Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About nhoven

  • Rank
    Just Startin'

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Registered Products

Recent Profile Visitors

448 profile views
  1. I've opened a support ticket about that CC toggle bug almost two years ago. Got closed with "we'll get back on that". If I was a cynic I would say someting like "shows how much Line 6 care about users interfacing with non-L6 gear"... at least the EXT control doesn't do the inverting thing like the CC toggle.
  2. It's still a useless, broken, buggy design. No sugarcoating around that. Might sound harsh, but that's the truth as I (and probably others battling with those kinds of issues controling external amps battle with) see it. If you want it the way it is now, remove the ability to change the contact state between snapshots. This is inconsistent and spells out trouble for the user.
  3. Well then it's a broken design. Call it a kitchen appliance if you will... still something that needs fixing. In the context of the "discard snapshot edit" this is totally broken. If I set my Helix to discard I expect it to recall the snapshot as it was saved, including the states of external controls. Honestly, there isn't a single use case I can imagine that would require JUST the ext amp to behave differently from everything else. The LED turning off but the switch contact not following is a dead giveaway that this can't be the intended behaviour.
  4. FWIW, not considering this a bug would be very ignorant towards the people using the Helix with an external amp. One could argue that it's not very logical that the external control commands behave different from internal bypass states. If I assign a footswitch to an FX block and save it as "off" in two snapshots, the bypass state of the block correctly turns off if I engage it manually between snapshot changes (I use the Helix in the same way with snapshot edits to discard). Everybody and his mother would call it a bug if the block bypass state would behave like it does on the EXT controls. I really wish Line 6 would be taking bugs interfacing with external gear much more seriously - see the desaster with CC toggles, which is a two year old bug. I work my way around the EXT switching issue by never never ever ever touching the EXT AMP state between snapshot, but this really sucks.
  5. Well, let's agree to disagree :). I didn't mean to start an argument or something. I can't back this up with measurements, but with my Helix unit and my amps, I can hear a clear difference in the noise level between the two output types (I bypass the volume knob). I wouldn't be surprised if this was subject to variation from unit to unit - with a S/N ratio in the 140 dB range I'd say there's room for a variance of a few dB. Not to forget, with an amplifier where the gain stages usually have a ยต of 80 to 100 every dB difference in noise will be audible. I just wanted to offer another way of doing it. I also do the 4CM thing different from the templates because my amps' loops operate a line level and it makes more sense to me to use the ins and outs as I described above.
  6. Sorry to repeat myself here, but that's not always true. In front of a high gain tube amp there can be a noticable difference. It's not huge, but you can hear it. Both the main outs and the sends have pretty low noise floor (and there's no audible difference) in front of a clean amp or a FRFR rig, but with some high gain tube amps both output types can exibit quite some hiss, and the main outs do that just this little noticable bit less.
  7. A few more details: Matching the loops is only neccessary if you want to use an FX loop block. There are possible reasons not to do so; for example if your amp's FX loop operates at line level it would make sense to use e.g. send 1 set to intrument level to feed the amp's input and to use return 2 set to line level to receive the signal from the amp's send. Be aware you'd have to use the single send/return blocks instead of the FX loop blocks, and that there's a chance you're wasting (in the above case) return 1 and send 2. I'm using a setup different from the provided 4CM templates, because I found it to be less noisy: I use path 1 as pre-amp path, set the output of path 1 to be the 1/4" jacks set to instrument level. The amp's send goes to receive 1 (set to line) which is fed into path 2, which is my post-amp path. The output of path 2 is sent send 1 feeding the amp's return. You cannot switch between the amp's preamp and a modeled one on the fly within a preset with that setup, but especially with (my) high gain amps I'm getting a little less noise. I've found the fx loop's send to be quite a bit noisier before a high gain amp than the 1/4" outs and I never ever use modelled amps.
  8. To offer another perspective: From a performer's and pedal lover's point of view I disagree. My Helix serves pretty much als a big pedalboard for my tube amps, having replaced a 12HE rack with loads of pedals, two TC 19" units and a midi looper/switcher - I don't use any amp modeling or speaker simulation. Never. For someone who wants six pedals to start with the HXFX might be too small too soon - it is limited to a maximum of 9 DSP blocks, and in the worst case that would include the FX loop for the 4CM, right? Also (and that's the performer's view) the HXFX might have too few footswitches if you want to use it in stomp mode and want/need to control a multichannel amp as well as the effects. Also for me the 4 stomp / 4 snapshots mode is the best marriage between controlling stomps and playing preset (or in this case snapshot) based. The Helix offers enough DSP power to be a really nice, big pedalboard, and enough stomp switches to enjoy that, too. Things you need to consider before you "settle" for the HXFX. Getting the Helix is not wasting money just because you don't use the amp modeling. It's much more than "just" amp modeling and well worth it for the other stuff.
  9. I've made the same experience with my tube amps - the sends of the Helix are very (VERY) noisy. Using a second Helix loop with a gainy pedal only makes things worse, as there's two noisy sends being amplified by two gainy amplification stages. There's really not much you can do. I made the 4CM work well enough for me by not following the standard 4CM method (Helix send to amp input, receive send from amp to Helix return, Helix output to amp return). I'm using the main output (I use the output of path 1B) of the Helix to feed my amp's input, feed the amp's send into path 2A via a Helix return, and output path 2B to the amp's return via Helix send. As I'm using the path ins and outs I don't need to "waste" DSP path space with send and return blocks. The main output is a little less noisy than the sends, but using the high gain channel of my amp is only tolerable for me by paring it with a noise gate after the amp's preamp (which is totally not neccessary without the Helix). The downside is loosing the ability to switch between the tube preamp and a Helix preamp on the fly (within a preset). As for dealing with the noise, there's not much to choose from: You can always ditch the Tentacle for the Helix Octave Fuzz. Of course the sound is different; not too bad, but a less pronounced octave effect - I used a Foxx Tone Machine before moveing to the Helix (which had a much more pronounced bite) and am actually considering putting it back in a loop. If using the Helix Octave Fuzz is no option, you can only live with the noise or add a noise gate. I don't see any other choice. Hope this helps.
  10. Well obviously it misses quite a few changes. My opinion: That's bad design that is bound to lead into issues like the one I demonstrated above. I can see the need to prevent duplicate sends, but make that toggle-able like the PCs (apart from making sure that the states stay consistent). And, if you want to prevent duplicate sends, make sure you catch every case. You have to admit: My scenarios above aren't that uncommon and complicated that they can be tossed aside as exceptions.
  11. Hi Phil, thanks for actually checking things out. I've revisited the problem too. Please take a look at my attached preset, It contains three CC toggles that control my 3-channel amp. It uses CC91 to toggle to the crunch channel, CC92 to toggle to the lead channel and CC90 to toggle between the two master volumes. I've setup four snapshots for Clean, Crunch, Lead, and Lead plus 2nd Master, my Helix is set up to show 4 stomps on the top row and 4 snaps on the bottom row, snapshot edits are set to discard. Everything works as long as you don't touch the CC Toggles between recalling snapshots. Also, recalling a modified snapshot doesn't work. Pleased follow these steps: Scenario 1: Messed up CC toggles - load the preset - recall snapshot 2 / Crunch: CC 91/127 is sent - activate 92 Lead and 90 Master: 92/127 and 90/127 are sent, both LEDs are turned on - recall snapshot 1 / Clean: only 91/0 is sent, but all CC Toggle LEDs are turned off. Helix should have sent 90/0, 91/0, 92/0 - activate 92 Lead: 92/0 is sent, LED is turned on - deactivate 92 Lead: 92/127 is sent, LED is turned off - The polarity of the CC Toggle is now flipped. Scenario 2: Recalling a snapshot - load preset - recall snapshot 2 / Crunch: 91/127 is sent - turn off 91 Crunch, turn on 92 Lead, turn on 90 Master: 91/0, 92/127, 90/127 is sent - again recall snapshot 2 / Crunch: The LEDs are reset, no CCs are sent What Helix SHOULD do: send every saved CC value on every snapshot change. As it looks now, it tries to look what was changed and tries to undo that, but obviously it misses a few things. My opinion: Don't try to be clever, do what works. It's not so much data. I've built and programmed my own midi floor controller (which I've been using on the road for a few years) that extensively uses CC toggles to control various states in my rack; it sends up to 32 different CCs and 16 different PCs with every preset recall, and I've yet to see any loss of data or latency due to sending too much data. Really. Don't be clever, be thorough. I hope this helps to clear up the issue. CC Toggle2.hlx
  12. While I agree that the support is great for the most part, you can hardly call this bug slipped. I filed a ticket for this in November 2017, and the bug was acknowledged (with a three week delay after I filed the ticket, I might add). In my ticket I was promised a "quick fix" since 2.40. Didn't happen. Fwiw, it took me about 20 minutes after I unboxed my Helix to discover this bug. Q&A should have caught that easily. Leaves kind of a foul taste, because this bug really is a deal breaker as far as using external gear is concerned. Makes me wonder if they really only care to look good to the "more more more" users, the "how many amps and pedals" stastistics and those who stay within the L6 eco system... that's my tinfoil hat theory anyway.
  13. No, it doesn't. Yes, you can assign CC toggles to footswitches, but they are not recalled correctly (or sometimes at all) when recalling snapshots. Also, the lit and unlit values (usually 127 and 0) get mixed up, and sometimes I've even seen bogus values like 4 or 6 being sent. It's a total mess and completely broken.
  14. Hi folks, ich got back to working on this as by band is on a short break for three weeks. I tried the Helix with the different kind of 4CM-setup I mentioned earlier - using the main out (instrument level) as the output to the amp, feeding the send from the amp's FX loop into a Helix return and passing it back to the amp's return via a Helix send (isolating the send and return with an iso transformer). I set up a pedalboard preset feeding path 1A into 1B and outputing to the 1/4", set the return as input to path 2A, feed into 2B and outputing that to the send. So I have path 1 as the pre FX path and path 2 as the post FX path with 16 slots for FX each, which is ample. I ran out of footswitches before I ran out of DSP :) . Works pretty much as I expected, noise level is quite a bit better than using the officially suggested way feeding the amp input through a send. With the high gain channel, there's still a noteable amount of noise added compared to plugging straight in, so I will have to result in adding a noise gate block after the return, I think; I'll have to test that out at band volume. With that setup, I loose the easy ability to switch the amp's preamp for a modeled one via snapshots or footswitches. Will have to think about if I can get that to work, but that's not my primary use case anyway. If needed, I might have to do that on a per-preset basis rather than snapshots. I also loose the ability to control the master volume with the big knob, but that I can live with because I bypassed it anyway. So maybe I'll get this to work after all. My summary to all this: There's been some really crappy hardware choices on the "flagship" device, the noisy as hell sends being one, not using relays for the external amp control being another. I don't get it. I mean, I do, clearly using external gear (especially real amps) obviously wasn't the focus for the Helix, but why offer a plethora of connectivity and then f*** it up with crappy hardware? This is an expensive unit; maybe I'm alone, but I would not have cared if the Helix would have been a few bucks more expensive in trade for relay switching and less noise in the analog circuitry.
  15. I've tried the legacy one, it sounds marginally better but it's suffering from the same tracking problems. Also, putting the harmony before the amp really is no solution unless you go for a specific effect - I do that with octaver effects and static pitch shifts IF I am going for that intermodulation-ghost-note-effect. If you're going for harmony there is no other way than after the preamp. If I remember correctly, the GSP1101 had a smart solution for that, it could track the input signal at the input while having the processing later in the chain. Also, both the legacy version and the normal harmony block don't really show any difference in tracking behaviour, at least not when I'm playing it.
  • Create New...