rwandering

I generally use a Peterson Stomp HD in front of my Helix. Just because I like the interface, like it "always on", and like an always available on/off switch. When I have used the tuner in the Helix, I use the strobe mode. Mostly because I'm used to that way of tuning. Jason Sadites has a video that compares the Helix strobe to a Peterson and it comes across as very favorable to the Helix.

When you wire 4CM, you can do both things you are describing: bypass your preamp and use an HX preamp (or amp) in the amp effects loop; and, use your amps preamp and use (or ignore) the effects loop. With a Helix Floor/LT, you can even do both at the same time! edit: actually, if the latter is possible (both at once) it would take some tricky routing, but who wouldn't want to do that anyway?

I cannot imagine how this would make any difference whatsoever. In both cases you would have the choice of what to put before the amp, and what to put into your amp's effects loop. In both cases, the effects themselves should be identical, running on the same platform with the same outcome. I can see advantages to the HX Effects (cost, size) for that use case, but not better "performance".

I imagine you could do this. But it would take some effort. I think you could build a custom circuit that switches between two RJ-45s and house it in a pedal/stomp. It would have 3 RJ-45s in it, and depending on the latching position of the pedal switch, "route" one of the two Controls inputs to the Rack. Now this all depends on whether the Rack unit would allow this kind of switching without requiring some kind of reset.

My experience with this is that the dry track sent to the DAW is at a lower DB than the original guitar input to the Helix. This is assuming you are recording using the Helix as an interface (versus analog outputs). I think this is actually the case for all USB recording, and so it may be apparent depending on how you are monitoring. My opinion is that this reduction does matter; in my perfect world reamping wouldn't require the step of matching the output of your reamped signal to its original DB (unless of course, you do want to adjust that aspect. That said, you have to do this when using conventional DI recording and reamping techniques. To simplify my recording setup, I stopped using Helix as an interface altogether and record from XLR outputs with the dry signal coming from a Send as the first block. This technique eliminates the gain reduction; however, I still need to make sure that if I reamp, that the output signal is at unity. This still allows me to adjust that up or down to change the reamping sound. Note this technique does mean that any noise gate on the input block is "printed" in the raw signal. That hasn't been an issue for me.

Thanks, guys, for the responses. Yeah, I am halfway there either way. I would either buy a 212 and sell my 112+ or get a second 112+; however, space is a little bit of an issue. I may just experiment a bit with my studio monitors at this point and then see. I'm on a trip now so won't be able to dig into this for another week.

Resurfacing this a little bit, and maybe RDRK is the expert here. I am 99% home recording, not a performer. I use the Helix LT and PowerCab 112+ for writing songs (and just playing the guitar), but certainly for getting my tones right before I record. I gave up on the PowerCab speaker modelling, mostly because while I can get it to sound good, with the ultimate target a recording, the Helix cab modelling is superior. So I'm using the PC without speaker modelling. With the new Helix 3.5 cab micing capabilities, I think I'm more likely want to work in stereo (though most likely as different microphones on the same cabinet model). Now granted, I can run this through my studio monitors in stereo (and get separation there). So my question -- which likely ends up as YMMV -- any direct experience or thoughts around the utility of the PowerCab 212 for this case? Worth the upgrade from the 112+? I know nobody can answer this for me, but I'm wondering about whether I will get utility out of this, or if I'm just suffering from gear-aqcuisition syndrome.

The current version is super helpful, thank you! I subscribed to that board a couple of days ago to get the announcements right away.

Ha! But wait, that sounds like my internal FOMO voice . . . which happily I can mostly silence! To be clear, my thinking a new product is coming soon is frankly an opinion without much merit. That said, I think new hardware may be predicated on modernization and feature comparisons over actual Helix limitations.

I get it . . . and think "huh, why this amp when it would make sense for them to put their $/time into this other one" is a totally reasonable opinion to have and to discuss! Though when Line6 says "there won't be a Helix 2", I don't put much stock into that. I know they have said it, but we all know there will be a successor, and so IMO this really comes down to a branding question. Unless they kill the ecosystem, Helix Native (or something with a new name) will continue (mentioning that just because it is critical product/feature and representation of their modelling capabilities). So whether they literally call it "Helix 2" or "Geetar-Pedal-Plus" -- sorry, my naming skills are offline at the moment -- doesn't really matter. I view the "there won't be a Helix 2" as some marketing calculation that they believe creates the best outcome for them, but that it has zero meaning about product and feature set. And I don't mean to imply there is any nefarious messaging going on, btw. They have done an incredible job with this product, and while I don't think I need updated hardware, I'm going to be first in line to get it to continue to support its continued development. My only regret is that I bought an LT and not the Floor and I honestly do find it hard to make the upgrade when I feel like something is coming in 2023.

I certainly missed it!

The choice of an amp like this one makes me wonder if their development process allows for pet projects (or "free time" or "hobby"). Maybe someone really wanted this one and spent a lot of their personnel time on it, they got it working/sounding great, so it made it in. One thing I wish that Line 6 would be more public about is what is coming and when. Not even necessarily specifics, but I don't see how it serves Line6 against competition to be secretive about it. For example, Quad Cortex has some (or all) of the new cab features regarding microphone positioning, stereo balancing and delays. Some notable people have gone to QC recently due to DSP limitations (at least I think that is their rationale, but there is probably more that goes into it). This release has impacts on both of these perceived limitations. How many others have moved on, but may have delayed that knowing these major improvements were coming? I understand being careful to commit to a future release, and there are a lot of companies that are secretive. I just don't get it unless they have some concern that corporate could pull the rug out from the plans at any moment. And these new features are increcible, but right now we actually have no idea what comes next. Is *this* the last major update? A roadmap would help. Although honestly, at some point I think they have to upgrade their hardware -- even if they don't need to -- to extract more revenues from their existing customer base. Regarding "our initial purchases fund updates": that sounds nice in marketing and we like to believe that as users, but that revenue is long gone. It isn't funding anything. It is more accurate to say that new purchases are funding current development.

No mention of the PowerCab at all? I have one, and really like it and get some "amp in the room". That said, I do tend to run it in FR/FR mode to track guitars (to reduce dissimilarities between the sound in the room and that which is tracked). But I do think there is a question of how close you are going to get it to some specific sound you are chasing.

Maybe this should be a sticky . . . I think the confusion stems from the fact that the PC never displays the speaker name. It displays the name of the preset which happens to have the same name as the speakers for the default presets. When you change the speaker on the Helix, you are changing the currently selected preset, but not its name.

You probably aren't doing anything wrong. I posted about a related issue with USB, and regardless of the debate that came out of it, some levels coming in to the PowerCab, it is impossible to both get the recommended "yellow light" and not overload the USB output. This was clearly the case comparing XLR to USB where USB was much hotter. In my reading about other people's issues, this appears to be the case that XLR too can overload (as you are seeing). I view this as a design flaw, with a solution being that Line6 should add some controls to independently set the volume of the XLR/USB outputs. Of course this has to be before they overload! I would head over to IdeaScale. I added an item there, and I think there are many others too, this one I think specifically relates to your issue. https://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Level-control-AFTER-the-virtual-microfon-for-XLR-Out-FOH/961037-23508#idea-tab-comments

I just checked my LT with 3.10 and my PC 112+ and the L6 link is working as I expect.

I'm sure interested in hearing where this goes . . . what did you do? Does it have the 2.0 speaker set or something else?

Glad to hear it. I doubt they will. I can think of several "fixes", but not sure any of them really makes sense: Add the ability to set the PC preset from the Helix. The current capability is to have control over all parameters that would go into a preset, but not to set the preset itself. Echo the Helix preset name on the PC Instead of displaying the last preset on the PC with <edit>, replace that with static text (e.g., "Helix" or "From Helix"). Other ideas?

I just tested it on mine and it worked as I expected. The preset name doesn't change (but says "edited"). The color does change. If literally nothing is changing, then I would suspect your cable.

You certainly can do what you want with the AES/BEU cable. The only thing a little confusing about it is that the Helix doesn't switch different presets on the PC+. What it does instead is it allows you to select all of the PC+ settings from the Helix preset. This can be a little confusing, because the display on the PC+ won't be up to date. Note that you did need MIDI for this before AES/BEU was fully supported in firmware.

And I didn't think you were. My reflective use of "psychic powers" echoed yours, as a prelude to my explanation. I certainly did not mean to offend.

My first inference turned out to be correct. But if I'd looked at the notes, I wouldn't have had to guess. My bad. I stand by the second claim as being an implication (and not due to my limited psychic powers). If the 3.10 Helix Firmware makes no changes that a user would expect to be reflected in HX Edit, then there would be no urgency to update HX Edit to 3.01 before the 3.10 firmware is released. It would still be desirable for Line6 to get people to update to 3.01, but it wouldn't be urgent. Now, the urgency in the original post may be misstated, but I think the implication is there. And a question for the Helix historians that I don't know the answer to: does a jump to a .X version number ever come without a new model?

I'm guessing that the "radically improved process" is that it forces you to update HX Edit to the version matching the firmware. That would save a lot of frustration for people -- and I'm sure reduce the number of support inquiries around the "I updated my firmware but I don't see any changes (in HX Edit)". If I'm right then the urgency of this update implies that 3.10 has new models or other changes that will be reflected in the future HX Edit.

I like the idea. I'll vote for it.

I downloaded them and compared them. They are identical. I'm not an expert on the WAVE file format, but it looks to me like all zeroes. So, unity.