#16
|
|||
|
|||
Cuki, your resonance maps would seem to indicate a vote for dual source to avoid null zones.
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
If you install a SoundBoard Transducer pickup like K&K, Dazzo or Amulet, you will discover that the tone depends on the position of the sensor. You don't really get "null" zone but a different "balance", because you favor certain modes over the other. You might get some cancellation at certain frequency because of interferences between the signals from the different discs. But if you have a single SBT, you would get no cancellation. For example some could have argued to me that: Since the bridge is positioned in the null zone of the mode TB(7) then there is no way that top resonance is excited anyway... ... I would have difficulties to answer that question. I think the guitar is not as simple. Remember that the top is already under tension and when the strings vibrate they also release that tension. So the string anchor position is not the only factor. The way the elastic energy from will be released also count.... The neck vibration also count. From my personal IR experiment I would say there is no "null zone". IR are also not perfect and you will hear their imperfections before the hypothetical "null zone" * The longer the IR, the more resolution you get in the low end * However the longer the IR, the wetter it will sound (you can even have room sound for long IRs) * Because IRs comes from mic sound they rebuild the soundhole resonance giving a boomy/woofiness that can be very muddy. * If you apply a low cut then... you might find the IR overly bright. Then you add a high cut and you end up with a loss of clarity and air... Some people might have experienced that with Tonedexter. You'll have many problems with IR before feeling the need of adding a mic to fill the supposed "null zones". PS: Within the last year, I made tremondous modification on the way I make IRs only making IRs for three friends. So I guess Tonedexter will evolve too in the future given the tons of feedback they will have from their users.
__________________
Martin 00-18V Goldplus + internal mic (2003) Martin OM-28V + HFN + internal mic (1999) Eastman E6OM (2019) Trance Audio Amulet Yamaha FGX-412 (1998) Gibson Les Paul Standard 1958 Reissue (2013) Fender Stratocaster American Vintage 1954 (2014) http://acousticir.free.fr/ |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
I think the Tonedexter really requires a little patience and experimenting. If you were making a recording of your guitar, you would spend some time finding the best mike position and seeking out the best mike you could. I think its the same with the Tonedexter. Its not rocket science, but you have to give it the best input to work from, even including new strings. While it is not a device for immediate gratification, it is really not that difficult either. I'm sure with a little time it will work out fine for you.
__________________
2003 Martin OM-42, K&K's 1932 National Style O, K&K's 1930 National Style 1 tricone Square-neck 1951 Rickenbacker Panda lap steel 2014 Gibson Roy Smeck Stage Deluxe Ltd, Custom Shop, K&K's 1957 Kay K-27 X-braced jumbo, K&K's 1967 Gretsch 6120 Chet Atkins Nashville 2024 Mahogany Weissenborn, Jack Stepick Ear Trumpet Labs Edwina Tonedexter |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
The question posed regarding the quest of "better tone" or "more mic like" is a good one. I think I'm after better tone. I think I'm finally weaning myself of the thin blue skim milk of "like it sounds in my lap only louder". I beginning to suspect that the pure sound of an acoustic may even be irritating when cranked loud. It may simply fill to much of the space. Perhaps it is the inverse corollary to a cooking Marshall attenuated down to a whisper. I'm saying more than I know here. My best result so far was 50-70 percent Wavemap combined with pickup.
Last edited by caballero59; 06-15-2018 at 05:22 PM. |