d0stenning

Here ya go.

 

finally gave this video an audition - and WOW.  thanks for the demo.

I have a JTV which of course doesn’t need this ............ except i’ve often gotten into habit of just using my G10 on the JTV but without JTV battery so only use the real magnetics.   ( it limits my choices which is good for **me** ) often these days when mucking about. 

But what this means is that i can play acoustic occasionally - just with the magnetics on my JTV59 and this.  Since you’ve proved one can get quite a nice sound even from magnetics in this video. 

I happen to have the Glenn DeLaune IRs and patch currently  but can see myself getting these IRs eventually.  TBH though - i do prefer t use the built in JTV models when i can- and the battery is charged !   good to have choices and flexibility like this though

I've had no problems or sonic disappointments with my G10.  Very happy with the sound and no noticeable latency.

 And even if slightly different on top end its something that can be fixed up simply by adjusting the tone controls or EQ in a HELIX patch or elsewhere. 

when I change patches Helix will turn off the Variax and get to the magnetic pickups.

I've noticed that too - pretty sure its a firmware bug.

Would be nice to have Line 6 put together a document describing each preset in detail - giving for example the ideal guitar or guitar model ( JTV FTW ) to use with the preset,  as well as how it was intended to be used. 

Here is a Zip containing all the 2.0 presets ( maybe ALMOST ALL - DUNNO ) but sorted into folders by amplifier model. 

I've begun working through them amp by amp.  the whole process is quite laborious ! 

But L6 spend some time making these presets so i think they deserve to be given attention. 

Would be nice to have Line 6 put together a document describing each preset - giveng for example the ideal guitar or guitar model ( JTV FTW ) to use with the preset. 

Sorted By Amp.zip

I think "All American" is a good new preset that contains Snapshots

 

I think we need to focus on effective ways to use the capabilities we have rather than constantly adding new capabilities. There are many tips and tricks, best practices and usage patterns that need to be explored and documented. 

 

Well in a way that is what I am asking  for - more effective - more workflow-enhancing ways of using capabilities - like MIDI Controller mapping - in a much more time-efficient manner. 

For example it is very time-consuming to set up MIDI Controller mappings for EXTERNAL devices such as loopers, delays , DAWs and advanced effects such as the H9.  To then have to repeat this laborious process manually for EVERY  preset one needs to use.  Its - frankly - a drag. 

And what happens when one needs to change the mappings ?    You have to go through EVERY preset making the same changes. This could quickly become very impractical.   We have a very useful feature - being able to send out MIDI messages via pedal - but a feature currently not implemented in the best way possible. 

<Functions tend to sell, but usability tends to determine overall outcomes. > 

That merely makes my point for me.  The MIDI output feature is great to have - but a pain to actually set up  if one needs exactly the same MIDI mappings for - say 10 or more presets - and might need to make minor changes to the mappings as time goes on.. 

The GLOBAL vs PRESET  thing I am emphasising in the OP  very much addresses the need for usability. 

I'd want that to be stored using the onboard Helix memory and potentially affect/limit memory

 

The kinds and sizes of the data required for settings, preferences and the like  is minimal  in comparison to the storage required to hold the actual code for the software and  impulse responses.   This storage is all in FLASH (SSD)- not RAM - which only gets used for the software running - and for the audio storage requirements for the looper, delays and such.  

It would be nice to know exactly how much FLASH memory space there is on the HELIX. Given that  FLASH memory is very cheap ( think how much a couple of Gig's of memory-stick costs ).    There ** is ** another form of flash memory that behaves like RAM namely parallel access EPROMS ( or EEPROM ) but where the storage is persistent - but is much more expensive than normal SSD's   but I am doubtful that this is being used in the HELIX,

Threads that discuss "whats coming next" and wish lists are legion.

 But here are some things that I consider generally true for most HELIX owners who've spent some time with this unit. 

MORE or IMPROVED AMPS or EFFECTS  will add **little** really benefit to how we use HELIX -  PRACTICALLY.  I argue its now Icing On The Cake. 

1)  We **already** have quite enough Amp models to work with.  If any guitarist worth their salt cannot get good sounds - **regardless** of style out to the models we already have - then the problems probably lie elsewhere - or the guitarist should consider selling it and going back to the "real thing" 

2) Although there **are** effects galore that could be added - and arguably the largest use for HELIX is for its non-amp-sim effects - not so much the amps - due to the convenience of this versus a huge pedal-board and **although** it appears the reverb models could be improved. Even so - fact is we really DO have quite enough to be getting on with.  

So again - more  or improved effects or amp models will not significantly improve the daily life, workflow and musical ways in which the HELIX gets used. THIS OUGHT NOT TO BE THE PRIORITY FOR the next firmware release.

So what would offer MORE and SIGNIFICANTLY MORE value to how we use the HELIX ? 

Its all the other stuff. 

So now we have SNAPSHOTSHere are some examples - n- which was the last major improvement - effecting ALL users irrespective of the sounds they use:  

We need the ability to set a wider range of parameters for which they operate across ALL presets - namely GLOBAL. 

Examples of this are: 

1)  Easier means of adjusting the USB 1/2 input volume ( rather than in Globals ) - since for people who use this - this volume will most likely be tweaked constantly a LOT  for example for each backing track 

2)  MIDI Controller settings for pedals - used for example to control external loopers, effects like H9 or Strymon, or DAW transport .

     Currently these are set up PER PRESET  which is a pain if one needs to use a whole range of presents with the same MIDE settings. 

   So - an option as to whether to use GLOBAL or PER-PRESET  MIDI CONTROLLER  settings needs adding.  

   Alternate solutions for this problem or "need'  can of course be figured out by L6 themselves but the main point is that  a solution is found.

3)  In similar fashion - the Global EQ option is great.   But we need more of them.  Presets For this would allow Separate Global EQs for amp cabinets,  studio monitors , Live PA or FRFR - or even different venues commonly used.

4)  Currently All of the SEND and RETURN  assignments are LOCAL to each preset.    Ideal for a lot of uses, but   there are many cases where one might want to use a particular stereo set of returns GLOBALLY across the board.  

For example - to play stereo backing tracks via an external device like the DIGITECH JamMan Solo XT or analog outputs form A PC or Laptop or MP3 Player into the HELIX. 

5)  Many users have requested some easy GLOBAL  means by which ANY preset that has a cabinet model in it - can easily either ACROSS THE BOARD - have the cabinets bypassed for those users who are using real external cabinets when gigging. but the cab-sims when recording or practicing.

  In addition to this - some have suggested that - for example a separate set of outputs, XLR/LINE or one of the SEND pairs - could be assigned GLOBALLY to output MINUS cabinets, while another pair output the entire chain.   In a way this is similar to 4 Wire - except we're not talking "wet/dry" here but  "Cab/No cab" -  but again - at heart what the need here is - is to make life easy for those who are likely to use and set up many patches where the requirement for routing - just like MIDI Control mapping - is likely to be required identically for ALL presets. 

6)  There has been some discussion suggesting that adding another layer to provide EQ curves for different volume levels would be greatly beneficial.  A forum user supplied some EQ curves which audiology has established can compensate for different playing-playing-back levels.

If none of the above were implemented - another stop-gap solution - would be to at least allow us in the HELIX Editor  to copy **parts** of one preset and paste to another preset.  So a workaround solution for 1-5  might be to. 

IN THE HELIX EDITOR: 

1) Allow the COMMAND CENTER  settings to be copied and pasted into a different patch. 

2) Allow ALL of a single BRANCH in a patch to be copied and pasted into another patch. 

3)  Allow TWO patches to be displayed AT ONCE in the HELIX EDITOR - to facilitate easier copying and pasting from one patch to another. 

To sum up -  I think   all of the above add far more value and would radically improve the ease of using HELIX in situations where we use a lot of patches. Particularly if prone to buying or trying out 3rd party presets or CustomTone  presets. 

Now - for those who happen to or advocated that the solution to this - is to just use ONE SINGLE PATCH FOR EVERYTHING.........  fine.

Maybe that works for you - but not everyone  - and in fact the above might be needed simply to get to the point where one feels ready to settle down to the ONE_PATCH_FOR_ALL  solution.  Which I think might be nice - but hard to get to. 

I won't work on the Variax presets soon unfortunately, I barely touch my guitars these days... I'm sick with a nasty tropical flu that doesn't want to go away :/

Sorry to hear that.   

Get well soon.

Hey Fremen - tempted though I am to just buy these - I think as a JTV owner i'll wait for the Variax pack. I'm kinda hoping that the VARIAX pack will be nothing but SNAPSHOT presets - since this seems to me to be the future. And most versatile . 

But in the meantime - is there any chance you could add  Dr Z  and Divided By 13  SNAPSHOT presets to your current set of snapshots in your pack ?  since those two models are ones i've been curious about and used in the Pod 500 a fair bit.  

------------------------

Also - how soon do you reckon your Variax patches will be ready for release ?  

I'd love it if i could just have one bank for Strat model, one for LP, another for 335, Another for Archtops ( maybe for a SPECIFIC arch top - i'd go for the Super 400 ) and one for the acoustic models etcetera etcetera. ( I think we need a separate patch for EACH most used steel string model - martin. gibson )

Maybe a "vote" might be useful for you to establish which JTV models we owners would most like to see you do patches for ? (  so you don't have to do them for every model - just focus on those most likely to be used the most ) 

And maybe if you can provide one custom Variax Workshop model for metal users ( i'm not one of them ) who want a high output pickup type ?  ( although seems to me just setting a gain block at the beginning of a patch achieves exactly the same thing ! ) 

------- lastly ----

personally i'm thinking of moving to a modus-operandi where I ONLY have a MAXIMUM of 8 presets in each of my setlists, ideally even less - even just 4 -  Why ?  simplicity and choice-stress-minimisation for one thing - and secondly because 8 is the maximum number of presets we can see in one go on the HELIX screen. And also the number of patches we an switch with by means of the pedals. 

Should be said - this MO is because I don't have  need to keep setlists for an *actual* song set because I don't actually gig in any cover band or a band that would need separate presets per-song in a setlist. So just want a set of universal go-to  patches I can use for everything. 

So a bank of 8 Strat model Variax snapshots - with each preset being for a different amp - and so on for different models would be cool :)

 just my ideas - my tuppeneths :)

Yes ! 

You can assign any pedal to a MIDI control message. 

For example theres already many people using Loopy HD and using HELIX t send MIDI control message to it to launch loops etc - and your page turning task would be a cinch compared to this. So ..... YES ! 

see here: 

thanks for all that  mdmayfield - my days as an audiophile are kind of over - both in terms of the kinds of hi-fi I own these days and in my day to day interests. 

But I do retain a geekish interest in these things.  Plus..... I am an organiser for talks in a local Skeptics In The Pub  and double-blind tests and other scientific methodologies etc ( repeatability etc )are of great interest and often crop up in guest speaker talks and discourse.    

Something like this  feature request SoundDog ? 

"Special-PERFORMANCE-MIX-mode-for-6-knobs-under-the-screen" 

http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Special-PERFORMANCE-MIX-mode-for-6-knobs-under-the-screen/826567-23508

thanks for that  jnysen.  

Pretty much answers the question as i see it. 

<Hopefully one day humanity will realize the barriers, limitations, and waste that comes with proprietary.> 

As an independent developer I have no problem with "proprietary" and such utopian idealisms might suit communist angels but not us earthly flawed human folk. 

But nothing in this question touches upon anything of any originality that would be proprietary. Its more akin to asking "do you have effect model X" ?

They won't even tell you the color of the tile in the crappers at corporate HQ...L6 generally considers just about everything "proprietary info". You've got better odds of being struck by lightning in a subterranean cavern, than getting them to divulge the "good stuff".

 There's absolutely NOTHING repeat NOTHING  proprietary about the subject of this OP.  The principles and algorithms behind the kinds of DSP EQ used out there are widely available and taught in every university's electronic or DSP related engineering courses. 

Its merely about the types of EQ's available. To give you an idea  one can implement such EQ's loosely speaking in two ways: 

1)  emulate a circuit component by component by modelling an electronic circuit that already exists - usually applicable for old gear that is loved and sounds great. 

2) use pure DSP algorithms to implement the EQ directly. Often in ways one could never do it by analog circuitry. The different ways of implementing such digital filters have been around since the concept of DSP was first out there - say from the late 70s onwards.    

There's absolutely nothing "secret" about L6 or anyone els deciding to use any of the latter techniques to implement EQ or high/low pass filtering.

Digital EQs that model analog circuit designs have phase shifts that vary with the frequency.  Some types of digital DSP filter exhibit zero phase shift so add less coloration or alteration to the input signal. Do any of the EQ types do this ? 

Could it be done in the future - say just for simple "single-pole low Q" type high-end  or low-end rolloff etc for example ? 

This is something that a real ANALOG pedal could never do. 

If there is a effects return on the JC you could try feeding in from the HELIX into that.  In order to cut out the JC's own tone stack.

Hopefully not just more amp models or effects but changes that improve the general workflow and usability of the HELIX. 

Something to manage widely differing output levels between patches obtained from all over the place, something to help explore effects better like the ability to save and load presets for ANY effect , amp or cabinet model. 

Also presets for global EQ would be extremely useful.  Going from PA to guitar cabinets to studio monitors  changes the way patches sound and presets for this would ease the use of presets for all these situations. 

... and Variax workbench integration

Many say that much better reverb effects are needed too. But i'd rather like to see non-effect or model specific changes as above take place first. 

<I always have Larry Carlton tone in "The BP Blues" from "Last nite" live album when I'm after a blues-rock tone...> 

didnt recall that tune - so youtubed - it .  Sounded familiar - then thought - I've heard that melody on a Crusaders LP of mine i'm sure.  So bit more listening. and yes.  Pretty sure the Crusaders did it as "My Mama Told Me So" - in the Southern Knights album.   I suspect the Crusaders added a middle section to it- as they tended to do a lot - hence the different name.  

But of course Larry Carlton was in the band and does the first chorus of the tune.  

and a Jim Hall reference tone: 

just to give an idea.....

a reference tone: 

Getting a JTV59  Archtop model  to sound like a mellow warm  woody flat-wound guitar going through something like a Polytone, like a Jim hall or Russell Malone type tone  is not easy. 

Sure - one can roll off the top... but .... anyway - consider this a competition to find the best simple but authentic sounding "woody"  tone for the JTV when using both the HELIX  AND a JTV  Archtop model set to Super 400. 

I'll accept the 175 model if among for Jim hall ( since i think he used L4 arctops at one time ) 

No heavy effects needed - 

Now... which amp model to use ?   personally - i never liked the Roland JC.   Have been playing around with the Gibson 185  amp - but not there yet..

I've also been wondering if one of the three Acoustic Steel String JTV models "suitably treated"  in the HELIX - might actually get nearer the tones here than the Archtop models. 

Also noted that the 175 model has its uses - its much more middy - which can help - but the Super 400 model of course has the low end and is  more "dark"..... dunno..