IK Multimedia TONEX

[Richard_G]

Both the Tonex pedal and the Tonex One has a max input level of around 8 dBu or so [never officially confirmed by IK] with the input trim AFTER the ADC. Not impressive.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

I'm having this issue where pickups like Duncan JB, Duncan distortion, EMG 57 and a tonerider PU clip the input of the tonex one. No pedals in front of the tonex.

It's easy to see and test for.

Set up the tonex one as an interface and record a clean DI in your DAW. If you just play relatively softly -- like many people do -- you may not see an issue.

But use pickups like mine, especially with some heavy palm mutes and powerful chords, and the signal is likely to clip. You should see it in your DAW. This makes me think the problem is at the input of tonex one.

Have other people noticed this? There really doesn't seem a way around it when using tonex alone, unless (perhaps) one lowers their pickups, turns down volume knob of the guitar...

But these aren't things I wanna do. And I can't think of a solution without more hardware. This isn't something you can fix with input trim either -- it's not how it functions.

Am I missing something? Some setting I haven't considered?

Thats just the specs of how it's designed. The only way around it would be to use a pad before the ToneX pedal and then boost up by the corresponding amount in the pedal. You'd be trading off signal to noise though. Is the clipping causing an audible problem or is it just seeing the waveform that is causing concern?

 

[Sascha Franck]

Set up the tonex one as an interface and record a clean DI in your DAW. If you just play relatively softly -- like many people do -- you may not see an issue.

I'll give that another shot in a few days.

Fwiw, in case the DI clips in a DAW, it should clip inside the unit as well, which wouldn't be too great.

 

[Dimiguitar]

If I'm correct -- which I could be wrong -- I suspect people simply don't notice what's happening... Perhaps because they don't tend to use the tonex as a USB interface outputing clean DI signal into their DAW, with high output PUs, strong chugs, etc etc.

But if this happens with the DI output, wouldn't the tonex clip anyway at the input stage? In the same manner. You just wouldn't see it at the output, in your DAW, once the guitar sound is processed by tonex unless volumes are off. And input trim doesn't seem to affect this clipping I'm seeing.

If any of this makes sense, it brings up the question: is it possible this happens, but people just don't hear the clipping? Would it even be audible with heavy chugs and high output pickups? I'm not quite sure.

 

[Dimiguitar]

Fwiw, in case the DI clips in a DAW, it should clip inside the unit as well, which wouldn't be too great.

That's the way I understand it.

 

[Dimiguitar]

Thats just the specs of how it's designed. The only way around it would be to use a pad before the ToneX pedal and then boost up by the corresponding amount in the pedal. You'd be trading off signal to noise though. Is the clipping causing an audible problem or is it just seeing the waveform that is causing concern?

I'm seeing the waveform. I don't hear something that screams "clipping", but wonder if it affects the sound audibly.

Do you think such clipping would make an audible difference? And have you used other units that respond in a similar manner?

 

[MirrorProfiles]

If I'm correct -- which I could be wrong -- I suspect people simply don't notice what's happening... Perhaps because they don't tend to use the tonex as a USB interface outputing clean DI signal into their DAW, with high output PUs, strong chugs, etc etc.

But if this happens with the DI output, wouldn't the tonex clip anyway at the input stage? In the same manner.

Yes, this is definitely the case. I think in most cases the clipping would be masked by the distortion from the amp models. Even on cleaner tones, the signal peaks are very fast and short and clipping can often be hard to detect. Obviously sometimes it could present a problem, but these short transient peaks are often clipped by pedals/preamps etc pretty early in the chain and usually look worse in a DAW. IMO its still best to avoid this kind of clipping, and IMO IK should have used more headroom on their input stage to accommodate all pickups (and more pedals).

Do you think such clipping would make an audible difference? And have you used other units that respond in a similar manner?

I'd try and avoid converters that are going to spend most of its life clipping if possible. For guitar DI's it's probably not the end of the world in a pinch - for instance the default Kemper input level is even less than ToneX (although it can be adjusted for more headroom). For a proper recording chain, I'd aim for something that can easily record your DI's in the most accurate way possible.

 

[Sascha Franck]

For a proper recording chain, I'd aim for something that can easily record your DI's in the most accurate way possible.

Absolutely.

"Fortunately", the Tonex' interface functionality is so much dumbed down I'd only ever use it as the very last resort anyway.

 

[djd100]

Best to use a pad in front of the Tonex IME, though the practical result of not doing that is typically a rounding of the pick attack's transient, which some folks might like as it's similar to compression (my FM3 does the same thing unless it's input pad is maxed, that's with Duncan JB's in LP's).

I typically use my Tonex One in the FM3's FX Loop, proceeded by a low to high impedance inductor to mimic passive guitar pups which includes it's own volume control, so it's easy to adjust the signal hitting the Tonex One.

I also use a full sized Tonex with combo tube amps, plugged straight into the Tonex with SSS Strats without any problems for lighter styles.

 

[Sascha Franck]

low to high impedance inductor to mimic passive guitar pups which includes it's own volume contro

Which one (in case it's a ready-made product)?

 

[djd100]

Which one (in case it's a ready-made product)?

I made it from this schematic, though it's similar to the commercially available ones.

http://www.muzique.com/lab/pickups.htm

 

[Chocol8]

I play 0.08’s with a light touch, so I don’t have these issues, but I can imagine it would be pretty annoying to have to add a pad. I wonder why IK put the input trim AFTER the ADC?

 

[Sascha Franck]

I made it from this schematic, though it's similar to the commercially available ones.

http://www.muzique.com/lab/pickups.htm

Thanks. Had that one bookmarked already, though (was just interested whether you possibly had a cheap ready-made solution), planning to slap something like that in front of some analog pedals in a digital loop.

 

[Sascha Franck]

I wonder why IK put the input trim AFTER the ADC?

Because otherwise it'd possibly require a more complexed input op amp, no?
Obviously, having the trim before the ADC would be the best thing to have - or, alternatively, an input stage offering enough headroom (such as on the HX devices, which can deal with plenty of boosting).

 

[djd100]

Because otherwise it'd possibly require a more complexed input op amp, no?
Obviously, having the trim before the ADC would be the best thing to have - or, alternatively, an input stage offering enough headroom (such as on the HX devices, which can deal with plenty of boosting).

Yes, like Fractal's method which has adjustable pads pre-ADC, and corresponding gain boosts post ADC so the level moving on is constant.

 

[Progressive_disclosure]

So the low headroom of the input of TO means I should put it in a loop of my HX Stomp and reduce the send level of the loop block? If so, I understand why you would set the input trim of the TO so hot.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Fortunately, at least atm, my only relevant TXO use case is with it sitting in the loop of a GT-1000, so I could easily change the send level.
But then, as I never noticed any clipping and won't use it as an interface anyway, maybe I just keep things as they are.

 

[Richard_G]

So the low headroom of the input of TO means I should put it in a loop of my HX Stomp and reduce the send level of the loop block? If so, I understand why you would set the input trim of the TO so hot.

Yes, if the signal you send from the FX send of your Stomp clips the input of the Tonex One, I’d argue that you should lower the send level and compensate with the input trim (post ADC) on the Tonex One (all things else being equal).

 

[Sascha Franck]

Yes, if the signal you send from the FX send of your Stomp clips the input of the Tonex One, I’d argue that you should lower the send level and compensate with the input trim (post ADC) on the Tonex One (all things else being equal).

The only downside here being that in case you place analog pedals in front of the Tonex (which is what I'm doing in the loop of my GT-1000), those will also receive that lower level and possibly not work as good as they could anymore. OTOH, we're likely not talking huge amounts of gain reduction here.

 

[Richard_G]

Quite obviously, I would then argue that you—at the most appropriate point between the Stomp FX send and the TONEX One input (considering the nature and specs of each pedal)—should lower the level enough to avoid clipping the ADC in the TONEX One, and then compensate using the input trim (post-ADC) on the TONEX One (all other things being equal).

For example, you might want to reduce the signal level after one or several of the pedals in the loop, but before the TONEX One.

All of this would have been easier for IK’s customers if (1) IK made hardware with better specs, or at least (2) were willing to provide specifications and honest guidance.