IK Multimedia TONEX Pedal

champ222

champ222 said:

ok, so my setup is a little strange.

Firstly, i dont record anything so i dont have a DAW or anything like that. this is just for jamming along for me. I just want realistic, rewarding guitar tone, sat at my desk.

I have the Arturia interface because i use it for measuring frequency responses in the car for working on the car audio setup.

I have a desk that i use for PC use and gaming. i recently got rid of my amp and cab because i dont have the space, nor the time really. I tried software guitar modelling etc some years ago. i got good sounds, but the latency did my head in. ruined the feel. i also prefer physical knobs, than using the PC

So i have a desk, that needed some speakers. Dont really have the space on the desk, or in the room for a HIFI amp, "HIFI" active speakers either seem a bit crap, or are horrendously expensive. However, good value studio monitors are plentiful, so i went that way. i already had the audio interface, so i'm just using it as a sound card really, to drive the speakers and also headphones. it all works really well. the speakers have auto standby. The interface is connected to the usb hub in the monitor so is powered all the time. I power on the pc, and just turn the output knob on the interface for sound, and the speakers come on automatically. if its night, i plugin the headphones and turn the headphone volume up instead. Its all perfect.

As a bit of an aside, but which kind of lead me down this road a bit, was that the kids are getting to the "using a PC" age, so the plan is to get another PC for the family to use, through a monitor with a KVM, the Arturia connected via the KVM, so when they switch on the PC to use that, and my gaming PC, that i dont want them fiddling with is off, it should all seamlessly work on that PC too.

So.... I want a guitar solution that i can play through the speakers or through headphones. To get around the latency "feel" issue, i thought the tonex would fit the bill. since the audio is done in hardware, not in Windows, the latency is typically much smaller. So using the Tonex plugged into the Arturia, routed to the speakers, is JUST a way of getting the audio to the speakers/headphones, so that i dont have to keep unplugging stuff. All i have to do is turn the "mix" knob on the Arturia from "USB" (pc audio, gaming/youtube/music etc) to "input" (tonex) and i'm away. the Monitor USB hub powers the Arturia all the time, so with the MIX knob set to Input, i can play the tonex through the speaker/headphones, without the PC being on at all.... i can also Mix the audio from the PC and the Tonex together using the MIX knob so i can play along with music from the PC. Backing tracks, youtube lessons etc... it all works perfectly... if i can get the Tonex pedal to sound good!

Although, the latency using the software is nowhere near as bad as i recall

So... if your still reading. Yesterday, i had assumed that routing:

Guitar ---> Arturia interface ---> windows running Tonex ---> Arturia mixed to USB ---> headphones

EDIT would also be the same as?:

Guitar ---> Tonex pedal in interface mode ---> windows running Tonex ---> Arturia (which is just running as a sound card here) ---> Headphones

Would be the same as:

Guitar ---> Tonex pedal running the same captures/presets/whatever ---> Arturia mixed to input ---> headphones



It should sound pretty much the same. the only difference is that the thing making guitar sounds is windows running tonex, or the tonex pedal itself. Not having the Guitar button switched on the Arturia may have been the culprit here. Many of the sounds i tried were very dull and lacked treble, so i may have  just picked all the bright sounding ones. using the Tonex as an interface would have avoided this as its input is designed for guitars by default.

hope this makes sense

Ok, to update this. I tried it again. I left the guitar plugged into the Tonex, tonex out, into audio interface, and just bypassed the current preset by clicking the button. There is still a slight difference in sound. A bit smoother coming from the PC, but there isnt much in it now. so i can get the tonex dialed in ok. Part of the issue i think, is that when i'm using the software, i set the reverb, then as i go through the various sounds, the reverb stays the same. Then i send it to the pedal, set the mix knob to "input" but its now dry as a nuns, until i adjust the reverb knob... i cant bare it without reverb.

I have a desk stand, and the tonex was supposed to slide under there when not in use. Either IK or the manufacturer of the desk stand cant measure... because it doesnt fit... so ive ordered a stand, which if i can get it to fit on the desk nicely, will work out better anyway. then i might get a external foot switch so i can change banks or patches from the floor. 

dangriffiths

The Amalgam captures are definitely all I would recommend. Consistent across all the captures with good options and the IR ones in particular sound a fair bit better than the full captures to my ears.

Brio

I'm changing my setup and have just been playing guitar into Tonex into headphones with  a touch of the builtin reverb.
It really does sound amazing with the Amalgam and Studio Rats captures.
Makes me wonder why I have a Kemper Player coming...

rickd2112a

Can I ask which Amalgam captures you're using? It's a but bewildering when you first start looking through them and whether you get 'DI' or 'CAB'.

From what I see the Tonex One kits offer a good place to start with a good selection of amps, and they include the DI and IRs. I'm basically looking for a Fender Brownface, Marshall etc - nothing too esoteric. I could then narrow that down to a full version of one of the amps.

Also, the Studio Rats Amp Nation ODR looks good.

relic245

dangriffiths said:

The Amalgam captures are definitely all I would recommend. Consistent across all the captures with good options and the IR ones in particular sound a fair bit better than the full captures to my ears.

I'm not sure that I get the idea of IR ones. 

I can see 2 possible use cases. 

First is that you still go into FOH as with a full capture but instead of having the speaker as part of the chain you have an IR instead.  If that's correct then I find it interesting that it sounds better than a full capture. 

The second would be to turn off the IR (assuming that you can do that) and going into the power amp in of a combo for example. That's the bit that I'm not sure of.  That would imply that the capture still has the power amp section of the amp thats being moddled so going into power amp in that would would make 2 power amps in the chain. 

Or am I completely wrong on that? 

relic245

rickd2112a said:

Can I ask which Amalgam captures you're using? It's a but bewildering when you first start looking through them and whether you get 'DI' or 'CAB'.

I have the JCM800 and SuperBass 100 both of which are excellent and what I wanted 

I bought  3 more to take advantage of the 5 for 3 deal that they always have:

Matchless HD30 which is nice. I've never owned or played through a matchless so not sure how close it it. 

A fender tweed delux which I don't like much. I've never owned a deluxe so again not sure if it captures the sound or not. I think I was expecting something a lot cleaner like a twin but that may be down to my expectation rather than the capture. 

The last is an EV5050iii - had no idea what to expect but just thought I'd get something a little higher gain.  I absolutely love this - turn the gain down a little and it's a gorgeous sound. Turn it up and it's not as gainy as I thought but definitley more modern sounding than the JCM800

Overall I really rate them. 

thecolourbox

I have mostly gone for the DI captures in the Amalgam ones that I've bought (I did one of the multi buy offer things, 5 for 3 i think). However the Selmer Zodiac and Silvertone 1484 ones were only available in the full capture (CAB) so i didn't have much choice if I wanted those (which I did, as they are the Jack White amps and I play that a lot). Then a week later they announce the Supro 1688TN (albeit also only in the CAB format) which is the Jeff Buckley Hallelujah amp so of course I now want that as well haha

But anyway I digress, I went for the DI ones where I could mostly because whilst they come with an included matched IR to go with it, I thought I'd have the flexibility to do so. Or maybe if I wanted to use the same Cab IR across several presets for some consistency for example.

I did look at the Tonex One collection kit things but because of the limited number of captures per amp they understandably seemed to tend to the usual ways people use things, for example Fender cleans and Marshall gain etc, whereas I tend to be the opposite - I like overdriven Fender sounds for gain and I like warm Marshall cleans, so I thought I'd just be best getting specific amps so I could mix and match to my heart's content. 

For what it's worth I went for:
MAGN TWST DI (Magnatone Twilighter). Sounded like a more gainy Fender
MES MKIIC+ DI (Mesa Mk 2). Covers cleaner and heavier sounds in one, thought it'd be useful.
STONE 1848 (Silvertone Twin Twelve 1484). Jack White crunch amp
SLMR ZOD30 (Selmer Zodiac Twin 30). The Jack White amp used on Elephant instead of the Silvertone
MRSH SL100 DI (Marshall Superlead). I like a jimi style clean

I also seemed to have access to a load of the Dumble and ODS captures in the software, maybe I got access to that pack via IK when I bought it? I can't remember to ne honest but they are nice and suit my playing.

Heartfeltdawn

Another vote for Amalgam if you don't want to go hunting through Tonenet. I did find a very cool ultralinear Fender Twin that I use a lot. 

jamesguitar

Amalgam stuff is great. They’re a bit too geared towards blues / classic rock tones at times, but there’s usually a few usable clean captures that can work for other genres too. I’m using their full captures for ToneX and using their DI captures (with separate IR, usually York Audio) with the Quad Cortex.

I just don’t like the hassle of switching and auditioning IR’s on the current ToneX software. My ToneX rig is stereo, so it’s a bit of a nightmare setting that up. On the Quad Cortex it’s simple, so separate IR’s work for me in that context.

I’m not convinced there’s a noticeable quality difference with the separate IR’s - you’re mostly just getting more tonal variety (or option paralysis).