Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Jump to content

Two amps in one Path - DSP Full


Dshow
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello,

I'm trying to recreating my patches from the HD500 on my Helix. It works pretty well as I can open HD Editor and load the Bundle I saved previously without having connected the HD500 itself. Anyway - I have a patch that uses Dual Amp options in the HD500.

 

patch_hd500.png

 

Since I like to keep things simple I tried to recreating it with one Path in the helix but it doesn't work because I run out of DSP pretty soon.

 

helix_dsp_full.png

 

What I wanted to do is to have a distortion pedal that is shared with both amps. Then the two amps and after the amps a flanger and some reverb for both signals, like it is in the HD Editor picture above.

 

I've tried to created the patch using a two amp template from the helix. It works pretty well but it doesn't seem to be the same soundwise.

 

helix_patch.png

 

When I just add the two amps in two differnt patches - One uses a single path and the other the two path from the template, they sound completly different (single path sounds better two my ears).

 

I'm I missing something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think the Rectifier model in the Helix may be one of the more DSP-intensive models. The HD and HX models are just different, and I think this illustrates it. In your Helix patch, is there a reason why you have the cab block turned off in path 1A?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think the Rectifier model in the Helix may be one of the more DSP-intensive models. The HD and HX models are just different, and I think this illustrates it. In your Helix patch, is there a reason why you have the cab block turned off in path 1A?

 

Yes as tagmusenmagnus1 mentioned I'm using an IR instead. I've just left it for comparision

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Guess is that he has an IR-cab in stead. 

 

What is it you are comparing to when saying it is not the same? - The HD models or the patch with both amps in path 1 ? 

 

I have created two different patches with just the two amps in Helix for comparision. One with the two amps in Path one like in the picture above and one with the dual path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

I'm trying to recreating my patches from the HD500 on my Helix. It works pretty well as I can open HD Editor and load the Bundle I saved previously without having connected the HD500 itself. Anyway - I have a patch that uses Dual Amp options in the HD500.

 

patch_hd500.png

 

Since I like to keep things simple I tried to recreating it with one Path in the helix but it doesn't work because I run out of DSP pretty soon.

 

helix_dsp_full.png

 

What I wanted to do is to have a distortion pedal that is shared with both amps. Then the two amps and after the amps a flanger and some reverb for both signals, like it is in the HD Editor picture above.

 

I've tried to created the patch using a two amp template from the helix. It works pretty well but it doesn't seem to be the same soundwise.

 

helix_patch.png

 

When I just add the two amps in two differnt patches - One uses a single path and the other the two path from the template, they sound completly different (single path sounds better two my ears).

 

I'm I missing something?

 

I may get some push back for saying this but I don't think you should have to be juggling things to prevent a "...DSP Full" message, particularly with so few blocks employed in a path whether those blocks are "DSP intensive" or not. The Helix like several other manufacturers units (not singling out L6 here) simply does not have enough processing power under the hood to allow you to implement all that the software has to offer. Software optimizations may help but I think we are still a hardware generation or two away from not seeing these messages at this price point. Your only option right now is to work around these limitations as best as possible by using "Super Serial" routes that utilize both DSP processors or alternatively you can use less DSP intensive blocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gotta say, I'm not happy about the looks of that image.  One distortion pedal feeding two amps and two cabs and the DSP is full????   :/

 

Well, as I noted earlier, I think this particular amp is one of the most DSP-intensive. The amount used varies quite a lot from amp to amp. I've certainly had dual amp setup using just one of the processors where I've had more than this. It really just depends on the certain amps and effects you're using. I'm not sure what distortion model he's using, but a few of those use more DSP than people might expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as I noted earlier, I think this particular amp is one of the most DSP-intensive. The amount used varies quite a lot from amp to amp. I've certainly had dual amp setup using just one of the processors where I've had more than this. It really just depends on the certain amps and effects you're using. I'm not sure what distortion model he's using, but a few of those use more DSP than people might expect.

 

Well put.  So this basically looks like a "perfect storm" as far as DSP usage goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as I noted earlier, I think this particular amp is one of the most DSP-intensive. The amount used varies quite a lot from amp to amp. I've certainly had dual amp setup using just one of the processors where I've had more than this. It really just depends on the certain amps and effects you're using. I'm not sure what distortion model he's using, but a few of those use more DSP than people might expect.

To add a little I too have had much more than this following the templates. If you you third party IRs I have noticed they will eat up your DSP in a heart beat if you use more than one in a patch.. Stock it's are much more efficient, though I may be using real high quality irrs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the DSP-Power is there, because there is no problem if two separate Paths are used. Maybe they should think about how DSP Power is partitioned when only one single Path is used.

 

One of the great things about Helix is it gives you the choice of how to partition the DSP. If you're only using one path and run out of DSP, move some stuff to path 2. I don't think Line 6 could really do any better than what they already did as far as DSP allocation by allowing the user to decide where to put stuff.

 

They could have made it like Fractal's AX8, where an entire processor is devoted to amp modeling whether you like it or not. You'd maybe see less DSP full messages, but at the cost of some flexibility by eliminating one path split and merge, number of total inputs and outputs, and probably the number of total blocks available for use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the great things about Helix is it gives you the choice of how to partition the DSP. If you're only using one path and run out of DSP, move some stuff to path 2. I don't think Line 6 could really do any better than what they already did as far as DSP allocation by allowing the user to decide where to put stuff.

 

They could have made it like Fractal's AX8, where an entire processor is devoted to amp modeling whether you like it or not. You'd maybe see less DSP full messages, but at the cost of some flexibility by eliminating one path split and merge, number of total inputs and outputs, and probably the number of total blocks available for use.

 

I have no problem with that and I'm very happy with my helix - just thought that I'm missing something because such a scenario isn't any problem with HD500 (also understand that it is different modelling). But also was wondering because it doesn't only happen with the Cali Rectifier but also with other amps - just try it out.

 

I'm a little confused because in the manual on page 17 there is a picture under the sentence "...or two separate Amp and two separate Cab blocks..." that shows exactly what I wanted to achieve. But this isn't possible with most of the amps.

helix_manual_blocks.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gotta say, I'm not happy about the looks of that image.  One distortion pedal feeding two amps and two cabs and the DSP is full????   :/

 

Only the distortion pedal and the two Amps is possible. The DSP-Full I got when I wanted to copy the distortion behind the amps. Selection of the reverb wasn't possible because of DSP-overload so I wanted to try copying an existing block and then change to a reverb ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only the distortion pedal and the two Amps is possible. The DSP-Full I got when I wanted to copy the distortion behind the amps. Selection of the reverb wasn't possible because of DSP-overload so I wanted to try copying an existing block and then change to a reverb ;-)

I know the feeling mate, I also try to recreate my ''ain't talkin bout love'' from my pod hd500, that runs with a single amp but has 8 effects, and I run out of dsp on the 1st path... Pretty let down .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had this at first as well and it caused me a bit of confusion until you adapt what you're doing to the Helix way

For a start remember you have the 2nd dsp path so at the moment you are trying to run everything off half the Helixs DSP power and you are asking it to emulate 2 amps and cabs

Also using two heads and a dual cab is a more efficient way of doing it

Keep experimenting and it will come together.. It's just a different way of thinking

More flexible but more complicated

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had this at first as well and it caused me a bit of confusion until you adapt what you're doing to the Helix way

For a start remember you have the 2nd dsp path so at the moment you are trying to run everything off half the Helixs DSP power and you are asking it to emulate 2 amps and cabs

Also using two heads and a dual cab is a more efficient way of doing it

Keep experimenting and it will come together.. It's just a different way of thinking

More flexible but more complicated

 

Yeah I guess this it what it is. Coming from HD500 I might have to rething some things. I'm pretty good in creating patches there and also created some very good patches with the helix in the first few days. Now it's time to dive deeper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with that and I'm very happy with my helix - just thought that I'm missing something because such a scenario isn't any problem with HD500 (also understand that it is different modelling). But also was wondering because it doesn't only happen with the Cali Rectifier but also with other amps - just try it out.

 

I'm a little confused because in the manual on page 17 there is a picture under the sentence "...or two separate Amp and two separate Cab blocks..." that shows exactly what I wanted to achieve. But this isn't possible with most of the amps.

helix_manual_blocks.png

 

You've probably already read that not all amps use the same amount of DSP. I kind of look at trying to run two amps on one processor path the same as running two amps on an HD500, not X. It's just not very useful for much. So far, I often find myself using an amp and more than one cab, or a cab and an IR, all on one processor path with room for quite of bit of other stuff. Maybe I've been lucky so far in picking the amps that don't use much DSP. But also so far, I've never thought to myself that more than one amp would be useful for anything as far as a single tone goes. I would say Helix is very powerful, but certainly not omnipotent in processing. Change your perspective a bit and try and imagine if a product like this showed up in the 90s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with that and I'm very happy with my helix - just thought that I'm missing something because such a scenario isn't any problem with HD500 (also understand that it is different modelling). But also was wondering because it doesn't only happen with the Cali Rectifier but also with other amps - just try it out.

 

I'm a little confused because in the manual on page 17 there is a picture under the sentence "...or two separate Amp and two separate Cab blocks..." that shows exactly what I wanted to achieve. But this isn't possible with most of the amps.

helix_manual_blocks.png

 

Note that user IRs are going to eat up more DSP than Helix's built in cabinets.  If you're not already doing so, may want to load them as 1k IRs instead of 2k as that would lower the DSP usage of the user IRs.   Also, make sure all blocks are mono... That would also help with lowering the DSP usage.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may get some push back for saying this but I don't think you should have to be juggling things to prevent a "...DSP Full" message, particularly with so few blocks employed in a path whether those blocks are "DSP intensive" or not. The Helix like several other manufacturers units (not singling out L6 here) simply does not have enough processing power under the hood to allow you to implement all that the software has to offer. Software optimizations may help but I think we are still a hardware generation or two away from not seeing these messages at this price point. Your only option right now is to work around these limitations as best as possible by using "Super Serial" routes that utilize both DSP processors or alternatively you can use less DSP intensive blocks.

 

I don't see why it's so bad. If you want to do two amps, one on each path, even if you use the really intense models, you can still add plenty of FX.

 

Nobody's going to promise that any possible scenario you can imagine can be had in a product that HAS to be made at a price point or else you won't sell it. just a few years ago, if you wanted dual amps, you bought two units...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone knows if the DSP chip is changeable or it is like pod hd? (with the algorithms to hit red even if a better chip is installed)?

 

I doubt any of us know how everything is wired in there... but maybe somebody from L6? Maybe some day there will be a Helix Plus?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone knows if the DSP chip is changeable or it is like pod hd? (with the algorithms to hit red even if a better chip is installed)?

 

The DSP chips are not changeable. What's in there stays happily right where it is and nothing else will come along to shove it away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's another thing to consider - what tone are you trying to achieve, and is using two amps the best way to achieve it? Using stereo effects after the amp model into a stereo FRFR can provide depth without requiring two amps. Choosing the right Cab model or IR can have a huge effect on the tone of a single amp. You can use a PC to blend multiple speaker IRs, EQs, impedance curves, etc. into a single IR that can be imported into Helix that blends multiple speakers, mics, mic positions, room mics, etc. You get all this from one IR. Try using a stereo Cab model with a single Amp model to get the same tone you might have achieved from two different amps. Use one amp an two IRs. Another options is to use different patches for different tones to focus on the amp model(s) you need with the specific effects required for the song.

 

I too wish Helix had unlimited DSP power, but it doesn't. That doesn't mean we can't get lots of interesting and wonderful tones. I like to keep the patches a bit simpler, and focus on the instrument, speakers, FRFR amp and of course, what you're actually playing.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why it's so bad. If you want to do two amps, one on each path, even if you use the really intense models, you can still add plenty of FX.

 

....

Agreed, although two separate paths may or may not be an option depending on your input/output requirements and how DSP intensive the amp/cabs/IRs and FX are for the preset you are trying to design. I am just making the point that I think these workarounds will be unnecessary in one or two hardware generations. In the meantime, I agree, there are lots of great sounds to be had. I remember the first time I encountered a "DSP Full" message and was surprised by how few blocks I had used on the path; undoubtedly because one or more of the blocks I had chosen was DSP intensive. A DSP usage screen would be very helpful in this respect. I just wanted to acknowledge that there are sometimes frustrating hardware limitations. Consequently I have great appreciation of all the ingenious methods forum members contribute for maximizing the usefulness and musicality of the Helix which in my opinion is the best designed MFX on the market right now.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't own a L6 product of any kind(yet),but i'm poking around the forum reading & trying to learn,before i spend the money i can't afford.

I have question about this subject,but first,my only experience with an MFX product was a GT100 & i didn't get far with that,but my question is. 

Does the GT100 work in a different way to the HD/Helix,i have never heard a conversation on the Forums or anywhere about the GT running out of DSP,just curious.

I also think that running 2 different Amps is almost essential to get a Pro sound,on small gigs,just my opinion of course.

Oh & after reading another terrifying thread,how do you know the phasing of the Dual path is correct? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't own a L6 product of any kind(yet),but i'm poking around the forum reading & trying to learn,before i spend the money i can't afford.

I have question about this subject,but first,my only experience with an MFX product was a GT100 & i didn't get far with that,but my question is. 

Does the GT100 work in a different way to the HD/Helix,i have never heard a conversation on the Forums or anywhere about the GT running out of DSP,just curious.

I also think that running 2 different Amps is almost essential to get a Pro sound,on small gigs,just my opinion of course.

Oh & after reading another terrifying thread,how do you know the phasing of the Dual path is correct? :D

 

The reason you won't see these messages on the GT100 is that the GT100 limits the quality as well as the flexibility of what you can put in a single preset.  This means you may not be able to use as high quality (DSP intensive) an amp/cab/FX as you can on the Helix, or that you are limited as to how many distortion/overdrive, modulation FX, etc. can be present in one preset. The Helix has no such limitations, you can put as many of any high quality FX, cab, IR, amp, etc. as you want as long as you remain within the limitations of the maximum DSP provided by the two DSP processors. Line6 opted for maximum flexibility instead of limiting the quality and choice of the blocks you can use. They chose instead to inform you when you have maxed out the DSP. An inspired choice!

 

I would add that the physical interface of the Helix is light years ahead of the GT100 in many respects for the studio and "bedroom" musician, and most importantly for my purposes, for the performing musician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason you won't see these messages on the GT100 is that the GT100 limits the quality as well as the flexibility of what you can put in a single preset.  This means you may not be able to use as high quality (DSP intensive) an amp/cab/FX as you can on the Helix, or that you are limited as to how many distortion/overdrive, modulation FX, etc. can be present in one preset. The Helix has no such limitations, you can put as many of any high quality FX, cab, IR, amp, etc. as you want as long as you remain within the limitations of the maximum DSP provided by the two DSP processors. Line6 opted for maximum flexibility instead of limiting the quality and choice of the blocks you can use. They chose instead to inform you when you have maxed out the DSP. An inspired choice!

 

I would add that the physical interface of the Helix is light years ahead of the GT100 in many respects for the studio and "bedroom" musician, and most importantly for my purposes, for the performing musician.

Thanks,does this comparison with quality of  with the GT100 also apply to the HD500X & translate to higher quality audio?,

sorry i'm a bit old & dim,what does physical interface apply to?

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check out some of the factory presets. Plenty of them have multiple amps and tons of effects blocks with DSP to spare.

 

Despite the fact that Helix is 2.3 times faster than HD500X (2.75x faster than HD500), HX models are much more DSP intensive than HD. I've mentioned many times that one should not expect to get twice the blocks as POD. Running both DSPs, you should get about 40-50% more blocks than HD500X, but that's still highly dependent on what models you choose. Everyone should read "Dynamic DSP" on page 19 in the Owner's Manual, but more importantly, I really need to finish that stupid blog.

 

The Helix like several other manufacturers units (not singling out L6 here) simply does not have enough processing power under the hood to allow you to implement all that the software has to offer. Software optimizations may help but I think we are still a hardware generation or two away from not seeing these messages at this price point.

 

I'll go out on a limb and state that no one will ever create a multieffects guitar modeler (or synth!) that lets you implement all that the software has to offer. As DSPs get faster, the models will simply get better and require more cycles. For fifteen years, people have claimed that near-zero throughput latency while mixing on Macs and PCs is just around the corner, yet DAWs and plugins get more and more hardcore, which requires everyone increase their buffers which in turn increases latency. My studio's throughput latency is actually higher than it was in 1998. But man, it sure sounds better today!

 

If Helix 2 ends up with four DSPs, and Helix 3 has eight DSPs, and Helix 4 has sixteen quantum-computing GPUs and 20 petabytes of RAM, I guarantee you we'll all still be having this conversation. We'll always find a way to quickly fill that sucker up.  :D

 

If a box exists that does let you implement all that the software has to offer, the manufacturer is artificially restricting the number of certain types of effects. Line 6 does this too, in Firehawk FX and AMPLIFi, because it's simpler to grok, more predictable, and doesn't give people DSP anxiety. Helix is a pro product, and we weren't about to artificially restrict you guys to one amp, two IRs, and six effects, just to make you sleep better at night. With great power comes great responsibility, as they say.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply Digital_Igloo - I just read your entry on another thread one minute ago ;-)

http://line6.com/support/topic/17393-dsp-lack-of-horsepower-is-this-normal/?do=findComment&comment=128568

 

I guess I have to rethink about how to create dual amp patches. So I'll mark my question as anwered.

Thanks for all the great input!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...With great power comes great responsibility, as they say.

 

53710b14a320b.png

 

 

Thanks,does this comparison with quality of  with the GT100 also apply to the HD500X & translate to higher quality audio?,

sorry i'm a bit old & dim,what does physical interface apply to?

Cheers.

 

I like the workflow and features of Line 6 stuff myself... but I have heard a couple guys make AMAZING sounds with a GT-100. You can't lose with either. Guys that say one sounds better than the other either haven't learned enough how to use both (why would you if you only own one?), or they are simply trying to justify their purpose or something. If you buy any of these current boxes and can't get a good sound out of them, imho, it's not the box's fault.

 

Of course, Helix is a different animal than those. For the price of Helix, you can get an HD 500 AND a GT-100 and even a Digitech RP1000 if you want...

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check out some of the factory presets. Plenty of them have multiple amps and tons of effects blocks with DSP to spare.

 

Despite the fact that Helix is 2.3 times faster than HD500X (2.75x faster than HD500), HX models are much more DSP intensive than HD. I've mentioned many times that one should not expect to get twice the blocks as POD. Running both DSPs, you should get about 40-50% more blocks than HD500X, but that's still highly dependent on what models you choose. Everyone should read "Dynamic DSP" on page 19 in the Owner's Manual, but more importantly, I really need to finish that stupid blog.

 

 

I'll go out on a limb and state that no one will ever create a multieffects guitar modeler (or synth!) that lets you implement all that the software has to offer. As DSPs get faster, the models will simply get better and require more cycles. For fifteen years, people have claimed that near-zero throughput latency while mixing on Macs and PCs is just around the corner, yet DAWs and plugins get more and more hardcore, which requires everyone increase their buffers which in turn increases latency. My studio's throughput latency is actually higher than it was in 1998. But man, it sure sounds better today!

 

If Helix 2 ends up with four DSPs, and Helix 3 has eight DSPs, and Helix 4 has sixteen quantum-computing GPUs and 20 petabytes of RAM, I guarantee you we'll all still be having this conversation. We'll always find a way to quickly fill that sucker up.  :D

 

If a box exists that does let you implement all that the software has to offer, the manufacturer is artificially restricting the number of certain types of effects. Line 6 does this too, in Firehawk FX and AMPLIFi, because it's simpler to grok, more predictable, and doesn't give people DSP anxiety. Helix is a pro product, and we weren't about to artificially restrict you guys to one amp, two IRs, and six effects, just to make you sleep better at night. With great power comes great responsibility, as they say.

you said grok,  :D .

I'm absolutely thrilled with my Helix! Some of my favorite user created presets only have 1 amp, 3-4 efx, and they sound awesome! Thank you for a fantastic product 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks,does this comparison with quality of  with the GT100 also apply to the HD500X & translate to higher quality audio?,

sorry i'm a bit old & dim,what does physical interface apply to?

Cheers.

 

The GT100 and the HD500X are great devices but the audio quality of the Helix sounds far exceeds these units both in my opinion and probably by any qualitative measure. By physical interface I am referring to the wealth of input/output options on the rear panel, the capacitance sensitive footwswitches, the many options for configuring the footswitches, the SCRIBBLE STRIPS (once you use them you will never want an MFX without them again!), the extremely high quality of the parts and construction, and the list goes on and on. The Helix is in a class with the Axe-FX and Kemper, and I vastly prefer the Helix to both, although there are certainly features on both of these competitor's units that would be wonderful to have on the Helix. The Helix is extremely easy to program and highly intuitive to use once you get past the initial learning curve which was the easiest and most gentle curve I have ever encountered. Overall, I believe it is the best unit on the market and the first device I have used that not only delivers completely convincing and natural sounding models and effects but also wraps them in a package that is exceedingly user friendly for the performing musician at an incredibly reasonable price point. To each their own but for my purposes the Helix is the only thing that fits the bill right now.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...