2.5 reverbs?

[zachhodges]

I feel like its been pretty quiet since 2.5 launched in regards to the new reverbs.  Personally, I think they're an upgrade from the legacy reverbs but still not enough to replace a Big Sky. Ganymede and glitz are the only ones I find useful. But I'll admit that I haven't had as much time with them as I'd like. How are you all getting along with the new reverbs?

[funkyou86]

Big Sky is out of the box, you don't even have to know how those verbs are built up.

 

Bit different with the helix, you have to understand the sound you're trying to replicate. There are lot of great examples on customtone, here's mine: https://line6.com/customtone/tone/3664975/

 

Here's few more: 

• https://line6.com/customtone/tone/3211411/
• https://line6.com/customtone/tone/3735301/

Try out parallel chains, separate the wet and dry sounds. On the wet side, try to use some modulations (like chorus, univibe, flanger) and delays with the reverbs.

 

I sold my big sky a year and a half ago. I was missing it pretty much, but when FW2.50 got released, it absolutely satisfied my needs, long live Line6!

 

EDIT:
Also, great resource from Jason Sadites:

 

[hideout]

On 3/30/2018 at 8:52 PM, zachhodges said:

I feel like its been pretty quiet since 2.5 launched in regards to the new reverbs.  Personally, I think they're an upgrade from the legacy reverbs but still not enough to replace a Big Sky. Ganymede and glitz are the only ones I find useful. But I'll admit that I haven't had as much time with them as I'd like. How are you all getting along with the new reverbs?

 

I don't think I would ever expect the Helix to be able to compete with a dedicated reverb like the Big Sky.  The Helix's processors are busy... very busy, I think.

I think it's going to take the next generation of the Helix before we could even hope to get the reverb to that vaunted level.

[funkyou86]

1 hour ago, hideout said:

 

I don't think I would ever expect the Helix to be able to compete with a dedicated reverb like the Big Sky.  The Helix's processors are busy... very busy, I think.

I think it's going to take the next generation of the Helix before we could even hope to get the reverb to that vaunted level.

 

I honestly disagree with you. 

 

Here are few more examples:

 

 

 

You can find many more on YT. If you like reverbs but have no knowledge of how the works, BigSky may worth it's price, but if you're into dialing sounds, BigSky does not worth it.

[gcprojoemilne]

That top video is one I made on my YouTube channel. I truly think the Helix reverbs are good, but I believe getting things to be really dense is much easier on Strymon. It sounds more natural to me.  I am sure there are ways to get around this but using strymon/eventide tends to get me closer faster.  

 

The feedback I got over and over was that there was more modulation on strymon, mix was different...etc.  The truth is I love that sound on the Strymon and I couldn't for the life of me make helix sound like it.  The new Glitz gets you closer but it's still not there.

 

At the end of the day though it's all about convenience.  If we were allowing anything into the equation we should be talking Bricasti... ;)

[amsdenj]

The BlueSky is certainly richer in these videos with more high end. That might sound better with solo guitar, but it might not fit as well in some mixes. Helix reverbs in general seem pretty dark. Not sure why, but I don’t think that’s any limitation of the hardware. Might be the preference of the modeler?

 

[HonestOpinion]

I'm still waiting for them to fix the new mono reverbs. The mix parameter is not functioning properly, at least not on my Helix and I am assuming anyone else who is using the mono versions. Also would love to see a full array of mono HX reverb versions of plate, spring, hall, cave, and stadium added.

[spikey]

Satisfaction is great Zach, but it's not the same as having brute force dominance. I still like my reverbs better in the more powerful  SHARC Processor Controlled one function (reverbs) Big Sky, but then it should be more powerful. All of that processor for just one fx. An example would be to Imagine having a Sharc processor for each and every single FX in Helix. You would then (all processors being equal) be able to state that Helix reverbs are as powerful, but (there is always a but) they have to share that power with the other effects as well. Now I will agree that brute force dominance means nothing audio wise if it just doesn't sound good. But then, the Big Sky has that too, in spades. In my opinion, most of the time the box that does just one thing well will always win. Helix has its tone. Big-Sky, the verbs. As always, YMMV even if you wish to be wrong ; )

[DunedinDragon]

As Digital Igloo just pointed out in another thread, the Helix was designed to the the centerpiece of a person's rig, not a replacement for every effect out there.  I think it's reasonable to assume that for many if not most of us the reverbs in the Helix are sufficient for our needs.  If a highly specialized and notable effect like BigSky is a major part of your needs the Helix provides adequate ways to integrate it and that's what you should do.  We already have tons of reverbs available  and ways to layer them.  We don't have some pretty useful things like signal metering and several other highly sought after features where Line6 could more productively spend it's development resources.

[Lachdanan0121]

3 hours ago, DunedinDragon said:

As Digital Igloo just pointed out in another thread, the Helix was designed to the the centerpiece of a person's rig, not a replacement for every effect out there.  I think it's reasonable to assume that for many if not most of us the reverbs in the Helix are sufficient for our needs.  If a highly specialized and notable effect like BigSky is a major part of your needs the Helix provides adequate ways to integrate it and that's what you should do.  We already have tons of reverbs available  and ways to layer them.  We don't have some pretty useful things like signal metering and several other highly sought after features where Line6 could more productively spend it's development resources.

Yep,

As much as I would like them to expand the HX reverbs, and fix the "mix" issue... (especially in mono)

 

Signal metering, and clip indicators are my number 1 hope that get added in the next FW update.

 

[spikey]

I'm not sure if the LCD in Helix can be reprogramed to allow "software" signal metering or not. Maybe in the editor? Hell if they are not going to add a tuner there then do this... And since the hardware availability isn't there on this version of Helix (I don't see any meters on the front not being used, do you?), I dunno if it will ever see those meters everyone (including me) wants until version 2. Which by the way I think will be announced in the next Winter Namm... ; )

[amsdenj]

Helix Native has input and output meters. So its pretty easy to use them to gain stage individual blocks and patch levels. Doing it by ear in Helix floor is probably good enough in most situations. Line6 has done a good job keeping Helix gain staging simple, and removed a lot of complexity in patch setup and UI. The guitar input has enough dynamic range that there’s no need for an input gain control, and its rare to need to use the input pad switch on except for unusually high output guitars. Then if you balance each block in the signal chain so that the bypass and effect on levels are pretty similar, you should have no significant gain staging problems and little risk of digital clipping. Give yourself plenty of headroom in the PA input channel strip (shoot for between -18 and -12dB with peaking a -6 at most) and there should be no problems. There’s perhaps not much need to make it more complicated then this.

 

Where gain staging can get more complex is in how you gain stage multiple distortion pedals into the front of a driven amp. This can become a muddy/fizzy mess if there’s too much distortion feeding into distortion, even if you’re a long way from digital clipping. Maybe I’ll focus on this in my next blog post.