silverhead

Yes. Helix Native is also being released soon to include all Helix firmware v2.50 updates.

You need to configure your DAW to use Helix and its ASIO driver as both your audio input and output device.

One other observation - the Looper in Helix is able to playback a recording seamlessly between preset changes but I expect that's because it does not need to overwrite the memory space in which the recorded loop resides. Different when you're loading an FX Loop block in a preset change.

You're correct about the external pedal continuing to send its output to Helix. However it's not clear that Helix is able to continue receiving it. It depends on the assignment of the FX Loop in the new preset and how Helix handles that Return input signal. Clearly if the new preset does not contain an FX Loop whose Return is assigned to the same physical jack as the first preset then there can be no spillover because the new preset will not receive the signal from the external pedal. But even if the two presets are designed similarly there is no guarantee that Helix will continue to recognize that Return signal during the preset change operation. We know, as tobitill says, that there is a brief Input signal interruption from the regular inputs (Guitar, Variax, etc...) during the transition; presumably that will apply to the Return input as well. And once the signal is interrupted will it resume after the preset is fully loaded? I presume so but only an actual test of this will be conclusive. I have not done such a test. Perhaps someone has/could and will report back here?

That's correct. Helix firmware V2.50 will be released 'soon'.

A standard RJ-45 cable is not gig worthy, or even regular-use worthy. You need to get a cable that has the protective housing at each end. A regular RJ-45 cable does not fit securely enough in the jack; it wiggles and will damage the pins inside the jack.

Yes it sounds like you would need another audio interface to record the drums and associated mics as individual tracks for post-processing. You would then connect your Helix to the other interface using its audio outputs since your DAW should use only one USB connection at a time. Only your other interface would connect via USB to your computer. You would need to monitor using the other interface. I can't comment on any latency - that would be worked out using the other interface. if you plan to record everything simultaneously on individual tracks it seems you will need more than 8 inputs. But if you only want the drumkit recorded in stereo (using 8 mics with an 8-channel mixer) you may be able to use Helix as the audio interface with no need for another one. I can't comment more without more details about your plans and intentions.

I find that the main volume knob reflects the graduated scale of the readout. It needs a lot of turning at low levels and becomes more sensitive, needing smaller turns, as the level increases. That is normal behaviour.

To use Helix as an audio interface you connect it to a computer/DAW via USB. The USB connection provides 8 input and 8 output audio channels when communicating with the DAW. You can assign which channels you want to use in the Output block of your Helix preset and also on the Record Input of your DAW track(s). The Input blocks of your Helix preset define which physical connections you will use for your input signal (e.g. Guitar, Mic, Aux, Return 1, Return 1/2, ... etc). The preset processing blocks define how Helix will (or won't) process that signal, and the Output blocks defiine where you want to send the outgoing signal (e.g. to any of the 8 USB channels). So you can, for instance, connect a guitar to the Helix guitar input and assign it to preset Path 1 Input block, while connecting a mic to the Mic input and assign it to preset Path 2 input block. You can then process the two paths independently and assign the Output block of Path 1 to USB1/2 and the Output block of Path 2 to USB3/4. By default, the dry signal for the Guitar input is USB 7 and for the mic it is USB 8. In your DAW you setup 2 stereo tracks and 2 mono tracks for recording. To record your processed guitar you assign a stereo track using USB 1/2 a stereo the Record Input source, and assign a mono track to use USB 7. Similarly you assign th other stereo and mono tracks to record the processed (USB 3/4) and dry (USB 8) mic signal. Then you play and sing, simultaneously recording it all in your DAW, including the dry tracks for later post-processing in your DAW using Helix Native (and/or other plugins). Check out the Templates setlist in Helix. There are one or more templates that illustrate how to set up a preset for recording multiple tracks and inputs.

No, you cannot reassign the Mains volume to another encoder. But if you use the Fader view you can control it with your finger on the Main Outs slider, available in the Outs tab in Fader view.

Me too. This is what I do. 4 presets on top row, 4 snapshots on bottom. My Up/Down buttons are set to Bank and my FS display is set to 10 Stomps, meaning when I use the Mode switch I see up to 10 assigned FS and then use the Mode switch again to toggle back to where I can change Banks/Presets/Snapshots.

Agreed!

Not sure that it can't be done using HX Edit alone, although you are correct about it being only a remote control in terms of editing. I think the HX Edit program could maintain a stack of changes made by the user. The program would add to the top of the stack with each change and pop off the top of the stack with each undo. The stack would need to store the pre- (not post-) edit values for each Edit operation. For instance, if a parameter was changed from value X to value Y the HX Edit program would store Parameter Value X (not Y) on top of the stack before sending the change in value (Y) command to the Helix device. A subsequent Undo operation would pop the X value off the top of the stack and send that command to the Helix. Doing this on the Helix device itself would be more problematic because of the dynamic memory required to maintain the stack. Where would this new memory space be found? It may already exist just waiting to be utilized (meaning the device is over engineered and perhaps slightly more expensive than it has to be) or the space would have to be reallocated from an existing feature. For instance, reducing the number of snapshots from 8 to 6 would free up memory space for 64x2 = 128 parameter changes to store in the Undo stack instead of in the Snapshots memory space.

While recording is the conclusive way to verify that what you are hearing is, indeed, the acoustic sound of the actual standard-tuned string vibrations there iare a couple of quicker tests you can perform. First, try using headphones, preferably closed-back phones, to prevent any outside sound like the acoustic string vibrations from being heard. Secondly, while playing, move your head/ears closer to the strings and farther from the speaker. Does the dissonant sound increase? Now move your head as far away from the strings as you can and as close to the speaker as you can. Does the dissonant sound decrease? Turn up the speaker volume dramatically. Does the dissonant sound eventually disappear? All of those indicators will provide evidence. If you are still certain that you are hearing the dissonance from the speaker, not just from the strings, then it's time to test conclusively with a recording.

I also used the VDI connection with the battery installed in my JTV-59 for some time and experienced no issues. However when I discovered that Line 6 does not recommend it I removed the battery. Better safe than sorry is the way I see it.

Not sure why you have that idea but suit yourself. The POD X3 Live device is certainly a 'decent' interface especially if you are just going to record guitar parts. In fact it's better than many because it supports 8 audio channels over USB, allowing you to do things like record the wet and dry signals for each Tone independently and simultaneously. For instance, you can use a dual-tone patch designed for guitar and vocals. You can then record, in stereo, both the guitar and vocal parts independently into different stereo DAW tracks. Simultaneously you can record the dry tracks into two other mono DAW tracks. In one take - six recorded channels: two processed stereo tracks and two dry mono tracks. You could also, if desired, record the overall wet stereo mix of both Tones together, making an 8-channel recording. I think that's pretty decent. If you're going to use another interface I suggest you use one that can do at least that. It seems that the Studio 192 is more fully-featured - perhaps overly so for your purposes? The Studio 192 would allow you to connect more instruments/devices for recording multiple performers although you don't mention that as a requirement for yourself. In any case you need to use the driver that accompanies the interface device. In other words you should use the driver for the Studio 192 interface you will be using, or the POD driver if you want to give it a try.

Another option might be to use the Model knob on the JTV? Just engage/disengage the modeling manually as desired leaving you free to set up your presets however you want. Also, have you tried selecting the Variax Mags as the preset input where desired? .... but perhaps I misunderstand what you are getting at......

Yes it's normal. If you don't want audio through the speakers you will need to disconnect them.

I presume you mean the Line 6 JM4 Looper?

I have highlighted what I think is perhaps the most important point. Once the sound guy has determined that the level you are sending the FOH is appropriate it's his job to balance the mix levels of all inputs. Nothing you do to adjust your stage monitor level for yourself should affect the FOH send level.

You don't need a mixer. Connect the Helix LT to your computer via USB and connect your speakers to the Helix audio outputs. Configure your computer to use the Helix as its audio device (this should happen automatically but you may need to do it manually). Adjust your computer volume level to balance the levels.

There's a setting in the Tuner display - Mute or Bypass, or something like that. Set it to mute.

That looks like the cap that fits over a VDI connection. Try to fit it on the rear panel of your Helix where you would connect a Variax guitar.

Thanks for the explanation. For me, the range and flexibility of the Variax are worth any perceived deficiencies in the modeling itself. Personally I think the modeling is very good. My 1970-s era Les Paul Deluxe sits in its case now because I can't tell any significant difference in its sound from the sound of my JTV-59 Lester models. The Les Paul is slightly better to play but again, the range and flexibility of the JTV wins out for me.

I'm curious. You say you've had Helix for 1.5 yrs. Why do you not have the same concern about it? It does not have upgradeable electronics. Why no obsolescence anxiety with Helix? Perhaps I'm missing an important distinction here? (I'm not arguing that you should buy a Variax - just interested in the difference.)