Tonex Pedal....It's REAL

[Stratzrus]

Only thing is that it doesn't have an effects loop...

Only issue with the pedal is the lack of an EFX Loop...

If you used it with a PS-100 you could use the Fryette's loop.

....the size is still awkwardly big.

Does anyone know the dimensions and weight?

I've been hankering for a smaller and lighter than the FM3 solution for practicing when traveling on weekends but haven't decided on anything yet.

Considering the Ampli-Firebox II and Amp 1 Iridium, just heard about the Dream, and now this. They all sound like reasonable options.

 

[James Freeman]

What is exactly the benefit of an fx loop in a pedal like this?

 

[dk_ace]

What is exactly the benefit of an fx loop in a pedal like this?

Apparently it’s for the people who want gained up amps, post-fx, and to use the headphone output of this box. I don’t get it, use this box running into an HX stomp for post fx (or whatever other flavor suits you) and use the headphone out on the post-fx device.

D

 

[dk_ace]

I’d take it over an FM3 because I can capture my amps and cabs that I own and like. Modelers like the FM3 and Helix have me dumpster dive parameters and IR’s to try and get there. If this thing really can capture my amps well then this with my H90 is a no brainer.

Add an HX device as the “brain” (+ extra cool stuff) via midi and you have an amazing rig with automated switching,

I just got back ITB with Helix, and this pedal is probably gonna screw that’s up out of sheer curiosity.

D

 

[Lysander]

Add an HX device as the “brain” (+ extra cool stuff) via midi and you have an amazing rig with automated switching,

+1000. A HX Stomp XL, or HX Effects, with this thing on its effects loop (which you can then move anywhere in the signal path) would make for a killer little rig.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Without digital I/O between the units, you are quickly stacking up converter latency

 

[Sascha Franck]

What is exactly the benefit of an fx loop in a pedal like this?

- Headphone use.
- DAW use. In case you have this sitting on your pedal board and also want some post-Tonex delays and such, you'd have to run the output through them. What about your DAW return then? It'd run through your FX, too.
- Easier integration of whatever it might be (you could bake whatever it is into your Tonex patch rather than controlling its on/of status externally).

 

[Sascha Franck]

Without digital I/O between the units, you are quickly stacking up converter latency

Latency in general might become an issue at one point when nesting digital devices, just depending on your personal "latency threshold", which, from all I can tell, varies wildly depending on the person and situation (to put it broadly, not to start another discussion about Steve Vai and whom else just here). I know I'm possibly Cpt. Obvious, but just using any kind of FX loop will already double your latency, and in case you're starting with some mediocre figures, your threshold might be reached quickly.
A HX family device comes in at roughly 2ms (which actually is pretty decent), combine two of them in a nested fashion, using the FX loops on each and you're at 8ms already - which, at least under headphones, many people will at least notice.

Obviously, this is defenitely speaking against using an FX loop on a device such as the Tonex (even if I described the advantages in my last post).

 

[laxu]

Without digital I/O between the units, you are quickly stacking up converter latency

While true, I feel you need to stack quite a few before you would notice. The last time I noticed this sort of latency was pairing a Boss wireless with VST plugins. Or using pitch shifters on some devices as those tend to add about 20+ ms latency.

 

[Blix]

I would use one with ADT delay and reverb, so no stacking latency for me.

 

[Sascha Franck]

I feel you need to stack quite a few before you would notice.

Really, it depends on a lot of things. Believe it or don't, but I even had a friend perform this test with me, I can detect the difference with my interface set to 32 or 64 samples buffersize quite reliably under headphones - 4.5 vs. 6ms of latency.
And no, before we start the "Vai detects 1ms of latency" thing, I am *not* Mr. Golden-Timing-Always-In-The-Pocket at all and I can not even detect 10ms of latency on, say, a snare track. I also can't detect the differences between, say, 8 and 13ms of latency as reliably - and that should be a lot easier, at least on paper.
So, it's not even remotely about timing superiority or whatever, but there's something that I call "latency threshold". Might be a completely different value for different persons. It's also not that I couldn't just get away with, say, 9ms of total latency (or even more), especially when not playing through headphones. It's just that there seems to be a certain latency range that causes something to change in our perception, whatever it might be. Could be as trivial as our timing reference to switch between from what comes out of the cans to what your picking fingers feel. No idea. But I could confirm my findings with some colleagues. Interestingly enough, even if at least 1-2 of them are "in the pocket" monsters, their latency threshold seemed to be located a few ms above.

After all, our brains are *extremely* sensitive to sound distances (just think about the Haas effect and it's various implications). I guess it's pretty much an evolutionary thing, too. After all, back in the days, when that sabre-tooth fellow attacked you from behind, you'd rather "detected" the distance and location of him in advance as soon as he was touching some jungle plant.

 

[laxu]

Really, it depends on a lot of things. Believe it or don't, but I even had a friend perform this test with me, I can detect the difference with my interface set to 32 or 64 samples buffersize quite reliably under headphones - 4.5 vs. 6ms of latency.
And no, before we start the "Vai detects 1ms of latency" thing, I am *not* Mr. Golden-Timing-Always-In-The-Pocket at all and I can not even detect 10ms of latency on, say, a snare track. I also can't detect the differences between, say, 8 and 13ms of latency as reliably - and that should be a lot easier, at least on paper.
So, it's not even remotely about timing superiority or whatever, but there's something that I call "latency threshold". Might be a completely different value for different persons. It's also not that I couldn't just get away with, say, 9ms of total latency (or even more), especially when not playing through headphones. It's just that there seems to be a certain latency range that causes something to change in our perception, whatever it might be. Could be as trivial as our timing reference to switch between from what comes out of the cans to what your picking fingers feel. No idea. But I could confirm my findings with some colleagues. Interestingly enough, even if at least 1-2 of them are "in the pocket" monsters, their latency threshold seemed to be located a few ms above.

After all, our brains are *extremely* sensitive to sound distances (just think about the Haas effect and it's various implications). I guess it's pretty much an evolutionary thing, too. After all, back in the days, when that sabre-tooth fellow attacked you from behind, you'd rather "detected" the distance and location of him in advance as soon as he was touching some jungle plant.

I can agree with all that. I think the "threshold" for me is "when is the latency so high that I cannot adapt to it and it hinders my playing". For me this is when I notice that if I play any faster passage, I start missing notes. I think for me this was something like wireless + VST plugin + pitch shifting.

On my pedalboard I've got 1x analog Strymon Compadre -> digital Riverside -> digital Zelzah -> BluGuitar Amp 1 -> digital Nightsky / Volante in parallel in fx loop -> Amp 1 -> speakers. Even though most of the time all of these aren't on at the same time and the fx loop pedals are analog dry through, I've never spotted the latency. It should be easy since the digital pedals can be set for buffered or true bypass but I just can't tell. Adding the 2.4ms Boss wireless can be felt a little bit, but it's an acceptable compromise for wireless freedom.

So for me latency is more of a concern when dealing with a computer recording setup rather than the hardware boxes just for playing. Obviously not all digital boxes are built equal. ToneX with a 32 sample buffer feels good to play to me when you find the right profile.

 

[laxu]

Getting back into ToneX, this sort of stuff is why I feel the ToneX app is pretty crap:

On the free version, the English Dirt is the only cab I own here, yet I cannot filter out any of the non-owned cabs even though fairly comprehensive filters exist for tone models and presets.

The difference between e.g English Dirt and Enter The Drive is completely opaque. I have no info other than that they are both 4x12s. I have to go through them one by one and try them out. By comparison the typical "4x12 Cali V30 Mix 01" IR filename tells me a lot more.

Then if you happen to press the

button inexplicably next to Reverb, far away from the cab selection, you immediately change your current cab to the VIR cabs. That selection is no better. Can anyone tell me what is the difference between these cabs without trying them all?

The same continues in the tone models list. when the only differentiator in the list is the name, the only way to tell the difference between these two models is to try them. Opening the tone model info only tells me the two have different mics.

It seems that IK designed this list to be used with that sample riff playback tool where you toggle items until you find something you like. The problem with this is that you cannot record your own little loop, with your playing style and guitar so that you could easily evaluate what works for your playing. You would need to do this in your DAW instead and if you use the standalone app, this doesn't work. This would be a bigger issue on the ToneX pedal where you might not have looping capabilities and would not be using a DAW plugin to configure it.

The sorting options don't work well because you have just one column sort. This means if you want a Clean, Fender 57 Custom Deluxe, you are probably toggling the sort column a few times to get there because it does not arrange them in an intuitive manner by grouping the same amp and type of tone together. You get this when sorting by amp name:

Why is it Clean, Clean, Drive, Clean? Why isn't it just smarter and sort Clean, Clean, Clean, Drive? Why aren't these even alphabetic for name but sorted by database ID order or something? Sorting is a very common programming task and not that difficult. While multi-column sorts are not perfect, they can be better than this with minimal effort.

How minimal effort? Well, I whipped up this multi-column sort code in a few minutes in Javascript. As you can see the starting data is all over the place, in no sensible order.

Result is an intuitive sort based on amp, then type, then name:

Then there's this dual column set on the side. First off, these little graphics take a lot of space and require a lot of scrolling. A list view would work better. Second, there's no way to arrange this list and the default arrangement makes no sense. Why is High Gain Chug followed by OD Special followed by...fuzz pedals? Then Klon and GK bass amp? It's the UI equivalent of someone emptying the contents of a box on the floor.

I know what you're going to say. "Bah, I can use it just fine" and sure you can, but it's a lot of this sort of small stuff that makes a user interface good, mediocre or bad. It always annoys me when with just a bit of extra effort this could have been made so much better and it makes me wonder if the developers even use their own app or if it just got watered down by getting designed by a committee who focused on features to sell you stuff over features to let the user enjoy using it.

 

[Sascha Franck]

It's the UI equivalent of someone emptying the contents of a box on the floor.

Very quote-worthy!

Unfortunately, that's IK style all throughout their products. Installers, authorizers, website info, the actual apps and the stuff that gets installed along with them, they all follow one single specification: Let's optimize user hassle!

 

[MirrorProfiles]

I don’t really get the appeal of a unit that needs so much other gear to end up with less features and flexibility than the competition.

The profiling tech is very accurate, but you lose a lot of ability to fine tune the tone. Are ToneX captures any more accurate than Helix/Fractal/Neural? I don’t think so personally, it’s just cool if you want a very particular chain captured.

So if you want to make your own captures, you need all the additional gear and an adequate computer. And even then, each capture you make is slow (albeit more accurate than Kemper or QC).

I get that it’s a smaller form factor, but the. you sacrifice all the other features of the other units which are pretty complex multi fx units with flexible I/O.

For something comparable feature wise, you need to spend a fair bit and also be prepared for slow training times. Not sure I get the appeal of this box over existing modelling gear but there’s clearly a market that is wanting it (or at least thinks they want it). Did they remember to put a tuner in this one?

A Kemper would make sense to me live because you have all the flexibility to have an entire set list in there, with all the I/O you could want. Helix/FM-3/Axe FX likewise, you’re reducing several units into one device.

 

[dronerstone]

I don’t really get the appeal of a unit that needs so much other gear to end up with less features and flexibility than the competition.

The profiling tech is very accurate, but you lose a lot of ability to fine tune the tone. Are ToneX captures any more accurate than Helix/Fractal/Neural? I don’t think so personally, it’s just cool if you want a very particular chain captured.

So if you want to make your own captures, you need all the additional gear and an adequate computer. And even then, each capture you make is slow (albeit more accurate than Kemper or QC).

I get that it’s a smaller form factor, but the. you sacrifice all the other features of the other units which are pretty complex multi fx units with flexible I/O.

For something comparable feature wise, you need to spend a fair bit and also be prepared for slow training times. Not sure I get the appeal of this box over existing modelling gear but there’s clearly a market that is wanting it (or at least thinks they want it). Did they remember to put a tuner in this one?

A Kemper would make sense to me live because you have all the flexibility to have an entire set list in there, with all the I/O you could want. Helix/FM-3/Axe FX likewise, you’re reducing several units into one device.

To me, the main appeal would be having an insanely capable preamp unit, in small-enough size.

Owning 50+ pedals and the HX FX, I just don't feel like forking out pretty much 1500€ (to go "Full Helix") or 700€ for a HX Stomp.

If 400/500 for the ToneX pedal is true, I might bite, at some point. That's rather my kind of price tag.

 

[laxu]

I don’t really get the appeal of a unit that needs so much other gear to end up with less features and flexibility than the competition.

The profiling tech is very accurate, but you lose a lot of ability to fine tune the tone. Are ToneX captures any more accurate than Helix/Fractal/Neural? I don’t think so personally, it’s just cool if you want a very particular chain captured.

So if you want to make your own captures, you need all the additional gear and an adequate computer. And even then, each capture you make is slow (albeit more accurate than Kemper or QC).

I get that it’s a smaller form factor, but the. you sacrifice all the other features of the other units which are pretty complex multi fx units with flexible I/O.

For something comparable feature wise, you need to spend a fair bit and also be prepared for slow training times. Not sure I get the appeal of this box over existing modelling gear but there’s clearly a market that is wanting it (or at least thinks they want it). Did they remember to put a tuner in this one?

A Kemper would make sense to me live because you have all the flexibility to have an entire set list in there, with all the I/O you could want. Helix/FM-3/Axe FX likewise, you’re reducing several units into one device.

I have a totally different outlook on this.

ToneX leverages the massively higher processing power of the computer you already have, unless you are someone whose main computing device is a smartphone. So if you want to capture your amps, you can make those using that horsepower for more accurate captures. The capture app afaik does let you also choose a lower quality if you want to churn out results faster.

Then the ToneX pedal itself can be smaller and cheaper because it does not need to have more I/O for and a more powerful processor for making captures, doesn't need to be as menu driven and so on. It can be just a "capture player" unit.

We already have plenty of great multifx modelers on the market so we don't really need more contenders in that category. We have far less options for "pair this with your favorite fx pedals" amp/cab sims and each of them has their own caveats in either sound or features.

If you look at the QC, for a big number of users the dedicated Capture Out sits there doing nothing and you can't repurpose it as another output either. On the Kemper, its effects section and overall user interface isn't the most beloved thing and most value the box specifically for its amp/cab sims.

 

[DrewJD82]

This is surely a known thing, but do you still need the capture device if you’re capturing Fractal/Kemper/plug-in tones? I don’t even want to do deal with searching for what I want to put in the pedal, I just want to capture my own sh*t and load it up.

 

[Sascha Franck]

From all I know, you don't need the capture device at all. It's just making things easier.

 

[Deadpan]

This is surely a known thing, but do you still need the capture device if you’re capturing Fractal/Kemper/plug-in tones? I don’t even want to do deal with searching for what I want to put in the pedal, I just want to capture my own sh*t and load it up.

You will need a pc with interface and nvidia graphics card for decent times. The box may act as an interface for the app but this hasn't been confirmed.