Jump to content
billlorentzen

Video Demonstrating Problem with Panning on Splits in Helix

Recommended Posts

This video demonstrates how panning (pan law) across A/B Split paths in Helix gives a 6dB increase in volume in the center position which is not optimum for live use with the expression pedal (or much else, for that matter).

 

From what I was able to determine, there is no pan law in effect at all; a 0 dB pan law gives a 6 dB boost in the center position, which is what I measured. Digital Igloo indicated that a -3 dB pan law is in use, but I didn't find that.

 

I really hope Line 6 will give this due consideration, and change to a more useful pan law, such as -6, which would give neither boost nor drop in volume in the center position.

 

https://youtu.be/nevPesfpGgM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it exhibit this same behavior if you move the merge block down to Path 1B? In other words, it you split the path and keep the two paths separate with separate output blocks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it exhibit this same behavior if you move the merge block down to Path 1B? In other words, it you split the path and keep the two paths separate with separate output blocks?

I don't know. I'm not sure I know what you mean. Are you saying keep them separate and output discrete L and R from the unit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did another test with two identical splits, one on each path. This shows a +12dB bump in the center position! Line 6, you have to realize that this demonstrates that there is no pan law in effect at all (0 db pan law yields +6 when left and right summed).

 

https://youtu.be/OZMPKErosnE

 

I have one patch with two splits in it. The first is for a distortion pedal and the second pans between two speaker cabs. I hope you can imagine how a 12 db bump affects panning across these splits.

 

Please implement a - 6 pan law. This will benefit all helix users, as it will keep our signal levels consistent when we use splits, regardless of how we use them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to bore y'all by pushing this issue - I'm bumping it, because I think it's important. Some day maybe you'll thank me (or not). ;-)

 

If you're wondering how it might affect you, ask me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't you defeating the Pan be rejoining the path at the end.   As someone else suggested, I think if you actually have a LEFT and a RIGHT you will find the "Pan Law" works.  

 

Also... you might put the Y where they come back together and control it there.  Do a 50/50 split to the two paths, but do the pan where they two signals RETURN to the one path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't you defeating the Pan be rejoining the path at the end.   As someone else suggested, I think if you actually have a LEFT and a RIGHT you will find the "Pan Law" works.  

 

Also... you might put the Y where they come back together and control it there.  Do a 50/50 split to the two paths, but do the pan where they two signals RETURN to the one path.

As to your first question, I'm not doing it to create a stereo output. I'm doing it to allow me to use the expression pedal to pan between two paths with different things on them. I only use it for things that don't have a mix control, such as distortion pedals, amps or speaker cabs. All my patches use the expression pedal to go from a rhythm sound to a lead sound, so this is vital to my way of performing.

 

I tried your idea of controlling at the merge point, but that doesn't work, I'm afraid. Give it a try - you'll see what I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so let me try and understand this - my setup is using 2 TS210 FrFr speakers, and the patch simulates a wet-dry-wet setup by outputting to the 'center' XLR on path 1a directly after the IR block. It also splits, and half the signal is sent to path 2.

 

Path 2a has a split in it as well, and I basically put the wet FX in this signal path (with the block before the split having 100% mix and always on), and I output hard left and hard right via the split block.

So does this mean my center dry signal is 6dB louder than the wet signal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I came across this issue and searched on the forum and found this thread. I must say it's very annoying having to deal with the volume changes when creating a split for two cabs, or a parallel path for effects. It's important that the volume stays at unity when making decisions that effect your tone, as volume changes massively effect one's perception of what sounds good. Ie, something that is louder is always going to sound better!

It's considered mixing 101 to employ good gain staging strategy not only to ensure no clipping occurs, but just as importantly to be sure that one's mixing decisions aren't biased towards something being perceived as better because it is louder. Dialing in Helix amp tones are no different. For example, if I am running two cabs in parallel and want to compare the different mic/ cab configurations using the Split A/B mix routing parameter, or the dual cab tone to a single cab tone in series it's difficult to tell what sounds better versus what is simply louder. If anyone has any suggestions on how to ensure unity volume when using the split and merge feature I'd appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the remarks above, and I don't like how Helix handles the panning, either.

In my case, I use some "synth" tones, and I made the decision to edit all my patches again to split the traditional guitar tone from the synth tone.

I put the mono guitar tones on one channel (left) and the mono sinthy tones on the other channel (right).

When I played at the rehearsal room, I found out that the volume was much lower and now I have to put the volume knob at the maximum level; I don't like it at all, because I don't have any chance to increase the volume a little more if/when I need it. I should re-program all of my patches to increase the volume, but then I should test each patch again in a live situation, because I don't think there is a safe/automatic way to increase the volume so that every patch keeps the same relative loudness.

I'm disappointed about this point, even if I love my Helix a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2016 at 7:50 PM, billlorentzen said:

I'm not trying to bore y'all by pushing this issue - I'm bumping it, because I think it's important. Some day maybe you'll thank me (or not). ;-)

 

If you're wondering how it might affect you, ask me!

 

I don't need to wait for "some day" I can thank you now for your posts regarding this issue. It would be nice to see Line6 fix this at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...