Mix control for many modulation effects

[duncann]

Can someone explain more clearly how the mix control on most, but not all, mod effects is supposed work? Some work like you'd expect; 100% mix gives the wettest effect. Most of them, mono or stereo, sound to me like the mix goes from min, 0%, to max, 50%. Above 50% I can't tell what is happening, but something is changing. It just doesn't sound like an increasing effect on the signal.

 

[stupendousman]

The prevailing theory on another thread for some of the effects is that 0% is fully one source and 100% is fully the polarity modulated source so the maximum blend of the two (and maximum depth/blend/etc) is 50%.

[duncann]

Thanks. I guess that makes sense, but it seems kind of counter-intuitive. Plus the downside of cutting the granularity in half, because I don't see a reason for going above 50%. It doesn't sound right. But I didn't really mess with the stereo models too much, mostly mono. Where's this other thread?

 

Edit:

I was still unsure when I wrote the above, but it all of sudden clicked in my brain. Makes perfect sense now. But I still don't like the loss of resolution.

Edited October 15, 2015 by duncann

[Rewolf48]

It's only counter-intuitive if you think about serial effects loops.  Which most people are used to: Guitar -> FX -> Amp

 

Helix can do this (Mix < 50%) but is designed to also model parallel effects loops where the amp output passes directly to the outputs and the effected signal is added to it - for modulations you want a completely wet effect to mix back with that dry signal.

 

If you want a really big sound it is added back in a Dry + Wet Amp combination - that is one amp plays the dry signal and another amp plays the modulated signal and the mixing happens in the room where you are listening. An example of this in a single unit is the Chorus on a JC120 where one speaker is dry and the other chorus only.

[HonestOpinion]

Thanks. I guess that makes sense, but it seems kind of counter-intuitive. Plus the downside of cutting the granularity in half, because I don't see a reason for going above 50%. It doesn't sound right. But I didn't really mess with the stereo models too much, mostly mono. Where's this other thread?

 

Edit:

I was still unsure when I wrote the above, but it all of sudden clicked in my brain. Makes perfect sense now. But I still don't like the loss of resolution.

 

I agree, the loss of granularity/resolution, the counter-intuitive operation, and the lack of standardization in methodology used on different effects does not make sense to me. Wouldn't standardizing all mod effects to the usual 0% dry, 100% wettest make the most sense and be the simplest way to proceed?

[HonestOpinion]

It's only counter-intuitive if you think about serial effects loops.  Which most people are used to: Guitar -> FX -> Amp

 

Helix can do this (Mix < 50%) but is designed to also model parallel effects loops where the amp output passes directly to the outputs and the effected signal is added to it - for modulations you want a completely wet effect to mix back with that dry signal.

 

If you want a really big sound it is added back in a Dry + Wet Amp combination - that is one amp plays the dry signal and another amp plays the modulated signal and the mixing happens in the room where you are listening. An example of this in a single unit is the Chorus on a JC120 where one speaker is dry and the other chorus only.

 

It still seems to me that parallel loop operation could be achieved with proper routing and still maintain a more intuitive 0% dry, 100% wet operation on the "Mix" parameter, but I would be the first to say that I may not understand all of the ramifications of using a parallel versus a serial loop.

 

Here is an explanation of the two:

http://www.soldano.com/amp-help/whats-the-difference-between-a-series-and-a-parallel-effects-loop/

[HonestOpinion]

It's only counter-intuitive if you think about serial effects loops.  Which most people are used to: Guitar -> FX -> Amp

 

Helix can do this (Mix < 50%) but is designed to also model parallel effects loops where the amp output passes directly to the outputs and the effected signal is added to it - for modulations you want a completely wet effect to mix back with that dry signal.

 

If you want a really big sound it is added back in a Dry + Wet Amp combination - that is one amp plays the dry signal and another amp plays the modulated signal and the mixing happens in the room where you are listening. An example of this in a single unit is the Chorus on a JC120 where one speaker is dry and the other chorus only.

 

After thinking about this for another couple of days I think you are absolutely correct. I needed to make the connection between series/parallel loops to the more PA oriented terminology inline/sidechain to really get what you were saying. This implementation does provide more flexibility and may be exactly why Line6 chose to do things this way on not only rackmount emulations but the footpedal emulations as well. Not very intuitive or faithful to the original "Mix" controls as footpedals don't usually operate this way, but ultimately more powerful and flexible while still retaining the ability to accurately mimic the pedal they are modeling (albeit losing some resolution in the "Mix" setting). In essence Line6 has enabled the "Mix" control on the footpedal emulations to operate as you would expect around the 50% region, but also to excel in scenarios where ordinarily you would have to use a rackmount type "Mix" control for a wet only signal.  Now that I understand it, I like it!