Amp Effects?

[Drybonz]

I'm guessing this is a "no", but is there any way to activate amp settings in an amp mod, like reverb on a Fender amp, or chorus on a Jazz Chorus, etc?

[SaschaFranck]

51 minutes ago, Drybonz said:

I'm guessing this is a "no", but is there any way to activate amp settings in an amp mod, like reverb on a Fender amp, or chorus on a Jazz Chorus, etc?

 

No. But why would you need that?

[shanecgriffo]

I get where you are coming from.. those examples you gave have a specific sort of sound, especially the jazz chorus: I haven’t been able to replicate that beautiful chorus and I’m unsure as to why line 6 didn’t model that as part of the amp/cab

[zappazapper]

A similar question that gets asked is "can we have a Mark IV model that has all the channels, instead of a separate model for every channel?"

 

https://benvesco.com/store/helix-dsp-allocations/

 

If you look at this DSP allocation chart, you'll see, if we use the Mark IV example, that each of the three channels takes up about a third of a DSP chip's processing power, so a Mark IV model with all three channels would take up 100% of the chip's processing power, because even though you're only playing through one channel at a time, the Helix would have to load all three into memory in order to switch between channels without an audible gap. Since most people are going to be using only one Mark IV channel at a time, it wouldn't make sense to make a single Mark IV model that has all three channels and eats up all your processing power. Instead they made a separate model for each channel, and for the odd person that wants to use all three channels simultaneously, all it takes is some creative signal routing.

 

So in the case of the reverb on a Fender amp, they separated those elements for the same reason - not everybody is going to use the reverb just because they're using a Fender amp model, and reverbs are generally quite expensive in terms of DSP, so they keep the reverb out of the amp model to reduce DSP load, but offer it, or at least something similar, in the actual reverb block for those that do want to use it.

 

It took me a while myself to accept why things are the way they are. I come from VST land where Amplitube has a Mark IV model that looks just like a Mark IV and I get to play with all the knobs and push-pulls and EQ sliders and it makes me feel like I'm playing with a real Mark IV. At the end of the day, however, it's become clear to me that the Helix's models are far superior in terms of sonics, and to achieve that level of sonic accuracy required a sacrifice to everything else that fools us into thinking we're playing the real thing, like all the knobs and push-pulls on a Mark IV model, or a reverb included on a Fender amp model because a real Fender amp would have a reverb knob. You can have a Fender amp model with a reverb - add a reverb block.

[Drybonz]

6 minutes ago, zappazapper said:

If you look at this DSP allocation chart, you'll see, if we use the Mark IV example, that each of the three channels takes up about a third of a DSP chip's processing power, so a Mark IV model with all three channels would take up 100% of the chip's processing power

 

I get that... but couldn't they just make that channel a separate amp model... like they do with the "bright" model amps?  People can just choose not to use the "bright" version.  It's ok, I figured this was a no go... I just wondered if there were hard to find settings I didn't know about.

 

As far as asking why I would want this?  Why would any of us want amp effects on a pedal that is for simulating amp sounds... seems like it would be something people would want.

[zappazapper]

18 minutes ago, Drybonz said:

 

I get that... but couldn't they just make that channel a separate amp model... like they do with the "bright" model amps?  People can just choose not to use the "bright" version.  It's ok, I figured this was a no go... I just wondered if there were hard to find settings I didn't know about.

That's what I'm saying. They make them separate models. So in the case of Fender reverb, they've just make the reverb a separate model, so if you're not using it, it doesn't eat up DSP. 

[codamedia]

It's a reasonable request... but Line 6 tends to keep everything separate to maximize resources for each user. 

 

2 hours ago, shanecgriffo said:

I get where you are coming from.. those examples you gave have a specific sort of sound, especially the jazz chorus: I haven’t been able to replicate that beautiful chorus and I’m unsure as to why line 6 didn’t model that as part of the amp/cab

 

Have you followed/replicated the actual chain for a JC120... which is placing the chorus between the amp and cab? 

If you put a chorus before the amp it collapses to mono, and if you put it after the speakers something gets lost. Neither will sound right. 

 

JC120 Amp (no cab) > Stereo 70's Chorus OR Analog Chorus (found in legacy, it's already stereo) > Dual 212 Rivet Cab OR create a parallel path and put a 1x12 on each path.

If you split the paths, pay attention to the pans on the split and returns.

1. The chorus must be stereo
2. The chorus must be placed between amp and cab
3. Optional: Add a stereo reverb just before or after the chorus for more depth
4. The cab must be stereo to retain the depth of the chorus. 
5. You need to monitor the Helix in Stereo to get this lush effect.... because the real JC120 Chorus IS stereo! 

If you do that, I find it is extremely close to a real JC120.

 

3 hours ago, Drybonz said:

... like reverb on a Fender amp,

 

Similar to my example above. Try separating the amp from the cab then place a spring reverb between the two. This is also the best place for the "opto trem" to simulate how a BF/SF Fender really works. Unlike the JC120 Fender amps are mono... stereo works, but is not required for accuracy.  

[Drybonz]

18 hours ago, zappazapper said:

That's what I'm saying. They make them separate models. So in the case of Fender reverb, they've just make the reverb a separate model, so if you're not using it, it doesn't eat up DSP. 

 

Sorry, I misunderstood... thought you were saying it couldn't be done because of DSP resources.

[Drybonz]

18 hours ago, codamedia said:

The chorus must be placed between amp and cab

 

Yeah, this is a pretty good way to go about it... since, from what I understand, the Boss Chorus was based on the Jazz Chorus?... but three blocks just to simulate the channel on one amp is rough.  But yeah, it's a good workaround.  Ideally, you would just have the chorus channel on one amp model.

[DunedinDragon]

18 hours ago, Drybonz said:

 

I get that... but couldn't they just make that channel a separate amp model... like they do with the "bright" model amps?  People can just choose not to use the "bright" version.  It's ok, I figured this was a no go... I just wondered if there were hard to find settings I didn't know about.

 

As far as asking why I would want this?  Why would any of us want amp effects on a pedal that is for simulating amp sounds... seems like it would be something people would want.

Again a lot depends on DSP usage and trying to not make people pay a DSP penalty if they're not using something, which I really appreciate.

As far as effects, effects built into amps was always more of a marketing decision among amp makers who were trying to get some advantage by having them built in.  This was done a lot more 40 years ago than it is today as onboard effects are rarely if ever as good as separate effects.  That's why, even when many amps came with certain effects like reverbs, or chorus effects, or graphic EQs, separate standalone effects were almost always used in studio recording because they were so much better and more versatile.

One of the things I noticed early on with the Helix, the studio paradigm is pretty much built into the basic design and DNA of the system.  All of it makes MUCH more sense for those of us that spent our youths hanging around those kind of environments.  If you come from the amp and pedalboard background it sometimes doesn't make as much sense because the Helix isn't really built around that paradigm.

[codamedia]

4 hours ago, Drybonz said:

but three blocks just to simulate the channel on one amp is rough. 

 

Outside of Stomp users with limited blocks, why would this be rough. 

Regardless of using 1 block or 3, It's still going to use the same amount of resources. Breaking it up provides more options to users. 

 

4 hours ago, Drybonz said:

Ideally, you would just have the chorus channel on one amp model.

 

In this instance (JC-120) I'm not sure the architecture even exists. Every amp in the Helix is MONO.... a real JC120 is a MONO preamp with a Stereo Chorus, Stereo Power Amp and Stereo Speakers. 

 

FYI: Line 6 uses ideascale for feature requests and there is a request for this already there that you can go upvote.  (registration is required, but free)

https://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Add-amp-s-specific-effects-into-the-amp-block/919491-23508 

 

 

[Drybonz]

18 hours ago, codamedia said:

Outside of Stomp users with limited blocks

 

Yes... I'm a Stomp user with limited blocks.

[SaschaFranck]

Fwiw, I don't think it makes much of an audible difference whether you place a chorus in front or behind a cab block. The chorus isn't doing any dynamic or input frequency dependant processing and it's also not adding any artificial harmonics. Neither is the cab block. So I think it's a good idea to save the additional CPU overhead a stereo cab block would use up.

[SaschaFranck]

Btw, I was wrong, the 70s Chorus *does* do some dynamic processing once Headroom isn't turned up all the way. So with a cab in front at its defaults, there's a difference. But once you level the cab so the output volume is the same as without the cab, the difference becomes indistinguishably small.