AX8 vs Helix: Amp Tone and Effects

I will say this.... I just got a Helix because I can't get a AX8 or FX8 to run the effect and switching with my BE100....
This unit is Freaking built GREAT, the FX are Killer.... but in no way can the amp's compare to Fractal
I'm using it for Fx's in the loop and a pedal board...

maybe some day I will be invited to buy an AX8!!!
 
my 2 cents: I had the Helix for a few days at my home, have the FX8 and I am on the AX8 waitlist. I do not have any experience with Fractal or Line 6 apart from this. Before I used the classic pedalboard with high class pedals. With the Helix I loaded the newest FW and stayed away from the presets which I did not like for the most time. Dialed in the basic stuff, amp + cab and a bit of reverb and got some fine low OD sounds in no time. Workflow seemed pretty simple (and maybe more simple than with Fractal units). Also, the Helix offers more routing possibilities. Still I did not make friends with the Helix. One reason is, after using the FX8 I am sold on that Fractal sound - which is not twice as good as someone claimed here. It just feels a tad more natural to me - as if going from margarine to butter maybe. Also, I way more preferred the size, form factor and design of the fractal units. The FX8 and the AX8 feel more compact and sturdy - even with an extra exp pedal. I would also inquire outside of this forum as you will find different opinions there.
But this won´t help you decide, either. I predict when you have both on the floor side by side, you will know what you will like - even without listening to them... ;-)
 
@Hhuent My experience was the same. I was not a customer of either, I used Boss effects previously. So a fresh ear, I tried all 3 products and the AX8 (the only Fractal product I've used) was an easy winner. I have no brand loyalty or pre-disposition. I would have kept the HD500X if I felt it sounded as good or better because it was way cheaper. The Helix was only marginally better than the HD500X to my ears, but the AX8 was WAY better at Amp simulation. Effects were good on all 3 as far as I'm concerned...
 
schrismer said:
I will say this.... I just got a Helix because I can't get a AX8 or FX8 to run the effect and switching with my BE100....
This unit is Freaking built GREAT, the FX are Killer.... but in no way can the amp's compare to Fractal
I'm using it for Fx's in the loop and a pedal board...

maybe some day I will be invited to buy an AX8!!!
Click to expand...
the fx8 couldn't channel switch a BE100 with the relays?
 
The Helix is a step up from the HD500/500x IMO.

Overall it is not in the same league as the Fractal gear, but having said that, you can definitely get a more than usable tone through FOH; and guess what, most people out front probably won't know!

My only issue is reliability. The Helix does look like a step up durability wise, but I haven't had a good run with L6 products personally. Only time will tell.
 
I don't think it's a question of one being "better" or anything like that. I think Fractal has a way more developed platform that has benefitted from years and years of refinement and curated content additions. Axe Standard 1.0 had a smattering of IRs, way less amp models, and plenty of issues too.

Helix is a 1.0 product. It will take many months to move beyond that. That's an objective fact. Line 6 is fighting to finish the Rack version, get more floor units made, fix bugs AND add more models. Time will tell, but the potential is definitely there.
 
mikah912 said:
I don't think it's a question of one being "better" or anything like that. I think Fractal has a way more developed platform that has benefitted from years and years of refinement and curated content additions. Axe Standard 1.0 had a smattering of IRs, way less amp models, and plenty of issues too.

Helix is a 1.0 product. It will take many months to move beyond that. That's an objective fact. Line 6 is fighting to finish the Rack version, get more floor units made, fix bugs AND add more models.
Click to expand...
Is disingenuous and incorrect to say Helix is a 1.0 product -- it was built by people with a legacy of experience in the field. It wasn't a greenfield product. And it was, what, four years in the making according to Line6? It's not unreasonable to have high expectations for a new product from a seasoned digital effect development team like Line6.
 
iaresee said:
Is disingenuous and incorrect to say Helix is a 1.0 product -- it was built by people with a legacy of experience in the field. It wasn't a greenfield product. And it was, what, four years in the making according to Line6? It's not unreasonable to have high expectations for a new product from a seasoned digital effect development team like Line6.
Click to expand...

That's not the way software works, my friend. It can be 10 years in the making. 1.0 is 1.0. IPhones didn't get released in 2007 with an app store or turn-by-turn navigation or even MMS. All things the competition had for many years.

And keep in mind, it was under development AT LEAST 3 years. But they had a unique UI and usability out the butt, and they had a plan for the rest.

The rest is history. I'm not say that Fractal is Palm and BlackBerry. But I am saying it's myopic to dismiss 1.0 software. It's a living platform. Years from now, it'll bear little resemblance to what was in the box at launch.
 
mikah912 said:
That's not the way software works, my friend. It can be 10 years in the making. 1.0 is 1.0. IPhones didn't get released in 2007 with an app store or turn-by-turn navigation or even MMS. All things the competition had for many years.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty hip to "how software works", my friend. Both embedded and not.

I'll give them greenfield on the UI. But all the modeling? No way. That's legacy algorithms brought forward and experienced engineers relying on years on experience to recreate what they know in the new hardware.

The same can be said of the Axe-Fx II -- it was a new, but not immature, product even though it's firmware version number was 1.0. And expectations were similarly high for its performance and sound when it was released.

I'm sure it'll evolve, but they don't get a pass because they called it 1.0. They're not new to this field.
 
mikah912 said:
And keep in mind, it was under development AT LEAST 3 years. But they had a unique UI and usability out the butt, and they had a plan for the rest.
.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the side-tour but an iPhone has an amazing amount of MacOSX software inside, maybe even code preceding MacOSX.
Meanwhile, enjoy your Helix or AXE II, it's all about making good music.
 
Dude, pre-development of Helix and post-development of the HD500 was virtually in parallel. They were very open about that. Helix amp models were scaled down for the HD platform. Helix is a 1.0 architecture. They're not just calling it that. It is.

Being "new to the field" or "old to the field". Is completely irrelevant. Again, Apple was hardly new to OS development, and they had three years to create a 1.0 product. It was hardly content competitive, just like Helix. They instead differentiated, just like Helix. Give 'em a chance on the rest, I say.
 
mikah912 said:
Dude, pre-development of Helix and post-development of the HD500 was virtually in parallel. They were very open about that. Helix amp models were scaled down for the HD platform. Helix is a 1.0 architecture. They're not just calling it that. It is.

Being "new to the field" or "old to the field". Is completely irrelevant. Again, Apple was hardly new to OS development, and they had three years to create a 1.0 product. It was hardly content competitive, just like Helix. They instead differentiated, just like Helix. Give 'em a chance on the rest, I say.
Click to expand...

You honestly believe the BS obviously that they started from scratch? Just threw everything away and tried new stuff? Come on....really... Oh wait...I forgot-they said so , that must make it true.

All I mean by this is it is NOT 1.0 ........not even close.
 
mikah912 said:
Dude, pre-development of Helix and post-development of the HD500 was virtually in parallel. They were very open about that. Helix amp models were scaled down for the HD platform. Helix is a 1.0 architecture. They're not just calling it that. It is.

Being "new to the field" or "old to the field". Is completely irrelevant. Again, Apple was hardly new to OS development, and they had three years to create a 1.0 product. It was hardly content competitive, just like Helix. They instead differentiated, just like Helix. Give 'em a chance on the rest, I say.
Click to expand...
I don't think that Line 6 can be compared to a powerhouse like Apple. To me the Helix has an interesting interface, but it's hardly a disruptive piece of technology like the iPhone or iPad.

The Quantum firmware is deep. Line 6 has a way to go to catch up.

Yet taste is subjective.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like they improved the amp modeling and effects just slightly over the HD500, which means they obviously leveraged existing development they already had. Might even be just slightly tweaked code for all we know. Quite a few people say it sounds very similar to an HD500, so who knows...

Either way, I have no desire to ever see or try a Helix. My AX8 rules.
 
Last edited:
Stratman68 said:
You honestly believe the BS obviously that they started from scratch? Just threw everything away and tried new stuff? Come on....really... Oh wait...I forgot-they said so , that must make it true.

All I mean by this is it is NOT 1.0 ........not even close.
Click to expand...

Hey, I know where I am. It's cool. I'm on the wait list anyway.
 
Stratman68 said:
You honestly believe the BS obviously that they started from scratch? Just threw everything away and tried new stuff? Come on....really... Oh wait...I forgot-they said so , that must make it true.

All I mean by this is it is NOT 1.0 ........not even close.
Click to expand...

While there's truth to what is being said:

- You're not starting completely from scratch
- You do have a drastically different product than you've sold in the past.
- Marketing teams do embellish

iPhone was built on parts of the same tech that Mac OS X is, being that it's really openbsd under the hood. But once you start to rethink the approach to UI, input and in our case tone, you've changed so much that the gains in quality and stability have to be revalidated to the point of calling it 1.0.

Vendors and developers make a specific and deliberate statement when they say something is 1.0. In essence they are saying we did this from such a different perspective that we need consumers to expect a big growth curve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom