craiganderton

Which is a shame, IMHO. I have a Gibson HD.6X Pro with hex outputs, and used it for a festival gig with Brian Hardgroove from Public Enemy. It was just him on drums and me on guitar. The bottom two strings went to octave dividers, the top four strings went to an Andy Summers-type chorus sound, and I used the magnetic pickups through distoriton for leads. It sounded like a full band with just the two of us. It was messy - an ethernet cable went to a breakout box with six audio outputs, which then had to go into a computer interface with six audio inputs (there wasn't a way to have a direct connection to the computer). But it was worth it. Unfortunately, like most of Gibson's high-tech guitars, it was hated with a passion and abandoned. The new management doesn't even have documentation for the legacy guitars online. Shows how much they care about people who spent big $$$$ on Gibson's guitars in the past. I've often thought about getting the schematics for a Variax and seeing if I could hack a way to isolating the individual string outputs...

I'm with you 100% with that. Some of my fastest, most fluid playing has been with the JTV. As to parts...just try to find acable for the G10 MIDI guitar. Yamaha was of no help. Fortunately, it turned out there's a cable that has the same connectors and wiring as the G10 cable, it's just not sold as such. I don't think we'll have that kind of luck with the Variax.

I've done that with Waves' StudioRack and placing their GEQ in each of three splits. It sounds pretty great, if... ...and only if you want "clean" distortion (yes, I know that's an oxymoron!). It's a totally different type of sound compared to physical amps. I consider the technique a complement to traditional amp sounds, not a replacement. I use it a lot in synth-driven music, as the guitar acquires a sort of clarity that fits better in a mix with synths and electronic drums. This is what I love about Helix - you can find something appropriate for just about any form of music. Although admittedly, I haven't had much luck with Gregorian chants :)

Absolutely! In fact, getting a good guitar sound was never plug and play. In the studio, it could take hours to choose mics and set them up correctly. Then it took more time to use the studio's processors (like dynamics, EQ, delay, etc.) to process the sound further. The idea that engineers used to put an amp in a studio, stick a mic in front of it, and get a great sound is unfortunately a myth. Trust me on this - I remember those $150+/hour studio time bills all too well! Often when optimizing a sound with Helix, I keep trying unsuccessfully to get it to sound right. Then just before giving up I change one parameter and all of a sudden, it's exactly the right sound. Versatility is a double-edged sword.

Thanks for circling back and adding your feedback! I guess the issue is that nothing will have the "it" factor of an actual amp, even to the point where one actual amp won't have the "it" factor of a different actual amp. So really, the question is how close you can come to a particular sound you hear in your head, or have experienced in the past. Placement is part of that, where even the angle of the cab's kickstart makes a difference, as do the materials on the floor and in the room. But there are a lot of moving parts in trying to obtain an exact duplicate of a sound made with one technology using a different technology. When I did speaker emulation with analog filter circuits back in the 80s I could never get the sound right. Then one day for the heck of it, I did everything wrong - chose components that gave phase shift, passband ripples, and other anomalies "good" engineers avoid. Finally, it sounded like a cab :) When I consulted to Gibson, at one point I said that since they made Cerwin-Vega PAs, why not use the guts to come up with a Gibson-approved FRFR amp? I was told that there was no way it would sound the same as a "real" amp. So I set up amp sim software through a Cerwin-Vega PA, and frankly, it sounded wonderful - super-detailed and balanced. The people at Gibson agreed that it indeed sounded fantastic, but it didn't sound like a "real amp." Sounding "fantastic" was good enough for me :) I switched from tube guitar amps to solid-state FRFR keyboard amps in 1968, during my 60s/70s touring days. The goal was to get "my sound" before it hit the amp, so the sound would be the same on stage or in the studio when going through a console. Modelers like Helix going through an FRFR system are like a dream come true for me. And now that I figured out how to make Helix do surround, I can't wait to start feeding it into immersive audio projects with more than two channels! At least when it comes to playing guitar, it's a great time to be alive.

Granted this is an old thread, but it seems the subject never gets old. One factor I don't see mentioned much is that most PA speakers are on a pole, or otherwise more or less at ear level. It may be possible that a lot of the "amp in a room" sound (or more realistically, "cab in a room sound") is due to having amps that sit on the floor. Any bass/lower mids (which are very non-directional) that are headed toward the floor reflect upward, and reinforce what's coming out of the speaker. Simply turning up bass on a pole-mounted PA speaker isn't the same thing, because you're not getting the complex phase interactions from the reflected waves. Also, highs are more directional than bass. When mounted on a pole at ear level, you'll hear more highs. So, more highs, less bass, and fewer lower mids would likely produce the thin, shrill effect that's mentioned - particularly because presets may boost the upper mids somewhat to give more articulation through a cab. That kind of a boost would add harshness if heard directly through a PA system. The reality that's frequently (and I believe, correctly!) mentioned here is that if you find a sound you like, it doesn't really matter how you got there. I have a slightly different take - pretty much any configuration can make the sound you like, but some take more work than others to get there.

That seems unusual, unless you Helix got hit by lightning or there was a massive power surge capable of bypassing your power supply. So hopefully, it's one of the obvious USB issues: Defective cable USB cable that carries only power, not data. There's no way to tell the difference physically. I test cables by plugging into a phone and seeing if I can transfer files. If so, it handles data. If it's Windows, the USB ports haven't been set to stay on. You deal with this in device manager - expand Universal Serial Bus Controllers > right-click on each USB device or hub > if there's a power management tab, uncheck "Allow the computer to turn off this device to save power" Connecting to Helix through a USB port instead of a direct connection to the computer Switch to the USB port closest to the power supply, on the back of the computer Maybe one of these will help. Good luck!

Wow, you certainly are a helpful bunch of people. It might be worth including some of this info in the FAQ at the beginning.

I'm seeing quotes of around $27/book with the current format and page count, using inexpensive paper, least expensive binding, and standard ink. But the cost adds up fast when you include shipping from the publishing house to Sweetwater, shipping from Sweetwater to the customer, the cost of inventory and tracking a separate edition of the book, and at least a nominal profit. With print, there's still the question of how to get presets to the readers, how to handle the free updates, and there have been a couple books where I did free hotfixes a couple weeks after the release. Future versions are only going to have more pages and presets :) However, the eBook is compatible with tablets and Kindle, so that might be a solution for those who want the advantages of a PDF and the "sort of" look and feel of a book. I'd never say "never," but a traditional print book seems pretty impractical at this point. Maybe if the book sold in the thousands there would be sufficient economies of scale, but I doubt the Helix book is going to make the New York Times best-seller list anytime soon. Hmmm...maybe there's some way to turn it into a romance novel... :)

As a long-time author, I understand the appeal of being able to hold something in your hand that's not electronic! :) As mentioned, you can have it printed out. However, note that part of the package is over 300 presets, and the only way to make those available was as a download. Another consideration is that it's not economically feasible to print and ship a 450+ page book with so many 4-color illustrations for $19.95. Certainly, it would not be possible to offer free updates, and I think that's important when a product continues to evolve. I wouldn't want people to buy the book and then two months later there's a Helix update, so they feel they wasted their money. That's an ongoing problem with technology-oriented books, so this is my attempt to solve that problem. Hopefully it's a good enough solution for most people. However, you're not the first person who's wanted a printed version. If there's enough demand, I'll check whether there are any viable custom publishing options for small quantities. In any case, I definitely appreciate the feedback!

Maybe you the Helix input impedance is set too low?

If you'll be working in the studio, Helix Native is totally amazing. Don't overlook how great it can sound on other instruments (bass, vocals, drums, orchestral). Also, you're not limited by hardware if you want to make insane presets that suck the blood out of your CPU. With guitar, I use Helix Native primarily for multiband distortion presets. I haven't found any other amp sim that can do what Helix does. I also have Helix floor for live use, so being able to transfer sounds between the two is fantastic. FWIW I'm very familiar with the Tascam 2x2, I used to have the 4x4 until I needed more inputs. I think those were highly underrated interfaces. I ran a bunch of tests, and the specs (frequency response, IM distortion, crosstalk, etc.) were excellent. 32 samples is fine, but if you can run it at 96 kHz, you'll reduce latency because the audio goes through the sample buffer twice as fast.

Don't overlook Helix Native. If your computer is fast enough, you can record using the plug-in and monitor it in (well, almost) real time. On mixdown, I may replace some Helix blocks with other plugins. But the reverse is also true - Helix Native is a fantastic plugin for much more than guitar. Taking a vocal FX chain and substituting a Helix Native delay can be a thing of beauty.

When I want a super in-your-face sound, I often emulate a cab using EQ. Then you essentially have a cab that's NOT in a room, and no mic placement that can sometimes sound "boxy." Then if you want to place the amp in a soundstage, you can add a time-based processor like delay or reverb, or a convolution reverb. Cubase's Frequency 2 EQ is a great EQ that has more than enough stages to create cool cab sounds. Here's a link with images of four cab EQ curves I created with Studio One's EQ, but a curve is a curve - they translate to Frequency 2 well. Bear in mind that even slight EQ differences can make a big difference in the sound. That can sometimes make it more of a challenge to dial in the sound you want, but it also means you can really get into detailed customization. If you have The Big Book of Helix Tips & Tricks, Chapter 6 has a section on how to create EQ-based cabs. Also, the Free Files folder has 35 .hlx presets for EQ-based cab sounds. Some of the multiband amp presets also include EQ-based cabs.

Try turning enabling the input pad, or turning down the amp's drive, and see if that helps.

Apple makes a USB-C to USB adapter. I've had good luck with Apple adapters in the past, so this might be worth a shot. You may even be able to take your Helix and MacBook Pro to an Apple store, and if they have the adapter in stock, try it to see if it works. FWIW I needed to go from a Thunderbolt 3 port on my computer to a peripheral with TB2. I was told it likely would not work unless I bought the $100+ Startec adapter, but the Apple adapter worked just fine and was less than half the price. Good luck!

I use the Helix Vox amps quite a bit. I don't have a bunch of Vox amps to compare, but I remember hearing that Vox typically had variations among different production runs. I also remember talking to someone at Line 6 way back when the Helix was first introduced and asked about how they did the modeling. I forget who it was, but he specifically said they had to track down a lot of AC30 amps to find one that sounded "right." Which of course begs the question, if there are that many differences, which one sounds "right"? :)

Just to eliminate a possible variable, bring your unit in to Long & McQuade and try using a different HX Effects' power supply.

Factory presets give an overview of what kind of sounds are possible. But they rarely can fit into a specific musical context of your own. I generally find you don't need too many effects to make a good sound, and less is often more. There's a way to split the difference. I've created a bunch of presets that work well with the kind of music I plan. They're like the "body" of a patch, and then I can "accessorize" them for specific applications. For example, if there's an amp, cab, and compressor that work well with a Fender Telecaster, I'll save that as a preset. Then I can customize the preset as needed with reverb, chorus, distortion, etc. I also made a lot of multiband presets because it takes a long time to create them from scratch. Having presets saves a lot of time.

Parallel, discrete signal chains are part of Helix's DNA. HX Stomp can do two totally independent parallel chains (split the input, then pan the output mixer so one channel is full right, the other full left). Helix Floor and Rack can do 4 parallel, independent chains. I've even figured out how to do 4, 6, and 8-channel surround with Helix floor. (There's info on how to do this in the latest version of my Helix eBook, although I don't think most users are interested in using it for surround.) The simulated bass sound application you mention works really well for me. I recommend adding two EQs before the Poly block to help keep the higher notes from reaching it. I use a 10-band graphic EQ as the first EQ to cut out everything except the low notes, followed by a parametric EQ that boosts the low note levels. As a result, you hear only the guitar’s lower strings play an octave lower. I also follow the Pitch block with a compressor to help bring up the sustain, which makes the low frequencies sound more like a bass. It's a cool effect if you're a solo performer, and want a pseudo-bass line behind your playing.

You can't get a duplicate, but you can get the same kind of vibe. A major problem is that a physical 12-string doesn't create an octave higher sound for the top two strings, but using the Poly Capo will create octave-higher sounds for all strings. This is why some EQ after the Poly Capo can help bring down the brightness a bit, while retaining the frequencies of the physical 1st and 2nd strings. As to where to find the presets I mentioned, they're not factory presets. They come with the download for the eBook mentioned in a previous post. Unfortunately I've used up my available memory allocation for attachments, so I can't attach any more presets here. Sorry!

Note that for hands-on control, you can assign the knobs from Komplete Kontrol to Helix Native parameters.

Thanks! Very helpful.

Moderators - I suspect the last two posts are spammers testing the ease of spamming the site. You might want to check into this and if needed, delete their accounts :)

I've encountered a lot of digital gear where they could have used an analog engineer on the design team.