craiganderton

The MXR's bands cover +/- 12 dB, while the Helix does +/- 15 dB. So if you set the sliders to what appears to be the same position, Helix will be applying more gain. Also note that both devices introduce phase shift due to splitting the audio up into bands. So they won't respond in exactly the same way. If you have recording software with a spectrum analyzer or can load a VST/AAX/AU plug-in like Voxengo's Span (which is free), you can feed in pink noise (free file downloads are available on the web), look at the MXR's actual frequency response and level, and set the Helix sliders to duplicate that response. Or, you may be able to get the same sound with the Parametric EQ. HTH

How easily you can combine dissimilar interfaces depends on whether you're using Mac or Windows. The Mac has the advantage for your application. Here's a brief excerpt from my Helix book: MacOS Aggregation Open Audio MIDI Setup (under Utilities), and then choose the Audio Devices window. Click the little + sign in the lower left corner. An Aggregate Device box appears, and you’ll see a list of available I/O. Check the interfaces you want to aggregate, and check “Resample” or “Drift Correction” (depending on your OS version) for the secondary interface or interfaces. Now all input and output options will be available in your host program. Windows Aggregation Aggregating Windows devices is theoretically not possible with ASIO, but you can use Windows’ native drivers, like WDM/KS or WASAPI. Select one of these drivers in your host software, and all interfaces that support those drivers will show their available inputs and outputs in your application. However, this is of limited use because ASIO, which was not designed to handle multiple interfaces, currently delivers better performance for Windows. The other option for Windows is to feed the HX Stomp's audio output into your main interface. The HX Stomp audio then has to go through a D/A and A/D converter, which it wouldn't have to do if it could go directly into USB. However, the difference in sound quality will be minor enough that it probably won't matter.

I use 10s because the pickups are quite far from the strings to increase sustain, and so I need the extra output. I also angle the pickups to favor the top strings. That may be enough to give the same kind of results as using thinner strings, but not have to deal with breaking them all the time (which I tend to do a lot, LOL).

I think most of the answers here are pretty much on the money. If I had to distill it down to two things, they would be turn down the drive/gain, and pay particular attention to the EQ - both before and after the amb/cab. Generally, "not sitting in the mix" means an instrument didn't occupy its own space, but spilled over into other sounds. Too much distortion will do that, as will too many highs and/or bass and/or not enough midrange. Boosting the lower mids a bit gives a more beefy sound (but keep it above the bass's range), and 1-4 kHz gives more articulation. The best frequency to use in that range depends on multiple factors, though. In my studio musician days, I'd generally pick my slice of the frequency spectrum, own it, and leave the other frequencies alone. One of the tests for my guitar sound was whether it sounded good in isolation. If it did, it probably wouldn't fit well in the mix :)

I think there's a lot of truth to that, actually. When the iPod first came out, Jobs expected users to toss it when the battery couldn't take a charge anymore. IIRC you could get the battery replaced, but it was $260 or something like that. Enough people complained (as they should have!), and the policy was reversed. These days, at least Apple's repair fees are reasonable if you need a laptop battery replaced or whatever, but I was VERY happy to see right-to-repair laws being passed. I've often wondered how Line 6 can afford to keep on giving free updates to Helix. They're not trivial updates, and if they did market research, I bet they'd find a lot of people would have thought $100 was fair for the 3.0 update. But maybe it's the same reason I give free updates for my ebooks - I figure if people like my ebooks, maybe they'll buy other ebooks. I think a lot of people have gotten hooked on the Line 6 "ecosystem" through Helix. So they get Helix Native, an HX Stomp for gigging, a Powercab for gigs...and if a Helix II comes out that can load Helix presets, perhaps a lot of Helix users would go for it. Regarding the Eleveators' open source guitar box, probably the closest we'll come for the near future is if companies developed native versions of their hardware that ran on something like a Mac Mini, and someone made a "universal" hardware controller with programming and footswitching capabilities. In theory MIDI 2.0 would allow for that kind of universal controller, if a profile could be made the encompassed most amp sim parameters. Tantalizing... Meanwhile, I'm still figuring out Helix :) Today, I ran tests on the modeled mics to quantify them. It was very interesting. Perhaps if more people had a deep knowledge of the mics, they might not feel the need for as many IRs. I gotta admit, I was a little surprised that Line 6 modeled how the mics react to the proximity effect. I was equally surprised that the RE20 model had very little proximity effect. Granted, it was designed that way, but that's a serious level of detail in the modeling.

Interestingly, Helix was deliberately overdesigned, with a lot of memory that was unused initially. It put the unit at a price disadvantage when it was introduced, but that's also the reason why Line 6 can keep updating it. So I guess it qualifies as a gamble that paid off. There have been memory expansions and ROM updates for synthesizers over the years, but computer-based devices are becoming less modular in general. The soldered-in RAM in the Mac M1 laptops isn't just to encourage you to buy more RAM initially, it also improves performance. System-on-Chip (SoC)-based devices integrate what used to be disparate elements into a single piece of silicon. Although many Android phones allow for memory upgrades using SD cards, those are really just holding tanks for data, they're not tightly integrated with the phone. Another consideration is that including something like multi-pin connectors to accept a daughterboard, more chips, etc. is not trivial or inexpensive. So, that would raise the price with no perceived benefit until the unit offered hardware updates. Also, remember that Apple makes its own silicon, and Microsoft works closely with Intel. I don't know how much leverage a company like Line 6 would have with a company like Analog Devices to be privy to future plans, or be given priority in terms of expansion options. And you're right on target that it could be a support nightmare! Windows desktop machines are still pretty modular, but becoming less so in terms of being able to mix and match disparate components. I'm not saying upgradable hardware is impossible by any means, just that it's gotten more complicated than when you could add a Radias board and FireWire ports to a Korg M3 :) It also may be a problem in a market that has become so price-sensitive. So I think those may be some of the reasons why companies are reluctant to get into hardware upgrades.

FWIW Headrush has quad core architecture too. Cores are just one aspect of computer performance; how the cores are actually used is another. Frankly, Helix's 3D video 7.2 surround rendering is somewhat disappointing. :)

I have a Helix with 20 cores that runs at 3.7 GHz. It's called "Helix Native" :)

Thanks for the props! Now it's time for some props to the community. I've received some excellent suggestions/ideas for the next update, and already implemented several of them. Although all my eBooks include an email address for comments, Helix people have been the most engaged and helpful. So, this eBook is turning into the collaborative effort I had hoped it could become, and your comments will help guide the direction of the updates. It's kind of like working with a producer :)

@silverhead thanks for replying. I'd add that the chapters on bi-amping and combi-band processing apply to effects, not just amps. For example, combi-band delay, chorusing, etc. can sound pretty cool.

Actually Helix Floor is even better, because then you have enough blocks so that if needed, you can put two parametric EQs in series, and get further definition. The attached audio example has two parts. The first is bi-ampled Grammatico amps using an EQ-based cab. I had to use an EQ cab with HX Stomp because with two Grammaticos, Distortion, and Delay, it wasn't possible to add a stock cab. The second part is the low tuning example you asked about. Tuning it down by 5 semitones alters the tone pretty dramatically regardless of the cab, so it's hard to tell what the cab contributes and what the low tuning contributes. But you'll get the idea. As to whether anyone has come up with EQs that approximate Helix cabs and made a list, I'm really into that. If you want to try your hand at it, the list shows the ones that were easiest to emulate (my eBook includes 31 EQ-based cab files, with 21 of them based on the Helix cabs in the list). Note that some cabs have responses that are too complex to emulate with one, or even two, stages of EQ. So this is not a "universal" solution for all cabs. Some of the EQ cabs come surprisingly close, while others are similar, but lack detail. And some aren’t close at all, like the 2x12 Blue Bell and 1x12 Blue Bell - but they had their own distinctive sound, so I included them anyway. Usually what I do is load a preset with only the cab, copy the cab, and paste it into a preset with the amps and other blocks. Stock cabs and IRs sound more "authentic," but EQ-based cabs save processing power, are easily customized, and stereo EQ can preserve a mixer block's stereo imaging when doing multi-band configurations. Hope this helps! EQ Cab Examples.mp3

Very interesting topic. I started lessons with classical, nylon-string guitar because I saw Segovia in concert as a child, and thought he was cool :) Starting my guitar-playing years with my fingers is why to this day I use a thumbpick instead of a flat pick. This allows for articulations that are difficult/impossible for me to do with a flat pick. Ultimately whether Helix will complement or obscure a person's articulations depends a lot on how well they know the gear. It's amazing how people who tell me that "amp sims suck" change their mind when I tell them to try cutting whatever gain or drive setting they're using in half. Physical amps soak up transients, and interact with the guitar in a way that an audio interface's high-Z input doesn't. Someone in the thread about my book mentioned that the section on how to get clean sound from "dirty" amps was, to him, one of the best parts of the book. I don't think he had previously tried turning down the gain enough to really let the articulations come through. As to options and rabbit holes, perhaps the reason for having so many options is so people can settle on their own "greatest hits." I'm sure some of my favorite Helix amp models are other people's least favorites. There's a limited number of specific Helix amps and effects that are the basis of "my sound." I'm quite sure if you talked to 100 different Helix owners, you'd have 100 different lists of their favorites amps and effects. My preferences is to use a minimum number of effects and exploit each one to the max, but other people like a guitar sound that's almost more like a keyboard synthesizer, and layer lots of effects to achieve that goal.

True story: Microsoft put together a focus group on Word to come up with 20 (IIRC) most-requested features, so they could be included in the next version. It turned out Word already had them, but the users didn't realize they were in the program. (Maybe the focus group should have concentrated on how to improve the documentation...) Helix still has a lot of tricks up its sleeve. The Poly block does like CPU, but it leaves plenty left over for other effects. Techniques like using Preamps instead of Amps, and EQ-based cabs instead of IRs, save a huge amount of processing power. The image shows a Poly block-based low tuning preset for HX Stomp with bi-amped Amp blocks, and stereo EQ and Delay to preserve a wide stereo image. The trick here is using an EQ-based cab - after all, IRs are just very detailed EQ, and you can come close with the Helix parametric. (For those who have my eBook, this is the preset LowTuning.hlx in the Chapter 4 Presets folder.) Although some might say something like an EQ-based cab is a workaround, you can shuffle the blocks around, give up stereo, and use a "real" cab. The bottom line is what sounds good. I tried a preset for the Floor version that replaced the EQ-based cab with two parallel cabs after the amp, but it didn't make much difference. HTH.

I took it as doing me a favor! I wouldn't want someone impersonating me, or have people thinking that some posts were from Anderton's music and some posts from me or whatever. And it reminded me to get my defaults squared away :) BTW I always enjoy your posts.

First, I'm glad you're happy with the book. :) Second, my incentive to publish updates is that I think it's a good publishing model. For sure, there will be updates when new effects and such appear. If the book is successful enough, then I'll be able to expand the book into other areas of Helix functionality, not just update it. Mostly I'd want to concentrate on live performance, which I haven't been able to do since starting the book, because live performance came to halt with the pandemic. I'd also like to think that if people are happy with the Helix book, then they'll want to check out my other eBooks. Oh, by the way, one person wanted to know if user Anderton and CraigAnderton are the same person. Yes, they're both me. I work on several computers and they have different defaults. I suppose I should clean that up to avoid any confusion.

FWIW regarding value-for-cost, the reason why it's an 320-page eBook and 230 presets/favorites package was because I felt that if someone never read the book but only used the presets, or only read the book and never used the presets, they'd still figure it was worth $19.95. Even beginners can load and enjoy presets, although I believe the "holy grail" is knowing enough to modify presets for a person's individual needs...hence the book. Some people thought it was a mistake to do a package that combined a book and presets, and that they should have been two separate products for $19.95 each. But, I felt including the presets added value to the book, because people could read about techniques, load presets to hear the techniques, and learn enough to modify the presets if they wanted to put their own spin on things. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but in retrospect I think the book has taken attention away from the presets. Although some of them are designed specifically to complement material in the book, many of them are intended to work as stand-alone presets.

Great advice, that's what I did to generate images of EQ responses in the book. The attached image is what I used to show how the Helix parametric EQ can affect the frequency response. However, if you want a really deep dive on EQ in general, check out the article Understanding EQ Curves – Why Identical EQ Settings Can Sound Different. I think you'll find the section that starts with "Enter the Noise" to be particularly useful. This is the kind of approach I would take in any update involving the Helix EQ.

In addition to that excellent advice, I'd also recommend pulling back your guitar's tone control. It's easier to track a signal with fewer high frequencies. At least for me, where to insert the harmonizing effect seems to vary on a case-by-case basis. Some people have reported better results placing the harmonizing effect between the amp and cab. I usually insert the harmonizing effect after an amp if it distorts heavily. Even though you're playing single notes, as far as the amp is concerned you're playing at least two notes, so there's intermodulation distortion. If you place the harmonizing effect after the amp, then the harmonized output won't have the intermodulation distortion issues. But, in other cases, harmonizing effects sound better before the amp. I haven't really found a "rule" for this, it depends on your preset, the amp you're using, and the amount of distortion. Try both pre and post amp to see what sounds best. For a relatively clean preset, you'll probably want the harmonizer at the beginning of the chain. FWIW I've used harmonizing effects live and no one threw anything at me, so I guess it was acceptable :)

Great question, and thank you for commenting. The treatment of EQ in the book is almost certainly not as deep a dive as you would like, because my goal was to emphasize aspects specific to Helix (the Helix EQs are relatively conventional). Although I did include graphics that show various EQ curves, they were more about emphasizing the differences among the various Helix EQs than going deep into one particular EQ. If you want a deep dive into EQ, you should probably pass on the book for now (although there are some sections, like using EQ for cabinet emulation, that you might find helpful). But as mentioned, there will be updates. The sense I get from some people is they'd like everything in one place, and not have to look elsewhere for information on traditional subjects, like different types of EQ. I think that's a valid point. My concern has been that a book with 320 pages is intimidating enough, let alone one with more pages...but if no one minds lots of pages, hey, I'm up for it! Given the importance of EQ, and how much I use it in creating presets, your comments make sense. I can't guarantee there will be more information on EQ in the next free update, but I can't guarantee there won't be, either. It depends on what people want. That said, a lot of available info on EQ is not guitar-specific, so this book could provide that kind of information. Thanks again for your input!! I'm relying on Helix users to find out direction the updates should take, beyond the obvious (e.g., firmware changes).

I totally agree that the synth is not very useful. When I need synth sounds from guitar, I use Melodyne for chords, and Jam Origin for single note leads. I do find that with this mod, Filter preset 3 is useable, and gives a portamento effect that's pretty cool when combined with echo or reverb. The problem I have with the other filter presets is that even if the tracking was better, not being able to turn down the filter resonance would keep me from using the synth anyway. The real upside of trying to make it work better is now I know how the Horizon Gate works :)

A little late to the party, sorry, but I did some research into pickup height, and wrote the results up in Optimizing Pickup Height for Sustain. I was shocked at the difference that can happen from moving a pickup just a few millimeters back from the string. Also, this can also make a difference with effects that need to track the string (e.g., pitch changes) due to the higher average signal level, and smoother attack. Hope this helps.

Hmmm...I have Studio One 4.6, and (as you might expect!) use Helix Native all the time. I have never run into this problem, and tried to duplicate it...used low-latency, didn't use low latency, tried different block sizes, you name it. If it's an insert effect in a track, and I switch presets, the sound changes. Can you give a recipe to reproduce what you're experiencing?

The global settings tip is very helpful. I have the Sonarworks program, which "flattens" headphones and shows the corresponding curve needed to do so. The differences among headphones are HUGE, even for so-called studio models. And, there are differences among headphones of the same make and model - the Sonarworks compensation curves are for an "average" of multiple headphones. I'm acutely aware of this because I do a lot of mastering, and trying to create a master that translates over different speakers and headphones is hellishly difficult. The best I can hope for (or any mastering engineer for that matter) is something that sounds a little bit bad over everything, instead of okay on some systems and REALLY bad on others. FWIW Sennheiser 650 headphones have the flattest response, but of course, they're really expensive and has nothing to do with guitar amps or even PAs...

I could not agree more. Whoever created presets is probably using a different guitar, different playing style, different pickups, different strings, different pick, etc. than you are. Sounds need to be matched to your playing style. Quick story: I got some great sounds out of the original POD. When the next version came out, I was eagerly anticipating much better sounds. I ran through the presets, and the sound quality was horrible! I couldn't believe Line 6 could lose the recipe so completely. Long story short, turning down drive to about 2/3 of the preset value solved everything. It makes sense: I use fairly heavy gauge strings, play with a thumb pick, and hit the strings pretty hard. I was putting a lot more signal into the unit than the presets wanted to see.

I wanted to update my post with some additional information. I think one of the issues people have with Helix and CPU is that it has the potential to create more complex patches that draw more CPU. If you compare a Helix preset using one amp with another plug-in preset using one amp, they may not be that different. But I'm very much into multiband presets, and having something like four amps and a couple cabs is something other sims generally can't do...so Helix can potentially draw a lot more CPU than sims that aren't capable of such complex presets. Also, it's time to update my negative comments about Studio One's amp sims. Version 4.6 replaces the old Ampire with new amp sims that sound really good. Although they don't replace Helix, they provide additional, useful sounds and textures. Finally, I think it's important to re-iterate that some of those "HD drivers" for audio are really problematic. Disable them if at all possible. The quality of the drivers varies among graphics card manufacturers, but one driver a couple years ago increased latency by 75%. Note that with Windows, an OS update can re-enable these types of drivers even if you've disabled them, so check after OS updates, and disable if needed.