Helix Spec clarification

[bshaw92]

I have found sporadic information on this so I'm hoping someone can provide some clarification on the topic. The Helix and AX8 are supposed to be running the same processors yet the Helix has the capabilities to run multiple amps and the AX8 does not. What is the setup difference and what is limiting on these units (including Kemper and Atomic)? This information would help me understand the growth potential within the platforms available if anyone has this information. Just trying to get my head around the methods used and foreseeable potential for the units.

[mileskb]

I can't speak for anything besides the Helix, but the Helix is only limited by the size of the blocks (amp, effect, etc) you are using.  There are two DSP's that you can spread your pre-set across, but essentially, that's the limit.  You are free to fill up the memory however you like, with whatever you like.

[bshaw92]

So is it your understanding that Helix shares the processing chip sets tasks rather than splitting for the amps and effects? I just have a hard time believing that they have the same processors if they can't perform the same tasks. The Atomic also notes the chip but only one. Kemper can only process one amp whereas the Axe mother ship can do multiples. So I wonder if the information floating around is accurate. If the Helix is processing with the same power as the Axe II family then tone matching and other options like that are in the realm of possibility for future updates.

[phil_m]

I have found sporadic information on this so I'm hoping someone can provide some clarification on the topic. The Helix and AX8 are supposed to be running the same processors yet the Helix has the capabilities to run multiple amps and the AX8 does not. What is the setup difference and what is limiting on these units (including Kemper and Atomic)? This information would help me understand the growth potential within the platforms available if anyone has this information. Just trying to get my head around the methods used and foreseeable potential for the units.

 

It is true that the Helix and the AX8 are running the same processors. The architecture of the units is different, though. In the Helix, you have 2 main signal paths (each of which can be split into two paths, for a total of 4 paths), and each of those paths is using one of the processors. You can feed path 1 into path 2, so they aren't completely segregated in that sense. You are allowed to put any block wherever you want on these paths, and the only limitation as far as quantity is concerned is that you can have a max a 2 amp blocks, 2 cab blocks (or 2 IR blocks) on each processor. Beyond that, you're only limited by the DSP ceiling (which, if you use multiple amp and cab blocks on one processor, can get eaten up quickly).

 

The AX8 doesn't necessarily have the same type of configuration Helix does. In a sense, it has four paths running through it, too, but it's a grid system, so you make block interact with each other in a different way than on the Helix. The AX8 has one of its processors dedicated solely to amp modeling and cab IRs. The other processor is handling all the effects. So in practice, the main difference, beside the ability to run multiple amps on the Helix, is that when you're looking at using the Helix for effects only, you have the full DSP capacity available to you. On the AX8, you are limited to only using half of the available processing power.

[bshaw92]

So would that architecture allow for the Helix to add the higher end options of tone matching or the like without taxing the system? Without knowing how heavily weighed down it is by the current operations how do you think you would assess this? The AX8 is topped out in it's current form factor from what I know??

[HonestOpinion]

So would that architecture allow for the Helix to add the higher end options of tone matching or the like without taxing the system? Without knowing how heavily weighed down it is by the current operations how do you think you would assess this? The AX8 is topped out in it's current form factor from what I know??

 

I have no idea of what the limitations of the system are regarding tone matching but the one advantage of the Helix architecture is, as phil_m alluded to, both DSP processors can be used to handle any block (effects, amps, IRs, etc.) as well as chained together serially. Perhaps this would allow both or one of the processors to handle a single large DSP intensive task better than the Fractal although that is pure speculation. For all I know the Fractal might be able to decouple the DSP currently dedicated to amp and IR processing temporarily for another task (maybe it would require a firmware update?). Ultimately the method Helix chose to employ their DSP processing is more flexible than Fractal's, I just don't know enough about the mechanics of tone-matching to determine if that would be a critical advantage.

[evh0u812]

The only reason the AX8 doent run multiple amp sims is because the Axe FX2 does.    If they opened the AX8 up to do what their flagship product does, they would cut their profits in half.   Its just economics.

[Paolo_Maina]

The only reason the AX8 doent run multiple amp sims is because the Axe FX2 does. If they opened the AX8 up to do what their flagship product does, they would cut their profits in half. Its just economics.

I agree and i said this thing in the forums too.

The difference is simple:

Helix is the flagship of line6

AX8 isn't and it can't disturb the flagship Axe fx.

AX8 hasn't also a integrated usb audio interface.

This is a huge lack in the features

[sb77]

The only reason the AX8 doent run multiple amp sims is because the Axe FX2 does.    If they opened the AX8 up to do what their flagship product does, they would cut their profits in half.   Its just economics.

• AX-8     Two dual-core Analog Devices SHARCâ„¢ 450 MHz ADSP-21469s and two micro controllers. One is dedicated to amp modelling, the other to effects and housekeeping.
• Axe FX Two 600 MHz dual-core Analog Devices  TigerSHARCâ„¢ Digital Signal Processors working in tandem

Different processors. Different market point, so yes it is economics, but they aren't the same product and build cost is significantly higher on the Axe FX

They are different devices and priced according to component and therefore feature cost.

That said, for me its about the resulting sound.

[Paolo_Maina]

 

• AX-8 Two dual-core Analog Devices SHARCâ„¢ 450 MHz ADSP-21469s and two micro controllers. One is dedicated to amp modelling, the other to effects and housekeeping.

• Axe FX Two 600 MHz dual-core Analog Devices TigerSHARCâ„¢ Digital Signal Processors working in tandem

Different processors. Different market point, so yes it is economics, but they aren't the same product and build cost is significantly higher on the Axe FX

They are different devices and priced according to component and therefore feature cost.

That said, for me its about the resulting sound.</p>

Helix has more features than AX8 but the same processor.

Well AX8 can't be like Helix or with more features.

In fact it hasn't the audio interface!

[sb77]

The comparison you made was between Axe FX and AX-8?

Point of fact I don't actually know (or much care!) what processors are in Helix & what speed they are clocked at -its what comes out that counts.

 

The way each device processes audio is manufacturer specific - such as the algorithms utilised and the conversion chips employed.

 

There are plenty of differences. Plenty.

 

And no AX-8 doesn't have an audio interface - not everybody wants one I guess.

 

I have access to both.