Jump to content

unclejambo

Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About unclejambo

  • Rank
    Just Startin'

Profile Information

  • Registered Products
    1
  1. Phase invert switch on lanes... actually, maybe on individual blocks.
  2. Assuming most of those who use the unit keep the same pedals hooked up to the sends/returns at all times, a global setting to name them would be really handy.
  3. I'm all about using ears but visualisation of eq curves and dynamics would be a nice touch.
  4. I think I get you but also think you mean I should split path 1a out to 1b after the effects I want before both amps? Having one 1a as effect into my first amp model and 1b just the effect, then I could take the output of 1b and route that to 2a. Otherwise I'd be feeding an amp output into another amps chain. Actually, this doesn't really work as in the patch I created, for cohesion, I fed the outputs of both heads into a single cab sim and reverb. I guess I could merge the amp heads on path 1 then have my cab and room sim on 2a being fed by path 1. I can only experiment I suppose. Maybe it's not possible but I'd still sooner the dsp could handle more being thrown at it, per path, in it's current configuration. In all likelihood, I'd want to apply parallel processing to my vocal/synth chain too. I've previously built similar setups in DAWs on my 2010 macbook and could also play along with drum software utilizing hefty sample libraries. I'm just surprised that a dedicated, standalone effects processor (even if we're just talking per path) runs out of steam before a 6 year old computer running an operating system and it's myriad background tasks. Also, back to the digital desk comparison. I'm familiar with many other desks but even at entry level.... I've installed a behringer x32 rack at a venue in my home town. Even it you're limiting it to processing it's physical inputs without hardware expansion, this unit processes 22 channels of incoming audio (including aux ins) with a gate, comp and fully parametric eq (including high and low pass). The same processing can be applied to all outputs. Again, if we're limiting it to the physical outputs it has, thats around 14 (including aux outs) I think. Besides all this you have a rack of 8 stereo or 16 mono effects, the sends to each can be processed with the afore-mentioned dynamics and eq, as can the returns. I'm sure it's possible but I'm yet to make it grey effects out due to lacking dsp. Oh, on top of all that, it animates input and output metering, rta on eq visualization and gain reduction on dynamics. Granted, the modeling/processing in the x32 might differ greatly from that within the Helix... but that's a hell of a lot of processing that by comparison, what's considered an entry level digital desk is capable of. Anyhow, I'm not hating on the helix, I'm just very surprised that my very first foray into patch creation, maxed it (that path) out. I think the routing is really clever and patch editing very intuitive and I'm sure I'll find a way to make it all work for me.
  5. I'm running (or plan on running) some effects before the split (affects both amps) and some after and then feeding the output of both head sims into a single cab sim. So yes, in this instance, I'm only utilizing a single path... I still hoped that I'd be able to throw a hell of a lot more at each of those paths. I'd typically want to use path 2 for an aux in or mic. I'm yet to get that far. As I'm using amp and cab sims, I'm monitoring through a hifi and some decent floor standing speakers. They're detailed, go pretty low, my room is pretty dry and I've mixed on them in the past so I trust them to give me a pretty accurate representation of how things sound. I've also listened via the headphone out on triple driver, moulded iems, which again, I've used for pretty critical listening in the past. I killed all surplus modules (my initial tinkering was based around swapping modules out on an existing preset) and it allowed me to add some distortion modules at least.. I'll be switching those module outs for routing to outboard stompboxes when I get a little more time too so maybe that'll free some stuff up. The one module I have left is a reverb after the cab sim as even the best amp/cab sims on there sound digital to my ears without it. Perhaps this module is a dsp hog and I can get creative with the cab sim settings to achieve a little more realism... will continue to play around.
  6. Had a bit of fun with the Helix last night. I think the routing architecture is genius but found most of the amp sims pretty awful sounding in all honesty. Anyhow, I landed on a dual amp combination of the fender twin and svt models that I really liked. I was pretty disappointed that doing so greyed out a lot of the other modules, presumably due to lacking dsp. It was late and I didn't get too deep before bedtime, so maybe deleting the modules I won't be using will free up a load of dsp. I've not tried sending and returning to my actual stomp boxes yet but my main reason for buying the helix is as a switching system for my external pedals, using eq modules to push those stompboxes, and to run dual amp sims (to one output) and use the remaining 2 paths to process a microphone in and a synth sub-mix on aux in. I gather those remaining two paths utilize separate dsp, so I'm just hoping I can cut the fat and use the first two as I'd hoped. I'll experiment some more but I was just really surprised that my first attempt at building a patch exhausted it's resources. I come from a live-sound engineer background where most digital desks dsp are spec'd so that you're hard pressed to max them out. I'm surprised the helix wasn't built the same way.
×
×
  • Create New...