The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > Acoustic Amplification

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 12-21-2017, 06:21 PM
SongwriterFan SongwriterFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 25,422
Default ToneDexter: Am I doing something wrong?

Got my ToneDexer a couple of weeks ago, and have played with it a bit. Just using an SM57 mic for now.

I finally got my Taylor GS (maple/englemann) with ES1.2 or 1.3 (has 9V battery and two body sensors and the magnetic neck pickup) fixed (had a blown fuse).

I was told that the ToneDexter doesn't play nice with the Taylor ES1.x system (thought they said it wouldn't even train at all).

Well, it certainly trains . . that's not the issue.

The first issue is one I've had with any guitar/pickup I've tried so far: the Bypass mode is clearly LOUDER than the processed mode. Not sure why that should be. Either the unit isn't adjust the levels properly, or I'm increasing the mic distance after the volumes are set and while it's training? I don't think I'm doing the latter.

The second problem seems to be more pronounced on the ES1.3 than on the other guitars/pickups I've tried to train with . . and that is, the processed sound doesn't really sound like the MIC'd sound. Not sure what would cause that????

I've played around a bit with mic position, and while it can certainly change the sound a bit, it doesn't seem to affect how different the mic'd sound is from the processed sound.

Here's an example I made while using the Taylor with ES1.3 . . . . the first 15 seconds of the recording are played in the BYPASS mode, while the last half is played through the "processed" mode (character set to 100%) into a Zoom H6 recorder through a 1/4" input.

http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/ima...rTaylorES1.mp3

As you can tell, the output of the BYPASS mode is substantially louder than the processed mode.

And while I do think that the processed sound is more like the acoustic sound, it doesn't sound like what the mic is picking up (I just got a pair of headphones today, so I'm able to listen to the MIC sound vs processed sound vs BYPASS sound.

Any ideas?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-21-2017, 07:20 PM
James May's Avatar
James May James May is offline
AGF Sponsor
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Nevada City, CA
Posts: 711
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SongwriterFan View Post
Got my ToneDexer a couple of weeks ago, and have played with it a bit. Just using an SM57 mic for now.

I finally got my Taylor GS (maple/englemann) with ES1.2 or 1.3 (has 9V battery and two body sensors and the magnetic neck pickup) fixed (had a blown fuse).

I was told that the ToneDexter doesn't play nice with the Taylor ES1.x system (thought they said it wouldn't even train at all).

Well, it certainly trains . . that's not the issue.

The first issue is one I've had with any guitar/pickup I've tried so far: the Bypass mode is clearly LOUDER than the processed mode. Not sure why that should be. Either the unit isn't adjust the levels properly, or I'm increasing the mic distance after the volumes are set and while it's training? I don't think I'm doing the latter.

The second problem seems to be more pronounced on the ES1.3 than on the other guitars/pickups I've tried to train with . . and that is, the processed sound doesn't really sound like the MIC'd sound. Not sure what would cause that????

I've played around a bit with mic position, and while it can certainly change the sound a bit, it doesn't seem to affect how different the mic'd sound is from the processed sound.

Here's an example I made while using the Taylor with ES1.3 . . . . the first 15 seconds of the recording are played in the BYPASS mode, while the last half is played through the "processed" mode (character set to 100%) into a Zoom H6 recorder through a 1/4" input.

http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/ima...rTaylorES1.mp3

As you can tell, the output of the BYPASS mode is substantially louder than the processed mode.

And while I do think that the processed sound is more like the acoustic sound, it doesn't sound like what the mic is picking up (I just got a pair of headphones today, so I'm able to listen to the MIC sound vs processed sound vs BYPASS sound.

Any ideas?
All your issues can be attributed to the ES1 system, which is magnetic, and doesn't work properly with ToneDexter. That's what's causing the low volume and wonky non mic-like sound.
__________________
James May
Audio Sprockets
maker of ToneDexter
James May Engineering
maker of the Ultra Tonic Pickup
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-21-2017, 07:40 PM
SongwriterFan SongwriterFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 25,422
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by James May View Post
All your issues can be attributed to the ES1 system, which is magnetic, and doesn't work properly with ToneDexter. That's what's causing the low volume and wonky non mic-like sound.
I was having pretty much the same issues (just not as severe) with the ES2 system and with a K&K system.

I'll try to create a similar mp3 file with such a guitar (might be after New Years, though). This time I'll try to tie-in to the headphone output of the Tondexter so I can record the Mic'd sound, as well.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-22-2017, 12:59 AM
pieterh pieterh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Near Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,921
Default

For what it’s worth, if your guitar has two body sensors and 9v battery then it is ES1.2, not 1.3. The last version of ES1 (1.3) made significant changes to the preamp (eq etc) as well as removing one of the sensors which was causing phase issues (iirc).

The demos I have heard with ES2 sound really good and as all my guitars either have ES2 or Pure Mini I will follow this thread with interest: I’ve been thinking of getting a tonedexter mainly because the Aura system doesn’t work well with sound board pups and I am pretty happy with the ES2 as it is. Actually I am pretty happy with the Pure Mini too, but at some point would like to try to get an even better, more acoustic sound on stage.
__________________
Gibson ES-335 Studio 2016; Furch OM34sr 2015; Fender MiJ Geddy Lee Jazz bass, 2009; Taylor 414CE 2005; Guild D35 NT 1976; Fender MIM Classic 60s Tele 2008; Fender US Standard Strat 1992; G&L ASAT classic hollowbody 2005; Ibanez RG350MDX 2010(?); Ibanez Musician fretless, 1980s; Seymour Duncan Tube 84-40; Vox AC4TV;

Ex-pat Brit in Sweden
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-22-2017, 02:21 AM
Cuki79 Cuki79 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: France
Posts: 3,006
Default

I already commented that fact in many previous posts. There is no hope for magnetic pickups.

Here is a magnetic frequency response simulator:
http://www.till.com/articles/PickupResponseDemo/

Tonedexter would be able to correct this response with a wavemap... However this is the response of the A string (Open string frequency 110 Hz)!!!

As suggested by the table on the bottom, change the Open string frequency from 110 Hz to 240 Hz (Open B string)... Well the spectrum totally changes.... So your A-string wavemap would not work for the B string.

It means that if you want to use IR convolution to correct a magnetic pickup.
1) You'd need a magnetic pickup with 6 outputs (one for each string) and no crosstalk between the 6 outputs (good luck).
2) You'd need 6 Tonedexters
3) You'd need to train the 6 tonedexters by playing only the corresponding string...
4) Note that I have no idea how the harmonic string to string coupling would be handled then

Basically you are building a Line 6 variax... which is piezo based by the way (better string to string isolation).

PS: If you read the Tonedexter patent, they say that the wavemap/IR "is tested 340 periodically to see if a sufficiently good result has been achieved, by comparing it to a template of what a known good filter looks like".

Since the template was probably made from piezo based pickup, I assume there is even less hope from the Tonedexter side.

Cuki
__________________
Martin 00-18V Goldplus + internal mic (2003)
Martin OM-28V + HFN + internal mic (1999)
Eastman E6OM (2019) Trance Audio Amulet
Yamaha FGX-412 (1998)

Gibson Les Paul Standard 1958 Reissue (2013)
Fender Stratocaster American Vintage 1954 (2014)
http://acousticir.free.fr/
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-22-2017, 08:04 AM
varmonter varmonter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: The heart of Saturday night..
Posts: 3,645
Default

Wow lots of good info there Cuki.. thanks.
I know the manual says mag pups don't work well
in most cases .I am not that
familiar with the es system Taylor uses .. can
the mag pup be bypassed /switched off? Like a strat.
While training the td ,could it be trained with
out the mag pup. Then in a live setting could
the mag pup be applied with acceptable results?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-22-2017, 10:14 AM
buzzardwhiskey buzzardwhiskey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,450
Default

I don't quite understand why one would want to "switch the mag back on"? For me, the ToneDexter and compatible pickup combo represents a sound that's a huge step forward. Adding a mag back in seems like a non-starter.
__________________
Website: http://www.buzzardwhiskey.com
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-22-2017, 10:28 AM
SongwriterFan SongwriterFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 25,422
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pieterh View Post
For what it’s worth, if your guitar has two body sensors and 9v battery then it is ES1.2,
Thanks. I thought so, but wasn't 100% sure.



Quote:
The demos I have heard with ES2 sound really good and as all my guitars either have ES2 or Pure Mini I will follow this thread with interest: I’ve been thinking of getting a tonedexter mainly because the Aura system doesn’t work well with sound board pups and I am pretty happy with the ES2 as it is.
I didn't know there's an Aura system where you can create your own wave-maps????

Yes, it works quite a bit better with the ES2 systems. The main issue I recall was that the levels didn't seem to match up all that well. Not a huge deal, really, since in real-life you wouldn't be switching between the BYPASS and processed sound. So you'd just set your level where you wanted it. But for making comparisons, it'd be nicer if the levels were more closely match.

As I said, I intend to try again "soon" . . . and this time I'll try to record the same short section before saving the sound to a slot, so I can record all three versions: pickup (BYPASS), processed, and microphone. I think you'll be pretty impressed.

I also discovered that I have a relatively inexpensive condenser mic that I'd forgotten about . . . I might try that mic out, too.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-22-2017, 10:33 AM
SongwriterFan SongwriterFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 25,422
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuki79 View Post
I already commented that fact in many previous posts. There is no hope for magnetic pickups.
Interesting. It's like you read my mind, because my question to Mr. May was going to be "do you think you could optimize the code that does the wave-mapping to work with the Taylor ES1 system?" . . . . I guess the answer to that (based on what you posted) is a definitely "no"?

That's too bad, because I'm sure there are a lot of Taylor ES1 users that would like to get a more acoustic sound out of their guitars.

I don't know how much of an "improvement" my attempt was, but I do think it does give the guitar a more "acoustic" sound . . but it definitely sounds processed.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-22-2017, 10:36 AM
SongwriterFan SongwriterFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 25,422
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by varmonter View Post
I am not that familiar with the es system Taylor uses .. can the mag pup be bypassed /switched off? Like a strat.
I can turn off the two body pickups with my system (there's switches for that inside the guitar body on the pre-amp), but there's no way to turn off the magnetic pickup under the neck. I suppose one could cut the wires to it and turn it off completely?

Hmmm, I wonder if THAT would make the system more compatible with the Tonedexter?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-22-2017, 10:45 AM
guitaniac guitaniac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,709
Default

With respect to the difference in levels between the Dexterized signal and the bypassed signal, I believe this advice from Audio Sprocket's DSP Andy might be helpful. This quote comes from comment #30 in the "ToneDexter - The Holy Grail" thread. In any event, I've used this advice to reduce the disparity between the Dexterized signal level and the bypassed signal level.

"Also, during the first segment of training where certain gains are established, what you plays matters more. In particular it is good to avoid dwelling on notes that correspond to the fundamental body resonances of the guitar, which are usually around G# on the bass E string, and around F on the D string. I usually just strum the upper 4 strings at the 5th fret during level setting phase for best results."
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-22-2017, 10:47 AM
SongwriterFan SongwriterFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 25,422
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by guitaniac View Post
"Also, during the first segment of training where certain gains are established, what you plays matters more. In particular it is good to avoid dwelling on notes that correspond to the fundamental body resonances of the guitar, which are usually around G# on the bass E string, and around F on the D string. I usually just strum the upper 4 strings at the 5th fret during level setting phase for best results."
Thanks! I must've missed that. I will try that out.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-22-2017, 10:51 AM
martingitdave martingitdave is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,292
Default

I think we have to keep in mind that the ES1 systems were Taylor's attempt to create an analog system that sounded better than the available under saddle piezo systems. Taylor later realized that they can achieve better tone using a new approach to the piezo system in the ES2. The added benefit is that piezo systems are much easier to improve with IR, per Cuki's comments. I'm sorry to say that owners of the Taylor ES1 systems will have to live with the tone they can get from the systems or attempt to improve them with standard analog style preamp systems.

I've tired almost every pickup on the market. I've gotten excellent results with many of them. But, I am now convinced that piezo + IR is the most promising of today's available technologies. A dual source system is also attractive but potentially more complicated.

Songwriter, if you are committed to the Tonedexter, and truly like your Taylor, except for the pickup, consider one of the aftermarket kits from MiSi that will reuse the knobs and battery bay and replace the pickup with a standard piezo. I suspect you'll be happier overall and get the most from the IR investment that you've made. It's called the MiSi Align XT. There are also some other replacement systems which rely on a battery. I believe it is called TruPlug.

Here is a third that looks interesting: https://shawwoodshop.com/products/ex...oustic-guitars
__________________
"Lift your head and smile at trouble. You'll find happiness someday."

Last edited by martingitdave; 12-22-2017 at 10:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-22-2017, 10:51 AM
AeroUSA AeroUSA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New York
Posts: 2,168
Default

I know that I could just test this myself but when strumming the top four strings at the 5th fret I wonder if playing them soft, medium or loud would make the bypassed and processsd sounds match better in volume?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-22-2017, 11:26 AM
James May's Avatar
James May James May is offline
AGF Sponsor
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Nevada City, CA
Posts: 711
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroUSA View Post
I know that I could just test this myself but when strumming the top four strings at the 5th fret I wonder if playing them soft, medium or loud would make the bypassed and processsd sounds match better in volume?
The point in playing these higher notes is to NOT PLAY the low notes that have excessive resonance that could fool the level matching algorithm. Whether these higher notes are played soft, medium, or loud should not affect the level matching because the mic is also hearing the soft, medium, and loud.
__________________
James May
Audio Sprockets
maker of ToneDexter
James May Engineering
maker of the Ultra Tonic Pickup
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > Acoustic Amplification

Thread Tools





All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=