My ToneDexter experience so far

[rb1591]

A few personal observations regarding my experience with ToneDexter so far. Hope this is helpful.

First, like many of you, I've been chasing a good acoustic sound for 30+ years and have used many different components including most of the excellent brands available. In my live gig, I fingerpick about 70% of time and strum about 30%. I play most private party jobs, so I haul my own PA including QSC 12, a Yamaha mixer, etc. … pretty good sound quality, I think. I offer that info just to put my comments in context. It's all about playing live to me. I have no interest in using the TD for recording.

1) I'm trying to restrain my enthusiasm for TD because I've used enough gear over the years to know that what seems great at first may not seem so revolutionary after a few months. That said, right now I'm thinking TD is a game-changer. I had reservations about the great sounding YouTube videos which were done in a quiet room or studio. What I wanted to know is how does TD work live. In general, my goal has NOT been "just like my guitar but louder." I always search for a system that was usable, musical, and did a reasonable job sounding like a guitar with a minimum of piezo ugliness.

Here's what I'm finding so far: All things considered, TD can do "just like my guitar but louder," and that is, indeed, a good thing mainly because with the TD, the guitar sits right in the mix. It does not cut its way through in an ugly, raspy way, but much more like a well-recorded guitar that is present but not overdone … think James Taylor's guitar in a mix of other instruments. TD is a big step toward that.

2) I've had good training results with both expensive and inexpensive mics. Although I was not pleased with my experiments with two excellent dynamic mics – Sennheiser 421 and Shure SM57 – I have gotten good results with these condensers: AKG 451 ($500) and a MXL 603S (<$100).

3) In the training process, mic placement makes a big different. It pays to experiment. I thought I would never use 22 memory slots, but yes, they are useful for comparison sake.

4) Probably just my ear, but with the TD, I prefer USTs and "in bridge" pickups (Baggs LB6 and Barbera Soloist) much more than the K&K that's in my dreadnought. Surprisingly my favorite at this point is the Dtar Wavelength, a UST with an 18v preamp … very lively and responsive, but not what most TD owners are using, it seems. On a slightly negative note, the LB6 and Barbera Soloist have worked well, but training is awkward because you have to remove the out of phase strings to train … you end up training with four strings.

BTW, the training process is simple and can become second-nature, making experimenting fun, quick, and easy. TD is really a well-designed product.

5) In the unexpected category, the TD's headphone amp is excellent, much clearer than the headphone amp in my small mixer. Same goes for the tone controls … very effective. I have not missed having a midrange adjustment.

That's all I can think of for the time being. Hope this helps.

[Groberts]

Originally Posted by rb1591

A few personal observations regarding my experience with ToneDexter so far. Hope this is helpful.

First, like many of you, I've been chasing a good acoustic sound for 30+ years and have used many different components including most of the excellent brands available. In my live gig, I fingerpick about 70% of time and strum about 30%. I play most private party jobs, so I haul my own PA including QSC 12, a Yamaha mixer, etc. … pretty good sound quality, I think. I offer that info just to put my comments in context. It's all about playing live to me. I have no interest in using the TD for recording.

1) I'm trying to restrain my enthusiasm for TD because I've used enough gear over the years to know that what seems great at first may not seem so revolutionary after a few months. That said, right now I'm thinking TD is a game-changer. I had reservations about the great sounding YouTube videos which were done in a quiet room or studio. What I wanted to know is how does TD work live. In general, my goal has NOT been "just like my guitar but louder." I always search for a system that was usable, musical, and did a reasonable job sounding like a guitar with a minimum of piezo ugliness.

Here's what I'm finding so far: All things considered, TD can do "just like my guitar but louder," and that is, indeed, a good thing mainly because with the TD, the guitar sits right in the mix. It does not cut its way through in an ugly, raspy way, but much more like a well-recorded guitar that is present but not overdone … think James Taylor's guitar in a mix of other instruments. TD is a big step toward that.

2) I've had good training results with both expensive and inexpensive mics. Although I was not pleased with my experiments with two excellent dynamic mics – Sennheiser 421 and Shure SM57 – I have gotten good results with these condensers: AKG 451 ($500) and a MXL 603S (<$100).

3) In the training process, mic placement makes a big different. It pays to experiment. I thought I would never use 22 memory slots, but yes, they are useful for comparison sake.

4) Probably just my ear, but with the TD, I prefer USTs and "in bridge" pickups (Baggs LB6 and Barbera Soloist) much more than the K&K that's in my dreadnought. Surprisingly my favorite at this point is the Dtar Wavelength, a UST with an 18v preamp … very lively and responsive, but not what most TD owners are using, it seems. On a slightly negative note, the LB6 and Barbera Soloist have worked well, but training is awkward because you have to remove the out of phase strings to train … you end up training with four strings.

BTW, the training process is simple and can become second-nature, making experimenting fun, quick, and easy. TD is really a well-designed product.

5) In the unexpected category, the TD's headphone amp is excellent, much clearer than the headphone amp in my small mixer. Same goes for the tone controls … very effective. I have not missed having a midrange adjustment.

That's all I can think of for the time being. Hope this helps.

I really enjoyed your review and information. especially with your disclaimer about restraining enthusiasm and giving a real-world report how it works "live". Great share! Thank you.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by rb1591

On a slightly negative note, the LB6 and Barbera Soloist have worked well, but training is awkward because you have to remove the out of phase strings to train … you end up training with four strings.
.

I just did a massive retraining session over the weekend to pickup up the new 1.30 features. Interestingly, the one I'm most happy with (testing at home only, so far) was the Barbara. I didn't remove any strings, I just limited my playing to strings 6,4,2, playing single lines and double stops. Very easy, and the results seem good.

[Spook]

Thanks for posting this. Nice to see objective and personal reviews. I'm still a bit on the fence. I've been through so many 'shiny new things' relative to acoustic guitar amplification that I'm always dubious.

[Groberts]

Originally Posted by Spook

Thanks for posting this. Nice to see objective and personal reviews. I'm still a bit on the fence. I've been through so many 'shiny new things' relative to acoustic guitar amplification that I'm always dubious.

Do you have one?

[rb1591]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

I just did a massive retraining session over the weekend to pickup up the new 1.30 features. Interestingly, the one I'm most happy with (testing at home only, so far) was the Barbara. I didn't remove any strings, I just limited my playing to strings 6,4,2, playing single lines and double stops. Very easy, and the results seem good.

Thanks, Doug. I'll try the simpler approach. Obviously, I don't understand exactly what is being captured in building the wavemap. Seems like a combination of strumming, picking, etc. would be necessary, but apparently, that's not the case.

Spook, regarding 'shiny new things,' I totally understand and I've got several pieces of discarded gear to prove it. At the same time, I admit that the search can be fun … just expensive.

[Petty1818]

Originally Posted by Spook

Thanks for posting this. Nice to see objective and personal reviews. I'm still a bit on the fence. I've been through so many 'shiny new things' relative to acoustic guitar amplification that I'm always dubious.

I assume you are on the fence about purchasing one? If so, give it a try. I am just like you. I get super excited for new pickups or technology, spend the big bucks and walk away disappointed. I can;t tell you how many times I have bought an expensive di/preamp unit or pickup only to have my pickup sound worse than someone who is using a Fishman Matrix UST.

The thing with the Tonedexter is that you are not fixed to a certain tone. You can experiment until you get the tones you want. I think with the new software and blend control, it makes the TD a no brainer.

[gfirob]

I have had my Tonedexter for about two weeks. I use it with a Rosewood Martin OM, with K&K's. I had similar experience with mikes, although the best results ended up being with a large condenser mike. I have only good things to say about it, and I sat on the fence for quite a while because of the cost and because it just seemed too good to be true. But it lives entirely up to the original poster's description.

Most people who have spent some heavy money on high end guitars end up spending heavy money on pickups and preamps but almost always find they come up short—their $5000 guitar sounds like a plywood guitar through the amp. I don't think there are that many of Tonedexters out there now (mine has a serial number in the 300's) but as more and more of them are released out into the wild, they will come to define what a good amplified guitar sounds like, I'm sure. Nothing else can compete right now. Easy to use, well designed and built and totally delivers the goods.

[guitaniac]

rb1591,

Thanks especially for your observations regarding the DTAR Wavelength/ToneDexter pairing. I've also observed that the Wavelength system is a very "lively and responsive" pickup system. Its one of the best UST systems, IMO. I most recently used a Wavelength system in one of my guitars while the Anthem SL system from that guitar was being repaired by Baggs support. (The Tru Mic had gone bad after several years of heavy use.) If that Anthem system ever goes bad again, I'll be sure to give the Wavelength/ToneDexter combo a try.

[MrErikJ]

Did you experience any "hollowness" or odd sound qualities with the LB6? That's my preferred pickup and the samples James posted previously had an odd hollowness to it, more audible when strummed. I chalked it up to bleed through on the out-of-phase crystals and, to my ears, didn't think it was a good match. Then again, it could be as simple as re-positioning the mic during training.

[rb1591]

Originally Posted by MrErikJ

Did you experience any "hollowness" or odd sound qualities with the LB6? That's my preferred pickup and the samples James posted previously had an odd hollowness to it, more audible when strummed. I chalked it up to bleed through on the out-of-phase crystals and, to my ears, didn't think it was a good match. Then again, it could be as simple as re-positioning the mic during training.

I did not, but I made sure during training that I did not play the G and B strings … in fact I loosen them and taped them to the fretboard. Overall the LPB6 wavemaps were very solid and warm sounding, as I was expecting from that pickup. All that said … your mileage may vary.

As I wrote in my original post, mic placement makes a big, big difference … more than I would have expected.

[guitaniac]

Originally Posted by MrErikJ

Did you experience any "hollowness" or odd sound qualities with the LB6? That's my preferred pickup and the samples James posted previously had an odd hollowness to it, more audible when strummed. I chalked it up to bleed through on the out-of-phase crystals and, to my ears, didn't think it was a good match. Then again, it could be as simple as re-positioning the mic during training.

FWIW, I had a poor 1st attempt at creating a WaveMap for my Barbera Soloist-equipped guitar. Changing the mic position provided much better results on the second try. I should also add that I trained the Soloist-equipped guitar in the same manner that Doug trained his. I just played the 6th, 4th and 2nd strings.

[Groberts]

Originally Posted by guitaniac

FWIW, I had a poor 1st attempt at creating a WaveMap for my Barbera Soloist-equipped guitar. Changing the mic position provided much better results on the second try. I should also add that I trained the Soloist-equipped guitar in the same manner that Doug trained his. I just played the 6th, 4th and 2nd strings.

Playing just the 6th, 4th and 2nd strings sounds challenging. I don't get it.

[guitaniac]

Originally Posted by Groberts

Playing just the 6th, 4th and 2nd strings sounds challenging. I don't get it.

In my case, I just went up and down the frets picking every pitch available on those three strings. That's the only form of "playing" that's needed, though Doug may well have done something more musical for WaveMap training.

[The Arborist]

So, there I was this evening on YouTube listening and watching a beautifully recorded and very expensive acoustic guitar, being played into an expensive condenser mic, and this through my nice studio monitors and I thought..what a perfect acoustic sound.

All I have to do now is record some of this into logic and with correct levels, play this into tonedexter to train it ( I don't own a tonedexter....yet)

Not saying I would do this, but I could...