Seeking Observations From Matrix VT Enhance Users

[guitaniac]

I'm curious as to how folks are using these Martins in gig situations.

Does the use of much "enhance" cause feedback problems in a higher volume setting? If so, is a bass rolloff at the mixer enough to control the problem, or is a more precise EQ device needed? (I'm presuming that the onboard tone control, which ranges from a flat signal to a deep midrange cut, won't be much help with a boominess problem.)

[SpruceTop]

Hi Gary,

Last Fall, I purchased a new Standard Series 2016 Martin GPC-18E with the new Fishman Aura VT Enhance Pickup/Preamp System. First of all, let me state the actual Martin GPC-18E guitar is a fine-sounding and easy-playing acoustic guitar! Now, on to the Aura VT Enhance.

I had high hopes for the Fishman Aura VT Enhance system as it combines a single, always-on Aura Image overlaying the signal from a Matrix UST, which can then be blended with a signal from an SBT pickup. The SBT pickup can be dialed completely out of the mix or dialed in to suit the player's tastes. Here's what I heard:

First, I played the guitar with only the UST/Aura section of the preamp. With the tone control dialed all the way to the "flat EQ" end of the soundhole module's tonewheel, the tone was decent but a bit too shrill so I dialed-in more of the "scooped EQ" feature of the preamp which gave the amplified tone a full more pleasing sound but with a trebly brittleness.

Next, I returned the UST/Aura to it flat EQ position and gradually added in some of the SBT signal via the Enhance's soundhole module's blendwheel and I immediately noticed a trebly- and mid-rangy tone to the amplified signal but it now had top and body resonance as witnessed by tapping on the guitar. The more I advanced the Enhance's soundhole module's blendwheel, the more pronounced and irritating the amplified tone! I found the best UST/Aura and SBT tone resulted from having the UST/Aura's tonewheel at its midway point of travel and the Enhance's blendwheel about 20-degrees-of-rotational arc from its "Off" position. This "best" tone to my ears is just barely passable for my style of play which uses mostly a flatpick.

Conclusion: The Aura VT Enhance is usable BUT should be used with the channel EQ section of a mixer or amp or that of a standalone preamp. I make this claim after playing three Aura VT Enhance-equipped Martin Standard Series new-model guitars. The first was an in-store audition of the Martin OMC-18E. The second was my first-ordered Martin GPC-18E that I returned because it arrived with several scratches. The third is my current Martin GPC-18E. All three of these guitars are acoustically stellar but the Aura VT Enhance performed similarly.

Can the Aura VT Enhance's internal endpin preamp be adjusted for better amplified tone? I sent an email request to Martin asking if there are any pots or switches on the preamp that can be adjusted to enable further adjustment of the system's tone to suit a player's taste? I never received a reply.

One more niggling thing that can be annoying about this system and any of the Martin systems with the endpin/preamp/battery-box unit is that if the 1/4-inch plug gets wiggled by pulling on the cord, it can cause the system to crackle as internal contact is momentarily lost and re-established.

Perhaps, the Aura VT Enhance has been improved since its introduction a little over a year ago? If not, it may be a decent system for a flesh-and-nails fingerstyle player but for someone who uses a flatpick most of the time, it will likely need some external signal-processing help.

Regards,

Ken

Martin GPC-18E Specifications at Martin Guitars Website (click the circled i on page for specs):
https://www.martinguitar.com/guitars...odels/gpc-18e/

[Cuki79]

Hi

I did not buy a guitar equipped with the VT enhance but have spent some time with it at the shop to compare it with my own IR process.

I also attended to a Martin "show" were the demo guy said Retro guitars were better because you could use the manual mode to tune the tone you like. At this demo the Retro with full fishman Aura sounded miles better than the Aura enhance.

Cuki

[guitaniac]

Thanks for the thorough recounting of your Aura Enhance experiences, Ken.

I've recently had some "challenges" with running sound for a friend's guitar, and I just discovered yesterday (upon looking it up) that its one of the new 15 series models with the Matrix VT Enhance. On my initial encounter with the pickup, I thought it might be a poorly installed UST, since it was behaving like a boomy SBT. In retrospect, I suspect he had the Enhance turned up and the tone set for a big mid cut. The result was a boomy, feedback prone sound which made it difficult for the light picking sections of his music to cut through.

The second encounter with amplifying this guitar went much better, as setting the onboard tone control for a flat signal made it easier for me to tweak the tone. We were still unaware of the "Enhance" aspect of the signal, however. I have no idea how much Enhance, if any, was dialed in.


In any event, I find it very relevant that you never did get complete satisfaction with your Aura Enhance sound, and that you believe offboard EQ help will be required for optimum results. My friend does a lot of plug'n'play stuff (Nashville writers nights and writers-in-the-round shows) where he needs decent control of his guitar sound from the stage. At this point, I'm thinking that his trusty old Tak (with its palathetic pickup system and onboard three band tone controls) is a better option.

[SpruceTop]

Originally Posted by guitaniac

Thanks for the thorough recounting of your Aura Enhance experiences, Ken.

I've recently had some "challenges" with running sound for a friend's guitar, and I just discovered yesterday (upon looking it up) that its one of the new 15 series models with the Matrix VT Enhance. On my initial encounter with the pickup, I thought it might be a poorly installed UST, since it was behaving like a boomy SBT. In retrospect, I suspect he had the Enhance turned up and the tone set for a big mid cut. The result was a boomy, feedback prone sound which made it difficult for the light picking sections of his music to cut through.

The second encounter with amplifying this guitar went much better, as setting the onboard tone control for a flat signal made it easier for me to tweak the tone. We were still unaware of the "Enhance" aspect of the signal, however. I have no idea how much Enhance, if any, was dialed in.


In any event, I find it very relevant that you never did get complete satisfaction with your Aura Enhance sound, and that you believe offboard EQ help will be required for optimum results. My friend does a lot of plug'n'play stuff (Nashville writers nights and writers-in-the-round shows) where he needs decent control of his guitar sound from the stage. At this point, I'm thinking that his trusty old Tak (with its palathetic pickup system and onboard three band tone controls) is a better option.

I think, given its onboard Aura Image, the Aura VT Enhance may have a slight edge in tone over the Matrix VT Enhance. I haven't found out yet what Aura Image is resident in the Aura VT Enhance for my Martin GPC-18E. From the other Aura-equipped Martins I've owned, I've always found that the Aura Image that was generated by mic'ing a guitar with a ribbon mic always sounded better than the other three to eight Aura Images resident on these various onboard systems. The Aura Ribbon Mic Images always sounded warmer and fuller than the other types of mic Images, especially when playing with a flatpick.

Next time you do the sound for your friend, let me suggest turning off the Enhance SBT to get a reference tone from the UST/Matrix and then have him add in just a little Enhance to hear if it improves the amplified tone. A little Enhance goes a long way!

For comparison, the Taylor ES2 is what the Aura VT Enhance and Matrix VT Enhance were out gunning for but they both missed their mark. The Taylor ES2 has the immediacy of attack of a UST with the body resonance of an SBT and can be adjusted from mellow to wonderfully warm to shrill using only its onboard guitar controls--No outboard EQ necessary.

[SpruceTop]

The reason I kept the Martin GPC-18E with Aura VT Enhance is that I got it for $2295 compared to this dealer's regular $3059 MAP. There was a Yellow Tag Sale in which this dealer moves the stock that wasn't selling very well (IMHO these new Standard Series Cutaway E Models should be selling better). So, basically, I got an excellent-sounding guitar with 1930s-style goodies like forward-shifted, scalloped bracing, open-gear tuners, dovetail neck joint, all-solid-wood, including Genuine Mahogany back and sides for a great price. I can always remove the Aura VT Enhance System and install a Trance Audio Amulet M Dual Mono in its place and I think there's even enough clearance for the Trance preamp to fit the Martin's endpin-jack/battery-box. Of course, this process can also be reversed without damaging either system.

[guitaniac]

Originally Posted by SpruceTop

The reason I kept the Martin GPC-18E with Aura VT Enhance is that I got it for $2295 compared to this dealer's regular $3059 MAP. There was a Yellow Tag Sale in which this dealer moves the stock that wasn't selling very well (IMHO these new Standard Series Cutaway E Models should be selling better). So, basically, I got an excellent-sounding guitar with 1930s-style goodies like forward-shifted, scalloped bracing, open-gear tuners, dovetail neck joint, all-solid-wood, including Genuine Mahogany back and sides for a great price. I can always remove the Aura VT Enhance System and install a Trance Audio Amulet M Dual Mono in its place and I think there's even enough clearance for the Trance preamp to fit the Martin's endpin-jack/battery-box. Of course, this process can also be reversed without damaging either system.

It interesting that you should mention the Trance Audio system. I've already mentioned to my friend that one big advantage of a non-invasive system like he has in the new Martin is that it would be easier to replace with something like the Trance Audio system. He does seem to like the guitar itself very much.

[guitaniac]

Originally Posted by Cuki79

Hi

I did not buy a guitar equipped with the VT enhance but have spent some time with it at the shop to compare it with my own IR process.

I also attended to a Martin "show" were the demo guy said Retro guitars were better because you could use the manual mode to tune the tone you like. At this demo the Retro with full fishman Aura sounded miles better than the Aura enhance.

Cuki

Thanks for the observations, Cuki.

I'm personally a fan of the Aura technology when used with custom sound images (sound images created using the same guitar/pickup rig that you'll be using with the Aura preamp). My New England friend Cormac McCarthy uses custom sound images with his Matrix-equipped Guild and the original Aura box. He gets awesome amplified tone. To my way of thinking, the best onboard Aura system will allow the user to load it with custom sound images created for (and from) that particular instrument.

[SpruceTop]

Originally Posted by guitaniac

Thanks for the observations, Cuki.

I'm personally a fan of the Aura technology when used with custom sound images (sound images created using the same guitar/pickup rig that you'll be using with the Aura preamp). My New England friend Cormac McCarthy uses custom sound images with his Matrix-equipped Guild and the original Aura box. He gets awesome amplified tone. To my way of thinking, the best onboard Aura system will allow the user to load it with custom sound images created for (and from) that particular instrument.

Having owned the original Fishman Aura Blender Pedal, and maybe it's nostalgia or something, but I think it made guitars sound warmer than the newer Aura pedals including the Spectrum. Maybe, the older Aura Blender had different analog circuitry in its input and output stages, and/or a different digital converter? One thing for sure, IMHO it sure looked cooler than the newer Aura pedals! Maybe, the old Aura Blender will become a sought-after item for player/collectors as it will be deemed to have that "superior vintage Aura tone" from the Golden Age Of Aura, and be valued in the thousands of dollars. Too bad I sold mine for $150 when I got the Aura Spectrum.

[Cuki79]

Originally Posted by guitaniac

Thanks for the observations, Cuki.

I'm personally a fan of the Aura technology when used with custom sound images (sound images created using the same guitar/pickup rig that you'll be using with the Aura preamp). My New England friend Cormac McCarthy uses custom sound images with his Matrix-equipped Guild and the original Aura box. He gets awesome amplified tone. To my way of thinking, the best onboard Aura system will allow the user to load it with custom sound images created for (and from) that particular instrument.

Well then you'll have to wait for the Tonedexter or make your own IR like I do.

At least, there is hope

Cuki

[SpruceTop]

Originally Posted by Cuki79

Well then you'll have to wait for the Tonedexter or make your own IR like I do.

At least, there is hope

Cuki

Cuki,

I'm tempted to get a ToneDexter but shouldn't spend more money on stuff but probably will. I'm a gear slut!

[guitaniac]

Originally Posted by Cuki79

Well then you'll have to wait for the Tonedexter or make your own IR like I do.

At least, there is hope

Cuki

One big difference between ToneDexter and Aura w/custom sound images is that you can blend in any amount of raw pickup signal with the Aura sound image signal. I never used more than 40% Aura sound image for live sound, and that was pretty typical according to Fishman rep Joe Barbieri. In any event, with most Aura preamps you can dial in any amount of the dry pickup signal (up to 100%), if you happen to want it for some reason. (Not so with the new Aura Enhance system, apparently.)

It'll be interesting to see, with ToneDexter, if folks find an industrial strength miked-guitar sound to be as useful in a high volume setting, or more useful in a high volume setting, as the more string-oriented and immediate sound of a UST, mag pickup or in-saddle pickup like the Graph Tech Ghost or Barbera Soloist. Some of the folks here seem to prefer the more immediate pickup sound for certain applications.

[guitaniac]

Originally Posted by SpruceTop

Having owned the original Fishman Aura Blender Pedal, and maybe it's nostalgia or something, but I think it made guitars sound warmer than the newer Aura pedals including the Spectrum. Maybe, the older Aura Blender had different analog circuitry in its input and output stages, and/or a different digital converter? One thing for sure, IMHO it sure looked cooler than the newer Aura pedals! Maybe, the old Aura Blender will become a sought-after item for player/collectors as it will be deemed to have that "superior vintage Aura tone" from the Golden Age Of Aura, and be valued in the thousands of dollars. Too bad I sold mine for $150 when I got the Aura Spectrum.

The first stock Aura sound images made were made to be used with the original blender. Perhaps the Sectrum lost some quality of function, somehow, in their attempts to create a simpler and more user-friendly product. I personally believe that the big difference with Cormac's sound (as compared to my own results with the Spectrum preamp and stock sound images) is provided by his custom sound images. Aura beta tester Harvey Reid told me that custom sound images make a big difference, and would even compensate for a poorly balanced pickup.

[Cuki79]

Originally Posted by guitaniac

One big difference between ToneDexter and Aura w/custom sound images is that you can blend in any amount of raw pickup signal with the Aura sound image signal. I never used more than 40% Aura sound image for live sound, and that was pretty typical according to Fishman rep Joe Barbieri.

You can always use a Y box and mix direct signal and IR convolved. Or put the Tonedexter in the FX loop. I can also make you one if you want, just send a pm.

[guitaniac]

Originally Posted by Cuki79

You can always use a Y box and mix direct signal and IR convolved. Or put the Tonedexter in the FX loop. I can also make you one if you want, just send a pm.

If I were a ToneDexter user who was unsure that a miked guitar sound would be the best sound for a certain application, or feedback resistant enough for a certain application, I'd probably just bring a backup preamp which works well with the guitar's pickup. Whether I end up using a miked guitar sound (from ToneDexter) or a dry pickup sound, I'll want control of the EQ and volume level from the stage.

If ToneDexter does indeed give users a less expensive and easy-to-employ method of getting amplified sound on the level (or above the level) of Aura used with custom sound images, it will indeed be something special. Even presuming it will do that, however, it remains to be seen if people will actually prefer a miked guitar sound (over a more immediate pickup sound) for various high volume applications.

In my own case, I always felt that the digitally enhanced (by Aura or Mama Bear) pickup signals were a bit more feedback prone than the dry signals. (In the case of Mama Bear's target guitar #9, a lot more feedback prone.) It remains to be seen if feedback susceptibility (as compared to the dry pickup signals) will be an issue with ToneDexter. If it isn't an issue, I suspect ToneDexter will be popular with a great many folks, if not everyone.

I'm reminded of a guitar forum comment which I read ten or fifteen years ago. The commenter speculated that pickup systems will eventually get so good that folks will be buying custom pedals which reproduce the "vintage" sound of a quacky piezo undersaddle pickup. I may need such a pedal for my Anthem SL-equipped and Lyric-equipped guitars, but it appears that ToneDexter will make it possible for folks to keep their quacky piezo pickups and convert to a miked-guitar sound whenever they choose to.