Noticeable delay when switching patches

[Digital_Igloo]

Latency slips below a perceptible level. Hardware speed and capacity increase by an order of magnitude as cost goes down. I remember the early graphics programs on primitive hardware.

Every year people think full mix throughput monitoring with a DAW will be useable, but more and more advanced plugins and DAW features keep our buffers the same size. My studio's throughput latency is actually higher now than it was in 1998. But it sure sounds better today!

 

Developers and their users will always find ways to fill up extra horsepower. Unfortunately, technology doesn't stand still waiting for people to agree on what is and isn't acceptable latency or preset switching time.

 

Add the ability to switch the Variax in then! It's the only reason I have to change preset.

It's something we wanted to get into initial shipping firmware, but controllers-to-Variax parameters turned out to be a beast. Hopefully we'll reattempt it sometime in the future. I mean, they're the only Home screen parameters you can't assign controllers to! Omissions like this keep me up at night, seriously.

 

Agreed—would be sick to assign B-bender to a momentary footswitch. Or toggle between a sitar and Les Paul from FS5. Or ride your guitar's volume and/or tone knob from an expression pedal.

[phil_m]

Every year people think full mix throughput monitoring with a DAW will be useable, but more and more advanced plugins and DAW features keep our buffers the same size. My studio's throughput latency is actually higher now than it was in 1998. But it sure sounds better today!

 

Developers and their users will always find ways to fill up extra horsepower. Unfortunately, technology doesn't stand still waiting for people to agree on what is and isn't acceptable latency or preset switching time.

 

This is kind of the case in the 3D modeling/architecture world as well. Sometimes I think the software I'm using now is actually slower than what I was using 10 years ago, although it's way more powerful. Gains in processing power are rarely used just to make existing algorithms run faster it seems. More often, they're used to let us run more complex algorithms.

[HonestOpinion]

Every year people think full mix throughput monitoring with a DAW will be useable, but more and more advanced plugins and DAW features keep our buffers the same size. My studio's throughput latency is actually higher now than it was in 1998. But it sure sounds better today!

 

Developers and their users will always find ways to fill up extra horsepower. Unfortunately, technology doesn't stand still waiting for people to agree on what is and isn't acceptable latency or preset switching time.

 

....

 

Yes, it does sound better today, just like the graphics look better today. The point is that not only do graphics look better today, they also render much faster. The same will apply to audio. It won't require people agreeing on what is acceptable latency, you simply will not be able to detect any latency in a switch between presets, it will happen so quickly and seamlessly. Improvements in graphics technology followed a curve where at first increasing quality was also accompanied by increasing rendering time. Eventually rendering times started to go down, even as quality went up. I think sound and modeling technology will follow the same curve, it is simply a bit closer to the beginning of its journey. This is an interesting debate and I guess time will tell. Can you tell I read a lot of science fiction in my youth?  :)

[Digital_Igloo]

Yes, it does sound better today, just like the graphics look better today. The point is that not only do graphics look better today, they also render much faster. The same will apply to audio.

Except Helix doesn't render audio offline; it processes in real time.

 

If everyone sat down and agreed "Hey! Let's stop upgrading our DAWs and buying fancy new plugins and softsynths. Everything's perfect the way it is right now", a few years from now, yes, faster computers would mean smaller buffers could be used without pops and clicks, and latency would improve. If Helix and Fractal owners all got together and agreed "No more models! No more features! Everything sounds awesome right now so stop making it better", Helix 2 and AxeFX 3, with their next-gen SHARCs, would likely have faster preset switching time... and nothing else.

 

That's never gonna happen. The pursuit of features and ever-more-granular modeling will always be pushing the limits of whatever processing is available at the time.

[aerosol_d7]

I don't have yet, but it s one more bad news :(

[HonestOpinion]

Except Helix doesn't render audio offline; it processes in real time.

 

....

 

My perhaps clumsy analogy to graphics rendering is in reference to the loading of a new preset, not to the actual playing through the preset, which as you point out, is in real time, or very close to it (there is probably a minuscule inaudible delay as the Helix processes the guitar signal, which I guess is what is referred to as real time). I was trying to point out the similarity between the rendering of a graphics image and the loading of a new preset into memory for use by the DSP. There may be some legitimate parallels in that respect. In that one sense, the loading of a new sound 'image' from a preset is in some ways akin to rendering a graphics image.  In both cases -- sound and image, a number of parameters are loaded into memory, processed into a sound or an image by the processor, sent to some form of output, and eventually to the delivery medium, whether that is a speaker or a computer screen. The process is as you point out more complex and dynamic in the case of sound in that the input is constantly changing and has to be processed in real time. Maybe a better analogy would have been to CGI animation rather than production of a static image.

 

...

 

The pursuit of features and ever-more-granular modeling will always be pushing the limits of whatever processing is available at the time.

 

Could not agree more with this!

[fukuri]

Every year people think full mix throughput monitoring with a DAW will be useable, but more and more advanced plugins and DAW features keep our buffers the same size. My studio's throughput latency is actually higher now than it was in 1998. But it sure sounds better today!

 

Developers and their users will always find ways to fill up extra horsepower. Unfortunately, technology doesn't stand still waiting for people to agree on what is and isn't acceptable latency or preset switching time.

 

It's something we wanted to get into initial shipping firmware, but controllers-to-Variax parameters turned out to be a beast. Hopefully we'll reattempt it sometime in the future. I mean, they're the only Home screen parameters you can't assign controllers to! Omissions like this keep me up at night, seriously.

 

Agreed—would be sick to assign B-bender to a momentary footswitch. Or toggle between a sitar and Les Paul from FS5.

I probably should take a quick break from complaining about minor niggles to mentioning I'm blown away by the Helix

 

I'll do it in a seperating post so it doesn't get lost in here

[HonestOpinion]

I probably should take a quick break from complaining about minor niggles to mentioning I'm blown away by the Helix

 

I'll do it in a seperating post so it doesn't get lost in here

 

Me too, I love the Helix, don't want that fact to get lost in the chatter!

[Shrednoise321]

Mine doesn't do what you have shown in your video.

[Digital_Igloo]

I don't have yet, but it s one more bad news :(

It's not bad news as much as how all DSP-based technology works. There are plenty of workarounds, and again, we'll keep investigating ways to improve things. Maybe we're working on something right now...

[cruisinon2]

Really not my experience at all

Click the footswitch

Everything drops

New preset loads

No fade in fade out here ?

Sure there is...then again, every rig I've ever had has suffered from this to some degree. Cost of doing business when you're playing live. The kind of smooth transitions between multiple tones that one can create in a recorded mix are nearly impossible to reproduce live without putting 6 guitarists onstage, and an octopus at the mixing board. But expression pedals and spillover have made it a hell of a lot closer than I ever thought I'd get...

[elstree]

It absolutely isn't a Helix only issue. See http://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/lag-on-the-ax8-when-switching-presets.108343/

[sodabazz]

It's not bad news as much as how all DSP-based technology works. There are plenty of workarounds, and again, we'll keep investigating ways to improve things. Maybe we're working on something right now...

Now that's a tease! :-) 

 

When you say this, are you referring to a potential fix for the current Helix, or a fix for future models of the Helix, like a Helix 2?

 

I absolutely love this Helix and I'd like to keep it, but as much as I switch channels during songs, it's impractical for me to keep if lag and latency issues aren't going to be fixed for this model.

[Nightfly]

I don't own a Helix, but it seems like this is the intended (or rather, unavoidable) behavior. 

 

For it to be able to seamlessly load between complex patches, it would have to have AT LEAST double the memory/CPU. And that's only if it knows what you're next preset is. For it to arbitrarily switch between any two presets instantly is fundamentally impossible. If it had that additional power, there are much better things it could use it on, since switching presets mid song is a very niche thing to want to do, especially while switching stomp boxes is made so simple and can be used to solve the problem with nearly the same results. 

 

The workaround is to do your switching WITHIN a single preset. For instance, start with a clean preset and use a stomp box to introduce dirt, rather than a complete preset switch. Sure, this limits your abilities to some extent, but if you're crafty, you should be able to find equivalents to everything you were already doing. 

 

Expecting it to switch presets mid-song without delay is just asking way too much. 

People complained about the same thing when the TC Nova System came out, I never had an issue because (as said above) I queue up everything I need for a song in one patch and manipulate what i need within the patch/song. This way I can avoid bank/patch changing mid song. The TC Nova System has served me brilliantly despite what people called 'switching lag'. I plan to use the Helix in the same way and it's the only way IMHO. 

[joetink]

Up until now, I had just been using Helix for recording, and I have to say this is indeed a major issue.  I've got the Glenn Delaune 3 channel patch, but even that doesn't solve the issue, as the clean amp stays on when you switch on the dirty amp.  To those of you who are saying that this shouldn't be an issue and that you can play an entire show with just one patch, do you have anything you've created that you can post to back up this up?  Until I see something that gives me all the options I need in one patch, this is a serious issue for playing live.

[phil_m]

Up until now, I had just been using Helix for recording, and I have to say this is indeed a major issue.  I've got the Glenn Delaune 3 channel patch, but even that doesn't solve the issue, as the clean amp stays on when you switch on the dirty amp.  To those of you who are saying that this shouldn't be an issue and that you can play an entire show with just one patch, do you have anything you've created that you can post to back up this up?  Until I see something that gives me all the options I need in one patch, this is a serious issue for playing live.

 

I'm not familiar with Glenn's patches other than hearing them, but if you want to have a dirty amp turn on and have the clean one off at the same time, that's certainly doable. Sounds like you just need to change the behavior of that patch so it suits your needs a little better.

[fukuri]

Up until now, I had just been using Helix for recording, and I have to say this is indeed a major issue. I've got the Glenn Delaune 3 channel patch, but even that doesn't solve the issue, as the clean amp stays on when you switch on the dirty amp. To those of you who are saying that this shouldn't be an issue and that you can play an entire show with just one patch, do you have anything you've created that you can post to back up this up? Until I see something that gives me all the options I need in one patch, this is a serious issue for playing live.

Crunch - Lead - then clean

http://youtu.be/nIwtUaSWSt8

[fukuri]

Here's another one stepping through the changes

 

 

[joetink]

That looks like a great patch, and I'd love to had it if you are sharing, but I don't see anywhere in that video where you go right from clean all the way to hi gain without having to hit more than one pedal, and the same for going back to clean.  That's more what I intended to say in my previous post, because I know how to attach two amps to one pedal to turn one off and one on at the same time.

 

Look, i'm a huge L6 supporter and have been using every incarnation of their pedals since they came out.  However, massive lag when switching patches is a huge fail.  It's a deal breaker in a sense.  In fact, I'll likely be using my HD500 for some upcoming gigs due to that. 

[GlennDeLaune]

That Momentary Whammy switch is Super Cool!!! Great Idea!!

[fukuri]

That looks like a great patch, and I'd love to had it if you are sharing, but I don't see anywhere in that video where you go right from clean all the way to hi gain without having to hit more than one pedal, and the same for going back to clean. That's more what I intended to say in my previous post, because I know how to attach two amps to one pedal to turn one off and one on at the same time.

 

Look, i'm a huge L6 supporter and have been using every incarnation of their pedals since they came out. However, massive lag when switching patches is a huge fail. It's a deal breaker in a sense. In fact, I'll likely be using my HD500 for some upcoming gigs due to that.

I'm not sure what you are talking about

Maybe you can't see what is going on

I have one switch that toggles between crunch and high gain if it is on or clean and high gain if it is off

That way I don't have to have 3 individual settings and I don't accidentally put the high gain on top of the crunch

So I toggle between clean and high gain with one footswitch

Or I toggle between crunch and high gain with one footswitch

Or I toggle between clean an crunch with one footswitch

I also have the pitch whammy, the Klon always on, a phaser a chorus a flanger a dual delay and a reverb a and a dual cab block

I've run out of footswitches before I've run out of DSP

What more do you want

I'll post my patch up when I get near a computer

[kts222555111000]

Add the ability to switch the Variax in then! It's the only reason I have to change preset

Or preserve the delay while switching the rest

 

Are neither of these things possible within the constraints of reasonable use ?

Totally agree with this. I use a JTV89F with the Helix. All talk of staying within one patch for a song completely undermines the capabilities of the guitar. I need to go from a 12 string acoustic guitar with all strings retuned to a 7th fret position to a distorted electric in normal tuning. The only way to do that is with a preset change. No amount of paths within one patch can currently accomplish that.

[aepoc]

We'd just make the models that much better and the lag would be the same.

 

The reason something like a Zoom G3 can switch super fast is because it's running a relatively simple fixed signal flow with relatively tiny models with relatively few parameters. It's kind of like asking:

 

"Why does it take four days for The Anaheim Convention Center to get everyone's NAMM booths out and swapped for the next convention when it took my buddy and I an afternoon to swap out his entertainment center?"

The amount of data that Helix needs to remove and then add when switching patches is potentially gargantuan—upwards of a thousand values or more. Regardless, there are always things we can do to improve things. Helix is far from baked.

 

Also, don't forget about 8 TEMPLATES > 02C TwoTones A-B that lets you instantly switch between two tones with zero gap and spillover delay+reverb, 8 TEMPLATES > 02D TwoTones Blend that lets you manually crossfade between two tones with the expression pedal, or 8 TEMPLATES > 03D 4 Tone Switcher that lets you turn four completely discrete serial tones on and off with zero gap.

 

 

This is awesome!  Thanks DI.

[mainecracker]

This is and has been a big complaint of many users for a very long time (many with long Line 6 history, me included).  Dismissing it with the very limiting workaround suggested and because everyone else does this as poorly as we do is negligent.  

 

If Helix is about options, than provide the option to split the DSP use. Allow half the number of Blocks per patch and loose the patch changing delay by dedicating one DSP to maintaining sound through patch changes.  I would certainly use this setting a bundle (perhaps all the time) and I think many others would too.  I would gladly give up 1/2 the processing power to have seamless patch changes.  Anyone?  

 

Further, if Line 6 wants to keep us in a single patch, then make it REALLY work.  Open up all blocks for MIDI control; not just Toggle (Toggle-On, and Toggle-Off or Set-On and Set-Off), and not just IF we assign a Block to a Helix Foot Switch.  This simple fix would enable scene creation with on board Helix switching AND, if we choose to augment the Helix with another programmable MIDI controller (sequencer - whatever), then we can truly access everything in a single patch to create REAL scenes and not just simple A/B switching.  This is a simple fix and one I have posted on IdeaScale, Copy and Paste this link in your browser.  I have not posted the idea to split DSP, but if it has not been suggested, I will.  

 

http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Individual-Block-Enable-Bypass-via-MIDI/811400-23508

 

 

There is no excuse for not addressing this issue with some pretty simple options.  I am in technology, I know what would be involved here, and it's not a big effort, if it were a priority.  IdeaScale gets lots of attention for adding more stuff, but does not get enough attention in making the stuff that is already in there, work better/correctly.

 

Hey line 6; if other devices have this same problem, be the leader.

[willjrock]

Im replying mostly to the title, and i realize this isnt acceptable behavior in any sense, but when ive run into this in the past it was usually due to the effects and not so much the amps, so maybe bypassing the fx for a short period can diminish the issue a bit...which i totally get that it doesnt really solve the problem. Much better than dead space or ramp up.  havent tried it here yet. just thinking out loud. I'll probably answer my own question before i get a reply...or flamed   :P

[spikey]

It's not bad news as much as how all DSP-based technology works. There are plenty of workarounds, and again, we'll keep investigating ways to improve things. Maybe we're working on something right now...

 

Too bad (and moot point) for the car buying customer we can't "just once" get GM, BMW and FORD in the same room for 6 days (or 6 minutes), and say ok Boys, share all your secrets. Who knows, it might fix the acceleration lag.  ;)

[PeterHamm]

If Helix is about options, than provide the option to split the DSP use. Allow half the number of Blocks per patch and loose the patch changing delay by dedicating one DSP to maintaining sound through patch changes...

 

you kind of have that option. 

 

Make one patch in path A, one patch in path B, and switch between them using a footswitch to switch a "first in the chain" volume pedal from 0 - 100 and vice versa. Zero latency, trails remain... simple... basic...

 

That said, within one patch, there are different and I think far better ways to get multiple sounds, even out of just one amp block if need be.

 

I know, you're asking for an option to only use half the processor on a global basis to make it so you can constantly switch between patches with no latency and trails and such... but I suspect that this would end up not being the best solution for people once they really learn how to use the unit. Something like Fractal's scenes makes more sense, so find that on ideascale and vote it up!

Too bad (and moot point) for the car buying customer we can't "just once" get GM, BMW and FORD in the same room for 6 days (or 6 minutes), and say ok Boys, share all your secrets. Who knows, it might fix the acceleration lag.  ;)

 

yeah... that could happen... and then they could decide together on how to price those options... and all go to jail...

[mainecracker]

"Make one patch in path A, one patch in path B, and switch between them using a footswitch to switch a "first in the chain" volume pedal from 0 - 100 and vice versa. Zero latency, trails remain... simple... basic..."

 

Yes VERY basic and still just simple A/B switching.  I am talking about real solutions, not workarounds.  I can improve my tones by making them less complex, and remove the switching issue with split DSP.  Now, (instead of like the majority of players, myself included) I can switch from using Stomp Mode to Preset Mode, and have 8 completely independent patches to choose from all with zero latency.  Let's be honest, the original intent in all these devices is to change an entire patch when you want to change tones, so one can capture exactly that tone, and then hit a button to get to the next exact tone.  

 

Beyond this, with the Patch Gap removed, I don't need to cram everything I use in to one patch, so each patch can have only what it needs and PRESTO, I am making patch changes the way the digital processing gods intended.  THEN, let's say I am just jamming around and want to set up a huge stomp patch because I don't know what's coming next, well, we already have that....  So now we have a device that can easily fit an enormous amount of scenarios and it's dealers choice on how to leverage them. 

 

As far as the Scene idea, this is easily executed, and I have posted/voted on IdeaScale.

 

I appreciate your comments, but If anyone has a comment to this topic, how about making it a solution and not the same old obvious work arounds that have been balled up or rearranged and spit back out at us for the last 8 years.  

 

#1 it's a problem

#2 it's a problem

#3 it's a problem

#4 there are some pretty easy ways to address the problem if they really want to listen to their long time, loyal customers.

[spikey]

 

yeah... that could happen... and then they could decide together on how to price those options... and all go to jail...

In some cases they already have. Decided together I mean... Pure speculation but why just why do you think most of the products at MF, SW and others are same price exactly Hamm? Coincidence  lol....  :lol: They all went to the same Bahama Hotel,  and in that large meeting room downstairs said, were not gonna cut each others throats, right?... But the other, I was saying (pipe dreaming) only that wouldn't be nice for the guitar player if fantasy happened like that, just for a moment. Sigh oh well theres still competition enough to promote new and better stuff I guess...

[PeterHamm]

#1 it's a problem

#2 it's a problem

#3 it's a problem

#4 there are some pretty easy ways to address the problem if they really want to listen to their long time, loyal customers.

 

#5. It's not a problem. It's the same limitation other high-end solutions have.

[PeterHamm]

...Pure speculation but why just why do you think most of the products at MF, SW and others are same price exactly Hamm? Coincidence  lol....  :lol:

 

Uh, no. Manufacturers are allowed to specify a minimum advertised price. That's not price fixing, and is not illegal. When two companies get together and decide to price an equivalent product in such a way as not to undercut one another... that is... and is illegal in USAmerica.

[mainecracker]

your comments only show your myopia.  Are you suggesting that the amount of attention that has been spent on this topic is for not and this has all just been in everyone's imagination?  

 

It clearly is a problem and if you plan to measure your success as being as limited as everyone else, you will never be an industry leader and certainly have no capacity to innovate.

 

There are EASY fixes to the issue and those fixes would add bundles of flexibility to the platform.

 

If you have nothing NEW to say, just stay planted in your A/B patching and think you did something.... 

[PeterHamm]

your comments only show your myopia.  Are you suggesting that the amount of attention that has been spent on this topic is for not and this has all just been in everyone's imagination?  

 

It clearly is a problem and if you plan to measure your success as being as limited as everyone else, you will never be an industry leader and certainly have no capacity to innovate.

 

There are EASY fixes to the issue and those fixes would add bundles of flexibility to the platform.

 

If you have nothing NEW to say, just stay planted in your A/B patching and think you did something.... 

 

I'm not saying that they shouldn't do something like "scenes". In fact, I think they should.

 

That said, there ARE existing ways to get a dizzying array of tones out of one patch, something like "scenes' (although we know it won't be called that) is hopefully in our future (and will totally level the playing field in this regard), but... I doubt there will ever be true spillover between patches. It requires a different architecture that doesn't take full use of the processing, which people won't pay 1500 bucks for. That's all.

[spikey]

Uh, no. Manufacturers are allowed to specify a minimum advertised price. That's not price fixing, and is not illegal. When two companies get together and decide to price an equivalent product in such a way as not to undercut one another... that is... and is illegal in USAmerica.

Quit trying to blow smoke up my panties Hamm. 1st off I don't have any on, and secondly it may not be illegal in the sense that they all have the same price tag cost, but it sure as heck is price fixing no matter how you wanna slice it. Now is it a fair price? Thats not what Im talking about. Are they most always the "same" price? Yes, and that is what Im talking about. Manufacturers can suggest we all jump off a cliff, but we don't have to, do we? Where is the competition in that for us Hamm?

[PeterHamm]

Quit trying to blow smoke up my panties Hamm. 1st off I don't have any on, and secondly it may not be illegal in the sense that they all have the same price tag cost, but it sure as heck is price fixing no matter how you wanna slice it. Now is it a fair price? Thats not what Im talking about. Are they most always the "same" price? Yes, and that is what Im talking about. Manufacturers can suggest we all jump off a cliff, but we don't have to, do we? Where is the competition in that for us Hamm?

 

hmmm... let me see now... let's imagine a market where there are 2 or 3 or even more products from different companies in the same price class...

 

there's a word for that...

 

Oh, yeah... I remember it... "competition"!

 

:D

[mainecracker]

It would only require minor software changes, not architectural changes.  Shadow the current tone on DSP 2, and keep 'playing' that tone until a new patch change is loaded and running on the 'primary' DSP.  Once again...  MINOR CODE change.  Also, I would only suggest adding this feature as an option.  It addresses the issue, and provides choice.  So, lets all disregard your cost comment, because it has no merit.  Many of us already purchased Helix with out this ability, so I don't think adding it will send us all back to the store seeking a refund.

 

I find more and more excuses, dated arguments, and a total lack of consideration for REAL innovation.

[spikey]

hmmm... let me see now... let's imagine a market where there are 2 or 3 or even more products from different companies in the same price class...

 

there's a word for that...

 

Oh, yeah... I remember it... "competition"!

 

:D

Please explain to me how there is competition between retailers Hamm, when they all have the same price on the same item?

[PeterHamm]

Please explain to me how there is competition between retailers Hamm, when they all have the same price on the same item?

They have a M.A.P. they have to follow. It's not price-fixing. I tried to explain the difference.

[phil_m]

Quit trying to blow smoke up my panties Hamm. 1st off I don't have any on, and secondly it may not be illegal in the sense that they all have the same price tag cost, but it sure as heck is price fixing no matter how you wanna slice it. Now is it a fair price? Thats not what Im talking about. Are they most always the "same" price? Yes, and that is what Im talking about. Manufacturers can suggest we all jump off a cliff, but we don't have to, do we? Where is the competition in that for us Hamm?

 

MAP doesn't mean advertisers can't sell an item at a price lower than that price. It just means they can't necessarily advertise at that price. Back when the Helix first came out, there were some retailers who were giving people 20% discount off of MAP. Others simply refused to go that low. MAP is really a way for manufacturers to protect smaller dealers, in a way. If a large dealer decided they were going to charge less for items just because they could afford a smaller profit margin, it would make it so there was no incentive for anyone to ever buy from a smaller shop.

[spikey]

Ok so the Retailers are "mandated by law" to sell the product for the same price? Is that right? Or is it that they do have a choice and they decide on what their price will be? Which is it? And since when did places like Walmart care about small mom and pop stores?