Latency between patch switching is unbearable

[Ka5par]

In addition I think would be better to cut the previous section short and switch the preset 1/8 or 1/4 note before, so that the beginning of the next section doesn't suffer.
But that's just another workaround that gets the job done.

[klangmaler]

In addition I think would be better to cut the previous section short and switch the preset 1/8 or 1/4 note before, so that the beginning of the next section doesn't suffer.

But that's just another workaround that gets the job done.

 

I guess that's exactly not a workaround for vinny199 (OP) - and I really understand that.

'Pre-switching' and things like that are not at all helpful for live musicians.

They help to destroy your timing etc., trust me.

Maybe a solution in studios, although 'pre-synchronizing' is also a mess.

BUT:

[klangmaler]

GUESS THIS IS AN GOOD EXAMPLE FOR HELP IN A FORUM:

I tried them and it is quite a quick drop out between presets, is it noticeable yes, horrible not really IMHO. that said I managed to do this. see if you like it.

 

I messed with your two presets and got them to pretty much fit on one preset and keep them the same and made the toggles swap tones

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/c97vx10yzanpcu9/Clnfndr-Dist.hlx?dl=0

 

well it was worth a try, let me know if that will get you by.... Oh you will have to re-assign the IR's because I didn't use the same # positions.

 

Here is another preset I made and there are 2 IR's 1 is the Taylor acoustic that has been floating around and the other is one I made with the redwires IRMIX II program from free IR's I have found around the net (so I figure there OK to share) the Taylor (@#6) goes on the top path and the other goes in the bottom path (@#7)

 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hk7i66s4luyym36/AABA5al160VMtvrD2fdkBEzZa?dl=0

 

Very constructive, thank you, sir!

[vinny199]

I tried them and it is quite a quick drop out between presets, is it noticeable yes, horrible not really IMHO. that said I managed to do this. see if you like it.

 

I messed with your two presets and got them to pretty much fit on one preset and keep them the same and made the toggles swap tones

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/c97vx10yzanpcu9/Clnfndr-Dist.hlx?dl=0

 

well it was worth a try, let me know if that will get you by.... Oh you will have to re-assign the IR's because I didn't use the same # positions.

 

Here is another preset I made and there are 2 IR's 1 is the Taylor acoustic that has been floating around and the other is one I made with the redwires IRMIX II program from free IR's I have found around the net (so I figure there OK to share) the Taylor (@#6) goes on the top path and the other goes in the bottom path (@#7)

 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hk7i66s4luyym36/AABA5al160VMtvrD2fdkBEzZa?dl=0

Well, thank you very much for that. Very kind.

The 2 patches I gave you are my "lightest" ones: base clean sound, base rhythm overdrive sound.

It goes more complex from then on with delay, tremolo, phasers, fuzz etc .

Still for me the latency between these 2 "light" patches is hard to make use.

But anyway, I understand what you mean with the single patch you did, it is great. It will never fit my needs though, its that simple. Because I I said I just mentioned I then progress through the songs to various other options that will never fit this one fits all patch. I understand the logic of it, it just will not work for me.

I also sing and really don't want any option that involves having to tap more than one thing at at time, which will have to happen.

Even with my old pedalboard I had a carl martin looper and was able to swtich between "patches" and never individual pedals.

So, this is how I need to do it. It's that simple.

But thanks again

It looks like I just need to accept it is what it is.

[jaminjimlp]

Well, thank you very much for that. Very kind.

The 2 patches I gave you are my "lightest" ones: base clean sound, base rhythm overdrive sound.

It goes more complex from then on with delay, tremolo, phasers, fuzz etc .

Still for me the latency between these 2 "light" patches is hard to make use.

But anyway, I understand what you mean with the single patch you did, it is great. It will never fit my needs though, its that simple. Because I I said I just mentioned I then progress through the songs to various other options that will never fit this one fits all patch. I understand the logic of it, it just will not work for me.

I also sing and really don't want any option that involves having to tap more than one thing at at time, which will have to happen.

Even with my old pedalboard I had a carl martin looper and was able to swtich between "patches" and never individual pedals.

So, this is how I need to do it. It's that simple.

But thanks again

It looks like I just need to accept it is what it is.

The preset is just what you had so all you have to do is hit the "clean" toggle and it is the clean sound you had with the option you had for distortion and the same for the distortion preset you had with the option for the distortion peddle you had, essentially 4 toggles in one preset instead of 2 toggles and 2 presets there was another distortion peddle in the one preset but it was bypassed and had no toggle assigned so I left it out. 

 

So this will (should) work for the one issue you had, but I understand the problem you sighted about more complex presets and the tap dance I have the same issue so I came up with a work around for the moment, my 11 rack had the same issue but I had no option for the second amp so I am delighted to have the 4 path option I always tried to nail the pre-switching thing and must say I was about 50% or less at getting it on the beat so the way I do it for the moment is leaps and bounds ahead of what I am used to... just trying to help

 

That is why I said in my original comment to your post "Helix just might not be the MFX for you" I am sure that the value of the Helix is not dropped so much that you could not get 90+% of what you spent on it and cut your losses instead of dealing with the stress that you are putting yourself though. 

[jorisgriffioen]

I was worried about this, coming from a tube amp and Digitech GSP with zero lag ... turns out this is really an issue on the Helix for me. :( The brainstorming for solutions is much appreciated but in the end I'm playing punk/poprock at 190BPM, I don't have any damn time to pre-select or skip beats or whatever. ;)

 

This basically makes the unit unusable for me live. And thus too expensive to keep around. I'll stick around for a while to see if it's improved in updates but this is quite simply a dealbreaker.

 

I really hope Line 6 doesn't support the "yes but you can create everything in one patch" story. It's impressive and creative, but also ridiculous when the whole point is that you can have entire seperate rigs in one unit. This seems to be a common problem for Line 6 though. Within one preset it's extremely powerful but you're missing the things that tie presets together:

- levels matching
- spillover
- switching speed

- global effects

- global output choices (cab to one output, direct to another)
 

I hate to keep harping on about it, but these things were solved by Digitech in the GSP1101 almost ten years ago. I know, dual DSP, but the technology doesn't matter, the experience for the player does.

[jorisgriffioen]

Just an idea: maybe the memory of the looper can be used? I'd give up the looper for seamless(ish) patch changes, don't use it live anyway. (cue the one person that does ;) )

[klangmaler]

[...]

I hate to keep harping on about it, but [...]

 

Yeah, THIS IS a loop.

http://line6.com/support/topic/18965-latency-when-im-changing-patches/

(...and I know that you like your Digitech

http://line6.com/support/topic/19350-will-line-6-continue-to-improve-modeling/?do=findComment&comment=145649 )

[Digital_Igloo]

I hate to keep harping on about it, but these things were solved by Digitech in the GSP1101 almost ten years ago. I know, dual DSP, but the technology doesn't matter, the experience for the player does.

 

Oh, believe me, no one hates harping on about it more than I do.  :D

 

[deep breath]

 

DigiTech slapped a second DSP in their box for preset spillover and ONLY preset spillover. I've mentioned it a billion times before, but if full preset spillover is that important, the GSP-1101 is likely to be your only solution.

 

What baffles me is... why didn't people complain that DigiTech didn't use all that extra DSP to accommodate next-gen amps and effects? It's like adding a second engine to a sportscar, but it doesn't go any faster or perform any better... but it adds some other car-related feature that no other cars on the planet have or are likely to ever have.

[jorisgriffioen]

DI, I know. That's why I brought it up. It's not to grieve you guys but to point out how much of an issue it is.

 

What baffles me is... why didn't people complain that DigiTech didn't use all that extra DSP to accommodate next-gen amps and effects? It's like adding a second engine to a sportscar, but it doesn't go any faster or perform any better... but it adds some other car-related feature that no other cars on the planet have or are likely to ever have.

 

Seriously? You *just* typed the reason above. It creates an experience across patches that is seamless. Having delays spill over and instantanious switching of amps *is* that important. It makes the unit a whole different thing, it behaves like an integral part of a rig, not a container to multiple seperate rigs. The experience is drastically different.

 

I guess if you've lived with this for a long time it doesn't matter to you. Of course everything is a tradeoff, but have you seen that multiple people have said they'd do exactly that? Trade a full DSP just for seamless switching. It is that important to these people.

I just did a recording and am measuring a silence of 75 to 125ms between patch changes. This is with patches that just have amp + cab + reverb, nothing else.
The human brain will notice a delay when it goes above 20ms. One of the factors is also that it is dead silence (which is logical, processing is paused). If there would be some way for you guys to smear out the last samples into that gap or something it would make it much less jarring.

 

It seems like you've accepted this problem as just being a shortcoming of the device, I really hope not. it is the only thing keeping me from saying it's the best guitar product I've used ever.

[jorisgriffioen]

 I've mentioned it a billion times before, but if full preset spillover is that important, the GSP-1101 is likely to be your only solution.

 

Another point: no. It's not. Literally any other guitar setup besides modeling is the solution. A Marshall JVM has seamless switching, so does any other amp on the market, any decent delay pedal has tails, etc. If you want to prove that modeling beats "the real thing" then that is what you're up against, not just other modelers.

[phil_m]

Another point: no. It's not. Literally any other guitar setup besides modeling is the solution. A Marshall JVM has seamless switching, so does any other amp on the market, any decent delay pedal has tails, etc. If you want to prove that modeling beats "the real thing" then that is what you're up against, not just other modelers.

 

It's not true that all amps have seamless switching, fwiw. Many have audible gaps when switching channels. Sometimes this is by design because without a gap there would be an audible pop.

[gunpointmetal]

Maybe they put a second DSP in there for Spillover because a gap between presets is lollipopING ANNOYING AND GETS IN THE WAY OF PERFORMANCE! 

 

Sorry for yelling.

 

But Seriously, DI, is there even a remote possibility of getting the switching latency within the range the HD500X currently has. It's still there, but its quick enough that it's not disruptive. It kinda pisses me off that I can't reasonably use my supersweet recording presets live because they eat up too much DSP to fit two/three channels w/effects in one patch, so patch switching is my only option, but I need it to be near immediate, otherwise it doesn't have the same effect.

[jorisgriffioen]

It's not true that all amps have seamless switching, fwiw. Many have audible gaps when switching channels. Sometimes this is by design because without a gap there would be an audible pop.

 

That is true but it is to the order of 10 - 20ms, not three times as much. That's not even counting the fade in/out that occurs around the silence. All combined you're in the 150 - 200ms range of audible switching. Also, amp reverb and any delay you use has spillover across channels, there is almost never true silence.

[Digital_Igloo]

I've collectively written a doctoral thesis on the hows and whys of preset spillover in this forum alone; it's probably time to merge threads. At the end of the day, the only power one has is to visit IdeaScale and vote.

[jorisgriffioen]

I've collectively written a doctoral thesis on the hows and whys of preset spillover in this forum alone; it's probably time to merge threads. At the end of the day, the only power one has is to visit IdeaScale and vote.

 

Done. Perhaps you could merge some of the ideas on there as well? There are quite a few regarding this.

 

http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Delay-Reverb-Preset-spillover-on-Helix/727853-23508

http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Optional-Global-signal-path-Spillover/741927-23508

http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Enable-FX-Spillover-Between-Patch-Changes/800257-23508

http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Hold-DSP-1-or-2-on-preset-change-for-Global-I-O-and-Spillover/799158-23508

http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Tails-between-patches/789365-23508

http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Spill-over-and-no-audiable-latency-when-changing-between-prestes/793516-23508

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

http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Reduce-or-Eliminate-audio-dropout-between-patch-changes/800260-23508

http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Seamless-preset-changing/804036-23508

http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Dynamically-allocate-DSP-resources/795206-23508

 

(it may be unfair, but if you tally up the votes across all of these it is the most voted for issue for the Helix)

 

As a final note, because I think everything else has been said. From another thread:

 

 

Of course it's an issue, but it's an issue that plagues ALL modelers today, so what do you want me to say?

• "We're working on changing the laws of physics"
• "We're investing tens of billions on hundreds of new employees and our own custom chip fabrication plants in an attempt to somehow best the capabilities of Intel, AMD, TI, Motorola, and Analog Devices... to hopefully make a DSP chip capable of spillover"
• "We're gonna force you to upgrade to a $2000 HELIX SPILL with four SHARCs that adds literally nothing but spillover"
• "We're going to drop the sound quality of the models by half so you get spillover"

 

Force everyone? No, obviously not everyone needs it. But if there was the option to pay $500 extra for this I would in a heartbeat.

Not to start another discussion but to tell you: yes, this is a serious potential selling point and a legitimate option.

[silverhead]

I was worried about this, coming from a tube amp and Digitech GSP with zero lag ... turns out this is really an issue on the Helix for me. :( The brainstorming for solutions is much appreciated but in the end I'm playing punk/poprock at 190BPM, I don't have any damn time to pre-select or skip beats or whatever. ;)

 

...

I know the GSP has dual DSP that permits spillover, but that's only part of the problem. The spillover hides the audio gap while the next preset is loading, but it does nothing about the time taken to load the next preset. NO device can make that loading time zero ms. If you tap the preset switch exactly on the first beat of the bar where you want it to take effect, simultaneously with hitting the first chord on the beat, you won't ever hear the first chord because the preset is not yet loaded. So you HAVE to pre-select if you want that first chord on the beat, don't you? Even with dual DSP you need to 'skip some beats' at that tempo, don't you, either at the end of one bar or the beginning of the next?

 

I know this has been beaten to death now, but it seems to me that you have to pre-select your preset switch timing if you want to hit the first beat, and that dualDSP spillover will hide the gap. So will your band. With a bit of practice and creativity in band backup and preset switch timing your audience will never care, and probably not even notice.

[vinny199]

 

What baffles me is... why didn't people complain that DigiTech didn't use all that extra DSP to accommodate next-gen amps and effects? It's like adding a second engine to a sportscar, but it doesn't go any faster or perform any better... but it adds some other car-related feature that no other cars on the planet have or are likely to ever have.

Well, that is one way to look at it

 

The other (and much more accurate way in my opinion) to look at it is that Line 6 added a second powerful engine but didn't pay attention to the gear box and in effect changes are so slow, the engine power is rendered useless as you simply cannot use patch change mode.

 

The fact that the unit is useless to many of us (live musicians in tight rock bands / fast songs for example) doesn't seem to worry you all that much, and its not exactly like we were given advance warning..

 

I don't think zero latency is what people have been asking for overall in these latency related forums. What they have been asking for (me the first one) is an improvement on that front ans a serious reduction of this lag. If you guys could find a way to cut it by half or so, it would become realistic to use patch changes in a live situation.

 

In addition, as I mentioned before, the latency in the Helix seem to be a significantly higher than competitive products (not mentioning the Digitech unit) and quite frankly I didn't see much data put forward on latency in your sales pitch. It may be fair enough but frankly smug remarks like that may not be all that appropriate.

 

At least Digitech have been upfront about their product and their choices, that is probably why customers have not been complaining to them.

[jorisgriffioen]

I don't think zero latency is what people have been asking for overall in these latency related forums. What they have bbeen asking for (me the first one) is an improvement on that front ans a serious reduiction of this lag. If you guys could find a way to cut it by half or so, it would become realistic to use patch changes in a live situation.

 

Completely agreed.

[jorisgriffioen]

I know the GSP has dual DSP that permits spillover, but that's only part of the problem. The spillover hides the audio gap while the next preset is loading, but it does nothing about the time taken to load the next preset. NO device can make that loading time zero ms. If you tap the preset switch exactly on the first beat of the bar where you want it to take effect, simultaneously with hitting the first chord on the beat, you won't ever hear the first chord because the preset is not yet loaded. So you HAVE to pre-select if you want that first chord on the beat, don't you? Even with dual DSP you need to 'skip some beats' at that tempo, don't you, either at the end of one bar or the beginning of the next?

 

I know this has been beaten to death now, but it seems to me that you have to pre-select your preset switch timing if you want to hit the first beat, and that dualDSP spillover will hide the gap. So will your band. With a bit of practice and creativity in band backup and preset switch timing your audience will never care, and probably not even notice.

 

Not entirily. You can load in the second DSP before you switch audio. No need to wait for the first one to unload. There will be no gap. There would be a bit of latency but that is the least of the problem. The problem is silence.

[vinny199]

Not entirily. You can load in the second DSP before you switch audio. No need to wait for the first one to unload. There will be no gap. There would be a bit of latency but that is the least of the problem. The problem is silence.

 

I have no idea how, why, what would be best as such. All that is clear to me is that some other units (not even mentioning the unique case of the Digitech) seem to manage this better and have much less latency. So, they are not bending the laws of physics either, they just found a better way to implement this. If others can achieve lower latency, then why not the Helix? Surely, there must be improvements possible if they would treat this as something that must be addressed. Again, I am not saying "a cure", but improvements. Why is that something line 6 would fight back and not embrace, I don't understand.

[patrick_g_nelson]

I look at this a bit different.  I can accomplish most things in one patch with the supplied approach but not everything.  My live rig is a pretty simple Orange Rockerverb  100 into a Marshall 4x12 with the amp doing both dirty and clean.  I have a Joyo PXL Pro loop/switcher with a Wah and OCD in loop bank 1 in front of the amp and then in loop bank 2 I have EQ, Trem, Delay, Reverb that goes through the FX loop.  The joyo also controls the reverb and channel switching on the amp.  With the Joyo the FX pedals are always on but can be assigned to a switch or rather multiple switches. You can have both switch 1 with delay on and switch 2 with delay on and switch 3 with it off.  It doesn't toggle on/off of the pedal like the Helix but just changes whether it is in the loop or not.  If the switches on the Helix worked like that you could do a heck of a lot more in one patch.  On my "analog" set up I do switch 1 - amp clean with Reverb, switch 2 - amp clean with the OCD on,  trem on and Reverb on , Switch 3 - amp dirt with reverb off, Switch 4 - amp dirt with eq on for boost, delay and reverb on. Other banks have more combinations.  You can't really do this in the Helix without adding multiple delays, trems, etc.  You also can't assign reverb on/off to multiple switches to make it an instant change a switch.  I have made a patch that is "close" with 2 chains and multiple delays and trem blocks but it is still not possible completely emulate my live amp rig.  I guess this is what Axe FX calls scenes.  It is nice to be able to assign multiple pedals/amps/splitters/etc to one switch but it would be way nicer to be able to also assign pedals to more than one switch.  If one could do that you could do almost anything in 1 patch without needing to switch patches.  It also sucks that if you assign a dirt pedal to a switch with other things you can't assign it to another pedal to switch it off/on outside of the multi-assignment. I guess the desire is to have an option for the switches behave like a loop switcher (Joyo, Carl Martin, Voodoo Labs, tRex, etc).  Having a loop switcher really spoiled me with the ability to completely change with zero latency and one button press.  I bought the Helix thinking I would replace the pedal board and switcher and use it in 4 cable method but it can't do what the simple pedal board can so for now it sits in my studio for recording and practice and my amp and pedal board still go to shows.  Plus, I needed to add an ebtech hum eliminator to the equation to kill the horrible ground loop when using the EXT jack on the Helix.  I love the Helix and what it offers but for true live use without needing to pedal/switch dance it still has a ways to go.  I is crazy that my $159 Joyo offers better pedal routing and ext amp control than the $1499 Helix.....

[duncann]

Just curious. What other units with the same or similar quality/resolution of modeling have seamless switching? And would that be a factor when switching presets?

[vinny199]

Just curious. What other units with the same or similar quality/resolution of modeling have seamless switching? And would that be a factor when switching presets?

 

 I personally never mentioned seamless / no latency. I put forward that hopefully improvements could be made to reduce the latency and make it useable. However, every time I talk about that "a reduction of latency", the general tone of replies is about "no latency being impossible", which I am not suggesting in the first place as such. . I am not sure about what others would be referring to, but personally I am not about to make things worse by deliberately naming competitors products here.

 

However there are products out there that have 2 shark processors used with similar intentions as the Helix  and achieving much, much lower latency (and I've certainly not heard the "fade out / fade in thing as yet) making patch switching a realistic prospect in a live context. So again, if possibly others have achieved such low latency, maybe there is hope here too?

 

So, again, only mentioning the possibility of improvements, if this was being given a priority.

[spikey]

Using a keyboard and listening to what Im playing while hitting the keys in Cubase, I can start to hear latency around 10 ms. At 20 ms it becomes almost impossible to play at any speed remotely fast. My question is, at what speed (in MS) does the latency need to be to switch between presets without too much time in between? Be realistic and reasonable please.

 

Oh yes, and of those products out there that have two Sharc processors you mentioned, are any of them very new, or have a "big brother" to compare with firmware wise?

[Digital_Igloo]

Why is that something line 6 would fight back and not embrace, I don't understand.

We're not fighting back; I'm simply tired of explaining the technical hows/whys/history/tips/tricks at length in one thread, and then having to write the exact same thing 20 minutes later in a new thread on the same forum. Maybe I should write a blog and just start posting links to it.

 

Can we make preset switching faster? Probably—we'd already done months of optimizations before 1.00 firmware. Maybe everyone should sit tight. :ph34r:

 

In the meantime, try starting with 8 TEMPLATES > 02C Two Tones A-B (switch between two tones from a footswitch [labeled "TONE A—TONE B"] with zero gap and spillover delay/reverb) or 8 TEMPLATES > 02D TwoTones Blend (seamlessly mix between two tones from the expression pedal [labeled "PATH A—B BLEND"] with zero gap and full spillover)?

Just curious. What other units with the same or similar quality/resolution of modeling have seamless switching? And would that be a factor when switching presets?

Amplifire has faster preset switching because its signal flow and DSP allocation is static and fixed. It's MUCH easier to swap out DSP components when every single preset has the exact same number of each type of block. From what I gather, AX8's preset switching is on par with Helix (and Cliff presumably has the same headaches I do because of this), yet its signal flow is semi-fixed (one amp, one cab, no more than two of each effect type, etc).

 

The fact that Helix's dynamic DSP allocation lets you add anything you want, anywhere, from any input to any output, with up to 64 controller assignments and customizable everything, until you run out of DSP is immensely powerful and flexible, but yeah, it's not gonna switch like the original POD. Plus, the bigger/more granular the models (read: AX8 and Helix), the longer it takes to unload/load those models. It's not unlike how it takes forever to load huge string libraries in your DAW.

 

If the goal was super-fast preset switching, we would've stuck with one amp, one cab, one reverb, etc. on a serial path. We would've made a speedboat instead of a battle-ready aircraft carrier.

[radatats]

We're not fighting back; I'm simply tired of explaining the technical hows/whys/history/tips/tricks at length in one thread, and then having to write the exact same thing 20 minutes later in a new thread on the same forum. Maybe I should write a blog and just start posting links to it.

 

You do an awesome job communicating DI, greatly appreciated.  I thought there already was a Line 6 Blog?  That's a great idea BTW... Put your big posts there and link to them.  One easy place to find it all.  Your info gets buried in these threads and sometimes overlooked.  Of course that means one more thing for you to work on, I know... lol

[spikey]

Can we make preset switching faster? Probably—we'd already done months of optimizations before 1.00 firmware. Maybe everyone should sit tight. :ph34r:

 

Ok done, soon as I see heel down wah off for Mission pedals...  -_-  :D

[HonestOpinion]

Done. Perhaps you could merge some of the ideas on there as well? There are quite a few regarding this.

 

http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Delay-Reverb-Preset-spillover-on-Helix/727853-23508

http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Optional-Global-signal-path-Spillover/741927-23508

http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Enable-FX-Spillover-Between-Patch-Changes/800257-23508

http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Hold-DSP-1-or-2-on-preset-change-for-Global-I-O-and-Spillover/799158-23508

http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Tails-between-patches/789365-23508

http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Spill-over-and-no-audiable-latency-when-changing-between-prestes/793516-23508

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

http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Reduce-or-Eliminate-audio-dropout-between-patch-changes/800260-23508

http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Seamless-preset-changing/804036-23508

http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Dynamically-allocate-DSP-resources/795206-23508

 

(it may be unfair, but if you tally up the votes across all of these it is the most voted for issue for the Helix)

 

As a final note, because I think everything else has been said. From another thread:

 

 

Force everyone? No, obviously not everyone needs it. But if there was the option to pay $500 extra for this I would in a heartbeat.

Not to start another discussion but to tell you: yes, this is a serious potential selling point and a legitimate option.

Could someone please explain to me why it would cost $500 more for two more DSP chips? The DSP chip used by the Helix is the Analog Devices "ADSP-21469KBCZ-4". This chip is currently selling for $16.70 when you buy one thousand of them (I am sure Line6 is going to sell at least 250 Helix's [4 chips apiece please]). The two extra chips would only add $33.40 per unit to the bottom line. I have asked this question before, where is all this "extra" cost coming in if we are talking about basically just adding two inexpensive DSP chips, in return for which we get much faster switching, spillover, and the capacity to switch between presets that get to use all the DSP that two chips can provide (second set of two for switching and spillover). For people who don't care about preset switch latency and spillover, you could make a version that allows monster signal chains using all four DSP chips. I am truly curious, is it the software development, extra hardware to leverage the two chips, where is all this potential additional cost Line6 is warning us about coming from?

 

Supporting research:

Here is a link for a great review on the Helix which shows a picture of the DSP chips used in case you are wondering where I got my information from. Scroll down to the "Inside The Helix" section. http://www.tonymckenzie.com/line6-helix-effects-unit-floor-pedal-inside-and-out-review.htm

 

Here is the Analog Devices price page for the DSP chip used in the Helix ("ADSP-21469KBCZ-4".):

http://www.analog.com/en/products/processors-dsp/sharc/adsp-21469.html#product-samplebuy

[jorisgriffioen]

Component cost does not directly translate to customer pricing. You're missing a few steps like R&D, any extra hardware you might need to support those chips etc.

[HonestOpinion]

I know the GSP has dual DSP that permits spillover, but that's only part of the problem. The spillover hides the audio gap while the next preset is loading, but it does nothing about the time taken to load the next preset. NO device can make that loading time zero ms. If you tap the preset switch exactly on the first beat of the bar where you want it to take effect, simultaneously with hitting the first chord on the beat, you won't ever hear the first chord because the preset is not yet loaded. So you HAVE to pre-select if you want that first chord on the beat, don't you? Even with dual DSP you need to 'skip some beats' at that tempo, don't you, either at the end of one bar or the beginning of the next?

 

I know this has been beaten to death now, but it seems to me that you have to pre-select your preset switch timing if you want to hit the first beat, and that dualDSP spillover will hide the gap. So will your band. With a bit of practice and creativity in band backup and preset switch timing your audience will never care, and probably not even notice.

As long as people are throwing around analogies to cars I thought I would include a silly one of my own. Music is a time based "sport". Broken into increments like quarter notes and downbeats. If Nike sold a track & field hurdler a shoe that crumpled and then recovered every second step would you ask the runner to adjust his stride and make sure to only jump the hurdles every other step? Of course not, you would ask Nike to fix the shoe. That is what we are asking for, "Line6, please fix this shoe". Wait a sec, where am I, what am I talking about, is this thing on? :P

[HonestOpinion]

Component cost does not directly translate to customer pricing. You're missing a few steps like R&D, any extra hardware you might need to support those chips etc.

 

I get that and I mentioned those possibilities and acknowledged that in my post. However, R&D costs can be paid back many times over by a product that blows the competition away. I don't know what the additional costs are and what they would be spread across tens/hundreds of thousands of units sold. I am simply pointing out the additional hardware is not that expensive and Digitech did manage to utilize their chips this way in a far less expensive unit. In my opinion the quality of the modeling is there, any additional modeling improvements while welcome will be incremental and largely unnoticed by musicians and drunken audience alike. Low latency and spillover however would be a huge win to musicians and very welcome to many of us who are huge fans of almost everything else about the Helix and would like to see these issues addressed.

[jaminjimlp]

 

If the goal was super-fast preset switching, we would've stuck with one amp, one cab, one reverb, etc. on a serial path. We would've made a speedboat instead of a battle-ready aircraft carrier.

OK Can We then focus on a "optional" mode for the helix say one that will be limited to One chip,two paths using one shark for DSP and the other for "spill over" or what ever you want to call it and the "set list" be a sort of road map that one would line up there "way points" (presets) so that the fallowing preset could be preloaded in the freed up DSP chip ready for seamless switch over then the next preset in the set list preloaded in the then freed up DSP chip and so on and so on..... and the other mode the current version???

 

Some how if it is possible I don't think they will be happy with that either... and wile your at it Scrap the design for the helix 2 and make it with 10 DSP chips so 5 can be used for the preset and 5 could be used for the "spill over" or seamless switching... dang you should have made it with 6 each hold it 7 no 8 uh 9... might as well be 50 each yeah 50 arrgh 100... see where this is going?

 

that is why I replied " Helix just might NOT be for you"

 

and for the rest of us I will say thank you DI and Line 6 for such an innovative, intuitive and easy to use enjoyable unit!!! I love it!!! any improvements in it are welcome and added features, amps and FX are icing on the cake... thank you for your Hard work!!!

 

I was serious about the 2 mode idea though :P  If it would be doable in firmware of course.

 

PS The Editor is the BOMB!!! but the graphix could be better :lol: .... really functionality is more important than how pretty it is.

[vinny199]

We're not fighting back; I'm simply tired of explaining the technical hows/whys/history/tips/tricks at length in one thread, and then having to write the exact same thing 20 minutes later in a new thread on the same forum. Maybe I should write a blog and just start posting links to it.

 

Can we make preset switching faster? Probably—we'd already done months of optimizations before 1.00 firmware. Maybe everyone should sit tight. :ph34r:

 

In the meantime, try starting with 8 TEMPLATES > 02C Two Tones A-B (switch between two tones from a footswitch [labeled "TONE A—TONE B"] with zero gap and spillover delay/reverb) or 8 TEMPLATES > 02D TwoTones Blend (seamlessly mix between two tones from the expression pedal [labeled "PATH A—B BLEND"] with zero gap and full spillover)?

Amplifire has faster preset switching because its signal flow and DSP allocation is static and fixed. It's MUCH easier to swap out DSP components when every single preset has the exact same number of each type of block. From what I gather, AX8's preset switching is on par with Helix (and Cliff presumably has the same headaches I do because of this), yet its signal flow is semi-fixed (one amp, one cab, no more than two of each effect type, etc).

 

The fact that Helix's dynamic DSP allocation lets you add anything you want, anywhere, from any input to any output, with up to 64 controller assignments and customizable everything, until you run out of DSP is immensely powerful and flexible, but yeah, it's not gonna switch like the original POD. Plus, the bigger/more granular the models (read: AX8 and Helix), the longer it takes to unload/load those models. It's not unlike how it takes forever to load huge string libraries in your DAW.

 

If the goal was super-fast preset switching, we would've stuck with one amp, one cab, one reverb, etc. on a serial path. We would've made a speedboat instead of a battle-ready aircraft carrier.

 

Thanks for your reply. I'm the one who started this new thread that is causing you to repeat yourself, so, I'll just say a couple more things and hopefully don't feel the need to say much more beyond that.

 

First, I'm really not sure any of your analogies (cars / boats) are of great help, but nevermind.

 

In my thread and subsequent posts I have been asking if improvements could be made to patch switching latency or if that was it. That is all. It took a very, very long time to get to your answer "Can we make preset switching faster? Probably".

 

The systematic answer in this thread and others I've read is a dogmatic "use a one patch fits all" for live or "adapt your playing to the latency".

 

Finally, this is the first I hear that yes, there may be technical solutions your team could look at to make patch switching use workable in a live context for those who need to do this.

 

What is then a massive let down though is to see in another thread that this is not taken seriously and "should be put to vote" in the feature request section.

 

Personally I see this as an improvement needed to a shortcoming rendering the unit useless to a section of customers (plenty have commented they cannot take Helix to gig as they had planned, and I have this same issue). Really there is a fundamental difference between requesting more amp models, effects, global options etc (all very valid things that will please everyone) and addressing an issue that renders the product useless to many. Am I out of order thinking that?

 

Regarding people putting forward "technical solutions" and you having to repeat yourself on that, I understand the frustration. Again, I started this annoying thread but I never at any point put forward how exactly technically you should do this. I don't particularly care how either. All I was interested in knowing is whether there was hope for improvements or not. But yes, I get it. People say "it's easy, just do this" and at your end you go "really?? that's not how it work".

 

Now, I'd like to ask you as question if I may about your suggestion of a "2 tones patch with zero latency".

 

Can you, with the 2 tone patch you suggest guaranty that you will never need to result to "tap dancing" then you need these 2 tones to "evolve" with delays, boosts etc and then get back to a  tone without having to "tap out" other engaged effects for example?

 

Because my understanding (and a kind user tried to help me by creating such a patch) is that: First of all I would have to make serious tone compromises to create a generic patch that would cover all the tones I typically use in one song, but even so I would have to switch on / off various components to achieve various sound combinations, some involving some pretty neat tap dancing. is that correct?

 

If so, how is that progress or anything desirable? I've been, with my "normal" pedalboard using a Carl Martin looper for years. I have not had to switch on / off individual effects in a very, very long time. I can switch on / off "patches" that simply.

 

So, are we saying that the Helix is simply not up to that job (unless you are a strict 2 tones guy)?

 

How is that then a solution or work around? As I mentioned earlier, I sing and play guitar. Tap dancing is out of question.

 

Now, why did I purchase the Helix you may wonder?

 

Quite frankly, I never thought the latency would be so bad, and I never heard it mentioned that in a live context you should really use it as a "one patch per song" unit. Really had no idea it would be that backwards (in my opinion). I pre-ordered it based on the neat videos I saw and sales pitch. I never heard this limitation explained. But anyway:

 

I live in London UK, a city where owning a car is more of an aggravation that a helpful thing.

Taking my pedalboard + amp to the gig costs a fortune in taxis. (it's ok when we play outside town as we hire a van, but London gigs are so expensive to do in transportation)

I naively thought that the Helix would replace my amp and pedalboard. It was the impression I was under. By replacing I mean, just like may pedalbaod with the Carl marting looper, change full single patches on the fly with a single button and go back and forth between tones that way and the added bonus of having the amp(s) included. Basically, I thought I could go to the gigs on public transport

 

That was the basis of my purchase. Maybe I was wrong but it certainly didn't look that way initially. It's only once you get it that you realise you can't realistically use it this way as the latency and fade out / fade in is a killer and should have a 2 tone patch per song, and result to tap dancing to accommodate variations of the sounds. No use to me at all.

 

So, again, all I was asking is if  we can hope for improvements or not. You are saying it could be done but it's not really on the agenda right now. Not exactly a happy though, but I hope it will become part of the agenda soon.

 

These kinds of annoying threads will help that I am sure and maybe people should start doing YouTube videos that show other potential users that for live, there are limitations to be aware of before purchase.

 

All said and done, hopefully.

[jaminjimlp]

Please folks do a little more searching of the forum before starting a new thread on the same thing we just went over last week...

 

and we continue to beat the dead horse....

 

all the questions here have been answered many times 

[HonestOpinion]

I have seen more than a couple of occurrences of "straw man" arguments on this topic. You know, where you set up a weak or imaginary argument that your "opponent" never made and then you proceed to tear it apart with ease. Most of us who are advocating for reduced latency or some form of spillover are not  asking for zero latency or some perfect spillover that creates absolutely inaudible gaps (that can wait for the day after tomorrow's hardware and if you are expecting it now you are probably being unrealistic). We are simply looking to reduce latency and have some form of limited spillover that makes using multiple presets within a song as usable as possible given the hardware platform we are on. We have lapsed into making suggestions at times for future generations of hardware after repeatedly being told that little or nothing could be done with the current hardware and we should just play and design our presets differently. I am more than happy to adapt to the hardware/software as it stands to some extent and would also like it to adapt to me a bit, and the horde of players like me. I believe this is far from a dead horse, maybe a sick and ailing horse but not quite ready for the dog food factory yet. DI has dropped some promising bread crumbs about both spillover and reduced latency. For me, these are by far the most important features Line6 could work on right now as I believe the UI and ease of use is the best in class, the editor is good and will only get better, the modeling kicks arse, the effects are top shelf, and the input/output options are best in class.

[jaminjimlp]

Well maybe is not a dead horse but it is definitely not the elephant in the room they're well aware of the problem they are probably working on it right now and I'm sure as you said the bread crumbs that DI has dropped... they have a policy not to reveal anything before they release it so that being said the elephant I'm sure is being pushed out the room as we speak

 

Is just that this is been gone over in so many threads so many times it is quite like beating the dead horse if people would just search a little more they would see it has been discussed maybe they should just add onto those other threads instead of going over and over the same thing on new threads every week

[phil_m]

I have seen more than a couple of occurrences of "straw man" arguments on this topic. You know, where you set up a weak or imaginary argument that your "opponent" never made and then you proceed to tear it apart with ease. Most of us who are advocating for reduced latency or some form of spillover are not  asking for zero latency or some perfect spillover that creates absolutely inaudible gaps (that can wait for the day after tomorrow's hardware and if you are expecting it now you are probably being unrealistic). We are simply looking to reduce latency and have some form of limited spillover that makes using multiple presets within a song as usable as possible given the hardware platform we are on. We have lapsed into making suggestions at times for future generations of hardware after repeatedly being told that little or nothing could be done with the current hardware and we should just play and design our presets differently. I am more than happy to adapt to the hardware/software as it stands to some extent and would also like it to adapt to me a bit, and the horde of players like me. I believe this is far from a dead horse, maybe a sick and ailing horse but not quite ready for the dog food factory yet. DI has dropped some promising bread crumbs about both spillover and reduced latency. For me, these are by far the most important features Line6 could work on right now as I believe the UI and ease of use is the best in class, the editor is good and will only get better, the modeling kicks arse, the effects are top shelf, and the input/output options are best in class.

 

I don't necessarily think anyone is putting up a straw man. The question for Line 6 is if it's worth investing a lot of time and effort into reducing the patch change latency if, in the end, the improvement still isn't enough to make people happy. It seems that it simply won't be possible to get patch change times into the 20-30 ms range, so even if Line 6 is able to make relatively big improvements - like 50% faster switching times, would people appreciate it?

 

As others have said, though, it's not that Line 6 is oblivious to the comments. Who knows what they have up there sleeves?

[duncann]

I don't necessarily think anyone is putting up a straw man. The question for Line 6 is if it's worth investing a lot of time and effort into reducing the patch change latency if, in the end, the improvement still isn't enough to make people happy. It seems that it simply won't be possible to get patch change times into the 20-30 ms range, so even if Line 6 is able to make relatively big improvements - like 50% faster switching times, would people appreciate it?

 

As others have said, though, it's not that Line 6 is oblivious to the comments. Who knows what they have up there sleeves?

 

I predict the generalized answer to this is NO!

[gunpointmetal]

I'm thinking they'll come up with some sort of optimization like they did with the HD500/X, whether or not it will be enough to be useable live has yet to be seen. 

I don't see a problem with people continuing to bring up the issue, because it is an issue that limits the functionality of the device, and the more people bringing it up, the more it seems like a large-scale issue, the more likely it is to get worked on, IMHO.