Jump to content

Kilrahi

Members
  • Posts

    1,503
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

Everything posted by Kilrahi

  1. Kids ... gotta love 'em, eh? I have so many similar stories...lol
  2. I think if they can figure out a way to do this, they probably will without us asking. Same with reducing DSP. The limits of hardware and modern tech are the key drivers here sadly. Just a tip that you may already know, the "tracking" option controls latency. Lower (X fast) for less latency but lower sound quality. Increase (X Stable) for more latency but better sound quality.
  3. I have one too . . . and I did consider the FX Send return which TECHNICALLY if you wanted I guess you can use as an out hole for a regular amp. So I stand corrected. It can do both simultaneously, you just can't use the FX loop anymore unless you somehow get really creative there too. I love the Firehawk, but yes, it's easier to pass a kidney stone than carry this behemoth around.
  4. I know this is old as hell but . . . WTF is this post? The Line 6 Firehawk 1500 is an amp. There's no 1/4 out period - and if there was in most cases sending it to another amp would be far too kinky. Yes, you can use the Firehawk 1500 WHILE also using the XLR main outs to FOH or other similar setup. So that works great. Let's come back to this post in another year. I think that'd be cool.
  5. I feel like after the most recent batch of added verbs those people look like clowns. I hate clowns.
  6. My understanding is it's doable to capture a lot of the frequencies, but an IR can't mimic distortion. So it'd be like the cleanest Tubescreamer you'd ever heard in your life.
  7. Trying to get back to your original question - I've never created IRs. It's not my thing. I'd rather fiddle with tools others make. Nevertheless, while I was reading back up on EQs as cabs after our discussion I happened to notice Craig Anderton's book of Helix tips (available at Sweetwater) has a section on page 270 called, "Create Cab Impulse Responses from Other Cab Sims" and describes the process as "easy." I'd highly reccomend you grab the book for tons of reasons - and maybe that section does exactly what you want. It even includes the appropriate sized impulse responses to use in your DAW to capture the cab you want, and step by step instructions. Pretty awesome. You'll also need a DAW. If you happen to not have one, Reaper is cheap and/or free and works great. Edit: Looks like Craig beat me to it. Either way, I highly reccomend you buy the book.
  8. I mean, you're right we're def getting way off topic here - but @rd2rk's original claim was that an EQ is the perfect sculpting choice to fix imperfections in an IR. While they did call an IR a "fancy" EQ, their more important point wasn't suggesting an EQ as a substitute but rather as a subtle tone shaping technique after applying an IR of choice that gets you close to where you want to be. I think that's a very reasonable and valid claim and impossible to deny. However, if we want to get in deeper and REAL - with me going into what is largely "no man's land" of lonely opinions - yes, I think the "time" aspect of an IR is extremely overrated. It's the frequency aspect of it that is far more vital. I'm right there with @craiganderton's advice (amazing book by the way man - worth the price of admission several times over - and just to be clear the only point I'm saying we would for sure agree on is that an EQ can be used as a reasonable substitute, I'm not trying to claim you agree on the time aspect being "overrated") in the book of Helix suggestions that in a pinch a well sculpted and crafted EQ can absolutely substitute for a cab if you are short on DSP and need a quick and dirty fix. It honestly works very, very well. Better than common sense would say it has any right to, particularly in 2022 where some people would hold the right IR and its sonic power above even Jesus. Now, don't misinterpret me there either. If I have a choice, and plenty of processing power, I'm always going to choose an IR cab over an EQ, but IRs and EQs are very closely related to each other. Still, what matters is what you enjoy and like, so if my take on things ever sounds like hot garbage to you, absolutely, ignore it and do what sounds good to you.
  9. It's an oversimplification to say that an IR is JUST an EQ, but it's a much more egregious exageration to say an IR is FAR more than an EQ.
  10. According to the Powercab manual, only the XLR of the 212 Plus is stereo. The XLR on the 112 and 112 plus are mono outputs. If you weren't using the Plethora X3 you could easily use the HX Stomp's FX send to either go to the Powercab OR do to a stereo output to two monitors. Where you do want to implement it, your options might become more limited. I still think you might be able to get there though. @PaulTBaker's idea to use the HX Stomp headphone out to go to your monitors is a creative idea that might work. The headphone jack of the Stomp is stereo, but it's output isn't as hot as the Stomp's other outputs. Still, if it's turned to max and using the volume adjustors on your monitors it might get you there. ANOTHER option might be available if you don't need the Plethora effects to be stereo. In that case, you can use one of the HX Stomp's sends (left send or right send) to have the Plethora in the FX loop in mono. You could then use the OTHER HX Stomp send to go to the Powercab since you don't need it to be stereo. This would eat up two Stomp blocks leaving only six, but with the Plethora it might make up for it. You could then use the HX Stomp's main outs to go to your monitors in stereo.
  11. Same place really. Helix went on to model every thing I ever craved. They hit my final wish list with the King of Tone and that was over two years ago now, and then knocked it out of the park with the pitch shifting/freeze options. Only thing left untouched is a Freqout pedal which was never high on the list in the first place. I admit to being a LITTLE anxious about this release just because Eric Klein indicated it was a mind blowing update. Because I can't imagine WTF would actually blow my mind at this point I'm hyped in a weird way . . . but if tomorrow they said, "Sorry fellas, we were trying to activate a digital air fryer but had to give up due to hardware limitations. We're done. We hate our jobs. No more updates." I honestly wouldn't be broken up about it.
  12. Helix is modeling whatever version of the ts808 they had. In my opinion, it's pretty damn accurate to whatever I've heard those do. If it's still not there for you, that's why EQ blocks exist, other distortion options, or you can try the legacy tube screamer in the Helix to see if it's more to your liking. I actually fell into this camp. While I feel the Helix model is more accurate, one day I tried the legacy Tubescreamer in the Helix and found I preferred it. I don't know why, I just do. I think it's great. You can also hire a professional to do a blind A/B test with you to determine if your success rate calling out the real vs fake is significantly above 50%. If it's not at least then you'd know it's all in your head and can move on. If you do pass, and assuming they're actually good at the setup, then you could take comfort knowing you have superhuman ability. That always helped me feel better.
  13. Do you mean the 212 or the 112? My advice below should work on both until you get to your final question. I believe you need the 212 to output stereo. Because the Powercab is just a flat speaker then all you need to do is plug direct into the Powercab. Use both left and right outputs for stereo into 212. Make sure your at least your final Stomp block is stereo for true stereo. For fx loop, yeah, just stick it in there and use FX send/return block. Yes, for monitors you just need to use 212's outputs direct into them. Nothing special there. Now, will it be stereo? Uh ... I dunno. Powercab DOES have a global setting to send stereo via outputs (make sure if you test that's on) BUT if you use IR or cab models in Powercab my guess is no because typically the cab and IR turn true stereo to mono. However, if all you're using is Powercab as a flat response, no cab modeling or IRs then yes, it should retain the stereo signal.
  14. Fortunately that one is easy peasy. Left out to Powercab in. Or if it's the 212 and you want stereo left and right out. Done.
  15. Yeah for some reason L6 decided all legacy Helix effects get a museum image regardless of if they're stereo or mono. Perhaps because they aren't as simple as the yes/no setup of the Helix designed models.
  16. Is the legacy "Dimension" model the one that models the DC-2W? If so, I believe it is stereo. Usually if the original effect had stereo then the Line 6 one does. More specifically, it takes a mono input and makes it stereo. The user below compiled an excellent list a while back. Check it out: https://line6.com/support/topic/64153-legacy-fx-stereo-or-mono/?do=findComment&comment=432434
  17. Usually it's a small over sight causing the problem. From the sound of things you're doing it right. In addition to the above sometimes I've made the mistake of using the wrong FX block option. Generally you want the mono send/return block or two blocks, one send, the other return. I've used return for send and vice versa only to feel like a complete moron later.
  18. The only thing you can do is know what the HD 500 preset you like was based on, and then knowing what's in the Helix as options, and doing your best to recreate it.
  19. It shouldn't take much more work than a traditional four cable method with the Stomp and you described it perfectly. The same 4 cable templates in the Stomp should largely work here. And then: 1. As you already said, you will need to use the L/Mono OutPut and the Right Output on the Stomp into the R and L/Mono returns on the effects loop of the Roalnd JC-40. 2. Make sure at least one block prior to the Stomp's main output is stereo. It sounds like you are already familiar with a general 4-Cable setup, but if you do need a refresher page 7 of the Stomp manual has a nice image. Guitar >>>> L/Mono in on Stomp >>>> Stomp Send to Guitar In on Roland >>>> Roland Effects Loop Send to L/Mono Return on HX Stomp >>>> L/Mono + R of Main Stomp output to Effects Loop R + L/Mono Return. Walla.
  20. Just to be clear, I think the HX Effects is awesome and I think what you want to do should produce some great sounding results. I don't think there's a "right way" to do it though. It kind of depends on what you're after. If it were me, I'd start with everthing at a 50% mix and experiment with different levels until one felt like "home," if that makes any sense.
  21. Hey, you know what you like and accept no substitutes. I think that's great. Personally, I'm kind of the same but in the reverse. I try to run all of my analog signals through digital devices to weed out all of that pure analog sound. For some reason, it's always sounded so fake to me. Thats part of why I can't listen to any classic rock done before 1980. To each their own.
  22. Wait what? You don't HAVE to do anything. Personally, I can't say that I ever like 100% wet but if you're just trying to create a light dab sure I guess ... try all of your ideas and see what sounds best. On a side note can I just say this description for the Suhr cracks me up: "Now you can play with the peace of mind, that the pure guitar-amp signal that you’ve worked so hard to attain, is not compromised by suspicious circuits in various effects units" https://www.suhr.com/electronics/tone-tools/suhr-minimix-ii/ Clearly they've never met my guitar tone. 'Sus" circuits all over the place, and that's the least of my problems.
  23. Additional ways to save DSP if you're committed to this approach: Instead of trying to cram in two amp/cab blocks try using seperate amp and cab with one cab shared between the two amps. Then, you can have the cab on the second processor with the two amps on the first processor and utilize @rd2rk's ideas about running in parallel if you like (which, FYI, I also prefer over the same path but your mileage may vary). Or, you could have one amp on the first processor and the second amp and cab on the second processor. The point is those are your most DSP intensive blocks right there so try to break the workloads up. An even better idea (IMO) might be to see if you can find an amp that can do both sounds you're trying to achieve, and use snapshots to change their parameters (i.e. adjusting drive, treble, channel volume, etc. with the push of a button). To me, this is usually where I found what I need and it saves way more DSP.
  24. Yes. This is because the first DSP processor is almost out of juice. You don't have enough processing power for the greyed out amp models.
  25. Certainly they're taxing the Stomp to the very most of its abilities and probably losing some fidelity to their sonic goals. To me your setup makes more utilitarian sense and will sound great. In regards to the OP, my guess is this is a common case of visualizing how you WANT to do it based on your limited understanding of the device, and not realizing there's an easier way to get there that will sound equally as good as what you envisioned.
×
×
  • Create New...