ToneDexter vs Baggs VoicePrint ?

[Petty1818]

Originally Posted by AeroUSA

I like the Trance a lot that Maury's Music installed for me. I have to post a re-review of it. I wouldn't say it's any better than the Anthem but for people that like a SBT approach its excellent. I MAY be reviewing the Dazzo soon and then I MAY make a comparison video of the K&K, Trance and Dazzo. MAYBE! lol

Haha well I think the Dazzo is the only pickup missing from your channel. That would be a very helpful comparison!

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by SpruceTop

T
Regarding my Shure SM81, I've always used it as is right out of the box with the factory flat EQ settings in place. Perhaps, switching the EQ dial to the bass roll-off position would help eliminate the tubbiness of tone I've gotten in previous WaveMaps? I'm thinking that doing that and trying more mic locations and distances may yield better WaveMaps.

I don't have a rolloff on any of the mics I've used. I did experiment early on with training from recordings, so I could pre-EQ the mic. If I didn't like the results, I could change the EQ and replay it to train again. In the end, it wasn't worth the effort. Playing with mic placement seems easier, especially now that training is so fast.

I don't generally get "tubbiness". I've encountered it with a few guitars/pickups, so I know what you mean, and I've definitely heard it with other IR approaches (some of Cuki's early experiments, the Aura, Momma Bear, etc). But for the pickups I mainly use, Barbera and Trance, I don't have any issue. All I really want is for the IR to get rid of that undefined "pickup sound," that annoying plastic sound, and ToneDexter does a really good job of that. Between the different character positions and the blend I can almost always dial in a really great sound for live use (not recording), and once I add in the internal mic, I'm more than happy.

[SpruceTop]

Originally Posted by guitaniac

If your TD hasn't been out of the box in two years, I'd think it would at least be worth a shot to install the version 2.0 firmware and use that version's "variable smart feedback reduction" (as James May calls it) to reduce the tubbiness in your TD recordings.

The folks who record with mics will often tell you that certain guitars record better than others. Its a common comment that smaller guitars with a more even tone tend to record better than the bassier big box guitars. And of course, post production processing like EQ adjustments, and the special kind of compression which the Session DI applies, are often used to polish mic recordings.

In any event, it may be worth a try to use version 2.0's variable smart feedback reduction to get less tubby sounding TD recordings. I'm thinking that the smart feedback reduction might be thought of as a "virtual guitar shrinker" in the way it can be used to reduce a guitar's dominant low end resonances.

Thanks, Gary, and I'm definitely updating my ToneDexter to the 2.0 firmware before using it. I'll also experiment with more mic locations and distances. More to come ...

[SpruceTop]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

I don't have a rolloff on any of the mics I've used. I did experiment early on with training from recordings, so I could pre-EQ the mic. If I didn't like the results, I could change the EQ and replay it to train again. In the end, it wasn't worth the effort. Playing with mic placement seems easier, especially now that training is so fast.

I don't generally get "tubbiness". I've encountered it with a few guitars/pickups, so I know what you mean, and I've definitely heard it with other IR approaches (some of Cuki's early experiments, the Aura, Momma Bear, etc). But for the pickups I mainly use, Barbera and Trance, I don't have any issue. All I really want is for the IR to get rid of that undefined "pickup sound," that annoying plastic sound, and ToneDexter does a really good job of that. Between the different character positions and the blend I can almost always dial in a really great sound for live use (not recording), and once I add in the internal mic, I'm more than happy.

Thanks, Doug, for the reminder about Trance! I've still got my Trance Amulet M-VT Phantom sitting on the shelf and need to try that in one of my guitars.

In case some folks aren't sure what I mean, another term for what I call "tubbiness" would be "hollowness" in the tone. I think you're correct in that mic placement is the most critical element in getting a good ToneDexter WaveMap, and I'll experiment more with the process.

[SpruceTop]

Originally Posted by Petty1818

Haha well I think the Dazzo is the only pickup missing from your channel. That would be a very helpful comparison!

I'll state here that both the Trance Amulet and Dazzo systems are excellent and choosing one or the other is no longer a concern of mine as I like both of them.

[guitaniac]

Originally Posted by SpruceTop

Thanks, Gary, and I'm definitely updating my ToneDexter to the 2.0 firmware before using it. I'll also experiment with more mic locations and distances. More to come ...

In my own case, my reason for recording guitar with TD was to enable quick, simultaneous vocal and guitar recordings with minimal vocal bleed on the guitar track. I eventually decided that the cheap little iRig mic worked just as well (or better) for recording strumming accompaniments, and the vocal bleed-over on the iRig mic wasn't bad enough to worry about. I suspect that the iRig Mic recordings might have been even better if I had run them through a Session DI. (I mention the Session DI because I seem to recall that you have one, Ken. In any event, the Baggs folks claim the Session provides the same type of signal processing that studio engineers have used to embellish their studio recorded demos of the Lyric and other Baggs pickups.)

Albeit, I sold my TD before the Version 2.0 firmware came out, so I don't know how much better recording with Version 2.0 would be. What intrigues me most about V 2.0, however, is the new single knob "variable smart feedback mitigation". I often have a problem getting enough feedback-free (and muddiness-free) gain for picking with bare fingerpads in a noisy setting. I'm thinking it might be well worth purchasing another TD for Version 2.0's anti-feedback capability alone.

[Petty1818]

Originally Posted by SpruceTop

I'll state here that both the Trance Amulet and Dazzo systems are excellent and choosing one or the other is no longer a concern of mine as I like both of them.

I really wish the Amulet would have worked for me! Honestly though, even in the demos Aaron has done of the pickup, I still hear a very piezo tone. Even the K&K has a more woody tone. Maybe I just don't like the Amulet tone? I do know that when it's driven hard with strumming, the piezo tone really comes through.

[AeroUSA]

Originally Posted by Petty1818

I really wish the Amulet would have worked for me! Honestly though, even in the demos Aaron has done of the pickup, I still hear a very piezo tone. Even the K&K has a more woody tone. Maybe I just don't like the Amulet tone? I do know that when it's driven hard with strumming, the piezo tone really comes through.

I feel like the basic foundational tone of the K&K and Trance are similar. The difference is that the Trance has the built in preamp with control over the treble and bass. If the treble is set too high then the piezo sound you mention could be more obvious. At least that’s my experience. All piezo pickups have some piezo tone to them. Nothing sounds like a microphone apart from a microphone.

[guitaniac]

Originally Posted by AeroUSA

I feel like the basic foundational tone of the K&K and Trance are similar. The difference is that the Trance has the built in preamp with control over the treble and bass. If the treble is set too high then the piezo sound you mention could be more obvious. At least that’s my experience. All piezo pickups have some piezo tone to them. Nothing sounds like a microphone apart from a microphone.

Aaron,

I'm curious to know if using a K&K Mini-equipped guitar with TD Version 2.0's "variable smart feedback mitigation" is just as effective in mitigating feedback as using an Ultra Tonic-equipped guitar without TD. Do you have any thoughts on that?

[Gordon Currie]

Originally Posted by guitaniac

Aaron,

I'm curious to know if using a K&K Mini-equipped guitar with TD Version 2.0's "variable smart feedback mitigation" is just as effective in mitigating feedback as using an Ultra Tonic-equipped guitar without TD. Do you have any thoughts on that?

I'm not Aaron, but the techniques used are somewhat different. It's sort of like asking if a belt is better than suspenders.

Ultratonic has you set one frequency - the one frequency that particular guitar feeds back at - and then it uses that to reduce the energy at that frequency only.

TD 2.0 finds multiple frequencies while it is building a wavemap. Those can be variably reduced on the fly as the environment dictates - so you can adjust the mitigation depending on the venue. Different wavemaps for the same guitar may have slightly different frequencies.

I suspect that the combination of the two approaches could be powerful!

[James May]

Originally Posted by guitaniac

Aaron,

I'm curious to know if using a K&K Mini-equipped guitar with TD Version 2.0's "variable smart feedback mitigation" is just as effective in mitigating feedback as using an Ultra Tonic-equipped guitar without TD. Do you have any thoughts on that?

It is not quite as effective, and here's why: With ToneDexter's variable feedback control set fully clockwise, you can dial out all of the low end resonances in the WaveMap CAUSED BY THE MIC. However, if the pickup has top plate resonances in it to start with, say from a K&K, even though they are basically the same set of resonances, then the variable feedback mitigation can't reach them. In other words, the variable feedback mitigation can get all of the mic-heard resonances out, but not those inherent in the pickup itself.

The Ultra Tonic, on the other hand drastically reduces the main set of resonances at the source. When the 12 position switch is set about right, all of the troublesome resonances are reduced, not just one frequency. (Think of the switch as a stepped attenuator that is adjusting how much of the out-of-phase feedback cancellation sensor is added to the main sensor, resulting in reduction of the stuff you don't want.) It is NOT selecting a single frequency to dip, as may be thought at first glance. Instead, it is getting the whole set of whatever frequencies are there in the low end. This varies a lot from guitar to guitar.

So in that sense only, it is similar to what ToneDexter's variable feedback mitigation is doing, but operating on the guitar top, not on the mic signal.

[guitaniac]

Thanks for the info, James.

I appreciate the detailed explanation on how Version 2.0's smart feedback mitigation compares to the Ultra Tonic's feedback mitigation.

I was thinking that the resonance frequencies witnessed by the mic were characteristic of the particular guitar (presuming a flat response mic). I believe what you're saying is that the mic has a very different listening perspective than the pickup, and that the pickup may be hearing different resonance frequencies at the top or under the saddle, especially when the sound level gets high and the top is interacting with speaker sound. (Not to mention, the mic and the pickup will likely have different frequency response characteristics.)

Still, I'd hope that there is some overlap between what the mic hears and a soundboard pickup hears. I'm hoping that Version 2.0's smart feedback mitigation (presuming 100% WaveMap use and a guitar equipped with a typical UST or SBT) will be more efficient at mitigating feedack than a regular analog preamp with the usual anti-feedback tools.

[James May]

Originally Posted by guitaniac

Thanks for the info, James.

I appreciate the detailed explanation on how Version 2.0's smart feedback mitigation compares to the Ultra Tonic's feedback mitigation.

I was thinking that the resonance frequencies witnessed by the mic were characteristic of the particular guitar. I believe what you're saying is that the mic has a very different listening perspective than the pickup, and that the pickup may be hearing different resonance frequencies when the sound level gets high and the top is interacting with speaker sound.

Still, I'd hope that there is some overlap between what the mic hears and a soundboard pickup hears. I'm hoping that Version 2.0's smart feedback mitigation (presuming 100% WaveMap use) will be more efficient at mitigating feedack than a regular analog preamp with the usual anti-feedback tools.

While the perspectives are different there is a LOT of overlap. The mic and a SBT are mostly hearing the same set of lower resonances, below about 440Hz or so. So yes it will certainly help, but it won't be complete elimination unless you have an Ultra Tonic or a UST to start with.

[guitaniac]

Originally Posted by James May

While the perspectives are different there is a LOT of overlap. The mic and a SBT are mostly hearing the same set of lower resonances, below about 440Hz or so. So yes it will certainly help, but it won't be complete elimination unless you have an Ultra Tonic or a UST to start with.

Thanks again. This variable smart feedback mitigation is fascinating stuff to me.

[Gordon Currie]

Thanks James for clarifying my somewhat inaccurate response.

I assumed TD calculated the peaks based on the guitar response, not the microphone response. I also assumed the Ultratonic only worked with one peak.

It seems that using both, one could end up with an extremely feedback resistant instrument that didn't have audible artifacts.