Jump to content
TheRealZap

Helix Ideascale Community Submissions

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, marshalsea said:

Couldn't find this listed anywhere, but find myself doing this a lot and would appreciate one of these approaches to speed up sound design process.


If this is the sort of thing you find you are doing a lot then why not do this:-

 

Scenario:

 

  1. Add an Amp block and a Cab block as part of a chain.
  2. Get the Amp block and Cab block setup, and then when you realise that you need to split between two cabs, or an IR block, simply add the another Cab or IR block and drag down to second path.

 

That option has been available right from the start.

 

Hope this helps/makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, datacommando said:


If this is the sort of thing you find you are doing a lot then why not do this:-

 

Scenario:

 

  1. Add an Amp block and a Cab block as part of a chain.
  2. Get the Amp block and Cab block setup, and then when you realise that you need to split between two cabs, or an IR block, simply add the another Cab or IR block and drag down to second path.

 

That option has been available right from the start.

 

Hope this helps/makes sense.

Whenever a new suggestion comes up, one of the questions I ask myself is whether such an idea would have a negative effect on some other existing feature. For example, there's often suggestions to "update" the amp models, like use whatever innovations L6 has developed since the initial release of the Helix until now to make the original roster of amp models sound "better" or more accurate or however you want to say it. And that sounds like a good idea, except that users have built Presets based on those possibly "less accurate" models and for better or for worse, they expect their Presets to sound exactly the same as they did before an update. So apart from adding "Version 2" models of amps and keeping the "Version 1" models in the roster, I don't think "updating" the amp models is a good idea because of the negative effects it creates.

 

As far as @marshalsea's idea goes, I really can't think of a downside. I think anything that helps users to modify Presets to sound the way they want, as quickly and easily as possible, is a good idea. @datacommando you make a good point about establishing a standard workflow designed to avoid the situation that @marshalsea is describing, but there was a reason why L6 decided to combine discrete Amp and Cab blocks into a single Amp+Cab block (to free up slots), and I think that when they did that they should have considered the downsides to such a feature, and I think this is a legitimate downside. I've found myself in the exact same situation where I literally have to grab a pen and a piece of paper and write settings down so I can add a second Cab block, or turn a mono chorus into a stereo chorus. If there's a downside to adding a quick, easy way to make what should be a simple modification to a Preset, I'd love to hear it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, zappazapper said:

Whenever a new suggestion comes up, one of the questions I ask myself is whether such an idea would have a negative effect on some other existing feature. For example, there's often suggestions to "update" the amp models, like use whatever innovations L6 has developed since the initial release of the Helix until now to make the original roster of amp models sound "better" or more accurate or however you want to say it. And that sounds like a good idea, except that users have built Presets based on those possibly "less accurate" models and for better or for worse, they expect their Presets to sound exactly the same as they did before an update. So apart from adding "Version 2" models of amps and keeping the "Version 1" models in the roster, I don't think "updating" the amp models is a good idea because of the negative effects it creates.

 

As far as @marshalsea's idea goes, I really can't think of a downside. I think anything that helps users to modify Presets to sound the way they want, as quickly and easily as possible, is a good idea. @datacommando you make a good point about establishing a standard workflow designed to avoid the situation that @marshalsea is describing, but there was a reason why L6 decided to combine discrete Amp and Cab blocks into a single Amp+Cab block (to free up slots), and I think that when they did that they should have considered the downsides to such a feature, and I think this is a legitimate downside. I've found myself in the exact same situation where I literally have to grab a pen and a piece of paper and write settings down so I can add a second Cab block, or turn a mono chorus into a stereo chorus. If there's a downside to adding a quick, easy way to make what should be a simple modification to a Preset, I'd love to hear it.

 

You might have to add another layer of DSP calculation and management to pull some of this off. That may be why you don't see some of these proposed modifications, at least not yet. It might be trickier in some cases than others to allow certain kinds of on the fly changes to blocks if the change pushes the preset over the maximum DSP available. Stereo blocks for example use more DSP than mono.  I suppose you could just gray out any option that would kick over the DSP limit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, HonestOpinion said:

 

You might have to add another layer of DSP calculation and management to pull some of this off. That may be why you don't see some of these proposed modifications, at least not yet. It might be trickier in some cases than others to allow certain kinds of on the fly changes to blocks if the change pushes the preset over the maximum DSP available. Stereo blocks for example use more DSP than mono.  I suppose you could just gray out any option that would kick over the DSP limit. 


Hi,

 

Precisely.
 

The reason I gave the proposed scenario is simply because it already exists within the current hardware/software. The OP,  stated that the situation of splitting amp and cab configuration was something they were experiencing quite a lot in “sound designing”. If that’s the case it simply comes down to a more considered workflow, especially as the separate amp and cab blocks do not use any more DSP than the combined blocks.
 

It seems that Line 6 included the separate blocks so that users had the option to add blocks between, such as spring reverb and tremolo effects  - similar to “real world” functionality. I wouldn’t regard that as a “downside”, rather more a bonus.

 

Hope this helps/makes sense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, datacommando said:


Hi,

 

Precisely.
 

The reason I gave the proposed scenario is simply because it already exists within the current hardware/software. The OP,  stated that the situation of splitting amp and cab configuration was something they were experiencing quite a lot in “sound designing”. If that’s the case it simply comes down to a more considered workflow, especially as the separate amp and cab blocks do not use any more DSP than the combined blocks.

...which is why I said you made a good point. There's nothing wrong with pointing out possible workarounds in the current firmware, especially considering the amount of time it would take for this feature to materialize even if there was unanimous agreement. But this thread, ultimately, is a place to discuss the possibilities for future updates. I guess I just don't want the discussion to end with "here's a workaround. Next." 

 

4 hours ago, datacommando said:

It seems that Line 6 included the separate blocks so that users had the option to add blocks between, such as spring reverb and tremolo effects  - similar to “real world” functionality. I wouldn’t regard that as a “downside”, rather more a bonus.

I didn't say separate Amp and Cab Blocks was a downside, I suggested that with any "innovation" comes consequences, downsides. The downside to the Amp+Cab block is that someone could suddenly decide they want to try adding a second cabinet. The downside to separate Blocks is that it takes up an extra slot. In either case, the process for switching from one to the other isn't particularly user friendly, and if L6 were to make it more user friendly, then those downsides wouldn't really exist anymore. That's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking at this: 

 

https://amtelectronics.com/new/amt-incinerator-ng-1/

 

It's a noise gate with a loop. It uses the level at the input for its detector, and then applies the gain reduction to the signal coming back into the return jack.

 

AFAIK, none of the gates included in the Helix work this way (we all know that L6 doesn't provide a ton of information on the individual effects; Helix Help doesn't mention anything about it either). I'd be interested to hear some thoughts on this, whether anybody has used a gate like this, whether they work better than a "normal" gate, whether it's got any appeal to Helix users besides me, or whether I should just shut up and buy one of these and put it in one of the loops. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish the PV Panama model had a Mk.1 and Mk.2 switch and a 6L6 / EL34 switch, like the TSE x50 v2 plugin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/13/2021 at 10:09 PM, zappazapper said:

I was looking at this: 

 

https://amtelectronics.com/new/amt-incinerator-ng-1/

 

It's a noise gate with a loop. It uses the level at the input for its detector, and then applies the gain reduction to the signal coming back into the return jack.

 

AFAIK, none of the gates included in the Helix work this way (we all know that L6 doesn't provide a ton of information on the individual effects; Helix Help doesn't mention anything about it either). I'd be interested to hear some thoughts on this, whether anybody has used a gate like this, whether they work better than a "normal" gate, whether it's got any appeal to Helix users besides me, or whether I should just shut up and buy one of these and put it in one of the loops. 

 

On 4/13/2021 at 10:09 PM, zappazapper said:

...whether they work better than a "normal" gate, ...

 

That is the crux of the biscuit; does this approach give any substantial benefit?

 

Using what is currently available on the Helix one way to employ a noise gate when you are using pedals in a loop is to assign the same footswitch used to engage the loop to a noise gate placed right after the loop(or before I suppose if you prefer). That way that gate remains bypassed unless the loop is engaged. Doing this at least gives you a method to specifically target noise from the pedals within the loop with a gate with an appropriately set threshold, the gate active only when the loop is active, even if it is not using the pre-loop signal/noise levels to clamp down after the loop as the 'AMT Incinerator NG-1' does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi couldn’t see this anywhere, how about being able to use midi cc as the modulation oscillator for the modulation effects. That way you could control the flange  or phase sweep with an expression pedal or external cc generator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use two Variax guitars on stage. I'd like both to be controllable via my Helix - so for this, I need to use Variax Digital Cables.

 

Is there/or could you make an AB Switcher Pedal, which I could plug both my Variax guitars into, then one output goes into the "Variax" input on the Helix. Being able to switch between the two would mean I can avoid kneeling on stage to plug/unplug them.

 

There are some RJ45 switch/splitter selector boxes available online. However, none of them can accommodate the secure Neutrik casings of the Variax Digital Cables. I could purchase cables with Neutrik casings one end, and the standard ethernet connections the other. However, the standard ethernet connection wouldn't be very secure, and would cause problems if it jiggles around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if anyone has thought of this but,

 

It would be absolutely stellar if a midi keyboard could be plugged in and the notes auto mapped out whenever one of the 3 or 4 note tone generators is present. Effectively turning it into a very capable synthesizer. Perhaps maybe an option for poly chaining the tone generators together for more voices of polyphony? This could be really interesting. Thanks!

 

Cheers!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, di0sys said:

Not sure if anyone has thought of this but,

 

It would be absolutely stellar if a midi keyboard could be plugged in and the notes auto mapped out whenever one of the 3 or 4 note tone generators is present. Effectively turning it into a very capable synthesizer.

 

It was one of the first things I tried after buying the Stomp last year and discovering that it has a synth. And I was "mildly" disappointed that it doesn't work.

 

Has anyone posted that on Ideascale already?

line6.ideascale.com/a/ideas/search?templateId=0&query=synth+keyboard

If not:

18 hours ago, di0sys said:

This could be really interesting.

 

… please do so:
line6.ideascale.com
Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...