hideout

Thanks!!

Just posted this on Ideascale. For all those who are needing more Snapshots on the Helix. Two Phase Snapshot Footswitches Mode Idea Actions My idea is to enable two Snapshots per footswitch and be able to A/B between them. Repeatedly stepping on a footswitch toggles between the two Snapshots assigned to that footswitch. This would effectively give you 16 total snapshots or 8 if you're in Preset/Snap mode. http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Two-Phase-Snapshot-Footswitches-Mode/857489-23508

Two Snapshots per footswitch! Please up vote. http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Two-Phase-Snapshot-Footswitches-Mode/857489-23508?submitted=1

For electric guitars, I think the release parameter is where most of the trouble is. The attack can also cause problems but easy enough to correct. At least, that's been my experience, Spikey.

I just posted the idea on IdeaScale. Vote it up!! http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Gibson-Varitone-Emulation/856825-23508

Then there's always The Man's Prayer. "I'm a man, but I can change. If have to. I guess..."

He'll know the six words that lead to happiness. "Yes, dear, you're right again, dear."

I am of two minds about updates. While I've posted about 26 ideas on Ideascale in hopes of seeing them in a future update, I agree with your sentiment about updates. I'd love to see more interface improvements that help us edit and use our patches better. While I love the idea of more effects and amps and as a guy who proposed quite a few recently, to be honest I don't actually know what I would do with them. I just don't have enough time to experiment with them nor do I have enough playing situations where they would be appropriate. I guess I've got my core sounds dialed in and am a little burned out on tweaking patches. Even the things I know that could be improved seem like small potatoes because overall, the Helix just sounds so dang good. Just me. P.S. Don't stop on my account, Line6.

Thanks for the clarification... dang it! Lol This makes me think though, about the fact that the actions of a speaker are not static. They are not time invariant. All kinds of changes are happening as a speaker goes through its excursions. Its cone changes shape as it moves and so does its sound. "Cone Cry" and its effects doesn't even begin to enter the picture. Yet, we use impulse responses, a technique that does not take time variations into account. We're only getting part of the picture. As long as this is the case, getting truly realistic sounding cab sims will continue to elude us.

:P ;)

Indeed.

My thoughts exactly. Hence for me, it would be just a backup.

Here's an alternative/backup for the Helix. It even uses the same dual Shark processors. It's probably not as flexible, has a more limited way of accessing presets and has fewer options but it sounds pretty darned good to me. http://atomicamps.com/amplifire-pedal/

Line 6 can model the circuits of any analog device and it'll work but I'm pretty sure they can't model the software used by digital devices like the Whammy, Morpheus or Roland's SY300.

Again, all of these pedals are single purpose devices. They aren't having to provide amp modeling, reverb, etc. They only have to do one thing. That's a lot easier than what the Helix is having to do. The other part of this equation is the software used by these devices. They're Intellectual Property or IP and they're either licensed by these manufacturers or they own them outright. Line 6 CANNOT just copy that software onto the Helix. They've likely had to use their own pitch detection schemes which may not be as good as those used by Digitech and others whom have been in the polyphonic pitch detection game for many years

I don't disagree with you. But consider, Line 6 may be able to model the electronics used in the latest version of the Whammy but that's only half of the equation. What about the software Digitech uses? That's IVL Technologies' IP. I suppose they could license it from IVL technologies just as Digitech does but can it be recompiled to be compatible with the Helix's OS? Maybe Line 6 had to develop their own pitch and formant detection system and it may not be as good as IVL's.

This makes me think that it might be possible to have tape saturation IRs. That would be cool!

Have you guys stopped to consider how much more processor intensive polyphonic pitch shifting is compared to plain old pitch shifting? All of the Helix's amp models are highly complex and detailed but every single effect that's in the Helix is pretty rudimentary. There's not one effect in the pedal that is anything beyond a basic effect that is to be expected on any multi effects pedal. Why? Have any of you considered what it takes to replicate what these dedicated single purpose pedals do on a multi effects unit that's already busy giving you superb amp models? Personally, I don't want anything to take any processing power away from what's needed for the amp models. Ever. None of us know how much procecssor headroom the Helix has so none of us can definitively say that it should be able to replicate a highly complex single purpose pedal like the Whammy. For that matter, I don't remember any of Digitech 's MFX units being able to do the whammy justice. Maybe the GSP1101 but again, that thing was no Helix.

I feel compelled to update my opinion on the LA2A. I gave it another chance and have grown to really like it especially at extreme settings. It is indeed a wholly different experience than the one I had with the Pods.

I do wish that the Firehawk 1500 used Neodymium speakers so that it could be lighter.

Oh I don't know, it seems pretty well thought out and has some connections not available in any powered PA speaker. It has a speaker level input and a cab simulated output. It is also capable of powering an external speaker - I can't think of one Powered PA speaker that can do that. As for the 8" speaker, I wouldn't discount that just because of its size. I have an extremely loud 200 watt Quilter Aviator 8 that has no problems keeping up with much larger amps.

How necessary is 2.01 anyway? I'm on 2.0 and although there are a couple of niggling little bugs, it's mostly stable for me.

I hate delay on vocals unless it's used on specific parts of a song for effect. Delay vocals all the time even at low levels of delay can scramble the intelligibility of vocals. It also makes the band sound really dated. As a singer, I'd rather have the right kind of reverb sound at an appropriate level than delay any day of the week. Also, if you're using in ear monitors, you can have as much or as little reverb or delay in your monitors without affecting what's happening in the FOH. You also do this with wedges but with more limitations. You also have to be using a mixer that allows this. Can't do it on the Helix alone as far as I know.

Sure, man. Yeah, it's true about the Variax. You cannot bypass the modeling and just get the straight Piezo sound.

I would go for the Variax. It actually uses acoustic models whereas the Godin (I have one) is merely a piezo with a Preamp. No contest. The Variax does a lot to mitigate the quackiness of the piezo saddles and is really only most apparent when you strum hard. It would be nice if piezo preamps had a dedicated mulitband compressor built in. One designed to clamp down on specific frequencies that exceed a specific threshold. I really believe that this is the answer but for now, I think the Variax is the best option.