HELIX vs HD500X comparison

[duncann]

For anyone interested, here's a Helix versus HD500X comparison. It's of an entire song production made by one person on either device (no daw processing on either). I took a song I wrote a year or so ago, using the HD500X, and decided to see how it would sound if I produced it on Helix. Curiosity got the better of me.

 

I think it turned out pretty good.

 

It was harder to do than I had originally thought for a couple of reasons. Enough time passed that I forgot what I wrote, so I had to relearn it. DOH! Stupid me. Doesn't help that I write stuff that's technically challenging. Couldn't resist making a musical tweak here and there, but both songs are fundamentally the same.

 

I tried to keep the tones pretty much the same, as it's part of the character of the song, but this was much harder than I thought. In particular there's a clean backing track that uses an octo reverb that I had a hell of time with. The easiest tracks were the distorted backing track and bass. The lead part I had some trouble with.

 

There is one track that I left alone. At the beginning and end there is a monk-like voice tone I couldn't duplicate. I got close but something was always missing from it, so I gave up on that one. The biggest reason is Helix lacks a voice-box filter.

 

Anyway, hope you enjoy:

 

Radiative Embrace (HELIX version)

Radiative Embrace (HD500X version)

 

[TheDudeTrey]

Hey Duncann! Haven't listened to the HD500x version yet, but your song is really cool, man! It's very Vai-esque, and I mean that in the best way possible... The sounds you're getting are really intense, and the usage is very tasteful... Thanks for posting it!

 

--Kenny--

[d0stenning]

Forget comparisons - what an interesting track !    Good stuff  ! 

[duncann]

Thanks for the kind words guys. Vai is for sure one of my favorites.

[jeremyn]

Love the track, but you're right, the the outro on the HD500X really brings the synthy/verb magic that the Helix version misses out on. The guitars on the Helix version are definitely improved. Either way, both tracks sound great.

 

It'll be good to see some decent synth/freeze & reverb effects turn up in the Helix.

[bartnettle1]

Helix sounds like it's got more dynamic range especially in the low end. There is a sense of better resolution that is an unmistakable difference kinda like the difference between 16bit 41khz and 24bit at 98khz. It is a subtle difference

[duncann]

Love the track, but you're right, the the outro on the HD500X really brings the synthy/verb magic that the Helix version misses out on. The guitars on the Helix version are definitely improved. Either way, both tracks sound great.

 

It'll be good to see some decent synth/freeze & reverb effects turn up in the Helix.

 

Thanks for taking a listen. Glad you like them. I'm anticipating a fill-in in both the filter and reverb categories. Hopefully it won't be disappointing. Messing around with synth stuff never gets boring, but it's hard to do when the tools aren't there.

 

Helix sounds like it's got more dynamic range especially in the low end. There is a sense of better resolution that is an unmistakable difference kinda like the difference between 16bit 41khz and 24bit at 98khz. It is a subtle difference

 

Good way to describe the differences. I notice the same things, especially with the bass. That's one of the larger differences.

[Lachdanan0121]

Blind test the grand majority of people (even educated on the subject) will not be able to tell which is a 16bit 44.1khz, or a 24bit 96khz... (41khz, and 98khz aren't even real resolutions)

All the higher does is give you more headroom for mixing within a DAW. There is far too much marketing mumbo jumbo that people get caught up with in regards to that. 

 

44.1khz is well beyond any of your hearing..   because once you half that at 22.05khz that is the highest frequency heard in the track that is 44.1khz. Again well beyond human hearing. The differences are so slight that most wouldn't notice unless they have some really nice equipment. No where near the differences that are evident between the Helix, and HD.

 

The Helix sounds better, but the analogy of the higher res, and bitrate is a bit flawed.  I don't mean to be rude, its just I prefer accuracy.

[duncann]

I think bartnettle1 was just trying to convey the differences he heard. I took it to mean the Helix version is slightly more dynamic, defined and clear. Whether that has anything to do with the bit depth? Not likely.

 

For sample rates, I myself can't really hear a difference between 48kHz and 96kHz, but definitely can between 22kHz and 48kHz.

[billlorentzen]

Very creative!

[talwilkins]

Thanks for the kind words guys. Vai is for sure one of my favorites.

You certainly have some Vaibes going on there!

Awesome work!

[stevevnicks]

:o Well thats it ... now putting my guitar in the trash can ... That sounded amazing !!

[duncann]

Thanks talwikins and stevevnicks. Appreciate it!

 

 

:o Well thats it ... now putting my guitar in the trash can ... That sounded amazing !!

 

Oh no, please don't put your guitar in the trash can! Lol.

 

If you're gonna do that, toss it with high velocity so that it's broken when it's finally in the trash can. No reason to be delicate about it. Lol.

[Lachdanan0121]

I think bartnettle1 was just trying to convey the differences he heard. I took it to mean the Helix version is slightly more dynamic, defined and clear. Whether that has anything to do with the bit depth? Not likely.

 

For sample rates, I myself can't really hear a difference between 48kHz and 96kHz, but definitely can between 22kHz and 48kHz.

 

I understand the sentiment, I was here for clarification. That and I have a tendency to "nerd out."  :D

I even agree with the sentiment, I think the Helix is awesome.

 

As for your last line. 

Thats because half of the 22khz sample rate is only 11khz highest frequency which is as high as that audio will go.  Which the human hear can go well above 11khz, up to around 17-18khz is the cut off for most human hearing.  ;)  This is why you hear a difference in sample rates between 22khz (11khz max) and 48khz (22khz max) but not between something like 44.1khz, (22khz max) and 96khz (48khz max)

 

44.1khz sample rate provides the entire audio spectrum (within its 22khz frequency frame) that humans can hear, as it stands now.

 

 

Now on to the content of the original post...  that is good playing like most here stated. Nice song too. I prefer the Helix tone. I didn't say it before, but thanks for the comparison.

Another way to describe is that the Helix seems more alive and present.  Where as the HD tone seems more sterile.

[duncann]

I understand the sentiment, I was here for clarification. That and I have a tendency to "nerd out."  :D

I even agree with the sentiment, I think the Helix is awesome.

 

As for your last line. 

Thats because half of the 22khz sample rate is only 11khz highest frequency which is as high as that audio will go.  Which the human hear can go well above 11khz, up to around 17-18khz is the cut off for most human hearing.  ;)  This is why you hear a difference in sample rates between 22khz (11khz max) and 48khz (22khz max) but not between something like 44.1khz, (22khz max) and 96khz (48khz max)

 

44.1khz sample rate provides the entire audio spectrum (within its 22khz frequency frame) that humans can hear, as it stands now.

 

 

Now on to the content of the original post...  that is good playing like most here stated. Nice song too. I prefer the Helix tone. I didn't say it before, but thanks for the comparison.

Another way to describe is that the Helix seems more alive and present.  Where as the HD tone seems more sterile.

 

Ah. Gotcha. Never really thought about the relationship between sampling rate and frequency reproduction till now, just how things sound. Thanks for that. I'm one that enjoys learning new things like this. Although to fully understand what you're saying, I guess I'd have to do quite a bit reading. Looks complicated, Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem. Yikes. Hehe.

 

And thanks for the kind words. I prefer Helix's tone as well. It feels better than the HD when playing too. More dynamic.

[Lachdanan0121]

Ah. Gotcha. Never really thought about the relationship between sampling rate and frequency reproduction till now, just how things sound. Thanks for that. I'm one that enjoys learning new things like this. Although to fully understand what you're saying, I guess I'd have to do quite a bit reading. Looks complicated, Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem. Yikes. Hehe.

 

And thanks for the kind words. I prefer Helix's tone as well. It feels better than the HD when playing too. More dynamic.

Your welcome. I will show my gf this comparison and song, she will appreciate both. She is excited about the Helix as well.

I started getting into the audio engineering aspects the past few years. Its a deep rabbit's hole, and much of it still confuses me. What I have learned however, has served me well in my mixing, arranging, and even composing. Always willing to learn is great. I find a steady pace of intrigue works best for myself.

[parker1963]

Going to check it out when I get home and in my studio, but well done :) Just a note on sample rate etc, if you are playing back on decent studio monitors you certainly can hear differences in 16bit 24bit etc, but as most people seem happy with Mp3's these days, ears have grown accustomed to filling in gaps.

[stevevnicks]

To be fair, i thought the HD500 version sounds grate and im impressed not only with duncann's talent but what the old HD500 can do, when put in the hands of someone who know's what they are doing.

 

I myself am still learning just to play a guitar, i have owened my HD500 for Probs 1 year which i purchased secondhand, in which time i have gone through many different types of guitar amps from Peavey,hughes and kettner, Orange, Vox AC30 and a few others.

 

Now i have got my head wrapped around my HD500 i dont own any guitar amp's ... and this is a personal choice, i like the sound of the amp sim's built into the HD500 running through 2 active spearkers, its sounds way better than running the HD500 through any of the real amps i owend. but thats a personal choice.

 

The helix just sounds, i dont know how to put it other than more .... ummm more professional, higher quality, like it has bags more head room in what it's doing, where as the HD500 kind of sounds it at it limits.

 

One day i will get a Helix but untill then i will just carry on dreaming i will be able to play the guitar :)

[duncann]

Going to check it out when I get home and in my studio, but well done :) Just a note on sample rate etc, if you are playing back on decent studio monitors you certainly can hear differences in 16bit 24bit etc, but as most people seem happy with Mp3's these days, ears have grown accustomed to filling in gaps.

 

Thanks for taking a listen. Hope you enjoy.

 

That's an interesting observation about filling in gaps. I actually consciously use this notion in some of my music. It's a good way to actively include the listener. There may be parts where something may be musically uninterpretable, because of too much going on at once or indistinct tonewise, yet cohesive, or so I hope. I don't know if this is actually a technique musicians use and if there's a name for it, but an analogy might be some of the computer games I played in the late 90s and how my mind had to fill things in because of computer limitations at the time. My memory of this experience is vivid because I had to imagine, beyond what I saw and heard, what the worlds created were like. Fill in the gaps for a more complete picture. Or reading a book. No direct visual information, but the mind creates a vivid picture anyway.

[duncann]

To be fair, i thought the HD500 version sounds grate and im impressed not only with duncann's talent but what the old HD500 can do, when put in the hands of someone who know's what they are doing.

 

I myself am still learning just to play a guitar, i have owened my HD500 for Probs 1 year which i purchased secondhand, in which time i have gone through many different types of guitar amps from Peavey,hughes and kettner, Orange, Vox AC30 and a few others.

 

Now i have got my head wrapped around my HD500 i dont own any guitar amp's ... and this is a personal choice, i like the sound of the amp sim's built into the HD500 running through 2 active spearkers, its sounds way better than running the HD500 through any of the real amps i owend. but thats a personal choice.

 

The helix just sounds, i dont know how to put it other than more .... ummm more professional, higher quality, like it has bags more head room in what it's doing, where as the HD500 kind of sounds it at it limits.

 

One day i will get a Helix but untill then i will just carry on dreaming i will be able to play the guitar :)

 

The HD is by no means an incapable device. It can create some really rich and wonderful tones. Especially in the filter department. Most people, who casually listen to music, probably couldn't tell the difference between an HD, Helix, Fractal product, Amplifire, Zoom, etc.

 

Helix does have tons more headroom, which makes it much easier to build patches without worrying about clipping. It's fairly easy to clip the HD.

 

A bit of advice for guitar playing. Constantly challenge yourself technically, if that's the kind of guitar playing you're after. I look at the guitar as an intense instrument, always have. If something becomes too easy make it more difficult. Take a simple melody or idea and create successively more difficult iterations, until you think you've reached you're limits. And then push those limits. Visualize the music if you can. Of course practice. Be prepared for the occasional visit to Hell, because isn't repetition what some people call Hell? Anyway, good luck.

[stevevnicks]

 

 

Helix does have tons more headroom, which makes it much easier to build patches without worrying about clipping. It's fairly easy to clip the HD.

 

 

Totally agree with that, I have found with the HD500 sometimes less is more .. Once you really spend some indepth time in the amp sim's and there settings like doubble tapping the enter button while on an amp sim you can dial things in and save the settings that suit your taste and or amplifier equipment.

 

when ifirst got the HD500 i went from impressed to not 100% sure then once i really started to get my head wrapped around the unit i then relised i didn't need an real AC30 or the rest of the guitar amps i had bought, i guess it was part of my learning curve from what i wanted to all i really need.

 

For me the HD500 does everthing i could ever want or need, infact to much, due to my lack of talent with the guitar it's self i could never max out what could really be done using the HD500, although it does not put me off trying lol ... i have improved although im not a dedicated player (yet) im purly in it for the fun.

[Lachdanan0121]

Just a note on sample rate etc, if you are playing back on decent studio monitors you certainly can hear differences in 16bit 24bit etc, but as most people seem happy with Mp3's these days, ears have grown accustomed to filling in gaps.

I Have to disagree, and clarify. You are speaking of Bitrate, not Samplerate. (although they are closely associated, they are not the same thing)

Bit rate is 16bit,  sample rate is 44.1khz.

 

I have a few sets of studio monitors  24bit, and 16bit gives little to no audible differences even on my Event Studio Monitors.  There is also numerous scientific data that covers this.

 

Even on extremely expensive setups the differences between 24bit, and 16bit (if noticable at all) would be slight. Not "certainly can hear differences."

 

As a matter of fact it is around 12bit to 14bit which covers digitally "faithfully" converted audio.  16-bit CDs cover it entirely. 

 

The purpose, and benefit of 24 bit, or even 32-bit float is for greater headroom (and lower noise floor) while recording, mixing, and mastering. The rest is blown out of proportion by marketing. 

 

Its when people bring anecdotal "evidence," usually lacking context, into it is where the confusion brews, and the marketing folks can manipulate.  There could be multiple things that lead to a  perceived difference, the most of which is placebo.   Again I am not trying to be rude.

 

There have been blind tests done on some of the most expensive rigs, and have proven this time and time again.  This is why there is no music format released that sounds better than on CD which is standard .wav 16bit 44.1khz.  Even standard DVD audio at 24bit 48khz does not sound noticeably better than CD.   Even with the new HD audio formats of 24 bit 96khz the differences on 90% of the systems out there would not be noticeable.   We are have been at the point of diminishing returns of audio since the turn of the millennium.  The reasons Blurays sound better than DVD is compression techniques, and on some its uncompressed audio (even on 5.1 & 7.1 formats) on Blurays. 

 

I don't mean to be discrediting, however the science is what it is.   If you want I could post in this thread links to a bit of documentation on the subject. However it might be day, or two before I post them. I just don't want to derail the thread any further than I already have, but when I do see inaccuracies I find it to be beneficial to the readers if they know it might be inaccurate.  I expect the same when I am wrong, or being inaccurate. 

 

Your comment about filling in gaps is true though. People like to listen to crap on phones with the crappiest ear buds, and that is a direct extension of that. However, when we get into the science of it. I am pretty sure you will find that I am not wrong. I am not asking for your trust. I am saying research it for yourself.

 

And I apologize for this wall of text. I tend to nerd out a lot. lol :)  

If I am wrong about anything, please enlighten me. I actually value being proven wrong... most of the time lol.  I accidentally downvoted your post, as my mouse slipped and I was trying to click the quote button, so my apologies on that.

[Lachdanan0121]

 

 

A bit of advice for guitar playing. Constantly challenge yourself technically, if that's the kind of guitar playing you're after. I look at the guitar as an intense instrument, always have. 

Sorry for the double post, but I had to comment on this.

 

This is true for me as well.  Although I don't practice or Jam anymore. I have found a new way to get better at playing..

 

1. Recording yourself shows you a context of hearing it from more than just the player in the moment. 

2. I use programs like Shreddage guitars (there are plenty of guitar emulation vsts out there) to write passages in the songs that I am writing, especially if they are difficult. Then I learn to play them on my guitars. Teach myself how to play them, then I replace the VST guitar with my real guitars in the song. 

 

I realize this (2) is a different method than many people use, but it has actually served me well in being able to pull off a few things with my guitar, that I was just shy of before. That said, you have me beat considerably on the guitar lol.

[duncann]

Sorry for the double post, but I had to comment on this.

 

This is true for me as well.  Although I don't practice or Jam anymore. I have found a new way to get better at playing..

 

1. Recording yourself shows you a context of hearing it from more than just the player in the moment. 

2. I use programs like Shreddage guitars (there are plenty of guitar emulation vsts out there) to write passages in the songs that I am writing, especially if they are difficult. Then I learn to play them on my guitars. Teach myself how to play them, then I replace the VST guitar with my real guitars in the song. 

 

I realize this (2) is a different method than many people use, but it has actually served me well in being able to pull off a few things with my guitar, that I was just shy of before. 

 

I've discovered the first one a while back by using a reverse delay with 100% mix and a couple of seconds delay. It's similar to listening to a recording afterwards, but slightly different in that's it a bit more immediate and in the moment, just slightly shifted. Also disorienting because of the reverseness. I've captured myself doing this on an improvised title, Entropy. It's at my bandcamp sight, sig link.

 

The great thing about the process of a creative endeavor is that it's different for everyone. It's part of what makes things unique. So use whatever works. I don't think I could use your second method because it takes away the first point of physical contact from the mind to guitar, which I find important, given that the music I write is on guitar.

 

By the way, no worries about derailing the thread. It's sort of related anyway, in a generalized way.

[Lachdanan0121]

I've discovered the first one a while back by using a reverse delay with 100% mix and a couple of seconds delay. It's similar to listening to a recording afterwards, but slightly different in that's it a bit more immediate and in the moment, just slightly shifted. Also disorienting because of the reverseness. I've captured myself doing this on an improvised title, Entropy. It's at my bandcamp sight, sig link.

 

The great thing about the process of a creative endeavor is that it's different for everyone. It's part of what makes things unique. So use whatever works. I don't think I could use your second method because it takes away the first point of physical contact from the mind to guitar, which I find important, given that the music I write is on guitar.

 

By the way, no worries about derailing the thread. It's sort of related anyway, in a generalized way.

Thats interesting your first paragraph. I may have to try that one day. lol

I remember when I was younger putting a digital delay ( not reverse) turning the mix up and trying to match each echo as I played in an effort to tighten up my timing. I think it was more fun than it helped though :)

 

The second paragraph regarding my (2) I completely agree with you on.  Rarely do I write full songs that way for the very reason you state. I have for one or two, I won't lie, but I already had 90% of that worked out how I wanted to do mentally before really even writing the song.  I mainly use it for passages that are difficult for me to just pick up and play. Its a handy tool, but I make sure I don't rely on it too much.   Also I have gotten to the point that I write a good bit of my music by theory, and a "piano roll & mouse." Which using that tool in this way helps the creative side from a different perspective in that regard. 

 

That being said I still write/record just from what I feel on the guitar at the moment to what I already have in my DAW setup, without ever using that guitar VST, even if its only a metronome, or drum beat. I feel its important to never lose that as a guitar player first and foremost. 

 

Its largely where my instincts and mind goes on a track by track basis.  Whether its from guitar, midi controller use, mouse and keyboard use, etc.  Hell I might even take my voice hum a melody into the mic, convert the audio to midi, and apply it to whatever virtual instrument I want.

 

Got to love this new digital age for music, and this Helix just improves it further. Oh I can't wait till I get mine.

[jeremyn]

The terminology can get confusing. It's best to refer to these things like this:

 

Sample rate: 44.1ksps, 48ksps, 96ksps, etc (kilo samples per second) (can be referred to in kHz, and this is why some people are confused)

 

Nyquist Frequency: 22kHz, 24kHz - (also known as the maximum frequency response, maximum bandwidth)

 

Bandwidth (Frequency response): 20Hz to 20kHz, 20Hz to 40kHz, etc (depends on the analog filters and digital decimation filters in the AtoD/DtoA converters - bandwidth can never be greater than the Nyquist frequency)

 

So basically, the sample rate is slightly greater than double the upper cutoff frequency of the converters. So at 48kHz, you can expect somewhere around a 22kHz bandwidth. 

 

Dynamic range (bit depth): 16 bit, 24 bit, etc - (may be referred to in dB, e.g: 96dB and 120dB dynamic range respectively) 

 

Bit rate: (More accurately refers to the output rate of a codec when compressing the audio, eg. 128kbit/s mp3. This has nothing to do with frequency response or dynamic range, and may indeed a low bit rate may be able to perfectly reproduce a high bandwidth waveform if the waveform isn't too complex. For an uncompressed raw stream, this would be the bit depth multiplied by the sample rate.)

 

It is generally accepted that the human ear can't discern anything above around 20kHz. (Yes, some small children and 'golden ears' can maybe hear a few kilohertz higher, but most adults are lucky to even get to 20kHz in the first place, and would find those frequencies completely masked by any other co-channel sound.) This has been shown to be consistently true in many scientific studies. The concept of ultra high bandwidths is more about marketing, however, it is does improve some systems that haven't properly de-aliased their internal digital models or simulated distortions. That's why some units sound less 'fizzy' at higher sample rates. Funnily enough, a compressed stream (using high quality AAC/mp3/FLAC/etc) doesn't have a significantly different bit rate for sources recorded at the higher rates. So there is very little (if any) useful or audible information in those upper frequencies that isn't just thermal or background noise, and almost never anything of musical importance.

 

Technical note for anyone interested: Most converters these days are sigma-delta which use a multi-order digital decimation filter and an extremely high sample rate to reduce a heavily oversampled low bit converter into much higher bit depth samples at a much lower sample rate (the nyquist rate). eg. A typical converter uses 128 times oversampled 6.14Msps 4-bit flash converter to produce a 24 bit output at 48ksps, with a Nyqvist frequency of 24kHz (digitally filtered to start rolling off at around 22kHz). The digital filter puts all the conversion noise up into the top of the frequency spectrum which can then easily be filtered away with a simple low order analog anti-aliasing filter. (This is where terms like '1-bit' converter and concepts like DSD (direct stream digital) come from.)

 

It's been quite a few years since improvements to AtoD and DtoA converters have actually mattered for audio frequency reproduction. (Besides areas such as improvement in power consumption, noise floor/dynamic range, and onboard features such as mixers/attenuators/etc.)

[sinistralx]

My couple of cents is Owning XT Live, then HD500, then 500x and now Helix, its tricky to get the full picture from sound samples (except for the Cabs/IRS which are huge improvement) but i find it really in the feel while playing, its so much more immersive.I play straight to FOH and use IEMS and compared to the 500x i completely forget I am using a modeller when playing. :)

[bartnettle1]

While it is true the average punter cannot hear a difference in sample and bit rates I can fairly easily with good equipment in a treated room, so too anyone who has been audio engineering for many years and also masters. Your ears develop sensitivities

 

I also have DSD recorder for mastering and swear by them for acoustic recordings, the difference is noticeable.

[BillBee]

That was awesome my man. Love the composure reminded me a bit of Savatage (sans keys) and the playing was superb (I <3 trem bar flutters btw).

 

With the so-so speakers I have here - I can sense a minor expansion (for lack of a term) to the Helix's sound - need some headphones to listen again later.

 

Thanks for the Share D!

 

B!ll

[duncann]

Thanks BillBee!

 

As for flutters, I think I do that on purpose once in this song. Anything else is unconscious or accidental. I used to like it more than I do now. Part of the reason is the ultralite tremolo arm I use, which is too lite to effectively flutter with any intensity. But I could never go back to a metal arm after using the ultralite.

[Lachdanan0121]

Hey duncann could you post a link to this ultralite trem bar? I get interested in new guitar technologies. For instance I am intrigued by the new Ernieball compensated nut, and evertune setups. On the subject I have a Tagliare from Dean Zelinsky that has a Z-glide neck. Which it is quite nice, the whole guitar is especially for the price.

[duncann]

Hey duncann could you post a link to this ultralite trem bar? I get interested in new guitar technologies. For instance I am intrigued by the new Ernieball compensated nut, and evertune setups. On the subject I have a Tagliare from Dean Zelinsky that has a Z-glide neck. Which it is quite nice, the whole guitar is especially for the price.

 

Sure thing: http://www.ibanez.com/usa/products/accessories/tremoloarm.html

 

Beware, they are expensive and only fit in specific bridges. edge, edge pro, low pro edge, and any others that use the tremolo arm holder that's in those, which I don't think is very many.

 

They last longer than the metal ones, but they still break. I've gone through 4 or 5 of them now. Sucks.

 

They are expensive too and a little hard to find, but if you look around you can find them for around $70, normally $125.

 

So I doubt it would fit in your guitar unless you could fit one of these in it:

 

 

I can recall watching a video with the evertune thing. Looked interesting, but I guess I didn't think much of it because, well, give me an edge bridge and I'm set. :)

 

Never heard of the compensated nut. Is it something that could replace the clamps on a double locking system?

[Lachdanan0121]

Oh cool.

 

I only have 2 guitars with Trems. 

 

1. is Huxley (schecter Loomis 2009 edition with an original Floyd Rose)

 

2. is Ember (Dean Zelinsky Tagliare) but it only has a 2 point floating trem. 

 

I don't think it will fit either of those guitars lol.

 

However, it could be something I keep in mind when purchasing my next guitar (if it has a trem)

 

Thanks.

 

The compensated nut I think is more to do with intonation.   I think its an alternative to multi-scale guitars.  Although I could be wrong. 

[Lachdanan0121]

Here is a video that I forgot I had in my email that explains the compensated nut further. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYTi8Kl6oVs&feature=youtu.be

[BillBee]

Thanks for the info D! I am rehabbing my old RG570 and really just need to shell out for a new edge (ouch!) or a original Floyd (ouch). I had a brass big block on it once and used to get some excellent trem flutters out of it, but the abuse over the years killed the knife edges.

 

Really loved the other soundcloud material too - that is stuff I would listen too any time (which I will do today once the boss leaves) :D

[duncann]

Here is a video that I forgot I had in my email that explains the compensated nut further. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYTi8Kl6oVs&feature=youtu.be

 

Sounds like a good idea for guitars that can accommodate it. A double locking floyd-type system would have a problem. Another way to deal with the problem is to have the instrument refretted with a staggered arrangement, like Vai has on one of his guitars.

 

Thanks for the info D! I am rehabbing my old RG570 and really just need to shell out for a new edge (ouch!) or a original Floyd (ouch). I had a brass big block on it once and used to get some excellent trem flutters out of it, but the abuse over the years killed the knife edges.

 

Really loved the other soundcloud material too - that is stuff I would listen too any time (which I will do today once the boss leaves) :D

 

Thanks again BillBee. Glad you like the stuff I write.

 

You might be aware already, but it's possible to sharpen your knife edges for better operation: http://www.ibanezrules.com/tech/setup/sharpening.htm. I've never done it yet, but I might be getting close to that point.

[bartnettle1]

interesting, thanks

[Lachdanan0121]

Sounds like a good idea for guitars that can accommodate it. A double locking floyd-type system would have a problem. Another way to deal with the problem is to have the instrument refretted with a staggered arrangement, like Vai has on one of his guitars.

 

 

 

I remember Mattias IA Eklundh using something like that. May not be the same thing, but it kinda makes the frets look like they are shaped like a lighting bolt, or wave.  I have only ever seen a few over the internet.

[duncann]

I remember Mattias IA Eklundh using something like that. May not be the same thing, but it kinda makes the frets look like they are shaped like a lighting bolt, or wave.  I have only ever seen a few over the internet.

 

Yea. Like this: https://youtu.be/uehDWQNActA?t=44

[Lachdanan0121]

Yea. Like this: https://youtu.be/uehDWQNActA?t=44

Yep thats it.

I wonder how a guitar that combines this with the compensated nut would fair...