Is Helix DSP underpowered ?

[willjrock]

Admittedly new user, so im sorry if im missing things. In that case i do apologize, but as i set up a single input with 2 guitar amps and 2 1024 IRs, (dual mono on the top path) i realize that i cant even use the LA2A style compressor after that, nor most of the modulation, some of the delays, distortions ect.

 

Not only that but there is no room for growth it seems. One would hope modeling will continue to get even better, and with that usually comes a higher DSP demand.

 

 

I dont expect to be able to run unlimited fx but i surely wouldnt expect to see an effect greyed out if i havent already used it yet elswhere. There really should be enough DSP on board to accommodate this.

 

Yeah i understand how to incorporate the lower path for more power but that not my point here. Even a UAD quad card will do 4 amps with speakers, compression, EQ, delays, ect...and we all know how small those SHARC chips are.

 

Do you feel the Helix has enough power for its build and just as importantly, the future? 

[phil_m]

Well, third party IRs are more DSP-intensive than the Line 6 cabs, for one thing. I think the thing is that product development is always about making decisions as far as cost and flexibility. It's my understanding the SHARC chip Line 6 used in the Helix was (may still be) the most powerful one in the category. The Tiger SHARC like the Axe FX II uses is like an order of magnitude more expensive, and if Line 6 used two of those, it probably would have put the cost of the Helix over $2000. Interestingly enough, the Fractal AX8 uses the exact same chips that are in the Helix, but it doesn't allow nearly as much flexibility. You are stuck with one amp model. You could load a stereo IR with dual cabs, but you couldn't even do anything like what you mentioned on Path 1.

 

To answer your question, I don't feel that the Helix is lacking in power. I very rarely run into a situation where I hit the limit. If I do, it's one of the processors, and I can move things down to the next path to do what I want to do.

[soundog]

"Do you feel the Helix has enough power for its build and just as importantly, the future?"

 

Yes.

[Digital_Igloo]

Admittedly new user, so im sorry if im missing things. In that case i do apologize, but as i set up a single input with 2 guitar amps and 2 1024 IRs, (dual mono on the top path) i realize that i cant even use the LA2A style compressor after that, nor most of the modulation, some of the delays, distortions ect.

 

Not only that but there is no room for growth it seems. One would hope modeling will continue to get even better, and with that usually comes a higher DSP demand.

 

 

I dont expect to be able to run unlimited fx but i surely wouldnt expect to see an effect greyed out if i havent already used it yet elswhere. There really should be enough DSP on board to accommodate this.

 

Yeah i understand how to incorporate the lower path for more power but that not my point here. Even a UAD quad card will do 4 amps with speakers, compression, EQ, delays, ect...and we all know how small those SHARC chips are.

 

Do you feel the Helix has enough power for its build and just as importantly, the future? 

 

Keep in mind that Path 1 and Path 2 each get their own DSPs. If you're only using Path 1, you're utilizing half of Helix's horsepower.

 

Check out the preset 8 TEMPLATES > 01B Parallel Spans, which splits Two Amp+Cab blocks across both paths.

[Gawwuf]

You may have to get creative with placement, especially when working with more than one amp, but I think this thing has plenty of power.

[silverhead]

...

Yeah i understand how to incorporate the lower path for more power but that not my point here....

Then I'm not sure what the point is. You're asking if you should be able to do more with only half the device's power? Why not start using the other half?

[willjrock]

Keep in mind that Path 1 and Path 2 each get their own DSPs. If you're only using Path 1, you're utilizing half of Helix's horsepower.

 

Check out the preset 8 TEMPLATES > 01B Parallel Spans, which splits Two Amp+Cab blocks across both paths.

I appreciate the info. I guess i feel like each path should be able to accommodate a little more than it does. 2 amps and 2 IRs leave few options after that. Thats about what a UAD solo card does. I likened a quad card earlier and that was being very generous. 

 

I get that we can tap into more power in path 2, but maybe im using it for something entirely different. a bass maybe.

 

2 amps and 2 IRs in one path, i would expect to be able to use any UNused fx in that same path at least once... Start bringing in better sounds with more DSP demand and things get even tighter.

[silverhead]

I appreciate the info. I guess i feel like each path should be able to accommodate a little more than it does. 2 amps and 2 IRs leave few options after that. Thats about what a UAD solo card does. I likened a quad card earlier and that was being very generous.

 

I get that we can tap into more power in path 2, but maybe im using it for something entirely different. a bass maybe.

 

2 amps and 2 IRs in one path, i would expect to be able to use any UNused fx in that same path at least once... Start bringing in better sounds with more DSP demand and things get even tighter.

Depending on how DSP-intensive your bass processing is you might be able to get away with using only Path 2B for that, allowing you to effectively use 3/4 of overall HELIX DSP for your guitar and 1/4 for the bass.

 

The reality is that amps and IRs are the most DSP-intensive blocks. The more of those you use the less DSP remains for other purposes. Every device has its DSP limit. Line 6 is somewhat unique in allowing you to control the DSP allocation rather than placing arbitrary design constraints and restrictions that limit your options. (e.g. only permitting one amp/IR pair per path)

[mikisb]

....Do you feel the Helix has enough power for its build and just as importantly, the future? 

Do i feel that a Porsche turbo S has enough power now and for the future?

As there are more muscled cars out there i feel "no".

On the road - i feel "yes" - at last for my own abilities.

In both cases: Use the power wise and you'll allways have more than you need or you can really handle ;)

With a car, you can burn more rubber with more horsepower wich does'nt mean that you get faster. I think for a modelling unit on this level it's about the same.

[PeterHamm]

I am able to do either a totally separate acoustic and electric signal chain (complete with dual cabs, 2 delays on each chain, 2 reverbs, 2 modulations, and compression and preamps on each chain plus an acoustic guitar IR on the acoustic chain)...

 

...so, yeah.

 

I've also been able to create a patch with two amps, gain pedals, 4 delays, 2 verbs, dual cabs on each amp, 2 modulation FX, and 2 compressors...

 

so, yeah.

 

If you need to do much more than that, buy a second one.

[roscoe5]

...i set up a single input with 2 guitar amps and 2 1024 IRs, (dual mono on the top path)...

 

 

If you are using the IR's that I posted (that you replied to), that could be eating up your Helix resources.  I just noticed that the IR(s) I created and posted are 5x larger in file size than OwnHammer's demo IR's 150kb vs 30kb.  I guess i need to figure out how to make them smaller and retain sound quality.

 

I added to my IR post.

 

http://line6.com/support/topic/19442-free-mesa-recto-sm57-ir/

[Digital_Igloo]

I appreciate the info. I guess i feel like each path should be able to accommodate a little more than it does. 2 amps and 2 IRs leave few options after that. Thats about what a UAD solo card does. I likened a quad card earlier and that was being very generous. 

 

I get that we can tap into more power in path 2, but maybe im using it for something entirely different. a bass maybe.

 

2 amps and 2 IRs in one path, i would expect to be able to use any UNused fx in that same path at least once... Start bringing in better sounds with more DSP demand and things get even tighter.

 

The two-SHARC UAD-2 Duo uses less powerful DSPs than Helix, but like UA, everything is highly contingent on which models you use. For example, a Massive Passive plug takes up half a DSP, but so does their Ibanez Tube Screamer. Yet quite a few amp models take considerably less. It's sort of all over the place, which is fine, as UA supports lots of third-party-developed models as well.

 

I'm a user (and big fan) of UAD-2, by the way.

 

I will say that Helix absolutely, positively wasn't designed to be a "four amps running at once with a ton of whatever effects you want box," and by extension, that means it's also not meant to be a "two amps running on a single path/DSP with a ton of whatever effects you want box," which we discuss in the Dynamic DSP section of the Helix Owner's Manual (emphasis mine):

 

Tips to Optimize DSP

• Some block types use much more DSP than others, such as amps, cabs, IRs, and pitch shifters. Not surprisingly, the Amp+Cab block uses the most. EQ, Dynamics, Volume/Pan, and Send/Return blocks use relatively little
• Some models may use more DSP than others in the same category. This is especially true with amp models
• If you run out of DSP on Path 1, route it to Path 2 for more horsepower. If you plan on creating tones with two or more amps and more than a handful of effects, use both paths
• Instead of a parallel path with two Amp+Cab blocks or two separate Amps and Cabs, try adding a single Amp block followed by a single Cab > Dual block (mixing two different Cabs can provide some substantial variations)
• The stereo version of an effects block will use roughly twice as much DSP as a mono version of the same block. Likewise, the dual version of a cab block will use roughly twice as much DSP as the single version
• Some model categories have “Simple†blocks, which utilize less DSP than others

If Helix could run tons and tons and tons of models, one might rightfully question the quality and granularity of the models! The only way we're able to get as many as we currently do is because of our 20-year history of extremely efficient DSP code optimization.

 

Also note you can split Path/DSP 2 into two completely separate paths—2A and 2B, and then use 2A to extend Path 1 (75% of available horsepower) and 2B for your bass (25% of available horsepower).

[spikey]

Most good designers build in room (Memory) for later expansions. To suggest that there is no room for future expansion is hard for me to believe, and I would think rather It could be that software wise things in Helix are not the best they can be yet. That things are running slower, using more memory and not optimized firmware wise as best it can be..., yet. Of course I could just be making excuses and blowing rings of smoke out my arsh too. But given Helix is  R E A L new and most of us that ordered don't even have the Rack unit yet, Im thinking it just needs some more love time optimization from the L6 software gurus..

 

Per the Manual on page 19...

 

Amp+Cab, Amp, or Preamp blocks  Any combination, up to four (two per path) 

Cab blocks (includes Amp+Cab blocks) Up to four (two per path; Cab > Dual blocks are considered two) 

Impulse Response blocks Up to four 1024-point IRs (two per path) or two 2048-point IRs (one per path)

 

 

From what Im reading, I think the "any combination" part might be a little misleading memory wise however I don't know ANYTHING yet. Until I get to play with mine some its pure speculation on my part.

[archisc]

As along you can get the sound you need... DSP power is behind the curtain... I bet many of us might run into trouble getting the sound we need with DSP limit.. but someone else probably can get the same sound using different configurations.

 

I used to think 2 cab with dual IR for each amp... (4 IR total) means better result.. it turns out I get very similar result or better  with mixing IR and Helix Cab...

 

But just looking at the market.... its hard to find another product within similar price range that can do dual path, dual amp, and dual IR with effects...

[roscoe5]

If you are using the IR's that I posted (that you replied to), that could be eating up your Helix resources.  I just noticed that the IR(s) I created and posted are 5x larger in file size than OwnHammer's demo IR's 150kb vs 30kb.  I guess i need to figure out how to make them smaller and retain sound quality.

 

I added to my IR post.

 

http://line6.com/support/topic/19442-free-mesa-recto-sm57-ir/

 

 

Well I just got over my little freak out about the size of my DIY IR's.  It seems that all IR's may be equal in the eyes of Helix.  It looks like Helix process them on import, making them 16 bit & 44kHz.  Exporting IR's from Helix app showed that the are about 9kb in file size, despite the file size of the original IR.

 

http://line6.com/support/topic/19475-does-helix-process-irs-on-import/?do=findComment&comment=146475

[PeterHamm]

Well I just got over my little freak out about the size of my DIY IR's.  It seems that all IR's may be equal in the eyes of Helix.  It looks like Helix process them on import, making them 16 bit & 44kHz.  Exporting IR's from Helix app showed that the are about 9kb in file size, despite the file size of the original IR.

 

http://line6.com/support/topic/19475-does-helix-process-irs-on-import/?do=findComment&comment=146475

 

They are truncated. It's explained on p. 28 of the manual

[ShoreProductions]

Well, third party IRs are more DSP-intensive than the Line 6 cabs, for one thing. I think the thing is that product development is always about making decisions as far as cost and flexibility. It's my understanding the SHARC chip Line 6 used in the Helix was (may still be) the most powerful one in the category. The Tiger SHARC like the Axe FX II uses is like an order of magnitude more expensive, and if Line 6 used two of those, it probably would have put the cost of the Helix over $2000. Interestingly enough, the Fractal AX8 uses the exact same chips that are in the Helix, but it doesn't allow nearly as much flexibility. You are stuck with one amp model. You could load a stereo IR with dual cabs, but you couldn't even do anything like what you mentioned on Path 1.

 

To answer your question, I don't feel that the Helix is lacking in power. I very rarely run into a situation where I hit the limit. If I do, it's one of the processors, and I can move things down to the next path to do what I want to do.

 

Which Uses More DSP...Cabs or IR's?  

 

[DanishMic]

It is a fair question. I ran into the same issue when i started with my Helix. I could not believe it - not enough power for 2 amps!  

Until I read about the 2 path DSP design. After that I have never been in trouble. So I was right I should not believe it.

I am an AX8 user s well and I often got into processing power issues. I added a H9 for reverb and Pitch - saved me here.

Keep rocking and creating great noise with your Helix.

[HonestOpinion]

<p>...

• The stereo version of an effects block will use roughly twice as much DSP as a mono version of the same block. ...

Probably preaching to the choir here but for those of us who tend to run a mono signal chain this is one of the more compelling reasons we hope some updated mono HX reverb options are included in a future firmware revision. Especially as one would think that HX versions of the reverbs would be even more DSP intensive than the current reverbs although perhaps with optimizations that might not be the case(?).

[willjrock]

 

Well, third party IRs are more DSP-intensive than the Line 6 cabs, for one thing. I think the thing is that product development is always about making decisions as far as cost and flexibility. It's my understanding the SHARC chip Line 6 used in the Helix was (may still be) the most powerful one in the category. The Tiger SHARC like the Axe FX II uses is like an order of magnitude more expensive, and if Line 6 used two of those, it probably would have put the cost of the Helix over $2000. Interestingly enough, the Fractal AX8 uses the exact same chips that are in the Helix, but it doesn't allow nearly as much flexibility. You are stuck with one amp model. You could load a stereo IR with dual cabs, but you couldn't even do anything like what you mentioned on Path 1.

 

To answer your question, I don't feel that the Helix is lacking in power. I very rarely run into a situation where I hit the limit. If I do, it's one of the processors, and I can move things down to the next path to do what I want to do.

 

Which Uses More DSP...Cabs or IR's?  

 

 

 

It is a fair question. I ran into the same issue when i started with my Helix. I could not believe it - not enough power for 2 amps!  

Until I read about the 2 path DSP design. After that I have never been in trouble. So I was right I should not believe it.

I am an AX8 user s well and I often got into processing power issues. I added a H9 for reverb and Pitch - saved me here.

Keep rocking and creating great noise with your Helix.

Ha! Old one! Sorry i missed your reply ShoreProductions.

 

After about a year and a half with Helix, i can safely say that i havent felt limited by its DSP capabilities. At the time of this thread i may have not been hip to some of the "rules" governing helix blocks.

 

A for instance - Its common know that Helix native cabs use less DSP than IRs. Go ahead and add 2 native cab blocks. There is still room for two IRs and FX but no more Helix native cabs. Now, this isnt an instance that i was puzzled about because its pretty common, but you can see there are situations where block choices are limited, completely unrelated to DSP consumption.

[PeterHamm]

Probably preaching to the choir here but for those of us who tend to run a mono signal chain this is one of the more compelling reasons we hope some updated mono HX reverb options are included in a future firmware revision. Especially as one would think that HX versions of the reverbs would be even more DSP intensive than the current reverbs although perhaps with optimizations that might not be the case(?).

 

So. Much YES!

[willjrock]

Probably preaching to the choir here but for those of us who tend to run a mono signal chain this is one of the more compelling reasons we hope some updated mono HX reverb options are included in a future firmware revision. Especially as one would think that HX versions of the reverbs would be even more DSP intensive than the current reverbs although perhaps with optimizations that might not be the case(?).

Dont mean to downplay your needs. My hopes are that the helix accommodates EVERY user, esp one as kind and as helpful as your own self :)  but man....this seems like such an easy one to get around.......With the panners and ability to rearrange blocks and all. I can think of a multitude of ways to make a verb mono.

 

All i run are mono set-ups  but i havent felt limited in any way. If i want mono verb i just drop it behind a cab....or AFTER the cab and then add any mono block at the end of my chain. Usually the least DSP intensive obviously. Simple EQ maybe?

 

I know one shouldnt HAVE to do this, but i dont think it'll ever feel like a hassle to me until i need to run in this config and run out of DSP...not being able to afford that single block of space, and i dont see that any time in the near future.

[ShoreProductions]

Ha! Old one! Sorry i missed your reply ShoreProductions.

 

After about a year and a half with Helix, i can safely say that i havent felt limited by its DSP capabilities. At the time of this thread i may have not been hip to some of the "rules" governing helix blocks.

 

A for instance - Its common know that Helix native cabs use less DSP than IRs. Go ahead and add 2 native cab blocks. There is still room for two IRs and FX but no more Helix native cabs. Now, this isnt an instance that i was puzzled about because its pretty common, but you can see there are situations where block choices are limited, completely unrelated to DSP consumption.

If that's the case, then Scott Minchk, intentionally mislead everyone in his video.  I'm not quite sure how he would have accomplished that, considering that there don't seem to be any edits in his video.  He clearly demonstrates that IRs consume less DSP, than stock cabinets.  He also is known to use 96K wav samples for his IRs.

[willjrock]

If that's the case, then Scott Minchk, intentionally mislead everyone in his video.  I'm not quite sure how he would have accomplished that, considering that there don't seem to be any edits in his video.  He clearly demonstrates that IRs consume less DSP, than stock cabinets.  He also is known to use 96K wav samples for his IRs.

I dont think Scott would do that...at least not intentionally, but it *seems* to be a general acceptance around here (and in the helix manual- IIRC) that stock cabs use less DSP than IRs. Hey, i may even be wrong here. Going from an older recollection. 

 

The 96k IRs would have been converted to 48/16 during the import into helix.

[phil_m]

If that's the case, then Scott Minchk, intentionally mislead everyone in his video. I'm not quite sure how he would have accomplished that, considering that there don't seem to be any edits in his video. He clearly demonstrates that IRs consume less DSP, than stock cabinets. He also is known to use 96K wav samples for his IRs.

1024 sample IR files use less than stock cabs, but 2048 sample IR files use more DSP than the stock cabs. Also, the Helix converts all IR files to 48kHz when they're imported, so it doesn't matter if he's loading 96kHz IRs as they would be down-sampled anyway.

[ShoreProductions]

I dont think Scott would do that...at least not intentionally, but it *seems* to be a general acceptance around here (and in the helix manual- IIRC) that stock cabs use less DSP than IRs. Hey, i may even be wrong here. Going from an older recollection. 

 

The 96k IRs would have been converted to 48/16 during the import into helix.

 

It's seems that Scott would take issue with the conversion issue as well.  He seems to believe that there is a perceptible difference in using the 96K versions as opposed to the 48K versions, irrespective of transcoding: https://youtu.be/nAGCWFA380Q?t=209

[phil_m]

It's seems that Scott would take issue with the conversion issue as well. He seems to believe that there is a perceptible difference in using the 96K versions as opposed to the 48K versions, irrespective of transcoding: https://youtu.be/nAGCWFA380Q?t=209

Well, perhaps there is some sort of audio difference depending on where the conversion is happening, but they are still being converted.

[ShoreProductions]

1024 sample IR files use less than stock cabs, but 2048 sample IR files use more DSP than the stock cabs. Also, the Helix converts all IR files to 48kHz when they're imported, so it doesn't matter if he's loading 96kHz IRs as they would be down-sampled anyway.

 

I'm simply relaying what was said in his video:  

[willjrock]

It's seems that Scott would take issue with the conversion issue as well.  He seems to believe that there is a perceptible difference in using the 96K versions as opposed to the 48K versions, irrespective of transcoding: https://youtu.be/nAGCWFA380Q?t=209

It doesnt sound like you hear it, or have an opinion either way. Being that you are illustrating them as Scott's claims and not your own. I say this to you in a respectful tone. You dont sound convinced. That tells me we might be splitting hairs here. Ive never tried it, so i have no opinion. Ive always been of the camp that 48/16 sounds as good or better, or the same as 96/24 with conversion. Often considering placebo and all the other factors, its hard to tell. Its a slippery slope.

[willjrock]

It's seems that Scott would take issue with the conversion issue as well.  He seems to believe that there is a perceptible difference in using the 96K versions as opposed to the 48K versions, irrespective of transcoding: https://youtu.be/nAGCWFA380Q?t=209

By the way, Scott was also of the opinion that the valve driver was the only uncolored drive pedal in helix and therefor his fav. For what its worth.

[ShoreProductions]

It doesnt sound like you hear it, or have an opinion either way. Being that you are illustrating them as Scott's claims and not your own. I say this to you in a respectful tone. You dont sound convinced. That tells me we might be splitting hairs here. Ive never tried it, so i have no opinion. Ive always been of the camp that 48/16 sounds as good or better, or the same as 96/24 with conversion. Often considering placebo and all the other factors, its hard to tell. Its a slippery slope.

To answer your question directly, I don't hear a difference, but then again my hearing is subpar due to way too many years of abuse.  However, the dialog is digressing.  My initial comment, was in regard to Phlim's statement regarding DSP consumption relating to "stock cabinets" and third party IRs.  No mention was initially made regarding the usage of either 1024 or 2048 duration samples.

[willjrock]

To answer your question directly, I don't hear a difference, but then again my hearing is subpar due to way too many years of abuse.  However, the dialog is digressing.  My initial comment, was in regard to Uber Guru's statement regarding DSP consumption relating to "stock cabinets" and third party IRs.  No mention was initially made regarding the usage of either 1024 or 2048 duration samples.

lol Uber guru might be Philm. You'll want to look at that again...Unless youre being a smartass, then im LMFAO.

 

Anyway. appreciate your input here.

[ShoreProductions]

lol Uber guru might be Philm. You'll want to look at that again...Unless youre being a smartass, then im LMFAO.

 

Anyway. appreciate your input here.

 

You're quite correct, my bad.  My previous comment has been edited.

[Lachdanan0121]

By the way, Scott was also of the opinion that the valve driver was the only uncolored drive pedal in helix and therefor his fav. For what its worth.

I don't know about uncolored, as I don't think it is uncolored, but I will say that the valve driver in the Helix is one of my favorite dist FX in the Helix. I find it really helps open up the guitars in a "tamed" way that I prefer on heavier tones/situations. Though to be fair I haven't tried all the dist FX in multiple situations, so I am still exploring it, but that is my favorite so far.

[ShoreProductions]

By the way, Scott was also of the opinion that the valve driver was the only uncolored drive pedal in helix and therefor his fav. For what its worth.

You're right, the valve driver seems a little pink to me.........Maybe it's fuchsia.

[willjrock]

You're right, the valve driver seems a little pink to me.........Maybe it's fuchsia.

had to look that one up lol. Im pretty proud of my spelling but i gotta tell ya, i thought it was a word i didnt know. Never wrote it before or gave it much thought but i guess ive always pictured it in my head as fucia.

I don't know about uncolored, as I don't think it is uncolored, but I will say that the valve driver in the Helix is one of my favorite dist FX in the Helix. I find it really helps open up the guitars in a "tamed" way that I prefer on heavier tones/situations. Though to be fair I haven't tried all the dist FX in multiple situations, so I am still exploring it, but that is my favorite so far.

Right, i dont think its uncolored at all.Funny that you prefer that one, i could never make valve driver happen.

[ShoreProductions]

had to look that one up lol. Im pretty proud of my spelling but i gotta tell ya, i thought it was a word i didnt know. Never wrote it before or gave it much thought but i guess ive always pictured it in my head as fucia.

Close but no Cohiba, I would be willing to give you a tiparillo, as a consolation prize.  

Actually, I think that's the way I initially spelled it, but spell checker gave me a thumbs down. :rolleyes:

[HonestOpinion]

Dont mean to downplay your needs. My hopes are that the helix accommodates EVERY user, esp one as kind and as helpful as your own self :) but man....this seems like such an easy one to get around.......With the panners and ability to rearrange blocks and all. I can think of a multitude of ways to make a verb mono.

 

All i run are mono set-ups but i havent felt limited in any way. If i want mono verb i just drop it behind a cab....or AFTER the cab and then add any mono block at the end of my chain. Usually the least DSP intensive obviously. Simple EQ maybe?

 

I know one shouldnt HAVE to do this, but i dont think it'll ever feel like a hassle to me until i need to run in this config and run out of DSP...not being able to afford that single block of space, and i dont see that any time in the near future.

You are correct sir, it is a simple matter to run a stereo reverb in a mono path currently. I guess the following are my main reasons for wanting to see mono HX reverbs. Some of this I suppose may depend on how DSP usage in HX reverbs shakes out.

• HX reverbs may use more DSP than current reverbs. Having a mono option could potentially halve this if the current paradigm is maintained (mono blocks use half as much DSP)
• Is there a preferable audible difference between summed stereo reverb and mono? I don't know, maybe not? If there is a difference it would be great to be able to select a mono block.
• I do occasionally run up against the DSP limits. This bit of extra DSP would be just the ticket on some presets.
• In future firmware revisions there may be enhancements made or new parameters added to existing blocks that require more DSP. New effects may be added such as a new synth model, etc. that may require large amounts of DSP. If this is the case you may find yourself needing to select optimized lower usage DSP blocks to combine with the hungrier blocks.

Overall I guess I look at DSP optimizations cumulatively. I'm in favor of any place where the code can be optimized to save DSP. Those little incremental gains really mount up over a while and when put together can end up making a fairly substantial addition to available DSP. That can translate into more available DSP for firmware enhancements that result in more complex or detailed models or provide extra available blocks. It can be the difference between seeing every block available when building a preset or pulling up a list with several grayed out and unavailable.

 

DSP saving changes might include code optimizations, a mono version of an effect that uses less DSP, or sometimes just a simplified version of an effect - maybe one with fewer parameters that use less DSP(as long as we keep the more in depth, more DSP intensive version of the block as an option). I'm in favor of incremental gains wherever Line6 can find 'em. I can see however where depending on how a musician uses the Helix, DSP optimization could take a low priority. If you never push up against the limits this is probably one of the last things you want to see worked on. It is pretty stunning what the Helix can do with its current available DSP.

[ShoreProductions]

You are correct sir, it is a simple matter to run a stereo reverb in a mono path currently.  I guess the following are my main reasons for wanting to see mono HX reverbs. Some of this I suppose may depend on how DSP usage in HX reverbs shakes out.

1. HX reverbs may use more DSP than current reverbs. Having a mono option could potentially halve this if the current paradigm is maintained (mono blocks use half as much DSP)
2. Is there a preferable audible difference between summed stereo reverb and mono. I don't know, maybe not? If there is a difference it would be great to be able to select a mono block.
3. I do occasionally run up against the DSP limits. This bit of extra DSP would be just the ticket on some presets.
4. In future firmware revisions there may be enhancements made or new parameters added to existing blocks that require more DSP. New effects may be added such as a new synth block, etc. that may require large amounts of DSP. If this is the case you may find yourself needing to select optimized lower usage DSP blocks to combine with the hungrier blocks.

Overall I guess I look at DSP optimizations cumulatively. I'm in favor of any place where the code can be optimized to save DSP. Those little incremental gains really mount up over a while and when put together can end up making a fairly substantial addition to available DSP. That can translate into more available DSP for firmware enhancements that result in more complex or detailed models or provide extra available blocks. It can be the difference between seeing every block available when building a preset or pulling up a list with several grayed out and unavailable.

 

The changes might include code optimizations, a mono version of an effect that uses less DSP, or sometimes just a simplified version of an effect - maybe one with fewer parameters that use less DSP(as long as we keep the more in depth DSP version as an option). I'm in favor of incremental gains wherever Line6 can find 'em. I can see however where depending on how a musician uses the Helix, DSP optimization could take a low priority. If you never push up against the limits this is probably one of the last things you want to see worked on. It is pretty stunning what the Helix can do with its current available DSP.

Good point, if you're outputting mono, no need to expend additional processing.

[HonestOpinion]

Good point, if you're outputting mono, no need to expend additional processing.

 

Yep, because I mainly run a mono path that is my primary motivator and the same concern probably extends to all blocks, not just reverb. I would opt for a mono version for any effect where it was available if it used less DSP (potentially half as much). That would not only leave more room for bloated "everything but the kitchen sink" presets but also provides a way for the Helix to provide more complex blocks that really hog DSP without limiting too severely which other blocks can be used in combination with them.   ;)