waymda

I have 2 DT25s and 2 PC+. I am looking to sell the DT25s as I use the PC+ exclusively, using the speaker emulations for on stage via Link, and sending full mic'd up cab models direct from the Helix for FoH if required. I found it much more fiddly to get the DT25s balanced across patches, and they are a shedload heavier - so convenience wins for me. Assuming you're using a Helix as you don't mentioned that. See the attached template for a basis of this approach 2 Amps 2 PC+.hlx

Hi Assumption number 1 - you realise you need a speaker cab for the DT25 head and CANNOT run it into the headrush (unless you want smoke and flames and dead equipment). I have a pair of DT25s and a pair of PC+ FRFRs, so I'll base this reply on them, and known limitations. I cannot mix and match powercabs and DT25s at this point and have control over both. As the DT25 contains pre (modelled) and poweramps (tube) you might want to run it using pre-amp models only bypassing the internal pre - this can be done using the Line6 Link output with an proper AES/EBU specc'd cable (looks like a mic cable but the impedance is different). The Headrush will require speaker/mic modelling post any Helix amps or it will sound like a head run into a PA speaker. For my set-up I use the pair of PC+s a bit like the DT25s in that they run as a power amp with modelled speaker (no mic modelling) for stage sound, and I run a feed with speaker/mic modelling to the PA/inears. The band hears an amp in the room, I hear a mic'd up amp in ears (with some room bleed). Your set-up will mean the DT25 gives you amp in the room and the Headrush will give you a mic'd up cab sound - this will mean they are very different sounds. You will be able to blend them well, but you need to be aware that they are doing very different things. I'm not aware of any impulses etc that allow an FRFR to behave like a modelled cab without a mic (the Powercab seems to be unique in this regard). So how would I run your set-up? Path A: Effects that run before the amp (dirt pedals boosts etc) >>>> A/B split >>>> effects just for this amp (chorus, harmoniser etc) amp 1 >>>> Path B send panned hard left >>>> effects just for this amp (chorus, harmoniser etc)amp 2 >>>> Path B send Panned hard right Path B: Stereo Effects that run post amps (reverb, delay, etc) >>>>>> A/B Split >>>>> Cab block or IR >>> post cab effects (EQ/compressor)>>>> XLR out panned hard left >>>> Headrush >>>>> final pre-cab processing (EQ/compressor) >>>> (digital) Line 6 link out panned hard right >>>> DT25 A mod of this would be to separate path B as entry points from path A and mono effects on each - ie run like a pair of completely different amps The DT 25 can be set-up via Line 6 link to swap power stages, and a bunch of other stuff by clicking on the digital out pages in HX Edit. This is a complex set-up, but once you get used to it you start to have a great work flow happening - I tend to use a template with the layout and mod from there. BIG CAUTION: When you monitor from the headphone out or via USB you WILL NOT hear what you get from the headrush and DT25. You will need to take a send from the DT25 balanced out and the left line of the Helix or an out from the headrush to get close. I'm running the 2 PC+s over the pair of DT25s for this reason - my digital send can very closely replicate the XLR and line outs as the only diff is the cabs are modelled in the room. If you like an approximate template let me know and I post one.

To add to cruisinon2's comments. If you like the LT into your tube amp and a V30, the closet approximation to that with the PC+ would be: LT current settings >> a modeled amp in the LT that you think is similar to your tube amp >> no speaker cab on the LT >> PC+ on the Vintage setting (green or cream speaker) That's close to emulating what you're doing via the tube amp BUT you will need to tweak the amp model you use to be happy (and other stuff). Using the PC+ cab sims post cab blocks in the LT is emulating a mic'd up speaker cab (the LT emulation) then putting it into an emulation of an unmic'd speaker cab - lots of weirdness. The hardest thing to get used to using FRFR is that you're reproducing a fully mic'd up cab sound, not what you hear in the room, what the mic hears. So in a gig situation, you're hearing a close approximation of what the audience would hear through the PA with a mic'd up cab. The PC+ speaker emulations are a way to get a more 'traditional' stage sound - ie an unmic'd cab.

I can't tell you what I've done different to you, but I'm able to change between speaker models on both my PC+ as using snapshots, as well as from FRFR to modeled speaker using HXEdit. Playing with it again - it looks like I right clicked on Mode and then Selected on this page and selected snapshot. This patch changes from 12 string acoustic on variax via mic pre to FRFR then to a Rickenbacker through a JC120 and an AC30 through 'natural' and 'essex' - attached for reference. The IR used is a gibson hummingbird used to flesh out the acoustic only. Milky Way.hlx

I get where you're coming from. I was initially frustrated, then realised ctr-s saved to the current slot with no dialog (or mouse click - whoo hoo). I now love using it as per rd2rk's post.

Yes. Use Line 6 Link is the easiest way, and daisy chain the PC+s together. Modify the settings of each PC+ cab independently in HX Edit at the output block (or on the Helix).

With the PowerCab - make sure the input gain is set appropriately. From what I remember my PC+ cabs were set to a minus something large -db input gain from the factory. Re Levels - the PC+ LED can help making sure you're not sending too hot a signal - LED green = good, LED red = bad - but it can cope with red 'spikes' Otherwise run into a DAW or physical desk and monitor levels with a meter that matches your global output levels. My impression is that even when sending hot signals there's headroom in the Helix.

This approach might work for you. My headphone send runs off the XLR outs, and drives my in ears through a solution that allows me to mix in ambient and monitor sends from FoH (eg vocals).

template as mentioned 2 Amps 2 PC+.hlx

Yes - I have recently moved to 2 PC+ for stage output and am rebuilding my song specific patches around a template that allows: a number of effects before amp(s) 1 or 2 amps by using a split and join a number of post amp effects (but pre-speaker. which is the main concession) A split to digital out only with EQ and anything I want to add (compression) which I then use to control the pair of PC+ Post the split a speaker cab model (or IRs) that feeds to XLR in my case - there's a IdeaScale request for a controllable multi-output which would be great in this instance so I could have the post cab send go to everywhere but digital Happy to drop it here if you want a look once I get home.

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.