rzumwalt

Same here.

Thanks for the input, all. Arislaf, I can't wait to get my Helix back to try those combinations out. Didn't think about using the Vox preamp models or the Supro amp for this. I'd love to hear from anyone else who thinks of past combos they've mentioned or experiments with new ones.

I've been using the Big Sky in the effect loop for about a year. I generally use it for the bigger reverb sounds and use Helix's for the less pronounced default reverb sounds. I like it a lot that way, but I barely use the global EQ, if ever. However, from what I've read on this forum from some of the wiser guys, you should only be using the global EQ ("GEQ") to make minor adjustments to compensate for the room, not as a core tone-shaping tool. You would apply those within the patch itself. As for a workaround, I almost always put the Big Sky loop near the end of the chain, definitely after the cabinets and EQs; I usually do all of my high cut at the cabinet and this seems to work fine with the reverb loop few blocks down the chain from that. If you still need to use the GEQ, my advice would be to get your sound as close as you can with the GEQ completely bypassed, then set the GEQ with the Big Sky turned on so that it sounds good with it. If there's still too much high, go back to the cabinet models or EQs in your patch and try to accomplish it there. But I know what you mean, some of the Big Sky reverbs are so lush they're practically poetic. Stomping all over that sound with a high cut filter would be like telling Van Gogh he can't use blue. Regardless of how you use it, in a loop or from the main output, you should have no trouble also having a cabinet or IR block in your patch. if the volume coming from your main output to the Big Sky isn't right, I believe you can switch the output between mic and line levels, but don't quote me on that. You shouldn't need to use it's cab simulator, for the same reasons.

Good points. Just as long as you don't capitalize the "s."

All I can add is that I use them about 30% of the time and cabs the other 70%. It's completely based on what sounds best in any given setup or for any given purpose. One other thing: an advantage IR's have over cabs is that you can set the IR selection via snapshots and switch between different modeled cabinets, whereas you can only change cab block parameters with snapshots, not the cabinets themselves. Oh, and thanks for using an apostrophe and lower case "s" for the plural of IR, I had like seven mini-heart attacks earlier this week when I kept seeing a thread someone opened using "IRS" instead of "IR's" in the title. I couldn't help thinking that I didn't remember whether I already sent in a filing extension. Let's all agree that the plural of "IR" is "IR's."

I know what you mean about keeping the distortion elements down. My approach may have been the wrong way around, then. Instead of the highest gain Marshall preamp into a high headroom Hiwatt, maybe I should try a lower gain Marshall (or non-Marshall) preamp and whatever amp sounds best? Right...or electrocute yourself. I did however have to suppress an irrational fear that I was going to see smoke coming from under the Helix because I somehow managed to fry a completely digital amplifier. But that's my own issue. Agreed, it's completely unnecessary except maybe when trying to emulate a hard to find sound, as in the thread to which Rocco_Crocco linked up at #5. But it's nice to know I'm not the only one who spends otherwise indefensible amounts of time going, "what if I put this over here...?"

You could do that. You could also set up the foot switches to display four snapshots and four pedals (don't worry, you'll still have access the other four snapshots if you need them). Among the four pedals, you could turn on and off the different effects, independent of the snapshots. But you listed five effects, and I mentioned four pedals. You can assign two effects to one pedal. For example, if your POG and fuzz are on different paths, the same footswitch could work for both and it would never interfere.

I couldn't find anything on this by searching the forum, but has anyone tried using a preamp block as if it were an overdrive/distortion block. I got the idea from seeing the number of overdrive pedals being marketed as being a "Marshall in a box," and I expect they are modeled on the preamps of Marshall amps. If that makes a good overdrive, then maybe a model of an actual preamp would work similarly. An obvious downside is how much more DSP a preamp block requires over an overdrive block. But assume we have DSP to spare for this preset. I tried this using the Brit 2204 preamp into the WhoWatt amp/cab. My thinking was, the 2204 gives a lot of gain, and the WhoWatt seems to have a lot of headroom to accomodate a strong signal, but still accepts overdriven signals well. The result was acceptable, but I had to turn the treble on the 2204 preamp all the way down, and the bass most of the way up to get something like the sound I was expecting. I should have tried it with less gain-heavy preamps, but I don't have my Helix with me at the moment. I have a couple questions: 1. Does anyone know whether the preamp blocks actually send a "louder" signal than an overdrive block? (For that matter, do physical preamps send higher amplitude signals than physical overdrive pedals?) 2. Do the "amp in a box" pedals attempt to model just the preamp stage, or do they attempt to also model the power amp, just at a low amplitude? 3. Has anyone else tried this and, if so, what combinations worked?

The economist in me has to agree. The law of diminishing returns kicks in here. The benefit you get from your second Helix, is going to be a lot less than you got from your first Helix. I would expect that 95% of the time, Helix 2 would only be adding an extra chorus or delay to the mix. That's an expensive external delay pedal. And I assume, if you work for Line 6, you can get a couple of those things to take with you as long as you promise to impress audiences of potential customers. But that's not to denigrate the OP. It's still a really cool concept.

Yeah, but how are you going to get that satisfying metallic "clunk clunk" without the joystick? I can't go back to lesser buttons that go "click click" or worse, "erf erf" when they've lost all clicking power. Just kidding, it annoys the crap out of me as well. Many late night editing binges have unceremoniously ended with me dropping to my knees Platoon style and crying out, "I'm ruined...RUINED...!"

You can easily do this, you could have two separate chains: -- [input path 1] > effects, etc. > [s/R 1 POG] > [output path 1] -- [input path 2] > effects, etc > [s/R 2 C9] > [output path 2] To do what you are wanting to do, I would assign a footswitch to toggle output path 1 and 2 so you can switch between them (or an effect pedal to fade between them). Then assign S/R 1 and S/R 2 to separate footswitches. You could also do 3 separate paths, but I've never done it. You wouldn't have a single footswitch to toggle between the paths, but you could assign each to a different snapshot. But yeah, you just need to sit down with it for an afternoon, and you'll figure it out.

I think the main volume knob works a little differently since the 2.20 update. If you ordinarily set it to the same level, you could be sending less volume out without knowing it. Another pure spitball.

There are multiple ways of doing it; FlyingsCool gave you the easiest way to do it for most circumstances. But it sounds like you are thinking of the Send/Return block as a separate Send block and Return block, rather than one block that handles both the Send and Return. (You can choose to split into use two separate Send and Return blocks, but ignore that for now.) When S/R block is off, the effect is bypassed; when it is on, the effect is looped into your signal chain wherever the block is positioned. That is, it both leaves and returns to the same place in your signal chain. I could be reading it wrong, but it sounds like you are thinking you would program just the Send block but not the return block, thus sending your signal to nowhere and bypassing the Helix entirely. The easiest way to do it is probably to program your Helix signal chain something like: [EQ] > [Tremolo] > [Fuzz] > [bit Crusher] > [s/R 1 (POG 2)] > [s/R 2 (C9​)] > [Delay] > [Amp model or out to your amp] You could turn off EQ, Bit Crusher, and S/R 2 and you would have your current Channel A. Turn those back on and everything else off, and you would have your current Channel C. There are probably a dozen different ways you could do it; but ultimately, you will plug into the Helix, ignore everything I or anyone else has told you, and intuitively set it up however you like and get something like your current setup in about 10 minutes. It's easier than you think.

Yeah, that's a heck of rig. I'm curious about how you lug all that around and set it up from gig to gig. Did you consider getting the Helix Rack? Have you considered moving a lot of your equipment to a rack or pedalboard of some sort? I struggle with the tension between adding more gear and the complexity of setting it up and breaking it down before and after gigs. Or maybe you're just a lot less lazy than me.

Ha ha, perfect. Too bad there aren't any effects called "modestly ahead of schedules."

Nice. Great tip.

For me, it seems only to happen with certain patches. I haven't looked at it too rigorously, but I suspect it has something to do with the patch having been built under an older firmware. I deleted the last patch it happened with and it hasn't happened in a couple weeks.

Right...that...If I followed that advice, I'd have to just mute my signal altogether.

I seem to recall a post by DI in which he pulled some code and found that the Cab block hi-cut was half as steep as the IR block hi-cut, or the other way around. Does anybody remember that? I can't remember when it was, but it would be right on point, except I can't remember whether it was the Cab block or the IR block that he said was steeper.

The mono version above describes my setup very well. I get very good results for my purposes. I would only add that I roll off a fair deal of the highs above 5K because, for the most part they only contribute to noise and not to the guitar tone. I use the JBL EON 10", which has onboard EQ, I'm not sure whether the Yamaha does, but hopefully this will be helpful to you as well. I basically rolled off highs until it affected my tone, and then kept it just a hair above that. To the extent I don't need the highs to make my signal sound right, reducing highs just helps get rid of the unwanted noise. But also pay attention to PeterHamm's suggestion not to fix global EQ but fix it in the patch. What I described was to make the PA speaker sound as good as possible. That doesn't mean it will make each patch sound as good as possible, and it does nothing for the signal going to FOH.

It's not my intent to be critical here, it's just my nature, so I apologize in advance if this comes off as mean spirited. Your points 1, 2, and 5 are fine, but I have issues with your points 3 and 4. To your point 3, the comments by others on this forum have been geared toward helping solve the problem you described, they weren't asking you to justify said problem. I've seen these guys (and girls) try to help people all the time for years now. I've seen them use the methods they are using on this thread and successfully resolve people's issues. That being said, consider the fact that your comments on this thread ultimately convey the statement that the Helix, a product a company has heavily invested in and is actively marketing, is essentially unusable to anyone with a particularly good set of ears. If this statement were untrue, it would be considered libel (or slander if you prefer, and I'm assuming you are in the United States). Now, I'm sure nobody is going to sue you, I've never heard of Line 6 doing that over user comments. But the reason we have slander laws is that, although we are guaranteed free speech here, we are not guaranteed a right to utter speech that damages others. In this case, it would be speech that a flagship product is unusable for the purpose for which it is marketed on a forum visited by people trying to decide whether they want to purchase it. Why this is potentially damaging should be obvious. So, while no one is actually asking you to do so, a strong argument could be made that you do need to justify such comments from a moral, if not legal, standpoint. As to point 4, it isn't clear why the fact that you say the same thing happens on your POD HD500 is a reason you decided not to post samples of what is going on, but the only reasonable interpretation I can make of it is that you feel that Line 6's entire amp modeling platform is fundamentally flawed. If that is not what you mean, it is at least the implication I would guess most people will take from it. That said, my response to your point 4 is essentially the same from here on out as my response to point 3, except that this comment tends to malign an entire product line, which is the core of Line 6's business. Lastly, you've peaked all of our curiosity. We want to know whether this is a faulty unit, whether you are using a particular piece of hardware we should avoid, or, frankly, whether you're just trolling us. And if I ever have a problem with my Helix, I would love to get half the offers of help you received from these guys. You have no moral imperative or obligation in this regard, I'm just very curious is all.

XLR mono to FOH and 1/4" mono to channel 1 of powered monitor (JBL 610 EON). Then FOH sends monitor signal (full band, including my signal) back to me via XLR to DI to 1/4" and into channel 2 of my powered monitor. I fiddle with the balance between channel 1 and 2 on the monitor to suit how much of my own signal I want to hear. I actually keep the master volume relatively low compared to others who have commented. The above-described setup is for when I play at church, and I think I started doing it because, at first, every week I got complaints that the sound guy put me too low in the mix, so I purposely set it low for rehearsal knowing I would push it up during the service. Since then, he's started setting me higher in the mix from the start and I just stayed with the lower volume setting (I know, it's bad for signal-to-noise ratio purposes). The upside is that I have more control over how much of myself I get to hear. The downside is the sound guy has less control over stage volume. I guess I'm just selfish, but I'm fine with that tradeoff.

I use Dunlop's expression/volume pedal (Volume X, I think it's called). I had to make the TRS -> TS cable like people have mentioned above. I like the adjustable resistance, its durable, and it hasn't given me any trouble. The only downside I've found is that the rubber base resists adhering to velcrow strips. I've tried a number of ways of fastening it to my pedalboard. Right now I'm using two of the housing screws on the bottom to screw it onto a pedal riser I repurposed from some abs plastic box I picked up at Home Depot.

Would a short in the XLR cause a dropout in all of the Helix's other outputs as well? Is it maybe a circuit protection measure? If it was a short I could understand a dropout due to some temporary overload to the Helix, but in this case the Helix didn't show any signs of having any problem other than the very brief dropout across all outputs. I.e., it didn't restart, become unresponsive, or sound any different once the signal came back. This may just need to be chalked up to, "hey...that was weird."

I experienced a brief drop out in my signal the other day that was a little curious. I was running XLR mono out to the house sound board and 1/4" out to a powered monitor. (The monitor has two channels, one the 1/4" directly from my Helix and the other is the house monitor channel mix back to me via XLR converted to 1/4" through a DI box, in case that matters.) My guitar signal through the monitor is about 50% the house signal and 50% my direct 1/4" out. During rehearsal a band member tripped on my XLR out to house, which didn't unplug it from the Helix, but briefly interrupted the connection. The surprising thing was that my entire signal dropped out for maybe a little less than a second. Even from my direct 1/4" to the monitor, not just the XLR that was bumped. I'm curious whether this was an indication of any permanent damage to the Helix, but I think the chances of that are low because it's been about a week and I haven't noticed any change in performance. My real question is what was going on that caused the drop out. I do have a theory. I notice that unplugging the XLR with the house channel live doesn't create much of a pop like you'd expect unplugging an analog device, or any other equipment, really. It is possible the Helix is designed with a sensor on the XLR out so that it automatically mutes the port briefly when it is unplugged in order to avoid the characteristic popping and protect everyone's gear. My theory is that it mutes the entire output, or at least the XLR and 1/" outputs, to accomplish this protection. I'm curious whether anyone has any inside knowledge or other theories. Thanks.