Collection of User Programming Tips to improve presets and tones...

[WickedFinger]

Been thinking about this for a while, how great it would be to offer some tips and tricks on programming HELIX presets to help them sound better and improve tones, and how delightfully wonderful to have things in the same thread to find. 

While I am not an established veteran of the HELIX "yet", I have discovered a few things that might be useful to others in this rather infinite magic forest of param variability regarding what I consider the best inventive progress in amp modeling since the whole ballgame began.

 

So please anyone who would like to offer some idea or something they discovered which makes things sound better please add to the list or perhaps extend upon an idea to further flush out its potential. I have long wanted to find and read of such advanced user tips and wish Freman and others who sell presets, while not giving away the farm might develop a better advanced user programming guide of tips for the HELIX. SO offer up what you think might be of use, it does not matter if others know of it already, I guarantee there are many who will not have known of it: 

 

So to start off I offer a few things I learned or perhaps heard of someone else doing, so this is not about taking credit for anything as I have no idea of all the things discussed here on the forum or even in videos regarding the mighty HELIX.

 

1.) Make use of the MIC section PREAMP model of the Studio Tube Preamp model. Set the model to line sensitivity or "impedance" put the level of this on 10 and the gain right around 4.0. You can put this block in front of clean or dirt amp models which imparts a rather subtle but cool tube-ish enhancement model to make things sound a little more "not" digital or sterile. I find it extremely good after a high gain amp to increase and enhance the quality of the gain structure and intensity. I often place the "after" block before any separate speaker IR block but there is no notion it does not help after a full amp as well. Anyway cool trick I have taken to using and I often assign a switch to both Studio Preamps on merge/"multiple" to either shut both on or off or switch from one to the other. 

 

2.) While not an unknown or surprise finding, using the Cali EQ block which is really Mesa's V EQ curve from their amps makes any high gain amp model sound so much better by notching the lower mid 750hz and bringing up the lows and highs in a V shape. One should not boost or cut too much but it for sure makes a high gain sound better and often on my cleaner models I like the tone balance. Of course EQ is always a matter of personal taste and case of point use but Mesa puts this V Graphic EQ on all their main amps as it just sounds wicked cool. 

Note:If you use the post Studio Tube Preamp #1 trick above, I suggest putting the Cali V EQ after the Tube preamp model as it is easily over driven which may not be a good sound for you. When I use the Studio Tube thing I just want a subtle tube quality into the sound structure. 

 

3.) I find it essential for me when I run an external effects loop I need to have a NR gate block on after the loop return which keeps things quiet even though I use several high end external pedals. Of course slapping in a basic NR gate block after any hissy amp shunts off that annoying hiss without seeming to effect the overall sound dynamic or attack. I tend to use the stock default settings but others my have some better ideas for param adjustments. 

 

So I hope this prompts the witty higher end users to toss a few ideas and tips which could get quite insightful. 

[rvroberts]

Thanks for those thoughts.

I have not tried the mic so it's good to have a new idea to play with!

[WickedFinger]

I do hope others will offer some cool things they have learned. Pretty much the reason why I came to this forum to learn more about the programming of advanced users. We could keep all these things to ourselves but really is that helping anyone or helping the Helix get the rep it deserves?

[arislaf]

Low cut to 100hz, high cut to 12000. On the cab

 

Also, bias x rised and bias lowered gives a better headroom.

[DunedinDragon]

One key thing I've discovered in building presets (especially if you're using FRFR speakers), is to audition different mic's and cabinets with the amp of choice before you start adjusting EQ.  A lot of times a mic or cabinet change can fix the problems you're hearing on the default cab.

 

Related to the above, I'm also moving away from using global EQ to manage the brittle highs and overbearing lows on FRFR speakers.  Because of the variety of cabs and mics and how they respond, I've found it better to simply do any high and low cuts on the cabinet rather than a one time across the board cut.  It seems to be a lot more controllable that way.

 

If your doing a dual or triple guitar harmony with the harmonizer, place it after the amp and cab, but before and reverb or delay.  You get a much cleaner and authentic sounding multi-guitar sound.

[PeterHamm]

The. Number. One. Tip.

Create your tones listening to a speaker like you'll use at the gig... at gig volume. (and never trust headphones)

Doing this eliminates most problems people have live I'll bet.

[HonestOpinion]

The. Number. One. Tip.

 

Create your tones listening to a speaker like you'll use at the gig... at gig volume. (and never trust headphones)

 

Doing this eliminates most problems people have live I'll bet.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with this tip and I would extend it to say make sure whether you are using FRFR or PA speakers for monitoring versus guitar amps/cabs, that no matter what you are hearing on stage you need to also ensure that the audience is also getting a good FOH mix.  That can require a bit more work when you are using a guitar cab on stage and PA speakers out front as the two types of speakers (PA vs. guitar cab) may require different types of EQ.

[WickedFinger]

Great tips, I think this is going to really help expand everyone's sense of programming.

Most I have read I agree w 100% so it is interesting we all seem to be headed in the same direction. I do wish some of the really talented preset builders would try and write up an advanced user guide. Sort of what that guy "meambobbo" did for the HD POD, he had great info on programming that puppy. 

 

Regarding headphones, despite I use high end ByerDynamic 770s (I think) I never get a really good sound of headphones, always a slight breakup even at lower volumes and adjusting to where the live sound is not good. Checking into impedance issues and how to properly match headphones to source it seems there is an audiophile suggestion that 8x the source impedance is a good match. The Helix runs a really low 12 ohm headphone impedance which you will never find that low on headphones. So mine should be a great match so I know that is not a source of the issue. Does anyone else think using headphones on a more dedicated source feed sounds better? I thnk maybe impedance issues are the reason why so many have terse differences in setting up preset tones. although to be honest I do not think you will ever really get the sort of sound live you do in cans from the mere issue of moving air and interactions with the speakers. I would be happy with no clipping myself. Anyway 2 cents. 

 

I've been looking at some wireless ones which have a xmit block using low impedance wondering if anyone has tried these as I would love to be free of that headphone cable. Seem like decent quality http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/RS165  Sennheiser RS 165's they do not offer the impedance on these but the lesser cheaper model is 64 ohms, which is not relevant so much to the Helix as the signal is being transmitted but one needs low impedance for fidelity. 

 

I found it helps considerably to farm out the headphone monitoring to a mixer or somethings else. I use a small Mackie mixer which I use to convert any of my external instrument unbalanced feeds to balanced TRS/XLR for my FRFR rig.

I prefer running XLR outs and whenever I can as my power amp is XLR and I cannot say it sounds "better" to the point of a must do, but I do think according to specs that balanced XLR/TRS affords a cleaner more pure signal with no degrade. 

[WickedFinger]

I offer another tip I use which I just love and have been using them for ages through various version and upgrades.

BBE Sonic Maximizer, now before someone poo poos on this and claims they can do the same with a para EQ or whatnot, no you can't. This puppy has been extensively analyzed and it does what BBE says it does. The issue of correcting the phase on the outputs makes all the difference and although with the process enhancement of the BBE circuit there is a slight bump at 50HZ and 5KHz but the secret of using these is thus:

1.) Do run this as it were an "effect" pedal it is a phase correcting device and the levels should never really be more that 12:00. The phase correction takes place at any level so that benefit is always there. So the relative level of how much process you like is up to you. 

2.) You have to get the unit as close to the final power amplification stage as possible. Nothing after it is the key.

3.) This is more of live sound enhancement device and does not work on record playback. You may get some sparkle and presence and some low end punch on recordings but the phase time lag correction thing only takes place using the unit on live sound. 

 

I use these units extensively and if they are not on or out of chain the difference is steadfast not as good. There has never been a A/B of showing people my rig when they did not want to go out and get one after hearing the difference of a properly used BBE.

It will add punch, clarity, presence and a cleaner more defined pleasing overall sound quality by correcting the basic physics design issue of speakers producing sound, some frequencies reach our ear at different times as a result of physics this unit corrects that time lag phase and just sounds better to the ear.

 

I swear by them myself. I use an XLR unit on my main XLR Helix outs before they go into an XLR input power amp. I have two other instrument level units I use on some external pedals and units, like my Mel9 which makes it come alive as well as my Trio drum unit which punches the kick drum cleaner and the symbols have that high end clean slight tisssss. I also have a standby unit in case I want to use the 1/4" outs on my Helix before they go into my little Mackie mixer on the way to the FRFR rig. 

Anyway, I dig them and I can say I will never not have one in my rig. The bands general PA mix can be greatly improved using one on the house sound.

 

Again using the unit in moderation at settings no more than 12:00 and in the right place in the sound chain. It's like anything else you can use it badly and not like the result, like someone adjusting an EQ in a bad way. The little guitar model is OK and has the circuit but it allows for misplacing of the unit and not an optimal usage thing. The rack stereo units are the best and really at $100 for the lower share knobs stereo unit it is the best $100 I have ever spent on my rig. Guitar Player awarded it one of the best inventions of recent times and also said it will be the best $100 you ever spend. The more pro XLR dual control model is the flagship and costs more but I love the puppy. 

[strabes]

The. Number. One. Tip.

 

Create your tones listening to a speaker like you'll use at the gig... at gig volume. (and never trust headphones)

 

Doing this eliminates most problems people have live I'll bet.

 

What about if you monitor with IEMs? I usually try to dial my tones in using my IEMs but I push the volume a little louder than I normally would. I think that gives me more of a feeling of what a loud speaker would sound like. 

[talwilkins]

Great tips, I think this is going to really help expand everyone's sense of programming.

Most I have read I agree w 100% so it is interesting we all seem to be headed in the same direction. I do wish some of the really talented preset builders would try and write up an advanced user guide. Sort of what that guy "meambobbo" did for the HD POD, he had great info on programming that puppy. 

 

Regarding headphones, despite I use high end ByerDynamic 770s (I think) I never get a really good sound of headphones, always a slight breakup even at lower volumes and adjusting to where the live sound is not good. Checking into impedance issues and how to properly match headphones to source it seems there is an audiophile suggestion that 8x the source impedance is a good match. The Helix runs a really low 12 ohm headphone impedance which you will never find that low on headphones. So mine should be a great match so I know that is not a source of the issue. Does anyone else think using headphones on a more dedicated source feed sounds better? I thnk maybe impedance issues are the reason why so many have terse differences in setting up preset tones. although to be honest I do not think you will ever really get the sort of sound live you do in cans from the mere issue of moving air and interactions with the speakers. I would be happy with no clipping myself. Anyway 2 cents. 

 

I've been looking at some wireless ones which have a xmit block using low impedance wondering if anyone has tried these as I would love to be free of that headphone cable. Seem like decent quality http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/RS165  Sennheiser RS 165's they do not offer the impedance on these but the lesser cheaper model is 64 ohms, which is not relevant so much to the Helix as the signal is being transmitted but one needs low impedance for fidelity. 

 

I found it helps considerably to farm out the headphone monitoring to a mixer or somethings else. I use a small Mackie mixer which I use to convert any of my external instrument unbalanced feeds to balanced TRS/XLR for my FRFR rig.

I prefer running XLR outs and whenever I can as my power amp is XLR and I cannot say it sounds "better" to the point of a must do, but I do think according to specs that balanced XLR/TRS affords a cleaner more pure signal with no degrade. 

 

I've been following these threads about headphones and impedance for years now, starting with HD500. For some reason I always had fairly good results with my Sennheiser HD 201 cans for € 20,- with the HD and even much better with the Helix. With The HD I did have some troubles now and then but I've never been convinced it was because of the headphones.

Of course when I go loud through my DT-25 it's not exactly the same, that's impossible. But it still sounds pretty damned good and still in the same ballpark.

Right now I can pretty much rely on the sound coming through my DT-25 st high volume will be great if it sounds great through the HD-201 cans.

[Joepeggio]

What about if you monitor with IEMs? I usually try to dial my tones in using my IEMs but I push the volume a little louder than I normally would. I think that gives me more of a feeling of what a loud speaker would sound like.

i would still use pa to set tones then adjust global or whatever to make iems sound good. how you sound to the audience in #1 goal

[PeterHamm]

What about if you monitor with IEMs? I usually try to dial my tones in using my IEMs but I push the volume a little louder than I normally would. I think that gives me more of a feeling of what a loud speaker would sound like. 

 

I monitor with IEMs and practice with them, but I never. never. never. tweak tones with them. Learned that lesson a long time ago.

[HonestOpinion]

...

 

If your doing a dual or triple guitar harmony with the harmonizer, place it after the amp and cab, but before and reverb or delay.  You get a much cleaner and authentic sounding multi-guitar sound.

 

This point is of particular interest to me and contrary to how I have always positioned my harmony effects in the signal chain on either an analog board or an MFX. I have always placed the harmonizer as the first effect or as close to the beginning of my signal chain as possible. I find they tend to track better there and I also avoid any mod based effects like a phaser early in my signal chain from introducing weird artifacts or impacting the tracking on the harmonizer. I would imagine if you are one of the people who has embraced placing your reverb in between the amp and the cab this could effect it as well. I will have to experiment with DunedingDragon's recommendation on positioning. Has anyone else found the sound to be better on the harmonizer later in the chain on the Helix? 

[Lachdanan0121]

Ok I have one.

 

Some of the effects, such as Whammy pitch shift introduce a decent amount of phasing that will "hollow/thin" your sound. Even if the "pedal position" has it set at "0" semitones.  This is apparent  with the Mix set at anything other than 0% or 100%. I am using the Whammy at 50%, so its really present there. 

So, what I have done is set automations within my DAW, and send the midi out to the Helix to adjust the parameter of the "Mix" of the Whammy Pitch model itself in the chain.

 

0% mix basically is identical to a bypass on the Whammy block. This way my signal is free from the phasing of using the model until I actually use the pedal itself, and only then. Set to the mix I choose the automation automatically moves it where it needs to go. I figured you guys can mimic this behavior by setting up snapshots for the mix 0% on this model, and other models that may do it as well.  Or you could setup a second expression pedal to control the mix of the whammy block. This should help you retain your power/fullness while still getting to use your FX how you like. 

 

(I am not sure how this can be done programming wise by Line 6, but here is an idea, and if others agree in this post, I may put it up on idea scale.) IF you can set you expression pedal for Whammy pedal position like typical use... The also have a secondary function routed to that same expression pedal. That secondary function would be the Mix of the Whammy. But the mix of the whammy needs a different measuring than the Whammy pedal position parameter.  So the mix would be like 100% heel down would be 0% mix parameter for the Whammy Pedal model. But say 98, or 99% heel down would set the mix parameter to the secondary range in you have setup. So Any time you use pitch up at all, it initializes the whammy pedal mix. However, you could reverse this process for the pitch down intentions.

As far as wanting to pitch up and down both, that would require the Helix to be able to do what I have above, then on top of that add in a secondary routing to the same exp pedal, and same mix parameter to allow the mix to be engaged moving the pedal up, or down.

 

Alternatively, you could have the Whammy have an additional parameter to automatically engage the mix from 0%, once the expression pedal is moved period, and the "release" could be set manually. 

As far as I know, the Helix cannot do this yet. IF it could it would be amazing.

I was kinda digressing their on a thought, but figured I would share it anyway.

 

I am sure there are other models in the unit that may exhibit similar behavior. Also before anyone says anything this is even when the Whammy is the first block in the path, and it happens when playing guitar through it, or recordings of guitar through usb for ReAmping.

 

For ReAmpers:

Also if you are ReAmping the guitar its also best to make sure that the signal you are sending the Helix is mono as well. Depending on how much stereo signal is in the original recording (summing to mono may remove unintended frequencies) so you may have better results converting the left OR the right channel to mono. Some DAWs default in all recordings to be stereo.  

 

I will post again if I can think of, or discover more.

[WickedFinger]

From what I have seen on most octave and harmonizer effects, Guitar pedal type octave stuff seems to track better up front, while more rack mount type harmonizers can be placed after the amp gain stage.

You sort of have to try and see but guitar pedal types have always glitched and burbled like crazy unless they have a clean signal to process. The traditional Whammy (V) i is now polyphonic unlike the prior versions and it can actually work pretty well front or further back but when I used to use the harmonizer modes on it I put it up front which is Digitech recommended to me as well.

I find the simple pitch and dual pitch to do pretty well in the Helix but in front of the amp models, you can run some OD or dirt into them but they do not sound good for me after the amp. I really never liked harmonizers and pitch shifters which required a key and scale maintain, One of the things I loved about the Whammy V was that you had the freedom to play anything and it would simply harmonize and interval to whatever note you played. The 5th +/- and 8va's on the Whammy V track amazing. I miss that pedal, might have to get another one and loop it in.

 

The rack type higher end harmonizers can track distorted signals pretty good but all such unit blocks in the Helix are not polyphonic so any attempt at chords will glitch out, exceptions are the Whammy set a half step for like Eb it seems to do pretty well tracking chords, but it is not a polyphonic pedal in the Helix. 

[duncann]

With regards to harmonizer placement, one thing that might dictate placement for you is if you want the parts separated in the sound field. If you do, placement at the beginning won't work. Don't overlook the harmony delay either.

[Lachdanan0121]

From what I have seen on most octave and harmonizer effects, Guitar pedal type octave stuff seems to track better up front, while more rack mount type harmonizers can be placed after the amp gain stage.

You sort of have to try and see but guitar pedal types have always glitched and burbled like crazy unless they have a clean signal to process. The traditional Whammy (V) i is now polyphonic unlike the prior versions and it can actually work pretty well front or further back but when I used to use the harmonizer modes on it I put it up front which is Digitech recommended to me as well.

I find the simple pitch and dual pitch to do pretty well in the Helix but in front of the amp models, you can run some OD or dirt into them but they do not sound good for me after the amp. I really never liked harmonizers and pitch shifters which required a key and scale maintain, One of the things I loved about the Whammy V was that you had the freedom to play anything and it would simply harmonize and interval to whatever note you played. The 5th +/- and 8va's on the Whammy V track amazing. I miss that pedal, might have to get another one and loop it in.

 

The rack type higher end harmonizers can track distorted signals pretty good but all such unit blocks in the Helix are not polyphonic so any attempt at chords will glitch out, exceptions are the Whammy set a half step for like Eb it seems to do pretty well tracking chords, but it is not a polyphonic pedal in the Helix.

To be fair, I wasnt talking the tracking of whammy.I was speaking of the phasing when you arent running the mix at 0%, or 100%. Even when no pitch changes are taking place.

[PeterHamm]

With regards to harmonizer placement, one thing that might dictate placement for you is if you want the parts separated in the sound field. If you do, placement at the beginning won't work. Don't overlook the harmony delay either.

 

But...

 

You could have multiple paths, one being dry and the other being only the harmonies, and have them go through different amps even!

[spikey]

I monitor with IEMs and practice with them, but I never. never. never. tweak tones with them. Learned that lesson a long time ago.

Makes sense Hamm.  

 

Another Mr. Obvious statement- If your stage monitor and FOH are both good, yer all set. If one sux then somethings amiss. 

All tones however are based on (your ears &) your sound guys opinions, and so pay them well cause they can make or break you.

[WickedFinger]

To be fair, I wasnt talking the tracking of whammy.I was speaking of the phasing when you arent running the mix at 0%, or 100%. Even when no pitch changes are taking place.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about tracking issues and where to place them. I am not sure I understand the phase thing. 

[DunedinDragon]

Just to clarify my statements about guitar harmonies, I was referring to things like dual and triple leads and using the Twin Harmony effect.

 

I do several songs in which I'm doing double and triple lead harmonies.  Like many here in the past I've used foot pedal harmonizers and have typically used them before the amp.  What I found with the Twin Harmony effect is it seems to work okay in front of the amp if it's relatively clean like in a country song.  If not it leaves a lot of residual artifacts in the signal chain.  For something more like a Brian May (Queen) lead with lots of overdrive, it's much cleaner and precise after the amp and cabinet.  Either way it tracks perfectly.

 

I'm not sure exactly why this is other than the possibility that if you send a dual or triple signal into a higher gain setup such as a distortion pedal, the distortion pedal may not really be prepared for that much signal.  But the Twin Harmony appears to take whatever signal it's receiving and split it into the harmonies regardless of the tone and effect of the signal, so it's cleaner toward the end of the signal chain...at least it is for me.

 

The way I use it for dual guitar leads is I simple set the third harmony to the tonic (base note) and it seems to blend quite well.

[ricstudioc]

Makes sense Hamm.  

 

Another Mr. Obvious statement- If your stage monitor and FOH are both good, yer all set. If one sux then somethings amiss. 

All tones however are based on (your ears &) your sound guys opinions, and so pay them well cause they can make or break you.

[Lachdanan0121]

 

 

1.) Make use of the MIC section PREAMP model of the Studio Tube Preamp model. Set the model to line sensitivity or "impedance" put the level of this on 10 and the gain right around 4.0. You can put this block in front of clean or dirt amp models which imparts a rather subtle but cool tube-ish enhancement model to make things sound a little more "not" digital or sterile. I find it extremely good after a high gain amp to increase and enhance the quality of the gain structure and intensity. I often place the "after" block before any separate speaker IR block but there is no notion it does not help after a full amp as well. Anyway cool trick I have taken to using and I often assign a switch to both Studio Preamps on merge/"multiple" to either shut both on or off or switch from one to the other. 

 

 

I wanted to comment. 

 

I tried this last night, or something similar.  I put the studio mic pre after my pre-amp. (which I want to say is a matchless, but I am not at my Helix right now) However I have it set before the cabinet, which I want to say is the Mandarin cab 4 speaker.  The patch tone is similar to that of Shine on You Crazy Diamond, but not intended to be a copy of it. Although my patch has much more reverb/delay in it, and a whammy. So not very overdriven, but not super clean either, using my single coil equipped Tagliare.

 

What I noticed is it did warm it up a little, rounded off the extreme ends of the frequency spectrum more, and seemed to mesh very nicely with my chosen Hi/Low cuts elsewhere in the chain. Once I matched the volume with it on/off.  It also seemed to glue the guitar/FX, and the rest of the mix of the song together a little bit more as well.  I decided to keep it for what will be recorded on my album for that song. 

 

So thanks for that, I will be experimenting with this a lot more.   ;)

 

Sorry, I thought you were talking about tracking issues and where to place them. I am not sure I understand the phase thing. 

 

 

I want you to take a simple patch that you like. Now at the beginning put the Whammy block on there with default settings. Where it isn't pitching anything and have the mix at 50%...

 

Now play your guitar through it. 

Now I want you to turn off/bypass that whammy block in your signal chain, and play your guitar through the chain now.

 

That instant notice in improvement in the tone is because there is phasing when the whammy block is active. 

 

"Phasing" in this sense... is when two identical signals are not playing at the exact same time, even if just a few milliseconds difference. A wav is an oscillation of positive, and negative values. When shifted slightly in the time domain, the positives and negatives lose alignment, and thus they reduce the effect of either.

[WickedFinger]

Interesting stuff. I guess I never noticed it because the whammy in the Helix is not to my liking, sounding certainly like an older model Whammy but nothing close to the newest V model version. God I miss that pedal, seriously might have to get another one. I hate the glitch burble of bad tracking on such units and octave pedals. Everything new is polyphonic tracking, I am wondering if they can go that far on the Helix without sucking up too much DSP. Anyway, easy thing to loop out to other pedals which is what I like about the Helix and unlike the POD thing it actually works well. I get what you are saying about the phase thing. I think  it was that guy "meambobbo" on the POD HD who wrote an advanced guide how that unit would alter the tone just by dropping in blocks of like the EQ without using them must have been a phase thing.  I wonder if my using a BBE unit may correct that. 

 

I also have in my overstock gear a new GSP1101 and I am pondering using a couple of the amazing clean tube preamps it has to sort of do my Mic Tube Preamp trick but have the full capability of the GSP creating it. Wondering if that would really bring a real tube like enhancement as those couple models in that unit were the deal for me before I got the Helix. Wondering how i can rig it up. I was thinking a send out to the 1101, grab the clean tube model, out the main and back to the Helix on a return and place it before the Helix amp model for starters anyway. Opens up a whole mess of new config ideas in my brain.

I was going to try and sell the GSP 1101 as I had just paid my final payment when I decided to grab a Helix on a great payment deal. If I sell it I lose bucks on a brand new unit but if I can access those clean tube models I love it might be an expensive add on but I have it so what the hey? Any config ideas you guys have?

[JonnyPM]

^ What he said about Sonic Maximizers... Awesome contraptions.

[WickedFinger]

I dig the BBE units I seriously would not be without one and I have several for different feeds and impedance. Gotten into a few arguments with some on the net about what it does and how they were trying to say you could do it with just an para EQ. The phase reverse correction is the ball game. Makes live sound sound so much better. I used to use them on my stereo music CD playback system and never really thought about the guitar use, I heard Dave Mustaine had used them on his guitar rigs and I tried it and never looked back, Marvelous sonic improvement makes a great tone just a little bit better. I always tell users not to use it as if it were an :effect" when you have it positioned and set right you should not notice it is on but when not there it is indeed like having a blanket over your speakers. 

 

 

Going to try rigging up my GSP 1101 unit to the Helix loop if I can get the levels right and see if I can't being in just the Clean Tube models I loved so much in place of using the Helix Mic Tube Preamp for that cool enhancement it can add to the tone before and after various amp models.

I have it and it is brand new so I thought before I have to sell it off why not see if I can bring in that cool clean tube model sound it has. Not sure what they did but it is much better than the clean Fender models on either unit. Anyway, I am sure hardly anyone has one but will be an interesting experiment. 

[WickedFinger]

Passing this on I mentioned in another thread: The Helix is designed to use either a TRS or a TS wired Expression Pedal according to L6. 

[PeterHamm]

Passing this on I mentioned in another thread: The Helix is designed to use either a TRS or a TS wired Expression Pedal according to L6. 

 

TRS expressions sometimes work, sometimes work backwards, sometimes don't work, sometimes work if you make a special cable.

 

TS is what the actual jack is.

[spikey]

Low cut to 100hz, high cut to 12000. On the cab

 

Also, bias x rised and bias lowered gives a better headroom.

 

On the Celestion site it says the freq response of a "Vintage 30" speaker is from 70 - 5000 Hz.  The "12" G12H-75 Creamback is the same. Im thinking that while the lows you have may be ok, the high side is a bit much. Id set the high cut to around 8K just for %$#@* and giggles... And you say?

[arislaf]

On the Celestion site it says the freq response of a "Vintage 30" speaker is from 70 - 5000 Hz.  The "12" G12H-75 Creamback is the same. Im thinking that while the lows you have may be ok, the high side is a bit much. Id set the high cut to around 8K just for %$#@* and giggles... And you say?

Good one, thanks for the info!

[glideman]

I like an 8k high cut pretty good, too...

[Verne-Bunsen]

I've been having great results with assigning the cab hi/low cuts to Snapshots. I set them pretty generously for sparklier cleans, then move them in tighter as needed to tame fizz with increasing gain.

[zooey]

Ditto. I also sometimes use a parametric's low and/or high cuts, which seem to be steeper. Do that especially when there's already one there, which there often is.

[HonestOpinion]

On the Celestion site it says the freq response of a "Vintage 30" speaker is from 70 - 5000 Hz.  The "12" G12H-75 Creamback is the same. Im thinking that while the lows you have may be ok, the high side is a bit much. Id set the high cut to around 8K just for %$#@* and giggles... And you say?

 

 

Ditto. I also sometimes use a parametric's low and/or high cuts, which seem to be steeper. Do that especially when there's already one there, which there often is.

 

Yep, I am a big fan of low/high cuts. I also use the frequency range and response from the Celestion website as a rough guide and I generally just use the low and high cuts for EQ. What can make life interesting is that although the low and high cuts are by far the easiest way to tame the high and low end they are not the most precise or surgical way to emulate the frequency response of a guitar speaker. The problem, particularly with high cuts is that although the frequency response of typical guitar speakers drops off radically at around 5khz the frequency range actually extends all the way up to 20khz. This means that a high cut at, for example 5khz, is actually completely cutting off frequencies that may still be generated above 5khz on a Celestion speaker although due to the frequency response they might be significantly quieter than the frequencies between 70hz-5khz or may even be inaudible. I guess ultimately a combination of parametric and graphic EQ might be a more precise way to emulate a guitar speaker but I just find it easier to use the low/high cuts instead.

 

I think this profound difference between frequency range and frequency response may account for why many people prefer a high cut more around the 6-8khz area because even though a typical guitar speaker's signal attenuates or drops off at 5khz due to the speaker's frequency response, its range does not completely cut off there. There are still audible frequencies above 5khz, just not as loud.

[WickedFinger]

TRS expressions sometimes work, sometimes work backwards, sometimes don't work, sometimes work if you make a special cable.

 

TS is what the actual jack is.

So you use a TS cable on the TRS pedal??? L6 just said it would work they were not clear on problems or what cable to use. 

[WickedFinger]

Something about high cuts and speaker range rolloff:

On most std guitar amps the presence control is often based at 9K while most guitar speakers begin to roll off around 5K this does not mean you cannot generate high end above that. A high cut kills anything above the setting while a guitar speaker slopes off response. Am I right in understanding an IR cuts at settings or does it "roll off" like a speaker. I think it cuts and and Helix as well. 

My Eminence speakers start roll off at 5.5K but you could always clearly hear my amps presence control at 9K adding more high end. I have pedals where the high presence is 8K so there might be some terse issues of killing frequencies instead of a slope in response. Food for thought. 

[HonestOpinion]

Yep, I am a big fan of low/high cuts. I also use the frequency range and response from the Celestion website as a rough guide and I generally just use the low and high cuts for EQ. What can make life interesting is that although the low and high cuts are by far the easiest way to tame the high and low end they are not the most precise or surgical way to emulate the frequency response of a guitar speaker. The problem, particularly with high cuts is that although the frequency response of typical guitar speakers drops off radically at around 5khz the frequency range actually extends all the way up to 20khz. This means that a high cut at, for example 5khz, is actually completely cutting off frequencies that may still be generated above 5khz on a Celestion speaker although due to the frequency response they might be significantly quieter than the frequencies between 70hz-5khz or may even be inaudible. I guess ultimately a combination of parametric and graphic EQ might be a more precise way to emulate a guitar speaker but I just find it easier to use the low/high cuts instead.

 

I think this profound difference between frequency range and frequency response may account for why many people prefer a high cut more around the 6-8khz area because even though a typical guitar speaker's signal attenuates or drops off at 5khz due to the speaker's frequency response, its range does not completely cut off there. There are still audible frequencies above 5khz, just not as loud.

 

 

Something about high cuts and speaker range rolloff:

On most std guitar amps the presence control is often based at 9K while most guitar speakers begin to roll off around 5K this does not mean you cannot generate high end above that. A high cut kills anything above the setting while a guitar speaker slopes off response. Am I right in understanding an IR cuts at settings or does it "roll off" like a speaker. I think it cuts and and Helix as well. 

My Eminence speakers start roll off at 5.5K but you could always clearly hear my amps presence control at 9K adding more high end. I have pedals where the high presence is 8K so there might be some terse issues of killing frequencies instead of a slope in response. Food for thought. 

 

Your observations go directly to the point I was making. If IR and EQ block high/low cuts are true cuts, as in no frequencies below or above them are allowed, then using cuts does not accurately reflect the behavior of a speaker although it is the quick and dirty method to tame the muddy boom on the low end and the shrill icepick on the high end. A typical guitar speaker may have a frequency response that provides the strongest or loudest signal in the 70hz-5khz range but still allows frequencies above and below these points, just at increasingly lower volumes which at some point probably become inaudible as you get closer to the edges of the 20hz-20khz range. I guess another factor would also be our ears are not as sensitive to sounds at the low and high ends of the audible range.

 

All this leads me to think that it would be really nice to have some kind of an EQ block with tapered low and high cuts; perhaps tapers that could be customized. Another option would be a combination of parametric EQ and graphic EQ settings that emulated various speaker types. Of course all of this begs the question of "Isn't that what an IR is essentially supposed to do?".  And if that is the intention of an IR, why do we still find ourselves often having to tame or cut the low and high end on our presets?

[amsdenj]

All this leads me to think that it would be really nice to have some kind of an EQ block with tapered low and high cuts; perhaps tapers that could be customized. Another option would be a combination of parametric EQ and graphic EQ settings that emulated various speaker types. Of course all of this begs the question of "Isn't that what an IR is essentially supposed to do?".  And if that is the intention of an IR, why do we still find ourselves often having to tame or cut the low and high end on our presets?

 

In the studio, it is not uncommon to apply EQ after a guitar amp, speaker and mic signal chain in order to address issues with the track itself, or more commonly how it sits with the rest of the mix. Applying high and low cuts in an IR is a nice, simple way to address typical problems with electric guitar directly in the IR block: mud in the low bass, ice-pick in the upper trebles, and lack of mid focus to cut through a dense mix. This is a simple solution that can have a nice effect without requiring another more complex block.

 

Regarding high and low cut, any EQ circuit has a slope, usually 6 to 12 dB per octave. So the Helix high and low cut controls also let some frequencies below the low cut and above the high cut to come through, just like your speaker. You can move the crossover point to easily control these key frequency areas. A little change can make a big difference.

[schapman1022]

This point is of particular interest to me and contrary to how I have always positioned my harmony effects in the signal chain on either an analog board or an MFX. I have always placed the harmonizer as the first effect or as close to the beginning of my signal chain as possible. I find they tend to track better there and I also avoid any mod based effects like a phaser early in my signal chain from introducing weird artifacts or impacting the tracking on the harmonizer. I would imagine if you are one of the people who has embraced placing your reverb in between the amp and the cab this could effect it as well. I will have to experiment with DunedingDragon's recommendation on positioning. Has anyone else found the sound to be better on the harmonizer later in the chain on the Helix?

 

I find with high gain it is best placed BETWEEN the amp and cab block. Give it a try. To me it sounded better than before the amp or after the cab.