SaschaFranck

I can pretty much agree with that. Fortunately, I was able to check out an Axe FX II of a student of mine for a few days. Btw, it's the same with Atomic stuff. No way to check things out others than buying or borrowing them from a friend.

As said, over here (macOS 10.13.6) there's no numbers added when exporting IRs, no idea why it seems to be different over at your place - and that would at least be something, even if it doesn't remotely adress the issues I'm having. I won't be using many cab IRs, either, maybe 5-10 of my own, I do as well agree that for recordings, DAWs have better options to deal with these things. But I plan to use quite some "creative" IRs, as in changing pickup resonances, applying certain complexed frequency curves to acoustic guitars, etc. And to keep track of all that, I would need better IR handling. Besides, regardless of whether one is using lots of IRs or not, there should be a decent organisation scheme - right now there's nothing, really. In case I'd send you 5 Helix patches and 5 IRs you would have *no* chance to get them right others than by raw luck. But in case I'd send you 5 Kontakt patches and 5 samples, they would all be perfect instantly. And that's precisely what I think should be expected.

No, they don't get numbered. I just selected a bunch and exported them. They kept their original names without any numbering added. Is there any trick I'm missing? Besides, that wouldn't solve the problem at all because in case you're exporting IRs to slap in new ones, the slots might be occupied. In addition, even if they would get numbered, that still doesn't tell you anything about the relationships between patches and IRs. No matter how you put it, IR handling and especially management is completely awkward, chances of data (= patch) loss included. The only workaround is to manually keep track of each and every IR you use for each and every patch. Which is a method from last century or so...

In the patch attached (no real patch, just EQs as placeholders) it is completely impossible to select the output section of path 2 when you're somewhere in path 2 already. The only way to get to the output is to move up to the output of path 1 and then move the joystick down. That's pretty convoluted and it doesn't make any sense, either. As interesting sidenotes: - In HX Edit, you can select the output section using the arrow keys (which I think are the equivalent of the joystick on a computer keyboard). - Once the output is selected, you can move to the slot left to it but not back. - As long as there's no split path (or a split that returns somewhere else but straight after the split), things work as expected. All these things considered, this is pretty much certainly a bug - and a rather annoying one for me, as I like most of my patches to be routed exactly like this. output select.hlx

I wish the 6 Switch Looper offered at least a little more configurability. First off: There's always two empty switches. I could make use of them very often. Let me place, say, 2 snapshots there. Or just two switches. In addition, I hardly ever use anything but record, play and undo. So for my personal use case, it'd be just nice If I could have just those and use the rest of the switches for something else.

No problem at all, each of the 2 main output pairs provide a left/mono option, so you could run the pair of TRS to your stage monitor and use the left XLR out for FOH. Make sure your FX are mono compatible, though. Oh, and while we're at it, make sure phantom power is off. Otherwise, rather use XLR for your speakers and the TRS for FOH.

Fwiw, on overdriven sounds, there's a *huge* difference between slapping anything in front or behind the amplification stage. You can, for instance, almost brutally boost the high mids and trebles on the frontend of the amp, which will often result in a much more "creamy" overdrive structure - but you would never apply the same amount of boost on a post-EQ. I sometimes even use almost opposite EQing pre and post. Such as in boosting the trebles a lot to make the amp scream nicely and then cutting those very trebles with a post EQ to even out the overall frequency response.

Latency doesn't only depend on the buffersizes, it's mostly about the driver quality. There's *huge* differences between the real latency values of different interfaces, even if you run all of them at the same buffer settings.

Amen to everything you've said. It's pretty much inevitable that the Axe FX *must* be better in some areas. And it proveably is. More amps available at a time. More FX available at a time. More CPU horsepower to realize certain FX that simply require it (HQ polyphonic pitch shifting and the likes). But in the end, the main question is whether you need all this. Personally, I don't, even if I wouldn't mind. And as far as sound quality goes, I'm almost perfectly happy with the Helix. I would however love to see some Axe features not related to CPU power and/or money, namely the global blocks functionality. That'd really boost the Helix in a most tremendous way for what I use it for.

Oops, yeah - sorry from my side, too. Plenty of room for discussion regarding IR management, though, as it seems. Will perhaps start a new thread later.

See software samplers. I have around 2 decades as a betatester of audio software on my belt (some pretty wellknown names among those companies), so I have a pretty good idea of what is possible, even without being a coder myself.

The backup restore isn't even remotely sufficient. I don't want to restore the entire shebang all the time but load and manage different bits here and there. And no, it's not about the overall number of IRs, either. I'll give you an example: The patches I created so far are all using just 3 IRs. These IRs are located in slots 3, 5 and 6. Should I plan to keep these patches, I will *never ever* be able to resort my IRs at all. At least not slots 3, 5 and 6. Should I ever plan to resort my IRs though, I would have to go through *each and every* patch, checking which IR they're using - because it could as well be one of those 3 - this would result in a) the patch missing the IR and/or b) the patch loading a completely different IR - namely one of those being placed in slots 3,5 and 6 after I resorted them. The only way to keep track of all of this (aside from doing complete backups and restoring them, which I don't even accept as a halfway decent solution) would be to manually write down which patch is using which IR every time I create a new patch. Seriously, the entire thing is no rocket science at all - all decent software samplers are dealing with pretty much the same issue since decades already. And they're doing fine.

Fwiw, the easiest way to adress all this would be to treat IRs like samples in a software sampler such as Kontakt or Battery. You can save patches without or with samples. The samples are placed in a separate folder next to the patch file. And in case you load a patch and the samples are missing, you're presented a search dialog. Could be every bit the same with the Helix.

I don't think that would be a huge issue. Could be checked just as easily as an licensed IR "hidden" in a zip.

Well, this could be adressed by the Helix looking for IR names and checksums. "IR already exists in storage - use existing IR or add new IR, yes/no?" Just offering more IR slots would only make the problem worse once you fill up patches and IR slots. It'd only work with literally unlimited IR space (something that doesn't exist). Patches should at least tell you which IR they're looking for instead of only referencing a certain slot. In addition, it should be possible to save IRs along with patches (not in one consolidated file) so you would at least be able to load them in case they're missing for whatever reasons. As is, once your patches and IRs are outside of the Helix, there's zero information about which patch is using which IR - to keep track of that, you *need* to use whatever textfiles along with the patches. Which, sorry to say so, is completely awkward and kinda like last century tech.

I would as well love an option to save IRs with a patch so there'd be no more confusion regarding "Which IR should be loaded into the slot this patch is using?" - as much as I love the Helix (and I *really* do), that kind of organisation is just as bad as it gets.

Well, compared to the internal cabs, I vastly prefer playing through my own IRs, at least once it's about gig/rehearsal volume. So, in a way, for me that's a sort of requirement - and I defenitely wouldn't have bought the Helix without an IR loading option. Fwiw, I don't think I'll ever use many cab IRs on the unit at all, right now I think I will end up with 5-10, probably even just 3-5. Pretty much as I was happy with 3 cabs (plus 3 onboard speakers of two combo amps) for the last 20 years. As said, for recordings it's an entirely different thing (even if my live IRs seem to work pretty well in that context, too). I'll post one of my IRs and a simple patch for you folks to try out later on. Oh, hold on, here's a bit more complexed patch already (info and IR in the zip), but I have altered it a bit since uploading it. It's one of the allround live patches I created, tailored to be used in a pop/soul/funk/rock-ish context. Ignore the wah settings, didn't tune them properly (might post an update one day...): http://www.saschafranck.de/Helix/Soulmates.zip (for whatever reasons, the link doesn't seem to work in Firefox/macOS, you may have to copy/paste it somewhere)

But I think that's the very thing making some people unhappy. Even with just a single cab, the sound you'll get is a mic'ed speaker. I vastly prefer cab solutions with as little mic impact as possible for live playing (for recording, it's an entirely different thing IMO). And regarding the lack of mic positions, sure, you're absolutely right. But as I think that the factory cabs of the Helix are "hidden IRs", adding mic placement options would instantly multiply the number if required IRs working in the background which might as well require quite some reprogramming of the current interface. Anyway, I really don't think it's all that important because for recording purposes, the Helix has everything on offer you need to just record the amp tone without any cabs - and you can easily slap any IRs you like onto that while mixing. I do however wish there were more IR slots, which would make sorting out IRs while playing a whole lot more effcient experience.

Fwiw, I would like to be able to adjust threshold globally (as an offset to the programmed value). The Boss GT units do it like that and it's pretty neat as you can program patches with a bare minimum of the kind of gating they may require under "normal" conditions and only turn threshold down globally under critical conditions.

I don't exactly agree. Yes, I know it's done all the time, and yet, I have recorded a full album (admittedly more like some funky/pop/fusion-ish stuff) with exactly one cab and one mic. Nobody ever complained. Anyway, as said, I'm aware of all that - but still, it shouldn't be a requirement to get a nice tone out of the Helix. And again as said, I don't think it is, just that some sounds could do with some "better" (or "easier to deal with) cab options, especially when you want to use things live.

As I (at least traditionally, read: using my half-analog pedalboard) am used to using the same lead boost/sculpturing for all tones (cleans, dirts, drives) and need a completely clean lead sound with enough headroom here and there as well, my method for quite some years (make that over a decade) has been to stick a mellow compressor in front of the amp section and use a post EQ to finetune the boost level and frequency spectrum of my leads. The Helix Deluxe Comp seems to work quite fine (even if I wish it had tone control to somewhat enhance trebles just a tiny little bit, which my Mooer Yellow Boost pedal is excellent at). I try to make sure the attack is left untouched as that might result in a too squashed sound and less options to fool around with playing dynamics and your volume pot. As far as the EQ goes, the Simple EQ and the Cali Q Graphic work nicely as they display all parameters on one page, so adjustements straight on the Helix are easy to realize. I tend to boost some mids (a litlle lower for less agressivity and a tad higher for more rock kinda stuff) and adjust the output level accordingly. Finally, I control those two via one switch. As said, I have done it exactly this way in my (loopswitcher based) setups for a long time, works nicely. I could post an example patch.

While I love all these options and while I'm quite a sort of a tweaking person, non of all these steps should be required to get a decent (or even great) guitar sound. Guitar, amp. cab. That should do for a great basic tone. And well, IMO in case of the Helix, it does, but a) not for all amps and b) not exactly for live playing. Studio tones IMO don't work too well in most live scenarios. Would perhaps be great to have a special category of cabs tailored for live players. Not much of an issue for me as I have my own IRs that I'm happy with, but you hear these things all the time when it comes to modelers (not just the Helix).

You could as well just try to borrow one of the very low latency interfaces, such as an RME Babyface or Fireface UC to find out whether that cures your issues. While there's no exact numbers, it seems that once latency is pretty low (let's assume <5ms for a roundtrip), many folks don't compensate for it anymore as the distraction between pick feel and delayed sound is gone (even if there still is latency).

I think IRs need to be treated differently as in "live vs. recording". I got the RedWirez big pack a long time ago and while I love the options it has on offer (I also have all IRs converted into Logic Space Designer presets which allows me to navigate through all of them with just my arrow keys) for my recorded stuff, for live I'm using quite different (self-made) IRs. Not only are those RedWirez IRs overkill but I also think they don't play comfortably through whatever of my FRFR live setups (wedges or InEars). For live I need a lot less mic characteristics and ideally pretty little early reflections - both of which you find plenty of in most IR packs. My own IRs are pretty "straight forward", trimmed as much as it gets and rather midrange-y. They seem to be working fine for everybody involved.

Ah ok, fine then.