Jump to content

Vanilla_Icecream

Members
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Vanilla_Icecream

  • Rank
    Just Startin'

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Most know what a useful practical stage amp sound is, and what's not showing its best.
  2. I agree it's a very nice system, and I would buy one also, except that it seems to be rather excessively over-priced as I detailed on this page. https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/no-axe-fx-3-in-australia-yet-what-the-actual.139830/page-2#post-1666880 In the end it doesn't offer much I can't do already, nor really differenciates it from what a Helix does, but the price difference (within Australia's context at least) is more or less a bit outrageous. Frankly, I think L6 is going to sell ten times as many Helix units here, on price alone.
  3. Just going to add to this that boosting things is sometimes not the way to go. If your mids and tops are well balanced, indoors, they will almost certainly be good out-doors without alteration (sometimes a sharp slapback echo off a building wall can be softened by cutting the upper mids slightly, so it's a bit less intrusive). The part of your eq curve that may potentially change outdoors is from about 300hz down to your low-cut frequency area. That part of the spectrum may need slight tweaking (maybe). The rest should be fine. And do it with global eq, this situation is exactly what it's meant for. You don't want to mess with individual patches. Lastly, resist the urge to boost eqs. If you feel the sound has become less distinct out-doors, instead of boosting the mids---don't. Rather, first try pulling back on some bottom eq bands a touch, as that may solve the indistinctness issue without moving the mid band at all. Before you boost ask yourself if part of the solution could be achieved via just slightly cutting some other band first.
  4. You seem determined to believe some urban myth that 'latency' is an issue in modelling systems like Helix. Unless you live in a different cosmos or dimension or such, sorry, it's not.
  5. FX III has a power tube-amp model insert in global out setting if you want that. I could never go back to a real amp now, my cave man days are over, Helix Rack or FX3 are so far ahead of mere stage amps and pedals that there's nothing worth going back to---I'd rather retire than use a stage amp again.
  6. Vanilla_Icecream

    FRFR Users

    I took my FRFR Peavey RBN110s outdoors (no room resonance) with no people for a km or so, and plugged in some well known and well-recorded live ambient concert recordings to RBN aux in. Turned it seriously up, then tweaked its eq (lighty) to find a sweet spot in the RBN EQ where it sounds concert-like (as much as a 10-inch 50hz FRFR can). I listen for where the live ambience begins to sound just like a real paddock full of people, and the music is kickin. Then I note and save RBN110 eq setting. All done with speakers at the height I use live of course. While still outdoors I tune the Helix global eq to match my live patch's to the settled on RBN110 eq, then compare these to how they sit within the ambient live recording sound. Once more or less happy with that I sound-check it indoors at gig level with the band to fine-tune the global eq for room surface resonance with normal speaker placement. I do this because I figure the guy on the desk carefully tuned the PA for a similar live eq curve. So that what he gets to the desk should need little eq tweaking from there. Only minor low eq trimming for resonance within which ever room we play. I just don't want a mixing guy feeling they must make some arbitary eq curve changes. So I tell them I want a perfectly flat eq as the starting point setting at the desk, and then only make fine-tuning changes from there---if any. That works very well for me. Like anything, you get better at dialing it in over time.
  7. Huh? It's the EXACT same issues everyone else is encountering with balancing output volumes of their patches.
  8. Helix is the definition of flexible, it can make a convincing Les Paul through a Marshall combo or quad, which I find perfectly acceptable on stage. The feedback dynamics are what I expect. As gutsy as I want for 70s and 80s rock. It can make a classic sound like on Heart's "Magic Man" if you want that through an FRFR speaker--you will like it. I keep carving out a sound with the knobs until I get what I want replicated. Whatever sound I want it makes. I used JPMs and JCMs before I finally retired the amp, loved it, but love Helix more. I used to obsess about Marshall sound but now I just take it for granted, it's there on tap. I also tend to set for mic free type cab sound. Often I find the biggest infuence to sound is compression or EQ, not so much the cab mic model intruding. The mic is basically just an 'effect' on the cab, and its effect can be minimised to incidental. It's a bit like listening to different celestion speaker models in the same cab, the mic just dials in the speaker character you want. The mic irked me too at first, but that was really just my old-school dim view, now I don't see a downside to it, it's just another tool.
  9. I use a custom guitar type with 3 humbuckers and try to wring every possible analogue guitar sound out of this one guitar design. One of these sounds involves running each humbucker in parallel with itself and parallel with each other, but I reverse the phase of the coil closest to the bridge on all 3 humbuckers, then use a resistor to lower that coil's output by 50% with respect to the other humbucker coil. The result is an output that is about 75% the output of a single coil, and sounds awesome clean. So I have to really boost this low-output thin sound and keep it clean and full. So I must use this pickup setting as my overall reference level that nothing else can be louder than. Plus I must allow a 30% boost for leads, on top of this. Plus I also use serial mode OBL L500B bridge humbucker in high-gain 2204 mod with 2x12 cab models, in same sets live. As you can imagine balancing the levels as I change amps, clean to hyperdrive gains and pickup switched gain settings also, takes a few loud gigs to set for seamless volume changes. I can do it by ear, but a HIGH RESOLUTION PEAK-HOLD METER would make a huge difference to tuning gain levels, and output matching patches, with the huge pickup-setting gain changes (my guitar has 14 DPDT pickup wiring switches, each making different input gain levels). Peak-hold, along with a numerical decimal place display of the held PEAK value, is what we really need to get a useable output match before fine-tuning the level by ears with a band. We need this sort of peak-hold tool, Line6.
  10. Thus went soundog's one year vow of meditative silence, much as per his prior vows of austerity and chastity.
  11. Alternatively, use one of them, put its output through the Helix second path to generate a stereo output. You could then use Helix expression pedals to alter the effects (along with your guitar sound on the first effects path). The 60 sec looper can be useful for off-stage sound-checking of eq at gig volume. There's just enough loop time for intro, verse, chorus, to fine-tune Global master eq or else tweak individual patches for things you don't hear up close while playing or at lower volume (having off-stage bluetooth editing would speed that up too). That said, having around 5 mins of stereo recording would be a vast improvement to the practicality of Helix to both learn parts and practice and edit sounds, or for basic song creation. I'm not a fan of doing that on a DAW, the computer becomes too intrusive and de-focuses me and that 'snips' an emotive-creative thread before proper themes or songs form. Not good. But a single 5 minute stereo recording is all it takes to make something worth taking to your band. Generating it on a DAW is too isolating, having it on a Helix means you can immediately play it with a band, and develop music cooperatively, live. 60 seconds isn't enough for that.
  12. I see extra midi button functionality in much the same way, as there are already inputs for two more expression pedals for more flexible midi control inside any patch. And midi through and out if you want external midi control integration. I can hook in an SY300 or dedicated Looper already plus USB midi to a DAW. Those three expression pedals can already be used much like control buttons while playing any patch. And if I want more midi changes I have 8 patch buttons, each one brings up a sound capable of all of the above---again. So there's a lot of flexibility in those options already. Maybe the request for more midi buttons would be more understandable if I grasped why the current in-built midi control flexibility and expandability was considered not sufficient by the proposer? i.e. a request for more midi control buttons should firstly give examples of why what exists can't practically do the job, already. With emphasis on practical.
×
×
  • Create New...