somebodyelse

I use Reaper, too. To get the same result as your real world recording, I'd pan the mics - as you suggested - and record a stereo output to two mono tracks - recording left (input 1) to one and right (input 2) to the other. Your recording will be 'up the middle' mono, which you can then process as you did previously. I've done this many times via the XLR outputs, but I don't see any reason why it couldn't be done via USB.

Based on a guitar I bought a few years back, and what the lads in my local guitar shop laugh about, many out there need to learn how to put strings on 'em, first.

I've got the S/PDIF cables, now and I'll be trying it out later, however something that has occurred to me is that whether using L6 Link or S/PDIF, it's one stereo output. You can control what gets sent down either channel of it - panning - but the level, regardless of how many paths you send to that output is controlled at the output by an overall level - you're not controlling the volume level of the path, you're controlling the digital signal level of the output section, to avoid digital signal dropout in long S/PDIF cables. You can either control the individual path levels before they get to the output, or control the speaker model levels at Powercab 1/2 section. With the way you intend to use it, I would probably get my PC+ speaker models balanced for output (using a direct signal through an empty Helix preset) and then level match the presets as I wrote them.

I don't disagree with you - whatever the reason is, they're different. The reason doesn't matter. However, pots are a lot more inconsistent than they've ever been, today. Pickups are not as consistent as you believe, especially wire and magnets, and when all said and done, wood is the most inconsistent part of the equation - no two pieces from the same log are the same, let alone from an entire species. You can have two seemingly 'identical' (in every single respect) guitars that sound different. The same is true of analogue amplifiers and pedals - there is an inconsistency in all the components they're made from AKA manufacturing tolerance, which in most cases is quite a wide tolerance. At the end of the day, unless you have unlimited pots of money to swap and change things around, your gear sounds how it sounds.

Well, I was going to try running a similar setup out through S/PDIF to my interface and through my monitors. Anyhoo, couldn't find the cables, so ordered a pair... Whether it would have helped, I dunno, and I expect by the time my cables arrive, you'll have it sorted - I'll check back - but at least I'll be recording with a little less latency in future ;)

I'm using a Helix, so none of that cr@p matters to me. When I fire up the old gear, then I'll care... maybe. At the end of the day, I've got what I've got. It sounds how it sounds. Whether I think it makes a difference or not doesn't change how it sounds.

Yeah, we probably aren't. However, I'm not sure you can set this up properly until you have both PC+ plugged in. I seem to recall it being in the manuals somewhere, that when you have two PCs linked by L6 Link, it assigns one as '1' and the other as '2' and treats them as left and right. I think, in order for you to get the two outputs to the separate PC+ you need to pan the outputs, otherwise they will be sent to both PC+. EDIT: Having looked at your image, it looks like you've taken care of this. In terms of managing the individual levels, it'll be something to do with the 'Mode' - 1, 2, 1+2 Link - which I suspect you need both PC+ plugged in to be able to use. EDIT: These settings... in your image, the settings you have visible, there are 'tabs' at the top of that section, in the 'Powercab' tab, you'll need (for what you're suggesting) 'Remote' set to 'Global', 'Mode' set to 'Speaker', and 'Select (Preset)' use 1, and 2 as required. FWIW, the PC212+ can be made to operate as a stereo cab, so it'd be well worth doing a search of this forum and the Powercab section, for threads relating to the PC212+. As I understand it, the 212 is essentially two 112s in one cabinet. It's also well worth reading the manuals for the Helix, HX Edit and Powercab. I'm going to see if there's anyway I can simulate your setup, as I don't have a second PC112+, in a while. If I learn anything useful, I'll get back with ideas/theories. I'm dead certain you can achieve what you want, without having to have a 'Bolognese' of cables.

Okidoki, the simple, short answer is that 'the setting' is easily found in HX Edit, and I expect it's there somewhere on the Helix. In HX Edit, set up your parallel path, but where the path returns to the main path (path 1?), drag it away so you're left with a second output - an output for the parallel path. Now go to the 'output' for the individual parallel paths and pan them left and right. If I'm right, when you connect everything up, one Powercab should be playing one path, and the other plays the parallel path. Still in the outputs, there's a 'Powercab' tab, set it preset or global, depnding on whther you want each preset to select different speaker models or global if you're using one setting for everything. Set 'Mode' to speaker and select which speaker model you want. NB: you'll need to set these for both outputs. I haven't got two Powercabs, but if I got this right, you should be good to go. Hope that makes sense. EDIT: I have a feeling that you can't set them up individually until you have them both plugged in.

The longer answer is... When you use an fx loop in an amp, usually they send the whole signal through the loop, and back in through the return - the path is interrupted between the pre and power amp sections. With the Helix (I assume, as I haven't tried it), you can send a percentage of the signal out, bring it back in at the return and blend it in over the percentage that wasn't 'sent'. Regardless of what unit you use, it takes time for that signal to travel down the cables and back to the unit, as well as the processing time in the second unit, so the return will be delayed compared to the original signal. As little as 12 ms can be enough to cause audible phasing. You could use a predelay as a work around before the return block in unit one to sync the two together - it'd work for recording purposes, but would probably drive you insane in a gigging scenario. You'd need to determine the latency - record the send and return at the same time in a DAW, zoom in on a peak on both and measure the time 'distance' - fiddly, but doable - then add a delay block between the send and return on unit one set to the time difference and 100% wet, no feedback. As I said, I've never used the send/return on the Helix, so I'm assuming it'd be possible to drop a block in, in between the send and return?

That's latency for ya.

Just a suggestion or two... I'm not familiar with Guitar Rig, but I do use Amplitube. Open the preset and check for an EQ 'module' at the end of the 'signal chain'. For example, it may be OD pedal>Amp model>Cab model>Mic>Compressor>Reverb>EQ. Try bypassing the EQ (temporarily) and then match that sound, then switch the EQ back on, add an EQ to your patch and set it to match the one in the GR preset. Alternatively, bypass every module except one and progress through the signal chain one at a time matching it's specific sound. When you've done each one, theoretically, you should be there. Something to bare in mind, that probably never occurs to anyone. You're basically working with software, not hardware, to get a sound, and assuming that they're coded in the exact same fashion - which they probably aren't. One may be coded to just model how each 'unit' sounds on it's own, whereas the other is coded to also model how the individual 'units' interact with the adjacent units in the signal chain. Even if they are both coded for those interactions, there's no guarantee they are coded to do the same things in the same ways.

This again? Digital output is NOT analogue output.

Where Line 6, this forum, youtube and the rest of the 'net gets this wrong is announcing that there is an update in the first place. I got an email about it. If you're a regular on the forum, or subscribed to one of those tubes who does videos, that's usually, the first place you hear about the update. Those of us who've 'been there, done it' know to plug in and start HX Edit, WHICH CLEARLY TELLS YOU THAT YOU NEED TO UPDATE HX EDIT FIRST! It would be better if Line 6 didn't announce the update, so the first you know about it is when HX Edit tells you there's one, and they integrated the Updater app in to HX Edit to stop people using it to carry out routine updates, as it seems it's only needed when you screw it up.

This thread needs to be 'Stickied'...

Oh yeah. I know exactly why, but it's frowned upon to say what that reason is, these days.

Weird? I'm in the UK. I keep getting emails from them, but they never emailed me when the book was updated - I found that out through this forum.

Yes and no. Any fx unit that does reverbs and pitch shifters is more than capable of doing amp modelling without breaking a sweat. The reason you won't see it happen is because Line 6, and every other manufacturer, isn't going to produce a cheaper version of their flagship product that does everything the flagship does. They will always leave something out, because they want you to buy, in this case, The Helix.

You're welcome. People forget that speakers and valves wear as they are used which affects how they sound. Models of them don't, so all models don't sound like all examples of what they are supposed to be.

Possibly. Very much depends on how you set it up for sensitivity, and especially, where it's placed in the fx chain. They're most effective when they're near the front , but you might find you don't get the tone you want. EC used a wah pedal. When it comes to replicating anyone's sound, it takes a helluva a lot of work to really get it nailed... and good hearing. EDIT: I had a brief playaround earlier. I'm in agreement with @codamedia. A wah, overdrive, chorus, (maybe) Rotary speaker emulator, etc. I tried it with and without the short delay I mentioned earlier and I'm undecided. I was using headphones, so I used an amp model, which if you're using one has to be the Soldano SLO100 model (Solo Crunch). As far as the OD... if you use a regular Strat, a Tubescreamer type OD is probably the way to go. If you happen to have an EC Strat with the mid boost (in my case a Strat with EMG DG20s) then any OD and fiddle with your mids on your guitar to suit. You'll need to do some tweeking, but this is a good place to start.

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with any of those observations, except maybe the chorus, though I'm going off what I remember from his live sound than what he recorded with. I remember Joe Bonamassa doing a live cover of Pretending a few years ago, he really nailed the sound. There are plenty of 'rig rundown' videos on youtube with reference to Bonamassa. Would be worth checking the one that was done around the time he did that particular tour for clues? I can't imagine EC ever using one, but Bad Love sounds like it may have had a pitchshifter on it, more likely overdubs? A Univibe and/or Rotary Speaker I can easily imagine him using, though. FWIW. he was also using CS Strats with Lace Sensor Pickups in at that time, though that doesn't really have any bearing on this side of the conversation.

I got a Helix and PC112+ nearly two years ago. I was more impressed with the PC112+ than I was with the Helix. Like any piece of gear, you have to learn it properly, and that takes time. I'm still learning new things with the rack setup I've been using the last 30 years. The 'speaker model accuracy' thing? Speakers are like pickups. No matter how tight the tolerances are these days, no two sound exactly the same, and when it comes to speakers, no two age the same way. As it happens, my rack setup goes through a pair of closed back 1x12s with Celestion V30s in them. Does the PC112+ model them accurately? 'Close enough for jazz' as an old mate of mine says. Like the amp models, I'd say they probably sound exactly like the examples L6 used for their research - spoiler alert: vintage amps don't all sound the same, either. Well, two years on(ish), I'm getting the hang of it all. I'm getting the sounds I'm looking for - sounding like me through my rack. I have no tips, I'm afraid, other than to stick with it. Oh, and only trust YOUR ears.

I stopped using reverb at my first soundcheck for my first ever gig, forty years ago. Me sounding like I was playing in an aircraft hangar while everyone else didn't cured me of that effect for life. I'll use reverb plugins on a recording to add 'room ambience' to a direct recording, but I've never used reverb live, preferring to just live with whatever ambience the venue provides.

I haven't read every reply, so apologies if it's already been said. 12dB gain at the input... and all three guitars? I'd be looking at the noisegate in the input section, for starters. I hate noisegates with a passion, I'd rather have noise than notes getting cut off, however if it's set higher than -60dB, then I'd be looking to fix whatever is causing the noise. Other thing to look at, is there a problem with your cable? They tend to either work or not, but I'd check anyway. Lastly, we've all done daft things and not noticed, are you actually plugged in to the right input?

I remember his live sound from the time sounding more like it had been double tracked using a short delay - could be mistaken for chorus. Of course, try a chorus, but also try a short delay, instead, and go with whichever sounds closest. Something around 40-80ms delay, no feedback and adjust the mix to taste. Not saying it's definitely delay and not chorus, but I do remember thinking back then that it had a feel of late '50 rockabilly style echo.

They were mastering records through digital delay units as far back as the 70s, so most who argue the toss don't even realise they're quoting "analogue" examples that were digitised, anyway. FWIW, the process was the mastering engineer had to EQ the master on the fly, so a delay was introduced to allow him to make realtime adjustments. He listened 'live', made adjustments, the delayed signal was sent to the master.