Kilrahi

13 minutes ago, bob808 said:

Thank you for your guidance...

Yes, its max out the hx stomp blocks , this will be my other consideration.

Actually, i don’t buy hx stomp yet, i am still on gathering informations.

My plan that, in our band which contains 1 guitarist & 1 bassist, we plan to do processing on modelling like helix line products.

Guitar will need an overdrive, amp block (send dry to on-stage amp’s return for monitoring purpose), 2 ir (for thicknes & lil bit of wide) & eq on each before send those to FOH.

Bass’es will also have parallel processing begin with split crossover to low (<200hz) and compress it quite hard and out to 1 dedicated output. The high (>200hz) will need a b7k block, amp block, ir block & eq block also go out to 1 dedicated output. So in total i need 4 output and 2 send (helix dry amp signal into on-stage amp returns).

I think of 2 hx stomp or a helix LT, which one can handle this processing. Do you have any suggestion?

The tough answer to these questions is always "it depends."

The big advantage to an LT is that it can use A LOT more blocks. However, in your case you'd be cutting the DSP down somewhat because you'd be sharing it between two players. Making things even worse, the two players would have to keep from tripping each other or messing each other up if any type of changes were needed during or in between songs. 

My feeling is that as long as you are certain you can live on six blocks, you'd each be better off getting Stomp. This assumes that money doesn't allow for two LTs, or one LT and one Stomp. 

I loved my Stomp, and six blocks allows for a lot of possibilities (and who knows, in the future they might improve upon that six block limitation just a bit - but buy it for what it is now, now what it might be). Plus, the advantage of each player having their own controller with the HX Stomp, and not bumping into the other player, for outweighs the larger DSP advantage of the LT, IMO. 

10 minutes ago, phil_m said:

 

This behavior is determined by the EXP # Position setting in Global Settings>EXP Pedals. If you set to Global, the value of the parameters controlled by the expression pedal will always reflect the current position of the pedal. If you set it to Per Preset, the a specific value will be recalled with the preset, but if you switch snapshots, the parameter values will track the pedal position. If you switch it to Per Snapshot, the parameter value saved with the snapshot will be recalled and stay that way until you move the pedal.

Thanks for the clarification Phil.

You're basically the God of all things HX. 

That's a cool global setting. 

19 minutes ago, bob808 said:

After the fx send block, does hx stomp still capable of doing those 2 ir parallel? After each ir block in that parallel chain i plan to add an eq for some little tweak before send to foh.

 

Yes. The chain would go: Amp Block >>>>> FX Send to real Amp >>>>> Split Paths to A and B >>>>> IR Block in Path A/IR Block in Path B  >>>>> EQ Block in Path A/EQ Block in Path B. 

This will max you out of your six blocks, but it will work. 

Well that's an odd problem. 

What type of FX blocks are you using? Stereo or mono? 

2 hours ago, bob808 said:

Thank you for sharing this routing way, for single guitarist in the band have 1 amp model + 2 ir send to the foh is enough, or if capable i still can add eq after ir block on each path before merged.

But i still courious to know how if i also want a dry/amp only signal for monitoring, like from hx stomp send going into on-stage amp’s return?

All you'd do is use an FX send block placed after the amp block on the Stomp. Then connect the Stomp's "Send Stereo" port to the amp. 

5 hours ago, rudomat said:

hi,

question: when changing presets, does the hx read the current expression pedal setting....? or can i store a value it should go to after recalling and then only jump to the expression pedal value after moving it...?

thanks

p.s.: i not sure yet, but sometimes i think hx doesn´t react to the expression peal movement...then i move it again and it works...i can´t really calibrate it, right? does this "expression pedal 2 active" always show up, when the pedal is moved...?

I'm not sure I understand what your question is on that last part.

In terms of the HX, if you save a preset with specific minimums and maximums all of those things will load when you reload that preset. It won't immediately determine what position the expression pedal is in, but when you go to move it it will then react to that and adjust the expression pedal position based on where it is. 

I believe when you load a preset it assumes the pedal is floored. I'm going off memory though but I'm pretty sure that's how it worked. 

"Expression pedal 2 active" isn't what shows up if expression pedal 1 is active . . . is that what you mean? 

1 hour ago, godfather_77 said:

I'm using a 1/8 trs to 1/4" ts mono split cable to connect my mp3 to the stomp. The TS plugs have different coloured rings one white and one red, does it make a difference which colour goes into the AUX IN l/mono or right sockets?

53 minutes ago, chasingMango said:

It does not... one is the left channel, one is the right channel.  If you swap the cables between L/R input, the L/R output will swap accordingly.  Only matters if you expect certain sounds to be panned left or right.

While it is largely true that it doesn't matter, particularly with two channel stereo music, sometimes it does matter (such as surround sound scenarios, though often now those are simple plug and play hdmi), but in case it ever DOES matter, red is typically the right channel.

1 hour ago, Findlasse said:

I am lost somewhere. It sounded ok yesterday at very low volume with only 1 amp. Found out I had it set for stereo, so today it did not sound right. Guess I was dreaming yesterday! :-)
Tried to make it real simple today trying to get to the bottom of it - but I got lost anyway. Maybe it is just not possible!?.
What I tried was:
Uni-vibe in signal path A - Teemah drive in signal path B
The goal is - with expression pedal - to have only path A (or B) open with heel down - and to have only path B (or A) open with toe down. Without dropout or sudden cuts. Fading in A and B out.
The split can't be controlled to route to either A or B - at least I don't get it working. And the same with the mixer, I guess.
Is it possible, do you think?. Anything I have missed?

It sure doesn't sound crazy to me. I'll try to get some time tonight to dink around with it. 

On 10/20/2019 at 9:00 PM, jesseadamwilson said:

SYMPTOMS:

• High Noise-Floor / Hissing through all outputs

• I've tried multiple HELIX units entirely (both rack and floor models never been used in the same place prior both running on current firmware)
• I've updated firmware to latest release on both HELIX models (2.82)
• I've tried HELIX native (latest version)
• I've tried multiple power cables
• I've tried multiple power conditioners

Have you tried it with other Helix users who are happy with the unit to see if they hear the same problems you do? 

1 hour ago, SaschaFranck said:

 

I'm actually not all too happy with the fuzz ones (and yes, I tried at all input impedance settings, getting better at lower values but also impacts the rest of the signal chain, even if set to "auto").

I really like the fuzz in my Atomic Amplifirebox, even if it does cause some artefacts on ringing out notes or very lightly struck ones - but the general character is pretty nice.

Fortunately, I don't exactly need fuzz tones, but I wouldn't mind a bit of a Mike Landau-ish woolyness that yet cleans up well.

Yeah I've heard that from more than a few people. I have messed around with a few songs with fuzz tones and A and B'd it with the classic Big Muff Pi . . . and I couldn't tell a difference. 

BUT . . . I have to admit I am not a huge fuzz fan, and I've read your complaint from enough fuzz lovers that I do wonder if there's room for improvement in this area. 

To be clear, my earlier comment doesn't mean I'm opposed to more examples (particularly in the fuzz realm), just that for me personally I'm satisfied. My hope and wish list would be for more areas in modulation, pitch, synth, etc. (Freeze Pedal, Drop Pedal, bizarre weird crap like the Mel 9).

More fuzz is fine though!

Okay let me take a crack at this:

1. Digitech 150 - It's hard for me to comment on this as I've never owned a Digitech. Is it possible?  Yeah, it's possible assuming it has the ability to interface with a DAW (which from quickly looking at it it does) and if in addition to accepting a guitar signal it has another input for accepting a jam track of some kind (for this I couldn't see one - can it accept it via USB at the SAME time it tries to record?). Also, if it can accept a guitar signal, can you have all of its effects off so that it doesn't impact the sound created by your HD 500x and tube amp? 

In short, there's a lot of what ifs, and it sounds like a lot could go wrong. Maybe, though, you'd strike pay dirt. That happens sometimes. 

2. Peavey valveking II 20 w/speaker defeat - Yeah this is also possible BUT . . .

The real gist of it is this - and yes, this is my opinion so take it as you want, but it's meant kindly. I think you're trying to mix two different goals that are best kept separate (jamming and recording). In my opinion, there is NO way to catch the "sweet sweet tube amp sound" which, as far as I can tell, is actually a feeling, not a sound, by recording it. The moment you mic one up that "sweet sweet sound" is no longer present on the recording as far as I can tell. Plus, in all of the scenarios you describe, you aren't even mic'ing it up - which is the only legitimate way to even attempt to capture a tube amp sound -  which means you'll just be getting a digital emulation of your amp anyway (particularly in option number 2). 

My suggestion would be when you want to jam, JAM! Turn on a stereo, and play with your guitar, through your Pod, into your tube amp.  No recording, unless you plan on actually mic'ing up your live performance. 

When you want to record, focus on that. Set your Pod to the best amp emulation you can and record that straight into your DAW. Or, if you really want to be a purist, figure out how to mic the sounds of your guitar amp and get that transferred into your DAW. If you try and mix and match goals I don't think you'll ever be happy, and you'll probably end up with half assed versions of jamming, and half assed versions of recording. 

53 minutes ago, Chuckusa said:

 

 

 

Could you recommend me some budget priced audio interfaces and flat response speakers I should try out, so I can get an idea of what I could be looking for and doing?

I would like to try out this method you mentioned and still run my POD through my tube amp, then into a different audio interface with flat response speakers... 

Could you describe this setup in a little more detail please? Lol iv been messing with music gear for years but am still stupid with it lmao.... Just a slow learner I guess...

I just want to understand how I am going to run my guitar into my pod, into my tube amp, then into another interface and flat response speakers.... and still record the sound with my PC...

 

Some example of set ups needed would be great... Sorry I just need the extra help to understand... 

 

All he's really saying is equivalent to "You should hear songs through a standard stereo speaker system." 

That's it. So the "audio interface" can be something as simple as your phone, or any music player. The "flat response speakers" really just have to be standard speakers used for music players. 

In the guitar world, a very popular brand of cheap full range speakers are the Headrush FRFR like the 108 (https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/FRFR108--headrush-frfr-108-2000-watt-1x8-inch-powered-guitar-cabinet).  You really don't have to go even that pricey, though, for just listening to music. It just depends on how picky you are. 

Whatever the case though, the point is hearing a song through a guitar amp will sound like melted butt because the guitar amp will cut off a lot of the frequencies of the song (particularly the higher range stuff). 

The hard part is sending it all through the Pod because you want the jam tracks to go to the stereo system, and the guitar to go to the tube amp. I don't actually think the Pod will let you do something that complex. You can send it all to a tube amp, or all of it to an FRFR. As far as I know, you can't do both. 

Still, I  haven't had my Pod in quite some time, Maybe the advanced users will tell me I'm wrong on that one. 

1 minute ago, chuckmottmusic said:

I was wondering what the repair policy is on this ?  My Helix LT is a year and 3 months old. 

If you register it, you have a two year warranty from the day of purchase so long as you have the original receipt. 

I've had volume covers pop off before and you could just pop them back on. Is the cover actually broken? 

If it can't be popped back on I'd open a support ticket and go through the process of getting it fixed. 

2 hours ago, phil_m said:

 

The post you quoted is quite old, and I was speculating that's the case... Maybe Line 6 has something else up their sleeve - I don't know.

I can't quote chapter and verse, but I did read a post on "The Gear Page" from Digital Igloo who indicated that increasing the length of the looper time was potentially a possible avenue that they could go down once Helix Core was implemented. 

Will they?  

I think a looper is one of those areas that if you need something more complex, you're best buying a more complex looper. Personally, I'd rather they save whatever space they got or can use to add more amps/effects (but hell, maybe it's not an either or decision, so that would change things).  

I'm not anti looper either. I pre-ordered the new Boss RC-10R a few days ago. 

I was messing with this one last night, and I still love it.  

The whole host of drives in the Helix is perfect in my opinion. Is there a vital one missing?  

I can't think of it. Occasionally I read people say they're disappointed with the Helix's drives and I have a serious WTF moment. Then I go eat a sammy and down a Coke to forget about how crazy life is. 

1 minute ago, Findlasse said:

Thank you Sir! - this is what I want. I give it a go again. In my attempt to do so I had the mixer block at the beginning. I did not succeed in routing to either A or B for some reason - maybe it works better with the mixer at he end of the signal path.
I am happy you say it can be done. It gives me relief to give it a go again! :-)

If you can't get it to work, let me know. I can always try fiddling with it myself to see what works best. 

11 hours ago, Findlasse said:

Thanks! :-)
I may have expressed it unclear (I'm danish).
What I am after is sound1 to fade out and sound2 to fade in - using the expression pedal from top to bottom. Sort of seemless transition. Is that possible to do with the HX??

Interesting. I've never needed a clean sound to just fade . . . and to have dirt fade in, or vice versa . . .

Still, my thoughts are yes, you can. Most obviously, it seems like if you tied an expression pedal to the drive of a dirt pedal it's pretty much fading in . . ..BUT it sounds like you want something a little more distinctive than this so . . .

As you suggested in your original post, another option would be the two signal path approach. A clean signal path (Path A) and a dirty signal path (Path B).  Then tie an expression pedal to the mixer block at the very end. Set it to an A/B block, and have the expression pedal control the amount of A and B at any given time, with all the way down on the expression pedal completely shutting off A, and all the way up completely shutting off B. 

If you move the pedal based on this it will fade in your clean and dirt depending on the position of the pedal. 

This is just ONE way to get there .  .   . and it's block intensive, but still it might get you what you're after. In my opinion, the HX line's greatest strength, even beyond the quality of its modeling, is the huge routing possibilities. There is usually a MULTIPLE ways to achieve something. The challenge is thinking them up, and choosing the best one. 

1 hour ago, velaramon said:

Following up. Is it better to use the output block volume or a separate gain block?

That really depends upon the sound you're trying to achieve. Gain blocks will interact with other blocks within the signal chain to produce unique sounds/distortion depending upon what you have after it.  If you like that . . .  great . . .if not, don't do it. 

In regards to the original poster, they were using an HX Stomp which has only 6 blocks. When I was using the Stomp, and because of that unique limit, anytime I could get away with using the output block OR some level option (such as on the amp) I would go that route instead. 

10 hours ago, rudomat said:

that´s a nice idea, but it doesn´t work that way...the level adjustments are totally digital and after the analog input...that means, if it distorts, you´d only make the already distorted signal lower...;-(

Are you sure you understand what codamedia is saying? He's referring to the level adjuster on the FX block.  If you set the Stomp's "left send" to line level, and you discover that that's too high, you can then use the FX block in the signal path to reduce the volume of the left send, essentially bringing it down to instrument level.

The HX line has tons of level options within a signal chain for balancing all of this crap out. 

It's been a while since you got the feedback above, what happened when you experimented?  Did it work? 

Well . . . the answer is yes you can use them all. Both devices allow for 8 snapshots.

So when you try to do it, what do you see? Only some of them? 

Anytime you describe a sound it can be problematic because the question becomes if I am thinking of the same sound you are. 

Especially the term "hum," as I don't usually use that term unless there's a problem (like from a ground loop). 

Nevertheless, high gain presets will have a lot of noise when you're not playing. That's part of what high gain is all about. There is always sound happening around your electric guitar so even when you aren't strumming, electrical noise is happening and is being sent to the Firehawk. High gain amps heavily ramp up everything they receive with . . . well . . . with gain. 

So even when you're not really playing anything, yes, there's gonna be a bunch of noise. One thing you can do to see if we're thinking of the same thing is use the Firehawk's noise gate, or place a noise gate at the start of the chain on purpose. If the noise you're hearing subsides a bit (not disappears, but drops in intensity), then yes, we're thinking of the same thing, and it's perfectly normal. 

4 hours ago, Findlasse said:

Hi!
I had a Vetta II earlier and it had a great feature. With the floorboard pedal in top position - I had a nice Police-like clean sound - pressing the pedal down to bottom position - the sound transitioned into a nice dirty sound.
I tried to mingle with the HX to get the same option, but with no success.
Thought it might be possible with 2 signal lines and then using the expression pedal to route to either 1st or 2nd signal path?.

Is it possible on the HX effects??

It's possible . . . I'm not sure it's the best way to do it. 

To do what you want, you would need to connect the expression pedal to control some option that adds dirt. For example, pushing it past a point could activate an overdrive pedal OR it could increase the drive of an overdrive pedal. 

It can be tempting to try to mimic an old way of doing things with a new device. However, I think the HX Effects has a lot better options. Snapshots are probably the best example, where with a push of a button you can change up to 64 settings in your signal chain. It doesn't take anywhere close to 64 changes to add dirt. 

In my opinion, those who successfully embrace FRFR are those who don't need it to have an "amp in a room" feel. I wanted an FRFR in the room feel ... and it did that perfectly.

Powercab is your best bet, but if you really want an amp in the room, it's a scientific fact you need to place an amp in the room.

1 hour ago, mritt said:

Ah crap, sorry my bad. I should have said Helix LT. It doesn't have an AUX input. I will edit my post.

Thanks for the help though ChasingMango.

 

 

It would still be better to go a different route. Plug one of you into an FX return and put them on the second path.

Your earlier way won't hurt it, but the above way will have unmatched separation of sound, and you can each set up your own signal chain.

16 minutes ago, guitars69 said:

 

Ah interesting to know.

 

You're probably correct that they have not compelling interest to upgrade without running out of supplies.

 

Too bad.  I'd like to see one with more power, because it would be handy to run more than one musician through it.  You can now, but the options are pretty limited for the signal chain.  If I could run a full rig in Path A and another in Path B that'd be pretty sweet.

Maybe. The thing is though, we always want MORE. Any processor created will always be able to have more power for one user than if it's split between two users. 

Historically, what two users can do with a Helix now is pretty crazy (each can have their own amp block, reverb, delay, modulation, wah, compression AND distortion and in most traditional cases they won't max out the DSP). 

However, BECAUSE we've seen how crazy one user can get with the Helix, we automatically wish that two people could do the same. For the next generation processor the same thing is likely to happen. You'll still feel like two users are limited, even if it's more advanced than what 99% of guitar players have done for decades.