tommasoferrarese

Hi everybody

I lost one of the knobs from my HX stomp, and another one is repeatedly coming off.. do you know where I can find some good replacement knobs? I'm thinking about replacing them all, as they are starting to come offend I don't want to lose another one..

Thanks!

USB is the easiest way. 

You want to:

Guitar-> [HXFX input]-> COMP/WAH/DST/prefx-> SEND BLOCK-> [HXFXsend(why stereo?you're going mono, here)] -> [KEMPER in] -> KEMPER Preamp -> [Kemper mono send] ->

->[HXFX stereo return] -> HXFX stereo fx post KPpreamp-> [HXFX OUT (L,R)] ->KEMPER STEREO RETURN there you go, it should work, as long as you choose stereo send/return blocks where needed on both HXFX and KP..  (note that this doesn't let you use hxfx post Kemper cab, so you have to choose between having stereo fx between pre and power amp, as in a normal stereo amp loop, or having them post cab, as in a studio setup, but to achieve the latter you can move the stereo send block after the cabs in your Kemper)

It is not a bug, but how most of reverse delays work. You have to sample chunks of audio (say 1 sec) and reverse them.

if you start to play in the middle of the timeframe, you’ll have a first repetition of half a second.

I suggested they put a threshold buffer reset, such as the one in Strymon Timeline, so that the buffer gets reset based on how you play. At least since a few firmware versions ago it tends to midi clock.

You need to set the iPad @ 48 kHz, as the Helix connects at that sample rate, I guess..

never connected an iPad, though, so I don’t know if it’s possible and how

On the meldaproduction site (the plugin makers) there’s an interesting video series about reverb algorithms and how to build different types with their amazing Turbo Reverb plugin (no, I don’t work for them)

it can get quite overwhelming when you dig too deep into technicalities, but it’s very instructive.. 

Anyway.. owning a BigSky I’d say that the HX reverbs are quite different from the Strymon ones, not necessarily in a bad way, so I think those descriptions fit only roughly..

btw, I’d love to see a manual of all the Hx blocks, with accurate parameter description, similar to the Eventide or Boss ones..

Wow! Thai looks cool! Where did you get it? 

Thanks!

I think they should simply introduce a convenient way of merging multiple patches from native into a single HW Helix patch, to grant continuity between the plugin in the studio and the touring hardware.

In Ableton Live I can see a Snapshot Index automation lane :) you have to select it from the parameter list, though.. non super intuitive, but it's there ;)

Something I have never found any info about is the mic preamp in preamp section.. missing from your amazing pdf as well. Does anybody have any info on what it's modelled after?

Passive ABY box feeds both boxes the same unmolested phase coherent and time aligned signal, job done.

ABY feeds the Helix and the MOTU with a phase coherent signal, but Helix adds some inherent latency, thus messing up phase coherency, if needed. If OP's aim is reamping using Helix, he's gonna miss the impedance switching capabilities as well and, most of all, calibrating the input level to make Helix patches sound the same on the recording and live is gonna be a PITA.

Does that make sense? Not trying to get anyone upset at all.  Enough said in this thread for now.  If i have any difficulties, I will post what i tried.  Hopefully, I wont have a problem.  No one else need post here. 

Dont' want to waste anyone's time.  

Cheers,

Phantom. 

I really don't think anybody was addressing you about wasting their time here.. My educated guess is that this was aimed at someone else.. Hope you find your optimal solution, Cheers!

@rd2rk peace bro.. actually, rereading the whole post it sounds to me you’re the one that’s a bit on the aggressive side, but maybe it’s just because English ain’t my native language..

And I really think everyone here has just given well educated suggestions about how to solve the OP’s problem, without torches and pitchforks ;)

With Helix you have no latency at all, while monitoring, same as with an apollo. But hey! to each one his own, i guess.. I can't think of any reason having 109 dB of dynamic range on an 18i20 would be any better than the 123 dB you get on the Helix. Anyway.. no there's no easy way to do what you're asking for. And, by the way, if you plan to use Native that's the only way to have your patches sound the same, from DAW to stage..

Helix’ mic input is actually quite good. I also have an Apollo Twin, and I don’t dislike it even compared to the Apollo. And you get a solid interface that will surely work better than a half baked driver that’s already giving you trouble..

You can also record dry from the mic and monitor with effects, just like with the guitar input. Plus, if you use an ABY box you lose Helix input impedance switching, and if you use Fx send you’re passing through 2 AD/DA steps, instead of one.

Keeping my Big Sky, though.. And TimeLine as well.. But I'm super happy bout the new firmware!! And those reverbs do sound good

Strymon Nixie editor implements it fairly well.. and saving each step in mouse release seems a good strategy.

I have noticed that input gain must be kept way lower than what I was used to when using native, reflecting what actually happens in the hardware Helix. Strumming very heavily on my telecaster neck pickup I get to peak at -12 to -24 dB, which seems very low, unless you get used to hit -12 as max peak for every other track in your DAW.. you’re gonna have better response from a lot of plugins as well, if you begin to work with all that headroom, as a side effect..

I have never ever felt so great about a single piece of gear as about the Helix. It also lets you add plugins seamlessly to your sound, both parallel or serial.

Fact is that after almost two years I have rebought a Timeline and am waiting for a BigSky to be delivered, simply because their sound is just amazing. But I’m not using a real amp anymore. And I have been satisfied with Helix Fx almost totally (my Timeline gets most of its use while producing, I’m yet to take it out live, and I’ve already played several gigs since I rebought it)

Can you replicate the tone in that recording of even one of the guitars? Timing and touch also has nothing whatsoever to do with the tone you hear, or are you suggesting that putting extra pressure on strings will get your flangar to voice right? Don't even get me started on the pickup ridiculousness.

Sorry, were we talking about the flanger or the tone? pickup ridiculousness? That's frequency 101 and flanging IS a frequency based effect (ever heard of phase cancellation?).. and yes, changing your touch changes the way every fx behave, just as much as it changes the frequency balance in your sound.. but maybe you haven't gotten to that level in your guitar playing, so sorry for the spoiler. Anyway.. no, I don't think I can replicate that sound, but I think I could replicate that mood. But again.. Why would I want to do it? And timing? well.. psychoacoustically the timing influences the way we perceive tone way more than you could imagine. Sorry if my reply feels in any way harsher than yours was perceived here. peace

I agree with everything you said up until this sentence. I'm not defending the DOOFUS OP but what, pray tell, constitutes a "technically poor sound"?

For that matter, what constitutes a technically good sound and what does it matter that it was created a half a century ago?

I mean.. I'm not talking about guitar technique, but recording technique and gear availability.. I'm pretty sure that was not a choice, but a production "restraint".. We now have the chance to make things sound better, technologically wise.. Music and emotional impact is just another subject, and we're talking about one of my favourite artists, here... so I guess I didn't explain myself too well.. But hey, the point remains.. What's the point in imitating something so far in the past?

Had Jimi or Andy or others imitated their predecessors' sound, would we have their signature sound to talk about, nowadays?

First of all that's several guitar takes all together. Do you have enough arms and hands (and guitars)?? Also.. Can you play like him? Can you imitate his touch, timing, pression etc..? do you have the same guitar(s)? pickups? Heck, even he would find it hard to replicate the same sound after all this time, as we all do on different days.. Why don't you concentrate on your perspective on this sound? What's the point in replicating a (technically) poor sound from half a century ago? 

Yep, you can do both.

First you have to select the circular handle that represents the signal split or merge and drag it down as if it was a regular block, and you’ll create a second separate input or output. Then just choose the routing you need

Yep. Pan the guitar path to the left and the mic path to the right. You have to use two different paths.

There's no "high impedance device". A buffer has a high input impedance, but a low impedance output signal. The high impedance makes so the signal isn't messed with when it comes in, out goes a low impedance "SIGNAL", a low impedance signal isn't as easily affected by long running cables.

 

 

Yep. I definitely know what a buffer is. I mentioned a 'high impedance device' merely because it's mentioned in the article I was referring to. Which doesn't apply to how Helix works. Except for the low impedance (digitally controlled at the analog input) of the fuzz emulations, needed to recreate the effect faithfully. That's why I underlined the fact that most fuzzes don't work well when placed post buffer.

That's an interesting read, but quite off topic here: we don't have cables degrading our signals in Helix, and some fuzz pedals don't work correctly if preceded by a buffer or by an high impedance device. So a 'true bypass like' implementation is the only way to have the realistic input load on fuzz emulations without the dull sound of a low impedance setting when the fuzz is bypassed.