Record Dry Signal and Wet signal at same time: With separate interface

[phantomofalfred]

Greetings all,

I have been using a multitude of amp modelers over the years and i have been frustrated with one in particular for the past 7 years.  This has led me to come back to 

Line 6:  The last product I used did not do it for me, but Helix has me thinking it may be time to come back. Only question i have i cannot seem to find a simple answer for.  I have an over-bloated expensive as all hell, amp modeler which allows me to record a processed guitar and a dry signal "to be re amped later in software DAW" at the same time easily.  Problem with it is it takes forever to tweak a usable sound out of it.  Is there an easy way to assign a processed signal and Direct signal from the Helix into my interface.  I do not want to use Helix for the interface.  Currently with the other product I am looking to replace, it allows me to record both wet and dry out of the AES/EBU at the same time. Staying in the digital realm,  No AD Conversion.

  

If HELIX can do the same thing, i may try getting one, as i am sick of spending the majority of my time tweaking this monster with way too many choices, and want to spend more time playing my F*%king guitar.

 

I read an article form Stevic "TFN" which really hit home.  He tried the same product i currently use for 7 months, but i have been going around in a swamp of menus for 7 years.

 

I have had enough.  I just want something that I can tweak easily "Line6 has always been quick to get a good usable sound" but I need to be able to use my current interface as it is top notch.  I just want to set up my patches on the HELIX to always send one processed signal to one input on my interface, and a non processed Dry signal to another input on my interface. Hopefully, both in at least 24/96 quality.

 

Can someone with HELIX Floor experience explain?  

IF so, I am going to get into a row boat, row over to the other ship,  try sailing it for a bit, and if it works for me and sounds good??

JUMP SHIP!!!!!

 

HELIX FLOOR may be the best thing both for studio and gigs in the future.

My current modeler is a rack and would need their proprietary expensive as hell pedal board. 

 

Sorry for the long post.  I am just really frustrated trying to figure out if its possible, cause all i see is people using HELIX for their recording interface and i don't want to do that.  

Thanks, in advance for the help.

 

Cheers,

 

Phantom

[rd2rk]

I use an ABY box to split the guitar signal before the Helix. I send the dry signal to a separate input on my interface.

Ex: Path A goes to the Helix input/ Helix OUT (Left/Mono XLR) to Interface input 1 (set to LINE), path B goes to Interface input B (set to INSTRUMENT).

That allows you to get the processed Helix signal to DAW from Input 1 and the clean guitar from Input 2.

 

You could also set up a split in Helix - Path 1A with effects, Path 1B clean (or some variation, you get the idea), sent to separate interface inputs, but that limits what you can do in the Helix.

 

If I remember right, the HD500 allowed you to specify (in Globals) sending a clean signal via S/PDIF, but the Helix doesn't work that way.

[phantomofalfred]

I do have an ABY Box, but was wondering if I could assign, say,  XLR Left "Processed signal from processed path,"  XLR Right "Unprocessed dry signal from second path in HELIX"

Is this not possible?  If not, I might still consider getting it, but wanted to do it all inside the box.  My patches are usually not that complicated for processed path,

Compressor , Stomp, Amp, Cab ,  If its a lead preset, maybe reverb/delay, but thats about it.  

[rd2rk]

You can do it all "in the box", but it's a waste of Helix resources, and will need to be configured separately in every preset. Using the ABY box is a better solution IMO, as it also allows you to use stereo presets. Maybe not so important for LIVE use (if you only have one speaker), but handy for recording.

 

If you do it "in the box", you'll need to hard pan the outputs Left/Right, or use a SEND block before any effects (less wasteful, but still adds to the number of AD/DA conversions [i think]). 

[CraigGT]

Like rd2rk said, you can simply put an effect send first in your patch and that will output the dry guitar. I know you said that you didn't want to use the Helix as an interface but left right and dry are all available on the USB at the same time and don't forget about the Native plugin for your DAW.

 

Craig

[willjrock]

 was wondering if I could assign, say,  XLR Left "Processed signal from processed path,"  XLR Right "Unprocessed dry signal from second path in HELIX"

Yes, absolutely.  Though it will limit your DSP to half. Sounds like you should be fine with half the available DSP anyway. Its DEFINITELY enough to dial a good guitar sound and still have effects.  

 

Craig's solution is a perfectly suitable one as well. Thats prob what id end up doing.

 

Or use your interface to record everything else,  and then when it comes time to record the guitars, switch over and use the Helix. All you have to do is select the Helix driver in your DAW.

 

Youre wasting your time trying to pipe everything thru your interface because you are under the impression that its going to give you way better audio quality. If it were vocals or even drum overheads, it might make a bit of difference, but guitar sounds are fairly bandlimited in that 99% of the sound energy is from 125hz up to 4k, so they tend to be able to deal with a little bit of raunch better than some of the other mentioned instruments.

[HonestOpinion]

Some of the options described above are definitely excellent if you absolutely want to continue to use your current interface for the guitar input to the DAW.  I have to agree with willjrock and CraigGt here though. It is definitely worth reconsidering using your Helix as your DAW input rather than your current sound card interface. The Helix has both a 'Guitar' and 'Aux' input with variable impedance choices on the 'Guitar' input including 'Auto' available that make for a high quality input/output signal to a DAW specifically customized for guitar. I don't think you will be buying a whole lot, and it may not be worth the trouble of sticking with your current interface (at least for the guitar) although we all know the pain of having purchased a high end piece of gear that may no longer be necessary for its intended purpose. Given the all digital path you are currently using with a quality interface I can totally understand why you would balk at leaving it out of your signal chain however the Helix's 8 USB outs can easily provide an excellent direct as well as processed signal.

[rd2rk]

FYI - Don't know what interface you're using, I'm using a 2nd gen Focusrite USB 18i20. Regardless of the DAW I'm using, I get consistently better latency than with the Helix, not to mention the convenience of all those extra inputs and level meters. Just sayin'.....

[phantomofalfred]

Why is the DSP limited if i solit in the helix? Im not sure i understand. It cant be set up to utilize both chips?

The reason for keeping my interface is complicated. Its a MOTU 896HD. Made to work on mac but my computer is Windows7. They did write a driver so motu can be used with windows but its buggy. Even if i try to change between 24/96 and 24/48 it crashes protools and requires several reboots. Switching between interfaces is even worse. If i can larn to use helix instead for everything maybe it will play nicer with Windows?

I just dont know the Helix as an interface yet. My drums are Toontrack ez drummer controlled via midi from a boss dr770. Then there is guitars and bass currently going through my amp modeller. And i just need one mic input for vocals.

Im really thinking if i give helix a shot i can make my home studio life easier

[phantomofalfred]

Why is the DSP limited if i split in the helix? Im not sure i understand. It cant be set up to utilize both chips?

The reason for keeping my interface is complicated. Its a MOTU 896HD. Made to work on mac but my computer is Windows7. They did write a driver so motu can be used with windows but its buggy. Even if i try to change between 24/96 and 24/48 it crashes protools and requires several reboots. Switching between interfaces is even worse. If i can learn to use helix instead for everything maybe it will play nicer with Windows?

I just dont know the Helix as an interface yet. My drums are Toontrack ez drummer controlled via midi from a boss dr770. Then there is guitars and bass currently going through my amp modeller. And i just need one mic input for vocals.

Im really thinking if i give helix a shot i can make my home studio life easier

[tommasoferrarese]

Helix’ mic input is actually quite good. I also have an Apollo Twin, and I don’t dislike it even compared to the Apollo. And you get a solid interface that will surely work better than a half baked driver that’s already giving you trouble..

You can also record dry from the mic and monitor with effects, just like with the guitar input. Plus, if you use an ABY box you lose Helix input impedance switching, and if you use Fx send you’re passing through 2 AD/DA steps, instead of one.

[phantomofalfred]

I can record dry from the mic? Not sure i understand. I bit the bullet and Helix is on its way to me.

[PeterHamm]

If you are only recording one instrument at a time, ditch the interface and use Helix. Recording an efected and dry track simultaneously is a piece of cake, the mic input is very good, and you have Aux and return inputs that are available, too.

 

Break out the big box only when you have to record full band at once.

 

But not using Helix as an interface when by design it is the best tool for the particular job at hand (recording effected and dry simultaneously) is insanity.

[rd2rk]

If you are only recording one instrument at a time, ditch the interface and use Helix. Recording an efected and dry track simultaneously is a piece of cake, the mic input is very good, and you have Aux and return inputs that are available, too.

 

Break out the big box only when you have to record full band at once.

 

But not using Helix as an interface when by design it is the best tool for the particular job at hand (recording effected and dry simultaneously) is insanity.

 

I think OP is looking for the easiest way to do this. The only way I know of (as I posted above) requires each and every preset to be specially configured for that purpose. Suppose he just wants to use ready-made presets. There's a lot of them, and that method would be annoying at best.

 

Is there a way to configure the Helix Globally to do this? Seems to me that the HD500 allowed the S/PDIF ports to be set up like this, but the Helix did away with that capability. If there's a similar GLOBAL way to do this in Helix, I would also like to know how.

[cdiddy5000]

I think OP is looking for the easiest way to do this. The only way I know of (as I posted above) requires each and every preset to be specially configured for that purpose. Suppose he just wants to use ready-made presets. There's a lot of them, and that method would be annoying at best.

 

Is there a way to configure the Helix Globally to do this? Seems to me that the HD500 allowed the S/PDIF ports to be set up like this, but the Helix did away with that capability. If there's a similar GLOBAL way to do this in Helix, I would also like to know how.

 

The easiest way is to use the Helix as the interface. No reconfiguring patches for recording. All that is needed is to swap input source from the computer... Not sure I understand the hangup...

[justbecos]

It seems they don't want to use a aby box and wants to know how to do it with just the Helix, I guess they also has a very nice interface which they wants to continue using. 

 

The easiest thing to do is just use a send block at the beginning of any patch you want to use, this sends the signal to send 1 which is a 1/4 on the back of the helix and has a dry though which goes on the the rest of the patch, The wet output will send come out of the normal output you have set up. Should make very little difference to dsp usage and quick to add to any patch the send can also to moved to any where in the chain you want it.. 

[rd2rk]

The easiest way is to use the Helix as the interface. No reconfiguring patches for recording. All that is needed is to swap input source from the computer... Not sure I understand the hangup...

 

The hangup is simple.

 

WE DON'T WANT TO USE THE HELIX AS THE INTERFACE!

 

We're not insane. We'd just rather use the BETTER INTERFACE THAT WE HAVE.

 

This used to be possible with the HD500, by configuring S/PDIF to send the CLEAN signal.

 

That option is no longer available. Is there another way, without configuring every preset separately for that purpose (GLOBALLY)?

[PeterHamm]

The (buggy) interface you have is not better if you are recording the sounds in the Helix. It really isn't.

And adding extra boxes for ABY, and all that attendant possible noise and fiddling, will CERTAINLY insure that as well.

The Helix has better input circuitry for electric guitar, btw, than what you are using, seriously (especially if you use Native). It is an INCREDIBLE input for electric guitar.

And Helix can already record the effected signal AND a mic through the mic input AND the unaffected dry signal simultaneously without changing a single thing about the patch.

 

You can also create a composite interface in your software can't you?

Nobody in the entire world can tell the difference between going in through Helix for your guitar and mic and going through a MOTU 896. Except that the guitar might be noticeably better through Helix...

However, your recording performance might suffer because of the frustration of using a buggy interface.

[tommasoferrarese]

With Helix you have no latency at all, while monitoring, same as with an apollo. But hey! to each one his own, i guess.. I can't think of any reason having 109 dB of dynamic range on an 18i20 would be any better than the 123 dB you get on the Helix. Anyway.. no there's no easy way to do what you're asking for. And, by the way, if you plan to use Native that's the only way to have your patches sound the same, from DAW to stage..

[HonestOpinion]

I use an ABY box to split the guitar signal before the Helix. I send the dry signal to a separate input on my interface.

Ex: Path A goes to the Helix input/ Helix OUT (Left/Mono XLR) to Interface input 1 (set to LINE), path B goes to Interface input B (set to INSTRUMENT).

That allows you to get the processed Helix signal to DAW from Input 1 and the clean guitar from Input 2.

 

You could also set up a split in Helix - Path 1A with effects, Path 1B clean (or some variation, you get the idea), sent to separate interface inputs, but that limits what you can do in the Helix.

 

If I remember right, the HD500 allowed you to specify (in Globals) sending a clean signal via S/PDIF, but the Helix doesn't work that way.

 

 

Why is the DSP limited if i solit in the helix? Im not sure i understand. It cant be set up to utilize both chips?

...

 

The Helix can absolutely utilize both chips. Although each Path (1 & 2) is allotted one DSP each, you can use a Super Serial(x2) routing scheme to leverage them both into one long path that uses both DSPs. That and the fact that right now the Helix only allows one split per Path is why I think rd2rk was suggesting the option of an external splitter box. That way if you decided you wanted to continue using your own audio interface rather than the Helix's you would not have to compromise or juggle in any way with the full routing flexibility or DSP allotment options on the Helix.

[rd2rk]

Let me start by saying that, I like my Helix. Much better than the HD500X, which was a major improvement over the Behringer V-Guitar that I started with. For live performance, at it's price point it can't be beat!

 

That said, for recording, there are MANY software amp sims that sound at least as good, some better (IMO).

 

"With Helix you have no latency at all, while monitoring"

 

While monitoring HELIX. If you use sw amp sims, that's where the latency thing comes into play.

 

Helix was marketed as an 8in/8out mixer. It is, sort of. An 8x8 mixer should (IMO) allow any (analog) input to be used for mics (or line), not just 1 (with at least 1 instrument input, mine has 2) , and allow routing from a DAW DIRECTLY to ALL 8 outs, without having to configure each preset for each desired routing scheme. THAT'S the kind of capability that makes a mixer "the nerve center for your entire studio".

 

"Break out the big box only when you have to record full band at once."

 

If rewiring your studio for each different situation works for you, go for it! For me it's an unnecessary PITA. 

 

"I can't think of any reason having 109 dB of dynamic range on an 18i20 would be any better than the 123 dB you get on the Helix"

 

If you think you need that 123db, you got it! I (so far) don't need it. Other considerations take precedence.

 

This thread started because OP has a VERY nice interface that he wants to use because it suits HIS needs. I've used MOTU stuff. It's great HW, and works great with a MAC. But their PC drivers are crap, poorly supported afterthoughts to attract a market segment that they don't really care about. OP's need is to be able to use his MOTU interface with Helix to record a dry track AND a Helix processed track. This was possible with the HD500 using S/PDIF. Why did L6 drop that capability in Helix?

 

To repeat, before y'all get out your torches and pitchforks - I LIKE MY HELIX!

What I'm trying to say is that, for all it's wonderfulness, Helix is NOT the end-all be-all solution for everybody's needs.

[PeterHamm]

Except we already know that his interface he's using now is buggy as hell.

 

btw, there's a simple solution if you MUST get a Helix and use it with a different interface and want to record dry and effected tracks at the same time.

Get the rack.

It has a buffered guitar out that is just whatever is coming in to "Guitar in" and spitting it out dry.

[rd2rk]

So, trying to sum up OP's options:

 

You have a MAC optimized Interface and a Windows computer.

 

Option 1 - Sell the MOTU and get a Windows compatible interface. Use ABY or send block method with your new Helix Floor.

 

Option 2 - Sell the Windows box and get a MAC. Use ABY or send block method with your new Helix Floor.

 

Option 3 - Unless you have the sort of I/O needs I detailed previously (see options 1/2), sell the MOTU, use the Helix Floor as interface and the send block method to record your dry track.

 

Option 4 - Unless you have the sort of I/O needs I detailed previously (see options 1/2), sell the MOTU, sell the fancy multi fx you currently have, return the Helix Floor in exchange for a Helix Rack, Controller and Mission SP1-L6H pedal. Might put money back in your pocket.

 

Option 5 - If you DO have the sort of I/O needs I detailed previously, use option 4 and add a Windows compatible interface. Maximum flexibility, possible financial break-even.

 

Bottom line - You've either got to sell the Motu or get a MAC. Option 4 will likely put money back in your pocket. Option 5 will solve ALL your problems.

 

Additional considerations - You're still using Win7. If that's because your box is too old and under-powered to use Win10, then you're going to have to get a new computer sooner or later. Factor that cost into your plans. Of course, if the computer is not the problem, and you're running Win7 because of Win10 phobia, you need more help than we can provide.... :)! 

[tommasoferrarese]

@rd2rk peace bro.. actually, rereading the whole post it sounds to me you’re the one that’s a bit on the aggressive side, but maybe it’s just because English ain’t my native language..

And I really think everyone here has just given well educated suggestions about how to solve the OP’s problem, without torches and pitchforks ;)

[rd2rk]

@rd2rk peace bro.. actually, rereading the whole post it sounds to me you’re the one that’s a bit on the aggressive side, but maybe it’s just because English ain’t my native language..

And I really think everyone here has just given well educated suggestions about how to solve the OP’s problem, without torches and pitchforks ;)

 

Peace is good, and often screwed up by language issues - Tower of Babel and all that.

 

I am, aggressively, trying to help solve the OP's problem. If you read my last post, I hope that it comes across as a sincere attempt to summarize what EVERYONE has said into a list of options. I'm all about options, and the only thing I've been adamant about is that while the Helix is a great device, it's not necessarily the solution to everyone's needs. It's been my unfortunate experience on this and other device specific forums, that any suggestion that the device in question is less than the Holy Grail tends to bring out the torches and pitchforks. But I am fearless in my pursuit of Truth, Justice and the Perfect Jelly Donut ;) !

[phantomofalfred]

My HELIX Floor arrives this Wednesday.  I really do appreciate all of your help.  I think until i get into the Helix, it will be difficult to understand these methods.  I sometimes record multi tracks at once for other bands, so the MOTU "buggy as it may be" must stay for now.  But for most of my own personal music needs, I am going to start using the HELIX as an interface as well after i get to know it a bit better. 

Once it gets here, I am going to try to get it to send one effected output to Input 1 on my Interface, and another out from HELIX "uneffected Dry" to input 2 on my interface.  Just to practice and try all the various methods discussed in this thread.  Man, I know not all agree, but i do think it's awesome that all of you have good ideas on how to make this possible.  I really want to ditch my other "expensive as hell" amp modeler.  I have only 4 useable sounds from it, and that's only because one of my friends is a Heavy Hitter Analog Studio Guru and has owned every tube amp on the planet.  He just takes one of my mediocre patches, spends about 5 minutes with it, and turns it into gold. For some reason, he can get Periphery Tones and MESHUGGAH tones easily that i have been chasing for 7 years with no luck.  I know right now I am re reading this thread over and over, trying to figure out what you guys mean, but until i have the box it will be hard to understand the suggestions. I am not a good tweaker, which is why I decided to come back to Line6.  I need something easier to tweak that won't overwhelm me with too many choices. After Wednesday, i will probably come right back here when i fail to get any of these suggestions to work due to me not knowing what the hell i am doing with a HELIX.  But once i get good with it, I will do my best to help others that will be where i am now.  Frustrated and ready to dive into something new.  Again, I thank you all for being helpful.  I am convinced that HELIX will be my new best friend in the studio and on the stage.  I have a Powered PA speaker to use with it live. And as i said, The "Modeler" i currently have is a rack and needs their "expensive as hell" foot controller to be worth anything live.  I am looking forward to learning this pedal.  I know it will be a learning curve but it will be worth it.  I will re read this thread when the box gets here, and i apologize in advance if right after i ask more stupid questions.  I promise, if you guys can school me on how to get around this box, i would be more than happy to help others do it as well.  I know the feeling of wasting night after night trying to get a good sound instead of just playing and having fun.  I don't want anyone else to waste so much time as i did.  I will chime in again prob Thursday or Friday night.  Next weekend after talking with you guys again, I will be locked inside my room getting to know HELIX.   Thanks again.  Cheers ,

Phantom.    

In the past i owned Line6 PodXT Bean, Bass PodXT Bean, Spider III HD150, POD HD500, AMPLIFI FX100, "SeahorseDickSoup, SeahorseDickSoup II," , Now i am going for HELIX.  

Looking forward to doing more playing, and less tweaking.  

[willjrock]

Wait! This Motu 896 is the interface that we are calling "top notch"?? This is one of the cheapest interfaces a person can get. Definitely use the Helix. You'll save yourself a bunch of headaches, and as Pete said the guitar will sound at least as good, if not better. Top notch 8 channel interfaces START just under $1000. 

[rd2rk]

Wait! This Motu 896 is the interface that we are calling "top notch"?? This is one of the cheapest interfaces a person can get. Definitely use the Helix. You'll save yourself a bunch of headaches as Pete said the guitar will sound at least as good, if not better. Top notch 8 channel interfaces START just under $1000. 

 

Depends what version he's got. The mkIII goes for $995. There's a point where average human ears can't tell the difference between the ultra high spec pre-amps and something that gets the job done. On that level, the Helix is NOT better than the $3000 UA, RME or Antelope. And if you're recording the Helix over S/PDIF, it's digital anyway, same as over USB, the pre-amps are irrelevant. If you need 8 inputs to record your band, and you're not rich, you get what you can afford that gets the job done. I'm quite happy with my $500 2nd Gen Focusrite 18i20, (and my Helix) thank you very much!

 

Is this the point where everybody chimes in that my ears suck, and theirs are better? Please :rolleyes: !

 

Oh drat! There I go being aggressive again! I'm so bad!

[PeterHamm]

My HELIX Floor arrives this Wednesday.  I really do appreciate all of your help.  I think until i get into the Helix, it will be difficult to understand these methods.  I sometimes record multi tracks at once for other bands, so the MOTU "buggy as it may be" must stay for now.  But for most of my own personal music needs, I am going to start using the HELIX as an interface as well after i get to know it a bit better. 

Once it gets here, I am going to try to get it to send one effected output to Input 1 on my Interface, and another out from HELIX "uneffected Dry" to input 2 on my interface.  Just to practice and try all the various methods discussed in this thread.  Man, I know not all agree, but i do think it's awesome that all of you have good ideas on how to make this possible.  I really want to ditch my other "expensive as hell" amp modeler.  I have only 4 useable sounds from it, and that's only because one of my friends is a Heavy Hitter Analog Studio Guru and has owned every tube amp on the planet.  He just takes one of my mediocre patches, spends about 5 minutes with it, and turns it into gold. For some reason, he can get Periphery Tones and MESHUGGAH tones easily that i have been chasing for 7 years with no luck.  I know right now I am re reading this thread over and over, trying to figure out what you guys mean, but until i have the box it will be hard to understand the suggestions. I am not a good tweaker, which is why I decided to come back to Line6.  I need something easier to tweak that won't overwhelm me with too many choices. After Wednesday, i will probably come right back here when i fail to get any of these suggestions to work due to me not knowing what the hell i am doing with a HELIX.  But once i get good with it, I will do my best to help others that will be where i am now.  Frustrated and ready to dive into something new.  Again, I thank you all for being helpful.  I am convinced that HELIX will be my new best friend in the studio and on the stage.  I have a Powered PA speaker to use with it live. And as i said, The "Modeler" i currently have is a rack and needs their "expensive as hell" foot controller to be worth anything live.  I am looking forward to learning this pedal.  I know it will be a learning curve but it will be worth it.  I will re read this thread when the box gets here, and i apologize in advance if right after i ask more stupid questions.  I promise, if you guys can school me on how to get around this box, i would be more than happy to help others do it as well.  I know the feeling of wasting night after night trying to get a good sound instead of just playing and having fun.  I don't want anyone else to waste so much time as i did.  I will chime in again prob Thursday or Friday night.  Next weekend after talking with you guys again, I will be locked inside my room getting to know HELIX.   Thanks again.  Cheers ,

Phantom.    

In the past i owned Line6 PodXT Bean, Bass PodXT Bean, Spider III HD150, POD HD500, AMPLIFI FX100, "SeahorseDickSoup, SeahorseDickSoup II," , Now i am going for HELIX.  

Looking forward to doing more playing, and less tweaking.  

 

 

In the meantime, what program are you running? And why are you stuck at Windows 7? How old is the computer?

 

 

[willjrock]

Depends what version he's got. The mkIII goes for $995. There's a point where average human ears can't tell the difference between the ultra high spec pre-amps and something that gets the job done. On that level, the Helix is NOT better than the $3000 UA, RME or Antelope. And if you're recording the Helix over S/PDIF, it's digital anyway, same as over USB, the pre-amps are irrelevant. If you need 8 inputs to record your band, and you're not rich, you get what you can afford that gets the job done. I'm quite happy with my $500 2nd Gen Focusrite 18i20, (and my Helix) thank you very much!

 

Is this the point where everybody chimes in that my ears suck, and theirs are better? Please :rolleyes: !

 

Oh drat! There I go being aggressive again! I'm so bad!

No i wont argue with you.  Dont have the keyboard energy for that. It just seems like the OP is wasting a lot of energy for no reason at all or possibly even to his detriment.  

 

There's a point where average human ears can't tell the difference between the ultra high spec pre-amps and something that gets the job done

 

Under the right circumstances, not under all circumstances. Your ears may be fantastic for all we know, but not everyone's monitoring, acoustic treatment, and conversion is on the same level. There are too many other variables at hand for the OP to overcomplicate his process, by sweating what interface he's using. I can assure him/you that will NOT be a critical factor in determining his end result. 

 

It sorta puts me in mind of all these guys that are constantly after the latest greatest plugins. After having 2, 3, or $4,000 tied up in all the very best plugins, at what point do you realize that software upgrades are going to do less to improve the sound of your music, than literally ANYTHING else you can do?

[PeterHamm]

...It just seems like the OP is wasting a lot of energy for no reason at all or possibly even to his detriment...

 

 

This. Much this.

[finglestink]

why not just use a send block at the front of the patch and then send the clean signal out of send1 ?

[hefonthefjords]

So much wasted breath in this thread.

OP, just use an ABY box if you are so precious about using your existing audio interface rather than helix's built in one (which is designed to do exactly what you are doing) for whatever reason. Problem solved.

There is no point in having helix do A2D2A through a send block just to A2D your signal AGAIN in the existing interface guys. You are just messing with a signal for the sake of it then. Passive ABY box feeds both boxes the same unmolested phase coherent and time aligned signal, job done.

[phantomofalfred]

I want to try using HELIX for everything, but still need to use the old interface for certain purposes.  Eventually I want to use just HELIX. I do want to try all these methods listed above just to learn the unit and its capabilities.  I may still keep my interface until i am more comfortable with HELIX.  Does that make sense? Not trying to get anyone upset at all.  Enough said in this thread for now.  If i have any difficulties, I will post what i tried.  Hopefully, I wont have a problem.  No one else need post here. 

Dont' want to waste anyone's time.  

Cheers,

Phantom. 

[finglestink]

I want to try using HELIX for everything, but still need to use the old interface for certain purposes.  Eventually I want to use just HELIX. I do want to try all these methods listed above just to learn the unit and its capabilities.  I may still keep my interface until i am more comfortable with HELIX.  Does that make sense? Not trying to get anyone upset at all.  Enough said in this thread for now.  If i have any difficulties, I will post what i tried.  Hopefully, I wont have a problem.  No one else need post here. 

Dont' want to waste anyone's time.  

Cheers,

Phantom. 

 

 

I think it's also worth adding (others may not think this but so what?) that recording a DI and reamping is an excellent way to waste your time fiddling with the sound, it's just not productive.  Record your sound including effects as part of your performance and commit to that sound. Record once, done, no additional time wasted trying different patches etc.   If you can't nail the performance without having to re-record bits of the DI signal to make one good take, there's a simple answer to that.....PRACTICE.    Reamping is one of the reasons albums etc take so long to make these days. No-one has a clear understanding of what they are trying to achieve when they start recording and leave it to the end by which time the enthusiasm for it has dropped off somewhat and the spontaneity of  a great performance is lost.   Stick with your existing audio interface and record as you would in a studio, create your sound, commit to your sound, play the guitar....done.

[tommasoferrarese]

Passive ABY box feeds both boxes the same unmolested phase coherent and time aligned signal, job done.

 

 

ABY feeds the Helix and the MOTU with a phase coherent signal, but Helix adds some inherent latency, thus messing up phase coherency, if needed. If OP's aim is reamping using Helix, he's gonna miss the impedance switching capabilities as well and, most of all, calibrating the input level to make Helix patches sound the same on the recording and live is gonna be a PITA.

 

Does that make sense? Not trying to get anyone upset at all.  Enough said in this thread for now.  If i have any difficulties, I will post what i tried.  Hopefully, I wont have a problem.  No one else need post here. 

Dont' want to waste anyone's time.  

Cheers,

Phantom. 

 

I really don't think anybody was addressing you about wasting their time here.. My educated guess is that this was aimed at someone else.. Hope you find your optimal solution, Cheers!

[hefonthefjords]

Dont' want to waste anyone's time.  

 

 

You weren't. That wasn't directed at you. Just seemed like everyone wanted to make the solution more complicated than it need be.

I expect you will find the helix suitable for tracking directly once you try it out.

[PeterHamm]

OP bailed, I think, maybe realizing that his plan needed altering, and that his solution was simple.

[jbuhajla]

OP bailed, I think, maybe realizing that his plan needed altering, and that his solution was simple.

I tried reading all the posts above, and I would have probably bailed too. Geez....

[phantomofalfred]

I did not bail.  :)

I wanted to be able to have lines out of the HELIX Wet and Dry without using helix for the interface.  I got many things to try thanks to this thread.  Using a Y split box is not answering the question, that's just going around it.  I originally asked if it could be done in the box, and in fact it can, in more ways than one, and that's saying a lot for the HELIX's capability. It also tells me that the HELIX can replace the current modeler i have that I really never got along with. Sort of a Love/Hate relationship. 

 

Thanks to all for the helpful suggestions. I will try out all that was mentioned.  It will help me to get to know the new unit. 

Please, no one else comment on this thread. My intention was never to waste anyone's time. 

I have gotten a wealth of suggestions to use. And I really do appreciate it. 

I look forward to getting better with the HELIX and also helping other new users to follow my path. 

Enough said.

 

Cheers all,

Phantom.