Posted on 09/23/2014 3:55:11 AM PDT by nikos1121
As musicians, we go to extremes to get the best possible sound from our instruments.
Don’t think this quest is limited to guitar players. A quick Internet search shows drummers burying their cymbals in the back yard to achieve a darker timbre, or a community theater in California letting anyone in off the street to come play their new grand piano to help log the 100 hours of time needed to properly break it in.
The ToneRite follows in similar footsteps, except you don’t need a shovel or to allow strangers on your property. It’s a device the size of a bar of soap that sits on your guitar strings and vibrates a frequency into your instrument to speed up the breaking-in process.
I truly believed the science behind breaking in an instrument, but in a fast-food-eating, high-definition, instantly streaming culture, I asked myself, "Will this work?" Big thanks to my friend John Cannavo, who offered up his beautiful Gibson J200 as our guitar sacrifice.
First we recorded a sound clip of the Gibson before we put on the ToneRite. No nonsense, just open chords and harmonics on a Shure 57 into my computer. Then we left the ToneRite sit on John’s Gibson for a week straight. The manual suggests a minimum of 72 hours to hear results but recommends 144 hours for the better results.
After a week’s worth of use, we recorded a follow-up clip; same guitar, same chair, same pick, same mic, everything. Two things stood out; first the guitar was much louder, I used significantly less preamp gain to record the follow up clip and also you will hear a fuller sustain.
(Excerpt) Read more at guitarworld.com ...
http://www.tonerite.com/
There are a number of videos out there that seem to show clearly that it improves the resonance of your guitar, and the better your guitar the better the response. The device does not AGE your guitar, this is a different process, but it does seem to coordinate the vibrations in your guitar to focus them, perhaps on a molecular level.
MY MAIN QUESTION WOULD BE, ONCE YOU'VE USED THE DEVICE DOES YOUR GUITAR STAY AT THAT LEVEL OF SOUND?
Interesting. I’d like to know as well.
Art is subjective. Sound is subjective when applied to art. With the exception of formica, carbon fiber and plastic guitars, I think the pieces of wood used to make your particular guitar relative to the very next one out of the luthier’s hands will make more difference than something like this.
When a guitar has been played a lot, it doesn’t sound “better”. It sound’s “different”. Whether the difference is better or worse is a matter of personal opinion and taste.
Suckers / minute X fools/money
LOL
I only play solid body quitars but this sounds interesting
What if you set your instrument in front of a speaker connected to your iPod? The idea is that the instrument vibrates to the acoustical impulses.Much cheaper than $200 for this device.
I want to see more scientific data before I believe this- not too hard to do- show me an acoustical trace before and after
Yes. After looking at the website I got my head around what it is doing. Suppose it does “looden up” the componants on a new guitar. Probably wouldn’t do anything on onethat has been played often.
I’d save the money and just play it a bunch.
FWIW years ago on a whim I bought a Silvertone acoustic for $6...new! Plywood of course...probably made be Samick.
I was learning how to set up an acoustic and wanted a knock around guitar to practice with. If it got screwed up, so what.
Spent a lot of time with it and to this day everyone says it is by far the sweetest sounding and easiest to play of any I have ever had. The volume isn’t there but it isn’t bad for my fingerstyle playing.
And even though it is supposed to be laminate top ...I suspect it isn’t...it has mellowed nicely. The only thing better was a Martin and that was a ton more money!
Seagull was nice but seems too....delicate.
Psychoacoustics: If you believe that your $200 will buy you better sound, it will.
ARe you a guitar player? If so, did you look at the demos and read the reviews? If not, then why would you say such a hateful thing?
There’s no question the more you play a guitar or mando or violin the smoother it sounds, or at least more melodic.the utube demos of the device clearly show a “difference.” Some have said just leave your guitar infront of your stereo speakers all day blasting out Jimi Hendrix or Mozart. This has been tried without the same success of the Tonerite. This is why several musicians say the use the device one hour before playing.
It makes sense that vibration will coordinate the wood, perhaps on a molecular level? Who knows.
It supposedly works on solids as well.
The device actually closer to $130. People have tried what you suggest also with putting the instrument in a sound closet. They say the results are not nearly the same.
bookmark
I believe what you’re saying as I’ve heard this before. If you put a violin or guitar in a case and leave it there it will be stiff. I think this device “breaks in” a new guitar. Doesn’t age it by any means, just takes away that harshness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsRhNzdB-g8
These can be purchased used for under $100. IF you have a D-18GE or D-18Authentic, seems to me that it would be a good investment esp if people apparently say they are seeing results.
This is why several musicians say the use the device one hour before playing.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...deep breath...HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Reminds me of the $200 a foot hi-fi wire and the little pedastals you buy to raise your speakers off the floor a couple inches to “improve the sound”.
When you have money, there are all sorts of snake oil salesmen out there ready to take it for something that produces “perceptable” (or not) differences.
I can see breaking in periods for all sorts of physical items, but this claim kinda cracked me up.
The more you play the better your technique the better your quitar. Sounds?
I would like to know, too, how much of the effect is on the guitar and how much is just mellowing the strings. Would you need to reuse it every time you restring?
I listened to the sound clips a couple of times, and any differences seem pretty subtle to me and I’d be hard pressed to say one sounds better than the other.
I’m bothered by the comment that the tester needed to use a significantly lower gain setting for the after recording. It’s more likely that he was closer to the microphone or playing more enthusiastically.
When you do a before and after test, you need to ensure that all other conditions are equal. That includes distance and relative positioning of the instrument and microphone, the environment (temperature and humidity), and all settings on the recording equipment.
The biggest variable is the player himself, and that’s the hardest one to control.
To really make a proper judgement, you’d want to have the two sound clips identified only as A and B, with no mention of before or after.
THEN if you can hear a difference, and can say which is better to your ear, you need to find out which is the before and which is the after.
Once you’ve done that and you’re satisfied, then spend the money.
But, as you say, the cost of this device isn’t that much when you’re talking high end guitars.
But would results be better if they charged $1000 rather than $186?
That’s where psychology enters the picture.
I’d rather just play it and save the money for strings, picks and/or yet another capo, string winder, strap, tuner, etc...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.