phil_m

There’s a few things that come to mind immediately. The FX loop on the POD Go can’t be split up into two mono loop like the loops on the HXE can. There’s also no relay switching on the POD Go. Beyond that, the signal chain is more limited. On the HXE, the 9 block can be whatever you want. On the Go, only 4 of them can be used as whatever you want. The rest are semi-fixed. And I guess finally, the Go has no MIDI jacks and, therefore, no Command Center. The HXE has pretty extensive capabilities as a MIDI controller.

It does sound like you need to update the DTs' firmware. Unfortunately, you won't be able to do it through the Helix. The Helix is a MIDI over USB interface, but it won't send the Sysex commands needed for doing the DT firmware update. A dedicated MIDI to USB interface such as the M-Audio Midisport Uno is a good one that's not too expensive.

No. There’s no ability to save external sound files on the LT.

I don’t know... There’s that one Twelve Foot Ninja song where Stevic uses like 23 different Variax settings or something like that... :-)

I've never seen XLR outputs that could pull double duty like that... Seems like that would be somewhat challenging to have a jack that could be either analog or digital out.

Try running Updater again and resending the update. You can force the Helix into update mode by holding footswitches 6 and 12 while powering up. And, for the love of God, keep your computer plugged in while doing the update!

You are probably running an older version of HX Edit. Make sure you have the latest version installed.

When the Helix was developed, they used the most powerful SHARC chip available (450 MHz). There was the TigerSHARC that Axe FX II used, but that was discontinued (the whole TigerSHARC line was). So in the sense of these purpose-built chips designed specifically for processing audio, the Helix was maxing out. They could have added more parallel processors, but that gives rise to a whole other host issues, mainly heat-related. But there's also the fact that every time the signal jumps between processors, there is additional latency. There are newer 500 MHz SHARC chips available now, and they're dual core, so it would allow them to do a little more. There's still the issue of parallel processing, though.

I actually think that setting up snapshots is way more convenient than having to worry about separate presets for different sounds. The thing is that if you want to use the same amp model across different presets, it becomes a pain in the butt if you decide you want to make changes to the amp block. Then you have to go and make that change in every preset you use that amp in... I used to have to do this with previous processors, and, honestly, it was one reason I didn't use them live nearly as much as I've used my Helix. With snapshots, it very much more like you have a rig, so when you make changes within that rig, you generally just have to do it once. It has saved me so much time.

The Helix doesn't have an option to be true bypass. The HX Stomp and HX Effect can be, but that doesn't come into play in this discussion. You would only hear the analog bypass signal if you you used "Bypass All" feature while having the relevant global setting set to Analog Bypass opposed to DSP Bypass. With analog bypass, the signal bypasses the converters and processors altogether, so what you hear is the analog signal through the unit. When you change presets, the DSP is reloading, that's why there's gap. The analog bypass signal has nothing to do with that.

Yes, it's fine. The one caveat I'd give is that whenever you know phantom power will be running over a TRS connection, you'd want to turn the phantom power on after you plug the cable into the TRS jack. Otherwise, there is a risk that there could an arc when sliding the plug past the terminal inside the jack.

I think a touchscreen would make some things easier. Adding and moving blocks would probably be the primary thing. Depending how it's set up, doing stuff like copying and pasting or rearranging presets and snapshots could be faster, too. Anything involving typing would be faster, too. As far as editing parameters, I think touchscreens are almost always inferior, especially fine tuning. I will be interested to see how their rotary footswitches feel. I think they're an OK concept, but I think I'd much rather have knobs right under the screen as the closer the label is to the knob you're turning, the lower the chance of grabbing the wrong knob is. I wonder if this touchscreen will have multi-touch features, like if you hold you finger on an area for a longer time, it does something else. I could see that being useful... It's really impossible to say how any of this will actually feel without trying it for yourself. I'm going to try to look at it at NAMM, but we'll see how busy it is. From the live Q&A session they did yesterday, it doesn't sound like those units are going to be set up to actually process sound anyway.

I asked about that over on The Gear Page, and the guy from Neural replied to me and said they would have that... So I guess they'll be copying that, too... :-) Really, without something like that, I think it would be almost unusable as far as switching goes.

Actually changing the names in the software? No... There's no way to do that. There might be someone out there who's attempted to hack it, but I haven't seen any mention of it anywhere.