Make FX Loops Blockless

[topherzelaya]

I have a Stomp and I really love it because it lets me integrate the best thing from the Helix (which in my opinion is the amp simulation/IR's) with pedals that I love. Now being that I usually run two amps through two IR's, I would really love to be able to put my reverb and delay pedals in separate FX loops without eating up my two remaining blocks on something I'm sure needs very minimal DSP. Anyone else?

 

[caledoneus]

add it to the idea page...

Maybe they'll do it

[phil_m]

What would the FX loops be if they weren't blocks? I think the ability to bypass them via footswitches or snapshots is important. Maybe there's some other way they can be represented graphically without changing their behavior, but I guess I wouldn't want to sacrifice functionality necessarily.

[Kilrahi]

I wouldn't want to sacrifice functionality either, that's why if nothing else I think the first choice is they should expand the six block limit, at least in the case of the FX blocks.

 

If the appearance of the UI is the biggest concern, sure, it could be represented by something else. Heck, a subset of the multiple Y/A/B split paths would be doable. I agree though that the functionality of the block is infinitely cooler and far easier to follow (the color coding of the stomp boxes in particular) and so it would be a bit of a downer to lose that. Maybe this could be a global settings function where if you didn't care for a particular preset it becomes a small nubbin on the signal trail.

 

I'd vote for it on Ideascale.

 

Seriously though, the DSP for those things has gotta be pretty close to zero. One of the Stomp's greatest assets is its routing functionality, and its greatest weakness is without a doubt its artificially limited six blocks. It's very discouraging to come up with a cool routing option and be chewing up your available effects blocks when you try to implement it. It's like the first time you finally figured out a way to buy your favorite toy as a kid only to realize you forgot to take into account sales tax.

 

#FirstWorldGuitarProblems

[caledoneus]

14 hours ago, phil_m said:

What would the FX loops be if they weren't blocks? I think the ability to bypass them via footswitches or snapshots is important. Maybe there's some other way they can be represented graphically without changing their behavior, but I guess I wouldn't want to sacrifice functionality necessarily.

 

Fair point to make.... Maybe they could make it one of the options in the global preferences (or whatever they call them).  Let you set up the FX loops to either function as blocks OR as "always on" type loops... 

[amsdenj]

16 hours ago, phil_m said:

What would the FX loops be if they weren't blocks? I think the ability to bypass them via footswitches or snapshots is important. Maybe there's some other way they can be represented graphically without changing their behavior, but I guess I wouldn't want to sacrifice functionality necessarily.

They could be like the split and merge blocks, in between blocks, not blocks in their own right. This would be useful on HX Effects and HX Stomp because of the limited number of blocks. 

[phil_m]

10 minutes ago, amsdenj said:

They could be like the split and merge blocks, in between blocks, not blocks in their own right. This would be useful on HX Effects and HX Stomp because of the limited number of blocks. 

 

As long as there is a way to bypass them in the same way, I'd be OK with that probably. I also, like, though with the way they currently are that I can quickly look at a chain and see what's going on. I can understand the general concern, although, I've got to say that using the extra block in the HX Effects doesn't seem like a big deal to me. I mean, having 7 or 8 blocks to work with still gives you a ton of flexibility for an effects-only patch.

[Kilrahi]

1 hour ago, phil_m said:

 

As long as there is a way to bypass them in the same way, I'd be OK with that probably. I also, like, though with the way they currently are that I can quickly look at a chain and see what's going on. I can understand the general concern, although, I've got to say that using the extra block in the HX Effects doesn't seem like a big deal to me. I mean, having 7 or 8 blocks to work with still gives you a ton of flexibility for an effects-only patch.

 

I definitely think this is a bigger issue for Stomp users than the HX Effects. If they think of a solution for the Stomp it might as well be implemented in the HX Effects, but the Stomp has such amazing routing capabilities and you hit these unfortunate brick walls because of six blocks - and the thing could easily handle the same number of blocks as the HX Effects. I really don't read a lot of HX Effects users complaining about the effects limits - which is telling.

 

Last night my brother and I were routing two instruments and some additional pedals through the Stomp and it once again came down to a limit on what we wanted to do based solely on the FX blocks chewing up the 6 block limit. It was still pretty cool, but it could have been even cooler.