Wow, I got a loundness Meter and it made a huge difference on my tone.

[johneric8]

I'm new to the helix,  but have gotten on with it pretty quick.  Before I was having trouble getting clean tones and the right breakup,  but because either my limitations or the helix floor,  I was having trouble really knowing how much level on a proper scale I was sending to either the FOH,  or just my powered practice speaker.

 

I use a gibson 335 with some nice JB humbucker pickups and it sounds great but something was missing.  I'm only posting this in case it can help someone else.. So I downloaded a plugin on PC called Youlean Loudness Meter 2,    and noticed it gave me some very good info in regards to my signals level.  I couldn't believe just how hot my presets were and how much they were in the red,  I mean,  it was hitting near peak at times...   Anyway,  as I said,  I still learning how to dial everything in,  paths,  and all that jazz so getting this plugin made a HUGE difference in my tone,  because I was seriously struggling trying to gauge how hot my levels were and how they were effecting my tone.

So,  the reason I'm posting this,  is in case you don't know about this type of plugin because it made a world of difference in me getting a nice starting point for my presets/snapshots stage volumes correct...  Wow,   I feel really good about my setup now,  seriously..

[PaulTBaker]

Just got that meter a little while ago.  And yes it helps. I'm trying to find out how to read what it is telling me.  What level are you trying to reach.  I am trying to get to around - 15 to - 12 for peaks.  I've read some things about it it,but I'm still not certain I am using it correctly. It is a feed tool.

[Anderton]

Very cool! The crucial aspect is that loudness meters work differently from conventional meters, because they measure perceived loudness. I use LUFS (loudness) metering for matching bypassed/enabled levels in an FX chain, so that I can bring effects in and out without perceived level changes, even though the levels measure different peak values. Of course, you want some effects or presets to be louder or softer, but I find it's easier to deal with getting the right preset levels and such when they start from a standard baseline. The analogy I use is pickup pole pieces - it's easier to adjust them if you start with them all screwed in halfway. Then you can raise or lower as needed.

 

If you want to know more about LUFS, I wrote an article for inSync that you might find useful. It could be TMI because it covers LUFS more in terms of mastering and recording, but you may find some of the tidbits helpful. The part about true peak is also of interest to guitar players. Unlike standard peak meters, which measure the level of digital samples, true peak extrapolates the level after going through D/A converters. The conversion's smoothing process can produce levels that exceed zero (this is called intersample distortion), even if the meters measuring the sample levels indicate levels below zero.

 

Then again, if the audience claps, none of this really matters!  But audio is a fascinating subject, particularly when it comes to guitars. I've just always loved the sound of guitars, and finding out what creates that glorious sound has held my attention for decades. 

 

 

[PierM]

Any metering happening outside the Helix via DAW, isnt telling you much about the real Helix "loudness", since your signal is passing through an audio interface preamps, gain stages, software leveling etc...Even if yor are going full digital, you'd want to know what's the measure you are doing; waveform peak, quasi peak, RMS, true RMS, Loudness, Perceived Loudness etc etc... It can be a huge delta.

 

Said all that, if your Helix isnt clipping red within its own Output meters, your Helix signal isnt clipping.

 

 

[Anderton]

10 minutes ago, PaulTBaker said:

Just got that meter a little while ago.  And yes it helps. I'm trying to find out how to read what it is telling me.  What level are you trying to reach.  I am trying to get to around - 15 to - 12 for peaks.  I've read some things about it it,but I'm still not certain I am using it correctly. It is a feed tool.

 

Sorry, saw this after writing my previous post. -15 LUFS is a happy place for Helix. That's what I get from running a guitar with passive humbuckers through it as hard as I can hit the strings, with everything after the Helix set for unity gain. Personally, I aim for -18 LUFS with "normal" playing. But, this is all subjective and depends on how you use Helix, your guitar, playing style, how loud your amp is, etc. Remember that LUFS was designed specifically for matching levels in broadcast, so while it's applicable to guitar, with broadcast it sets rules. With guitar, it offers suggestions. 

[PierM]

19 minutes ago, Anderton said:

Very cool! The crucial aspect is that loudness meters work differently from conventional meters, because they measure perceived loudness. I use LUFS (loudness) metering for matching bypassed/enabled levels in an FX chain, so that I can bring effects in and out without perceived level changes, even though the levels measure different peak values. Of course, you want some effects or presets to be louder or softer, but I find it's easier to deal with getting the right preset levels and such when they start from a standard baseline. The analogy I use is pickup pole pieces - it's easier to adjust them if you start with them all screwed in halfway. Then you can raise or lower as needed.

 

If you want to know more about LUFS, I wrote an article for inSync that you might find useful. It could be TMI because it covers LUFS more in terms of mastering and recording, but you may find some of the tidbits helpful. The part about true peak is also of interest to guitar players. Unlike standard peak meters, which measure the level of digital samples, true peak extrapolates the level after going through D/A converters. The conversion's smoothing process can produce levels that exceed zero (this is called intersample distortion), even if the meters measuring the sample levels indicate levels below zero.

 

Then again, if the audience claps, none of this really matters!  But audio is a fascinating subject, particularly when it comes to guitars. I've just always loved the sound of guitars, and finding out what creates that glorious sound has held my attention for decades. 

 

 

 

That Clarity Stereo is a proper tool to measure. ;)

[Anderton]

18 minutes ago, PierM said:

 

That Clarity Stereo is a proper tool to measure. ;)

 

Very true! It's a big advantage to be able to hook it right up to the Helix output, and not need a computer. But $300+ is kind of expensive, and if you're careful about managing levels in a DAW, I think something like the Youlean or Waves WLM is good enough to know what your presets are doing, especially because they can integrate readings over time. My "test signals" are 30 second loops of leads, bass parts, chords, etc. 

[johneric8]

53 minutes ago, PaulTBaker said:

Just got that meter a little while ago.  And yes it helps. I'm trying to find out how to read what it is telling me.  What level are you trying to reach.  I am trying to get to around - 15 to - 12 for peaks.  I've read some things about it it,but I'm still not certain I am using it correctly. It is a feed tool.

Here is what I found is working very well for me.   I'm setting my clean tones slightly louder because I typically use pick dynamics and my guitars volume knob,   but for example if I'm setting my cleans at - 30db,  I'm setting my overdrive at -34db,     this way I still have lots of room for boosted solo patches or anything else I may more levels on...   I'm not expert by any means but I'm finding that at -30 db I'm getting some incredibly clean tones for my clean sounds..    I think what I've figured out is it pays to stay well below what you may think is appropriate..   The difference for me coming out of PA speakers is VERY noticeable..  You may not notice that big of a difference like I am,  but keep in mind I was clipping everything before without realizing it..   I've only had the unit a couple of weeks,  but I'm learned a ton..    I'm a tube amp guy,  I use to get custom amps by Paul Rivera himself in my past band when I had a deal with sony back in the day,   but I'm finding that the line 6 blows those tones away,  but there are critical mistakes to be made if you don't use certain tools to monitor what you're doing...   

Honestly,  the loudness meter has really been a light bulb moment for me and I'm thankful for this.. Now I can design patches knowing the levels are in a pretty good ballpark with each other because my ears while they're great for tone,  they're not that great at levels in the digital world..  In my past all I used was a couple of tube amps and pedals with a boost pedal for leads so balancing volumes was easy....  

[johneric8]

53 minutes ago, PierM said:

Any metering happening outside the Helix via DAW, isnt telling you much about the real Helix "loudness", since your signal is passing through an audio interface preamps, gain stages, software leveling etc...Even if yor are going full digital, you'd want to know what's the measure you are doing; waveform peak, quasi peak, RMS, true RMS, Loudness, Perceived Loudness etc etc... It can be a huge delta.

 

Said all that, if your Helix isnt clipping red within its own Output meters, your Helix signal isnt clipping.

 

The thing is,  it was clipping off and on..   Keep in mind that once I lowered the channels outputs for certain presets the tone I was getting was amazing..  The big thing here is,  it sounds better for whatever reason and I'm also getting a good ballpark for levels in snapshots.   I understand how some effects will make louder and that is what you want depending on part of song,  but the loudness meter has helped me dial patches back  to a level which seems way more honest..      Also,  using my helix as an audio interface into PC,  but I'm not running helix native or anything else.. i'm just reading Db levels with youlean loudness meter..   The thing is,  what it's showing me has totally also reflecting what I hear from my flat powered monitor. 

53 minutes ago, PierM said:

 

 

 

[PaulTBaker]

3 hours ago, Anderton said:

 

Sorry, saw this after writing my previous post. -15 LUFS is a happy place for Helix. That's what I get from running a guitar with passive humbuckers through it as hard as I can hit the strings, with everything after the Helix set for unity gain. Personally, I aim for -18 LUFS with "normal" playing. But, this is all subjective and depends on how you use Helix, your guitar, playing style, how loud your amp is, etc. Remember that LUFS was designed specifically for matching levels in broadcast, so while it's applicable to guitar, with broadcast it sets rules. With guitar, it offers suggestions. 

Thank you. So I guess I am the correct neighborhood.  I also use the helix as the interface, so I guess that is a pretty close reading.  

 

Thanks all for the info. Very timely post for me!

[DunedinDragon]

In my experience I find that relying totally on any type of meter can be deceiving and it ultimately comes down to the human response to how it sounds relative to the instruments around it.  I work solely with standard signal meters which are a true, physical representation of signal strength.  I use both the built in meter in the Helix (which measures the digital signal level) and the signal level at the mixing board channel (which measures the analog signal level).  Both tend to be relatively consistent.  But there are cases when working with more overdriven sounds where the signals levels are consistent with other clean levels, but it's clearly lacking overall body and punch compared to cleaner signals.  In those cases it's often surprising how much you can increase the channel volume on the amp model to gain back that body and punch without significantly affecting the overall signal level as measured at the mixing board.

A more telling example is when I work with backing tracks.  Our band uses backing tracks housed on a laptop running Ableton Live that adds various instruments to different songs such as an organ, piano, strings, pedal steel, etc.  I gain stage the outputs of these tracks against my guitar signal and drums (provided from a Beat Buddy) through the mixing board and I'm often surprised at how much lower the signal level as measured at the mixing board these backing tracks have to be in order to blend appropriately by ear with the other instruments.

What this tells me is what everyone's been saying around here for a long time.  Ultimately the best and final measure is always going to come down to using your ears.

[brue58ski]

15 hours ago, PierM said:

Any metering happening outside the Helix via DAW, isnt telling you much about the real Helix "loudness", since your signal is passing through an audio interface preamps, gain stages, software leveling etc...Even if yor are going full digital, you'd want to know what's the measure you are doing; waveform peak, quasi peak, RMS, true RMS, Loudness, Perceived Loudness etc etc... It can be a huge delta.

 

Said all that, if your Helix isnt clipping red within its own Output meters, your Helix signal isnt clipping.

 

 

 

I understand what you are saying I agree with you but I think the goal is just maintaining the same relative level as effects/amps/patches as they are changed. That's where this comes in handy. When judging the overall loudness/level at the speaker level, you are absolutely correct. But for just maintaining the same relative level internally in the Helix domain as things/patches are changed, this seems like a great way to do it. As far as doing it with meters there's no better way that I'm aware of. Your ears are merely one more tool to judge things and should be the ultimate thing used to decide. But my ears get tired at times and they arent' what they used to be either. I just recently found out about LUFS (thanks to forums like this) and it seems like a good way to judge the relative level of things. Haven't dove into it yet though.

 

I just read the previous post to mine and that totally goes in line with what I'm trying to say. Meter's are a great place to start, but ultimately end with your ears. A big thing is the meters won't tell you how your patch's sound will fit with a bass and drums pounding away. The meters may say you're good, but your sound could disappear once the band starts playing. Speaking from experience here.

[HonestOpinion]

8 hours ago, brue58ski said:

 

...

 

I just read the previous post to mine and that totally goes in line with what I'm trying to say. Meter's are a great place to start, but ultimately end with your ears. A big thing is the meters won't tell you how your patch's sound will fit with a bass and drums pounding away. The meters may say you're good, but your sound could disappear once the band starts playing. Speaking from experience here.

 

Good reminder that it is not all about your signal level. Once you are in the band mix, overlapping frequencies from other instruments come into play. That is where responding with a change to your EQ rather than your volume can help to cut through and make your instrument more distinct in the mix without battering your audiences ears.  Playing in a band that knows how to keep some sonic "space" as well as EQ'ing each instrument into its own acoustic space with strategic cuts or boosts in the frequency range generally results in a better sound and makes it easier to pick out each instrument in the mix. Playing with dynamics also helps tremendously. Gotta love a rhythm section that can 'handoff' and pull back appropriately for a solo. If every player is at eleven all the time producing a wash of sound and banging away at their instrument without properly listening to the rest of the band, it gets harder and harder to get a good mix and the volume duels start spiraling. It is great though to see the tools for measuring signal levels get more sophisticated and more closely reflect what the human ear is hearing.

[Anderton]

11 hours ago, DunedinDragon said:

In my experience I find that relying totally on any type of meter can be deceiving and it ultimately comes down to the human response to how it sounds relative to the instruments around it.  I work solely with standard signal meters which are a true, physical representation of signal strength.  I use both the built in meter in the Helix (which measures the digital signal level) and the signal level at the mixing board channel (which measures the analog signal level).  Both tend to be relatively consistent.  But there are cases when working with more overdriven sounds where the signals levels are consistent with other clean levels, but it's clearly lacking overall body and punch compared to cleaner signals.

 

That's why measuring perceived levels with LUFS is an improvement over conventional meters. For example, if you increase the EQ around 4 kHz, where the ear is more sensitive, it will register as a louder perceived level even though a traditional meter might not show much difference. If something sounds subjectively to your ears as lacking overall body and punch, it will probably register a lower LUFS, even though a meter shows the same peak (or even RMS) levels. 

 

Although I totally agree that "ultimately the best and final measure is always going to come down to using your ears," I've found the fastest way to get there is by having a consistent baseline level, and LUFS provides that. It's especially helpful when building a chain of effects, or a collection with dozens or hundreds of presets, to make sure the level stays at the same perceived value when you enable and bypass effects, or switch from one preset to another. Of course there will be times when you'll want an effect to come in louder or softer, and there will be times when you need to tweak presets live based on what other musicians are playing (e.g., masking from keyboards or whatever). Still, I find I hit the right levels faster when the presets start from a standard level for perceived loudness. Think of LUFS as giving you a mix...but you still have to do the mastering :)

[DunedinDragon]

3 hours ago, Anderton said:

 

That's why measuring perceived levels with LUFS is an improvement over conventional meters. For example, if you increase the EQ around 4 kHz, where the ear is more sensitive, it will register as a louder perceived level even though a traditional meter might not show much difference. If something sounds subjectively to your ears as lacking overall body and punch, it will probably register a lower LUFS, even though a meter shows the same peak (or even RMS) levels. 

 

I have no doubt LUFS would be very useful to many people in getting the sound they want in the volume range they want pretty easily.  But I'm not sure it would be of significant help to me since first and foremost I rarely dial in my presets in isolation.  I spend most of my time dialing in presets and backing tracks while gain staging and mixing them simultaneously with a mixing board signal meter.  This ensures the best mix in all shows and all songs, and I've done it long enough to recognize and correct the difference in tone within a patch or within a backing track without significantly affecting the signal meter.  In other words, I know what I can get away with.  However, had I discovered LUFS 5 or 6 years ago I would have had a much greater appreciation for it probably.  Unfortunately I had to go through the pain and frustration of training myself to do it by ear and now I'm used to it and pretty proficient at it.  So I'd definitely agree that if someone struggles with those types of differences, using LUFS would be an excellent training tool to help you identify and correct those type of problems quickly by ear.

[wgdenge]

Can you explain how you are using this with Helix?   Are you using the USB into computer?    For a NOOB like me, what software on my MAC can I use this with?

I spent a bunch of time the other day trying to balance all my snapshots to have save output levels, ect....

 

 

V/r

wayne

[Anderton]

13 hours ago, wgdenge said:

Can you explain how you are using this with Helix?   Are you using the USB into computer?    For a NOOB like me, what software on my MAC can I use this with?

I spent a bunch of time the other day trying to balance all my snapshots to have save output levels, ect....

 

Sure, no problem - the fastest way is to do it with Helix Native in a DAW, with an LUFS meter plug-in inserted. I've recorded several clips of "typical" guitar playing - chords, single notes, and chords + single notes. Then I loop them while watching the LUFS meter (I use Waves WLM but the Youlean works too; both are VST/AU/AAX-compatible) at the Helix output. The output with Helix bypassed is -18 LUFS, so I enable Helix and adjus the  preset level to get -18 LUFS. If I expect to be switching effects in and out, I adjust the levels of individual effects so that the output remains at -18 LUFS when different effects are enabled or bypassed. Then I use HX Edit to transfer the sounds to the hardware Helix.

 

To do this with hardware Helix, you would feed the output via USB into a DAW or digital audio editor where you can insert an LUFS meter. The Clarity Stereo meter recommended by PierM earlier in this thread is a hardware device that can connect directly to the Helix output, so you don't need a computer. However, it costs $300.

 

Having a consistent input signal at the hardware input will save you a lot of time. You can record a clip into an smartphone or similar device, loop the clip, and use that as an audio input. There are free DJ apps that can load clips and loop them. 

 

Again, let me emphasize I don't do this to walk on stage, dial up a preset, and not have to worry about it! The advantage is you don't have to worry about it as much, because many of your preset levels will likely be at a good level, and then you can tweak the ones that need tweaking.  

 

In the studio with Helix Native, you'll always be changing the track level up or down anyway with a fader, so this might seem less important. But, when going through presets to decide which sounds best for a track, it's very convenient that they all come in at the same perceived level, so you don't end up choosing one because it's a few dB louder and sounds "better."  

 

Hope this helps!