HonestOpinion

Awesome, glad to hear it! :)

Running Win 10 and Chrome here.

Just wanted to remind folks that if you uncheck the "Factory" boxes when you do your restore you should see the latest presets from the 2.51 firmware. At least if it is still working like HX Edit 2.3. Otherwise you are going to see the Factory presets the version of the firmware you are restoring from.

Btw, I should specify that I am on Windows, don't know if the Mac version of the Updater makes any difference in what messages you see in your Updater during the firmware update.

Thanks Silverhead, your help is always appreciated. Btw, I edited my post several above to add some more detail so you may want to take another look when you get a chance if you haven't already. People around here are so on the ball if it takes me more than three seconds to do an edit they have already responded. Too fast for my slow brain. :P

The notes I posted come up when you run the Line6 Updater, there are a few screens to click through, then you click the "Accept" button for the firmware's licensing agreement. I think it is the next to last click in the Updater right before the firmware upgrade starts. After you click the "Accept" button on the licensing screen the release notes for the new firmware pop up. That is what I am referring to that is at odds with your recommended procedure and probably not the procedure many here have followed for the upgrade because it is easy to breeze through without understanding the implication. In essence the Linet Updater's firmware installation instructions are implying that you use an HX Edit 2.51 backup(NOT 2.30) to restore and that you should make sure you get it before you do the firmware upgrade without ever clearly specifying these facts or providing sufficient detail. Here is the text cut and paste directly from the Line6 Updater. It would probably make the instructions clearer if they specifically indicated which editor version's backup should be restored and whether it needs to be taken before or after the firmware upgrade. When you take the instructions literally they imply what I indicated above(restore a 2.51 editor backup taken before you do the 2.50 firmware update and after you have installed HX Edit 2.51, do NOT restore a 2.30 backup). It may not matter if you install the 2.30 backup but the instructions could be clearer and that is not what they indicate. Btw, you can look at these release notes without having to run through another firmware update. Just run the normal firmware process in the Updater but don't click the final prompt to start the update. Line6 Updater Installation instructions for the 2.50 firmware. Updating Your Helix 1. Download and install the latest version of HX Edit. 2. Open HX Edit and from the File pull-down menu, select “Create Backup...“ Follow the prompts to create a full-state backup of your Helix (setlists, presets, IRs and Global Settings). 3. Using Line 6 Updater, update your Helix's firmware.

Sounds like you may not have downloaded and installed HX Edit 2.51 or that your firmware upgrade failed, maybe both. Do a backup now! Then download and install the HX Edit 2.51 firmware. Assuming your update went well you should see all the new effects, etc. in the HX Edit 2.51 editor. If this is only happening on the Helix I would say your firmware update failed. Take an additional backup with the new HX Edit 2.51 editor before upgrading the firmware again. Run the Updater and upgrade your firmware again. Also keep in mind, when you use HX Edit to do a restore it will give you the option of which setlists you want to overwrite. If you overwrite the Factory setlists from the previous firmware's backup you will not see the latest firmware's new presets.

It might behoove one of the powers that be to post back about this sooner rather than later. There are instructions floating around from trusted forum sources that conflict with the release notes from Line6 as to the proper procedure for doing this upgrade. Seems like it would be better to answer this one soon, before a significant number of users do the backup/restore improperly. Unless of course it makes no difference in which case please indicate that. Just trying to clarify Line6's own release notes. Hard to believe there is no one watching the forum this soon after an update. Are you all out at a bar together celebrating? :D One more time: Does it matter whether the restore is done from a 2.30 backup or a 2.51 backup. Should we be using an HX Edit 2.51 backup rather than an HX Edit 2.3 backup, taken before upgrading to the 2.50 firmware, to restore after the update to the 2.50 firmware (per the release notes in the 2.50 firmware)?

I don't think a manual global reset footswitch procedure is part of the upgrade process any more. I think that is now taken care of by the Updater. Did you see something in this version of HX Edit or the firmware's release notes?

Below are the release instructions that pop up in the Line6 Updater after you hit the "Accept" button for the licensing agreement to upgrade to the 2.50 firmware. To me these clearly indicate that you should be using the 2.51 Editor to backup your Helix before you upgrade your firmware to 2.50. After upgrading to the 2.50 firmware you should be using the HX Edit 2.51 backup, NOT the HX Edit 2.30 backup to do your restore. Is this the case? Looking for confirmation from Line6. Firmware 2.50 instructions showing in the 1.12 Line6 Updater Updating Your Helix 1. Download and install the latest version of HX Edit. 2. Open HX Edit and from the File pull-down menu, select “Create Backup...“ Follow the prompts to create a full-state backup of your Helix (setlists, presets, IRs and Global Settings). 3. Using Line 6 Updater, update your Helix's firmware.

I think this may be the wrong sequence Silverhead, at least according to the release instruction showing in the Line6 Updater when you go to install the 2.50 firmware. Before you execute your step #3 you need to use the HX Edit 2.51 editor to create a backup. Then you can proceed to the firmware update. It is the backup from HX Edit 2.51 made prior to the firmware update to 2.50 that you will be using to do the restore. At least according to the 2.50 firmware notes. IMPORTANT: Don't update your firmware to 2.50 until you have used the HX Edit 2.51 editor to make a backup. After you have backed up your Helix in for example HX Edit 2.3, and then downloaded and unpacked the new HX Edit 2.51, you will notice that when you start the Line6 Updater to upgrade your firmware to 2.50 that the instructions will tell you to first do a backup using your new HX Edit 2.51 editor before you update your firmware to 2.50 and use that to do your restore after upgrading your firmware to 2.50. Don't use the backup you made in HX Edit 2.3 and don't upgrade your firmware until you get an HX Edit 2.51 backup. Don't know if this is critical but I try to follow Liine6's upgrade instructions to the letter. I could see folks speeding by these instructions and using their HX Edit 2.3 backup to restore in error or upgrading the firmware before they get a backup from the HX Edit 2.51 editor. DI, Phil_m, Silverhead if you are out there, is this correct, does the sequence matter as indicated in the firmware release notes? Should we be using an HX Edit 2.51 backup rather than an HX Edit 2.3 backup, taken before upgrading to the 2.50 firmware, to restore after the update to the 2.50 firmware (per the release notes in the 2.50 firmware)?

IMPORTANT: Don't update your firmware to 2.50 until you have used the HX Edit 2.51 editor to make a backup. After you have backed up your Helix in for example HX Edit 2.3, and then downloaded and unpacked the new HX Edit 2.51, you will notice that when you start the Line6 Updater to upgrade your firmware to 2.50 that the instructions will tell you to first do a backup using your new HX Edit 2.51 editor before you update your firmware to 2.50 and use that to do your restore after upgrading your firmware to 2.50. Don't use the backup you made in HX Edit 2.3 and don't upgrade your firmware until you get an HX Edit 2.51 backup. Don't know if this is critical but I try to follow Liine6's upgrade instructions to the letter. I could see folks speeding by these instructions and using their HX Edit 2.3 backup to restore in error or upgrading the firmware before they get a backup from the HX Edit 2.51 editor. DI, Phil_m, Silverhead if you are out there, is this correct, does the sequence matter as indicated in the firmware release notes? Should we be using an HX Edit 2.51 backup rather than an HX Edit 2.3 backup, taken before upgrading to the 2.50 firmware, to restore after the update to the 2.50 firmware (per the release notes in the 2.50 firmware)?

I kind of look at it look this. I want the device I play my guitar through to sound as good as possible and that is not just about clarity, wide frequency range, and perfect reproduction of the source signal when it comes to guitar. I am not looking for the sound of a guitar through the family Hi-Fi. If I wanted that I would play my guitar through a McIntosh stereo on stage and be done with it. IMHO and in fact I think most peoples', whether they are aware of it or not, the guitar sounds best within a narrower section of the frequency range with certain frequencies emphasized or de-emphasized in the right spots. There are quirks about where in that range the frequency response should be weaker or stronger that tend to make the guitar sound more "musical", admittedly varying greatly but not entirely according to the taste of the player or listener. Stating the obvious but playing guitar has an innately physical component that involves moving your hands across strings that are generally wound and generate noise when friction is applied. That is part of the instrument and capturing some of it as has been stated above lends it part of its unique character. However, for the most part, no one is interested in hearing that part of the signal in equal or even close to equal measure to the pickups' signal. Part of the job in my opinion of a great modeler is to do some of the heavy lifting for me and get me in the ballpark of a "good sound", subjective as that may be, by having a good working knowledge of frequencies that are likely to sound terrible or cause problems and de-emphasizing them. Two critical components of that are generally going to be making it as easy as possible to control excessive response on the high and low end of the signal and minimizing string noise. I say "helping to control" because just eliminating them would probably severely impact the flexibility half of the equation and affect the tone adversely. I do understand the incredible challenge, or even paradox the device manufacturer has to resolve in trying to provide something that provides the flexibility to suit a multitude of tastes and an infinite variety of guitars and monitoring equipment. In other words, without knowing what signal will be input, and subsequently what will be used for output they need to make certain predictive assumptions and provide methodology to provide maximum flexibility without turning the process of getting a good sound into a full-time job suitable only for rocket surgeons. An incredibly difficult thing to achieve and that's why they get paid the big bucks(or at least they should). One of the reasons many modelers offer multiple global output options e.g. "Line", "Combo Amp", "Stack", etc. is to provide a starting EQ and signal level profile that may be better suited to the rig the guitarist is using. That sort of option is one element of the implementation of predictive design I was referring to. In the case of an FRFR, pretty much all the tone shaping needs to happen on the guitar and the Helix, it is not going to happen on the FRFR. That is a very different requirement than that of a combo amp where the sound is largely determined by the inherent limitations and design of the preamp, power amp, and most of all the extremely limited range and frequency response of the guitar cabinet, all of which are specifically designed to provide great guitar tone. Although there are limitations there is more latitude in many respects for what the Helix can output to a combo amp and still get a great tone. With an FRFR, most everything needs to happen upstream on the guitar and Helix. As users I believe it is incumbent upon us to do our best to learn how this powerful and complex tool works and participate actively in getting "our" tone. The Helix is a flexible piece of pro-level equipment, I don't expect to have things handed to me on a silver platter. More than willing to get my hands dirty, a little guidance on some of the more challenging issues is critical though. I have to say though that I prefer not to be presented with a tabula rasa where every part of the signal is co-equal and my jumping off point is having to figure out how to get rid of the nasty bits. I'm just lazy that way. Not saying the Helix does that but it is still IMHO trickier in some scenarios than it needs to be to get rid of parts of the signal you generally don't want to be hearing. Using a high quality FRFR with a relatively wide frequency range and frequency response that is even across that range tends to make it even more challenging to get to a subjectively "great" guitar tone. I find string noise and spikey high end to be the primary culprits that have to be dealt with. The FRFR is more work for sure but well worth it when you get there and it provides you with the ability to faithfully mimic or create a huge range of tones. I have a pretty good handle on the methods for getting my high/low end right but still feel profoundly challenged by string noise. Thankfully there is the forum as well as the active participation by Line6 developers and product managers in assisting us in the process of getting great tone. It would be very helpful to see Line6 chime in with some recommendations here that can be done on the Helix on how to pull back on string noise. As previously stated I do what I can on my end with guitar strings and technique but you can't rewrite the laws of physics. String noise, to a lesser or greater extent, is inherent and even desirable in the instrument. It just needs to be in the proper balance to the pickup signal. UPDATE: HX Edit 2.51 just released. Not expecting anyone to give a hoot about this post and who can blame 'em. :)

Thanks for posting and I am utterly entertained and in concert with this statement. You are definitely speaking to someone who embraces the Copernican and Darwinian Revolutions. I actually considered rephrasing that when I wrote it for the same reason. I will for sure be going with pro & con or some other synonyms next time. "Bless" you, I mean "pro" you, for writing this! :D

A really good point!

Agree with most of this but not the part about not experiencing it "any more than with other amps I have owned". I know you are also an experienced player but I have run into excessive string noise, albeit not very often, more frequently through the Helix to FRFR than any rig I have owned before and that covers decades. To me there is a clear difference between playing the Helix thru an FRFR versus playing through most tube amps thru a guitar cab. When whatever combination of input block, amp, effects, EQ or whatever it is that causes this gets going it creates a level of string noise that I have rarely to never heard through a traditional tube amp rig, or even direct to PA in the case of an acoustic. Unsurprisingly it does happen on acoustic where there tends to be more string noise anyway, as well as electric. It is somewhat mystifying to me as I have played acoustics directly through the PA many times over the years which is essentially a form of FRFR and not had this issue be so severe. Maybe it is as simple as the Helix's ability to jack up the signal level pretty significantly but maybe there is more to it. Another issue is just being able to hear things in the signal more clearly that have always been there but were more attenuated through other rigs. To some extent this is due to modelers and FRFRs getting better and more powerful and rendering every part of the signal perfectly, even the parts you would rather not show up. You have to dial that stuff out yourself. The Helix through a good FRFR on certain settings(not sure what they are) is capable of picking up on sonic nuances and unfortunately sometimes emphasizing certain frequencies that just don't ordinarily show up in most other rigs I have played. Maybe I just got lucky but I have played through a fairly wide array of equipment including other modelers. In general you always want the noise floor, in this case string noise, to stay substantially below the pickup level. The sensitivity and clarity of the Helix via FRFR is a blessing and a curse. Usually the former, but not when it comes to string noise. I think in some respects the string noise issue is similar to why you hear new users complaining about their high end being piercing. Again it is the clarity of a top notch modeler thru an FRFR. Those frequencies may have been present but were not near as perceptible on their old rigs. The string noise issue is similar in this respect. You have to learn how to set the Helix properly through an FRFR and sometimes perhaps this applies to string noise as well as overall tone. Just not sure exactly how to go about it in the case of string noise and I do want to reiterate this is far from a constant problem. I think some players will never run into this issue depending on the settings, amps, effects, guitar, EQ, etc. that they use, especially if they don't use an FRFR as a monitor. I prefer using an FRFR for a variety of reasons that have been explained well by others elsewhere. For me excessive string noise is an issue I would like to be able to consistently solve when I run into it. It seems to be a bit trickier than just getting my mids and high-end dialed in properly. Luckily I don't encounter it too often.

Your comment above describes what I am talking about perfectly although I have noticed it on both rhythm and lead tones, actually more so on leads or arpeggios where it really jumps out at me and there tends to be more slides and movement laterally across the strings. Rhythm guitar at least has enough going on to mask it for me somewhat. Definitely not looking for nor expecting a total absence of noise. A little string noise, especially on acoustic guitar, adds character. String noise so loud it sounds like someone scraping a string across an SM57 microphone and actually competing with a clean lead or even a loud overdriven electric guitar lead - gnarly sounding, not pleasing, and very distracting. Your approach to fixing it also appears to be exactly the same as mine. I eventually get exasperated trying to track it down and just move on until the next time, usually abandoning that preset. If I ever figure it out I will be sure to try and post what worked, at least for me. I think you are on the right track though. Some very narrow Q and relatively extreme dB cuts, probably in more than one spot seems to be headed in the right direction and is something I have tried on multiple occasions although I really appreciate it when someone suggests what specific frequencies to look for and how much to cut(as you did). One cut never seems to get it though and I usually manage to kill my tone or give up before I can get the noise down to an acceptable level. Have spent some serious time on this when I run into it. It actually surprises me that it is so elusive as you would think it would be just like cutting any other unwanted frequencies or undesirable part of your tone. I'm pretty handy with a parametric and not afraid to use an aggressive high-cut when it is required. It almost seems like something in the signal chain is jacking up the level so high on those frequencies peculiar to "string noise" that the usual EQ methods don't knock them out. When it does pop up it also seems like it is all over the frequency spectrum. I need a magical "String Noise Gate" or custom EQ setting for this. ;) I hope some other folks take note and post back any tips on how they addressed it next time they encounter this problem. Thankfully this is not something you run into that often but it has happened enough times that I would love to track down the root cause and I hate having to abandon an otherwise excellent preset tone.

Nope but thanks, good suggestion, those can help. Still looking for a way to dial it out on the Helix though.

Seems to me that since the library function portion of HX Edit pulls the preset names directly from the Helix it should be no big issue to at least have a search within each list. If the presets names for each setlist are pulled only when that setlist is selected I can see where it might be a while before you got a search that would traverse all setlists. Would certainly be no great technical challenge to pull them all into memory/array or a temp file when HX Edit is started and provide a search function though. Might be a little trickier to keep the search current once you started moving presets around but still fairly basic coding. My guess is other things are just a higher priority right now.

I have been a fan of Boss single pedals since way back as the sort of workingman's meat & potato pedal. Relatively inexpensive, built like a tank, and they were some of the easiest ones to find when I first started playing guitar. After owning almost every version, the last Boss multi-effect/modeler I owned was the GT-10. Just fine for effects into the front of a tube amp but I never liked the sound of the COSM amps and cabs. I never felt comfortable replacing my amp with an FRFR using that device. Maybe just personal taste but the GT-10 never really moved me and ultimately I ended up preferring my single analog pedals to it and abandoned it altogether. Apologies in advance if I repeat anything that was said here already. I will have to reserve judgement on the GT-1000. They have revamped the COSM engine with their new AIRD (Augmented Impulse Response Dynamics) technology and they are using a more powerful processor. I do like the fact that they are offering a Blutooth editor with it. A serious improvement from their old modelers which only had an Editor built by a third party. Don't know if the sound is significantly improved without trying it. The demo sounds have not impressed me so far but they rarely do. Overall the chassis looks a lot like a revamped GT-10 and although this is the most major revision to their multi-effects/modeler line I have seen in decades I don't see anything that speaks to me of a paradigm shift yet other than the price. Seems like every company is scrambling to get up into the Fractal pricing stratosphere. For the money I would be much more inclined to purchase the Helix LT or even a Headrush before I went for the Boss. I hope some folks who end up owning this device come back in to give us a review. Don't want to prejudge it unfairly but from what I have seen so far I have no inclination to rush out and get one. I do know that if past history is any indication this thing better be great out of the gate as Boss tends to do few to no firmware upgrades. Don't know if this will change at this price-point. They do build devices that are incredibly stable and relatively bug-free right from the jump however. For me though the Helix and the LT have too many features that are more important to me and too good an interface at this time for the Boss to provide any real competition per my tastes. I wish Boss luck though, I have a soft spot for them as I cut my teeth playing their effects and as usual the more competition and the more innovation, the better it is for us guitar players.

You are a humble man, I salute you. And "me" is also my primary complaint when it comes to guitar. However, sometimes a good craftsman can blame his tools, or at least find a way to use them better. That is what I am trying to do here. As the Grateful Dead would have said, I think there is "help on the way". Just looking for some good tips that I can employ on the Helix. Believe me I will be doing my best on my end to make sure that you don't hear the sound of my fingers over the sound of my guitar. :)

Btw, I agree that if you just went with icons you would be limited by the amount of detail you could place in it. Still and all, I bet you would be able to distinguish between an icon of a Rat that was a black box with the vague outline of a rat and a bright orange box to represent a Boss DS-1 or a different colored icon with a vague ram's head or claw outline for a Clawthorn drive. Going off the rails here though. I had not really envisioned that level of detail or that every effect would require its own icon. Some minor changes to shape, color, and/or design that increased the number of available choices would be fairly sufficient up to a reasonable number of icons. Not sure what that number is but the human eye and brain can definitely differentiate between more than the number currently on the Helix. The best option by far however would be to include at least an optional text label with the icons. If text was added the current categories(which depend as much or more on color differentiation than graphic) would work just fine and would probably not require any icon additions until Line6 comes up with some funky new effect that doesn't fit in any existing category. :) Searching the internet for "icon usability" brings up a ton of articles Wow there is a lot out there, people have spent more time researching this topic than I might have expected. Just a couple of links I read through: http://uxmyths.com/post/715009009/myth-icons-enhance-usability https://www.nngroup.com/articles/icon-usability/

Sorry, it is not "this" or "that". No denying that sloppy technique can cause string noise and improving your technique can minimize it but that is not what is happening here. :)

Thanks for the response and the tip on localizing the EQ frequency. Yeah there is always a shot of Fingerease applied to the strings or playing techniques that minimize it but I am looking more to figure out which frequencies, amps, or effects are causing the problem. It appears to be a bump or maybe the mere existence of spot(s) in the frequency range exactly where you don't want them. Goes back to my point recently on the Tuner topic. You shouldn't have to adjust a decent playing technique to the Helix, it is pretty flexible and there is probably a way to dial down string noise already in the box. Maybe the noise has always been there on other devices but decades of playing through modelers, guitar amps and speaker cabs with far less clarity, high end, and articulation helped to mask it. It is a whole different ball of wax playing the Helix through an FRFR but I'm no novice to that at this point. Just need to figure out how to dial it out to an acceptable level without killing my tone on the presets where it is a problem.

Even if you do fall on the side of the fence that prefers an icon without text you have to admit that at least providing a picture that differentiated for example between a phaser, chorus, or a tremolo, might be helpful. Even better IMHO would be the addition of text that told you exactly what was in the preset from the home screen. Make the text an option, if need be, that can be turned off for those who find it visually confusing. I am definitely in the camp that would like the icons to reflect what they are with text above, below, or beside them (inside them would be tiny and require redesigning the graphics). However, if you have to go with a purely graphical paradigm some more specific categories or allowing custom icons would be preferable to me so at least the icon for every effect in a given category doesn't look the same. Some categories, "Mods" in particular, include effects of very different types and purposes. I would love to be able to see at a glance exactly what specific versions of amps and effects are in my preset.