The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > Acoustic Amplification

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 04-10-2019, 12:57 PM
huck huck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 11
Default Two mics into Tonedexter

I got a great deal on a used pair of Rode NT5 mics. I recently installed the latest Tonedexter firmware update and have been researching how to mix the two mics(since I got two)into the mono input. I found this online: Audio-Technica UniMix 2-to-1 Microphone Combiner AT8681. It states in the description that phantom power will be passed to the mics. I have not seen any discussion on using two mics except for Doug Young's recent experiment. I would appreciate any input with suggestions or warnings about using this mixer with Tonedexter.
Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-10-2019, 01:12 PM
Gordon Currie Gordon Currie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Kirkland, WA USA
Posts: 2,445
Default

Technically that will work. The Audio-Technica device is essentially a mixer.

Usually matched pairs of mikes are used to get a stereo signal. By mixing those to mono, you are nullifying the stereo aspects.

You might find a great sound with the two mics in different places. Or you may find that one mike sounds best.

If I was going to try two (or more) mikes into ToneDexter, I would probably go for different sounding mikes such as small and large condensers.
__________________
-Gordon

1978 Larrivee L-26 cutaway
1988 Larrivee L-28 cutaway
2006 Larrivee L03-R
2009 Larrivee LV03-R
2016 Irvin SJ cutaway
2020 Irvin SJ cutaway (build thread)
K+K, Dazzo, Schatten/ToneDexter


Notable Journey website
Facebook page

Where the spirit does not work with the hand, there is no art. - Leonardo Da Vinci
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-10-2019, 01:19 PM
Doug Young's Avatar
Doug Young Doug Young is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 9,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huck View Post
I got a great deal on a used pair of Rode NT5 mics. I recently installed the latest Tonedexter firmware update and have been researching how to mix the two mics(since I got two)into the mono input. I found this online: Audio-Technica UniMix 2-to-1 Microphone Combiner AT8681. It states in the description that phantom power will be passed to the mics. I have not seen any discussion on using two mics except for Doug Young's recent experiment. I would appreciate any input with suggestions or warnings about using this mixer with Tonedexter.
Thanks
Not sure what experiment of mine you're talking about? But this is one of those "try it and see" things. Any time you blend two mics to mono, you're going to get phase cancellation, which causes tone changes. For recording, that can be good or bad - all depends on if you like how the tone changes. Most of the time, in my experience, blending to mono causes the sound to be muddy and duller (some might call that "fatter and fuller", all in your perception). How that would affect ToneDexter's training is anyone's guess. Maybe you'll like it, or maybe not.

The main thing I've been doing with ToneDexter training is recording the pickup and mic, then training to the playback. This lets me tweak the EQ of the mic, if I don't like the sound, and lets me retrain with new software updates in a predictable way. So that's my attempt at "what if the mic sounded different?" Whether that's really useful is debatable, the last couple of wavemaps I've created, I've done it the old-fashioned way, plug the mic in and play, and it's worked just fine...
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-10-2019, 07:49 PM
shufflebeat shufflebeat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,684
Default

I've been messing with multiple mics and the TD but I chose to record mics and pickup (Reaper) then play them back I to the TD to train as normal. I'd second the suggestion that a second mic of contrasting character (SDC & ribbon in my case) adds more the the process than two of the same.

After recording the appropriate part of each mic can be tailored (bass/mid from ribbon, top from SDC, then swap) then they're mixed to mono for training by playing back:

Pickup out L
Blended mics out R

It was an interesting process but improvements were relatively marginal for a live gig where supplementary EQ is available. I'd suggest a single well placed mic and some patience gives best results.
__________________
Give a man a fishing rod... and he's got the makings of a rudimentary banjo.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-11-2019, 10:34 AM
huck huck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 11
Default

Thanks for your replies and recommendations. Doug, regarding your recent experiment, I believe it was an old thread just recently read by me while searching out ToneDexter topics. For the life of me I can't even find it now. You were using a software code that did not filter frequencies for feedback reduction. That is probably what has been included in channel 22 for some time now. You trained with two mics into two separate channels, recorded them and piped the blended recording to the ToneDexter. While my description is questionable it may give you an idea of what experiment I was referring to. As to my original question, it doesn't sound like it would be worth it to try and see. I originally trained with an SM57 because I had one. I was really surprised with the improvement when I ran through the PA at the church where I play. After training with the condenser mic the sound was more defined, especially the highs. In short, it does the job well with one mic.
Thanks again for all your input and for saving me sixty bucks.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-11-2019, 02:42 PM
Doug Young's Avatar
Doug Young Doug Young is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 9,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huck View Post
Thanks for your replies and recommendations. Doug, regarding your recent experiment, I believe it was an old thread just recently read by me while searching out ToneDexter topics. For the life of me I can't even find it now. You were using a software code that did not filter frequencies for feedback reduction. That is probably what has been included in channel 22 for some time now. You trained with two mics into two separate channels, recorded them and piped the blended recording to the ToneDexter.
Interesting. I don't remember that, but I must have tried it :-) I often record with 2 pairs of mics, usually a pair of condensers and a pair (or stereo) ribbon, so maybe I gave that a shot. As you've found out, I don't think it's necessary. But experimenting is good!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-06-2021, 08:33 PM
Beatntrack Beatntrack is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4
Default Stereo Tonedexters?

Has anyone tried setting up a great stereo mic thing into a PAIR of Tonedexters and using a splitter to feed both from one pickup? In my mind, it would be an album perfect live sound.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-06-2021, 10:10 PM
Doug Young's Avatar
Doug Young Doug Young is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 9,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beatntrack View Post
Has anyone tried setting up a great stereo mic thing into a PAIR of Tonedexters and using a splitter to feed both from one pickup? In my mind, it would be an album perfect live sound.
No, but I've mocked this up in a recording situation, and it worked reasonably well. I take a different approach to stereo for live use, but I'd think this would be worth a try.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-07-2021, 01:10 PM
James May's Avatar
James May James May is offline
AGF Sponsor
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Nevada City, CA
Posts: 711
Default

I can add a little something to this topic.

With a mixer or equivalent, and bringing the output back down to mic level, it is certainly possible to use 2 or more mics to train ToneDexter. You'll get a sound that picks up the instrument's sound from more than one perspective. Or you'll get two different mic flavors, which can also be useful if your single mic isn't giving you what you want.

However, there is a hidden pitfall with this approach: phase cancellation between the two mics. It is real and will definitely degrade the result. I usually counsel folks to get one good flat pencil mic, such as the Slate ML2, and try multiple positions until you find a few spots that sound really good with your instrument.

If you're DAW savvy and have an audio interface, you can also train from recorded tracks, as Doug has mentioned. This allows EQing beforehand to tailor the sound of the resultant WaveMap. There is another advantage: you can time align multiple mic positions recorded at the same time. Time aligning and then blending two or more mics will allow you to almost completely eliminate phase cancellation issues.

I've just done a series of recorded tracks with various guitars, using 4 mics into 4 separate tracks simultaneously.
The mics were:
  • down under: SM81
  • 14th fret Slate ML2
  • out front Slate ML2
  • up top: Dayton Audio EMM6 Omni measurement mic (approximately what player hears)

4 mic training side view.jpg

4 mic training rear view.jpg

4 mic training front view.jpg

After time aligning all the mic tracks, I trained WaveMaps on all single mic, 2-mic combinations, and also on a couple of 3-mic combinations. It all worked well and was informative:
  • As expected, some guitars had preferred mic positions.
  • Some positions sounded better than others.
  • The combined results were lukewarm at best:
  • None of the 2-mic combinations were as satisfying as the better single mic WaveMaps.
  • Some 2-mic combinations sounded better than the worst single-mic position.
  • The 3-mic combinations were all duds.
YMMV.
__________________
James May
Audio Sprockets
maker of ToneDexter
James May Engineering
maker of the Ultra Tonic Pickup
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-08-2021, 05:49 PM
euraquilo euraquilo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 410
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by James May View Post
However, there is a hidden pitfall with this approach: phase cancellation between the two mics.
I read somewhere that if you have two mics set up in an XY positioning you can avoid phase cancelation. I haven't tried it yet, so I'm not sure if that alleviates that concern.
__________________
Got some guitars, some keyboards, some melodicas, some skills and a little talent.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-08-2021, 06:25 PM
Doug Young's Avatar
Doug Young Doug Young is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 9,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by euraquilo View Post
I read somewhere that if you have two mics set up in an XY positioning you can avoid phase cancelation. I haven't tried it yet, so I'm not sure if that alleviates that concern.
Yes, XY is a phase-coherent recording technique. But when you sum them to mono, it will basically sound like a single mic in that same spot - that's sort of the point of phase-coherent setups. So I'm not sure what you'd gain in this case. Never hurts to try!

For me, any reasonable mic in one of the recommended spots works perfectly fine for training.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-08-2021, 08:09 PM
euraquilo euraquilo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 410
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Young View Post
But when you sum them to mono, it will basically sound like a single mic in that same spot - that's sort of the point of phase-coherent setups. So I'm not sure what you'd gain in this case. Never hurts to try!
That makes sense.
__________________
Got some guitars, some keyboards, some melodicas, some skills and a little talent.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-09-2021, 03:51 PM
strangersfaces strangersfaces is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 100
Default

Our best acoustic sounds were usually achieved in studio using two (or more) mics, usually a large diaphragm tube combined with a small condenser mic. Summing mixes to mono was a standard check and often revealed phasing issues. Flipping the standard console 180* switches sometimes provided a livable result, but was oftentimes unsatisfactory, as mentioned above.

Then, Little Labs introduced the IBP box. IBP stands for In Between Alignment. Brilliant!! One now had continuously variable phase adjustment to perfectly time align two sources, and with additional IBP's any number of sources. These were our "secret weapons". With these, our previously very good multi mic sounds were now outstanding.

The original full size IBP boxes were much more than phase alignment tools, being superb direct boxes, reampers, etc. and were amazing tone shapers. Very pricey also but results were worth the coin. Little Labs later introduced the IBP Jr, at a lower price and fewer features (which weren't always needed), so we bought some to add capabilities to our setup. If of interest, scroll down and check out the video at this link, which shows use of the Universal Audio plugin version of the box.... https://www.littlelabs.com/products/ibp (BTW... Just saw the UA plugin price is now $49, down from $99, for those of you into the UA environment)

Radial Engineering came out with their Phazer box not too long ago. Have yet to try one, but seems comparable to the IBP Jr.

Thought I'd throw this out as it relates to combining multi source audio...

Lance
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-09-2021, 05:29 PM
Doug Young's Avatar
Doug Young Doug Young is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 9,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by strangersfaces View Post

Then, Little Labs introduced the IBP box. IBP stands for In Between Alignment. Brilliant!! One now had continuously variable phase adjustment to perfectly time align two sources, and with additional IBP's any number of sources. These were our "secret weapons". With these, our previously very good multi mic sounds were now outstanding.
Those devices can be interesting, I've had both the physical and the UAD plugin. There's also the Auto-Align plugin. I've experimented a bit with them and ToneDexter, and one situation was really interesting. I was training ToneDexter by recording both the pickup and mic, then playing it back to do the training. So I thought it might work well to phase-align the mic and the pickup, especially on one guitar where the wavemap was coming out a bit distant-sounding. But nope... What happened was that ToneDexter got stuck and wouldn't train at all. Asking James or Andy, they explained that ToneDexter actually uses the time delay/phase between the mics and the pickup in some way, and by eliminating it, I basically short-circuited the process. This was an early rev of tonedexter, so no idea if this still applies.

To me, and this may not be accurate - James can correct me - I don't think a focus on the same kind of "good" sound that we go for when recording necessarily translates to a better wavemap. The mic is providing data to the algorithm and the data that works best as input to the algorithm may not correspond to a good recording. Stereo micing techniques, for example, seem totally unrelated. James has also said that room acoustics don't play a big role, whereas they're critical for recording. There's always a tendency to think that more is better - if 1 mic works, maybe 2, and if that works, why not 3 or 4? My suspicion is that a clean simple signal as input to the algorithm might be preferable.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-10-2021, 01:45 PM
shufflebeat shufflebeat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,684
Default

As an aside, the "Audio-Technica UniMix 2-to-1 Microphone Combiner AT8681" seems like an expensive way to do what could be done with an XLR splitter, unless it has some hidden facility I don't see.
__________________
Give a man a fishing rod... and he's got the makings of a rudimentary banjo.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > Acoustic Amplification

Thread Tools





All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=