Jump to content

hideout

Members
  • Content Count

    1,396
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Posts posted by hideout


  1. 2 hours ago, Bruce_W said:

    I guess there is no set date for this update? They are just saying soon?

    Why should they box themselves in like that?  You never know what can happen during development. 


  2. 8 hours ago, SaschaFranck said:

     

    Yeah well, the fact that the piezos are mounted inside the bridge certainly doesn't help with authentic PU behaviour, either.

    They’re mounted within each bridge saddle. If they were mounted inside the bridge you’d have a heck of a time separating each of the strings’ signals.  I’m  not even sure there’d be anywhere else you could put them but in the saddles. 


  3. 6 minutes ago, SaschaFranck said:

    Roland is doing things - which is a lot better in many aspects (the actual pickup design included, a slapped on GK pickup reacts a lot more authentic when it comes to things such as palm mutes - and yes, I have compared the two directly).

    This is likely due to the fact that a GK pickup is six magnetic pickups whereas the Variax uses piezos. This is one of the main disadvantages of piezos. The attack of piezo pickups is weird too and not an easy thing to overcome. Lastly, both Line6 and Roland need to work on emulating how a pickup reacts to impedance loads. 


  4. 20 hours ago, AdamAndroidFG said:

     

     

    Have you tried other FRFR speakers?

    sweetwater has a whole write up on em- very informative.

    Reason I mention this , is because they talk about many FRFR manufacturers designed for modeling supposedly have that “UmPh” of a speaker cabinet. At the end of the list they mention the QSC k-12 as like a “this also “works” option”....

     

     I know your running it thru the front of your amp and that’s something I likes about these posts- the willingness to go outside the box and yield with promising results .

    I had to look at this with an open mind to believe your getting great results that way- but I absolutely do-

     

    My 2nd guitarist gets great results running 4cm through his JC-120,

    but we kind of expected that to work, considering it’s a very clean /neutral amp.

     

    I however have a problem even running an IR through my vox ac50 because I already love the tone of that amp- so I split my signal at the end / pan it hard over, and  run an IR straight out so that it doesn’t color my amp.

     

    Im just giving examples of my thought process , and my desire to want to hear the modeled tones as accurately as they were intended.

     

    Just wondering if ya tried any oof those FRFR designed for modeling/ if they have that oomph or not, and if you find that your sims still sound remarkably similar to what they are supposed to be??

     

     

    You quoted me but it's blank... Wha'd I say?  lol


  5. On 1/18/2020 at 1:44 PM, phil_m said:


    In Stomp Mode, yes.

    In Snap/Preset mode, wouldn’t this also give you access to the other four unused Snapshots via press and hold?  I do wish they’d included my request for two snapshots per footswitch. That way you don’t have to hold down the footswitch. 


  6. 59 minutes ago, welsh7 said:

    Any chance of clarification about the Split Dynamics please?

    I’d bet it’s just a dual band compressor. 
    The frequency is split - low and high and those two sections get different compression settings. You can probably set the split point too.
     

    Or... 
     

    it’s a way to switch paths via picking dynamics. That’d be cool. 


  7. On 8/28/2019 at 7:31 AM, phil_m said:

    With the same input source/dry track, Native and the hardware will sound exactly the same. The guitar inputs on the Helix hardware are optimized for electric guitars in a way that most generic audio interfaces aren't.

    And you can tailor them using the input impedance.  This makes a giant difference.

    • Upvote 1

  8. For the effect to sound like a Trem bar, each string would have to bend different rates. The lower strings would have to bend faster than the higher strings. This would require polyphonic pitch detection which the Helix is not currently capable of. 


  9. That’s been happening to me since I had the Boss GT-5. It wasn’t a stellar modeler by any means but got my sounds out of it and musicians would often remark about how much they liked my tone, only to turn around and find some way to say something negative after they find out I’m not using an amp.  Idiots. 

    • Like 2

  10. 1 hour ago, DunedinDragon said:

     

    Although I can't say I've ever done such a thing....or even considered doing it, my guess is at best it would be very similar to the sound you get from an acoustic guitar with a piezo as compared to a guitar recorded by a microphone.  One is dull, static and lifeless and one is full of ambience and character.  Guess which one is which??

    You’re comparing my idea to that of the sound of the piezo under the bridge. It’s quite different when the piezo sensor is elsewhere on the body of the guitar. At very low volumes it’s actually a very nice full sound once you’ve found the spot where the piezo sounds best. But... it also makes the guitar highly susceptible to feedback so you are very much limited to very low volumes. This would not be an issue with the very high output coming from a speaker cone. I think you may even have to use a -20db pad on it to keep from slamming the mic input. 


  11. 34 minutes ago, codamedia said:

     

    In the real world... a '57 is often "off axis" (angled) and pointed more toward the "edge" of a speaker, not into the center of the speaker like the Helix models. This changes the usefulness of the real mic... but the Helix doesn't offer those options for placement. 

     

    Still not my favorite mic... but it can work. When micing a live amp ribbons and condensers are not really an option... I'll lean toward a Sennheiser... 421, 609, or 409. The Helix offerings of these are pretty good as well. 

    Yeah, I do wish the Helix did have some mic angle options. They’re really quite useful.  Still, with a real amp the 57 would be my last choice. 
     

    O.T.  I’ve often wondered what kind of sound you’d get by epoxying a piezo transducer directly on the cone of a speaker and sending that signal to the mixer or DAW. Hmmm...


  12. 1 hour ago, codamedia said:

    FWIW... I tend to achieve better results with a 121 model pulled about 3" - 6" off the cabinet for most amps. This captures more cabinet tone, and puts some air between the cab and mic. Result... a warmer (amp in the room) style tone compared to having a 57 at 1". YMMV. 


    I never use the 57. I just don’t get it.  It’s so harsh sounding to my ears. It (the real one) does in fact have a huge peak at around 5k and so does the model it would seem... ick!

    • Upvote 1

  13. 2 hours ago, Stratojoe17 said:

    Thanks for your answers ! 

     

    If the "mic" is the disconnect between a real amp and a modeler, is there a way to switch it off  while leaving the Amp+Cab on ?

     

     

     

    Well, think about how that could possibly be done in real life. Without a mic, how would a recording system capture the sound of an amp? Without a modeled mic, what gets to determine what the speaker sounds like? As far as I know, we can’t model human hearing yet. Even if we could, whose ears would we model? Remember, everyone hears things differently so even if we modeled the hearing of an excellent audio engineer, we wouldn’t be used to that way of hearing things so we’d very likely hate The way they hear things. 


  14. 1 hour ago, lungho said:

    You're looking for that "amp in the room" feel and you're not going to be able to replicate that with a modeler.  That's because a modeler simulates a miced amp that usually isolated in another room.  This is the sound you hear on all your favorite tunes.  This is the sound your audience hears live through the PA.  It takes some time to get used to....some people never get used to it and return to more traditional rig.  

     

    Line 6 claims their PowerCab can replicate that "amp in the room feel" however I can't confirm or deny that seeing how I haven't plugged into one yet.

     

    EDIT: I suppose another option would be to use a tube amp and use 4 cable method.  

     

    Indeed.  That "mic" is the disconnect between a real amp and a modeler.  Personally, because of a real amp's limitations and impracticality for most gigs, they've never satisfied me.  Until modelers came along, Id struggled trying to get the sounds i heard in my favorite recordings and songs.  Honestly, you can't really get a lot of those sounds with a real amp... not without getting fired from the gig.


  15. 11 hours ago, brue58ski said:

     

    You can use anything that's mono. You could just add a mono volume pedal after each reverb. That would be pretty much the least amount of DSP used to get this effect.

    Yes, but that occupies a block that could otherwise be used for something else.  That's a workaround that, had a little forethought been used, really shouldn't be necessary.  Also, what if there's no room for another block in that signal chain?


  16. 21 hours ago, SaschaFranck said:

    I'd simply add a mono gain block as the last one. That way you'll listen to the patch as it will run into the PA, regardless of how you connect the Helix. You can as well switch the compressor to mono.

    Yes that’s a good work around but at this level, should it really be necessary to have to waste a block for something (Summing to mono) that should have been part of the effect parameter set from the beginning?


  17. 5 hours ago, Digital_Igloo said:

    Once a preset's been created, I almost never use the joystick. Just touch the stomp switches (or press the AMP button). It won't get you to effects blocks not already assigned to switches, but it should get you within a click or two.

    That seems like a kludge. Especially when you’re in Snap/Preset mode. 

×
×
  • Create New...