Tonedexter vs Alix
 

Hi there, guys!

I'm on the market to get me a Preamp to use with my HD28 equipped with a HFN Schatten Passive pickup (putty install). Everything will run into a QSC Touchmix8 mixer, then into a QSC K10.2.

Since I live in Brazil, and here we don't have these preamps on stores for testing (and none of these preamps have a LOT of reviews/sound samples on YouTube, too), what do you guys think would be a better choice?

My main goal is to have a natural sounding plugged sound. The Tonedexter is better on that, AFAIK, but it lacks eq, compared to the Alix. Maybe a TD with a Empress ParaEQ would be a killer match?

Thank you for your help!

I think you are talking about two different creatures, apples and oranges. If your mission is natural sounding acoustic guitar amplification, then the the Tonedexter is the best option. It will create a file specific to your guitar that will replicate the sound of that guitar through a microphone. The Alix is a preamp with strong EQ capabilities, but it can't do what the Tonedexter can do. It can make your guitar sound better, but it is just not the same kind of device.

that's about as good an answer as you can get.

The TD bass and treble controls are quite useful, but going into a Touchmix mixer you have oodles of EQ control that can be saved and recalled with a click. Why would you need an outboard EQ?

Phil

My main goal with an outboard eq pedal is to do some "on the fly" changes, just to fight feedback, when notch filter is not enough.

I would dial the sound that I like on Touchmix, then control feedback and make minimal changes according to the room, live. It might be overkill, but that'd help me a lot... and since I already have the ParaEQ, that would not be a problem.

Thank you all for the replies!

I might go with the Tonedexter!

People say the HFN is already very natural sounding. If you don’t think so then the Tonedexter will indeed get you all the way there. It does what it supposed to do. I don’t use mine since my Dazzo pickups already sound very natural on their own. Adding the TD is a bit unnecessary.

Same with me: I have Schatten, Dazzo, K&K and Ultra Tonic installed in my guitars. I like what the Tonedexter does with K&K and Ultra Tonic, but do not need it on my Schatten and Dazzo installed guitars. If you want to buy something, I would recommend the Alix. But why ? You write you have a Para DI at hand. And with a Touchmix you have elaborate EQ to notch out the feedback frequency. Maybe a different pickup helps more. Ultra Tonic is such a clever design , especially for boomy guitars like HD28. That's why I use it in my prewar D28 style Merrill C28.

I had my HFN installed in a wrong way before, and it sounded thin. I just changed my tape to a putty install, and it seems that it get a LOT better.

I will have a gig pretty soon, and will se if the sound got better. If it gets more natural, maybe I'll just stick with my LR Baggs Session DI (for the saturation and compression EQ) and the Empress ParaEQ, for small adjustments on the fly.

I'll let you know!

Thank you very much!

The thing to consider with the Tonedexter is owning or having access to really good microphones. Garbage in, garbage out.

I don't know, people have had success with a pretty wide variety of microphones, though Audio Sprockets does make pretty clear suggestions. I use an Ear Trumpet Labs Edwina, a mid-sized condenser mike, which cost about $400.

tonedexter gets lots of love here.
I wont say too much about it.
only that it didnt work for me.
i do have a felix and wouldnt trade
it for anything. Grace Design puts
studio grade preamps in these things.
and youll need it to overcome the
lousy preamps in the touchmucks
( sitting back eating popcorn) ;)

Hmmm... I didn't know Touchmix had a bad preamp. Since HFN is a natural sounding pickup, and the TM have bad preamp, maybe the Felix (or Alix) would be a better bet.

pandapandelo..i think the alix is a better choice over the tonedexter.
This is of course a subjective observation . my own personal opinion.
ive owned both and prefered the sound
of the felix to the sound of the tonedexter. i also prefered the sound of
this running into an analog board over
the touchmix digital. though the touchmix has a multitude of options and
features i think it doesnt excel at any of them. So there is a compromise between having all that in a menu driven
computer/mixer. And overall sound quality. Will the audience know? well
i would if i was in the audience. but for
the most part no.. Me i would take an
older Mackie vlz board over the touchmix anyday. Again just my humble
opinion.
Qsc speakers are top notch pro sound equipment.. cant go wrong with those..

I thank you all, for the feedback on my thread. I've read A LOT of important information over here, since I can't test those preamps here, where I live.

I haven't decided what should I get, since both the TD and Felix look like great tools. But I have a better understanding and a better opinions from people who actually used them.

If more people with experience with TD and Felix could talk about their opinions, that would be great!

Have anyone used TD/Felix with HFN Passive Pickup?

Truth is... I have never worried about preamps. I just tough about what Tonedexter does with the sound, and what Felix/Alix could do with the EQing. So, I was thinking about have me a TD and use my Empress ParaEQ for EQing purposes.

But since now I'm aware that the Felix/Alix have a great preamp (that I wasn't worried about, because I don't know anything about this subject), I don't know if it would be better a better preamp+eq (Felix/Alix), or the Tonedexter+Empress. I guess a Touchmix don't have a great preamp. :/

And that's quite sad, because I can't test them where I'm at. I will have to make a decision and pray for the best. Hahahahahahaha

But, once again, THANK YOU for the feedback. They help a lot!

And sorry for my rusty english.

This is the key that I think some people miss when talking about TD and EQ. TD actually has massive EQ, the ability to make far more complex tone adjustments than traditional preamps - it's just that you don't do it by twisting knobs, you do it automatically via the training process. It creates an "EQ curve" that you couldn't replicate with any device with just tone controls. This assumes that what you're trying to achieve with the EQ is to get a natural tone, of course, and supposes that the rest of your signal chain and the environment you play in is able to deal with a natural guitar tone, which isn't always the case, sadly.

Both TD and Alix/Felix are good devices, but totally different. The Grace preamps are basically their studio M101 preamps in a stage box. Totally clean, clear, uncolored. They will make whatever sound your pickup produces come thru clear and unmodified. Of course, there's also good EQ. TD does not pass your pickup onto the next stage "uncolored", it changes it to sound more like your acoustic guitar. Both approaches are useful, it's a matter of what you need. You could also use both - just put TD in the effects loop of Alix/Felix, or add an EQ in TD's effects loop. Personally, I think something's probably wrong if you need a lot more EQ, and best addressed in other ways, but that's just my experience.

Thank you for the reply, Doug!

I love the sound of my Martin unplugged (even plugged in, with the HFN Passive going trough a LR Baggs Session DI... that saturation and compress eq are terrific). So, I guess the TD would make it even better, sounding more like my acoustic.

Since I only play solo gigs (vocals and acoustic guitar), I think I will be fine with the TD. IF I need any eqing (and it seems I won't), I can do it on the mixer or the Empress ParaEQ. The rest would be up to the TD and the training process.

I have a Neumann KMS105 and a AT2035 for training... and I guess the Neumann would be a better bet, since it have a more flat frequency response.

Once again: thank you all for the feedbacks! It's been amazingly clarifying!

If you like the Session, then you are already not going the route of perfectly clean and uncolored, which is what Felix/Alix gives you. I suspect you'd like the ToneDexter, even tho it's also nothing like the Session.

Hahahahah! You got me!

I'll probably retire the Session DI when I got me the TD. Do you think that the Neumann KMS105 can be a good mic to train with TD?

It's a handheld condenser mic, but I've seen its basically a KM184 for vocals (and the frequency response seems to be almost the same between the two).

I think any mic can be used. Just like using mics for recording, the sound will be different with different mics, but they all make your guitar sound more like the mic than the pickup. Start with what you have, and see how it works, then go from there (if you need to).

Thank you very much, Doug!

I would add that sometimes there is a divide in Tonedexter users between those who play solo or as an acoustic duo, and those who play with a band. I loaned my Tonedexter to a friend who was very excited about the device when playing it alone with me in a room, but when he used it with his group (electric base, another guitar and drums), he was less satisfied with it and I think I have heard this from others on this forum (this may be true of my fellow Vermonter).

As I recall, when I was first considering purchasing it and I talked to James May on the phone (an amazingly available guy) he tried to explain what the Tonedexter did by saying "Imagine an equalizer with 2,000 channels..." and this makes sense to me and also (as Doug Young suggests) shows how the Tonedexter is different from even very powerful EQ devices.

Hmmm... I got what you mean, gfirob!

I just use my acoustic solo... just me, my vocals and acoustic guitar. So, I think that for me, the TD would be great. If I need to "cut" trough the mix, I could use "just" the pickup with the blend knob, or switch to a LR Baggs M80 Pickup, that I always carry with me.

Thank you for the advice!

Yes I did and still do:
Again ! No need to combine Schatten with a TD !
LJs post is unbelievable knowledgable, detailed and focussed - he really nailed it !
But: He is talking about K&K in combination with TD. Yes, I really love what the TD does with my K&K equipped instruments. I never thought this would be possible until I bought a TD this summer.
Using Schatten HFN or a Dazzo with TD is a whole different story. Yes, the results are fine, but not as spectacular as TD/K&K because the TD can not do that amount of magic on these PUs. Why ? Because these PUs sound too natural to let the TD do the work he is built for.

Back to your point:
You wrote you want some extra pedal for notching just in case. Puh, the TD is a pretty expensive tool just for that application.

And:
Touchmix preamps are fine IMHO. And their quality have very low to no influence on the subject here.

If feedback is an issue with your Schatten HFN / Martin HD 28 you should keep in mind, that the very natural sounding Schatten HFN can get lost in a busy mix or loud environment. Due to its nice sound it lacks some "cutting through" power.
That is why I use my OM18 / Schatten guitar in quiet and solo gigging settings.
So before paying some extra money I would experiment with stage volume, monitor placement, using the HPF on your K10.2 speakers or on your board.

I have not tried the Schatten with TD, but this is consistent with my experience with the Dazzo. I had a lot of trouble getting TD to do anything positive with the Dazzo at first. I now have wavemap for my Dazzo/Martin that works, but the difference is so subtle, it doesn't matter much. Not even sure it's an improvement, just different.

At the same time, check out the OP's demo of how his Schatten sounds in this recent thread:

https://www.acousticguitarforum.com/...d.php?t=566997

That's not how I'd expect the Schatten to sound, so TD might be able to help (or alternately, there may be something more basic that needs to be fixed).

I have re-installed the HFN with putty, and the problem was solved. I will test it again, in a live performance, next sunday, 29. I'll let you guys know if it have improved. Checking the difference with my in ear, the thin sound is gone, and everything is sounding WAY more natural. I guess I have improved the sound a lot, now.

And I guess that feedback is not a problem... at all. I'm just too worried about it. Almost paranoid. It will get better with the time and experience on my sound checks.

This is certainly my reasons for selling the TD. i think for me i needed a two ch tonedexter. or 2 tonedexters. as in a live
performance i needed (in the band)the ability to.switch from guitar to mandolin to bass. as i found the mandolin and bass have very similar eq settings ( i know sounds unlikely but try it) I can get away with the felix. Now i use the helix stomp.
I find great tone in this little box and presets are stored for each instrument.
Like the tonedexter i can use Impulse responses in my signal chain for anything from a vintage gibson f5 mandolin to a 14th century upright bass. (Or a tele through a twin reverb...:)
this thing (the hx stomp ) has opened things up creativly for me.
Lately ive tried useing the felix as a mixer. running my vocal mic into the mic pre on ch 1 and the helix into ch 2. preliminary results with this setup are proving quite promising...

PC MAC Matlab Octave IR Generation for Acoustic Guitar
 

I am currently using a Cuki79 IR (minimum phase version) with my HFN. I think the HFN sounds fine without the IR, but with the IR I get a fuller slightly more pleasant tone. In my duo it is probably only noticeable to me.

I found using an IR in a "louder not solo application" facilitated by direct control of the lower resonances in the 80-250 Hz range, which I am doing with two parametric EQ notches.

It's been 39 years since my MSEE, and I just finished a text book on signal processing along with a tutorial on Matlab (a math software development environment). I've got some ideas on how to turn IR generation for acoustic guitar into a relatively turn-key operation with a PC or MAC, and Matlab (or the free GNU version Octave). I might have some results in a few months... I am hoping this post gets crawled by Google and I get someone in the IR business to look over my plan. If I get something working, I'll post the code to share.

Since I don't have Audio Sprockets experience in what looks like a usable result, I am attempting to brute force that problem.

1. Very large segments and optimal window function to minimize segmentation and frequency domain quantization effects.
2. Preprocessing the pickup and mic FFT outputs for divide-by-near-zero problems.
3. Support for IR loaders without low/high cut and/or parametric EQ.

A plan...

• Mic and guitar sample

o determine sample size (16 or 24 bit)
o determine sample rate

• Segment sample into 2 second intervals
• Skip 6 seconds into sample

o scan mic and pickup segments for max >= (2^(sample size - 1) - 1)
o skip to next segment if clipping detected
o skip 5 segments, repeat and identify 10 segments of mic and guitar with no clipping

• Dolph-Chebyshev window each chosen segment (might use simpler window as per Cuki)
• FFT all 10 segment pairs
• Scan pickup segment FFT coefficient magnitudes for 60 dB down or more from peak

o replace those coefficients and corresponding mic coefficients with 1 (0 dB).

• Coefficient by Coefficient divide mic FFT by corresponding pickup FFT
• Accumulate quotients
• Scale accumulated quotient by 1/10
• Create minimum phase version
• Option: set quotient coefficients to 1 below 100 and above 10 kHz
• Inverse FFT
• Normalize results to some reasonable gain compatible with 16 bit samples
• Discard leading near zeros (80 dB down), truncate to 2048 points.

Thats impressive stuff.. only because i understand about 1/3 of it.... ha ;).. But it sounds like your working on a marketable technology.
And appears its ready or almost ready for presentation..
congrats and good luck in your venture..