ToneDexter Thread (continuation of original thread)

[El Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

Trance is one of the pickups that only benefits a little bit from ToneDexter in general. The other that I haven't been able to improve on with ToneDexter is Dazzo - most of my attempts just make the Dazzo sound worse.

So Doug,
There are probably a couple of different ways to read the above, but, as I undersand it, the whole idea of the TD is to make your pickup sound like a microphone. So, are you saying the the Trance, and especially the Dazzo pickups already sound so microphonic, the TD adds nothing they don't already have?

Steve

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by El Conquistador

So Doug,
There are probably a couple of different ways to read the above, but, as I undersand it, the whole idea of the TD is to make your pickup sound like a microphone. So, are you saying the the Trance, and especially the Dazzo pickups already sound so microphonic, the TD adds nothing they don't already have?

Steve

I'd think of it this way, 10 being the mic sound, and 1 being the worst pickup you can imagine. ToneDexter can get you to maybe 9 (some might say 11, since it's quite mic-like, yet still with the various advantages of pickups). So if you have a "1", ToneDexter will make an amazing improvement 1->9. I'd say a Trance is an 8, with an ever-so-slight piezo tone still, so you only get 8->9 improvement (what's that, like 10+ percent or so?). Dazzo, I don't know. I'd call it an 8.5 (similar to Trance, but with less piezo tinge), and yes, it is quite microphonic. Somehow, my TD attempts with the Dazzo usually end up sounding hollow and distant, and not an improvement. At best, it's been a close call. I've had better luck with the Dazzo with just EQ.

I'm totally making this scale up, of course :-) Just trying to answer your question. I'm quite happy with the tone of Trance and Dazzo by themselves. I'm also happy with a Barbera with a bit of EQ. But TD makes the Trance even better (you can hear for yourself how much in the video demo I did), makes the Barbera sound significantly better, and generally makes the Dazzo sound somewhat worse. Just my experience, tho.

[Doug Young]

BTW, it's worth mentioning that Trance and Dazzo, like all SBTs, are pretty variable, depending on guitars, at least in my experience. I have Trance-M's installed in 3 guitars. One sounds really great, with no tone module, and sounded perfect on the 1st install. Another sounds quite good, but needs a bit of high end rolled off with the tone module, and I tweaked the placement on that one maybe 3 or 4 times before I was happy. The 3rd sounds very bright and harsh unless I roll off the tone control substantially. It has sounded really good on gigs, and not so good at others. Still debating whether to try something else in that guitar. All just different guitars, who knows. One thing ToneDexter tends to do is normalize those. The training takes care of the different EQ needs, so I don't need the tone control to get a good sound out of them when I'm playing thru ToneDexter. I train with the tone control all the way open, and let TD adjust as needed. But I'd like to have the pickups sound acceptable to start with - in case I need to plug in directly somewhere.

Dazzo, I currently have one installed, in my Martin OM, and it sounds really great. I've probably had a dozen Dazzos in different guitars over the years, all installed by Teddy. Different versions, different points in his evolution. All were promising, but were ultimately removed. The pair I have right now use Teddy's new wood casings, and Teddy's quick to point out that it's not that those are inherently "better", just for this guitar, they were the best match.

So, your mileage may vary on all of this...

[Andy Howell]

The most important thing is that the Tonedexter sounds natural! I keep seeing people talking about digital sound but the Tonedexter doesn’t have this. Often the problem is elsewhere ..

... last night I played a gig at a new club a friend is establishing. It was a big and busy bar. The sound wasn’t good but this was because the guy doing the sound wasn’t good and in the end he just went for volume. When sound checking it sounded great.

Sadly, too many smaller places have sound run by people who expect guitar sounds to be horrible.

But - again - the Tonedexter does not sound digital or clinical or whatever that means!

[GuitarLuva]

Originally Posted by Andy Howell

The most important thing is that the Tonedexter sounds natural! I keep seeing people talking about digital sound but the Tonedexter doesn’t have this.

I agree the Tonedexter sounds very natural. The Fishman Aura technology is probably the closest comparison to it and while that is also very good it can sound digital real quick if you blend in too much image.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by GuitarLuva

I agree the Tonedexter sounds very natural. The Fishman Aura technology is probably the closest comparison to it and while that is also very good it can sound digital real quick if you blend in too much image.

I'm not sure what you're hearing is "digital". At least what people usually complain about when they say something sounds digital is either poor A/D converters (a problem that generally went away decades ago, I think), or a sort of "coldness" caused by the fact that the digital circuitry is cleaner and more high-fidelity than most analog circuits, which can have distortion characteristics we find pleasing. (There's also the issue of headroom, where overdriving in digital sounds bad, compared to overdriving an analog circuit - easy answer, don't do that!) These days, it's pretty easy to simulate that analog "warmth" and there are all kinds of pedals and plugins that will bring back all the theoretically "bad" characteristics of analog gear that produce the sounds we like.

With the Aura, I think you're just hearing the consequences of the convolution process, which, yes, is done digitally, but would still be the same if it was possible (?? no idea if it is) to do with an analog circuit. Whatever magic sauce ToneDexter is using seems to create much less of that resonant midrange than I hear in the Aura, and you can tweak, mix, blend until you get a sound you like.

[GuitarLuva]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

I'm not sure what you're hearing is "digital". At least what people usually complain about when they say something sounds digital is either poor A/D converters (a problem that generally went away decades ago, I think), or a sort of "coldness" caused by the fact that the digital circuitry is cleaner and more high-fidelity than most analog circuits, which can have distortion characteristics we find pleasing. (There's also the issue of headroom, where overdriving in digital sounds bad, compared to overdriving an analog circuit - easy answer, don't do that!) These days, it's pretty easy to simulate that analog "warmth" and there are all kinds of pedals and plugins that will bring back all the theoretically "bad" characteristics of analog gear that produce the sounds we like.

With the Aura, I think you're just hearing the consequences of the convolution process, which, yes, is done digitally, but would still be the same if it was possible (?? no idea if it is) to do with an analog circuit. Whatever magic sauce ToneDexter is using seems to create much less of that resonant midrange than I hear in the Aura, and you can tweak, mix, blend until you get a sound you like.

Yeah I don't really know the best way to describe the Aura tone. Most people refer to the image blend as "digital" or "hifi" and you can even throw in "processed". Don't get me wrong I'm not hating on the Aura I think it's great technology and probably helped lead to the creation of things like Tonedexter. With the right amount of image blend you can get a really nice plugged in sound. Too much image blend though tends to sound weird. I still have the Fishman Ellipse Aura onboard unit (not installed) and it came with 4 images that are apparently custom made for the guitar. Each image is very good. The onboard preamp is big and only has around 30 hrs battery life unfortunately which might've lead to them creating the external Aura preamp. I'm really not sure which one came first. It's too bad they don't refine that onboard unit, make it a little smaller with longer battery life, I think they would have a winner.

[Petty1818]

IMO, the Aura was designed to be fairly "plug and play" and as a result, it can sound a bit processed. It's as if it cuts a bit of low end to help fight feedback. I agree that too much blend is unusable but I tend to be more confident using the Aura live vs. the Tonedexter. That's not a knock on the Tonedexter, it just takes a bit more time to learn.

The Tonedexter does sound a bit more natural but I find that a 100% blend has the hollow tone that the Aura does. It's not as bad but I am not in love with a full blend. I tend to cut the blend back just a bit.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Petty1818

IMO, the Aura was designed to be fairly "plug and play" and as a result, it can sound a bit processed. It's as if it cuts a bit of low end to help fight feedback. I agree that too much blend is unusable but I tend to be more confident using the Aura live vs. the Tonedexter. That's not a knock on the Tonedexter, it just takes a bit more time to learn.

The Tonedexter does sound a bit more natural but I find that a 100% blend has the hollow tone that the Aura does. It's not as bad but I am not in love with a full blend. I tend to cut the blend back just a bit.

My impression is that a lot of the "processed"sound of the Aura is the mismatch between the guitar it was trained on and the instrument being used. People who have sent their specific guitars into Fishman to have Aura images made seem to get good results. Everyone else, even if you're using the same model, tends to get less useful results. With ToneDexter, you can train your specific instrument, producing better results.

At the same time, I agree that lower blends usually end up working best in live situations. James may have ideas of why - but my theory is that while the training is accurate for the pickup and a mic in front of the guitar, it doesn't take into account all the other "processing" that takes place live - speakers, the room acoustics and so on, which add their own resonances and character. There's also the inherent conflict in the whole "just like my guitar, only louder" thing (if it sounded "just like your guitar", it wouldn't be louder... and your guitar louder may not sound like you think it sounds - you hear stuff you don't hear at lower volumes), and also the entire issue of interaction between the guitar and the amplified sound, which again introduces or emphasizes various resonances that aren't heard when not amplified. Fortunately, there is a blend knob, so you have full control, from totally off to full Character 2 mode.

[BluesKing777]

It is to do with speakers!

Play an Aura box through an acoustic amp and the best results are somewhere just after it takes effect to rid the quack from a piezo...25-35%. Boingggg noises any more than that..artifacts.

I have the Martin D18e with inbuilt Aura + and direct to my mixer and headphones and record - just fabulous with the factory default on the first Performance image with 100% blend (a ribbon mic if I remember correctly). Now that sounds horrible in my Genz Benz. The first image in 'Easy Mode' is a preblend premixed 'easy image' and that is great in an amp! But truly horrible recorded direct....still quacky, but not in an amp. Work that out! It is a matter of trial and error. Catch is, my Genz has a headphone jack and the higher percentage sounds great in that...but pull the headphones off and turn on the amp speaker...pffft.

The bought Aura boxes are great for popular guitars like a J45 or a D18 with a close match of images, but other artifacts creep in if you for example run a Bubinga J45....or a Blackwood Maton....etc.


Still finding the way with TD....

BluesKing777.

[gfirob]

To Doug, (whom I admire a lot), I wonder if you are not overthinking this? And I not only admire your playing and your intense analysis of all these complex and nuanced issues relating to the amplification of acoustic guitars but I found your original Tonedexter Youtube review so compelling that I bought one.

But look, on the one hand, you have the original acoustic sound of your guitar (which probably cost a bundle). On the other hand you have the sound of that guitar through a pickup (like the K&K) and an amp. And the amplified sound of the K&K sucks compared to the original untreated acoustic sound. And it sucks a lot.

So you add a Tonedexter to the equation and it sound much, much better. It sounds much more like the guitar through a microphone. Does it sound exactly like the guitar through a microphone? No. Does it solve every facet of the complex and mystical journey towards perfection? No. Does it sometimes disappoint in one room or another, one amplifier or another, one ensemble or another? Yes. But does it sound much, much better than the untreated K&K—and of course the answer is yes.

I worry that this very valuable tool is sometimes nit-picked to death, over analyzed, or in some cases just misunderstood. From where I sit, there has never been a device that worked as well as the Tonedexter at this particular challenge. That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

[Doug Young]

Overthinking? Maybe :-) I'm not trying to criticize ToneDexter, I like it a lot, I'm just trying to suggest possibly why some people seem to think it's "too much" (it was actually the Aura, I think, that we were talking about sounding "processed", tho.) A mic thru an amp also doesn't sound very good to me - the amp colors the mic too much. A mic thru a good PA in a good room at a reasonable volume sounds great. So does ToneDexter. With an amp, ToneDexter is also a big improvement over most pickups, as you say, but I usually find I need to dial the blend back a bit. Thru a good PA, I've usually preferred the full mix. (In that demo video I was using the full CH2)

I like to understand things, but overall, I'm of the school of "turn the knobs till it sounds good". Fortunately, ToneDexter has some pretty good knobs, so you can almost certainly find a good sound with it. Other than failing to improve the Dazzo with it, I find it makes an improvement that ranges from noticeable to dramatic on every pickup I've tried it with.

I get the feeling I may have not been clear in whatever I said earlier. That's one reason I like to do demos. It's a heck of a lot more accurate to just say "here's how ToneDexter sounds" and let listeners be the judge than to try to put things in words, especially things related to sound.

[The Kid!]

Originally Posted by gfirob

overthinking

I worry that this very valuable tool is sometimes nit-picked to death, over analyzed, or in some cases just misunderstood. From where I sit, there has never been a device that worked as well as the Tonedexter at this particular challenge. That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

We're all kind of here to overthink things. I find that helps and hurts, but one person's trial and error aids the next person. I love that about this forum.

Doug is right. The Dexter is much more dramatic on a bad pickup and a noticeable improvement on a good one. I see no downside, and apparently neither do you and many others.

You're right, but I'm still glad that people nitpick. Shoot, as long as it doesn't get in the way of making music, I'm all for it. I appreciate your post and agree with the rest of it.

[Andy Howell]

The speaker does make a big difference as (I suggested above) the person doing the sound. In many clubs it seems the sound guy can no longer remember what an acoustic instrument sounds like!

[BluesKing777]

Here is a short track I just recorded with my new Taylor 717e into a Tonedexter file I made yesterday with a Shure SM57.

There has been a bit of negativity towards using the poor old 57, so here I set it straight!. I have used 57s since I was in a blues band and had no money and my girlfriend paid for one when my mic died for my solo Dobro blues set! The one used in the recording below still has my name in blurry marker pen on some masking tape. My piano player friend told me to put my name on it or the others would............

So I have a handful of 57s and just after I got Tonedexter last year and using my Neumann KM184, it occurred to me that the mic used in making the waves could be viewed as you view the mic you choose for a gig if you were a soundie or a pedantic acoustic blues-er. So I will go back many years and tell you a guy who I never knew told me the best mic for live resophonic guitars was a plain old 57. And it was! Perfect for that 'simple' tone.

Now yesterday I made a few new waves on TD with my Neumann KM184 and while playing I was thinking the guitar had too many 'overtones'? and it came out a bit 'hollow' in TD...and maybe I should try the Shure SM57.... Now, a bit of prior knowledge of the 57 foibles helps. Number one is there is no level. Number 2 is the proximity effect.

With the low level, I got a bit of hiss and I always have got this on recording with a 57 unless I used a nice preamp as well - before the inputs. I didn't do this with TD - just turned it up when playing. So a bit of hiss in the background. With the proximity effect, I put the mic back about 18", any further and more level would be needed and ..more hiss.

Tonedexter Character is on full left. The Taylor ES2 sounded great on Bypass with zip, so just a smidgeon of TD gets rid of the small amount of piezo quack. I cut the treble a bit.

What do you think? I played a dud note or 2, otherwise it was heading to be masterpiece!


https://soundcloud.com/bk7-3/717e-td01



BluesKing777.