craiganderton

With some gear you can just run a firmware update again to solve a problem, but other gear will get bricked if any error occurs. I HIGHLY recommend an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) for your computer. Power glitches happen more frequently than most people realize. A UPS can usually deliver power for long enough to complete a firmware update if it's covering only your computer and a monitor. Also, if you have SSDs in your computer, they're very sensitive to power issues. Operating without a UPS is a gamble regarding the life of your SSDs.

Here's the section on the Dynamix from my eBook, The Big Book of Helix Tips and Tricks (v1.1). FYI - For those who already have the book, the free update to v1.2 with the new goodies from 3.50 is [finally!] coming out this month. ----------------------------------------------------------- Dynamix Flanger This flexible flanger has three control options: LFO, Envelope, or Manual. This is a complex effect, particularly with Envelope control, so we’ll cover each control option as if it’s an individual effect. LFO Control Fig. 2.31 shows the controls that affect the LFO mode. Figure 2.31 The relevant controls for LFO mode. Speed (Rate), Depth, and Mix are standard LFO flanger controls. Phasing chooses two different flanging characters. Negative values produce in-phase flanging, which gives a more resonant sound. Positive values create out-of-phase flanging, for a more hollow sound. At 0, there’s no flanging effect. Also at this setting, there’s no audio with Mix set to 100%. Recycle adds feedback, which emphasizes the Phasing parameter’s effect. Max Delay sets the longest point of the flanging sweep, up to 100 ms. Chorusing and chorused echoes are available at longer delays, with low Depth settings. If the delay is long enough to give audible echoes, Recycle adds repeats to the echo effect. CV Tracking changes the sweep direction, so that it spends more time at the top part of the sweep. It’s more useful for Envelope control. Envelope Control With this control mode (fig. 2.32), the flanger’s sweep responds to the dynamics of your playing instead of an LFO. Hitting your string after a brief period of silence triggers (or re-triggers) the sweep. Until the next silence, the sweep tracks your dynamics. Mix, Phasing, Recycle, and Max Delay work as described above. Figure 2.32 The relevant controls for Envelope control mode. Note that the envelope controls interact. Referring to fig. 2.33, here’s how they work: CV Dynamics sets the sweep range, based on your dynamics. With low settings, playing dynamically covers a narrow sweep range. Higher settings cover a wider sweep range for similar dynamic changes. Env Input matches your playing’s dynamics to the sweep range. Set this so that hitting the strings hardest covers the highest part of the sweep set in CV Dynamics. When first triggered, CV Tracking determines whether the initial sweep goes from high to low (Normal), or low to high (Invert). CV Decay sets the initial sweep time, from X1 (barely noticeable) to X4 (still fairly fast, but obvious). It also smooths the envelope, so with chords, the envelope sweeps smoothly instead of jittering. Env Lag introduces a slight delay before the sweep starts. Note that when re-triggered from silence, the 0.0 ms setting seems to be the same duration as the 100 ms setting. For minimum Env Lag, choose a 0.1 ms setting. Fig. 2.33 shows the relationship of these parameters for a decaying guitar chord with maximum Env Lag, and a long CV Decay. Figure 2.33 How the CV Dynamics, Env Lag, and CV Decay parameters interact. Manual Control With manual control (fig. 2.34), no parameters are affected by the LFO or the Envelope. The remaining parameters work as described for LFO and Envelope control, and they are good candidates for use with the Expression Pedal. Figure 2.34 Parameters that are relevant to Manual control.

If you have a Helix Floor and HX Stomp, you can open both of them in HX Edit, and drag-and-drop blocks between them - no cut/paste required. Unfortunately, you can't drag and drop from Native into an HX Edit window.

The amount of improvement depends on several factors. With a clean amp or single-note leads with any amp, you probably won't hear a significant improvement because there's no intermodulation distortion. With tonic+5th power chords, the improvement will be noticeable, but not earth-shaking. You'll hear the biggest improvement with amps that have considerable distortion, when playing chords with 7ths, 13ths, 9ths, etc. that push more frequencies into the amps. The audio example I did in this later post shows what I think is a considerable improvement in terms of clarity and definition.

You can always split the amps in parallel, but then mix them and follow the mixer with a single cab. The new cabs do draw a lot less DSP, but using one cab instead of two might be enough to let you add some extra effects. As to metal, there's a sweet spot between "clean" and "filthy" amps where this technique is most effective. But it definitely does improve high-gain amps. Have fun!

Uninstalling before reinstalling might also help.

Thi is a little off-topic, but I was steadfast against stereo for live performance for, well, decades. However, I eventually realized I was going about it wrong. The object was not to use stereo to create a distinct left/right image, but to act more like using two different amps/cabs powered by different effects close to each other, which added together into a single, wide sound. The bi-amp thing works well for that.

Also consider setting a parametric stage to a narrow cut, with a sharp Q. Slowly vary the filter frequency, and see if a specific frequency reduces the harshness. With most amps, it's around 2 to 4 kHz.

Thank you for the comment, it's worth discussing. You're correct that large alternating changes with a non-linear-phase graphic EQ can cause phase shifts. However, I've tested the 10-Band EQ technique vs. the Crossover Split, and unfortunately the Crossover Split introduces more phase shift. If you want to check it out for yourself, split a guitar track into two buses. Insert the Helix in one of the buses, and enable the Crossover Split. Sum the split's outputs back to mono in the Helix. Set both buses to the same approximate volume. As you vary the crossover frequency, you'll hear significant, audible phase shifts going on between the Helix track and dry track. If you try the same setup using the 10-Band EQs, you'll hear virtually no difference when mixing the Helix and dry tracks together. If you mute one of the tracks, you won't hear much change either, except for level. The reason why we can get away with this is because as you said, the issues involve large alternating changes. There's no boosting happening, only cuts. You can reduce any possible phase shifts even further by cutting only -6 dB instead of -15 dB. However, the benefits of using -15 dB cuts outweighs any potential phase issues. The main problem I have with the Crossover Split is that it's not particularly useful for stereo because the highs are on one side, and the lows on the other. That doesn't mean it can't work, but using the dual graphic EQs gives a more even frequency distribution to the left and right channels. So, you can have wide stereo images, that also collapse well to mono. The other limitation is with traditional bi-amping, you're still feeding a continuous range of frequencies into each amp, which is more prone to producing intermodulation distortion. Having individual, separated frequency ranges is what reduces the intermodulation distortion, and provides the main benefit of this technique. Yes, I am a nerd :)

Here's a demo that shows the difference better, because it uses more complex chords that send more frequencies into the amps. The first section uses this technique with two Grammatico Jump amps (and FWIW the inherent stereo is summed to mono). The second section uses a single Grammatico Jump amp. The difference is most noticeable toward the end of each section. Higher-Def Helix Amp.mp3

I'm happy to say your request has already been covered :) The first sample and the third sample are identical, except for spreading the outputs of the amps in the third one. So, the first one actually is the mono sum of what's in the third sample. One of the reasons I came up with this was to have easy stereo/mono compatibilty for studio and stage. There's no delay or phase-based processing involved, so mono summing works extremely well. The 10-Band Graphic EQ has some minor phase shifts because it models analog EQ, but the audible results are of no real consequence. If it used a linear-phase design it would be perfect, but I don't think most Helix owners would be able to cope with the latency, or DSP power, that linear-phase EQ would require. Maybe I'll do another audio example with complex chords, where the difference is more obvious between the processed and unprocessed sounds. But stereo summed to mono would still sound the same as mono.

I've learned a lot about multiband techniques since writing the original book, and doing the multiband preset pack - it's a continuous process of refinement. This approach was one of those "what if...?" experiments that I stumbled on, and worked beyond my expectations. There's always something new to discover in Helix!

Cool! The amount of improvement depends on what you play and how you play it. For example, you probably won't notice any difference with single-note solos. But you'll hear a major difference with big, full chords that include 7ths, 9ths, etc. Basically, the more frequencies coming out of the guitar, the more youi'll hear a difference.

For me, mic placement is helpful. But what really boosted Helix for me compared to the original was when the engine went to higher internal resolution.

I came up with this technique for the upcoming Helix book 1.2 update, but I wanted to share the concept with the forum prior to publication because I'm pretty excited about it. I haven't seen this kind of approach done before. My sonic holy grail is "clean distortion," which is why I like multiband presets. They reduce intermodulation distortion, which can create a splattery, undefined sound quality. This technique is about a simpler option that nonetheless increases definition, especially for high-gain amps. Place the same amp in parallel, and precede each one with a 10-band graphic EQ. Send alternate bands into the two amps. Sending frequencies that are further apart into each amp keeps the frequencies from interfering as much with each other. This interference is what creates intermodulation distortion. Note that the EQ's output levels are up +6 dB to compensate for less signal going into the amp. The improvement is most obvious when you're playing, but these three audio examples should help get the point across. With each example, the first part uses this technique with the Fullerton Jump. The second part uses one instance of the Fullerton Jump amp with the same settings. Both parts are level-matched to create the same LUFS (perceived level) reading. With Chords, you'll hear how there's more splatter with the single instance. Strums shows how strums are less defined with a single instance. Stereo takes advantage of the two amps to create a stereo spread. The difference isn't as big as using 3 or 4 frequency bands of distortion, but this technique does lead to a more defined sound quality (especially for amps with heavy saturation) and leaves enough DSP power to add other effects. I hope you find it useful! Chords.mp3 Strums.mp3 Stereo.mp3

Ha! It took me a while too. I guess Native is like an actor who gets typecast :)

In multiband presets, I often trim the cab filters to keep out frequencies that aren't needed. For example, in a high-frequency band, setting the low cut to around 400 Hz can clean up the overall sound. In a low-frequency band, I'll trim the highs.

Don't overlook what it can do with vocals and drums. Also, a lot of the synched effects do incredible feats with EDM/synth material. Helix Native is a fantastic plugin by any standards, not just as an amp sim. Truth!

Perhaps my favorite part about 3.50 is how much more efficient the cabs are. You can create much more evolved presets because there's enough CPU left over.

I totally understand why someone would want a high cut that could go below 1 kHz, I've sometimes wanted that myself for other reasons, like bi-amping or pre-conditioning the audio before a high-gain stage. In addition to the 3-band compressor trick, here are the workarounds I use - they may or may not be good enough for your application: 10-Band Graphic - pull down the high sliders, and boost the low sliders. Shelf - High Shelf goes down to 400 Hz. Cascading them gives a sharper cutoff. Cab - High Cut goes down to 500 Hz, although that assumes your cab is inserted someplace where that will do you some good. Tilt - The Tilt center frequency frequency goes down to 100 Hz, but the slope might not be steep enough for your needs. Simple EQ - it has high and low shelf, and mid peak. Set the high shelf to full cut, boost the low shelf, set mid gain to -12 dB and play with the Mid Freq to get the best results. One of these options may be good enough for your application. Hope this helps!

Maybe, but that's also a useful tip. I'm sure circling back and mentioning how you resolved it will help others.

Helix was overbuilt from the beginning in the areas that mattered the most for future updating. The design goal was specifically to create a platform. The technology is always less important than what you do with that technology. I have many digital devices from decades ago (e.g., Lexicon PCM-60) that use "antiquated" technology by today's standards. Yet they still sound as good as they did decades ago. The main reason for wanting faster/more expensive/hotter-running DSP is to speed up the rate at which operations occur. If you find the latency in Helix unacceptable, then you may need a unit with more powerful DSP (of course, regardless of the DSP, there will always be the latency involved in A/D and D/A conversion). However, DSP alone isn't the only factor. The efficiency of the coding is crucial. Based on 3.50, it's pretty clear Line 6 has managed to increase the efficiency dramatically, or we wouldn't have better cabs that require significantly less DSP. The question is simply whether Helix produces the sounds and effects you want. If not, then you need to find a unit that does. However, if you like a different unit better, it may have nothing to do with the underlying technology, but with the people who did the coding.

I guess I'm kind of like Line 6 in this respect..."there's an update coming"..."still working on it"...and then all of a sudden, one day it shows up :) Part of the problem is it's so easy to think "well, just one more preset..." I really need to get more into the mindset of "well, I can always add more presets in v1.3..."

To follow up...obviously I didn't get it done for December, but that's because the book's 1.2 update has had "scope creep" :) The section on mics has been redone completely, and I have a new way to do frequency response analysis that I've applied to the new amps, new mics, and old mics. I also got permission from Line 6 to consolidate all the release notes since 3.0 as an Appendix (thanks Line 6!). The updated book is done, all that remains is updating the presets that come with it. So it's not too far away. Also, it will be a free update to anyone who has the 1.0 or 1.1 version.

Hmmm...I don't think so, it's a more complex sound that that. The closest I've come to the Magnatone sound is modulating a phase shifter, set for phase shifted sound only.