hideout

So I got curious and decided to edit my acoustic preset by splitting the path and putting one acoustic IR for each path... YOWZA!!!!! I kept it mono as I don't normally run in stereo anyway and even if I did, I wanted to mix the two different sounds into one sound. I suppose stereo would be interesting as well but I'll save that for a later date. Anyway, what I found was that if I start with an IR that I like best but isn't quite there, then go through the other IRs in the second path and I found two that complement each other ad really do wonders for the last remnants of the piezo sound. Is it perfect? No. But definitely much better than just using one IR. I highly recommend it! Please let me know if it works for you if you try it... 'Cause I love it!

^^THIS^^

Cool, thanks, phil_m!

I don't think this is possible yet is it? My idea is to use an auto planner between two amp models. Wouldn't that be a cool tremolo?

So interesting. For me, the Helix is sonically more than just head and shoulders above all the other modelers I've ever owned. It's an entire body above them in terms of superiority.

We can dream can't we? A Thunderbolt connected Helix would be awesome!

Yes. Yes indeed!

I am happy to report that so far, no audible glitches when switching snapshots. Thanks again, phil_m and Digital_Igloo!

I always start off with the Coles 4038 ribbon on any cab and then play with the cutoff filters. I do wish we could switch cabs and not have to redo the mic selection and filter settings. So annoying and tedious.

Exactly. In order to "voice" a power amp, you have to do it as a circuit before the actual output stage of the power amp. So essentially, it's just a preamp stage. From a manufacturer or designer's point of view why not just include this voicing circuit as part of the final output stage of the preamp? There will be zero difference in sonics but it makes manufacturing easier as you can just use any "off the shelf" power amp design. It negates having to design a new power amp that will have zero advantages and possibly higher cost. Lower cost, more customers.

Not a bad idea!!

Yup. Strumming is where they all fall apart for me too. That's when that camel hump in the midrange comes up with piezos. On a real acoustic it actually dips a bit in the middle and the highs and lows come up - the exact opposite of the piezos. This what makes me think that a multiband compressor would really help because you could really clamp down on those mids.

By the way, thank you for including the impedance control in the Helix, Line6!

Ooooh, thanks phil_m and DI. COOL.

Cool, man. Are those Tom Andersons? I like their look.

What I'm curious about is are folks on this thread using acoustic electric guitars or are you using a Variax or an electric with a Ghost System or L.R. Baggs piezo system. I think that with acoustic electrics, it's hard to tell what kind of sound you're actually getting unless you record it.

Let's upvote this puppy! https://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Helix-Multi-band-Compressor/783611-23508

I'm not within reach of my Helix right now so I can't check but am curious. Can you assign different impedance values to Snapshots? I was thinking I could really use that.

Have you played with the input impedance?

I agree that taming the quack is absolutely doable with EQ, but retaining the woodiness while taming the quack is quite another challenge - even when using really good IRs. Again, I believe it comes down to dynamic control of certain frequencies and both EQs and IRs are static filters that won't be able to really effectively reduce the problem as well as a really good multi band compressor.

I still think that a multi band compressor could really help tame the piezo quack. If you notice, proper EQ and playing gently on a piezo equipped guitar can yield fairly good and convincing acoustic sounds. However, as soon as you start to dig in, that's when that Aflack Goose shows up and only in the mids - around 800 - 1.2 kHz. If you pull those frequencies down, you lose the woodiness when playing gently - double-edged sword here. With a multi band compressor, you can keep a tight rein on those specific frequencies and maintain more of the warmth and woodiness. Dynamics plays a huge part in acoustic guitar sounds and I think too many are too focused on using just a just static EQ solution to a dynamic problem.

I think what he's proposing is a set of presets designed to optimize the sound of specific types of guitars. Certainly it can be done manually with the Para EQ but having helpful presets from which to start wouldn't hurt.

Sorry, but I totally disagree. For acoustic guitars, what processing is happening at the power section level that can't be done far more effectively in the preamp section? Yes, the Acoustasonics reduce the quack... via the preamp section - not the power section. The quack has to be handled at the input by the preamp. Anything being done to condition the final output of the power section is still being done at a preamp level voltage - before the final output stage so the reality is that it's still happening at the preamp. I feel I need to bring attention to the the latter half of your post, which is pretty much dedicated to... Preamps - not power amps and speakers. Because for acoustic guitars, the preamps are where it all happens.

Yes, absolutely. I still cannot see how modeling the power section and the speakers of an acoustic amp are going to do anything to improve one's acoustic sound within the Helix. Those last two components, unlike their counterparts on an electric guitar amp, are designed to have no character at all. Their job is to amplify the signal coming from the preamp in an uncolored a manner as much as possible... just like the Helix's signal chain if it had no effects blocks activated. I can think of only one exception to this but I can't remember the amp make's name. It used a spruce top like that on an acoustic guitar as the actual speaker. That cab might be worth modeling. I just wish i could remember its name...

Hasn't he already made a suggestion?😉