texasdave

Helix 2.0 manual pages 16 & 17 have some pretty great and valuable info on setting up paths and the like. Definitely worth a look

I'll go a step further. Before downloading the latest editor, uninstall your current Helix editor/installer.

Here's a link to a 2.0 Shortcuts video. Worth the time... Texasdave

The OP's issue was that, according to the display it did save, but the actual input impedance did not save. I could replicate that.

I would say that I have the same issue. I don't think it's defaulting to Auto, based on what I could hear and feel. On the patch I tested it seemed to be closer to 70 or 90k (when saved at 10k.) Auto was bigger and brighter. That's unscientific, but it's obviously different when switching away from and back to the preset even though the display still shows 10k. Texasdave

Since the FRFR's don't have phantom power, it's probably not necessary. Where it "might" help would be if you had to power the FRFRs from a different power outlet than the Helix. Texasdave

No, they should be updated as part of the set list import. Texasdave

PM'd you on the other board. For the sake of continuity here, I'd uninstall any old editor versions then install the 2.0. You may have already done that, but adding here as a suggestion to others.

Found a couple Owner's Manual issues (version 2.0 Rev C): Page 29 Two different sets of options listed. 1st should be omitted. And, without sounding like a broken record… (ka skip, ka skip, ka skip…) Graphic below shows only 1 tuner arrow lit with lower center bar green and top micro-bar yellow. My tuner screen shows both arrows lit once lower center bar is green, regardless of the state of the top bars. That is to say, that when my tuner bars are as pictured below, both arrows are lit. (Page 31) I have floor unit. Any chance that's a floor vs. rack difference?

MIDI Clock support would certainly tie some stuff together. Be sure and vote it up on ideascale

Firmware 2.0 improved the granularity. You old tuner die-hards can ignore the top row of bars ;) If you're considering a peterson for occasional setups, consider their smartphone app and cable. My 2 cents, Texasdave

Accuracy is a complicated word in the English language. It has both broad and narrow definitions. The fact that this page in Wikipedia even exists is testimony to that. Line 6 holds close to a narrow scientific definition in order to differentiate between the tuner circuits' ability to determine a frequency and the current display's level of precision that we rely on to know what that frequency was. If narrow definitions move the discussion forward, I'm all for it. Guts are great; display, for some people, could use some more hash marks.

Fair question. I used my Peterson VS-1 and a "Hz to Note " calculator to do some preliminary testing. I calculated expected note values for specific frequencies across a range and compared generated static frequencies with my Peterson using the cents adjustment on the Peterson to find the "best fit." The "Best fit" was in line with my calculated expected values, both sharp and flat. I also made a second test with different sine wave software on a different device to further validate the data. As for the sweep, I observed the sweep on the Peterson and other tuners to verify the range. My "at best +/- 2.3 cents granularity" is rounded in favor of the tuner and I'll be very surprised if 10s of thousands of dollars worth of sine wave generator can provide a different answer. That wave file will show flat, in tune, and sharp on any tuner of similar accuracy and capable of displaying finer granularity than +/- 2 cents at A440 . If the Helix was in fact displaying +/- 1 cent,the expected response over the 30 second sweep I've posted would be about 8.5 seconds of "flat," 13 seconds of "in tune" and 8.5 seconds of "sharp." Add whatever wiggle room to those numbers you choose. In my testing, the Helix will not display any change at all. The sine wave sweep is well within margin of error for this test. I encourage you to try it for yourself. I opened a CS ticket and I tried, unsuccessfully, to verify that now-legendary DI quote. What I got instead was this: "When both arrows are lit, Helix will be within 1-2 cents above or below equal temperament." Where I live, that's +/- 2, as in, the best you can expect. I'm going to state for the record that I find ambitious. I have done other testing, this sine wave sweep was merely an easy way for people to test the assertion on their own machine. FINALLY, let me say again that this is going to likely be a non-issue until the Editor is finished and distributed. I'm convinced that there will be an update at some point. I have the upmost respect for @digital_igloo for his efforts to liaison between development teams and end user, and I hope my efforts here are seen as constructive. I'm trying to remove ambiguity from the conversation. I probably haven't. Regards, Texasdave

That sounds worthy of a Line 6 Support Trouble ticket.

Peter, I understand DI's explanation perfectly. I understood it perfectly long before he explained it again today. If the display granularity was +/- 6 cents the tuner would be just as accurate just less useful. For some of us, +/- 1 cent would be more useful. Some argue we're already at +/- 1 cent. and I disagree. If you fine-tune with your Strobosoft are you less happy? That's a rhetorical question. Texasdave

From my earlier reply today: PS: Please don't use the word accurate, You'll send Digital Igloo off a cliff ! ;) The tuner is highly accurate, but the display lacks granularity. It's like having a clock that's accurate to the second because it sync's with the atomic clock but is missing the second hand or the minute hand. _____ I repeat that so that you can hopefully see that you and I are on the same page with regard to ACCURACY. Certainly I misused the word months ago. I no longer (consciously) do that thanks to your instruction. ++ The crux of all my frustration was with this comment (I believe from TGP,) all of which relates to granularity. Digital_Igloo, on 07 Feb 2016 - 1:41 PM, said: When only the green box is lit, your note is within +/– 1.5 cents; when both bracket arrows are lit, your note is within +/– 1 cent (1/100th of a semitone). ++ There are those who treat that statement as indisputable fact; I'm just not seeing it. Knowing the real world as it is, I considered the possibility that that spec had been passed on to you but had not yet been implemented. I was a lot happier when you said +/- 3 cents at an earlier date because the GRANULARITY was at least that good. My contention is the GRANULARITY is greater than +/- 2 cents at present and i grow weary of people suggesting that "if you're not happy with +/- 1 you're really never going to be happy. " Now that I have your ear on the topic, I'd be happy with big bars staying as they are and closer granularity available with the single brackets, or multiple brackets that help see "the middle of the middle" of the single green bar. My 2 cents, no pun intended. Regards, Texasdave

Peter, with electrics in P&W and other environments, I use it and don't even sweat it. I love being able to see it from 10 or 15' away. For me with MANDOLIN it needs more granularity. I got frustrated a couple months ago with reports of greater granularity from the brackets, specifically +/- 1 cent. I tried to find out if my unit should have that and didn't and got nowhere. See also my Buzz Feiten comments regarding the string offsets. Meaningless to be able to set a string offset at -1 or -2 cents if the tuner doesn't display with that granularity. Please reread my comments on where I see frustration between the two sides. The circular line of conversation that gets us nowhere is this: "granularity of +/- one cent" "No it appears to be +/- 2.5" "Who cares, that should be good enough for you anyway." I had hopes in March I'd find out that the current spec on the tuner was +/- 1 was correct and that my unit had not picked that up in an update. Texasdave

Yeah I have never read a post of anyone else having that issue. That's an unusual one

Nothing would make me happier than to have a one on one civil discussion with him on this topic at some point in the future. I also have zero expectation of any tuner change prior to a final public stable release of the editor, if ever. That's the priority and I get that. Meanwhile, spend 60 seconds and run that sine wave sweep through your tuner before perpetuating the myth of +/- 1 cent. I have a trouble ticket reply that says it's plus/minus 1 or 2 cents. Well, if it's "1 or 2" then it's "2." Can you seriously not envision a scenario where someone gave him bad info? He's got more time-critical stuff on his plate and that's exactly the reason I (a) closed the trouble ticket where I was trying to get some clarification and (b) quit discussing it elsewhere. In the meantime, I'll challenge you, him, or anyone else who wants to claim +/- 1 cent because I don't see that result with my own testing and I will say with great confidence you will not either if you actually test it for yourself. Others have posted similar sine wave tests. For now, the tuner is what it is. Let's call it what it is, and not what it ain't. Texasdave

That's why I'm here, Phil. "Published" where, other than a quote from Digital Igloo? You're perpetuating a myth (see frustration comment in my prior post.) As far as I can tell, he misspoke. From what I can tell, I'm the only one of the three of us who's actually tested the granularity for themselves. Run that sine wave into your tuner and let me know your results. at +/1 cent the tuner should display flat then in tune, and then sharp. My tuner displays "in tune." throughout the sweep. Texasdave

Phil, with all respect, the last time I questioned you about this you were passing along information from others. Have you tested it for yourself? It's not. +/- 2.3c at best. See my sine wave sweep in my earlier post and try it for yourself. It may help you understand the frustration of others. Half the room is saying +/- 1c should be good enough for anyone, and the other half knows in some form or fashion the tuner isn't to that spec. Texasdave PS: Please don't use the word accurate, You'll send Digital Igloo off a cliff ! ;) The tuner is highly accurate, but the display lacks granularity. It's like having a clock that's accurate to the second because it sync's with the atomic clock but is missing the second hand or the minute hand.

The Brackets are 100% in sync with a single green bar. If you see red/green just a single bracket is on. If you see green only both brackets are always on. There's no additional resolution from the brackets, as much as I wish there was (and there may someday be.) Unless there were changes in the latest beta firmware updates, the tuner display will get you to, at best, +/- 2.3 cents at A440, based on my observations. Some of the frustration amongst those in these discussions is claims of +/- 1c but the reality is those claims can not been supported. If we were at +/- 1c I'd probably never chime in again. Many of the demos approach this from the wrong direction: IF my Peterson is dead on, the Helix shows dead on. Another was "the a440 sine wave from my synth showed as in tune." The fallacy in this approach is it doesn't show what happens when you shift the input frequency. Test for yourself. Here's a wav file that sweeps a sine wav from just lower than -2.3c to just higher than +2.3c of A440, or from 439.4 to 440.6 hz. My Helix tuner display does not change. Start with your volume low to not damage ears or equipment (standard disclaimer with other sine wave generators http://soundchunks.com/439-4-to-440-6.wav Another eye-opening test is to use your Peterson to get a string exactly in tune. Go to the tuner offset settings and change the offset on that string by +/- 1 to 2 cents. Nothing happens. In current state, using the Helix offsets to try to match a Buzz Feiten tuning is somewhat pointless because the tuner display doesn't offer the resolution to display the appropriate offset. I'd love some additional display resolution, even if it was in the form of brackets only both lit at +/- 1cent or a couple brackets per side that move towards that. As for stability, i think over tuners use some averaging to smooth the display, emulating what an older needle tuner might display. For electric in a hurry, it gets the job done. Texasdave

I know I'm treading on thin ground after this discussion blew up on "that other forum," but I'm honestly just trying to figure out if this level of precision (and specifically the increased precision via the brackets) were part of a specific update that may or may not be propagated through subsequent updates. My "green box only" is closer to 2.5c +/- and my brackets are 100% in sync with "green box only." I've tested the brackets using a sine wave sweep across the red/green threshold using what amounts to a .5 cent sweep over a 60 second period. I can park on a frequency where the "green only" and "red green" oscillate back and forth and brackets are 100% in sync with green only. If you'd rather not address this here I do have a support trouble ticket in the works. I understand your frustrations on the topic. I hope you can understand my frustration when my unit is not operating in the manner you describe above. I hope you can also understand that if my situation is more widespread while your unit is operating as above, this would only fuel lack of consensus as to how "good" the tuner is. I'm also fully aware I may not have a firm answer on this prior to editor release. Respectfully, Texasdave

I am mainly surprised that "logarithmic" was not the volume pedal default.

Thanks for letting me know, DI. I really appreciate all the hours you guys keep pouring into this thing.