phil_m

Did you try multiple channels on the board, and/or have you tried it with any other mixers? Been using my Helix at church for quite a while now with the XLR out and haven't had any issues.

And you probably have that long of a wait on the wait list for the AX8...

The effects with parameters that don't have labels were modeled after effects where those knobs don't scale in a linear way. The Phase 90, for instance, just has a knob that goes from 0-10 without having labels for the actual values. I imagine that there was enough variance in those old analogue circuits, that trying to label the knob with Hz values would have been kind of fruitless. I guess Line 6 could figure it out and change label, but I guess they're trying to model the actual control in this case.

I don't really see them as workarounds. It's just giving you different options to do things. We've been down this path before. Have you actually tried my suggestions? They will work. Even if Line 6 decides to implement your idea, it's going to be awhile. What I'm offering you as solutions will work now. I'm not so sure why it seems to antagonize you so much.

If you want to want switch paths using the split block and still maximize DSP usage for both paths, you can have the A/B split in Path 1 and then set the output of path 1A to feed 2A and 1B feed 2B. This will allow you to have blocks spanning both processors. The other way to do it without an actual split block is to just have paths 1 and 2 separate and control the channel volume parameter in each amp block with a footswitch.

The FX100 doesn't have MIDI ports. It has a USB port, and right now the only functionality associated with that is firmware updates and USB audio.

My opinion won't convince skeptics, but I didn't feel that the AX8 really had anything over the Helix from a sound quality perspective. I did like the reverbs on the AX8, but not enough to make me want to keep it. The amp modeling was fine, but again it wasn't like anything that I felt that I couldn't get with the Helix. I guess I feel that if you have over 200 amps to choose from, it just gives you a lot of choices that end up being very close to one another. The one thing I really don't like about the AX8 is that you are stuck with using one of the processors for amp and cab modeling and the other for effects. So if you're looking to use it for effects only, you're stuck with using only half of the processing power. And it doesn't really take a ton of effects to eat up all the DSP, especially if you're using a high quality reverb and delay. The Fractal grid layout gives you a potential of 48 slots, but it's kind of a false sense of flexibility, as you won't come close to filling those up. I suppose you could say the Helix kind of does that, too, but at with the Helix, if you want to create an effects only patch, you can use it to its full capability.

Not trying to minimize your concern, but responding to your statement, "tell me this is normal and acceptable for a $1500 product", I guess what I'd say is that the gaps in your video would not be an issue for me. I can't imagine a situation where I'd ever be changing patches while a chord was ringing out like that.

I don't think Line 6 doesn't believe it's an issue, at least for some users. They aren't clueless. I think, though, that all DI is saying in this thread is that this is the way it is right now, and if the workaround don't work for you, well, what is there to say? They can't publicly discuss future plans, so all they can talk about is the fact as they stand. When someone starts a thread claiming the gap between presets is 4X as long as it actually is, I think it's worth refuting it with the actual, measurable values. There's quite a big difference between 120ms and 500ms (500ms would be half a measure at 120 BPM, for instance, and yes anyone would notice that sort of gap). The fact is that all current modelers have this issue in one way or another. Some offer limited spillover under certain configuration between patch changes, but there's still a gap between the time you hit the footswitch to change patches and when the new preset is loaded. From what I hear the Kemper is probably the shortest, but that makes sense since the signal chains it allows are very simple compared to other modelers. The Axe FX offers scenes, and that may work for some users, but it's not necessarily an answer for all users.

Are you connected to the Helix app when you're changing patches? That will slow things down.

It seems to me that the concept you're talking about of having a static set of factory presets and another set of user presets is kind of outdated when it comes to things like multi-fx and keyboards. I can't think of any other recent product that work that way. I think there are two things driving that. Users don't want to have a bunch of memory slots for presets that they never use, plus with flash memory and USB connections, restoring factory presets and backing up your own presets is pretty easy. I suppose if someone was really worried about it, they could have the same setlist saved in multiple slots in the Helix and keep one as an archive/backup, and the other as a working/live version (assuming, of course, they have the extra space).

Were you using a Mac? Unfortunately, it seems Apple kind of did the MI world a real disservice with the release of El Capitan. Line 6 designed the Helix to be a class compliant USB device with Macs, but a wrench was thrown into their plans. Last I heard, Line 6 going to release dedicated audio drivers for Macs to get around it.

Well, you can run dual cabs in the way of loading a stereo IR in the AX8, but 1) you have to either find a stereo IR you like or create your own, and 2) you have to actually load it into the AX8. After you do that, the IR is what it is. You can't change mics and other parameters without loading another IR. I had the AX8 briefly, and it's a nice little box. There were some things I really liked, but the main thing for me is that I just felt that without having the editor open, editing the unit itself is a very frustrating experience, at least for me. I really need the ability to change things on the fly, and I know I'm not going have access to a laptop in most situations. So in that sense, the Helix has a huge advantage for me. I've said if a number of times, but one of the main reasons I have been a repeat Line 6 customer (and just to be clear, even though I have gotten a few beta units from Line 6, I've bought the vast majority of stuff I own from them) is that they seem to be one of the few companies building multi-fx devices that take the ergonomic side of things seriously. The fact is that most guitarists don't care what a box is capable of if they can't figure out how to do it.

Nagging mode - Hit save button a second time "Are you sure you want to do this?". Hit it again, "Come on... Are you really sure?". Once again, "That preset was fine you really don't want to overwrite it, do you?"

Well, you have to hit the save button twice to actually save a preset... Seems like a relatively small chance that you'd do that by accident.

Haha, do you work in IT? http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/nick-burns-your-companys-computer-guy/n11524

Well, I'm not sure how many updates Fractal has put out over the years, but they have in essence been incrementally improving the same base code since the release of the Axe FX II. Right now, excluding the foot controller, Fractal makes three products, and all three of those products share the same basic code. This is quite different than Line 6, which has a product line of dozens of current products. In a sense, yes, I'm sure Line 6 is aware that it's competing against these companies, but I don't think that the driving force behind the Helix. I think they will develop the Helix as see fit, not trying to get into a tit for tat with competitors. I think they want to make products that make their customers happy, in the long run. What makes a Line 6 customer happy may not be what makes a Fractal or Kemper customer happy. This is why it's great that there are choices in the world. The same stuff doesn't make everyone happy.

In my personal opinion, not just no, but heck no! I just don't see that this is much of a risk at all. The vast majority of people are going to see the Helix and have no idea what it is, how it works, or anything. There may be a small number of informed guitarists who know about it, but I just can't imagine anyone trying to mess with it. In all my years playing live, I've never had anyone mess with my stuff like that.

Not really how it works... When DI says Line 6 was developing the Helix for 5 or 6 years, it's the truth. The 1.0 feature set had been set for quite a long time when the Helix was released. I think people here interpret every bug or problem as somehow Helix being "not ready", but in reality, beta testing can only reveal so much. When you have a product that goes into the wild into the hands of thousands of people, and a bunch of people using it in all sorts of configurations, there's simply going to be things that show up. The fact is that none of the other processors on the market offer anything near the routing complexity and configurations that Helix does. With every layer of complexity more potential for problems arises.

:D

The footswitches are not really depending on an electrical contact. They are actuators, meaning they are a plunger-style mechanism that activates a relay on a circuit board in the Helix. So spraying contact cleaner in there isn't going to help with the actual functionality of the switch. I actually think there's probably some chance it could be detrimental.

No, the looper playback is continuous across patch changes as long as it's in the same path and the same type (mono or stereo).

As it stands right now, I think your best bet would be to set up three separate presets with the looper in the same position in each, and have the presets set up for each part. There's not really a way to switch between three inputs, and beyond that running three paths into the looper block would be tricky.

I think DI might have interpreted your initial question differently. Seems like he thought you were asking how to split path 1 into two paths via splitting path 2 into 2A and 2B. Indeed, if you wanted to have some common effects before you split paths, that would be one to go about it. Did you have any luck with any of methods I mentioned above?

The problem with iPB-10 was that it relied on the iPad in such a way that it was completely useless without it. When Apple changed over the lightning connector, Digitech was screwed.