Kilrahi

On 11/9/2022 at 12:38 PM, rwandering said:

Resurfacing this a little bit, and maybe RDRK is the expert here.  I am 99% home recording, not a performer.  I use the Helix LT and PowerCab 112+ for writing songs (and just playing the guitar), but certainly for getting my tones right before I record.  I gave up on the PowerCab speaker modelling, mostly because while I can get it to sound good, with the ultimate target a recording, the Helix cab modelling is superior.  So I'm using the PC without speaker modelling.

 

With the new Helix 3.5 cab micing capabilities, I think I'm more likely want to work in stereo (though most likely as different microphones on the same cabinet model).

 

Now granted, I can run this through my studio monitors in stereo (and get separation there).  

 

So my question -- which likely ends up as YMMV -- any direct experience or thoughts around the utility of the PowerCab 212 for this case?  Worth the upgrade from the 112+?

 

I know nobody can answer this for me, but I'm wondering about whether I will get utility out of this, or if I'm just suffering from gear-aqcuisition syndrome.

I love my PC212+. I don't really think of it in terms of recording though - when I want to do that it's Helix into PC. I love my Powercab for jamming out with friends or performing in both acoustic, electric, and vocal setups, or for practicing and just immersing myself in sonic coolness at home. It's a ludicrously versatile rig in my opinion. 

Worth you investing though? You're already halfway there IN A SENSE. If I was you I would probably buy another 112+ if I REALLY wanted stereo rather than the 212 because at the end of the day two 112's are more useful for stereo than one 212, especially once you've already got a 112. 

On 11/8/2022 at 2:36 AM, KerryBlues said:

Help please, I am new to using the HX Stomp XL and I need some advice. Currently I am just using the unit to practice at home so the Stomp is connected to a small Spark amp.

I want to attach an external Boss RC 30 looper to my unit to allow me to retain my “ backing” loops as the inbuilt loops won’t allow storage.  Can anyone please advise how to go about this please?

Datacommando's link is a good one, but either way it's not too hard to do. My reccomendation would be to put your Boss RC 30 in the Stomp's effects loop. The advantage of this is you can then use the Stomp FX's block to place the looper anywhere in your signal chain depending on how you want it to be impacted by your other effects. When you want it to be heard, make sure the FX block in the Stomp is active. When you want the Boss unit to shutup, you can either use the controls on the Boss RC 30 itself or simply deactivate (bypass) the Stomp's FX block. 

On 11/9/2022 at 10:56 AM, rd2rk said:

 

Part of the equation is how powerful your PC is. The faster the processor the lower you can set your sample rate without glitches.

My 2nd gen Scarlett with my 7th gen i7 laptop will go down to 64spls and 7.6ms RT. Below 64spls it glitches. The 3rd gen Scarlett with a current gen i9 can go down to 16spls and <>2.5ms RT (I've read) which is pretty much the same as Helix direct (<>2ms). I'd like to compare those systems, but the cost of upgrading would be ridiculous considering that I'm not so much of a shredder that I can tell the difference between Helix direct (<>2ms) and Native at 7.6ms.

Good advice. My PC is reasonably powerful. However, I noticed that with the Helix if I lowered below 64 it started spazzing out. Unfortuantely, at 64 even though the latency was SLIGHT - it was still there and it drove me batty. It feels like a slight bump in speed would be all I need to make it work. 

On 11/8/2022 at 5:04 PM, ricstudioc said:

No.  This PC is dedicated to its purpose, as is the music lappy.  I'll resolve the lappy issue on it's own merits, right now I just want to make sure I have my ducks lined up to do a manual update.  Think I'm good to go, but I'll wait to see if someone says "don't forget to....".  Again, 12th commandment.

Well, I have never isolated the file so I personally can't vouch for that file. I think few on here would be able to as the HX Edit seems to always work, and if it doesn't then you use Line 6 Updater.  I'm not sure why you'd choose a manual update in this case. If you have a second PC option, why not just install HX Edit updated to 3.5 and do the natural update process? 

On 11/8/2022 at 11:51 PM, SaschaFranck said:

 

I think it's a must that they improve the interface part. I mean, they're trying to play in the top tier modeler league but the interface is the worst of them all when it comes to latency, even beaten by the cheapest things from NUX, Joyo and what not. And by a wide margin even. Heck, my really sort of shabby Zoom G3 delivers a roundtrip latency under 10ms. That doesn't bode well with L6's general claims.

Random aside - do you have any reccomendations on an audio interface with really low round trip latency that isn't a budget killer? 

I've been interested in using Native and my PC without having to pack the biger Helix around, but I've always been torn about what a good choice would be for that purpose. Drop too much of a fortune and I might as well by a Stomp instead. Drop too little money and it could be no difference in latency at all. 

On 11/8/2022 at 4:02 PM, SaschaFranck said:

Fwiw, regardless of what their next (post-Helix) modeler line might look like, I seriously hope they will considerably up their audio interface game. Given all the routing options, plenty of inputs that can easily be abused to record additional signals simultaneously, easy re-amping options and what not, it could actually be a pretty decent audio interface. But as software monitoring has become a staple in the land of working with DAWs, latency needs to at least be brought down to a somewhat acceptable level. Something like, say 7-10ms when running the unit at 64 samples buffersize is a pretty common value even among pretty affordable consumer interfaces and with values as low-ish as that, you could at least give other amp sims a testrun. But with those almost 17ms of the Helix, that's just not possible (at least not for me).

Oh, and it needed a decent routing/leveling/mixing matrix for the entire USB-audio signalflow, ideally outside of HX Edit - and especially outside of the hardware.

I don't doubt you'll see improvements there in the "next gen" version of Line 6 modeler. 

At the time that L6 unveiled the Helix it was pretty impressive to have it be one of the included items. it still is great IMO even though practically every modeler does it now.

Still, yeah, technology continues to steadily improve. 

I would strongly reccomend following this thread of a user who gave the same complaint you have. Follow it very carefully:

Wait . . .

So you switch PCs and still have a problem? 

On 11/8/2022 at 3:20 PM, themetallikid said:

The IR/Cab categorization that Sasha was referring to would make sense.  I have a few song specific presets where I use an acoustic simulator path and also a dual amp/cab path.  I could fit this before in my preset.  Path 1 would be all pre-amp type stuff (acoustic blocks, amp blocks, eq/comp type stuff).  Path 2 was my "post' section that had Eq's, IR blocks, cabs, delays/verbs.   In my old preset, running a stereo path, I had acoustic stuff prior to my signal split on path 1.  Paths 1a/1b went to 2a/2b respectively, where they stayed separate with an EQ/IR/Cab block before joining together for a final delay/reverb/retro reel finish.  Currently while reworking my presets with the dual stock cabs, I cannot add an IR to the same 2A path.  My current path 2 blocks on this preset are a dual stock cab, dynamic ambience.  When I try to add an IR block I get a memory error.  

 

It would be awesome if they could resolve this, but also makes sense that the old cabs werent 'thought of' by the processor/coding that way.  

 

I could be wrong, but it matches my experience so far. 

This is the answer that Phil gave below. I believe this relates to what you're experiencing, and it's what I was referencing to above:

On 11/8/2022 at 10:17 AM, PierM said:

I did some test with my Stomp, and couldn't benefit in any way of that optimization, so I guess it's a DSP headroom not yet available to us (if will ever be).

 

 

 

 

Wait . . . so despite all of the talk about having more DSP available - you haven't been able to see any of it play out in reality? 

That's disconcerting. 

@phil_m - you're practically Line 6 - do you have any thoughts on this? 

Am I reading Pier's comment totally wrong? I'm confused as hell now. 

I believe it was @phil_m who explained in another post that the way they achieved the improvements has something to do with leveraging the Sharc processor,  and this new limit is part of that trade off.

On 11/7/2022 at 7:03 PM, jedisteph said:

Hello is it possible not to have the unit mute with tuner?

Thanks

 

Do you mean be able to hear the notes as you tune? If so, yeah. While in tuner mode set the output to "Main L/R."

On 11/7/2022 at 12:11 AM, khiryos said:

Hello Craig,

 

Out of curiosity, do you plan to update the book according to the 3.5 update? If so, will it be part of the free update or a 2.0 version of the book?

 

Thanks,

 

All the best.

Well, IMO your answer is given in the Craig's quote just a few posts above yours:

On 11/6/2022 at 11:07 AM, craiganderton said:

 

I'm glad they took are of you, good to hear. But I forgot to mention a crucial point: Save the download code they gave you! You'll need it to download the free updates (you use the same code to get the free "point" updates). Normally this is stored in your account, but if you sign in as a guest, it won't get stored on the Sweetwater site.

"you'll need it to download the free updates . . ."

If you're really interested in developments I'd check out the forum at musicplayer.com that Craig mentions below. That way you can push hard for a specific 3.5 update if you worry it won't be included in future updates (unlikely though when you think about it considering how thorough the book is):

On 11/4/2022 at 1:17 PM, craiganderton said:

 

I didn't want to use up forum bandwidth for something that could appear to be self-serving, so there's a dedicated support forum for all my Sweetwater Publishing books in the forum section of musicplayer.com. I just posted in the Helix thread today.

 

I guess despite my claim in the last post, I'm OCD and have a hard time "letting go." I found the old forum post which had a lot of detailed discussion on this, quotes, etc. So if you want to deep dive:

Also, I can't be sure if this is just repeated in the above thread, but these are more pertinent posts:

The observations of thsi final one are interesting, BUT I quote it primarily because it references an early Helix Blog post that talked about stock cabs being made from IRs, but the blog post as it was no longer exists. So requotes of this early marketing material seem to be all that we have left:

There you have it. Data. Interpret it as you will I guess, but only my interpretation is the enlightened one because I'm special.  

We've proved this MANY times.  Old cabs were just IRs with funky sauce on top. Eric said it.  Igor said it.  Early advertising said it. 

I've got old posts on here linking it.  I'm not feeling the drive to prove it again. 

Ppfffttt .... no need to be pissy @themetallikid ... just my opinion...

@theelements in my opinion they sound exactly as they did before.  Not that that's a bad thing.  They sounded good before. 

On 11/3/2022 at 5:50 PM, theElevators said:

really? 

I think no ... not really. 

The new cabs are nice though.  In my opinion people thinking a core sound design was improved are actually hearing their own excitement. 

I could be wrong though.  I got no special in.

At this point the Helix can do any guitar sound you want.  It's only weakness is synth sounds which for most us is a shrug weakness. 

It may not get there your preferred way - but it'll get there, whatever the sound is. 

It's still fun to get new amps and effects, and I totally hope the original poster gets their wish,  but the Helix doesn't NEED any more updates.  It's all gravy now. 

Oddly enough, I've been craving some farty just on the edge of blow up guitar tones lately to match my current mood after a nasty bout of food poisoning, and this new model sounds like just the ticket.  Thanks guys. 

If you've used stock cabs you've used IRs. 

Nothing to see here. 

Many of our people care WAY too damn much about authenticity. 

The primary concern in most cases should be it sounds good. 

On 11/3/2022 at 1:52 PM, hideout said:

I love the moveable mics idea.  I asked about this before and the idea was summarily dismissed by Digital Igloo.

 

I'm happy he was overruled.

Probably just heard it enough that he finally decided it was a good idea. 

Persuasion can work. It just often takes a while. 

On 10/31/2022 at 6:50 AM, Paulzx said:

Just stock cabs, you don't need more... that made me chuckle.

 

I can virtually guarantee without IR's, that won't sound anything like Satriani's tone

when you get the patch into your Helix 

Yes,  because everyone knows Satriani always used IRs and not stock cabs to create his tones.

That's kind of a big ask. There are lots of videos on youtube by people who create this stuff that demonstrate how the impedance setting can impact sound. I'd reccomend you watch some of those to give you a general idea. It may not be EXACTLY what you are asking for, but it still shows the principal. I have a smattering of videos below illustrating it. 

No, they don't.