IR only on XLR out

[KasperFauerby]

Hi guys,

 

I've recently upgraded my Hx Effects + Tube amp rig to a full-on Helix Floor + Tube setup. One of the main reasons I decided to upgrade was so that I could run a set of outputs to FOH, with an IR, block and run the 1/4" to my amp head and speaker cab. Another reason is of course the ability to have a copy of my live presets where I put an amp sim instead of my real amp head, as a backup for tube failures and such.

 

All of this is possible and is working great. 

 

However, and this is really my question, in case I misunderstand something... in order to have that IR on XLR only I'll have to split path 2... and in effect the IR block is then "reserving" all of 2B??

I also like to run my reverb and delays in parallel, so one of them will have to go on a "B" path. This forces me to put them on path 1... and since they are (pretty much) last in chain it really limits what I can use path 2 for...

 

My patch currently looks like this (the Fx Loop to the right is because I'm running an external reverb pedal):

 

So this actually gives me what I currently want - but there isn't much room for more... despite the theoretical max of 32 blocks per preset :)

 

[zappazapper]

It would be nice if there was an option right on the output blocks to put a cab sim or an IR.

[rd2rk]

As I understand it, you can have multiple path splits on the Fractal devices. Sure would be nice to have that on Helix!

I seem to remember that being something I up-voted over on Ideascale. Long ago.

Maybe in v3.0?

[rd2rk]

I just realized that we didn't directly answer your question.

Yes, it's either a split for an IR out, or parallel effects.

 

Here's the entries on Ideascale:

 

https://line6.ideascale.com/a/ideas/search?templateId=0&query=path+splits

 

You'll need to log in to vote, and there's at least 3 entries for multiple splits per path. Vote for ALL of them.

And if you ever post an idea there, be sure to do a search first. Not searching first is how there gets to be multiple versions of the same idea, which waters down the votes. 

[KasperFauerby]

Thanks for confirming! 

As you say, it sounds like something that could be fixed in software. Will try to create an account and upvote the feature request.

 

[KasperFauerby]

Have to say that I think the solution @zappazapper suggests with a setting directly on the output block would be the most elegant, UI wise - but I can see how this could become a problem in terms of powering the IR program. The DSP power has to come from somewhere, so putting it in a block makes that visible. And otherwise you could end up with many different IR blocks "hidden" and active at the same time on path 2, sucking up quite a lot of processing power.

 

But from a user point of view it would be awesome. And perhaps it would even be possible to host an IR program on processor 1, even though it's not in the signal chain for that processor...

[codamedia]

On 10/21/2020 at 7:30 AM, KasperFauerby said:

However, and this is really my question, in case I misunderstand something... in order to have that IR on XLR only I'll have to split path 2... and in effect the IR block is then "reserving" all of 2B??

I also like to run my reverb and delays in parallel, so one of them will have to go on a "B" path. This forces me to put them on path 1... and since they are (pretty much) last in chain it really limits what I can use path 2 for...

 

I would approach this a little different... 

Rather than placing the IR on a parallel path, place a "SEND" just prior to the IR block and use that to drive your amp/cab. You can fine tune the send level to get the signal going to your amp exactly how you want it... then it should never have to be touched again. 

 

This opens the option to  move your delays and reverbs to the 2nd path allowing for better DSP management. 

 

NOTE: I see you already have two effects loops on your path.... my solution will only work if you still have an available send to use. I use an LT that only has two mono loops, but I believe you have double that with the Floor model. 

[KasperFauerby]

@codamedia Hey man, that's actually not a bad idea. Hadn't thought of that, might try it out.

Hmm.. only thing is that then I probably loose the big volume knob for my amp signal... always compromises ;)

[codamedia]

53 minutes ago, KasperFauerby said:

@codamedia Hey man, that's actually not a bad idea. Hadn't thought of that, might try it out.

Hmm.. only thing is that then I probably loose the big volume knob for my amp signal... always compromises ;)

 

Are you running 4CM? That is the only time I could see this being an issue, and yes it would be a big compromise. 

 

If you are running into the front end of the amp... you shouldn't have to adjust the level leading to the amp once it is set. The input stage of an amp is critical to how the rest of the amp responds downstream. In this case, If I needed more volume at the amp I would simply turn up the amp. 

[zappazapper]

Another idea would be to add the outputs to the Send/Return block. Then you could add a Send after that EQ on path 2A, set to your 1/4", Dry Level at 0 dB so it also passes the signal through the block, and then your IR in the last block before the XLR output.