Combining Tonedexter/Ultra tonic with a mic

[andydepressant]

Apologies if this has already been discussed.

So adding a mic into this combo is a bit problematic because, unless you didn't mind using up two channels you end up needing a dual source, dual EQ preamp. Obviously this introduces redundancy because the Tonedexter is already doing a lot of this, and doesn't weigh nothing.

So my best guess was to use the iRig Acoustic Stage as it comes with it's own basic feedback buster and a bit of EQ.

So there's two options to do it, both have shortcomings.

1. You run into the iRig's pre with the effects loop of the Tonedexter. Issue: You're gonna have 2-3 leads hanging off the guitar.

2. Rig a stereo out from the guitar and just accept you're going to have to train the TD with a preEQd dual source.

Am I missing something? Does this seem sane?

[guitaniac]

Why can't you just run TD's output into the iRig preamp's Aux In and blend with the iRig preamp?

FWIW, I've done recording experiments with the iRig mic and found that the little preamp severly compresses/limits the signal when strumming hard with the volume knob on max. I solved that problem by not taking the volume control past the halfway point. Of course, this precaution requires that a lot of gain will be needed further down the signal chain. The iRig preamp's relatively low 3v power supply only allows for a relatively small output signal to begin with.

I can relate to what you're saying about too many cables hanging off the guitar. I personally found the iRig mic/2nd pickup setup too awkward (with cables getting tangled up) for stage use. I'm currently experimenting with blending the TD signal with a Baggs Lyric signal. I'm going to two mixer inputs to do this. If my Zoom A3 hadn't died (after several years of heavy use), I'd be using the A3 to blend the two signals.

In any event, I don't think you're crazy. At this point I definitely feel there's some benefit from blending the TD signal with a mic signal.

[andydepressant]

Yeh that would also work. Same problem I guess as the effects loop.

How would you rate the Zoom EQ models vs the Tonedexter?

[andydepressant]

I partly want to keep it simple for carry weight but also because I play electric too so set up can really blow out.

[andydepressant]

But yes the gain issue... I guess if I go with the stereo cable idea and train the TD with the signal blended from the iRig pre then the TD has plenty of make up gain right? I've never gone above 50% on input or output gain.

[jonfields45]

Why a mic if you've got ToneDexter?

[guitaniac]

Originally Posted by andydepressant

Yeh that would also work. Same problem I guess as the effects loop.

How would you rate the Zoom EQ models vs the Tonedexter?

The Zoom A3's EQ options are excellent. You can put a digital six band graphic EQ in series with a digital two band parametric EQ, and the EQ settings can be saved in up to twenty different programs (so that you have EQ programs for a variety of instrument/pickup rigs). In addition to the two digital EQs, the A3 also has a basic three band EQ (bass, midrange & treble) which can be used for "quick and dirty" adjustments at the gig.

On the downside, the Zoom A3 is a complicated piece of gear with a steep learning curve. Zoom must have gotten a lot of negative feedback about it because their next two preamp releases (Zoom AC2 and AC3) are pretty simple and user friendly by comparison.

[guitaniac]

Originally Posted by jonfields45

Why a mic if you've got ToneDexter?

In my case, I have both an "Open To Source Sensor" UST and a Baggs Lyric installed in the same guitar (with two output jacks). It was easy to make comparison recordings of the same set of sound samples. The comparison recordings revealed that the Lyric gives me better dynamic control with bare-fingered picking.

On the other hand, my live gig experience has been that the UST/TD combo is less prone to feedback and boominess problems when I need to crank the gain for bare-fingered picking. I'm experimenting with a TD/Lyric blend in the hopes of finding a nice compromise with respect to feedback rejection and dynamic control. I also tend to think that the blend sounds a little better than either signal by itself.

[andydepressant]

Originally Posted by jonfields45

Why a mic if you've got ToneDexter?

Even James May has said in other threads that no amount of signal processing will deliver things the pick up can't... "pick up", and for strumming the sound of pick hitting string is lost.

That sound has kinda become my holy grail because in my experience most pick up systems, even usually awful out of the box USTs don't sound THAT bad for finger picking. And certainly most other single source alternatives sound pretty good with fingerpicking. But just strumming a dreadnought and getting THAT sound, never heard anything come close (enough).

[andydepressant]

Originally Posted by guitaniac

The Zoom A3's EQ options are excellent. You can put a digital six band graphic EQ in series with a digital two band parametric EQ, and the EQ settings can be saved in up to twenty different programs (so that you have EQ programs for a variety of instrument/pickup rigs). In addition to the two digital EQs, the A3 also has a basic three band EQ (bass, midrange & treble) which can be used for "quick and dirty" adjustments at the gig.

On the downside, the Zoom A3 is a complicated piece of gear with a steep learning curve. Zoom must have gotten a lot of negative feedback about it because their next two preamp releases (Zoom AC2 and AC3) are pretty simple and user friendly by comparison.

That's awesome. Wish I'd known all this before I decided on single source TD set up.

So you can apply a "body image" to your SBT and then EQ your mic?

To reiterate though, are the body images like dreadnought etc as good as the result from a TD?

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by andydepressant

To reiterate though, are the body images like dreadnought etc as good as the result from a TD?

That would be pretty hard to believe - tho you never know what sound you will like with your guitar, your playing, etc. The built-in images in something like the zoom are "generic". ToneDexter models *your* guitar with you playing. That's going to be hard to match with any generic model thing. Then again, people like all kinds of different sounds, so you'd just have to try it and see if you like it better than ToneDexter.

[guitaniac]

Originally Posted by andydepressant

That's awesome. Wish I'd known all this before I decided on single source TD set up.

So you can apply a "body image" to your SBT and then EQ your mic?

To reiterate though, are the body images like dreadnought etc as good as the result from a TD?

The A3 modeling isn't anywhere near as appealing in sound as ToneDexster used with a good WaveMap. I've only gotten satisfying A3 modeling results when running sound (as an open mic host) with relatively dry sounding UST signals. My best modeling success with the A3 was with a UST-equipped thin-bodied Martin with an aluminum top. As a general rule, it seems that a drier sounding UST signal from a small guitar tends to make a better "platform" for digital modeling. I suspect that's one of the reasons for the new Fender Acoustasonic Tele's modeling success.

When using the A3 to blend, I only use the digital EQ on one signal chain. (Whichever signal needs the most EQ help.) The A3 enables the user to adjust the signal path of the second source to blend in after the other signal has been EQed. (You can also invert the phase of the second source if that's needed for a better blend.) If the blended signal needs further EQ help, you can do that with the A3's manual three band EQ.

In my own case, both the TD signal and the Lyric signal sound good when run flat. The Lyric needed a great deal of EQ help when it was in a different guitar, but it happens to work superbly well in the guitar which its currently installed in.

[andydepressant]

As expected but good to confirm. Cheers.