ToneDexter vs LRBaggs Voiceprint

[Chriscom]

Originally Posted by Petty1818

I think it depends on the environment and setup. I could see it working well with a solo artist or two guitar players, but for me, I play in a four piece in loud environments. The TD just gets lost....

Yeah I'm mainly a solo guy. The Tonedexter IR I used live and practice with at home is actually a bit more electric-y than I'd been aiming for--though very pleasing-- and is the kind of thing that would cut through a little better in a busier stage environment. But my next step will be going for more of a pure acoustic sound--something that in my limited experience definitely wouldn't work with the four-piece cover band I occasionally sit in with (two guitars, mainly electric).

So many variables. More than a few here love the Fishman Aura but I could never get anything even close to what I was looking for.

[tadol]

The Tonedexter is only really meant to give the most natural, mic’d acoustic tone you can get, without using a mic. If you’re playing with others who are primarily electric (as I normally do as well) it’s pretty pointless. But solo, or with one or two other acoustic players, or even doing some recording in a less than ideal environment, it’s an amazing tool. I have no experience with the Baggs, but with their budget and economic ability to seed samples to many people, I’m not surprised you see a lot of them showing up and getting actively promoted.

[leew3]

I don't own either but expressed some interest in the Baggs Voiceprint in a previous thread. Most of the pickups in my acoustics reportedly will not work well or at all with the Tonedexter per the list on Audio Sprokets website. In response to my post I got some convoluted feedback that essentially said that Baggs marketing was not accurate as it was over promising that the Voiceprint would work with the pickups in my guitars. I don't plan to buy either unit but find the warring narratives and entrenched perspectives of the owners of either unit to be interesting. YMMV, IMHO, EIEIO.

[tadol]

Originally Posted by leew3

I don't own either but expressed some interest in the Baggs Voiceprint in a previous thread. Most of the pickups in my acoustics reportedly will not work well or at all with the Tonedexter per the list on Audio Sprokets website. In response to my post I got some convoluted feedback that essentially said that Baggs marketing was not accurate as it was over promising that the Voiceprint would work with the pickups in my guitars. I don't plan to buy either unit but find the warring narratives and entrenched perspectives of the owners of either unit to be interesting. YMMV, IMHO, EIEIO.

Thats a pain - can I ask what pickups you have installed that don’t work?

[leew3]

Originally Posted by tadol

Thats a pain - can I ask what pickups you have installed that don’t work?

The 2006 and 2012 versions of the Taylor ES system and the Anthem SL. My CEO 7 is K & K equipped so would work with the Tonedexter. But, I find the BodyRez effect built into my new Play Acoustic results in a great sound.

[guitaniac]

Originally Posted by aaronmarkson

I have used both. If I was wanting a solution for playing live, I personally give the edge to the VPDI. If using it for streaming or recording, the Tonedexter might have the edge depending on what kind of pickup you have.

In my experience:

Tonedexter Pros:

• Most mic-like tone.
• Doesn't require a phone or computer
• Pedal has physical eq knobs
• Notch contol for feedback works really well.
• Small company & great customer service

Tonedexter Cons:

• Can feel distant or disconnected in live setting.
• Blending isn't as effective.
• Lack of more robust EQ
• Requires user to own, borrow, or rent a mic
• Doesn't work with as many pickup types.

VPDI Pros:

• Doesn't feel hollow, distant, or disconnected.
• Very Powerful EQ
• Blending workds really well
• Feedback control works really well.
• App updates have the potential to bring more / new features
• Works with a wider variety of pickups.
• Good customer service.

VPDI Cons:

• Not as mic-like in its sound.
• No physical EQ knobs on the pedal
• Making changes in real time is cumbersome because it is app based.
• Requires user to own an iPhone or iPad (for now)

Its good to read that the anti-feedback knobs and notches work well. Does either device seem to have a clear advantage, or are they about the same?

Thanks for your observations.

[aaronmarkson]

Originally Posted by guitaniac

Its good to read that the anti-feedback knobs and notches work well. Does either device seem to have a clear advantage, or are they about the same?



Thanks for your observations.

I prefer the VPDI overall. I imagine you’ll find people that prefer Tonedexter, though. I think it’s more personal preference than one being clearly better or worse.

[JackB1]

My problem with the Voiceprint is that you can record many different IRs and they will all sound very different from each other. I wish they would make the IR creation process more consistent sounding. It seems wildly variable and even the slightest change in phone position, how hard/soft you play, how you play you sample, etc. has a huge impact on the finished IR sound.

[shufflebeat]

Originally Posted by JackB1

My problem with the Voiceprint is that you can record many different IRs and they will all sound very different from each other.

This is also an issue with the TD but can be avoided to some extent by recording mic/pickup and use those to create wavemaps.

The Cuki/JF IR process begins with this technique which I find useful.

[guitaniac]

Originally Posted by aaronmarkson

I prefer the VPDI overall. I imagine you’ll find people that prefer Tonedexter, though. I think it’s more personal preference than one being clearly better or worse.

Thanks for the observation. Much appreciated.

[jonfields45]

At the core of all these products is "deconvolution" which is a mathematical approach to make one of two correlated samples (recordings) sound as close as possible to the other. I think all these products add equalization to repair artifacts from their deconvolution implementation, improve the final result (to their opinion for the tests they made), or to deal with performance volume level problems (feedback, resonances, etc.).

In my opinion you should use recorded samples. One close mic'd for smaller intimate settings, and one more distant mic'd for high stage volume. Too my knowledge the approach I took creates no artifacts to be repaired. jf45ir includes no EQ beyond the deconvolution itself (EQ is in general is a personal choice, or might not apply to your guitar and pickup).

But you really should listen to the mic recording before you generate an IR to determine you are happy with that target as a starting point. Small differences in mic placement can make a big difference in hearing your guitar the way you expect.

No one puts in an ear plug and places the other ear 8" from the soundhole to determine that is the tone they love, but will happily use that as the IR target and be surprised that the end result is not great. Mic's are a hassle and pickups are dominant in live performance, but that does not mean all mic setups sound good.