Kilrahi

32 minutes ago, merdenoms74 said:

I stumbled across this thread after searching for 'clipping' as I'm having a problem with this too. I haven't read through the entire thread so I apologise if what I'm about to say has already been covered. Having had the Helix for only a day I have found that the default settings for the amp models are way too hot and the 'digital clipping' artifacts are a major issue for me too. The issue, for me  at least, is most prominent on the models that load up with their master volumes on 10. The clipping can be reduced considerably by bringing this down. In some cases, the channel volume also has to come down to get rid of it. With the amp model bypassed I can't make the signal clip, so on the positive side it is definitely a software issue. Like I said, I've only had it for a day so I have a lot of experimenting to do. I remember having the same issue with the POD HD (I think they improved it with later firmware updates). 

Whatever it is you feel you're hearing, it is not digital clipping.

Especially in regards to the Master volumes being set at 10. The amps that have their Masters set at 10 never had Master volume knobs in the first place, so if you lower them you're changing the true sound of the modelled amp and making it behave in a way that would have been impossible in the real world. That's not to say you can't do it - it might even sound good.

Whatever the case though, that is not at all what digital clipping is.

So what exactly is the Stomp outputting to? Just the PA?

Which output(s) is it using?

1. No. To have a stereo sound come out of the Stomp, you need the final block to be a stereo block. If your final block is not stereo (such as an amp block or a IR) then the signal will be summed to mono. To have a stereo sound, you would need the final block to be stereo (such as reverb, etc.) AND feed that stereo sound into one speaker with a left channel, and the right output be fed into another speaker for the right channel. 

2. Ummm . . . no . . . but I'll admit I have a hard time picturing what you're trying to do here.  What would be the purpose of doing this? Just to have two very different amp sounds?

It might be better for me to wrap my head around what you're doing if you describe the whole signal chain. For example, when you say "reverb stereo output" or "returning one of my reverbs" are you referring to the Stomp's reverbs or a separate reverb pedal? 

10 minutes ago, HonestOpinion said:

This whole thread seems like an absurd comparison to make in the first place. The Helix and the Axe-FX III are separated from each other by over $1800 if you include the required additions of a foot controller and expression pedal. The four processors in the Axe-FX III and probably some of the other components are superior to the Helix as you would expect in a device that is so much more expensive. There is substantially more processing muscle in the Axe-FX III than the Helix. To me it comes down to which features you value most, what kind of UI you prefer, and whether you are willing to spend an additional $1800 for a setup that probably does have a better sound (provided you even have the ears to detect it) and more tweakable parameters than the Helix. I generally don't bother trying to convince myself that devices separated this dramatically in price are just as good as each other. I know it's heresy here but they probably aren't.  I'll admit it is somewhat comforting that even with the price differential there are still some things the Helix does better. Just happy to have the Helix. It does an incredible job and offers an amazing amount of features and flexibility at its price point.  I don't expect my laptop to do everything a Cray super computer does either, nor did I have to spend millions on it, however my laptop does fit nicely on my desk and doesn't require 10% of the Hoover dam's electrical output to run. Suits my needs and budget.

Good points. There WILL come a point where all of this audio improvement is just snake oil. Our ears are pretty garbage in the grand scheme of things. 

In my opinion, we hit that a bit BEFORE Helix, but I could be wrong. How much better Fractal factually is, and how much of that fact we can actually perceive with our garbage ears, is up for debate I guess. 

28 minutes ago, SaschaFranck said:

 

Well, compared to the internal cabs, I vastly prefer playing through my own IRs, at least once it's about gig/rehearsal volume. So, in a way, for me that's a sort of requirement - and I defenitely wouldn't have bought the Helix without an IR loading option.

 

And it's totally awesome it allows that feature. Maybe someday I'l find myself using them more. For now, I only use a 3rd party IR 5% of the time, if that. 

Options are always a win though.

7 hours ago, SaschaFranck said:

While I love all these options and while I'm quite a sort of a tweaking person, non of all these steps should be required to get a decent (or even great) guitar sound. Guitar, amp. cab. That should do for a great basic tone. And well, IMO in case of the Helix, it does, but a) not for all amps and b) not exactly for live playing. Studio tones IMO don't work too well in most live scenarios. Would perhaps be great to have a special category of cabs tailored for live players.

Not much of an issue for me as I have my own IRs that I'm happy with, but you hear these things all the time when it comes to modelers (not just the Helix).

They're not required though. To be honest, I was just fine using an HX Stomp (6 blocks) for most of my presets and I was perfectly happy.

Most of the time when I'm just fiddling around, all I grab is a dual amp block.

Guitarists are fickle never happy people.  We've all been or met people who own a million drive pedals, or are constantly selling old tube amps and buying new ones, claiming they've found "nirvana" only to then need a new nirvana 12 months later.

Guitarists are endless tweakers. That's the strength of Helix, not a weakness.  it allows us to come up with a million permutations of sounds without spending a million dollars to do it, and it allows us to come up with signal chains with would be too big a pain in the lollipop in the real world. 

Codamedia's excellent advice should be a reason to buy it, not to stay away. 

3 hours ago, rd2rk said:

 

He wants to just jump between acoustic and electric without cable swapping. That means acoustic into the Fishman Input, Electric into Helix input.

He could work that with an A/B box for the guitars, but that adds another gadget, six cables instead of four.

I dunno. I still prefer his way because I'd rather keep all the control possible in one place and retain the most functionality.

He's still got an unused FX return. Connect the acoustic to it, use snapshots to switch between two guitars in a preset, or if each preset is too complex I guess switch patches, but he'd have to do that anyway.

3 hours ago, rd2rk said:

 

For all the time I've had this thing I've been fighting fizz. You'd think I'd have figured this out.

You should save this to a little text file and every time someone uses the word FIZZ copy/paste this to a reply.

Better yet, make it a sticky. Oh, that's right, nobody reads those.

I applied it to a particularly fizzy preset that I'd been using a single cab on with 8k/80 Hi-Lo cuts, and LO AND BEHOLD! FIZZ BE GONE!

 

BRILLIANT!

 

Thank you!

It is great advice as a whole, but I'm curious, what was the step(s) you were missing out on? You're clearly very knowledgable in your own right.

On 10/1/2019 at 5:56 AM, cruisinon2 said:

 

"The more complicated the plumbing, the easier it is to clog the drain."

- Capt. Montgomery Scott

 

;)

I award you 1,000 points for using one of my favorite quotes of all time in a guitar related post. 

32 minutes ago, outlawten5 said:

Where in the chain do you put it?

I've done all sorts of things with it, but generally you want it really early in the chain, if not at the very start. If you stick it to far at the end then you're doubling things like reverb trails and in my opinion it gets really muddy.  Where you're trying to double a lead tone I'd probably start at the front of the chain and then if you're not satisfied slowly move it back. 

Most of the time when I use it it's to create a subtle effect in the background, so I've experimented a lot with putting it on its own path (B) and then adding effects to it to my liking, but it's always as more of a supporting role. 

I've seen many preferred approaches.

Me, when I need more than one guitar sound I like the "Double Tank" effect which was designed explicitly for that purpose. Some aren't happy with it though, but I like it. Give it a try first.

23 hours ago, Servo said:

I purchased a Truetone 12 to power the Stomp as well as the G10 relay (modified) and two other pedals.   For those who use this set up, I wanted to clarify the power out put.  I have read that the Truetone's will put out more mA than the output that is labeled on the output plug, as long as you don't come close to total max rating of the power supply.  The Stomp is essentially right at 850/875 mA.  Did you use a current doubling or current splitting cable (that doesn't come with the package) or did you just use the Line 6 adapter into the polarity reversal and into the 800mA output.  

 

Also, would you recommend a current splitter adapter for a 350mA pedal or just plug it straight into the 300 mA outpu?

.  

Do NOT use the 800mA port. That is for AC power and you risk frying your Stomp, or at least giving it some nasty hiccups.

All you need is one port (the 500), the L6 adaptor, and the polarity reversal cable, and you're set. Works great.

(Also, yes, it can output much more than the port states, so 300 works fine for 350 - as long as your total pedals don't go over the grand total possible).

I always completely cranked it, and it worked great.

1 hour ago, WildVines said:

Is it true that the wah pedal has a toe switch that turns the wah on and off?

If you purchase the Fbv 3 foot controller separately yes, it does.

I guarantee a modern high quality FRFR can be tweaked to sound just as low fi as an archaic guitar speaker.

43 minutes ago, Nightsky1376 said:

 

 

I do hope Yamaha (Line 6) read these posts. They could design EQ curves and IR's for folks like me. 

All the best..

How can you claim your experience and make statements like the above with a straight face?

Nobody has ever brought this subject up before.

After this many years, I don't think we should start now.

No.

The best way is to purchase the DAW plugin Helix Native. You can open Helix patches in there, trim them down, and then export them to the Stomp.

2 hours ago, mjc009 said:

The other FR (full range) is also misleading. You don't really need a Full Range system for guitar. You need something that will operate from like 60Hz to like 12kHz. I think this is just to drive home the point that whatever comes out of the Helix is accurately reproduced by the loudspeaker.

 

It kind of depends on what you intend to use them for. A lot of us buy the FRFR systems for a multitude of options. So, for example, when practicing we want to jam to the real song coming out of the same speaker, and so we want a wider range than what a guitar amp would do. Or we want to plug in acoustic guitar into it which needs a wider range than an electric. 

Or you plan on running all types of instruments through it. The one I use has a frequency response of 50Hz to 20 kHz. 

There's no doubt a way to get things to work with Audacity, but I have to admit I don't have a clue how that one works. 

What I can say is that Reaper's free trial worked right out of the box for me.  

So . . . you might want to give that free program a try? Or an Audacity user can chime in . . .

Well for that question I don't have an easy answer. Because you want to split up the bass signal and keep them split up there's no easy way for your bass player to hear it through monitors since no where in the signal path do you recombine them. 

At least, none that I can see.  

If you want it that complex you'd be better off having your bass player buy their own LT. An expensive proposition for a bass player, to be sure, but something has to give. Either budget or the complexity of the routing has to give somewhere. 

6 minutes ago, bob808 said:

 

I plan to do this in one LT unit, will this thing be possible?

Yes. 

It's a good idea to try the stock IRs first before you decide they're garbage.

I own a closetful of IRs. I almost never touch them. Some people swear they're the bee's knees.

If you have money to burn, buy some of the big names and see if you fall in love. However, with the Stomp, if you can get by with just the stock cabs it will always be a plus because of the 6 block limitation. 

You could get a program that mimics an IOS phone . . . assuming Mac has any.

Seriously though, it's not happening. Time to make do with what we got. 

1 hour ago, thisperishedmind said:

I read time and time again that "FRFR wont get amp in the room sound" - but I'm just not sure I agree. Maybe its my particular "FRFR" - but I've found that I can get close enough for my purposes.

 

I see it as needing 3 main things if you want FRFR to feel "amp in the room":

• Volume.
  • I would guess most people associate "amp in the room" with "loud".
  • Specifically meaning, 5" Studio monitors on stands simply wont recreate the effect like a guitar cab (or FRFR) on the ground moving air.
• Good cab IR that matches whatever you're "expecting"
  • There are a million companies making them now. Take your pick
  • Personally, I use a single Orange IR from OwnHammer on almost EVERYTHING now...just because thats the cab I was most "used to"
  • You can probably do just fine with the built in Cab blocks - I just have no interest in exploring since I found a set of IRs I'm very happy with.
• EQ accordingly.
  • That is, Parallel EQ with what feels like an agressive high pass and low pass
  • The IR does a lot of work here - but its still my experience that an FRFR will be a little "boomier" low, and still project WAY more high frequencies.
  • Anything from a high pass up to 130hz and low pass as low as 4k or as high as 14k. Maybe use the P-EQ to scoop a little 4-6k?

 

Of course, this is all done with the intent of emulating an "amp in the room". I have little idea how it would work if I ran this exact patch FOH, but I don't think it would be disastrous by any stretch. (After all, at worst its an unmic'd cab sound?).

 

I'm able to make myself happy and shake the walls just the same as I used to with amp and cabs... only with the added perk of being able to play at talking volume and still enjoy the experience. (I never liked my analog / tube stuff quiet).

 

I don't miss having an analog amp and cab anymore. Occasionally I'll think "that would be fun!" - but quickly realize I wont use it much, or it would be a passing novelty I end up selling again eventually anyway. I already made the change once when I got the Helix.

 

I think a lot of us are with you on this, but I can't dismiss the fact that there are "amp in the room" people who have tried all of these things and it still doesn't work for them. 

I have to accept, though, that I'm wired differently than a lot of those guys. For example, WHY do they need all high frequencies to ALWAYS be nerfed?  

Just because traditionally guitar cabs sucked with highs doesn't mean that once we figure out how to have them we keep them toast. I think it's just that they're used to them being toast. If we'd started out with full range speakers instead of the limited range cabs of the 50's, I have to assume we'd largely use fuller range guitar sounds in our modern era.

Yet, those frequencies often weird out old school players . . . so they get cut. I EVEN CUT THEM SO THEY DON'T lollipop ABOUT MY TONE, BUT THERE'S TIMES I THINK THEY SOUNDED BETTER THAT WAY. 

We all have our preferences on how things should sound, and I guess there's just no getting around that. I've never found an FRFR that sounded like a tube amp in the room . . . so if you can hear that difference, and you vastly prefer the tube, an FRFR just won't do it no matter how hard you try.