Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Registered Products

lcuani's Achievements


Apprentice (3/14)

  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare

Recent Badges



  1. Yes i got it that it happens in the merge., but i dont think that would matter at all in this subject since any db boost or attenuation happening in the split would end up being compensated by the attenuation/boost in the merge block. (since in this case we are not talking about preamps or dirt box that change its tone based on the input gain).. But either way " and the acoustic power sum thing applies to... well acoustics, so we're talking real hardware speakers not the virtual speaker cabinets inside of helix" may explain why the volume still changes... I will read it again when i get home to see if there's anything i have missed. But i think the main issue is already resolved ... I'd better create snapshots with different blends of the cabs and try to match the volumes instead of using the expression to control the route parameter of the A/B split It's way more laborious but at least i wont keep stuck in a method that will mislead me due to volume differences. Thank You!!!
  2. VERY helpful. SO if i understood correctly, if i use the A/B split to send the signal from an amp block to 2 differnt ccab, in theory it would add 3 db to the signal ("2) when you send a signal to a speaker and then send the same identical signal also to another identical speaker you get +3dB (acoustic power sum") In this case, the pan law attenuation would make perfect sense, right? 3 db reduction in a scenario where i would have 3 db boost... right? Because i am using this method and really feel like, changing the route parameter in the a/b split block changes the overall volume when it shouldnt since the pan law attenuation would attenuate in the middle and not in hte sides... Did i get it wrong? Thank You!!
  3. Hi all. I've been really searching for a list of the input impedances of the effects in the helix. I believe there is one in somewhere. Just want to know if any of you have a list of the values of the input impedance for each effect when helix is set to auto. Thanks in advance
  4. ty. If i end up going for a 5'' speaker, what sub would u guys recommend me
  5. Wel .. this sucks :( I intended to use Digitech the Drop the same way.. Ty mate
  6. I've been looking the krk rokits. Stayed in doubt if i should go for the 5'', 6'' or 8'' version. I intend to use it kinda close in my home studio. I guess the 5'' and 6'' are more suited to this application right? Ty for helping.
  7. Oh well. This is kind of a issue in recording tones since you never know what volume and through what speakers people will hear you... What would be a good aproach to dial a tone you intend to use in a recording? Thanks for the help.
  8. Hi. First of all, sorry for possible bad english. I am about to buy helix along with some kind of speakers. I know that there are tons of topis related to speakers to use with helix but most of them are old and dont answer my specific doubt (actually most dont aproach dialing tones with recording in mind). My band have a pair of JBL EON615. I guess they might be good to dial tones to use live(most places i play already have a PA system with floor monitors) but i am not sure if tones to use live will translate well to record. For recording purposes i guess studio monitors with speakers of 5'',6'',7'' or 8'' are better suited.. am i right? if so, Could you give me some recommendations of something around $400? And the other way around would work well? i mean... tones dialed to record could be used live with good fidelity? It seens way to much effort in having to dial each patch twice. One for live use and other for recording. Finally..... Am i just thinking to much? i could just dial tones in the JBL and then record with them and the results would be good? Thank you in advance for the help
  9. Hi. Is there anyway to use send/ return 1 twice in the same preset? I want to use presets in witch i use path 1 to mag pickup and 2 to piezo ( both played at the same time ). i am using the pickup through the aux in. I have a POG2 that i want to use both in the piezo and mag signals. Is there any way to do that? Thanks in advance
  10. Yes. No level compensation seens the right thing to do. Especially if the level compensation happened in the split block.. it would make signal reach amp with less gain than intended. And yes. I guess you are right about hardly using 4 splits. THe most standard effects to run in parallel are delay and reverb and this is easily acomplished. Its just that seens you cant make delay, reverb and chorus in parallel with no effect feeding into each other wich is easily acomplished with the gt 1000 nested splits... but its a very specific use case. I bet that even in boss gt 1000 few people are using this nested splits capability.
  11. Still in the split subject. I see that in the boss gt-1000 you can split path and then split the result of the split (i dont know if what i am saying translates what i want to say)... like nested splits.. it would be useful to have delay, reverb and other effect and none feed into each other. From what i see this isn't possible in the heliz. Am i right?
  12. TY, a lot of information here. I thought helix had a system to compensate this 3 db level gain removing 3 db from each path. BUt seens the behaviior is standard
  13. Well... kinda makes sense. if i want to change raw volume output i should just change parameters in the merge block instead of the split. Ty
  14. Thank you for the help. So it seems, in a A/B scenario if you split to two amps and you make an uneven split, one amp will be reached with lower gain than intended
  15. Well. i searched in previous topics and even though this subject was talked i couldn't find a solution to a specific doubt. What would be the exact difference in Y split and A/B split? I know u can control the level that goes to each channel with A/B. But isnt this the same as changing the levels of each path in the merge block (Y split case)? Or , in the A/B case, routing more to channel A for example, would result in less INPUT level in channel B? in this case, gain sensitive blocks would suffer (for example in a 70-30 split, no side would get the normal input.. actually neither in the 50-50 split it would get, cause both sides would recieve only half of the input making it odd to use) My intention is to split the signal in two amps. So it seens the Y split is more suitable, right? But i saw people complaining the y split reduces both inputs by 3db in order to keep the volume the same when the paths merges. But wouldnt this also change the input gain for the amps? or the level compensation happens in the merge block? but in both cases, in a scenario where i want to route each amp to a different output, both signal would be reduced by 3 db even though i didnt merge them? Obs: I could make this tests myself but i actually dont have a helix yet and i am considering my possible use cases and if they can be acomplished. Thank you for all the help and sorry for bad english.
  • Create New...