Taylor Expression system vs. Fishman Aura

[rmyAddison]

sdelsolray,

While I have had excellent results, and good feedback from musicians, using the on board Aura, I regret that I did no go the full blown floor model route and have a box instruments could share and just have a UST in the guitars.

My question, have you actually compared the Moma Bear and Fishman Imaging Blender (not the stomp boxes designed for only one guitar image)? I am not married to Fishman, it is the best I have found so far, but if the Moma Bear truly is noticeably better, so be it, I'll buy one.

Although some on the Martin forum would consider it blasphemy I am going to put a K&K mini in my D-18 GE, I miss it too much on stage, and sitting and miking doesn't work with what I do. If the Moma Bear will do a better job than the Imaging Blender that's the way I'll go.

As far as my A/B'ing the two I could buy both and keep the one I like better, or would this work? Since I already have an onboard Aura and have settings that I really like dialed in at 100% Aura, I could sample that then switch to 100% UST and go through a Moma Bear. Thoughts?

I'm surprised you consider the Imaging Blender "cheesy" at a couple hundred more that the Moma Bear, but it's the sound that matters. Again, have you actually A/b'd the Moma Bear and Imaging Blender, I'd appreciate your comments.

I see more and more Auras but have never seen a Moma Bear, hence I am open to new things.

[Beagle1]

Originally Posted by Slickstring

I am thinking of selling my Taylor 314-L2 with the ES and going with the Martin OMC-16RE Aura. I play in public alot and with the ES I can plug straight into the PA. Is this possible with the Aura? I don't want to make a mistake and trade out for something that will not suffice for public venues. The ES seems to be pretty simplified and easy to use. Just asking for opinions on these two from anyone who has done a comparison.

Thanks,
Jerry

I think some great advice has already been offered here...the main thing I would add is definitely *test* the Martin Aura guitar and compare it carefully to your Taylor before you decide to make the switch! Who knows, you might find that you really prefer the sound of your Taylor. The ES is going to have a completely different sonic signature than the Aura.

I think in theory the concept of the Aura is great...and I have really wanted to like this technology. However, I've spent a lot of time with several of the Martin guitars with built-in Aura electronics, and also the Aura Orchestra pedal. And I just can't force myself to like the way the Aura sounds.

The Aura sound images all have this sterile, digital sound to them...it's hard to describe. With a real guitar, when it is miked or run through a good analog dual source system (e.g. the K&K Trinity) the sound is very dynamic; but with the Aura the sound is very static. This is especially the case when running the blend at 100% Aura. To be fair, I hear the same thing with the various impulse-response reverbs (Altiverb, etc) and digital amp modelers like the Line6 Pod. I guess I just don't like digital stuff very much.

I will say that I think the Aura might sound better in the context of a mix with a band, and when the musical style is basically strummed chords. My application for testing though was solo fingerstyle guitar, and I always preferred just the Fishman UST with no Aura in the mix. Call me crazy, but I think the Fishman UST sounds just fine on it's own, especially when running through an Ultrasound amp, which IMHO tames a lot of the quack that people usually associate with UST's.

I agree with sdelsolray that cheap converters and electronics may be part of the problem with many digital devices targeted in the budget/consumer price range. I also think I might have liked the Aura if I had EQ control over both the UST source and the Aura source prior to blending. The Aura images each had some weird peak in the mids that I wanted to EQ out, but I coudn't do it without messing up the sound of the UST.

I know there are many guys who love the Aura, and so please don't take this personally...it's just my 2 cents for whatever it's worth. Also, I know there are many pros like James Taylor and Ed Gerhard who are using the Aura now. Hopefully, as the technology improves we'll see improved versions of the Aura and maybe I'll like it more. It might be cool if they had an "Aura Pro" model that is a rackmount unit with high-end converters and a high degree of control over each source prior to blending.

But for now, I'm sticking with my plain ol' analog stuff!

[Joe F]

Originally Posted by Beagle1

I agree with sdelsolray that cheap converters and electronics may be part of the problem with many digital devices targeted in the budget/consumer price range. I also think I might have liked the Aura if I had EQ control over both the UST source and the Aura source prior to blending. The Aura images each had some weird peak in the mids that I wanted to EQ out, but I coudn't do it without messing up the sound of the UST.

Good input Beagle1. Just an fyi, at least for the onboard Aura: The Aura and the UST are EQ'd seperately prior to blending. To set the EQ on the Aura image, you just flip the switch to "Edit". The EQ controls then only affect the Aura image. When you put the switch on "Play" the EQ controls only affect the UST signal. To isolate them completely and EQ them, you just slide the blender to 100% Aura or 100% Pickup. I generally set it to 100% image, EQ the image the way I like it, then blend some UST in, set the switch to "Play" and EQ the UST.

[rmyAddison]

We all hear things differently. I literally hate 100% UST versus 100% Aura but I have had the system a year and had untold hours tweaking and playing to get it dialed in. I use very little Aura EQ and let my Genz Benz parametric mid EQ do the "taming".

I will be seriously surprised if the Moma Bear is noticeable better, but I will be opern minded and let my ears not the brand decide. Should be interesting...

[guitaniac]

Interestingly, I had the same reaction as Beagle when I tried using 100% sound image with an onboard Aura guitar. I thought it sounded pretty compressed and lacking in dynamic response. To be fair, though, I'm not sure that a store demo (even the uninterrupted half-hour with a Bose PAS which I enjoyed on that slow afternoon) will do the Aura justice. If I had been in the market for a Martin Aura guitar (rather than just curious about the Aura), I would likely have bought one from a dealer with a good return policy, experimented with it at my leisure at home, and returned it if it didn't float my boat.

FWIW, I did like a 40% (or so) sound image blend with the onboard Aura 000 Martin which I tried. I never did get a satisfying result with the onboard Aura Martin dread which I tried on another day. There was some kind of weird sound artifact going on - an artifact which wasn't present when I demoed the same guitar (on 100% UST) thru my Mama Bear and the same amp. (Yes, I brought my Mama Bear into the store to A/B it against the Aura. Although I preferred the Mama Bear on that day, I wouldn't describe the results as "conclusive". I was rushed, hovered over and obligued to use a 2nd rate amp on that day.)

Gary

PS It wouldn't surprise me if the Aura Martins and the ES Taylors turned out to be similar with respect their consistency, or lack thereof. Its pretty well accepted, at this point, that some ES Taylors amplify much better than others. Perhaps the "safest" approach is to purchase the guitar which you like acoustically and to continue to futz around with aftermarket pickup systems 'til you find the one which works for you.

[Joe F]

Originally Posted by guitaniac

Interestingly, I had the same reaction as Beagle when I tried using 100% sound image with an onboard Aura guitar. I thought it sounded pretty compressed and lacking in dynamic response. To be fair, though, I'm not sure that a store demo (even the uninterrupted half-hour with a Bose PAS which I enjoyed on that slow afternoon) will do the Aura justice. If I had been in the market for a Martin Aura guitar (rather than just curious about the Aura), I would likely have bought one from a dealer with a good return policy, experimented with it at my leisure at home, and returned it if it didn't float my boat.

FWIW, I did like a 40% (or so) sound image blend with the onboard Aura 000 Martin which I tried. I never did get a satisfying result with the onboard Aura Martin dread which I tried on another day. There was some kind of weird sound artifact going on - an artifact which wasn't present when I demoed the same guitar (on 100% UST) thru my Mama Bear and the same amp. (Yes, I brought my Mama Bear into the store to A/B it against the Aura. Although I preferred the Mama Bear on that day, I wouldn't describe the results as "conclusive". I was rushed, hovered over and obligued to use a 2nd rate amp on that day.)

Gary

I also do not like the 100% Aura sound on my OMC. It sounds too processed and compressed to me and does not have any front end attack. I experienced this previously when I had an outboard Aura with a Fishman pickup. 100% Aura just sounded somewhat digitized and artificial. I run at about 40-50% Aura image and 50-60% pickup. This to me gives the most natural realistic sound and still maintains the attack needed to be heard in a band mix. It definitely sounds better than 100% pickup or 100% Aura to my ear. Everything is subjective I guess though. I know rmyAddison runs at 100% Aura for his solo gigs and seems to love it.

[sdelsolray]

Originally Posted by rmyAddison

sdelsolray,

While I have had excellent results, and good feedback from musicians, using the on board Aura, I regret that I did no go the full blown floor model route and have a box instruments could share and just have a UST in the guitars.

My question, have you actually compared the Moma Bear and Fishman Imaging Blender (not the stomp boxes designed for only one guitar image)? I am not married to Fishman, it is the best I have found so far, but if the Moma Bear truly is noticeably better, so be it, I'll buy one.

Although some on the Martin forum would consider it blasphemy I am going to put a K&K mini in my D-18 GE, I miss it too much on stage, and sitting and miking doesn't work with what I do. If the Moma Bear will do a better job than the Imaging Blender that's the way I'll go.

As far as my A/B'ing the two I could buy both and keep the one I like better, or would this work? Since I already have an onboard Aura and have settings that I really like dialed in at 100% Aura, I could sample that then switch to 100% UST and go through a Moma Bear. Thoughts?

I'm surprised you consider the Imaging Blender "cheesy" at a couple hundred more that the Moma Bear, but it's the sound that matters. Again, have you actually A/b'd the Moma Bear and Imaging Blender, I'd appreciate your comments.

I see more and more Auras but have never seen a Moma Bear, hence I am open to new things.

I haven't tried the Aura side by side with the Mama Bear, but at different times on many occasions. Certainly my thoughts on these two products are subjective and slightly suspect if for no other reason than I have only an hour or two of experience with each of them.

Both are digital devices. They convert the analog signal to digital early and all processing, eq, etc. is done in the digital realm before the signal is converted back to analog for output to the next device in the signal chain. BTW, the Bose L1 is the same - digital (for the most part).

When it comes to digital audio gear, there are different product qualities. That really no different than analog gear. Really cheap digital includes basic computer soundcards, digital phones, certain plugins, etc. These things sound horrible (which is much worse than cheesy). On the other end of the spectrum are some professional items (with attendant high prices) that simply sound wonderful. Most of us deal with digital gear between these two extremes.

When I said the Aura is cheesy sounding, that's just a descriptive term for the quality of the audio produced by the unit. Perhaps if I spent more time with an Aura, I'd find a sound that was better. But the sound I have heard (including other folks' sound) has contained digital artifacts as well as glassy/distorted highs, unfocused bass and muddy midrange, among some other not-so-great things. The processed signal is similar to the results obtained with many of budget studio digital products. The Mama Bear, on the other hand, simply sounds better, in a digital sense. While it has some digital artifacts and some other issues, they're not too severe. To my ears, the Mama Bear sounds good - more pleasing and less intrusive than the Aura. But again, it's all subjective. Plus I'm definitely biased towards good analog - I've just like the sound, reliability and consistency it provides.

As to trying a Mama Bear, I think it would be a good idea.

[guitaniac]

Originally Posted by Joe F

A mic is a mic and a pickup is a pickup. It is what it is.

Indeed. Its no easy thing to create a pickup system which is as much like a good mic in one way (sound quality) and as unlike a mic as possible in another way (feedback susceptability) - all at a price point which consumer's will accept.

And why aren't most pickup system consumers willing to spend thousands on their amplified sound? Because you have diminishing returns after a certain point. That expensive last bit of sound quality just doesn't matter that much (to most of us) in the overall scheme of things.

Last night I heard (monster player) Jim Volk do a few tunes at a Columbus open mic. When he plugged in and started futzing around, I remember thinking that his guitar tone was pretty harsh. By the time he was done, however, I couldn't have cared less about his tone. I was simply delighted and awestruck by a most transcendant musical experience. While I will always be the kind of "gearhead" who obsesses over his tone, I can hardly fault Jim (or any other player) for having more sensible priorities and focusing 99% of their obsessiveness on the music.

For the benefit of the curious:
www.myspace.com/volkmusic


Gary

[Jerrysimon]

I have been watching and reading posts on the Aura and getting the urge to experiment with one. To be honest though I am amazed that they are developing this technology primarily for UST and possibly magnetic pickups. This would mean I would have to retro fit a pickup.

Many of us (me anyway) are moving away from these and installing K&K/iBeam type solutions

I think I have concluded that I want something simple (plug and play) and that to be honest the amount of times I actually plug in and play to a live audience, its just not worth the effort or cost of getting a better live amplified sound. I already have a AER 60 and the K&K plugged into that is sufficient.

I would be better to use that money on a decent acoustic guitar and the energy practising, playing and aquiring more skill on the actual "acoustic" guitar.

Sorry I am sort of thinking out loud. Perhaps too, I should spend less time in and reading this forum as well!

Regards

Jerry

[Joe F]

I agree on those points Gary! Some of the best guitar performances I've seen in live situations were very UST sounding and quite quacky. I didn't care, nor did anyone else. I doubt any non guitar players had any idea the sound was not "natural"... It's a sound most have become used to on plugged in acoustic guitars. It reminds me a a friend of mine who got his first Taylor ES equipped guitar. He did not like the plugged in sound so he invested in preamps and multiband EQ's to customize it. When all was said and done, he had gotten it to sound pretty much like a UST equipped guitar.

[ovangkol bill]

Originally Posted by guitaniac;1207365

Last night I heard (monster player) Jim Volk do a few tunes at a Columbus open mic. When he plugged in and started futzing around, I remember thinking that his guitar tone was pretty harsh. By the time he was done, however, I couldn't have cared less about his tone. I was simply delighted and awestruck by a most transcendant musical experience. While I will always be the kind of "gearhead" who obsesses over his tone, I can hardly fault Jim (or any other player) for having more sensible priorities and focusing 99% of their obsessiveness on the music.

For the benefit of the curious:
[url

www.myspace.com/volkmusic[/url]


Gary

Wow! Pretty amazing stuff!

[guitaniac]

Jerry,

I'm not yet a member of the K&K "true believers" club, but I have been liking the amplified sound of my mini-Pure equipped OM a bit more these days. The funny thing is, though, I'm not sure if I've actually come up with a better signal chain for it, or I'm just getting more used to that inside-the-guitar SBT sound. Either way, I don't yet have the urge to rip it out and try something else. Its lasted longer than any other pickup has in that particularly troublesome (tone-wise) guitar.

Gary

[guitaniac]

Originally Posted by Joe F

I agree on those points Gary! Some of the best guitar performances I've seen in live situations were very UST sounding and quite quacky. I didn't care, nor did anyone else. I doubt any non guitar players had any idea the sound was not "natural"... It's a sound most have become used to on plugged in acoustic guitars. It reminds me a a friend of mine who got his first Taylor ES equipped guitar. He did not like the plugged in sound so he invested in preamps and multiband EQ's to customize it. When all was said and done, he had gotten it to sound pretty much like a UST equipped guitar.

Does he play "Circle Game" with it?

Gary

[rmyAddison]

Here's my .02.

I have been playing since the 70's, started guitar in 1964, and was always electric, played in bands and got my Phila union card around 72.

I went acoustic a few years ago when a move to Texas ended my band days with a group I played with for decades. I decided I wanted as natural sound as possible or why bother, just play one of my electrics. I am truly amazed how many acostic players (good and sometimes great players) don't seem to give a crap about their sound as soon as they plug in, as long as there is no feedback all is well. Admittedly this is my opinion, what I prefer is my business and I have no right to deny anybody else their personal preference.

And, no arguement, expensive condensors are the Holy Grail to amplify/record acoustics. To my old ears I have never heard an acoustic pickup that didn't somewhat color the sound and have midrange frequency "issues". Aura images and DTAR modeling are an attempt to get closer to that microphone sound and reduce the pickup to a transport to an extent, let the electronics take it from there.

I get a "better" sound using the Aura that straight UST, I also have a year playing with the thing so I believe I know it pretty well and it is complex. I also go to a Genz Benz Shenandoah Pro with parametric mid control, I don't need a lot of EQ at the Aura or amp to tame things down.

My last concert the opening act had a very nice HD-28 with K&K mini, it sounded good, very good, be even he said he preferred the sound I was getting with the OMC Aura. It should always first be about the music, then to me sounding as good as you can. If you play classical or instrument only and you can sit and play through high end mikes, great, you will sound wonderful. If you can't, then whatever comes closest to that sound is where my money goes.

These threads are great and very constructive, they shouldn't be microphone versus electronics because everybody agrees, use mikes when you can, period. Aura versus Moma Bear, Fishman versus K&K, and people's experiences with different equipment ise valuable to those still searching for the best possible non-miked sound for their guitar(s) equipment. The journey can be fun, sorry for the long ramble.

[Jerrysimon]

Originally Posted by guitaniac

Does he play "Circle Game" with it?

Gary

Excellent

I need to learn that song and my problems will be solved.

In everything, there appears to be circularity.

Regards

Jerry