ToneDexter - Verdict?

[El Conquistador]

Originally Posted by jonfields45

Phantom power has a fairly wide range of implementations but in general is intended to power a microphone and is not capable of delivering enough power for ToneDextor, or most anything with a digital signal processor and/or LED (or back lit LCD) display.

Another reason I am totally satisfied with my RedEye. I AM able to run it on the phantom power from my SA220.

Steve

[Petty1818]

Originally Posted by El Conquistador

Another reason I am totally satisfied with my RedEye. I AM able to run it on the phantom power from my SA220.

Steve

It sounds like you are all set then. The Tonedexter is a different thing altogether. If what you need is phantom power and just a good di'd tone, then the TD probably isn't what you need anyway.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by El Conquistador

Thanks Gordon. I will not be viewing any more Tondexter posts.

Steve

Running on phantom is nice, but is the exception rather than the norm. Felix won't run on phantom, for example, nor will an SPS-1, Baggs Venue, on and on. Many preamps, especially those that give you more headroom need more juice than phantom power can provide.

[El Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Petty1818

It sounds like you are all set then.

Indeed I am. I get nothing but compliments on my live tone. But, AGF has a way of making one question his/her rig from time to time.

Originally Posted by Doug Young

Running on phantom is nice, but is the exception rather than the norm.

Being a believer in the KISS principle, running on phantom power is indeed very nice. Since the RedEye is the only pedal I have every owned, I just assumed all pedals ran on phantom. I guess I got lucky.

Steve

[Gordon Currie]

It would be nice to get this thread back on topic (what do people who have USED ToneDexter think of it).

[Doug Young]

I use it, I like it. I do find it's the biggest benefit for guitars with unnatural sounding pickups, which makes sense. I go back and forth with the tradeoff of losing my dual source setup when I use it. I have guitar/pickups where ToneDexter seems to offer very little improvement over pickup+internal mic+Felix, and of course when I can use an external mic, that wins hands down. (My ideal would be to have a dual source setup that applies ToneDexter to the pickup channel and still lets me keep the mic). However, in other guitars, ToneDexter wins handily, and as I reported some time back, with people who use USTs, ToneDexter is miraculous.

[Gordon Currie]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

My ideal would be to have a dual source setup that applies ToneDexter to the pickup channel and still lets me keep the mic.

Hmm, I have a mini-condensor in a couple of guitars wired to the ring of the TRS jack. I used to use a Rane AP13 for dual-source; I could stick the TonexDexter in the AP13 Chan A insert loop and have the mini-mike available as well. Time to do some testing!

Of course, you're likely speaking of an external mike, which would require a mixer.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Gordon Currie

Hmm, I have a mini-condensor in a couple of guitars wired to the ring of the TRS jack. I used to use a Rane AP13 for dual-source; I could stick the TonexDexter in the AP13 Chan A insert loop and have the mini-mike available as well. Time to do some testing!

Of course, you're likely speaking of an external mike, which would require a mixer.

No, I meant internal mic. Yes, I could put tonedexter in the effects loop, but I've stopped using my rack preamps, and right now Felix doesn't support a stereo effects loop. It also just seems like overkill to have 2 preamps, I really prefer to travel light :-)

You can of course use ToneDexter for a pickup and an external mic to a mixer. I could also use ToneDexter and another preamp to handle my internal mic, but we're back to the multiple preamp scenario again. I keep hoping for one box to rule them all, preferably small enough to fit in a guitar case :-)

[shufflebeat]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

I use it, I like it. I do find it's the biggest benefit for guitars with unnatural sounding pickups, which makes sense. I go back and forth with the tradeoff of losing my dual source setup when I use it. I have guitar/pickups where ToneDexter seems to offer very little improvement over pickup+internal mic+Felix, and of course when I can use an external mic, that wins hands down. (My ideal would be to have a dual source setup that applies ToneDexter to the pickup channel and still lets me keep the mic).

That's a well balanced report that chimes with my experience.

...with people who use USTs, ToneDexter is miraculous.

I have a small issue with this part because:

1) it's not true for every guitar/pickup combination IME
2) all of this is dependent on user skill in training the TD. Like most things it's super easy when you know how but I've produced very different wavemaps from the same instrument/mic combo (fiddles particularly but guitar/UST also) and it has taken some persistence to get anything approaching miraculous.

I only point this out because it's a lot of money to spend on a system so I think it's more important than usual to avoid anything that sounds like a promise of guaranteed satisfaction based on a small sample which may not turn out to be representative.

[pipe dreamer]

I'm a user and I love it, very, very much

I've used it live and at home but so far only with a guitar installed with a Fishman Matrix infinity (m36). As Doug has pointed out, in this set up (UST), for me, it was miraculous and far, far exceeds my Fishman Aura DI with the same guitar. This really surprised me as was not expecting such a vast gap.

I have not yet used it with my guitar with K&K recently installed as the Tonedexter is on a boat somewhere en route to New Zealand with the rest of my household goods. However, I've almost loved the k&k on it's own in the past and I fully expect the Tonedexter to improve this nicely. Yes, there is an extra plug to use, but I feel the improvement more than makes up for that minor inconvenience. I also believe it's possible to buy a portable battery pack that could work

For me if you exclude the tonal improvement that I obviously firmly believe in, I love the benefit of using a system like this as it is highly resistant to feedback (mic's usually aren't) so I can play loud. As I also sing, there is no vocal spill from a mic used on the guitar. Of course you get full range to move around as well.

I believe the product is amazing and while I respect others disagree, I would strongly encourage you to at least try it. The manual is very helpful and if you do what they say regarding mic choice and placement its hard to go too far wrong in my opinion

[varmonter]

Originally Posted by El Conquistador

Indeed I am. I get nothing but compliments on my live tone. But, AGF has a way of making one question his/her rig from time to time.

My wife says after i've read a lot of AGF I usually
end up buying something... Ha

Being a believer in the KISS principle, running on phantom power is indeed very nice. Since the RedEye is the only pedal I have every owned, I just assumed all pedals ran on phantom. I guess I got lucky.

Steve

Well not all are created equal. Someday you'll find something you like better.
You just have to let yourself experience .
Higher end preamps require shore power for a reason .
That's why they're higher end.

[Marshall]

I use it and love it. Phantom power is not an issue for me. I've worked out a simple battery thing for quick open mic type setups. For formal gigs I use the wall wart. I love what TD does in most settings. Sometimes the sound guy mixes in too much reverb, and it sounds tubby. But that's not TD's fault. When I'm going thru my amp I control that myself. I will add just a little reverb.

I'm interested in trying some other post TD processing for fun. Compression and such. But it's not high on my priority list.

I was in a familiar setting 2 nights ago. I used TD at an Open Mic. It's sounded great there before. This time, the sound in the monitors was not good. Trebbly and glassy sounding. I plowed through. When I got down, my friends said it sounded great in the house. I talked to the sound guy. He said they were swapping some equipment around and he couldn't EQ the stage monitors. It was set to zero out the bass in the monitors. So the problem was with the house, not my signal chain. Such is life.

People said it sounded great out in the room.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by shufflebeat

T
I have a small issue with this part because:

1) it's not true for every guitar/pickup combination IME
2) all of this is dependent on user skill in training the TD. Like most things it's super easy when you know how but I've produced very different wavemaps from the same instrument/mic combo (fiddles particularly but guitar/UST also) and it has taken some persistence to get anything approaching miraculous.

I only point this out because it's a lot of money to spend on a system so I think it's more important than usual to avoid anything that sounds like a promise of guaranteed satisfaction based on a small sample which may not turn out to be representative.

Yes, any blanket statement is likely to be wrong, so let me rephrase: "every UST I have tried has produced near-miraculous results". You are correct that I have not tried every UST in the world :-)

However, I have tried quite a few, and the only one that I've found usable by itself is the Barbera, again, just for my taste - I know some people like various USTs and I even hear other people get decent tones from them at times. However, ToneDexter improves the Barbera quite dramatically as well. The only pickup I've come across that ToneDexter doesn't seem to improve is the Dazzo (SBT). For some reason, I can only make the Dazzo sound a bit worse. However, K&Ks and Trance benefit from ToneDexter, tho not as much as USTS - again, all in my limited experience, yours may vary.

I disagree about the skill required. I've demo'd this for others, taking roughly 2 seconds to setup, people moving around while playing, we're talking during the process, etc. Nothing intense about it. Great results 100% of the time (of the times I've tried it - past results are no guarantee of future, etc, etc). I also don't find mic placement to be especially finicky. You can get different results with different placement or different mics, but any mic, any placement, gets rid of the quack and offers an improvement, in my limited experience.

Cost is relative, and different people have different price point sensitivities. However, with the money I've spent chasing an acceptable pickup sound, I could have bought an awful lot of ToneDexters :-)

[gfirob]

+1 on Doug’s comment regarding the training process. Mike placement is something you deal with while recording yourself and during performances, so most players who have done that are familiar with the basic concept. When I have demonstrated the Tonedexter for friends who are players, there is almost always a point, as they are listening to the Tondexter go through the process and change the sound of the guitar, when their jaws drop and their eyes get wide. It really is remarkable.

The process also allows you to go back and try it again and improve on it or try different options. These are all big plusses to me and I think it is easy and fun.

These devices are not for everybody, but I don’t know anybody who has spent as much time testing and evaluating pickup and preamp combinations as Doug Young. The best way to decide whether or not to spend the money on a Tonedexter is to try to get your hands on one and see if it is for you and if you can’t find one, listen to the demos online, especially Doug’s.

But with my setup, I consider the Tonedexter essential for performances even given the wild variety of funky amplification and PA's we often find when we walk into a venue.

[The Kid!]

I love mine. It will be in my rig until James May designs a Tonedexter II.

That said, you're only as good as your wavemaps.

I recorded 22 the first time and really liked two. I went back and recorded a bunch more with different mics and positions and like about four a lot and there are two that I mainly use. Those are dependent upon if it's me solo, or me trying to fit into a mix.

I loved the Red Eye. It it's amazing. I got the Sunnaudio Stage DI recently, and I like it a little better. Customer service on both has been incredible.

If phantom power is a deal breaker, then you're limiting yourself. The Tonedexter does something different than the Red Eye. In fact, they complement each other well.


Most recent configuration: (actually, this is before I added the Neunaber (Expanse) Wet Reverb, Shimmer, etc
https://imgur.com/gallery/tvLLX9g

Old configuration with the Red Eye:
https://imgur.com/gallery/kiBxaxF

Full rig:
https://imgur.com/a/lQsM6hd

Clearly I don't travel light, but it sounds incredible.