SaschaFranck

I think the attempt, quite clearly even, is to surpass everything with the exception of maybe the Axe FX III. YMMV.

Go ahead and post away!

Uh, I think now we're talking...

Given that the two smaller Helix siblings (Stomp, FX) don't have digital outs, either, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Is there a looper block? Personally, I would never consider an all-in-one guitar modeling unit without one anymore... And I don't exactly get this: "The FX Loop and Preset EQ blocks are automatically assigned to stomp switches" - does that mean it's a must to have them assigned or is that just the default state (I would guess it's the latter). Will Helix Native see some POD Go compatibility mode? Can you bypass the amp block?

Fwiw, just watched the "Beta Sound Demo" video - now, that is truly what I call lackluster. Also demonstrates how great of an idea a looper slapped in front of everything would be (which the Cortex doesn't have). Whatever, the sounds presented are the polar opposite of "let's get dirty!". But I often want just that when playing guitar.

I'm all with you here - but that is for adjusting parameters. For selecting blocks and reordering them, I couldn't imagine a more comfortable thing than a touchscreen. And my brief checkout of the Headrush proved that. Thing is, with the Cortex, you get both. More knobs than on any other modeler and a touchscreen for everything where it makes sense. Having said that, what I'd like to see the most on the Helix is custom knob layouts including custom pages and an option to assign multiple parameters to one knob. Add "globalization" and you would never see me ask about anything else ever again (well, not really, but pretty much...).

Well, I guess they don't offer a pointer option - at least not anything that might work in a remotely common way. Apart from the rotary encoders/switches, there's almost no further controller elements and I don't think it's very likely that you could abuse one of the rotaries as a pointer device.

Point taken. Now, how many folks having issues with touchscreens would you say are guitar players in the market for a high end modeler? Or how many guitar players with an interest in a high end modeler would you think of having issues with a touchscreen? Either way, my rough estimation would be any number pretty well below 1%, likely even below 0.1%. Add to this that I don't think high end modelers should be compromised by delivering lowest common denominator technology. And finally, I don't think one of the common complaints one might read about regarding the Headrush would be that it features a touchscreen, more to the opposite, I consider it to be one of its strongest selling points. YMMV, quite obviously.

Yeah, I'm aware of AES/EBU - and yes, by convoluted I meant losing the XLR for whatever other purposes. Regardless of how things might end up being, I think it's not clever to release a digital unit in that price segment without digital I/O. Already made me wonder with the GT-1000, which has no SPDIF, either. Even weirder considering the *way* cheaper GT-10 at least has an SPDIF output. I don't think it'd be technically challenging, at least not much. After all, it's just three relais switches per XLR socket that would have to be controlled. But as you folks, I absolutely doubt they'll be doing it that way. It'd possibly even make the unit look bad because people would be "WTF?!?"-ing all throughout.

Fwiw, I had corrupted patches twice so far. One time it happened without anything but a guitar cable and an XLR output connected, the other time was using HX Edit. It's been a while ago and never happened again, but given that some people seem to have issues (some more regularly, others less so), I would happen to think there's something fishy going on inside the Helix firmware. Perhaps it's enhanced when using the editor, but it's defenitely not exclusive to using the editor. And it's certainly something Line 6 has to have a serious look into.

Well, I think phil_m has already sufficiently illustrated why that wasn't the case. To get around this, the Helix either would have to deal with certain issues related to slapping in more CPUs (heat, possibly latency) or some of the functionality would have to be compromised (routing less flexible, less blocks per patch to save CPU cycles for gapless switching, etc.). Whatever, I don't know of any scenario where you'd need more than what could be done within one patch for one single song, even in case I try to imagine some highly complexed music.

Well, even if that would be possible (which I somehow doubt), it'd be quite convoluted. I mean, you're losing balanced monitoring outs that way, absolutely not what the doctor ordered. So far there's not even a looper.

Ok. See, I *perfectly* get what you're saying. I also think there could probably be ways to gaplessly (and with delay/reverb trails) switch between patches in case they were pretty similar (was like that on older Boss GT models), kinda like a group of patches working as "snapshot supersets" or whatever. Also, as I have mentioned before, if there was something like a global block functionality (read: basically, blocks tagged as "global" would stay the same when you switch presets), quite some of these things would not be relevant anymore, as you could simply have a group of patches using the same "basic ingredients" but offering "different spices", so to say. In that case, one could arrange anything demanding quick switches (and/or FX trails) within one patch (most typical scenario: one patch per song), while still being able to manage and finetune multiple patches with ease (I'm sure we all know how unpleasant it is to even just dial in proper levels for a bunch of patches using more than one amp). Global blocks would also serve some other purposes just nicely. Anyway, that's not exactly what I wanted to say, but: I'm not sure how much you have explored the layout options for patches along with snapshots and nicely assigned switches, along with the various options to switch between modes. I'm usually playing gigs demanding a certain bandwidth of sounds. And so far, I have managed to get through each and every of these gigs using exactly one single patch all throughout the event. Usually, in most of my patches, there's two amp blocks, one IR block, two delay blocks, two reverb blocks, various drive blocks (2-4), some comp block(s), some EQ blocks (2-3), a wah block, a gate block. And most often, there's still enough space/juice for the occasional modulation block and a looper. The tones I can get within such a single patch can be *very* different, ranging from super clean to fullblown drive - with anything inbetween, so I can usually vary the clean amp from funky clean to thick jazzy leads or the driven one from mellow, just above breakup, to full riffing. Apart from the big Axe FX, I wouldn't happen to know of any modeler allowing me to do that. As said, with other modelers (especially with the GT-1000) there's different (and perhaps more effective or easier) ways to skin this cat, but the amount of things you can do within one patch on a Helix is still quite mindblowing. Fwiw, the fact that this is so has been the reason for me to go for a Helix instead of a GT-1000. In case I had to switch patches all the time because I would feel too limited otherwise, I would've bought a GT.

While the guys were quite cool, IMO that live video was lame and didn't offer any information to me that I wasn't aware of before already. They didn't bother to answer my questions about the lack of SPDIF, either (which will really annoy some folks).

Precisely. And it's absolutely as much of a pain in the butt with the Helix. And while snapshots are fantastic, they aren't really a solution, simply because I have to stuff so much things into one preset that there's no room for some fun stuff anymore. If they added a global blocks functionality, all that would be adressed just fine.

You just don't seem to get the point. So I'll rest my case.

Well, then the implementation is just bad (or it's the wonky bluetooth protocol, which really isn't worth anything). I mean, do you have issues with the touchscreen of an iPhone or Samsung Galaxy? There's no reason why the screen of the Cortex should be any worse.

So, would someone elaborate what's the bad thing about a touchscreen?

It is every bit the question. For the sake of the argument: In case two modelers sound identical and in case you don't need any other features than those both are providing, which one would you chose, the one causing lags when switching presets or the one switching instantaneously? And that's absolutely all there is about it. Now, I have chosen to go with the Helix as well, for a variety of reasons (see "other features" above), but I almost hadn't. As said already, Line 6 have it in their hands to change things pretty much dramatically by implementing certain things - and no, I'm not talking about gapless patch switching but about things that would make it superfluous. But in case they won't adress this issue (which even seems to be more of an issue for other folks but myself), I wouldn't be wondering why folks go for another modeler.

So what? When my ears tell me that something sounds good, I trust them.

Similar but with some more descriptions: https://helixhelp.com/

They're mainly not using bluetooth on the Cortex but Wifi - which usually is *way* more robust (and way faster, too). And as far as the touchscreen goes, I fail to see what's bad about it. Have you seen the video where they adjust the parametric EQ? That's just gorgeous. Also, dragging blocks around should be *heaps* quicker. No idea why one wouldn't want that.

I'm afraid I can't exactly agree. Less amps? Yes. Worse amps? Not really.

Try using one of these IRs at gig/rehearsal volume. Served me well for over around two years already in a plethora of different live situations playing different styles. And yes, I never use anything else but these two live. Might not be everybody's COT, but apart from loading them and turning up your FRFR to good volume, it won't cost you anything. Gen_01.wav Gen_01_bright.wav