HonestOpinion

This is a fascinating discussion to me. For about the last year and a half I have been using the Helix with the large Volume knob set to Multi so that it controlled both my stage monitor(1/4) and FOH (XLR) volumes. Of course this meant that every time I needed to increase or decrease my volume on stage I was also impacting the FOH volume. Recently, partly in response to the comments that DunedinDragon referred to, made by Line6 and others, regarding maxing out the Volume knob for best sound, I changed my settings for the Volume knob to control only my 1/4 output to my stage monitor. I believe the L6 staff have commented that not having the Volume knob control an output is the same as setting it to max. If that is so then the FOH levels for all presets are now at what would be the equivalent of having the Volume knob turned all the way up as it no longer controls my XLR outs to the FOH. This allows me to control my stage and FOH volumes separately which was my primary objective. I also thought an ancillary benefit would be best the sound possible due to having the Helix volume set to "11" at all times. The problem is of course that the guitar's FOH level now has to be controlled from the mixer. Not quite so convenient on nights when the band is mixing itself from the stage. This new configuration also meant I had to level up my presets fairly carefully in order not to end up sending a signal that was either too low or too hot to the FOH. I use my volume pedal now for most presets if I need to adjust the level to the FOH and I use the Volume knob to get the right level for the stage monitor. I have not been using the Helix configured this way for very long and I am not sure yet how I feel about it, particularly if there is no tangible improvement in tone or S/N ratio rendered by having the Volume all the way up. Additionally, if there is a significant difference, I have now set things up such that my stage tone may be different from my FOH tone. I use an FRFR on stage to ensure that I am getting as close as possible to an accurate representation on stage of what is appearing at the FOH. So perhaps setting the Volume knob to only control my stage monitors is not the best solution for me. Additionally, I now only have control of the FOH volume solely from the mixer or from my expression pedal which I may be using for other purposes depending on which preset I am using. I still keep going back to wanting two physical knobs on the Helix that are "always available" so that I can assign one to my 1/4 output and the other to my XLR outputs. The next version of the Helix would in my opinion provide a much improved level of control if two Volume knobs were to be made available for assignation to different outputs. I am curious if anyone has noticed a significant improvement in their tone in the FOH by changing the setting on the Volume knob to NOT controlling it such that the FOH always gets the full Helix level output?

Thanks, this is an excellent contribution to the forum! A video to accompany these instructions would be awesome.

Thanks for posting this, I might have missed that email.

What did you change in global settings?

Some guitars definitely stay in tune better than others but short of a guitar with a superbly well setup locking trem, by the time I am done bending strings and working the whammy bar for a number of tunes, I need to tune up. For tuning before the the gig starts and during breaks, like you, I also take my time tuning as long as we have adequate setup time. I still don't want it to take too long however as I usually have at least three guitars with me that all have to get tuned. It is the tunings between songs that are most problematic. The Polytune is a nice product. Would love to see polyphonic tuning on the Helix but certainly not holding my breath on that. The Helix is a wonderful thing with a currently very exacting tuner that is better suited to the studio where its extreme responsiveness and granularity, leave a player with the time to use it, pretty confident that they are in tune. I do think even for studio use it would benefit from a bit more stability. I suspect these tuner threads will persist until L6 finds a way to accommodate a wider range of stage users, many of whom find that it currently takes too much time to use correctly and get in tune. If you will excuse me now I will return to my hamster wheel and hang out with my groundhog buddy as this thread continues to turn over and over.

Thanks for posting the video Peter. A couple of observations, one regarding rolling off the tone as you recommend. I don't believe you should have to do that to get a solid tuning. Also, if you discount the part of the video that describes your setup, your tuning took almost two and a half minutes. Way too long for stage tuning. The "E" string as you observed, and even the "A" string were a bit difficult to get in tune although to be fair "E" strings and lower can be trickier on many tuners. Additionally you tuned from flat, which is a laboratory condition and not equivalent to what happens in the wild. Strings have to be tuned from sharp as well and usually this is done by down-tuning and bending them and then bringing them up. Most experienced players, particularly rock players who bend strings quite often, will also bend the string during the tuning process to ensure the string returns to tune, and also has not gotten "stuck" in the nut, whammy assembly, or on the machines. None of this can be achieved quickly on the Helix tuner. In general the tuner in your video was pretty jumpy and in no way left me with a warm fuzzy that things were properly in tune. Overall I think your video confirms quite handily what many of us are saying. You need a momentary freeze point that represents an average or single moment in time in the tuning. Getting the strings in relative tune with each other is probably more important than getting them to an exact "A 440". One of the ways a tuner can help you do that is by having an algorithm that roughly pauses/freezes in a similar manner for every string. You need to prioritize speed over accuracy when doing stage tuning while getting as great a level of accuracy/granularity as possible.

I think this difference in perception between when you are playing and listening, and just listening, is also a good argument for using a looper for hands-free adjustment of your presets. This gives you the opportunity to focus your attention on the sound rather than your playing. Alternating actual playing with turns on the looper also allows you to dial in the "feel" you are looking for while the looper allows you to make a more objective assessment of the tone without having your hands on the strings.

Ok, maybe "LONG-short" is not the best example but there are times when you want both functions listed if you are using the switch this way. :)

I do this too. You can also use case in addition to position for the name to cue you visually. Upper case indicates the state when the stomp is engaged and LED lit. So the preset name would be "LONG-short" if it was the long delay that was selected when the stomp is engaged. I have avoided using slashes in my preset names because they tend to be a 'reserved character' in many operating systems but I seem to remember a post or firmware note saying that slashes may now be safe to use. Anyone else have any input on that rule?

Aaagh, being sucked back in to the vortex again. This comment above cuts to the core of it, but actually we want both, accuracy and quickness, just in the right measure. For stage tuning you need a compromise between as much accuracy/granularity as can be provided in the shortest possible amount of time. You need a tuning algorithm that pauses the display long enough to give you a stable reference point. Even if that reference point only reflects one moment of time, or an average, in the vibration of the string being tuned. If the tuner is too granular and accurate in reflecting the string's movements it takes too much time in between songs to tune. So at least for stage tuning it is not about having a perfect picture of what the string is doing and achieving quark level accuracy but instead getting as closely in tune as possible - quickly.

Although you can assign a single custom name there is no way I am aware of to toggle between multiple names in stomp mode, at least right now. The easiest way to get around this is probably to use snapshots instead which can be named individually.

You have it right. Snapshots can easily replace using stomps although using both works well two if you want to have for instance four top row switches assigned to snapshots for more complex changes and four bottom row switches assigned to stompboxes for when you just want to kick one (or more) specific effect(s) in. Other combinations are available as well for example switching from snapshot mode (8 snapshots) to stomp mode (up to 10 stomps). It really depends on how you want to use the Helix.

I think it remains to be seen whether or not the Headrush is an "effective offering" for the discerning ear and user. It may simply turn out to be an alternative if top quality sound and flexibility are not your priorities. As DI stated, snapshots were not a mechanism to steer people away from changing presets but instead always a part of the plan and part of the bigger picture of allowing the user to leverage max hardware resources within a preset. The Helix still appears to me to provide the best compromise of quality and choices.

I have been reading a lot of comments both on and outside this forum that echo your comment here but I have found it difficult to find any links that have amounted to more than speculation as to the programming guts of the Headrush and if this is really true. I still don't feel like the jury is completely in on this. I would like more details on the Headrush before closing the book on it. There have been a fair number of people who made the that same type of assumption that the Helix was just a souped up HD500X which was in most ways inaccurate. Not saying that will be the case with the Headrush, just not sure yet. What I do know is that they may have used a less than impressive processor and that they have a limited number of blocks that can be used in a preset as well as a lack of in-depth parameters and fewer amps, cabs, and effects. They got some things right though too IMHO. I like the touchscreen, the true concept of setlists divorced from preset locations, and of course gapless preset switching. At what cost to other operations though? I don't know how the tones differ in quality from the Helix LT as I have not compared the two or even heard a Headrush. My overall impression is the Headrush probably cannot equal the sound quality of the Helix LT, and the flexibility and depth of parameters and configuration choices clearly don't compare. I also suspect the analog and digital I/O connections are not as high quality due to the lack of literature or specs on them. Otherwise I might have tried one out by now. As you say though, "it is what it is". What that is I am not quite sure yet.

To me the argument about whether or not there is a need for gapless switches gets kind of ridiculous. Some players/bands need them, some don't. Some songs require them, some don't. It just seems pointless to argue about or worse yet insist on what another guitarist's requirements are. The question is what are your top priorities and how you get there. As the equipment gets faster and better, and the implementations get more sophisticated, the compromises required get smaller in my opinion. Currently this is the way I look at it. This may change as new equipment comes on the market If your top priorities are sound quality and the potential for maximum model complexity, maximum route flexibility, and maximum number of effect blocks - get something like the Helix where all of the DSP available on the device can be devoted to a single preset. If your top priority is gapless switching to the exclusion of all else you may be happy with something like the Headrush knowing that a certain percentage, perhaps up to half, of your DSP processing power will be dedicated to gapless switching. This means less DSP for sound quality, modeling complexity, route flexibility, and/or less amp and effect blocks in a preset. However, if gapless switching is your top priority you may prefer a Headrush or the Digitech GSP1101 or the like which keep a substantial portion of processing power in reserve only for gapless switching. If you want a compromise between the two approaches above, snapshots on the Helix will offer many users a way to still construct a top quality preset utilizing every bit of DSP onboard with a lot of flexibility, a lot of amp/effect blocks, and also provide spillover and gapless switching. I do like the suggestion someone made here about having a hybrid setting where a per preset setting set one way might give you a "lower resolution" preset with fewer available blocks but allow gapless switches; as long as you were switching to another "low res" preset. Set the other way it would operate as the Helix does now. Also, as Zooey once pointed out, when you use a single preset on the Helix to put one signal chain on the top route (uses the first DSP chip) and one on the bottom route (uses the second DSP chip) you are in essence doing what the "gapless" switching devices are doing by splitting their DSP chips or "cores" between signal path and gapless switching. Using this method on the Helix gives you gapless switching from within a preset. The net result is so similar that it becomes more about getting over the psychological barrier that you are switching within a preset instead of between presets. The benefit to the Helix approach is that when you want the kitchen sink and all the resources onboard available for a single preset, you have the option. Other devices out now tend to achieve gapless switching by essentially limiting dramatically the capabilities or the sound quality of a preset. At some point though I believe gapless switching will become the norm. It may be because the technology changes in unanticipated ways. Perhaps the quality of the presets and number of blocks available within a preset on units using half their processing power for gapless switches will get so high that sound quality improvements become inaudible with a surplus of available effect and amp blocks. If this comes to pass perhaps no one but the most exacting studio user will opt for a unit without gapless switching just to have extra processing power available for a preset. If gapless switching becomes the norm I could imagine hearing this argument shift 180 degrees with people saying, "Every device has gapless switching. Who would want to sacrifice gapless switching in exchange for all that additional processing power for 'extra' quality/flexibility when I already have great complex tones, a 100 blocks available for amps/effects, and gapless switching?". We are just not there yet and until then, according to my priorities, the Helix has the best approach. With that said, how about we adjust the catalytic converter on the Helix and get that gapless preset switching working! ;)

I agree with much of this regarding the fact that there is appeal, and for some the requirement for, getting as close as possible to gapless preset switching. The technical challenge as I have heard it explained is that the problem with gapless switching does not reside in loading the RAM but in loading the DSP chips. The gap occurs due to reloading the DSP. Some modeler manufacturers have opted to devote half their processing power to switching. It appears, at least for right now, that the choice is either between max flexibility, quality, and available DSP for your signal path, or - gapless preset switching, or perhaps some compromise like snapshots between the two. Not my area of expertise though and I am just going on what I have seen posted.

Great! :)

Thanks for posting this. Glad to know it works well. This should be most helpful information for Helix users who don't have a monitor well positioned for feedback and especially for IEM users.

The "Helix" app and firmware version are now 2.21 for the latest for the Helix (for the moment...).

The line may turn out to be a defective scribble strip in which case you should contact Line6 support. As you already attempted the first step is to try upgrading the firmware first. The display freezing is often but not always a symptom of the following three things - a failed firmware update(do it again), not having run the Global Reset after the firmware upgrade, or not having the version of the Editor installed that matches your firmware.

Assuming from your post you have already taken good backups with your old Editor version that matched the firmware you had. Uninstall all Helix software. Make sure you have downloaded and installed the latest "Helix" app, not the firmware file. This will install the latest Editor and Updater. Now hopefully upgrade your firmware. Start the Updater. Try every USB port available if the Updater is not seeing your Helix or the update is being interrupted. Try restarting your MacBook if necessary. Make sure you do the Global Reset process after your firmware updates successfully(here's hoping). Restore backups, IRs, global settings. Restart Helix to rebuild restored backups. Link to various reset operations if the update gets stuck in the middle that may get you back to a point where you can run the firmware upgrade. https://helixhelp.com/reset-options/

See my notes in the post above. You will want to go back, uninstall the most recent version of the "Helix" app (Editor, Updater, driver) and install the version of the "Helix" app that matches your current Helix firmware version so you can be sure to get proper backups before proceeding with the firmware and software update. "Offline Mode" simply means that an internet connection is not required. You still must be connected via USB to the Helix.

The Line6 Updater has an "Offline Mode" button on the welcome screen. This is what you want to use when you don't have internet access but have the latest firmware file, Editor, and driver files already downloaded. Just wanted to say that the Helix upgrade process takes a bit of time and can be tricky so I highly recommend you take your Helix home to do this operation where you have maximum resources including online access available and you don't have to worry about eating up rehearsal time. Find something safe for a temporary transport of the Helix and baby it in transit. However, notes are provided below in case the rehearsal space is your only option. Silverhead's instructions are good overall but I wanted to make an important change to #1. Download but do NOT install the latest "Helix" app which will contain the Updater, Editor, and driver. The current Line6 procedure is to always backup you presets and IRs with the version of the Editor that matches your current firmware. Installing the new "Helix" app now will upgrade the Editor to the wrong version for backing up your current presets. So.. before you upgrade anything or install the "Helix" app. first back everything up you want to save using the matching versions of the Editor and firmware. Only when this is complete do you want to install the new "Helix" app and do a firmware upgrade. So, here are Silverhead's instructions slightly modified. From Home: Make sure you have the version of the "Helix" app(Editor, Updater, driver) that matches your current firmware downloaded and installed, NOT the version you are upgrading to. Download but do NOT install the latest Helix app package (editor, driver, and Line 6 Updater program) on your computer where you have an Internet connection. Download but do NOT install the latest firmware file. Note where it is located on your computer. Cut and paste and save the "Helix" application notes and the firmware notes from the Line6 download site into a file using a text Editor like Word or Notepad. Save or print out and bring a copy of these instructions from this post (obvious I know but just the kind of thing I would forget). Bring the computer, a usb cable and the printed installation instructions to your rehearsal space where your Helix device is. At Rehearsal Space: Connect computer to Helix. You should have the version of the Editor already installed and loaded that matches your current firmware on the Helix. Backup a bundle, setlists, IRs, and even your separate presets if you like being extra thorough. Take a screenshot of your IR locations and take note of your global settings. The global reset after the firmware update will delete your Factory and Template presets and replace them with Line6's latest. Your IRs will also be deleted and all your global settings will be reset to their defaults. Ok, you are finally ready. Now install the latest "Helix" application which you only downloaded previously. This will unpack the latest version of the Editor, Updater, and driver. If you have good backups you are now ready to run the Line 6 Updater program. Select "Offline Mode" on the initial Updater welcome screen. Point the Updater to the firmware file on your computer. Run the firmware update. Continue to follow the remaining installation instructions from your printout. After the firmware update completes do the Global Reset per the instructions in #3. Restore your setlists, IRs, and global settings. Do a final restart to allow all your restored presets to be rebuilt by the new firmware.

Change the 'Variax Settings' on the Input block from global to 'Per Preset'. This is actually a global setting even though it is set from within a preset and will restore all your custom tunings in the rest of the presets.

It might be as simple as reducing the output level to the monitors, the level on the monitor itself, adding the pad to the guitar input block, or some judicious EQ, particularly on the mid-high end of the spectrum. I might try sweeping with a high cut to localize where the squeal is happening.