-
I had posted this clip of playing through the TC Combo Deluxe '65 in a previous thread. After reading a thread about Pat Metheny using a Tonex Pedal, I was intrigued (I need a guitar-into-computer interface like the TC in Paris as well). The Pedal was more expensive than the TC (which I really like), but the Tonex One is much smaller, although a little more expensive. So I thought I'd try it out. There is also a thread by jzucker on his experience with the Tonex.
The Tonex One is much more fiddly than the TC, but it is possible to get a clean tone from among what seems like hundreds of options for heavy metal and shredder players. It also takes some tweaking to get an acceptable volume for straight-to-computer use, but again, it is possible. Of course, the TC gave a beautiful tone right out of the box.
So far, I like the sound of the TC better, but perhaps trying different models I'll find something more akin to it with the One. I really like the form factor of the One, and there is an incredible amount of versatility built in, even though I'll probably only use one or two sounds.
Here are clips of the One followed by the TC (the same one posted in the previous thread):
-
12-06-2024 08:53 AM
-
-
So I have a 66 deluxe, and regardless of which pedal sounds better, I would say the Tonex is more faithful to the original.
-
The Tonex clip sounded more acoustic to me or more PA'ish. TC clip sounded like it's trying to model a tube amp. A bit more compressed and with softer trebles.
Last edited by Tal_175; 12-06-2024 at 01:00 PM.
-
Between your two tracks, I prefer the TC. It sounds warmer and more “organic” (I hope I’m using this JZ term correctly). I may have missed it through all the threads about these boxes - what guitar are you playing through these? Great playing, BTW!
I assume that the guitar makes a difference too. Unlike a synthesizer or sampler, these are all effects of one kind or another that process the input signal. So just as different guitars sound different through the same amp, I’m assuming that they’ll sound different through these two boxes.
The guitar’s volume and tone pot(s) must also affect the sound from these. There must be a sweet spot for them on each guitar through each box. Where do you keep them when using the TC or the One?
My understanding is that these modelers require FRFR amp & speaker pairings so the box controls the sound and the amp just makes it louder. Running them direct (without EQ or other signal manipulation) is no different from using a flat response FRFR amp & speaker. Are they useful into a guitar amp & speaker? I can’t help but wonder what effect a Princeton or a Twin would have on an input signal from a modeled 65 Deluxe, for example.
-
Did you update the firmware on the TC? Made a huge difference for me
-
Nevershould, thank you for the kind words and the in-depth dive into the sound. I also prefer the warmth I detect in the TC.
These clips were both played on an Eastman PG2 (the guitar in my avatar). I normally string it with flat wound 12s, but I forgot that, after having some work done on it, the shop strung it with rounds. It has a terrific acoustic sound, but not the sound I prefer from flats. I have the tone pot set in the middle and the volume almost all the way up.
I should definitely post a clip of both the TC and the Tonex.
drghrb, I'll check that firmware update – thanks.
-
didn't find that true in my experience and the tonex reverb didn’t really sound great to me and the user interface was awful
Originally Posted by skiboyny
-
the tc has 3 outputs
1) speaking modeling
2) no speaker modeling
3) headphones
Originally Posted by nevershouldhavesoldit
-
The TC is more "present" than the Tonex; it sounds like it's right here with me whereas the Tonex sounds like it's in a different room.
-
The Tonex One has one output, but you can plug your headphones into it and hear the output in both ears, or you can go directly into an amp. And the modeling can be turned off. Originally Posted by jzucker
As for the awfulness of the interface, I imagine you're referring to the software, since the pedal itself (the Tonex One, not the Tonex Pedal – I have no experience with that) is pretty easy to navigate. Nowadays, all the software for controlling audio hardware requires a pretty steep learning curve. I don't find the Tonex software to be any more abstruse than Cubase, Logic Pro, or, for that matter, the software to control my Audient audio interface for my computer. Once you figure it out, and narrow it down to only the pieces that you need, it's usable.
-
With the TC you have a few knobs, one basic sound, you can figure out the pedal in a few minutes.
With the Tonex One you have literally hundreds of captures to go through (you have to pay for the better ones, although I have friends perfectly happy with the stock ones), a very poor interface and workflow, all sorts of clean and distorted sounds, and also basic but functional effects (however only three switchable sounds on the pedal). Tonex software will also soon get a live editor, but still it's way complicated to save and use presets accurately, at least for me.
So I would choose based on needs, TC for a deluxe reverb sound, Tonex one for a bare bones multi effect/modeler. If one really likes the Tonex sounds, I would suggest getting the bigger unit that has all you need to control it on the hardware, plus it supports midi, so with a simple and cheap small midi controller you have a versatile and very good sounding full rig.
If one likes digital that is..
-
i'm referring to actually editing and interactively using the tonex to change tones. It's super awkward because you can't edit the sounds live. Both the helix and axefx and 100x easier to use, regardless of how awkward the interface might be because you are editing the tones IN THE PEDAL all the time. And also the tonex has to be switched from live to input mode in order to even do the editing on the computer unless you don't mind continually plugging and unplugging your guitar from the pedal. That's what makes it super awkward. None of the other devices including QC have that awkwardness. Originally Posted by Ukena
-
All that has been said about the awkwardness and difficulty of the software for the Tonex is inarguable. But for me, once I achieve the sounds I like, it's just the footswitch I need to worry about – to go from one sound I like to the other. So once it's set, I don't worry about plugging this or that into the computer, or switching input modes. I don't enjoy fiddling with stuff that much. I would never want to edit stuff on a pedal, however much easier it might be than the Tonex.
So here's the TC Combo Deluxe via a Triggs New Yorker with flat wound 12s:
-
And here's the Tonex One via the Triggs New Yorker. By the way, the Tonex is way hotter than the TC; I had to turn the input gain down a good bit. That may color one's perception of the tone...
-
the Tonex One sounds MUCH better than the TC. Not even close. Originally Posted by Ukena
-
Here's another thing that makes the TC superior though you don't really highlight this in your clips. Originally Posted by Ukena
The spring reverb in the combo deluxe is way superior. You have the reverb way lower in your combo deluxe clip than you do in the tonex clip. But the tonex clip reverb isn't even a spring reverb. I'm not sure if that's deliberate and I can't remember the details. Am I remembering correctly that the tonex doesn't have spring reverb? At any rate, the reverb on tonex was a disappointment whereas the spring reverb on the TC I thought was very good. Better than Fractal's spring reverb. I use a bit more reverb than you did on your TC clip. Probably about the amount you have dialed in on the tonex clip and to me, that's one of the defining characteristics of that pedal.
-
Ah. Yes, the Tonex has 4 different spring reverbs, plus room and plate. Yet another thing to fiddle around with. As someone who spent 60 years playing only acoustic guitars, and who has come lately to the electric archtop arena, I don't pay that much attention to reverb, much less have any kind of recognition of the different sounds. Perhaps I will pay a little more attention from here on in... Originally Posted by jzucker
Since I like the sound of the TC, I can probably get the Tonex to sound like it, after a bunch of fiddling. But the only advantage the Tonex has for me, since I will never use 99.9% of the possibilities it has, is the smaller form factor. So perhaps the bottom line for me: just get another TC Combo Deluxe '65.
-
The Reverb with the TC is amazingly similar to the Fender in tone and reverb range with the turn of dial. I use to say reverb beyond "3" with the Fender Princeton amps goes to Dick Dale land fairly quickly. Lol!
Originally Posted by jzucker
-
I am just talking about what I hear. Just closer tonely to my 66 Deluxe. Didn't say it sounded great actually prefered the TC in his example. I don't think I can make my 66 sound like the TC no matter how I adjust it's tone controls. Don't forget these are recordings. Sometimes a "flat somewhat lifeless" user experience can sound better on a recording. Originally Posted by jzucker
-
FWIW, the Tonex is infinitely easier to program than a Yamaha DX-7. We've come a long way.
-
same here. Talking about what I hear. The tonex in that recording doesn't sound like what I hear with a real deluxe reverb. Originally Posted by skiboyny
-
We hear differently then. The tonex is more scooped in that recording to my ears, the TC combo thicker mids. The TC to me is closer to a Princeton with a passive mid control, maybe a bit more power. I have no experience with either so I don't know what's possible in terms of adjustment. Originally Posted by jzucker
-
As a guitarist first and foremost, in other words a challenged Luddite! I find ease of knobs over screens of parameters, much preferable! If you love nuance and are technically inclined than maybe the Tone X is the better option overall.
I Haven’t played either,but enough things of this nature to know which would work for me best.
So the simplistic T.C.Deluxe would be my preference. But hard to argue with an endorsement of Pat Metheny,Lol! I read his guitar tech sent them a request of several Acoustic 4x10 134? model amps as well as the lexicon he used back in the day for a tone capture.
-
With very few exceptions, we don't hear the same thing when we play that we hear in recordings of it. Especially with an archtop or other guitar with audible acoustic output, we're hearing the guitar and the amp. We even feel the vibrations from many guitars as we play. And the space in which we're playing adds its own reverberations, reflections, and resonances to what we hear in performance. Originally Posted by jzucker
With close mic'ing of the amp or direct input, the acoustic energy we hear and feel when playing is missing from a recording. Some is also altered. For example, the intermodulation among simultaneous tones is captured in a recording as we play. But when listening to the recording, we hear both the captured intermodulation and an added dose of it generated in playback. With mic technique that captures more ambient sound, we hear some of the room's contributions to our sound along with a fresh set of room acoustics. And if you use 'phones, you're distorting the sound field unless you recorded binaurally. Crossed cardioids, mid-side mic placement etc do not sound the same through 'phons as they do through wide field speakers.
Then there's the playback equipment factor. No two reproduction systems sound identical and none is 100% faithful to the program material. My monitors for about 40 years were a Rogers LS3/5a pair that I bought new when they came out. I drove them with top quality electronics - most often my MC275. These are still sold and widely regarded as among the best near field monitors ever. But when we downsized to an apartment, I switched my studio to digital and bought a pair of JBL powered monitors. They're also widely regarded as excellent - but they don't sound the same as the Rogers. The JLBs are a bit cleaner, and individual notes are slightly better articulated. There's none of the tubey warmth of the Rogers - the bass is tighter and better controlled, but the highs are sterile for lack of a better term. The best comparison I can make is that the Rogers are akin to my '76 Princeton and the JBLs are related to AER or Henriksen.
My own recordings of my instruments sound different through my studio setup and my main listening system (Focal towers driven by a Prima Luna amp). Everything I have sounds great - but none of it is 100% faithful to what I heard when recording the program material. LIstening through a phone or tablet is not going to get you great reproduction, even with top quality earbuds or 'phones. Worse, simultaneous recordings I make on my TASCAM DR-40x and my computer using both Audacity and OBS all sound different from each other. None is "better" but no two are identical.
Throw in the fact that few amplifiers of the same make, model and vintage sound truly identical to each other. Add the vagaries of component drift and variance, so that no two 10 uF caps are exactly the same value and some vary widely from others even tough they're within spec. How many of you have tried to identify amplifiers or speakers blinded? I've tried and failed several times. Jack, when you say "[t]he tonex in that recording doesn't sound like what I hear with a real deluxe reverb", I think you mean that it doesn't sound like your recollection of the Deluxe Reverb(s) you've played. But no recording will ever sound identical to the source . And I don't think a modeler will ever be able to sound exactly the same as the subject being modeled. There are too many variables, many of which aren't addressed in modeling algorithms or factored into the playback system.
Reply With Quote
TK Smith Tele CC Pickup
Today, 01:27 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos