Helix Firmware 2.80

[Kilrahi]

14 minutes ago, Evan329 said:

Maybe Line 6 has a surprise coming and that is why it's taking so long.

 

I think it's taking a while because this particular update is a real hairball. Closest analogy might be going from Windows 7 to Windows 10 (not THAT involved, but still, they're updating the main operating software for the Helix lines so they're all uniform with each other).

 

Plus, they now have to make sure whatever is tweaked doesn't bork the Helix Floor, LT, Effects, Stomp, and Native. That's a lot of devices that have to make sure keep operating just fine after the update.

 

A lot of people have been theorizing that this new change will allow them to update faster in the future, and maybe it will, but I have to say I've always been skeptical simply because they've expanded their product line quite a bit. Anytime you do that you face significant slowdown because what works for one device can easily throw another into a tail spin.

[bsd512]

6 minutes ago, Kilrahi said:

A lot of people have been theorizing that this new change will allow them to update faster in the future, and maybe it will, but I have to say I've always been skeptical simply because they've expanded their product line quite a bit. Anytime you do that you face significant slowdown because what works for one device can easily throw another into a tail spin.

Totally agree with this statement. As a lifelong software developer writing software designed to be run on on everything from small ARM based factory floor industrial systems, up through PC's running Windows, on to Unix workstations with a dozen variants of Unix vendors, and all the way up to IBM Mainframes - all the same software application - it's a challenge to say the least. :-)

 

Automated testing is worth it's weight in Helixes. :-)

 

[bsd512]

Release date and time will be June 7 at 8:09:36 pm EST. Or 7.84 days into June.

 

Just a feeling ... and it works out with my math, because 7.84 / 2.8 = 2.8. It's meant to be! :-)

[rd2rk]

1 hour ago, Kilrahi said:

A lot of people have been theorizing that this new change will allow them to update faster in the future, and maybe it will, but I have to say I've always been skeptical simply because they've expanded their product line quite a bit. Anytime you do that you face significant slowdown because what works for one device can easily throw another into a tail spin.

 

The whole point of the system standardization is to prevent that. At least, that's my understanding from what the L6 guys have been saying over on TGP.

Let us pray......

[HonestOpinion]

On 6/3/2019 at 2:11 PM, bsd512 said:

...

 

Automated testing is worth it's weight in Helixes. :-)

 

 

Agree 100%. This might already be in place but best case scenario, development and QA testing are bound at the hip like Siamese twins. Ideally when a new feature gets added to the product, it should also get added to an automated test harness that includes all prior functionality. This product line is way too complex at this point to expect alpha/beta testers to catch everything manually.

[rd2rk]

2 minutes ago, HonestOpinion said:

This product line is way too complex at this point to expect alpha/beta testers to catch everything manually.

 

It was my experience when I was writing SW that no matter how many geeks and robots tested the product, it always took an everyday user to break it.....

[datacommando]

1 hour ago, rd2rk said:

 

It was my experience when I was writing SW that no matter how many geeks and robots tested the product, it always took an everyday user to break it.....

 

Yep, nothing is foolproof to sufficiently talented fool.

[jjharris]

Yes, we need to be patient.

Yes, L6 needs to confirm functionality before releasing.

Yes - My Helix>PC112+>PC112+ connected via L6 Link is 'aching' to offload Helix cabinet DSPs to the PC112+'s. 

(And from what I understand, actually change cab settings on PC112+ with Helix?)

While I really want to dig into creating some custom tones, it seems best to wait for 2.8.

 

I would willingly 'throw myself under the bus' to beta test this prior to actual release, since I have nothing to loose.  Any chance?

[spikey]

 

Quote

 

I would willingly 'throw myself under the bus' to beta test this prior to actual release, since I have nothing to loose.  Any chance?

 

 

 

Well, ya never know until you ask-Good luck!

[Kilrahi]

On 6/3/2019 at 1:29 PM, rd2rk said:

 

The whole point of the system standardization is to prevent that. At least, that's my understanding from what the L6 guys have been saying over on TGP.

Let us pray......

 

On 6/3/2019 at 12:11 PM, bsd512 said:

Totally agree with this statement. As a lifelong software developer writing software designed to be run on on everything from small ARM based factory floor industrial systems, up through PC's running Windows, on to Unix workstations with a dozen variants of Unix vendors, and all the way up to IBM Mainframes - all the same software application - it's a challenge to say the least. :-)

 

Automated testing is worth it's weight in Helixes. :-)

 

 

I thought I'd share this since it's relevant to what we were discussing. Today Digital Igloo confirmed on the Gear Page that Helix Core is more about what bsd512 said, namely making sure they don't get SLOWER rather than ensuring they do releases faster than they did before. It's one of those improvements that DOES help us, but we'll probably never realize it. Quote and link is below:

 

"Helix Core was feature complete shortly before NAMM. Considering it consists of a total rewrite of huge mountains of code, we've been in testing/bug squashing mode for months.

From our vantage, development will be much faster because we can code for Helix Floor, Helix Rack/Control, Helix LT, Helix Native, HX Edit, HX Effects, and HX Stomp simultaneously. From everyone else's vantage, it's not like there will be major updates every three months or something. It just means development doesn't slow to a snail's crawl (including development of platform improvements, modeling engine improvements, and new products) because we have so many SKUs to support. Team Helix is still relatively small and we want to make sure we're working as efficiently as possible.

A couple of developers are already working on 2.90. No, throwing them on 2.80 would slow down its release." Digital Igloo

 

https://www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php?threads/helix-2-9.2053030/page-3

[Verne-Bunsen]

Thanks for taking the time to post that.

[spikey]

Quote

From our vantage, development will be much faster because we can code for Helix Floor, Helix Rack/Control, Helix LT, Helix Native, HX Edit, HX Effects, and HX Stomp simultaneously. From everyone else's vantage, it's not like there will be major updates every three months or something. It just means development doesn't slow to a snail's crawl (including development of platform improvements, modeling engine improvements, and new products) because we have so many SKUs to support. Team Helix is still relatively small and we want to make sure we're working as efficiently as possible.

 

All I know is that it went from " this was done a different way software wise and so we cant make L6-Link work like it used to", to a suggested, "we have 2.8 coming and L6-Link will work like it used to". Altho I appreciate all the hard work (and no disrespect intended) I'll not hold my breath just yet and wait to see what's in this new box of chocolates once its released.

[phil_m]

38 minutes ago, spikey said:

 

All I know is that it went from " this was done a different way software wise and so we cant make L6-Link work like it used to", to a suggested, "we have 2.8 coming and L6-Link will work like it used to". Altho I appreciate all the hard work (and no disrespect intended) I'll not hold my breath just yet and wait to see what's in this new box of chocolates once its released.

 

L6 Link won’t work the way it worked with the HD series, and that was never promised. You can have two DT amps connected to the Helix, not four (although there were probably only a half a dozen people who ever used four DT amps), and there is no automatic topology selection in the DT based on the amp model you’re using. You will be able, however, to set and recall the the topology on the DT amps via preset/snapshot. You’ll also be able to control several other DT power section parameters per preset/snapshot.

[tenorkeith]

It's the same game of "Whack-A-Mole" where the same people just wait for someone to make the mistake of asking the wrong question or sounding at all critical then...WHAM!

Don't you get tired of it?

[cruisinon2]

I want my pony...

[PierM]

6 hours ago, spikey said:

..we have 2.8 coming...

 

Do we? :P

[Verne-Bunsen]

I'm heading out of town for a couple of weeks and sent an e-mail to Line 6 asking that they hold off on the 2.8 release until I get back. I hope you guys don't mind.

[malduroque]

This topic is always entertaining. In one camp you've got the "I want my update and I want it now and it better have all of the things I asked for! You promised. " and then the other extreme, "How dare you presume to demand anything of a Line6. You should be thankful they provide updates.  In fact, you should be thankful they even allow you to buy a Helix.  Now go Fractal yourself!"

 

Priceless. 

[rd2rk]

23 minutes ago, malduroque said:

This topic is always entertaining. In one camp you've got the "I want my update and I want it now and it better have all of the things I asked for! You promised. " and then the other extreme, "How dare you presume to demand anything of a Line6. You should be thankful they provide updates.  In fact, you should be thankful they even allow you to buy a Helix.  Now go Fractal yourself!"

 

Priceless. 

 

There's a third category - "Look at all these fools! I'm SO above all that!"

 

Not that I'm inferring that's what you're implying......I'm sure it's just an innocent observation of the human condition......:-)

 

The one thing that all three camps have in common - we are all, like, SO BORED waiting for the update that we're having this discussion.....AGAIN!

 

10 days and counting.......

 

 

[spikey]

Quote

L6 Link won’t work the way it worked with the HD series, and that was never promised. 

 

I assumed and could be wrong in the fact that the 2.8 patch will fix L6-Link. I'd suggested that someone stated that it would be fixed, and can not find where I thought I read that now. I was wishing for this as were others I'm betting. That said, Talk about a play on wording, no- no one ever directly promised it would work the same back then either Phil , yet when Helix was 1st released "no one"  (not you, or anyone else stated the differences and yes I was here then too) or said a thing about L6-Link with its SAME "Trademarked" L6-Link name not working like for like, as the HD series DID with the same "Trademarked" name, until we noticed this after purchase, and said so here. Ya know, You also never promised that the Sun would rise the next day either, but it did. One would expect the port to be the same and work the same with the same "Trademarked" name used, wouldn't you Phil? You don't need to answer this with another "it was never promised". I'm not buying the "we never said" argument, and yea I know you don't care lol... ; ) No I'm not bored, I just want 2.8 to fix L6-Link so it will work with my two PowerCab +s correctly without an error in judgment in assuming that the same "Trademarked" names on the same identical ports mean they function the same way dependant on who said what when, when they really don't. Thank GOD Midi wasn't done this way, or a wall plug (or even the washing machine).  

 

Tell ya what Phil, maybe I just missed the disclaimer laying In my Helix box stating the differences in the "identical" looking and named L6-Link port between the two units. I'll let you know if I find it and Please forgive if it's in there. ; )

 

 

[jjharris]

15 hours ago, phil_m said:

 

L6 Link won’t work the way it worked with the HD series, and that was never promised. You can have two DT amps connected to the Helix, not four (although there were probably only a half a dozen people who ever used four DT amps), and there is no automatic topology selection in the DT based on the amp model you’re using. You will be able, however, to set and recall the the topology on the DT amps via preset/snapshot. You’ll also be able to control several other DT power section parameters per preset/snapshot.

I'm not familiar with how Line 6 link worked with HD, however when I called Line 6 support we discussed the new feature in 2.8 that would allow helix to control powercab 112 Plus cabinet settings via Line 6 link. From what I understand it will allow Helix to change cabinets on powercab 112 Plus. Does anyone else have the same take away regarding this new feature on 2.8?

[spikey]

9 hours ago, PierM said:

 

Do we? :P

We are supposed to be seeing it soon, but as I was told earlier no one "promised" us it would be out this spring, they just stated that was when its supposed to be here. ; )

[phil_m]

56 minutes ago, jjharris said:

I'm not familiar with how Line 6 link worked with HD, however when I called Line 6 support we discussed the new feature in 2.8 that would allow helix to control powercab 112 Plus cabinet settings via Line 6 link. From what I understand it will allow Helix to change cabinets on powercab 112 Plus. Does anyone else have the same take away regarding this new feature on 2.8?

 

Well, you’ll be able to change speaker and mic models on the PC+, yes. Basically, pretty much anything you can edit within a PC+ preset, you’ll be able to control from the Helix.

[PierM]

2 hours ago, spikey said:

We are supposed to be seeing it soon, but as I was told earlier no one "promised" us it would be out this spring, they just stated that was when its supposed to be here. ; )

 

Yeah, I'm fine honestly, just need that PC+ integration as it's a pain to make stable presets with all these rolling variables (IRs on both sides, speaker mode vs cabs, etc etc).

 

Also excited for the shelf eq, since I'm using one since day 1, just in the loop with the Helix...so having one integrated, if works properly, it's gonna be a great tool. 

 

All good. :)

[datacommando]

7 hours ago, spikey said:

 

I assumed and could be wrong in the fact that the 2.8 patch will fix L6-Link. I'd suggested that someone stated that it would be fixed, and can not find where I thought I read that now.

 

 

Sp:

 

I’m not sure, but could this be what you thought you had read.

 

It is from the “pre-release notes” in the pinned thread Helix Firmware 2.80 (Available SPRING 2019), updated by DI on January 24th.

 

”PowerCab Plus remote support—Helix can now remotely adjust parameters in up to two L6 LINK-connected PowerCab Plus modeling speaker cabs. When one PowerCab Plus is connected via L6 LINK (110-ohm AES/EBU cable), it receives a mono signal from Helix; when two PowerCab Plus amps are daisy-chained via L6 LINK, the first cab in the chain receives the left signal and the second cab receives the right signal. From the Output > Multi or Output > Digital block, press PAGE > to view page 2 and turn Knob 2 (PowerCab Select) to choose which PowerCab you'd like to control (or both, for stereo). Just like with any amp, cab, or effect, PowerCab Plus parameters can be quickly assigned to footswitches, expression pedals, or even Snapshots

 

DT25/DT50 remote support—Helix can now remotely adjust parameters for up to two L6 LINK-connected DT25 or DT50 amplifiers. When one DT25 or DT50 is connected via L6 LINK (110-ohm AES/EBU cable), it receives a mono signal from Helix; when two DT25 or DT50 amplifiers are daisy-chained via L6 LINK, the first cab in the chain receives the left signal and the second cab receives the right signal. From the Output > Multi or Output > Digital block, press PAGE > to view page 4 and turn Knob 2 (DT Select) to choose which DT amp you'd like to control (or both, for stereo). Just like with any amp, cab, or effect, DT25/DT50 parameters can be quickly assigned to footswitches, expression pedals, or even Snapshots”

 

 

[spikey]

Yes thanks, data, that was what I couldn't find.

 

Quote

Just like with any amp, cab, or effect, DT25/DT50 parameters can be quickly assigned to footswitches, expression pedals, or even Snapshots”

 

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but this part (to my understanding) suggested to me that L6-Link was repaired and working now as it should be.

[Kilrahi]

3 hours ago, spikey said:

Yes thanks, data, that was what I couldn't find.

 

 

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but this part (to my understanding) suggested to me that L6-Link was repaired and working now as it should be.

 

Well, they did call it the "missing connections," or something like that, update basically off of the theory that it was fixing stuff they missed (i.e. oopsied).

 

I don't think your perception is that crazy.

[phil_m]

4 hours ago, spikey said:

Yes thanks, data, that was what I couldn't find.

 

 

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but this part (to my understanding) suggested to me that L6-Link was repaired and working now as it should be.

 

I wouldn't say it was "repaired", but, yes, the L6 Link control integration will be added as described in the release notes. The thing with L6 Link is that it was Line 6's proprietary protocol. It's an ad hoc protocol that works in a certain way depending on the gear you're connecting. It's not a full-blown standard protocol like MIDI. Even with MIDI, there's is a lot of variation in how it's implemented across various product. MIDI just gives a common language so that different devices can communicate with each other.

[Digital_Igloo]

8 hours ago, spikey said:

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but this part (to my understanding) suggested to me that L6-Link was repaired and working now as it should be.

It's always worked fine; there's never been anything to fix. To be honest, the ROI for robust DT support in Helix probably wasn't there (purely due to the relatively few users it would affect vs., say, something like snapshots), but doing the work for Powercab meant DT support was able to come along for the ride. So every DT owner should thank a Powercab owner.

 

The reason L6 LINK doesn't work like POD HD500 is... Helix isn't POD HD500. Implementation is different, but most should find it way more useful, comprehensive, and MUCH easier to grok. Here's a list of Output block parameters, as of this morning's beta:

• Page 1—Pan, Level
• Page 2—Powercab Remote (Off, Per Preset, Global), Powercab Mode, Flat Voicing, Speaker Select (Powercab 1, Powercab 2, 1+2 Link), Speaker Type, Speaker DI Mic
• Page 3—Speaker Mic Distance, Speaker User IR, Speaker Low Cut, Speaker Hi Cut, Speaker Flat Level, Speaker LED Color
• Page 4—DT25/50 Remote (Off, Per Preset, Global), DT Select (DT 1, DT2, 1+2 Link), DT Channel (A [Helix], B [DT Pre]), DT Topology, DT Power Amp, DT Tube Config
• Page 5—DT Reverb (Off, On), DT Reverb Mix, DT 12AX7 Boost, DT Feedback Cab, DT B+ Voltage

All parameters can be assigned to controllers and snapshots.

 

[spikey]

 

 

 

1st, thanks for the info and update. I appreciate the info as I'm sure others as well do.

 

Back to L6-Link being different in Helix versus the HD series...

Quote

To be honest, the ROI for robust DT support in Helix probably wasn't there (purely due to the relatively few users it would affect

 

I don't understand this- that if there is hardly any need for support for the HD series Amps and Helix using L6-Link due to the stated lack of need, why the wasted time in added programming for it then?

 

• Page 4—DT25/50 Remote (Off, Per Preset, Global), DT Select (DT 1, DT2, 1+2 Link), DT Channel (A [Helix], B [DT Pre]), DT Topology, DT Power Amp, DT Tube Config
• Page 5—DT Reverb (Off, On), DT Reverb Mix, DT 12AX7 Boost, DT Feedback Cab, DT B+ Voltage

 

???

 

Was it because this was an under-estimated want from the larger than expected DT-Amp user base? That user base would have been even LARGER had we been told earlier it was to be fixed (because like me many people unloaded theirs from seemingly no Helix / DT future support).

 

 

And, furthermore..., L6-Link has "never" worked fine (come on D.I. you know this is true) compared to the HD-series. And naming it "at release" the same as the HD series L6-Link was without stating it was really different beforehand was "in a nice way of saying this", a mistake in my opinion.  They don't "work" the same (and never have without jumping thru some hoops 1st and then it's still limited compared to what's in the HD series), no matter what you say isn't broken. If So then I can just call anything with a "Trademarked" name of something the same thing as the real thing? Kewl- I have 16 Les-Pauls to sell you (their really cheaper Epiphone knock-offs but whos looking at names now eh?). And to the new Helix customer (and esp one like I was that had a Dream-Rig 1st) that's one confusing mind-bender (for some of us anyway) to decide to use the same Trade-marked Line-6 name on the same looking port and have them react in a very different manner! Now here in the south when this kinda stuff happens we call that Bamboozling used car salesman talk, but I didn't say that to be mean. It's just too point out that's how it looks, especially when you say there was nothing wrong with it, to begin with. BTW- I really can't wait to get the patch no matter if or why we disagree on what defines "broken". 

[PDKTDK]

4 hours ago, Digital_Igloo said:

controllers and snapshots.

Controllers and snapshots or controllers &/or snapshots?

 

 

...and thank you.

[Digital_Igloo]

2 hours ago, spikey said:

I don't understand this- that if there is hardly any need for support for the HD series Amps and Helix using L6-Link due to the stated lack of need, why the wasted time in added programming for it then?

• Page 4—DT25/50 Remote (Off, Per Preset, Global), DT Select (DT 1, DT2, 1+2 Link), DT Channel (A [Helix], B [DT Pre]), DT Topology, DT Power Amp, DT Tube Config
• Page 5—DT Reverb (Off, On), DT Reverb Mix, DT 12AX7 Boost, DT Feedback Cab, DT B+ Voltage

Was it because this was an under-estimated want from the larger than expected DT-Amp user base? And..., if it doesn't work (L6-Link) as the one in the HD500 did (but was not broken according to you), then why on "EARTH" when it released on Helix was it called L6-Link then? They don't "work" the same (and never have without jumping thru some hoops 1st and then it still limited), no matter what you say isn't broken. So I can just call anything with a "Trademarked" name the same thing? Kewl- I have 16 Les-Pauls to sell you (their really cheaper Epiphone knock-offs but whos looking at names now eh?). And to the new Helix customer (and esp one like I was that had a Dream-Rig 1st) that's one confusing mind-bender (for some of us anyway) to decide to use the same Trade-marked Line-6 name on the same looking port and have them react in a very different manner! And, nothing was mentioned about them being "vastly" different beforehand (before Helix release) that I can find. If I missed that please provide a link. Thanks. Now here in the south when this stuff happens we call that Bamboozling used car salesman talk, but I didn't say that..., so please explain what drug someone was on @ Line-6 when (at Helix release) they named the port the SAME "Trade-Marked" NAME that didn't work "at all" as its older Brother did, that is if names still matter? Thanks in advance for an explanation on this that I believe is past due. ; )

Hooboy, lots to unpack here.

 

We have a massive list of features we want to get to. Some features will eventually manifest themselves but many will not, based on IdeaScale submissions, development scope, and a dozen other factors. Once we got through the mountain of code to get Helix to control Powercab, it was much easier to get it to also control DT50/DT25. The 2019 DT user base (who also owns Helix and cares enough about L6 LINK functionality but can't be bothered to connect a MIDI cable) has never been underestimated; it's exactly as small as we know it is. The number of users who've connected three DTs to HD500 via L6 LINK could probably have been counted on one hand; the number who've connected four DTs to HD500 is likely zero.

 

L6 LINK is, and always has been:

• an audio streaming and communication protocol

L6 LINK is not, nor has it ever been:

• a set of features
• a workflow

Just like two different synths utilize MIDI in different ways, Helix and HD500 utilize L6 LINK in different ways. (StageScape M20d and StageSource speakers used L6 LINK differently from HD500 and DTs as well, back in 2010! For example, you could remotely control a StageSource speaker's hidden 31-band graphic EQ remotely from StageScape.) First of all, HD500 had two fixed amp block locations, each with a fixed set of tonestack knobs. Therefore, there was an intrinsic connection between HD amps in POD and the HD amps in DT. Not so with Helix, which can have anywhere from zero to four HX-level amps, many with disparate parameters (and number of parameters!). There's also Helix's signal routing, which is vastly more flexible than HD500. Supporting the exact same workflow as HD500 would mean we'd have to dumb down Helix, and that simply wasn't going to happen.

 

And don't get me started on how confusing POD <—> DT L6 LINK functionality was to our users back in the day. CS has hundreds of horror stories.

 

I've talked about how L6 LINK in Helix was going to be different many times, years before we even announced it was coming in 2.80. It's not my job to chase you around the web to make sure you read my posts, nor is it my job to find you links. And unless you're playing contrarian for contrarian's sake, chances are you'll vastly prefer the new methodology. It's consistent with how both Variax and Powercab remote functionality works, and lets you do so much more, without having to repeatedly dig into a Setup menu.

 

[Digital_Igloo]

1 hour ago, PDKTDK said:

Controllers and snapshots or controllers &/or snapshots?

Snapshots are controllers, so I suppose it's "snapshot or other controller."

[spikey]

I

Quote

I've talked about how L6 LINK in Helix was going to be different many times, years before we even announced it was coming in 2.80. It's not my job to chase you around the web to make sure you read my posts, nor is it my job to find you links. 

 

Yes you did, after Helix was released and we starting asking questions here as to why it was not working like it did on the HD series. I know this because I was one of those asking. And none of the "differences" on L6-Link between the two platforms was here IIRC when Helix was 1st released, or in "any" Sweetwater or Musicians Friend advertizement when Helix 1st went on sale. I agree with you that they are different and that's not my point. My point is why this wasn't stated before Helix hit my doorstep?

 

And I was right here then D.I. and still am here now. You don't have to chase me very far to find me.  I'm on reading here almost every afternoon/ evening. If you care to look at numbers I have more posts here than you do. You, however, spend much of your time posting these days on TGP, so whos chasing who around ? ; ) I'm Glad I might have got you to say a few things about the patch HERE for a change, for what its worth.  Thanks again for the 2.8 info no matter what we might disagree on that happened in the past. Really,  I mean that.

 

[Digital_Igloo]

45 minutes ago, spikey said:

IYes you did, after Helix was released and we starting asking questions here as to why it was not working like it did on the HD series. I know this because I was one of those asking.

 

Before 2.80, Helix <—> DT over L6 LINK was limited to sending the left signal to the first of two DTs, the right signal to the second of two DTs, and merged mono to a single DT. That's it. People here asked if Helix <—> DT over L6 LINK was going to get some communication love, and the answer was always "we'd like to, not sure if or when it'll happen (IdeaScale, etc.), but if it does, it won't be the same as how HD500 works." IIRC, I even got into the details a bit, because we had already designed it. TONS of features are already designed and specced, just so we don't paint ourselves into a corner if and when we have time and resources to pursue them. If we had the ability (we don't) to implement and release every feature we've designed up until now, Helix could get updates for decades.

 

One of my life's greatest regrets: "Oh crap! I forgot to find spikey and remind him of what I wrote three years ago!" ;-)

[spikey]

Lol Nice Try D.I., give u an R for redirection. It's not about what you wrote 3 years ago that is the issue, my friend. Its what you didn't before all those Helix's flew off the shelves in the warehouses... Hey, mistakes happen and its an honest mistake as long as you come clean. ;  ) It is also nice to read that Helix has tons more that "could" be done to it. We just remember timeframes on what was said differently I guess. I remember you writing that it just wasn't possible for L6-Link to work the same as in the HD, because of the architecture in Helix versus the HD series, but I remember that being after we asked here what was wrong with Helix and L6-Link, and not beforehand. OTOH it's all good, we both know that 8.2 is gonna be really nice and today for many that is all that matters. Water under the bridge, right? . ; )

 

 

Quote

 

One of my life's greatest regrets: "Oh crap! I forgot to find spikey and remind him of what I wrote three years ago!" ;-)

 

 

 

 

 

Hey tellum to fix the forums too D.I., Id love this as my Sig... ; ) 

[Kevin-M]

[Kilrahi]

Everyone's perspective is interesting.

 

To me the L6 Link is just a port. Like a optical, USB, HDMI, firewire ...

 

What it does is dependent on the device and software running it. My PS2 used its USB port for almost nothing. The Sony camera comes to mind. My PC uses it for every thing under the sun. My Stomp only uses it for firmware updates, sound transfer, and HX Edit. My printer only receives printer data through it.

 

I do think it was weird to take this long to have that port really do anything (my understanding is prior to 2.8 it had been rather useless). I also get why if someone bought the dream rig for the HD 500 they'd want it to last as long and be supported as long as possible because it wasn't cheap. At the same time though, I think it's a bit much to expect 1 to 1 dream rig parity just because L6 uses that port now or in the future. 

 

I own a Variax. I'd really like a future L6 device with the VDI input to support it. I already know that based on the past I can only hope at best for SOME degree of continued functionality.

 

Hell, maybe L6 will abandon the VDI port entirely. There's always that risk.

 

 

[spikey]

Quote

I do think it was weird to take this long to have that port really do anything (my understanding is prior to 2.8 it had been rather useless).

 

Oh no Kilrahi its always been fine, there was never anything to fix. ; )

 

Quote

At the same time though, I think it's a bit much to expect 1 to 1 dream rig parity just because L6 uses that port now or in the future. 

 

Sure they can change the functionality of any port on Helix via software all they want., as long as we are aware of what it will change on our Helix we install it. Parity? The parity is that it looks the same but does not act the same. Its a port with the same name,  and same look/size. What would you assume if you were not told otherwise and then found out that the one on Helix you just purchased was nowhere near as capable as what the HD series port was? We all should have been told beforehand. D.I. is trying to blame the consumer (ME) for complaining about something we were not told about until after Helix was 1st shipped, and then we had issues with. In other words, the L6-Linkport for him isn't the problem, it's my complaining that is. Had they (Line-6) acknowledged that difference before Helix was shipped, I wouldn't have had a horse in this rodeo.  AFAIK they didn't. I'm still waiting for the link that says otherwise, and then I will apologize for the outburst. 

[Rewolf48]

5 hours ago, Kilrahi said:

my understanding is prior to 2.8 it (L6Link) had been rather useless

 

I have used L6Link all the time with my Helix Floor to connect to my L2t speakers using a Digital connection; from my perspective the XLR Main Out connections have been rather useless because the only time I have wanted to use them is to connect to the FOH system when on big shared stages and it is impossible to get them to turn phantom power off.

 

Finally got myself an Isolation Transformer so that may change, but I have got used to using the XLR Mix Out on the L2t to feed POH, so then again maybe not