Jump to content

hideout

Members
  • Content Count

    1,423
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by hideout

  1. I never use that feature. Doesn’t bother me.
  2. hideout

    Helix 2.9

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

    Helix 2.9

    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.
  4. hideout

    Helix 2.9

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

    Helix 2.9

    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.
  7. hideout

    Helix 2.9

    My Boss GT-8 had that years ago. And I believe I requested the feature in IdeaScale. Yup, I did. https://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Dynamics-Controlled-Crossfade/891439-23508
  8. hideout

    Helix 2.9

    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.
  9. And you can tailor them using the input impedance. This makes a giant difference.
  10. 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.
  11. I'm personally staying well away from Catalina. Sorry but it ain't right.
  12. One of my favorite responses is, “I bet you couldn’t tell in a blind test.”
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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...
  16. 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!
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. If it’s really a good bargain and has an effects return you could probably make it work. But it has to be really cheap. The Roland AC series are nice because you can run the Helix in stereo - all in one box! It won’t be very loud though.
  20. 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?
  21. Why can't a "summing amplifier" be added at the end of the signal chain within each of the reverb effects themselves?
  22. hideout

    The future of Helix

    I think the Helix is a long lived product. It’s current needs, to me, are improvements in the its UI and usability tweaks. That’s it.
  23. I do wish they’d model the Fender Excelsior along with the Supersonic 22
  24. 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?
×
×
  • Create New...