Latency between patch switching is unbearable

[HonestOpinion]

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?

 

People are absolutely putting up straw man arguments, latency and spillover concerns are dismissed as people requiring zero latency (we don't!) and spillover of every effect (nope), speculation about adding two DSP chips is exaggerated to "why not 50 chips?".  Videos showing latency have been dismissed with comments like "who would switch presets while holding a chord?". How better to graphically display the gap between a preset switch in a video than by holding a chord or note and switching the preset? The point of the video seems to be missed entirely. Are you going to display latency in a video with a speed metal tune and switching (well that would be kind of cool)? I believe many users would definitely appreciate whatever improvements Line6 can manage on latency. You don't abandon the better for the best. I agree wholeheartedly that we don't know what Line6 has up their sleeves. I waited patiently for the editor and I am patiently waiting for improvements to the preset switching. As usual, I appreciate that it is not a priority for some players, if you have a Variax, you want that worked on, if you have a DT that is your focus, etc.. For me and I believe many other users who play out in bands this is the area of improvement that would make the Helix the undisputed current leader in the MFX world for a large number of users. It is not such a big deal in the recording studio where you can punch in your parts. Which is not to say that I don't still want more models and effects, some bug fixes, and some other features as well, but they are much further down my wishlist. This issue actually affects my ability to perform with complex patches. The latency is so close to not being a major issue, with a little work I believe it can stop being a subject of focus, so yes, any improvements, incremental or not would be hugely and warmly welcomed!

[HonestOpinion]

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

 

I have to agree with you on the thread consolidation thing. It is a vastly superior use of the forum when discussions stay continuous in one topic as there is far less repetition that way. "Use the search, Luke" (shamefaced Stars Wars reference)!

[jorisgriffioen]

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?

 

50% faster would get it into acceptable range for me. I would absolutely appreciate it. Some switches are already quicker than others, those quick switches are fine. It seems especially the Soldano SLO is causing a delay, but I haven't done thorough investigation there.

 

 

 

I predict the generalized answer to this is NO!

 

You predicted wrong.

[ricksteruk]

I hope we (the spillover fans) are not flogging a dead horse... 

With luck the horse is still alive and will get the idea of the direction we need it to go eventually  ;)

 

....

 

Seriously though, for me to buy a Helix for live use (and I would love to.. it sounds great!) - I need either spillover or a proper scene mode.

[mjorden]

People are absolutely putting up straw man arguments, latency and spillover concerns are dismissed as people requiring zero latency (we don't!) and spillover of every effect (nope), speculation about adding two DSP chips is exaggerated to "why not 50 chips?".  Videos showing latency have been dismissed with comments like "who would switch presets while holding a chord?". How better to graphically display the gap between a preset switch in a video than by holding a chord or note and switching the preset? The point of the video seems to be missed entirely. Are you going to display latency in a video with a speed metal tune and switching (well that would be kind of cool)? I believe many users would definitely appreciate whatever improvements Line6 can manage on latency. You don't abandon the better for the best. I agree wholeheartedly that we don't know what Line6 has up their sleeves. I waited patiently for the editor and I am patiently waiting for improvements to the preset switching. As usual, I appreciate that it is not a priority for some players, if you have a Variax, you want that worked on, if you have a DT that is your focus, etc.. For me and I believe many other users who play out in bands this is the area of improvement that would make the Helix the undisputed current leader in the MFX world for a large number of users. It is not such a big deal in the recording studio where you can punch in your parts. Which is not to say that I don't still want more models and effects, some bug fixes, and some other features as well, but they are much further down my wishlist. This issue actually affects my ability to perform with complex patches. The latency is so close to not being a major issue, with a little work I believe it can stop being a subject of focus, so yes, any improvements, incremental or not would be hugely and warmly welcomed!

 

Great post. Couldn't agree more. I got the sh!t kicked out of me for posting that video.

[stumblinman]

You know what gives you zero latency? A good tube amp and some quality pedals.   It's worth trying, I promise.  Computers will always have some lag/latency issues.. It's the nature of having to load data.  Folks will tell you it's about timing your taps, or building everything into a single patch to prevent it, but in the end, a couple good pedals and a quality amp will get you there without the issues.  If you need to go between epic soundscapes with the single press of a button, then by all means, stick with the Helix or the HD500.  If you don't like latency, avoid modelers without "scenes" built in.  Or spend way too much money and cross your fingers they add it later.  Good luck!

[klangmaler]

You know what gives you zero latency? [...]

 

Hey, another idea: An acoustic guitar ;)

 

 

:mellow:  Every Jack will find his Jill. :mellow:

And  although life is to short I will have the time to wait for further improvements.

 

For the moment I'm happy I don't have to switch patches faster than I can change notes on the guitar :P

[spikey]

You know what gives you zero latency? A good tube amp and some quality pedals.   It's worth trying, I promise.  

Yes thats true. Whats also true is that its a one horse pony Amp wise....

[jorisgriffioen]

You know what gives you zero latency? A good tube amp and some quality pedals.   It's worth trying, I promise.  Computers will always have some lag/latency issues.. It's the nature of having to load data.  Folks will tell you it's about timing your taps, or building everything into a single patch to prevent it, but in the end, a couple good pedals and a quality amp will get you there without the issues.  If you need to go between epic soundscapes with the single press of a button, then by all means, stick with the Helix or the HD500.  If you don't like latency, avoid modelers without "scenes" built in.  Or spend way too much money and cross your fingers they add it later.  Good luck!

 

Thanks for another red herring.

 

Computers will not "always" have some latency issues. They will always have latency, but it is simply a matter of making it so low it's imperceptible or at least negligible. As I mentioned before, 20ms or more is perceptible. From my tests when it's under 100ms it's usable (no missed notes). There was a moment in time when live guitar processing was not possible at all due to latency, we're well past that, now we're at the next challenge.

[HonestOpinion]

You know what gives you zero latency? A good tube amp and some quality pedals.   It's worth trying, I promise.  Computers will always have some lag/latency issues.. It's the nature of having to load data.  Folks will tell you it's about timing your taps, or building everything into a single patch to prevent it, but in the end, a couple good pedals and a quality amp will get you there without the issues.  If you need to go between epic soundscapes with the single press of a button, then by all means, stick with the Helix or the HD500.  If you don't like latency, avoid modelers without "scenes" built in.  Or spend way too much money and cross your fingers they add it later.  Good luck!

 

 

Hey, another idea: An acoustic guitar ;)

 

 

:mellow:  Every Jack will find his Jill. :mellow:

And  although life is to short I will have the time to wait for further improvements.

 

For the moment I'm happy I don't have to switch patches faster than I can change notes on the guitar :P

 

And walking will get you short distances from point A to point B without requiring gasoline or the danger of a flat tire. I still like having a car for those interstate trips though.  My apologies in advance for yet another example of car analogy abuse.  :D

[cornerstonetom]

I use one patch for the whole gig. It is configured with an amp and IR of speakers I know and love. It has all the effects I'd typically need and I don't even use those that often. To me, less is more with effects. It has three gain stages for Clean, Drive, Overdrive and Distortion operated by three foot switches. This is an incredible range of tones in a single patch. It's convenient, consistent, easy to use, and mimics what you'd likely have with a guitar amp and fixed pedalboard...

That's how I have my "overweight" analog pedal board set up and that's how I've set up my Helix. It's easy, effective and, with the Helix, much easier on my back! For studio use I find that latency is easy to control and eliminate.

 

It seems that the most effective way to use the Helix is to mimic the analog world you created before getting a Helix. That's essentially what L6 packed in there to begin with (great modeling of analog equipment)... works for me. I really enjoy not having to lug around 180 lbs of gear anymore and the audience can't tell the difference. Besides, at church, the congregation never wanted to see an amp. (We'd keep the amp behind the curtain.) For some reason, if they saw an amp, the sound was automatically too loud! (A perfect example of psycho-acoustics.)

 

And yet, they never complained about latency...

[klangmaler]

[...]

And yet, they never complained about latency...

 

...but I bet you are not playing that speedy punk stuff (like jorisgriffioen), for example.

I really understand that for some kind or style of music you must have faster patch changes.

Therefore I wrote "Every Jack will find his Jill"...

[Joepeggio]

Just some latentcy thoughts. I can make a single patch and press 2 or three buttons to change tones. I know multiple changes can be done with a single press, but realistically it sometimes takes a few.

 

I bet a patch change is faster then pressing 2 footswitches. And a small "musical" rest makes that first note of the solo that much better.

 

But in defense of the "zero" latency players, I 100% support reducing latency and/or implementing a "scene" mode.

 

I wonder if it can be implemented like the looper? Same reverb/delay block in same path location with same settings on both patches. Maybe?

[klangmaler]

This has all been discussed here (and in some 'older' threads) extensively.

I doubt that - for the moment - someone will come up with factual new insights.

Let's simply wait and see what L6 can tweak...

[jorisgriffioen]

I bet a patch change is faster then pressing 2 footswitches. And a small "musical" rest makes that first note of the solo that much better.

 

You're kidding right? You can't seriously be suggesting that I change my music because the equipment is not behaving as expected?!

Again: we have songs at 190BPM, yes sometimes a moment of rest is better, but that should be up to me, not my tools.

[klangmaler]

Again: we have songs at 190BPM, yes sometimes a moment of rest is better, but that should be up to me, not my tools.

 

And again: All discussed recently. We got your point, I believe.

And I'm on your side in so far

(as I already posted above "I bet you are not playing that speedy punk stuff (like jorisgriffioen)").

And I bet, L6 is trying to find a solution to minimize changing latency.

Folks, this discussion leads to a 'loop of stuffiness' for the moment...

[jorisgriffioen]

And again: All discussed recently. We got your point, I believe.

And I'm on your side in so far

(as I already posted above "I bet you are not playing that speedy punk stuff (like jorisgriffioen)").

And I bet, L6 is trying to find a solution to minimize changing latency.

Folks, this discussion leads to a 'loop of stuffiness' for the moment...

 

Sure, I found fido083's suggestion quite aggravating. Sorry to jump on it so harshly.

Anyway: yes let's wait and see, I've decided to keep the Helix for now because the discussion with DI is looking promising. :)

[klangmaler]

Sure, I found fido083's suggestion quite aggravating. Sorry to jump on it so harshly.

Anyway: yes let's wait and see, I've decided to keep the Helix for now because the discussion with DI is looking promising. :)

Thanks.

[Perfect]

I absolutely agree with those that consider the latency to be a key issue that needs to be addressed with the Helix in some way or another. On Saturday I played a gig with my Line 6 HD147 and there were no noticeable latency issues with patch switching. This evening (Monday) we had a band practise and I used my Helix and quite a few times there were "gaps" in the sound due to patch switching, particularly annoying when it's the first note of a solo or the first "heavy" chord after a clean section and the impact is lost. The latency on patch switching doesn't have to be 0 (doubtless there is some on the HD147) however it needs to be less than it is now on the Helix.

 

I currently have 16 patches over 4 banks that I use live. I was hoping to make that just 2 banks with the Helix - not increase the amount of tap dancing required and need to adjust my playing style to make pre-emptive patch changes.

 

Let me put it this way, if Line 6 said "There is nothing we can do to improve the patch switching latency on the Helix, do you want your money back?" as of now I would take the money.

[pwnettle]

I'm not sure I see what the problem is, other than not grasping how to use this kind of technology.  Build flexible patches that include the effects and switches you need.  Just how many different sounds do you need in one song (that anybody sane would reasonably pull off with a fully analog setup) ?

 

Yeah, it'll be great some day when there's no lag when switching presets.  Until then, do what does work?  You can switch amps, switch tones completely have lots of effects, change settings, etc all in one preset.  Tons of examples of it out there.  You can load up a single preset way more than the average person would ever need - or anything in between.

[sparqk]

I'm not sure I see what the problem is, other than not grasping how to use this kind of technology.  Build flexible patches that include the effects and switches you need.  Just how many different sounds do you need in one song (that anybody sane would reasonably pull off with a fully analog setup) ?

 

Yeah, it'll be great some day when there's no lag when switching presets.  Until then, do what does work?  You can switch amps, switch tones completely have lots of effects, change settings, etc all in one preset.  Tons of examples of it out there.  You can load up a single preset way more than the average person would ever need - or anything in between.

100% agree

[HonestOpinion]

I'm not sure I see what the problem is, other than not grasping how to use this kind of technology.  Build flexible patches that include the effects and switches you need.  Just how many different sounds do you need in one song (that anybody sane would reasonably pull off with a fully analog setup) ?

 

Yeah, it'll be great some day when there's no lag when switching presets.  Until then, do what does work?  You can switch amps, switch tones completely have lots of effects, change settings, etc all in one preset.  Tons of examples of it out there.  You can load up a single preset way more than the average person would ever need - or anything in between.

 

Here we go again...  If your song requires complicated sound changes, there is no scene functionality to accommodate it, you will have to tap dance.  If your preset requires two or more scenarios that use a lot of DSP, you need additional presets as you won't have enough DSP to split within one preset. All of these arguments have been made over and over. It makes no sense to me to insist to people with a different set of requirements that they should change the way they are playing or that they can do everything they want within one preset.  Can we please just acknowledge that for some (many?) users lower latency and spillover enabling preset switching would be a very desirable objective. For players without those requirements, I am perfectly able to see that the Helix is working for you. Why is it so difficult to see the other side of the street? I don't get it.

[spikey]

Blessed are those who go in circles, for they will become wheels...

[glideman]

LoL!

[siremoon]

I presume all those who have these world ending problems with patch switching latency didn't have any issues at all with their pre-Helix rigs?  That these rigs could produce a multitude of different tones, change from one to the other with no delay and no tap dancing? 

 

Assuming the answer to both of these questions is yes then the bit I don't understand is why on earth did you buy a Helix?  The latency shoudn't have come as a surprise should it.  It's been done to death a million times over on here and elsewhere.  I bought the Helix because it was clear it was going to give me far more than I had with my modest one amp, one cab and a few pedals rig.  If it hadn't then I wouldn't have bought it.  If your old rig is simple but produces all these tones you need then why change?  If your old rig is complicated (and therefore likely to be expensive) then why did you think a single $1500 box could replace it?  Doesn't make sense to me.

 

As to the "I'm not changing my music to suit the gear when I play live" indignation then I don't get that either.  Musicians have always had to do that.  Sometimes you compromise because you can't practically recreate what you record, sometimes for convenience.  Personally I'd rather take a Helix on the road instead of 4 amps, 4 cabs and a pedal board the size of a chest freezer even if it means a compromise. 

 

And do you know what the funniest bit about all of this is?  The audience don't give a damn.  It's only you that notices. 

[jorisgriffioen]

I presume all those who have these world ending problems with patch switching latency didn't have any issues at all with their pre-Helix rigs?  That these rigs could produce a multitude of different tones, change from one to the other with no delay and no tap dancing? 

 

No problem at all. In a rack rig with custom handwired preamps (Salvation Mods in Randall RM4), a two channel switching poweramp, GSP1101 for base effects and a rack drawer of effects with loop switcher. All controlled via a powerful midi controller. Very powerful and flexible, but damn big and heavy, this is the problem the Helix solves for me: it's one box and relatively small and light.

 

 

If your old rig is complicated (and therefore likely to be expensive) then why did you think a single $1500 box could replace it?  Doesn't make sense to me.

 

Because progress never happens in your world? I'm using a rig with basically 1980s technology, 30(!!) years later I'd hope to be able to improve on that in some aspects.

 

And do you know what the funniest bit about all of this is?  The audience don't give a damn.  It's only you that notices. 

 

I notice, my band notices, we play with less enthusiasm, the audience picks up on that. Otherwise we'd all be playing on the bare minimum of gear, which not everybody does. You apparently are happy with that, I'm not, we are different people.

 

Something else: I really don't understand the need for you and others to "prove" that this isn't an issue. I don't go around other topics that don't apply to me telling people that they absolutely shouldn't need that feature. It has been explained to death by now how this *is* a problem to us, the fact that it doesn't apply to your situation doesn't make a lick of difference for mine.

[jorisgriffioen]

As to the "I'm not changing my music to suit the gear when I play live" indignation then I don't get that either.  Musicians have always had to do that.  Sometimes you compromise because you can't practically recreate what you record, sometimes for convenience.  Personally I'd rather take a Helix on the road instead of 4 amps, 4 cabs and a pedal board the size of a chest freezer even if it means a compromise. 

 

You're talking about a tradeoff in logistical hassle, that is once again a red herring. Please read the comments again. The point made was that this technological limitation is "fine" because it changes the composition of songs for the better ... which is of course a ridiculous argument to make and completely misses the point.

[zooey]

Different people use their rigs in different ways, or want to, so different things are important to them. That makes Helix in its current state, or any other rig, different degrees of viable and/or problematic for them.

 

Surely that's not a difficult concept to grasp. It's also not something that can be argued away, it's just a fact.

 

Sheesh.

[Perfect]

I'm not sure I see what the problem is, other than not grasping how to use this kind of technology.

Not grasping how to use Line 6 technology???

 

I've been using Line 6 gear for the best part of 20 years now. I originally moved to it from a midi rack system (mostly for convenience and reduced weight) and in all that time through various Flextone amps, Pod/Pod Pro units, HD147 etc. I have never been aware of such a serious issue with patch switching latency until the Helix. Did any of the advertising information or artist endorsement videos for the Helix advise of these new "feature" that means you can't switch between patches without gaps? If so, I must have missed it.

 

There may be no issue for people that don't gig or that don't use many different sounds during a song/set. However, for those of us that do and are finding it to be an issue with the Helix it's laughable to try and say that we just don't know how to use Line 6 gear.

[gunpointmetal]

Just how many different sounds do you need in one song (that anybody sane would reasonably pull off with a fully analog setup) ?

 

What does sanity have to do with it. Cool for you guys if you spent a whole a bunch of money to emulate your current rig. If it was working for you, why did you change? I have been buying and using MFX since the Boss GT-6 specifically to avoid being stuck to any particular sound or set of sounds to, you know, DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT...maybe... We have this whole box full of amazing sounding things, but some of use are left to use half of whats available at any given time because to get the clean/dirty/effects settings we need without jarring (not in a fun way) audio dropouts between patches so we have to cram two half-presets into one to avoid it. 

 

I'm not going into the threads where people are complaining about MIDI pass-through issues and telling them "I don't use the Helix for a MIDI interface, so your complaints are ludicrous. What kind of sane person would hook up a MIDI device through the Helix?!?" 

 

So if you're not actually part of the conversation, or have anything to offer. Why bother? 

[bobthedog]

I have been reading this thread with interest, the patch changing time doesn't bother me but I can see that it bothers plenty of others.

 

There is always going to be a delay when loading a patch as the helix currently stands, the patch has to load from storage and then initialise, whilst this is happening all sound is cut. I am sure Line 6 have put quite a lot of work into minimising this time and I bet they are still working on it.

 

A scene type functionality would help out to avoid tap dancing but this still wouldn't help the people that want to use many very different sounds with no interruption.

 

So the only thing that Line 6 can do is to have a mode where your patch can only use half the DSP, when you switch patch the new patch is loaded into the other DSP while the current patch is playing. There would still be a delay for the Load/Init so it would require you to time you patch change to take this into account but at least there is no audio dropout.

 

Now some (but less) people would still moan about this, so to please those people Line 6 would have to use a system where you have an ordered sequence of patches, now the system can always have the next patch in the sequence pre-loaded avoiding the Load/Init time, so now we have instant patch changing. Some (but even less) people will complain about this as they don't want to be stuck with a pre-ordered list of patches.

 

 

So from Line 6s perspective they need to find the level at which they are willing to invest expensive development time to the number of disgruntled customers, probably not an easy calculation.

[jorisgriffioen]

Product Managers like DI are way better than us at deciding what solutions are the best option and how that relates to development time and Line 6's goals. It's his job after all and he has insights far beyond ours. As long as we provide information about what the issues are and how they affect us (and maybe do some suggestions) they should be able to make the necessary decisions, you can't make those for them.

 

You're right, it's a tricky balance. I work at a startup so have a lot of experience with the feeling that you would like to have infinite resources to fix everything. ;)

[gunpointmetal]

I have been reading this thread with interest, the patch changing time doesn't bother me but I can see that it bothers plenty of others.

 

There is always going to be a delay when loading a patch as the helix currently stands, the patch has to load from storage and then initialise, whilst this is happening all sound is cut. I am sure Line 6 have put quite a lot of work into minimising this time and I bet they are still working on it.

 

A scene type functionality would help out to avoid tap dancing but this still wouldn't help the people that want to use many very different sounds with no interruption.

 

So the only thing that Line 6 can do is to have a mode where your patch can only use half the DSP, when you switch patch the new patch is loaded into the other DSP while the current patch is playing. There would still be a delay for the Load/Init so it would require you to time you patch change to take this into account but at least there is no audio dropout.

 

Now some (but less) people would still moan about this, so to please those people Line 6 would have to use a system where you have an ordered sequence of patches, now the system can always have the next patch in the sequence pre-loaded avoiding the Load/Init time, so now we have instant patch changing. Some (but even less) people will complain about this as they don't want to be stuck with a pre-ordered list of patches.

 

 

So from Line 6s perspective they need to find the level at which they are willing to invest expensive development time to the number of disgruntled customers, probably not an easy calculation.

 

This is effectively what running a clean/dirty preset with path switching is already doing. 

[bobthedog]

But you only have two patches, it seems people want instant changes between more than two patches.

[ricksteruk]

^ YES.

 

On many songs 

1) VERSE TONE

2) CHORUS TONE

3) SOLO TONE

 

sometimes

 

4) MID 8 TONE

[Perfect]

For me on some tunes it is just one rhythm and lead tone so easily accomplished within a single patch.

 

However on some songs I use a clean tone (with and without chorus and delay) chunky rhythm, heavy scooped rhythm, and three lead tones (although on most songs I only use one or two of the leads). And I've different variations of some of those tones for different songs. But then I have been playing around with them for many years!

 

There are also a number of tunes where I use some big FX sounds and I have 4 patches set up just for these on my HD147.

 

I spent some more time on the Helix tonight to see if I could come up with a patch where I could switch between the clean, rhythm and lead tones with one pedal press for each sound. Haven't cracked it yet though.

[geetar_geek79]

I think another workaround could be the ability to group switches.  It doesn't solve the lag, but it gives more flexibility while staying in one preset.

 

The number of effects available would be limited compared to switching to another preset, but I'll take that as a compromise for now.

[jorisgriffioen]

But you only have two patches, it seems people want instant changes between more than two patches.

 

More than two: yes (I've looked into it and it actually comes down to 3 to 4 distinct tones per song)

Instant: no, just quick enough that it doesn't break the composition of the music

 

[cornerstonetom]

...but I bet you are not playing that speedy punk stuff (like jorisgriffioen), for example.

I really understand that for some kind or style of music you must have faster patch changes.

Therefore I wrote "Every Jack will find his Jill"...

I agree, it's a problem for some. My playing doesn't require that capability all the time, but sometimes I find it to be problematic. So, in certain instances, instead of Helix replacing my rig, I would have to use it as a compliment... at least I wouldn't have to lug the amp around... I think.

[gsking1]

I suppose you could get an a-b switcher and two helixes (helices?) to switch between tones ?

When going to the 3rd or 4th tone, change the preset for the helix that doesn't have sound coming from it.  

Way too much stomping for me, but it could work.