SaschaFranck

Not that I'd believe this would be it, but did you check the I/O section in your global settings? Could it be that the headphone is using a source that is muted or simply not used within a patch? As said, unlikely, but you might want to check that.

I see, valid points.

Just out of interest: Does any of the top tier modelers have a looper that you can sync to MIDI clock? I don't think so. Out of interest I looked into the Headrush manual, as the HR possibly has the most advanced looper of the bunch, couldn't find anything about MIDI clock sync. So, if this is keeping you away from buying a Helix, what would you get instead?

Fwiw, they're called "fly points" in speaker folks lingo.

I'm doing it a bit similar on one of my current main patches (which is using just one amp - something certainly making this approach easier to deal with). And I am in fact thinking about setting my Snapshot Edit preferences back to "Recall". Right now I have them at "Discard", which IMO makes sense if you do your main switchings via snapshots, simply because you don't confuse yourself too much (as you may not remember what kinda stuff you had switched on/off the last time you used the snapshot), but in case you only use snapshots for certain special sounds and use a stomp controlled "master" snapshot, "Recall" might be the better option (and it should be easy to keep track of - or remember - what you've used in that single snapshot). Thing is, with stomps you have more choices, plain maths give that away easily. A single stomp = 2 sounds. 2 stomps = 4 sounds. 3 stomps = 8 sounds. So, at least theoretically, with just 3 stomps you can already get 8 different sounds, each further stomp doubling the amount. Yes, I do know that this is just a mathematical example - not all combinations are making sense, then there's the good old pedal dance that most of us would likely love to leave behind, etc. But still, I often prefer it that way. And even utilizing "Snapshot Bypass" isn't offering the same amount of flexibility, let alone that you can't incorporate the snapshot-bypassed blocks in your snapshots anymore (obviously, that's the purpose of Snaphot Bypass - but sometimes it's getting in the way). Anyway, using stomp mode gives me a kind of flexibility that I sometimes need and that snapshots can't offer. Snapshots however allow for very drastical changes, so it's probably wise to use them for just that. As usual, there's plenty of roads leading to Rome, but right now, this method has a lot of appeal to me.

Personally, I only ever import IRs after checking them in my sequencer of choice. Yes, that way I'm kinda losing the option of playing through them straight inside the Helix (could still play through them but there might be some additional latency), but pre-sorting works *way* faster that way, at least the way I do it - fwiw, I'm using Logic, all my IRs are Space Designer presets that I can scroll through with the arrow buttons, which IMO is by far the most comfortable way I have come across until today. When done with the pre-sorting business, I save the project and it'll automatically save all used IRs (hence those of interest) within the project folder, so I can then drag them onto the Helix. No idea whether anything like that is possible as easily in other sequencers, but I still think it's easier as within the Helix. In all honesty, that doesn't help at all when you try out some IRs or - even way worse - patches requiring them. It also doesn't help in case you don't want to do full backups all the time (which I rarely ever want). The only way to really keep track of patches and their corresponding IRs is to do it manually and write everything down. Even with the sort of small overall amount of IR slots, this is good to cause much confusion already. Forget to write it down, export a single patch and change something in your IR list = patch will be lost (at least sort of). As HonestOpinion said, there's much room for improvements.

After all, it's just levels, which can easily be adjusted at pretty much any position in the signal chain. Sure, there might be the odd chance of using a Split Y block in front of whatever dynamically processing block, but even in these cases the differences should be small enough for them to not become an issue. I'm really quite a nitpicker on some things, but this very issue - apart from triggering a sort of "just because I can" interest - leaves me pretty cold. I also never got the fuzz back in the days when everybody was complaining about Logics pan laws (which were different from most others and offered no choice).

From all I know, panning laws (or compensations) are used to "help" with the attenuation of a signal that is panned away from center. However, regardless of how they're implemented (Logic for instance is offering 3 different modes), I have never heard of the volume being raised when you pan two centered signals hard L/R - which is what the Helix is doing here. Apart from that, as the signals are merged again later in the signal chain in this case, it shouldn't have any effect. Fwiw, I don't think it's worth to discuss about it too much as this will hardly (if ever) get in the way of anything. Just a little strange how the panning in Split Y is implemented.

You could for example apply further FX to just the delay signal when running it on a parallel path. So, while your dry signal would remain, well, dry, the wet/delayed signal could be sent through, say, a chorus. As a result, only your delay would be chorused. Can't do that on a straight serial path.

What datacommando said. Now, compressors can be used (and are used) in master chains (with delays and reverbs happening earlier in the signal path), but usually these are adjusted in ways hardly making much sense in a typical guitar rig. IOW: If you keep the settings on the compressor tamed (not much peak reduction), you might get away with it, but in that case you may as well just ditch it. Or simply slap it in front of the delays.

As has been said by codamedia, the HX Stomp doesn't serve as a USB host, which rules out pretty much all small sized MIDI controllers available. I have been using my Android tablet more or less successfully for such things (but gave up on it as external MIDI control and snapshots simply don't work well together at all), but that seems to be no option for you. I also own a Behringer BCR2000, works as well - but it's *huge*, so that would be no option, either. It's really too bad - I have been looking for a small MIDI controller with real MIDI outs as well, but there's pretty much none left.

Really, do the same in any DAW. Split (or duplicate) a signal. Keep both of them dead center. Listen. Then pan one hard L, the other hard R - unless you're using a pretty weird pan law compensation (and I wouldn't know of any reasons for that to make sense), the panned version never gets louder.

Wasn't meant like that at all. Just to illustrate that I actually know what you were talking about.

So, why would there be a difference in levels when you pan them hard? That doesn't make much sense.

Believe me, I know exactly what you're talking about (I've got around 20 years as a betatester for audio software on my belt, have been teaching sequencing classes and what not - so I do know about the things that can go wrong when it comes to the "perception" of software). Yet, I absolutely think that this is advancing technology - and I don't think it'd be a too great idea to look for whatever lowest common denominators. Otherwise this technology would not advance anymore. I do agree that things shouldn't get in the way of less experienced users, though. That's why it takes proper implementation and proper manuals. As far as implementation goes, there would be many ways to do things, but it's not exactly making sense to discuss about them because only the Line 6 team would know what would even be possible. I could for example imagine there'd be a sort of "expert" mode. Logic (my sequencer of choice) does it like that. There's a whole bunch of settings hidden from first time users, especially making the transition from Garageband a lot easier. But it'd also be about how to actually implement things (I would have several ideas, but as said, it doesn't make sense to discuss them here...). (And as far as the documentatio goes, it has to be said that Line 6 is not doing particularly well here. The last full Helix manual is for FW revision 2, only the HX Edit manual has been updated and it's english only.) Whatever, I think anything taking things further needs to be done if possible, at least as long as it's not some esoteric stuff. And in general, Line 6 is doing pretty well with the Helix, their FW updates always added tremendously great stuff in terms of usability. Fwiw, on a personal note, if I had the choice between 1) no more amp/drive/FX updates ever again but global blocks (implemented in whatever way) right now and 2) super-duper kickass amps, highest quality polyphonic pitch shifting, incredible synthesis options, lush killer verbs putting any Bricasti M7 to shame but no chance to ever see global blocks, I'd chose (1) in a split second and never look back.

In this case, they're still doing the same thing (and yes, I'm aware of the differences) and the different volumes can't be "justified".

Yeah, the Zoom units feature an autosave function and it can be a blessing. Ok, here goes: Let's take the example from above. I want to have all my clean sounds a bit louder. And I'm using the same amp for these clean sounds throughout my 26 presets. That amp would be set to "global". Now, of course, I'd have to get down (or turn around, in case we're dealing with a Helix/Rack) and adjust things. I wouldn't have to press "save" though - I mean, that's one of the points of global blocks. There's no "auto save" required for that, either, as global blocks never get saved. They're simply treated globally. Absolutely the same as with an analog amp channel. Alright, now, if you would screw up the 25 other presets - then the amp would be the wrong choice for those presets. The way I would use global blocks (and IMO it's the single most relevant purpose for them to even exist - if they would exist), is to set everything up every bit as a bunch of analog amp channels mixed with some programmable FX and what not. It's what tons of players did ever since somewhen in the 80s when all the big rack things (Bradshaw controlled and what not) appeared. Basically, what I'd like to do is to have a set of "items" that could have their parameters adjusted globally but could still be switched per patch/snapshot plus a bunch of things that would be completely changed between presets. In the "semi analog" world, this is a piece of cake to set up and there's plenty of people doing it just like that. You may have your Gigrig loopswitcher which would control your amp channels and add pedals whenever you wish (semi programmable, maintaining global parameter access), while at the same time switching patches on, say, your H9 (fully programmable, no global parameter access). Not an unusual setup at all. I'm not sure about that. But it's also why I suggested introducing a new kind of "grouped" patches or whatever you might call them. Anything outside of these patches could work every bit the same as it currently is. "Tagging" something as a global block would only work within these new grouped patches - and, again as said, I could for instance imagine that the basic layout of these grouped patches would have to be the same all throughout. Same routing, same block arrangement, all you would be allowed to alter between the patches of a given group would be to change blocks (in case they're not tagged "global") and their parameters. Thinking about it, this could perhaps even be realized within one single patch. What would have to be added would be, well, "sub presets" (similar to snapshots) within one patch, just that, unlike with snapshots, you'd also be allowed to change block types. You might then end up with, say, a dual amp setup, one clean, one overdriven, a pedal for each and some "I always use the same settings anyway" FX (maybe delays and reverbs) - and at the same time, you might have a filter, phaser and vibe combo on one "sub preset" and a flanger, chorus and pitch combo on the other - which would otherwise exceed the CPU power available within one patch. During soundcheck however, all you'd have to adjust would be the "group wide" things. And you could still do ad hoc changes while playing. When you think about it, this - at least inderectly - would also free up CPU ressources, hence allowing for more wicked patches. Because instead of cramming everything into one patch, even if you'd only need your bubbly-phasing-filter madness once per gig, you'd just spread that load over different patches without losing quick, instant control of your overall sound.

Well, as said, they're doing the same thing here, splitting the signal equally.

Quite weird that the different split modes, while doing the same thing at these very settings, result in different levels.

Yeah, access to a USB stick would be nice - I don't think the Helix could be updated in that regard, though, as it's obviously not designed to be a USB host. What they could however come up with is an kind of librarian for mobile OSes. That way, you would at least not have to use a fullblown computer in case you wanted, say, get your patches onto a rental unit. A simple USB OTG cable would be sufficient.

Yeah well, I'm aware of all these kinda tactics. But for the time being (until Line 6 may change something - which I really hope they will) I'm fine with the one-patch-per-gig method. I do of course have multiple of these patches by now, suitable for a variety of styles. It's also that, quite fortunately, I never have to deliver whatever authentic or heavily effected sounds, nobody ever asked me for any such things (unless in way more "controlled" environments - but in these situations, I usually have plenty of time to program things properly, such as in an orchestra pit of a musical production), so it's all pretty great. Just that sometimes I wish I could call up that wild dual-filter-path-bubbly-delay thingy, without the expense of losing all last minute tweaks of the previous patch (because I didn't bow down to press save...).

Yeah, they have that "stompbox" thing. Way more limiting but apparently still quite nice - which is why I was considering it as well, instead of a Helix. Fwiw, because I could imagine this to become quite a programming nightmare, especially due to the dynamic DSP allocation of the Helix, a thing I was thinking about was introducing a new "patch class/group". You would create, say, a "master patch". Inside that patch you would then tag blocks as "global". Apart from those globalized blocks, any sub-patches would then have to have exactly the same routing and block positioning as well (of course there could be multiple master- and sub-patch groups), you would only be able to change the "non-globalized" blocks content but not their position. Less flexible than "free" global blocks but possible less irritating and easier to realize, too.

Uhm. Ok, here goes. This might get long, so please bear with me... Many of the typical gigs/jobs I play usually involve kinda like "telephone" or "last minute" bands. In other words: I don't know what'll happen until 1-2 days before, sometimes it all happens straight at the gig. Bunch of sheets flying around (or being airdropped, whatever), big piles of tunes everybody sort of knows and off we go. Needless to say that I simply can't prepare properly for such a gig, let alone sort out sounds and create setlists or whatever. So I will have to rely on a bunch of allround tones and possibly modify them as good as it gets in very short time (during quick soundchecks and even while playing). Ideally, I will at least get the main things right, such as gains, channel levels, BMTP controls and all that. With that one-patch-per-gig approach, I'm getting away just more or less fine. I can even re-adjust some things while a chord is ringing out, etc. All this simply wouldn't work anymore as soon as there's more patches involved. So, to turn up my clean channel volume (plus whatever other parameters) would require calling up each patch, doing the adjustments and re-save the patch. But imagine I turned it up a bit too much - there's simply no way of going back during the gig as I can't just hold a note, recall 3 patches, adjust and re-save them and then go back to the patch I'm actually playing. It's absolutely impossible. And the more patches there are, the messier things get (and it's not Lionel Messi...). Ok, now here's how I used to deal with this before going Helix: For around 20+ years, I've been using various incarnations of loopswitcher based setups, everything usually being controlled via MIDI. A typical setup might've been like a 2-3 channel preamp (sometimes even multiple preamps, but those were the 90s...) with a bunch of pedals slapped into pre-amp loops and some FX running in post-amp FX loops or whatever. With any such a setup, the combination of pedals and preamp channels plus whatever FX (rack- or pedalboard-powered) provided plenty of flexibility while still allowing me to adjust some crucial parameters at any time. Clean channel needs to be a bit louder? Well, let note ring, turn volume knob, call it a day. And that action would be valid throughout all my 13 (or 74) clean(-ish) patches. Fwiw, this is also why I didn't use just a single multi FX unit for post-amp processing but usually would at least have a dedicated unit for the final reverb (and sometimes the delay as well). That way, I was still able to call up rooms, plates, halls, etc. to my liking but would as well have global control over just the overall reverb mix. You might get the idea. With the Helix, the only way to do anything similar to that is to stick with one patch. Anything else simply isn't realistic for the things I do. Now, this is working pretty well. As I usually don't need much but a limited bunch of rather generic FX (some delay and reverb, a tad of phaser and vibe here and there - kinda like that), a single patch is often just fine. Yet, with all that power under my toes, I really wish I could do more here and there. But due to the nature of many of my gigs, that isn't possible. Global blocks (or whatever you may call it) would solve that instantly. Here's roughly how it goes in Fractal/AxeFX-land (I never owned one, so I try to recall what people told me or what I've once read in their Wiki): You could "tag" anything as a global block. And once you're using that tagged block in mutliple patches, any changes you do to that block would be valid for each patch using the same block (you can still use the same kind of block without it being global, of course). Back to my proposed scenario, I would very likely set two amps, 2-3 drives, one delay and one reverb to "global". That would keep the most relevant things consistent throughout all patches and still allow for a whole lot of variations (way more than what's possible within a single patch). And oh well, as if this wasn't long enough already: I also think this has a lot to do with aesthetics. I don't think it's the best idea to use entirely different sounds all night long. When you listen to wellknown players, they will have 1-2 core sounds which they will then build up upon, using additional gain things and FX. It's really just the Top 40 et al players who seem to need gazillions of different amp patches (ok, maybe John Mayer, too...). Personally, I think it's great to have a somewhat larger variety of filter, modulation and delay/reverb FX available but keep the core sounds more or less identical. Ok, and finally, I also think that the lack of quick adjustments is responsible for modelers to often not sound as great in a live context as they possibly could. In case you have to bow down (or walk back and turn around, whatever) all the time, dive through menus. press save buttons and what not - it's likely that you rather not do that but live with a less than ideal sound. Global blocks would have a potential to solve that with ease. Add a little MIDI knob box (or a tablet controller) allowing you to control all important global parameters in one centralized small-ish unit (not located at the bottom of the stage, either) and the world is a better place. Well, I told you this would get longer (and I could even add some detailed ideas how all this could be realized...)

All I want is global blocks. That'd absolutely skyrocket my tonal options for my use cases. Right now, I'm limited to one patch per gig - which is still awsome as it does in fact work, but I'd love some more flexibility.

Hm. I'm using an Alto TS310 - which has a *lot* of similarities with the Headrush. On paper, it should even push some more low end due to the bigger speaker - and yet I have never been running into excessive boom or whatever. It's also that patches I'm creating through headphones (usually Sennheiser HD25, at least for any final checks) translate pretty well, even if the headphones aren't particularly bass heavy. I'm not saying it's very likely, but could it be that something is just wrong with your Headrush? How does it sound when you play some music through it?