waymda

For me that'd be worth $20-$30, knowing that that makes no sense commercially for a one off. Something more 'fully featured' that maintained a database of other attributes from within the patch, and allowed maintenance of additional metadata for searching, categorisation etc, probably $50-$100. This bit sounds like an offline customtone thing with the ability to generate set lists. Having that with the ability to integrate with customtone to auto collect new tones, and keep my own separate and/or in synch as well as librarianship would be very cool.

The idea behind being offline is about: ease of program-ability (ie not having to understand and deal with the Helix USB interface and comms protocols) maintaining an offline library, as files, which I back up to the cloud - this i do through exporting master and setlists regularly already forcing some discipline around workflow and maintenance of the master library - ie I sometimes edit when I'm creating lists and then forget if it was the version in the setlist or the "master" (my problem) simplicity of function and speed of use if I could program it I would as on the surface its seems similar to other metadata and file management tools and known patterns - for example mp3 library managers Why not HX Edit: I find managing setlists from a master incredibly clunky and slow - note this is my opinion I can't easily drag and drop between lists the interface often lags as it waits for the Helix to accept changes the scrolling on a long list can be terrible - especially moving patches from the bottom to the top, and copy pastes over the slot I want to be able to play with what's in a set list super easily as I back and forth with band members, without having to fire up the helix, and then upload it Helix Native: I have it I've hardly used it don't know about its librarianship abilities will check it out

This is something I've been thinking about for a bit. I don't think its something for IdeaScale as it seems more a utility that a developer could create independent of Line 6, and not something I'd want Line 6 to be distracted creating and maintaining over their other work. I'm not a developer so no idea what's involved but would love to have something like this to allow me to create setlists from a known set of good patches whilst maintaining a standard workflow within Helix Edit to create and maintain the patch library. For context I've been working in coverbands recently and use a patch per song and now have a couple of hundred in various states of disarray. If someone is into looking at it fantastic. If other have ideas that could enhance this likewise. If you're a developer I'm a windows user :). Description A utility that allows offline management of a master library(ies) of patches and creation of set lists from the master(s). Requirements The Master Library would need to reside in a folder on a device to be read by the manager, created through exporting from the Helix device. The application can be directed to the Master Library to be used for setlist creation through a path selection dialog. This can be changed during the session to enable creation of set lists from multiple libraries. The application lists all patches in the selected folder in an alpha-numeric order based on the patch name. The patch name is taken from the patch metadata - not the filename. The end-user requests creation of a new set-list, and the application creates a new list pane with an editable list name - default name determined by developer. The list has visible 'slots' numbered 1 through 128. The end user can drag patches from the library to any of the slots. Alternatively patches can be 'sent' to a numbered slot through a dialog. Once in a slot, the patch can be dragged up or down the numbered slots. If a patch is dropped or sent into a slot that is not empty the user is prompted to "overwrite"/"reorder"/"cancel". Overwrite copies the name over the existing name. Reorder forces all slots below down one and allows the name to enter the current patch - if 128 slots are full warn the user that slot 128 will be removed with OK and cancel. Once the end user is happy with the set list they 'commit' the list (save whatever). Committing a setlist: creates a folder with the same name as the setlist copies the patch files to the folder named with leading zero xxx sequential numbering to determine ordering pads empty 'slot' names with a file that can be imported in the Helix device as an empty slot Setlists may be recommitted if changed. Additional setlists can be created and managed at the same time as the primary in different windows. Once created, setlists are imported into the Helix as per normal Helix processes.

Guess you better get one

Can't tell if its deliberate or not, but I can't help but swap the capitalized letters in the troll name - and I must agree with the revised name.

That would be best. But at the same time its not essential. My workflow to sort patches is: initial build using headphones (that I know very very well) Levelling with DAW meters Re-levelling with headphones Leveling tweaking with stage setup (moderate volume) <<< you'd likely skip this Rent a room with good monitoring gear (ie FRFF type bins) and tweak and level patches Practice with band (or do gig) and keep mental or real notes on what needs changing (tone, effects wet/dry mix, drive, ;evel between patches, perceived volume with the band, etc) Adjust and iterate Sounds long winded, but the more you do the more you'll 'get' what needs to be done to a patch for it to work live, and you get a lot quicker at it. If you have someone that can come along and tweak as you play even better as it keeps it an online approach rather than stop start. For me a patch doesn't stand on its own, it has to fit with the band so I often do sanity checks by playing along with prerecorded material as well to see how it sits - both at home and in a rehearsal room.

As someone who came from the HD500x model where improvements were purchased as model packs I agree completely. I can't think of another product I've used that has had as much improvement for as prolonged a time - ever. As a member of this user community I'd love to see greater recognition of the work the Line 6 team does from the community.

I'm trying to set up routing like so: Guit >> Helix Path 1A >> mono front of amp effects >>> split >>>> 1A Amp 1 >>>>> 2A (panned left) >>>> 1B Amp 2 >>>> 2A (panned right) Path 2A >> Post amp stereo fx >>>> split >>>>> Cab(s) >>post cab fx>> XLR >>>>> Digital >>> Powercab+ >>> DT25 I can do it, but it seems the powercab and the DT25 each get a mono summed send. I'd like to be able to assign Amp 1 (L) to the powercab and Amp 2 (R) to the DT25 and was trying to do that with the left right send thinking that (maybe) they'd automagicly be 1 & 2. I'm guessing that L6link will only assign 1 & 2 for like linked products (ie PC+ 1&2, and DT 1&2). That might work well if I get another DT25 or PC+ (1 more of each just for the giggles??) but welcome any thoughts on how to achieve the independence I'm looking for with what I have. In case you're wondering why?: I like the PC+ sound with the emulated speaker on stage Likewise the DT25 I have both I'm looking for a stage sound where I can change emulated speaker on the PC+ and move to FRFR for acoustic sounds alongside the amp sounds of the DT25 Any suggestions welcome.

I haven't checked (or noticed) the pre-amp tube setting - will do. I was using the full amp modes so will try pre's only - once 2.8 arrives so I can configure the power stage as well. Though that might not go so well for my plan to use the PC+ with the DT25 and have speaker sims on the XLR outs and none on the dig outs. We shall see.

The L6 Link is digital, so reducing noise (maybe??) - and with the 2.8 release of the firmware will allow the DT series to be controlled form the Helix (without midi) - how uch it will control I don't know, but it'd be cool to switch to a proper class A power output for vox sims, for example. Also, I plan to go Helix >> DT25 >> PowerCab+ (or PC+ first) to allow for auto stereo splitting, and use of the PC+ for FRFR for acoustic sounds and modelled speakers for electric - and maybe FRFR for funky ambient type stuff

Even when I used DT edit to completely turn off all preamp stuff for the 'channel' I was using? As in the knobs don't change anything for that voicing anymore. Sorry probably should have mentioned that in the first post.

>>PDKTDK - yep that's what I ended up getting, but really why so finicky? (rhetorical question) >>Rd2rk I had enough time between using the tweaker and the DT25 (and it was so long ago - about 10 years) that I couldn't honestly say which I prefer. The tweaker was more than loud enough with the THD cab - the speakers were very efficient and articulate, but the cab cost more than twice the tweaker, and you're considering a combo so comparison wouldn't hold. As I didn't like the amp modelling through the tweaker the HD500x was only useful as a big effects unit - which defeats the purpose, and reduced the flexibility. Flexibility is the main reason for me using modelling (now e2e) so the DT25 would beat the tweaker everytime for the range of sounds. Yes I could get some crap sounds out of that rig, but I also got lots of very good tones so a 1 to 1 comparison doesn't hold. The difference moving to the Helix and a DT25 is I don't feel the need to keep tweaking patches forever - they get good quick and I leave them. JC120 sounded good, it gave good stereo effects, but not with a huge spread unless using very hard left right type ping-pong stuff, and I could send a different amp to each speaker. The speakers obviously colour the sound, but I could tune for that, and went in straight into the stereo power amp. It lacked with acoustic tones, but that's to be expected. I just remembered I'd even used a few valve power amp (2 different mesa and one Carvin) and speaker combos (single 12s, 2 x 12s, 4 x12s, 4x10s) with the HD500x, so lots and lots of gear changes and never quite getting there. Getting a solid repeatedly good sound that I didn't want to tweak between gigs was the problem. Forced to choose between the DT25 and the PC+ - the PC+ no question for the FRFR modes, the built in speaker modelling, and with 2.8 the ability to change with patches. The DT25 was an opportunistic purchase ($700 AUD like new - under $500 USD), having moved with Helix and guitar on the flight and no amp. But it will be fantastic with the PC+. One thing I forgot to mention is that the PC+ and the DT25 brought back a real sense of guitar amp interaction, that stand in the right place and get sustain and the air moving behind you - I've always tilted back because I need top end bite, but found the FRFR wedges were just wrong. To give a feel for why versatility is important to me, the last band I was in played covers with a rep of 150+ songs and I build a patch for each song that changes the guit (Variax) the amps the effects and ranges from acoustic sounds (Violent Fems) through mesa (Foo Fighters), with everything in between. If I was back doing originals, like I started with 30+ years ago, I've often thought I'd go back to a nice valve amp and a couple of pedals, but I think I'd be more likely to stick with modelling. Ramble ramble ramble :-)

Started using a DT25 with the Helix via Line6 link, I tapping the patch before any speaker modelling but feel like the signal is hitting the DT25 too hot. Its very very loud and seems to break up early (its not clipping). I used the same patches with a PC+ in FRFR post speaker modelling and had no issues, even though I know the patches are hot - they would make the LED peak red if I used 6db gain for solo boosts at the end of the chain but never caused audible clipping. My solution to date s a gain block dropping 12 to 16 db off the digital send. Anyone with Helix to DT experience have any ideas?

Sorry, I forgot. A word of caution with the DT25. If you go that path, get the firmware checked and updated if necessary where you buy it. The one I brought in Melbourne had the old firmware and I had to try 3 usb to midi interface to get one that Line6 Monkey liked enough to update it and then allow me to use DTEdit to clear a slot in the DT25 to make the Helix integrate easier (lots about his in the forums) Not sure what firmware 2,8 will require and/or if it will provide the ability to update over the wire. And I just realised I didnt even think to try the Helix as the midi interface, so can't help there.

Hi I've been using Line6 E2E for a while now and used the following combinations (historical order): m13 into tweaker 15 head and various speaker arrangements HD500x into same HD500x with DT25 combo and a DT50 head and 2x12 cab HD500x into JC120 Helix into 2 x Laney IRT-x Helix into PowerCab+ Helix into DT25 The last 3 are the most relevant to you. The IRT-X were fine for stage monitoring for my band members with in-ears for me - they also worked well for low volume practice at home (not that they couldn't get loud, but not needed). The PowerCab+ totally changed my view of the IRT-x - I got back a more natural sound. My band said it was like going from a high-fi sound back to a real amp. The DT25 sounds great but I've hardly used it and not with a band. I'm looking forward to 2.8 and full integration with the Helix, and getting my PowerCab+ with it (I'm currently in Melbourne Australia and its in Perth Australia due to a work relocate) so I can mix and match a real amp and guitar speaker with modeled amp and speakers (The PowerCab+ modelling), and the option of switching to FRFR on the PC+ for acoustic and/or weird clean ambient type effects. I wonder if what you're hearing is, in part, that whole mic'd up cab thing that bugs so many people using modelling. In which case the DT25 or the PowerCab (or both) should alleviate that. The HD500x into the tweaker was less than satisfying as the modelling into, what seemed a good amp tone, didn't work - my favourite cab with it was a 2x12THD which made a loud and very articulate combo. I couldn't be bothered with 4CM and it didn't last long as my rig. Into the DT25 and DT50 was a great stereo rig, but lots to lug around, and lots of work balancing patch volumes - we tend to forget how much stage volumes colour tone and perceived loudness. The JC120 was a compromise to get efficiency and ease of use, and was pretty good. Regarding volume - the PC+ sounds good at lower volumes as does the DT25 with the quiet mode, but quiet mode is not super quiet. I'm currently in an apartment and very conscious of volume to the point I avoid high gain sounds as I'm aware of how much they carry once you get them loud enough to have some grunt. I suspect at very low volume they would sound crap as theirs not enough air being moved. I have had the DT25 in a rehearsal room in normal mode and it was plenty loud with the master on half, and jammed with some guys in a small room with the master at about 1/3rd. All I need to do now is completely rebuild my patches so I send signal out to digital with no speaker modelling for the DT25 (and PC+), and with Cabs on for the XLR outputs to go to FoH. I monitor from the headphone out which taps the XLRs. This is actually proving easier than I thought pretty quick once I got a basic workflow happening (including remembering to save!!!!). Hope that helps.