How do you handle high end brightness of the Helix?

[phil_m]

And again...I just told you guys I close mic'ed all my different rigs over the years.

Doesn't matter where the Mic is...if the guitar speaker doesn't produce that frequency spectrum, then it can't be there.

 

And yes I am using FRFR Bose system. It doesn't have horns or tweeters but full range small speakers.

 

But when I used traditional rigs they were all mic'ed with an SM57 and going to front of house and a monitor mixer as well.

And of course our PA had horns lol...and so did out monitor system.

No "fizz" was there. If there ever had been... I would have been looking to replace the soundman lol

 

My rig always sounded the same coming out of my cab, the monitor, and the PA.

Why would anyone tolerate anything less?

 

Granted I am referring to good sounding rooms as well. Of course I played some huge rooms that were so reflective of the sound that the whole mix would be a mess.. but I am speaking in general terms.

A tube amp into a 4x12 cab does not have those frequencies.

And any of you who played in a live band KNOW that your amp is ALWAYS mic'ed up close to avoid it feeding back in the PA with low end rumble.

It's only in the studio that guitar amps are using a mixture of close mic'ing and room mics for ambience

And that kind of negates these theories that some are espousing about close mic'ing.

Mic'ing an amp in the studio is very rarely putting a Mic up close to the speaker.

But even if it were.. you can't get a microphone to record a frequency that isn't there to begin with.

 

It's not like a guitar speaker doesn't produce anything in those ranges... It's just that they're much less prominent than the full range part of the speaker. That's what the frequency response charts show. It's especially true in the 7-9 kHz ranges... There's still stuff there. When you're dealing with distorted guitar, you're also adding another layer of potential harshness, because adding harmonics to the signal, so you're creating stuff that is well beyond what they guitar itself produces.

 

Anyway, if you look at recording forums, you'll see all sorts of threads with people complaining about harsh and/or fizzy guitars. It most definitely does happen with real close-miced amps.

 

One other thing I'll add, though, is I think some of the harshness that people are complaining about isn't really in these higher ranges. I think it's more in the 3-4kHZ range, and it has to do with things other than the hi cut settings...

[specracer986]

I don't mind tweaking to get what I want. I prefer Line 6 not do it for me.

[mefife]

Fairly new owner here and for the most part, I can appreciate the overall frequency output of the helix for its flexibility. Running into the OT of a 100w marshall SLP, the presence knob on the amp allows for great "stage" tones, while an IR'd signal can be sent to FOH out the XLR's. IF i use the globals, they're only applied to the XLR and matched to my on stage cab. Room matching is a collaboration w/ the sound tech at the venue.

 

That aside, I like to view the Helix "Environment" as a portable studio setup for a guitar rig. Bussing (somewhat),blending, crossover, EQ, compression, etc. can play a huge roll in how the unit sounds and feels. CAB blocks directly after the amp and before an IR can really focus a tone when blended the right way. Of course, there are infinite shades of "good enough", but amp and cab sim is a small part of the overall achievement of tone w/ these bad boys.

[PeterHamm]

And again...I just told you guys I close mic'ed all my different rigs over the years.

Doesn't matter where the Mic is...if the guitar speaker doesn't produce that frequency spectrum, then it can't be there.

 

 

Others have as well, and dispute your conclusion... jus' saying'...

[robbieb61]

Others have as well, and dispute your conclusion... jus' saying'...

I know and I'm not wanting to be argumentative. :)

 

But it is IMPOSSIBLE for a guitar speaker to create those frequencies at any real volume. And a microphone can only pick up what is there in the first place. That's just physics. 

I guess it doesn't matter what anyone believes (me or you or anyone else)...it is what it is. And The Helix is a great sounding unit. 

[jpdennis]

As most in this and many other threads have stated, the Helix give you what you tell it to give you.  It gives you control for the most part.based upon the blocks it has and how they have been developed.  For me I researched the speakers of my tube amps and have done my best to match their frequency curve using hi and lo cuts on the speaker IRs for the most part.  Then i A/B against the FRFR I use.  Next I add either/or both global and block EQs as I feel I need.  Then there is the guitar impedance based upon my guitars and inital block.  And finally the placement of every block I use.  There is a wealth of knowledge from many of the users of this forum concerning everything I have shared.  And it has been their input that has guided me.

 

Since I have used many techniques to get the sound I want to be defined as "mine" I have also forgotten the specifics yet retain the ability to match what my ears want to hear as the final output.  I will never get the amp in a room sound since that is no my intent anyway.  I tend to go more for the "recording sound of a musical band" when the output is pushed through the FOH in the clubs we play using our PA if the room is under 5000 sq ft and trust the production crew if the venue is larger.  YMMV

 

At the end it is my ear I tend to please and it seems to work for the groups I work with and the audiences.

 

Dennis

[HonestOpinion]

I agree with many of robbie61's comments although I would reassert that mic'ing a cab can change the sound of a cab in two ways . One is depending on the mic used, certain frequencies that might be more subdued when just listening to the speaker can be accentuated depending on the mic's frequency response and where it is most sensitive. This means that even if the mic is not actually adding any frequencies that are not there as robbie61 points out, it may be making certain unpleasing frequencies that do exist more prominent.The second area impacting the sound is the fact that a mic is like sticking your ear right in front of the speaker, quite different from the way a concert goer is listening from a distance and probably off axis. However, it is not so different from mic'ing a cab to the PA and yet it does take a bit more work to EQ the Helix properly versus sticking a mic in front of one of your Celestions. It is not as simple as close mic'ing a traditional guitar cab, especially through an FRFR monitor and direct to the PA. I think that is the disconnect for a lot of Helix users and the source of a lot of threads asking about how to EQ out the gnarlier parts of the high end which as some have pointed out are not just in the range above 5k.

I tape all our shows and the clarity of the guitar sound is awesome but both live and on playback I have sometimes heard those sort of ear "exhausting" frequencies we all try to avoid in vocal or guitar sounds where the wrong frequencies are being accentuated. Those are the part of the frequency spectrum that really wear an audience down by the end of the evening. When I hear those I return to the preset and do more work on the EQ and maybe even change the mic model. Most of this has probably been all said before though. Even though I have decades of experience with EQ I would still be a fan of a few "Idiot's EQ filter settings", an "FRFR specific EQ setting", or cab model options that put me somewhere in the territory of a great sounding Celestion right from jump. The Helix definitely has models that are dialed in nicely already but It requires more work on some amp and mic model combinations than others. I think that is why some users just prefer using their favorite guitar amp and cab as a monitor and its inherent frequency response, curve, and limiting, as opposed to the extra work required for using an FRFR. There are rewards to using an FRFR for a monitor however, which is the direction I selected to go, which include a sound much more faithful to the amp and cab that is being modeled as well as a more accurate representation of what the PA sounds like if you are going direct to the PA.

[HonestOpinion]

Just an aside but it occurs to me that one of the differences between the modeled digital world and the analog world can be that the digital world always produces exactly the same sound as the day it was modeled. This give you fantastic consistency and predictability but it means that unless you model (and they probably do) that nicely worn in speaker and that SM57 or 58 that has been dented and dropped fifty times and subjected to high SPLs you may miss out on that wonderful tone often attained only by older equipment.

[robbieb61]

Of course moving a microphone around in different areas of the speaker will give you a different tone in the real world. Closer to the center, the brighter the sound.
I'm just saying that maybe it would have been better had Line 6 did a better job modeling the LIMITATIONS of a guitar speaker cab. No 4x12 cab in the world would be able to have those really high frequencies like that. 
As I linked to celestions own specs...A Greenback Celestion 12 inch speaker has a 75 to 5K  response. Period. And it has a lot of boost in the mid range. Which is what makes a celestion loaded cab SOUND like a celestion loaded cab. 

Which is why so many of us have turned to 3rd party IR cabs. 

Again...I'm not attacking the Helix. I am able to get what I want and I think it sounds fantastic. I'm just debating all this talk that some have on here that this is the way real amps and cabs sound mic'ed up...NO, it's not. 
I think my experience onstage, in major studios, and in home digital studios qualifies me as well as anyone to say that Line 6 could have made this beast sound a lot better and true-er if they had nailed down the modeling of the cabinets and gotten the frequency responses of these cabs to be correct.

I don't want to anger anyone, I'm not even sure why that statement would anger them...lol.  
It just takes a lot of high frequency eq cuts to get it to sound right. And I can't help but feel that it is causing me to lose some harmonics and overtones and sustain that might be the tiny icing on the cake to achieve my own "holy grail" in the never-ending search for the "best" tone. 

[PeterHamm]

But it is IMPOSSIBLE for a guitar speaker to create those frequencies at any real volume.

 

 

I am very sorry to disagree, but you are incorrect.

 

http://www.aikenamps.com/index.php/frequency-response-of-a-marshall-4x12-cabinet

 

That's just one example. Significant frequencies all the way up to 10K and some beyond that less significant.

[HonestOpinion]

I am very sorry to disagree, but you are incorrect.

 

http://www.aikenamps.com/index.php/frequency-response-of-a-marshall-4x12-cabinet

 

That's just one example. Significant frequencies all the way up to 10K and some beyond that less significant.

Maybe it is about what an individual's definition of "significant" is. According to this graph unless I am misreading it (quite possible) the signal is already dipping about 15db at 5k and by the time you hit 10k it has dipped about 36db. Frequencies dropping 15-36db from the level of the source signal as compared to the frequencies around 700hz which hover around 0db, seems like a fairly significant drop to me. That should be extremely noticeable and have a relatively profound impact on the tone. From about a little over 100hz to about 5khz the response is fairly flat and as you approach 5k it starts to dip a bit and then nose dives after 5k.and declines fairly rapidly falling off a bit of a cliff at 10k. There is also a dropoff on the low end as you approach 100hz. There are still frequencies to be heard below 100hz and above 5k (which is why you don't want a hard cut off on the low or high pass filters), but the prominence of those frequencies according to the Celestion graph in your example will be fairly dramatically attenuated. That is pretty much the frequency range and response most people expect from a Celestion type guitar speaker with some variations between models.

 

I am no expert on this and maybe I have it wrong but the above is my understanding of how the frequency response chart should be interpreted. I am totally open to correction here by folks with more expertise on this topic.

 

If this graph hypothetically extended with a relatively flat plateau from for example 20hz-10,000khz you would have a much different guitar sound. I think the point that robbie61 is trying to make is that if for example Celestion loaded cab models are being rendered faithfully, frequencies at 10khz, although still present, should not show up too loudly and certainly not at the same or close to the same decibel level/volume as those at for instance 1khz, even if they are played through an FRFR with a flat frequency response for example extending from say 50hz-20,000hz - a much wider and flatter response curve than a traditional guitar speaker. When it comes to guitar you don't want every frequency receiving equal weighting. That is why I assume you can listen to a CD or .wav file on a full range pair of Hi-Fi speakers or headphones and hear a recorded guitar with its original great tone which includes its limited and unique frequency response curve.

 

Without getting lost in the weeds about the impact of compression or Fletcher-Munson, you don't want certain frequencies to get overemphasized, or to get every frequency provided at equal loudness, even though your FRFR may be fully capable of delivering them that way. Otherwise every time you played a band through your Hi-Fi speakers or high quality headphones the guitar would sound like crud. The problem is that some of these frequencies above 5k and perhaps even some in spots below, depending on the models used in the preset seem to be getting a higher db response than one would expect from the original guitar speaker that is being modeled. Perhaps this is the source of the "fizz". The Helix can be made to sound great but employing the right EQ can get a bit dicey and challenging on some presets as the signal being delivered does not seem to always result in the "limited" frequency response of the speaker it is modeled after. This means that when that source signal goes into an FRFR, which does not have the same intentionally limited response of a guitar speaker, it can sound harsh or fizzy on the high end or boomy and muddy on the low end.

 

Frequencies that would be naturally cut by the guitar speaker don't always seem to be getting sufficiently attenuated by the Helix and it is particularly noticeable when using an FRFR as a monitor. Stating the obvious here but for a guitar cab to be accurately modeled and its unique tone delivered through an FRFR rather than for example a Marshall cab, certain frequencies must be attenuated at the source(Helix) as they will not be attenuated by the FRFR, as they might be for instance, by a Marshall cab.

 

Again though, I am no expert and there are so many variables and choices for monitors that it may be difficult to "anticipate" what signal should be delivered by the Helix and perhaps the decision is made to some extent to leave the final EQ up to the user and provide a signal with a relatively level and wide response curve. Or, maybe the Helix code or the technology in general needs tweaking in spots, it is still fairly new. Don't want to come off sounding critical because I truly dig my Helix but I do wonder why some cab models seem to have a bit too much of a good thing at certain frequencies when played through an FRFR. Sorry to run on, I lack crusinon2's gift for concision. :)

[phil_m]

It would be interesting to see an actual frequency chart of some of the offending tones... As I mentioned earlier, my feeling is that the harsh frequencies that people are hearing are more in the range of what can be easily produced by a typical guitar speaker, not the very high end. If you isolate those very high frequencies, the ones above 5kHz would be masked pretty easily, even by the guitar tone itself.

 

It's good to play around with a tone generator once in a while to remind yourself what the various frequency bands sound like.

http://www.szynalski.com/tone-generator/

[hideout]

I seem to remember that some time ago, Digital _Igloo had mentioned that during the development of some of Helix’s amp models, they had discussed the possibility of a “Fizzless†amp model... I really wish they’d created it.

 

Maybe they could consider a Fizz Reduction Control for every amp model.

 

I just thought of something; Has anyone tried putting the graphic EQ between the amp and the cab sim? I’m almost sure the effect would be different from putting it after the cab sim. Hmmm... gonna have to try it.

[jbuhajla]

Guitar speakers do put out frequencies higher than 6kHz , albeit at lower volume. The greenback graph below show the dropoff starting between 6k-7kHz. So if you are using one of these models in Helix and you set your high cuts at 6kHz, you won't hear much of a difference at all due to the shallow slope of the cut. 

 

Also remember these frequency response graphs are produced with a tone generator/colorless amp connected to the speaker, not a guitar amp. Different  guitar amps will amplify/attenuate different frequencies, so the actual response will be different. 

 

Now that we have something like Helix in our hands, we are seeing/hearing things that we normally wouldn't experience unless you have a warehouse full of equipment to play with. 

 

 

http://celestion.com/product/16/g12m_greenback/

[PeterHamm]

What I'd like to know if guitar speakers don't put out above 5K at all... why when I used to mic guitar cabinets (for DECADES by the way) did I find frequency information up in that 5K - 10K range?

Because... (wait for it...) IT IS THERE! (recording engineer, both amateur and occasionally pro, for 30 years...)

[mefife]

Frequencies that would be naturally cut by the guitar speaker don't always seem to be getting sufficiently attenuated by the Helix and it is particularly noticeable when using an FRFR as a monitor. Stating the obvious here but for a guitar cab to be accurately modeled and its unique tone delivered through an FRFR rather than for example a Marshall cab, certain frequencies must be attenuated at the source(Helix) as they will not be attenuated by the FRFR, as they might be for instance, by a Marshall cab.

 

This is really all there is to be said about the subject. If you're modeling you will inherently need to edit based on environment, situation, preference.

 

The +5k debate is tail chasing.

 

In a parallel studio life, I work with RAW video and color treatment and I see the Helix to be very similar (anyone who's familiar w/ DaVinci or LUTs will agree). In our working environment we get to sample the wide gamut of wavelengths that CAN be produced from a signal amplifier. We get to choose which ones SHOULD be accentuated or attenuated. It adds a subtle layer of art to the creation of your signature tone based on these models, which is quite exciting in my book. There's a difference between a point-and-shoot Sony and a RED Epic, both have uses and once requires significantly more work back end to make what some would see as essentially the same image.

[robbieb61]

What I'd like to know if guitar speakers don't put out above 5K at all... why when I used to mic guitar cabinets (for DECADES by the way) did I find frequency information up in that 5K - 10K range?

 

Because... (wait for it...) IT IS THERE! (recording engineer, both amateur and occasionally pro, for 30 years...)

Because they do have those frequency's....but if you look at the graph you linked to in one of the post's above to the frequency range of a Marshall cab...those high frequencies drop off fast after 5K and are down in the NEGATIVE 50 db range. 

You won't HEAR them on a real guitar cab like you do with the Helix.

 

Look brother...if you want to believe that the Helix is faithfully reproducing a guitar speaker sound with the stock cabs...go ahead and believe it. 

If you want to think I'm wrong, that's cool too.

 

I am not going to change my opinion that it would have been immensely better to have cabs that actually sound like the guitar cabs they are emulating. 

 

Bottom line is I love my Helix. Just don't think it should be necessary to make a ton of high cuts to it. 

If the high frequencies that you are talking about were actually at the same level as the very Marshall cab you linked to:   http://www.aikenamps.com/index.php/frequency-response-of-a-marshall-4x12-cabinet

We would NOT HEAR THEM. 

 

No way you are HEARING those frequencies blasting you with harshness when the mids of the cab are close to 0 DB and the 10K  is at -50 DB and below. 

Think about it a second. 

We are getting all passionate about something that is just stupid. 

[robbieb61]

It would be interesting to see an actual frequency chart of some of the offending tones... As I mentioned earlier, my feeling is that the harsh frequencies that people are hearing are more in the range of what can be easily produced by a typical guitar speaker, not the very high end. If you isolate those very high frequencies, the ones above 5kHz would be masked pretty easily, even by the guitar tone itself.

I think you may be right about that.

 

I ended up in an argument about the frequencies above 5K but you could definitely have amp settings with all the high end cranked with no mids and put the microphone right on the cone and get all kind of nasty harshness.

 

My observation is...I don't do that. I like a lot of mids and a big warm fat sound. Never been a "scooped" guy with my amp tone controls. 

So I'm not running my amp setting on Helix with the highs cranked too much. 

So I would expect the cab would react like an actual 4x12 would with those same settings applied. 

 

And the 3rd party Marshall cab IR's I bought seem to come close to that. I still had to do some high cuts though. Not much, just a tiny bit.

[HonestOpinion]

...

 

Maybe they could consider a Fizz Reduction Control for every amp model.

 

...

That is sort of what I was getting at when I was ruminating over an "Idiots EQ filter" or multiple profile settings although the setting I am talking about is targeted to what kind of monitor the player is using rather than each amp/cab model. That way you can continue to model the amp/cab as faithfully as possible to the original, improving where necessary but knowing the output would interact as well as possible with the user's monitor of choice. This would allow you to setup the output signal specifically for an FRFR or any of a range of guitar cabinet types. Without something like this the manufacturers of modelers may find that they are having to provide a "compromised" sound that will work well straight out of the box but not perfectly for either an FRFR or a guitar cab used as a monitor. Currently the Helix will get you all the way there but often just close and the sound can then be dialed in further by proper EQ. Perhaps the challenge for them is that if they attenuate all of the frequencies from the source ahead of time, exactly like the speaker modeled, when that source signal is played through a guitar cab it sounds dull and lifeless as those frequencies are being attenuated a second time due to the physical response characteristics of the guitar speaker. Conversely If they don't limit the response sufficiently at the source the model ends up sounding harsh when played through an FRFR. I can see the modeling and marketing dilemma the manufacturers are facing here. They want you to be able to plug any type of monitor in the showroom or at home and have the modeler sound at least decent. Without knowing specifically what kinds of compromises or choices Line6 made to accommodate both kinds of monitor choices it is hard to know exactly what to cut and boost other than by using your ears(a darn good way to proceed).

 

Some sort of global or per preset setting or choice of settings/profiles, e.g. (FRFR, Celestion, Jensen, Black Shadow, etc.) that could be selected depending on what you were using to monitor the Helix with would be a fantastic addition to the Helix and probably make for more accurate modeling with less user intervention on the EQ required. When I think about it and as has been discussed at length, there is simply no way to have the modeled signal response curve from the Helix be consistently accurate for both an FRFR and guitar amp simultaneously without either the user setting the EQ or some kind of global or per preset setting such as the one proposed above. It is like trying to provide the same mix of gas/oil to both a 4 cycle and a 2 cycle engine. They are inherently incompatible and each one requires its own particular fuel mix to operate properly. Right now it appears that Line6 has opted to give you a full range signal that can be used with any type of monitor when EQ'd by the user properly. A compromise that makes a lot of sense given the current technology but until modeling manufacturers, and this does not just apply to Line6, start giving us output algorithms with frequency curves explicitly customized and intended for the monitor that they will be played through (FRFR, Celestion, Jensen, etc.) the user will have to make EQ decisions on many of their presets and life will be a little more complicated and require a bit more work than perhaps it needs to.

 

I suppose device manufacturers could commit to catering the output response curve only to FRFRs and provide the user with the caveat that engaging cab modeling when going through a guitar amp/cab is likely to have your range attenuated twice. They probably already lean in this direction but judging by the sound of most modelers many manufacturers are instead providing a compromise or fuller flatter frequency curve that requires the user to make some EQ mods such that a wider array of monitoring solutions can be accommodated. I think I will post up an idea on Ideascale for a "Monitor Profile" setting to be added to the Helix. I think that addition would put it way ahead of the pack on tone as it already is in so many other respects (tone is already better than most btw as well).

 

An easy way to at least start with providing monitor specific EQ profiles would be to simply provide customized EQ blocks in the Templates directory which could then be cut and pasted into each preset. They would be named after the monitor type they were intended to be used with, e.g. FRFR, Celestion, Jensen, Black Shadow, etc.. This would enable the user to modify the "profile" for their specific equipment as not all Greenback's are created equally, are of the same age and wear characteristics, and have the same exact response. If anyone on the forum is already particularly gifted with EQ settings I hope they post up a few of these Template examples for use by the rest of us.

[robbieb61]

HonestOpinion...Helix is already there for playing through a traditional guitar cab....you simply don't use a cab model.  :)

The real guitar cab would be covering that...and it sounds great when I use mine my DT50 combo amp or 4x12 with the DT50 (real tubes and real speakers make the amp models really sing)

I don't use any  EQ block when I do that...just use the amp model's tone controls like you would in real lif and shove a real mic in front of it.

But of course that means you still have to carry a couple of hundred pounds of gear AND deal with loud stage volume. :(

So, I moved over to a Bose L1 Compact and FRFR. Thus my whining about the cabs having to have high cuts made on them.

[HonestOpinion]

HonestOpinion...Helix is already there for playing through a traditional guitar cab....you simply don't use a cab model. :)

The real guitar cab would be covering that...and it sounds great when I use mine my DT50 combo amp or 4x12 with the DT50 (real tubes and real speakers make the amp models really sing)

I don't use any EQ block when I do that...just use the amp model's tone controls like you would in real lif and shove a real mic in front of it.

 

But of course that means you still have to carry a couple of hundred pounds of gear AND deal with loud stage volume. :(

 

So, I moved over to a Bose L1 Compact and FRFR. Thus my whining about the cabs having to have high cuts made on them.

I hear you, and I made the same type of decision regarding my Helix monitoring. I think it is already there with FRFRs as well but sometimes requires user EQ to get the sound right. Adding these kind of filters would allow users who opt for traditional guitar amps/cabs to still use the amp/guitar models on the Helix through a "neutral" setting on their guitar amp to maximal effect maintaining as much of the character of the Helix's modeled amp/cab through their own amp/cab as possible. It would also provide a custom boom/fizz cut for FRFRs. All with less EQ'ing knowledge required by the user. I did stipulate that most modeling manufacturers do probably lean towards customizing their EQ for using cab modeling with an FRFR but I believe there is still some hedging by manufacturers to cater to a wide range of monitor speaker types to prevent these devices from being returned or not purchased the second they are played through a guitar amp. How can I be expected to live a life of leisure and sloth if I have to actually work on my tones? :P

[robbieb61]

Hmmm....I didn't take into account the extravagant, decadent lifestyle that we all live...you have a point there.  :)

[amsdenj]

All speakers, and in particular guitar speakers have limited frequency range and response characteristics. These are measured using particular approaches and configurations of cabinets, mics, mic placement and room acoustics that are often not known, or follow any particular standard. Plus individual speakers can vary quite a bit and change over time. So the frequency response curve you see published for a speaker is a combination of a specific measurement technique, an aggregate for the speaker model, and marketing.

 

An Impulse Response does capture the variable frequency response of a speaker over the audible frequency range. An IR should faithfully reproduce the response of the particular speaker that was captured, in its cabinet, with the particular mic, at the stated position, and in some room. This could be quite different than the approach used to create the published speaker response graph simply because so many of the parameters are different.

 

The kind of mic and its position can have a profound effect on the response captured and reproduced by the IR. When you put an SM57 1†away from the cap edge of a speaker, that mic is likely not any where near where the reference mic was in the room where the response curves were captured. So its likely to have a very different response, including picking up high frequencies that come off the voice coil, but dissipate and disperse so quickly that a different mic in a different position would never detect them. This is the art of mic choice and placement in recording electric guitars.

 

Putting the mic close, and at the cap edge will often provide the most of that the speaker can produce. You get more low end from the proximity effect, and unusual high end because the mic is so close to the edge of the voice coil. This is good because it captures frequencies that you can then play with in the mix. Its a lot easier to cut things you don’t need that to synthesize something you don’t have.

 

This means that EQ after cab or IR models will often be a must. Its always best to start with the right speaker for the desired tone, then pick the right microphone and the right position. But expect to have to use EQ to get the sound you actually want, and be glad you have the opportunity to do so. This will not sound exactly like an amp in the room, but it will sound like a recorded amp in the room. That’s the best modelers can do.

[HonestOpinion]

All speakers, and in particular guitar speakers have limited frequency range and response characteristics. These are measured using particular approaches and configurations of cabinets, mics, mic placement and room acoustics that are often not known, or follow any particular standard. Plus individual speakers can vary quite a bit and change over time. So the frequency response curve you see published for a speaker is a combination of a specific measurement technique, an aggregate for the speaker model, and marketing.

 

An Impulse Response does capture the variable frequency response of a speaker over the audible frequency range. An IR should faithfully reproduce the response of the particular speaker that was captured, in its cabinet, with the particular mic, at the stated position, and in some room. This could be quite different than the approach used to create the published speaker response graph simply because so many of the parameters are different.

 

The kind of mic and its position can have a profound effect on the response captured and reproduced by the IR. When you put an SM57 1†away from the cap edge of a speaker, that mic is likely not any where near where the reference mic was in the room where the response curves were captured. So its likely to have a very different response, including picking up high frequencies that come off the voice coil, but dissipate and disperse so quickly that a different mic in a different position would never detect them. This is the art of mic choice and placement in recording electric guitars.

 

Putting the mic close, and at the cap edge will often provide the most of that the speaker can produce. You get more low end from the proximity effect, and unusual high end because the mic is so close to the edge of the voice coil. This is good because it captures frequencies that you can then play with in the mix. Its a lot easier to cut things you don’t need that to synthesize something you don’t have.

 

This means that EQ after cab or IR models will often be a must. Its always best to start with the right speaker for the desired tone, then pick the right microphone and the right position. But expect to have to use EQ to get the sound you actually want, and be glad you have the opportunity to do so. This will not sound exactly like an amp in the room, but it will sound like a recorded amp in the room. That’s the best modelers can do.

 

All great points, sometimes even when I am posting it feels like this discussion has a tendency to be a bit of riding the horse on the merry-go-round with the ideal solution or brass ring being glimpsed up ahead but never quite being grasped. All I know is the Helix rocks and is getting better all the time!

[HonestOpinion]

It would be interesting to see an actual frequency chart of some of the offending tones... As I mentioned earlier, my feeling is that the harsh frequencies that people are hearing are more in the range of what can be easily produced by a typical guitar speaker, not the very high end. If you isolate those very high frequencies, the ones above 5kHz would be masked pretty easily, even by the guitar tone itself.

 

It's good to play around with a tone generator once in a while to remind yourself what the various frequency bands sound like.

http://www.szynalski.com/tone-generator/

 

Absolutely, without data from an oscilloscope, an RTA, or the like I feel like any theorizing about this is fumbling around in the dark to some extent. It would be nice to see exactly what the output is shaped like for various amps and models.

[Lkdog]

OP here.

 

Pretty interesting info here.Learning some new things for sure.

 

Still working on learning the Helix.

 

Getting some very good Marshall and Vox tones now.

 

Bottom line for me here- and this is strictly my opinion...... :lol:

 

Most all of the core amp factory stock presets sound like as$.

 

With more than the normal tweaking they start to shine, but whoever made the factory presets to demonstrate the basic amp tones needs to go back to modeler preset school.

 

Overall, I was deciding between this unit or getting an AXE FX AX8 to use for an on the floor unit and for effects only with my tube amp.

Already have an AXE FX II XL.

 

Going to keep the Helix for now and see where L6 goes with it.

[jbuhajla]

OP here.

 

Most all of the core amp factory stock presets sound like as$.

 

 

You won't get much argument there!

[PeterHamm]

Most all of the core amp factory stock presets sound like as$.

 

 

Whenever I get a new amp modeler (I've owned several since the original POD), I always notice that the best sounding factory presets are the ones that I created for my use with my guitar and my playing... which...

 

...wait a minute... I didn't make any of those...

 

uh...

 

never mind...

[phil_m]

Most all of the core amp factory stock presets sound like as$.

 

With more than the normal tweaking they start to shine, but whoever made the factory presets to demonstrate the basic amp tones needs to go back to modeler preset school.

 

The problem is that all presets objectively suck, regardless of who made them... Line 6 has actually paid people who are "pro preset creators" for some of their factory presets, but it doesn't mean people liked the presets any more. I think the issue is that even if you start with presets that are made by some the guys who sell presets, I imagine you polled people, a majority of them would still stay those presets sucked. That's why I say it's "objective". I doubt there's any preset out there for any device where you could take a vote and have a majority of people say it's great.

 

It's kind of like asking a stranger to order dinner for you. The chances that they know what you'll like are slim to none.

[jbuhajla]

 Line 6 has actually paid people who are "pro preset creators" for some of their factory presets, but it doesn't mean people liked the presets any more. 

I need this job, even if it is "part time from home". Line 6... my resume is updated, just shoot me an IM. 

[Lkdog]

I get that any preset made by anyone has to be adjusted for the guitar, pickups, signal chain used, power source and speakers used, etc.

 

It is not like player A is using a full recording and mixing studio and player B is using a string and a tin can though.

 

Most of these stock presets are simply bad. It's like buying a Lexus and then having to get the wheels aligned in order to drive it.

 

Not a big deal. Figuring it out and enjoy it now;  but I bet there are a lot of new users that buy this thing and return it or sell it quickly.

 

There are only 62 Amps. Would be pretty easy to set up core presets of amps and matched Cabs in the new Firmware that are garden variety with no effects.

[robbieb61]

There are only 62 Amps. Would be pretty easy to set up core presets of amps and matched Cabs in the new Firmware that are garden variety with no effects.

That would be exactly what they should do. 

 

Nobody uses the same effects. So all of those presets that are just overdone with effects are useless. BUT...presets of the amp models themselves with different cabs and such all set up to go (like a real amp would be in the music store) would be nice.

 

I'm thinking that most guitar players are like me...I want to hear the amps. And then add in my own effects. 

Right now to hear the amps you just have to create a new preset and start plugging in amps and cabs...but the first thing a person does when they first turn on the Helix is plug into it to play. 

And if it were a selection of amp and cab presets already set up...that would sound a LOT better than those effect laden monstrosity presets (okay, I'm being over-dramatic in that description...lol)

[Lkdog]

That would be exactly what they should do. 

 

Nobody uses the same effects. So all of those presets that are just overdone with effects are useless. BUT...presets of the amp models themselves with different cabs and such all set up to go (like a real amp would be in the music store) would be nice.

 

I'm thinking that most guitar players are like me...I want to hear the amps. And then add in my own effects. 

Right now to hear the amps you just have to create a new preset and start plugging in amps and cabs...but the first thing a person does when they first turn on the Helix is plug into it to play. 

And if it were a selection of amp and cab presets already set up...that would sound a LOT better than those effect laden monstrosity presets (okay, I'm being over-dramatic in that description...lol)

 

 

I find myself stripping the effects out, then using high cut in the CAB to get the fingernails on chalkboard out as needed,  and then adjusting the Amp EQ from there on the amps that I am using first (Fender Bassman, Marshall, Vox, Shiva).

[robbieb61]

I find myself stripping the effects out, then using high cut in the CAB to get the fingernails on chalkboard out as needed,  and then adjusting the Amp EQ from there on the amps that I am using first (Fender Bassman, Marshall, Vox, Shiva).

That's kind of what I did at first too.

Now I just start with a blank preset and go from there.

I was sort of thinking of a person who just opened the box and plugged the Helix in. If they are like me...they DON'T read any instructions (lol) and just want to hear the thing. 

And the first thing they will hear are those presets. 

 

And I'm guessing like all of us...it is very disappointing to hear those things and would be 100 times better to simply have amps and cabs presets set up to go.

Presets that simply said: Vox, Fender, Marshall, etc.  would definitely make those first few minutes of ownership a much less scary proposition. lol

[FlyingsCool]

OP here.

 

Pretty interesting info here.Learning some new things for sure.

 

Still working on learning the Helix.

 

Getting some very good Marshall and Vox tones now.

 

Bottom line for me here- and this is strictly my opinion...... :lol:

 

Most all of the core amp factory stock presets sound like as$.

 

With more than the normal tweaking they start to shine, but whoever made the factory presets to demonstrate the basic amp tones needs to go back to modeler preset school.

 

Overall, I was deciding between this unit or getting an AXE FX AX8 to use for an on the floor unit and for effects only with my tube amp.

Already have an AXE FX II XL.

 

Going to keep the Helix for now and see where L6 goes with it.

 

ALL of the factory presets were created with... whatever guitar the creator was using at the time to make the preset.  The Helix is so sensitive that this will make a difference to other guitars....  Hence, Line 6 has trademarked the term.... "All Presets Suck "

 

Really... Go check DI's posts :)

[FlyingsCool]

That would be exactly what they should do. 

 

Nobody uses the same effects. So all of those presets that are just overdone with effects are useless. BUT...presets of the amp models themselves with different cabs and such all set up to go (like a real amp would be in the music store) would be nice.

 

I'm thinking that most guitar players are like me...I want to hear the amps. And then add in my own effects. 

Right now to hear the amps you just have to create a new preset and start plugging in amps and cabs...but the first thing a person does when they first turn on the Helix is plug into it to play. 

And if it were a selection of amp and cab presets already set up...that would sound a LOT better than those effect laden monstrosity presets (okay, I'm being over-dramatic in that description...lol)

 

I think the idea of the "overdone" presets is... Not to make "usable" presets, but to "showcase" particular effects and routings.  As easy as the Helix is to use, there's no way you could ever write a manual on how to use every single function.  And nobody would read it anyway.  Not only that, as far as making "usable" presets, NOBODY will ever be happy with everything or anything.  They know that.  Even the simplest stuff will lollipop off bunches of people.  You don't have to keep those Factory Setlists, you can delete them all and use the space for whatever you want.  To me, the presets are examples of what can be done.  I use them as such, but never even THINK to use them stock.

[robbieb61]

Yeah, I get the idea. Every modeler I ever had did the same thing starting in the 1990's with the Boss GT5. 
And yeah...all the presets always suck. lol
And they are always packed on with tons of crazy effects. And I don't think any guitar player uses the same effects. So it's kinda weird that they would even bother with making those kinds of factory presets.

For me it didn't showcase any effects at all. When I first got my Helix I wanted to hear a good tone. The second I hear the amp buried in reverb or delay I just moved on searching for a more "dry" preset. 

I think they'd be better off maybe having a factory preset set list of nothing but amp cab combinations with "starting point" EQ cuts made to get rid of fizz and harshness. 
They could still have another preset list of all the crappy factory presets that all these companies seem compelled to include. lol

But if they are going to pay guys to create factory presets...seems like they might as well pay them to make amp/cab presets that sound real close to the real amp. I think when a person buys a Helix and first turn it on, that would be a much more pleasant experience. And THEN if they want to they can jump over to the effects-laden "creations"  lol

[Lachdanan0121]

 

I think they'd be better off maybe having a factory preset set list of nothing but amp cab combinations with "starting point" EQ cuts made to get rid of fizz and harshness. 

They could still have another preset list of all the crappy factory presets that all these companies seem compelled to include. lol

 

But if they are going to pay guys to create factory presets...seems like they might as well pay them to make amp/cab presets that sound real close to the real amp. I think when a person buys a Helix and first turn it on, that would be a much more pleasant experience. And THEN if they want to they can jump over to the effects-laden "creations"  lol

Not a bad approach really. The Fizz-less setlists. As a set of stock presets. This isn't a bad idea at all really. It could help those that want it, and can be easily ignored by those that don't.

[HonestOpinion]

Phil_m and others could not have been more right when they point out that it may be frequencies below for example 5khz that you don't want in your signal. Nothing new under the sun but here is a method I use to dial in my presets and get rid of the high/mid frequencies I don't like. I am sure there are many of you already doing this. It works for low end frequencies as well. This method focuses on using the high/low cut filters as a tool to locate harsh frequencies but then employs the Parametric EQ to cut them.

The virtue of this method is it enables you to make strategic cuts where they are needed without hacking off the entire top end of your guitar signal. A lot of players will find it easier to sweep with a high cut, as in this method, and then leverage the Parametric EQ, rather than trying to locate the problem frequencies with only the Parametric EQ ranges.. Alternatively you can use the sweep method solely with each of the Parametric ranges as well but using the high cut in tandem with them can be helpful. Once you get your Parametric EQ dialed in you may find that you don't even need to use a high cut filter, or if you do, only for the upper frequencies for example above 10khz.

The key to success with this method is not just cutting at say 5khz, maybe that is the first spot you encounter where you are getting too many highs, but to continue to sweep below 5khz and locate other areas in the range below. Your objective is to have cuts that reflect your EQ and guitar tone preferences and perhaps mimic a guitar cabinet more accurately with less harshness - without lopping off your entire high end with too severe a high cut. You will want to to cut only the necessary, potentially multiple, frequencies selectively. Each time your tone gets noticeably (rather than incrementally) less harsh while sweeping with a high cut, identify that frequency and set up a corresponding cut in the parametric.

• Place a Parametric EQ block after your cab or IR block.
• Make a loop with the either the Helix looper or your own. If you are tweaking a lead sound make sure to pick plenty of stuff high up on the neck and include some bends. If you are trying to rein in a rhythm sound make sure you strike the high strings while you are chording. Kick off your loop and let it play.
• Use the high cut on the Parametric EQ block, (you can use the one you set up in Step#2) and sweep down with it until you hear the first bit of harshness in the high end diminish. NOTE: The harshness may be in a lower range than you suspected so keep sweeping down until you eliminate the first(highest) frequency area you don't like. This will be your first cut. You may need to do a couple of more.
• Now go to the Parametric EQ block you inserted in Step#2 and dial out the frequency(ies) you located in Step#3. Use one of the ranges in the Parametric EQ instead of the high cut filter you used to locate the problem frequency. Work with the "Q" and the level to get as much of the undesirable frequencies you located dialed out but I am careful of extremely wide or narrow "Q" or extreme level(db) reductions as they can give you an unnatural sound but I don't hesitate to remove as much as I need to.
• Rinse and repeat. Now sweep to the next lower spot where you hear some more harshness removed. You may find there are frequencies both above and below 5khz for example that you want to dial down a bit. Go back to Step#4 and dial in your second EQ cut on the Parametric. If you have the energy and time you can do this for each of your presets or try to reuse your Para EQ block on similar presets. I assign my EQ's parameters to snapshots so I can vary them if required for rhythm, crunch, and lead tones. If you find more spots you need to cut than the Parametric can accomodate (Parametric block has 3 "ranges" plus the high cut and low cuts) you may want to look at other amps or cab settings rather than EQ but you can always add a second Parametric block if necessary.
• Keep repeating this process and sweeping downwards with the high cut until you no longer hear any frequencies you don't want. By the time you have swept to the bottom of the range your sound may be dull and lifeless but you will have identified the areas you don't like specifically and will be removing the high cut entirely or using it fairly high in the frequency range (e.g. 10khz) once you get your other Parametric EQ cuts dialed in. This will restore your tone to life.
• Once you find some settings you like on the Parametric EQ you may find that you can reuse it in other presets with little or no modification. A good way to test how "universal" your cuts are is to copy them into the Global EQ and see how they impact your presets that do not yet have your "custom" EQ block. They won't work globally with all of your presets but may help with many, especially similar presets (it sure would be nice to have a choice of multiple Global EQ profiles).

You can use this same strategy to locate frequencies you want to cut on the low end using the low cut parameter.

I can certainly understand where some players will simply opt for using only a high cut instead as this method requires more effort and time than some are willing to expend. However, doing this can, without chopping off your entire high end, give you a tone that cuts FRFR harshness and is more customized to the player's ears and the tone they are going for. Also, even though this method requires more energy you may find the Parametric EQ blocks you create highly reusable and worth the effort, or, you may be a player who only needs a couple of go-to "Holy Grail" tones and this may help you get there.

[amsdenj]

A similar approach might be to use the global EQ to tailor the EQ for your patch, then copy the results into the patch with a combination of cab/IR high/low cut and parametric or other EQ.

 

Also try boosting the high frequencies to see which ones stand out as bing particularly bad, and then cut a bit at that frequency. Sometimes its easier to hear what’s bad by boosting and cut than to hear what’s good by cutting directly.