IK Multimedia TONEX

[Richard_G]

I prefer DI captures. When you buy DI amp packs from Amalgam for instance (from their website), you will get relevant IRs included. I like that approach.

PS: Not possible on Tone.net (not for Amalgam or anyone else). But I don’t really use Tone.net much anyway…

 

[Sedaxel]

The entire point of a DI capture is so you can choose your own IR or cab sim, or use it with a real cab.

Not the entire point. An important one, Yes. But there´s another reason why it would be worth it.

Some users prefer not baking-in the cab into the capture since the result might be better. Not sure about it for myself, though (even less in ToneX, which I´ve never tried).

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

Oh, and I have yet another question that I can't find an answer for in the manual:
When you download a full capture (amp and embedded cab), you can still switch the cab off. Is this done similar to the Kemper profiles where it kinda "guesses" the cab portion of the capture and substracts it? I'm asking because it doesn't seem to work too well quite often. I have a bunch of IRs I'm pretty familiar with and replacing the embedded cab with them sometimes seems to yield pretty unexpected results.

Yup same thing.
It works FA for me with other IRs that way
But funnily enough does well enough into power amp/cab and or ox

 

[MirrorProfiles]

We are talking about including an IR with a DI capture. The entire point of a DI capture is so you can choose your own IR or cab sim, or use it with a real cab.

If you want to be restricted to using someone else’s cab and mic choices use full captures.

And the second half of your post is pure nonsense. If you want the same gain settings in the studio, save the settings you used. Tonex will do that far better than any analog device with pots. Suggesting Tonex randomizes gain settings is beyond stupid. If it is doing that for you, you are doing something wrong.

Pairing the same exact cab as someone else used when making a capture for no reason other than that what this stranger used, is incredibly misguided.

You seem to be completely obsessed with your capture playback sounding exactly like what the capture maker heard. That’s impossible and a very foolish target to chase anyway.

This fixation people have about hearing what the capture maker intended is causing a ton of grief and not helping anyone make music.

ToneX is not randomizing gain settings, but its approach to it leads to a total mess when you audition sounds created by other people when using different platforms to play them back. If you go on ToneNet and audition a load of DI models, you have to guess what the intention is. Having some options to inform the user on what the model is, is only useful.

Their guidance and approach for gainstaging their pedals, with levels changed after the A/D don’t really help and are not a robust solution. It seems that different people all recommend different levels and have their own preference. There’s room for improvement.

I can totally understand why DI models would be better if they had the ability to hold an IR in them - even if it’s a placeholder, it provides context for the intention of the model. Furthermore, it allows for a model to be a full rig model, AND a DI only model, and if HW allows then you can have both at the same time. This is clearly superior to only having pure Amp DI, or full rig. It’s just like with the Kemper, merged profiles offered the most, with the least compromise.

Your argument is that everyone’s use case will be different, so there’s no point in preserving the original intention. I’m saying that’s bullshit, and that it should be preserved and left to the user how they want to use it, and to decide what they need.

 

[Progressive_disclosure]

I will likely end up using it that way, too, at least for the most part.
But that doesn't change anything with the fact that for a first testrun, I'd just like to have the capture playing through a cab taking me at least somewhat into the ballpark of how that amp is supposed to sound like - even if I ended up completely mangeling it beyond anything it was ever meant to sound like.
And in the case of the capture of @Byrdman, I listened to the audio demo, then downloaded the capture and then just discovered that none of my usual IR suspects would even get me close, and that was certainly not because of the guitars used - I do by now have enough experience to have a good idea about the impact of a guitar used.
I have as well tried some other amp-only captures, and it's absolutely a similar experience pretty often. Which makes the device a lot less plug'n'play, simply because not only do you have to find a great capture, no, you do know as well have to find a suitable IR. Rabbit hole x 2.
Given that there's a whole bunch of VIR options included with the Tonex, it should be possible for whatever creators to simply pair a suitable VIR with their amp only capture. That'd make things a whole lot easier.

Makes sense to me to include (optional) metadata with a capture what an appropriate VIR setting could be. Might be a headache if they expand the VIR library etc. but it would be nice for finding DI captures.

 

[Sascha Franck]

it provides context for the intention of the model.

Precisely.

 

[EOengineer]

 

[Sascha Franck]

I've always preferred full rig captures and yeah, this stemmed from using the Kemper.

With Tonex V2 I started focusing on DI and am very happy with the results.

That sounds pretty nice, even if Vox-ish things aren't exactly my wheelhouse.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Fwiw, things could be pretty easy.
"Do you also want to provide a preset along with your capture? Yes/No?"
That preset would allow you to add one of the VIRs (and could as well include the other preset-only things) and maybe an IR (but that might become an issue because people might use commercial IRs). Heck, you could even provide multiple presets using the same capture, showcasing it's potential. And anyone not interested could still only download the raw capture.

 

[Byrdman]

ToneX is not randomizing gain settings, but its approach to it leads to a total mess when you audition sounds created by other people when using different platforms to play them back. If you go on ToneNet and audition a load of DI models, you have to guess what the intention is. Having some options to inform the user on what the model is, is only useful.

Their guidance and approach for gainstaging their pedals, with levels changed after the A/D don’t really help and are not a robust solution. It seems that different people all recommend different levels and have their own preference. There’s room for improvement.

I can totally understand why DI models would be better if they had the ability to hold an IR in them - even if it’s a placeholder, it provides context for the intention of the model. Furthermore, it allows for a model to be a full rig model, AND a DI only model, and if HW allows then you can have both at the same time. This is clearly superior to only having pure Amp DI, or full rig. It’s just like with the Kemper, merged profiles offered the most, with the least compromise.

Your argument is that everyone’s use case will be different, so there’s no point in preserving the original intention. I’m saying that’s bullshit, and that it should be preserved and left to the user how they want to use it, and to decide what they need.

So just thinking out loud here with very limited knowledge of how all this works in the background, are you saying that if you could capture the amp and the cab separately but at the same time, the software could/would work better if you wanted to remove/change/edit the cab or IR later?

 

[Sascha Franck]

So just thinking out loud here with very limited knowledge of how all this works in the background, are you saying that if you could capture the amp and the cab separately but at the same time, the software could/would work better if you wanted to remove/change/edit the cab or IR later?

Very defenitely so (even if I'm not @MirrorProfiles).
The guesswork done by the Tonex software defenitely yields extremely different results. I tried running an HX Voltage through some "extracted" Tonex cabs, checked various models that likely were captured through whatever 4x12 and the results were *extremely* varying, more than what you'd typically expect when moving from one 4x12 to another.

 

[MonoKultur]

Regarding the „cab off“ an VIR-options in Tonex:
First both are options, so:
no likey-no clicky …

To me the „cab off“ is a nice feature for testing only (with irs i know better). Issue so volume jumping around baked in - disabled- IRs…

But: although i do not like those VIRs with direct captures, to ne they Sound much more convincing to Substitute baked-in cabs!

To ne makes sense, cause the cab-off option and VIR are less guesswork, IK should know both Filters/algos…
=> anyone else with same perception on cab-off + VIR?

 

[riffy]

Regarding the „cab off“ an VIR-options in Tonex:
First both are options, so:
no likey-no clicky …

To me the „cab off“ is a nice feature for testing only (with irs i know better). Issue so volume jumping around baked in - disabled- IRs…

But: although i do not like those VIRs with direct captures, to ne they Sound much more convincing to Substitute baked-in cabs!

To ne makes sense, cause the cab-off option and VIR are less guesswork, IK should know both Filters/algos…
=> anyone else with same perception on cab-off + VIR?

Here I am with you. I prefer using the VIR with a capture that already has the cab and then I disabled the cab. Now I’ve got great. Sounds using DI using the VIR, but I prefer the VIR by turning the cab off on a capture and substituting the VIR.

I don’t like the way most people mic cabinets, I much prefer my own making techniques and the microphones I’m used to. I am obviously no audio engineer, but I am very used to get what I think are great. Sounds using my micing techniques on the VIR cabinets.

 

[Sascha Franck]

So, ok, is there any neutral capture around? I'd like to try the pedal for acoustics and only need the EQ portion of the capture block. Anyone knows of one? I could obviously create one myself quite easily, but I'd rather not waste time for training.

 

[Richard_G]

What do you mean exactly? Have you tried simply creating a preset with no amp capture (amp block disabled), but with the EQ (separate, outside the amp block) active?

This could also be combined with the FX blocks and the IR block.

 

[Sascha Franck]

What do you mean exactly? Have you tried simply creating a preset with no amp capture (amp block disabled), but with the EQ (separate, outside the amp block) active?

Oh whoops! Sorry for being so daft! I was so convinced the EQ was part of the capture block that I didn't even try anything else. But obviously, you can just use the EQ on its own. That's quite nice. Thanks!

 

[Byrdman]

Oh whoops! Sorry for being so daft! I was so convinced the EQ was part of the capture block that I didn't even try anything else. But obviously, you can just use the EQ on its own. That's quite nice. Thanks!

@Deadpan has a free acoustic capture I'm using and it's great! I tried quite a few and kept coming back to his.

LRS Acoustic Amp 03

TONEX Tone Model sharing community

www.tone.net

 

[Sascha Franck]

Btw, what I absolutely love about the Tonex ecosystem already is that you can set up things in your DAW and then transfer them to the hardware. Always loved that with the Helix ecosystem, too. With the Tonex it's not as complexed and also not just as easy, but still extremely handy.

Having said that, what's really making me shake my head is why the Tonex Editor isn't just looking the same as the plugin and standalone (plus, say, an additional page for hardware-only relevant things). And why doesn't it offer the (IMO pretty handy) preview feature? Etc. Opportunities left out for no apparent reason.

Anyhow, even with all the quirks, this is an amazing piece of kit and I'm almost sure that I'll be getting at least one more Tonex One some day.

 

[Sascha Franck]

@Deadpan has a free acoustic capture I'm using and it's great! I tried quite a few and kept coming back to his.

LRS Acoustic Amp 03

TONEX Tone Model sharing community

www.tone.net

Oh cool, I'll be checking that out!
Thing is, the largest local music shop is closing end of the year and they're having some sales until then - and as I could do with a new steel string acoustic, I'll be going there tomorrow and thought it'd be a nice idea to take the Tonex with me so I could thoroughly check the onboard pickups via headphones.
And btw, that's just another thing where that thing comes in pretty handy. You can just check any guitars with sounds you're familiar with. No need for any power outlets or so, as it runs from the battery of your mobile.

 

[Deadpan]

Oh cool, I'll be checking that out!
Thing is, the largest local music shop is closing end of the year and they're having some sales until then - and as I could do with a new steel string acoustic, I'll be going there tomorrow and thought it'd be a nice idea to take the Tonex with me so I could thoroughly check the onboard pickups via headphones.
And btw, that's just another thing where that thing comes in pretty handy. You can just check any guitars with sounds you're familiar with. No need for any power outlets or so, as it runs from the battery of your mobile.

All the IRs in the paid pack were created for different acoustic guitar systems so they are worth checking.

I have to say they sound great as a clean acoustic type amp for electric and piezo as well.