K&K Mini with ToneDexter?

[gfirob]

You do have to massage the mike placement to make sure you get a wavemap that you like, but the actual training is so fast that multiple versions are really no big investment in time, although the comment about going down the rabbit hole endlessly searching for perfect sound is a hazard of all amplification equipment and it includes the Tonedexter. And you will never find the perfect sound anyway, so it is a better plan to just get the best you can and live with it (if you can). I think the Tonedexter is the most sensible way to attack that very thorny problem and it does it better than anything else I have tried.

[Br1ck]

The reality is that in certain situations, a plain old thin peaky UST is the ticket. A loud band with a drummer, keys and electric guitars will kill any nuance from an acoustic. Even a mag soundhole PU might be better.

[shufflebeat]

Originally Posted by Brent Hahn

One thing to be aware of is that the Tonedexter will bring out a realism and clarity in the treble that you'd never get from the pickup alone. And while it'll sound great in your home studio, it may not be as great through a venue's PA speakers, whose tweeters are probably designed to favor survival over accuracy. So the house sound person may roll back the treble to deal with that, and also to keep you away from feedback territory. I'm an FOH mixer and that's what I do.

I can't say I've ever heard a piezo equipped guitar, TD'd or not, ever feed back at the top end. It's usually a battle with the very low end which it's a relief to get rid of and the low mids which we want to keep but tame.

One other thing that's been noted by a few people here (and experienced by me several times) is that a Tonedextered guitar onstage with an otherwise electric band can be an odd fit. Not sure how else to put it. *Maybe we're just not accustomed to it yet.*

I think this is very astute and it will be interesting to see how assumptions around FoH change to reflect the new possibilities, not just with the TD but with other technical innovations like SBTs and IRs.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by Br1ck

…Even a mag soundhole PU might be better.

Hi Br1etc

If you are trying to outplay a loud band (or even keep up) mag is the only way to do it.

[shufflebeat]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

Hi Br1etc

If you are trying to outplay a loud band (or even keep up) mag is the only way to do it.

This is also not borne out by my experience. It may be true in some circumstances but it doesn't stand as a blanket statement.

Understanding the cause and effect of feedback, having the right system set up correctly and having the band members co-operating in the process of getting a good sound is far more important than mag vs sbt vs ust (plus or minus preamps).

[Petty1818]

Feedback is an odd one for me. I remember being very concerned about it when I first got into pickups but I can say with confidence that it doesn't bother me anymore. Maybe it's because my Taylor dreadnought isn't overly boomy but I have never had feedback on stage. I have tried the following pickups: HFN, Lyric, Anthem, K&K, Matrix + Spectrum, Amulet and M1. My band plays in a very noisy bar (200-300 people) with a fairly big sound system and massive monitors. The HFN got a bit lost in the mix but I don't think you need a UST or Magnetic mic to cut through with a loud band.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by shufflebeat

with other technical innovations like SBTs and IRs.

Just an aside - totally off point, but interesting. SBTs aren't new. Lloyd Loar is credited with creating the first pickup (originally for a viola, apparently), and it was actually an SBT. A magnetic SBT, maybe a bit like the ones Taylor used in the ES1, it seems. Others were experimenting around that time (1920s) with contact microphones of various kinds, which were also basically SBTs (sort of like the Schertler Dyn-G). So SBTs appear to predate all other pickups. Magnetic pickups (directly picking up the strings) came next.

The newest core technology in pickups is the UST, which popped up in the 1970s, and were claimed to capture the "natural" sound of the guitar, which maybe compared to magnetic pickups was true...

Everything since appears to be refinements and variations.

[Doug Young]

K&Ks work well with ToneDexter. I've yet to find a pickup that doesn't work, tho I notice less of an improvement with Dazzos.

Originally Posted by Petty1818

Two, wavemaps that sound good at home don't always sound good live. I think the second is my biggest issue. I love the idea of IRs but struggle a bit in a live setting.

I'd suggest that this is true in general, nothing to do with ToneDexter. You could dial in your sound with any gear at home, even an electric guitar, and it's going to sound different when you get to a gig. I generally don't play loud noisy places these days, don't need to cut thru a band, and try to avoid bad PA systems, so my experience with ToneDexter is that it sounds very much the same live as it does at home, sometimes better, especially if I get to play thru a good, large sound system in a nice room. Back when I played loud bar gigs, tho, or had to play thru a bad PA, I'd run into this issue frequently (all long before ToneDexter).

I think it helps to ask yourself if a guitar would sound good with a mic on it in a particular room/sound system, etc? If it wouldn't - and I've played plenty of places where *nothing* could possibly sound good, then Tonedexter won't help much either. TD is best in situations where a natural acoustic tone can be heard and appreciated, which for me, is the goal.

[phcorrigan]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

TD is best in situations where a natural acoustic tone can be heard and appreciated, which for me, is the goal.

This is the goal for me as well.

[shufflebeat]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

Just an aside - totally off point, but interesting. SBTs aren't new. Lloyd Loar is credited with creating the first pickup (originally for a viola, apparently), and it was actually an SBT. A magnetic SBT, maybe a bit like the ones Taylor used in the ES1, it seems. Others were experimenting around that time (1920s) with contact microphones of various kinds, which were also basically SBTs (sort of like the Schertler Dyn-G). So SBTs appear to predate all other pickups. Magnetic pickups (directly picking up the strings) came next.

The newest core technology in pickups is the UST, which popped up in the 1970s, and were claimed to capture the "natural" sound of the guitar, which maybe compared to magnetic pickups was true...

Everything since appears to be refinements and variations.

You mean it wasn't me and my mate in the 80's when we glued a £0.20 piezo buzzer to his double bass? Rats! There goes the pension lawsuit.

Yeah, I'm thinking more about modern popular usage rather than original development. Interesting factoid nevertheless.

[phcorrigan]

Originally Posted by shufflebeat

You mean it wasn't me and my mate in the 80's when we glued a £0.20 piezo buzzer to his double bass? Rats! There goes the pension lawsuit.

I did something similar with a cheap contact mic in the sixties, attaching it to my autoharp and even a plastic jug for jug band use!

I recently did the same with a newer autoharp and a new contact mic (about $7.00, somewhat more than yours at £0.20) and made a ToneDexter wavemap. I actually get much better sound that way than I can with a microphone!

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by shufflebeat

You mean it wasn't me and my mate in the 80's when we glued a £0.20 piezo buzzer to his double bass? Rats! There goes the pension lawsuit.

Yeah, I'm thinking more about modern popular usage rather than original development. Interesting factoid nevertheless.

Even there, I think the SBTs win, tho it's a close call. The Frap was released in 1969, and the Barcus Berry Hot Dot was somewhere about that same time. Those 2 are either the inspiration or direct ancestors of most if not all current SBTs. Ovation patented their UST in 1973, in response to Glen Campbell wanting a way to amplify his guitar.

interesting history articles by Larry Fishman here:

https://www.premierguitar.com/articles/Saddle_Up_Amigo
https://www.premierguitar.com/articl...ckup_Evolution

I actually always wonder what people really did before this. I ran across an old Jethro Tull video a while back, and Anderson was getting a great tone from a little acoustic, in what had to be a very loud setting. Looked like it might have been a clip-on mic. So somehow people in the 60s or early 70s were able to deal with things that we still struggle with today...

[Petty1818]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

I'd suggest that this is true in general, nothing to do with ToneDexter. You could dial in your sound with any gear at home, even an electric guitar, and it's going to sound different when you get to a gig. I generally don't play loud noisy places these days, don't need to cut thru a band, and try to avoid bad PA systems, so my experience with ToneDexter is that it sounds very much the same live as it does at home, sometimes better, especially if I get to play thru a good, large sound system in a nice room. Back when I played loud bar gigs, tho, or had to play thru a bad PA, I'd run into this issue frequently (all long before ToneDexter).

I think it helps to ask yourself if a guitar would sound good with a mic on it in a particular room/sound system, etc? If it wouldn't - and I've played plenty of places where *nothing* could possibly sound good, then Tonedexter won't help much either. TD is best in situations where a natural acoustic tone can be heard and appreciated, which for me, is the goal.

It's a great point for sure. It's odd to me though how something like the Aura Spectrum is so easy to dial in live but the Tonedexter takes work. I think it might be due to the fact that the Tonedexter is up to the player to make the wavemaps, which can be hit or miss. I also find that the Tonedexter is a bit more natural sounding so there's added resonance there. Not sure if that's the right word in this case.

Two interesting points to add though. First, I have been surprised in the past by pickups that I thought would get lost in a mix/feedback but ended up sounding great. The Lyric and Amulet for example sounded great in a very noisy bar and I was competing with a fiddle, another guitar player, drums and a bass player. Actually the Lyric was probably the best tone I ever had live for strumming, it just lacked low end. For whatever reason, I couldn't bond with the Anthem though.

Secondly, today I was playing around with the Aura Spectrum and my Fishman equipped Taylor and I decided to just switch over to the Jumbo setting even though my guitar is a dreadnought. I need to do some live testing but I couldn't believe how much better the guitar sounded. Not all images worked but those that did really fattened up single notes and just made my guitar sound more like what I expect from it unplugged.

[Brent Hahn]

Originally Posted by shufflebeat

I can't say I've ever heard a piezo equipped guitar, TD'd or not, ever feed back at the top end.

Certainly not as often as low-end "whoom" for sure. Also, when I'm mixing FOH I usually don't ask what's in the guitar, so maybe when I get ringing it's one of those combo situations incorporating a mic. I honestly don't know.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

…Looked like it might have been a clip-on mic. So somehow people in the 60s or early 70s were able to deal with things that we still struggle with today...

Hi Doug
I read an interview with James Taylor (in the 1970s) and in the early days he was taping a Shure SM-11 omnidirectional lavalier mic to the inside front of the guitar and sealed up the sound hole with 4X6 cards and tape. It worked fine in TV studios but not well for concerts.

I have an SM-11, and you can get away with it if you don't need a monitor of any kind (it's pretty vulnerable to feedback and the cord is fragile). It's a dynamic low impedance mic. It is very very heavy (milled aluminum housing) and was used for television (even movies). They still sell them for around $100 new.

It has a tie pin mount (mount it to the inside layer of a tie, or go exterior with the tie clasp). The cable, weight & feedback are the limiting factors...

It's got to weigh over an ounce with it's solid aluminum housing…diameter of 9/16" & it's 1.5" long. The cable is light, ends in an XLR which is non-detachable.

I tried it for a few gigs, and just ended up wrestling with it. Sounded better than an SM-57/58, but the cable was only about 4 feet long, so you had to secure it in some innovative fashion for stress relief and extend it with a second XLR cable.

James is an equipment/pickup explorer - no doubt about it.