Jump to content

2nd path with amp & IR weakens sound?


welzijnswerker
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I am currently building a preset based on a two-amp setup. After an initial compressor the path splits (I used an A/B switch with the signal either going 100 % to path A or 100 % to path B). Path A has a crunched Vox, path B a clean Fender amp, both are followed by an IR and then the signal comes back together. Path 2 has some after-amp effects (delays and verbs).

 

The thing is: when I build the patch, just path 1 with only the crunched amp and IR, the sound sounded great & huge. After I added path 1B the sound of path 1A sounds definitively more muffled - even though the signal should do exactly the same (no input going to path 1B, just to path 1A. Settings at the merge-point are just default settings (no dB's added or subtracted).

 

I have tested this a few times (rebuilding the patch with and withou path 1A) , comparing the presets with esactly the same settings. Am I missing something?

 

image.thumb.png.753356650cab52d771ce37886e5c2e3c.png

 

This is the preset with the two parallel paths, with route to going 100 % to path A, yet sounding more muffled than... ->

 

image.thumb.png.19809e4797f20b78cd387f3dba40a113.png

 

Any Ideas how come and how to fix it?

 

thanks!

 

image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you add a parallel path the level of each path drops by about 3dB. The idea is that when you combine them, the overall level prior to adding the path would be about the same. So I imagine that's probably why you're hearing a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, phil_m said:

When you add a parallel path the level of each path drops by about 3dB. The idea is that when you combine them, the overall level prior to adding the path would be about the same. So I imagine that's probably why you're hearing a difference.

 

I'm not sure that's working as you describe.  I've noticed when I use a crossover split block in the manner demonstrated by Jason Sadites that the overall volume level drops after it's combined even if the gains in the crossovers stay at 0.  It's clearly a noticeable drop as well as measurable on a signal meter.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could be dealing with phase cancellation. When you split a signal into parallel paths, and process them differently, they will eventually combine. If they are out of phase, then there will be cancellations. That can be a useful part of the desired result, so its not necessarily bad. But it might not be good either. Make sure your IRs are phased aligned. If they come from different providers, they might not be aligned and this could cause undesirable cancellation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not disagreeing with you, but are you sure you are just not hearing the volume drop?? Heres how you can test it a little easier without the volume drop..

 

Use your preset.  In your second split turn path A up 3db. Pan your first split 100% left. Now save the patch. Delete the bottom row of blocks. Play a few notes. Now double click on your saved patch.  play a few more notes.

 

This should give you the effect of toggling between the two without the volume drop. You'll have to delete the blocks every time to start your test (one by one no less because god knows a shift or control click function would be way too hard to implement lol) but at least you can switch back to your saved preset very quickly and without the drop in volume. This can give you kind of an A/B side by side comparison.

 

Ive tried it with a similar patch, with quite a few at-home distractions going on, and i think im just hearing a drop in volume and no tone change....but if you can provide some concrete evidence of sonic degradation id love to suss it out. Interested for sure.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks! Went for the simplest solution first... Adding 3 dB to the merge section... and it worked. I thought I lost some high frequencies earlier but after I did the comparison with the original one-path preset and the two-path preset with 3 dB added, they sounded alike! Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

 

best

Tomas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, DunedinDragon said:

 

I'm not sure that's working as you describe.  I've noticed when I use a crossover split block in the manner demonstrated by Jason Sadites that the overall volume level drops after it's combined even if the gains in the crossovers stay at 0.  It's clearly a noticeable drop as well as measurable on a signal meter.

 

Yeah, I think it internally drops the volume but the actual numbers stay at 0. It's confusing and I believe it's been talked about here before. Wish they would make it a little more transparent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, njglover said:

 

Yeah, I think it internally drops the volume but the actual numbers stay at 0. It's confusing and I believe it's been talked about here before. Wish they would make it a little more transparent.

 

Yeah..after reading about the designed 3db drop in split blocks it all makes sense and a quick experiment with it today proves it out.  It just never occurred to me to adjust the merge block's output volume.  Simple fix, just not that intuitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, welzijnswerker said:

Thanks! Went for the simplest solution first... Adding 3 dB to the merge section... and it worked. I thought I lost some high frequencies earlier but after I did the comparison with the original one-path preset and the two-path preset with 3 dB added, they sounded alike! Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

 

best

Tomas

 

7 hours ago, rzumwalt said:

 

Right?! 

See these are some of the things that make helix a sub par product in certain areas. There is no logical reason that contrl click has not been implemented. Same thing with user definable defaults (which WAS in an earlier firmware version but was removed- really!!?) or how about multiple splits? or did you ever notice how anything below 11% mix is pretty well OFF, or how about the A/B split control?  The sonics you get when the A/B split panner is set at 80% left is the same as when its 100% left.

 

I know im way OT here but these things ( and lots of'm) that are fundamentals, that dont work right or are not even a part of Helix just causes me to respect it a whole lot less. Sure i like it and am happy to use it, but some of these omissions just cause me to take the entire brand a whole let less serious, not to mention makes the unit less enjoyable to use. I dont choose to feel this way intentionally. Its just the effect of a cause.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, willjrock said:

 

See these are some of the things that make helix a sub par product in certain areas. There is no logical reason that contrl click has not been implemented. Same thing with user definable defaults (which WAS in an earlier firmware version but was removed- really!!?) or how about multiple splits? or did you ever notice how anything below 11% mix is pretty well OFF, or how about the A/B split control?  The sonics you get when the A/B split panner is set at 80% left is the same as when its 100% left.

 

I know im way OT here but these things ( and lots of'm) that are fundamentals, that dont work right or are not even a part of Helix just causes me to respect it a whole lot less. Sure i like it and am happy to use it, but some of these omissions just cause me to take the entire brand a whole let less serious, not to mention makes the unit less enjoyable to use. I dont choose to feel this way intentionally. Its just the effect of a cause.

 

Well, the reason you can’t select multiple blocks in the editor is because you can’t do it in the hardware. It’s the same reason there’s no undo feature in the editor. It’s not that it would be impossible to implement, but from what I’ve been told, it wouldn’t necessarily be simple, either. As far as user-definable defaults, those have never been part of any firmware, ever. So I’m not sure where you’re getting that (the POD XT used to have them a long time ago, if that’s what’s you’re referring to).

 

It’s your prerogative to feel however you want to feel about a product, but your complaints seem like pretty minor things to focus on, imo. It would be one thing is there was some competition with a great UI that’s blowing Line 6 out of the water, but there simply isn’t. You’re comparing it to your version of the perfect unit, which doesn’t really exist.

 

I’d also say that the unit is constantly improving... You never know when you’ll look back at some of these complaints and have to eat a little crow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, willjrock said:

 

See these are some of the things that make helix a sub par product in certain areas. There is no logical reason that contrl click has not been implemented. Same thing with user definable defaults (which WAS in an earlier firmware version but was removed- really!!?) or how about multiple splits? or did you ever notice how anything below 11% mix is pretty well OFF, or how about the A/B split control?  The sonics you get when the A/B split panner is set at 80% left is the same as when its 100% left.

 

I know im way OT here but these things ( and lots of'm) that are fundamentals, that dont work right or are not even a part of Helix just causes me to respect it a whole lot less. Sure i like it and am happy to use it, but some of these omissions just cause me to take the entire brand a whole let less serious, not to mention makes the unit less enjoyable to use. I dont choose to feel this way intentionally. Its just the effect of a cause.

 

Oddly enough the same lack of respect goes to posters who go over the top with their anguish over minor minutiae.....   Just sayin'.....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, phil_m said:

 

Well, the reason you can’t select multiple blocks in the editor is because you can’t do it in the hardware. It’s the same reason there’s no undo feature in the editor. It’s not that it would be impossible to implement, but from what I’ve been told, it wouldn’t necessarily be simple, either. As far as user-definable defaults, those have never been part of any firmware, ever. So I’m not sure where you’re getting that (the POD XT used to have them a long time ago, if that’s what’s you’re referring to).

 

It’s your prerogative to feel however you want to feel about a product, but your complaints seem like pretty minor things to focus on, imo. It would be one thing is there was some competition with a great UI that’s blowing Line 6 out of the water, but there simply isn’t. You’re comparing it to your version of the perfect unit, which doesn’t really exist.

 

I’d also say that the unit is constantly improving... You never know when you’ll look back at some of these complaints and have to eat a little crow.

Crow would taste fine. Id take that over...........

 

Listen Phil you are just incorrect about some of the things you are saying. There 100% WAS user definable defaults in an earlier firmware version so you are mistaken there. I'll wager my Helix on it. Im not going to reinstall every firmware version to prove a point, but i guarantee sooner or later some one will come along and attest to the fact. Never owned a POD

 XT.

 

Secondly you can select multiple presets, IR files, and delete them in the editor but not on the hardwareCapture.PNG.bde2f3951ad57407d79b83f3bee4eb9e.PNG

 

so while the undo thing may be true (which i intentionally did not specify because its an entirely different ball game) your editor/hardware theory certainly is debatable.

 

 

3 hours ago, DunedinDragon said:

Oddly enough the same lack of respect goes to posters who go over the top with their anguish over minor minutiae.....   Just sayin'.....

And not odd whatsoever that same lack of respect goes to 70 year old men who have nothing better to do than spend every last second on the internet, trolling posts (or in this case the poster) over their own complete misinterpretation of a dialogue....because if its not that important to you, then it cant be of relevance right?  Id think youd have better things to do with your time than attempting to put people in their place because you are bother by their posts. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, willjrock said:

 

Listen Phil you are just incorrect about some of the things you are saying. There 100% WAS user definable defaults in an earlier firmware version so you are mistaken there. I'll wager my Helix on it. Im not going to reinstall every firmware version to prove a point, but i guarantee sooner or later some one will come along and attest to the fact. Never owned a POD

 XT.

 

I’ll send you my shipping address so you can send me your Helix then... :-) There have never been user defaults in the Helix. I’m not going to argue further about because it’s simply a fact. I’ve had a Helix before the firmware was even in beta. I know these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont want to take your Helix from ya brother. We'll just say you have to start a willj was right and phil was wrong thread....and then i can help you a little bit with the content of the message. Just to be clear im talking about saving blocks. Adding a block to a path and having it initiate with preselected settings.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, willjrock said:

I dont want to take your Helix from ya brother. We'll just say you have to start a willj was right and phil was wrong thread....and then i can help you a little bit with the content of the message. Just to be clear im talking about saving blocks. Adding a block to a path and having it initiate with preselected settings.

 

 

 

Yeah, it’s never worked like that. The blocks have always come in with the default parameter values. Sorry, man, you are wrong on this one. I mean, what you’re talking about has been a pretty common feature request from the start. It hasn’t ever been like that, and Line 6 hasn’t changed that behavior.

 

I would be surprised if there isn’t something added to do something like this in the future, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, willjrock said:

...... There 100% WAS user definable defaults in an earlier firmware version so you are mistaken there. I'll wager my Helix on it. ..... 

 

 

Sorry - there 100% NEVER WAS user-definable defaults in Helix so you are mistaken there... You can send me your Helix now... :-)

 

What you CAN do is copy a block from one preset to another. I simulate user-defined defaults for my favorite FX by creating a special preset that contains these blocks with my preferred settings saved. I copy that block to a new preset when I want the block to be initiated with my own settings. That 'template' preset is used for no other purpose - it sounds like a$$.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, silverhead said:

Sorry - there 100% NEVER WAS user-definable defaults in Helix so you are mistaken there...

You actually COULD save settings to a block and have them retained. Ive done it......but if it satisfies you to continue on with the - "No it wasnt" ...."yes it was"....."No it wasnt" - instead providing any concrete evidence,  by all means knock your socks off. I'll have to opt out of that one.  

 

6 hours ago, phil_m said:

Sorry, man, you are wrong on this one.

Brother ive actually done it on the helix so i KNOW it was possible. Sorry, i'll have to file this reply the same place as  "the reason you can’t select multiple blocks in the editor is because you can’t do it in the hardware" - which was already proven to be incorrect.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, seems like neither of us have concrete evidence. I can't prove that it could never be done and you can't prove that it used to be possible but is no longer (if you can prove it in some way other than simply saying that you remember doing it, please do so). Seems that we're both relying on our past experience. In the same way that you 'KNOW' it was possible I know that it wasn't. So let's just agree that it can't be done in current firmware and leave it at that. Peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2018 at 2:59 PM, DunedinDragon said:

 

Yeah..after reading about the designed 3db drop in split blocks it all makes sense and a quick experiment with it today proves it out.  It just never occurred to me to adjust the merge block's output volume.  Simple fix, just not that intuitive.

 

So is the takeaway here that at least for now every time a split is used on the Helix 3db should be added at the merge block? If so you have to hope that they never fix/change the split block's behavior or you may end up with an unwanted 3db boost on every preset you made this adjustment to.

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...