hideout

I wish I felt the same level of excitement as the rest of you. I'm glad that bassists are now looked after but I rarely play bass anymore - even though I have three. I guess I was hoping for a few more tweaks in the effects and signal processing department. As it is, there are more than enough amp models for me. There's only one new thing - the Multiband Compressor - that I do actually want but one new effect is not enough for me to update.

Hmmm... a backup. I wonder how interchangeable the patches are between the Helix and the LT.

So I just put up this idea. https://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Expression-Pedal-Response-Curves/890716-23508?submitted=1So

I think the "feel" has more to do with how steep or shallow the logarithmic curve is on the pedal. I have to admit that I don't like the curve on the Helix. Still, I prefer the convenience of having it built in.

Hmmm... just had a good look at what's new in 2.20 and I may be in the minority here but there's not much that's really compelling to me. I think I'll stick with 2.11 for a while. It's stable and pretty much does everything I need. I guess I was hoping for other features and that just wasn't in the cards for this update. Oh well.

Interesting. With the sonic differences between most of these high end modelers being like splitting hairs, not having a built in expression pedal would be a deal breaker for me. I'd have having to bring one more thing and have to connect it at the gig. I realize that you can put it all on a pedalboard but please elaborate. What is it about built in expression pedals that you don't like? I'm curious as I just can't see any negative aspects to it.

Ohhh... don't tease me about the tuner...

Have you looked around at Ideascale? If you don't find it there, you should post it as an idea.

Besides... Truly "Flat Response" sounds pretty boring.

Thanks, Spikey!

Here you go. https://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Variable-Mic-Axis-and-Position-options/872296-23508

I think being able to change the mic angle and position in relation to the speaker cone, as well as the distance from the cone will make a difference here.

And this may well be the issue with for players who are missing the harmonics and musical feedback they normally get with real amps without them sounding harsh. Because of where an amp's speakers are pointing, your knees, you're not going to hear the harshness and fizziness that the amp is actually producing. So it's a double edged sword because that same harshness is also what allows the harmonics and feedback to come through. Someone in one of the threads here had asked why we can't have a fizz control parameter or something to that efffect. I remember that DI had in fact responded to that post and said that there was some discussion about it but I can't remember what or if he said something about why they decided against it. I think it would be a very useful feature for those of us who want the feedback and harmonics - without the fizz.

I still think the whole downvoting thing is BS and should go away. If you don't like an idea, don't vote for it. Downvoting just seems belligerent.

Agreed. The Bluetooth implementation on the JBL leaves a a lot to be desired. However, for the most part, it is a "set and forget it" type of thing for me. Other manufacturers' EQ systems may be better in their UI. I ask mainly because I think there may be an advantage to using an EQ designed for the speaker.

It would seem that today is FRFR Topic day. Anyway, my JBL EON 610 has a programmable EQ built in and I'm wondering if those of you that use an active speaker that also has the same feature, have used it to tailor the speaker's sound for your Helix. Or do you just use the Helix's Global EQ? I ask because I think the two methods might have some differences in effectiveness.

^^This!^^

For me, its the way amps color the models. You don't ever really get to hear the intended sound of the model without it being masked by whatever amp you're playing through. Amps are intentionally created to have "a sound" - to sound a specific way. They're stylized. An FRFR system, even though none will ever truly have perfectly flat response, will always be a lot more neutral sounding and allow you to hear each model's subtleties and let you hear their character better. A modeler through an amp will never be for me.

If I understand you correctly, I think my idea gives you pretty much what you're asking for. Having each footswitch be able to toggle between two sets of independent settings will pretty much give you 16 snaps from 8 footswitches. Each Snapshot assigned to either phase of a footswitch can be assigned to radically different parameters from the other. In my idea, each foot switch accesses two wholly independent Snapshots. You can arrange the Snaps in any way you want to do what ever you need in any manner that you want.

Will this one do it for you? https://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Two-Phase-Snapshot-Footswitches-Mode/857489-23508 Or this one? https://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/A-Zero-Snapshot/837506-23508

Agreed. It is indeed a two-sided issue. I do find it interesting that some phantom power systems are better (less noisy) than others. I have used mixers that produce more hiss with the phantom power turned on - even with nothing connected. Technically speaking, phantom power is supposed to be "invisible" to devices that don't need it. Yet, here we are.

Unless it's a small mixer, that just seems silly in this day and age.

Question. Are there still a lot of mixers out there that don't have individual phantom power switches? I realize that most small (8 channels or less) mixer would understandably have a global phantom power switch but I seem to remember that even my small Allen & Heath mixer had individual phantom power switches per channel. The last 16 channel board I used that didn't was the very old Mackie 1604. My mistake. Just looked up that mixer. Global phantom power. Still even if your band is just a three piece, wouldn't you be using a bigger board anyway just for the extra controls and options that often aren't in the smaller boards?

This only works if you've split a path. If each path is complex enough that you can't use a split and need to use two full paths, the only option is to waste a gain block at the start of each path acting as a mute switch to A/B between each path. BAH!It works, but to me it's akin to a "duct tape solution". Far beneath the status of the Helix.

Well, my question is, why give us two discreet audio paths designed to receive audio from basically one input (most will only use one instrument at a time), without giving us an efficient and elegant way of switching between those two paths?