SaschaFranck

TBH, I always found those new and "limited" colors to be quite an absurd thing, but each to their own. OTOH, the fact that they're still releasing new designs (well, ok, "skins" rather than designs), might be indicating that there's still quite some years of life in the platform.

Defenitely. I think AI will very soon play a much more important role in our lives than many (and it's an astonishingly high amount of people) folks seem to be able to imagine. In not too many years from now, it's absolutely likely that "Hey, AmpModelerGPT, here's the signal I have, please do your best to match it to the tone of <famous player XYZ>" will be reality. We have Match EQs already, they could possibly be AI-enhanced already. What we'd further need would be - A tool to "demix" songs. Those tools exist already and they're partially coming up with jawdropping results (the new Beatles single anyone?). - A tool to create an amp "capture" just based on some source and (possibly extracted) target material. This may take a while and the neural network learning might take several hours for a while to come, but still, it's pretty much invedently to happen (and not in 10 years from now but rather 2-3 or so). - A tool to do spatial analysis, so the AI knows what delays/reverbs to add. This might be tricky at first, but it should be good enough to get you into the ballpark pretty soon, so all you'd have to do is some finetunings. - A tool to analyze modulations and what not. This might in fact be the trickiest part for a while to come, especially in case modulations include filtering, dynamics and what not. But IMO it'll come one day, though.

It'd be *zero* of a problem to add a mobile editor to all devices of the HX family already, why should it be an issue for future hardware? Mobile editors add tremendous value for those often rehearsing and gigging. It's just so much easier to edit things without having to crawl on the floor.

How so? There's way cheaper devices such as the NUX Amp Academy (just to name one, but in fact there's sevaral) offering editors for Windows, macOS, iOS and Android. There's also Boss. A big brand such as Yamaha should follow suit

How is that even possible? Would anyone force you to use them? No. So how could they turn you off?

I don't want this to be either/or. I want great on-unit editing options *and* a mobile application. And why not? It should be possible easily.

Admittedly, the post is quite misleading. What he's talking about is the internal cabs. Which, under the hood, are nothing else but thousands of IRs.

Touchscreens can be absolutely fantastic for editing. Just not on the floor.

A touchscreen is making barely any sense on a floor unit. Give me a mobile editor and I'm just fine.

I see very little reasons why that wouldn't be possible. Unlike L6 doesn't want it to happen.

Tomorrow.

You're right, they left out those options from the plugin. Strange. Request it!

Do you have the drivers installed as well? It's not required under macOS, "plain" CoreAudio is even allowing for lower latencies, but from what I remember, things such as multiple samplerate support would only work well with the driver installed.

No.

https://line6.com/support/topic/65019-helixhx-update-doesnt-work-look-here/

I know it's doable. But they're not even fixing some horrible UI things on the Stomp (such as, for example, not being able to deactivate model scrolling once you turn the lower right encoder, which is just as annoying as it gets).

Would love that (hence upvoted both ideas) but it won't happen. Boss at least sort of has this since ages, the encoders below the screen on their GT units could be assigned to anything once you're outside of edit mode. Excellent - and it could even be expanded by allowing the encoders to control multiple parameters at once. But as said, I doubt it'll ever happen, especially on the Stomp, which has so many way less than shiny UI issues that aren't adressed, either.

See, I wasn't talking about you to actual use the 4cm method. Just use it as a test setup until you've matched your tones.

I'd also try what Schmalle said. In addition, you could try to tackle the problem by setting up the Stomp in 4 cable method, with your Super Sonic's preamp sitting in the loop (note: when you do this for the first time, you need to check out which loop levels are appropriate, they can be switched between instrument and line level, in addition, the loop blocks have their own leveling options for further finetununing). Within that scenario, you could now comfortably switch between the internal amps/preamps and the Super Sonic's preamp. You could even place a looper block as the first thing in your signal chain, record something and have your hands free for all editing purposes while the looper is playing.

Thing is, there's way more of a difference between home and live/band setups but just to defeat Fletcher Munson. As said before, mids are your friend. They help you to stand out without raising volume. And at the same time, as you will likely lower the overall output when boosting some mids, this will help with Fletcher Munson as you're essentially reducing low and top end.

And then you would still have to use corrective EQ should you play louder (very likely to happen in a band context).

For the future, he should create a handful of patches at band volume through the equipment used for band playing. You can then compare them at home and draw your conclusions when designing more patches at home. For a quick remedy, he might want to try the Global EQ and a relatively broad mid boost with a center frequency somewhere between, say, 700Hz and 1kHz. Just set it up and fool around with it while playing (as much as possible at least). In addition, it's always a pretty good idea to have the low and high cuts in reach, to tame excessive boom and shrillness.

1) I tried to carefully explain why that is not the most convenient way (at least when controlling output level rather than gain - which is what you said you wanted to do) as long as you have a free block left to insert a gain block (or a Simple EQ, which is what I'd do). You'd just assign the on/off status to a snapshot or a switch, done. No fooling around with finetuning your drive's output level, which a) will become tedious in case you plan to use the same setting in more than one snaphot, especially because b) you'll be losing "patchwide" control of the drive's output level, which means anything you might want to change later on will have to be done in multiple snapshots - I find that to be *the* opposite of convenient. But just check it out yourself. There's various ways to integrate path B. It can as well be a switchable serial path. Which you could use in multiple ways. Just to describe one: You could slap your drive and your gain block into path B and then preselect whether you wanted to have the gain block active or not. Path B could then be activated via snapshots. But really, that's just one way of doing things. --- In the end, all I'm saying is this: Regardless of which method you chose (controlling the drive's volume or adding a gain block), in case you want to use the drive without and with boost, you will defenitely have to sacrifice a snapshot or a switch for that maneuver, absolutely no way around it. So that's defenitely nothing you will magically avoid by controlling the output level of your drive. Any switching scenarios I could possibly imagine do *not* improve by using the option to vary the drive's output compared to using a gain block after the drive. More to the opposite, especially when you try to keep things simple and manageable, using an additional block is quite more convenient for a number of reasons. As said, just try to flip the drive we're talking about here - once you're doing that, all your carefully curated output level settings for normal and boosted operation go ***poof*** up in smoke. With a gain block you don't even have to think about it, everything stays intact. And it'd only get better in case you'd be using an EQ instead of the gain block because that way you could actually shape the way you boost following pedals, a massive benefit in many situations. Sorry for quoting that again, but: It's not about what you use to control the gain, it's about *which* gain (or rather output level...) you control. Which is making a whole world of a difference in terms of convenience.

Either the same way as you'd alter the output level of the drive, hence by using snapshots. Or by assigning it to a new switch. Or by assigning it to the same switch as the drive (which is extremely easy on the Helix, just select the gain block and hold the switch, you will then be asked whether you'd like to assign it). There's down- and upsides to either method. But the "drive level via snapshot" method would be at least as downside-ish. There's some more methods of realizing such things, such as slapping either the drive or the gain block onto path B (in case it's still free to be used). With that, you could sort of preselect what's supposed to happen when activating that path (which could again be done via a switch or snapshot). That's a method I was using in all my patches (for slightly different tasks, though).

You would not lose any of them by inserting a gain block. And it's as easy as it gets to control multiple blocks in stomp mode, too. Really, there's nothing easier in using snapshots for additional output volume control, more to the opposite. The only thing you gain is another free block - but as long as you have enough of them, inserting an addtional gain block is by far the more elegant and easier to deal with solution, it's even proveable. Quicker access, less save operations, more flexible (you could use the boost along with another drive block or just on it's own, etc.). But hey, each to their own.