Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Lachdanan0121

  1. The HX reverbs are pretty good, but I think there is something that all of them could have added to them that would make them better.  An EQ section for the Reverb.  (if people don't like messing with it they can leave it at defaults)


    That said I do want more flavors of HX reverbs. 5 is nice, but I would like more. 


    I found myself liking the Ganymead (spelling) when I turn the decay down to like 1.2 - 1.7.  Make a few further adjustments.  Put it on its own parallel path with the vintage delay on the other path with most of the signal going thru the delay side of the path. The Reverb path gets an hi/low EQ after it, and then a stereo widening block after it before it merges back into the signal path.  


    You can get great results with them, you just have to work with them, and I think an EQ added to each would be nice. (some don't even have a low/hi cut)

    I just think we need more HX Reverbs period.


    There is nothing wrong with mentioning that you want more HX reverbs for Helix... I do. (and I have a large selection of Reverb plugins) You will be told to buy something else, or be happy with what you have, but I don't give much credence to those auto-snark responses. They are very similar to "the tone is in the fingers" crap responses people get when asking about getting a specific tone.

  2. 15 hours ago, datacommando said:


    This really is the last resort, guys!

    Yes, it is.

    I hardly even come to these forums anymore.  I get more information, faster, with less snark from TGP. Which I find amusing, and I am sure won't last long.


    That said, I am excited about 3.0.

    I don't even know what is coming in it, I just hope it actually is a big update.

    I do hope for some HX reverbs, or EQ sections put into current HX reverbs, and maybe some L6 original amps. 

    • Like 2
    • Upvote 1
  3. Let me clarify something it isn't that you have old hardware that is the problem. Its that it was underpowered even 8 years ago. The Macbooks were not very powerful to be honest, especially the Airs. (they were built to be lighter)


    I am running on a 6 year old processor. I7 5820K (it still rocks hard) yes I can get underruns in FL Studio. Yes I can push it to the max in games now. (if in 4k)

    I built this rig 6 years ago knowing it could last me a decade if needed.  But since I went up to 48K I am meeting the limits of this processor. I plan on building a new rig next year once the Rocket Lake CPUs release with Mobos that support PCIe4.0. As long as this one doesn't burn up before then, it will last me until then. 


    That said I still balance wtih the 512s latency, or higher! This creates too much throughput latency to be usable if I were recording and monitoring completely through my PC. This is not the case though. I strongly recommend that you wet monitor through from your unit, and kill any monitoring throughput you have in your DAW. 


    In FL Studio I have my guitar coming through input usb7 (from helix) Dry channel recording of whatever I am playing. I monitor with amps/FX through the Helix unit itself.  I just make sure whatever channel I am recording to in the mixer in FL Studio is not routed to the master.  That is it. Its pretty simple once you wrap your head around it the first few times. 

    If you want to record with your AMP/FX baked in already then just use USB 1&2 instead of 7. 

    I am not sure about Studio One, but FL Studio has latency compensation (so you won't have to shift your recordings to align)



  4. 14 hours ago, rd2rk said:


    And we know what bitching about that will get us.......A LOCKED THREAD!


    I see what you did, you edited it to avoid political implications. But we ALL know who you're talking about.....nod nod, wink wink ;-)

    Yes, I did. Its hard not to bring that person up when talking about free speech, and criticism.  

    I am not wrong.... nudge nudge, wink wink ;-)

    Since it is abundantly obvious, and no one is actually mentioned, where is the need for censorship? ;)


  5. 4 hours ago, rd2rk said:


    Fortunately, MOST people can tell the difference between bitching and being excited.

    Also fortunate that MOST people know the difference between "Some people" and "Everyone".

    Lastly, Freedom of Speech means that you're free to lollipop all you like.

    It also means that others are free to criticize you for it.

    Seems that is something "a lot of people" seem to forget. We all know one who is real bad about it.

  6. 11 hours ago, qwerty42 said:


    But on the bright side, if you're gigging in a place with a mosquito problem, the tuner doubles as an insect repellent! 

    Louisiana definitely has a mosquito problem... This is like their HQ. 

  7. 1 hour ago, spikey said:

    Does the dog have a tuner in his editor?

    Don't get your hopes up. I heard through the grapevine that the tuner is modeled after a tuning fork that is only able to go as low as a dog whistle.

  8. 15 minutes ago, rd2rk said:


    How Agnostic Differs From Atheist


    Many people are interested in distinguishing between the words agnostic and atheist. The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods, and agnostic refers to someone who doesn’t know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable.


    Agnostic is a statement of knowledge. Atheism is a statement of beliefs.

    I am an agnostic atheist. I do not know if god(s) exists, however, I am not convinced of it. 

    If I were a (gnostic theist) I would be claiming that I know there is a god. As opposed to just a theist -  believing in it. (being convinced) 





  9. 50 minutes ago, qwerty42 said:

    Thanks :) But I also want to emphasize I don't see one as superior over the others. (I used to, but I realized it made me a bit of a d*** so I reassessed those beliefs and changed my attitude.) Depending on a person's values and priorities, choosing a leap of faith might make a lot more sense than stopping where logic can go no further. I think in some ways, the human psyche thrives with spiritual beliefs and the positive outlook they can create. So, IMO, there's a strong argument for choosing to believe in something if it improves your life, even if you can't prove it to be true. If your goal is just to have the most fulfilling and happiest life, that could be the most practical choice for many people.

    I don't think it so easy as anyone chooses their beliefs. To "choose" a belief would be insincere would it not? As you are either convinced, or you are not. You believe, or don't. I don't just mean in matters of god(s)/religions either. 

    How can one sincerely choose to be convinced of something? If you are choosing to be convinced of something then it is kinda apparent that the priority of it being true is significantly diminished. Hints the detriment to its sincerity. 


    I get that when people say things like "I don't believe in abortion" what they are really saying is they don't support it. Supporting something, and believing in it are two separate things, often convoluted.  (I was using that as an example, not to move the discussion to abortion at all)

    • Like 2
  10. 3 minutes ago, qwerty42 said:

    Ah, interesting, I wasn't aware of that difference (atheism vs anti-theism). Thanks for clarifying that.

    Aye. No problem. Glad I could help.

    • Like 1
  11. BTW. Agnostic is not the middle ground between atheism, and theism.


    Atheism is a lack of belief in a god. IE not convinced one exists.


    Anti-theism is the assertion that there is no god.


    Agnostic is a statement of knowledge. Atheism is a statement of beliefs.


    I am an Agnostic Atheist.

    • Like 2
  12. 9 hours ago, datacommando said:



    Nihilism is not an option.


    It's your choice!

    If Nihilism, especially existential Nihilism, isn't an option... Then it isn't my choice.


    Perhaps L6 can finally get it right with 3.00. :)

    • Haha 2
  13. 26 minutes ago, brue58ski said:


    Revelling? NAH. Wasting time while I wait. Yes.


    6 minutes ago, rd2rk said:


    Our Ford would not do that to us. It would not be productive!


    Yes, Revelling.

    I was joking of course.  

  14. Just now, BBD_123 said:




    And it can finish right now, if no longer entertaining for all.

    Its all good, I am just gonna go dink around in the studio in some 3/4 time... buh dum tish or whatever. ;)

  15. 2 minutes ago, Heavyville said:

    none of you can prove any of this wrong or right.     just try...... 


    If one says its perception is open....it is....end of story.    If i broke on through to the other side,  I did... 


    you can continue to divide that banana in two and fight over it, but your a lot closer to a primate when doing that.... and its still a banana.  

    WAIT!!! ...that's not a banana!!!

    • Haha 1
  16. 7 minutes ago, BBD_123 said:


    I read what you said. The problem is that I'm not sure what you intend by the words existence and reality at this point. If we use definitions that I am comfortable with then if there is no reality (objective, external, universal) then there can be no perception as there would be nothing to perceive...



    I agree with you completely. Perhaps I am just having a vocabulary screw up. lol

    Now that I am reading a lot of this online more carefully, (and I don't just mean on this forum)  it seems like people agree that reality is existence, not separate from it. 

    I ponder a lot of things, and your posts just happen to coincide with some thoughts I had on the subject at the time. I thought it would be nice to bounce a few things as such. 




  17. 1 minute ago, BBD_123 said:


    I know, and I didn't suggest that you were :-) All that's happening here is a vocabulary thing.



    I didn't say that you did :-)

    Ahh ok. I just wanted to clarify. 


    I will copy & paste this from my post as I edited, and I think you may have not seen it.


    Though I will admit, I have been wrestling with the question "can existence exist without reality?" Or something to that extent...

    I just always thought of the two terms not to be completely identical. Perhaps I am wrong, and I am making it way too difficult. Perhaps they are completely identical... 

  18. 41 minutes ago, BBD_123 said:


    We're at cross purposes here. I've been trying to distinguish between perception (internal, subjective) and reality (external, objective) from the outset. So when you speak of 'reality being a shared experience of existence' you are introducing layers of confusion. Reality is reality. 'Shared experience of existence' is perception :-)



    I never said reality wasn't reality, the state of it is the same for us all. Shared. I just see it as the experience of existence, and not existence itself. (not perception) Not to be confused with how I experience it, as opposed to you. How we all experience it (how rain affects dirt, how gravity affects water, how density affects gravity).

    I am not trolling in anyway, or trying to introduce layers of confusion. 

    Though I will admit, I have been wrestling with the question "can existence exist without reality?" Or something to that extent...

    I just always thought of the two terms not to be completely identical. Perhaps I am wrong, and I am making it way too difficult. Perhaps they are completely identical... 

  19. 3 hours ago, datacommando said:

    The Doors - Aldous Huxley

    My 7-string Schecter Loomis modified - is named Huxley.  Partially after Aldous. 

    • Like 1
  20. 13 hours ago, BBD_123 said:


    The fiat before the lux. I don't know. Nobody knows.



    Exactly :-) Bats and eagles have different perceptions of reality, but it's the same reality irrespective of what sensorium is used to perceive it.



    You could, but not as synonyms for perception :-)


    To be clear I mentioned nothing about perception. That was another poster. 

    I was talking about reality being a shared experience of existence. Not the perception of that shared experience of existence. That is why I mentioned agency. 


    Then again, we can just throw hard solipsism in there, and really mess things up! LOL

  21. 6 hours ago, BBD_123 said:


    Since the universe appears to be about 14.5bn years old and anatomically modern humans have been around for no more than 400ky (a generous estimate), then there is good evidence that reality exists without us being here to perceive it...

    Existence was here before us, but doesn't a "reality" require "agency?"

    Reality being our shared condition, and experience of said existence. Even if only a slice of it.


    EDIT: I mean our truly shared condition, and experience of said existence. For instance our reality is we only see in a limited spectrum of light without augmentation. 


    Of course I could be taking this too far, and you can just use existence, and reality as interchangeable synonyms. :) 

    • Like 1
  • Create New...