new Pete Thorn HELIX RACK vid

[sinasl1]

Hi guys! Having lots of fun using Helix Rack with an amp in the studio!

 

[AZGuitar]

Thanks for sharing, perfect morning coffee video. Pets's awesome!

[bsd512]

Sounded great!  That new fuzz pedal you're testing sounded really good, too.

[jeffhucik]

Pete's original Helix demo from about a year ago is what made me take the dive for the helix. At the time, it was the only demo where it actually sounded good and showed its full potential. Glad to see he's using it!

[erniedenov]

Yeah, I love Pete's product demo videos! I especially like his original Helix video where he wrote a tune in which he layered 9 different guitar patches. Besides being a tone meister, he's a great guitar player and composer. I was hoping for something like that here, but oh well, it was still cool. 

[spikey]

Thanks for the post- and yes its very fun using the editor with Helix. 

 

 

If the editor just had a tuner...  ;)

[ricksteruk]

Yeah! Great to see some good old checking stuff out 'on the fly'.  Loved the first Pete Thorn Helix video as well.

 

I think what I like best about Helix is that it can be used in so many ways depending on what fits your needs.

Oh what a bad machine  :P

[roscoe5]

That's a cool way to use Helix if you have some good amps around still.

 

Wonder what kind of reaction you would get from the sound guy walking in with Helix, a couple of tube heads and no cab ;)

[spikey]

That's a cool way to use Helix if you have some good amps around still.

 

Wonder what kind of reaction you would get from the sound guy walking in with Helix, a couple of tube heads and no cab ;)

All sound guys cant be luddites.

[roscoe5]

Holy crap that was fun!!!  IR's and even Helix HX Cabs respond differently to a line in from a real amp>load box. I'm gonna have to work later tonight, but I had to capitalize on inspiration.

 

Clips

Hacking cheesy 80's guitar riffs>PRS SC Trem>

 

Mesa Triple Rec Multi-watt Ch3 Vintage>Mesa Slave Out (speaker out loaded)>Helix Return 1>MesRec_D112_1.5in_2 IR

https://soundcloud.com/michael-potts-995394155/sound-clip-real-trirec-mesrec212-d112-15in-2

 

Mesa Stiletto II Crunch>Mesa Slave Out (speaker out loaded)>Helix Return 1>MesRec_D112_1.5in_2 IR

https://soundcloud.com/michael-potts-995394155/sound-clip-real-stiletto-mesrec212-d112-15in-2

 

Mesa Recto 212 IR's

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mm1y9x4s75d9oh4/AABljWBWiNEzDlA3_rgB6XNka?dl=0

 

Now I have to decide which is the accessory...Helix or the Mesa heads  ;)

 

 

Edit:  I just tried the the Mesa Recto head's slave (amp) out and it works fantastic!!!  It sounds nearly identical to the line off of my attenuator.  My Mesa Stiletto II head has the same thing and it works great as well!

 

There's maybe a touch more magic in a reactive load box line out, but I think the slave outs sound great.

 

At one time I thought Mesa had published instructions for making a simple (and cheap) load box with a resistor of proper wattage and ohm rating for use when you use their amp's slave outs.  It was only meant to load the amp and protect it, not pass any signal.  This seems simple from an electrical engineering perspective with a resistor in a small aluminum project box, maybe even fit it into a large speaker jack housing.  Does anyone have any links to some products or instructions?

[spikey]

So Pete is "sending a signal out of the Helix" (just to understand this) using one of the Aux Sends (set to instrument) on Helix to his amp input (and return into Helix (set to line in) from the load box line out) to his amp?  Is that correct? So he's using two aux ins and outs pairs,  using one of each set/pair to instrument send (aux 1) and line lvl return (aux 2) correct? 

 

The reason Im being anal is because you cannot set the send to instrument and the return to line on the same aux pair, right?

 

And does the instrument lvl Aux send from Helix give the amp input the right impedance from the guitar pups? 

 

Or did I miss something?  :huh:

[jeffhucik]

Gear head,

One thing you could track down is a used Suhr ISO line box. It splits your amp signal into a line level and you run one end into an actual cab for load..I did this before I got myfryette power station.

[roscoe5]

Gear head,

One thing you could track down is a used Suhr ISO line box. It splits your amp signal into a line level and you run one end into an actual cab for load..I did this before I got myfryette power station.

 

Thanks @jeffhucik.  I saw one on ebay for $250.  I'll grab a Fryette PS2 end of Jan after I see what comes out at winter NAMM.  Seems like a perfect companion for Helix, whether you are using your own heads in the studio or Helix live into a guitar cab.

 

I was just messing around today with the gear I had lying around.  Honestly after jamming with my Mesa heads again, my favorite tones are still coming from Helix amp models>Spider Valve Head>Mesa 212.  So I bet the Fryette can replace the SV head and my old TAD Silencer attenuator (not sure if it's a reactive load or not). I'll probably sell the DT50 too.  Lots of headroom in that SV HD100 though.

 

I took the Helix amp models>Spider Valve power amp>attenuator line out>Helix>Mesa 212 IR.  The SV HD100 power section really is pretty neutral when AB'ing it with just the Helix amp model into the IR, and it reacts with that physical Mesa 212 cab nicely.  The Fryette PS2 should be as well, maybe even more so.

 

SO enough hijacking...back to Pete Thorn.  Yes, his first Helix videos were a big reason I bought Helix in Jan this year.  This video is just as helpful and inspiring.

[specracer986]

So Pete is "sending a signal out of the Helix" (just to understand this) using one of the Aux Sends (set to instrument) on Helix to his amp input (and return into Helix (set to line in) from the load box line out) to his amp?  Is that correct? So he's using two aux ins and outs pairs,  using one of each set/pair to instrument send (aux 1) and line lvl return (aux 2) correct? 

 

The reason Im being anal is because you cannot set the send to instrument and the return to line on the same aux pair, right?

 

And does the instrument lvl Aux send from Helix give the amp input the right impedance from the guitar pups? 

 

Or did I miss something?  :huh:

 

What I heard was: Out of the Helix/ Into the amp/ amp speaker out/ into the reactive load box/ load box out/ back into the Helix. So just one set of aux send / return being used.

I'm not a user of the aux send returns yet, so I don't know if this creates any problem, but it seems to be working for him. Seems like a good way to mate an amp you like with the Helix.

[spikey]

What I heard was: Out of the Helix/ Into the amp/ amp speaker out/ into the reactive load box/ load box out/ back into the Helix. So just one set of aux send / return being used.

I'm not a user of the aux send returns yet, so I don't know if this creates any problem, but it seems to be working for him. Seems like a good way to mate an amp you like with the Helix.

 

Out of Helix and into the amp. Thats where Im wondering what was used. Out of Helix thru aux send 1 can be set to instrument level, which would be correct to send to the amps guitar input, otherwise you hit the front end of the amp too hard with line lvl signals. And if you then send out (to the return of Helix) of the load box back to Helix, thats a line lvl signal from the load box. So you cant use aux one, cause its set to "instrument" level as a pair, correct? And you cant use both line lvl and instrument lvl on the same send/return set, correct?

[jeffhucik]

When I use the Helix as an Ir loader I send the line out of the load box into an aux return on the back(line level). What he's doing is guitar into helix, fx(inst level) send out of helix to amp, amp out to load box, load box line out to aux return in (line level), Line out of helix to converter.

[spikey]

Ok so he is using 2 sets of aux Send/Rtn pairs (one pair set to instrument and the other to line lvls) to do this...

 

 

Edited: Nevermind. I just found out that the 1/4" outs can be set to either line level, or instrument level out.

 

 

Something like this... 

 

 

 

EDITED- see below!

[jbuhajla]

 

At one time I thought Mesa had published instructions for making a simple (and cheap) load box with a resistor of proper wattage and ohm rating for use when you use their amp's slave outs.  It was only meant to load the amp and protect it, not pass any signal.  This seems simple from an electrical engineering perspective with a resistor in a small aluminum project box, maybe even fit it into a large speaker jack housing.  Does anyone have any links to some products or instructions?

 

I am not an amplifier engineer, but be careful with the resistor idea. A reactive load box by definition is a combination of resistive AND reactive elements. Resistors are just pure resistance measured in ohms. A reactive load is also measured in ohms, but have reactive elements (inductors/capacitors) and resistive elements. Things happening in the reactive world are no longer linear. Using just resistors may damage your equipment. But I say again, I am not an amplifier engineer. Consult your particular equipment's manuals. 

[spikey]

I am not an amplifier engineer, but be careful with the resistor idea. A reactive load box by definition is a combination of resistive AND reactive elements. Resistors are just pure resistance measured in ohms. A reactive load is also measured in ohms, but have reactive elements (inductors/capacitors) and resistive elements. Things happening in the reactive world are no longer linear. Using just resistors may damage your equipment. But I say again, I am not an amplifier engineer. Consult your particular equipment's manuals. 

 

Roscoe5, You will lose tone when you attenuate a cranked amp using a pure resistive load box, as jbuhajia stated. Theres evidence of that all over the web. Thats the reason why it was only meant to protect the amp and not pass any signal. 

[Guitarzman]

Hi guys! Having lots of fun using Helix Rack with an amp in the studio!

 

 

 

Ok so he is using 2 sets of aux Send/Rtn pairs (one pair set to instrument and the other to line lvls) to do this...

 

 

Edited: Nevermind. I just found out that the 1/4" outs can be set to either line level, or instrument level out.

 

 

Something like this... 

 

 

 

 

 

So he's guitar in, 1/4" instrument lvl out into amp, Speaker out to Load Box, Line out of load box into aux 1 return of Helix set to Line, and then adding post effects... Im using a separate Audio Interface (not Helix), thats the reason for the stereo outs from Helix into the Apollo/MOTU/etc etc.

 

Sometimes I need a hammer to beat it into my thick skull lol  :P

Great video Pete and diagram Spikey! 

Here's a link to an article from premier guitar with the lowdown on load boxes, attenuators and reamps.  

 

http://bit.ly/2iw3wkH

 

 

[STPLE]

Hey guys - can you clarify something for me??  Just for kicks I was messing with an amp head that I have and a Rockcrusher Recorder as a load box. 

 

1.  So do you have to use the 1/4 out at instrument level to front of amp?  Or can you use FX loop 1 at instrument level to front of amp? 

2.  Then return FX Loop 2 at Line Level??

 

I've used one FX loop 1 at line level with the whole DT25 workaround (back of the amp power section only - preamp turned off) then using the Rockcrusher as a load box and bringing back in via FX Loop 1 Return at line level.  I've had some pretty good stuff with that arrangement. 

 

I can't seem to do the same thing as Pete Thorn to work - I'm sure I'm missing something very simple.  I guess I just wanted to confirm the only way to do this is to go 1/4 inch out (unbalanced) at instrument level - then from load box back to Helix to FX Return 1 at line level.  Not sure then how you would set that up on a particular patch - How would you set up the FX loop blocks?? How would you set the Output??  Especially if I ever used this live I would have to have the end of the signal chain's output to XLR to the PA.

[spikey]

Yea I'm rethinking this as well. You can't use the instrument lvl main out cause that's the last point in the chain. it has to be a aux instrument lvl send (to the amp input). That means that since the return from the load box is line level, u would have to use a second aux port set at line lvl for the return in Helix. So you are correct STPLE. Sorry but my drawing above I believe is wrong.

[STPLE]

Here is what I tried and it didn't work - I must be missing something. 

 

Guitar -> Helix (input) -> FX Send 1 (instrument level) -> Front of amp -> Amp speaker out -> Rockcrusher reactive load -> back to Helix FX Return 2 Line Level.  The goal was to do what I think Pete Thorn did - use the amp head preamp and power amp and then depending on where you put the send/return put the Helix effects.

 

The Four Cable Method seems a bit different b/c there is no speaker/cab in this scenario.

 

What am I missing - why wouldn't that work??  Thanks!!

[roscoe5]

Here is what I tried and it didn't work - I must be missing something.

 

Guitar -> Helix (input) -> FX Send 1 (instrument level) -> Front of amp -> Amp speaker out -> Rockcrusher reactive load -> back to Helix FX Return 2 Line Level. The goal was to do what I think Pete Thorn did - use the amp head preamp and power amp and then depending on where you put the send/return put the Helix effects.

 

The Four Cable Method seems a bit different b/c there is no speaker/cab in this scenario.

 

What am I missing - why wouldn't that work?? Thanks!!

How did you con figure your routing blocks in Helix for Send 1 and Return 2?

 

I actually had no issues just using a single FX Loop 1 (send/return 1) block in Helix set to instrument level. I just turned the level knob down on the slave outs of my Mesa amps.

[jbuhajla]

Here is what I tried and it didn't work - I must be missing something. 

 

Guitar -> Helix (input) -> FX Send 1 (instrument level) -> Front of amp -> Amp speaker out -> Rockcrusher reactive load -> back to Helix FX Return 2 Line Level.  The goal was to do what I think Pete Thorn did - use the amp head preamp and power amp and then depending on where you put the send/return put the Helix effects.

 

The Four Cable Method seems a bit different b/c there is no speaker/cab in this scenario.

 

What am I missing - why wouldn't that work??  Thanks!!

That should do it, but you have to have the send/return blocks configured for the correct signals. 

[STPLE]

Roscoe5 - total lack of understanding.  I was assuming that instrument level going in to the amp and line level coming out of the load box.  That is why I split the FX loops to Send 1 at instrument level and Return 2 at line level.  I didn't even try the instrument level for both in one FX loop.  I was thinking that level would be too low coming back - but I may give it go.

 

jbuhajla - I tried this the other night with not good results - it didn't work.  I put the two FX blocks Send 1 then Return 2 right next to each other - kinda like an FX loop in two blocks.  Not sure if that was correct.

[jbuhajla]

I think you should be using Send 1/Return 1 not Send 1/Return 2. I could be wrong, but I think you need to use the same send/return paired channel. 

[STPLE]

You're probably right.  I may try it tonight.  One question I had with using the same send/return is that if the Load Box is sending the signal back at line level and Helix is set to instrument level - would that be a problem or mess up the Helix??  Is it safe to have it set to instrument and have a line level signal coming in the Return?

[MusicLaw]

I think you should be using Send 1/Return 1 not Send 1/Return 2. I could be wrong, but I think you need to use the same send/return paired channel.

 

Nope. I don't think this is an absolute requirement. Moreover, if your need to use different Global I/O Level Settings (Instrument vs. Line) you'll need separate FX channels.

[jbuhajla]

I am not sure about that one. I would think leaving them both at instrument level would be fine and there would be no chance of damage. I am not familiar with the input specs. I think you can adjust the volume levels of the send/return separately to tweak it in so you can push your amp appropriately with the send, and volume match the return with the rest of your signal chain within the Helix. 

[roscoe5]

You're probably right.  I may try it tonight.  One question I had with using the same send/return is that if the Load Box is sending the signal back at line level and Helix is set to instrument level - would that be a problem or mess up the Helix??  Is it safe to have it set to instrument and have a line level signal coming in the Return?

 

I ran instrument level send/return on Helix loop 1 with both my load box and the slave outs on my amps with no issues.  Both my load box and amp slave outs have level controls that I turned down to about 25%.

 

I believe the only risk is Helix clipping on the return if the signal is coming in too hot.  Maybe someone from line 6 can confirm.

[jbuhajla]

Nope. I don't think this is an absolute requirement. Moreover, if your need to use different Global I/O Level Settings (Instrument vs. Line) you'll need separate FX channels.

Interesting, good to know. 

[STPLE]

The Helix sounds so good on its own I doubt I'd use this in a live setting at this point.  Sometimes I like to figure stuff out. 

 

The Rockcrusher has a line out control as well - I think that most likely is an easy solution (finding the right level to have the signal coming back to Helix).

 

Still not sure why when I ran FX Send 1 instrument to front of amp then Fx Return 2 line level to the Helix didn't work. 

[roscoe5]

I think Send 1 (instrument level) Return 2 (line level) could work, it would just take two separate blocks, whether right on the Helix path(s) and/or on the I/O (round) blocks.

 

I liked it on a single effects loop block so I could easily kick it in/out with a snapshot.

[MusicLaw]

If there is no need to use different Global I/O Level settings, then a single FX Loop Block could accomplish the task. This is where Helix's signal routing flexibiliy and options are exceptional! And, really quick and easy to reconfigure and compare alternatives using the Bypass feature!

 

I get as much enjoyment from playing with Helix's audio engineering aspects as I do from playing Guitar through Helix! It is a win win!

[spikey]

I Re-upped- yes I have to use both aux's, one with instrument lvl (aux 1) for whats being sent to the front of the amp (guitar in), and the other "has" to be line level because thats what my load box is sending out, back to Helix. Unless your load box sends at instrument level (at which case it would be easier to do) you need to use line level signals. 

 

Here is the new pic. Of course you can sub out with any amp head (and "optional" external cab) and load box as long as it has a line (or inst.) out Im thinking, but as always YMMV.

 

[STPLE]

I'm missing something - I can't get it to work.  I even tried with DT25.

[jeffhucik]

I Re-upped- yes I have to use both aux's, one with instrument lvl (aux 1) for whats being sent to the front of the amp (guitar in), and the other "has" to be line level because thats what my load box is sending out, back to Helix. Unless your load box sends at instrument level (at which case it would be easier to do) you need to use line level signals.

 

Here is the new pic. Of course you can sub out with any amp head (and "optional" external cab) and load box as long as it has a line (or inst.) out Im thinking, but as always YMMV.

 

This is exactly how I imagined you would Do it. I'll try it out with my power station 2 tomorrow before band practice. I wouldn't really use this set up normally but it's a good thing to have in my aresenal if a guitarist wants to use their actual head but doesn't have all the effects they want that the helix has in my studio. I, again, end up just plugging the amp into the powerstation, line out to an aux return line level on the Helix to use it as an Ir loader. It's awesome. Don't think I'll ever mic a cab again!

[STPLE]

Listening to Pete Thorn's Q&A #28 - (I don't know how to cut and paste the youtube link on this forum).  Start at 2:30 and he addresses this question exactly.  The one thing I don't have is a lift coming out of the Helix into the front of the amp.  I think I may be having a ground loop issue when I tried it.  I have rehearsal tonight so I may grab a direct box (if we have one that will work) and try it again.  If I recall there is a lift on the back of the Helix - I wonder if that would do the trick??

 

Has any one else actually got this work??

 

I'm with jeffhucik - I really don't think I would use this in a live setting but I'd like to understand it so as to have it available.  The Helix by itself I have grown to absolutely love. 

[jeffhucik]

Listening to Pete Thorn's Q&A #28 - (I don't know how to cut and paste the youtube link on this forum). Start at 2:30 and he addresses this question exactly. The one thing I don't have is a lift coming out of the Helix into the front of the amp. I think I may be having a ground loop issue when I tried it. I have rehearsal tonight so I may grab a direct box (if we have one that will work) and try it again. If I recall there is a lift on the back of the Helix - I wonder if that would do the trick??

 

Has any one else actually got this work??

 

I'm with jeffhucik - I really don't think I would use this in a live setting but I'd like to understand it so as to have it available. The Helix by itself I have grown to absolutely love.

 

I use a behringer HD400 hum destroyer. Cheap and effective. It kills any hum I have with amps. I always get a bad buzz when I use my buffered guitar splitter during sessions. This solves it 100%