HonestOpinion

When it comes time to do backups this was exactly the issue that gave me pause. You're right, you might be compelled not to include the IRs in the backups for the reasons you described even though it would be ideal if you could. A great way to maintain your presets would be for example to backup each preset and its corresponding IR into a separate directory named for the preset. That has got to be the simplest method for executing this approach to IR management. Otherwise you would require even more changes to HX Edit to indicate where the IR file is located on your computer. You still have not violated copyright at this point as far as I can see ( no lawyer here) but things could potentially get sticky for Line6 when some people, hopefully a minority, started shipping around Line6 created preset directories with unauthorized inclusions of IRs.

I am in full agreement that we need better IR management. There has got to be a better way! I think I get where you are headed with this and I like it. You sidestep a lot of the potential copyright issues as the IR file is separate from the preset backup, contained either in the same directory as the preset or potentially a different location entirely. The preset simply includes a directory and file location pointer to the IR that is only used during the initial load of the preset to the Helix. That preset load would also load the IR in a slot - ANY SLOT. The linkage between the preset and the IR location would be maintained internally by the Helix. In practice I think this approach would probably lend itself to a bit more unauthorized sharing of proprietary IRs but there is nothing about this approach that seems inherently illegal. The number of people pirating IRs hopefully would not change significantly. As long as the IR is not actually contained in the preset this does not seem like a particularly problematic approach. You will require proper error handling in the Helix to alert the user that the IR is missing when the preset points to an IR in a file location that does not exist. This might happen for example when presets are downloaded from CustomTone or when using commercial downloads, or if the IR is moved or deleted. This would only be significant during the initial load of the preset. After the preset load the IR would be located on the Helix. One of the benefits of this approach might be for example though that IR and preset designers might have more of a tendency to partner and sell you a pack of presets with their corresponding IRs already included in for example either a named directory for each preset or even a separate directory, as long as the IR is not contained in the preset itself. I would also like to see a visual indication or report of which IRs are in use so their storage space can be reclaimed. Better yet a more robust IR management screen. There was a user here on the forum who did write an app/script that parses through the exported presets and produces a report such as you are describing. Awesome as it was for them to contribute that, they would have been the first to admit there is probably a more elegant and useful way to manage IRs. Hopefully they can chime in and provide the link to that script if it is still around. Anyway, not that this is the first one but I hope threads like this persist because there is definitely a better mousetrap to be built when it comes to IR management. I do take a bit of exception with calling what we have now "nothing". A backup restore is able to place IRs back in the same slots they were stored in. This was actually functionality that was missing for many of the early firmware revisions so there has been improvement in the process. I heartily agree IR management could be significantly enhanced though.

There are a million different ways to get the tone you are hunting for but one thing I can state categorically is I am a big fan of using snapshots in general and definitely for switching between clean, crunch, and lead tones. Snapshots are the way to go for changing large numbers of parameters at one time. Regarding getting your distortion from the amp rather than a pedal you may love some of the amps' tones without adding an additional OD/Distortion and prefer others with a pedal, I tend to use a lead amp channel with a pedal. There are some clean amp channels though that sound great with just the pedal generating the distortion. Very subjective stuff here and as always depends on the sound you are going for. I usually start by pulling back the tone and/or volume knobs on my guitar if I am going for a mellow lead tone (as you are looking for). A compressor in front of the Timmy, Minotaur, and/or Tube Screamer can help smooth things out. Many of my presets have two or even three amp models on the path. I usually have a PEQ set up after the amp and cab and often an LA Studio Comp at the end of the signal chain. Going for example from a clean to a lead tone snapshot I switch the amp model to one intended for a lead tone and tweak its parameters as necessary. If the amp model I am using will be used for multiple snapshots any parameters I might want to change get assigned to snapshots. Using dual cabs with different mics ( one cab is fine too), modifying the mic used, distance, and other parameters on the cab(s) can help mellow the tone as can various settings on the amp including the bias. You can also change the mic on the cab by snapshot if you want. Same approach for the overdrive. I activate it and set its parameters via snapshot making sure that the cumulative effect of the amp's Drive parameter setting and the OD pedal settings are what I want. I often modify the delay time in the snapshot as well, usually setting it longer for leads as well as reducing the reverb mix parameter. For classic blues-rock with a mellow lead tone I still tend to gravitate towards the Marshall models. Even if people don't tend to think of a Marshall as mellow. Plenty of other amp models will work or even be preferable depending on what kind of sound you are going for. Helps to pick the lead channel on a lot of them though, especially if you want some amp distortion in your snapshot If you are just going for pedal only distortion which is not generally the method I prefer, then you can select some of the cleaner amp model channels. The clean channel on a Fender Twin might be a better foundation for a pedal-only overdrive approach . I tend to EQ out some of the lows below 100-120hz and cut the highs at around 4.5-5.5MHz and cut more dramatically at around 8-10MHz and above. I use the PEQ to go hunting for any frequencies that seem harsh to me. I do this for many tones but particularly for mellow lead tones. I know some users here have had success with the Tilt EQ but I have not played with it much yet. I should stipulate that I use an FRFR so some of these EQ cuts may be unnecessary if you play through a guitar cabinet.

This whole thread seems like an absurd comparison to make in the first place. The Helix and the Axe-FX III are separated from each other by over $1600 if you include the required additions of a foot controller and expression pedal. The four processors in the Axe-FX III and probably some of the other components are superior to the Helix as you would expect in a device that is so much more expensive. There is substantially more processing muscle in the Axe-FX III than the Helix. To me it comes down to which features you value most, what kind of UI you prefer, and whether you are willing to spend an additional $1600 for a setup that probably does have a better sound (provided you even have the ears to detect it) and more tweakable parameters than the Helix. I generally don't bother trying to convince myself that devices separated this dramatically in price are just as good as each other. I know it's heresy here but they probably aren't. I'll admit it is somewhat comforting that even with the price differential there are still some things the Helix does better. Just happy to have the Helix. It does an incredible job and offers an amazing amount of features and flexibility at its price point. I don't expect my laptop to do everything a Cray super computer does either, nor did I have to spend millions on it and my laptop does fit nicely on my desk and doesn't require 10% of the Hoover dam's electrical output to run. Suits my needs and budget.

Seems like this would require every IR maker to adopt the same license checking protocol that would then have to be integrated into the Helix preset loading process. It would have to happen upon load as you certainly would not want a license check occurring every time you dialed in a preset with an IR. Sounds incredibly unlikely to happen. Anyway, starting to hijack this "Fizz" thread, sorry about that to the OP.

Not sure I follow exactly. You can currently restore IR files back to their original locations with a backup restore. Additionally I think there is a compromise to be found between near unlimited IR storage space and just having a lot more storage space. As I said having the ability to store IRs and pull them from a flash drive would be grand. Maybe we will see this on the Helix successor's hardware version. In the meantime most people excepting the most fanatical IR users would find hundreds of slots to be more than sufficient.

Although that would eliminate the necessity for having to retain an IR in a specific slot/location it would also cause any preset using an IR to require more storage space, increase the size of the backups, and would also mean that you would have redundant storage of IRs. The same IR might be stored in 50 different presets. If there were unlimited storage onboard or a way to connect a flash drive for additional storage I would be fine by this method. I love the idea of the preset and its IR being self-contained. However, given the current limitations on memory/storage (whatever they are) I think a preferable approach might be to retain the idea of pointers to the IRs; the strategy currently used on the Helix. Providing the ability for users to add potentially hundreds more IRs by allowing setlists to be designated as IR lists would add enough room not to have to worry about shifting IRs around to accommodate your latest favorites, avoid storing the same IR multiple times, and would work for most people I think.

No kidding, more IR slots would be fantastic. If there isn't enough memory onboard for them you could allow Helix setlists to be designated for IR storage. In other words every setlist would have an option to be designated as a setlist or an IR list. The IR and preset files are similar in size so it might be doable. I would happily sacrifice a setlist or two for more IR slots. Vote it up: https://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Add-additional-slots-for-IRs/892101-23508

Good luck. If you persevere you will either be successful or be able to at least conclusively determine that digital modeling through an FRFR is just not for you. Many players here have gone through the same initial frustration you are experiencing. Strictly anecdotal but I remember being dubious myself about the tone when I first got my Helix until somewhere along the way I was playing a gig with an accomplished and longtime guitarist with a Mesa Boogie V and analog pedalboard rig with a great sound and to my shock and genuine surprise I was much happier with my tone than theirs. Not to speak of the range of tones and effects I was able to dial up quickly during the performance. Switching from playing through a traditional guitar speaker to a FRFR has a steep learning curve, mostly centered around getting the EQ and output levels right. For the most part as has been pointed out so many times before many of us grew up listening to guitar through guitar cabs with speakers like Celestions that have a signature frequency response and very limited frequency range. Getting that sound out of an FRFR monitor or direct to the PA from your Helix is challenging. Some people get lucky right from jump and have just the right combination of presets, FRFR, cabling, guitar pickups, etc. to require minimal tweaking but they are probably in the minority. For the rest of us it took some experimentation and trial and error with others' suggestions to find a great sound but rest assured, it is in there! For more immediate gratification running your Helix or any digital modeler through a traditional guitar cab usually requires less initial EQ than an FRFR as the guitar speaker will take care of a lot of that for you. Even running through a guitar cab requires some adjustment though. All I can say is hang in there, it may seem like a pipe dream now but great sounds are to be found once you get familiar with your device. The returns in flexibility, similarity of FRFR to FOH, variety of tones and effects, authentic sounding amp/cab emulations, ease of transport, reliability and repeatability, no tubes to replace or bias and fewer points of failure, and a host of other benefits derived from modeling to an FRFR are worth the effort but don't come overnight for most folks.

I know there hasn't been much interest in it as of yet but another reason to upgrade hardware would be if they ever decide to let plugins run on their floor processors. That would open up the Helix to a whole brave new world of third party effects and processing (and potentially crashing). Still an appealing idea to me though. Vote it up: https://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Enable-plugins-to-run-on-the-current-Helix-or-a-future-version/869179-23508

Not an Apple user but here is the Line6 post regarding Catalina compatibility: Scroll down for instructions in this post if you decide you want to override the warning and install anyway: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202491

Old post I know but this is an interesting point as it perhaps applies to a whole range of electronics devices, not just the Variax. This flies in the face of what I have usually done. Unless I am trying to save a few bucks on an older standard (they are usually less expensive) as long as a cable claims to be backwards compatible I tend to opt for the latest and greatest with the highest possible data transmission rate so I will be prepared if and when my devices get updated. My understanding is that the later CAT standards widen the operating range but do not place older devices "outside" of it. If that is the case I may have to change my cabling upgrade strategy. I'm curious, did Steve Lampen have any technical specifics as to why a later CAT* standard would not perform as well as an old one matched to an older device?

Hmm, that looks like a breadcrumb. Sounds like you have been playing with polyphony toys in beta. Seems promising as DI was talking about this potentially coming to the Helix months ago. :-)

Not having a PowerCab+ yet I have a question that is in some ways similar to the OP's but sort of the opposite. It seems that the output jack(s) on the PowerCab which I would run to the PA only includes the direct feed from the Helix and does not include the IR you may have loaded only on the PowerCab. Loading the IR on the PowerCab saves DSP on the Helix and seems like the way to go. Ideally I would like to have all my IRs loaded on the PowerCab with the option to have the signal on my Helix be processed through the PowerCab's IR before it hits the PA. That way the IR loaded on the PC+ can be used by both the FOH and the PC+. Is that currently an option on the PC+? If not it seems like an enhancement that a lot of people might take advantage of. Apologies in advance if I missed something in the documentation.

Have you done a global reset since updating your Helix? It seems that so many of the instances with specific presets causing problems and sometimes even more generalized issues with the unit locking up can be traced back to users who have not done this "Optional" step. Could be mere coincidence but if it is, that is one frequently occurring coincidence. My first piece of advice to anyone who experiences these issues would be to take backups and do a global reset and then restore your setlists, restart your device afterwards to allow them to rebuild before editing anything. An added bonus for the global reset is that if you uncheck the Factory and Template setlists when you restore your User setlists you will have the latest and greatest factory presets after your restore. Can't say for sure but I know that as of many revisions ago I resolved to do a global reset every time I upgraded the firmware and editor, whether or not Line6 documents it as optional.

A whole lot of great ideas here but no links for a lot of them in IdeaScale. The best way to use this topic is to post a description of your idea with a link to it in IdeaScale so people can vote it up. Line6 may or may not see them over here and they are less likely to get any traction without any votes. Also so as not to dilute the votes it is a good practice to search for your idea before you create a new one in https://line6.ideascale.com.

Don't know if it is related to what you were experiencing but this is one of the bug fixes listed for 2.82. Bug Fixes in 2.82 " HX Edit—After cutting or clearing a block, its bypass/controller assignments could be lost "

The 2.82 HX Edit and firmware is out now.

:-)

Do you have the Mix parameter in the FX loop set to 100%? If not than some dry signal(unaffected by your pedal board) from the Helix will be sent directly to the Helix's next block bypassing your pedal board which could potentially thin out the sound. Try playing with the Send and Return levels. Another thing I would try is bypassing the input block's noise gate if it is engaged for long enough to see if it is causing an issue. It can kill the sustain if is set too aggressively.

You mention you are engaging your "solo preset", not snapshot. I prefer snapshots for this sort of thing so that is probably the first thing I would try. Find a preset you like and set up the snapshot for the lead the way you want. If you prefer to use a separate preset for soloing that's fine too. If I had to guess I would say there is something in your solo preset that is different from the one you are switching from (other than the fact the wah and delay are not on). There is no inherent reason the sound should get thin when you engage a wah and/or delay. I would copy a preset you like over as a template for your 'solo' preset and then add the wah and delay. Check the Mix parameter in particular on your delay if it does not sound the way you want. How are you routing the delay via a parallel path or inline? Where is your wah block located in your signal path? It is often the first or one of the first blocks. Try moving it around. Bypass the wah and delay one at a time on your solo preset and see if the thin tone and volume loss goes away. Does the wah sound thin in all expression pedal positions? You might want to try experimenting with a different wah to see if there is one you like better.

Some fantastic playing!

Not exactly what you are looking for but right now your best option might be to use snapshots with the effects you want active . The LED rings can be assigned custom colors for each snapshot and its respective footswitch. Note: In the 2.81 firmware when you are editing the preset the snapshot's custom color you assign in HX Edit(right-click on the snapshot name to select color) will not be reflected in the LED ring until you save the preset(at least with my particular combination of global settings). Switching away from and back to the snapshot with your custom color will also cause it to display the new color.

Are you saving as soon as you make the change? If not it could be related to the Global --> Preferences --> 'Snapshot Edits' = "Discard" setting.

Try working with turning down the tone controls paying particular attention to the Bass control. Also, probably not the issue but if you are using a delay turn the Headroom parameter up to max for clean sounds. On some amp models adjusting some of the amp parameters such as Bias or Hum can help as well. Remember also that the Helix is responsive to your guitar volume so often just turning down the volume knob on your guitar will clean things up considerably. Good luck getting this resolved, it sounds a little elusive.