Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


rzumwalt last won the day on January 13 2018

rzumwalt had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Registered Products

Recent Profile Visitors

1,010 profile views

rzumwalt's Achievements

Community Regular

Community Regular (8/14)

  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In

Recent Badges




Community Answers

  1. To do like the OP indicates, you would just plug the output of the Helix into the return of the amp.
  2. This is the best approach for me as well. If I find myself pushing presence above about 40%, I'll usually back off and try increasing treble and reducing lows instead. I also usually set the cabinet or IR block to low cut at about 100 hz. My theory is to stay out of the frequency range of the bass and drum rather than try to cut through them.
  3. I would imagine it works best when PolyPitch is first in your signal chain (haven't tried it myself yet, my Helix is not with me at the moment). Have you tried it that way?
  4. rzumwalt

    Types of IRs

    You can technically load other kinds of IRs, but as Schmalle advised, they are limited to a fraction of a second. If you are just looking to experiment, go ahead and load others and see what it sounds like, you can't break anything. Except maybe your ears, it's probably a good idea to start at low volumes with any kind of experimentation.
  5. I still have one sitting on a shelf in my closet. It has worked on Windows 7 and Windows 10 machines for me. I don't recall needing to download any software. It works adequately, but noticeably lags compared to a newer Focusrite interface, or the Helix as an interface for that matter.
  6. rzumwalt

    Bank jumps

    I have a similar bad footswitch. Did you just spray the posts and let the contact cleaner drain into the switch, or did you open the unit up and spray the switch directly? Thanks.
  7. A digital audio interface should work. Earlier this week, using I believe the most up to date version of Zoom, I was able to use a Focusrite interface as both mic input and headphone output to a Zoom meeting. I can't think of any reason why a Helix into the Focusrite would be treated any differently by the Zoom software than a mic into the Focusrite. This way, you can still use USB and should be able to run all three, Helix, mic, and headphones out, from the audio interface, assuming it has at least two inputs.
  8. rzumwalt

    Helix 2.9

    That is well phrased. In my own experience, It's a source of peace, but not so much with respect to the chaotic uncertainty of the future. Maybe its just that I have no uncertainty about the fact that the future will be chaotic, given my country's apparent intent to throw our economy into ever-more wild business cycles through currency manipulation and other ill-thought out policies (warning, yet another new topic alert!). But it's a source of peace for me more so because I know I'm an f-up, and my faith says that is part of the human condition and that it's ok. So perhaps it is also the chaotic turmoil of the inner person where faith gives comfort. I know many non-believers who involve themselves in charity, adopt a giving lifestyle, or practice above-and-beyond kindness like foster parenting; and I think for them, that is their way of pacifying that inner turmoil. Because I believe that is the human condition, both that we have our problems, be it selfishness, desire for dominance, being unforgiving, or what have you, and that at the same time we dislike those flaws in ourselves, they make us feel inadequate. This is one of the reasons I came to view what I now believe as rational and that it could be true, because it so deeply identifies what is at the core of humanity. On a side note; I have to say I find our group of people still following this thread incredibly engaging. A lot of my responses here have been to things its hard to get to in discussions with only like-minded people--your best attempts to challenge each other are only as good as some kind of straw-man you can concoct about the other side. And, this comes with the risk of demonizing the other side, or even the strong likelihood of it. ("Don't they eat their own young...or am I thinking of spiders?") On a side-side note, the engineers at Line 6 must be starting to agree with the idea that religion is the opium of the masses, or in this case, that lively debate over reality and faith are the opium of the impatient guitarists waiting for firmware updates.
  9. rzumwalt

    Helix 2.9

    And in another reality, the cinematic reality, he became Spok's father and reluctant friend of Kirk.
  10. rzumwalt

    Helix 2.9

    I guess it's related to Pascal's Wager, as I understand it, has more to do with the risk of being wrong under either choice (using "choice" here for lack of a better word). So I suppose that quote from me is related. I didn't want to mention it because I think those still hanging around this thread would officially have had enough. So, on a completely different topic: if the beta of version 2.9 were to believe in Line 6 and accept Helix hardware into its code as its storage medium and processor, it would only risk living out its pre-release lifespan under Line 6 being tested and held to ever more rigorous compatibility standards; but it if rejected Line 6 and Helix hardware, it could do whatever it wanted during its beta lifetime, but would be risking decompilation at the end of its beta lifespan and never making it to the glorious Line 6 software download servers.
  11. rzumwalt

    Helix 2.9

    I didn't mention it, but part of my intent was to come up with this moral framework without relying on utilitarian arguments, but only from a priori reasoning. Your suggestion a little further below is interesting, and I suppose I might say something like: if God created man, He must have created him with the biological capacity to evolve, as that is what we observe in nature, and He created that biological process such that an intelligent social creature will evolve a sense of altruism or positive morality. That may be true, but it doesn't seem to prove my idea, that the moral framework found in the bible can also be derived from a priori reasoning about the universe without the assumption of the existence of a god. For example, however unlikely, it is possible that altruism could someday be evolved out of human nature. This was absolutely true for me when I was atheist 20 years ago. Only I didn't realize it. I thought that, if there was empirical evidence for something that a religion didn't expressly predict (e.g., that the Earth circles the sun, or DNA causes species to evolve over time), then the religion must be wrong. I just thought religious people were foolish or ignorant. I later realized what an impossible standard that is for any belief system to be held to. I guess I was expecting God to have said to Moses, "ok, so in the beginning, there was an infinitesimally small and infinitely dense region of spacetime--oh by the way, time and space are related--anyway, this region exploded forming gluons, leptons, and eventually gravity, the nuclear forces, and the electromagnetic force. Have I mentioned gravity before? That's the thing that keeps you on the Earth, but it also keeps the Earth orbiting the Sun. What do you mean, 'will this be on the test?'" By the same logic, Newtonian physics would foolish because it did't mention relativistic physics. But neither were directed to audiences who could have understood those concepts, and those concepts were not necessary for their purposes. I agree with the logic here, as far as it goes: If knowable facts are insufficient to determine an underlying truth, the most that could be reliably said with certainty is that the underlying truth is not known. However, consider that logic also dictates that there is some underlying truth which must be true, even if we do not know what it is with empirical certainty. It could be argued that not believing in something is by definition incorrect, whereas believing in something at least has the possibility of being correct. Of course, this is just using a different criteria to do the logical analysis - not being right vs. not being wrong. That's the interesting thing about reality and illustrates well what has been demonstrated by the last three pages of discussion on this thread. It would just be one person's insight, but here goes. I don't feel my faith is by choice, but of course it's hard to put a pin in the exact mental process at work. I would say my atheism was a choice, at least in the last few years before I came to faith. I actively pushed away the possibility of the existence of any god because I objected to someone else being in control of my life or setting moral requirements for me. I was younger. Maintaining my faith isn't particularly difficult. But the reasons for this are mixed, though. On the one hand, I came to believe what I believe after much consideration, so it is basically easier to believe what I believe is true than to do otherwise. At the core of things, and this is just my own personal experience, I believe my faith is simply the product of God reaching out to me rather than me to Him. After several years of wrestling with what I believed, I eventually had no choice but to admit to myself what I really believed. That probably sounds odd, but it's the best way I can describe it; so I often joke that my faith is "self-proving" because in all subjects I require empirical evidence. But admittedly there are several reasons why I would probably resist if I ever found myself having any substantial doubts. I have several decades of studying and living my life by certain principles, many of my close relationships are rooted in a shared faith, and I've even invested a bit of money and time supporting my church and local and international charities of like faith. That would obviously be a cost if I ever found I had lost my faith. But I don't avoid continuing to investigate it. I believe that to have faith (in the sense in which it is a Christian virtue) requires willingness to be convinced otherwise should evidence compel it. That is because, if I have faith that something is true, refusing to hear challenges would actually be an admission of a weak faith. If I believe something is true, should I not also expect any even-handed investigation to confirm, or at least not disconfirm, it? That doesn't mean that at the first sign of new evidence tending to challenge what I believe I would change my mind, I would probably be prone to think, "what else do we not know now that would put this evidence in context." I've mentioned this to other believers before, but I can't recall ever discussing it with any atheists or agnostics. Does any of that experience compare with yours?
  12. rzumwalt

    Helix 2.9

    Very well said. And very encouraging to have honest and open discussion of these things on, of all places, a software update thread. Just goes to show, Helix users are just better people than those Axe Effects troglodytes. This is I think an important thing that people who believe like me will overlook about this question. Just because I have a answer to "why" that grants me meaning, doesn't mean that someone else can't find meaning in something other than "why." It's not uncommon to hear people in churches saying things like, "nonbelievers' worldviews are all defeatist and despair." I'm not a fan of that, because (1) I have noticed many nonbelievers for whom that does not appear to be true and (2) it is usually used as an example for why our faith is true, but it isn't a valid argument, as even if I thought nonbelief only offered despair, if nonbelief appeared to be true, I would have to believe that. (Sorry for the clunky language; I'm being intentionally vague about my ultimate/religious beliefs because I don't want it to color this as an advertisement or proselytizing.) If you ever have a chance to visit the World War I battlefield at Verdun, France, do so. The monument is a massive ossuary, and it definitely gives you that kind of perspective. My wording was clunky on this. I meant something more like, from one's own perspective, they are the only voice in their own head; and their perspective is their view of the universe known to them. It doesn't make them special in the macro sense, but they are essentially the authority of their own life. Should they chose to use that self-authority for constructive purposes, they can create meaning. It's a stretch, sure, but I was trying to argue an analogy to a religious person's possible source of meaning by finding an alternate source for an ultimate authority of sorts. I actually agree with you here. In fact, I've been toying with an idea for some time that goes like this: If God created the universe, and if God has a moral standard, could it be that there is something about the universe in the way He created it, such that it reveals His moral standard to us on its own? The answer or non-answer to this question wouldn't be a proof of God's existence or nonexistence, but I thought it might be an argument for it. My basic rational is, every person is an individual; every individual is therefore a separate entity from every other individual; every individual's "personhood" therefore has equal claim to value/independence/respect as anyone else's; because of this symmetry in, let's call it dignity, any rights a person claims to have, he necessarily admits all other people also have; then, to the extent one individual tries to invade the dignity of another, he is tacitly claiming he has a right to do so and therefore simultaneously admitting all others also have a right to do so to him; so the only rights that can be valid must be those that could be compatible if all other people had the same rights; and finally, by eliminating the potential rights that fail this compatibility test, we are left with rights to do things only if they do not harm other people. So I say "shaky" for two reasons. First, there are several assumptions at work in that logic. Second, I can't quite make a case along these lines for active moral responsibilities like charity and giving aid to others in harm's way. So I can get to half of the golden rule which would be "do not do unto others," which is more of the Confucian version; but I can't get to the half that says "do unto others" which is more of the Christian version. I'm not saying it's impossible; I just haven't figured that part out. And it is incomprehensible that there is even a realm of existence in the first place. And since our universe has such a dimension as time, and since time goes in one direction, it appears there must have been a point in which it came into existence. I know cosmologists say that time is merely a physical dimension we experience as time, but that doesn't change that it is effectively a one-way street. Not to get all sophomore year philosophy here, but why not nothing instead? I don't mean a void without matter, I mean why would even the void exist? But the smallness and unfathomable luck that even our existence was caused to exist is part of what convinces me of my beliefs about what/who caused it. The upside is that this means every individual is a part of that creation and therefore is known by their creator. And if they are known by their creator, the fact that they have the capacity to seek Him out may mean they were created in His image. If so, all men are indelibly endowed with the value, rights, and dignity of every other man. And I think that goes for all men, no matter what they believe, as they do not lose their capacity to seek Him out, and therefore their likeness to His image, even if they conclude He does not exist. The creator's response to that is His business; as for us mortals, we have no right to treat anyone with anything less than respect. That is all a too-long way of saying, if you, or anyone else waiting for firmware updates who comes across this, Lastly, do you suppose version 2.9 knows it was lovingly made by its creators? Or maybe frustratingly made with a lot of profanity thrown in?
  13. rzumwalt

    Helix 2.9

    Appreciate your insight. Even though I disagree with your premises about how we got here, I can't argue with your reasoning from those premises. I happen to be reading a book by Steven Pinker in which he argues secular humanism can provide sufficient meaning in life largely because humans can learn and can experience empathy. (I'm really paraphrasing here.) Now I don't agree with Pinker about that, it wouldn't give me meaning if I shared his other beliefs (which, long ago, I mostly did). I actually find that last reason you gave much more powerful than anything in Pinker's book. Where you mentioned in your comment from above that, under your precepts, the question "why" is really irrelevant, is what I think is the ultimate problem, and your reason I quoted above is a very insightful and honest way of answering it. So maybe you can comment critically on my objections to Pinker because, let's face it, I am biased to agree with myself. So my criticism goes something like this: If mankind was not made, but is just the current result of eons of change, then we have no claim to being unique in any way. We differ from the dust under our feet only in that we happen to be better organized dust. So by learning and empathizing, which I think were Pinker's strongest arguments, we do nothing but entertain or please ourselves for the time being. We've learned about and empathized with other non-unique things, which will all be gone shortly. No one will remember it after we are gone, and entropy will continue to erode the Universe until no trace of any of it remains. That there would really be no "why" to our existence is ultimately my critique. If I can read your response to that as, you make your own purpose, I can actually see an argument for meaning. Even if you do not believe that you were made, it might be argued that you still matter uniquely to someone, even if that is yourself. You can set standards and goals for yourself and thus give yourself purpose. You can view yourself as central to the Universe as you inhabit it (or as you perceive it) and therefore as the ultimate determiner of value, which in turn gives meaning to the purpose you gave yourself. Those purposes can be empathy and learning, or whatever else you find worthy of respect. But you can only do this once you stop asking for an answer to "why" from an external source, since that external source would be an overriding source of purpose. I think that comes with some shaky moral baggage, but it's better than Pinker's argument. Any thoughts? Can you criticize my critique in the previous paragraph further? (For the record, I'm not calling you a secular humanist or claiming you agree with Pinker or implying I know your reasoning. And I don't intend for anything in that last paragraph as accusing anyone of selfishness. I just find debate with people I already agree with boring.)
  14. I can attest to having this exact dilemma all the time. Especially when I am really busy and don't have time to prepare before a gig, I know I could sound better, but using one preset is good enough, so why bother. With your idea, it wouldn't be such a bother.
  15. No...the ink is the part that causes cancer.
  • Create New...