hx Any reason why effects loops use up blocks?

[howdy-doo]

I'm sure there's a reason for it, but it just seems like the effects loop shouldn't take up a block on HX(I'm assuming it does on helix too?) since surely it's just routing that signal through the loop rather than using any processing power to make any effects?

 

Maybe I'm just missing something, but does anyone know why it needs to take up a block and cant just be added in the signal chain as an 'extra' block just to reroute the signal? 

 

Edit: I don't think I explained this that well so I'll see if this makes more sense. 

 

I'm using the hx where you can have 9 blocks in use for effects or loops. Assuming all blocks are in use with effects, if I want to add in my loop then I need to overwrite an effect I currently have in the chain. My post is querying whether the added effect on the processor in the unit when using the effects loop is really enough to justify having to effectively lose 1 effect to accommodate the loop. 

 

Hope that makes more sense

Edited September 24, 2018 by howdy-doo
Clarity

[DunedinDragon]

Well if it's not going to take up a block then where is it going to exist in the signal chain?  Before the reverb or after the reverb or at the beginning or end of the signal chain?  Off of the main signal chain or off of a split and mixed portion of the signal chain?  And what level of signal will it receive or send?  Line level or instrument level?  If it's not a block then how would you expect to specify such things?

[silverhead]

I think another consideration may be that the FX Loop actually carries an incoming analog audio signal to be added to the mix. Other internal signal routing mechanisms such as the split/merge blocks do not carry additional audio. But that's just a guess.

[phil_m]

I imagine you're coming from the M13 if you're asking this question... The FX Loop implementation on the M13 seemed to trip quite a few people up. Having the FX Loops available as blocks just makes the most sense from a conceptual standpoint. It means you can treat them just like any other block, and can easily integrate them into snapshots and do all sorts of other stuff with them.

[howdy-doo]

59 minutes ago, DunedinDragon said:

Well if it's not going to take up a block then where is it going to exist in the signal chain?  Before the reverb or after the reverb or at the beginning or end of the signal chain?  Off of the main signal chain or off of a split and mixed portion of the signal chain?  And what level of signal will it receive or send?  Line level or instrument level?  If it's not a block then how would you expect to specify such things?

Sorry I probably should've said, the block would still be there as you'd need to specify where in the chain it is like you say, but my post is about why telling the signal to go to EL1 after X pedal should take up the space of another pedal. In my head I'm imagining you add the loop block in bit still have for example 9 effects blocks like in the hx. 

 

Hope that makes more sense

[howdy-doo]

45 minutes ago, silverhead said:

I think another consideration may be that the FX Loop actually carries an incoming analog audio signal to be added to the mix. Other internal signal routing mechanisms such as the split/merge blocks do not carry additional audio. But that's just a guess.

Maybe but then I can't imagine that would add so much load to the processor that you need to effectively remove one effect from your chain to accommodate the loop

[howdy-doo]

25 minutes ago, phil_m said:

I imagine you're coming from the M13 if you're asking this question... The FX Loop implementation on the M13 seemed to trip quite a few people up. Having the FX Loops available as blocks just makes the most sense from a conceptual standpoint. It means you can treat them just like any other block, and can easily integrate them into snapshots and do all sorts of other stuff with them.

It's on the hx. Sorry I don't think I explained in the original post very well. 

 

It's not the having the loop represented as a block that I'm querying as like you said it does need some representation, it's having it take up a block that could otherwise be used as a pedal that I'm questioning. 

 

So assuming I have all 9 blocks taken up with effects on the hx, if I want to put the loop in, I can't do this without replacing an effect already in the chain since all blocks are being used. If it is only the unit telling the signal to go through the loop after whichever pedal I'm wondering why the loop can't just be added in without the need to overwrite an effect in an already in use effect; this is assuming all blocks are in use. 

 

Hope that makes more sense, thanks for your reply

[phil_m]

7 minutes ago, howdy-doo said:

It's on the hx. Sorry I don't think I explained in the original post very well. 

 

It's not the having the loop represented as a block that I'm querying as like you said it does need some representation, it's having it take up a block that could otherwise be used as a pedal that I'm questioning. 

 

So assuming I have all 9 blocks taken up with effects on the hx, if I want to put the loop in, I can't do this without replacing an effect already in the chain since all blocks are being used. If it is only the unit telling the signal to go through the loop after whichever pedal I'm wondering why the loop can't just be added in without the need to overwrite an effect in an already in use effect; this is assuming all blocks are in use. 

 

Hope that makes more sense, thanks for your reply

 

Yes, I realize you're talking about the HX. Even if you use both fx loop blocks in a preset, that still leaves you with 7 blocks, which still gives you quite a lot of options.

 

I think what you're talking about would probably require quite a lot of work from a development standpoint and wouldn't offer a lot of juice for the squeeze, as they say. I'm of the belief that maintaining a consistent work flow in the way the blocks are handled is better than trying to squeeze extra functionality out of something and making the experience of using it clunkier.

[soundog]

Its a reasonable question. The Split A/B or Split Y and Mixer don't take up a Block, and they are used primarily to simply route audio .... just like Send/Return.

[howdy-doo]

19 hours ago, phil_m said:

 

Yes, I realize you're talking about the HX. Even if you use both fx loop blocks in a preset, that still leaves you with 7 blocks, which still gives you quite a lot of options.

 

I think what you're talking about would probably require quite a lot of work from a development standpoint and wouldn't offer a lot of juice for the squeeze, as they say. I'm of the belief that maintaining a consistent work flow in the way the blocks are handled is better than trying to squeeze extra functionality out of something and making the experience of using it clunkier.

Sorry read it as thinking I was on the M13.

 

Replied over on TGP too but like soundog says there's other audio routing options in there that don't take a block away from effects, possibly wouldn't be too much different here but I suppose only L6 can answer that or not, definitely would be a great addition if it was possible anyway, not exactly sure how it would make it clunkier?

[phil_m]

9 hours ago, soundog said:

Its a reasonable question. The Split A/B or Split Y and Mixer don't take up a Block, and they are used primarily to simply route audio .... just like Send/Return.

 

The Split blocks can't be turned on and off via a footswitch. You can control their parameters, of course. The FX Loop blocks can be assigned to footswitches and treated just like any other block in that sense. I think being able to bypass them completely is an important feature, otherwise you'd something be going through unnecessary DA/AD conversions.

[soundog]

I understand your position, but am not convinced. For example, 1) I don't need or use a footswitch with Split/Return; I leave my Split/Return blocks active (with an external stereo looper), using a 50% mix. 2) You can control the parameters of non-blocks such as Split and Mix.

 

In other words, why isn't there an option for the Split/Return in/out to act like a "passive" Split/Return on a mixer — even a digital mixer with DA/AD. Obviously there is enough horsepower for the DA/AD. I don't feel that using them in a passive way should take up two Blocks (almost 25%!).

[rockyoh]

I think the main question is when is the HX getting an update with more blocks available? Lol even 1 more for an even 10 blocks would be perfect!! But to Phil's point the send/return is able to be assigned to a foot switch, but again there are only 6 stomps so if you use all 9 blocks there will be 3 "always on" blocks that aren't assigned to a foot switch, so the only real "solution" would the ability to have more "always on" blocks. Of course then the problem of DSP comes in to play, but with 9 blocks I haven't had any issues with DSP, and I imagine future updates might make some effects take less DSP, so it'd make sense for Line6 to make more blocks available in the future.

[jmp22684]

Can see both sides.... but keep thinking after running through 7 blocks how much guitar are you even hearing? Lol

 

That gives potentially:

Comp, Dist, wah, pitch, mod, delay, reverb... and many other options, no wah for that song? Toss in something else! No pitch/octave needed? Again... toss in something else!

 

And that's a whole lotta processing leading people to the next forum post: "why can't I cut through the mix?" 

[cruisinon2]

1 minute ago, jmp22684 said:

Can see both sides.... but keep thinking after running through 7 blocks how much guitar are even hearing? Lol

 

That gives potentially:

Comp, Dist, wah, pitch, mod, delay, reverb... and many other options, no wah for that song? Toss in something else! No pitch/octave needed? Again... toss in something else!

 

And that's a whole lotta processing leading people to the next forum post: "why can't I cut through the mix?" 

 

I'm not happy until it sounds like a spaceship in a low-rent scifi flick...;)

[phil_m]

17 minutes ago, jmp22684 said:

Can see both sides.... but keep thinking after running through 7 blocks how much guitar are you even hearing? Lol

 

That gives potentially:

Comp, Dist, wah, pitch, mod, delay, reverb... and many other options, no wah for that song? Toss in something else! No pitch/octave needed? Again... toss in something else!

 

And that's a whole lotta processing leading people to the next forum post: "why can't I cut through the mix?" 

 

Well, "both sides" is being a little generous... I'm not meaning that to be insulting to the people who brought it up. This is just one thing in which I see very little chance of changing. These sort of basic architecture decisions were made a long time ago, and there is so much baked into it. Knowing a bit of the roadmap coming up, I just can't see Line 6 wanting to take a huge side trip to change this. One thing to remember is that the HX is part of the whole Helix platform, and I think Line 6 has been very deliberate in keeping as much continuity between the different devices as possible. So they would have to consider if the change made sense across the whole platform.

 

As with anything, it's just my opinion. I certainly don't speak for Line 6.

[jmp22684]

Very true..... and there's also those of us that spent the money on the big guy that may have some thought in the back of our minds along the lines of: if you needed more you should have bought more, you're getting the effects of a unit costing 3 times more than what you spent sooooo.... why are you complaining??? Lol

[howdy-doo]

51 minutes ago, jmp22684 said:

Can see both sides.... but keep thinking after running through 7 blocks how much guitar are you even hearing? Lol

 

That gives potentially:

Comp, Dist, wah, pitch, mod, delay, reverb... and many other options, no wah for that song? Toss in something else! No pitch/octave needed? Again... toss in something else!

 

And that's a whole lotta processing leading people to the next forum post: "why can't I cut through the mix?" 

I could definitely do this a different was with snapshots etc,(only got the unit a week or so ago so still getting the hang of it) but the current way I have it set is 3 always on effects, comp/wah controlled with ext1 and reverb,  and 6 other pedals that I just turn on and off when needed, trem/2 ODs/ delay/phaser and looper, so my main reason for wanting to have the 'extra' block for the loop is to keep this sort of setup without removing some of the pedals that aren't always on. 

 

 

[howdy-doo]

2 hours ago, rockyoh said:

I think the main question is when is the HX getting an update with more blocks available? Lol even 1 more for an even 10 blocks would be perfect!! But to Phil's point the send/return is able to be assigned to a foot switch, but again there are only 6 stomps so if you use all 9 blocks there will be 3 "always on" blocks that aren't assigned to a foot switch, so the only real "solution" would the ability to have more "always on" blocks. Of course then the problem of DSP comes in to play, but with 9 blocks I haven't had any issues with DSP, and I imagine future updates might make some effects take less DSP, so it'd make sense for Line6 to make more blocks available in the future.

you could use it with a midi switcher I suppose or snapshots to control which 'off screen' effects are on or off for the extra slots

[jcartl]

On 9/24/2018 at 7:47 AM, howdy-doo said:

It's on the hx. Sorry I don't think I explained in the original post very well. 

 

It's not the having the loop represented as a block that I'm querying as like you said it does need some representation, it's having it take up a block that could otherwise be used as a pedal that I'm questioning. 

 

So assuming I have all 9 blocks taken up with effects on the hx, if I want to put the loop in, I can't do this without replacing an effect already in the chain since all blocks are being used. If it is only the unit telling the signal to go through the loop after whichever pedal I'm wondering why the loop can't just be added in without the need to overwrite an effect in an already in use effect; this is assuming all blocks are in use. 

 

Hope that makes more sense, thanks for your reply

I think it probably has to do with processing bandwidth. Internally, the HX is digital. When you use an effect loop, it needs to be converted from digital to analog to send and converted back to digital on return. I'm guessing this is relatively equivalent to the processing that takes place within an effect block.