Hx Stomp Sample Rate

[Clidia Panahon]

Im having the hardest time figuring out how to change the sample rate of the HX Stomp from 48khz to 44.1, and I've tried everything! I can't change it within protools, or creating a new session, I can't change it in system preferences. I just want to be able to use it in 44.1 protools sessions. It's becoming so frustrating!

We recommend that you wait until Line 6 software product compatibility with macOS 11 is announced before updating to the new operating system. Compatibility is currently being tested and will be ensured in upcoming software updates.

In case anyone finds this useful:

I'm in Catalina and can confirm you change the Sample Rate.

At first nothing happened, I downloaded the appropiate driver (1.1.0), then I restarted, gave Line 6 some system Services permissions, then restarted again. No Sample Rate dropdown yet.

ALSO. I'm getting a lot of buzz and feedback running a 4 cable method into my 5150. Any ideas? I use a Furman Power Conditioner so i would imagine its not ground noise. It's only when i'm running an IN/OUT FX loop into my EVH head.

Think of bit rates (16 or 24 bit) as made up of dots and spaces. Each increase makes the spaces smaller between the dots. The fidelity of your audio after running thru plugins and such will be better at higher bit rates. On Sample rates, Heres a good copied tidbit-> most just use CD quality (44.1). Why? Because half of the sample rate at 44.1Khz = maximum frequency of 22.05KHz. 48 = 24KHz. and 96 = 48KHz. All of which are above the range of human hearing.

From a perspective meaningful to Helix, the difference between 2048 and 1024 samples will be DSP used. Or one will use half the DSP of the other. Doubtful if you would be able to hear a difference between the two.

16 and 24 bit are the number of bits used to encode each sample, the number of discrete vertical steps used to digitize the audio. In the real world, audio isn't stepped at all, it's a smooth curve. 24 bit IRs approximate that smooth curve more closely than 16 bit. Here's a pic of that stepped approximation. You can imagine that the finer the steps are, the closer the digital version is to the original analog curve.

44.1, 48. and 96 kHz are the sample rate, how many samples per second are taken. Higher sample rates are higher fidelity, particularly at higher frequencies, but Spikey is right that CDs, typically the highest fidelity we're exposed to these days, are 44.1kHz. Since the theoretical limit on high frequency response is half the sample rate, 44.1kHz audio allows for response up to roughly 22 kHz, beyond what (most people think) humans can hear.. You've no doubt run into the fact that us guitarists often limit high frequency response much lower than that anyway.

1024 and 2048 aren't sample rates, they're the number of samples in the IR, i.e., its length, the time it lasts. Cab IRs are very short, where ones intended for reverb are much longer. They have to be, to represent the decay characteristics of larger acoustic spaces like a concert hall. Helix doesn't support longer, reverb-style IRs, just short cab ones. Cab IRs with 2048 samples are in some sense higher fidelity than 1024-sample ones, but they require more DSP power. I haven't compared 1024 vs 2048 versions of the same thing myself, but some people say they sound some flavor of better. If you have access to some IRs that are the same except for their length, listen for yourself and see if you hear enough difference to spend the extra processing on it.

Helix uses 48kHz, 16-bit, mono, .WAV files internally, so any greater resolution in any dimension doesn't get you anything. If that format is available from whatever provider you're looking at, just use it. The Helix app automatically converts all IRs to that format anyway.

It's super easy to compare a 1024 and 2048 IR with a footswitch and decide if you can hear the difference.

When I did this test with an acoustic guitar IR (I don't use 3rd party IRs for cabinets, preferring what is built in to the unit), I discovered that in the room I play in, I can NOT hear any difference at all.

Yet I still use the 2048 sample ones since I have the CPU power available.

As far as bit rate, Helix changes whatever you throw in to 16-bit 48K. There's no benefit to using higher bit rate/depth ones as they get converted, and it could be argued that it's best to just use 16-bit 48K so they don't get changed at all.

The main audible differences between 2048 and 1024 sample sizes is the effective frequency resolution (which is quite noticeable in the lower frequency band) and the detail you get by not cutting off a reverb tail with an IR that is too short for the chamber being modelled. But, depending on the IR and what it is modelling, the two lengths may sound nearly identical.

Think of it kind of like a 10 band EQ vs a 5 band EQ. If the 5 band is already EQing all the right frequencies in just the right way for your situation, then adding more bands isn't going to improve anything. However, if the 5 band is just missing a few spots that happen to be between bands, then the 10 band will give you just enough extra control to make things better.

When using acoustic guitar body IRs, the tail is noticeable up to about 8192 samples, with 4096 being about optimal when taking diminishing returns into consideration. Once you start dropping samples lower than that, the acoustic body IRs sound less realistic, where at 2048 and 1024 they're still ok, but less detailed. Same applies to cabinets. Maybe it won't even matter when used live due to other instruments / reverb masking the subtleties.

Some speaker cabinets are not very resonant and therefore there isn't much audible difference between long and short IRs. While other more resonant cabinets can really benefit from both the extra low frequency resolution of 2048 sample IRs and the extra detail in the longer tail.

When I did this test with an acoustic guitar IR (I don't use 3rd party IRs for cabinets, preferring what is built in to the unit), I discovered that in the room I play in, I can NOT hear any difference at all.

Agreed I tried this test with my Redwirez IR s which come in samples of 48 khz / 16 bit and also 48 khz / 24 bit. I Loaded both samples 16 & 24 and saved them to the exact same patch side by side. One loaded with 16 bit and one loaded with 24 bit. To me the 16 bit sound a bit better and closer to the real speakers. Which by the way sound awesome! The 24 bit sound slightly boomier.

I know this is only tangentially related to the post, but the whole "stair steps" analogy for bitrate and frequency as it relates to digital audio isn't a very good one... Increasing the bitrate doesn't really give you more detail, it just lowers the noise floor, and gives you more dynamic range to work with.

I doubt if there was any difference at all because the second he imported that 48/24 file into the Helix, it was converted to 48/16, therefore when doing his analysis he would have been comparing two identical files, and any difference in sound was most likely caused by placebo ,the positioning of his head - even an inch, or something similar..

I see and get the noise floor, so thanks for that Phil. Wow on the Dither difference! But If you will notice the analog waveform changed from clean @ 2:22, to a bit fuzzy looking 5:58 in the video. Look close. I would wager if he hit MAG you would see some tiny stair stepping noise there... :) Yes the frequency did go up and it is still the same overall shape on the scope, but the converted analog signal there is not as clean @ the higher frequency after D to A conversion is my point. So for argument's sake, if the analogy is wrong, and if we are using the best analog scope to test this, and if there is no stair step increase at higher frequencies, then why is there a bit more fuzzy looking waveform at the higher freq's? What else has changed (besides the frequency itself) to cause this then? Is the D to A converter not smoothing out the analog as well as today's interfaces do perhaps? Great geekoid video however, I enjoyed it!

3a8082e126