SaschaFranck

Nah - I know it's only possible with hex pickups (or Melodyne DNA - which however is useless for realtime tasks). But once you really deal with, say, complexed chords and/or slide alike seamless shifts, the quality needs to be way better than what might be sufficient for lower tuned powerchords. Especially complexed chords use(d) to split the boys from the men instantly, apparently it's not necessarily like that anymore with the Fractal algorithm, so here's hope something similar would be the bar Line 6 set for themselves.

The thing is, for all these "oh, let me quickly tune down to Eb" riffing situations, the solution is already there and it's nothing too special to add a Digitech Drop to your pedalboard. Sure, it'd be nice to have it all in the box, I give you that, but it's not exactly crucial. Complexed pitch shifting however is a whole different story. You may want to alter intervals in realtime and/or per snapshot. Or you may just want to slap it into a delay path. Or you may want to go for slide guitar alike realtime pedal control, etc. So, not only are these the kind of things requiring top notch pitch shifting, they also profit a whole lot more from perfect integration. In a nutshell: If I really needed quick'n'dirty downtunings, I'd just get a Drop. But personally, I'd like that thing to be a lot more than just that - even if I need to say byebye to 40-50% of my precious CPU power (which won't be an issue anymore anyway, once L6 slaps in global blocks in FW 3.1, SCNR...). And because of that, I hope they're going for quality rather than "just something".

Could you point us to any reasonable sound files? Because, in all seriousness, I have strong doubts it'd even hold the smallest candle against what you can listen to in Marco Fanton's Axe video.

I wonder if it will as well allow for shifts as seamless as in Marco's video. In that case: Byebye, bottleneck!

That's all fine, but no decent clean chords at all. But then... Ohhh - that's much more like it. Now, *that* is what I could certainly use! If they really get it done that good for the Helix, I would take at least parts of my comments back - that'd possibly become my most used fun effect for anything outside off plain stuff.

Fwiw, if the L6 algorithm would do a single interval shift of -5/-7 semitones properly, I'd be incredibly happy as I could possibly save the expense of a baritone, something I really love - but I can't exactly justify the cost because I wouldn't use it all that much. Oh, -12 for quick bass mockups would be great, too (the octaver really isn't too shiny).

Any demo sounds/videos you could post? I know the Kemper is doing pitch shifting quite well, but I haven't heard any truly convicing pitch shifting that would make me think it's in fact a transposed/detuned guitar.

No idea about the processor - but did you ever do something as trivial as playing a slightly complexed chord through it? Such as a maj7 chord with the minor second in the inner voices? Like this (for a Cmaj7): ---3--- ---1--- ---4--- ---2--- ---x--- ---x--- Quite a typical chord in my musical universe - and it'll throw off pretty much any pitch shifter out there minus a few very expensive ones. So I can only hope for the L6 algorithm to be better.

I would say that 40-50% sort of qualify for "good portions", no? Regardless of how much it is exactly, it's still a lot - and I couldn't cram it into any of my live patches (</cue another of my very own rants about the usefulness of global blocks>).

Well, I brought this up years ago already on a wellknown forum, pretty much elaborated on the "hows" and "whys" - not much has happened since then. Fwiw, as some sort of anecdote: I was almost slaughtered for requesting such a thing. Went kinda like "Why would you need to adjust patches throughout a soundcheck or a gig? You're not well prepared, you bl00dy amateur!" As if nobody had ever touched their amp controls back in the analog days. Yeah, right. The lack of this very feature has also been why I was resisiting to get an all-in-one modeler for quite a while - my first 100% DI/FR setup was based on my trusty old pedalboard and an Amplifirebox as a clean pedal platform. And what could I possibly say? Globally adjusting things last minute was *way* more comfortable with that setup (obviously) and I used that "feature" quite a bit. I only started to re-consider the Helix when the snapshot bypass options were introduced, because that was what finally allowed me to at least halfway get close to my preferred way of dialing in things. Fwiw, and that's actually why I think there's little interest at Line 6 to implement this: I can more or less easily "hack" a global block functionality (in fact, I alreasdy did). Goes like this: Use a MIDI knob controller (in my case a Behringer BCR2000), assign all the parameters you want to access globally to knobs. Copy the patch and change whatever you feel like - outside of the things assigned to the knobs (as these are supposed to be global items). Now, when you change a parameter through a knob and then switch patches, the parameter change obviously isn't reflected, but a simple "send all values" message on the BCR takes care of that. Not exactly comfortable as it'd require an additional (manual) action after each patch change, but that wouldn't bother me too much as I would never switch patches within a song anyway, and it's not much of an issue to do it inbetween songs. So, why am I not just going with that hack and stop annoying folks endlessly? Because it won't work anymore as soon as you're using snapshots. Each and every parameter assigned to MIDI controllers is automatically controlled by snapshots instantly and there's no way out of it (fwiw, I think this is a pretty bad design decision, there's no reason why it would be like that). Anyhow, if some simpleton like me can hack this functionality (at least partially), it should be absolutely no big deal for Line 6. Just that they could realize it in a way more elegant way. Because of all that, my hope to ever see something like that is dwindling. And I'm still considering a GT-1000 for next year, because it has that functionality (fwiw, the new Quad Cortex doesn't seem to offer anything like it, either). Yeah well, there's some sort of "hidden goodies" coming along with it for sure. For instance, instead of aquiring a brain twist by dialing in complexed routings, just so you can do as much as possible within a patch, you could as well split the "routing load" into two patches. And it'd obviously be great when dealing with CPU intensive patches, too. All without losing direct access to the core parameters of a patch (or - obviously - a group of patches). Ah well, I'll better stop for now.

That would be fantastic, but then... Yeah, that's what I roughly suspected the CPU hit to be like.

Just one more reason why global blocks would be tremendously useful. I suspect proper polyphonic pitch shifting (especially once you want to add more than just one intervall) to easily eat up one entire processor (or at least good portions of it), so the "sonic diversity processor load" needs to be spread throughout different patches.

Which are the "most" you are talking about? I can only think of Fractal products and the Kemper. And I'm not sure they're doing to well for different tunings (let alone you can not use alternate tunings anyway, just complete drop tunings). 1) Global blocks. 2) Global blocks. 3) Global blocks. 4) Global blocks. 5) Global blocks. Now take a deep breath and guess what (6) to (20) look like. No, seriously: 2) LFOs, envelopes and input level as modifiers (can serve plenty of purposes, not just esoteric ones). 3) Parameter control via MIDI de-coupled from Snapshot control (as is, it makes using external MIDI knob controllers almost pointless). 4) Inverted scribble strip displays when active. The LEDs are just invisible under certain lightning conditions. 5) A second page for switch assignments. I'm constantly running out of switches, it'd also make *huge* sense to quickly select blocks. Using external MIDI switches isn't an option because of the things mentioned under (3). 6) Better fuzz boxes. Their dynamics are just plain bad unless you decide to lower the input impedance so much the rest of the patch is getting messed up. 7) A decent Touch Wah. 8) A complexed delay with several modulation options, feedback paths and what not. Ideally with an option to insert another block into the feedback path. 9) An option to maintain their settings when you move from an amp/cab block to individual blocks. 10) An option to return to the last used state of an individual block after you may have selected something else. Zoom units do that and it's just excellent. Ex.: If you have a room reverb block but briefly check out a hall reverb instead, when you return to the room reverb, the previously used settings are recalled. 11) Better output routing options. Ex.: Once I decide to route an output block to USB 1/2 for recording but monitor through another path (my common recording scenario), the monitoring path must be set to one of the analog outs only (because "Multi" would result in my monitoring FX to run through USB 1/2 as well). 12) Better global input control settings. Yes, I know this can't be done in the analog domain anymore, but digital fine control of the two current settings (Input Pad On/Off) would be sufficient. The Input Pad setting is just too extreme to compensate for the output differences of most guitars. 13) Better modulation FX in general. They're not too shiny IMO (there might be a reason why L6 sold plenty of their Delay Modelers but not much of the Modulation ones...). 14) A kind of "freeform" amp, coming along with selectable basic drive characters and a dual fully parametric EQ, one pre, one post. You can get an incredibly large amount of textures out of such a scenario - and no, doing it with 3 different blocks quite obviously isn't the same. I could easily fill up (15) to (20), these are just quick things from the top of my head. For my personal needs, every single one of them would be worth much more than polyphonic pitch shifting.

And fwiw, if it was just after me (yeah, I know, it isn't), as much as I like things such as the EHX devices, there'd possibly be 20 things I'd like to see before polyphonic pitch shifting is added. But unfortunately, such an esoteric thing seems to be way higher on most people's wishlists.

Seriously? Really, I'm the first to criticize Line 6 for plenty of things (and for good reasons, IMO at least...), but in case you think that a company isn't getting their s*** together because they don''t come up with a proper polyphonic pitch shifting algorithm, you clearly bought the wrong product. The Helix is mainly designed to be an amp modeler with the most common FX types you can hear in guitar oriented music thrown in. And while it has some drawbacks here and there (see above), in general it's doing an awsome job at that, there's really not much that is missing (well, if you asked me, a really decent TouchWah is, but that's another story and it's not the most commonly used effect, either). Let's face it, while I would certainly like to have some better pitch shifting occasionally myself, it's a niche effect. More niche than pretty much anything else. Is it a great toy to have some fun with? Of course, at least for most of us, as it seems. But 99.99% of all "regular" guitar sounds (and that's a rather low estimation), including the most iconic ones, don't use anything like polyphonic pitch shifting. Ah well - "but Owner Of A Lonely Heart..." - I already hear ya. Now, with almost no exception, the units used for anything of that kind are highly sophisticated and dedicated devices, such as the Eventide H series and what not. Even within the realm of dedicated multi FX units (those without amp modeling, just delivering the most typical effects), proper polyphonic pitch shifting is a rare thing to find. Heck, even in the plugin world, they're not common at all. Add to all this that up to this day, most units don't do a great job. Most pitch shifting is full of artefacts, this even includes the highly acclaimed Digitech Drop (play some smooth clean 4 part chords through it and you'll know what I'm talking about instantly). Applies to all those "shimmer" reverbs and what not. They're only getting away with that pitch shifting quality because things are usually drenched in reverb anyway, the shifiting itself still sounds horrible on most units. Yeah, there's also some dedicated FX processors doing pitch related stuff, such as the EHX POG and HOG series (fwiw, I'd really love to have that kinda thing inside the Helix), but essentially, the "raw" pitch shifting quality within these is still miles away from studio grade pitch shifting quality. Ok, I give you that in the modeling world there's two direct competitors doing things better, namely Kemper and Fractal Audio - but still, throw some complexed chords at those algorithms and be surprised. To conclude: Proper polyphonic pitch shifting is a rather esoteric thing in the land of guitar sounds and it usually requires dedicated processors with huge amounts of CPU juice. Telling a company they wouldn't get their act together in what is a one-size-fits all unit tailored to deliver the most typical guitar tones, IMO is a pretty far stretch.

Both the IR block and the output blocks offer way more than sufficient volume boosts to produce a healthy output. Add to this that you can always add a gain block or whatever. All FX blocks have additional output volume leveling, too.

Pretty much so. Once you're in the ballpark regarding amp sounds (in terms of drive charakter and dynamics), the used cab/mic does a whole lot more to the overall sound than changing the amp in favour of something similar. In other words, the difference between, say, all the Marshall-esque amps will only be important once you're almost into hairsplitting mode already. For me, once I made a choice regarding a basic amp character (and drive amount) all my noticeable tone shaping happens through pedals and cabs.

Excellent advice, @Schmalle!

Uhm, seriously? For me, pretty often it's like playing a different amp. <insert Ellington quote here>

Well, not in case your default position isn't all the way up. Which I would highly recommend anyway - the potential loss of headroom or higher S/N ratio is pretty much neglectable (I even did a test when I got the Helix, the two signals recorded with the big knob at noon and turned all the way up almost cancelled themselves out in a nulltest).

The IR doesn't change its sonic properties just because you turn the volume of the block up. If you can't hear a difference, either turn up the patch volume or don't bother with different IRs (it might not be worth bothering in case the differences are *that* small).

IR block at 0dB? Using any "normal" IR (which usually are normalized to 0dB), that's an incredibly high boost. With most of the IRs I'm using, at -18dB things are roughly perceived as loud as with the IR block on bypass. I just checked with some Ownhammers I have (those once given away as a freebie), and it's pretty much like that with them. Whatever, I think it's the wisest idea to keep the volume more or less the same with and without IR block.

Really, there's no need for it to be anything but a momentary level and peak indicator. "Average LUFS" is completely irrelevant on a multi FX unit.

Hold on - the "output indicator", as you call it, hasn't gotten anything to do with the volume knob. Or am I just not understanding properly what you're saying?

Ah, ok, I'm fine with that. I just thought there would've been some other ways to find out about it. Making me wonder a little, though, as the digital outs aren't affected by the volume not. But thren, I suppose it's very likely a cheaper solution (less hardware involved) to control the functionality of the knob in the digital realm. And fwiw, it's not that it'd matter to me at all (I don't think there's much sonical differences), I was just curious.