willjrock

Do you know, Is it possible to make that determination from a single file, when it is a derivative of multiple files?

You are gold brother. It'll take a minute to digest, but a definite help to see it on paper as such. Thanks.

No doubt a better thread title might have been "what is to stop a person" but i figured this would attract a little more attention, and offer more opinions or facts, so excuse the confrontational undertones please. I was working thru a couple of helix presets yesterday when i came across a couple of IRs from redwirez and celestion that were near identical. I cant really tell you exactly which IRs they are with out a bunch of hassle, because line 6 wont implement a system for IRs that is user friendly :P That was a joke. Albeit true but not the point of this thread, anyway :) Best i can tell the IRs are Celestion G12M Greenbk 412CHi-G4 and Redwirez Orange4x12-V30s-421-ConeE if you have any interest in trying it yourself. Now i could have gotten the IRs to sound even MORE alike but not with out first finding out the exact IRs in place......a bunch of hassle, so i didnt worry about it much. Again not the main point of the thread. I guess the $4 million dollar question here is "Whats to stop a person" from exporting an IR thru Mix IR and selling it as their own brand? Or mixing multiple IRs together? Or drum samples for that matter? Or even mixing a drumagog sample with a slate sample? What strategy does a company have in place to protect themselvs in being able to say "Hey, thats my IR or drum sample you are using there !!" You might say copy protection, but someone gave me a pack of IRs that they bought and paid for and were a license protected format from what i understand, and they worked without any issues whatsoever (dont fret, i paid the $11 for the IRs once i knew i liked them) so even though they may have been copy written, that didnt seem to stop me from using them. ......and just to add - I own a licence to all libraries mentioned, so i would have the ability to export any of these IRs or samples in an un-copywritten file format (as far as i know, not sure) Disclaimer: I have no interest or intentions of doing this. I am simply fascinated by the understanding, and have felt like this possibility has surfaced at times. So anyway, this is just something ive often wondered about and hoped to discuss at some point but never got around to a thread. I thought here is as good a place as any. Plenty of smarts in this forum. Interested to hear your thoughts, and thanks for taking a second here :)

I hope you'll jump in on my next thread. It may seem elementary to you, and is out of the coding realm, but i think with your background you'll be able to provide valuable insight. Thanks again here.

Thanks a ton! Couldnt have hoped for any better synopsis. Suddenly, it makes perfect sense. I admit, i had to look up orthogonal :) ....and read the posts a couple of times :P ......but i definitely appreciate having the deeper reasoning explained here. Thank you for taking a second here, with your always valued input.

Im not arguing with you because im surely confused. as per my "DSP limited" thread, but im trying to see how this benefits us? I guess i havent come to a point where im seeing any DSP benefit from using native Helix cabs as opposed to IR's. Can you provide an example or create a scenario where i can relate to what you are saying a little better. Especially the dramatic end of the scope, because my personal experience has been that IRs and native arent that far apart DSP wise. Be nice to have a meeter :)

......and then what would it take to employ? It would add greater flexibility and if there is minimal effort involved it seems like a no brainer IMO. Again, not knowing whats involved, seems like such a simple implementation. Nothing more than a choice. Thats why im puzzled.

No, no. Your info was vital here for me. You were plenty correct in saying only two cabs could be loaded...but dammm why? :P

Helix cab sims are going to make your job a lot harder. You could search custom tone fro some artists or amp styles you like. Even if its just to compare to your stuff for now. Thatll help you some, but if you grab some free IRs i think you'll immediately see how much easier it is to dial the sound you want. In the modeling world, the cab/ir weighs of much more importance than it does in hardware form. Probably close to 70% of the sound comes from the cab. Especially when you have similar sounding amps. I bet you find most of what you want here. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1XgNa5vH3j1QnRobm1xXzBHZXM/view?usp=sharing They are as good as most of the redwirez or ownhammers that you'd buy. Heres another link, but FWIW id just stick with the one pack for now. http://line6.com/support/topic/26822-free-irs/

Nice find. Ok maybe im not remembering correctly, which i knew was entirely possible. My recollection was 4 cabs per path.....but now i am simply interested to understand why these selections arent applicable, since there is adequate DSP. Just wondering. From the cheap seats it seems like such a simple thing to implement. It sure would be nice to have the flexibility. I dont expect it to come to fruition. Esp since its been that way from the beginning. Just trying to understand that if its not being dictated by DSP then what? I know its not spite :P

Thanks appreciate your input. That jars my memory free a bit :)

Helix cab sims or 3rd party IRs?

@zooey @HonestOpinion Just interested to hear you guys take.

Because IRs use more DSP than native cabs. The patch allows a user to add two more IRs and multiple fx, yet it wont allow even one more native cab? I shouldnt need to keep explaining this. This is not true operating under the assumption that IRs use more DSP than helix native cabinets, which has been repeatedly expressed here, among other places. Worst case scenario you should be able to load 3 native cabs per path. Amp block >dual cab block>and another single cab block - on "Path A" - which will not load - equates to less DSP than Amp block> dual cab block >2048 IR ir block - which WILL load.

Thanks DC. Appreciate the information. I'LL have a look. Though id like to reiterate that it is not a matter of DSP

Well for one i was lead to believe that options were only limited to DSP and/or amount of block spaces available. On top of that i vaguely remember being able to load 2 dual cabs in an earlier firmware. Thats whats causing most of my confusion. ...and lastly ive seen countless post telling users that they were out of DSP when that is clearly not always the case. Not to mention the manual saying those choices are grey out because of insufficient DSP, and again not always the case. I dont see a reason to not be able to load two dual cabs blocks.

Your channel volume isnt going to have an effect on your tone unless you are driving something further down the line, like a mixer channel or an effect block placed after the amp. Though there isnt an audible difference, try to keep your master volume knob closer to 2 Oclock to full. There is probably no need to raise your channel volume as you have done. Adding to the possibility of clipping your mixer channel. Have you tried a JCM 800? Maybe you just dont like that sound. What Cabs are you using? 800 in to Helix cabs doesnt sound very good without a lot of tweaking. For your reference, here is an 800 patch i use once in while. I uses an IR though. https://www.dropbox.com/s/jamiz9engvuqk9s/800%20test.wav?dl=0 Just some random thoughts/questions. I dont expect you to answer them all.

Well i think its pretty common knowledge that IRs use more DSP that native cabinets, correct? In that same patch, I AM allowed to make choices that are more DSP intensive than native cabs. Look! and even after loading two more IRs, i can still load fx on top of that.

"Seemed like" or in fact were over driving the mixer channel? Big difference.

Ive often felt there were occasions where Helix was limiting my choices even tho there was plenty of DSP left. IIRC i was getting 3 or 4 cabs to a path. I feel like it must have changed in an update along the way. I dont often use the native cabs so i can remember exactly, but helix is in fact reducing my options when there is more than enough DSP available, and im betting its the same for everyone. So why when running this configuration why are we unable to select two dual cabinets or even one more single cab, when more than enough DSP still exists?.......and then some. am i correct in remembering that Line 6 said that "our options are only dsp limited"? At the very least one should be able to load TWO DUAL cabinets per path.

Ok so this just happened on a brand new 2.20 preset. Completely different amps and IRs.

Im in agreeance with your ideas so dont take this wrong, but im not sure whats wrong with the tuner? It has been upgraded and while it is useful, its not meant for setting intonation, nor should it be IMO. Also, on the right hand side of the ideascale page there is a "campaign funnel" header. It pretty clearly tells us what line 6 is working on. Shouldnt that be enough? That being said, i wish L6 would somehow illustrate what importance they are placing on these ideas relative to a time frame. For instance 17 ideas are in progress but which are they working toward most? IMO the IR situation should have been dealt with long ago. Especially being such a simple implementation. Even if it resides outside the editor, it would be acceptable.

That totally makes sense.

Havent used the XLR inputs on the Helix but it makes sense to me that there is phantom power on board. Make sure its turned on for a condenser mic, if the mic doesnt already come supplied with it.

Nope. Z needs no back-up, and i wouldnt fight his battles anyway. Only wanted to speak the truth as i know it. :)