Jump to content

fenderbenderlax

Members
  • Content Count

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by fenderbenderlax

  1. 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
  2. ON my hx FX it works. I just set the instant commands for snapshot 1 as 2-Tip a d snapshot 2 as 2-None and it switches my channels when moving between snapshots.
  3. 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...
  4. 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?
  5. 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...
  6. 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..
  7. 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.
  8. 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).
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. This most definitely sounds workable to me. I will give this a go. 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. Agreed! Thanks again everyone!!!
  13. 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...
  14. 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!!!
  15. Consider the Jamorigin Midiguitar 2 and get some soft synths...it works reasonably well and you can use this with your helix.
  16. 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. 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. 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...
  20. 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..
  21. great point!!! I guess this is a tough one :-)
  22. 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///
  23. @kraftybob of yes you are correct...DSL20 was what I had in mind...for the weight...I loved the tones from the DSL 40 but the weight is putting me off...how is your experience with the helix in the loop of the 40?
  24. Ah..the newer versions of the DSL15's have an effects loop...the DSL 40's sound awesome but they are kind of heavy to lug around...if you are running it front of the amp only, then I guess your only option would be to use the clean channel and then set it up in a typical pedalboard framework..
×
×
  • Create New...