Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Neutral

About emagli

  • Rank
    Just Startin'

Profile Information

  • Registered Products

Recent Profile Visitors

249 profile views
  1. Totally agreed. The auto EQ yields a very strange attack. I also turn it off, and use a tilt eq to compensate high end loss if necessary.
  2. emagli

    Big Sur

    Not sure if this has already been suggested... I have a Mac with Catalina. I already had a virtual Windows OS installed on the Mac using Virtualbox, and HX Edit under Virtualbox can control the Helix just fine. So I plan to update to Big Sur and use Virtualbox in case HX Edit has problems under Mac OS. Hope Line6 will update HX Edit soon though!
  3. Today I have done more extensive A/B testing between Poly Capo and Drop using different guitars - a Godin LGXT with splittable humbuckers and a Duesenberg semi-acoustic. I agree it does depend on the pickups, to some extent. The "good" of the capo: it tracks well even at "X fast" setting. It tracks well even if I go down 6 steps (which I would never do in real life). The tone is generally on par with the Drop, also at -6 half steps. The "bad": 1) I generally do not like the attack. The attack seems more natural and more consistent over different pickups using the Drop. This is more evident for me using humbuckers, whereas single coils have more of their own attack and I can hear this less. It's one of those "feel" things that I certainly notice, my band members probably won't notice, and the audience certainly won't notice, but it's there. To me, the main culprit for that is the "auto EQ". I turned that off, and used a tilt eq at 450 Hz and Bright45, which is what I usually use to compensate for the Drop's high end loss. That way it sounds better to me. I still slightly prefer the Drop tonewise, but the Capo becomes very usable. Maybe I have just gotten used to the way the Drop alters the tone. 2) I have noticed that the Poly Capo generates ghost notes when a note is dying. You can hear that especially on the G and B strings. The ghost notes are typically 1 or 2 half steps higher than the played note, depending how many half tones you drop the tuning. To hear that, you need a very clean tone with no modulation/reverb/delay; just hit a palm muted open G string slightly and listen through headphones. This is something undesirable... If you are playing a solo arpeggiated part (think Purple Rain's intro), there may be undesired artifacts when you switch from one chord to another. I only played this through headphones and I am not sure if the artifacts are going to be emphasized or will be unhearable live. The Drop has none of that. All in all, I think I will use the Poly Capo. In our setlist (if we could gig, that is...) there are only 4 songs where I need to drop the tuning. I am willing to slightly sacrifice tone for convenience, i.e. not having to remember to turn it on before the song and especially to turn it off before the beginning of the next one. If my understanding is correct there will be a new iteration of the Poly engine that could make this even better. That would really be great.
  4. I have tested the Poly capo and I have to say that for me it’s not working well (pretty much my only gripe regarding an otherwise excellent firmware update). I have used the digitech drop for a couple of years now. The drop has low latency, little tone loss (mostly high end loss) up to 2 or 3 half steps detuning, and no warbling at all. For me the Poly capo has audible warble, a note attack that I do not like much, and occasional artifacts on notes played at very low volume. I’d really love to love it, but so far it’s not happening for me. Maybe I am using it wrong, I’d love to be able to use it effectively. I’ll do more testing and comparison with the drop. If you have any usage tips, they’d be most welcome.
  5. There are a few IRs floating around on the Internet, which emulate acoustic preamps such as Mama Bear D-Tar and Fishman Aura -- those IRs would be your acoustic (pre)amp. 3sigma also sells very nice acoustic IRs for electric, piezo and soundhole guitar. IMO they work very well. My acoustic presets are much like codamedia's -- plus a touch of chorus and/or delay as appropriate. However, I put the IR as the first block in the chain; my rationale is that if it emulates a preamp (plus possibly do some guitar tone matching) then it should be the first thing in the chain. Also, some have reported that it's better to have an acoustic guitar into the return of the effects loop, instead of the main guitar input. I haven't tried myself to see the difference.
  6. What's the golden stompbox in the middle? Looks like a Klon clone, but one I've never seen before...
  7. I was contemplating adding a clean boost to the small board I keep next to Helix (especially if I can get rid of the Drop with firmware 3.0, but that's another story). I tried with the MXR CAE MC406 which I already have, and found that the piezo pickup in my Godin LGXT at max volume saturates the boost and generates clipping. So much for that...
  8. For some guitars I use different presets, like a single coil into a Tweed or a humbucker into a Plexi. However, I have other guitars having somewhat similar "style" (e.g., two guitars with splittable humbuckers) and I like to play them through the same presets. Live, one serves as a backup to my main guitar. In that case, what I would really find very useful is a global "gain" control on the input that I can use to balance the signal level from each guitar. The input pad does that, but it's either on or off. If the global eq were acting at the beginning of the chain, its level control would get the job done for me. I would rather avoid having a gain control at the beginning of each patch, which I have to tweak for each patch as I switch to a different guitar.
  9. I have an LT and use Performance view in the 4 snapshots + 4 stomp mode. Performance view works very well, and I used to imagine it might be equal or even better than scribble strips (though I do not have an Helix floor to compare). However, if I focus on how I actually use the display and footswitches during rehearsal and live, I mainly rely on the color code and position I have assigned to the snaps and stomps footswitches (e.g, all cleans are white, all drives are yellow, all leads are orange ...). I only look at the performance view screen if I need to recall to myself what is what. In that sense, the scribble strips much likely do a better job.
  10. I have tried this cab/mic combination with the placater, and I agree that something is missing. FYI, after trying nearly all possible cab/mic combinations in the last few months, I have found I like very much the following one: a dual cab having a Mesa V30 with 421 and a Blackback with SM57. One can adjust the balance of the two cab/mic items by varying the output level (IIRC, I use +1dB on the V30 and -1dB on the Blackback). This combination yields a very crisp tone without getting harsh (at least, to my ear). The high end generated by the Blackback and the 421 mic make the placater (or any dark-ish amp, e.g. the mahadeva) a bit more lively. Out of curiosity, why do you use separate cab blocks with split/join, instead of a dual cab block?
  11. I do not really qualify as a veteran user but still... There's really a lot to choose from. High gain, I like placater for a more classic tone and the Revv models for a more modern one. Cali Lead if I need that "liquid" solo tone. Also the Archetype works very well and is very tight. A bit less gain (say G'n'R, more of my thing), I like the 2204 and 2204 mod and the placater. For mid gain with a somewhat looser feel, I like the Mahadeva (Bogner Shiva), or the Plexi Brt. Overdrives: I like the Timmy especially because it's relatively flat and has great low and high cut controls that allow to tune how much of the lows and highs goes into the amp. Little gain (just enough to compress a little) and high volume. I typically follow the Timmy with a parametric eq set to boost mids. I used to use the Minotaur; it provides a more vintage type of mid boost.
  12. emagli

    Reverb Models

    This goes to show how subjective tone is... I find the legacy reverbs to be very smooth, maybe a bit too much at the default setting of the high cut (I never tried the Quadraverb, though). Some time ago I compared the legacy reverbs with my TC Hall of Fame in an effects loop. Except for the spring reverb on the HOF, which I do not like at all, I find that the HOF reverbs have very slightly more musical tails than the legacy reverbs, when set to similar level of brightness. However, the difference is very small and as I am going to downsize my pedalboard, the HOF will be the first to go.
  13. emagli

    Reverb Models

    Don't forget to play around with the high cut parameter. It actually serves as a tone control, and it allows you to set how bright or dark you want the reverb tails to be.
  14. Does this problem really happen when using multiple mics in a Helix dual cab block? If the mics in Helix are all "simulated" at cab center (or anyways at the same position) I guess there should be no phase issues. I combined dual mics in the dual cab block with variable results, but never had the impression of having phase issues.
  15. That's interesting. How's the high cut effect of tilt eq different from using the low/hi cut eq block, soundwise? It looks like the tilt eq has a different frequency response with respect to a high cut filter.
  • Create New...