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

fenderbenderlax

Members
  • Posts

    77
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by fenderbenderlax

  1. I have tried it with the FX block alone in a blank patch and the issue is the same. The loop on the Mesa is serial and the mix parameter is set to 100%...However, I did use TS mono cables though. Could the also result in a large volume drop when engaging the loop?

  2. Hi Folks,

     

    I'm experiencing significant tone loss when using the HX FX in a 4 cable routing. I tried different routing options as well as changed cables but the issue still remains. Primarily I'm finding that when using the loop, the amp sounds very thin and almost seems to have a slight phasing/chorusing effect with the clean tone. For the distorted tones I lose a lot of the bottom end and tones are very bright. Note that I'm also using some other pedals with the HX FX. When I turn off the effects loop I tried the following two options for signal chains.

     

    Example Setting 1

     

    Guitar -> Digitech Ricochet -> Cry Baby Wah -> Origin Effects Revival Drive -> HX FX input - > EQ  Block - > FX Loop 1 (HX Send into Front of amp and Amp send into HX return-> Modulation - > Delay -> Reverb -> HX Left out into Amp Return

     

    Example Setting 2

     

    Guitar -> HX Input -> FX Loop 1 (HX Send into Digitech Richet -> Cry Baby -> Revival Drive Out -> Amp Input -> Amp send into HX Return) -> Modulation -> Delay -> Reverb -> HX Left out into Amp Return

     

    Setting that works well. When I do this I'm not observing the same loss in tone that I see with Example settings 1 & 2

     

    Guitar -> Digitech Ricochet -> Cry Baby Wah -> Origin Effects Revival Drive -> Amp input - > Amp Send into HX FX Guitar In -> Modulation - > Delay -> Reverb -> HX Left out into Amp Return

     

    I set the FX loop to instrument level and the Main outs to line level. The amp I'm using is a mesa mark v 25. Any help is much appreciated. 

     

    Thanks

     

     

  3. hi Folks,

     

    I use my hx fx with the four cable method currently. The set up is 

     

    Guitar -> HX input

    Send 1 -> Amp in

    Amp send -> HX return 1

    HX Left mono out -> Amp Return

     

    HX right out -> Audio interface

     

    I'm also running a split at the end of the chain (Y split) and adding a second path with an IR in there. At the merge point I'm panning the signal hard left (to amp) and hard right (to audio interface). 

     

    This allows me to use an IR along with my amp. However, I'm looking into the possibility of using two IR's instead of 1 in parallel. The idea would be to take out the HX Left mono out to the amp return cable and instead send that to the audio interface with a second IR in that path. 

     

    Would that work? I have an internal load on my amp so running without a speaker is fine. I guess my big question is if we do not send the mono out to the return, is the power amp captured in the chain? Maybe I'm completely out of whack here but any insight is much appreciated. 

     

    My guess is that I could do something like this, 

     

    Guitar -> HX input

    Send 1 -> Amp in

    Amp send -> HX return 1

    Send 2 -> Amp Return

    Amp Line out -> Return 2

     

    Place the two IR's after the second FX loop block and run the Left and Right out to my interface. 

     

    However this would mean using 4 blocks effectively for the FX loops and the IR's leaving just four blocks for effects I guess. Is there a simpler routing to get to this point? 

     

     

    Thanks

     

  4. 1 hour ago, Schmalle said:

    No, the Sends are used as additional parallel outputs that carry the signal of the normal outs and only add IR. RTM

     

     

    thanks again...Yeah I get that we can use the sends...but my question was how to run two IR's in stereo..maybe my original question was not clear..I'm not sure how the routing would look like as I would need an IR on both paths...

  5. 29 minutes ago, Schmalle said:

    You could use a parallel path: IR -> Send 1/2. See page 30 in the manual for details.

     

    Thanks for that..I agree we could do that..but note that for the main path, I still need to send the signal back to my amp...if I put an IR in that path, would that IR also not be part of the signal that goes into the return of the amp?

  6. HI Folks,

     

    I'm thinking about what might be the best way to use my tube amp with the IR's using HX FX. This is my standard setting..

     

    Guitar -> HX Input 

    HX send 1 -> Amp input

    Amp send -> HX return

    HX Left main out -> Amp return

     

    Amp speaker out to a reactive load...

     

    on my HX I think drop a FX block and have my pre post effects. Finally I drop an IR in the end of the chain and pull it down to an alternate path and mix it by hard panning the IR to the Right output on the HX. Then the Right output goes into my interface. This seems to work just fine. 

     

    However, I wonder if there is another way to do this where I can use both the left and right outputs to my interface and maybe blend two different IR's...if yes, how would I route that...any help is much appreciated...Thanks in advance...

  7. On 9/19/2020 at 1:18 PM, phowell said:

    Using the Hughes and Kettner Grandmesiter 40 with the PowerCab Plus has been the same, but you can turn the emulation off and use the IR's in the PowerCab.  Sounds good but I wonder if I can just go speaker out (instead of the Red Box) from the amp to the PowerCab.  Thoughts?

     

    If you go speaker out to the PC I think you will fry your amp...if you have an internal load you can then use the line out I think to the PC...I thought about it for a while but decided against the Powercab...the speaker modeling just seems a bit closed and for pure FRFR its not worth the price tag IMHO..

  8. 3 hours ago, dacop13 said:

    My first show back (whenever that is) I will probably just have the backline cabinet mic'ed as I have done in the past with tube heads. Its usually a fast paced "on and off" between bands so there is no time for me to mess around with Cab settings. 


    Understood about the concept of modeling, but I do like the results I am getting through a real cab and poweramp. 

    I dont have a FRFR either and have no reason to get one. Most of the places my band plays has a backline and they do not allow you to bring a cabinet.

     

    Quick question, if I did decide to add a CAB block for FOH only, I would assume I need to create two separate paths? One having a CAB (FOH) and the other not having a CAB (into real Cabinet)?

     

     

    You may not need a separate path in itself. You could use a split Y branch driving both the FOH and the Cab. For the through path you can route it to your 1/4 inch outs into the power amps. for the split path make sure you add an impulse response/stock cab and route that maybe through the XLR outs to  FOH. 

  9. I believe the Princeton reverb does not have an effects loop (I might be wrong here). In that case it is fairly simple. Guitar goes into to Helix input and take the mono 1/4 inch out to the front of the amp. Line your effects as you like and then you should be good to go. You could also experiment with the preamps on the helix for some really cool distorted tones (if you need them). 

  10. 1 hour ago, dacop13 said:

    Great subject as I am a new Helix LT user and was wondering how I was going to handle this. Right now I use the Helix with a real 2x12 cabinet powered by an Orange Pedal Baby. There are no CAB blocks in any of my presets, so where do I go from there...obviously FOH/PA is out of the question for me right now. I dont have an FRFR and dont plan on getting one. I wouldn't conciser the headphone option because I figured the preset would not sound the same through a PA. So right now I am sticking with the traditional mic the speaker format. 

    Was wondering what to expect if I added a CAB block, the same as I physically have (2x12 G12T-75) into the chain for FOH...am I crazy to think that will come close to what I am getting out of my real cabinet? 

     

    I did use it with a cab before and a poweramp. Adding a cab for FOH will require additional work. I also do not have an FRFR system which makes it harder as I'm reliant on headphones for creating tones. 

  11. I like to use Ownhammer, 3Sigmaudio and Celestion. To me the key seems to be the high cut and low cuts on IR's. Depending on who you source from you might need to use different levels for cuts. 

    • Like 1
  12. 4 minutes ago, brue58ski said:

     

    This is also absolutely true, but you definitely won't hear it in the field if you don't hear it in the studio. He said "  I don’t hear much a difference but that is with studio monitors." and that was what I was speaking to.

     

    Totally agree here! I have tried stereo live and it just does not seem to work. I sounds great on headphones but stereo reverbs and delays sounded terrible when I used them live. Note that it could simply be user error on my part and could be reflective of my complete inability to set up a good sounding stereo patch.

  13. On 6/25/2020 at 12:50 PM, themetallikid said:

    For myself, it just takes time and trial/error processes to adapt to how your headphones sound/translate to my PA system.  I have a powered wedge I use as well, but even that sounds

    different than through our full PA.  

     

    Here is my process...

     

    1) create presets using headphones.  This is mostly to get the layout, blocks etc...all included and sounded decent.  I know my headphones are boomy so I tend to make them a little bit boomy/bassy in the headphones as I know when i hit the next step it'll even out a bit.  

     

    2) I play through my powered wedge at a 'reasonable' house volume.  Now that I'm in an apartment, I take my rig and spend about 20 min hooked up to see how my headphone attempts translate to the powered wedge, I adjust a few of my presets to get more ballpack.  Then if needed, due to being short of time, will compare on my headphones the adjusted presets vs the 1.0 version and make the adjustments to match the 2.0 wedge versions so they are consistent.  I know my wedge is pretty tight/clear/punchy, and if it sounds good there, usually sounds pretty decent out front with our PA.

     

    3) during the show I soundcheck and listen to my guitar in the wedge and through the PA to compare how they respond differently.  I'll use the Global EQ as a way to quickly tame any highs/lows.  THen when I get my rig setup at home, I'll look at the global EQ settings and make adjustments to my presets to re-flatten the global curve.

     

    This whole process is lengthy, and a little bit back and forth, but usuallly by the 2nd show, my presets are dialed and locked in.  I have good reference core tones that I can then create song specific presets with, where all I have to do is drop in the effects per song if needed.  

     

    This most definitely sounds workable to me. I will give this a go. 

     

     

    On 6/25/2020 at 1:29 PM, cruisinon2 said:

     

    The interface you use is entirely irrelevant, and neither contributes to, nor detracts anything from your tone...the problem is changing output devices (headphones vs a PA), and volume... specifically the effects of the Fletcher- Munson curve. Perceived loudness of different frequency ranges varies drastically with volume... it's just how our brains work. At low levels, mids dominate. When you crank it up, the highs and lows become more prominent and the mids vanish like a fart in the wind... hence the guitarists' constant search for the secret sauce that will allow us to "cut through the mix". There is absolutely nothing that can be done about this....no device that can circumvent the biology.

     

    The only workable solution is tailoring patches for both the intended output device and most importantly, volume. I've got a "live" set list, along with one for headphones, and yet another for studio monitors. Yes, it's more work up front... and yes, it's tedious and a royal pain in the a$$. But you only have to do it once. After a while, regardless of how you dialed in a particular patch, you'll get to know what tweaks you'll need to make to adapt that same patch for a different use... but even then it'll only get you "in the ballpark". You'll still have to test drive your handiwork in each scenario, and it's a safe bet that you'll still have to have to edit something. That's what rehearsals and sound checks are for, but there's no escaping the initial grunt work no matter what you do.

     

     

     

    Totally agree with the Fletcher Munson effect and its implications. That is literally the problem and developing presets at gig volumes is just not feasible for the moment. But I agree maybe it is a little too much to expect no tweaking based on patches designed using headphones. 

     

    On 6/26/2020 at 4:45 AM, DunedinDragon said:

    I have had to setup some patches using my DT770 headphones on occasion and I firmly agree with cruisinon2.  I found it doable, but it inevitably needed some correction once I connected to a legit FOH setup.  The reason being that headphones, or even studio monitors, are engineered to work so differently from common FRFR style speakers that it's really kind of impossible to match the characteristics exactly.  That being said my experience in that regard is somewhat limited so I suppose it would be possible to learn how to make the corrections accurately with headphones if you had to do it all the time.

     

    Agreed! Thanks again everyone!!!

  14. 4 minutes ago, brue58ski said:

    Get ready for the it won't work responses. Only because it's pretty true. i got lucky and have a pair that any patches I make using them (so far), translates to the PA we have well. I have not tried this with any other PA. The headphones were fairly cheap. I'm not at home so i can't tell you what they were. Still it's better to create your patches at performance level or, as has been stated on this forum, 80dB I think was the number.

     

    yeah I saw that there are a number of ppl who have said that headphones just don't work...the problem is building tones at 80db with the kids around is just difficult :-)..plus our bigger problem is (not right now as there are no gigs) but typically we play using the venue PA system which varies depending on where we play...makes it even more difficult to manage...

  15. Hi Folks,

     

    I was wondering what is the best option to create Helix tones without having to use FRFR speakers (silent mode). I'm using the HX stomp. I currently use a TASCAM TH230 and it sounds quite boomy. The tone sounds good with EQ using my headphones but it sounds terrible when hooked to the PA system. 

     

    Any thoughts on 

     

    a) Would better headphones such as the Beyer dynamic or others offer a closer representation to FRFR

    b) Would using an "industry standard" interface such as the UAD Apollo Twin or the Arrow and monitoring through their headphone outs make a difference (I'm not totally sold on these expensive interfaces as I doubt I will use any of their plugins). Alternatively would something like a Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 suffice to dial in tones that would not require massive adjustments when hooked to the PA. 

     

    Thanks folks!!!

  16. 17 minutes ago, rd2rk said:

     

    When I bought my tube amp - a 112 combo - I also bought an EHX 44 Magnum, as a backup. Lately I've been considering the same thing as you, switching out the FRFR112 (which I like for bass) for a 112 cab and the EHX. Great minds......If you do it, do report back, as will I.

     

    Hmmmm....I haven't been to GC in a while.....NO! Don't spend more money! But it's for the music......AWAY DEMON SPENDTHRIFT! Cursed logic! You spoil all my fun!

     

    I will...talking about spending money...personally I like Sweetwater better than GC...check em out...typically good discounts as well and great customer service...

  17. I think either would be fine...the 112 sounds ok....I have a 112 and a tube amp with a 1X12 cab...at home I always prefer to run the two in stereo...there is something about a real valve amp that makes it more inspiring personally.... it has nothing to do with whether the FRFR is bad (I think it is quite good)...it is just a matter of personal preference...I'm on the fence in terms of ditching the Headrush and getting a relatively inexpensive 112 cabinet (used) coupled with an EHX magnum power amp...could end up at almost the same price as a 112...108 would definitely be cheaper...in the end it really depends on what you find inspiring...good luck...

  18. 27 minutes ago, rd2rk said:

    You mean two HELIX amps to two EXTERNAL amps. The devil is in the details.

    Yes, for that you'll either need to do it with two delays or with the single stereo delay before the split to the amps, which might be doable with more tuning - after all, it's the way it's done ITRW with an amp without FX loop.

     

    Good point...I guess it could be any combination right? Even If I were to use two different modeled amps within the helix, I think putting he stereo delay after the split does seem to work in separating out the signals...I guess if we use clean channels and use pedals to drive the amp then you are right maybe that will work...I will give that a shot and see how it sounds...interesting problem though :-)..thanks again for your assistance..

  19. 2 hours ago, brue58ski said:

    If I'm reading Johnam71's post correctly, he wants path 2A going to one  power amp and 2B going to another amp. I would make both paths outputs 1/4" and pan one hard left and the other hard right. That would solve what I think he's trying to do.

     

    Yep that should do the trick..

  20. Thanks a ton for spending time on this rd2k..yes this approach worked perfectly for me and the patch sounds great...the idea that I wanted to implement though was in a two amp scenario....one approach that I took was to have two separate paths for the two amps and having two different delays (1/4 note on one side and dotted 8th on the other)...seems to replicate the ping pong to some extent...

  21. 3 hours ago, kraftybob said:

    I was always of the mindset that I get my tone from the amp and effects are in addition to that.  Prior to the Helix I was using the M13 - which is stomp boxes only.  I started hitting some limitations of the M13 so was going to upgrade to the HX Effects, but then got a good deal on the Helix LT from Sweetwater.

     

    My plan then was to run 4CM with effects only.  Then I tried a few preamp models into the effects return of my DSL.  Big mistake <sarcasm>.  Now I find myself using more preamp models from the Helix (routing to the effects return) than I do straight DSL.  I still really like the DSL tone, but there are so many other options now with the Helix I'd be crazy to ignore them.  In addition to the Creamback in my amp, I also have a 1x12 closed back cab with a G12T-75.  For me, having the helix preamp going into the DSL tube poweramp, with these two speakers, really delivers.  I'm really happy with my setup at this point.

     

    As far as the weight of the DSL is concerned at some point I'm going to convert it to a head.  There are a few after market options for the DSL, or I may just do it myself (as I'm pretty handy). My 1x12 cab was actually a MG250DFX that I bought from some guy that pulled the head and used it as a 2x12 cab.  The DSL is wide for a 1x12 combo so this fits under it nicely.  Whenever I do the head conversion, I make a new baffle for the cab and convert it back into a 2x12 cabinet.

     

    The good thing about the DSL20CR is that it uses EL34 power tubes.  A lot of amps in the 15-20w range end up using EL84's and sometimes I don't think those have as much punch as the 34's (or 6L6's). 

    thanks for that...I have been thinking about the 20CR for a while now...the crunch channel on the 40 is appealing but the weight on the other hand is holding me back..

  22. 1 hour ago, rd2rk said:

     

    That's what I'm saying... the stereo delay is AFTER the merge. The panned left/right signals are combined at the delay's input, then split into stereo at the delay's output, which means that both of the delay's output signals contain the modeled amp. Even if you route 1A to 2A and split it into two 1/4" out signals, one panned Left and one Right you'll still get the modeled amp in both because the tube amp pre and the modeled amp were combined at the delay's input.

    great point!!! I guess this is a tough one :-)

  23. 59 minutes ago, rd2rk said:

     

    The problem is that the Stereo delay is only stereo OUT, NOT stereo IN. It's receiving a combination of left and right (1A+1B), and although the Ping goes Left and the Pong goes right, they both contain the same combined signal. I played around with it for a while, but other than putting the delay before the split, which doesn't sound all that good, I couldn't come up with a workaround. But it's an interesting problem, so I'll try again later. Meantime, maybe someone else will chime in with a solution?

     

    Interesting point...what I'm wondering about also is why I'm hearing the modeled amp block in my tube cabinet as well...the idea was that the amp goes into its dedicated cab and the modeled amp goes into the FRFR...but that does not seem to work with the split the way its set up...note that the 1/4 inch output is still pan center...I wonder if I need to do something there///

×
×
  • Create New...