Jump to content
jorgealberto25

Should I buy helix native or hardware?

Recommended Posts

Sorry there’s probably lots of questions about this but I have a Scarlett second gen and I don’t how to use the input gain to get me good results with amplitube. I tried to emulate the 6505 but my vypyr sound better. 

 

So im thinking of getting the helix native or the hardware lt version. If i get the native do I need a better interface? Or the hardware gives better results?

 

im also thinking of getting the real thing. A 6505 or 5150. I just play at home with my vypyr. I Like the sound the comes out of the speaker. What you guys thing about a real amp for practicing and hearing your playing like dynamics etc..??

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For practicing and rocking out, nothing beats the sound and response of a real amp and good guitar. You don't need a big amp, either. You don't really need a bunch of pedals.

 

If your guitar and amp are in your living room, it takes 10 seconds to turn on and go. No firmware updates or computers to worry about. Just turn on and go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, soundog said:

For practicing and rocking out, nothing beats the sound and response of a real amp and good guitar. You don't need a big amp, either. You don't really need a bunch of pedals.

 

If your guitar and amp are in your living room, it takes 10 seconds to turn on and go. No firmware updates or computers to worry about. Just turn on and go.

Is it hard to record? Some people say it’s a pain. Or just takes more time? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jorgealberto25 said:

Sorry there’s probably lots of questions about this but I have a Scarlett second gen and I don’t how to use the input gain to get me good results with amplitube.

 

Are you tracking albums in a studio for big bucks? No? Your 2nd gen Scarlett is just fine.

With your guitar plugged direct to the Scarlett Instrument jack, guitar up all the way, grab a BIG POWER CHORD. Hit it as hard as you're ever likely to hit it while playing. Turn up the Input level on the Scarlett till the light flashes yellow (not red), then back off a notch. Now you're NOT overdriving the Scarlett input.

 

In Amplitube, load your preset, then do the same thing with the Amplitube Input level. SAVE YOUR PRESET! Input and output levels in Amplitube are NOT Global.

Now do the same with the Output level. Keep in mind that any changes to the amp's settings will affect the Output level.

 

Beyond that, as far as getting a "good" sound goes, twiddle the knobs till it sounds good. Presets are a good starting point, but that's all they are.

 

As far as Native goes, buying it upfront is outrageously expensive (like $399?). If you buy a Stomp, you can get Native for $99, or $69 if you wait for one of the periodic sales. Does it sound better than Amplitube? Get the Native trial and test drive it for yourself! The advantage to that is that Native sounds EXACTLY like the Helix hardware.

 

As far as whether you want a tube amp or FRFR speaker, do you live in a house where you can crank it up? A tube amp with effects loop can sound glorious. Live in an apartment? Good studio monitors or something like a HR FRFR108 might be a better bet. If you decide on a tube amp, keep in mind that while the Helix Floor/Rack/HXFX (not stomp) can do simple channel switching via 1/4" TRS, amps with more complicated channel and internal FX switching might require MIDI to make it all work. If the amp has proprietary footswitch requirements (like the Vyper), RUN AWAY!

 

Lastly, I don't know if the VYper has an effects loop but, if it does you're good to go! Worry about "tube tone" vs "SS tone" after you see what you can get out of Amplitube/Native/Helix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could not get the same tones out of Native I do from Helix. Ive been told from others the same thing, and then there are a few that say it sounds the same to them. Maybe it's just me but food for thought. Id get Helix and then buy Native later when on sale.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spikey said:

I could not get the same tones out of Native I do from Helix. Ive been told from others the same thing, and then there are a few that say it sounds the same to them. Maybe it's just me but food for thought. Id get Helix and then buy Native later when on sale.

 

Exactly same here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, spikey said:

I could not get the same tones out of Native I do from Helix. Ive been told from others the same thing, and then there are a few that say it sounds the same to them. Maybe it's just me but food for thought. Id get Helix and then buy Native later when on sale.

Are you monitoring the tones the same way in Helix and Helix Native? The tones sound identical to me from both sources as long as I use the same audio device and speakers for both outputs.

 

I use my Helix Rack as the audio interface for my DAW, and I have two sets of speakers: the L6 Stagesource L3t, and a pair of studio monitors. My Helix Rack outputs are connected to both sets of speakers - L6 Link to the Stagesource and XLR to the studios. Only one pair of speakers is powered on at any one time depending on whether I am playing/practicing or recording. The tones from both Helix and Helix Native sound identical.

 

I would expect them to sound significantly different if the Helix Rack output were routed to my L3t and my Helix Native output were routed to the studio monitors. I would also expect them to sound slightly different if my audio interface for the DAW was not the Helix device.

 

I would expect the tones to sound dramatically different if, for instance, your Helix output is routed through a guitar amp and your DAW output is routed through a different audio interface and then to studio monitors or desktop PC speakers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For recording, I've gotten my best guitar tracks using the S-Gear plug-in (though I'm still a big fan of Native). Plus, S-Gear includes a standalone version, so you don't need to run it as a DAW plug-in, and it has extensive MIDI control features.

 

And, yes, recording your guitar amp is a bit of a pain and takes some work. So the guitar plug-ins can do a better/faster job if you're not a recording engineer.

 

If you have a decent powered speaker, you could do everything (record and practice and play late at night without disturbing everyone) with your Scarlett and S-Gear. (Another good option is the Stomp and Native.) A lot depends on what you want to do (practice, jam with others, jam with your own bad self, rock out, record, play gigs, ???).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, silverhead said:

Are you monitoring the tones the same way in Helix and Helix Native?

 

Yes, Silver, I am. Both going thru the same pair of HR824 monitors. I don't think the oversampling chips made for audio are the same in my Mac versus those designed for audio in Helix. I remember D.I. talking about this way back as well. In any case, Native just sounds and feels "harder" tone-wise to me. Altho Helix is just another box of software- Maybe it's just a "software versus hardware" thing eh? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, soundog said:

For recording, I've gotten my best guitar tracks using the S-Gear plug-in (though I'm still a big fan of Native). Plus, S-Gear includes a standalone version, so you don't need to run it as a DAW plug-in, and it has extensive MIDI control features

 

I'm also a big fan of S-Gear. Better MIDI than AT4, though not as many features. I keep waiting for the update, which I know is going to be great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, waiting for the S-Gear update. And waiting. And waiting. Reminds me of Helix folks waiting for the 2.8 update!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, spikey said:

 

Yes, Silver, I am. Both going thru the same pair of HR824 monitors. I don't think the oversampling chips made for audio are the same in my Mac versus those designed for audio in Helix. I remember D.I. talking about this way back as well. In any case, Native just sounds and feels "harder" tone-wise to me. Altho Helix is just another box of software- Maybe it's just a "software versus hardware" thing eh? 

 

And you're using Helix as the audio interface for your DAW on Mac? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, silverhead said:

 

And you're using Helix as the audio interface for your DAW on Mac? 

 

Nope, I'm using Helix as a guitar processor. My audio Interface is an Apollo Quad. My Helix and Kemper, my Fender SuperSonic and Marshall Code and DSL all sound good thru the Apollo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, spikey said:

 

Nope, I'm using Helix as a guitar processor. My audio Interface is an Apollo Quad.

 

That would probably account for some difference I expect, at least re: the respective A/D and D/A converters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that so. Well, In that case, Line-6 should have used a "better" audio Interface when making Native then. ; )

 

All jokes aside If that were the case, I would have expected Native to sound "better" to my ears than it does.

Why? Because the A/D and D/A converters in the Apollo are superb. I just think its "my" ears which would make

sense because they are old and have listened to my playing over the decades. ; )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, spikey said:

Is that so. Well, In that case, Line-6 should have used a "better" audio Interface when making Native then. ; )

 

All jokes aside If that were the case, I would have expected Native to sound "better" to my ears than it does.

Perhaps, but don't know about that. We're comparing the sound of presets in both environments, monitored through the same speakers but routed through different A/D and D/A converters. The presets were initially created in either one of the two environments then imported into the other. Presumably we tweaked the presets to sound their 'best' in the original environment. In that case, any presumed deficiencies in the Helix converters would have been EQ'd out as much as possible. Then they would sound not as good even when the 'better' converters exposed the differences. (And the same would be true in reverse - assuming the Helix converters are 'better' :-) )

 

In any case, this is no more than a potentially interesting theoretical discussion. It sounds like what it sounds like - full stop. If there's a difference so be it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI here are my Apollo Quad specs... The newer models are even better. The difference in the A/D and D/A converters will sound differently if one is WAAAAAY better than the other design (and cost-wise), but I doubt the human ear could tell the difference if both were close (as in this case). I think the code/software in Helix is just "better" made for audio than Native was for a VST Plugin. But OTOH I'm not writing much code these days ; )

 

Features

Audio Interface

  • Sample rates up to 192 kHz at 24-bit word length
  • 18 x 24 simultaneous input/output channels:
    • Eight channels of analog-to-digital conversion via mic, line, or high-impedance inputs
  • 14 channels of digital-to-analog conversion via:
    • Eight mono line outputs
    • Stereo monitor outputs
    • Two stereo headphone outputs
  • 10 channels of digital I/O via:
    • Eight channels ADAT Optical I/O with S/MUX for high sample rates
    • Two channels coaxial S/PDIF I/O with sample rate conversion
    • Two FireWire 800 ports for daisy-chaining other FireWire devices
  • 32-bit and 64-bit device drivers

Microphone Preamplifiers

  • Four high-resolution, ultra-transparent, digitally-controlled analog mic preamps
  • Front panel and software control of all preamp parameters
  • Switchable low cut filter, 48V phantom power, 20 dB pad, polarity inversion, and stereo linking

Monitoring

  • Stereo monitor outputs (independent of eight line outputs)
  • Digitally-controlled analog monitor outputs maintains highest fidelity
  • Front panel control of monitor levels and muting
  • Two stereo headphone outputs with independent mix buses
  • Independent front panel analog volume controls for headphone outputs
  • Front panel pre-fader metering of monitor bus levels
  • S/PDIF outputs can be set to mirror the monitor outputs

Onboard UAD-2 Processing

  • DUO and QUAD models featuring two or four SHARC processors
  • Realtime UAD Powered Plug-Ins processing on all of Apollos analog and digital inputs
  • Same features and functionality as other UAD-2 products when used with DAW
  • Can be combined with other UAD-2 devices for increased mixing DSP
  • Includes UAD Powered Plug-Ins Analog Classics bundle
  • Complete UAD-2 Powered Plug-Ins library is available online 24/7

Software

  • Console application:
    • Enables Realtime UAD Powered Plug-Ins processing
    • DSP mixer for realtime monitoring and tracking
    • Remote control of all Apollo features and functionality
  • Console Recall plug-in:
    • Saves Apollo configurations inside DAW sessions for easy recal
    • Enables control of all front panel parameters from within the DAW
    • VST, RTAS, and Audio Units plug-in formats
  • UAD Meter & Control Panel application:
    • Configures global UAD-2 and Powered Plug-Ins settings and monitors system usage

 

Specifications

System

  • I/O Complement
    • Microphone Inputs 4
    • High-Impedance Inputs 2
    • Analog Line Inputs 8
    • Analog Line Outputs 8
    • Analog Monitor Outputs 2 (1 stereo pair)
    • Headphone Outputs 2 stereo (independent mix buses)
    • ADAT Up to 8 channels via dual I/O ports with S/MUX
    • S/PDIF 1 stereo input, 1 stereo output
    • FireWire 800 (IEEE 1394b) Dual ports
    • Thunderbolt (via Option Card) Dual ports
    • Word Clock 1 input, 1 output
  • A/D D/A Conversion
    • Supported Sample Rates (kHz) 44.1, 48, 88.2, 96, 176.4, 192
    • A/D Bits Per Sample 24
    • Simultaneous A/D conversion 8 channels
    • Simultaneous D/A conversion 14 channels
    • Analog Round-Trip Latency 1.1 milliseconds @ 96 kHz sample rate
    • Analog Round-Trip Latency with four serial UAD-2 plug-ins via Console application 1.1 milliseconds @ 96 kHz sample rate

Analog I/O

  • Microphone Inputs 1 4
    • Jack Type XLR Female
    • Phantom Power +48V, Switchable
    • Dynamic Range 118 dB (Aweighting)
    • Signal-to-Noise Ratio 118 dB (Aweighting)
    • Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise 110 dB
  • HiZ Inputs
    • Jack Type ¼ Male (Mono TS plug required)
    • Dynamic Range 117 dB (Aweighting)
    • Signal-to-Noise Ratio 117 dB (Aweighting)
    • Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise 103 dB
  • Line Inputs 1 4
    • Jack Type ¼Male TRS Balanced
    • Dynamic Range 117 dB (Aweighting)
    • Signal-to-Noise Ratio 117 dB (Aweighting)
    • Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise 107 dB
  • Line Inputs 5 8
    • Jack Type ¼ Male TRS Balanced
    • Dynamic Range 117 dB (Aweighting)
    • Signal-to-Noise Ratio 117 dB (Aweighting)
    • Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise 107 d
  • Line Outputs 1 8
    • Jack Type ¼ Male TRS Balanced
    • Dynamic Range 118 dB (Aweighting)
    • Frequency Response 20 Hz 20 kHz, ±0.1 dB
    • Signal-to-Noise Ratio 118 dB (Aweighting)
    • Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise 106 dB
  • Monitor Outputs 1 2
    • Jack Type ¼ Male TRS Balanced
    • Frequency Response 20 Hz 20 kHz, ±0.1 dB
    • Dynamic Range 115 dB (Aweighting)
    • Signal-to-Noise Ratio 114 dB (Aweighting)
    • Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise 103 dB
  • Stereo Headphone Outputs 1 & 2
    • Jack Type ¼ Male TRS Stereo/Unbalanced
    • Frequency Response 20 Hz 20 kHz, ±0.1 dB
    • Dynamic Range 113 dB (Aweighting)
    • Signal-to-Noise Ratio 113 dB (Aweighting)
    • Total Harmonic Distortion + Noise 101 dB

Digital I/O

  • S/PDIF
    • Jack Type Phono (RCA)
    • Format IEC958
  • ADAT
    • Jack Type Optical TOSLINK JIS F05
    • Format ADAT Digital Lightpipe with S/MUX
    • Channel Assignments @ 44.1 kHz, 48 kHz Port 1 = Channels 1 8, Port 2 = 1 8 (mirrored)
    • Channel Assignments @ 88.2 kHz, 96 kHz Port 1 = Channels 1 4, Port 2 = Channels 5 8
    • Channel Assignments @ 176.4 kHz, 192 kHz Port 1 = Channels 1 2, Port 2 = Channels 3 4
  • Word Clock
    • Jack Type BNC
    • Lock Range ±0.5% of any supported sample rate
    • Word Clock Input Termination 75 Ohms, switchable
  • Synchronization Sources
    • Internal, Word Clock, S/PDIF, ADAT

Electrical

  • Power Supplies External AC to DC Power Supply Brick, Internal DC to DC Power Supply
  • AC Connector Type IEC Male
  • AC Requirements 100V 240V AC, 50 60 Hz
  • DC Connector Type XLR 4-Pin Locking Male (Neutrik P/N NC4MDM3-H)
  • DC Requirements 12 VDC, ±5%
  • Maximum Power Consumption 6.5 amperes

Mechanical

  • Dimensions
    • Width 19
    • Height 1.75 (1U rack space)
    • Depth, Chassis Only 12.125
    • Depth, Including Knob & Jack Protrusions 13.5
    • Shipping Box (Width x Depth x Height) 24 x 17 x 8
  • Weight
    • Shipping Weight (with box & accessories) 18 pounds
    • Weight (bare unit) 9.1 pounds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I tend to agree with you. The difference in converters probably has a negligible impact on the sound. You’re probably right that any difference has to do with how the code is processed on the different platforms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, jorgealberto25 said:

Sorry there’s probably lots of questions about this but I have a Scarlett second gen and I don’t how to use the input gain to get me good results with amplitube. I tried to emulate the 6505 but my vypyr sound better. 

 

So im thinking of getting the helix native or the hardware lt version. If i get the native do I need a better interface? Or the hardware gives better results?

 

im also thinking of getting the real thing. A 6505 or 5150. I just play at home with my vypyr. I Like the sound the comes out of the speaker. What you guys thing about a real amp for practicing and hearing your playing like dynamics etc..??

 

 

It kind of depends on how much you want to spend and how many options you really want, but in my opinion one of the best decisions I ever made gear wise AND budget wise was the purchase of the HX Stomp ($520 after coupon) + Helix Native ($100).

 

Seriously loads you up with insane options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you guys think of a combination of both digital and analog? im looking at a Marshall dsl40cr and the helix hx effects. and an sm57 mic.

will the marshall give modern metal tones? can the helix hx digital tubescreamer boost the Marshall? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jorgealberto25 said:

What do you guys think of a combination of both digital and analog? im looking at a Marshall dsl40cr and the helix hx effects. and an sm57 mic.

will the marshall give modern metal tones? can the helix hx digital tubescreamer boost the Marshall? 

 

You obviously like the Marshall sound. Get the Marshall, HXFX, a reactive load box, and a HR FRFR112.

BIG sound, more volume than you'll ever need, low volume practice, ability to match presets to FOH. Best of all worlds:

 

DSL40cr = $750

HXFX = $600.00

2Notes Torpedo Captor = $250

HR FRFR112 = $300

 

$1900 - 20% (min) discount = $1520

 

If you need a WAH/Expression pedal you can get those for around $100.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2019 at 8:39 AM, rd2rk said:

 

You obviously like the Marshall sound. Get the Marshall, HXFX, a reactive load box, and a HR FRFR112.

BIG sound, more volume than you'll ever need, low volume practice, ability to match presets to FOH. Best of all worlds:

 

DSL40cr = $750

HXFX = $600.00

2Notes Torpedo Captor = $250

HR FRFR112 = $300

 

$1900 - 20% (min) discount = $1520

 

If you need a WAH/Expression pedal you can get those for around $100.

 

Wow so I will be able to match the presets at low and high volumes :)

is this really the best of both worlds?? 

I’m still thinking about the Marshall cuz I can’t find a video or respond about if it will give modern metal tones in drop tunings. I was also looking at the evh combo but people complain that is load :/ maybe the 6505 combo but I want good cleans to. The evh looks versatile but again the noise problem so I don’t wanna deal with it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, jorgealberto25 said:

Wow so I will be able to match the presets at low and high volumes :)

is this really the best of both worlds?? 

I’m still thinking about the Marshall cuz I can’t find a video or respond about if it will give modern metal tones in drop tunings. I was also looking at the evh combo but people complain that is load :/ maybe the 6505 combo but I want good cleans to. The evh looks versatile but again the noise problem so I don’t wanna deal with it.

 

 

The Marshall gives you the tube sound for stage monitoring, and the FRFR112 gives you a FOH approximation. You can do low volume in your bedroom with the load box on the Marshall (or the EVH or a Diezel or whatever), and high volume anywhere you won't get arrested for turning it up.

 

You should search YT for Ola Englund vids. He reviews tons of stuff, he's all about the kind of sounds you're describing, and he gets them on all sorts of equipment. If he can't put you onto something that'll work for you, I don't know who could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rd2rk said:

 

The Marshall gives you the tube sound for stage monitoring, and the FRFR112 gives you a FOH approximation. You can do low volume in your bedroom with the load box on the Marshall (or the EVH or a Diezel or whatever), and high volume anywhere you won't get arrested for turning it up.

 

You should search YT for Ola Englund vids. He reviews tons of stuff, he's all about the kind of sounds you're describing, and he gets them on all sorts of equipment. If he can't put you onto something that'll work for you, I don't know who could.

hey man sorry i hope im not wasting your time. the problem is that i cant try the products in person :/ 

i found another way or cheaper way to keep those vintage cleans i like from fender or vox tube amps without removing helix hx and a load box

the bugera v22 and the friedman be-od for metal tones? i think is pream pedal with distortion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jorgealberto25 said:

hey man sorry i hope im not wasting your time. the problem is that i cant try the products in person :/ 

i found another way or cheaper way to keep those vintage cleans i like from fender or vox tube amps without removing helix hx and a load box

the bugera v22 and the friedman be-od for metal tones? i think is pream pedal with distortion

 

Not wasting our time, this is what forums are for.

 

I had a Bugera V5. Wish I hadn't sold it, lovely sounding little amp. Bought a V22, defective out of the box. Be sure the vendor you get it from has a liberal returns policy.

 

A clean amp with a BE-OD in front of it will sound just like a clean amp with a BE-OD in front of it. That's all.

I'm confused. You started out with Amplitube, a program that would give you most any sound you can imagine, and an AI.

You have a Vypyr, a modeling amp, though you failed to say which model.

Now you're talking about a very limited rig.

 

We might be more helpful if you described your playing level and the goals you're striving for - bedroom rock star, recording songwriter, bar gigs, festivals, the Royal Albert Hall?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×