Helix 2.9 Update

[BAmartin]

Hey guys... I open the new thread just to start discussing the upcoming 2.9 firmware update. Given the fact that it's been five months since the release of the 2.8 firmware... and we already know that the remaining Revv Generator channels are in the pipeline...

Does anyone have a gut feeling of when and what's coming next? Would DI or Frank Ritchotte be so kind to give any signs on it?

Thanks very much in advance.

P.s: Sorry to be the guy throwing the first stone and start the snowball.

 

[silverhead]

44 minutes ago, BAmartin said:

....

P.s: Sorry to be the guy throwing the first stone and start the snowball.

 

 

Sorry? C'mon, man.

[talonmm]

1 hour ago, silverhead said:

 

Sorry? C'mon, man.

 

Before you and others jump on the op, we were told over and over again, that the new way of coding future Helix updates would really speed up future updates. 

 

I don't feel that a polite inquiry after five months (if it's really been that long) is out of line - especially given the announcement from line 6 about faster updates coming our way.  

 

Yes I know -  we are not entitled to any updates ever again, yada yada yada; and many updates (and the news associated with them) is "Top-Secret" like area-51 stuff, but this discussion and question should not be mocked.

[datacommando]

2 hours ago, BAmartin said:

Would DI or Frank Ritchotte be so kind to give any signs on it?

 

You’re in the wrong place - if you really expect a response from Eric or Frank then you really should post your question to the Helix Facebook group or TGP. 

 

Try either of these options to contact them directly because in here you are shouting in the dark.

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/line6helixusergroup/

 

https://www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php?threads/line6-helix.1586637/page-3234

 

Good luck posting to these threads above - I guess somebody had to be the first to ask - just glad it wasn’t me.

[cruisinon2]

I love this time of year...a chill in the air, the holidays are nearly upon us, and yet another pointless, speculative gripe-fest and wish list merry-go-round. Write a letter to Santa and ask the same question...the odds of getting any info that will turn out to be correct are about the same.

[cruisinon2]

3 hours ago, talonmm said:

I don't feel that a polite inquiry after five months (if it's really been that long) is out of line - especially given the announcement from line 6 about faster updates coming our way. 

 

It may not be out of line, but history has shown us... repeatedly...that asking the question is useless. Eventually they'll announce the update with a vague, open-ended release window... just as they've done multiple times before. "Spring", "fall", "coming soon".... estimates that often come and go with no finished product for one reason or another. There are exactly ZERO reasons to think that this time will be any different.

 

Architecture that allows more frequent updates doesn't mean that'll they'll be able to predict, with any certainty, when the bug- chasing will be done...and that will forever be the big question mark, and the reason that they'll never commit to anything definitive. If they haven't said anything, it's because there's nothing to say. There will never be an incentive to crank out a promise that they might not be able to keep.

 

So whether or not the question is valid is completely irrelevant. The question has never been answered to anyone's satisfaction, least of all the "When's it coming?!?! When's it coming?!?!" crowd...so why continue to ask? It makes no sense.

[silverhead]

2 hours ago, talonmm said:

 

Before you and others jump on the op, we were told over and over again, that the new way of coding future Helix updates would really speed up future updates. 

 

I don't feel that a polite inquiry after five months (if it's really been that long) is out of line - especially given the announcement from line 6 about faster updates coming our way.  

 

Yes I know -  we are not entitled to any updates ever again, yada yada yada; and many updates (and the news associated with them) is "Top-Secret" like area-51 stuff, but this discussion and question should not be mocked.

 

I'm not jumping on the OP for his request and I didn't say it's out of line.

 

I was responding to the "P.S." in his post. I am saying that he knows exactly what he is doing (stirring  a well-recognized pot) and that contrary to his claim he is not sorry about it or he wouldn't have done it.

[talonmm]

14 minutes ago, silverhead said:

 

I'm not jumping on the OP for his request and I didn't say it's out of line.

 

I was responding to the "P.S." in his post. I am saying that he knows exactly what he is doing (stirring  a well-recognized pot) and that contrary to his claim he is not sorry about it or he wouldn't have done it.

 

I understand, thanks for pointing that out as I missed it the first time around.  I know these discussions about future updates and their schedule get monotonous and out of hand, but somehow I do enjoy them.  Kind of like when we were kids waiting for holiday presents....

 

Things leaking out in the past such as DT amp integrations and perhaps improved polyphonic abilities to come, keep things really interesting....

 

 

[Lachdanan0121]

I would like this info too, a teaser, or something. However, posting here is a waste of time as all you will likely get is the crowd chanting "oh you shouldn't," or "this isn't the place."

 

Right on queue.

 

 

[brue58ski]

I'll post this common "when's the update coming?" post.

 

If ya don't like it. Don't read it. It's made very clear what this thread is about so if you come in here complaining about it, you only have yourself to blame.

[talonmm]

2 hours ago, brue58ski said:

I'll post this common "when's the update coming?" post.

 

If ya don't like it. Don't read it. It's made very clear what this thread is about so if you come in here complaining about it, you only have yourself to blame.

 

Great point!  Just skip right over it and move along to a topic of interest!  Not just here at line 6's great forum, but it seems every forum on every subject from music, to sports, to what-ever-else, is filled with nasty argumentative chatter.  No need for this.

 

[codamedia]

11 hours ago, BAmartin said:

I open the new thread just to start discussing the upcoming 2.9 firmware update.

 

You are already obsolete. There are plenty on these forums already discussing the 3.0 update :) 

[MartinDorr]

My take on the 2.8 update enabling quicker update development is that it just allowed Line 6 to kind of maintain or not seriously reduce the historic Helix update release frequency. There are now so many Helix class products that Line 6 may have had a hard time to do more than 1 update a year unless they spend a serious effort to consolidate their code base for all those products. Given that any update will likely require testing on all Helix family products, it is more likely that the historic 4-5 month update period will become stretched despite 2.8 being a code rewrite to maximize reuse.

Your best guess for any ’official’ update info from Line 6 is probably related to the timing of the upcoming NAMM. Maybe we hear about a teaser date and a preliminary list of content. Maybe even a demo, if the really curious are lucky. Better play with what we have than fretting about something that might get released mid next year (like last time).

 

[SaschaFranck]

The most interesting question for me would be: Have you already maxed out what is possible with the Helix and 2.8?

In my case, the answer is pretty much a clear "No way!" while on the other hand, I knew there would be some shortcomings resulting in me kinda maxing the Helix out before I even bought it. But then, I bought it nonetheless, so I rather concentrate on getting the most out of it rather than waiting for an update which may or may as well not contain things to adress some of the most obvious shortcomings (for me at least).

And after all, I'm still having a true blast.

[datacommando]

16 hours ago, brue58ski said:

I'll post this common "when's the update coming?" post.

 

If ya don't like it. Don't read it. It's made very clear what this thread is about so if you come in here complaining about it, you only have yourself to blame.

 

14 hours ago, talonmm said:

 

Great point!  Just skip right over it and move along to a topic of interest!  Not just here at line 6's great forum, but it seems every forum on every subject from music, to sports, to what-ever-else, is filled with nasty argumentative chatter.  No need for this.

 

 

 

Aw, c’mon guys, we all know what happens in situations like this - once there is a whiff of blood in the waters!

 

This stuff is constant and inevitable!

[chasingMango]

Maybe 2.9 will make me more technically proficient at guitar playing... with increased dexterity, speed, and precision, the tonal possibilities are endless!

[brue58ski]

5 hours ago, datacommando said:

 

 

 

Aw, c’mon guys, we all know what happens in situations like this - once there is a whiff of blood in the waters!

 

This stuff is constant and inevitable!

 Yeah, I know. Just wanted to get that little statement out of the way. OK, everyone back to their corners 'till the next bell.

[bryanblackburn]

I think we can all assume that certain things will be there in the next update and bug fixes maybe more important to me than anything since my edit software cannot see the LT in my main computer on win 8. I am going to be extra cautious and see what is working or not before I upgrade to any version. That being said I would hope they are hard at work with numerous requests for polyphonic pitch and I am sure they will be providing us the additional channel on the REVV.

 

REQUEST If they can create a better tracking polyphonic pitch effect then I would want to also use that inside of some filters like EH has with their attack Decay pedal which also has fuzz. If we have that capability already then please point out which one we have. That is the kind of swell effect that I was hoping we would have access to when I read they had upgraded the swell effect a long time ago.

[SaschaFranck]

All I want is global blocks. That'd absolutely skyrocket my tonal options for my use cases. Right now, I'm limited to one patch per gig - which is still awsome as it does in fact work, but I'd love some more flexibility.

[gunpointmetal]

1 hour ago, SaschaFranck said:

All I want is global blocks. That'd absolutely skyrocket my tonal options for my use cases. Right now, I'm limited to one patch per gig - which is still awsome as it does in fact work, but I'd love some more flexibility.

I think global blocks would be AWESOME. I'd love to have my pre-gain EQ that I can drop it at the beginning of every chain. But how does not having that available limit you to one patch per gig? You can just copy/paste the same patch into a bunch of different places and then change out whatever you want to be different? Unless I'm not understanding "global blocks"?

[SaschaFranck]

On 11/21/2019 at 9:29 PM, gunpointmetal said:

I think global blocks would be AWESOME. I'd love to have my pre-gain EQ that I can drop it at the beginning of every chain. But how does not having that available limit you to one patch per gig? You can just copy/paste the same patch into a bunch of different places and then change out whatever you want to be different? Unless I'm not understanding "global blocks"?

 

Uhm. Ok, here goes. This might get long, so please bear with me...

 

Many of the typical gigs/jobs I play usually involve kinda like "telephone" or "last minute" bands. In other words: I don't know what'll happen until 1-2 days before, sometimes it all happens straight at the gig. Bunch of sheets flying around (or being airdropped, whatever), big piles of tunes everybody sort of knows and off we go.

Needless to say that I simply can't prepare properly for such a gig, let alone sort out sounds and create setlists or whatever. So I will have to rely on a bunch of allround tones and possibly modify them as good as it gets in very short time (during quick soundchecks and even while playing). Ideally, I will at least get the main things right, such as gains, channel levels, BMTP controls and all that. With that one-patch-per-gig approach, I'm getting away just more or less fine. I can even re-adjust some things while a chord is ringing out, etc.

 

All this simply wouldn't work anymore as soon as there's more patches involved. So, to turn up my clean channel volume (plus whatever other parameters) would require calling up each patch, doing the adjustments and re-save the patch. But imagine I turned it up a bit too much - there's simply no way of going back during the gig as I can't just hold a note, recall 3 patches, adjust and re-save them and then go back to the patch I'm actually playing. It's absolutely impossible. And the more patches there are, the messier things get (and it's not Lionel Messi...).

 

Ok, now here's how I used to deal with this before going Helix: For around 20+ years, I've been using various incarnations of loopswitcher based setups, everything usually being controlled via MIDI. A typical setup might've been like a 2-3 channel preamp (sometimes even multiple preamps, but those were the 90s...) with a bunch of pedals slapped into pre-amp loops and some FX running in post-amp FX loops or whatever. With any such a setup, the combination of pedals and preamp channels plus whatever FX (rack- or pedalboard-powered) provided plenty of flexibility while still allowing me to adjust some crucial parameters at any time. Clean channel needs to be a bit louder? Well, let note ring, turn volume knob, call it a day. And that action would be valid throughout all my 13 (or 74) clean(-ish) patches. Fwiw, this is also why I didn't use just a single multi FX unit for post-amp processing but usually would at least have a dedicated unit for the final reverb (and sometimes the delay as well). That way, I was still able to call up rooms, plates, halls, etc. to my liking but would as well have global control over just the overall reverb mix.

You might get the idea.

 

With the Helix, the only way to do anything similar to that is to stick with one patch. Anything else simply isn't realistic for the things I do.

Now, this is working pretty well. As I usually don't need much but a limited bunch of rather generic FX (some delay and reverb, a tad of phaser and vibe here and there - kinda like that), a single patch is often just fine.

Yet, with all that power under my toes, I really wish I could do more here and there. But due to the nature of many of my gigs, that isn't possible.

 

Global blocks (or whatever you may call it) would solve that instantly. Here's roughly how it goes in Fractal/AxeFX-land (I never owned one, so I try to recall what people told me or what I've once read in their Wiki): You could "tag" anything as a global block. And once you're using that tagged block in mutliple patches, any changes you do to that block would be valid for each patch using the same block (you can still use the same kind of block without it being global, of course).

Back to my proposed scenario, I would very likely set two amps, 2-3 drives, one delay and one reverb to "global". That would keep the most relevant things consistent throughout all patches and still allow for a whole lot of variations (way more than what's possible within a single patch).

 

And oh well, as if this wasn't long enough already: I also think this has a lot to do with aesthetics. I don't think it's the best idea to use entirely different sounds all night long. When you listen to wellknown players, they will have 1-2 core sounds which they will then build up upon, using additional gain things and FX. It's really just the Top 40 et al players who seem to need gazillions of different amp patches (ok, maybe John Mayer, too...).

Personally, I think it's great to have a somewhat larger variety of filter, modulation and delay/reverb FX available but keep the core sounds more or less identical.

 

Ok, and finally, I also think that the lack of quick adjustments is responsible for modelers to often not sound as great in a live context as they possibly could. In case you have to bow down (or walk back and turn around, whatever) all the time, dive through menus. press save buttons and what not - it's likely that you rather not do that but live with a less than ideal sound. Global blocks would have a potential to solve that with ease.

Add a little MIDI knob box (or a tablet controller) allowing you to control all important global parameters in one centralized small-ish unit (not located at the bottom of the stage, either) and the world is a better place.

 

Well, I told you this would get longer (and I could even add some detailed ideas how all this could be realized...)

[gunpointmetal]

Oh, I see. Yeah, my idea for global blocks was basically blocks that are stored as a preset for that effect, but I see where you're coming from. I've never been in a "Hey lets play four hours of covers tomorrow" situation (nor will I ever be, lol), but I do use multiple patches for both of my bands sets, and I've been able to mitigate all level issues by spending ten minutes when everyone is packing up at practice to level my patches at gig volume if I notice something wonky while we're rehearsing (or because the drummer looks at my like a crapped his pants when I change sounds). I think the GT1000 has block assignments like that.

[SaschaFranck]

8 minutes ago, gunpointmetal said:

I think the GT1000 has block assignments like that.

 

Yeah, they have that "stompbox" thing. Way more limiting but apparently still quite nice - which is why I was considering it as well, instead of a Helix.

 

Fwiw, because I could imagine this to become quite a programming nightmare, especially due to the dynamic DSP allocation of the Helix, a thing I was thinking about was introducing a new "patch class/group". You would create, say, a "master patch". Inside that patch you would then tag blocks as "global". Apart from those globalized blocks, any sub-patches would then have to have exactly the same routing and block positioning as well (of course there could be multiple master- and sub-patch groups), you would only be able to change the "non-globalized" blocks content but not their position. Less flexible than "free" global blocks but possible less irritating and easier to realize, too.

[silverhead]

Here's one fairly effective way, I think, to be able to respond to short-notice cover gigs.

 

Create 3 or 4 presets in a single bank that will cover a very wide range of sounds: clean, crunch, heavy gain, and perhaps a fourth if desired (ambient?). Within each preset create 4 snapshots that can cover a range of styles within the genre. For instance, the clean preset might use snapshots providing varying degrees of delay, chorus, light distortion, etc as desired. Use scribble strips to name both the presets and snapshots in a manner that makes sense to you (e.g. Verse, Lead, Rhythm, ... whatever). Also you may want to assign individual FX blocks to footswitches for on/off or parameter min/max values; if you do this make sure you set the Snapshot Edit global parameter to Discard, not Recall.

 

Spend a good deal of time balancing levels among all these presets and snapshots so that you do not experience wild volume fluctuations as you switch among them all.

 

For performing use the Preset/Snap and 10 switches views. You will be able to switch presets (between songs) with a single footswitch. During a song you can change snapshots with a single footswitch. You can also use the Mode switch at any time to display and use the individual FX block on/off switches. (Note: this is why it's important to set the Snapshot Edits parameter to Discard. If set to Recall your on/off changes in the Mode view will be retained and this will surprise you next time you recall the Snapshot. Surprises are not pleasant in real time. Of course, you may in fact want the Recall setting but it's important to understand what's going on here.)

 

If you spend a lot of time doing this until you're satisfied you will be able to handle most cover gigs with little advance tweaking. Most of your prep will involve deciding which presets/snapshots to use for each song in the songlist, and writing down your cheat sheets. As an example, "SongnameX - use the Crunch preset, Snapshot 2. During the solo turn on the Dist FX"..

 

At the gig venue you will just need to manage the master volume and perhaps global EQ, although in both cases a competent sound guy should be able to take that on.

[SaschaFranck]

Yeah well, I'm aware of all these kinda tactics. But for the time being (until Line 6 may change something - which I really hope they will) I'm fine with the one-patch-per-gig method. I do of course have multiple of these patches by now, suitable for a variety of styles. It's also that, quite fortunately, I never have to deliver whatever authentic or heavily effected sounds, nobody ever asked me for any such things (unless in way more "controlled" environments - but in these situations, I usually have plenty of time to program things properly, such as in an orchestra pit of a musical production), so it's all pretty great. Just that sometimes I wish I could call up that wild dual-filter-path-bubbly-delay thingy, without the expense of losing all last minute tweaks of the previous patch (because I didn't bow down to press save...).

[HonestOpinion]

11 hours ago, SaschaFranck said:

Yeah well, I'm aware of all these kinda tactics. But for the time being (until Line 6 may change something - which I really hope they will) I'm fine with the one-patch-per-gig method. I do of course have multiple of these patches by now, suitable for a variety of styles. It's also that, quite fortunately, I never have to deliver whatever authentic or heavily effected sounds, nobody ever asked me for any such things (unless in way more "controlled" environments - but in these situations, I usually have plenty of time to program things properly, such as in an orchestra pit of a musical production), so it's all pretty great. Just that sometimes I wish I could call up that wild dual-filter-path-bubbly-delay thingy, without the expense of losing all last minute tweaks of the previous patch (because I didn't bow down to press save...).

 

Agree, customizable saveable blocks ranks high on my wish list. Allowing your settings to be persistent once you modified a block, any block.would be a good start. A least you would have one customized entry for every block that way. My other hope is that modelers in general add a USB port for storage of backups setlists/presets, IRs, custom blocks, or whatever. It is such a simple solution to allow enough flash storage to future proof a device. It would allow you to backup and restore from USB, keep additional setlists and presets available, have near infinite numbers of IRs on tap, as many customized blocks as you want, store loops, .wav files, the possibilities are endless.

[SaschaFranck]

Yeah, access to a USB stick would be nice - I don't think the Helix could be updated in that regard, though, as it's obviously not designed to be a USB host.

What they could however come up with is an kind of librarian for mobile OSes. That way, you would at least not have to use a fullblown computer in case you wanted, say, get your patches onto a rental unit. A simple USB OTG cable would be sufficient.

[rzumwalt]

On 11/21/2019 at 1:44 PM, SaschaFranck said:

Ok, and finally, I also think that the lack of quick adjustments is responsible for modelers not to sound as great in a live context as they possibly could. In case you have to bow down (or walk back and turn around, whatever) all the time, dive through menus. press save buttons and what not - it's likely that you rather not do that but live with a less than ideal sound. Global blocks would have a potential to solve that with ease.

 

I can attest to having this exact dilemma all the time. Especially when I am really busy and don't have time to prepare before a gig, I know I could sound better, but using one preset is good enough, so why bother. With your idea, it wouldn't be such a bother.

[PaulTBaker]

I would like to be able to view a patch setting in edit without having the helix attached to my computer... 

 

[spikey]

Quote

The holidays are nearly upon us, and yet another pointless, speculative gripe-fest and wish list merry-go-round. 

 

It's the most wonderful time of the year
Wheres the 2.9 update?
The patch seems to be late

Can someone please hold my beer....
It's the most wonderful time of the year!

 

It's the hap-happiest season of all!
But where are the updates?

We don't mean to berate

But new stuff has slowed to a crawl...
It's the hap-happiest season of all!

 

It's the most wonderful time of the year
There'll be snot-bubbles blowing
Tempers will be glowing when no Helix patches are near
It's the most wonderful time of the year!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[codamedia]

15 minutes ago, spikey said:

 

It's the most wonderful time of the year
Wheres the 2.9 update?
The patch seems to be late

Can someone please hold my beer....
It's the most wonderful time of the year!

 

It's the hap-happiest season of all!
But where are the updates?

We don't mean to berate

But new stuff has slowed to a crawl...
It's the hap-happiest season of all!

 

It's the most wonderful time of the year
There'll be snot-bubbles blowing
Tempers will be glowing when no Helix patches are near
It's the most wonderful time of the year!

 

No Christmas songs until "at least" December 1st!!!!!!     :) 

[codamedia]

On 11/21/2019 at 4:27 PM, SaschaFranck said:

Just that sometimes I wish I could call up that wild dual-filter-path-bubbly-delay thingy, without the expense of losing all last minute tweaks of the previous patch (because I didn't bow down to press save...).

 

Many multi-fx have an "auto save" feature.... any changes to a preset are automatically saved without the need to press save. Just like a pedal board and amp, every change you make is DONE! This can be a blessing, this can also be a curse - either way, it's the users choice to have it on or off. The Helix offers this on snapshots, but it doesn't retain those changes at the preset level. I'm sure this is a feature request that could be added relatively easily if enough people supported it.

 

On 11/21/2019 at 3:44 PM, SaschaFranck said:

Ok, and finally, I also think that the lack of quick adjustments is responsible for modelers to often not sound as great in a live context as they possibly could. In case you have to bow down (or walk back and turn around, whatever) all the time, dive through menus. press save buttons and what not - it's likely that you rather not do that but live with a less than ideal sound. Global blocks would have a potential to solve that with ease.

 

I do not disagree with the concept of Global Blocks... nor do I disagree with your comment about quick adjustments. BUT - (devils advocate here).... I don't see how Global Blocks offers the solution for quick adjustments. In either case, you have to bend over, scroll, adjust, and save (unless auto save is implemented)! Not to mention.... what happens when that global block change screws up the 25 other presets that use it?

 

IMO... this is not easy for Line 6.
Introducing one solution always has the potential to introduce 10 new problems, not the least of which is human confusion causing error. Whether it be Auto Save, Global Blocks, etc...etc...  these support forums will be a lot more congested as people can't figure out what is going wrong, then feature requests begin to flood in for more versatile ways to protect one from self inflicted wounds. 

[SaschaFranck]

22 minutes ago, codamedia said:

 

Many multi-fx have an "auto save" feature.... any changes to a preset are automatically saved without the need to press save. Just like a pedal board and amp, every change you make is DONE! This can be a blessing, this can also be a curse - either way, it's the users choice to have it on or off. The Helix offers this on snapshots, but it doesn't retain those changes at the preset level. I'm sure this is a feature request that could be added relatively easily if enough people supported it.

 

Yeah, the Zoom units feature an autosave function and it can be a blessing.

 

22 minutes ago, codamedia said:

 

I do not disagree with the concept of Global Blocks... nor do I disagree with your comment about quick adjustments. BUT - (devils advocate here).... I don't see how Global Blocks offers the solution in this scenario. In either case, you have to bend over, adjust, and save! Then what happens when that global block change screws up the 25 other presets that use it?

 

Ok, here goes: Let's take the example from above. I want to have all my clean sounds a bit louder. And I'm using the same amp for these clean sounds throughout my 26 presets. That amp would be set to "global". Now, of course, I'd have to get down (or turn around, in case we're dealing with a Helix/Rack) and adjust things. I wouldn't have to press "save" though - I mean, that's one of the points of global blocks. There's no "auto save" required for that, either, as global blocks never get saved. They're simply treated globally. Absolutely the same as with an analog amp channel.

Alright, now, if you would screw up the 25 other presets - then the amp would  be the wrong choice for those presets.

The way I would use global blocks (and IMO it's the single most relevant purpose for them to even exist - if they would exist), is to set everything up every bit as a bunch of analog amp channels mixed with some programmable FX and what not. It's what tons of players did ever since somewhen in the 80s when all the big rack things (Bradshaw controlled and what not) appeared.

Basically, what I'd like to do is to have a set of "items" that could have their parameters adjusted globally but could still be switched per patch/snapshot plus a bunch of things that would be completely changed between presets.

In the "semi analog" world, this is a piece of cake to set up and there's plenty of people doing it just like that. You may have your Gigrig loopswitcher which would control your amp channels and add pedals whenever you wish (semi programmable, maintaining global parameter access), while at the same time switching patches on, say, your H9 (fully programmable, no global parameter access). Not an unusual setup at all.

 

22 minutes ago, codamedia said:

 

IMO... this is not easy for Line 6.
Introducing one solution always has the potential to introduce 10 new problems, not the least of which is human confusion causing error. Whether it be Auto Save, Global Blocks, etc...etc...  these support forums will be a lot more congested as people can't figure out what is going wrong, then feature requests begin to flood in for more versatile ways to protect one from self inflicted wounds. 

 

I'm not sure about that. But it's also why I suggested introducing a new kind of "grouped" patches or whatever you might call them. Anything outside of these patches could work every bit the same as it currently is. "Tagging" something as a global block would only work within these new grouped patches - and, again as said, I could for instance imagine that the basic layout of these grouped patches would have to be the same all throughout. Same routing, same block arrangement, all you would be allowed to alter between the patches of a given group would be to change blocks (in case they're not tagged "global") and their parameters.

Thinking about it, this could perhaps even be realized within one single patch. What would have to be added would be, well, "sub presets" (similar to snapshots) within one patch, just that, unlike with snapshots, you'd also be allowed to change block types.

You might then end up with, say, a dual amp setup, one clean, one overdriven, a pedal for each and some "I always use the same settings anyway" FX (maybe delays and reverbs) - and at the same time, you might have a filter, phaser and vibe combo on one "sub preset" and a flanger, chorus and pitch combo on the other - which would otherwise exceed the CPU power available within one patch. During soundcheck however, all you'd have to adjust would be the "group wide" things. And you could still do ad hoc changes while playing.

 

When you think about it, this - at least inderectly -  would also free up CPU ressources, hence allowing for more wicked patches. Because instead of cramming everything into one patch, even if you'd only need your bubbly-phasing-filter madness once per gig, you'd just spread that load over different patches without losing quick, instant control of your overall sound.

[codamedia]

@SaschaFranck.... 

 

Just to re-iterate, I am not against what you are suggesting. You don't have to convince me of Auto Save or Global Blocks. I was just playing devils advocate, I find it beneficial to view things from more than my own perspective. 

 

EG: There are multiple posts here about people that cannot wrap their heads around the "discard vs recall" settings for snapshots... and now with 2.8 many people struggle with the concept of "snapshot bypass". I have no doubt that global blocks will help you to the fullest and I would also enjoy them, I also have no doubt that global blocks would cause incredible amounts of confusion to many other users.

[SaschaFranck]

On 11/23/2019 at 5:19 PM, codamedia said:

EG: There are multiple posts here about people that cannot wrap their heads around the "discard vs recall" settings for snapshots... and now with 2.8 many people struggle with the concept of "snapshot bypass". I have no doubt that global blocks will help you to the fullest and I would also enjoy them, I also have no doubt that global blocks would cause incredible amounts of confusion to many other users.

 

Believe me, I know exactly what you're talking about (I've got around 20 years as a betatester for audio software on my belt, have been teaching sequencing classes and what not - so I do know about the things that can go wrong when it comes to the "perception" of software).

 

Yet, I absolutely think that this is advancing technology - and I don't think it'd be a too great idea to look for whatever lowest common denominators. Otherwise this technology would not advance anymore.

I do agree that things shouldn't get in the way of less experienced users, though. That's why it takes proper implementation and proper manuals. As far as implementation goes, there would be many ways to do things, but it's not exactly making sense to discuss about them because only the Line 6 team would know what would even be possible. I could for example imagine there'd be a sort of "expert" mode. Logic (my sequencer of choice) does it like that. There's a whole bunch of settings hidden from first time users, especially making the transition from Garageband a lot easier. But it'd also be about how to actually implement things (I would have several ideas, but as said, it doesn't make sense to discuss them here...).

(And as far as the documentatio goes, it has to be said that Line 6 is not doing particularly well here. The last full Helix manual is for FW revision 2, only the HX Edit manual has been updated and it's english only.)

 

Whatever, I think anything taking things further needs to be done if possible, at least as long as it's not some esoteric stuff. And in general, Line 6 is doing pretty well with the Helix, their FW updates always added tremendously great stuff in terms of usability.

 

Fwiw, on a personal note, if I had the choice between 1) no more amp/drive/FX updates ever again but global blocks (implemented in whatever way) right now and 2) super-duper kickass amps, highest quality polyphonic pitch shifting, incredible synthesis options, lush killer verbs putting any Bricasti M7 to shame but no chance to ever see global blocks, I'd chose (1) in a split second and never look back.

[codamedia]

9 minutes ago, SaschaFranck said:

Believe me, I know exactly what you're talking about (I've got around 20 years as a betatester for audio software on my belt, have been teaching sequencing classes and what not - so I do know about the things that can go wrong when it comes to the "perception" of software).

 

Humility goes a long way.... let's not get into a p***ing contest about which one of us has more experience, please! 

[SaschaFranck]

4 minutes ago, codamedia said:

 

Humility goes a long way.... let's not get into a p***ing contest about which one of us has more experience, please! 

 

Wasn't meant like that at all. Just to illustrate that I actually know what you were talking about.

[spikey]

Ok bucko- whadda ya mean by knowin what I mean?

 

Know what I mean???

 

Hummmm???? 

 

 

; )

[datacommando]

10 minutes ago, spikey said:

Hummmm???? 

 

I’m not sure that I understand, please clarify?

[kylotan]

So... more high gain amps coming in 2.9? Yes? :P