somebodyelse

On 1/31/2023 at 6:31 PM, davebode said:

I just bought a Helix LT as a replacement for my HR MX5. When comparing amp models with the same IR I am noticing that the Helix has this odd behavior on any overdriven/distorted amp. As the notes decay there is a chattering that happens on the upper harmonics. In other words the higher frequency noise doesn't fade away smoothly as the note does. Instead, it kind of chatters like a gate or noise filter when the input is right at the threshold.

I also compared this to a tube amp and tweaked the settings to sound pretty close. Check out the demo. The examples are Headrush AC HI BOOST (Celestion IR), Helix A30 Fawn Brt (Celestion IR), and Peavey Bravo 112 recorded with a Beta57A. I didn't fuss with the positioning of the mic on the Peavey.

 

I would reckon they sound pretty similar. The thing that is bugging me is the distortion decay on the Helix. It comes on and decays rather abruptly and I think I know why. Going back and forth between the Headrush and the Helix and then the Peavey I noticed something. The Headrush and Peavey have a background hiss when the preamp gain is up and the Helix doesn't. Is this some kind of Magic? No.

I think what is happening is that there is some kind of noise filter that is processing the upper harmonics/distortion noise separately from a lower overdriven amp sound on the Helix. As the input envelop starts to decay, it starts increasing the noise reduction/gate threshold and that's why it chatters. It does the same thing on the attacks of notes to some degree. The decay of the upper harmonics/noise on the Peavey  is a little smoother and I don't hear them cut off abruptly like the Helix does. The Headrush also has a smooth decay of the harmonics. To me the Headrush is a bit smoother than this particular Peavey amp, but it's more preferable than the Helix at this point.

If there is some magic setting I am missing, do let me know. I have experimented with the bias, bias x, ripple, hum, and sag. This chattering distortion doesn't really change. Right not the bias is at 9.

I have tried a bunch of different amps. Some exhibit this chattering behavior more than others.

Example order - Headrush - Helix - Peavey

 

 

Haven't listened, because at my age, I probably couldn't hear it anyway.

What you describe sounds like a digital thing where the dsp is 'rounding off' the maths. Used to be a common thing back when we were using gear with lower bitrates. I'd be amazed if you were actually hearing it happen at 48kHz, though.

If you've got a noisegate going on, switch it off. Perhaps, try a low pass filter?

On 1/26/2023 at 2:45 AM, ricstudioc said:

*chuckle*  Seem to recall not too long ago people were saying the tuner was a weak spot on the Helix.

 

Take that, doubters!

'People' are idiots.

It's a tuner. It either works or it doesn't.

The weak point of the Helix is it doesn't come with a sun roof.

Tuner, bottom of screen, third knob.

Powercab 112+ here.

It does what it says on the tin, as they say.

The reason people can't get the 'amp in the room sound' is that modellers, whether Helix or otherwise model their cabs with a mic after the event. What you get is a model of how that setup sounds after it's been recorded, regardless of the amp/monitor you use.

With the Helix/Powercab combo, when you (or me at least) use the speaker models in the PC112+, the output from the PC speaker has the mic etc modelled in to it bypassed - just the speaker. To get the real effect, you need to remove the cab block from your Helix preset, then you get the 'amp in the room' sound.

Be aware, the speaker models are supposed to sound how the real thing would sound if it was screwed in to the PC112 cabinet - eg. my old rig uses a couple of 1 x 12 V30 cabs. The PC112 sounds very near to how they sound. It doesn't sound how a 4 x 12 with four V30s would.

You aren't getting 'amp in the room' if you use FRFR, third party IRs etc, etc.

Helix through a real guitar amp? You're hearing how your presets sound with the inherent sound of your amp colouring them.

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.

On 1/3/2023 at 8:52 AM, MGW-Alberta said:

I have actually already been wondering myself if maybe they need to be plugged into Helix before I can assign one left and one right.

I can see the 1 & 2 assignments and I can change them but for now any changes I make to one is reflected on both output blocks.
I will wait until the cables and the other cab arrives before proceeding any further.

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.

On 1/4/2023 at 4:41 AM, MGW-Alberta said:

A number of years ago, okay maybe a lot of years ago, I played in a country band for about 15 months or so.  Understand, country is not my usual genre but I joined the band for the experience of it and I'm not sorry I did.  I already had a fairly new American Standard Telecaster with an alder body and a maple board at the time and so I bought a second American Standard Tele with an alder body and a rosewood board as a backup.  The two guitars were one year apart in production; '95 and '96 if memory serves.  Being that close in production they both had the same stock pickups.  I came to the conclusion that the rosewood board Tele sounded different from the maple board Tele.  The differences I noticed were the same as one would expect from reading the now generally accepted attributes of those tonewoods.  There was also a difference in feel due to the coated fretboard versus the unfinished fretboard.  

 

Now .... I have posted this observation on other forums numerous times over the years and the responses have always ranged from "different woods have different properties" to "it's all in my head" but the one thing that cannot be explained is my perception of the difference.  You have to understand that in '95 and '96 I did not yet have internet service.  I did not have the preconceived ideas of tonewoods imposed on me by exposure to internet debates.  My observations were personal, genuine and unbiased because there were no external factors influencing me.  I am not going to stand here and insist that the differences were so significant as to be blatantly obvious.  In fact, I feel almost certain that no persons in those pub audiences could have ever possibly noticed the difference when I switched guitars but I did notice because it was my rig and me playing.  We could go on for days arguing about what the cause of those differences might be but it still boils down to ... the guitar itself made a difference; the pickups were the same; mass produced, machine made, identical magnet types, identical wind counts.  The whole idea behind modern guitar building methods like CNC machining, machine made pickups, etc. is for consistency.  Guitars of the same type are more consistent since the late 80s than they ever have been in all of history.

 

I am a pragmatist.  My philosophy is, "if it works, it's good."  I do not value gear because it is old.  I do not value gear because it is the latest and greatest newfangled thing.  I value gear if it works well, sounds good, is reliable and is appropriate to my needs.

 

There is a difference between woods.  I know it because I experienced it for myself.  It might not be a huge difference but the difference does exist.

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.

On 1/2/2023 at 4:16 PM, MGW-Alberta said:

I do not think we are on the same page.

Did you try to view the image I tried to post?
If you highlight the URL and open it in a new tab or window you'll see that each path, both 1 and 2 are being used independantly.

They both employ parallel paths that rejoin in an attempt to emulate 4CM but they go to separate outputs.

 

 

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.

On 1/1/2023 at 11:41 PM, MGW-Alberta said:

Reviving this thread with a question of my own.

I just bought two Powercab 112 Pluses with the intention of running a stereo rig ... although my approach to stereo will be a bit different from the norm.

I intend to use the parallel processing capability of Helix and use one path for left and the other for right, setting up each path differently to get two distinct sounds.

One PC+ has arrived and the other should get here some time this coming week.

I also ordered two AES cables; a longer one that will plug into the Helix and a shorter one that will connect the left and right cabinets.

In anticipation of the gear soon arriving I used HX Edit to create a template preset for future custom preset creations.

I set the inputs of both paths 1 and 2 to Guitar and the outputs both to Digital and selected Powercab.

It was my intention to use different speaker models in each PC+ to further customize each sound separately but I have noticed that if I make a change to one output the other one changes to exactly the same setting.

I am assuming there must be some setting I am not seeing that will allow individual cabinet settings.

I realize if I used the 1/4" or XLR outputs instead of AES I could easily set the speaker models on the individual cabinets manually but I was hoping to be able to change those model settings within Snapshots.

That's the reason I ordered the AES cables.

 

I would appreciate any insight.

 

[img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52600999386_3b88f652a4_h.jpg[/img]

 

The purpose of using the two paths individually rather than splitting one path to A & B and having separate outputs for A & B is so I can drop the modulation blocks down to somewhat emulate using two amps in 4CM rather than having the mod blocks come before or after the amp blocks.

 

Edit to add:

Not sure why the img URLs are no longer working here.
I've always posted pix here that way in the past.

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.

On 12/26/2022 at 5:45 PM, z3albw1rr said:

Hmmmm...that does make sense as a potential cause.

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'... 

On 11/4/2022 at 9:32 AM, DunedinDragon said:

Once again a perfect, no problem update to my Helix without a flicker of a problem.  At one time I could understand people having updating issues back in the early days before we even had much of an HX Edit to work with.  But I just don't understand with the way things are setup and work nowadays how anyone can have problems.  I mean I still read through the update procedures and all before I start, but I'm pretty sure even if I didn't I can't imagine I'd get tripped up anywhere.  This has got to be one of the smoothest and most trouble free update procedures I've ever seen from a hardware vendor.

Does anyone have any clues how people can be screwing this up?  Is there any kind of common denominator?

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.

On 10/28/2022 at 1:36 AM, k-grimm403 said:

I know that is not what it was initially designed for but… With the HX stomp getting command center and 8 blocks in the most recent updates Is there any reason why the HX FX couldn’t get the amp models?

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.

On 10/24/2022 at 3:52 PM, jpspoons said:

Thanks @somebodyelse, that's a great and balanced viewpoint. 

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.

On 10/16/2022 at 10:25 AM, sergiocochinero said:

An Autowah maybe? I mean for songs like "bad love".

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.

On 10/15/2022 at 3:16 PM, codamedia said:

 

I'm going from the OP's mention of the Journeyman album which was the late 80's... I didn't think to ask the OP which tones from the album - LOL!  "Before You Accuse Me" certainly has the sound you are referencing... but I was thinking more about the big hits from the album... BAD LOVE and PRETENDING in particular.

 

On those tunes I'm clearing hearing Wah (often fixed position), Chorus OR rotary/vibe & overdrive on the core tone... then compressor, delay, reverb applied during the mix.

 

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.