ToneDexter - Verdict?

[Mbroady]

Originally Posted by capohk

I bought my TD specifically as the best potential solution......:

1. When I complete a training, I toggle between the Wavemap, the (I assume) raw pickup and the mic. While the Wavemap is clearly a vast improvement on the pickup as heard through the TD, it still is significantly different to what is heard on the mic. Is this right or should I keep re-training until I get a Wavemap that matches the mic's sound?
..

I noticed the same thing. Switching between the mic and wave map there is significantly more low end in the processed sound compared to the mic.

But as you mention, It’s still a vast improvement from the raw pick up, and the tonedexter EQ can correct this some, but I would be curious to know if many other folks are experiencing this.

[Cuki79]

Originally Posted by Mbroady

I noticed the same thing. Switching between the mic and wave map there is significantly more low end in the processed sound compared to the mic.

This is due to the fact that Tonedexter is a FIR filter.

Larry Fishman explained it here:
https://www.premierguitar.com/articl...digital-divide

Larry Fishman:

Impulse control. The Helmholtz resonance created by the chamber and soundhole can be emulated by a simple digital IIR filter (infinite impulse response), often referred to as a “biquad.” It’s easy to create via DSP and requires little processing power. (This type of filter can be implemented in analog, but is often hard to tune properly.)

Emulating an instrument’s radiating properties is more complicated. Still, a DSP FIR (finite impulse response) filter is perfect for the job. This filter can have thousands of taps, letting it precisely track fine changes in frequency response and correct phase independently of magnitude. It can replicate the subtle coloration of various microphone types and positions, something impossible with analog filters.

The "Helmholtz resonance created by the chamber and soundhole" is responsible for the low end response of your guitar.

If you look at my previous threads about making your own acoustic IR, you'd see that the process always lead to a low-end boost. This is because unlike Larry Fishman suggested, I only used a FIR filter which has pretty bad resolution in the low end. Tonedexter is working similarly.

The Tonedexter's patent mention that 100 Hz-200Hz boomy resonance energy could be redistributed over the low end. Right now, I personally correct my IR with an IIR in the low end. I've tried to fully model the low end with IIRs but I did not have much time to work on that. ...So I did not get anything better.

However I am pretty sure it would be one of the solutions to get rid of the "wet" IR tone without using a blend function. I think there is another way too but I did not have time nor money to investigate it either.

Cuki

For previous threads see:
https://www.acousticguitarforum.com/...d.php?t=483802

[Cuki79]

Here is for example the spectrum correction made by an acoustic IR

You will see here 3 spectrums for 3 differents IR lengths. Note that TD regular IRs are around 2000 pts and slot 22 (recording IR) uses around 8000 pts IR



In the case of the longest IR (yellow curve), you get the best low end resolution with well defined resonances at 100 Hz (10^2) and 200 Hz. Those are huge low end resonances that are very likely to feedback.

That's why:
1) Slot 22 sounds good
2) Slot 22's IRs are not meant for live

The problem is that a long IR will sound wet. Because IR means Impulse Response. What Tone dexter does is adding this response to any impulse excitation.

Let's say that your Impulse response sounds like: "RRriiinnnng"
If your pickup records "pac!" ... the Tonedexter will add the response to ir making "pacRRriiiinnnggg".

So the longer your IR, the wetter it will sound. Like a long reverb.

You can see Tonedexter like a very evolved reverb. But instead of modelling the resonances of a room, it models the resonances of the guitar box, top, back and side.

The longer a reverb, the wetter is your sound. It's the same for Tonedexter.

The sound recorded by a mic is not THAT wet.

The problem is that FIR filters are memoryless filter. They only reacts to the inputs. They add something to an impulse and not more.

On the opposite IIR filters have a memory. They react to the impulse BUT also they remember what happened before and take that into account.

In the case of the box of the guitar, the first strum will make the air move within the box. But the air in the box will still be moving when you perform the second strum.... especially in the low end register. So to model that correctly it is better to have a filter that has a memory (IIR) because it will take into acount the previous strum.

I guess the low end produced by FIR filters are exagerated because they omit that the low end is not produced by a single strum but also by "passed strums".

I might be wrong but those are my 2 cents,
Cuki

[Cuki79]

Lol

there is at least one thing that contradicts what I just wrote: The character button.

One can make a minimum phase FIR filter with the same spectral response but a different phase response (Fully counter-clockwise character button). The IR should then feel less wet with the same overall length.

One possible experience is to train Tonedexter with only single note and waiting the end of low-end sustain between each notes.

acoustic IR is an infinite field of experiments
lol
Cuki

[guitaniac]

I suspect the the pickup type used with TobeDexter makes some difference in that SBTs respond a little differently than USTs. While I'm really liking my "dexterized" amplified guitar sound from gig recordings, I'm still prefering the touch response of the Baggs Anthem SL system to a ToneDexter/UST combo.

I'll eventually be having an SBT installed in one of my guitars as a second pickup. I'm hoping that a ToneDexter/SBT combo will respond to the touch a little more like the Anthem SL.

In fairness to ToneDexter, I'm still waiting for Sweetwater to get in s new shipment of Slate ML-2s so that I can create WaveMaps with one of the recommended mics.

[Cuki79]

Originally Posted by guitaniac

While I'm really liking my "dexterized" amplified guitar sound from gig recordings, I'm still prefering the touch response of the Baggs Anthem SL system to a ToneDexter/UST combo.

Did you try to play with the character button or the blend?

The more IR, the more "distant" the touch response.

Both character and blend should help that feeling (in a different manner).

Cuki

PS: I don't have a Tonedexter: this from my own experience with my own DIY IR experiments

[guitaniac]

Originally Posted by Cuki79

Did you try to play with the character button or the blend?

The more IR, the more "distant" the touch response.

Both character and blend should help that feeling (in a different manner).

Cuki

PS: I don't have a Tonedexter: this from my own experience with my own DIY IR experiments

I tend to prefer full character.

I should have clarified that the PUTW UST and the "Open To Source" pickup from David Enke's new company have the best touch response among USTs, for my taste at least. Those are also the most SBT-like USTs in sound, in my experience. Its the Baggs Element UST system in my new guitar which is frustrating me a bit. The recordings sound good, but there's something that seems hard and clacky in the response as I'm strumming it.

On the subject of the "Open To Source" pickup, I wired it up to a Fishman Matrix Infinity VTC preamp last night and its sounds really nice straight to the amp. I'll be doing some direct recording experiments this afternoon, then trying it with ToneDexter later.

[Petty1818]

Originally Posted by guitaniac

I suspect the the pickup type used with TobeDexter makes some difference in that SBTs respond a little differently than USTs. While I'm really liking my "dexterized" amplified guitar sound from gig recordings, I'm still prefering the touch response of the Baggs Anthem SL system to a ToneDexter/UST combo.

I'll eventually be having an SBT installed in one of my guitars as a second pickup. I'm hoping that a ToneDexter/SBT combo will respond to the touch a little more like the Anthem SL.

In fairness to ToneDexter, I'm still waiting for Sweetwater to get in s new shipment of Slate ML-2s so that I can create WaveMaps with one of the recommended mics.

The Slate ML-2 is on my "must try" list as well but it has been out of stock at Long & Mcquade here in Canada for a good 2-3 months. It's getting to the point where Slate might lose my business.

On a side note for the discussion above, I actually find that when I go from the raw pickup to the wavemap, I lose quite a bit of bass. That's one thing that I am still struggling with. It's a balance between a wavemap that's too warm and bassy and one that's too bright and thin.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Petty1818

On a side note for the discussion above, I actually find that when I go from the raw pickup to the wavemap, I lose quite a bit of bass. That's one thing that I am still struggling with. It's a balance between a wavemap that's too warm and bassy and one that's too bright and thin.

yes, I often notice this too. The new blend feature helps with that, for me. You can sort of balance between getting rid of the pickup sound and keeping the bass and directness of the pickup.

[phcorrigan]

Originally Posted by phcorrigan

You can buy a rechargeable battery pack on Amazon or eBay for about US$25.

Following my own advice, I just ordered this:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...?ie=UTF8&psc=1

[Petty1818]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

yes, I often notice this too. The new blend feature helps with that, for me. You can sort of balance between getting rid of the pickup sound and keeping the bass and directness of the pickup.

Yep, I am finding the blend feature to be necessary. I am very glad it was added. It's just nice to bring some of that enhanced bass back in from the pickup but still have the airy/high end of the wavemap.

[pipe dreamer]

Originally Posted by Petty1818

Yep, I am finding the blend feature to be necessary. I am very glad it was added. It's just nice to bring some of that enhanced bass back in from the pickup but still have the airy/high end of the wavemap.

This has got me thinking. I joined the party late and have only known tonedexter with the blend feature. I tend to have it just below 12cock position and love it.

I wonder how many purchased and returned a tonedexter, or formed a negative opinion, before the blend feature became available?

[Andy Howell]

Must admit to never have used min except on full blend.

[AxeDude]

The verdict? By far the best sound I've ever heard from my Martin J40ce. I thought it sounded really good with my Fishman Aura DI, but the TD is in another universe. Believe the hype.

[Petty1818]

Originally Posted by pipe dreamer

This has got me thinking. I joined the party late and have only known tonedexter with the blend feature. I tend to have it just below 12cock position and love it.

I wonder how many purchased and returned a tonedexter, or formed a negative opinion, before the blend feature became available?

Oh I am sure a few people returned it due to the lack of a blend control. Even Fishman recommends using a lower blend with their Aura Spectrum DI. I just find that for me, a full wavemap sounds impressive at first but it's not overly practical and I miss the warmth and bass that a pickup provides. I see the TD as providing me with what I would want out of an internal mic in a dual source system but without the hassle.