Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Jump to content

FIZZ


ddmilne
 Share

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, rd2rk said:

 

To "try to believe" in the impossible is foolish.

 

 

No idea whether it's impossible. To me it seems that some people haven't even tried whereas others have just lost it.
Anyway, probably not the ideal place to discuss such things, especially given that my english is quite limited outside of certain technical areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/1/2019 at 12:11 PM, cruisinon2 said:

No matter how good someone may be, I honestly can't recall a single utterance from anyone in the entertainment industry, on any topic, that was worth listening to... anything they say directly serves one of two things... their ego, or their wallet.

 

What makes you say that, ego or wallet? Infinite recursion.  :-)

 

On 11/1/2019 at 12:38 PM, rd2rk said:

 

Isn't that true of every human utterance since the beginning of time? Unless you truly believe in the myth of altruism?

 

Whether it exists or not, its a good idea to align altruism with self-interest. Encourage that $hit! Provide tax deductions for charitable giving. Let someone have their moment in the press for having done something good for others or a genuine act of heroism. For the most part, with some exceptions, it is no skin off my nose if doing the right thing helps someone's bottom line,  enhances their reputation, or just makes them feel better about themselves.

 

On 11/1/2019 at 12:57 PM, SaschaFranck said:

 

Would it be a bad thing to at least try to believe in altruism?

 

I'd like to believe it exists. Might be a matter of perspective as it is remarkable when you break things down how often there appears to be an ulterior motive. At the end of the day if someone is consistently kind I am happy to see it, regardless of any purity test regarding their underlying motivations.

 

 

Oh, and btw, fizz :-)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SaschaFranck said:

 

Would it be a bad thing to at least try to believe in altruism?

 

Altruism clearly exists to varying degrees. Cynicism reduces everything to a skewed view about motive, pay, etc. While even a purely altruistic action has some degree of gain motivation (even if it's just the feel good result of being altruistic), that doesn't mean you can just round that action down to be pure selfishness. 

 

Now, to go from the general philosophy to the very specific - John Mayer's comments - I personally would guess John truly believes what he's saying. It probably has very little to do with a conscious desire to keep contracts or promote his own wealth. HOWEVER, I would be a fool not to think that those factors influence him, even when he's aware of it, and so his bias will likely always to be to listen for things that he thinks modelling doesn't do right yet . . . even if he only imagines it. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, rd2rk said:

So, then, we're all in agreement. Regardless of motive, the never-ending battle against FIZZ is a GOOD THING!

 

Indeed, so long as it is conducted by working out what we dialed in wrong rather than blaming the unit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2019 at 9:00 PM, merdenoms74 said:

Having had the Helix for only a day I have found that the default settings for the amp models are way too hot and the 'digital clipping' artifacts are a major issue for me too. The issue, for me  at least, is most prominent on the models that load up with their master volumes on 10. The clipping can be reduced considerably by bringing this down. In some cases, the channel volume also has to come down to get rid of it. With the amp model bypassed I can't make the signal clip, so on the positive side it is definitely a software issue. Like I said, I've only had it for a day so I have a lot of experimenting to do.

 

Here is a case in point. After a day, nobody has the measure of a complex modeler like Helix. There is much work to do on knowledge deficit before allocating blame to 'software issues'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kilrahi said:

Now, to go from the general philosophy to the very specific - John Mayer's comments - I personally would guess John truly believes what he's saying. It probably has very little to do with a conscious desire to keep contracts or promote his own wealth. HOWEVER, I would be a fool not to think that those factors influence him, even when he's aware of it, and so his bias will likely always to be to listen for things that he thinks modelling doesn't do right yet . . . even if he only imagines it. 

 

Obvz JM knows his stuff. I read that interview with interest, and freely admit that I cannot personally hear what he is discussing with Helix, but this may be a problem with my ears. It is likely that the marginal potential for improvement that still exists with high-end modelers vs real amps would occur exactly as JM suggests, in the subtleties arising from a cranked amp's dynamic fluctuation in sag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting points about altruism - and yes, quite obviously, the big question would be whether there's some ulterior motives behind any action (even if it would just be to gain "good kharma" or something). Personally, I think there's at least some situations in my life when there's nothing else but an "intrisic motivation" - usually that's got to do with my kids (9 and 4 year old boys, fwiw).

 

Would like to continue this discussion with you folks, but I'm afraid my english isn't exactly sufficient. And well, this is about fizz - so I rather try to come up with some unfizzy patches.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, SaschaFranck said:

the big question would be whether there's some ulterior motives behind any action

 

This reminds me of philosophy examination questions :-) Eg:

 

1/. Every action is a reaction. Discuss.

 

I'll go with T.S. Eliot on this one:


 

Quote

 

Here we go round the prickly pear
Prickly pear prickly pear
Here we go round the prickly pear
At five o'clock in the morning.

 

Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow

 

 

;-)

 

29 minutes ago, SaschaFranck said:

I'm afraid my english isn't exactly sufficient. And well, this is about fizz - so I rather try to come up with some unfizzy patches.

 

Your English is impressive. As for unfizzing patches, did anyone post an example yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, this thread went on a bit of a journey didn't it? Anyway, I haven't bothered posting any clips (intentional pun) because I've been busy tweaking and found that I can dial out the sounds that were irritating me. What I was hearing as clipping must be what others refer to as 'fizz' and it can, for the most part be reduced with a high cut. I think my perception is due to a couple of things:

 

- When it comes to real amps, I've owned quite a number. However, they were all higher gain, modern amps that only really produced distortion in their preamps. Therefore, some of the models which are cranked and modelling distortion in their power amp section sound like they're clipping to me.

-I've been playing through a Kemper for a few years. Kemper profiles are a snapshot of an amp that has been dialled in to the personal taste of the person profiling them. Any harshness has usually been dialled out and, since, you can't really manipulate the sound much beyond that, the poweramp clipping/fizz (or whatever you want to call it) doesn't appear when you crank the volume or gain.

 

Anyway, now that I've got used to hearing and working with the 'fizz', I'm loving the Helix!

 

Anyone want to buy a Kemper?

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I think the cab blocks high cut is way too mellow. Seems I always need to add an EQ instead as the cab block high cut easily starts to affect the "meat" territory of the frequency spectrum, something I usually don't want. Ideally, Line 6 would add different slopes, such as 6, 12, 18 and 24dB per octave (which is quite common on many EQs). As long as they don't, I rather stick with my IRs that I preshaped to adress the issue (because the cuts in the IR block suffer from the same problem).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, SaschaFranck said:

Unfortunately, I think the cab blocks high cut is way too mellow. Seems I always need to add an EQ instead as the cab block high cut easily starts to affect the "meat" territory of the frequency spectrum, something I usually don't want. Ideally, Line 6 would add different slopes, such as 6, 12, 18 and 24dB per octave (which is quite common on many EQs). As long as they don't, I rather stick with my IRs that I preshaped to adress the issue (because the cuts in the IR block suffer from the same problem).

 

Have a look at this thread (with audio clips) over at TGP. It may help you find a more 'musical' solution to the high and low cut problem:

 

https://www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php?threads/helix-cab-ir-high-low-cut-frequencies-a-much-better-way-clip-attached.1853814/

 

EDIT: I should also have added this comment by @DunedinDragon from an earlier thread here:

 

https://line6.com/support/topic/29771-how-do-you-handle-high-end-brightness-of-the-helix/?do=findComment&comment=229655

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, BBD_123 said:

 

Have a look at this thread (with audio clips) over at TGP. It may help you find a more 'musical' solution to the high and low cut problem:

 

https://www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php?threads/helix-cab-ir-high-low-cut-frequencies-a-much-better-way-clip-attached.1853814/

 

 

 

Thanks, I'm aware of that thread (even if I'm not "allowed" at TGP anymore - but let's rather not discuss that). Thing is, I do know my way around things with EQs, but I'd rather not have to use them. Fwiw, IMO Atomics IR block offers more musical cuts and it also has an additional resonance parameter for the high cut (allowing you to dial in a little peak directly below cutoff frequency) which is pretty neat and almost dramatically enhances the options for such an otherwise simple block. I wish Line 6 would, well, "borrrow" that feature (plus more options for the cuts slopes).

Whatever, I'm quite happy with my IRs. Attached is one I'm using pretty much all the time - it's rather midrangy but I like it like that. Served me well on a whole plethora of gigs already and works equally well for cleans and driven sounds (at least for my taste). Fwiw, it's 100% mine (or now yours as well, in case you like it), I shot the base IRs myself from my cabs and then tweaked things.

Gen_01.wav

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fwiw, here's a little brighter version of that IR, just did that to have some choice (I have a whole lot more IRs of my own but need to resort them, now that I'm not as limited as with the Amplifirebox anymore).

Gen_01_bright.wav

 

And well, these may not sound too fancy at lower volumes. I created them at gig volume for live tasks. For recordings, I often tweak things a bit different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SaschaFranck said:

Thanks, I'm aware of that thread (even if I'm not "allowed" at TGP anymore - but let's rather not discuss that).

 

Ah, sorry :-)

 

7 minutes ago, SaschaFranck said:

Thing is, I do know my way around things with EQs, but I'd rather not have to use them.

 

Yes, I can see that you know your EQs, and like you, I prefer where possible to simplify and avoid slapping in EQ blocks if at all possible, but sometimes, needs must...

7 minutes ago, SaschaFranck said:

Fwiw, it's 100% mine (or now yours as well, in case you like it), I shot the base IRs myself from my cabs and then tweaked things.

 

Thank you, I will have a play around with both IRs later :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, but I don't currently use Native. I've also found that there is huge flexibility with the stock cabs if you dive in to the mic options, which has (so far) removed the need for IRs. But I keep an entirely open mind on the subject, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, SaschaFranck said:

Unfortunately, I think the cab blocks high cut is way too mellow. Seems I always need to add an EQ instead as the cab block high cut easily starts to affect the "meat" territory of the frequency spectrum,

 

17 hours ago, SaschaFranck said:

Thing is, I do know my way around things with EQs, but I'd rather not have to use them.

 

What made the big difference for me with the stock cabs was the 2.8 addition of the TILT EQ. Place it after the cabinet block then turn the tilt down (toward the dark position) and I find it works as a great Hi Cut Filter without completely removing all highs.... I generally run that EQ around the "Dark 50" area and find it works wonders on cabinets. 

 

I've said it before in this thread... and others. This EQ has a similar effect to moving the mic position from the center (where it is on cab blocks) toward the edge of the speaker. 

 

It might not be what you are looking for... but IMO it's a simple and elegant EQ worth a try :) 

 

 

17 hours ago, SaschaFranck said:

And well, these may not sound too fancy at lower volumes. I created them at gig volume for live tasks. For recordings, I often tweak things a bit different.

 

BTW... thanks for sharing your custom IR's... I look forward to downloading them and giving them a try. 

 

I especially like what you said here... that makes perfect sense to me. My live presets sound almost "lifeless" at low volumes, but at stage volume they come alive. The opposite often runs true for my studio tones. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, codamedia said:

 

 

What made the big difference for me with the stock cabs was the 2.8 addition of the TILT EQ. Place it after the cabinet block then turn the tilt down (toward the dark position) and I find it works as a great Hi Cut Filter without completely removing all highs.... I generally run that EQ around the "Dark 50" area and find it works wonders on cabinets. 

 

I've said it before in this thread... and others. This EQ has a similar effect to moving the mic position from the center (where it is on cab blocks) toward the edge of the speaker. 

 

It's all fine, I already fooled around with the Tilt EQ (nice addition, btw), but as said before, the less blocks you have to deal with, the better. I think an improved EQ section (at least giving us a few more slopes to chose from) in the cab/IR blocks would be very welcomed by many folks.

 

19 minutes ago, codamedia said:

I especially like what you said here... that makes perfect sense to me. My live presets sound almost "lifeless" at low volumes, but at stage volume they come alive. The opposite often runs true for my studio tones. 

 

 

Yeah well, good old Fletcher-Munson may have an impact here, too. Our ears simply tend to like more bass and treble at lower volumes (and occasionally in a mix as well, when the guitar isn't the main instrument - well, at least that's true for some trebles...) and when you turn things up you'll notice that everything becomes shrill and/or boomy - without cutting through. Btw, one of the reasons why I always recommend to get familiar with global EQs (I usually prefer them on my monitor only and leave it to the FOH folks to possibly fix things on the PA). Doesn't work all the time but pretty often it does (mine right now sits waiting with a rather broad mid boost, so I can avoid dealing with both trebles and basses and just turn the mids up a bit). I even carried a little mixer or a seperate EQ with me all the time before going Helix to have some global fixing options available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, codamedia said:

 

 

What made the big difference for me with the stock cabs was the 2.8 addition of the TILT EQ. Place it after the cabinet block then turn the tilt down (toward the dark position) and I find it works as a great Hi Cut Filter without completely removing all highs.... I generally run that EQ around the "Dark 50" area and find it works wonders on cabinets. 

 

I've said it before in this thread... and others. This EQ has a similar effect to moving the mic position from the center (where it is on cab blocks) toward the edge of the speaker. 

 

It might not be what you are looking for... but IMO it's a simple and elegant EQ 

 

 

I just wanted to say, I read your earlier tip on the tilt EQ and finally tried it a few days ago and I REALLY like it. I have always liked the stock cabs, but my methods for darkening them up when needed was not half as simple and elegant as this. Thanks for the tip!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 11/3/2019 at 6:15 PM, Kilrahi said:

I just wanted to say, I read your earlier tip on the tilt EQ and finally tried it a few days ago and I REALLY like it. I have always liked the stock cabs, but my methods for darkening them up when needed was not half as simple and elegant as this. Thanks for the tip!

 

I've been experimenting with this too. It works better with some amp / cab combinations than with others as sometimes the low frequency boost is too much. It's really good to have an alternative, fast, one-stop EQ to the High/Low Cut block though. I'm slowly working through patches A/B-ing between the two to see which gives the best results. Definitely a good tip :-)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, BBD_123 said:

It works better with some amp / cab combinations than with others as sometimes the low frequency boost is too much.

 

The TILT has a frequency shift control that can take care of things like this. The default setting is a great starting point and would work for most, but it's there when you need it.  Just to clarify.... I don't find the Tilt to be a replacement for good hi/lo pass filters.. I use it mostly to simulate the mic placement.  It's just another tool in the bag of tricks. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, codamedia said:

Just to clarify.... I don't find the Tilt to be a replacement for good hi/lo pass filters.. I use it mostly to simulate the mic placement.  It's just another tool in the bag of tricks. 

 

Yes, another, very interesting tool in the kit - thanks again for the pointer. I blush to admit it, but I don't think I'd even noticed that it had appeared until you flagged it up. What's more, I doubt I would have figured out what it was good *for* without some help :-)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fwiw, I highly recommend looking for some IRs you like. In case there's some fizz that would require extra EQing, use a DAW and manipulate the IR accordingly (I'd happily describe how).

In case it's a certain cab of the Helix, you could as well capture an IR of it, the easiest way being to use Helix Native. You could even use Helix Native to capture the entire enchillada of multiple cabs and EQs in a patch in one single IR. Do that for a few combinations you like and be done for a long time.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
2 hours ago, djyelland said:

Get yourself a Line 6 Pod Go, it doesn't have the "fizz". I did, and sold my Helix LT.


The POD Go has the exact same amp and cab models as the LT (well with a few exceptions at the moment ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree there were things that had an affect on improving the fizz. I used the Helix LT for some time and was reasonably happy. I then got a Pod Go when they came out just for small work. I'm just passing on my observation that straight of the box....no fizz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the helix, everyone, literally everyone, was told from the start that using any of the thousands of main stream cab IR files removes fizz.  You can also accomplish this with the built in cab emulations (through proper understanding of how they work) as I posted a helpful thread about several months ago.

 

The pod go seems to my ears to have less treble above 7k or 8k by design on many of it's cab sims.... because it shortcuts a simplistic solution to fizz control that way.  This is how some people have classically eqed the helix, also, but the big difference is that the helix requires you to do manually as though you were a real recording engineer in a real studio where every piece of gear requires extensive knowledge, and nearly all guitar chains have a lot of processing done to make them sound so good.  This also gives helix users FAR more control over exactly how the treble reduction is accomplished, through mic position type and distance through tilt eq and other eq types and through extreme control over power amp biasing, speaker choice, and so forth.

 

They are for different purposes, these products.  The Pod Go is great, but as someone who's started using the helix for the beginning of tracking an album, I'd rather have the helix that lets me have a lot of high frequencies in the cab output for cleans than be stuck with something designed for more "grab and go" music making.  The Pod go reminds me more of my pod xt live.... it is darker sounding than the helix also, and fizz free, but also lacking in the power and tone subtle control that the helix gives me now.  Edit:  Of course the Pod Go blows away the xt live in most ways... no comparison ;-)

 

Just like how I far prefer my very elaborate modern tube guitar amp (that has multi band active EQ and several tube gain stages and switchable power amp circuits etc etc) to a single classic great sounding rig that has one or two perfect tones (for example a great classic early 70s marshall stack)... out of the box it takes more work to make my modern versatile complex amp sound great without fizz, but after the effort is put in, it can sound like nearly any of the greatest amps in history without a spec of fizz, or like something new and different.

 

It's a choice thing - and the pod go is great for many folks, while the helix is like the pod go but without the default "magic sheen" of the pod go... you do it yourself by working with the detailed editing power of the helix and can change it with far more control than the pod go allows.

 

Different strokes for different folks - both are excellent products.

 

Edit:  I see info that the helix and pod go both have similar (or identical maybe) eqs on the built in cabs now for a few months.... that probably makes moot much of the info from this old thread (and from my old experience with the pod go).  Cheers :-)

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, donkelley said:

The pod go seems to my ears to have less treble above 7k or 8k by design on many of it's cab sims.... because it shortcuts a simplistic solution to fizz control that way.  This is how some people have classically eqed the helix, also, but the big difference is that the helix requires you to do manually as though you were a real recording engineer in a real studio where every piece of gear requires extensive knowledge, and nearly all guitar chains have a lot of processing done to make them sound so good.  This also gives helix users FAR more control over exactly how the treble reduction is accomplished, through mic position type and distance through tilt eq and other eq types and through extreme control over power amp biasing, speaker choice, and so forth.


Line 6 changed the default settings for all the cab blocks a while ago. I don’t remember what firmware version they did that... maybe 2.80? They all come in with the low cut set to 80Hz and the high cut set to 8kHz. This is the same as the POD Go.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/14/2020 at 5:24 PM, djyelland said:

The above replies address perfectly my experiences with both units. I hope this is also useful to others. Thanks

 

To my ears, especially in the mix, I can easily miss the mark on perfect tone.  So as a Helix owner/tweaker for almost 5 years I can't tell much difference in the Helix and tube/analog gear (have sold off most of my amps and analog pedals as a result).

 

I'd be interested in seeing if you or anyone here can get (guess) Jason's setup correctly:

 

Jason's tone test..

 

If anyone takes the test please paste your response here before the deadline.

 

Thanks..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...