issue, as you have demonstrated, appears to be caused by HX Edit doing some kind of a partition or disk configuration check that fails on machines where the bios is not reporting "Disk 0". This post could potentially help users suffering from this issue on whatever versions of HX Edit perform this check. I would imagine Line6 will modify HX Edit to eliminate or do this check differently so hopefully it will not be an issue in future versions. For anyone on older versions or until this is fixed though, your post will remain a helpful resource.

Now use HX Edit to upgrade to the hotfix 2.91. You can do that by either clicking on the "Check For Updates" message at the bottom of the HX Edit screen (if it is showing) or if you click on the icon with the version number at the middle bottom. Also and this applies to everyone already on 2.91 as well, if you click on the icon with the version number at the bottom middle of HX Edit it now offers a "Check For Updates" option in the next screen.