Royer R-121 use with a Tone Dexter

[jimmy bookout]

I am contemplating buying a Tone Dexter and, obviously, want to use a better mic than my SM58. A good friend has a nice selection of really good mics and he suggested using his Royer R-121. Any have thoughts on this?

[Cochese]

You mean to model the sound of the acoustic. I have a Royer 121 and it's my favorite mic for recording electric guitar amps. It's not my go to for acoustic. It can be a bit too dark on it's on. Maybe mixed with a piezo it will be OK but in the studio acoustics are generally mic'd with condenser mic's. I like the AKG 414. At home I use an AT 4050 or an AKG 535.

My suggestion would be to go over your friends and maybe try a few and see what you think. The only thing I wonder about those boxes like the Tone Dexter, Aura etc is if the guitar still responds the same. The singer in my band has the old Line 6 Acoustic modeling guitar and while it "sounds" like a mic'd acoustic my singer tells me it doesn't feel the same as a real acoustic plugged in. I've tried both the Fishman and Mama Bear and they always seem pretty phony to me. Maybe just my experience and perhaps the TD is better.

What's you application? For me in my home studio it's easy to just mic. Live I find the environment makes a huge difference in a plugged in acoustic tone. Generally I go through a pair of QSC K10's and use a Taylor T5 that was modded with a different pickup or my old Taylor 612 with the D-Tar Wavelength paired with a Fishman Platinum Pro EQ. The Wavelength/Taylor combo sounds really good. I may eventually add the mic version of the D-Tar.

[sdelsolray]

Originally Posted by jimmy bookout

I am contemplating buying a Tone Dexter and, obviously, want to use a better mic than my SM58. A good friend has a nice selection of really good mics and he suggested using his Royer R-121. Any have thoughts on this?

A Royer-121 would be fine with two caveats: (i) being a figure 8 polar pattern what is captured will contain a lot of the room you are in and (ii) that mic needs a fair amount of clean gain.

If the room you are in sucks and/or if the preamp you are using (including perhaps the Tonedexter's preamp) does not provide sufficient clean gain, then your Wavemap might suffer.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Cochese

The only thing I wonder about those boxes like the Tone Dexter, Aura etc is if the guitar still responds the same.

If anything, what I hear with the ToneDexter is that I get a response that feels much more like the natural acoustic sound than most pickups. For example, with a UST, that quack sound of the pickup doesn't feel like a natural response. With ToneDexter the quack is gone, and you're back to something that's much closer to the feel of the guitar. I find I actually enjoy playing thru the TD amplified, partly because it sounds good, but maybe more importantly that it "feels" like I'm playing an un-amplified acoustic.

[guitaniac]

Cochese,

It should be added that the response will depend somewhat on the pickup used with ToneDexter. If you use ToneDexter with an SBT-equipped guitar, you'll get a better response to top tapping than you'll get when using ToneDexter with a UST-equipped guitar.

One of the big advantages of ToneDexter, as opposed to Mama Bear and Aura, is that it can be used effectively with a wider variety of pickups. That's already been verified (to my satisfaction, at least) by the user feedback.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by guitaniac

Cochese,

It should be added that the response will depend somewhat on the pickup used with ToneDexter. If you use ToneDexter with an SBT-equipped guitar, you'll get a better response to top tapping than you'll get when using ToneDexter with a UST-equipped guitar.

Agreed, one thing people should understand is that tools like this can't add certain things that aren't there. For example, if you have a mag pickup like a Sunrise and expect to do body tapping, that's not going to happen. The mag (ignoring certain mags like the M1 that will....) won't pick up the sound in the first place, so no amount of processing can put it back. If your guitar has no sustain thru the pickup, I don't think TD can add that back, and so on. But within those kinds of limitations, to me at least, TD moves you closer to the natural response feel of the guitar, not further away.

[Cuki79]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

If anything, what I hear with the ToneDexter is that I get a response that feels much more like the natural acoustic sound than most pickups. For example, with a UST, that quack sound of the pickup doesn't feel like a natural response. With ToneDexter the quack is gone, and you're back to something that's much closer to the feel of the guitar. I find I actually enjoy playing thru the TD amplified, partly because it sounds good, but maybe more importantly that it "feels" like I'm playing an un-amplified acoustic.

Hi Doug,

It is the best compliment you could give to the Tonedexter. I hope everyone on the AGF will read your post.

Thanks
Cuki

[Cochese]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

If anything, what I hear with the ToneDexter is that I get a response that feels much more like the natural acoustic sound than most pickups. For example, with a UST, that quack sound of the pickup doesn't feel like a natural response. With ToneDexter the quack is gone, and you're back to something that's much closer to the feel of the guitar. I find I actually enjoy playing thru the TD amplified, partly because it sounds good, but maybe more importantly that it "feels" like I'm playing an un-amplified acoustic.

That sounds promising. So if you do tapping techniques or thump the body that will come through? Have you used the TD through a PA System live? When you used it what were the pickup and mic used for modeling?

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Cochese

That sounds promising. So if you do tapping techniques or thump the body that will come through? Have you used the TD through a PA System live? When you used it what were the pickup and mic used for modeling?

TD should not interfere with tapping if your pickup transmits it. You can think of TD (and Aura, etc) as very sophisticated EQs. That's not doing justice to what it really does, but from a player's perspective it's a useful way to think about it. The sound is still your guitar, just passing thru some filters. It's not triggering other sounds or anything, just shaping the signal coming from your pickup.

I have tried K&K, Trance, Dazzo, DTar Wavelength, Barbera UST and also tried processing an internal mic so far.

I have not tried to use it in a live performance, the loudest I've tried was at home thru a Fishman SA330. It does bring out the resonances in your guitar, so it may increase the odds of feedback if you play loud, tho you can always EQ, and there's a feedback filter, too. My Trance-equipt guitar is a very deep-sounding guitar, and it had trouble with bass feedback thru the SA330 with the first model I tried. I was able to address it simply by rolling off the bass a bit, and then retrained with the mic further back to reduce the bass from the proximity effect and that helped as well. You might have to do a few different passes on training to find the right model for your playing style, gear, and environment.

[jomaynor]

Originally Posted by sdelsolray

A Royer-121 would be fine with two caveats: (i) being a figure 8 polar pattern what is captured will contain a lot of the room you are in and (ii) that mic needs a fair amount of clean gain.

If the room you are in sucks and/or if the preamp you are using (including perhaps the Tonedexter's preamp) does not provide sufficient clean gain, then your Wavemap might suffer.

I'd add another caveat about the R-121, if the intent is for live use: while this design is sturdier than most ribbon mics, it is still a ribbon mic - much more delicate than a typical dynamic like the OP's SM 58, and more delicate than a live condenser design like an SM 81, too.

If one were to use an R-121 for live use, it would have to be treated with special care, which is easy enough, but there is still the eventual likelihood of an audience member or a careless soundguy damaging it. Just one more thing to worry about, since they aren't inexpensive.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by jomaynor

If one were to use an R-121 for live use, it would have to be treated with special care, which is easy enough, but there is still the eventual likelihood of an audience member or a careless soundguy damaging it. Just one more thing to worry about, since they aren't inexpensive.

I think the intent here was to use the Royer for training the ToneDexter. You'd do that at home. The ToneDexter would then go to the gig. The mic would not.

[jomaynor]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

I think the intent here was to use the Royer for training the ToneDexter. You'd do that at home. The ToneDexter would then go to the gig. The mic would not.

Ah, gotcha - thanks, Doug, for the continuing education. I've seen the name "ToneDexter" lots here lately, but I hadn't yet taken the time to look into what what exactly it does.

[James May]

Originally Posted by jimmy bookout

I am contemplating buying a Tone Dexter and, obviously, want to use a better mic than my SM58. A good friend has a nice selection of really good mics and he suggested using his Royer R-121. Any have thoughts on this?

I have a RODE NTR, which is an active ribbon mic, and have used it to train ToneDexter with good results. The NTR is a ribbon that has proven to be very useful in the studio for guitar, vocals, and horns.

But here's the caveat: It is somewhat brighter than than typical ribbons including the R-121 (I believe), but it is not as bright as condenser mics. The WaveMaps made with the NTR were on the dull end of the spectrum. So, while the R-121 would certainly work with ToneDexter, it wouldn't be my recommendation as I believe it would likely give you WaveMaps that you'd want to be brighter. But if you have access, it's easy to just try it and see how it works on your guitar.

I do think you'll be better off using a small diaphragm condenser mic.

[jimmy bookout]

Thanks James. You confirmed what I had read.

[buzzardwhiskey]

On our first album we recorded our mandolin and banjo with a Royer R121. It worked well and would probably be fine for training the ToneDexter, though maybe just a touch muted in the highs.

But why would you want to do this? I'm convinced that an Audix F9, Rode M3 or Audio Technica Pro 37 would all be just as good. And they're all under $150. Placement during training is like 95% of the equation and the mic (as long as it's a condenser with some air in the top) is maybe the other 5%. And that 5% is again altered when you go through various PA's.