steevo1977

My guess is once the dust settles on my new pet hate...Spider V In reality maybe soon if you look at the pattern for previous releases. I'm happy to wait for a real quality update. The last one was so good and surprising!

If you go to global settings > inputs you will see there is a mic input gain control (next to the phantom power setting - no need to enable that for your SM58 though). Yours may be very low. There shouldn't be a need to crank the output volume IMO.

Why are we even concerned with this sort of lollipop? In this forum we nearly all have Helix. If you spend the time and learn: what real amps sound like when recorded using different mics what guitar/pedal/amp combos work well together how to programme patches to recreate your physical gear (or new exciting setups) how EQ affects your signal - from a scientific perspective or relatively using experience you will be more than happy with Helix...or Axe-FX...or Kemper.

More of a personal wishlist for this update and those to come: 1) Variax workbench integration would be ace 2) HX reverb models - Especially a tweak-able spring 3) Multi-waveform LFO that can control chosen parameter/s of amp/effects 4) Feedbacker 5) Treble boost (maybe like the compressor with treble boost from Pod series) 6) Signal metering at all stages would be very nice 7) Another phase - not based on phase 90/100 8) Slicer effect like on the Pod series - using tremolo isn't cutting it the same 9) maybe a physical limitation but I would love to be able to use Variax at same time as SPDIF input. 10) some more niche effects would be cool to add to the palette. Overall I think Helix is shaping into the most amazing music tool I have used.

Thanks for this thread. What a hoot. And for what it's worth a reference mic is STILL A MIC!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol:

Very tactfully put. Good that there has been improvement and everyone has to start somewhere I guess!

I think you could achieve that bass sound easy on Helix. Blending of tones using different effects and mixing up amps/cabs/mics has allowed very accurate recreation of tones from almost any record you can think. What about creating an IR from your track/s and applying that to the back end of the amp block? Good luck at any rate! Warning: The following is only personal opinion! I found that track you linked interesting. Some really nice ideas however the drumming was really poor. The timing is constantly out in a very noticeable way. Entice the drummer to practice a lot more to get that sorted ASAP (for the sake of the band) or get a new drummer.... ...it's by far the weakest point and will hold your band back. Your music doesn't deserve that.

Paulo, what kind of guitar/guitars are you using with the helix fuzz pedals?

19th century?

Fingers crossed. Hopefully soon!

^^ this. If you tried the same thing with a physical delay pedal it would create a weird sound as is modelled perfectly by Helix. Not sure how DSP heavy or complex your patch is but the easiest way is to run 2 delays in parallel and have the input (split A/B type) switching between delay pedals (and turning the unused pedal off obviously) whilst still being able to have trails on. Having the pedals in series may cause issues with trails feeding the latter pedal. Sorry if this was maybe already obvious to you but people have different experience levels.

The mic into effects return 4? This may be a silly question but why not into the "mic" input?

Good work Miles!! This is the kind of discussion and information sharing that makes a forum worthwhile.

^^ This +1

Yeah ditto. Good luck with the puppy. Is that Fractal or Kemper? :D

In fact @bsd you basically just said you thought my idea (as you misread it) was bad then reiterated my actual point as a better idea...gotta love forums! ;-)

I wasn't suggesting that they wouldn't have names. Helix would still display the filename as the visual reference however it would make its decisions based on the hash digest /signatures. I doubt MD5 would be the flavour of algorithm used. SHA256 is more likely due to its much larger domain, maybe even SHA512 since it works best on 64bit kernels (again a bit of a leap regarding the Helix OS) I'm not telling line 6 what to do or even trying to inluence them...I was taking part in what I thought was an iSntersting topic. @Rocco Yes exactly. It's not that hard to keep things tidy and organise hence my suggestion regarding the numbering to the OP. I think some folk need a bit more support maybe and it would very neat for Helix and edit app to reliably recognise/differentiate between IRs...I wouldn't hold my breath as it's not as powerful a feature as the likes of snapshots regardless of the implementation. S

@bsd512 Also, checksum.....it's the same concept as a hash digest/signature. --- Text is a very inaccurate way to reference anything

@mileskb Using hash signatures is a more accurate way of "naming" the files. Filenames are a file system thing; the file itself doesn't care what it's called. The signatures are based on the data INSIDE the IR file. You could download IRs with the same filename as one you had before but it could be entirely different in terms of data contained within. This is entirely undesirable! In theory regardless of the filename of the IR the signatures would allow Helix to KNOW if it's about to import a duplicate IR and in the same way know if it is MISSING the IR for a patch. I'm guessing but I reckon the helix system is probably has a linux kernel at its core. Adding a little crypto function should be possible. @zooey Yes the edit app should be able to calculate IRs required from a table held of IRs used in patches and pull in the IRs required from your file system using exactly the same method of signature calc and recognition.

1) A solution you can implement: As you add IRs rename them with only a number (increases per unique IR) and store them in a folder and note in your record what the number is then when importing them back to Helix you select them from start to finish and it will import them all in one go in numeric order. This is an initial effort however the patches on reload will always use the right IR as they will always be in the right place. Maybe I didn't word that well but ask questions 2) A solution Line 6 could implement (depending on empty space/fields in the patch/IR database) I think that fingerprinting of files might be an idea. The data of IRs should remain the same (unless you are changing the data and resaving) however rather than using the files name (this after all is file system thing no part of the file itself) a hash algorithm could be used to produce a digest/signature that helix could instantly recognise from its IR list. So in other words the patch will store the hash digest for the IR meaning where ever the IR appears in the list it will know it from it the digest/signature and load it. It could probably recalc the list locations upon addition of new IRs to avoid drop outs at patch change. This would mean loading your IRs always from your IR cache rather than any other process which may change the data of the file. I understand that the import process itself may actually change the file but as long as the process is uniform in what it changes then helix will still be able to match the digest/signature from the creators patch (ie their Helix will have created the digest/signature based on the imported IR and not the original file) I maybe didn't word that well either..... --------------------------- I strongly believe name based would be a bad idea because of how easy it is to change names or duplicate names and when 3rd parties are involved this is more than likely. Anyways you are right that the whole IR list can become unmanageable. Cheers Steevo

I love Triangle Fuzz and Industrial Fuzz. Sound realistic compared to the real thing!

Welcome to the modern world. You will be able to create superb sounding patches much quicker than with XT, X3 or HD models. I have owned Pod models since 2.0 and there has always been something (or a few things often) that just grated with me with them. Even the HD500X (which I need to sell asap) was a frustrating journey. Not sure if it was me missing something with it but I was horrendously disappointed with it. Helix is a different kettle of fish. The whole tone creation process is helped massively by the straight out great amp sounds. Please don't judge Helix by the presets as they are a poor (imo/to my ears) representation of the unit and quality available. I've never played the amount of guitar I currently do and it all started the day Helix arrived.

lol @ the zoom sounds better. tbh research first. Spitting the dummy publicly like this makes you look at bit of a tit and I'm sure you aren't; merely disappointed and frustrated. Assumption is the mother of all screw ups. Never assume. Helix is excellent and it works like a dream with the JTV59p I bought a couple of years back (especially since snapshots!) so if you can return your Variax 700 and try to find a second hand JTV instead you will be loving it.

Totally agree most peoples points so far with making the Helix richer with Guitar related features. A metronome would be an OK addition though but not a basic drum machine...that's the realm of zoom/boss and somewhat cheapens the whole affair. you could just get a drum line to loop on your PC/mac/phone to play through Helix if really needed. A lot of what Helix does just now is so good. A while back (after a lot of playing with stuff) I started to get the results I wanted from Helix and in fact turned out to be way better than I imagined it could be. Maybe some more interesting/legendary/popular effects would be top of my list. Overall I'm just glad there is such a good community who discuss/share ideas, tips, patches, IRs so readily. It's an amazing spot of added value!

The issue with presets is that they are all subjective. Preset creators maybe even used earphones or old speakers....who knows. I think it's a random bag in the presets and I agree that a lot of them are dreadful and in fact work against the Helix...especially when you have people showing them on YouTube for example. Any device you buy has mostly crap presets tbh. Most Roland gear has awful premade patches. Yamaha is just as bad!!