So I bought a Helix...

    Quote from Ingolf

    I don't doubt at all that microphoning a speaker is an artful craft.
    I'm still in doubt though if the terminology of phase cancellation in a single microphone is entirely the right choice, although I perfectly understand what you're saying @Monkey_Man


    One naturally thinks of more than one microphone for phase cancellation leading to combfiltering. This might well be the biggest source of pain. But not the only one. Here are two fine articles on the topic:


    One single large membrane microphone off-axis ->


    "Do you consider the off-axis response when you are buying a new mic? There are good reasons why you should. First of all – what is it? Off-axis response (in directional microphones) concerns what happens when sound waves hit the microphone from an angle - as opposed to on-axis when the sound source is straight in front of the microphone. Sounds coming from an angle (i.e. the sides) will hit different parts of the membrane at different times – resulting in phase cancellations and other issues - and the larger the membrane the larger the time difference. Therefore small membrane microphones usually exhibit a better off-axis performance than microphones with a large membrane. "


    Taken from: http://www.milabmic.com/news.asp?show=one&id=115


    Floor /Ceiling / Walls ->


    "Given that sound takes roughly a millisecond to travel a foot, it's easy to see how recording the same instrument with more than one mic can quickly lead to phase-cancellation problems if the mics are at different distances from the sound source. However, even if all we ever did in the studio was record with a single mic, phase cancellation would still affect our recording because of the way sound reflects from solid surfaces such as walls. For example, if you close-mic an electric guitar cabinet, a significant minority of the sound picked up will actually be reflections from the floor. If the distance from the cabinet's speaker cone is only six inches, and the floor is a foot below the mic, the direct and reflected sounds of the cone will meet at the mic capsule with around 1.5ms delay between them. In theory this will give a comb-filtering effect with total phase cancellation at around 300Hz, 900Hz, 1.5kHz, 2.1kHz, and so on."


    Taken from: http://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/phase-demystified

    Ne travaillez jamais.

    Like 3


    Thank you. So the terminology is right after all. ;)

    Send your beer to the address below, Ingy:


    Mr. MonkeyNuts™
    Kemper Ave
    Jungleville
    OzTrailer


    Leave at foot of tree, and the beer had better be German. :D


    Seriously 'though, and I haven't read the article/s, but it looks like the first one laid out what I was referring to. Thank you, Spinner.

    Quote from Monkey_Man

    Seriously 'though, and I haven't read the article/s, but it looks like the first one laid out what I was referring to. Thank you, Spinner.


    Welcome, mate. Same is true for me. I also didnt know those articles before. I just quickly googled them, cause I was too lazy to type all that stuff... 8)


    "Thank you. So the terminology is right after all."


    Welcome. Its a give and take... ;)

    Ne travaillez jamais.

    Like 1
    Quote from SpinnerDeluxe

    "Do you consider the off-axis response when you are buying a new mic? There are good reasons why you should. First of all – what is it? Off-axis response (in directional microphones) concerns what happens when sound waves hit the microphone from an angle - as opposed to on-axis when the sound source is straight in front of the microphone. Sounds coming from an angle (i.e. the sides) will hit different parts of the membrane at different times – resulting in phase cancellations and other issues - and the larger the membrane the larger the time difference. Therefore small membrane microphones usually exhibit a better off-axis performance than microphones with a large membrane. "


    This is probably why our sound guy requires me to NOT hang a microphone over the edge of my cabinet in front of the speaker pointing at the floor (for the times I use a guitar amp). I have to use a gooseneck boom so the mic is pointing directly at the cone.

    The key to everything is patience.
    You get the chicken by hatching the egg, not by smashing it.
    -- Arnold H. Glasow


    If it doesn't produce results, don't do it.

    -- Me

    Correct, Carl.


    FWIMBW, I've found that the more-perpendicular the angle, the fuller and punchier the sound. In contrast, the greater the angle, the more bite, generally speaking, and the thinner the resulting sound.


    This is why I mentioned the angle originally when we talked about fizz. Many engineers have their favourite angles they use with various mics in order to add this bite, and this is the grey area where, for me at least, they're teetering on the edge of over-accentuating the very sort of high-end phasiness / harshness I cannot stand.


    Many a metal guy has relied on this edginess to help cut through the mix, especially for rhythm parts, which I think you'll find is why, in many cases, those same guys refuse to use Pure Cab™ due to its ability to reduce or even remove this high-end mangling altogether.


    To my purist ears and mind, it's mangling no matter how you spin it, and it's not a true representation of the rig being miked.


    EDIT: In reference to fizz as it relates to its being brought up as something many hate in modellers, I can't help but wonder if it's often there simply because the designers are trying to model this effect. I noticed it was very pronounced with some of the mic models selectable on the HD500, for example.

    I finally got to try a Helix with a couple of small cheap floor monitors in stereo beside it and I gotta say for sure that my HD500X never sounded that good. I played a squire baritone jazzmaster through it in Drop A and tried the patch labeled "Ha!You Said Djent" and it did just that.


    I had a tough time with my hd500's but always loved the effects. A true Helix test for me would be through a traditional cab and put it again my powered toaster. In the end I will probably still need one because particle verb

    Quote from Monkey_Man

    Many engineers have their favourite angles they use with various mics in order to add this bite, and this is the grey area where, for me at least, they're teetering on the edge of over-accentuating the very sort of high-end phasiness / harshness I cannot stand.


    "favorite angles", exactly. Now: in the current modellers you can chose cabs and mics and vary distances, have you ever seen an angle parameter? (Seriously, cause I do not know the AXE, i.e.).


    Quote from Monkey_Man

    EDIT: In reference to fizz as it relates to its being brought up as something many hate in modellers, I can't help but wonder if it's often there simply because the designers are trying to model this effect. I noticed it was very pronounced with some of the mic models selectable on the HD500, for example.


    IMHO: there is an essential problem in modelleing. Me thinks, they all try to do it as acurate as possible. And for the next generation they say "even more acurate". Now many aspects like transistor, valve, resistor, coil and such can be calculated to very high precision. But speaker and a microphone are horribly nonlinear things. The coil, membrane to air-wave, and vice versa, the magnet (especially when the coil is partly leaving the magnet field at full power, and in respect to the suspension (being worn out, temeperature, humdity). Now add the "odd" and non-linear affects of the mic angle we are currently discussing.


    To make it short: The results of the calculation nowadays are very, very good. The tiny little fizz should be eliminated by dirty tricks. Say EQ or something. Maybe thats what they did in the bean POD (and its lack of number crunching power)?


    Addendum: last night I watched Chappers and the Captain blindly detect the transistor, the valve and the digi modelling amp. Me - the spectator - was also not knowing which amp was currently played. We all failed! I recognized the Orange by its fuzzy sound and was sure, its a valve. It was a transistor Orange! The true valve was a Marshall, and sounded "to clean, too digital" for me and the Chappers. The modelling amp (POD HD) sounded the warmest (but with a serious lack of treble/presence. That could be the trick to hide fizz. )


    Anyway, I was kinda embarassed about me, so were Chappers and the Captain.

    Ne travaillez jamais.

    Like 1

    OK, to be clear, Zappledan, this is what happened:


    Quote from viabcroce

    Nicky, why\how does phase cancellation generate fizzyness?


    I reluctantly answered, pointing out that it was too-big a subject to cover adequately, succinctly IMHO.


    Tried to maintain the link to the fizz many hear and can't stand in modellers:


    Quote from Monkey_Man

    I was answering Gianfranco's question about how "phase cancellation generates fizziness", of course, but I can't explain the fizziness of modellers. The Helix seems to have greatly-reduced it compared to the HD series, which is great for L6. However, my favourite of all time is still... POD 1.0 bean!


    That was the only unit, and I owned all the PODs and Bass PODs through the years, right up to the HD500, that I barely needed to tweak at all (just drive and EQ!) in order for it to sound warm, creamy, and definitely not fizzy! In fact, I don't think I could've got it to sound fizzy if my life depended on it.


    So far so good, and I thought I was done with that, having explained how IMHO phase cancellation accentuates fizz, something that my POD HD's modelling exhibited with some cabs and mic models.


    However, I was pulled up a couple of times and prompted to revisit the arguably-tangential topic:


    Quote from Ingolf

    You mean to say that you can get phase cancellation when using one microphone?
    That is news to me.
    I never experienced this with mics with kidney or hyperkidney characteristics.


    So I had another go...


    Quote from Ingolf

    I don't doubt at all that microphoning a speaker is an artful craft.
    I'm still in doubt though if the terminology of phase cancellation in a single microphone is entirely the right choice, although I perfectly understand what you're saying Monkey_Man


    Spinner saved the day at this point, "proving" that I was correct in my assertion:


    Quote from Ingolf

    Thank you. So the terminology is right after all.


    So, Zappledan, apart from the slightly-drawn-out issue of clarifying what causes that bitey, nasty, harsh fizz that so many hate from real-world rigs and that often emanates from modelling units, something many have said the Helix has drastically reduced when compared to the HD series, the thread has technically remained on-topic... IMHO.


    No big deal obviously mate; I just thought you might've missed the thread, so to speak - the connection, not the entire thread! LOL

    Quote from Monkey_Man

    OK, to be clear, Zapman, this is what happened:


    Zapman is another person on the forum ... 8)


    I was aware of the way things went where they did, but it seemed like it was becoming its own discussion. Just making an observation.

    Go for it now. The future is promised to no one. - Wayne Dyer

    Fair enough too, I reckon, Zappledan; thanks mate.


    Yeah, I hadn't forgotten your handle, mate. I contracted Zap Man, which is what I saw in my mind's eye (I know you're not "Dan", so you're the Zap Man to me), forgetting that we have a zapman here anyway. I'll have to think of a less-ambiguous term of endearment for you; thank you for pointing this out to me, and for the valid observation about the thread.


    Admittedly, I've never discussed fizz this much before (not even close), and as the discussion became ever-more protracted, my regret that I answered the initial question continued to grow. I'm glad to say that if I never hear the "f" word again, I'll be a happy Kamper.