HELIXers, I really would like your Opinion

[datacommando]

1 hour ago, GlennCohen said:

This might go over like a lead balloon here but...

But maybe not, although I just happened to notice that you decided to resurrect a dead thread from 5 years ago. If you’re lucky no-one else will notice that you have thrown the towel in. It’s not an airport - there is no need to announce your departure.

 

I would just like to point out that lots of people find it difficult to get to grips with digital after coming from a tube amp “feel the trouser flapping noise”. Eventually they realise that this is a whole new game, what you have coming out of this magic black box is the equivalent of a fully produced sound. It’s the sort of tone you would get while sitting in the control room of a well equipped studio.

 

Hope this helps/makes sense.

[Schmalle]

3 hours ago, GlennCohen said:

This might go over like a lead balloon here but... I spent a LOT of time with this trying to get close to my reference tone (1987x and 65 Deluxe) I experienced some issues with my ears, something in the upper midrange was off. I never got even close to the real thing.  All I really want is 2-3 really useable models.  Unfortunately it is way too much of a compromise.

The 65 Deluxe model is very accurate. The original has no mid and presence controls - set mid to 6.8 and presence to 0 for accuracy (both channels). Switch Input-Z to 136kOhm to emulate the low input (2) and 1MOhm for high input (1).

[spikey]

Well, Helix is really good in a lot of ways but I digress, if it only had a tuner in the Editor Id be happy...  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

; )

[GlennCohen]

Yea, I get it.  That is why I got the powercab (try and trick myself) I said even if I got 90% there I would jump in the deep end.  Lord knows I would love to lose all the heavy iron!!! All I needed to get was one convincing tone.  The powercab promised to provide the ‘amp in a room’ tone.  IMHO It is not there yet. I have UA, amplitube, and logic so I have models coming out my ears (no pun intended).  About announcing my departure.  If more honest reviews were out there it may have saved me a lot of time (worth more than money these days).  If this works for you then consider me jealous!  It is such an attractive idea.  I just wish it held up in practice (again no pun intended) keep up the fight L6! Maybe I’ll see you again after the next big release.

[datacommando]

2 hours ago, spikey said:

if it only had a tuner in the Editor Id be happy... 

Rumour has it that it will be a dolphin friendly tuna!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

;-)

[datacommando]

36 minutes ago, GlennCohen said:

If more honest reviews were out there it may have saved me a lot of time (worth more than money these days).

Hi again Glenn,

 

I think that what’s out there are reviews by genuine people who are very happy with what they have bought into, and they actually think they are giving an “honest review”. If you disagree with the opinion of those reviewers, then may be you should do one of your own. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. If you’re not happy you could do a YouTube video to show how bad it is. That would be interesting to watch and see how many “thumbs up” it got.

I hope you find something that works for you without having to drag around all that “heavy iron”.

 

[GlennCohen]

Yea... this is my review.  I will not be doing a YouTube video.  I think part of the issue is that the reviews that get views are sponsored.  And YouTube’s algorithm supports views.   I seriously doubt that most players sitting next to an a/b switch with a 1987x/jump/deluxe...etc on one lead and a helix and powercab plus on the other would prefer the line 6 regardless of experience level.  AND I know how much wrath would be brought down on me for pointing this out.  Again, this is subjective, so if you do prefer the helix I am honestly jealous!!!  Line 6 is on the radar.  If they can really nail a reference tone from a known circuit then I will be the first to throw money at them.  Look at the fender deluxe modeler.  ALL of the processing power thrown at one model and it still doesn’t sound true!  Something is missing I thought the powercab might be the missing link.  It is a great idea and I hope they continue to improve on it.

[DunedinDragon]

I don't think it's any secret that the Helix doesn't provide an "amp in the room" sound other than through a 4cm setup, bit that's why that configuration is available.  The Powercab is an alternative to that which will allow you to take full advantage of the Helix facilities such as different cabinet and mic models.  But in order to do that it must, by design, provide a full range response setup which traditional cabinets don't have.

Having used traditional amps on stage since the early 70s I can't say that bothers me since the only time you hear the amp in the room sound is if you're on stage with the amp.  Once that cabinet is captured with a mic whether for recording or for live performances, it's no longer the amp in the room sound.  To me that's a big plus given the inherent problems of real world cabinets such as variations in the tone as you move off-axis from the cabinet or the inefficiency of traditional cabinets to project evenly across an entire room or the rapid loss of volume over long distances.  Having battled those kind of problems in live performances for well over 4 decades, I'll gladly take on a new and more efficient paradigm.

[marshallsp]

Hi Glenn,

 

I kind of agree with you.  And that is why I invested in the HXFX.  When I record with IR's I am satisfied enough, but in the room/on stage I really miss the dynamics of a good Deluxe and JTM45.  That and I'm old and not really interested in tweeking my amp on a computer screen.  I ain't got time for learning curves.  Trusting amp/cab sims on stage is a little scary to me and not what I'm used to.   Also I'm not very excited about the Helix lacking of: Poly pitch/ synth/ and more modern abstract reverbs and delays that the newer pedals provide.  If firmware 3.0 doesn't do it for me I am definitely adding EH pitchfork+ and oceans 11 to my pedalboard.  All that said, I feel like my unit was way more than worth the money for all of the modulation and drives (and some of the delays and verbs.)  Maybe if you love your amps that much, just invest in those amps and a reactive load box.  The Helix is hands down worth it for me.  I guess I didn't approach it as if it were the one and only product that will define my entire musical personage and satisfy every musical need.      

[codamedia]

@GlennCohen.... Some people make the adjustment, others don't. Some focus on matching tones with the real gear, others focus on getting great tones from the Helix itself without comparison, or with very little comparison. No right. No wrong.... just different. 

 

I've been a touring guitarist since the early 80's and I've owned some beautiful amps over the years. I can honestly say my tone has never been more "consistently good" from venue to venue as it's been with the Helix. Sure.... I loved my amps (still own a couple beauties) and there are shows that my mind recall as being the "best tones I've ever had"... but not consistently. 

 

I don't A/B my Helix with my old AC30. I don't A/B my Helix with my old Vibrolux. I don't care if they are "the same". I just know that when I dial in an A/C 30 tone or a BF Fender tone on the Helix it is convincingly "those amps" yet consistently better than when I used to haul my amps and pedal board around. 

 

Just my 2 cents....

[GlennCohen]

Thank you.  I agree with that approach.  Maybe I am doing something wrong. I did step away from my amps for a week to attempt to break my expectations.  In the end I felt fatigued.  I felt like something was missing.  I felt like the high frequency, glassy, top end was very different.  I tried multiple EQ blocks, ear phones, frfr, powercab plus, introducing analog gear into the signal path, 4cm, etc, etc.  my next try will be using the powercab line in to take the line out of my attenuators to add cabs to my tube heads.  I hope this will help.  I do like the UA ox but that is not good for live use.  We will see.

[molul]

1) I feel it's worth every cent I paid for it. Effects are great, user interface is great, having updates is great...

 

2) I miss polyphonic tuning and pitch shifting, which is expected in next update. I would also like to see some effects like the Shin ei companion fuzz, and some polyphonic synth sounds similar to 80's King Crimson sound.

 

3) Even greater.

[roscoe5]

1) How do you feel about your new Helix?

Love it!  Helix floor is a central swiss army knife to my home studio and guitar and bass rigs.  The interface and routing flexibility enable efficient configuration, sound development workflows, and control that were not easy in the past.  SO MANY CABLES (the stuff of nightmares)!!!

 

2) What would you like to see changed or improved about it if it was at all possible?

HX Cab models.  I have bled so much time and money in IR's and external gear trying to compensate and supplement this Helix shortcoming (IMO of course).  I learned a lot  out of necessity though, including how to make my own IR's.

 

3) How would it be then?

Near perfect, all in one ecosystem.

[zappazapper]

On 10/18/2015 at 6:44 PM, bartnettle1 said:

Hiya,

Helix owners,

 

Your answers are most welcome,

 

1) How do you feel about your new Helix?

 

2) What would you like to see changed or improved about it if it was at all possible?

 

3) How would it be then?

 

Thank you guys! 

My only gripe about the Helix is the same gripe I have about L6 in general, which is that I think some of their design decisions, particularly when it comes to control, lean too heavily in favor of simplicity over versatility. I get that they want the unit to appeal to people who aren't "geeks", but as someone who isn't intimidated by technology I often come across things that I want to do but can't because of the way the unit is designed to work, and it seems like the reason given is often that they don't want to make the unit too complex for the average user. I'm often baffled as to why certain things are implemented the way they are. For example, the EXT AMP function in the Command Center. You can select Tip or Ring, and you can select Latching or Momentary, which is fine when you assign it to a footswitch, because footswitch is OFF, you get clean channel, and footswitch is ON, you get dirty. But if your plan is to use Snapshots to control your amp (and other things) and leave the footswitches to control blocks separately from Snapshots (by turning off Snapshot Bypass), then you theoretically don't need to have the EXT AMP assigned to a footswitch. You would theoretically want to assign EXT AMP to an Instant Command, and have another parameter to open and close the circuit per Snapshot. But that open/close parameter is not provided, so you have to assign the EXT AMP function to a footswitch that you're not going to use. So little things like that frustrate me because it's not going to make a difference to 99% of people, which means it's not likely to be improved because there isn't enough appetite in the user community to change it. But I can't for the life of me understand the logic of not providing that parameter in the first place. I don't understand who it benefits, or what it saves in terms of programming and/or DSP resources. I don't understand who is supposedly going to be paralyzed in the complexity of an OPENED/CLOSED parameter on the EXT AMP function. I just don't.

 

XD

[zappazapper]

That being said, I love the Helix. The sounds are ferocious. I jammed with my little 90s rock cover band last night and my tone was blistering. No complaints about sound at all. Only control.

[molul]

9 minutes ago, zappazapper said:

My only gripe about the Helix is the same gripe I have about L6 in general, which is that I think some of their design decisions, particularly when it comes to control, lean too heavily in favor of simplicity over versatility. I get that they want the unit to appeal to people who aren't "geeks", but as someone who isn't intimidated by technology I often come across things that I want to do but can't because of the way the unit is designed to work, and it seems like the reason given is often that they don't want to make the unit too complex for the average user. I'm often baffled as to why certain things are implemented the way they are. For example, the EXT AMP function in the Command Center. You can select Tip or Ring, and you can select Latching or Momentary, which is fine when you assign it to a footswitch, because footswitch is OFF, you get clean channel, and footswitch is ON, you get dirty. But if your plan is to use Snapshots to control your amp (and other things) and leave the footswitches to control blocks separately from Snapshots (by turning off Snapshot Bypass), then you theoretically don't need to have the EXT AMP assigned to a footswitch. You would theoretically want to assign EXT AMP to an Instant Command, and have another parameter to open and close the circuit per Snapshot. But that open/close parameter is not provided, so you have to assign the EXT AMP function to a footswitch that you're not going to use. So little things like that frustrate me because it's not going to make a difference to 99% of people, which means it's not likely to be improved because there isn't enough appetite in the user community to change it. But I can't for the life of me understand the logic of not providing that parameter in the first place. I don't understand who it benefits, or what it saves in terms of programming and/or DSP resources. I don't understand who is supposedly going to be paralyzed in the complexity of an OPENED/CLOSED parameter on the EXT AMP function. I just don't.

 

XD

I dunno. I'm a "geek" type customer but I really prefer simplicity on any gadget I own ^_^U

[zappazapper]

3 minutes ago, molul said:

I dunno. I'm a "geek" type customer but I really prefer simplicity on any gadget I own ^_^U

at the expense of versatility on arguably the most advanced effect device in history? An OPENED/CLOSED parameter is really going to make the unit so complex that 99% of users won't be able to use it?

[zappazapper]

Over on TGP there's a pretty robust discussion of the Favorites feature coming to 3.0 and it's the same thing - it's not going to work in a way that will allow you to change parameters on a block across all presets that contain that Favorite, because they're worried that people won't understand how that works and will unwittingly make changes to presets they didn't intend to. But the fact is that if you offer a device that allows you to save, what, about a thousand presets, they really should offer us some tools to deal with those presets in an efficient manner. Instead, they've chosen to, in my opinion, underestimate their user base and hobble their device when there's already things going on in the Helix that are as complex or more that we all had to figure out in order to use the thing properly.

[codamedia]

On 11/15/2020 at 1:47 PM, zappazapper said:

Instead, they've chosen to, in my opinion, underestimate their user base and hobble their device

 

Not for a moment do I believe L6 has purposely "hobbled" the Helix. They prioritize features, and weigh the demands of the users. Do they get it right 100% of the time... NO! Do they get it right most of the time, I suspect so! I know I'm pretty happy yet I certainly don't have everything I want :) 

 

On 11/15/2020 at 1:47 PM, zappazapper said:

there's a pretty robust discussion of the Favorites feature coming to 3.0 and it's the same thing - it's not going to work in a way that will allow you to change parameters on a block across all presets that contain that Favorite, because they're worried that people won't understand how that works and will unwittingly make changes to presets they didn't intend to.

 

I've seen this very same worry in the past about stomps being allowed to "bypass snapshots". It was debated for several updates, and eventually happened once enough people started to grasp the concept. Nobody complains about the option now, but it was a heated discussion many times in the past! 

 

@SaschaFranck has been pushing the "global blocks" for a while now... and although I didn't grasp the idea at first, I am all for it now! The fact that L6 is adding "effect templates" is a step in that direction. It may not happen in V3, but the ground work could be set for V3.1 or V3.2. 

 

 

 

[zappazapper]

Your internet comparison isn't valid. Internet speeds weren't purposely reduced because the powers that be were worried that users couldn't handle it, it was because the technology didn't exist yet. There's nothing preventing a deeper implementation of control/organization on the Helix from a technological point of view; the limitations are part of the design. I mean, I find it hard to believe that it just didn't occur to L6 to, to use my previous example, provide an OPENED/CLOSED parameter on the EXT AMP function. If it wasn't an intentional design decision then I'm baffled at how the thing works at all.

 

24 minutes ago, codamedia said:

The fact that L6 is adding "effect templates" is a step in that direction.

I have to disagree, because of the way that the Favorites feature is being described. As far as I understand, there will be a sub-menu in the block list called "Favorites" where you can have blocks of any type with custom settings. Once the block is dropped into the preset, it's no longer tied to the Favorite in any way. Or at least I've seen no mention of how it is. So let's say you're right and they're just laying the groundwork / introducing the concept to the user base, with the ultimate goal of having changes made to one Favorite cascade to all other presets containing that Favorite. So when that update comes, will the Helix know which blocks were dropped in from the Favorites list before I updated? Because if it doesn't, I'm going to have to go back and edit all my presets one by one anyway so that the new feature works.

The paradigm for this already exists in Guitar Rig. Each block has a block preset menu. You load a generic block and select a block preset. You make changes to the block, it immediately deselects the block preset. You save the settings to an existing block preset name, and all blocks with that block preset selected assimilate those changes. At any time you are able to select a different block preset. With the Favorites feature, I would theoretically have to delete the block, go to the Favorites list and drop a new Favorite into my preset.

It's unnecessarily simplified to the point where if they're going to develop the feature to its supposed ultimate goal, it's either going to be cumbersome or they're going to have to change it to the point where it won't be recognizable to anyone who has gotten used to how it works as currently described, which defeats the point of making it simple in the first place. 

I just think it would make more sense to fully implement the feature properly from the get-go, and have some confidence in the user base's ability to figure it out and teach each other how to use it.