zooey

Silverhead, since this is the first post in this thread, people will likely take as the real instructions they should use, and it's useful to have everything in one obvious place. (FWIW, I think Line 6 should post the real, complete instructions here too IMO.) Given that, please update item 1 to say something like: 1) Backup existing presets and setlists as desired using HX Edit v2.30. Use the full system backup feature as well if you wish. If you only use the full backup feature, and decide to do the startup sequence that restores the factory presets and setlists to get any new factory presets, make sure to uncheck the factory setlists when you restore from your backup. Otherwise, you'll overwrite the new factory setlists with the old ones from your backup. Also: Maybe mention that in step 5, "Restore user setlists from you backup" Don't you need to quit HXEdit between steps 1 and 2? Should you leave your Helix connected then or not?

That's right, updating now preserves your patches. Only thing is, you don't have any new factory patches. To get them, you have to do one of the resets that reloads the factory setlists, and after you do that, you WILL need to import your backup, skipping the factory ones. Make sense?

Providing a download of the factory setlists would be a nearly zero effort solution, with no risk or regression testing burden. Historical ones too, ideally. Just Do It, Line 6!

I've seen multiple parts saying that you need to back up each setlist individually, so after you to a reset to get any new factory presets, you can restore only your own, and not overwrite the factory ones. That overlooks the fact that for several releases now, you've been able to restore any selected setlists out of a full backup. Saving individual setlists does bulletproof you a bit more against corrupted presets or setlists, so you could choose to do it for that reason, or not, but it's not necessary just to preserve the factory setlists.

Good :) I like Windows 10 a lot, but music for me is still on an older laptop that it doesn't make sense to upgrade. It's a shame that Mac folks have to upgrade just for this.

Hah, thanks for clearing that up, figured it was something simple. The Helix version really does have a ton of different flavors available, love it, much thanks :)

Windows 7 is still supported, right?

At the risk of telling you what you already know, try stuff!!! There aren't any right or wrong answers, just what works for you, with your instruments, fingers, imagination, and taste, in the musical contexts you're in or want to be. Not to mention that there are a ton of amps in Helix, which will all respond differently, and further differently depending on how you set them up. You already have your initial answer -- you didn't have enough gain. So turn up the drive, or output level, or both, and/or any of the corresponding amp controls, and see what happens. That's what all those famous users of similar gear did :)

Ugh. Please report this to Line 6 as a bug. Verb input > mono, sure, maybe, but not the dry signal.

Hmmm, what exactly do you mean by "HX reverbs". If you mean the ones that are new in 2.50, I haven't gotten it installed yet so no comment. But I really doubt that's true of the prior rev ones. Pretty much all of my patches have a stereo verb last in the chain, and I really doubt I failed to notice that that collapsed everything before then to mono. I bet most everyone's patches have a verb last, somebody would *have* to notice. If the new ones are like that, agree, not cool. Wouldn't be at all surprised if the input the the verb itself was mono summed, but it really shouldn't do that to the dry signal.

Do you have to do a full reset to get the new factory patches? Honestly, I'm a big Line 6 fan, but I super wish all this was clearer.

Hmmm, while I get that theoretically you want to Know How It Works, me too, and in general the order of processing matters a ton, in this case, within a single EQ block, I doubt very much it matters, and here's why I think that... Say you have EQ > drive > EQ. Cutting lows before the drive and boosting them after is hugely different than the other way around. Less lows into the drive is tighter, with some compensation for the missing lows in the post-drive bass boost, where they don't make a mess. Other way round, you get flub in the drive, then pull out the lows that might possibly have made that make some emotional sense. Yuck in general, with the caveat that whatever works for you in your context, does. The big thing that's really different about that than 2 bands in a single EQ block is that there are no nonlinearities like the drive block going on. IMO that basically makes this a demo of the transitive property of non-overlapping linear EQ bands -- doesn't matter what order they're in. Of course if you're running hot enough to clip inside the EQ, then that's not the case, but most likely Just Don't, it won't be pretty.

Is there anything in that back you care about? If not, just reset like VG said. If there is, and you can export it, no promises, but PM me the file and I'll see if I can do anything. Not until tonight though (US East Coast).

Kinda jealous of you UK guys, it's $30 here, it seems. Still very much not bad though :)

Haven't looked at it, but if it's more recent or more complete than the Helix Help site, you should pass that info on to him. https://helixhelp.com/

Agree. Even if you did own one, why is that helpful? I'd much rather each effect Tyler be divided into mono and stereo, which *does* matter.

Did you see this thread about the M Audio EX-P? No experience with it personally, but he likes it.

Understood HO, I was more talking about the original idea in this thread. As you were...

Since a footswitch can control multiple blocks, turning some on and some off, and also control multiple parameters of multiple blocks, I doubt there will ever be a "copy block and its custom footswitch label" feature. Just doesn't make sense.

kylotan is right, there is a simple and quick way, right on the Helix itself.

^^^ This. What exactly are you going to do or not do depending on that answer? As a software developer myself, I VASTLY prefer the DI/Line 6 approach over arbitrary deadlines. No matter what anyone says or wishes, you don't actually know when it'll be done until all key features are there, and all important (tricky word that) functionality has been sufficiently (another tricky word) tested and works as expected. To put it differently, if the dev team doesn't think it's ready, I doubt you actually want it. Hounding them doesn't make it soup, it just makes their lives unpleasant. So I say huzzah for the care, effort and craftsmanship Line 6 has consistently shown with the Helix, and I'm excited for the new release, whenever it arrives.

I wonder if that's considered an HXFX bug, since it apparently works on Helix. I'd suggest reporting it.

Me too on usually lowering the mix control. Gives you some pick attack and punch, but still add smoothness and sustain. I wish *every* block had a mix control. Easy to understand, should take very little CPU, adds tremendous flexibility, and actually REDUCES patch complexity, since you don't need to branch your paths.

I understand, good luck with them, they seem great outside of that possible fragility.

Hi mikisb, it was a joke, kind of, I just want one. Or two really ;) It's not that I actually expect you to be starting full commercial production of these, but it'd be a great product that I bet a lot of guitarists would be interested in. Great work!