Helix LT is now available for order. Cut down version - ish.

Drew_TNBD

Coz for me, the dream is being able to have 200+ amps modelled, and have them at the touch my finger tips. Without the additional colouration, or rather *incorrect* colouration of the real world poweramp, and without requiring a FRFR solution.

Actually it wouldn't surprise me if Line 6 had something planned for this sort of approach. They basically had a similar thing with the DT amps integration.

Digital_Igloo

Drew_TNBD said:

Right, but we're talking about using ONLY the preamp from the modeller (like in the Helix where you have dedicated preamp models) and a real physical poweramp into a cabinet. In such a setup you don't get that two way interaction. The whole premise being, perhaps that is why people tend to prefer modellers into FRFR setups rather than into a real poweramp and cab. This is based on some of the input in this thread where some people said they liked the tone but didn't like the "feel".

Sure, which is why I qualified my last statement with "nine times out of ten." Unfortunately, I learned long ago that the large majority of "modelers sux0rs! LOL" sentiment was not based on any sort of proper setup, context, nuance, or critical listening. A betting man might wager his family that the blind dismisser can't even grok kindergarten basics: modelers represent a recorded tone, not an amp-in-the-room tone.

So basically, when someone screams "you gotta have TOOOBZ!" our first question shouldn't be "have you tried [X] brand of IRs yet?"—it should be "what's your playback system? Ohhhhh... blown PC gaming speakers. Did you expect them to sound and feel like a roaring 4x12?" I guarantee you that's a WAY more common scenario than someone actually hearing/feeling differences between real and modeled preamps through a playback system that isn't by far the weakest link.

guitarfishbay

Drew_TNBD said:

guitarfishbay said:

That's what it does in the Axe FX modelling unless I'm not understanding. It feeds how the poweramp modelling works and affects how the bass clips at different master settings etc. 

Right, but we're talking about using ONLY the preamp from the modeller (like in the Helix where you have dedicated preamp models) and a real physical poweramp into a cabinet. In such a setup you don't get that two way interaction. The whole premise being, perhaps that is why people tend to prefer modellers into FRFR setups rather than into a real poweramp and cab. This is based on some of the input in this thread where some people said they liked the tone but didn't like the "feel".

Yeah and I'm saying if you use the full Pre and poweramp modelling and an SS poweramp into a cab it models that, though the interaction with the speaker cab is a modelled signal still (you'd need a valve poweramp for proper impedance loading).

It's not perfect but amps feel pretty much like they should through a cab. Just tighter and more immediate IME. I think there's still a difference (you'd definitely notice) but I just live with it because it sounds fine to me.

Drew_TNBD

Digital_Igloo said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Right, but we're talking about using ONLY the preamp from the modeller (like in the Helix where you have dedicated preamp models) and a real physical poweramp into a cabinet. In such a setup you don't get that two way interaction. The whole premise being, perhaps that is why people tend to prefer modellers into FRFR setups rather than into a real poweramp and cab. This is based on some of the input in this thread where some people said they liked the tone but didn't like the "feel".

Sure, which is why I qualified my last statement with "nine times out of ten." Unfortunately, I learned long ago that the large majority of "modelers sux0rs! LOL" sentiment was not based on any sort of proper setup, context, nuance, or critical listening. A betting man might wager his family that the blind dismisser can't even grok kindergarten basics: modelers represent a recorded tone, not an amp-in-the-room tone.

So basically, when someone screams "you gotta have TOOOBZ!" our first question shouldn't be "have you tried [X] brand of IRs yet?"—it should be "did you run the modeler through your blown PC gaming speakers, expecting them to sound and feel like a roaring 4x12?" I guarantee you that's a WAY more common scenario than someone actually hearing differences between real and modeled preamps through a playback system that isn't by far the weakest link.

Oi, you lay off my PC gaming speakers! They're how I get my crazy-ass unique rectification!!

Cabicular

dindude said:

Cabicular said:

dindude said:

You digital lot are more defensive (and closed minded) that us analog purists at times!

Not really it's just we presented with 'facts' that simply aren't true from every perspective
Frim my perspective I have a Matchless DC30, King Kobra, Dr Z jaz 20, Maz38, Carmen Ghia, Buddha SuperDrive, Fender Twin, 3 Blackstar Artisans, A Friedman BE100, a Friedman PT20, a Mesa MKIV, 65 Amps London to name but a few.
I also have a massive collection of pedals
Im not saying this to show off but to give you a bit of context to my opinion.
When I say the Helix is as good as a valve amp live it comes from 30 years of gigging and owning a lot of decent valve amps
Someone else says
Modellers are not as good as valve amps .. fact.
I have to disagree

How much is bias on your part though because set-up / break down is so much easier, getting loads of sounds is a reality, can go through a PA simply etc etc. I absolutely get the convienience and practicality of it, and that the march of tech means that the compromises are far less, it's the same reason I use Spotify and accept the small but real difference in sound quality to lossless files I moved from. Because I listen to music more so it's "better" for me.

What I'm talking about is that everything else being equal on a like for like single sound (say your BE100), dicking around somewhere you can turn it up loud, you'd take the Helix over the BE100 for tone and tone alone?

I'm genuinely interested.

Honestly
if it didn't sound good enough I wouldn't use it 
end of 
I'm  too long in the tooth to be uncomfortable on stage
bear in mind before I went full FRFR I was also running a separate stereo power amp and 2 1x12 cabinets
How much easier is that than an amp and a pedalboard?
There seems to be an unnatural resistance to what I'm saying like it can't possibly be true
Ive been on both sides of the fence with what must be a couple of thousand gigs under my belt in everything from tiny pubs to arenas
It cuts the mustard. I don't need to convince anyone but I'm bemused so many people try and convince me I'm not happy with my sound and I secretly hanker after a good old valve Amp
If that's what I wanted that's what I'd do

Cabicular

gibsongretschfan said:

Jonathanthomas83 said:

gibsongretschfan said:

I wouldn't be so down on using Helix preamps or even full amps (which I prefer) in your effects loop. Just make sure it's a reasonable match. Perhaps a Dual Rec won't sound so great through a Blues Deville.

Having the option of turning a single channel amp into a two or three channel amp is great and as long as you are realistic with which models you choose you will get great results 

Absolutely agree - great solution, indeed. I guess my point was that it shouldn't be compared to real amps when connected like that, it's an unfair comparison.

I would absolutely compare it to real amps when connected like that. If there was any noticeable difference, a "now we are on the modelling Preamp" moments then I wouldn't do it

Particularly not with the Atomic
it doesn't do that bit very well at all
far too much top end
In rehearsal I run the Helix through a couple of JCM Marshall FX loop returns I switch the cab emulation off and it is quite a sound.
Its actually more hassle for me to brig the Helix and plug it in to two amps with an isolator for ground loops than it would be to just bring a small pedalboard and use the Marshalls

robinbowes

Here's the key:

good enough

I don't care if a real cranked Marshall stack might sound better than a modelled sound.

I don't care if a real Fender Twin might be a little crisper than a modelled sound.

I don't care if a real Dumble might sound better than the Line6 Litigator amp model.

Once the sound is "good enough" it becomes about other factors - convenience, ease of use, flexibility.

R.

gibsongretschfan

@Cabicular which Helix input do you use for the Relay?

Cabicular

Yes
Put it this way, once it's plugged in I forget about it
I don't think about if it's modelled or if it's real I just play the thing.
Ive got PA to run, lights to trigger, guitar to play,singing to do and performance if there is any time left
I don't recall thinking 'god I wish I'd brought my Lazy J'

digitalscream

robinbowes said:

Once the sound is "good enough" it becomes about other factors - convenience, ease of use, flexibility.

R.

I'd put it the other way round - the "good enough" threshold for any given person is defined as the point where all the other factors become the deciding points.

robinbowes

digitalscream said:

robinbowes said:

Once the sound is "good enough" it becomes about other factors - convenience, ease of use, flexibility.

R.

I'd put it the other way round - the "good enough" threshold for any given person is defined as the point where all the other factors become the deciding points.

Are you familiar with Parkinson's Law Of Triviality?

digitalscream

robinbowes said:

digitalscream said:

robinbowes said:

Once the sound is "good enough" it becomes about other factors - convenience, ease of use, flexibility.

R.

I'd put it the other way round - the "good enough" threshold for any given person is defined as the point where all the other factors become the deciding points.

Are you familiar with Parkinson's Law Of Triviality?

Yes, but I actually think it's an important distinction to make. So many people write off modellers on the grounds that they don't sound like 100% perfect replicas of the real thing, but as has been pointed out - that's not necessary the realistic goal here.

gibsongretschfan

robinbowes said:

digitalscream said:

robinbowes said:

Once the sound is "good enough" it becomes about other factors - convenience, ease of use, flexibility.

R.

I'd put it the other way round - the "good enough" threshold for any given person is defined as the point where all the other factors become the deciding points.

Are you familiar with Parkinson's Law Of Triviality?

You know it's a modelling thread when...

robinbowes

digitalscream said:

robinbowes said:

digitalscream said:

robinbowes said:

Once the sound is "good enough" it becomes about other factors - convenience, ease of use, flexibility.

R.

I'd put it the other way round - the "good enough" threshold for any given person is defined as the point where all the other factors become the deciding points.

Are you familiar with Parkinson's Law Of Triviality?

Yes, but I actually think it's an important distinction to make. So many people write off modellers on the grounds that they don't sound like 100% perfect replicas of the real thing, but as has been pointed out - that's not necessary the realistic goal here.

I think you're saying exactly the same thing as I am, with the words in a different order

R.

digitalscream

robinbowes said:

digitalscream said:

robinbowes said:

digitalscream said:

robinbowes said:

Once the sound is "good enough" it becomes about other factors - convenience, ease of use, flexibility.

R.

I'd put it the other way round - the "good enough" threshold for any given person is defined as the point where all the other factors become the deciding points.

Are you familiar with Parkinson's Law Of Triviality?

Yes, but I actually think it's an important distinction to make. So many people write off modellers on the grounds that they don't sound like 100% perfect replicas of the real thing, but as has been pointed out - that's not necessary the realistic goal here.

I think you're saying exactly the same thing as I am, with the words in a different order

R.

Not really, I'm reversing the logic. The point at which the sound is "good enough" is different for every person. I'm saying...

Once the other factors come into play, you know the sound is "good enough".

digitalscream

All of this brings up an interesting point - a lot of effort has gone into cab modelling, but would it actually be possibly to model a speaker and cab on their own, without the mic?

What I'm getting at is that a mic is a very, very imperfect method of capture because they seem to colour the sound by definition, and I wonder if a lot of the "I don't like modellers" problems would actually be solved by taking the mic out of the equation.

robinbowes

Don't be stupid, without the mic it would be silent.

God, some people.

ChrisMusic

digitalscream said:

All of this brings up an interesting point - a lot of effort has gone into cab modelling, but would it actually be possibly to model a speaker and cab on their own, without the mic?

What I'm getting at is that a mic is a very, very imperfect method of capture because they seem to colour the sound by definition, and I wonder if a lot of the "I don't like modellers" problems would actually be solved by taking the mic out of the equation.

Interesting point.  It would need modelling from first principles I guess.  There are a lot of subtle nuances, you only have to hear four speakers in the same 4x12 cab to understand how individual they all are.  I wonder what the most inert transducer for measuring audio air pressure waves is, apart from the ear, as you have a point about mic colouration, as well as room coloration to take into account.  Or use algorithms to normalise for that maybe ?

edit:   This reminds me of the potential for the 'holophonic' dummy head binaural recording technique, which you may have heard used on Michael Jackson's BAD.

welshboyo

modelled ears?

or modelled moving air

or modelled trouser flaps

Voxman

robinbowes said:

Don't be stupid, without the mic it would be silent.

God, some people.

Well, exactly. You just can't find the staff nowadays, can you?