Line 6 Helix

chrispy108

EricTheWeary said:

When the chap from Sweetwater talks about how great the models are compared to older ones I did think ' I'm pretty sure you would have said they were great at the time, Grrr.' 

The same way every company ever markets any product ever you mean?

digitalscream said:

They most certainly would notice the difference, because the whole point of having the Helix is that the workflow is different - so I can do things that actually aren't possible with a POD (or Eleven Rack, or G5x etc). Hence the problem.

Backup rig <> main rig

I see a backup rig as something that can get you through the gig, so a main sound or two and cut back on effects etc.

stickyfiddle

I once did a 10-date tour of the USA with a POD 2.0. Granted I enjoyed myself a bit more the 2 nights I borrowed another band's AC30 but I doubt the crowd cared.

hobbio

I'd love one of these, but I can't see me being able to afford it any time soon.

EricTheWeary

chrispy108 said:

EricTheWeary said:

When the chap from Sweetwater talks about how great the models are compared to older ones I did think ' I'm pretty sure you would have said they were great at the time, Grrr.' 

The same way every company ever markets any product ever you mean?

I was torn between a LOL and a wisdom! I'm going to wait four years for the next better, cheaper version that makes this look like a seed plough then...

[weird feckin iPad thing going on here ]

Drew_TNBD

I have to LOL at some people. Really... £1k being at your feet? How much is the bit of wood that's in your hands, or the amplifier sitting ontop of the cab behind you? The bottom line is... you put your gear at risk *every* single time you play a gig. It's just how it is.

People were clamouring for a good multi-effects unit in a foot pedal unit, that could do all the bells and whistles of the rack units... and honestly, I really do think this is the first unit that seems to deliver. I've been through the competition many times, but just to round it off:

Boss GT100 - shitty tap tempo implementation

HD500x - antiquated effects models and gaps between patch changes

TC G-System - limited amount of effects, only does one delay at once, display is poor

TC Nova System - too limited, at one point effects activated on switch UP not switch down (workflow issue)

Digitech RP series - limited amount of effects, one delay at once, flexibility limited, workflow poor

Line 6 M9/M13 - antiquated effects models, tone suck in 4-cable method

Fractal FX8 - does a lot of stuff out of the box, but is necessarily going to be more complex than the others (not everyone wants that) and yes... effects activate on switch UP and not switch DOWN - for a live show... this is just terrible implementation. Also... for ALL THAT HORSEPOWER AND PRICE BRACKET.... still gaps between patch changes.

I'm sure I'm missing some, and I'm sure my expectations are too high, and I'm probably being a bit too "the customer is always right damnit!" about it... but the point is well made I think... for a gigging guitarist who uses a real amp, and wants a multi-effects in 4-cable method with midi to conrtol their entire rig... the Helix seems to be on paper, the best fit so far.

I'm excited to try one!

hobbio

Ok, dumbass question coming up.

What's the 4 cable method?

 

chrispy108

You setup your effects unit as follows:

http://www.benvesco.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/diagram.jpg

It puts the pre-amp of your amp into the middle of the FX unit, so that you can have distortions, compressors etc before the amp, and delays etc in the amps loop, in one unit.

digitalscream

hobbio said:

Ok, dumbass question coming up.

What's the 4 cable method?

 

Guitar -> FX unit in

FX unit send -> amp input

Amp loop send -> FX unit return

FX unit output -> Amp loop return

Essentially, it puts the preamp of your amp in the effects unit's loop, so you can put some of the effects in front of the amp and some in the amp's loop (just like you would with pedals).

If your effects unit's a modeller, you can also completely replace the amp's preamp with one of the built-in models, thus effectively giving you extra channels on the amp.

hobbio

Aaah, I see. Thanks!

guitargeek62

I'd be more interested in a simpler M-Helix tbh, I don't use or need amp modelling, but I don't imagine that would reduce the cost too much.

Grumpyrocker

guitargeek62 said:

I'd be more interested in a simpler M-Helix tbh, I don't use or need amp modelling, but I don't imagine that would reduce the cost too much.

I guess they are just one of many software blocks you can use in the chain, not having them in the firmware probably wouldn't make any difference to the hardware. And hopefully one would expect not using amp blocks would have no adverse effect (no pun intended) on using effects only.

hugbot

It would mean you wouldnt need as much processing power since I imagine the amps are big processor hogs. Combine that with losing the big screen and I could see a helix M13 coming in at the same RRP as the previous one.

Problem is, I dont think arent enough new effects at stock to justify an an fx only unit. Only 70 compared to the M series 100 something.

crunchman

AbandonMute said:

Take a TimeLine, a Big Sky, a PitchFactor, and say a ModFactor. Each piece has a powerful processor in it, a Sharc or whatever, and we know that those processors are needed to a) sound the way they sound, and b) deal with spillover, instant patch changes etc. (And some people still complain about some of these pedals not sounding like 'real' pedals). If we're taking about comparisons to Strymon and the rest of the big DSP boys, Line6 must have done some efficient programming if this is going to compete, because once you engage the processing on those four effects that's already a lot of processing. Add in all the convolution - that's amp responses, cab responses, mic responses and room responses, AND all the rest of it like graphics and OS - that's a lot of 'hardcore mathematics'. I think expecting the Heilx to sound and perform as well as these pedals could be unrealistic when it costs the same as just three big Strymons. I could totally be wrong.

To be honest you are not going to get the same quality of effects that top of the range Strymon, Eventide dedicated pedals give.  The Kemper doesn't either.  The effects in my Kemper are perfectly functional, but the reverbs don't match what my Big Sky can do.  From what I've heard the AxeFX might be at a similar quality level one the effects but that is a lot more money.

The pricing is interesting.  I'm not sure about Kemper prices in the US but in Europe it's going to be going up against the Kemper.  Thomann are £1076 (today anyway) on the Helix and £1117 on the Kemper.  You would obviously need to buy some kind of foot controller for the Kemper which you wouldn't for the floor version of the Helix.  The Kemper Remote is quite pricy but for the price of a FCB1010 with the UNO chip the Kemper is only going to be around £150 more.  It's got to be good enough on sound that it can compete with the Kemper if it's going to succeed.

dindude

I'm getting more tempted by this. If it can function, with the Mic pre, as a recording interface into an ipad and playback too, then it could replace everything in the small recording rack that I've just built!

Drew_TNBD

Just gonna put these here for the metallers...



Okay.. so they're pretty old... but it does tell you something... if you ignore price, ignore cult of personality, ignore brand names... and just listen to the sounds... make your own mind up. For me? The HD Pro has the better ENGL model, the Axe FX II had the better Recto model. The Axe ENGL has a very nasty high-frequency response that I don't dig, where as the Pod seemed more balanced. But the Pod Recto model sounded uber-flubby in the low end for some reason, whereas the Axe sounded more balanced.

Similar story for this one:


Point being... Line 6's HD amp modelling can keep up with the Axe FX II. I don't see why the HX modelling wont either.

MattFGBI

Good points.

I'm not all that interested in how close these things get to the original. I just want a box of good tones. If it does that then sign me up because the features tick a lot of my boxes.

guitarfishbay

The POD Engl is decent IIRC. I seem to remember Ola used that a bit, and I think he shared some POD patches based around it. I don't really use the Axe FX Engl model. Since G3 the treble is fatter on all the Axe FX sims, not checked that clip but when I got the Axe (V14?) some of the amps were harsh up top. Since 18 things sound thicker and meaner.

Personally I'm also in the rather it sounds good than accurate camp. The Axe 5150 nails it for me, I love the tone and the functionality I get with the unit. Yes there are loads of other options but 9/10 it ends up being the IR that makes the difference once you've got the right amp sim. Through my cab I am more than happy just using the Peavey 5150 model for all my gain sounds.

ElectroDan

Interesting comparison between the AFX and Pod. I'd have to agree that there is very little between them on the particular settings in the video (although I appreciate it tells us nothing about how they feel to play live).

The Helix certainly grabbed my attention. It looks amazing and seems to have the right connectivity and ease of use. On whether I would buy one and use it live though, I'm undecided. I use tones from the lighter end of the spectrum quite a lot, and I'd need more convincing than Sweetwater managed, that the Helix can deliver these.

menamestom

Personally, I would not get too concerned about overall processing power, if you think about the power available when the M series effects came about (which were generally pretty good), power has gone up massively.  Although they will use much of the power for the amp sims I still think the effects designers will have much more to play with.   I think nowadays the power is there and it's more about having well designed algorithms.  If anything the M series were more let down by the analog implementation and this is one area the top digital guys have got it right, quality convertors, buffers and analog components ensuring nothing is lost from the core sound as it passes through the system.

I think this is relevant from the Neunaber website:-

Sample Rate — bigger is not necessarily better, especially once you go beyond the frequency bandwidth of the input signal or of human hearingBit Depth — nearly all digital gear is at least 24-bit these daysProcessor Speed means little when most digital signal processors can do several parallel operations simultaneously. In addition, an elegant, optimized algorithm will often perform more efficiently than a poorly-coded, inelegant algorithm on a faster processor.

You can only really know for sure when you hear it for yourself and play with it for a while. DSP concerns then are replaced by whether your ears like it and whether they have covered all the operational niggles that other effects units have (tap tempo implementation, patch changing etc)

Lev

Some more videos up