craiganderton

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.

It's not hard to create your own cab impulse responses, if you have the unit that loads the impulse you want to use in Helix, and a DAW.

Oooops...fixed. That'll teach me to post just before going to bed. Thanks for the heads-up!

I've been working on the 1.2 update to The Big Book of Helix Tips and Tricks, so among other things I've been checking out the 3.50 effects in depth. The FlexoVibe is pretty unusual, so I thought y'all might appreciate what I've found out so far. Here's an excerpt, I hope you find it helpful as you check out the various parameters. This Line 6 original effect modulates amplitude, phase, and (in stereo mode), stereo image. If there’s any other effect out there like this, I certainly haven’t heard it. Line 6 considers it a chorus, but to my ears, the sound has more in common with a phase shifter. Note that choosing mono or stereo gives very different characters. Stereo is definitely optimum. Rate isn’t calibrated in Hz, but I’d estimate the slow speed is around 0.1 Hz, and the fastest speed, 4.5 Hz. Intensity determines the amount of modulation. Warp controls the LFO waveform, but this also varies according to the Intensity setting. Fig. 2.38 shows the audio output at different settings. The test frequency was 400 Hz. At lower frequencies, the peaks have a downward dip. Figure 2.38 In Clockwise from upper left: Intensity = 5.0, Warp = 0.0. Intensity = 10, Warp = +1.0. Intensity = 10, Warp = ‑1.0. Intensity = 10, Warp = 0.0 Spread is available only in stereo mode, and sets the phase offset between the two LFOs. This also affects the stereo image. At 0.0, the image is essentially mono. 10 gives the most pronounced stereo separation. 5.0 splits the difference between those two extremes. Mix works as expected. 0% has no effect in the mix, while 100% has no dry sound mixed in. The effect is most pronounced at 50%. The waveforms in fig. 2.38 are more like snapshots that give a general idea of how the modulation affects the audio output. Because phase shifting is involved, the waveform looks different at different frequencies. The main takeaway is how Warp alters not only the shape, but different attack and decay characteristics. Tip: In either the stereo or mono mode, for a vibrato effect set Warp to 0.0, Spread to 0.0, and Mix to 100%

I ran into a similar problem when I named presets with what Windows considered illegal characters. Perhaps this is related?

Thank you for the mention. Part of the reason for writing The Big Book of Helix Tips and Tricks was to encourage people to create their OWN sounds. I can truly say that I have never used the Helix to try and get a specific sound, other than the ones I hear in my head. Helix has such an incredible toolset for making sounds that go beyond what has been around for, let's face it, over half a century. Besides, sounding like someone else doesn't mean that you'll play like someone else. I totally understand that when starting out, it can feed one's enthusiasm to be able to appropriate the sound of an admired guitar player. And it makes sense that if someone can get a sense of instant gratification from Helix, they might be less likely to abandon learning guitar. But if you get stuck in the mindset of copying guitarists you admire, you won't become a guitar player others admire. Make a statement - your own statement. Individuality! Jeff Beck didn't become Jeff Beck because his goal was to sound like Buddy Holly.

Is the question more about what process helps create a more consistent volume for each preset, or the optimum way to adjust levels in the Helix, once you know what volume you want? In either case, even if you set all your presets to a consistent level, you may have to tweak them for best results when performing live. I set all my presets to a consistent level in the studio, but these are just "baseline" settings that provide a starting point. Some need slight changes when playing in the context of a band or even a solo performance.

Good stuff! The Grolsch washers tip was my favorite :) Although the default-to-Pedal-2 makes a lot of sense, too.

Thanks for the mention, but regarding the OP, I did not analyze the filter topologies (e.g., Butterworth, Sallen-Key, Chebyshev, Bessel, etc.). However, I didn't see much ripple, so I'm assuming Butterworth is the dominant Helix filter lifeform (it has the flattest passband response). There's the characteristic phase shift of analog filters, so it's probably not a Bessel response. True story: I wanted a speaker emulator in my Quadrafuzz (designed mid-80s). So I dutifully created filters, optimized as best as I could for the correct technical performance. But the sound sucked. Eventually, I found that designing screwed-up filters with lots of ripple, phase shift, and as many deviations from ideal as possible sounded the best. Now that I've analyzed cabs, I understand why!

To make the Helix better, just order the custom set of knobs that go up to 11.

Yes, the presets sound better - compare a legacy amp+cab with a new amp+cab, and set the parameters set as closely as possible. The new cab is a definite improvement. But the reduced CPU consumption is huge. I've come up with a zillion workarounds over the years to try and squeeze out more CPU power, but many of those workarounds just aren't needed anymore. This makes HX Stomp into a whole other animal. For example, I've come up with some presets where it wasn't possible to have two cabs for stereo, so I made "faux" cabs out of EQ. With the new cabs, I'm finding that presets that were impossible to fit into an HX Stomp before are now possible, and Helix floor gets an insane amount of added power with the new cabs. I can also do multiband presets with enough CPU left over to include a bunch of effects for leads. All I can say is well done, Line 6! Better sound is one thing, but better sound with less CPU consumption is amazing.

Thanks for your interest, but it's an eBook (download only) that sells for $19.95. The only way to get it for free is if someone has posted it online, so it can be stolen. However, like software, book owners do get free "point" updates. Currently it's at version 1.1, and I'm working on version 1.2. Also, when there's a new edition with significant changes (like if a book becomes version 2.0), owners of the existing book can get the new edition at a reduced price. I've tried to keep the price as low as possible, it takes a lot of work to put together a 368-page book that also includes 230 presets. It's more like a labor of love, but it would be nice to be able to pay some bills from it as well :) That's what allows me to work on updates without having to charge for them.

I played in a power trio for many years, but took a somewhat different approach. I used a 12-string, but didn't double the top two strings. Then I could bend them for leads. The guitar sounded really full for rhythm, and the leads sounded like a 6-string.

Yes. You simply download the book again, except this time, you get the latest version. It's delightfully simple for all concerned - Sweetwater doesn't have to create a new mechanism every time there's an update, and customers can grab the new version whenever they want. The system is set up so that even if I just find a typo in a book, I can simply send a new PDF to Sweewater, and it gets substituted for the previous PDF. I haven't gotten that picky about things yet, but it's nice to know if a book gets out into the world and someone finds a problem, it can be fixed immediately.

First off, I noticed your post in the dedicated forum, so I guess whatever problem there was has been resolved. There are several reasons for not using the Helix User Community page. First, the thread would need to be pinned so that people could find it easily, and I don't want to be an imposition for those who don't have the book. Besides, there are enough pinned topics already! Second, a lot of customers buy more than one book. For example, people who buy the Helix book often buy How to Record and Mix Great Guitar Tracks, or the Pro Tools or Studio One books. So, I'd like all the feedback to be in one place. But, I most certainly will let people here know when the update comes out. Although I don't have any stats, I assume this forum probably has the largest pool of book owners.

I think you'll find Helix goes much further than the POD HD500 and previous Line 6 modelers. I hope you find the book helpful - I'm working on the free version 1.2 update that covers what's in Helix 3.5. Please remember that if you have any requests for what to include in future updates, or questions about what's in the book, there's a dedicated support forum for the book at musicplayer.com. Have fun with Helix! I certainly do :)

What theElevators said. The only thing I'd add is that the poly block does require a fair amount of CPU, although somehow I don't picture you wanting to add 40 effects to your bass :) However, there are plenty of workarounds to stretch the CPU, especially with the new cabs. I think Helix is perhaps underrated for bass. I use it a LOT and there are some effects that are amazing, like doing synthesizer-type slides with a pedal.

Yes, that's what I meant by "knowing how things respond is more about workflow." When you know how things work, it's like getting a head start on achieving the kind of sound you want. I used to work with the late Bart Walsh, who was David Lee Roth's lead guitarist. He could listen to a mix and say something like "that guitar needs +1.5 dB at 1.2 kHz, a 5 kHz high shelf with a 2 dB boost, and a 48 dB low pass at 120 Hz. He would always be right on target. People often say "don't mix with your eyes," but I think Bart would have rephrased that as "mix with your eyes open," so you could correlate what you heard with what you saw. It certainly served him well.

Your post is 100% on target! I agree that ultimately, your ears are going to make the final decision. For me, knowing how things respond is more about workflow. For example, I can move an EQ's midrange peak around until something sounds right. But over time, if you know that at 1 kHz boost is going to sound a certain way compared to a 3.4 kHz boost, you can zero in on the desired sound much faster. With the mic example, if you know what angling a mic does, then when you're doing a mix or creating a preset, you'll know what will give the sound you want without having to go through too much trial-and-error. Then again, trial-and-error often produces "happy accidents" that exceed the ability to predict what something wil do :) I think maybe Khiryos was looking more for guidance - like "so why do people do that, anyway? And why would I want to do it?"

No, it's not stupid. Short answer is changing the angle is just a different kind of filtering. But, you've given me another idea for some frequency response graphs to illustrate this. As I finish sections for the updated book, I'll mention them in the abovementioned forum, and maybe give some previews. But again...there's no ETA on this. I don't want to shortchange the info just to get something out sooner.