Line 6 Helix - Should I run FX in SERIES or PARALLEL? DOs and DON'Ts!

Line 6 Marketplace Presets: bit.ly/line6marketplace-sadites
Tonex Tone Models: bit.ly/tonexpresets
ToneNet Profile: bit.ly/3Ze5vgG
7% Off Your First Year Subscription: distrokid.com/vip/sadites
T-Shirts & Merch: bit.ly/2sWXLCm
Paypal: bit.ly/2sYbUiM
Patreon: bit.ly/2B7aBmf
Facebook Music: bit.ly/2SgbGlr
Website: bit.ly/2WwEEwy
I have been receiving a lot of questions recently about why I do or don't run my fx in series or in parallel. So in this video I take a close look, with audio examples, of some different times that I would and won't use parallel paths for running my FX. I really hope you enjoy the video and find it useful in setting up your presets and better understanding how series and parallel paths work.
As always, thanks so much for watching...
Please visit my sponsors:
Line 6: www.line6.com
Mission Engineering: www.missionengineering.com
Morningstar FX: www.morningstarfx.com
Temple Audio: www.templeaudio.com

[@michaelcarlotto7667]

Jason is a godsend ! Thanks for ALL your shared information! My tech loves your posts and is buying your packs! Thanks much

[@2ShadesOfGray]

Always good observations and information for the helix user.

[@Ragnar_Rock]

One thing that came to my mind immediately, when watching this was: nice, so I have a great way to mix the dry/none FX tone of the guitar to my full FX tone. usually I use a second track in my DAW for this, just to give a little bit more attack and definition back to the guitar play (attack/sound of the plectrum hitting the strings). With this way no second track is needed anymore (instead for reamping) and as a plus, both signals go very easyly to the same Reverb/Room at the end of the line, if needed :) Your Guides are awesome! Learnd so much from you in addition to my education at the SAE-College. I´m really digging your stuff ;) p.s. I have no Helix yet. Was on the fence to get one for quiet a time because it´s a lot of money to spent but thanks to you I made the decision to get one now. X-Mas money has to be spent :)

[@786itube]

Very good presentation. I’m using an EHX Tri-Parallel Mixer and have not looked back. It also allows for a hybrid where one could still have pedals in series using a sing;e channel if one prefers. Certainly, a very versatile mixer

[@chrisw1460]

Got it. After watching it another 50 times. My brain feels like that delay/chorus/reverb sounds

[@sjsphotog]

Superb explanation as always JS. you ate the Yoda of all things Helix. Thnx

[@asmundlunde7762]

Very helpful! Thanks.

[@PondoSinatra680]

Great content.

[@srwaite7]

Thanks, JS! Always helpful! I’m new to the Morningstar MIDI family. Can you do a video programming Strymon pedals (or equivalent) with Morningstar MC8?

[@leonbarron368]

Great info! If be interested in how you would place effects in a wet dry setup. Maybe only using the helix for effects only and them being 100% wet?

[@jojo62137]

Merci pour votre excellent tuto, je possède un Headrush mais je crois que je vais courrir acheter le Helix

[@jnh73]

Using multiple delays in series can produce some interesting "hiccups" as the repeats crash together. Using multiple delays in parallel lets you use, for example, clean-sounding digital delay on Path A and modulated analog on Path B, if that's what floats your boat. Either/or. There's no "right" or "wrong". Well, mostly no right or wrong. :)

[@JasonSadites]

Oh absolutely there are some times where the parallel path is very useful and makes a big difference, but this was referring to the idea some were suggesting that there was a magical improvement to an effect simply by moving it to the parallel path, which is not true.

[@carbivore]

Great video! Have you considered making one on parallel drives?

[@marcelblade]

Thanks for clearing this up, I always thought it doesn't make a difference parallel vs using the mix control , there is a video from Steve sterlacci about the same topic, he is convinced it does make a big difference.

[@JasonSadites]

Oh I haven't seen Steve's video about that so not sure what he says about it. It really isn't possible for it to sound different, it is simply a different mechanism for blending the direct and processed sound which can simply be accomplished by using the mix control as shown in this video.

[@gangrenebob7281]

I'm also here from Steve's video (because I follow both SS and JS)......never thought of the topic before so I'm glad to get a few demos between Steve S and JS here.

[@MarkRobertson]

Fuck me, every video is a save and rewatch later... Week 3 of owning the helix LT and a frightening lesson in what it can do

[@tone569]

Parallel is awsome 🤘🤘🤘

[@dan_perry]

To me parallel works best when you are using a lot of different FX...it just sounds cleaner to my ears. I have some presets that have 8 or more series/parallel paths, that would sound terrible if they were all ran in series.

[@dominikjericho5749]

instablaster.

[@Cymbaline713]

One thing I've found the other day that's totally cool is flangers in parallel. Put two Gray Flangers in parallel, and set the width control on one to 0 and the manual on 5, and the other flanger has the width control on 10. You get that cool "Through Zero" studio flanging effect that's impossible with just one pedal.

[@scottpeters4401]

Correct me if I am wrong,but a mix control on an effect is like a crossfade...when you turn down the wet,you turn up the dry,and vice Versa....like a see saw.....with the parallel path,you can mix in your 100 percent FX signal with your dry path....so your signal always has a direct,dry path,then you can mix in as much or little wet on top of the dry path....Kind of a pseudo wet dry wet thing....at least that is my understanding of how it works vs just using the mix control on an effect....I will admit that I get confused splitting things into parallel paths...

[@erikhartley2494]

Yes this is correct in my experience. Plus it gives you the possibility of having your dry signal affected by a small reverb on the “A” path and then have a huge Glitz verb on the B path at 100% not affecting the dry path at all. It just allows for more possibilities of mix levels and effects that aren’t affecting one another.

[@dicecard921]

Also the parallel reverb pathing makes little to no difference with a subtle reverb like the one you used, but with big, spacious, long and modulated reverbs (like my Glitz in my post rock tone) it does really matter. The reverb is more "behind" the dry guitar signal instead of on the same plane and I can use longer and more dramatic settings because of it

[@JasonSadites]

It is nothing that cannot be accomplished by simply adjusting the mix control in the reverb.

[@dicecard921]

@@JasonSadites I tried it both ways and even if it's possible with the mix control, I find the studio-like precision of removing dBs from the signal to be a better way for me. But as always, they're just tools, if someone prefers the mix, they should use the mix, if someone prefers parallel, use the parallel

[@JasonSadites]

Oh absolutely, I totally agree with you on this! But that is a different topic all together. Preferring one method over another for workflow reasons is VERY different than claiming that one method makes the sound better simply because of the use of that method. But I totally agree that if something works for a person for workflow reasons, by all means they should use that method, all while fully realizing that the same method may not work as well for others.

[@ewalddreesmann]

I like this approach to make the differences more obvious. Still, a few questions remain for me: 1. Doesn't the approach with 2 signal paths offer more flexibility? Especially adding the direct signal offers much more possibilities here (more than via the MIX of individual effects) and leads in my opinion to a clearer, more controllable result. And concluding from this and because I'm curious: 2. Are serial or parallel signal paths used mainly in the presets of the device?

[@blackpeaches7843]

What do you think is the best way to set up a "send”? For example, when I mix a track using a DAW or a mixing desk, sometimes I went to send the end of phrases to a delay. A good example might be a guitar solo where the main section is dry, but just the end has delay applied. I wonder if this can be achieved with a split and a gain block assigned to the expression pedal to send the signal to the delay as and when. This would be different than using the exp pedal to control the dry/wet mix settings wouldn't it?

[@JasonSadites]

You might want to try the Ducked Delay and see if you can get what you need from it.

[@roberthaley1]

Hi! I am curious, would the parallel path be useful to blend a clean amp and an acoustic block? The idea came into my head this morning but have not had the chance yet to experiment. Thanks.

[@sjsphotog]

Yes or a clean amp on one and dirty amp on the other to help cut thru the mix even better. John Mayer and many artists do this

[@dariohenriquez7773]

i have a roland jc 22, it got fx loops and can work in parallel. my goal is to get two signals at the same time, one with compressor, distortions, etc (everything before the fx loops block in my hx) and my delays and modulations i want them clean, 100% wet... but when i set them 100% wet no matter what i do the delay is repeating with distortion... in parallel without using distortion before the fx loop, the sound is perfect, i want the clean delay parallel mixed with the distorted guitar. any clues on what i'm missing here? i mean it has to be possible to do what i intend or is it really necessary to use two amps to get this 100% wet + 100% dry setup that i'm trying to get?

[@woodyoulove-reynaldguibone6890]

11:24 I think in my headphone the serial is about muffled. But just a hair.

[@davidordonez8964]

I’d like to run dry effects > amp+cab modeling > wet effects straight to FOH. And then monitoring that through my power amp in stage, but I want that same chain, just without the cab modeling (so in that way I won’t get a doubled cab) Is that all posible?

[@sjsphotog]

You'd need to use the 2 separate inputs to do the 2 diff things as you have 2 diff output locations and you need to change each bit the input is the same bit effects on each separate path at diff. This is only capabke in the Full Helix floor and LT as a rack as they have 2 DSP chips for 2 separate independent paths for a total of 4 paths (1a and 1b abs 2a and 2b). The HX units only have 1 DSP chips and can't do that m

[@dicecard921]

Do I spot Mastodon's Remission vinyl in the background? Didn't know you're a sludge fan

[@JasonSadites]

You sure do! Bill is a pal of mine 🤘

[@mrfender5001]

What I want to hear is both reverbs set exactly the same but with both reverbs at 100% mix. 1 in series and 1 in parallel. And then switch back and forth Comparing the 2.

[@JasonSadites]

That would be pointless in regards to what I am discussing here. They would sound completely different. The serial path would sound 100% wet reverb with no direct signal while the parallel path sound would be dependant on the setting of the Split A/B parameter. Setting the Split A/B in the middle as I did would give dramatically different results. That would be comparing apples to oranges and would not really show much of anything to do with the topic of this video.

[@mrfender5001]

@@JasonSadites I understand. But as a test unrelated to this video I would like to hear it. But I get what you're saying.

[@JasonSadites]

@@mrfender5001 give it a try. But just not sure what conclusion is being searched for in that particular case.

[@dextervipera]

Do You use reverb on Your vocal within this video?

[@JasonSadites]

No

[@georgepaschalidis9840]

FIRST

[@adel1abc]

10th