Double Bass Tonedexter 2 Initial Thoughts and Reviews

[Hasty]

If you are a set-and-forget 1 instrument, 1 wavemap sort of user, the legacy tonedexter will serve you well. Myself, I don't regret paying for the upgrade to the TD II. There are a lot of nice features besides the powerful EQ which I really enjoy. And development is ongoing.

Thanks for that input.

Current state, I am a set-and-forget 1:1 sort of user... but I think that's because it's the easiest way to use the legacy TD. I'll occasionally tweak the EQ a little and adjust the output volume, but the notch isn't really that useful to me as I'd prefer a functional HPF and the Anti-FB option looks like it might be beneficial as well. Every word I type just convinces me it's a good idea so I'll stop now.

Plus it has MIDI? I'm not sure how I'd even use that, but I love tinkering with MIDI so I'm sure I'd find a way. Hmm... be interesting to set up forScore to send PC changes to different WAV maps just to see if it would work.

 

[JBarz]

I just played my first gig with the tonedexter 2. I dialed it in with a AKG 414 and it sounded great and the practice room and solo, but when I got it in the big room with a drum set, I found the wave map wildly unpredictable. Some notes jumped out really boomy and some just were muffled and dead. I suspect I need to do a deep dive into microphone selection. Talk about a rabbit hole, golly. Don’t get me wrong, I still love the thing dearly, but I definitely need to put some more time and fine-tuning.

 

[Clyde Stats]

I just played my first gig with the tonedexter 2. I dialed it in with a AKG 414 and it sounded great and the practice room and solo, but when I got it in the big room with a drum set, I found the wave map wildly unpredictable. Some notes jumped out really boomy and some just were muffled and dead. I suspect I need to do a deep dive into microphone selection. Talk about a rabbit hole, golly. Don’t get me wrong, I still love the thing dearly, but I definitely need to put some more time and fine-tuning.

Try reducing the “Spaciousness” control to something less than 100%. For louder gigs I’ve been setting it at 75%, and using about a 50/50 microphone/pickup sound This can really tighten up the sound.

 

[JBarz]

Try reducing the “Spaciousness” control to something less than 100%. For louder gigs I’ve been setting it at 75%, and using about a 50/50 microphone/pickup sound This can really tighten up the sound.

Will do - thank ye!

 

[bassically_eli]

as far as mic selection goes, the manual says,”A small diaphragm condenser (capacitor) mic is recommended. Large diaphragm mics can also work well but may be more finicky about placement due their response coloration.”

 

[JBarz]

as far as mic selection goes, the manual says,”A small diaphragm condenser (capacitor) mic is recommended. Large diaphragm mics can also work well but may be more finicky about placement due their response coloration.”

Yeah, I had read that and experimented with a SM57 to make a bunch of maps. None of them held a candle to the 414 map that I thought “nailed it” (about a foot away from the treble side f hole, bridge height, standard polarity)… in the practice space… I wonder if the large diaphragm mics make the whole thing a lot more room sensitive/dependent.

I suspect I’m just going to have different wave maps and/or baked in settings for different environments.

 

[Clyde Stats]

I suspect I’m just going to have different wave maps and/or baked in settings for different environments.

This is certainly true for me, and one of the real advantages of the TD II!

 

[Clyde Stats]

Will do - thank ye!

I just played my first gig with the tonedexter 2. I dialed it in with a AKG 414 and it sounded great and the practice room and solo, but when I got it in the big room with a drum set, I found the wave map wildly unpredictable. Some notes jumped out really boomy and some just were muffled and dead. I suspect I need to do a deep dive into microphone selection. Talk about a rabbit hole, golly. Don’t get me wrong, I still love the thing dearly, but I definitely need to put some more time and fine-tuning.

Also try playing around with the Phase feature; that makes a big difference and can change from room to room or with different mic and speaker combinations.

 

[Happy Steve]

I suspect I’m just going to have different wave maps and/or baked in settings for different environments.

You could also try using the AKG in omni mode before looking at other mics. Apparently you need not worry much about background sounds while training, so the flatter response of an omni is more important than avoiding bleed. I have not had much success with dynamic mics - in my case a Sennheiser e609.

I find training with the mic more towards the fingerboard and away from the f holes works best for me. Also, the wavemaps that work best in a group may not sound all that pretty when auditioned solo. With some trial and error you gradually learn what will work best. The good thing is you could take up to 32 versions to the gig to test.

After a gig I always fire up the TD the next day and note what settings I ended up with.

 

[JBarz]

Try reducing the “Spaciousness” control to something less than 100%. For louder gigs I’ve been setting it at 75%, and using about a 50/50 microphone/pickup sound This can really tighten up the sound.

Two weeks later, same gig, same room - this tip did the business and cleaned up the boom. Thanks again

 

[flatback]

I was one of the earliest adopters of the first Tone Dexter for upright bass and started a long thread here. What I liked about it started with James May who was totally committed to the concept and how he was implementing it and how well it worked for so many different instruments. It did work too, and it really did sound different depending on which mic you used. And all the other features he kept adjusting and making better were really cool....." Hey James, we Upright players could really use an HPF instead of the Notch?"" No problem" boom the Upright updates were dope. I don't even know why I stopped using it. I can't remember... Other gear, I think tube stuff caught my ear...
Late to the new game, I looked up the TD 2's new features recently and damn I want one. It looks like the TD2 has been exponentially improved in all the ways that could be useful to bassists. So many of the new features seem like they are really usefully designed to plump the mic sound while remaining dry enough to use in the context of a band. The new eq features for example (3 band para on BOTH the wet and dry) the spacial thing the HPF...a bunch of other stuff. I want to try the new box.

I'm asking around my friends to see if anyone has a TD2 to try, but I think I'm actually going to just get if I get flush.

 

[Clyde Stats]

I was one of the earliest adopters of the first Tone Dexter for upright bass and started a long thread here. What I liked about it started with James May who was totally committed to the concept and how he was implementing it and how well it worked for so many different instruments. It did work too, and it really did sound different depending on which mic you used. And all the other features he kept adjusting and making better were really cool....." Hey James, we Upright players could really use an HPF instead of the Notch?"" No problem" boom the Upright updates were dope. I don't even know why I stopped using it. I can't remember... Other gear, I think tube stuff caught my ear...
Late to the new game, I looked up the TD 2's new features recently and damn I want one. It looks like the TD2 has been exponentially improved in all the ways that could be useful to bassists. So many of the new features seem like they are really usefully designed to plump the mic sound while remaining dry enough to use in the context of a band. The new eq features for example (3 band para on BOTH the wet and dry) the spacial thing the HPF...a bunch of other stuff. I want to try the new box.

I'm asking around my friends to see if anyone has a TD2 to try, but I think I'm actually going to just get if I get flush.

Wish I didn’t live on the other side of the country and need it for every gig or I’d lend you mine! I’ve never owned any of the Grace or other highend preamps, but it appears that the TD II has the same capabilities, not to mention its original “mic-mapping” function. I’ll never understand why this box isn’t more widely adopted. No one in my neck of the woods seems to be interested. Everyone loves my sound, but when I point to the TD II, it generates only a cursory interest. It also helps curb my GAS. When that bug bites, I delve deeper into one of the TD’s various functions (my latest is the “Spaciousness” parameter) and that usually cures it!

 

[Hasty]

I was one of the earliest adopters of the first Tone Dexter for upright bass and started a long thread here. What I liked about it started with James May who was totally committed to the concept and how he was implementing it and how well it worked for so many different instruments. It did work too, and it really did sound different depending on which mic you used. And all the other features he kept adjusting and making better were really cool....." Hey James, we Upright players could really use an HPF instead of the Notch?"" No problem" boom the Upright updates were dope. I don't even know why I stopped using it. I can't remember... Other gear, I think tube stuff caught my ear...
Late to the new game, I looked up the TD 2's new features recently and damn I want one. It looks like the TD2 has been exponentially improved in all the ways that could be useful to bassists. So many of the new features seem like they are really usefully designed to plump the mic sound while remaining dry enough to use in the context of a band. The new eq features for example (3 band para on BOTH the wet and dry) the spacial thing the HPF...a bunch of other stuff. I want to try the new box.

I'm asking around my friends to see if anyone has a TD2 to try, but I think I'm actually going to just get if I get flush.

I’m in the same boat brother. I’ve had v1 for a while… used it a lot, shelved it for a while, brought it back out, shelved it again, then finally started combining it with different signal chains. It never disappoints, yet somehow gets neglected by other bright and shiny objects.

I’m finishing up a month long musical theatre run and I think some of that money is going for a v2. Some of the things that caused me to stray from it have been addressed.

 

[flatback]

I am really curious how a well eq'd pickup signal blended in at the right amount (using another one of those "ask James features" He so kindly provided, namely a 10Mohm input impedance ) combined with the anti FB feature, will do in different rooms...What I would aim for just watching one of the videos is to have most of the sound and WM set and then to dial in and out the spaciousness based on the room. I remember with the V1 having several different WM's and setups that I would scroll thru in different rooms and it was pretty evident then what worked and what didn't. I imagine now that the pickup sound could be dialed in to compliment the mic sound much better (based on the robust eq) and that dialing down the spaciousness for problem rooms would be dope. In the video it seemed like the guitarist wasnt dialing out mic sound and IN pickup so much as keeping the general character of the mic/pickup relationship while dialing out the spaciousness. It has been a long time.

 

[Hasty]

Question for all you TDII users. Anyone using the TapDexter? Seems interesting and useful, but I don't think I'd add an additional tiny pedal to an existing pedal with the way I'm currently using it. Maybe if I was using it with a rack mounted system and needed something accessible...

 

[Hasty]

Well the TD 2 arrived on Saturday and I have to say I'm impressed. It's much simpler to navigate than my TD v1, I love the menu displays. I was a little overwhelmed in the beginning because there are so many options available. If I had never used a ToneDexter before, I could see that being frustrating... not due to design or anything like that, but more like decision paralysis because there's so many choices.

I also figured out how to blend two inputs together so I could use the Yamahiko in the Stereo/Aux In slot. I feel like I'm only scratching the surface right now, but wow.

It won't really be able to stretch its legs until tonight when I get it into a big room with lots of different surfaces to bounce around on.

p.s. I did training with my Remic Red and a small diaphragm condenser mic and both worked great. Remic was under the bridge and the SDC was on the treble side between the f-hole and the bridge.

 

[Happy Steve]

Hi Hasty,

software update 3.5 just came out. Now you can blend the IRs of two wavemaps with the new 'Morph' feature. I can see this being useful if you imported an IR created in a DAW which provides an EQ curve you want to apply or possibly even a specific bit of reverb/spaciousness you want to add... then just morph with the trained wavemap and tweak the percentages to taste.
The baked in function is now accessed via the 'Manage' screen, so my instructions above are slightly out of date.

p.s. I did training with my Remic Red and a small diaphragm condenser mic and both worked great. Remic was under the bridge

I have several wavemaps trained with the Remic White (540). I suggest you try some positions under the fingerboard. I use a folded piece of foam to wedge the remic in at different distances from the bridge. I found that having the remic mic pointing up (away from the bridge) gets you a drier sound with less f-hole contribution. Lots of options there with distance and direction! It's also great having the mic position so stable during training, no messing around with mic stands.
Steve

 

[Hasty]

Hi Hasty,

software update 3.5 just came out. Now you can blend the IRs of two wavemaps with the new 'Morph' feature. I can see this being useful if you imported an IR created in a DAW which provides an EQ curve you want to apply or possibly even a specific bit of reverb/spaciousness you want to add... then just morph with the trained wavemap and tweak the percentages to taste.
The baked in function is now accessed via the 'Manage' screen, so my instructions above are slightly out of date.

I have several wavemaps trained with the Remic White (540). I suggest you try some positions under the fingerboard. I use a folded piece of foam to wedge the remic in at different distances from the bridge. I found that having the remic mic pointing up (away from the bridge) gets you a drier sound with less f-hole contribution. Lots of options there with distance and direction! It's also great having the mic position so stable during training, no messing around with mic stands.
Steve

When I got the TD the first thing I did was update the software so the morph function was available. I was wondering if it was new cause I didn’t see it in the user guide. I used that to blend a wave map of the two piezos on the Yamahiko. It worked great.

So far I’ve got 7 maps done with the two mics in various places. Once I get those dialed in I’ll see if I can tweak some of them for the Yamaha SLB200. Be nice if I can dial it in with the TD instead of recording the acoustic double bass into a DAW and spending lots of time fine tuning like I had to do with the legacy ToneDexter.

 

[JBarz]

So theoretically, if I train my wavemap on my big bass with Yamahiko, if my EUB has the same scale/strings/pickup should the wavemap translate without modification?

 

[DoubleMIDI]

With a few exceptions, yes.

What you won‘t get or only for a very short time is resonances.

The TD basically is a fine EQ with an FIR (finite impulse response) filter. So for any input an output is only generated for a limited time depending on the length of the FIR filter.

Resonances (like from the body of the bass) need either a very long FIR filter which gets computationally costly and therefor won‘t be used or an infinite impulse response filter (IIR), that is is much more difficult to tune and keep under control.
As the name suggests, it generates output longer than the the filter length (in samples), theoretically forever, but the „decay“ might even explode rather than decay. Specially if the decay is very long (i.e.reverb) a very small parameter deviation can bring the IIR to an internal feedback of equal or over 100% which is not possible in nature as there are always losses.
There are a lot of parameters specifying the resonances of the filter but also influencing the feedback volume, so any change of any parameter might bring the feedback over 100% if it’s close.

It might be possible that the FIR in the TD is long enough to model most of the decay of the body resonances, but that depends on the analysis that might become more computationally expensive for longer FIRs or might be a design decision of the construction.
The low notes of our basses have the longest decay of the resonances, so we will find truncated resonances earlier than (most) higher pitched instruments.

Also resonances of the EUB, even though they are short but also at different frequencies, might get through, so the result might be slightly different.

And last but not least the reflection characteristic of the string at the bridge will be a bit different as the bridge moves differently on the DB body and the EUB and there will be a different amount of the frequency content reflected back into the string (which typically results in a longer sustain of the string) and also the other part that gets sensed by the pickup.

So the sound might be rather close but different in details, but the decay will be still different due to the mechanical reflection at the bridge.