BigRedX

The way I have read how the processing power of the more cost-effective Helix/HX units works is that you simply can't have as many modules in a Preset as you would in the full Helix and not that what you do have sounds less good. The processing assignment is dynamic so the number of modules available on a given device depends on the processing needs of each module. And as I have said before, one of the ways that Line 6 improves their devices is by firmware upgrades, which have included rewriting a lot of the modules to give the same sound whilst using less processing power. I haven't yet run out of processing power on my Helix, but then again I'm very frugal with what I put in the signal path, and only include things that actually make a noticeable difference to the sound and wherever possible use Snapshot parameter changes to change the sound, which allows me me to use the smallest amount of modules in a Preset. I made a conscious decision to go for the top of the range Helix when I bought mine working on the assumption that if I bought a cheaper model I would regret it later. TBH the things that only the Helix Floor does that I have found invaluable are things that I hadn't really considered until I started using it. And in a way the answer to the problems of anyone finding the cheaper models limiting would be to upgrade to the full Helix Floor or Rack model. It will also have the advantage that your sounds can be transported over too, whereas if you go for something from a different manufacturer you'll be starting from scratch and with a completely different user-interface. And for anyone who considers the Helix Floor expensive, bear in mind that compared that until recently you'd have paid the same amount of money (around £1k) for something with a fraction of the facilities and user-friendliness, which means that in real terms IMO it is a complete bargain.

But in music there are still plenty of people using valve amps which have barely changed since the 1940s, and new technology does not automatically equal a better sound. Can you actually hear anything wrong with the sounds of the Helix that aren't subjective? Besides in the IT world it is my experience that increased processing power leads to sloppy coding and bloat-ware because the programmers no longer have to try and eke out every last bit of performance from limited hardware. I have to say that getting a good sound straight out of the Helix was actually far easier than any of the other multi-effects devices I have ever used starting with the Roland GP8 I got back in the 1989. When I got my Helix, I spent an hour working my way through the presets, and while there was nothing that really grabbed me, that's hardly surprising, as there have been very few presets from either effects units or synths that I have ever found useful straight out of the box. I then spent half a day putting together a "core sound" for my bass, working in the same way that I would had I been given a selection of individual pedals, which after a few tweaks at the next band practice would be used to create individual patches for each song we did. By the end of the following practice I was 90% happy with all the Presets and Snapshot variations I had put together for the whole set. Like any other complex device you just need to methodical and approach it one module at a time. Most of the issues I see with any multi-defects unit tend to be user problems like option paralysis or feeling guilty about not using the full potential of the complex device. TBH I doubt anyone does use every feature. The great thing about all these devices is that the massive amount of options allows you to be able use the ones you need and ignore the ones you don't. I'd rather have more options than I could ever use than find a lack of them put limits on what I could do with it.

You keep saying this but what exactly do you want that the Helix can't already do? There are a few things I would like but they could easily be covered in a firmware update if it wasn't for the fact that they are so esoteric that I'm probably the only person who would want them, and I can't see any of the other major multi-effects manufacturers offering them on their products either.

Got to agree with @Chezz55 to me it sounds like someone's early attempts to make music using sampled loops and haven't quite got the hang of making sure that the various parts are properly in tune with each other. It's also repetitive in the worst possible way, and has only become popular because it's by people who are already well-known. If this had been assembled by an unknown bedroom DJ it would never have got a second listen. I suppose that if you are planning to do it live with a band you can fix the more questionable harmonies and add a bit more variation to the parts.

I bought a cheap bass that had been de-fretted and fret lines added for £60 off eBay. It was perfectly adequate to get me started with fretless bass playing and actually IMO out-performed every other fretless bass I bought until I spent £1k on a Pedulla Buzz.

Having said that I was just making adjustments to one of my more complex Presets with that has 4 Snapshots in it, and in order to replicate it with individual pedals I would need the following: One volume pedal Two 10-band graphic EQ pedals for the two different EQ settings I use. Two chorus pedals as I have two significantly different chorus settings within the Snapshots One Flanger pedal Three distortion/drive pedals for the different amounts of distortion and character of the distortion Two delay pedals for different delay times and feedback settings used in the Snapshots I have simplified this down as there are essentially different chorus, drive and delay settings for each of the 4 Snapshots, but I could get away with the above if I had to for live use. However it is still more than 9 pedals of the challenge and I would probably need 4 feet to be able to switch everything on and off at the required times and 2 of the Snapshots alternate every two bars of the song during the verse and chorus, which would make it very challenging to do with individual pedals.

Just done the latest firmware update and one thing is starting to annoy me about the Helix. Each update resets a lot of things to their factory defaults. Once agin I have had to reassign the following: 1. Volume control to affect the XLR output only. 2. Sample rate to 44.1 kHz. 3. Expression 1 Pedal position to be global. 4. Footswitch assignments to be 4 Presets on the top row and 4 Snapshots on the bottom row 5. Tuner display to Strobe. 6. Re-instate my Global EQ settings. After I lost these the first time I made sure to write them down as they are less easily remembered than the others. Luckily my preferences coincide with the defaults some of the other important global settings like MIDI and clock/tempo assignments. I would have thought by now that there would be some way to save all of these so they would be restored to the user settings following a firmware upgrade but either there isn't or I have something that would allow this disabled, although if that is the case, I can't see it.

Unless you are planning to use some sort of protective finish on your veneered fingerboard or use the smoothest of smooth flat or tape wound strings, you'll probably find yourself wearing through the thin veneer in no time. Also you will still need to fill the slots and any other chips in the fingerboard left by the removal of the frets.

In that case a solution that allows you to point the speaker at your ears rather than your legs is the most sensible one.

Is the problem for musicians on stage being able to hear you, or projecting out into the audience?

Got to have the image that suits the band and the music. Besides it would be boring if I was still trying to look like I did 50 years ago.

1975: 1978: 1982: 1986: 1997: 2000: 2014 2021: 2024:

Maybe I didn't explain it properly , but AFAICS a "capture" is still just a single state of the captured device with the controls at fixed positions at the moment of capture. It's all very well having gain and 3 band EQ embedded into that capture, but are these fixed in their actions or can they be altered to accurately duplicate any gain and EQ controls that might be on the captured device? I suspect that I'm not the sort of user this facility is aimed at. I've just had a look at what is "built-in" to my modelling device (Helix) and there are 43 distortion "pedals" plus over 100 more distortion/gain effects built in the various amp models. That's more than enough for me. If I can't find the sounds that I want from these options then there is something very wrong with me. I also don't believe that only one device can produce the perfect sound for me, and I gave up "chasing sounds" in the early 80s. Mostly when I change my gear it's because the new version does what I want quicker or is in a smaller/lighter form factor, or integrates better with the other gear the band uses. If I can get exactly the same sounds out of the new device, that's great, but if I can't then I'm sure that I will be able to find something that does the same job in the context of the band sound, and that's the important thing for me, not how close it sounds to a particular old device.

To me it seems very similar to trying to capture the sounds of a synthesiser using samples. You'll get each individual capture pretty much spot on but you'll never be able to get every nuance and setting, and for me a "generic" EQ and drive models that have complete variation on all the controls is far more useful than a handful of super-realistic snapshots of a device, as I can guarantee that once I no longer have access to the original I'll be needing a capture that I didn't make. I know this from experience of spending the best part of a day sampling a set of Simmons SDSV modules before selling them. Within a month I wanted sounds that at the time I hadn't thought to sample because I didn't think I'd need them.

But surely all devices are to some extent time-based in that the effect they have changes as the input signal fades away?

Thanks for putting me right on the capture process. I suppose what I really meant by the last question was when will the tools be available to allow users to create their own fully adjustable models which duplicate the way all the controls on the original work?

I've just been reading up about Capturing the sound of a device. Unless I'm mistaken it's just a snapshot of a single setting of the device you are capturing and how it reacts to whatever you happen to playing during the capture? A lot of sound processing devices will react quite differently depending on what the input signal is doing, whether it is how hard you are playing or whether you are playing single notes, simple or complex chords. I see a lot of the "how to" guides recommend playing 1st position chords (for guitar at least) as hard as possible, but surely that will only result in a capture for full chords played hard? And if you need multiple settings from your captured device you have to save each one individually? How quickly does each IR load? If for instance I need to switch to a different setting mid-song? How much processing power are we going to need in order to be able to model the action of each individual knob on the captured device?

Here are my two favourite tracks from the two bands I play in: "Parlance" by In Isolation: "Tilting" by Hurtsfall:

I used to have what sounds like a similar set up to what you are intending in the attic room of a victorian semi-detached house. Research showed that doing an effective room within a room would be completely impractical as it would firstly make the interior space too small (this was for a room that started off 5.4 x 3.7 x 2.5 metres (length width height) before I considered how much additional space acoustic treatment would remove, and secondly because it wasn't on a solid ground floor there was no realistic way of properly decoupling any interior structure from the rest of the building. There was also the worry that the additional weight of any serious sound proofing might be more that the structure of the building could carry. In the end I settled for approximately 1 metre of heavy duty sound-proofing structure on the wall separating this room from my neighbour's, filling the side walls with RW45 and two additional layers of chipboard and plasterboard and "dead sheet" covered with heavy duty underlay and carpet for the floor. However this still left the ceiling/roof and opposite end wall (that contained the window) largely untreated and as definite weak spots for sound leakage in both directions. Given enough time an budget I would have been able to sort out the roof and ceiling, but there was no workable solution for end wall that wouldn't also compromise the only access stairs to the room. It was impossible to have acoustic drums in the space, and even an electronic kit had to be positioned on top of an isolating platform to prevent the mechanical action of the kick pedal transferring through the whole structure of both properties. However it was fine for vocals, guitar and bass (DI'd) and mixing provided I only worked between 10.00am to 10.00pm and stopped whenever my neighbours wanted me to. I recorded an EP and most of my band's album in this studio, but on reflection the money I spent on building work and studio equipment would have paid for about a month in a proper studio with a good engineer and producer and would still have had enough left over to press a few thousand copies of the album and pay for some decent promotion. Instead I have seven songs whose mixes I have never been 100% happy with another five that never got properly finished before the band split. Since then the sound proofing has mostly been removed as part of a general refurbishment of the property, and most of the still functioning studio equipment sold for a fraction of what I originally paid for it. If I was going to have an actual fully functional recording space again, I wouldn't consider anywhere where the floor wasn't solid and at or below ground level, and where the sound proofing properties of the overall structure were not compromised by the building it was housed in. Probably not what you would like to hear but based on my practical experience.

Also looking at the fingerboard wear it's obviously been done by someone who has never actually played bass in a band. As everyone knows all the really fat notes are up around the 12th fret on the E and A strings.

I remember it being advertised for sale on here. I was considering buying it just so I would have something to piss off anyone who wanted me to use a P-Bass!

Actually before drilling anything check that the bridge is in the correct place. Measure from the nut to the 12th fret. It should be the same measurement from the 12th fret to just past the lip of the bridge. I also notice that you are missing an intonation screw for the D string. It might be worth replacing the whole bridge assembly although that will mean losing the quirky character of the bass.

It's the Bas Extravaganza Punk Rock Bass, and is/was owned by someone here on Basschat.

Thanks. I think your problem is that the adjustable bridge part looks like a repurposed guitar bridge. I suspect that the original saddle part had no intonation adjustment and was either a solid bar or had wheels for adjusting the string spacing but not the intonation. These were common on guitars and basses of far-eastern manufacturers in the early 70s. Those saddles would probably be OK if they were in the right place. Would it be possible to drill new holes for the intonation screws so that they were properly spaced?

They are 2.4G wireless rather than 5.8G. More likely to fail in current WiFi heavy environments.