More Tonedexter Mic Questions

[Brent Hahn]

Originally Posted by shufflebeat

And then... one wo/man's "wow, sounds just like my guitar/fiddle"is another wo/man's "don't like it, how much is the Helix?"

And then there's my category of observations and questions, which have mainly attracted pitchforks and torches around here. Time will tell, I guess.

[shufflebeat]

Time doesn't know anything we don't. Even if we agreed something else will come along even shinier.

[gfirob]

My best microphone ended up as being a borrowed Ear Trumpet Edwina which is I think a medium cartridge condenser. But I tried several others before deciding the Edwina was the one (so I bought one).

But I would want to add that all of the mic's (even the least among tem) produced a result with the Tonedexter which was miles better than the untreated K&K. And I think I am going to redo the four wavemaps I had earlier decided were perfect since I have done the update and I am more accustomed to the device now. I am a pretty big fanboy.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by gfirob

My best microphone ended up as being a borrowed Ear Trumpet Edwina which is I think a medium cartridge condenser. But I tried several others before deciding the Edwina was the one (so I bought one).

But I would want to add that all of the mic's (even the least among tem) produced a result with the Tonedexter which was miles better than the untreated K&K. And I think I am going to redo the four wavemaps I had earlier decided were perfect since I have done the update and I am more accustomed to the device now. I am a pretty big fanboy.

Hi g…

The longer I use the ToneDexter the more often I catch myself saying "I think that waveform could be better…"

So this past week, I put the mics away in my guitar room and struck an agreement with myself to leave it alone for a month or two. Then I'll come back and re-record a couple.

The ToneDexter is certainly better than an 'untreated' K&K Pure Mini. It's better than any 'untreated' pickup I've used. But then, I've never left a pickup untreated in my entire playing career.

In more than 40 years of using pickups through PA systems, I've supplemented all them…at the height of the treatment I was carrying around a 6 space rack for my acoustic gear to play at "Unplugged" open mic nights. The only bigger piece of gear we had was the 20 space roll around rack that housed our PA processing gear (with the 16 channel mixer on top of the rack).

My physically biggest rig (which I used for 5 years) consisted of a rack mounted preamp, rack mounted ⅓ octave EQ, rack mounted compressor, single space 100W power amp, and in-line 6 channel mixer. I was committed to go for that 'natural' sound. The extra space was there so air would circulate and cool everything.

Thank You James May for freeing me from the vicious whirlpool of amassing equipment (and multiple trips from car to venues)!!

[BluesKing777]

While I like files made with my Neumann KM184 for most things I do with TD, I have had fun using a plain Jane Shure SM57 on my resophonic guitars. I use to use only that live for many years - metal Dobro plus SM57!

So we could call it a more Lo-Fi sound I am after, but if it is more suited to the guitar, well, why not?

So I have a Waterloo WL-14 X braced (L-00 style acoustic) and this is a great guitar for fingerpicking blues and it is a bit 'Lo-Fi' in a way, so I have been experimenting with the K&K pickup through a wavefile I made for TD with the Shure SM57. ( I may have owned the 57for about 40 years!).

So here is a short fingerpicked blues with the Waterloo through TD direct to mixer/iMac. I added a bit of mixer reverb.



https://soundcloud.com/bk7-3/blues77x


BluesKing777.

[Petty1818]

Today I finally sat down to experiment more with the Tonedexter. I will 100% admit that I am one of those guys who struggles to motivate myself enough to get out the mics, set everything up and record. I figured this is the time to do it as I can't leave the house.

Anyway, I received the Slate ML-2 a couple of months ago and thought I would use it. I trained my Larrivee w/ K&K, Taylor w/ Matrix & Octave Mandolin w/ Headway. My first observation was that the wavemaps were pretty good (just listening with headphones at this point) but when I would switch between the wavemap, raw pickup and mic, the ML-2 always sounded bright and tinny. I haven't recorded in a while so I was also surprised by the fact that it was picking up a ton of noise in my room. It also seemed to have some noise in the signal as well but to be honest, whenever I use headphones with the TD, there always seems to be a bit of hum that's not there when I use it through a pa.

I checked out the ML-2 and realized it was set to "dynamic" which according to the manual is for when you want to record drums. I guess it pads the volume. I didn't want to redo the wavemaps so I set it to "normal" and did a second wavemap with my Taylor. I also tested the ML-2 through an interface and it seems to be silent.

I tested the wavemaps through a K10 speaker and to my surprise, despite the ML-2 not sounding that great through headphones, the wavemaps were all good and my least favourite was the Taylor one in "normal" mode. The wavemaps were warm with nice clarity and less of that hollow characteristic that I oten hear. I compared them to the MXL mic wavemaps I had made a few months ago and they were far less bright and thin. I think the MXL pencil mic I have is just a really bright microphone.

Here's my take away though. The wavemaps are always noticeably quieter than the raw pickup in all cases. There's also a bit of that immediate attack that's gone. They are just not that present. That's why I run the blend around 70%. I get a nice mic-like tone but my bass is intact and the pickup comes back to life. The TD does do a great job though of smoothing out the high end. It's far less hi-fi in all cases and much more pleasing, especially with the Matrix. It actually made my Taylor sound warm but with nice clarity (at a 70% blend).

My last takeaway is that I think it works best with a full range pickup. What I mean by that is something like the Matrix where you get a nice balance of high end, mids and bass. The K&K works well also but I find that when I dial out the wavemap, I don't necessarily get back any presence or clarity from the pickup, it just stays warm. I need more wavemap but then it starts becoming a bit too thin/hollow.

I have to say that I am going to try everything to incorporate this into my rig! However, I really want to try the Soundscape. I don't think it will sound as natural but if they found a way to keep the attack of the pickup and block out the room then I could see it being far easier to use.

[hiddenmickey]

Hey Petty - thanks for the thorough write-up. My observations are almost identical to yours at least with a K&K and Schatten HFN. My previous guitar was a Martin dread with a K&K plugged into a Tonedexter with an SM81 mic for training. I had to use an Empress ParaEQ in the TD’s effects loop to get it just right, but the combo worked well.

I tried the TD / SM81 combo on my Hummingbird equipped with an HFN and the wave maps were hollow sounding and sterile. I replaced the TD / SM81 components with a Grace ALiX and it is pretty good. However, I have thought about revisiting the TD by placing it in the effects loop of the ALiX. Also, I will not be using an SM81 for training with the HFN. I think a warmer mic would work better with this pickup.

Mic selection (finding a good match for your guitar) and mic position do matter when training the Tonedexter. I think this is how to unlock the full magic out of the TD. The TD is not a point and shoot preamp and it is most definitely a fun rabbit hole when you have a good amplification platform. However, spending lots of money on utility gear kind of stinks when it could be applied somewhere else.

I can absolutely see the appeal of spending $300 on a full Baggs Anthem pickup and a killer DI like a Radial JDI / J48 and calling it a day.

[jonfields45]

ToneDexter makes IR generation a real time and simple procedure, but if the mic is placed poorly for some reason, the results reflect that. I have to use a DAW with my IR generator and a DAW can also be used with ToneDexter (just playback the DAW output into ToneDexter). After you've made the recording of your mic and pickup, listen to the mic recording. That is the target.

If you don't like it, toss it and record another sample!!!

[Petty1818]

Originally Posted by jonfields45

ToneDexter makes IR generation a real time and simple procedure, but if the mic is placed poorly for some reason, the results reflect that. I have to use a DAW with my IR generator and a DAW can also be used with ToneDexter (just playback the DAW output into ToneDexter). After you've made the recording of your mic and pickup, listen to the mic recording. That is the target.

If you don't like it, toss it and record another sample!!!

Is there a way to listen to the mic before even making a wavemap? I would love that option.

However, with that said, I find that the wavemaps often produce a warmer tone overall. When I switch from the wavemap to the mic, I often notice the mic is bright and I don't necessarily love the tone. However, the wavemap is nice and full so not sure why that's happening.

[Petty1818]

Originally Posted by hiddenmickey

Hey Petty - thanks for the thorough write-up. My observations are almost identical to yours at least with a K&K and Schatten HFN. My previous guitar was a Martin dread with a K&K plugged into a Tonedexter with an SM81 mic for training. I had to use an Empress ParaEQ in the TD’s effects loop to get it just right, but the combo worked well.

I tried the TD / SM81 combo on my Hummingbird equipped with an HFN and the wave maps were hollow sounding and sterile. I replaced the TD / SM81 components with a Grace ALiX and it is pretty good. However, I have thought about revisiting the TD by placing it in the effects loop of the ALiX. Also, I will not be using an SM81 for training with the HFN. I think a warmer mic would work better with this pickup.

Mic selection (finding a good match for your guitar) and mic position do matter when training the Tonedexter. I think this is how to unlock the full magic out of the TD. The TD is not a point and shoot preamp and it is most definitely a fun rabbit hole when you have a good amplification platform. However, spending lots of money on utility gear kind of stinks when it could be applied somewhere else.

I can absolutely see the appeal of spending $300 on a full Baggs Anthem pickup and a killer DI like a Radial JDI / J48 and calling it a day.

Yep, if the IR thing proves to be too difficult to use live, I will probably go back to the Anthem.

[James May]

Originally Posted by Petty1818

Is there a way to listen to the mic before even making a wavemap? I would love that option.

However, with that said, I find that the wavemaps often produce a warmer tone overall. When I switch from the wavemap to the mic, I often notice the mic is bright and I don't necessarily love the tone. However, the wavemap is nice and full so not sure why that's happening.

Yes. Start training, get through level setting, then as soon as you see "TL" on the screen, tap the right switch to audition the mic. Move to taste while listening, abort then restart training. It's really pretty fast.

The WaveMap won't be as bassy, nor quite as bright as the mic signal. This is intentional to make it work better for live amplification.

[Petty1818]

Originally Posted by James May

Yes. Start training, get through level setting, then as soon as you see "TL" on the screen, tap the right switch to audition the mic. Move to taste while listening, abort then restart training. It's really pretty fast.

The WaveMap won't be as bassy, nor quite as bright as the mic signal. This is intentional to make it work better for live amplification.

Thanks James! I figured there was a way. That's going to help a lot. I just went and auditioned the wavemaps I made the other day as my tastes sometimes change. Again, at 70% blend with the Matrix on my Taylor, my guitar sounded awesome. Even at that lower blend, the pickup was hardly noticeable. I just have to decide now if I want to keep all the Matrix stuff in my guitar or just go to a simple pickup and let the TD do the rest!

[poopsidoo]

Originally Posted by Petty1818

Thanks James! I figured there was a way. That's going to help a lot. I just went and auditioned the wavemaps I made the other day as my tastes sometimes change. Again, at 70% blend with the Matrix on my Taylor, my guitar sounded awesome. Even at that lower blend, the pickup was hardly noticeable. I just have to decide now if I want to keep all the Matrix stuff in my guitar or just go to a simple pickup and let the TD do the rest!

I got a slate ML2 to make my first maps with my mandolin. I felt the slate was way too harsh. Seems it had some overtones I did not like. So I tried it with my beta 57 and my AE5100. I liked that one best and the beta 57 the least.
I have gotten confused by the slate. I thought it would be the cleanest flattest good recording mic at a low price. However I have read all about it and I wonder if it has to have some of those “emulations” in order to sound good? Is it not designed to sound good “as is”?

Thinking about trading it for a sm81. Any advice? Perhaps I should do all my training with the AE5100

[James May]

Originally Posted by poopsidoo

I got a slate ML2 to make my first maps with my mandolin. I felt the slate was way too harsh. Seems it had some overtones I did not like. So I tried it with my beta 57 and my AE5100. I liked that one best and the beta 57 the least.
I have gotten confused by the slate. I thought it would be the cleanest flattest good recording mic at a low price. However I have read all about it and I wonder if it has to have some of those “emulations” in order to sound good? Is it not designed to sound good “as is”?

Thinking about trading it for a sm81. Any advice? Perhaps I should do all my training with the AE5100

The Slate ML-2 and a Shure SM81 are going to sound very very similar. I can hear a little difference but only on the low end, that's all. If the ML-2 isn't working for you with the your mando, I don't believe the SM81 will be any better.

The ML-2 does not need to be used with their emulation software by any means. By itself it is a good, flat mic with modest cost. Their emulation software is a plus only if you are making records and want that mic to take on other (non-flat) personalities in your DAW.

[poopsidoo]

Originally Posted by James May

The Slate ML-2 and a Shure SM81 are going to sound very very similar. I can hear a little difference but only on the low end, that's all. If the ML-2 isn't working for you with the your mando, I don't believe the SM81 will be any better.



The ML-2 does not need to be used with their emulation software by any means. By itself it is a good, flat mic with modest cost. Their emulation software is a plus only if you are making records and want that mic to take on other (non-flat) personalities in your DAW.

Thank you James for your quick answer. Think I will forgo their shure mic. I played the mando though the TD today at church and the pastor/ music leader/sound guy were all impressed. Now am going to get started on maps for my guitars.
This is fun!