rzumwalt

Probably a lot cheaper, even after installing the enclosure, inputs, and power connections. When you normalize using a DAW, do you just look at the overall dB level indicated as you play and eyeball what the average is, or do you use a plugin that shows a more in-depth analysis, like which frequencies are peaking? Also, do you just sit with the guitar and play as you adjust levels? I can imagine using a prerecorded dry guitar track on a loop, running it through the Helix input, and outputting back to the DAW. I would think that would give more consistent results and be easier to work with, since you are already hooked up to the DAW in the first place.

A lot has been written here seeking a solution to the problem of balancing volume levels between presets. One solution that has been offered has been to play into a DAW and watch the output monitor. I ran across this product by TC Electronic for monitoring output levels and figured it might be a solution. I'm not sure it's possible, but it would be nice if this could be used apart from a computer and be used directly plugged into the Helix. Website: http://www.tcelectronic.com/clarity-m/ Technical details: http://www.tcelectronic.com/clarity-m/tech-specs/ It is obviously designed to work in conjunction with a DAW, but could it also work plugged into the USB output or SPDIF output of the Helix directly. My only reason for suspecting this is that Helix outputs 8 channels to a DAW and this device, in the technical specs, indicates that it can monitor individual channels. But I'm hoping someone here can say whether I'm way off or if it's a possibility. Of course, I guess one can always just use it via a DAW, but that would defeat the purpose of having a small device independent of a computer. If it doesn't work with Helix directly, does anyone know of something else that does? If not, I claim it as my intellectual property. Anyone know a good IP lawyer?

The real threat is for famous guitar players who store their nude selfies in their gear presets. I hear TMZ has a crack team trying to get their hands on John Mayer's TC Electronic Polytune.

I've actually had virtually the same problem recently. Though, I'm still trying to narrow down what is happening by trying to trigger the problem under different circumstances, it sounds like we have the same problem. What I noticed is that it only kicks in when I try to change snapshots in a "corrupted" preset. And it is the same with copies of the corrupted preset and copies made of the preset from before the firmware upgrade. I haven't figured out yet whether the effect I am seeing is triggered by moving an effect block in Editor, but I will check that out next. I will lend these observations to the community and anyone who is trying to resolve this type of issue: It only effects presets existing before the Firmware 2.21 update (the most recent one, in case my memory is off on the number), and copies of those presets. It doesn't affect all pre-existing presents, only a small percentage of them. Once the preset is corrupted, the time you press a snapshot button usually causes that snapshot to load but neither the floor pedal lights nor the led screen to change. The next time you try to press any button, nothing changes or loads. Once the preset is hung up, you also cannot change the preset. The only solution I have found is to turn the Helix off and on again, and this seems to always work, as long as you change the preset to a non-corrupt one before changing any snapshots. I have not yet attempted any type of soft reboot, assuming there is a way to do that. Other than that one issue, nothing else seems to be a problem. Other presets work fine, and the corrupted preset sounds the same, even after it hangs up. There is no instability in any of the other presets and I am comfortable playing live with it every week. I've only noticed it with presets I've built during the last few Firmware updates; and it may only be presets built under the 2.20 update, I'm not entirely certain yet. It's not super annoying, but I would be happy to see it fixed in an upcoming update, if possible.

I agree 100%. I would add that Helix has better on-stage control, unless that was included in your workflow and flexibility comments. What I would say for anyone in the position of needing an inexpensive backup rig for the Helix, I would have said HD500 before Helix LT and the announcement of Helix Native. I would still endorse HD500 as a backup if LT is still too expensive for you and playing through a laptop computer running Helix Native won't work for your purposes (the viability of which remains to be seen, of course, once it is released). I assume that, if you can't imagine running one gig through a laptop in a pinch, you aren't playing the same combination of basement dives on Saturday nights and church services for mostly elderly congregants on Sunday mornings, and you can probably just afford a second Helix outright. By the way, I'm curious whether/how many people earn enough playing music using Helix that they can write it off on their taxes? Like most, music is far from something I do for income, aside from the odd actual paying gig here and there, in which event we just earn enough to soften the blow of the band's alcohol bill for the night.

Addictive is right. Here are some of my favorite uses, in no particular order: 1. I usually loop it in right in front of the amp block. It is actually always in the mix because my Loop 1 goes to my volume pedal and SY-300. I use MIDI controls from the Helix to toggle the SY-300 bypass. 2. By far, the majority of my use is of the treble boost and the blues driver effect. I found it is nice to have that one overdrive pedal you can always hit regardless of what preset or snapshot you are in. I usually set it via MIDI as normally bypassed and use it like a stomp box. You can also program the individual effect blocks on the SY-300 to turn on and off via the right three footswitches. 3. I used to utilize the second output, I think it is the sub out, and run it to an open Loop return on the Helix. On the Boss I would send the synth to the output and the through signal to the sub out, or vice versa. then you can send both signals to different paths in the Helix and blend a normal guitar signal with a synth signal. If you put some thick reverb and delay on the synth signal, I can create a pad sound. 4. The most useful synth application for me has been an organ-type sound. But that's because the majority of my gigs are at church on Sunday mornings. Next would be pad sounds. I haven't really tried lead sounds yet outside of practicing in my bedroom. 5. You can add more dimension to any synth sound by sending it through the octo reverb. 6. I have a couple presets dedicated to the SY-300, but I find the most useful is to have a snapshot set up to send a program change MIDI signal to the unit to turn on a synth preset (as opposed to one used for stompboxes) and turn off the amp and cab blocks in the Helix. 7. I haven't really had a problem where I've run out of DSP power on the Helix and wanted another delay or reverb, but I've experimented with using the SY-300 reverbs and delays in case I needed to save Helix DSP. I'm sure I could think of a few more, I'll try to remember to edit this post if I do.

Now that you mention it, it was the front input, not the Effect Send, where I inserted the disconnected cable. +1 you. I had the same issue with lack of clarity, boominess, etc. The first thing is to make sure you are using a preamp block in the Helix rather than an amp block. Otherwise your signal going through the modeled preamp, modeled power amp, and then your physical power amp. I would think that should take care of 99% of it. How you EQ from there is up to personal preference. Personally, I would try to handle it entirely in the preamp block's tone controls if possible. If that wasn't enough, I would use an EQ block. I would not use global EQ for this because I might want to set up other presets that don't use the amp at all, and I would have to remember to turn the global EQ on and off depending on the context. Edit: Also see HonestOpinion's comments above. The level of the signal you are sending to your amp is vital to how it reacts.

Well then, I guess ignore everything I just said. Thanks for the info, I prefer being an informed blowhard to being an ignorant one.

I once had silence like in your first arrangement: Helix 1/4 out to Effects Return of Amp. The solution was simply to plug one end of an unused 1/4 cable into the Effects Send of the Amp. For whatever reason, the Effect Return was disabled whenever the Effect Send was not plugged in. I don't know whether I was causing any damage or potential electrocution hazard though, so no promises as to the safety of it. It was a different amp than yours, but they might have the same automatic Effect Return disabling function.

I immediately had the same thought about the send/return loops. I have a TS9 in Loop 2 and a reberb in loop 3. I very often have one or the other or both in parallel with a direct signal that doesn't use a loop. Even with just 9 ms delay, there would be noticeable phasing or flanging at least. One very subtle setting on the reverb I sometimes use is almost unnoticeable. On that setting, I would probably hear this. I've also recorded to a DAW using the final signal going through 2 loops out of USB channel 1 and the dry direct signal through USB line 7. This would have been an 18 ms delay, and I definitely would have noticed that, as there are double trackers that use less delay. I wonder if the OP's equipment has a delay in the "send" instruction for the original source audio. I would be interested if he could attempt this with some sort of compensation.

Ha. Easy to lose perspective. For the record, I don't have a problem with the headphones I use. If I did, I would be looking for a passive solution solely for the simplicity, provided it worked.

I was thinking of something passive, like a length of cable with a resistor embedded in it. Would this do the trick: https://www.amazon.com/Koss-155954-VC20-Volume-Control/dp/B00001P4XH

Does anyone know whether there is any type of in-line device that can be plugged in between the Helix and headphones that would add impedance, and, if so, whether this might make a pair of low impedance headphones work better with Helix?

Ha, this just became my new farewell at parties.

Ha. Yeah, that's why I keep telling myself not to read this site, I always end up wanting to spend money I don't have.

That's what I would think as well. OP did say other guitarists in the audience also commented on it. Even if he went from Helix with a cab model direct to FOH, I'd be curious whether the live cab next to him on stage helped his performance. About the only drawback I've found with using a PA speaker has been that it's a bit more difficult to produce good feedback sustain. I suspect it's a combination of the speaker being lower to the ground and the unique directionality of PA speakers versus cabinets. This coincides with a discussion here: http://line6.com/support/topic/21957-amp-in-the-room-setting/page-3

Yeah. As I always say, why fix something when you can make it more complicated instead? Since I'm utterly ignorant on how MIDI clock works, I'm wondering if that actually is a solution. Has anybody who uses MIDI clock tried it?

Headphones in mine sound good enough. They still sound like headphones, of course. Are you sure yours doesn't have a defective headphone jack? Do you have access to another Helix or to a Guitar Center where they will let you plug into one with your headphones and see if they sound the same? I don't hear any high pitched fuzz through mine; then again, I could just be deaf above 10 Khz.

Cool. Was it miced, direct to FOH, or just stage sound?

Of course. I meant specifically for OP's immediate problem.

I'm in agreement. Truth be told, I do not prefer playing through a tube amp over most modelers I've ever used, and I prefer using a powered speaker to a cabinet. I started using modelers pretty quickly after I switched from acoustic to electric guitar, so I guess I never got used to playing through a traditional tube amp, at least not an expensive one. What I've been curious about since before even the Helix was whether someone would ever come up with an amplifier model that is not based on a tube amp, or anything else that has been used to amplify guitars in the past. Or anything that actually exists for that matter. I don't know what this theoretical amp might look like, but I'd like to see someone smarter than me explore the idea.

I thought it might have been you who made that comment about sound radiation. Your point about frequency distribution is interesting. I can't think of any way a modeler could somehow create a signal that would cause a PA to suddenly distribute frequencies in a different way than it was designed to do. If we absolutely want an amp-in-the-room sound we need to plug the Helix into a powered cabinet. Based on everyone's ideas, it sounds like we can recreate the resonance and time-based artifacts of amp-in-the-room sound, but not the frequency distribution (I'm sure I'm over-simplifying, though). So I wouldn't call it a fool's errand to try to get those time-based sounds, but absolute reproduction of amp-in-the-room with a PA not designed to do so must be impossible.

Conceded. OP's point is good, regardless of whether "backwards compatibility" is the right frame of reference. Just speaking in general terms, when cool new features like snapshots get added, it is IMHO ideal when a valued feature that existed prior to the new feature is still available, and where applicable, can still be used with the new feature. The "where applicable" is the big caveat. Sometimes an evolutionary feature like "snapshots" is going to change the playing field and an old feature may be replaced with something better, or not coexist or make sense with the new paradigm. That does not appear to be the case here though. It would seem that instant commands could be allowed to be sent either on preset change, snapshot change, or both, such that a user can take advantage of the new snapshot functionality and still have the ability to send a command only on preset change. I don't disagree, but do want to comment here out of a purely selfish fear of losing a capability that I love if changes were to be made. It sounds like some view preset selection as the MIDI event, and everything within the preset as working within that MIDI environment, so to speak. And so they feel that an original feature of presets was that they provided stable MIDI environments (there must be a better word for this). I've always thought about this more like selecting the preset and selecting Snapshot 1 were the same thing, so I feel that original present feature set was it's opportunity to send MIDI. So I don't see any feature as being lost, but I can understand how others would. It's a little bit like "what's the sound of one hand clapping?" Solution Idea I may have just thought of a solution to OP's issue. It depends on whether you can turn a MIDI send command on in one snapshot, but all the way off in another snapshot within the same preset. If so, set snapshot 1 how you normally would, with MIDI and everything. Make an identical copy of snapshot 1 in Snapshot 2 but turn off the MIDI send commands, make snapshots 3-8 all without MIDI send commands. You would enter the preset at Snapshot 1 and be able to return to the identical settings in Snapshot 2 without sending a MIDI command. Or, if you set up like I do with four stomps and four snapshots, save the preset so that it starts on Snapshot 5, and make your identical-except-for-MIDI snapshot at Snapshot 1. that way, you'll still have four different snapshots to select from the default view without initiating a MIDI command. I don't know whether it would work, but I'd be interested to find out.

Is it that the "amp in the room" experience is a combination of both hearing and feeling the sound pressure from the speaker? Part of the fun of a live concert is the visceral feeling of the sound hitting you in the chest. On many occasions I've A-B'd a subtle effect like a compressor or an EQ and felt like it definitely sounded better one way, only to realize the only difference was a little extra volume. On embarrassingly many occasions, I thought the same thing when the effect I thought sounded so good wasn't even in the actual chain, and the mere belief that it was made me think one of the two identical sounds was better than the other. But if a simple boost in volume, or even a mere belief, can seem to make a sound seem better, especially once it starts thumping you in the chest, can't we be experiencing the same thing from the way speaker cabinets hit us? I recall a recent post from someone answering a question about P/A style FRFR vs cabinet style FRFR powered speakers, and they pointed out that PA's are intended to send an even signal across a wide horizontal area but in a narrow vertical area, i.e., the front of an audience, while a cabinet is meant more to punch straight forward (or was it evenly in all directions?). My assumption, and I think what commentators like PeterHamm and others are saying is that a cabinet physically sends sound pressure waves into a space that your ear hears and feels in a certain way, while a PA speaker is literally designed not to do this, but to send the sound to your ear in a different way and with a different feel. You couldn't EQ or IR the Helix to change the physical properties of the PA speaker to make air move in a way it was not designed to do. Sorry to add another unfortunate metaphor to the mix, but I'd say it's like having a flashlight and you want it to spread light all around the room like a lantern. So you go out and buy the exact light bulb they put in lanterns, use the same voltage batteries, install the same on-off switch, and replace the lens with the same material as the lantern is made from. But if you are still shining it through a flashlight, you might get the same color light and brightness, but it's still going to just shine a circle on your wall rather than evenly around the room, and look significantly different to your eyes, or as my grandfather called them, your "looking ears."

First, this can't be construed as a backward compatibility failure. If you continue to use the Helix the same as you did before the snapshots, it has the same effect on MIDI. There is now a new feature, and you are free to use it if it works for you. I don't play bass, and it would screw up my tone if I inserted one of the new bass amp models into my presets. The new feature doesn't work for me, but that doesn't mean it isn't backward compatible. Bass amps just weren't meant for guitar. I know it's a bit different given how much an improvement snapshots are, but it isn't accurate to say that, since this new optional feature doesn't perform in a particular way, it isn't backward compatible. Second, isn't this how snapshots actually work? I recall a firmware note saying that Helix doesn't send a MIDI message between snapshots if the new snapshot has the same MIDI message, and I've in fact found this to be true, for all of my purposes, at least. Does MIDI clock work differently? Finally, I suppose they could do this, and, if so, it wouldn't be a bad idea. Just don't remove the current ability to send MIDI signals between snapshots when we want to.