Routing question

[gmailclaude]

Hi again, still very new to this and wondering : Is it possible to have two sparate ouput path with different blocks ?

Suppose I want to setup an amp with two Irs going out the XLRs and with no cab sim or Irs out the 1/4 (going to power amp and cab)

CAn this be done and, if so, how ?

[rd2rk]

Disregard previous, I didn't read the question correctly.

 

There's no Dual IR Block. That means that you have to dedicate a split path to the IRs.

In Path 1A, place all of your common FX - what you want going to BOTH Outputs.

Take a split (Path 1B) after the common FX. Place the FX you want to go before the Power amp/cab in 1B. at the end, before the Mixer Block, place a SEND Block.

In the Mixer Block, set the Path 1B Level to -60.

In Path 2A, place the FX you want to go to the XLRs, then take a split with one IR in 2A and the other in 2B, with the Output Block set to XLR.

 

Demo Preset attached. It's late, I'm tired, if there's a problem let me know and I'll fix it in the morning after coffee :-).

 

Obviously, this will limit you somewhat in your preset design, but in addition to the lack of a Dual IR Block, you only get one split per Path.

 

So, if you MUST use IRs, you're kinda screwed. If you can live with the Helix cabs, just take a split at the end of Path 2 and put the Dual Cab Block in the split with the XLR only FX, with the 2B Output set to XLR and 2A set to 1/4" with the 1/4" only FX after the split.

 

I don't know how much time you've spent using the Helix Cabs (or if you just straight away drank the IR Kool-aid), but playing around with the mics/distances/hi-lo cuts and maybe using some parametric EQ, you can get some very nice sounds from the Helix Cabs. And, though I know that it's kind of a cliche, in a live mix, the audience won't know the difference. For recording, just use Helix as your Audio Interface. You can then use the USB Outs and have a choice of all the IRs in the world.

 

FWIW - I have a PC212 and a Scarlett 18i20 (because lots of stuff connected in my home studio). Sometimes I use the Helix Cabs because they're perfect for the sound I'm after, sometimes I use stereo IRs located on the PC212 (connected by L6 Link) from York, Redwirez, Ownhammer and others. I use whatever sounds best, both for live work (PC212) and recording via the XLR Outs on the PC212 into the 18i20.

 

 

gmailclaude.hlx

Edited November 26, 2021 by rd2rk
Didn't read the question correctly

[gmailclaude]

Thank you ! I am "evaluating" Helix right now. So far I may be leaning somewhat more towards Fractals Fm9 ( when available ) It seems to have more processing power witch  could mean less limitations in future upgrades. Helix has been out using the same hardware for a while. I really wonder if they are not about to replace it...

Anyway, the entire modeling thing is completely new to me. I always believed it couldn’t sound as good or respond as well as an amp. That seems ta have improved a lot. SO I got tired of having to destroy my hearing in order to get a rig to sound good and to much stuff to grad along... plus the cost...

The example you built for me answers my question just fine, as well as you comments. 

Thank you very much ! truly appreciated !

[DunedinDragon]

2 hours ago, gmailclaude said:

Thank you ! I am "evaluating" Helix right now. So far I may be leaning somewhat more towards Fractals Fm9 ( when available ) It seems to have more processing power witch  could mean less limitations in future upgrades. Helix has been out using the same hardware for a while. I really wonder if they are not about to replace it...

Anyway, the entire modeling thing is completely new to me. I always believed it couldn’t sound as good or respond as well as an amp. That seems ta have improved a lot. SO I got tired of having to destroy my hearing in order to get a rig to sound good and to much stuff to grad along... plus the cost...

The example you built for me answers my question just fine, as well as you comments. 

Thank you very much ! truly appreciated !

 

Just a quick level-setting of your understanding of modeling as you move forward with your evaluation since you're new to the game.

The TRUE difference between modelers is relatively insignificant.  The brains behind all of these modelers are pretty much equivalent as far as processing capabilities despite those that tout newer generations of chips.  DSP processing chips aren't like microprocessors in computers.  They have a very specific task in life and there haven't been any huge leaps in newer architectures in a while now but those are the differences you've noted as improvements and that's in all modelers.  You can increase the overall power by adding additional chips to a unit and that adds to the price tag of the unit, but usually won't make much of a difference in the actual performance of any individual model of the component amps, effects and so forth.

Modeling is nothing more than mathematical computations that simulate the behaviors of a circuit in the digital world based on measurements taken on those circuits.  So there's no real "magic" in how one builds a model, they're all done the same way.  What varies from modeler to modeler can be the level of complexity you neeed in any given preset (which directly relates to the number of DSP processors), the ease and level of integration the unit provides with the outside world, and the simplicity or complexity involved in building a preset.  It's abundantly clear from the enormous numbers of blind tests between units, there's no particular single modeler that consistently can be identified as better when judged by a wide audience.

Therefore, your best bet in determining what's right for you is to determine how you intend to use it and what kind of user you are.  If you want to maintain a typical paradigm where you have everything you'll ever need for a performance baked into a single preset, then you should probably look at something with more DSP chips.  If, like me, you prefer to tailor your presets to a given song or genre, or have simple needs in what you need for performance you will have more, but less complex presets, and you can probably get by with fewer DSP chips.

What tends to be the most important aspect for a lot of newer users of modeling is how complex the unit is as for as building a useful preset.  Not only the complexity involved in using the modeler's interface but also the depth of technical details the modeler allows you to adjust.  A good example of this is the Helix compared to the Fractal.  The Helix is pretty easy to navigate compared to Fractal and allows you access to a significant amount of technical adjustments on any given model, whereas the Fractal doesn't have the easiest interface but does allow you to access and adjust significantly more technical details.  So this really boils down to evaluating what's best for you in terms of how technical you might be or how little you care about the deep technical details that could be involved in building your presets.

Personally, I've always told friends of mine that want to get into modeling that the issue is more about evaluating YOU than evaluating the different modelers.  If you understand what will make you happiest and how you like to work, that will naturally lead youto the best unit for your needs.

[gmailclaude]

A spectacularely clear and usefull presentation !

Thank you !

[rd2rk]

What @DunedinDragon said.

 

As to the possibility of a new model just over the horizon, Eric Klein (aka @Digital_Igloo) one of the main players at L6 (forget his actual title) has repeatedly stated (over on TGP, where L6 engineers tend to hang out), that while there's always something new in the planning stages, a new flagship modeler is at least 2 years out.

 

Today's modelers are as real as it gets (according to their marketing depts), and the next gen will, of course, be realer than real ;-) .

You can spend your life waiting for the next best thing, or rock out on what's real right now.