RJKole

Hello, thanks for the reply and beeing so detailed,

You are absolutely right i should have went the steps you mentiend for a better comparison, but as mentioned earlier, the first time after i installed 370 starting with my own presets i noticed right away that something sounds different, thats why i did all this.

I indeed loaded the 292 presets into 370, made factory resets and rebuilt presets, i even did that a couple of times to be shure, didnt i mention ? My guess was also the 3.50 changes were responsible for the unit sounding different (for my ears), what i read about it on the firmware pages seems to explain things to me. I am shurely not intended of convincing people, its just something that i noticed. I may have an over sensitive hearing, i am glad the majority of users likes it the way it sounds now and i am also glad that we have the possibility to go back to an earlier firmware so everyone can be satisfied with the product.  Ive been more then satisfied with the Helix ever since, so theres no reason for me to make the product bad. If i sounded arrogant or rude, i apologize. Not easy as a foreign user to bring things properly over in an english forum.

@Schmalle

I appreciate the time you put into uploading a clip. The clip made me more convinced that there is no or negligible audible difference between said firmware versions.
I may not should have done this. Each human has a different hearing, ask 100 people for 200 different answers. I mainly was pointing to the upper heights that come out too sharp in my ears . Thats why i (homorous) mentioned Behringer ;-)

On 4/19/2024 at 9:47 PM, Schmalle said:

Mind sharing some comparison clips to convince a doubting spirit like me?

Judge yourself. Just a few tones, 3 Samples , each 292 followed by 370. 1. Factory 1-001 , 2. Some Dire Straits patch from somewhere , 3. Factory 1-072.
In my ears 370 sounds much flatter, crackling and shrill,  290 richer, warmer and more natural.  https:/rjkole.com/p_temp/Helix.wav
All samples have been normalized.

Ok, 370 to 371, my mistake, but may be interesting how things change sometimes.

Today i sat down for many hours comparing 292 with 370 using the exact same settings, same speakers, same guitar, same phrases with the same 10 different presets (from 292 and settings backup) on both firmwares, eq is OFF of corse. The recodings clearly showed a difference. 370 against 292 produces way more treble (hiss, hsss,sss) which may gives the impression of a somehow "clearer" sound, but makes certain presets sound rather like a behringer vamp then a helix . 292 sounds way warmer to me (slight lower trebble or upper mid boost), the antialiasing is there but not in the way. I do not know what Line 6 did, but 370 sounds definatly worse then 292. Too much sss hsss, shhh, certain presets sound rather flat compared to 292. 370 sounds like the signal goes through a slight final compression with a misaligned exiter. I have no idea when these "changes" have been introduced, so ill stick with 292 for now. Dont really have the nerve to try out 196 different firmwares in order just to sneak a few new effects.  For the everage or new user the difference may be not noticable,but when comparing recordings side by side you clearly notice the difference. The difference is less noticable on presets with lots of delay and reverb, but rather on tight dry presets which are supposed to sound clear. 370 seems to overdo it somehow with "fidelity" which you (i) dont really need in the studio. You may try a Strat with a Dire Straits preset in position Pickup 4 then you may know what i am talking about.

When i first tried 370 i immediately had the impression of beeing something not right, now i know for shure. The only positive thing about 370 i could discover soundwise was less antialiasing like descibed IIRC around 350, heights sound cleaner, but there are too many of them unfortunately.

... just restored the impulses as well. Hard to tell if all thats only in my head, but i have the feeling that my pathes are slightly more

velocity sensitive as before. The behringer effect seems to be less noticable now.

Thanks for the hint, ill try this immediately.

Let me aks another question:

Did the Helix Software recently underwent any changes in concern of "improved" sound clarity or something ?

My patches sound rather like behringer then Line6 now hsss psss hfff. .. Ok ill try you suggestion first :-)

I am having the same problem. May i point to my posting here

I wonder how the opener has solved his problem.

Hello experts,

I updated from 2,92 to 3,70 .

Before that i made  a backup.

Once 3,70 was installed i made a factory reset , then loaded back my user presets form the previous backup.

When restoring data from a backup, HXedit (3.7) i have the following options:

- Settings

- Impulse Data

- Presets

I choosed settings and presets, not Impule Data because i am not shure if this would  mess up the new impulses from 3,70.

Now my presets seem not to sound right, important presets seem much more sensitive and the guitar seems to sound distorted

easier when playing it. Global input settings are set to "auto". Guitar hasent changed. Unfortunately i cant go back and compare.

Now my questions,

1 - can anyone confirm this ?

2 - is this perhaps intended ?

3- Do i need to tick "impulse data" too when restoring presets from a backup ?

any hints appreciated !

I apologize for asking dumb questions to professionals. Next time will buy beginners hardware whenever i want to become creative out of reach of a computer. Thanks for the tip.

Thanks for your kind comment.

I read the above about "USB" but the devices i am using,  unfortunately do not have "USB" :-(

I just cant beleive this "Ultraflexible" invention (or was "Behringer" saying this about one of his units, whatever..) does not let a user creatively jump from preset to preset while listening to an external sound source in order to find a suiting sound.The way Helix is treating input signals is completely against any idea of creativity with such an advented unit.

This could be so easily solved be simply extending the headphone monitor with another software routing to the return inputs

or just mixing them into the headphone monitor. This way the headphone monitor would make more sense too.

Very disappointing. 

Nothing really, i was just curious if my unit was fully functional in this concern.

Thanks for anwering, its a helix floor i am using.

It doesn't light in normal operation but it does under LED test :-)

..so i assume it cant be configured either for whatever use?

Couldnt find anything in the manual neither on the web.

Question: Is the LED Ring of Switch #6 it supposed to show color or is that a "dead" LED Ring period ?

Thanks

RJ

Oh i see, THANKS !

Hello there,

Hope i am not overdoing it by asking questions,

this time i would like to know which patch this awesome guy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw7gER2I-iQ is referring to.I cant find a patch called "ANGL" on the

helix factory preset list, only ANGL Meteor, but that patch sounds entirely different to the one used in the video.

any help appreciated

RJ

Only EMU 1212/1620/1820 or 404 users may be able to answer my question.

Thanks for trying though.

RJ

Hello there,

Is anyone using helix with an EMU 1212/1620/1820/404  ?

I wonder if the usb device can be used as an input channel in the patch mixer.

Will it appear in the Asio Input List or somewhere or will it collide with the EMU Asio drivers? 

Another guess is that it may be smarter to use the digital port instead ,

not shure if the uSB driver eats up CPU power and/or latency.

RJ

@MikeUnderscoreB

Thanks for the information, this helps.

I was going to find out in advance before i decide which windows 7 to install.

Hello there, 

Has anyone got Helix and HX Edit working on Windows7 /32bit ? Support says it may work, may not. So i wonder if anyone has tested this.

Thanks in advance

15 hours ago, codamedia said:

Why would any company waste resources developing drivers for DEAD operating systems?

Simply to satisfy/reach old/more customers. Attention to customers is never wasted in my eyes. Besides in large companies service is certainly not a matter of resoures, rather a matter of will. But please dont lets start a Win 3,1 discussion ;-)

I dont think the USB interface would require a 64bit computer. In my opinion its a matter of the software thats been written for the computer, in this case win xp, which communicates with the USB interface. I understand that helix has been introduced after xp has lost MS support, but thats not a reason for someone to still write a software for it. For example i wrote a tool for xp where you can partly remote the helix through midi and midi doesnt require 64bit neither. (i am not an expert USB like, thats i thought i ask this querstion here)

Perhaps i get lucky one day ;-)

RJ

Hello everyone,

I wonder if anyone has managed to run the Helix on Windows XP (USB like). I am running a fixed software setup on a windows xp environment and would like to use the helix as USB device. ( Midi and perhaps Audio, no Editor and Software Updates of corse). Many many other audio devices work on windows xp (example Axe-Fx II, Behringers ect.), i am aware that USB port hardware doesnt differ much throughout devices its only the programming that doesnt let one use it on XP. Sometimes 3rd party stuff tricks make things work, any hints in that direction are highly appreciate. 

(Please dont start a discussion why i am not using Windows 3,1 oder Windows 124 ;-) - Thanks

RJ

Very good ! Thanks for the video. 

I somehow expected the buttons to be touch sensitive all the time before buying it. Now i understand and my unit works as intended.

THOUGH perhaps another option to make the buttons touch sensitive all the time ( just another option under  Global Settings->footswitches->stomp select->, like "always" or similar could make sense for some useres, for example using the helix on stand or on the table). Thats what my personal feature request would be to the developers at the moment.

RJ