Jump to content
mjorden

Noticeable delay when switching patches

Recommended Posts

Ok so the Retailers are "mandated by law" to sell the product for the same price? Is that right?

Nope, they can actually sell it for whatever they want still. They just can't advertise it at a price lower than MAP. Some manufacturers don't allow an advertised price lower than MSRP. This is why If you ever see a Rickenbacker guitar offered at a discount online, the website will say, "email for price".

 

And none of this is mandated by law. It's part of the dealer contracts manufacturers sign with dealers. If dealers don't follow them, they risk losing the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing you cross-posted with phil.

Back when I used to work in the MI business, the big company that had an M.A.P. policy that they policed heavily was Yamaha.

So... I could sell a Korg T3 (remember that?) and make the company (and me) a few bucks... or, for about the same price, perhaps sell whatever Yamaha had against it at the time (SY77, SY85), but because I couldn't advertise (even in telephone discussions - you had to come into the store to get the better price) the Yamaha for under the M.A.P. (still remember that the SY85 was M.A.P. $1,485.00 US). Illegal? Nope. But if I got caught advertising below M.A.P., the next shipment was going to be a longer time coming... if at all... never risked it...

I was more likely to make a little better margins on the Yamaha. It made me happier, the owner happier, and made us like Yamaha more than Korg, who had no M.A.P. policy at the time (Yamaha was a trend-setter in this regard in the early 90s).

Ultimately, I'm gonna sell you what you want, and what you need, and what fits your needs and desires more, of course (well not anymore, I am decades away from when I worked in sales), but I'm gonna like the company and the product that makes it easier to actually earn money doing it... that's life...

And yes, this kind of thing helps small dealers out... a LOT...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok thanks Phil... So if it is what you say, and they can set there own prices (even if they can't advertise it), then its worth the time to always call for a better price.

OTOH I know for a fact that Helix was not discounted with Musicians Friend, because they told me it was the Manufacturer that would not let them take a percentage off. Now was that lets say, fib ? Just because Helix was selling well?  And they were the same price at SW too. Hunmmmm... Ah so much for competition... Hy its all about money- so be it I like money too  ;)  Oh and one more thing. MF and SW couldn't care less about the local small music business stores in my town or any other, and they are sure not gonna raise their prices to be fair and match theirs + tax... Thats also life...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call it a fib, they probably just didn't understand the difference. I know I didn't when I worked retail. But it is important, since a manufacturer REQUIRING a price is price fixing, which is illegal. I don't see that there is a huge difference between the two, personally, but legally there is.

 

And the competition comes from the service provided from the retailers, as in who is actually the better retailer, not just who is providing the better price. Which, IMO, is a far better way to compete. If you only buy from someone because it's cheaper and not because they gave you a better experience, then they haven't really earned a customer. Sweetwater offers their warranty included, Amazon has Prime shipping, Guitar Center and MF have options for better coverage plus you can go to a store and talk to someone. You spend your dollars based on the experience, not the price offered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...since a manufacturer REQUIRING a price is price fixing, which is illegal...

 

No. I'm pretty sure that any manufacturer can, in fact, require a certain price to be charged. Apple does this the best, imho.

 

Price fixing is when 2 or more competing companies collude to fix prices for a class of products that compete with each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...OTOH I know for a fact that Helix was not discounted with Musicians Friend, because they told me it was the Manufacturer that would not let them take a percentage off...

 

Unless you work for MF, you only know what the guy told you on the phone. The fact is, they might have told you what they wanted to say to close the deal. Yeah, sales guys do that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I'm pretty sure that any manufacturer can, in fact, require a certain price to be charged. Apple does this the best, imho.

 

Price fixing is when 2 or more competing companies collude to fix prices for a class of products that compete with each other.

 

No, they cannot legally require you to sell it at a certain price. When I worked at GC, the Bose rep made it very, very clear that they are not allowed to do that and to never tell customers that they were requiring it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you work for MF, you only know what the guy told you on the phone. The fact is, they might have told you what they wanted to say to close the deal. Yeah, sales guys do that...

Of course sales guys lie Hamm, I assume thats what yer saying isn't it?. But No- I asked twice on two different days with two different salesmen from the same place. There were either told this from the manufacturer as they stated, or they were told by their boss not to deal on Helix stuff, period. I think Bosses do that too... I can't say which as I only know what was said by both. Either way, I still think it strange that hundreds of "other" items from many different manufacturers are the same price at two different companies hundreds if not thousands of miles apart, only because they want to, and not because they have to price things that way.   B)  Am I the only one that thinks this Isn't a bit too odd and too coincidental ? Next you'll be telling me their from the Government and here to help. lol... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, for sure... when there's a new product that is out that is hard to get, that for sure is NOT the time to make killer deals on it... If I were the boss and you discounted one single dollar of Helix for a customer, you and I would be having a crucial conversation right away.

I remember when HD 500 came out. I was thrilled to pre-order it, got one of the first shipment, was happy with it for years and still am happy with it... I have a GREAT relationship with my salesguy at one of the big companies. But like every other company, at that point, there were no deals. That's not collusion.

The reason that there is an item from Maker A at 500 bucks and one at Maker B for 500 bucks has nothing to do with collusion or price fixing. They just have both learned that they can sell a ton of said unit at 499.00, and only half a ton at 501.00. Maker A sees Maker B selling something well at 500 bucks, and figures out how to make something similar at the same price... and they make it. Or they make one that is very similar that they can sell for 50 or a hundred bucks less. It's not collusion, though. It's competition.

Maker C comes along and sells a similar unit for 650 bucks that does more, but not nearly as many people buy it. So... Maker A, Maker B, and even maker D, E and F look at that and say... "hmmm... better make one for 500, not 600 or 650. That's why in the 500-dollar category in the past five years there have been a bunch of items in the modeler category. Product research, common sense, gauging the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea I can see the reasons why discounts are not available for new products. What I can't see is why hundreds of others are the same price when they are not so new. For instance, the "TC Helicon Voice Live play", which was 1st available on Amazon in November 2011,  is the same price at the two major retailers. To the freeking penny. See below...

 

MF 

 

SW

 

 

That was about 5 years ago Hamm. This is not a new product. There are "LOTS" of products like this one example. Why are they the same price Hamm? Tell me again about this having nothing to do with collusion or price fixing? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, for sure... when there's a new product that is out that is hard to get, that for sure is NOT the time to make killer deals on it... If I were the boss and you discounted one single dollar of Helix for a customer, you and I would be having a crucial conversation right away.

 

I remember when HD 500 came out. I was thrilled to pre-order it, got one of the first shipment, was happy with it for years and still am happy with it... I have a GREAT relationship with my salesguy at one of the big companies. But like every other company, at that point, there were no deals. That's not collusion.

 

The reason that there is an item from Maker A at 500 bucks and one at Maker B for 500 bucks has nothing to do with collusion or price fixing. They just have both learned that they can sell a ton of said unit at 499.00, and only half a ton at 501.00. Maker A sees Maker B selling something well at 500 bucks, and figures out how to make something similar at the same price... and they make it. Or they make one that is very similar that they can sell for 50 or a hundred bucks less. It's not collusion, though. It's competition.

 

Maker C comes along and sells a similar unit for 650 bucks that does more, but not nearly as many people buy it. So... Maker A, Maker B, and even maker D, E and F look at that and say... "hmmm... better make one for 500, not 600 or 650. That's why in the 500-dollar category in the past five years there have been a bunch of items in the modeler category. Product research, common sense, gauging the market.

 

Although "collusion" and "price fixing" may lean a bit towards strong language there are plenty of practices that could certainly be characterized as unfavorable to the consumer.  The similarity across retailers in pricing has many causes. They range from "fixed price" policies that companies like Mesa Boogie (and even Behringer) use where they do not allow their retailers to sell their products for less than a certain price, they do this ostensibly to prevent their products from participating in a downward price spiral that devalues their product. Retailers may not actively collude but they do look at each other's prices and recognize the fact that deep discounting results in loss of profits for all of them.  This results in a non-explicit consensus by many companies to keep prices roughly even. They may not be sitting around a round table in a dimly lit room together, nefariously making evil plans but there is a sort of implicit price fixing that is market driven and mutually beneficial to the retailers and has a negative impact on consumers. Many seemingly separate companies have the same parent, for example, Guitar Center, Musician's Friend, and Music & Arts are all owned by the same parent company, you are not going to see much variance in price between the three. Thin profit margins on some items can also dictate a certain price point that ends up similar across retailers. Lastly I would say the internet has simultaneously benefited and harmed the consumer.  The internet allows us to find deals that would have taken years of garage sale surfing or stumbling on a tiny shop in a town in rural "Bumblef" in the past. At the same time the internet has provided a leveling effect on prices that can sometimes work to the disadvantage of the consumer, however, conversely the competition also often acts to lower prices. Everyone gets to see what the other guy is getting for an item now.  I should point out that many people have received 15% or even 20% discounts on the Helix by waiting for the right coupon or sale to come along. Sometimes it comes down to whether you have the patience or opportunity to wait for the right deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess I'm just simple (yea I admit it) minded but OK, if the manufacturer won't let the retailer come off a certain consumer price then why sell it for them? Unless the retailer (of course) wants to make a profit too, and jacked up (in most cases doubled or even tripled) the manufactures price tag. Hey nothing wrong with profits, but don't try and tell me they don't discuss this amount between them selves. If not, then they are awfully good guessers at what the other has marked an item for. And if that is indeed the case, then its not the manufactures fault at all for the consumer prices to be the same marked up amount at multiple retailers. In fact once they are paid, why should the manufacturer even care what the retailer does? Which then leads me back to the 5 year old items being the same cost at the two major retailers. Loss of profits is relative to the end of year sales bonus check I'm now thinking, which is more likely the reason why they are all the same price.  Now then, let the gov in on this and force internet taxes for all of us so that the local Guitar Center can now compete with SW and MF. No more need for competition cause we fixed it! The exact same sized Little pink houses for you and me comrade.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

spikey...

 

...again...

 

...both of those products have a Minimum Advertised Price assigned by the manufacturer. It isn't collusion. Call them and maybe they'll do better, maybe they won't.

It's not a conspiracy. Stop looking for one.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Ill just have to agree to disagree with your mindset on this Hamm. Yea it probably isn't illegal, but that don't make it right bud...  :)

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Ill just have to agree to disagree with your mindset on this Hamm. Yea it probably isn't illegal, but that don't make it right bud...  :)

 

You can disagree all you want, but I've worked there. There is no conspiracy. The vast majority of prices are the same because, as mentioned above, the manufacturer says "this is the lowest you can advertise the product." By and large, that lowest price is what the retailer ends up selling them for. Also as mentioned above, many of these companies are actually the same company, so of course the price is the same. If a product is in short supply, there is no good reason to discount it since people will be glad to pay whatever they are asking just to get the product. At Guitar Center, the in-store prices update every week. There is a whole department whose sole job is scouring other retailers to see what they are selling things at and see if it makes sense to match those prices, especially since they have a rather generous price match policy (easier to just have the same price than to have to match it at the register, speeds up the sale). At the end of the day, every retailer is going to want to sell the product at the highest price they think people will buy it at because that makes them the most money. Supply and demand dictates that if demand is high and supply is low, keep the price high. If supply is high and demand is low, lower the price. And if supply pretty much meets demand, not much reason to change anything. The biggest reason you will see any retailer discount product is if they got a special deal with the manufacturer that allowed them to purchase the gear at a lower cost. For example, Guitar Center has a lot of buying power, so they can afford to buy, say, 10,000 SM58 mics. Shure might cut them a break and lower the cost, therefore Guitar Center can sell them cheaper without losing profit, while the smaller retailers with less buying power have to sell higher to maintain the same profit.

 

So again, it's not a conspiracy. It's simple economics. If they know they can make more money, they are going to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

njglover, please explain to me then how retailers make any profit at all, if the manufacturer is the one that sets the price for the retailer and then gets that price sent back to them? Simple economics says to me that the manufacturer sets a price, and then the retailer gets whatever they can above this for their own profit. is this not how it works? What ever happened to "lowest price sells the most" when all retailers just happen to have the same price for the same item? Smells fishy and makes no sense to me, but hey thats ok too :P  And may I ask you in what capacity you worked there as? A salesman, a manager? A district Manager for a region? I ask not to doubt, but it matters as to just how much you got to see when you worked there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

njglover, please explain to me then how retailers make any profit at all, if the manufacturer is the one that sets the price for the retailer and then gets that price sent back to them? Simple economics says to me that the manufacturer sets a price, and then the retailer gets whatever they can above this for their own profit. is this not how it works? What ever happened to "lowest price sells the most" when all retailers just happen to have the same price for the same item? Smells fishy and makes no sense to me, but hey thats ok too :P  And may I ask you in what capacity you worked there as? A salesman, a manager? A district Manager for a region? I ask not to doubt, but it matters as to just how much you got to see when you worked there. 

 

The manufacturer may set the lowest price the retailer is allowed to sell the item at, or even a specific price the retailer must sell the item at. This is not the price that they sell the item to the retailer for. It is the price that the consumer will have to pay. They sell the item to the retailer at a lower price, otherwise, as you observe, there would be no profit for the retailer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

It's a good idea but it doesn't sound minor to me, maybe if it had of been designed from the start to have this functionality but it wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a good idea but it doesn't sound minor to me, maybe if it had of been designed from the start to have this functionality but it wasn't.

 

 

OK, I may be understating the effort because I have obviously not seen the code schematics etc. However, I can confidently say, this would not require a lot of effort.  Also, there is no reason this would have needed to be a day one feature as all the elements to perform this function are there, they just need to be leveraged.

 

I have added the idea to ideascale:

 

http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Seamless-Patch-Change-Option/812943-23508

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue here is that a lot of people use DSP 2 and don't want it sitting doing nothing to fix a millisecond gap

I'd much rather see a delay persist or be able to choose which blocks persist and which ones change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue here is that a lot of people use DSP 2 and don't want it sitting doing nothing to fix a millisecond gap

I'd much rather see a delay persist or be able to choose which blocks persist and which ones change

 

 

So.... You would have an issue with the this option being available, and not using it????  Really???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So.... You would have an issue with the this option being available, and not using it???? Really???

Yes

Regardless of how many question marks you use

I don't think it's a good use of development resources for such a decremental feature

Tell me this

Have you tried using the Helix with only one path?

2 amp and a dual cab and you're done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes

Regardless of how many question marks you use

I don't think it's a good use of development resources for such a decremental feature

Tell me this

Have you tried using the Helix with only one path?

2 amp and a dual cab and you're done

WOW, with thinking like that, we'll be back to doing things the way we did 10 years ago fast... oh wait, that IS what we are doing.

 

Yes, i certainly have tried and use what you have suggested, and it still only allows for A/B switch changes, and dancing around your foot board there after.  

 

Did you every wonder why they call them 'Set List' when no one can actually use them as such?  'Set List' may as well be called 'Folder x' because it is only a container for your patches.

 

Take a look out there, this exact issue has been on message boards since modelling has been around.  Here's is the point... it can be solved, and with not a lot of effort.  

 

I will ask you, have you ever set up 8 patches in a row, with 1 amp, and just the right effects per patch, all set to go from change to change for each song, and in turn, each set with no annoying interruption in your tone? Not if you have used 90% of modelers past and present.

 

For full disclosure, having the ability for a few scenes per patch suites me the best, but I am so tired of hearing the lame excuses for not addressing this issue by adding CHOICE.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....

 

I will ask you, have you ever set up 8 patches in a row, with 1 amp, and just the right effects per patch, all set to go from change to change for each song, and in turn, each set with no annoying interruption in your tone? ......

 

That's what I do. My patches are not complicated and I try to use FX as required to stay within the same patch for each song. New song, new patch (at least when playing cover tunes for a set). Patch switching between songs causes no 'annoying interruption', even if you choose to change the order of your songs on the fly because there's generally at least a few seconds pause between songs. Plenty of time to decide on the next song and switch to the appropriate patch.

 

And the odd time that it is necessary to switch patches within songs the few milliseconds delay is not an issue for me. I pause playing, the rest of the band makes that unnoticeable, and I resume a half second later.

 

The whole thing is a non-issue for me. However, I understand and respect that it is an issue for some. Personally, I think there will be improvements in this area in a future firmware release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW, with thinking like that, we'll be back to doing things the way we did 10 years ago fast... oh wait, that IS what we are doing.

 

Yes, i certainly have tried and use what you have suggested, and it still only allows for A/B switch changes, and dancing around your foot board there after.

 

Did you every wonder why they call them 'Set List' when no one can actually use them as such? 'Set List' may as well be called 'Folder x' because it is only a container for your patches.

 

Take a look out there, this exact issue has been on message boards since modelling has been around. Here's is the point... it can be solved, and with not a lot of effort.

 

I will ask you, have you ever set up 8 patches in a row, with 1 amp, and just the right effects per patch, all set to go from change to change for each song, and in turn, each set with no annoying interruption in your tone? Not if you have used 90% of modelers past and present.

 

For full disclosure, having the ability for a few scenes per patch suites me the best, but I am so tired of hearing the lame excuses for not addressing this issue by adding CHOICE.

The issue I have is you are assuming that your way is the way to solve it

I'd rather have a compromise that lets me use more than half the DSP but allowed a degree of spill over to cover the transition between patches.

I don't need EVERYTHING shadowed just a couple of things

Also don't get mad, I don't agree with you that's all

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to know there is a better way to kill the gap when changing patches, but the fact is, a DSP has to be Loaded and Unloaded to change a patch (as far as I know).  If there is a better way, with Dynamic DSP, or Rolling DSP's, or something else, I am all for it, but this solution addresses the issue, and will work for many.  Oh yeah, it also is not super challenging to pull off.  

 

And if your worried about where the Dev time will go at Line 6, just check out IdeaScale.  Everyone on there just wants their favorite amp or stomp box added... Yawn....

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know if using the same effects in the same block locations allow for faster switching, or does it dump entire path and load the new setup? I was thinking like the looper works when switching patchs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is getting silly.  

 

I understand people wanting the Helix to act like a multi-fx device where you can switch patches and it's just like turning pedals on and off without the dance..   It's nice to want that.... but to say that "for the price it should act a certain way" is a bit unfair if you actually think about it.   They are not Banks and Patches, they are presets and SETLISTS!!!!  This unit was designed to address those people like many who play a LIST of songs.   So instead of having to remember what you used on what song last year at that one Irish Music gig... you can just load the songs for that gig. 

 

Think of it this way.... you have TWO songs that use the same blocks set the same way..   You decide on song B you need to modify the EQ to cut through better with the keyboard that's playing on that song as well.   The "old" patch way...  well there was a bunch of ways of doing it, but on the Helix, you just save a patch for each song.   There's plenty of memory, not to mention how easily you can save and load a patch/song.  

 

Lets take it a step further...  You play in three bands with three completely different sounds and obviously 3 completely different setlists.  That's a lot of patches to remember....   or... you can just load all the songs for each band as a setlist.  (group of patches)    Everything is labeled so you know what you need to do for different parts of the song.  (intro, chorus, verse, lead) etc..

 

Just because you cannot use a unit the way it was designed, does not mean the design is wrong.  Maybe you should look for a unit designed for what you need, or you compromise.    

 

The logic seems to be...     I want to take my McLaren off-roading...  for that price I should be able to drive it wherever you want.   Well, yeah... you can..  but when you get stuck in the mud, it ain't McLaren's fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is getting silly.  

 

I understand people wanting the Helix to act like a multi-fx device where you can switch patches and it's just like turning pedals on and off without the dance..   It's nice to want that.... but to say that "for the price it should act a certain way" is a bit unfair if you actually think about it.   They are not Banks and Patches, they are presets and SETLISTS!!!!  This unit was designed to address those people like many who play a LIST of songs.   So instead of having to remember what you used on what song last year at that one Irish Music gig... you can just load the songs for that gig. 

 

Think of it this way.... you have TWO songs that use the same blocks set the same way..   You decide on song B you need to modify the EQ to cut through better with the keyboard that's playing on that song as well.   The "old" patch way...  well there was a bunch of ways of doing it, but on the Helix, you just save a patch for each song.   There's plenty of memory, not to mention how easily you can save and load a patch/song.  

 

Lets take it a step further...  You play in three bands with three completely different sounds and obviously 3 completely different setlists.  That's a lot of patches to remember....   or... you can just load all the songs for each band as a setlist.  (group of patches)    Everything is labeled so you know what you need to do for different parts of the song.  (intro, chorus, verse, lead) etc..

 

Just because you cannot use a unit the way it was designed, does not mean the design is wrong.  Maybe you should look for a unit designed for what you need, or you compromise.    

 

The logic seems to be...     I want to take my McLaren off-roading...  for that price I should be able to drive it wherever you want.   Well, yeah... you can..  but when you get stuck in the mud, it ain't McLaren's fault.

 

There is still no scene functionality in the Helix so if you are claiming that latency between patches is the way that the Helix was "designed" then it is missing a critical design element as many users cannot do everything they want within a single preset without tap dancing.  Additionally the available DSP, limits what can be placed in a single preset. This is true of all MFX units. Ultimately it may prove somewhat fruitless to define the Helix by the debate over what the nomenclature ("Setlists") really means.  To some it means multiple presets to a song and to some it means a single preset to a song. Many users would like to see a unit with minimal latency between presets and even spillover. Switching between presets within a song is a perfectly valid approach, easily handled by many MFX and preferred by many users. It also happens to be an approach that allows switching between more complex DSP intensive signal chains.

 

I don't think there is anything unreasonable about these requests to make an effort to reduce latency between presets and to add whatever spillover capability possible within the current hardware, as well as adding scene functionality for those who prefer to work within a single preset. This would make for an ideal pedalboard for EVERYBODY, for those who wish to use it within a preset and those who do not. Trying to convince people that they should just ratchet down their expectations, try to jam every possible effect, amp, IR, and routing they want for a song within one preset, and change the way they play in order to adjust to the Helix's limitations may be sound and reasonable advice but I would much rather see Line6 improve the Helix.  

 

The video that one of the forum users posted clearly demonstrates that there is a problem with latency between presets.  I know no one wants to hear that and the topic has been beaten to death but every time I see these posts about how people should just accept it I can't hep but think that there also needs to be persistent voices asking for something better than complacency and acceptance of these issues. One of the great virtues of the Helix is that it is head and shoulders ahead of the competition in its user interface and ease of programming. Some of that advantage is lost in the routing contortions some of us are forced into to get everything to work within one preset. I prefer to spend minimal time programming, I would rather be playing.  Line6 needs to know that many of us like complex signal chains and/or just prefer the workflow of switching between presets. Latency, and the lack of scenes and spillover can be frustrating and serious limitations that need to be addressed, preferably on this version of the Helix, but if not, definitely on the next.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There is still no scene functionality in the Helix so if you are claiming that latency between patches is the way that the Helix was "designed" than it is missing a critical design element as many users cannot do everything they want within a single preset without tap dancing"

 

If I was one of those users I simply would have bought a unit that met my needs rather than whine about a unit that clearly does not meet my needs, but that's just me.

 

"I don't think there is anything unreasonable about these requests to make an effort to reduce latency between presets and to add whatever spillover capability possible within the current hardware,"  I will try to explain a little differently than others have...  wish me luck..

 

The speed of which a patch loads is based on processor speed and throughput.  Those two factors ultimately rely on hardware specs. Maybe they will come out with an upgrade chip at some point.  That's not unheard of.  I received a new firmware chip for my Lexicon MPX-1 and I replaced the chip in my FCB1010 footswitch.  Maybe they built Helix with this in mind that when technology gets fast enough (at a low enough price point) they will offer upgrades.  But I wouldn't expect any magic from a routine software update.  If anything, as they improve their modeling technology and maybe add more features I would actually expect patches to load slower.  It's physics, and all the wishing and praying and nagging and begging isn't going to change physics.   I'm sure someone with more intimate knowledge would no for sure, but unless Line6 re-invented computer technology...  it is what it is.   Any previous "speeding up" and maybe a little future "speeding up" from an update is simply fixing errors and maybe tweaking code performance.... but ultimately...  that only gets to the limit of the hardware.   Think filling a bucket with a hose.  You can do a certain amount of tweaking to that hose, but ultimately the bucket is only going to fill so fast.   If you want it to fill faster, you need a bigger hose.

 

As far as spillover...  again..  basic computer design 101.  You essentially need twice as much memory as you are using because it has to be able to continue running the current code while it loads the new code.  It's not anything all that complicated, but it obviously wasn't designed that way and without cutting into current computing power... I just don't see it happening.  Again..  maybe they intend to do a chip upgrade sometime in the future.  Who knows.

 

I will say this.  I came to Line6 recently... somewhat kicking and screaming because of an undeserved stigma I think. But I've done quite a bit of homework in the last 6 months or so and I get it now.  Again, it's a guess, but I'll stand by it.. that the Helix works exactly as designed and they chose to provide certain functionality over other functionality based on cost.  As has been stated often in official channels... they don't "get new ideas" from Ideaspace or these Forums...  They just get validation for what they are already doing or planning to do.   With all the things that Helix IS capable of doing...  I hope they just keep working on making those things better.

 

Bottom line... if it doesn't work for you, get something that does, or if it's that important where Helix provides everything else you need...  get a second unit.  If you're playing out you need a spare anyway.   Value added.  You can then do all the spill-over and instant patch-switching you want.  You could probably even use an expression pedal to setup an A/B operation on the input so you could fade from one patch to another.  problem solved, and you have a backup if something fails.

 

I don't mean to sound argumentative if I do.  Not my intention at all.  Most of my career has been spent finding creative technology solutions, so I'm just trying to help.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There is still no scene functionality in the Helix so if you are claiming that latency between patches is the way that the Helix was "designed" than it is missing a critical design element as many users cannot do everything they want within a single preset without tap dancing"

 

If I was one of those users I simply would have bought a unit that met my needs rather than whine about a unit that clearly does not meet my needs, but that's just me.

 

....

 

I don't mean to sound argumentative if I do.  Not my intention at all.  Most of my career has been spent finding creative technology solutions, so I'm just trying to help.

 

You make plenty of good points but characterizing users who think that latency and lack of spillover and scene functionality are problematic as "whiners" is perhaps less than charitable or accurate. People often tend to think other people's issues/suggestions are whining until it is an issue they are concerned about, then all of a sudden it is a valid complaint. For some users it is when is the editor going to be out, for others it is all about the models and effects, for some it is core functionality, how well it works with a Mac or the DT or the Variax, etc. ad infinitum. Staying respectful of others' concerns definitely makes it easier on everybody.

 

I also don't mean to sound argumentative, everyone is entitled to their opinion. It does seem a bit incongruous to be someone who claims that "most of their career has been spent finding creative technology solutions" while you seem to find it silly that others are encouraging Line6 to do just that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make plenty of good points but characterizing users who think that latency and lack of spillover and scene functionality are problematic as "whiners" is perhaps less than charitable or accurate. People often tend to think it is whining until it is an issue they are concerned about, then all of a sudden it is a valid complaint. For some users it is when is the editor going to be out, for others it is all about the models and effects, for some it is core functionality, how well it works with a Mac or the DT or the Variax, etc. ad infinitum. Staying respectful of others' concerns definitely makes it easier on everybody.

 

I also don't mean to sound argumentative, everyone is entitled to their opinion. It does seem a bit incongruous to be someone who claims that "most of their career has been spent finding creative technology solutions" while you seem to find it silly that others are encouraging Line6 to do just that. 

 

I wasn't targeting anyone in particular... and maybe I'm just being a bit of a butt-in-ski.. (sticking nose where it doesn't belong)..  

 

I meant no disrespect...    I think Line6 has done an amazing job.  I also think if they wanted spill-over and zero latency, they would have done it.  That is a design choice. I could see those features by themselves adding at least $500 to the price of the unit and that may be the reason.     Remember they've been working on the Helix for over 6 years now.  Maybe the next unit they release will have spill-over and zero latency if their market research deems those options worth having at whatever pricepoint..  For it to happen in the Helix as it is, would require new guts in the box or at least actual break out the screw driver and replace parts upgrades.  They've also been pretty clear, about what they use "input" for... so attempting to  "encourage" them to do anything.. seems a bit fruitless.   Of course it's not my time being wasted so I should just sit down and shut up..

 

Just so you know... I have two main gripes that I think are huge... that I chose to live with... One is the lack of Editor right out of the chute, but it's coming.. and only one expression pedal.  Demanding them put another expression pedal makes as much sense to me as asking for spill-over and zero latency.  I'm pretty confident it's not possible so I'm not going to bother asking.  I know my FCB1010 will work via MIDI so maybe at some point I'll just get a Rack version of the Helix and use my Behringer FCB1010 to drive it.  I mean I really think it was a MAJOR oversight as two of the best selling controllers of all time are the ART X15 and the Behringer FCB1010 both of which have dual pedals.  But again, would I want to pay another $200 to have another pedal, along with making the unit that much larger and heavier than it already is??  No..  The way they layed out the Exp1 and Exp2 and have the option to plug in a third tells me they thought about the topic long and hard...   and made a choice.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is still no scene functionality in the Helix so if you are claiming that latency between patches is the way that the Helix was "designed" then it is missing a critical design element as many users cannot do everything they want within a single preset without tap dancing.  Additionally the available DSP, limits what can be placed in a single preset. This is true of all MFX units. Ultimately it may prove somewhat fruitless to define the Helix by the debate over what the nomenclature ("Setlists") really means.  To some it means multiple presets to a song and to some it means a single preset to a song. Many users would like to see a unit with minimal latency between presets and even spillover. Switching between presets within a song is a perfectly valid approach, easily handled by many MFX and preferred by many users. It also happens to be an approach that allows switching between more complex DSP intensive signal chains.

 

I don't think there is anything unreasonable about these requests to make an effort to reduce latency between presets and to add whatever spillover capability possible within the current hardware, as well as adding scene functionality for those who prefer to work within a single preset. This would make for an ideal pedalboard for EVERYBODY, for those who wish to use it within a preset and those who do not. Trying to convince people that they should just ratchet down their expectations, try to jam every possible effect, amp, IR, and routing they want for a song within one preset, and change the way they play in order to adjust to the Helix's limitations may be sound and reasonable advice but I would much rather see Line6 improve the Helix.  

 

The video that one of the forum users posted clearly demonstrates that there is a problem with latency between presets.  I know no one wants to hear that and the topic has been beaten to death but every time I see these posts about how people should just accept it I can't hep but think that there also needs to be persistent voices asking for something better than complacency and acceptance of these issues. One of the great virtues of the Helix is that it is head and shoulders ahead of the competition in its user interface and ease of programming. Some of that advantage is lost in the routing contortions some of us are forced into to get everything to work within one preset. I prefer to spend minimal time programming, I would rather be playing.  Line6 needs to know that many of us like complex signal chains and/or just prefer the workflow of switching between presets. Latency, and the lack of scenes and spillover can be frustrating and serious limitations that need to be addressed, preferably on this version of the Helix, but if not, definitely on the next.

 

Thanks for this. You have stated the case very well. There is a poster on here saying he is convinced the Helix works exactly as planned when that is obviously not the case. Just as one example Digital Igloo has stated that he wanted the ability to change settings on the Variax within a single preset but that this wasn't accomplished for launch. That is still a goal so it may be that other things are also being addressed as we speak. I, like you, think that problems should be raised and, hopefully, addressed.

The Helix is a fantastic unit and any improvements will only make it better. That is not to say it is perfect is all we are saying :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I started playing gigs in the early 80's, I had a couple of Boss pedals and a Dunlop wah. In '88 I bought a Boss ME-5. That was fun, you could program! By '92 I had tried a Korg A3, and a Roland GP16, but decided to buy a Digitech GSP 21. Including the footcontoller it sold for the equivalent of 1250 US $, quite a bit of money back then. Latency was a big problem, but I solved that by switching effects on and off in presets, which the footcontroller allowed (sounds familiar?)  I used it for a year, and then went back to pedals. That's 23 years ago.  I completely lost my interest in 'guitar processors'. They all sounded like crap  :D . Until last year, when I first saw a promo video about the Helix. It really got me interested, and I thought, 'after all those years maybe they've come up with something that actually sounds good, and is usable'. When I ordered the Helix I didn't even bother to check about latency, convinced as I was that this  was a problem that would have been  solved long ago. I got it last week. It sat on my desk for a couple of days, as I was busy figuring it out, testing sounds, and getting really, really enthusastic about it.  The device is an absolute delight, sound wise, and is extremely user friendly. Yesterday, I put it on the floor for the first time, and pretented to be in a live situation, going through some presets I had made. Twenty minutes later I was reading this thread, deeply disappointed. I think I understand the basics of the problem, but let me tell you, I would gladly give up half of the delays, reverbs, wahs, amp models, cabs,  modulation effects, and distortions to get rid of that problem.  One of the Line 6 staff members almost described it as a catch 22: more dsp power will always be used to improve the sounds and possibilities, thus making the data flow bigger and bigger, causing more potential latency.  A working musicians priority  is the stage. If all those great sounds are just meant for use at home, it's a bit of a waste. And now I'm going to try and figure out how I can switch between paths within one preset, doin' 'the Digitech thing' again. Sigh.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] A working musicians priority  is the stage. If all those great sounds are just meant for use at home, it's a bit of a waste.[...]

 

These great sound are meant for stage use, studio use [...] ,

but maybe not in the 'steppin through-the-patches manner'...

I always try to use one patch for one song - and that works fine for me (live!) ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I started playing gigs in the early 80's, I had a couple of Boss pedals and a Dunlop wah. In '88 I bought a Boss ME-5. That was fun, you could program! By '92 I had tried a Korg A3, and a Roland GP16, but decided to buy a Digitech GSP 21. Including the footcontoller it sold for the equivalent of 1250 US $, quite a bit of money back then. Latency was a big problem, but I solved that by switching effects on and off in presets, which the footcontroller allowed (sounds familiar?)  I used it for a year, and then went back to pedals. That's 23 years ago.  I completely lost my interest in 'guitar processors'. They all sounded like crap  :D . Until last year, when I first saw a promo video about the Helix. It really got me interested, and I thought, 'after all those years maybe they've come up with something that actually sounds good, and is usable'. When I ordered the Helix I didn't even bother to check about latency, convinced as I was that this  was a problem that would have been  solved long ago. I got it last week. It sat on my desk for a couple of days, as I was busy figuring it out, testing sounds, and getting really, really enthusastic about it.  The device is an absolute delight, sound wise, and is extremely user friendly. Yesterday, I put it on the floor for the first time, and pretented to be in a live situation, going through some presets I had made. Twenty minutes later I was reading this thread, deeply disappointed. I think I understand the basics of the problem, but let me tell you, I would gladly give up half of the delays, reverbs, wahs, amp models, cabs,  modulation effects, and distortions to get rid of that problem.  One of the Line 6 staff members almost described it as a catch 22: more dsp power will always be used to improve the sounds and possibilities, thus making the data flow bigger and bigger, causing more potential latency.  A working musicians priority  is the stage. If all those great sounds are just meant for use at home, it's a bit of a waste. And now I'm going to try and figure out how I can switch between paths within one preset, doin' the Digitech thing' again. Sigh.

 

I do feel your pain.  I spent about 4 months wishing the Helix had "preset spillover" with no latency - before I finally decided to give it a try and see if it was possible to make it work for me in it's current state.   As it is - it's working quite well - I have only 2 or 3 of my 35 song presets I've created so far where there is an issue and I need to press two buttons in a row to switch from one song section to another.   I get the hint from Digital Igloo that there may be a solution to this in the pipeline - but even if this doesn't materialise I am still happy with the Helix.

 

AND... I've found a benefit to staying within one preset.  Tonal stability!  With my previous rig I would switch to a completely different set up / amp channel /  fx / everything for different song sections.  Very flexible - but at the same time it made the different sections a bit disjointed.  Like the solo just seemed to come out of nowhere sometimes as if suddenly a different guitarist had started playing a different rig.  With the Helix as I am using it now everything sounds a lot more like I'm one guitarist just stepping on a boost or delay pedal.   It feels better to play to me.   I could of course set up different paths and switch between different amps if I wanted that total tonal change like I got before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do feel your pain.  I spent about 4 months wishing the Helix had "preset spillover" with no latency - before I finally decided to give it a try and see if it was possible to make it work for me in it's current state.   As it is - it's working quite well - I have only 2 or 3 of my 35 song presets I've created so far where there is an issue and I need to press two buttons in a row to switch from one song section to another.   I get the hint from Digital Igloo that there may be a solution to this in the pipeline - but even if this doesn't materialise I am still happy with the Helix.

 

AND... I've found a benefit to staying within one preset.  Tonal stability!  With my previous rig I would switch to a completely different set up / amp channel /  fx / everything for different song sections.  Very flexible - but at the same time it made the different sections a bit disjointed.  Like the solo just seemed to come out of nowhere sometimes as if suddenly a different guitarist had started playing a different rig.  With the Helix as I am using it now everything sounds a lot more like I'm one guitarist just stepping on a boost or delay pedal.   It feels better to play to me.   I could of course set up different paths and switch between different amps if I wanted that total tonal change like I got before.

 

I can't believe this thread is still going, but the tonal stability you mention is a big part of the reason why it pays to do it that way. Yes, you CAN switch to entirely different rigs, but that is exactly what is going to happen. You have setlists and within the setlists are the presets, which are the SONGS of that setlist. So each preset is one song. Between the two paths available in each preset, there is a ton of processing power. There is really no reason to need to use more than one preset for one song. I run a couple songs where I need to switch between clean and dirty and it's very easy to accomplish by running a clean amp and a dirty amp into the same cab (IR in this case). This makes sure they still have a somewhat similar character to them and that there is no delay in switching tones. I also do some fairly complicated switching but have so far not found a single thing I can't manage to set up in such a way that I can't switch it with one button (utilizing splits, multiple instances of effects, etc). And in all that, I still only need one preset per song, which is, I think, how the Helix was designed to be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

There is really no reason to need to use more than one preset for one song

[...]

 

Oh ooh, I know what happens next...

 

I guess it depends a lot

* if you are willing to change your habits (for example using one patch per song)

* if you play a style of music that doesn't need a outstanding number of sound changes (per song)

* if you understand that helix isn't just an effect gear (it is an excellent amp modeler and [...] and [...]

 

Maybe we can clear things up before the next endless discussion (with familiar arguments) starts ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shhh you. Someone should just lock this thread, I think it's been pretty well argued out by now.

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...