Made the jump to Helix: Impressed but Overwhelmed

[Mononoaware]

TL;DR: I picked up a Helix LT for home studio and practice, and it's a brilliant piece of gear. It's also been a lot to process. I'm curious to hear about other people's journeys with more advanced all-in-one modelers.

For the last few years, I've been using a THR10 plus software (S-Gear, Revalver, etc.) for playing at home and a bit of recording. I don't have a lot of physical space--between the LT, a smallish 1x12 cab, a tube mini head, and a Peavey Studio, I'm close to maxed out.

I'm also not programming-phobic, although I use the THR 90% of the time because it's so perfectly plug-and-play.

But compared even to VST/software stuff, the Helix is another dimension entirely in terms of possibilities. I'm only beginning to grasp the different ways it can be used, including the signal routing capabilities. As I learn more, it's becoming clear to me that this is light years beyond my Zoom G3x--it's not just a modeler, but a true modular digital toolbox. The feature set is a bit disorienting, and sometimes I feel like Dave Bowman must've felt at the end of "2001: A Space Odyssey."

That said, I'm up for the learning curve, and really interested to see how this can be organically and creatively integrated into my playing. But some advice on where to set sail from--and traps to avoid--is very welcome.

So, for those who have successfully incorporated something like the Helix into your guitar life: how did you come to terms with feature overload? What were your troubles, your struggles (e.g. FRFR vs all the other possibilities), and your "aha" moments? And what new creative vistas did it open up for you?

[JB_From_Hell]

I'll be interested to hear how you get on with the Helix. I've been itching to jump into the high end digital world.

[Mincer]

The Helix (and derivatives, like the HX Effects) is one of the easiest to 'get', as everything is graphical, and they don't get too deep with the parameters. The trick with many complex modeling devices is to have the experience with the actual pedals, and many different kinds of amps. Know what the 'rules' are when putting together presets, and figure out when you need to break them. Re-create famous rigs from your favorite players, and make signal chains with simple signal flow...and learn (and understand) what every parameter does, and how it affects the sound.

[Bogner]

Give yourself some time. Mincer gave some very practical and great advice. I made some jumps recently myself and it takes a little time but once you learn you know and it eventually becomes second nature.

[Despair]

TLDR: Try a few amps that are similar to ones you like and fiddle with settings until you figure out how to make it do what you like!

One awkward thing about getting things to sound right with the Helix is figuring out how to get the speaker/mic combos to work. Find out what bands/engineers/producers used on particular records, and duplicate that, then try to EQ out what doesn't sound right (Helix mics seem to be on-axis and need pretty aggressive high cuts to be tolerable. 8k isn't a bad default, but when using aggressive gain settings, I've gone as low as 4.5k on some amps, and followed with a separate filter stage for steeper sloped cuts. Typically I don't go much under 7k, but I use a 2nd EQ stage right after the cab block to control the ugly frequencies... Which are there on real amps, most people don't listen to the speaker on-axis to hear it. Though they sometimes inflict a close-mic on the audience and blame the sound guy for the inevitable problems when they don't EQ for what the mic pics up.)

All that said, it's possible to get excellent results from the builtin cabs and maybe a bit of EQ after them.

As far as picking a starting point, pick an amp model you like, and try to figure out how to get it to sound like you want.

If you like modded Marshalls, the Placater model (Friedman HBE-100) does a pretty broad gamut of Marshall sounds. Brit Trem (Plexi Tremolo with the trem turned off) & Brit P75 (Park 75) are standout actual Marshall models.

In high gainers, besides the Placater, the Archetype Lead (PRS Archon), PV Panama (Peavey 5150/6505), and Revv Generator models (both of the channels modeled so far) are all amazing.

The Line 6 originals are worth a look, too. I love the Litigator, which started as a joke mocking expensive blues lawyer amps, it's a digital-only amp (it'd be insanely complicated to make a physical amp do some of the things the model does) that began as a Fender, but wound up with a lot more buttery smooth gain on tap. Ridiculously fun to play, very dynamic, and does interesting things when pushed with different drives.

And I've totally neglected all the Fender models (there's 3 different Deluxes, and the Princeton that are all excellent at what they do), the Voxes, the Mesa Lone Star, the Divided by 13, the Matchless, the Silvertone, Dr Z, Supro, Gibson EH-185, GA-40...

Treat the amps like you do the real thing, most master volume amps start to compress the power sections too much when pushed hard, few guitarists actually turn their 100W master volume amps Master to more than 4 to 5, because all the punchy headroom goes away and it gets mushy. Line 6 defaults tend to be slightly hot biased, your familiar amp may want the sag turned down and bias adjusted to taste (can raise it for a hot bias sound, or lower it for a colder, factory bias like most amps ship with). People say Helix lacks fine tuning, but not many competitors bother to model hum or ripple behaviors in amps, which contribute odd things like ghost notes at some amp settings... Some people prefer to turn those settings completely off, but if you are trying to exactly duplicate a real amp, those quirks are part of the character.

Just be aware you have to tweak by ear, as parts tolerance varies from amp to amp, and the amp Line 6 modeled probably doesn't have the same potentiometer sweep as the one you are used to. So set drive, master, and EQ to same numbers is a good starting point, but you may have to raise or lower gain, or adjust EQ, the sweet spots may not be at the same number on the dial...

[donaldr]

Mincer gave one of the best advice: learn the way the real gear (pedals, amps, cabs) works/sounds before diving into parameters. I struggled a lot with my Eleven Rack until I searched for amp settings in forums. Then I was able to dial it the way I wanted.

[Mononoaware]

Thanks for the input (and encouragement), all. KISS and learn the real world gear. Makes total sense. I've also been watching Jason Sadites' YouTube channel, and he's got some good, focused advice on specific topics.

For reference (and I probably should have included this originally): my focus is classic 70's rock/blues (Pink Floyd, Gary Moore, AC/DC, ZZ Top) and 80s/90s instrumental (Satch, Timmons, a bit of faux hair band style). Not really a modern metal or downtune sort of guy.

Despair--I'll give a closer look at some of the amp models you recommended. The way you laid them out gives me a good frame of reference. I've read through the amp list from Line 6, but really need to pare it down. A Twin, Bassman, Panama, plus some recommended Marshalls from your post seem like a good place to start for me. I wouldn't have thought to check the Archon, Litigator, or Revvs out (I don't have a real world reference for those), but will add them to the short list. That puts me close to ten already, which seems like my upper limit.

I'll probably stick to a handful of cabs, too, at least for now. Maybe a V30, a Greenback, and something Fendery? I bought a basic Ownhammer IR pack, and many of them sound great, but dear God what a rabbit hole that looks like. Too many files.

What are your preferences for output? I've run it into the THR (flat and Aux), both of which are okay. I've also gotten good, if more generic results by running into both the front and loop of my Peavey MH. I've only had fair luck with my JBL monitors via Scarlett 2i2--it feels like the sound is too far back, almost like playing via remote control. I understand the difference between amp-in-room and FRFR, but haven't settled on what my ears want yet.

Sorry for the deluge of questions here. I just feel like a hyperactive kid in a candy store.

[Top-L]

Despair--I'll give a closer look at some of the amp models you recommended. The way you laid them out gives me a good frame of reference. I've read through the amp list from Line 6, but really need to pare it down. A Twin, Bassman, Panama, plus some recommended Marshalls from your post seem like a good place to start for me. I wouldn't have thought to check the Archon, Litigator, or Revvs out (I don't have a real world reference for those), but will add them to the short list. That puts me close to ten already, which seems like my upper limit.

I'll probably stick to a handful of cabs, too, at least for now. Maybe a V30, a Greenback, and something Fendery? I bought a basic Ownhammer IR pack, and many of them sound great, but dear God what a rabbit hole that looks like. Too many files.

Thats a good idea. Rather than auditioning every amp, just stick to a few archetypes. You will find that they are just variations of the same modeling engine with different EQ. Same thing with cabs.

Find your favorite Sadites patch(es), imitate them (or buy them), then make small tweaks as necessary.

I think alot of the useful variation comes from different boost models. They change the EQ going into the amp and give you more control of the input gain and compression.

I think IRs are largely a scam. They generally represent changes in EQ. Get the holy grail IR that everyone raves about, run a tone match against one of the stock cabs, and you can get the stock cab sounding virtually identical with EQ tweaks. Or, just use a stock IR and twist the knobs until it sounds how you like.

[Despair]

If you have questions about a specific sound, ask away, but here's some brief suggestions on the artists that you mentioned that I've messed around with mimicking:

For ZZ Top, you probably want to be poking at Deluxe models, but with Celestion speakers [IIRC he was using an 80W Celestion, much like the one in the Lead 80 1x12 cab model] and hitting them with various dirt. I like the Grammatico for some of his catalog, but a lot of it seems a bit subtler and one of the other Deluxes, or even Princeton may suit better. And of course he used a multi-Marshall rack preamp for a lot of his live stuff.

Gilmour is various compressors, various dirt boxes (Colorsound with gain low seems close to the Pete Cornish he used to use), EHX Muff variants, and a tube driver into a Hiwatt with Fane speakers.

AC/DC I tend to like a JTM-45 into G12H30s for Malcolm tones, and Park P-75 into G12M25 for Angus.

Placater [Friedman HBE-100] is great for hotrod Marshall tones suitable for hair metal & Satriani tones. I definitely recommend checking out the manual for the amp it's based on in particular. Panama, Archetype, and Solo Lead are some other ones to try for Satriani, particularly later tones when he was using the JSX/6505.

The Archetype [PRS Archon] & Revv Generator models I mentioned because while they are very high gainers, they clean up surprisingly well, at the very bottom of the gain range, particularly on the Revv Gen Purple channel. Being able to do clean to edge of breakup tones on a high gainer was a bit surprising. Surprisingly dynamic amps. Archetype is Soldano-ish, but smoother feeling, less unforgiving. Revv Gen is more modern, but very flexible and dynamic, not limited to one genre.

Thats a good idea. Rather than auditioning every amp, just stick to a few archetypes. You will find that they are just variations of the same modeling engine with different EQ. Same thing with cabs.

Find your favorite Sadites patch(es), imitate them (or buy them), then make small tweaks as necessary.

I think alot of the useful variation comes from different boost models. They change the EQ going into the amp and give you more control of the input gain and compression.

I think IRs are largely a scam. They generally represent changes in EQ. Get the holy grail IR that everyone raves about, run a tone match against one of the stock cabs, and you can get the stock cab sounding virtually identical with EQ tweaks. Or, just use a stock IR and twist the knobs until it sounds how you like.

The amp models in Fractal & Line 6 modelers have been circuit-based for a while. It's a lot more than just different EQ. To be fair, a lot of amps are circuit variations of each other, so the differences are minor, but those details in behavior when pushed translate pretty well in the models. But for duplicating someone elses tone, when they play differently, have different guitars, pickups, amps, speaker cabs, microphones, engineers, producers, etc... Worry about what gets you there, more than what they used, seems like a good idea. Especially while trying to figure out how to work with the modeler.

That said, an awful lot of classic tones (including many artists extremely prone to tall tales about their approach to tone) involve combinations of boosts, overdrives, distortions, fuzzes, compressors, and EQ. Helix does a great job with many of their dirt box models in particular and they have a couple of versions of many of them, so if the Helix Rat sounds off, try the Legacy version!

I don't agree that IRs are a scam. I think they haven't solved the whole problem, but that doesn't mean they are useless. They tend to have a lot more fine details than an EQ can readily duplicate. I do think there's considerable room for improvement. Need some sort of standard for including varying speaker stress over time and impedance curves. Doing that controlled by the speaker model instead of the amp model would be a sizable improvement in amp/speaker interaction modeling. IRs boil a dynamic speaker down to a static convolution. Better than older techniques, but still further to go. Also, farfield/reflection free IRs that don't mimic a mic'd speaker, but rather just the speaker directly heard, would be hugely useful as an option for people who want modeler & FRFR to behave more like an amp & cabinet.

[Despair]

Oops, skipped the output question. I just use my receiver & stereo speakers [Polk Monitor II front & center, MartinLogan surrounds with an old Yamaha YST-SW105 sub], the same ones I listen to music on, that have been room corrected via Audyssey. My setup is a bit squirrely due to receiver limitations, so I couldn't recommend duplicating my exact setup. And I hear Denon service (both warranty and general customer service) is a mess now, so sadly can't recommend them...

I'd use USB in from the Helix LT for getting sound onto the computer, using it's DAC then going through another ADC & recording interface just adds latency and noise, which tends to make things feel subtly strange [like you are underwater, or playing by remote control.]

One thing that does take some adjustment, if you don't have farfield IRs in particular, is that you are listening to a mic'd up amp that is further away than your physical amp probably is, as most people don't sit as close to their monitors/FRFR as they do their guitar amp (which is also usually off-axis, unlike a typical monitor/PA setup).

For some people, best way to use a modeller seems to be to skip the cabinet models and just go into the effects return/power amp in of an amp & use it's speaker. Can use either the preamp models or the full amp models to taste. But that lets you avoid having to deal with speaker/mic/production technique issues, and use a familiar setup. But then, for some amps the speaker is a huge part of the character, like a Jazz Chorus, AC-30, 4x10 Bassman, Twin, or Hiwatt...

I've almost always preferred recorded tones to the sound of a live guitar speaker, so I adapted very fast to the current generation of modelers. I also use Helix Native, so have to cope with highish latency due to issues with my old computer, my audio interface, and my receiver. Eventually I will upgrade the computer, monitor, receiver, or all of them, and solve the problem...

[Top-L]

The amp models in Fractal & Line 6 modelers have been circuit-based for a while. It's a lot more than just different EQ. To be fair, a lot of amps are circuit variations of each other, so the differences are minor, but those details in behavior when pushed translate pretty well in the models. But for duplicating someone elses tone, when they play differently, have different guitars, pickups, amps, speaker cabs, microphones, engineers, producers, etc... Worry about what gets you there, more than what they used, seems like a good idea. Especially while trying to figure out how to work with the modeler.

I don't entirely "buy" that description. Its marketing.

If they are circuit based, the emulation of every capacitor/resitor/etc would have to be 100.0000% identical for the finished product to have the same sound as the original. If done at that level, the chance that the model sounds and functions identically...frankly impossible. It would need to be "fudged" to get it to sound correct.

I do think that there are "components" or multiple functions within a model that are discrete and can vary between models.

Regarding the Line6 stuff specifically, I don't agree that the models are authentic, there are eq frequencies missing, the high end is completely rounded and smoothed so that guitars loose their identiy, there is more compression than usual, etc. Overall they have taken "creative liberty" in the presentation of their models. That doesn't make it bad. In fact, if you play traditional guitars, the Helix will make you feel like a hero. Very easy to play, even with low output pickups.

People need to believe that what they are playing is "authentic", and when you tell them its modeled at the component level that gives them warm fuzzy.

That is why profiles are so popular. Someone can set the eq by hand to "sound like" a recording, set the input gain and compression themselves, but thats not good enough. When the computer does an eq match and chooses gain stages, that gives someone a warm fuzzy that the sound represents an actual mic through an actual cab.

Note that profilers dont model at the "component level" yet they generally sound more like real amps than modelers. This is all marketing. All the matters is the end result, what you can get recorded, do you like playing it, etc.

I don't agree that IRs are a scam. I think they haven't solved the whole problem, but that doesn't mean they are useless. They tend to have a lot more fine details than an EQ can readily duplicate. I do think there's considerable room for improvement. Need some sort of standard for including varying speaker stress over time and impedance curves. Doing that controlled by the speaker model instead of the amp model would be a sizable improvement in amp/speaker interaction modeling. IRs boil a dynamic speaker down to a static convolution. Better than older techniques, but still further to go. Also, farfield/reflection free IRs that don't mimic a mic'd speaker, but rather just the speaker directly heard, would be hugely useful as an option for people who want modeler & FRFR to behave more like an amp & cabinet.

IRs are not a scam by themselves, but if I start with a small set of IRs, I could use tone matching to recreate any of the thousands of comercially available IRs. All I would need is a copy of the IR to imitate.

You see where I am going. You can set the EQ by hand to imitate the target IR sound, even without owning it. You don't need to buy IRs, you just need to know how to use EQ.

IRs are fish. EQ is the fishing rod.

[Despair]

Line 6 & Fractal engineers & programmers have said they do circuit modelling at component level. This isn't a ridiculous impossible claim, people have done SPICE models of amps and get expected results. I've yet to see a convincing argument proving that a half-dozen or so of the best DSP programmers & engineers in their particular niche are all liars. Especially with provably false claims about missing frequencies, excess compression, and creative liberties.

A major problem a lot of people have with the Helix is the so-called "squirrels", the crackling, hissing, and strange artifacts of a tube amp at high volume heard on-axis. So if anything, Helix is too real for most guitarists. But if you compare them next to the real amp, at equivalent settings, they behave as close as 2 amps manufactured by the same manufacturer can (parts tolerances...).

Another proof of accuracy, run the preamp of the Helix into a power amp and real speakers, most of those who have tried it (many expecting to ditch he Helix after comparing with the real thing) have found it indistinguishable from the real preamp.

Usually the problems with excess compression are from people operating them wrong, like cranking up the master on a master volume amp, and being surprised that it's more compressed than the real amp... Which they never taken the master volume over 3-4 on! Or cranking sag, or having misconfigured the input gain to the point where a PAF hits like an active pickup. Of course that sounds & feels wrong!

I don't love Helix's cab models, I tend to use IRs because the stock cabs tend towards fizzy and need drastic EQ cuts to get to sound like I want. But part of that is their cab models are mic'd up on-axis, and nobody wants to listen to guitars like that, despite the terrible mic technique of many live guitarists who feed just that to the mixer, and wonder why people complain, as it sounds fine to them standing off-side from their amp. Too bad the audience doesn't get to stand there, too...

As far as IRs being able to be warped into each other, that's an expected result, they are a convolution, you can mathematically convolute to match any other, that's the whole point of them. That and having finer grained EQ than any parametric or multiband EQ. Oh, and they can be used for room acoustics matching, though current amp modellers don't tend to support long enough IRs to do that with. Of course taking an IR, and doing math to convert another IR into a second copy of the first one results in the same thing. Basic property of convolutions.

Look up thebishopgame on youtube, he has some Helix vs real amp or competitor's amp models (which some people argue sound/feel better than Helix). He's a programmer at Line 6, and does a good job demonstrating you can get there with either cabs & EQ or IRs or both, and that there's nothing at all lacking about the amp models he's comparing. It is for a heavily compressed metal amp, but I've seen similar done with other amp models just as successfully, including the JC-120, several models popular for edge of breakup, and low to mid gain models.

And all of this is really off-topic for someone asking for help on how to tackle using his Helix.

[Top-L]

Line 6 & Fractal engineers & programmers have said they do circuit modelling at component level. This isn't a ridiculous impossible claim, people have done SPICE models of amps and get expected results. I've yet to see a convincing argument proving that a half-dozen or so of the best DSP programmers & engineers in their particular niche are all liars. Especially with provably false claims about missing frequencies, excess compression, and creative liberties.

Another modeler that used "component level modeling" was Peavey Revalver. It was done to the level that it let you change components in the amp.

But you know what (I think you know your argument is already lost), Pevey Revalver sounded good for 2005-2010, but the models are junk by today's standard. So just modeling something at the component level, doesn't mean it will sound authentic or good. If it was accurate component modeling, those models would be virtually identical to the function of the real amps. They aren't.

So were the Revalver engineers lying? Not really. As I said, they probably had to fudge the results to make it sound credible. (Or maybe they didn't fudge the results enough.)

This proves that component circuit level modeling is not a guarantee it will sound authentic or even good. My guess is that at Line6 they started with the intention to component model, but that over time they had to "massage" or "fudge" certain elements to sound good. I know how large scale programming projects work. It probably correct to say there "are elements of component modeling" in each of the modelers. Those "fudge factors" are why each modeler has its own sound signature.

Argued from the other side, we know that Kemper does not use component modeling, yet its tone match makes it sound more like the real thing than anything in a Fractal or Line6.

IOW, EQ-matching > component level modeling.

A major problem a lot of people have with the Helix is the so-called "squirrels", the crackling, hissing, and strange artifacts of a tube amp at high volume heard on-axis. So if anything, Helix is too real for most guitarists. But if you compare them next to the real amp, at equivalent settings, they behave as close as 2 amps manufactured by the same manufacturer can (parts tolerances...).

Another proof of accuracy, run the preamp of the Helix into a power amp and real speakers, most of those who have tried it (many expecting to ditch he Helix after comparing with the real thing) have found it indistinguishable from the real preamp.

Usually the problems with excess compression are from people operating them wrong, like cranking up the master on a master volume amp, and being surprised that it's more compressed than the real amp... Which they never taken the master volume over 3-4 on! Or cranking sag, or having misconfigured the input gain to the point where a PAF hits like an active pickup. Of course that sounds & feels wrong!

I don't love Helix's cab models, I tend to use IRs because the stock cabs tend towards fizzy and need drastic EQ cuts to get to sound like I want. But part of that is their cab models are mic'd up on-axis, and nobody wants to listen to guitars like that, despite the terrible mic technique of many live guitarists who feed just that to the mixer, and wonder why people complain, as it sounds fine to them standing off-side from their amp. Too bad the audience doesn't get to stand there, too...

As far as IRs being able to be warped into each other, that's an expected result, they are a convolution, you can mathematically convolute to match any other, that's the whole point of them. That and having finer grained EQ than any parametric or multiband EQ. Oh, and they can be used for room acoustics matching, though current amp modellers don't tend to support long enough IRs to do that with. Of course taking an IR, and doing math to convert another IR into a second copy of the first one results in the same thing. Basic property of convolutions.

Look up thebishopgame on youtube, he has some Helix vs real amp or competitor's amp models (which some people argue sound/feel better than Helix). He's a programmer at Line 6, and does a good job demonstrating you can get there with either cabs & EQ or IRs or both, and that there's nothing at all lacking about the amp models he's comparing. It is for a heavily compressed metal amp, but I've seen similar done with other amp models just as successfully, including the JC-120, several models popular for edge of breakup, and low to mid gain models.

And all of this is really off-topic for someone asking for help on how to tackle using his Helix.

Helix is not my favorite, but I've played it and I understand why people really like it. Something to test out next time you play the Helix. Roll back the volume knob and you will see that the entire sweep sounds good (and you don't even need to carefully set up your chain). I've never played a real amp that does this. It takes alot of work with the gain staging to get that with real amps.

I'm not saying its bad (in fact I like that aspect of the Helix), just that its obviously not real. Maybe better than real. Or "creative liberties".

Here is another way to disprove the "100% accurate" argument.

Both Line6 and Fractal say their models are 100% accurate. Yet side by side they sound very different.

[devastone]

I can get good sounds out of my GT-1000, I don't care how they created the sounds as long as I can get something usable out of it. But, yes, it is something you have to learn, it's not as straight-forward (and gratifying most of the time) as turning knobs.

[Metalman_666]

Congrats on getting the Helix LT! Already some good advice here, but I can imagine feeling a bit overwhelmed.

I was lucky in that the LT I bought already had a ton of patches in it (both from the last owner and purchased ones from Jason Sadites, Glenn DeLaune and Fremen), and those definitely gave me a better idea of what I could do than just exploring the stock presets.

You could start with a blank slate and ONLY an amp+cab block to hear the textures of amps you like, get a sense of how the controls interact, etc.

My advice would be to look at some of the Artist presets which should be stock if you have at least firmware 3.0. I really enjoyed playing Rhett's Allround for a sampling of clean-ish and mid gain sounds with boosts. The dark nature of the patch helped me get familiar with how things can sound and feel. It has several scenes for one-touch rig settings, but you could even just stay on the first Scene and play with the stomp switches for a lot of textures.

Devin Townsend's patch is extreme and heavy but has some really cool tweaks in it, such as an infinite loop/delay, a position-controlled wah (without needing to press a switch like a Morley), and a boost so you can hear the difference between spiky aggression and dark chunk,

I would honestly also recommend buying a patch pack or two. It really helps you to see both routing possibilities and what scenes can do for you.

Speaking of Scenes - they rock! In a single preset you can have two amps and toggle tons of things on or off - I know this is old news to people with experience but I was pumped when I discovered the possibilities last year with Helix and also while I had the Fractal AX8. When you take time to carefully set them up, you will have a great time. Give them funny names too, example:

Scene 1 "clean" - deluxe comp into the US Deluxe or Matchstick Ch1 through a 2x12 cab, clean sound with light delay and chorus

Scene 2 "hairy" - same amp, but with channel volume turned down to compensate for the Heir Apparent in front pushing the amp's drive and volume up a bit. No more delay or chorus

Scene 3 "heavy" - comp off, Archetype Lead with low gain on 3, and a bigger 4x12 cab. Dry but heavy.

(Optional) Scene 4 "Swedish" or "metal" - same amp, same gain, but with a TS clone or Minotaur in front, channel volume adjusted on amp to compensate.

Scene 5 "spicy lead" - comp on, usually another boost on in front combined with delay after the cab block for a fluid lead sound

If you setup the footswitches in global settings so that the bottom row is scenes, and top row is stomps, you have the best of both worlds. The Mode switch is your friend. You can do EVERYTHING without the HX Edit software, including editing any parameter on any block with your feet which is HUGE, though for more complex things like organizing the presets, you may want to plug it into your computer.

Final thought in my long-a$$ post: once you get them dialed in, create two versions on the presets, one with full amp/cab models and one with preamps only. You may find running through a real power amp and can sounds good to you one day, tomorrow you want the direct experience. It's amazing to be able to switch back and forth on a whim and feel how similar patches change.

Enjoy it, you will wonder why you didn't do it sooner!

Sent from my SM-N986W using Tapatalk