Who would like a Line6 FRFR Cab specially for Helix?

[Paolo_Maina]

Who would a Line6 FRFR Cab specially for Helix?
Maybe a portable compact stereo all in one active Cab and possibly not very expensive.

An alternative to a P.A. FRFR cab

1. less expensive.
2. less cumbersome.
3. With the standard Amp cab shape
4. maybe a couple of models a smaller one for rehearsing and a more professional for the stage.

[PeterHamm]

There are so many options out there for FRFRs that I think we have it covered, actually. Including a bunch of options from Line 6.

And imho, you buy an FRFR not to match with your modeler/profiler/whatever, but to give you a great approximation of the sound with the PA you'll be playing through, if possible. 

[Paolo_Maina]

There are so many options out there for FRFRs that I think we have it covered, actually. Including a bunch of options from Line 6.

 

And imho, you buy an FRFR not to match with your modeler/profiler/whatever, but to give you a great approximation of the sound with the PA you'll be playing through, if possible. 

 I mean something like this.

http://www.kpa-solutions.com/frfr-cabinets/

 

For rehearsal and small show something like this

http://www.rolandus.com/products/kc-110/

[PeterHamm]

Well, Line 6 probably would say they already have that covered.

http://line6.com/stagesource-pa-speaker/

[Paolo_Maina]

Well, Line 6 probably would say they already have that covered.

 

http://line6.com/stagesource-pa-speaker/

Ok i know but i mean something in one enclosure and specific for amp modelling, that are made for P.A. and have a lot of Ins and outs and unnecessary features.

I mean something that looks like a normal amp cab but made for the new amp modelling technology.

Not a normal FRFR but FRFR with a sound response taylored specially for amp modelling.

Like this for KPA. (read the description)

http://www.kpa-solutions.com/frfr-cabinets/

[oliverspark]

yes it would be a great idea

[Paolo_Maina]

yes it would be a great idea

They could start for example from AMPLIFI (or a DT cab) shape with only power amp and speakers without the amplifi modelling electronic parts and other features.

 

http://line6.com/amplifi/amplifi-75-and-150/

[Joepeggio]

Or this? Although a bit overkill for a stage level, guitar amp look a like FRFR

 

 

http://line6.com/firehawk/firehawk-1500/

[Digital_Igloo]

One might argue we have one already. Because Firehawk 1500's 6-speaker driver management already requires a burly DSP and MCU, removing the modeling engine from FH1500 (use a less powerful DSP and remove the display, some knobs, and some jacks) might save one $100—we haven't done the math, honestly. There wouldn't be enough people willing to pay $900 for an FRFR when $100 more gets them the same thing with way more flexibility and a backup/all-in-one HD modeling engine.

 

Just like how "studio monitor" means almost nothing anymore, the term "FRFR" is quickly being marginalized. Random PA speakers are NOT FRFR speakers. There's an average SPL, frequency range, transient response, transparency, and flat response threshold one must first surpass to legitimately call their speaker "FRFR," and it's up to us to hold manufacturers to a higher standard. The more crappy $299 PA speakers we allow to be called "FRFR," the more ammo traditional dudes have in undermining the whole modeling > FRFR experience—the more we'll hear "Oh, modeling sucks because it doesn't sound like an amp."

 

Mission, Matrix, Atomic, Friedman, Line 6, and a small handful of others make FRFR speakers. Almost no one else does.

 

EDIT: fido083 beat me to the punch.

[Paolo_Maina]

One might argue we have one already. Because Firehawk 1500's 6-speaker driver management already requires a burly DSP and MCU, removing the modeling engine from FH1500 (use a less powerful DSP and remove the display, some knobs, and some jacks) might save one $100—we haven't done the math, honestly. There wouldn't be enough people willing to pay $900 for an FRFR when $100 more gets them the same thing with way more flexibility and a backup/all-in-one HD modeling engine.

 

Just like how "studio monitor" means almost nothing anymore, the term "FRFR" is quickly being marginalized. Random PA speakers are NOT FRFR speakers. There's an average SPL, frequency range, transient response, transparency, and flat response threshold one must first surpass to legitimately call their speaker "FRFR," and it's up to us to hold manufacturers to a higher standard. The more crappy $299 PA speakers we allow to be called "FRFR," the more ammo traditional dudes have in undermining the whole modeling > FRFR experience—the more we'll hear "Oh, modeling sucks because it doesn't sound like an amp."

 

Mission, Matrix, Atomic, Friedman, Line 6, and a small handful of others make FRFR speakers. Almost no one else does.

 

EDIT: fido083 beat me to the punch.

The value of your electronics is only 100$? ok i believe you. i though more anyway...

Firehawk looks very good.

Will you produce a smaller firehawk? i wouldn't spend another 1000$ (or euro)

[Digital_Igloo]

Paolo_Maina, on 10 Feb 2016 - 09:17 AM, said:

 

The value of your electronics is only 100$? ok i believe you. i though more anyway...

Line 6 speakers aren't just a driver in a wood box. There's a lot of complex stuff going on, and in the case of Firehawk 1500, the electronics are shared across both the modeling engine and speaker management. If you already have 90% of the parts required to include an HD modeling engine (chassis, DSP, MCU, boards, memory, ribbon cables, LEDs, knobs, USB, I/O, A/D/As, clocking, power supply, etc.), why not go all the way?

[ColonelForbin]

That Firehawk looks killer... As in, lower back killer! 63.14 pounds??? Seriously? Ouch.

Looks incredible, so of course I want one :)

 

Line 6 Firehawk 1500 = 63.14lbs

Mission Gemini 2 Live = 63lbs

Line 6 L3t = 57.5lbs

Friedman ASM12 = 52lbs

Atomic CLR = 45lbs

Line 6 L2t = 39.1lbs

JBL EON 615 = 39lbs

Alto TS112A = 35lbs

JBL EON 612 = 33lbs

QSC K10 = 32lbs

JBL EON 610 = 26lbs

[gunpointmetal]

It doesn't need all the crazy DSP. It doesn't even need to be "FRFR" necessarily. If someone could take the amp/crossover section from something like one of those Peavey 3pc PA systems and put a 12" sub, maybe downfiring, and a couple of decent 8" drivers with matching tweeters on an angled baffle to give it the stereo spread, in a box with wheels about the size of a 4x12 cab, simple I/O....I can't believe that would have to cost anywhere near $1000 to be profitable. 

 

The Firehawk is cool, I didn't like the way the floor version sounded, except for the HD-series ports, so I have no interest in paying for extra modeling. I'm still going to give it a go when one finally shows up at GC, but for half the price I have a two-piece PA solution with more power, lighter weight (even with both pieces, I think), and easily enough volume to match a 4x12 in most performance settings. 

 

I tried the L2T speakers, but for extended range guitars, they can't handle it at volume very well. The L3T is out of my price range because I want the stereo option.

 

I still think there's a "middle ground" market for something like this in the $500 price point if it can compete volume-wise with a standard cabinet.

[HonestOpinion]

I know it is not for everyone and for many players not having some kind of guitar amp or FRFR behind them is a non-starter but I still think the most cost effective and lightest solution is going direct to the PA and outputting my guitar through the monitors.  There are less possible points of failure and with a decent PA and the mixer channel(s) for the Helix EQ'd properly or even flat I find the sound to be excellent. When I gig on someone else's PA I bring an amp or an L2m unless I truly trust the soundman to handle the Helix direct and know that there will be adequate monitoring for the entire band and me to hear my guitar.

[Digital_Igloo]

I still think there's a "middle ground" market for something like this in the $500 price point if it can compete volume-wise with a standard cabinet.

Perhaps, but this is a bit like hanging out on the ATC, PMC, Barefoot, and Augspurger forums claiming they should make a pair of high end studio monitors for $500. Maybe they can; it'd just be really pushing the definition of "high end studio monitor." And it's not really what those companies do.

 

Any powered speakers Line 6 could make for $500 wouldn't be good enough for us to call "FRFR," although some others might. Instead of helping marginalize the term, we'd much rather make products worthy of it.

[hideout]

That Firehawk looks killer... As in, lower back killer! 63.14 pounds??? Seriously? Ouch.

Looks incredible, so of course I want one :)

 

Firehawk 1500 = 63.14lbs

Mission Gemini 2 Live = 63lbs

L6 L3t = 57.5lbs

Friedman ASM12 = 52lbs

Atomic CLR = 45lbs

L6 L2t = 39.1lbs

Alto TS112A = 35lbs

QSC K10 = 32lbs

 

I'll stick to my EON 610s @ 26lbs.

 

It may be a cost thing but with the availability of Neodymium magnets, unnecessarily heavy speakers are something I'll always pass on.

That includes tube amps.

[PeterHamm]

I know it is not for everyone and for many players not having some kind of guitar amp or FRFR behind them is a non-starter but I still think the most cost effective and lightest solution is going direct to the PA and outputting my guitar through the monitors.  There are less possible points of failure and with a decent PA and the mixer channel(s) for the Helix EQ'd properly or even flat I find the sound to be excellent. When I gig on someone else's PA I bring an amp or an L2m unless I truly trust the soundman to handle the Helix direct and know that there will be adequate monitoring for the entire band and me to hear my guitar.

 

Yup. If you can, just use what they got there. makes the sound guy your friend too.

 

 

I'll stick to my EON 610s @ 26lbs.

 

I've used 'em. Modeler's sound GREAT through them. My personal go-to monitor is a Verve 8ma, but they've been discontinued for some time.

[hideout]

My personal go-to monitor is a Verve 8ma, but they've been discontinued for some time.

 

I just looked that up. Intriguing. Is it a single driver?  Coaxial perhaps?

[cruisinon2]

Any powered speakers Line 6 could make for $500 wouldn't be good enough for us to call "FRFR," although some others might. Instead of helping marginalize the term, we'd much rather make products worthy of it.

I think what he really meant was why is all the FRFR stuff so expensive, and does it have to be? I'm guessing the answer is "no"...but like all technology, until everybody wants one, it will stay expensive, and out of reach for some. Why? Because it's "new", "improved", and "cutting edge", or whatever marketing term you wish to apply.

 

Then...miraculously...somebody "figures out" how to bring the same friggin' thing to Joe Average for half the $$. Clear out all the suckers and recoup the R&D costs, then sell it for what it's actually actually worth.

 

If the world's supply of tube amps suddenly dried up tomorrow, quality modelers and true FRFR speakers to blast them through would cost less than a trip to the grocery store.

[PeterHamm]

I just looked that up. Intriguing. Is it a single driver?  Coaxial perhaps?

It is. And the nice thing about Coax is that it sounds the same no matter what angle you listen from. In other words, the thing that  makes guitar amps super cool (that as you move they sound different) is eliminated...

[Paolo_Maina]

Line 6 speakers aren't just a driver in a wood box. There's a lot of complex stuff going on, and in the case of Firehawk 1500, the electronics are shared across both the modeling engine and speaker management. If you already have 90% of the parts required to include an HD modeling engine (chassis, DSP, MCU, boards, memory, ribbon cables, LEDs, knobs, USB, I/O, A/D/As, clocking, power supply, etc.), why not go all the way?

Because nobody want to Pay for something that he doesn't need.

If somebody has helix he doesn't need another complete amp modeller shaped like a combo amp.

He needs an powered cab.

 

Anyway believe me or not amp modelling is a young technology yet and there is a hole in the production there isn't a specific cab for amp modelling.

If you will not fill that hole somebody will.

I have to say that other brands make amp modeller with integrated power amp.

Maybe one day you will follow that road.

 

In conclusion there is not a specific product today every solution is a palliative.

 

P.S.

About marketing strategies:

I'm curious and I'd like to know if your competitor Roland will follow you and make a step up to higher quality amp modelling and join the match you are playing vs kemper and fractal.

[PeterHamm]

P.S.

About marketing strategies:

I'm curious and I'd like to know if your competitor Roland will follow you and make a step up to higher quality amp modelling and join the match you are playing vs kemper and fractal.

 

I would think with the surprising impact Helix has made, if Roland isn't fast-tracking something that is presumably already in the pipeline somewhere, they are missing an opportunity.

 

When asked a year ago if I thought a product in the 1 to 1.5 grand range was viable, I said No. I thought people would either buy Axe FX for more money or HD 500 for less. I was clearly wrong, as we now have Helix and (someday) AX8 competing in that space.

 

Then again... maybe that's all the competition you need in that space. What do I know?

[Digital_Igloo]

I think what he really meant was why is all the FRFR stuff so expensive, and does it have to be? I'm guessing the answer is "no"...but like all technology, until everybody wants one, it will stay expensive, and out of reach for some.

 

Back in the day, studio monitors were ridiculously expensive. Then someone made a cheap, crappy box, threw the word "studio monitor" on it, and everyone said "yay!" Except it had unbalanced drivers, huge crossover notches, didn't translate well, and had horrible definition, detail, and transient response. It was far, far from "studio monitor"-level.

 

This isn't about deciding to market a box as "FRFR," which is literally as easy as swapping silkscreen and packaging graphics files and search-replacing words in the press release. It's about making a box that is truly good enough to be called that. If one is happy with the sound they get from a $300 PA speaker, supercool. Just don't call it an FRFR speaker.

[Paolo_Maina]

I would think with the surprising impact Helix has made, if Roland isn't fast-tracking something that is presumably already in the pipeline somewhere, they are missing an opportunity.

 

When asked a year ago if I thought a product in the 1 to 1.5 grand range was viable, I said No. I thought people would either buy Axe FX for more money or HD 500 for less. I was clearly wrong, as we now have Helix and (someday) AX8 competing in that space.

 

Then again... maybe that's all the competition you need in that space. What do I know?

I'd like to know because I was more a boss/Roland user than line6 user until helix.

 

I sold my boss Gt001 that is the same of gt100 in a small package and I bought helix.

Before I only owned the DL4 delay line6 great delay.

I've never liked pods.

I owned yamaha magic stomp long time ago.

I don't like kemper first of all the design of the lunch box make me sick.

Maybe because I'm Italian and for us style and design are important.

I live in Milan the fashion is important here.

Helix has a great design.

[Digital_Igloo]

Because nobody want to Pay for something that he doesn't need. If somebody has helix he doesn't need another complete amp modeller shaped like a combo amp. He needs an powered cab.

 

He should be happy, as excellent powered cabs already exist.

 

 

Here's another angle:

 

Firehawk 1500's at $999. Say we remove the modeling engine (which really only means less expensive versions of the DSP and MCU that have to stay in there for speaker management), remove bluetooth and a few knobs and jacks and somehow squeeze the price down to $899—maybe. Considering how tiny the FRFR market really is (literally 90+% of guitarists we surveyed had never even heard of the term), what percentage of people in the market for either product would prefer the $899 version? Even for guys who are in the market for an FRFR speaker (again, WAY fewer guys than in the modeling guitar amp market), how many would gladly pay an additional $100 for a backup HD modeling rig, Stereo/Wet-Dry-Wet, Global EQ, bluetooth streaming of backing tracks, USB audio streaming of backing tracks, blended-in stereo keyboard/synth/vocal amplification, and spillover delay and reverb on top of their external modeler?

 

We know, because we did the research.

 

We've also had people demand we make a $199 version of POD HD500, with all non-high gain amps removed, but otherwise with the exact same hardware. Never mind the fact that there's literally zero development or manufacturing cost savings in adding fewer models. Some people just feel they can cherry-pick features and magically pick a price. Product development and manufacturing doesn't work like that.

 

Parts cost what parts cost, development costs what development costs, and those dictate the price of a product, not some nebulous "market strategy." Some people will say "Hey! You'd sell a lot more if it was $499!" as if we make up product pricing out of thin air. If that were the case, I bet we'd sell even more if it was $399. Or $199. Or $49.

 

I'm curious and I'd like to know if your competitor Roland will follow you and make a step up to higher quality amp modelling and join the match you are playing vs kemper and fractal.

 

I used to work for Roland US. No idea what their followup to GT-100 might be (if anything), but historically, Roland's been known to throw curveballs.

 

Nearly all of Helix's design was baked long before AxeFX 2 and Kemper were even announced. The only overlap might be when users demand features that may already exist in competing products; otherwise, we go out of our way to design and develop on our own terms.

[gunpointmetal]

 If one is happy with the sound they get from a $300 PA speaker, supercool. Just don't call it an FRFR speaker.

 

This was kinda the point of my previous post. It doesn't need to be FRFR, it needs to do what a pair of Mackie Thump 12's can do, but in one box, at around that price point. 

 

I don't care what you call it if it can do what an average pair of powered PA speakers can do with "minimal" negative sound coloration. The difference between FRFR and the average powered PA speaker in a real-life performance environment is probably not super noticeable, and with some simple I/O (maybe with the phantom blockers built in, eh? eh?, since those XLR outputs aren't so great) you're going to send out to the PA, its really just a monitor that looks like an amp for those of us who like the look of a 4x12 but prefer the ease-of-use of PA speakers for consistency reasons.

[cruisinon2]

Back in the day, studio monitors were ridiculously expensive. Then someone made a cheap, crappy box, threw the word "studio monitor" on it, and everyone said "yay!" Except it had unbalanced drivers, huge crossover notches, didn't translate well, and had horrible definition, detail, and transient response.

 

This isn't about deciding to market a box as "FRFR," which is literally as easy as swapping silkscreen and packaging graphics files and search-replacing words in the press release. It's about making a box that is truly good enough to be called that. If one is happy with the sound they get from a $300 PA speaker, supercool. Just don't call it an FRFR speaker.

Yes, I'm well aware that marketing folks are full of $hit, and products are deliberately passed off as something they're not every day. Anyone older than 5 with money to spend, knows that...generally learning it the hard way. Nor am I asking for a watered-down product just so I can spend less money. That's not the point. The question is very simple...does an honest-to-God FRFR speaker NEED to command the exhorbitant price that it currently does? New tech is never sold for what it's actually worth. If it were, the concept of the "sale" wouldn't exist.

 

Money is made from the early adopters...those who wait a while get a deal. I missed the $100 price drop on the L2T's by about 11 minutes. POOF! By Royal decree, same item is now worth less! A (post) Christmas miracle! Oh well...my fault for shopping before the holidays! ;)

[Digital_Igloo]

Yes, I'm well aware that marketing folks are full of $hit, and products are deliberately passed off as something they're not every day. Anyone older than 5 with money to spend, knows that...generally learning it the hard way. Nor am I asking for a watered-down product just so I can spend less money. That's not the point. The question is very simple...does an honest-to-God FRFR speaker NEED to command the exhorbitant price that it currently does?

 

If a speaker's truly going to be FRFR-level, there's certainly a threshold it needs to reach or surpass, so yeah, it's going to be expensive for the time being. I guess what I've been saying is that FRFR isn't a type of product, it's a standard of quality applied to a product. Which, at least today, is expensive.

 

The biggest hurdle is the market, as FRFR is still extremely niche. We'll wax poetic about FRFR nonstop, but few musicians outside of gear forums knows what it even is.

 

Line 6 is obviously bigger than companies that make little more than FRFR speakers. Our overhead and development costs are much higher and therefore, we need to sell at a much higher quantity to make a product viable. So our boxes need to attract a much wider swath of customer, which means including features that Bob and Linda might appreciate, even if Joe, Ed, and Carol couldn't care less about 'em.

[Paolo_Maina]

He should be happy, as excellent powered cabs already exist.

 

 

Here's another angle:

 

Firehawk 1500's at $999. Say we remove the modeling engine (which really only means less expensive versions of the DSP and MCU that have to stay in there for speaker management), remove bluetooth and a few knobs and jacks and somehow squeeze the price down to $899—maybe. Considering how tiny the FRFR market really is (literally 90+% of guitarists we surveyed had never even heard of the term), what percentage of people in the market for either product would prefer the $899 version? Even for guys who are in the market for an FRFR speaker (again, WAY fewer guys than in the modeling guitar amp market), how many would gladly pay an additional $100 for a backup HD modeling rig, Stereo/Wet-Dry-Wet, Global EQ, bluetooth streaming of backing tracks, USB audio streaming of backing tracks, blended-in stereo keyboard/synth/vocal amplification, and spillover delay and reverb on top of their external modeler?

 

We know, because we did the research.

 

We've also had people demand we make a $199 version of POD HD500, with all non-high gain amps removed, but otherwise with the exact same hardware. Never mind the fact that there's literally zero development or manufacturing cost savings in adding fewer models. Some people just feel they can cherry-pick features and magically pick a price. Product development and manufacturing doesn't work like that.

 

Parts cost what parts cost, development costs what development costs, and those dictate the price of a product, not some nebulous "market strategy." Some people will say "Hey! You'd sell a lot more if it was $499!" as if we make up product pricing out of thin air. If that were the case, I bet we'd sell even more if it was $399. Or $199. Or $49.

 

 

I used to work for Roland US. No idea what their followup to GT-100 might be (if anything), but historically, Roland's been known to throw curveballs.

 

Nearly all of Helix's design was baked long before AxeFX 2 and Kemper were even announced. The only overlap might be when users demand features that may already exist in competing products; otherwise, we go out of our way to design and develop on our own terms.

I saw a video recorded at namm2016 that shows kemper added a new expression pedal assign mode similar to helix style.

It seems to me.

[LeeandTanja]

DI, can you share your definition of the threshold that a speaker/cabinet needs to be to actually be considered FRFR? For those of us who do know something about FRFR, it would perhaps further the discussion to better understand why things get more expensive when designing a true FRFR device.

 

Most full-range cabinets will provide an acoustic performance spec like:

 

Frequency Response (-3 dB)     56 Hz to 20 kHz

 

 

 

In your estimation, does a true FRFR have to be even tighter response, like +/- 1 dB across a similar spectrum?

[Paolo_Maina]

This is a nice article about amp modelling and FRFR.

And the conclusion it's what i've try to say to Digital Igloo.

There's no specific product, there is a gap in the production somebody has to fill it.

Now Digtal Igloo says no no no but at the end line 6 will make a specific amp modelling cab because the market push to that direction.

I could bet.

 

http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/modelling-preamp-systems-and-full-range-flat-response-cabs-explained-626092

 

"...FRFR is still in its infancy as far as guitar applications go. There are great benefits to be had by using such a versatile technology, although there are still some drawbacks. With some compromise on both playing and manufacturing sides and with the boffins adding their new discoveries, the guitarist may well get a one-cab-does-all solution… and it may even be lightweight!...."

 

This is a demostration that i'm not crazy or i say only b*lls***t and other qualified people have my opnion.

For me it's only harder because english is not my language.

[Paolo_Maina]

When I work (I make Industrial automation electric panels) i use the same tactics than digital Igloo.

If a costumer says "if you take away that electronic component how much money I  save ?"

i say less than the real value saved.

So the costumer says "ok leave it" so he doesn't annoy me and I don't earn less.

When a costumer says "if you add that electronic component how much money i have  to add?"

i say more than the real value so in any case if he annoys me, I earn much money.

business is business.

 

In Italy we say
Don't try to teach cats how to climb up :D :D :D


 

[ozbadman]

This is a nice article about amp modelling and FRFR.

And the conclusion it's what i've try to say to Digital Igloo.

There's no specific product, there is a gap in the production somebody has to fill it.

 

Well, I don't agree that that was the conclusion.

 

The conclusion was that at the moment, even if you make the perfect FRFR system, the things plugged into the front of the FRFR system cannot yet completely replicate the "amp in a room" feel that guitarists want.

 

L6 already has FRFR products, and DI explained why they cannot make them much cheaper at the moment, without making them not FRFR. I'm sure they will continue to refine their products in this space, but a HELIX specific FRFR doesn't make a lot of sense to me. A good FRFR for any modeller makes a lot more sense, and L6 already has their products in that space.

 

Thank you for the link though, it was an interesting article.

[Paolo_Maina]

Well, I don't agree that that was the conclusion.

 

The conclusion was that at the moment, even if you make the perfect FRFR system, the things plugged into the front of the FRFR system cannot yet completely replicate the "amp in a room" feel that guitarists want.

 

L6 already has FRFR products, and DI explained why they cannot make them much cheaper at the moment, without making them not FRFR. I'm sure they will continue to refine their products in this space, but a HELIX specific FRFR doesn't make a lot of sense to me. A good FRFR for any modeller makes a lot more sense, and L6 already has their products in that space.

 

Thank you for the link though, it was an interesting article.

It needs a specific product modelling technology, the right one is not a traditional cab and not a P.A. cab or FRFR (call it as you please). All these products don't fit perfectly with the new modelling technology, They were created for other uses.

They are palliatives.

I'm talking also about money.

Professionals have a lot of money to spend but normal people cannot spend a fortune for esoteric amp systems. :)

[cruisinon2]

A good FRFR for any modeller makes a lot more sense, and L6 already has their products in that space.

 

Agreed. A one modeler-specific FRFR cab wouldn't make sense. You're limiting your customer base right out of the gate. Besides, a "true FRFR" box shouldn't care what you're plugging into it anyway.

 

I would pay for a powered, 4x12 sized FRFR cabinet, provided that it was reasonably priced, and I bet others would too. Let's face it, aesthetics are part of the equation. As much as I'm enjoying my L2T, it doesn't look like a guitar amp. I've made my peace with it, but I'll bet that is half of what turns off all the "purists" out there. Appearance is important, no matter how much we might like to pretend that "it's all about the tone". Build something that looks like what they grew up watching their heros play through onstage, and people will buy it...if it looks close enough, they'll forget that there aren't a bunch of tubes in it.

[ozbadman]

It needs a specific product modelling technology, the right one is not a traditional cab and not a P.A. cab or FRFR (call it as you please). All these products don't fit perfectly with the new modelling technology, They were created for other uses.

They are palliatives.

I'm talking also about money.

Professionals have a lot of money to spend but normal people cannot spend a fortune for esoteric amp systems. :)

 

OK, so I guess I don't understand what it is that you are asking for?? An amp that doesn't reproduce what you put into it?

[PeterHamm]

Agreed. A one modeler-specific FRFR cab wouldn't make sense. You're limiting your customer base right out of the gate. Besides, a "true FRFR" box shouldn't care what you're plugging into it anyway.

 

Yup. The fact is, you want an FRFR speaker to sound like your PA as much as possible. 

 

Otherwise, the sound might be great through the monitor, but not through the PA or vice versa. Either is a problem.

 

If someone sells an FRFR that only works with guitar modelers correctly... I would never buy it. because there must be something non Full-Range-Flat-Response about it, and that means I can be guaranteed to end up crafting sounds that won't sound good to my audience. I don't want that.

[Paolo_Maina]

OK, so I guess I don't understand what it is that you are asking for?? An amp that doesn't reproduce what you put into it?

My opnion is the same of the article.

In the existing systems there are pros and cons because they are made before the modelling amp technology you have to adapt something already made for other purposes to the new technology.

Now the market needs a product made specially for modelling.

it's not only me.

I'm pointing at the moon and you're watching my index finger.

It's a general discussion.

[revans]

The Line 6 L2m may not look like a typical guitar cab, but it is probably the best FRFR powered speaker for Helix. It has L6 LINK which makes it somewhat of a Helix-specific product and it's not too heavy. Use two for stereo. If you have good front-of-house sound, set up the L2m as an angled floor monitor so you can hear yourself as loud as you like without bothering the rest of the band or the audience. You can even mix vocals into the L2m, either for main sound or from a monitor feed.

 

L2m is not as cheap as the cheapest powered PA speakers, but it is probably the minimum level of quality that you want for doing justice to the high quality of Helix. Cheaper powered PA speakers are far from FRFR, diminishing the Helix quality and ease of use. The L2m is in the same price range but is much lighter than Friedman ASM-12. It is much cheaper than comparable products such as Matrix Q12a, Mission Gemini 1, and Atomic CLR.

 

The Mission Gemini 2 is stereo, is about the same price as two L2m speakers, weighs less than two L2m speakers, and looks like a guitar amp cab. If you want stereo in a single box, this is probably the best choice.

 

Personally, both science and practical experience have convinced me that stereo doesn't work in live performances (each member of the audience only "hears" the closest speaker) and creates problems with phasing and comb filtering, so I go mono.

 

Other than the higher price, the hardest thing to get used to is the sound of a mic'd guitar amp and cab through a wide-dispersion FRFR speaker (what the audience hears) rather than a raw guitar amp and cab (what guitarists are used to hearing). But if you want to have the versatility to select among multiple modeled guitar amps and cabs, the real speaker must be FRFR, and you probably won't find a better band-for-the-buck than the Line 6 L2m. (Says the Line 6 fan-boy!)

[ColonelForbin]

The Mission Gemini 2 is stereo, is about the same price as two L2m speakers, weighs less than two L2m speakers, and looks like a guitar amp cab. If you want stereo in a single box, this is probably the best choice.

 

Which actually makes a solid case for the L6 fireHawk1500!.. weighs exactly the same as the Mission Gemini 2 (63lbs), is also stereo, and costs $500 less.. ($700 less if you do the Mission bluetooth model).. They both take the same big box approach to the design; something cool and retro about the L6 that I like. Knowing I can bypass the Firehawk stuff to use Helix doesn't bother me as much anymore. It's actually a cool bonus, knowing the price point of a comparable (Mission Gemini 2) product is higher. The Gemini is a soundcard; so I can see why they went the direction they did on the fireHawk1500, which also offers "Low-latency DSP and USB recording"...

 

I am with the O.P. on the L2 though! I have two L2t and they are awesome. Sound good vertical, work great as monitors, the two angles of kickback are quite nice.

 

I suppose, the Firehawk1500 not having L6Link input is a different direction it could take; combine the Firehawk1500 form with the Stagesource functionality, ability to take better advantage of the available digital connections on the Helix.

 

Helix -> L6Link -> L2 pair in stereo -> XLR outs to Firehawk1500 XLR inputs -> XLR outputs to FOH / recording / mix, etc.

 

That being said, the Firehawk1500 does have stereo XLR 'through' which is how alot of folks might be using it anyhow, to engage global EQ.. Hmm. Line6 link aside, very interesting comparison! would love to hear these two together, and compare them using a Helix..