Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by fenderbenderlax

  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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!!!
  7. 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...
  8. 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!!!
  9. Consider the Jamorigin Midiguitar 2 and get some soft synths...it works reasonably well and you can use this with your helix.
  10. 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...
  11. 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...
  12. 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..
  13. 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...
  14. 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..
  15. great point!!! I guess this is a tough one :-)
  16. 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///
  17. @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?
  18. 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..
  19. Couple of options here...but I think the best way to set this up would be through the 4CM method...Guitar to Helix Guitar in, FX loop Send to Amp input, Amp FX loop send to Helix Loop return, 1/4 inch out to amp FX return....This will allow you to use your preamp from the Marshall and use the helix purely for effects..alternatively, you could simply use the power amp of the Marshall if you don't need the preamps by plugging in the helix out to the return of the FX loop in the Marshall. In the end it will depend on what you need. note that you probably don't want to enable your cab models when using your amp.
  20. Hi Guys, I'm trying to get a stereo setup going using my tube amp and the inbuilt amp sim with IR. My tube amp is set up using the 4CM method through FX Loop 1. The routing is as follows Main Path: Guitar In --> OD --> Split Y --> FX Loop 1(mono). --> Merge (A panned Hard Left, B panned Hard Right) --> Stereo Delay --> 1/4 inch out Parallel Path: Amp Block --> IR My outputs from the 1/4 outs are routed as follows. The left/mono goes into the return of my amp and the right output goes into a powered frfr. However, the problem is that the stereo ping pong that I used did not bounce around as one would expect. Second, the sound from my amp is now heavily colored due to the mix of the signals from the amp sim as well I guess. Specifically, when I disable the amp block and IR, I get the sound of my amp. When I enable the amp block and IR, the sound is kind of terrible. I'm pretty sure that I'm doing something wrong here. Any help? Is this set up even feasible? the best results I had was when I split them into two separate paths with one path going out through the 1/4 inch and the other path through XLR. This worked great but I was not sure how to get the stereo delays and reverbs into play. Thanks in advance!!!
  21. Hi All, Interesting discussion here. I'm on the fence as well with the 212 vs. 112 choice. My current set up is Tube amp --> 1X12 V30 cab (Mic on stage through one channel of the board) Helix amp model --> FOH (occupies a second channel on the board) I really don't monitor my Helix amp model and the primarily am able to listen to my cabinet as well as the full band mix through the monitor. I have been wondering about switching from a 1X12 to a stereo cabinet which will allow me to use both the helix and the tube amp together and hence I'm better able to monitor the mix. So given this I'm wondering what would be the best set up. Any advice would be helpful. The options I'm considering are a) Cabinet and a 1X12 PC /PC plus . Cabinet runs the Tube and the PC is used for the helix b) Ditch the cabinet and get a 212 PC +. Run the tube into my load box and the dry line out into input 1 of the PC 212. Run the Helix into input 2 of the of the PC+ c) I'm also considering whether it might be worth it to get a second cabinet/head or a combo. The idea would be that I could either use it to run the Helix into the effects return and monitor it through that or I could use it as a stand alone amp depending on what I might need. Given this, I guess there are various aspects to consider. IF the price of the 212 was lower, I think I would have gone for it without thinking too much. But given the really high price point, I wonder if the 212 does give any added advantage (other than just having to carry one cabinet in a live gigging situation). Thanks folks!!!
  22. Thanks a lot for the detailed reply...my bad but I'm using snapshots and not presets...my main snapshot is my rhythm tone and the lead tone just turns on the wah and delay.... The wah is my first pedal coming in and the delay is towards the end just before the reverb...I'm not using the delay in parallel...I did try out a couple of different wahs and somehow the volume just drowns in the mix...one solution I came up with was boosting about 7db in the output block...then it does stand out a bit...I have not tried the different pedal positions and how it sounds...will do that next...
  23. Interesting idea...I will try that..I guess what you are suggesting is to start with path 1a) magnetic and path 1b) modeled pull path 1b into the main line and run the FX loop after...I will try that and report back...thanks guys
  24. thanks Phil...makes complete sense...I guess I will have to use a modeled distortion then for one of the paths...
  • Create New...