Line 6 Helix

guitarmangler

Musicwolf said:

guitarmangler said:

I ditched the idea of parallel paths in favour of one path and just changing everything with snapshots. Same sound, just less hassle to set up.

Indeed.  I lean towards parallel paths because.

a)    I started by using the expression pedal as a way of switching between paths.  I no longer do this, because I trigger all by Snapshot switching via sequenced midi commands (I'm working with backing tracks), but a lot of my patches are based on stuff that I've created previously.

b)    If I'm using a guitar with a piezo, as well as a mag, output then I have two different inputs (guitar and aux) meaning that I need the two paths.

Ah. Cool. I was trying for a Holdsworth/Johnson type of thing when they’ve got two rigs and swap between them. I found I could achieve a similar sound via snapshots.
I hadn’t thought of the additional pickup/volume pedal option with extra paths. Might have to give that a go during the week. 

guitarmangler

bloodandtears said:

guitarmangler said:

I ditched the idea of parallel paths in favour of one path and just changing everything with snapshots. Same sound, just less hassle to set up.

less blocks available though cos you wont have those two extra signal lanes..

Also a good point. I’m definitely going to have build some presets this week. Even after 6 years of owning my LT, l’m still learning and helix is still excellent! 

Digital_Igloo

UnclePsychosis said:

If you create an A/B Split, then you can assign "route to" to a switch and toggle between A100 (min) and B100 (max). 

Even though I've worked this out, I do find the way the splits work to be really unintuitive tbh. Turning a split "off" doesn't do remotely what I'd expect it to. 

It's done the same way you'd do it in the real world—you'd have an A/B splitter on your pedalboard and use that to route your signal to one of two destinations.

1. From the Split > A/B block, press and hold Knob 1 (Route To).
2. Press Knob 6 (Learn Controller) and then the stomp switch you want to assign it to.

Bypassing any Split block acts as if the signal feeds both stereo paths evenly—so, a default Split > Y with both Balances set to Center.

1. From the Split > A/B block, tap and hold an unused stomp switch.
2. Press Knob 6 (OK).

You now effectively have a dual A/B/Y switch; one for A/B and the other for Y.

I'm interested in how other products might do this better. I suppose the Split block could be A/B by default and it could be auto-assigned to a switch, but that's rarely how our customers use split blocks—most just want simple parallel paths.

UnclePsychosis

Its the "turning a split off makes it feed both paths evenly" behaviour that is really unintuitive.

When you turn a split off, the intuitive behaviour would be to behave as if there was no split block at all. "turning a split off turns it into a perfect Y splitter" is just really odd. 

Also - your instructions (push knob 1,etc) work for the hardware units but I'm working in Native so there's no clues on the screen about sensible things to assign. 

Its fine, and I've worked it out now, so no big problem. But for a product that has so many great UI features this one definitely could be improved IMO. 

Digital_Igloo

UnclePsychosis said:

Its the "turning a split off makes it feed both paths evenly" behaviour that is really unintuitive.

When you turn a split off, the intuitive behaviour would be to behave as if there was no split block at all. "turning a split off turns it into a perfect Y splitter" is just really odd. 

Also - your instructions (push knob 1,etc) work for the hardware units but I'm working in Native so there's no clues on the screen about sensible things to assign. 

Its fine, and I've worked it out now, so no big problem. But for a product that has so many great UI features this one definitely could be improved IMO. 

Perhaps, and I'm not suggesting Helix's UI/UX is infallible, but bypass and controller assignment of Splits acts like every other block in Helix; any special Split type behavior (manual A/B routing, crossover routing, dynamic routing) is effectively bypassed when the block is bypassed. In this case, the current signal flow is reflected, which means any parallel paths are maintained.

If someone's created an easier method to create a virtual A/B/Y box (or has an original idea that no one's done yet), I'm all ears. Again, the vast, vast majority of Split block usage is to simply create even, parallel stereo paths (Y type) and anything trickier will need to either A) abide by the same rules as other blocks, or B ) support some inconsistent but perhaps slightly more discoverable method. For better or worse, we chose A.

Other companies have done the whole tap-tap-tap-tap-swipe-open-tap-tap-close-tap-tap-tap assignment thing, and while the procedure may be a bit more discoverable at first, it quickly becomes a massive slog and disincentivizes people from assigning things often. We'd rather have a shallow learning curve at first, but once learned, the user can then assign anything in three seconds. Not unlike Logic's workflow on a Mac vs. that of GarageBand on an iPhone.

Just providing the reasoning behind our design. Again, there's always room for improvement.

UnclePsychosis

If you want a specific example, the latest Boss modellers have a more intuitive take on A/B behaviour, in that they behave as as true A/B by default. 

And I honestly wasn't having a go before, but if you're claiming that the functionality of "turning a split function off makes it into a perfect Y splitter" is intuitive then I'm afraid I'm in violent disagreement. 

robinbowes

UnclePsychosis said:

. 
And I honestly wasn't having a go before, but if you're claiming that the functionality of "turning a split function off makes it into a perfect Y splitter" is intuitive then I'm afraid I'm in violent disagreement. 

What would you suggest it should do instead?

UnclePsychosis

robinbowes said:

UnclePsychosis said:

. 
And I honestly wasn't having a go before, but if you're claiming that the functionality of "turning a split function off makes it into a perfect Y splitter" is intuitive then I'm afraid I'm in violent disagreement. 

What would you suggest it should do instead?

If you turn off a split, then it should behave as if the split isn't there. Because thats what happens when you turn things off. 

robinbowes

UnclePsychosis said:

robinbowes said:

UnclePsychosis said:

. 
And I honestly wasn't having a go before, but if you're claiming that the functionality of "turning a split function off makes it into a perfect Y splitter" is intuitive then I'm afraid I'm in violent disagreement. 

What would you suggest it should do instead?

If you turn off a split, then it should behave as if the split isn't there. Because thats what happens when you turn things off. 

What if you turn off a distortion pedal?

UnclePsychosis

robinbowes said:

UnclePsychosis said:

robinbowes said:

UnclePsychosis said:

. 
And I honestly wasn't having a go before, but if you're claiming that the functionality of "turning a split function off makes it into a perfect Y splitter" is intuitive then I'm afraid I'm in violent disagreement. 

What would you suggest it should do instead?

If you turn off a split, then it should behave as if the split isn't there. Because thats what happens when you turn things off. 

What if you turn off a distortion pedal?

There's no distortion? 

relic245

UnclePsychosis said:

robinbowes said:

What if you turn off a distortion pedal?

There's no distortion? 

I thought exactly the same thing but then wondered if it were a trick question....

thecolourbox

I suppose with the splitter, if you see it as an "A/B" thing then switching off and getting Y seems unintuitive, but I suppose if you see it as an A/B/Y thing it makes more sense. Maybe there just needs to be a second version of the Splitter, so one is just A/B by default and the other is A/B/Y by default

robinbowes

UnclePsychosis said:

robinbowes said:

UnclePsychosis said:

robinbowes said:

UnclePsychosis said:

. 
And I honestly wasn't having a go before, but if you're claiming that the functionality of "turning a split function off makes it into a perfect Y splitter" is intuitive then I'm afraid I'm in violent disagreement. 

What would you suggest it should do instead?

If you turn off a split, then it should behave as if the split isn't there. Because thats what happens when you turn things off. 

What if you turn off a distortion pedal?

There's no distortion? 

But you'd expect the signal to still flow through it, right?

I don't see how that is different to a "Y" split.

ie. if you insert a block that can switch/split/mix a signal between two paths then what else would you do when you turn the block off other then send the input equally to both output paths?

bloodandtears

UnclePsychosis said:

robinbowes said:

UnclePsychosis said:

. 
And I honestly wasn't having a go before, but if you're claiming that the functionality of "turning a split function off makes it into a perfect Y splitter" is intuitive then I'm afraid I'm in violent disagreement. 

What would you suggest it should do instead?

If you turn off a split, then it should behave as if the split isn't there. Because thats what happens when you turn things off. 

but you have introduced to create two paths right?? so by your thinking, turning it off should favour path A??

bloodandtears

Digital_Igloo said:

UnclePsychosis said:

Its the "turning a split off makes it feed both paths evenly" behaviour that is really unintuitive.

When you turn a split off, the intuitive behaviour would be to behave as if there was no split block at all. "turning a split off turns it into a perfect Y splitter" is just really odd. 

Also - your instructions (push knob 1,etc) work for the hardware units but I'm working in Native so there's no clues on the screen about sensible things to assign. 

Its fine, and I've worked it out now, so no big problem. But for a product that has so many great UI features this one definitely could be improved IMO. 

Perhaps, and I'm not suggesting Helix's UI/UX is infallible, but bypass and controller assignment of Splits acts like every other block in Helix; any special Split type behavior (manual A/B routing, crossover routing, dynamic routing) is effectively bypassed when the block is bypassed. In this case, the current signal flow is reflected, which means any parallel paths are maintained.

If someone's created an easier method to create a virtual A/B/Y box (or has an original idea that no one's done yet), I'm all ears. Again, the vast, vast majority of Split block usage is to simply create even, parallel stereo paths (Y type) and anything trickier will need to either A) abide by the same rules as other blocks, or B ) support some inconsistent but perhaps slightly more discoverable method. For better or worse, we chose A.

Other companies have done the whole tap-tap-tap-tap-swipe-open-tap-tap-close-tap-tap-tap assignment thing, and while the procedure may be a bit more discoverable at first, it quickly becomes a massive slog and disincentivizes people from assigning things often. We'd rather have a shallow learning curve at first, but once learned, the user can then assign anything in three seconds. Not unlike Logic's workflow on a Mac vs. that of GarageBand on an iPhone.

Just providing the reasoning behind our design. Again, there's always room for improvement.

@Digital_Igloo

I went onto my Helix Rack to tinker with this and noticed a UI display bug..

The Split selection menu, shows a truncated Split A/B option..  looks more like Split A/E

see video linked below..

https://photos.app.goo.gl/WQ2LB4R3aNwTBTaU9

not sure if it's my unit alone, or evident on the floor/Lt version too

Jetfire

UnclePsychosis said:

I'm afraid I'm in violent disagreement. 

 This is potentially the funniest post I've seen on here for a while. Why get violent about it? I feel like I need to quote The Dude or something 

Musicwolf

Jetfire said:

UnclePsychosis said:

I'm afraid I'm in violent disagreement. 

 This is potentially the funniest post I've seen on here for a while. Why get violent about it? I feel like I need to quote The Dude or something 

Whilst 'vehemently disagree' might have been a better phrase, vehement is actually the Latin meaning impetuous or violent.

So maybe this is a case of strong disagreement and, whilst we're at it, what have the Romans ever done for us?

thecolourbox

Musicwolf said:

Jetfire said:

UnclePsychosis said:

I'm afraid I'm in violent disagreement. 

 This is potentially the funniest post I've seen on here for a while. Why get violent about it? I feel like I need to quote The Dude or something 

Whilst 'vehemently disagree' might have been a better phrase, vehement is actually the Latin meaning impetuous or violent.

So maybe this is a case of strong disagreement and, whilst we're at it, what have the Romans ever done for us?

I was sure the word Helix came from Greek but googled to make sure and it looks like the Romans used the same word in Latin, so there's something at least

UnclePsychosis

bloodandtears said:

UnclePsychosis said:

robinbowes said:

UnclePsychosis said:

. 
And I honestly wasn't having a go before, but if you're claiming that the functionality of "turning a split function off makes it into a perfect Y splitter" is intuitive then I'm afraid I'm in violent disagreement. 

What would you suggest it should do instead?

If you turn off a split, then it should behave as if the split isn't there. Because thats what happens when you turn things off. 

but you have introduced to create two paths right?? so by your thinking, turning it off should favour path A??

Yeah. I'd expect one of the paths to be favoured, probably A. 

The way it works at the moment, if you have a split block that splits the signal perfectly between A and B paths, and then turn it off, then nothing happens. The output is identical. Anyone who claims that as intuitive has a brain that differs greatly from mine. 

UnclePsychosis

Musicwolf said:

Jetfire said:

UnclePsychosis said:

I'm afraid I'm in violent disagreement. 

 This is potentially the funniest post I've seen on here for a while. Why get violent about it? I feel like I need to quote The Dude or something 

Whilst 'vehemently disagree' might have been a better phrase, vehement is actually the Latin meaning impetuous or violent.

So maybe this is a case of strong disagreement and, whilst we're at it, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Indeed. 

And wouldn't life be frightfully dull if the spoken word had to be interpreted literally at all times? God forbid we use hyperbole or idiom to inject any interest to a discussion.