Double Bass Audio Sprockets ToneDexter

[Matthias Hacker]

During the past months I´ve been pretty happy with my tonedexter the way it is and the way it is supposed to be used. No external blending, the only non standard thing is that I´m running my piezo pickup into an battery powered onboard preamp hidden behind the tailpiece with a 5 MOhm input impedance. I don´t no if that makes a great difference, but I like to have a buffer as close to the piezo as possible.

Flatback you wrote about a beta version software update, what´s new, what have they been working on? I find myself checking the audiosprockets website from time to time to look for a new update just because I´m curious...

 

[DanielT]

Hey folks,
I got the TD a couple of weeks ago and I'm very impressed what this box can do ! Thanks to everyone at Audiosprockets, great work !
I just makes my life so much easier:
-everything in one box, very useful hpf & so on
-much better tonal balance ( I've been fighting with that one for ages)
- no piezo rumble and character
-less / no feedback
-great notch filter
- tonal quality of course ....

I've mapped a lot of mics (Astatic condenser, DPA 4099, Tube & Ribbon Mics, RE20, Audio Technica ATM25 (nice !!! ), mostly non Slot 22 because I have to double with electric so I need a "thinner" sound.

I had a gig with a symphony orchestra the other day and a flexible tuner would have been nice.
Question: I had a ground loop, is it enough to use an adapter headphone plug only to lift the ground ?

 

[lurk]

I've ordered a set of Perpetual strings. I've been using Spiro's. Will I need to make new wave maps?

 

[DoubleMIDI]

No. The amplified sound should change the same way as the acoustic sound.

 

[sas]

Dissenting opinion- I was in that same position (switching from Spiros to Perps) and the arco sound especially is so different it seemed to warrant a re-training. One would obviously have to set up a (very elaborate) blind test to assess both hypotheses.

 

[DoubleMIDI]

As long as the bridge stayed in place and angled the same way, the sound change of the strings should get out acoustically as well as electronically.
It one might find one not as pleasant as the other. And the bridge usually is angled a bit differently after the string change.
Maybe a different pressure on the top might make a difference.

 

[Sonoma Bass]

Yeah Ukiah, I wouldn't give up that Noble for Nuthin. Personally I am really deeply into tube preamps right now and if I could afford the Noble I would own one. What I mean about the TD is that it works really well as a piezo front end if that is all it was, not that it is it the ultimate piezo front end. If you get the TD, run the noble FIRST and you will be happy.
Matthias: Yes. All I am saying is that the can be useful in a bunch of different ways not just...as you just described as a mic replacement. In some rooms I have had the same experience, and it sounds great when it happens ( those rooms and bands are the ones that sound good with a mic)...

Can you elaborate on benefits of putting the Noble tube preamp before the Tonedexter? Usually it’s the last element in the chain. Thank you!

 

[Sonoma Bass]

What is the performance of Tonedexter training with a reamped signal? I'm finding the preferred mic'd sound of my bass is with a combination of large diaphragm tube condenser in front of the bridge and a small diaphragm condenser pointed at the fingerboard. Is training degraded with a reamped signal that combines more than one mic on the bass?

EDIT: I read p.11 of the current manual on "reamping" but that discussion does not appear to be about training Tonedexter as described above, where the input of two microphones' previously recorded and mixed to taste are sent to Tonedexter's balanced mic input jack on the back panel.

 

[Mark Gollihur]

What is the performance of Tonedexter training with a reamped signal? I'm finding the preferred mic'd sound of my bass is with a combination of large diaphragm tube condenser in front of the bridge and a small diaphragm condenser pointed at the fingerboard. Is training degraded with a reamped signal that combines more than one mic on the bass?

EDIT: I read p.11 of the current manual on "reamping" but that discussion does not appear to be about training Tonedexter as described above, where the input of two microphones' previously recorded and mixed to taste are sent to Tonedexter's balanced mic input jack on the back panel.

I don't know that "reamping" is the concept you mean; it seems like you're just trying to combine two mics, rather than using just one, for the training process. Reamping, to me, implies taking a previously recorded track in a studio and replaying it through amplifiers, preamps, and/or other effects to alter the sound post-recording.

For what you want to do, my thought is, if you do it in a clean way, it should work fine - meaning, you could take two mics into a mixing board, and send the blended output through a balanced XLR to the input of the TD - and plug your piezo pickup into the instrument input and train it that way. The TD should see that input - the mono signal combining the two mics - just like it would see a single mic, and create the ToneMap accordingly based on that sonic information. I don't see any reason that it wouldn't work.

 

[Sonoma Bass]

I don't know that "reamping" is the concept you mean; it seems like you're just trying to combine two mics, rather than using just one, for the training process. Reamping, to me, implies taking a previously recorded track in a studio and replaying it through amplifiers, preamps, and/or other effects to alter the sound post-recording.

For what you want to do, my thought is, if you do it in a clean way, it should work fine - meaning, you could take two mics into a mixing board, and send the blended output through a balanced XLR to the input of the TD - and plug your piezo pickup into the instrument input and train it that way. The TD should see that input - the mono signal combining the two mics - just like it would see a single mic, and create the ToneMap accordingly based on that sonic information. I don't see any reason that it wouldn't work.

Thank you for the thoughtful comments. I do mean reamping in a traditional way but applied somewhat differently. I want to blend the two mics in post were I can critically listen to the balance without the distraction of playing the instrument. When I have the desired blend, I would then send that recorded signal into the training input of Tonedexter. Having two recorded channels would also allow tweaking the blend for training without having to set up mics, cables & recording gear again, replay the instrument, etc. More efficiency and flexibility is the goal.

 

[Mark Gollihur]

Thank you for the thoughtful comments. I do mean reamping in a traditional way but applied somewhat differently. I want to blend the two mics in post were I can critically listen to the balance without the distraction of playing the instrument. When I have the desired blend, I would then send that recorded signal into the training input of Tonedexter. Having two recorded channels would also allow tweaking the blend for training without having to set up mics, cables & recording gear again, replay the instrument, etc. More efficiency and flexibility is the goal.

Okay, I get it now.

So... if you're recording the mic pair, as well as the pickup (raw) to three separate channels on a recording console, and then using subgroups to route the mic pair to the mic input and the raw pickup element sound to the pickup channel, I suppose in theory it MIGHT work.

The issue might be that the input on the mixer that you're using to record the raw piezo likely will not have a similar input impedance to the input on the TD, and this would potentially skew the timbral response of the resultant recording, as the "basic" sound of the pickup you'd be training to would not be quite the same signal you'd be using in subsequent live use.

So, I'm guessing that it'll "work" but there could be tonal irregularities.

 

[Sonoma Bass]

Okay, I get it now.

So... if you're recording the mic pair, as well as the pickup (raw) to three separate channels on a recording console, and then using subgroups to route the mic pair to the mic input and the raw pickup element sound to the pickup channel, I suppose in theory it MIGHT work.

The issue might be that the input on the mixer that you're using to record the raw piezo likely will not have a similar input impedance to the input on the TD, and this would potentially skew the timbral response of the resultant recording, as the "basic" sound of the pickup you'd be training to would not be quite the same signal you'd be using in subsequent live use.

So, I'm guessing that it'll "work" but there could be tonal irregularities.

I'm not familiar with Tonedexter's input impedance. But the third channel taking input from my Gage Lifeline pickup enters a Noble tube preamp with 10MegOhm input impedance and its XLR output impedance of 420ohm (@30hz) goes straight to a Zoom F8 solid state field recorder or Focusrite interface.

 

[Mark Gollihur]

I'm not familiar with Tonedexter's input impedance. But the third channel taking input from my Gage Lifeline pickup enters a Noble tube preamp with 10MegOhm input impedance and its XLR output impedance of 420ohm (@30hz) goes straight to a Zoom F8 solid state field recorder or Focusrite interface.

The "regular" input impedance of the TD is 1MegOhm; however, if you use a TRS cable to the input, the smart jack will change the input impedance to 10MegOhm. So there's that.

The input impedance of the first thing you plug the pickup into is the important thing, the impedance of all of the other gear should be relatively inconsequential. So, if you went ahead with this experiment, using the Noble pre as your front end, recorded the "training exercises" then reamped the mic signal against the pickup signal to train the ToneDexter, you'd probably want to use a TRS cable to then use the TD's ToneMap for live performance moving forward, as that would be the closest conditions to those you trained the unit in.

Note that any tone coloration inherent in the Noble pre would create some slight variances in the ToneMap, since you wouldn't be using it (presumably) for live performance. You know, things that make it sound "Tube-y" or "Vintage."

Altogether, it presents as an interesting experiment. If you should proceed with it, I look forward to hearing how the results pan out.

Personally, I do think that it would be much easier to just skip the recording step; get "your tone" with the two mics into a mixing board, and then send that signal - live - to the ToneDexter. While I know you could more carefully "fine tune" the blend using a recording, it seems to me that the other variables will affect that.

Meaning, say that the live mix gets you 95% of the way to the perfect tone, while recording allows you to dial it in to 100%; but the Noble pre, slightly different impedances, and other added gear factors create a skew of 10% from the intended sound once you finally get the ToneMap created. The live version still wins, yeah? And the intended subtleties will likely get "lost in the sauce" within the context of a band performance in a live venue.

 

[Sonoma Bass]

Personally, I do think that it would be much easier to just skip the recording step; get "your tone" with the two mics into a mixing board, and then send that signal - live - to the ToneDexter. While I know you could more carefully "fine tune" the blend using a recording, it seems to me that the other variables will affect that.

Thank you for the insights! Doing a "phase 1" recording and experimenting in post with the blends is not a big deal for me. Thing is, I've got a pedalboard I'm modifying for a different project to support a mic'd UB setup for live play. The Noble preamp is meant to be used for recording and live play. It plugs into a powered speaker or an amp and/or a recording interface or house system/IEMs. I've used the gear for several years with EB and thought it would be interesting to see how it works for UB. I'm betting the tube preamp will do very nice things for the already pleasing acoustic tone. I'm a newcomer to the UB world so there are no preconceptions!

 

[mittenwald]

The ToneDexter has now become an indispensable part of my setup.

I’ve tried microphones, but I hate feedback, and the drummer still couldn’t hear me (no monitors).

I tried all the popular pickups (FC, Realist e.t.c.), and finally settled on the Stat B (single element on bass side), and was happy for awhile.

Then I recorded the band out the front...the tone just didn’t sound like my bass from where I was standing!

The first time I bypassed the ToneDexter was ear opening, the difference is obvious, between the pickup and the AKG P 170 map I used.

My only gripe is with the appearance. Most acoustic musicians don’t want to bring attention to their gear, hence the small amps.

If the ToneDexter was re-issued in a less conspicuous form, maybe in a smaller box with wooden panelling...I’d probably buy it again!

 

[lurk]

An update on my Tonedexter experience. I switched from Spiros to Perps which is a definite change in acoustic sound. I made some new maps with the new strings after they had broken in. I'm finding myself consistently using what had been my go to map made with the Spiros. No need, apparently, to make new maps with the new strings.

 

[Jon Mush]

I find that too. The maps I made with Spiros seem to be the best maps overall. There’s something about the overtones and the extra high end that seems to connect the dots during the training process I think.
I’m still using the one I made with Spiros and the Josephson after trying a few other options.

When I get home, I’m looking forward to trying with my REMIC green. And another try with the Josephson to see if I can improve on things with the latest firmware. My current WM is from a previous version.

 

[statsc]

Just downloaded v.1.60 and made a few new wavemaps. They definitely are clearer, less muddy, with more high end than previous versions. Also, the training is MUCH faster. It also contains a cool new feature that allows you to scroll through wavemaps using the TD’s footswitches. Here are James’ instructions for that:

FOOT SCROLL mode
This will allow you to select WaveMaps without having to manually move the WaveMap Select knob, thus freeing you from having to reach down to change presets.

If necessary, tap the Mute switch to get from RUN mode to MUTE&TUNE mode.
From MUTE&TUNE mode, press and hold the Mute switch (until the display shows SEL) to enter FOOT SCROLL mode. Audio will remain muted.

Tap the Boost switch to scroll through successive active WaveMaps. Empty slots will be skipped. Scrolling past slot 22 wraps back to slot 1.

Tap the Mute switch to get back into RUN mode with the slot you just selected.

Keep in mind that the active slot will likely now be out of sync with the WaveMap Select knob and/or the Option A/B switch. Moving either of those controls will immediately give control back to them, and override the selection you made with FOOT SCROLL mode.

All in all, a significant and positive upgrade!

 

[sas]

My only gripe is with the appearance. Most acoustic musicians don’t want to bring attention to their gear, hence the small amps.

If the ToneDexter was re-issued in a less conspicuous form, maybe in a smaller box with wooden panelling...I’d probably buy it again!

I second this. Bad enough (and I do say this lightheartedly) that people coming to the stage to check out the rig after the gig strain to associate the funky eighties rockbox they see with the great acoustic sound it produces.. but the dancing lights in mute/tune mode during the intermission/before the gig are so conspicuous I always feel like throwing a towel over the whole thing

 

[David Conrad]

Just took the new firmware out on stage for the first time. Five stars! I feel like my sound came out from under a pillow. Compliments from the sound engineer and musicians in the audience too. Thanks, James!