lawrence_Arps

????

tried this - sorry I cant reproduce what you are saying. In my case the reverb decays naturally on the high gain amp as well. There must be another factor in your setup.

well blow me down and call me Mary... when I wrote the post above I thought the only place auto swell had been actioned was in those delays....I did think that was odd but its wasnt an issue for me. I happened to find the Swell in the compressor section yesterday (Facepalm). apologies for ignorance!

not sure what the problem is here but this is my "Swell advice" using the adriatic swell, set the following: Time =0 Feedback = 0 Noise = 0 BBD size = 8192 Mix = 0 Rate = 0 Depth = 0 Level = 0dB Headroom = 0dB Which leaves you with a standard 2 knob swell effect...I use about -65 for threshold and about 2.5 seconds for attack.

no ...its just you! :D

yes....most lead tones have more "cut" than a vocal. I saw Queen a couple of years ago (with Adam Lambert) and the Sound guy had the solos actually louder than the vocals. It sounded odd...like the solo had no foundations to rest on.

interesting perspective about the other guitarist having to turn down when one solos.... If the band levels are allowing the vocal to sit nicely in the mix then I would have thought bringing the solo up to fill that gap would be the right move. If the band is playing too busily for the solo then surely they are also too busy for the vocal? I use the adjustable gain block with a knob controller...with the knob down all my patches are close to the same volume (useful at home and recording). With the knob full up its a +6dB boost on my solo patches or snaps.... With a 3 piece Id set it about halfway...about +3dB.

given you still have to reach for the knob to edit why is pushing the knob once such a big deal....its so fast and simple I cant see why you think this is a problem?

MarkBlack77 posted this elsewhere on the forum

Changing the channel volume will not change the tone....unless there is a level dependent effect after the amp. After various trials I have gone with the variable gain block as detailed in the post above.

Hi not arguing here just genuinely interested in peoples varying approaches ans experiences. when I ran an analog board I would work out my settings at home and mark then with tape. I didnt try to go through every combination at soundcheck and customise every setting for the room (I hardly ever even varied my amp settings from room to room....maybe the amount of bass on a really boomy stage..). So, I still cant see how being in a multiFX digital environment changes the way you set your volume... As DunedinDragon notes I always run my Helix volume at full or very close to it. I adjust the volume on my cab (L2Ms or L3Ms) at soundchecks then leave it alone. DDs also right about noise levels...Helix is so quiet its never an issue (I do run the input gate on at about -50 or so). I have also implemented the idea that someone posted recently..I have a gain block in each patch linked to expression 3 with a single volume knob in a box. Its only active on Solo snapshots but lets me adjust easily the amount of boost on solos. (I find in a 3 piece I need less boost but as the band gets bigger the solo boost needs to be more) Also at home I dont want much volume difference from Rhythm to Lead. Its a great trick that i recommend.

It has been said several times....the "normal" or "unity" perceived volume should be the same as when all blocks are bypassed. If this is done for rhythm patches or snaps, there is enough headroom to have louder settings for lead. So, the issue of "which patch should be turned up or down" becomes "which patch is closer to unity (all blocks bypassed)" I also find it off that this is discussed as though it is different on Helix to on an analog pedal board. It is exactly the same. Your "normal" volume is set with the pedals switched off, then you set pedals appropriately....I have never heard of someone using a dB meter to set the volume on a drive pedal or a fuzz or a phaser . Why would you treat Helix any differently?

I have see similar comments previously. I dont understand why the Sound Engineers are not adjusting the gain to suit....there is nothing unusually high about the helix out put levels. I run line level out to my mixer and from memory the gain is set to -25dB. No problems.

Im fascinated by this.....I know that there have been a couple of auto-on wahs over the years, but the vast majority (and all the classic) wahs are a toe switch. In addition, every wah /vol I have ever seen is a toe switch...(...ah...mmm I lied... the big old silver Morley pedals had a switch beside the pedal....) anyway...I dont get this issue. I did find that in my room at home the carpet is a bit soft - but as soon as I put Helix on a board or in a case the wah switch was exactly like a "real'" one. What I dont get with the auto on is that you completely lose the expression pedal for any other use?. Are all of you who use auto on simply choosing to have no other pedal controlled parameters?

actually not so....if Im using a dynamic like a 57 and Ive also got a second mic then I may well stick it close in, but I have often used a ribbon or a condenser 6 - 12 inches out from a cab..... With a lot of tones you want to avoid the proximity effect as it muddies the bottom end and you end up having to EQ it out - part of why I like ribbons and omni mics over cardioids. Live its different as you need to minimise spill.

You know...the most important thing is that you are happy with what you are hearing! The really interesting part of helix is what people can create without fussing over copying other people. That said, my number one piece of advice is to ensure that your patches are more or less the same volume with all blocks bypassed as when the blocks are active. I dont take this to extremes, but all my "Rhythm" patches/snapshots are set this way and I have my lead patches/snapshots appropriately louder. I can see how one could easily set up a patch that sound pretty good but is already much higher level than the bypassed level...and then adding any boosts might start risking various glitches (if not actual internal clipping then at least modeled clipping on some FX) If you are new to complex FX rigs then googling a few artists rigs and attempting to replicate the signal chain might be a good exercise - not to copy their tones - but for insights into how FX can work together! have fun!

use the mix control. Set up the filters so that they give you the very lofi sound on full 100% mix then assign the pedal so that toe down is 0% mix!

Im with Amsdenj on this. I dont understand at all why people are so fixated on getting helix to sound exactly like something else. There is nothing intrinsically good, better or great in the sounds that come from various old fashioned technologies...they just happened to be the ones that became popular. Modelling existing amps is useful in that it provides a familiar starting point. Beyond that an artist should be looking for something unique and original - not copying. Helix is capable of tremendous creativity. Im pretty mainstream style wise....but even when I use my Mesa Combo I do NOT want it to sound like anybody else...of course since I bought the Helix I have not actually switched my Mesa on. Probably never will again.

can anyone explain this to me? it just seems pointless. No regional artist would ever want to have an exact copy of someone else's sound...and in cover bands there are only a small number of tomes that 99.9999% of the audience can tell apart (guitarists excluded). Heres a go at defining the maximum tones required for a covers band. )and ignoring FX).. 1. clean with a bit of brightness 2. clean and warm 3 .slightly driven 4. moderately driven 5. Heavily driven 6.Totally distorted. These can be created on almost any amp...maybe a drive pedal needed in some case. Add or remove bass ,midrange, and treble to taste. There is no gig in the world that this cannot cover. Now personal taste comes in as do the instrument and the fingers and style. Now Im not being critical of Helix users that choose to optimise these to the best amp. (which I do)...but 99% of non-modelling players create all their tones on 1 amp. my point is that audiences will not change their opinion of a performance on the basis that the Les Paul with the slightly over driven tone sounded more like a Marshall JTM 45 than a Bogner... Just won't happen. I can see a Farside style cartoon of two groupies leaving a show saying "what a shame the concert was ruined by the guitarist who used 25watt celestials instead of 30watt!"

not a lot to go on...but have you got enough volume boost happening?? The amount of increase for a solo depends on the band and the music style - some people find 3 dB to be fine but mostly its 6dB or even 10dB. I find that the more members in band the higher the solo boost needs to be...if you are in a three piece then you are the only rhythm instrument and a 3dB boost lifts the solo a bit which is fine cos there is only bass and drums along with it. If you add another guitar or keys then technically it might be that the rhythm sound is less but the overall result remains - the solo boost needs to be more. If you are in a 8 or 10 piece band a 10dB solo boost could sound ridiculous at home but perfect in the mix. I agree about the mids too.....great tones can sound quite nasally on their own but cut well in the mix. I rarely run a mid control below 6 or 7 (and its worth noting that on some models my bass is on almost 0). Sometimes, If I have an EQ in the patch, I boost between 600Hz and 1500hZ for solo sounds.

you are missing the point. People with more money than sense (and roadies) have these massive rigs so they can quickly access a few sounds...maybe as many as 20 - 30 even. These rigs are not as flexible as a Helix where every patch can be a different signal chain - so you can have hundreds of signal chains. Debates on which one sounds better to follow no doubt....

This post could have gone in any one of many threads here... The comments about isolated tracks are extremely relevant. It seems many of the Helix users, pretend users, and general haters have not actually experienced the sound of an amp and cabinet, miced up and monitored in another room through near fields. While I see no value in "shootouts" or in trying to compare which product is "Better" given that all the flagship products are capable of professional quality sounds, I did watch the youtube clip comparing the cabs in the helix and the AX8. Now, given the amount of ranting out there that the fractal cabs are so superior I was amazed to hear how dull and lifeless they sounded. The helix sounds represented pretty sell what you here in a studio before you start processing the mix...a bit bright and harsh when isolated - and strangle OK in the mix. The AX8 cabs sounded like they had a blanket over them. Not at all what the actual raw miced sound would have been. they sounded much more like the tones that bedroom players set up for jamming alone rather than tones a professional seeks to cut through a live mix. Now, this isnt a commentary on quality...both products can be EQ'd and both can sound great - its just not what many people had been saying. In a similar vein, the habits of metal fans to cut mids heavily are in direct opposition to my experience in crafting fat strong guitar sounds...i actually often boost between 600Hz and 1200 Hz . Whatever works for you I guess. I actually wonder if some companies pay people to post weirdly negative stuff on websites and fora to undermine their competitors...???

the trouble with Ola's comparisons is that he is working with a very extreme type of sound from a very particular genre. Very few players outside of metal ever use sounds like those. They are in every case, on every choice of equipment, thin and harsh and fizzy. Its not the device - its the users choice. I like distorted tones....but mine are always warmer and fatter than those sounds. Of course Im not trying to cut through a mix with too much volume, bottom end, top end and no dynamics... Where as various amps and cabs are specifically marketed at the metal market, Helix is not (not to say it isnt totally up to that job as well)

why delete it at all? seems pointless to me. If you want that patch location for another sound then overwrite it...if not just leave it there.

I need to test this but it does not agree with any of my memory or experience. The channel volume does nothing but change the level of the amp. Its possible that you are hearing the impact of driving some subsequent block harder... btw...for ages I thought you were a fellow Kiwi. Dunedin is our 4th largest city and quite strong musically. I assume FL is short for Florida?