Where are the amps?!? - aka, beating a dead horse

[PeterHamm]

 

 

 

Nice idea, please up vote here: http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Free-Puppies/830029-23508

 

Voted up.

[cruisinon2]

Besides, everyone should buy a product based on what it does today, not what they think it might do in the future.

Blasphemy!!!...;)

[Digital_Igloo]

Bah. There are ways to share plans and give glimpses of what's in development without risking legal ramifications.

 

Doesn't matter. If our lawyers say we can't talk about future plans, we don't talk about future plans.

 

Here's a Wikipedia article on revenue recognition. Otherwise, hit up your local corporate attorney for more information.

[ChubbyJerk]

Doesn't matter. If our lawyers say we can't talk about future plans, we don't talk about future plans.

 

Here's a Wikipedia article on revenue recognition. Otherwise, hit up your local corporate attorney for more information.

I understand that your hands are tied.

[PeterHamm]

I'm imagining a street in Paris, with 3 legendary restaurants.

 

Chez Christoph - signature dish is a Chilean Sea Bass with a Mango chutney sauce

Chez Helix - signature dish is a braised duck with black bean vinagrette.

Chez Cliff - signature dish is a Filet Mignon with a homemade bearnaise sauce

 

So,

 

in I walk to Chez Christoph and ask if he can make the Filet Mignon from two doors down... oh, and while you're at it, can you tell me what dish you will be serving up next month, please?

[lrschmid]

Concerning the discussion of incompleteness vs. imperfection, I believe Godel's Theorem of Incompleteness fully resolves the issue. Especially when considered in the context of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. If any of us need a refresher of these (and I doubt it) a quick re-read of both should suffice.

 

The objection raised in Hegel's Dialectic turns out to be just a red herring.

That's the first time I've seen "quick (re)read" and Kant in the same sentence.  :lol:

[PeterHamm]

That's the first time I've seen "quick (re)read" and Kant in the same sentence.  :lol:

 

I failed philosophy because if Immanuel Kant, then why bother listening to him...

[ChubbyJerk]

I failed philosophy because if Immanuel Kant, then why bother listening to him...

Because those who Kant do, teach.

[mikeolivercgp]

Having waded through this discussion, at a minimum, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the Helix to a feature set that is at least equivalent to lesser Line 6 products in this family (e.g., HD500).  Based on my past experience with Line 6 products (which has been excellent), they've always been very good about expanding the feature set of a respective hardware platform (e.g., various POD platforms, Variax platforms, etc.). I have no reason to believe that not only will Helix address those features available in the HD500 not currently present in the Helix, they will also go even further.

 

Judging from what I observed in the research I did before purchasing the Helix and what I've experienced as a Helix owner, Line 6 has already significantly differentiated the Helix in the market of high-end IR guitar platforms by virtue of its virtual scribble strips, assignable switches, virtual signal routing, and visual editing interface. In their initial RTM (release-to-market), they led with the product's differentiators. It will take their competitors some time to "catch up" since Fractal or Kemper would need to produce an entirely new hardware platform to compete against the Helix. Everything else is "gravy" that capitalizes on the platform.

 

So, do I expect more given the investment I've made? Yes... But I don't expect it "day 1".  :)

[strao61]

 

Besides, everyone should buy a product based on what it does today, not what they think it might do in the future.

[HonestOpinion]

Buy it for what it does today? Really? Line6 is free to put a disclaimer on the Helix that says "No models, effects, bug fixes or new features will EVER be added to this processor, EVER!!!" and watch their sales plummet by at least 50% adversely impacting their entire user community (well the half that would be left). Or, they could have taken another two years maturing it and risked being leap-frogged by a competitor's product. You can either put out a bug-free, fully stocked MFX or one that has superior bones like the Helix and still requires a bit of development, either approach may result in robust sales and a loyal customer base. What you shouldn't do is choose the latter approach and then not develop it after release. Line6 chose the latter approach and I await the improvements I know are coming. And btw, I love the approach Line6 took as the Helix has more "potential' than the other choices on the market and is more than great enough as it stands now to make the waiting worthwhile.

 

This is a hackneyed, disingenuous, and unrealistic debate that has been talked to death (but yet here I am posting anyway). Most people expect a rational amount of improvement to this device after release. If you don't you are either incredibly easily satisfied (not a bad way to go through life) or perhaps a masochist, a serial embracer of low expectations, or don't actually own one. Every one of Line6's customers as well as Line6 themselves benefit from improvement to the Helix. To quote Clapton "Let it grow, let it grow, let it blossom, let it flow". Gave myself a bit of a wince with that quote but you know what I mean.

[strao61]

 

Besides, everyone should buy a product based on what it does today, not what they think it might do in the future.

[strao61]

Ops! Something was missing in my post...

 

I bought helix for what it is, and I'm happy for what it does now. Do you think I will still be happy in two months time having helix doing what it does today?

[bsd512]

We want BOTH! But in time, and done right, and done well.

I happen to be really happy with the product, the rate of updates, etc, so no complaints here. But regarding the length of time to do the modeling at such a high quality as the Helix, I think it would be worse to have stuff come out more quickly just to get it out there, with perhaps the intention (from Line 6 development) to improve it later with an update. I.e., appease the impatient with something usable but not quite up to L6 standards, and then when more development cycles are available, do an update and make the quality what they would have wanted to release if given more time in the first place.

 

But even that is a slippery slope. Imagine the outrage from some if the tone or some feature was actually improved. Instead of a "thank you" for improving the tone, one can easily see an uproar because the improvement caused them to have to go back and rework patches because they now sound different, even if (subjectively) better.

 

So that is actually something I worry a little about. Some really good updates may not be possible without impacting existing customers/patches and therefore may never see the light of day. So I'm happy to wait until L6 thinks things through carefully, not only for the current feature de-jour, but how said feature may constrain the ability to update the product in the future and retain compatibility with the existing patches, tones, etc.  Better to think stuff through for the long term benefit even if it takes a bit longer to release updates, than releasing rapid, patch-work updates that devolves the code into an unsupportable morass and cuts the Helix life-cycle short simply because the code becomes so complex that it can't be efficiently maintained and improved over time.  This happens to every software based system eventually, but it can staved off much longer through carefully thought out updates that don't paint the developers into corners.

 

 

But I'm in the camp of what's in there really works for me. The things I want that aren't in there would be so DSP intensive that I'm just adding them in the loops (POG2 anyone?).

Ok, I was thinking about DSP capability the other day. Not so much along the lines needed for complex effects, but for complex patches using existing effects/amps/IRs/etc. Some have suggested maybe in the future a quad-core helix. How cool would it be to own two Helix's, and with the incredible routing, you could patch them together using their send/returns/etc in countless signal path combinations and other control center capabilities. So the possibility of double the power exists today. And you'd get a dozen more foot switches to boot. :)

 

This may be a good solution for folks that require super-fast patch switching - with a dual Helix setup, connected together using send/return and all the various inputs and outputs, one could build very complex patches such that most everything you'd ever want could be right there, without ever actually switching patches.  Just costs $3K instead of $1.5K. :)

 

Anyway, this is just an idea, should work and be pretty capable, but I don't have the money to experiment.  But if DI wants to send me a second Helix to add to my first, I will gladly spearhead this experiment and report back. :)

 

 

Nice idea, please up vote here: http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Free-Puppies/830029-23508

That's funny! :)

[PeterHamm]

...Some have suggested maybe in the future a quad-core helix. How cool would it be to own two Helix's, and with the incredible routing, you could patch them together using their send/returns/etc in countless signal path combinations and other control center capabilities. So the possibility of double the power exists today. And you'd get a dozen more foot switches to boot. :)...

 

There is such a thing as too much. For me, Helix does more than I need, and I plan to get 5 years out of it.

[HonestOpinion]

There is such a thing as too much. For me, Helix does more than I need, and I plan to get 5 years out of it.

PeterHamm, you have mentioned that you are a beta tester for Line6. My apologies but I can't understand where that is an ideal fit for someone who so frequently seems to proclaim that the Helix is perfect as it is, does not need anything more, and "does more than I need". I hope that behind the scenes you are encouraging innovation and objectively appraising the features you are beta testing. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your relentless optimism but as you are on the "front line" it seems to me to be of utmost importance for you to temper your enthusiasm for the current Helix by embracing new technology and providing good critical analysis and feedback, that is part and parcel of being a valuable member of the testing team. I would be the first to say you are generally respectful of users making requests or complaints but it seems that I rarely see you encourage a new request or do anything but mount a defense for the Helix as is. As a beta tester you get the privilege of being the first to test and perhaps improve new features. That does not seem to comport with tirelessly defending the status quo. As you are a beta tester I sincerely hope you enjoy new features as much as the rest of us do and your comments are just reflective of a protective stance towards Line6.

[bsd512]

There is such a thing as too much. For me, Helix does more than I need, and I plan to get 5 years out of it.

What I'm saying is there doesn't need to be a quad-core right now.  Just buy a second Helix.  The products appears to be so modular that they can be plug together like Legos to expand DSP, pathing, routing, MIDI, foot switches, etc.  For those that want more right now, of course.  No need to build a new product for that.  The Helix can do it.  Or rather, the Helixi (plural for Helix? :))  Someone even suggested the name "Double Helix" for the quad-core.  Pairing two up would literally be that.  Heck, no need to stop there.  Get a third, or fourth.  Endless expansion, for those with the budget.   :)

 

This approach could solve the patch switching latency by allowing one to build a do-everything patch so that the folks that need that don't actually have to switch.  That, and a whole lot more.

[HonestOpinion]

What I'm saying is there doesn't need to be a quad-core right now.  Just buy a second Helix.  The products appears to be so modular that they can be plug together like Legos to expand DSP, pathing, routing, MIDI, foot switches, etc.  For those that want more right now, of course.  No need to build a new product for that.  The Helix can do it.  Or rather, the Helixi (plural for Helix? :))  Someone even suggested the name "Double Helix" for the quad-core.  Pairing two up would literally be that.  Heck, no need to stop there.  Get a third, or fourth.  Endless expansion, for those with the budget.   :)

 

This approach could solve the patch switching latency by allowing one to build a do-everything patch so that the folks that need that don't actually have to switch.  That, and a whole lot more.

 

You're kidding right? ;)  Count me in for the free Helix experiment though. Very few people have the budget or the floor space on a crowded stage for multiple Helix's. How about we just work on getting the most out of this Helix and beefing up the next version that comes out with the latest technology?

[bsd512]

You're kidding right? ;)  Count me in for the free Helix experiment though. Very few people have the budget or the floor space on a crowded stage for multiple Helix's. How about we just work on getting the most out of this Helix and beefing up the next version that comes out with the latest technology?

 

No, I'm not terribly serious about it ... it was more of me thinking, I wonder if that would work, and I can't see why it wouldn't.  And the lego concept appeals to me.  Need more?  Plug in another, and edit away.

 

But I personally don't have the need for it.  One Helix is more than I need.  Just saying, though, for those that do, a solution exists today.

 

As far as focusing on beefing up the next version, no need for anyone to divert any cycles away from that.  Someone choosing to connect a couple of Helix's together takes zero work from L6. :)

[PeterHamm]

PeterHamm, you have mentioned that you are a beta tester for Line6. My apologies but I can't understand where that is an ideal fit for someone who so frequently seems to proclaim that the Helix is perfect as it is, does not need anything more, and "does more than I need". I hope that behind the scenes you are encouraging innovation and objectively appraising the features you are beta testing. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your relentless optimism but as you are on the "front line" it seems to me to be of utmost importance for you to temper your enthusiasm for the current Helix by embracing new technology and providing good critical analysis and feedback, that is part and parcel of being a valuable member of the testing team. I would be the first to say you are generally respectful of users making requests or complaints but it seems that I rarely see you encourage a new request or do anything but mount a defense for the Helix as is. As a beta tester you get the privilege of being the first to test and perhaps improve new features. That does not seem to comport with tirelessly defending the status quo. As you are a beta tester I sincerely hope you enjoy new features as much as the rest of us do and your comments are just reflective of a protective stance towards Line6.

 

In my role as beta tester, I use the product normally with firmware that sometimes has features you haven't seen yet, and also with bugs that you haven't seen yet (and if I'm diligent, you will never see). Sometimes I know about things before you do. (That Matchless Amp, for instance, and the Editor). This might include mentioning that I think a certain feature should work one way or the other, but by the time it gets to me, usability issues have really been ironed out and I have yet to see a new feature or some such that needed "course correction".

 

In terms of "critical analysis" about how it works and what I'd like to see different, that's not part of beta testing in my book. Beta testing is simply reporting what works and what doesn't, what breaks when I turn the unit this way or that, what I am actually doing when the unit freezes up... something like that.

 

Suggestions like you mention I can do publicly, here and other places. I haven't held back my opinion, for instance, that something like "scenes" would be an absolutely wonderful addition to this product, and in fact, I think it would possibly cut into the appeal of the AX8. You honestly don't think I haven't mentioned that in my communications with the L6ers that I "report" to, do you...? There are a few other considerations I have mentioned to them as well. To abuse any better channels of communication with Line 6 that I have to belly-ache about a certain amp I'd like to see would really be wrong, imho. (Example: I would LOVE to see a Vibroverb complete with 2 x 10" speaker set added... I don't bug them about that because as far as I can tell, I'm in a really small minority on that).

 

That said... Until December of last year I had been happy with HD 500 for 5 years. Didn't really need more than it offered and had, since the Vintage Model pack came out, basically switched to where I was using ONLY HD 500 and a volume and expression pedal and nothing else. I actually had no immediate plans to upgrade to Helix. My fairly unusual (and demanding) set of circumstances attracted me to the prospect of testing Helix because it seemed that it could do the unique things I do even better (particularly acoustic and electric at the same time, ambient synth-style FX on top of that). I suspect that the L6ers who decided who they wanted to be a beta tester thought that my demanding use of the unit would be a good match for finding issues and problems. I feel like they were right, fwiw.

 

On the other hand, am I a Line 6 fan boi? Yup. Might that be another reason that they asked me to do this? Yup, I expect so. Considering that their products, HD 500 and now Helix, allow me to do everything I want in one box (although I've now added a couple pedals to Helix which I thought I wouldn't) in a way that nothing short of an Axe FX II would (at probably twice the price including foot controller).

 

The simple fact is, Helix DOES exceed my expectations and hopes for what I can do for the music that I make in the situations that I'm in. I vote up ideas on Ideascale that I think would be great. I also have voted down a small handful that I thought were totally boneheaded and I thought they should keep away from. If they never upgraded Helix from the 1.0 FX and amp offerings, I'd still have more than I need. I'm delighted that progress means we get more, and am happy to contribute to that discussion in the most appropriate ways I can.

 

Lastly, as is the case with a lot of products, a lot of what people ask for is nit-picking. I'm going to defend Line 6's design decisions from those folks, yes. I once knew a guy who was such a nit-picker when picking a digital camera that it took him about 5 years to pick one. Good LORD, how many award winning photos he could have taken in 5 years. A lot of the complaints and nit-picking (such as spending more time hooking up test equipment to see if the tuner is accurate than use your ears) is by tire-kickers and measurebaters. I actually make music as part of my job with this, I don't have time to nit pick, I use that time to make music.

[HonestOpinion]

In my role as beta tester, I use the product normally with firmware that sometimes has features you haven't seen yet, and also with bugs that you haven't seen yet (and if I'm diligent, you will never see). Sometimes I know about things before you do. (That Matchless Amp, for instance, and the Editor). This might include mentioning that I think a certain feature should work one way or the other, but by the time it gets to me, usability issues have really been ironed out and I have yet to see a new feature or some such that needed "course correction".

 

In terms of "critical analysis" about how it works and what I'd like to see different, that's not part of beta testing in my book. Beta testing is simply reporting what works and what doesn't, what breaks when I turn the unit this way or that, what I am actually doing when the unit freezes up... something like that.

 

Suggestions like you mention I can do publicly, here and other places. I haven't held back my opinion, for instance, that something like "scenes" would be an absolutely wonderful addition to this product, and in fact, I think it would possibly cut into the appeal of the AX8. You honestly don't think I haven't mentioned that in my communications with the L6ers that I "report" to, do you...? There are a few other considerations I have mentioned to them as well. To abuse any better channels of communication with Line 6 that I have to belly-ache about a certain amp I'd like to see would really be wrong, imho. (Example: I would LOVE to see a Vibroverb complete with 2 x 10" speaker set added... I don't bug them about that because as far as I can tell, I'm in a really small minority on that).

 

That said... Until December of last year I had been happy with HD 500 for 5 years. Didn't really need more than it offered and had, since the Vintage Model pack came out, basically switched to where I was using ONLY HD 500 and a volume and expression pedal and nothing else. I actually had no immediate plans to upgrade to Helix. My fairly unusual (and demanding) set of circumstances attracted me to the prospect of testing Helix because it seemed that it could do the unique things I do even better (particularly acoustic and electric at the same time, ambient synth-style FX on top of that). I suspect that the L6ers who decided who they wanted to be a beta tester thought that my demanding use of the unit would be a good match for finding issues and problems. I feel like they were right, fwiw.

 

On the other hand, am I a Line 6 fan boi? Yup. Might that be another reason that they asked me to do this? Yup, I expect so. Considering that their products, HD 500 and now Helix, allow me to do everything I want in one box (although I've now added a couple pedals to Helix which I thought I wouldn't) in a way that nothing short of an Axe FX II would (at probably twice the price including foot controller).

 

The simple fact is, Helix DOES exceed my expectations and hopes for what I can do for the music that I make in the situations that I'm in. I vote up ideas on Ideascale that I think would be great. I also have voted down a small handful that I thought were totally boneheaded and I thought they should keep away from. If they never upgraded Helix from the 1.0 FX and amp offerings, I'd still have more than I need. I'm delighted that progress means we get more, and am happy to contribute to that discussion in the most appropriate ways I can.

 

Lastly, as is the case with a lot of products, a lot of what people ask for is nit-picking. I'm going to defend Line 6's design decisions from those folks, yes. I once knew a guy who was such a nit-picker when picking a digital camera that it took him about 5 years to pick one. Good LORD, how many award winning photos he could have taken in 5 years. A lot of the complaints and nit-picking (such as spending more time hooking up test equipment to see if the tuner is accurate than use your ears) is by tire-kickers and measurebaters. I actually make music as part of my job with this, I don't have time to nit pick, I use that time to make music.

 

Thank you for a thoughtful and honest response. I agree with you in regards to nit-picking and I would definitely hate to see resources diverted to petty requests. I do also see a lot of great and creative ideas on the forum and love to see experienced posters, beta testers like yourself, and even Line6 staff embrace them where possible. In any case, I realize everybody brings their own personal style to the table here and as long as people keep things civil it all serves to strike a healthy balance. You may not be quite as gung-ho about new features as I would hope to see but I am appreciative of your many excellent and helpful technical posts.