Jump to content
TheRealZap

Helix Ideascale Community Submissions

Recommended Posts

Add Splits to the effects block list.

Currently, the only way to create a split is to move an effect block down to initiate Path B. But if you liked the effects chain you've just created the way it was and you just want a second path, you have no choice but to move an effect down to create that second path. Wouldn't it be better if you could just crest a second path simply by inserting a split via the effects block list?

 

http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Add-the-Splits-to-the-Effects-Block-List/809596-23508

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add Splits to the effects block list.

Currently, the only way to create a split is to move an effect block down to initiate Path B. But if you liked the effects chain you've just created the way it was and you just want a second path, you have no choice but to move an effect down to create that second path. Wouldn't it be better if you could just crest a second path simply by inserting a split via the effects block list?

http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Add-the-Splits-to-the-Effects-Block-List/809596-23508

This is something that would be very usefull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is something that would be very usefull.

DI seems to disagree with this and I don't understand why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Helix-Amp-Link-Remote-Breakout-Box/810477-23508

 

Helix L6 Link Remote Breakout Box

 

It requires a lot of cables to accomplish 4cm, amp switching, midi, etc. between a floor Helix and an amp. It seems this could all be accomplished over L6 Link, a single digital XLR cable, and a Line 6 remote breakout box (Amp Link?).

 

 

 

It seems there is similar functionality with Pod HD500x and the DT amps. Why not open up that functionality to any amp, rack, mixer, computer, etc.

 

 

 

The unit could be 1-2U, half to full rack width, with optional rack kit, with send/return loops, switching jacks and/or DIN jack with custom amp cable or generic 1/4" cables (similar to the RJM amp/rack gizmo concept, and maybe midi (could still require a midi cable in addition to L6 Link), possibly USB for remote computer software/midi control, maybe another L6 Link out for connection.

 

 

 

Personally, I would like to connect to and control a Mesa Mark V or a Mesa Triaxis & 2:90 stereo rig, and maybe have the option of switching to or blending with FRFR speaker(s). Running a single XLR cable back would be a dream!

 

 

 

A $299 price tag would be sweet, but RJM gets a bit more for their similar gear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DI seems to disagree with this and I don't understand why.

 

Many years ago, before Helix was my baby, I suggested "Split Path" and "Merge Path" buttons be added to what became the Action Panel, but I was outvoted. The reasons I'm not too keen on adding Splits to the Model list:

  • Splits and Merges aren't really models (neither are FX Loops and Volume Pedals, but whatever)
  • We already have an existing implementation (whether it's the right one or not is up for debate) and changing things now would confuse more than it'd help
  • Navigating the model list is much slower than dropping a block down
  • Fundamental changes to the path architecture would have to take place
  • Fundamental changes to the DSP filter would have to take place, and might break presets right on the cusp—currently, everything in the model list takes up DSP. The user should never be in a position where they cannot split or merge a signal because of DSP

Of course, this doesn't mean that the submission is invalid. The underlying issue is obvious—for people who haven't read the manual, creating splits and merges isn't as clear as it could be.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>

 

  • Navigating the model list is much slower than dropping a block down

Perhaps so. However, if you've got an effects chain already setup and you like it the way it is and is already full of blocks, but you want to create a new path below it, instead of just being able to create a split, you have no choice but to 'disturb' the existing chain by moving one of the blocks down, add an effects block so that the path stays, and then move the block you moved down back up to its original position. That, to me, is equally slow.

 

The other thing is, why can't we have both methods?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps so. However, if you've got an effects chain already setup and you like it the way it is and is already full of blocks, but you want to create a new path below it, instead of just being able to create a split, you have no choice but to 'disturb' the existing chain by moving one of the blocks down, add an effects block so that the path stays, and then move the block you moved down back up to its original position. That, to me, is equally slow.

 

The other thing is, why can't we have both methods?

 

I have to agree with this, the current way of working seems strange unless I am missing something, and I have read the manual a few times but maybe I have missed something :)

 

For instance lets say I have a set of FX on 1A then an amp, 1A feeds to 2A.

 

Now I want to tap the audio from before the amp and feed that to 2B, the only way I can find to do this is to add a muted block to 1B (I use a gain as I guess its the least DSP intensive) and feed 1B to 2B. If I remove this muted block then path 1B disappears. Or am I missing something obvious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with this, the current way of working seems strange unless I am missing something, and I have read the manual a few times but maybe I have missed something :)

 

For instance lets say I have a set of FX on 1A then an amp, 1A feeds to 2A.

 

Now I want to tap the audio from before the amp and feed that to 2B, the only way I can find to do this is to add a muted block to 1B (I use a gain as I guess its the least DSP intensive) and feed 1B to 2B. If I remove this muted block then path 1B disappears. Or am I missing something obvious?

 

Nope. You're not missing anything as far as I can tell other than instead of calling up a gain block, call up an effect that you actually want to use.  Oh and the manual is crap.  I'm sorry, but there it is.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qx466nv5utm6faz/Photo%20Mar%2012%2C%203%2039%2051%20PM.jpg?dl=0

 

Alright, I managed to create a patch that allows me to switch between Path 1 & Path 2 but I had to sacrifice an effect block at the front of each Path just so I could alternately mute the Paths.  Ridiculous!

Why not using the 02C Patch in the Template and start from there. Easy enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qx466nv5utm6faz/Photo%20Mar%2012%2C%203%2039%2051%20PM.jpg?dl=0

 

Alright, I managed to create a patch that allows me to switch between Path 1 & Path 2 but I had to sacrifice an effect block at the front of each Path just so I could alternately mute the Paths.  Ridiculous!

 

You have more blocks available than you are using on both paths, though. You can add a split and make it "serial" for path 1 if you need more blocks, but there are other ways to do what you are showing anyway. You could have (depending on the amp) both amps in one path where it switches between them, and both cabs (if you really need two different cabs) in one path also switching, and then you wouldn't have to duplicate FX, but share the ones before and after the amp... if that works for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have more blocks available than you are using on both paths, though. You can add a split and make it "serial" for path 1 if you need more blocks, but there are other ways to do what you are showing anyway. You could have (depending on the amp) both amps in one path where it switches between them, and both cabs (if you really need two different cabs) in one path also switching, and then you wouldn't have to duplicate FX, but share the ones before and after the amp... if that works for you.

The point of this exercise wasn't really about the blocks or running out of them. I know I can have more blocks. The point was what I had to do to get this setup to work and that an A/B switching system would have been simpler. Whether this is the way it should be done (according Line 6) or not is irrelevant. I hardly ever adhere to what others say about how things are supposed to be done. Humbug! Even though these two particular paths are similar, it's just an exercise - an example. This is the way I want to do it because I want two discrete paths capable of doing two radically different things. And also, this gives a much clearer picture of the signal paths and it's easier to see what's happening at a glance. The other methods are a cluster *^&%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I joined IdeaScale to vote on current ideas as well as start a few if I can conceive any original thoughts that haven't been requested.  I did notice a few that mirrored one another to some degree: One for the Mark IIc+ and one for several amps to include the Mark IIc+.  Does Line 6 combine the two for a tally of votes or would each be counted separately?  I only wonder since a person could then vote twice and be counted twice.  However, it is nice to read through the requests; some I voted for and some I didn't.  Still that and the Wiki are pretty cool.  Thanks Line6.  I was thinking about the "add effects from the M13" request I voted on, but as a programmer I wonder if too much functionality would make the Helix at some future point more like bloatware and over tax the capability of the unit.  Sort of like "be careful what you wish for".

 

Maybe I should start an "Line 6 GAS" fund since I am wondering what next generation concept might develop and be available in the year 2022.  Hehehehehehehehe (I crack myself up - being an audience of one) :lol: :o :P :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah... I'm crazy.  I want to turn the Helix into its own type of synthesizer.

I want Line 6 to add an LFO and an ADSR to control all kinds of parameters in the Helix

 

http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/An-LFO-and-an-ADSR/811573-23508?submitted=1

 

There's already an entry for this: http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Auto-wah-or-auto-EVERYTHING-for-Helix/727014-23508

 

There might also be another entry that's very similar.

 

A very important part of it is the ability of pick dynamics. Otherwise it's only time/rate based. Too static. Useful, but adding the ability for it to be triggered by plucking a string opens up quite a bit more usefulness.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's already an entry for this: http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Auto-wah-or-auto-EVERYTHING-for-Helix/727014-23508

 

There might also be another entry that's very similar.

 

A very important part of it is the ability of pick dynamics. Otherwise it's only time/rate based. Too static. Useful, but adding the ability for it to be triggered by plucking a string opens up quite a bit more usefulness.

 

Well, I think that goes without saying. I can imagine things like an ADSR controlled chorus's depth or a reverb's decay.

Or use the LFO to control those same parameters.  I was also imagining a an LFO with a really fast rate, controlling an amp's midrange level or some other control for a bandpass tremolo effect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think that goes without saying. I can imagine things like an ADSR controlled chorus's depth or a reverb's decay.

Or use the LFO to control those same parameters.  I was also imagining a an LFO with a really fast rate, controlling an amp's midrange level or some other control for a bandpass tremolo effect. 

 

Hopefully, Line 6 can implement this in some form or other, because it's not just adding another effect, amp, or cab, it's extending the base capabilities of potentially all parameters. Kind of like instead of having only two stereo paths, let's have four, which allows for so much more.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully, Line 6 can implement this in some form or other, because it's not just adding another effect, amp, or cab, it's extending the base capabilities of potentially all parameters. Kind of like instead of having only two stereo paths, let's have four, which allows for so much more.

Please upvote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please upvote.

 

It's amazing how one can easily overlook the obvious. Lol. Done!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing how one can easily overlook the obvious. Lol. Done!

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm using the Helix somewhat as a mixer: multiple inputs (different instruments) with FX applied to several of the signal paths, then each path is routed through the same XLR output to a PA. I use different FX blocks for different songs via different presets. I use MIDI to control the mix of each path using a Gain block. BUT .... when I change presets, my mix (gain settings) gets changed to the stored patch levels. So I can only use Helix as a "mixer" with great FX and tones unless I stay on the same patch. 

 

Please provide a solution by either:

 

1) allow the passing of Gain levels between presets (I believe this works for the expression pedal so it can be done, right?) OR

2) allow user to swap FX blocks in and out of a given preset using "scenes" while the In, Out, and Gain block settings remain constant. OR

3) something else that achieves the goal  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a Pod HD 500, DT25 amp, and JTV 69. I am pleased with the tone I am able to get but would be inclined to by a Helix as an upgrade if Line 6 makes it compatible with DT amps via a Line 6 interface. So please add my vote for this option...or come out with a Pod HD 1,000X and DTX amps. I love my JTV so I assume the Variax interface on the Helix works at least as well as the one on Pod HD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally would love to see a feedback control. I envision it as a block that can be added to manipulate musical feedback while playing. Whether it is a latching foot switch to be held down when feedback would be activated, or just a setting that allows for the desired amount/ease of feedback to be conjured. Do others agree? I'd be curious if this is possible or desired beyond my tiny existence. Thanks! 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if it's been mentioned before, but I've seen a lot of complaints about patch change lag and a lack of scenes capability.  If the footswitch can be "grouped" to where pressing one switch out of a group of three or four will only activate that switch and disable the other, that feature can be really useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like a mono version of effects that currently don't have one.

First in order would be the spring reverb.

I like to use them before cabs and sometimes before the amp - it makes the spring reverb become part of the guitar sound rather than ambience.

 

If there was a mono spring reverb, it could reduce the processing demands and leave more for other things, as going through the amp, it'll become mono anyway.

 

Vote here if interested:

http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Mono-Spring-Reverb/814190-23508?submitted=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like a mono version of effects that currently don't have one.

 

First in order would be the spring reverb.

I like to use them before cabs and sometimes before the amp - it makes the spring reverb become part of the guitar sound rather than ambience.

 

If there was a mono spring reverb, it could reduce the processing demands and leave more for other things, as going through the amp, it'll become mono anyway.

 

Vote here if interested:

http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Mono-Spring-Reverb/814190-23508?submitted=1

Hi Ka5par,

On page 19 of the Helix owners manual it has a section that mentions that:

"Adding a mono effects block will collapse any preceding STEREO blocks on the same path to MONO".

I don't know if that "collapse to mono" will also reduce the demand on the Helix DSPs or not?

If it does free up more blocks - then it should be no problem.

If not, then a mono option may be the way to go!

Maybe it is worth trying to see/hear what happens.

It's just an idea, but I hope this helps.

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a mono spring verb makes total sense! Most any guitar amp that has spring reverb is not stereo. And it would save bandwidth. Yes, you can collapse a stereo spring verb to mono... but let's save that CPU space!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More flexible routing to USB

 

Proposal: any input should be usable as the dry signal source for USB recording.
Usage: If you play a stereo instrument or use the returns as inputs for some other reason.

 

I'd like to choose "return 1/2" inputs to record the dry signal from Helix for reamping.

I play the stick, and at the moment can't record the DI, unless I sacrifice one path for just that. It's not often possible though.

 

http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/More-flexible-routing-to-USB/815364-23508

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clear Button for Presets to empty a slot

http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Helix-Editor-Clear-Button-for-Presets/815868-23508

 

 

Please give as a clear button for presets like the one on the Impulse Responses. If more presets are selected all selected should be cleared.

Right know you have to copy an empty preset and then past it to every slot you want to cleare. The editor askes if I'm sure every time I paste it - not very userfriendly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Model speaker distortion for use with HX cabs and IR's

 

Model the distortion characteristics of different speakers/cabs for either inclusion with the HX cabs as a slider, or even as separate blocks that could be used with HX cabs or IR's.

 
One thing we seem to lose with cab sims in Helix, IR's, or software is the distortion of physical cabs and speakers.

 

 

http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Model-speaker-distortion-for-use-with-HX-cabs-and-IR-s/816072-23508

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Model speaker distortion for use with HX cabs and IR's

 

Model the distortion characteristics of different speakers/cabs for either inclusion with the HX cabs as a slider, or even as separate blocks that could be used with HX cabs or IR's.

 
One thing we seem to lose with cab sims in Helix, IR's, or software is the distortion of physical cabs and speakers.

 

 

http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Model-speaker-distortion-for-use-with-HX-cabs-and-IR-s/816072-23508

 

I like this idea a lot and it makes me think about adding separate distortion for the power amp part of the sims. This would be equivalent to the difference in distortion you get from saturating the power tubes in an amp with the master turned up to 11 versus cranking the "Drive" parameter in the preamp.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One idea:

 

Helix is missing some essential things like delays, where is digital delay with modulation?

 

Another think is how to clone a tc2290, a sdd3000 or a eclipse?

 

I suggest:

 

I prefer 3 types of delays with multiples settings. Or maybe only one block for delay with multiples settings.

 

Types: echo, digital or ducked.

Settings: mod, drive, flutter, etc.

 

Infinity possibilitys and more versatil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably been mentioned, if so, apologies. Seems like an easy, no DSP problem to me. I wish each patch would remember its "initial state" so that when I tweak something, or highlight a block, or turn on a footswitch, or whatever, and the little "E" comes up beside the patch name, that the little "E" would disappear when I get the patch back to its most recently saved state. I would like, in essence, for the Helix to tell me "Yeah, this is where you started when you loaded this patch" if I haven't actually CHANGED anything. Otherwise, the little "E" next to the patch name is pointless, isn't it? "No kidding, I turned on the Minotaur, now when I turn it back off the patch isn't really "edited", is it?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×