Jump to content
TheBoyWithDog

More Signal Paths in Upcoming Helix Update

Recommended Posts

  My experience with the Line 6 Helix has been overall positive, and I've thoroughly enjoyed being an owner. I still find new ways to implement it into my workflow as it truly is a versatile workhorse. But, not as much as it should be as, there are still areas i find it bizarrely incapable when it comes to signal routing. (Im going to keep these improvement pages simple so I'm starting with...)

 

  > Helix needs an option for splitting the left and right channels of a single stereo path into dual mono paths. i.e. post-2523982-0-70738900-1499634495_thumb.png For up to 8 mono paths, instead of a maximum of 4 stereo paths.

 

  > Stereo paths separated into mono paths will allow for each channel to be processed individually.

 

  > An added benefit to having separate channels processed individually would be, you wouldn't have to have one effect running into another, in series, and instead have multiple effects running in parallel for clearer and cleaner sounds that could then be blended together to taste.

 

  > Separated channels makes Helix more powerful when it comes to mono signals, as you can have a single inputs with up to four individually controlled parallel voices.

 

  > Alternatively, you could have 4 independent input/output channels versus the mandatory, original "one shared stereo channel for paired inputs and outputs(which often holds me back from implementing Helix's effect blocks when using it as an 8 in/ 8 out channel recording interface)"

 

  > There will be no waste of one of your 8 ins/ 8 outs, like before when using a stereo channel for mono.

 

  > As with any 8 channel mixer, the possibilities really do become endless.

 

  > You can help bring attention to this here ... https://line6.ideascale.com/a/idea-v2/902419

 

 

   Every DAW I've worked out of has had this essential option and Line 6 Helix is lacking in power, flexibility and, ultimately, capability without it. I was surprised to find this option missing from this device and I'd be less surprised had i not been promised an 8 in/8 out multi effects device. Never have i requested 8 tracks from a DAW and been given four inseparable channels paired in stereo. Many users, especially bassists, will benefit from the ability to have separately controlled, independent parallel mono voices, as myself, and other studio workers i know, keep single sound sources in mono anyway and find no need for a stereo channel on a bass or guitar. Its cumbersome not to be able separate the channel into a separate voicing, and routings quickly get complicated and take unnecessary space when I routinely have to do so many workarounds to a simple issue. Having the channel separate, like on a mixer, is a simple solution to a simple problem, without a complicated workaround, that opens many more possibilities in signal processing.

 

  While I have the ability to route Helix's paired USB outputs into my DAW via separate mono input channels, as is customary with any digital audio workstation, i find it both perplexing and limiting as to why i can't process each signal separately within the Helix itself. If i could, then it would take so many other pieces of gear out of the equation and without this option i feel like I'm not being able to fully utilize the Helix's processing power. Stereo tracks being separated to mono would benefit not to fill each path with more effects, but to not be unnecessarily limited with how signals are routed. Picture four separate effects running in parallel blended together, instead of having them fed into each other, and imagine the difference in sound and possibilities that would make.

 

  Users, like myself, who appealed to the adverts of Helix being able to take the power of their studio sounds on the road, and vice versa, will appreciate this greatly. The Helix already has the design to accommodate four signals paths, the spillover for the next four paths just needs to be placed on a separate page as is typical with the effect parameters pages.

 

  The benefits are seemingly endless, only being limited by how creative you could be with it, instead of being stuck to the factory setting. Even single effect blocks running in parallel vs in series would be a large improvement versus having each effect fed into another. This will open a new world of infinite possibilities when it comes to Helix signal routing and how users will create patches. You can vote for this idea at... https://line6.ideascale.com/a/idea-v2/902419

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see multiple Parallel Split and Merge points per Signal Path (as you depicted graphically in your other post):

 

post-2523982-0-45200700-1499818480.png

 

 

Just not sure if Line 6 would feel too many Helix users would use the feature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there an idea scale request for this?  If not, I'd suggest creating one.  If so, vote it up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TheBoyWithDog, This Multiple Parallel Paths per Signal Chain suggestion should have its own IdeaScale suggestion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see multiple Parallel Split and Merge points per Signal Path (as you depicted graphically in your other post):

 

post-2523982-0-45200700-1499818480.png

 

 

Just not sure if Line 6 would feel too many Helix users would use the feature.

I would probably use this on ALL of my presets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be, I'm pretty sure, a hardware change.

4 parallel paths not enough for you? Buy two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 But, not as much as it should be as, there are still areas i find it bizarrely incapable when it comes to signal routing. 

 

:D - jeez

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be, I'm pretty sure, a hardware change.

 

4 parallel paths not enough for you? Buy two.

 

I don't think the people advocating for multiple split and merge blocks per processor path (I think it's a great idea well worth spending the resources on) are wanting more parallel paths, but more parallel granularity :) on the existing paths A and B.

 

I would imagine buying more devices isn't realistic or practical for most people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the people advocating for multiple split and merge blocks per processor path (I think it's a great idea well worth spending the resources on) are wanting more parallel paths, but more parallel granularity :) on the existing paths A and B.

 

I would imagine buying more devices isn't realistic or practical for most people.

 

 

I agree that multiple split and merge blocks would be awesome. I think it's an amazing idea and would probably be do-able, even if it's only 2 more per path.

 

But one person talked about 8 mono paths. That's just bizarro, probably impossible in the hardware, and if you need that many separate paths, you need an additional piece of gear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But one person talked about 8 mono paths. That's just bizarro, probably impossible in the hardware, and if you need that many separate paths, you need an additional piece of gear.

 

Ahh. Yes, I see that now. I wonder if a couple instances of Helix Native will be able construct what it is he wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh. Yes, I see that now. I wonder if a couple instances of Helix Native will be able construct what it is he wants.

 

Yes, in fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see multiple Parallel Split and Merge points per Signal Path (as you depicted graphically in your other post):post-2523982-0-45200700-1499818480.png

Just not sure if Line 6 would feel too many Helix users would use the feature.

Definitely wished this was implemented too!! Will use it a lot.

 

I may be mistaken, as I never owned one, but I thought to have seen this multiple splits possibility in an axe FX video?! Don't shoot me if this is not the case. Anyway.., would be so cool and useful to have this though.

 

(I remember there is an ideascale for this, as I know I voted it up ;-))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be mistaken, as I never owned one, but I thought to have seen this multiple splits possibility in an axe FX video?! Don't shoot me if this is not the case. Anyway.., would be so cool and useful to have this though.

 

Yeah something like that. I think There are like 4 paths and you could connect path 1 to path 4 while routing path 3 to path 1 and 2 and have a spiders Web of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah something like that. I think There are like 4 paths and you could connect path 1 to path 4 while routing path 3 to path 1 and 2 and have a spiders Web of things.

 

 

Don't remember the particulars either, just remember that it is super cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey everyone, thank you for any and all support and/or interest in this idea. I've been swamped on my end but I hope to keep up with any questions or comments soon.

 

Peterhamm, worry not, I'm hoping to submit more posts that will clear up any confusion and elaborate further, but, no hardware change or second Helix is necessary. Fortunately for all of us, after talking extensively about the idea, I assure you it is *more than possible* with what Helix currently has under the hood and completely within the bounds of the device's potential as this routing renovation would be a mundane feat compared to the Helix's horsepower. I plan to have these resources posted soon.

 

Just remember to keep the team behind Helix motivated by voting for it, let them know how much of an impact this feature would make for you and how much you want it by commenting and voicing your perspective and, finally, letting them know how glad you are that you invested in the Helix. Tell your friends if you can as I think the more voices behind this, the better the chance. I hope to elaborate further soon, thanks for any and all questions and... keep them coming!

 

Also, peterhamm, enjoyed the videos! Probably viewed them on repeat before my purchase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×