HonestOpinion

Just had to mention "Van Halen I", eponymously named, has to be one of the greatest debut albums of all time. I remember after listening to that album when it first came out(about a 100 times), I knew guitar technique had been taken to a whole new level. It was almost depressing as prior to that album I felt that I was achieving some nominal level of proficiency on my instrument. Amazing virtuosity - not only the two-handed tapping but the incredible use of the whammy and the unique and profoundly melodic note choices Eddie made often doing multi-octave jumps. Whether you love or hate Van Halen, to me he changed the guitar landscape and was clearly one of the most innovative players of his era. Sorry to veer slightly off-topic with an album "review". Thanks for posting this preset and video!

I agree, you would think they might sound quite different. You could insert effects after the preamp and before the modeled power amp had a chance to further attenuate/accentuate the frequencies set up in the preamp's tonestack. I don't know if the digital world is analogous but on the face of it, it would seem that this would deliver a different tone than inserting effects after a power amp The level of various frequencies hitting effects after a preamp block might be substantially different than those after a power amp block resulting in the effects processing the signal differently. And again, this would more closely replicate how effects are inserted in a guitar amp's FX loop. Depending on the Helix's design however, perhaps it would not make a substantial difference. Still nice for mixing and matching though.

Yup, agreed, all those issues would have to be accounted for. Increased resolution in the low range might have been Line6's rationale for limiting the low range but there are alternate methods for getting higher resolution or more "steps" than severely limiting the range. Parameter controls can take larger steps when spun more rapidly and smaller ones when turned more slowly (a fairly common knob implementation on lots of equipment). This change seems like it is the realm of the easily attainable. Should be a lower bar though than, for example, polyphonic effects. ;) I think backwards compatibility would be an easy issue to address. As long as the PEQ retains the user's setting from prior presets, offering a wider range on the "Low Freq" parameter should not impact them provided that, as you mention, the resolution is such that their old settings still exist in the new wider available frequency range.

I think I will put an Idea up although it may receive relatively few votes, at least for now. I think this is an issue that may percolate for a while though and come up again later due to the fact that others may find that there are three areas on many presets above 500hz that when cut surgically really help to deliver a warmer tone without chopping off desirable frequencies in the mid and high-mid frequency ranges. A single PEQ that can accommodate all three cuts as you commented would seem to be a relatively simple modification to the code for Line6 although maybe they would need some logic to resolve what happens if a user overlaps two frequency range cuts. That logic is already on the Helix however as the "Mid Freq" and "High Freq" ranges already overlap with each other. The "Mid Freq" range overlaps with both the "High Freq" and the "Low Freq" parameters and actually extends all the way down to 125Hz. Again, it just seems that the 500Hz limitation on the "Low Freq" range is somewhat arbitrary and presents a problem for my intended usage for the PEQ.

Yes I am. I often use a Super Serial (x2) setup so all available paths and potentially all available DSP are being exploited . My first thought was to use a second Parametric but depending on how the signal path is set up, it can be difficult finding the right position to jam two extra PEQ blocks and in some presets I just don't have the spare DSP. Just looking to simplify wherever possible, a more flexible PEQ would be better than having to use two IMHO.

Great question and one I have never fully answered to my own satisfaction. I do remember posts from Line6 personnel a while back that indicated that the best place to keep the volume knob for unity gain was all the way up. I have always run it somewhere between 12 and 3 o'clock to leave myself a little room for adjustment. However that only applies to my stage monitor now as I changed the global assignment setting on the main volume knob to only control my stage monitor (1/4 inch output only). My FOH level in the PA is controlled from the mixing board. This means my FOH mix to the PA is essentially the same as having the main output on the Helix all the way up. The volume settings in the preset's various blocks and my expression pedal also determine the overall FOH level. The FOH level is unaffected by the main volume knob. This has made it easier for me to control my FOH and stage monitor levels separately. Describing my setup has also reminded me that you could potentially also end up with more noise if you run your main volume knob too low or too high depending on your amp settings. If you have it down low around 9o'clock you might want to try boosting the Helix's level and turning down your amp.

Thanks for replying, interesting to see how others are using the parametric. My requirement may be relatively rare. In an effort to really nail down where the fizz is located on some of my presets I have found three distinct areas, varying a bit from preset to preset, all of them above 500hz in addition to the cuts I make on the extreme high and low end with my high/low cut filters. Like you I try to do minimal EQ'ing and start by finding amps and cabs and especially mic models that work with as little EQ as possible. I have found that for some combinations though comprehensive use of the parametric really helps in dialing out any harshness (subjective to me) while leaving me with a full sound without having to lop off the high end. It is more time consuming and involved alternative than just using the high and low cuts but makes for subtler more transparent cuts and it would be easier without the 500hz limitation on the PEQ's "Low Freq" parameter.

That's exactly what I thought until I went to add a second EQ block on one of my presets yesterday and it was grayed out because my DSP was maxed. Granted not every preset is going to be like that but for my "general purpose" multi-channel presets I do tend to have several amp blocks and effects in the signal path which often put me close to or at the DSP limit. I also may have the max eight blocks already on the signal path. It just seems that it would be a good feature to allow more flexibility in the range on the parametric EQ as can be found on some other parametrics, including the one for instance on Line6's M20d mixer. Maybe I am in the minority in how I would like to use the parametric but I have really been attacking fizz in my presets lately and I am finding three distinct bands above 500hz that I would like to cut in addition to my low and high cuts on either end of the range. The limitation for the "Low Freq" parameter forces the addition of a second Parametric EQ block if I want to do that. A second block also seems like a less elegant or efficient solution to me than removing a somewhat arbitrary limitation on the "Low Freq" parameter. However, if I am one of few users who have encountered this I can understand where it might seem like a really trivial or outlandish request. Not going to be selling my Helix over this. ;) I suppose I could use the Global EQ as my second parametric but I try to reserve that if I need to adjust the overall sound to the room rather then running it all the time. The Global EQ would also apply the same cut to every preset and I am trying to customize each one slightly. I am also reminded of how helpful it would be if the Parametric EQ showed the EQ curve graphically the way the Global EQ already does. After all, the Global EQ is just a parametric that gets applied globally. The 'per preset' Parametric EQ could show the frequency curve just like the Global EQ as the capability is already built in to the Helix.

One more thing probably worthy of mention regarding offering separate pre and power amps is that it allows you to model your signal chain like a conventional guitar amplifier. The FX loops on most guitar amps sit in between the preamp and the power amp. They are not between the power amp and the cab which is where you get separate blocks on the Helix. Hasn't been a problem for me so far but I can see where for those wanting to mix and match preamps and power amps, and also for those who want a more flexible signal chain for FX placement that more closely mimics a conventional guitar amp, this would be a nice feature.

As those of you who use it already know the Parametric EQ on the Helix has three frequency ranges (High, Mid, Low) and a high and low pass filter. I find that when I use the Parametric EQ I may need all three of the "range" cuts but have a problem in that the frequency on the "Low" range is limited on its highest setting to 500Hz. I often require a third cut but can't use the 'Low Freq' range because it does not extend high enough into the frequency range where I need it (above 500Hz). At this point I have already used my 'High Freq' & 'Mid Freq' ranges and still require a third cut. I think it would be better to allow the 'Low Freq' parameter to go much higher, potentially all the way to 20khz but a limitation of 5khz would probably be sufficient. By removing the 500Hz limitation on the 'Low Freq' parameter you would have the flexibility to set all three ranges on the parametric wherever you wanted. For example, you could set up a cut at 2.2khz, at 4.4khz, and at 5khz with your Low Cut filter set at 100Hz and your High Cut at 10khz. This follows on the discussion of cutting fizz or just making general EQ adjustments. I understand that Line6 tried to split the three ranges into areas that "make sense" for low, mid, and high and that wider ranges make more granular, smaller setting changes more challenging but I would prefer the flexibility to set my cuts where they are most needed. Many parametric EQs on DAWs and digital PAs provide more flexibility either by providing more ranges(e.g. Low, Low Mid, Mid, High Mid, High) or controls that allow you to cut anywhere in the full frequency range from 20Hz-20khz or at least in a wider range than the Helix's 'Low Freq' parameter currently allows. The low cut you may want to make (excluding what you do with the low pass filter) may be above 500Hz and that is the current limitation on the parametric's "Low Freq" parameter. Wondering if anyone else is running into this?

True, my guess is this is definitely coming sooner or later on high end modelers, hopefully to the Helix ^^^

You may have already considered these trouble shooting steps. The first culprits I would investigate would be all of my cables (maybe swap them out, plug 'em all back in, double-check input/output connections). It could also be unshielded pickups; often a Strat or single coil type guitar. Try a different guitar. From there I might try plugging the Helix into a different electrical outlet than my amp. Also, if you are running into a PA as well as your amp make sure the phantom power is not on that channel. Also check to make sure other electronic/electrical devices like your computer, fluorescent lights, cell phone, etc. are not causing the noise. Ensure the Helix level going out to your amp is not too hot. If the levels in the presets or on the Helix's main volume control are too high or the EQ is emphasizing certain frequencies, you may be hearing noise that has actually always been present but now accentuated. That could also help explain why you don't hear the noise when plugging directly into your amp without the Helix.

If possible do the update and go straight to the latest version right away before you have any presets to save. Make sure you download the "Helix" app so you get the latest Editor and driver as well. That way you start with a clean slate, no user presets to update, no backups to worry about.

I agree, highly unlikely this is being caused by the Helix. Years ago I had an amp that was consistently blowing fuses and as the above posters have indicated it can be speaker cables, tubes, speaker wiring, or any number of problems with the the amp. If I remember correctly In my case it turned out to be a used speaker cab I had purchased that had been wired/soldered improperly and was shorting out inside the cab. As rvroberts indicated testing with a different speaker cable as well as a different cab (although you indicate the cab is brand new so less likely a suspect) might be an easy way to start narrowing down the cause of the problem, if that doesn't help move on to tube swapping and hopefully avoid an amp repair. Note: As you mentioned you are using this with a 4CM setup so make sure you are not running speaker outs from the Marshall directly to the Helix. That is something you want to avoid studiously. You may be experienced with 4CM setups but that is definitely a mistake some users newer to 4CM have made. I would go through my 4CM setup as well to make sure all the cables are in good condition and plugged into the proper inputs/outputs and the correct Helix and amp FX loops. You may want to try running with a simplified direct setup for a while (no 4CM) to see if this stops the fuse blowing.

Important points and tips, thanks amsdenj. I use the method you mention - (sweeping the parametric with a high db boost and narrow Q) for finding offending frequencies all the time. It has always been my primary method for dialing in a parametric. The method I detailed on the previous page is just an alternative that some may find easier to use or helpful in addition.

Phil_m and others could not have been more right when they point out that it may be frequencies below for example 5khz that you don't want in your signal. Nothing new under the sun but here is a method I use to dial in my presets and get rid of the high/mid frequencies I don't like. I am sure there are many of you already doing this. It works for low end frequencies as well. This method focuses on using the high/low cut filters as a tool to locate harsh frequencies but then employs the Parametric EQ to cut them. The virtue of this method is it enables you to make strategic cuts where they are needed without hacking off the entire top end of your guitar signal. A lot of players will find it easier to sweep with a high cut, as in this method, and then leverage the Parametric EQ, rather than trying to locate the problem frequencies with only the Parametric EQ ranges.. Alternatively you can use the sweep method solely with each of the Parametric ranges as well but using the high cut in tandem with them can be helpful. Once you get your Parametric EQ dialed in you may find that you don't even need to use a high cut filter, or if you do, only for the upper frequencies for example above 10khz. The key to success with this method is not just cutting at say 5khz, maybe that is the first spot you encounter where you are getting too many highs, but to continue to sweep below 5khz and locate other areas in the range below. Your objective is to have cuts that reflect your EQ and guitar tone preferences and perhaps mimic a guitar cabinet more accurately with less harshness - without lopping off your entire high end with too severe a high cut. You will want to to cut only the necessary, potentially multiple, frequencies selectively. Each time your tone gets noticeably (rather than incrementally) less harsh while sweeping with a high cut, identify that frequency and set up a corresponding cut in the parametric. Place a Parametric EQ block after your cab or IR block. Make a loop with the either the Helix looper or your own. If you are tweaking a lead sound make sure to pick plenty of stuff high up on the neck and include some bends. If you are trying to rein in a rhythm sound make sure you strike the high strings while you are chording. Kick off your loop and let it play. Use the high cut on the Parametric EQ block, (you can use the one you set up in Step#2) and sweep down with it until you hear the first bit of harshness in the high end diminish. NOTE: The harshness may be in a lower range than you suspected so keep sweeping down until you eliminate the first(highest) frequency area you don't like. This will be your first cut. You may need to do a couple of more. Now go to the Parametric EQ block you inserted in Step#2 and dial out the frequency(ies) you located in Step#3. Use one of the ranges in the Parametric EQ instead of the high cut filter you used to locate the problem frequency. Work with the "Q" and the level to get as much of the undesirable frequencies you located dialed out but I am careful of extremely wide or narrow "Q" or extreme level(db) reductions as they can give you an unnatural sound but I don't hesitate to remove as much as I need to. Rinse and repeat. Now sweep to the next lower spot where you hear some more harshness removed. You may find there are frequencies both above and below 5khz for example that you want to dial down a bit. Go back to Step#4 and dial in your second EQ cut on the Parametric. If you have the energy and time you can do this for each of your presets or try to reuse your Para EQ block on similar presets. I assign my EQ's parameters to snapshots so I can vary them if required for rhythm, crunch, and lead tones. If you find more spots you need to cut than the Parametric can accomodate (Parametric block has 3 "ranges" plus the high cut and low cuts) you may want to look at other amps or cab settings rather than EQ but you can always add a second Parametric block if necessary. Keep repeating this process and sweeping downwards with the high cut until you no longer hear any frequencies you don't want. By the time you have swept to the bottom of the range your sound may be dull and lifeless but you will have identified the areas you don't like specifically and will be removing the high cut entirely or using it fairly high in the frequency range (e.g. 10khz) once you get your other Parametric EQ cuts dialed in. This will restore your tone to life. Once you find some settings you like on the Parametric EQ you may find that you can reuse it in other presets with little or no modification. A good way to test how "universal" your cuts are is to copy them into the Global EQ and see how they impact your presets that do not yet have your "custom" EQ block. They won't work globally with all of your presets but may help with many, especially similar presets (it sure would be nice to have a choice of multiple Global EQ profiles). You can use this same strategy to locate frequencies you want to cut on the low end using the low cut parameter. I can certainly understand where some players will simply opt for using only a high cut instead as this method requires more effort and time than some are willing to expend. However, doing this can, without chopping off your entire high end, give you a tone that cuts FRFR harshness and is more customized to the player's ears and the tone they are going for. Also, even though this method requires more energy you may find the Parametric EQ blocks you create highly reusable and worth the effort, or, you may be a player who only needs a couple of go-to "Holy Grail" tones and this may help you get there.

There are some mentions of what is coming here although I can't remember exactly what topics they are in. Line6 doesn't usually tell us exactly when the next update is coming or what exactly will be in it to avoid disappointments in the event the rollout is delayed but the Gear Page has some vague comments regarding what a few of the things in the next update and Line6 often drops bread crumbs there when things are up and coming. A lot of posts to pore through but searching for "2.3" might point you in the right direction. https://www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php?threads/line6-helix.1586637/

I use an FRFR on stage as a monitor and get feedback with no issue. It is admittedly connected directly to the Helix however and not a feed from the board. However, theoretically you should be able to get feedback from a PA monitor feed as long as it has sufficient level. Crank the monitor up if necessary and work the PA's EQ for your guitar's channel. Make sure you can position your guitar to point into your monitor (just like you might point your guitar at your amp) such that your stage monitor is causing a feedback loop with your pickups. Alternatively you could get something like the FreqOut from Digitech. Handy for guitarists who use IEMs or have setups not conducive to naturally creating feedback. https://digitech.com/en/products/freqout As far as nailing all of the nuances of Brian May's guitar tone, good luck. Not only does he have one of the best tones I have ever heard issue from a guitar but the guy is literally a rocket scientist with a PhD in physics. Genius in action. I'll bet the Helix will get you close though. There are some Queen patches on CustomTone. Maybe one of them might provide a good start place to create your own preset.

I tend to use the "Normal" channels for my clean undistorted sounds but as others have pointed out there are no hard and fast rules. I will also load a preset up with three different amp models [all using the same cab(s) or IR(s) further downstream] using each amp model as a different channel (clean, crunch, lead) of an amp like you would a multi channel tube amp, again, using the "Normal" channel for my clean sound. I use snapshots to switch between each amp model so I can change various parameters on the amp and cab/IR blocks, and effects when changing "channels" (snapshots).

Absolutely, without data from an oscilloscope, an RTA, or the like I feel like any theorizing about this is fumbling around in the dark to some extent. It would be nice to see exactly what the output is shaped like for various amps and models.

All great points, sometimes even when I am posting it feels like this discussion has a tendency to be a bit of riding the horse on the merry-go-round with the ideal solution or brass ring being glimpsed up ahead but never quite being grasped. All I know is the Helix rocks and is getting better all the time!

I hear you, and I made the same type of decision regarding my Helix monitoring. I think it is already there with FRFRs as well but sometimes requires user EQ to get the sound right. Adding these kind of filters would allow users who opt for traditional guitar amps/cabs to still use the amp/guitar models on the Helix through a "neutral" setting on their guitar amp to maximal effect maintaining as much of the character of the Helix's modeled amp/cab through their own amp/cab as possible. It would also provide a custom boom/fizz cut for FRFRs. All with less EQ'ing knowledge required by the user. I did stipulate that most modeling manufacturers do probably lean towards customizing their EQ for using cab modeling with an FRFR but I believe there is still some hedging by manufacturers to cater to a wide range of monitor speaker types to prevent these devices from being returned or not purchased the second they are played through a guitar amp. How can I be expected to live a life of leisure and sloth if I have to actually work on my tones? :P

That is sort of what I was getting at when I was ruminating over an "Idiots EQ filter" or multiple profile settings although the setting I am talking about is targeted to what kind of monitor the player is using rather than each amp/cab model. That way you can continue to model the amp/cab as faithfully as possible to the original, improving where necessary but knowing the output would interact as well as possible with the user's monitor of choice. This would allow you to setup the output signal specifically for an FRFR or any of a range of guitar cabinet types. Without something like this the manufacturers of modelers may find that they are having to provide a "compromised" sound that will work well straight out of the box but not perfectly for either an FRFR or a guitar cab used as a monitor. Currently the Helix will get you all the way there but often just close and the sound can then be dialed in further by proper EQ. Perhaps the challenge for them is that if they attenuate all of the frequencies from the source ahead of time, exactly like the speaker modeled, when that source signal is played through a guitar cab it sounds dull and lifeless as those frequencies are being attenuated a second time due to the physical response characteristics of the guitar speaker. Conversely If they don't limit the response sufficiently at the source the model ends up sounding harsh when played through an FRFR. I can see the modeling and marketing dilemma the manufacturers are facing here. They want you to be able to plug any type of monitor in the showroom or at home and have the modeler sound at least decent. Without knowing specifically what kinds of compromises or choices Line6 made to accommodate both kinds of monitor choices it is hard to know exactly what to cut and boost other than by using your ears(a darn good way to proceed). Some sort of global or per preset setting or choice of settings/profiles, e.g. (FRFR, Celestion, Jensen, Black Shadow, etc.) that could be selected depending on what you were using to monitor the Helix with would be a fantastic addition to the Helix and probably make for more accurate modeling with less user intervention on the EQ required. When I think about it and as has been discussed at length, there is simply no way to have the modeled signal response curve from the Helix be consistently accurate for both an FRFR and guitar amp simultaneously without either the user setting the EQ or some kind of global or per preset setting such as the one proposed above. It is like trying to provide the same mix of gas/oil to both a 4 cycle and a 2 cycle engine. They are inherently incompatible and each one requires its own particular fuel mix to operate properly. Right now it appears that Line6 has opted to give you a full range signal that can be used with any type of monitor when EQ'd by the user properly. A compromise that makes a lot of sense given the current technology but until modeling manufacturers, and this does not just apply to Line6, start giving us output algorithms with frequency curves explicitly customized and intended for the monitor that they will be played through (FRFR, Celestion, Jensen, etc.) the user will have to make EQ decisions on many of their presets and life will be a little more complicated and require a bit more work than perhaps it needs to. I suppose device manufacturers could commit to catering the output response curve only to FRFRs and provide the user with the caveat that engaging cab modeling when going through a guitar amp/cab is likely to have your range attenuated twice. They probably already lean in this direction but judging by the sound of most modelers many manufacturers are instead providing a compromise or fuller flatter frequency curve that requires the user to make some EQ mods such that a wider array of monitoring solutions can be accommodated. I think I will post up an idea on Ideascale for a "Monitor Profile" setting to be added to the Helix. I think that addition would put it way ahead of the pack on tone as it already is in so many other respects (tone is already better than most btw as well). An easy way to at least start with providing monitor specific EQ profiles would be to simply provide customized EQ blocks in the Templates directory which could then be cut and pasted into each preset. They would be named after the monitor type they were intended to be used with, e.g. FRFR, Celestion, Jensen, Black Shadow, etc.. This would enable the user to modify the "profile" for their specific equipment as not all Greenback's are created equally, are of the same age and wear characteristics, and have the same exact response. If anyone on the forum is already particularly gifted with EQ settings I hope they post up a few of these Template examples for use by the rest of us.

Maybe it is about what an individual's definition of "significant" is. According to this graph unless I am misreading it (quite possible) the signal is already dipping about 15db at 5k and by the time you hit 10k it has dipped about 36db. Frequencies dropping 15-36db from the level of the source signal as compared to the frequencies around 700hz which hover around 0db, seems like a fairly significant drop to me. That should be extremely noticeable and have a relatively profound impact on the tone. From about a little over 100hz to about 5khz the response is fairly flat and as you approach 5k it starts to dip a bit and then nose dives after 5k.and declines fairly rapidly falling off a bit of a cliff at 10k. There is also a dropoff on the low end as you approach 100hz. There are still frequencies to be heard below 100hz and above 5k (which is why you don't want a hard cut off on the low or high pass filters), but the prominence of those frequencies according to the Celestion graph in your example will be fairly dramatically attenuated. That is pretty much the frequency range and response most people expect from a Celestion type guitar speaker with some variations between models. I am no expert on this and maybe I have it wrong but the above is my understanding of how the frequency response chart should be interpreted. I am totally open to correction here by folks with more expertise on this topic. If this graph hypothetically extended with a relatively flat plateau from for example 20hz-10,000khz you would have a much different guitar sound. I think the point that robbie61 is trying to make is that if for example Celestion loaded cab models are being rendered faithfully, frequencies at 10khz, although still present, should not show up too loudly and certainly not at the same or close to the same decibel level/volume as those at for instance 1khz, even if they are played through an FRFR with a flat frequency response for example extending from say 50hz-20,000hz - a much wider and flatter response curve than a traditional guitar speaker. When it comes to guitar you don't want every frequency receiving equal weighting. That is why I assume you can listen to a CD or .wav file on a full range pair of Hi-Fi speakers or headphones and hear a recorded guitar with its original great tone which includes its limited and unique frequency response curve. Without getting lost in the weeds about the impact of compression or Fletcher-Munson, you don't want certain frequencies to get overemphasized, or to get every frequency provided at equal loudness, even though your FRFR may be fully capable of delivering them that way. Otherwise every time you played a band through your Hi-Fi speakers or high quality headphones the guitar would sound like crud. The problem is that some of these frequencies above 5k and perhaps even some in spots below, depending on the models used in the preset seem to be getting a higher db response than one would expect from the original guitar speaker that is being modeled. Perhaps this is the source of the "fizz". The Helix can be made to sound great but employing the right EQ can get a bit dicey and challenging on some presets as the signal being delivered does not seem to always result in the "limited" frequency response of the speaker it is modeled after. This means that when that source signal goes into an FRFR, which does not have the same intentionally limited response of a guitar speaker, it can sound harsh or fizzy on the high end or boomy and muddy on the low end. Frequencies that would be naturally cut by the guitar speaker don't always seem to be getting sufficiently attenuated by the Helix and it is particularly noticeable when using an FRFR as a monitor. Stating the obvious here but for a guitar cab to be accurately modeled and its unique tone delivered through an FRFR rather than for example a Marshall cab, certain frequencies must be attenuated at the source(Helix) as they will not be attenuated by the FRFR, as they might be for instance, by a Marshall cab. Again though, I am no expert and there are so many variables and choices for monitors that it may be difficult to "anticipate" what signal should be delivered by the Helix and perhaps the decision is made to some extent to leave the final EQ up to the user and provide a signal with a relatively level and wide response curve. Or, maybe the Helix code or the technology in general needs tweaking in spots, it is still fairly new. Don't want to come off sounding critical because I truly dig my Helix but I do wonder why some cab models seem to have a bit too much of a good thing at certain frequencies when played through an FRFR. Sorry to run on, I lack crusinon2's gift for concision. :)

Just an aside but it occurs to me that one of the differences between the modeled digital world and the analog world can be that the digital world always produces exactly the same sound as the day it was modeled. This give you fantastic consistency and predictability but it means that unless you model (and they probably do) that nicely worn in speaker and that SM57 or 58 that has been dented and dropped fifty times and subjected to high SPLs you may miss out on that wonderful tone often attained only by older equipment.