Boss GT 1000 / Core Users - Patches and Ideas

[SumOne]

Anyone new to the Core, a couple of simple (but perhaps not obvious) things:

 

- In/out settings: Set your input level correctly. You might also want to check your 'output' and 'sub out' settings. 

- Tuner: when on it, click < or > to get to the screen to set it to Bass. 

- On effects chain 'MST' click > to select 'BS mode' to 'on'. 

- Make a blank template as a starting point for your presets. 

 

 

Edited April 5 by SumOne

[MrDinsdale]

Another couple of things that caught me out:

- no AIRD preamp in the chain = no cab sim/IR. If you’re using an external preamp or 4cm this is annoying. Only work around is to use an A/B divider, preamp block in B path and mix set to 100/0.

- Stuff in an inactive path of a divider isn’t muted. If you have something noisy like an external Fuzz on a divider path, even if that path isn’t active you’ll still hear any noise. You can use an assign to drop the level on the mix block when that path is bypassed to fix it. 

[MrDinsdale]

Also just generally getting to know assigns opens a lot of doors. Understanding how to assign parameters to a wave/saw can let you do some crazy stuff like these:

 

for example using the Slicer and setting “pattern” to rapidly change back and forward over time results in the random stutter effect heard here. 

[MrDinsdale]

Anybody using their GT1000 as an audio interface for recording?

 

I have a Focusrite Scarlett I typically use. Combined with the Capos pre/post DI it makes it really easy to get a dry signal as well incase I want to reamp. It’s a lot of cables though.

 

The GT1000core provides a main, sub and dry signal in stereo too via usb I believe? It also allows you to reamp without having to faff around with reamp boxes etc.

 

Kind seems like a no brainier now!

[MichaelDean]

40 minutes ago, MrDinsdale said:

Anybody using their GT1000 as an audio interface for recording?

 

I have a Focusrite Scarlett I typically use. Combined with the Capos pre/post DI it makes it really easy to get a dry signal as well incase I want to reamp. It’s a lot of cables though.

 

The GT1000core provides a main, sub and dry signal in stereo too via usb I believe? It also allows you to reamp without having to faff around with reamp boxes etc.

 

Kind seems like a no brainier now!

I know it's a different range, but I've done it with my GX-100 which just does dry and effected (both in stereo). The ability to reamp without buying extra gear is super handy. On my MacBook, I created an aggregate audio device (not possible with Windows as far as I'm aware) with my audio interface and my GX-100, sent the dry back through some effects, then into my head, took the DI out into my audio interface, which I fed into a cab sim. 

[MrDinsdale]

19 minutes ago, MichaelDean said:

I know it's a different range, but I've done it with my GX-100 which just does dry and effected (both in stereo). The ability to reamp without buying extra gear is super handy. On my MacBook, I created an aggregate audio device (not possible with Windows as far as I'm aware) with my audio interface and my GX-100, sent the dry back through some effects, then into my head, took the DI out into my audio interface, which I fed into a cab sim. 

Ahh yeah I think that’s how I had it set up with bothe the GT1000core and Scarlett before I sold it, regretted it and bought another 🤣

 

A while back work clamped down on people installing random software on work laptops, luckily i already had logic set up. Just got a 2nd hand Mac Mini for personal use so I can actually install the boss drivers and tone studio etc so I can actually get a bit more use out of it now.

 

Gonna have a play. I’ll hang onto the Scarlett as it’s a 1st gen and now worth selling, hand for connecting monitors and headphones to.

[SamIAm]

10 minutes ago, MrDinsdale said:

A while back work clamped down on people installing random software on work laptops

Damn those pesky work locked down environments! (Tho I understand the reason)

Sam x

[MrDinsdale]

2 hours ago, SamIAm said:

Damn those pesky work locked down environments! (Tho I understand the reason)

Sam x

Haha yeah we used to get away with a lot so it’s probably about time 😂 I know one person who used his to read lyrics at gigs which is probably breaching multiple company policies.

[MichaelDean]

6 hours ago, MrDinsdale said:

A while back work clamped down on people installing random software on work laptops, luckily i already had logic set up.

I installed the drivers for my GX on my work laptop so that when we have company wide briefings, I can route the teams audio out the headphone jack and noodle away 😅

Edited May 1 by MichaelDean

[SumOne]

Has anyone found a good way of having a Bass in Input R and another in Input L and being able to switch/mute between them?

 

As far as I can tell, there are all sorts of options for splitting the effect chain signal and different outputs, but not so obvious how to split L/R inputs and mute one of them.

 

My solution so far is Splitting the path and using the 'Return 1' for one Bass (Send set to Zero) and Return 2 for the other (again, Send at Zero), then the 'Mix' block can go from 100% / 0% for each side of the split.

 

Is there a simpler way by switching the Input L/R though? 

 

 

Edited May 1 by SumOne

[MrDinsdale]

I believe you need it set to Mode = Pan, not sure if you could then set an assign to toggle mix 100:0 or 0:100 or something.

 

I seem to remember if you put a divider immediately after the input it changes too. 
 

 

[MrDinsdale]

 

Yeah if you move the divider directly after the input you get a Selector routing option. Dunno what it does but sounds like it has a lot of potential!

[SumOne]

Thanks @MrDinsdale, you're right - it just needs the Divider to be directly in front of the Input and can then have it set in 'Single' mode as a switch between L and R inputs, can then map that channel select function to a knob or footswitch. So no need to use the Send/Return inputs for this (but could also use them 100% as 'Return' to have upto 4x inputs).

 

 

 

What I like about the Core is that it clearly has a big brain! It's not always the most intuitive to find these things but it really can do a lot of processing. e.g. The Divider can also be set in Dual mode to apply dynamic filtering/sensitivity/cutoff frequency for L/R, and then can have multiple divided paths and map multiple switches to one footswitch or knob (and can add 2x expression pedals or extra dual footswitches). 2x inputs, 2x FX Loops that can be used as inputs, 3x dynamically divided signal paths, 20+ blocks of effects, midi in/out, and then different output signal routes means the possibilities are pretty huge but all within a pedal that fits inside my Bass gigbag front pocket.

 

.........I still haven't managed to get a decent envelope filter sound out of it though!

 

[SumOne]

My perennial problem with multi-fx strikes! They can do lots of complex stuff, but complexity isn't good if it causes confusion - especially if it complexity isn't needed for what I'm doing.  

 

Last gig I played, I clicked on the single FS I'd set for Tuner (as the double FS press has caused issues), but I think I'd also pressed a dial in with my foot at the same time as it jumped to some far off (very different sounding) Preset....which led to some fast clicking to try and get back to the Preset I wanted. Also, at one point I wanted a more distorted Drive, but I didn't want it enough to actually start clicking around in the fx blocks and making adjustments to it for fear of some unintended consequences. ...during the gig started hankering for a return to a simple setup of TU-3, Drive, Compressor. That's the first stage of the multi-fx to individual pedals cycle. 

Edited June 20 by SumOne

[Al Krow]

On 19/06/2024 at 18:02, SumOne said:

My perennial problem with multi-fx strikes! They can do lots of complex stuff, but complexity isn't good if it causes confusion - especially if it complexity isn't needed for what I'm doing.  

 

Last gig I played, I clicked on the single FS I'd set for Tuner (as the double FS press has caused issues), but I think I'd also pressed a dial in with my foot at the same time as it jumped to some far off (very different sounding) Preset....which led to some fast clicking to try and get back to the Preset I wanted. Also, at one point I wanted a more distorted Drive, but I didn't want it enough to actually start clicking around in the fx blocks and making adjustments to it for fear of some unintended consequences. ...during the gig started hankering for a return to a simple setup of TU-3, Drive, Compressor. That's the first stage of the multi-fx to individual pedals cycle. 

 

I may have to make another foray into giving the GT1000 Core a go, after mine got filched by our guitarist and given that there's still no sign of an upgrade to the ancient Helix range in sight...guess I'll know who to tap up for a mint condition used one then 😁

[BigRedX]

3 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

an upgrade to the ancient Helix range

 

You keep saying this but what exactly do you want that the Helix can't already do?

 

 

There are a few things I would like but they could easily be covered in a firmware update if it wasn't for the fact that they are so esoteric that I'm probably the only person who would want them, and I can't see any of the other major multi-effects manufacturers offering them on their products either.

[Al Krow]

Just now, BigRedX said:

 

You keep saying this but what exactly do you want that the Helix can't already do?

 

There are a few things I would like but they could easily be covered in a firmware update if it wasn't for the fact that they are so esoteric that I'm probably the only person who would want them, and I can't see any of the other major multi-effects manufacturers offering them on their products either.

 

Chips that aren't a decade old is my starting point. That is ancient tech by most people's standards in the IT world.

 

More dsp = better sound quality as a general starting point

There's maybe a reason so many struggle with Helix to get a good sound straight "out of the box" particularly as the Helix software is unrivalled?

Seems to be an easier journey with more recent kit with greater dsp such as the GT1000 / Core - it's been very obvious when working our regular 4 guitarists the Core users were up and running with a sound they liked very quickly, the Helix boys are still struggling to find a sound they like, or just about getting there.

[BigRedX]

25 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

Chips that aren't a decade old is my starting point. That is ancient tech by most people's standards in the IT world.

 

More dsp = better sound quality as a general starting point

There's maybe a reason so many struggle with Helix to get a good sound straight "out of the box" particularly as the Helix software is unrivalled?

Seems to be an easier journey with more recent kit with greater dsp such as the GT1000 / Core - it's been very obvious when working our regular 4 guitarists the Core users were up and running with a sound they liked very quickly, the Helix boys are still struggling to find a sound they like, or just about getting there.

 

But in music there are still plenty of people using valve amps which have barely changed since the 1940s, and new technology does not automatically equal a better sound. Can you actually hear anything wrong with the sounds of the Helix that aren't subjective? Besides in the IT world it is my experience that increased processing power leads to sloppy coding and bloat-ware because the programmers no longer have to try and eke out every last bit of performance from limited hardware.

 

I have to say that getting a good sound straight out of the Helix was actually far easier than any of the other multi-effects devices I have ever used starting with the Roland GP8 I got back in the 1989. When I got my Helix, I spent an hour working my way through the presets, and while there was nothing that really grabbed me, that's hardly surprising, as there have been very few presets from either effects units or synths that I have ever found useful straight out of the box. I then spent half a day putting together a "core sound" for my bass, working in the same way that I would had I been given a selection of individual pedals, which after a few tweaks at the next band practice would be used to create individual patches for each song we did. By the end of the following practice I was 90% happy with all the Presets and Snapshot variations I had put together for the whole set. Like any other complex device you just need to methodical and approach it one module at a time. 

 

Most of the issues I see with any multi-defects unit tend to be user problems like option paralysis or feeling guilty about not using the full potential of the complex device. TBH I doubt anyone does use every feature. The great thing about all these devices is that the massive amount of options allows you to be able use the ones you need and ignore the ones you don't. I'd rather have more options than I could ever use than find a lack of them put limits on what I could do with it.

 

 

[Al Krow]

1 hour ago, BigRedX said:

 

But in music there are still plenty of people using valve amps which have barely changed since the 1940s, and new technology does not automatically equal a better sound. Can you actually hear anything wrong with the sounds of the Helix that aren't subjective? Besides in the IT world it is my experience that increased processing power leads to sloppy coding and bloat-ware because the programmers no longer have to try and eke out every last bit of performance from limited hardware.

 

I have to say that getting a good sound straight out of the Helix was actually far easier than any of the other multi-effects devices I have ever used starting with the Roland GP8 I got back in the 1989. When I got my Helix, I spent an hour working my way through the presets, and while there was nothing that really grabbed me, that's hardly surprising, as there have been very few presets from either effects units or synths that I have ever found useful straight out of the box. I then spent half a day putting together a "core sound" for my bass, working in the same way that I would had I been given a selection of individual pedals, which after a few tweaks at the next band practice would be used to create individual patches for each song we did. By the end of the following practice I was 90% happy with all the Presets and Snapshot variations I had put together for the whole set. Like any other complex device you just need to methodical and approach it one module at a time. 

 

Most of the issues I see with any multi-defects unit tend to be user problems like option paralysis or feeling guilty about not using the full potential of the complex device. TBH I doubt anyone does use every feature. The great thing about all these devices is that the massive amount of options allows you to be able use the ones you need and ignore the ones you don't. I'd rather have more options than I could ever use than find a lack of them put limits on what I could do with it.

 

 

Lots of very good points there BRX.

 

Just occurred to me, though, that maybe one of the reasons you're so happy with your full Helix vs the struggle that a lot of Stomp users have is that the compact Stomp and HXFX units have literally half the DSP of the full Helix and Helix LT (one vs two core processors).  So stuff that sounds really good on the full/LT might struggle on the budget / more compact models?

 

Whereas the the GT 1000 and GT 1000 Core share the same more powerful chipset.

 

Just a hunch? But you would have thought that halving the available processing power is going to have some impact?

 

Edited June 21 by Al Krow

[BigRedX]

The way I have read how the processing power of the more cost-effective Helix/HX units works is that you simply can't have as many modules in a Preset as you would in the full Helix and not that what you do have sounds less good. The processing assignment is dynamic so the number of modules available on a given device depends on the processing needs of each module. And as I have said before, one of the ways that Line 6 improves their devices is by firmware upgrades, which have included rewriting a lot of the modules to give the same sound whilst using less processing power. 

 

I haven't yet run out of processing power on my Helix, but then again I'm very frugal with what I put in the signal path, and only include things that actually make a noticeable difference to the sound and wherever possible use Snapshot parameter changes to change the sound, which allows me me to use the smallest amount of modules in a Preset. I made a conscious decision to go for the top of the range Helix when I bought mine working on the assumption that if I bought a cheaper model I would regret it later. TBH the things that only the Helix Floor does that I have found invaluable are things that I hadn't really considered until I started using it.

 

And in a way the answer to the problems of anyone finding the cheaper models limiting would be to upgrade to the full Helix Floor or Rack model. It will also have the advantage that your sounds can be transported over too, whereas if you go for something from a different manufacturer you'll be starting from scratch and with a completely different user-interface. And for anyone who considers the Helix Floor expensive, bear in mind that compared that until recently you'd have paid the same amount of money (around £1k) for something with a fraction of the facilities and user-friendliness, which means that in real terms IMO it is a complete bargain.

[MrDinsdale]

It's less the cost of the Floor which I dislike, but the footprint; the same goes for the full GT1000. I love the Stomp/GT1000core profile and the ability to integrate with other pedals, I'd pay more for a Stomp with a more modern chipset with the power of the Floor.

When I tried the Stomp, I hit DSP issues quickly, especially once I started doing any parallel processing, which was a huge disappointment. This was far less the case with the GT1000core which, for me, made it far more worthwhile. I could use the GT1000core by itself happily if I wasn't so picky about some of the drive tones, I don't think the Stomp would get me through without supplementing with a preamp and drive or two.

 

Both are cool units, but both carry some caveats.

[Al Krow]

3 hours ago, MrDinsdale said:

It's less the cost of the Floor which I dislike, but the footprint; the same goes for the full GT1000. I love the Stomp/GT1000core profile and the ability to integrate with other pedals, I'd pay more for a Stomp with a more modern chipset with the power of the Floor.

When I tried the Stomp, I hit DSP issues quickly, especially once I started doing any parallel processing, which was a huge disappointment. This was far less the case with the GT1000core which, for me, made it far more worthwhile. I could use the GT1000core by itself happily if I wasn't so picky about some of the drive tones, I don't think the Stomp would get me through without supplementing with a preamp and drive or two.

 

Both are cool units, but both carry some caveats.

 

This^^ particularly the point about compact footprint.

 

Personally I don't think any of the multifxs do everything well e.g. filter & synth? Certainly not the ones I've come across, anyway. So I've gone with the approach of having a multifx at the heart of my pedalboard supplemented by a few dedicated pedals that just do stuff I would regularly want to use in a live setting, "better". A Zoom B1-4 has been perfectly adequate for a long time, but now that my crew are starting to regularly do function gigs it's probably time for me to bite the bullet and replace the B1-4 with something more capable / less noisy. That had always been the plan when I got a GT1000 Core first time around, before I moved it on to one of our band's guitarists who had just joined at the start of the year, and who has since been super happy with it.

 

Edited June 21 by Al Krow

[BigRedX]

For me the point of the large format multi-effects is that they are self-contained units that are essentially their own pedalboard. In this respect the Helix Floor trumps all the other devices I have seen because it has a built-in PSU which for me is an absolute must in a gigging situation. I worked with musicians in the past that have similar devices with external PSUs and in every case at some point the low voltage side lead has failed rendering it useless. 

 

I accept that some of the effects in a multi-effects unit may not deliver quite the sounds that are wanted, but my philosophy is that live I'll take the convenience of having everything in a single device which is MIDI controllable over having a slightly "better" sound that may be not be noticeable to my audience. I don't use filter or synth sounds for guitar or bass because IMO a keyboard/MIDI synth will always do them better and we already have two synth players in the band - one human and one computer. In the studio I'll use whatever I need to get the sound that is right for the final mix.

[MrDinsdale]

Aye, I've not found one that does everything perfectly. My findings so far:

• QC absolutely nails the amps, cabs and drives, IMO better than either the HX or GT. That's before you factor in captures etc. It really falls short of the other 2 for modulation and delay options.
• The GT offers up some solid Boss classics along with a bunch of other classics. Still, it's mostly straightforward stuff you'd expect, and their ecosystem of supporting software and release cadence is pretty underwhelming.
• HX offers way more stuff and a better community and update cycle. I think they have some cool boutique-esq stuff in there, too, besides the more predictable offerings, which would take a lot of faffing to emulate on a GT or QC. I wasn't impressed with the amps or drives except for a couple, which were fine. The DSP power of the stomp is the biggest detractor.

It's all incredibly subjective, at the end of the day, and what is a good or acceptable sound will differ wildly between individuals based on their preferences, the kind of music they play, and their willingness to compromise. For me, if I had to pick one or if I had to use it in isolation without any external pedals, it'd be the same order:

1. Quad Cortex
2. GT1000core
3. HX Stomp

Fractal looks incredible despite the minimal bass offering, but it is way out of my acceptable price range.

[BigRedX]

I'm obviously approaching it from a completely different direction to the typical user. 

 

Firstly I have no idea if any of the models on any of these devices are accurate to the originals, and TBH I don't really care. For me amps and speakers were always seen as devices that would get my instrument/line-level signal from whatever instrument I was playing, and effects I was using, to a level where it could be heard by the audience, and any colouration they added to the sound were unintentional and unwanted. In the days when I did own individual pedals or rack processors, none of them were conventional and most were chosen first and foremost for practicality - for instance when I bought my first delay device (some time in the mid-80s) the most important thing to me was the fact that it had a display showing the delay time in Ms so I could get my echoes in time with the music; MIDI sync and tap-tempo weren't even a thing back then, or I would have probably picked one of those as the must-have feature.

 

So as long as I have access to all the typical effects I need - compression, distortion, EQ, chorus/flanger and delay - which perform in a way that I am expecting and produce sounds that work in the context of the overall band mix, I am happy. For me programmable memories, MIDI control, a nice big display, a built-in PSU connected by a standard IEC mains lead and the fact that I only need a single device are absolutely essential. At a gig I can plonk the device down on stage, connect the leads and I'm ready to go. When we sometimes have 10 minutes max to get set up and line checked at a multi-band gig where there is often barely enough room to stand let alone move about on stage, I want something that I can get connected and working in the shortest time possible.