Continuation with power supply for ToneDexter…

[ljguitar]

Hi All…
I purchased a Joyo JP-05 Rechargeable Power Supply which has isolated 9v@500mA outputs, as well as 9v@100mA, and even a switchable 9v/12v/18v@100mA output. Using the 9v@500mA the ToneDexter has been powered by it successfully it for hours.

My question is
I played it for about an hour using the battery supply, then left everything hooked up and turned up for 3 hours (shopping), returned and played it for another hour, and it finally indicated the battery was down to 30-60% power remaining.

My question:
…does the ToneDexter draw more power when I'm playing than when the unit is idle with the unit still powered on, guitar plugged in, and volumes up as opposed to when I'm playing?

I'm only planning on using the battery powered option for playing not for pulling samples and running active 48v phantom power to microphones. I'm assuming pulling samples while using phantom to power an external mic would draw a lot more power than just playing with a single input (from the guitar) and output (to the PA/amp).

ToneDexter progress and observations…
I'm loving the ToneDexter with a K&K Pure Mini in place of my K&K dual source (Trinity) rig with outboard dual source preamps. I've been creating/capturing waveforms using a Peluso CEMC6 mic and my AKG 414. All samples done with cardioid capsules/settings. I'm planning on adding waveforms from my Shure KSM44 soon.

I must say (even taking into consideration what James May says about small diaphragm mics) the samples from the AKG 414 (large diaphragm mic) about 12" straight out from (and aimed at) the neck/body joint sound most like my guitar. I've been monitoring with my Sennheiser AD 445 headphones, and through my UltraSound amps.

I've pulled waveforms from neck/body joint (both angled body-wards, and straight out aimed at the joint), from just behind the bridge at both ends of the bridge from 12" out from the lower bout, level with and from beneath the body level (like James May demos on his videos). I much prefer the straight on aim-it-at-the-joint sound to any others.

Where I'm at in pulling wave forms process is to have my guitar playing friends who play different styles from me play my guitar through the ToneDexter in their style while I listen.

I've captured 6 different waveforms and I'm demoing them in different 'character' settings. One I love love, two I like quite a bit, and three I'll likely re-do as soon as I can haul it to church and get one of our sound techs to experiment with me through the house & in-ear monitor systems.

I don't believe headphones, and acoustic amps can show me enough. It's really what comes through the house PA that will be heard.

Lastly…
This is one serious piece of gear! Glad my wife asked what I wanted for Christmas!!!



[/size]

[James May]

Larry, nice to hear you're liking your ToneDexter!

Regarding power consumption when in run mode, it'll be roughly the same whether you are playing or not. It will vary slightly with the number of LED segments that are lit. Training mode may take a slight bit more.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by James May

Larry, nice to hear you're liking your ToneDexter!

Regarding power consumption when in run mode, it'll be roughly the same whether you are playing or not. It will vary slightly with the number of LED segments that are lit. Training mode may take a slight bit more.

Hi James

I do like it, a lot…as do others who hear it.

I don't want to go overboard on 'reporting' but if further experimentation with other solid microphones yields same or better results with my other main guitars, this will be the best upgrade I've done in regards to amplification in 15 years.

I have 4 acoustics with K&K Pure mini + microphones, and plan to capture waveforms of them all.

[Petty1818]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

Hi James

I do like it, a lot…as do others who hear it.

I don't want to go overboard on 'reporting' but if further experimentation with other solid microphones yields same or better results with my other main guitars, this will be the best upgrade I've done in regards to amplification in 15 years.

I have 4 acoustics with K&K Pure mini + microphones, and plan to capture waveforms of them all.

Out of curiosity, where do you set the blend? I find a full wavemap is too much but others seem to really like it.

[Petty1818]

Originally Posted by James May

Larry, nice to hear you're liking your ToneDexter!

Regarding power consumption when in run mode, it'll be roughly the same whether you are playing or not. It will vary slightly with the number of LED segments that are lit. Training mode may take a slight bit more.

James, are there any plans to get some Canadian dealers on board?

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by Petty1818

Out of curiosity, where do you set the blend? I find a full wavemap is too much but others seem to really like it.

Hi Petty1818

When you say 'too much' what do you mean?

I've only been auditioning on full head phones and through an acoustic amp. I'm not sure where I will settle till I hear it through a PA.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Petty1818

Out of curiosity, where do you set the blend? I find a full wavemap is too much but others seem to really like it.

It'll be interesting to see what Larry finds when he starts to use it, but I've been all over the map in this respect. Initially, I tended to use lower blends. The more I've gotten used to the sound, the more I end up using full CH1 or CH2, especially when playing thru good sound systems. I'm feeling like there may be a bit of a warming up to the sound that you have to go thru - we're not used to hearing a full resonant guitar sound loud, so it seems wrong at first from on stage, maybe not so wrong to the audience. Probably also depends on the music style and context, whether the added body causes feedback and so on.

[Mbroady]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

Hi James

I do like it, a lot…as do others who hear it.

I don't want to go overboard on 'reporting' but if further experimentation with other solid microphones yields same or better results with my other main guitars, this will be the best upgrade I've done in regards to amplification in 15 years.

I have 4 acoustics with K&K Pure mini + microphones, and plan to capture waveforms of them all.

Larry

I assume you not using the K&K mic while going though the tonedexter. I’m wondering how it would sound if you went stereo out of the guitar so the mini goes into the tonedexter and the mic goes into another channel. Probably better off with a standard SM57 and the tonedexter signal.

Might be overkill.....just thinking outload

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Mbroady

Larry

I assume you not using the K&K mic while going though the tonedexter. I’m wondering how it would sound if you went stereo out of the guitar so the mini goes into the tonedexter and the mic goes into another channel. Probably better off with a standard SM57 and the tonedexter signal.

Might be overkill.....just thinking outload

I use an internal mic along with ToneDexter. It means you need another blender, either with the tonedexter first, then into 1 channel of the blender, and the mic into the other, or the TD in the effects insert of the pickup channel. This is how I do it. Alternately, you can always add a regular external mic into a PA channel (or 2nd amp channel). A real mic always adds something, assuming the situation (volume, bleed, etc) allows it.

[Petty1818]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

Hi Petty1818

When you say 'too much' what do you mean?

I've only been auditioning on full head phones and through an acoustic amp. I'm not sure where I will settle till I hear it through a PA.

Sorry, Doug explained it a bit better but sometimes I find that with a 100% blend (CH1 or CH2), I lose a bit too much low end and the tone can be a bit hollow. It's kind of like the Aura where Fishman recommends a blend of about 40%. I tend to like Tondexter around 60%. Was just wondering if you played around with the blend much?

[Petty1818]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

It'll be interesting to see what Larry finds when he starts to use it, but I've been all over the map in this respect. Initially, I tended to use lower blends. The more I've gotten used to the sound, the more I end up using full CH1 or CH2, especially when playing thru good sound systems. I'm feeling like there may be a bit of a warming up to the sound that you have to go thru - we're not used to hearing a full resonant guitar sound loud, so it seems wrong at first from on stage, maybe not so wrong to the audience. Probably also depends on the music style and context, whether the added body causes feedback and so on.

I have found that as well. If I play solo or in a duo, I tend to put the blend higher but in my celtic band, which has two guitarists, a fiddle and bass, I tend to lower the blend and bring more of the pickup in. I think too that I haven't experimented enough with wavemaps and mic placement. I ordered the Slate ML-2 so I want to really try to capture some good recordings. I think that might change my mind about the blend.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by Petty1818

Sorry, Doug explained it a bit better but sometimes I find that with a 100% blend (CH1 or CH2), I lose a bit too much low end and the tone can be a bit hollow. It's kind of like the Aura where Fishman recommends a blend of about 40%. I tend to like Tondexter around 60%. Was just wondering if you played around with the blend much?

Hi Petty

Yes, I have, and in the headphones (and through my acoustic amps), I'm not losing any bottom end on my Olson. What I hear 'shifting' is the tone up around the 2nd & 3rd strings. In fact after using a

I'm trying to decide if I want to adjust it via the amp or the ToneDexter, and am thinking I still need to hear this through a PA and then make that choice. I actually prefer Character setting 2 on most of the waveforms I've pulled so far.

I'm guessing it may have to do with mic and position when the waveform is captured/created, as well as individual characteristics of different mics. The waveforms I captured with the Peluso (20mm - using cardioid capsule) are not as 'satisfying' as those captured with the AKG 414 TL-II (25mm capsules - on cardioid setting).

I have to restring my Shure KSM-44 microphone's shock-absorbing holder. It seems when they are around 15 years old, those elastics just fall apart (I have new ones). It's also has 25mm capsules. Mine is from early 2000s.

In addition I want to rig a clip for my Rode NT-3 (also 20mm capsule). It's similar to a AKG C-1000 without as much self-noise (in the early 2000s the AKG had more self noise, but more polar pattern options).

I opened the studio with a pair of Audio Technica condensers (3031 and 3035) and after a few weeks knew they were not going to cut it, and had made enough $$ to begin the upgrade path.

The AKG-414 and a pair of Rode NT-3 were my earliest decent recording mics I owned/operated. Later I added a matched set of the Peluso CEMC6, and the KSM-44, and sold my Audio Technica condensers.

The differences between the AKG 414 & Shure KSM-44 are the way they handle the highest range/overtones. They both do a great job with the bottom range of instruments. I've used them on everything from cellos to upright basses, acoustic gutiars. The Peluso and Rode NT3 are better on violins, tenor and soprano saxes, mid-sized percussion (Djembe & Congos).

The Rode NT-3 highlight more detail in the midrange than the Peluso, and work better in a live setting because you can stick a 9V battery in the barrel to power them.

All this to say, I'm going to give the ToneDexter and my existing mics a solid workout before nailing down my main voicings.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

I use an internal mic along with ToneDexter. It means you need another blender, either with the tonedexter first, then into 1 channel of the blender, and the mic into the other, or the TD in the effects insert of the pickup channel. This is how I do it. Alternately, you can always add a regular external mic into a PA channel (or 2nd amp channel). A real mic always adds something, assuming the situation (volume, bleed, etc) allows it.

Hi Doug
Thanks! That fires up the experimenter in me!!

I cannot see you choosing external mics at random. Which ones do you like and find workable?

Do you know the actual size of the capsule in the KM 184 you've used for video demos? I always see it listed as 'small' diaphragm, but the housing seems more the size of medium capsule mics I've worked with.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by Mbroady

Larry

I assume you not using the K&K mic while going though the tonedexter.

Hi Mb

I'm sorry I overlooked this post…and I posted a pretty detailed list of my microphone arsenal in a post after you posted. I never considered using the internal mic of the K&K, because it's inside the guitar body, and because it's not the best mic in my collection.

So far I've liked the AKG-414 TL-II best.

Not being a bluegrass player, and having used higher quality mics, I've not liked the sound of the SM-57 with my Olson. It's too much like the early 1970s attempts to amplify my acoustics with my first PA systems. The 57 sounds 'brittle' compared to the waveforms I've gotten from my condensers.

And I play an all-flesh style (with a hint of nail for emphases) which is much more 'full' sounding than flat-picking. And I play lower action at medium loud volumes not high action flat-pick driven strumming and picking like grassers. I think the SM-57 sound/tone is very familiar to them.

And even Molly Tuttle and Billy Strings try to capture that driven tone for a lot of what they do. So it's no wonder Molly likes the voicing of an SM-57 at live gigs for her ToneDexter.

Of all the demo recordings on YouTube, Doug Youngs most typify what style I'm close to (though he is a nail & thumbpick kind of guy). Neumann (or other sources selling KM 184) never list the capsule size, but I'm guessing roughly ¾" or 19-mm like my Rode NT-3.

They call it small capsule, but there really no need to house a 10mm capsule in a 20mm housing. If anyone knows, I'd love to be enlightened.

The KM-184 is one I'd still like to own someday.

Wow - that was more than you asked about wasn't it!!







[/size]

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

Hi Doug
Thanks! That fires up the experimenter in me!!

I cannot see you choosing external mics at random. Which ones do you like and find workable?

Do you know the actual size of the capsule in the KM 184 you've used for video demos? I always see it listed as 'small' diaphragm, but the housing seems more the size of medium capsule mics I've worked with.

I'd definitely call a KM184 a small diaphragm mic. I haven't seen the size of the capsule published, but the form factor and size are basically the definition of a small diaphragm. Neumann has a nice page describing the characteristics of large vs small, using the 184 as the small example and an 87 as the large: https://www.neumann.com/homestudio/e...gm-microphones

For live use, I normally use a KM184 if it's up to me, I've just had decent luck with them. But I've used other mics, sometimes the venue has something they like, or maybe I'm sharing a setup with someone else who has preferred mics. As long as the mic is directional enough to not feedback, I don't find live situations as touchy as recording scenarios.

I'm basically at the point of often preferring my setup with an internal mic, tho. It's more predictable, easier to dial in, etc. When possible, I'm leveraging the internal mic, ToneDexter, and the Sunnaudio preamp to produce a stereo sound that I'm quite happy with. But I'd start by getting comfortable with a single-source/ToneDexter setup first, as you're doing, before messing with blending in mics. TD alone is such a major improvement, that it's enough, without obsessing like I tend to do :-) and of course a lot depends on the setting, style, and so on.