Reply from Ryan Frankel of ToneRite, regarding placement on guitar.

quote:

The reason for the differences in the instruction sheet is simply that our current research and the research of lutheirs we test our ToneRites with shows that the optimal position is different for different guitars. Where before we believed it was against the bridge we now know that it can be found between the sound-hole and bride (sometimes quite close to the bridge). We updated the instructions to reflect the new information we had learned. You probably received your ToneRite after the other person so you had the new instructions. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. With both positions of the ToneRite the differences in the play-in you achieve should be small, but your ears may thank you for finding the most efficient place on the strings to place the ToneRite.

Okay. the word from Willi. I emailed him with the Tonerite saga (readers' indigestion condensed version), and he responded within two hours. Wow.
to the chase, at the risk of paraphrasing or misquoting him, he says:
1. that sort of device, in theory, ought to work. vibration is vibration. he can see the attraction of shortening the aging period, and all the rest of our collective blather. But,
2. He is completely committed to the old school, and thinks the bond between the player and the instrument develops, and the instrument develops in a way that reflects that. It's a philosophical point of view, but, although he didn't say so specifically, I'm sure he would not use this or any other such device on his personal guitars. so, there's your dilemma. The blazer-henkes view is sort of a Teutonic version of, have patience, grasshopper. so, there ya go. tom

"(Willi) thinks the bond between the player and the instrument develops, and the instrument develops in a way that reflects that".

Yes!

quote:

that sort of device, in theory, ought to work. vibration is vibration.

That's what I have been trying to say all along. Well let me go see how the Conair's are doing, I've got them attached to a 2001 D1A.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Z:
Reply from Ryan Frankel of ToneRite, regarding placement on guitar.

quote:

The reason for the differences in the instruction sheet is simply that our current research and the research of lutheirs we test our ToneRites with shows that the optimal position is different for different guitars. Where before we believed it was against the bridge we now know that it can be found between the sound-hole and bride (sometimes quite close to the bridge). We updated the instructions to reflect the new information we had learned. You probably received your ToneRite after the other person so you had the new instructions. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. With both positions of the ToneRite the differences in the play-in you achieve should be small, but your ears may thank you for finding the most efficient place on the strings to place the ToneRite.

Thanks!

quote:

Willi) thinks the bond between the player and the instrument develops, and the instrument develops in a way that reflects that

For a pair of shoes, jawohl. For a guitar, nein. Looks like plain old operant conditioning as the player "bonds" with the guitar (always so cute) and ods on dopamine. Ah, those lederhosen lads from Der Vaterland...some Schnaps and a little bit of the Ring Cycle and they start dreaming of supernatural projections and a new world in the morning.

Just wanted to add my experiences. This thread prompted me to purchase the Tone-Rite. I just completed the initial 72 hours on my H&D TDM Custom. My honest impressions:

1. The difference in tone is not night and day. It still has the same basic tonal characteristics that it had before. So, I don't want anyone to get the impression that this device will completely change your guitar.
2. It does sound more "broken-in" if you will. The bass is more prominent and the mids and trebles are more rounded. It sounds like my great TDM, only about 5-10 years more mature.
3. The strings (two-weeks-old D'Addario EJ-22 nickel) sound more broken in, but they are not worn. I did not change strings (too lazy).
4. I am not convinced that its appreciably louder. Granted, its a pretty loud dred to begin with.

So, there you go. I have my Martin HD28 on it now. After that 72 hr treatment, I'll do my Collings D1SB. My theory going in is that the Collings (being a heavier-built guitar) might benefit most from the Tone-Rite. That remains to be seen.

guitarpath has a good description. It is the same guitar -- "the same basic tonal characteristics" -- not a magical transformation. But sounds more played in, without the duration of time that would otherwise be needed to get the guitar to that point.

5-10 years of playing in, in 72 hours. I'd call that a successful device.

sounds like the cowboy knows more than them Germans. Good to know. Maybe an Austrian version of Tonereich would hum Wagner, and the owner would be overcome with an urge to invade Poland. Or, read the stuff on UMGF, where some folks actually think Willi knows of what he speaks. Pardon the implied mysticism. I'll keep literal from here on. No, I won't. tom

quote:

Originally posted by mcsmyth9:
Greetings, I was suprised to read JT's report indicating that the ToneRite had made his guitar sound worse . So much so that he is going to sell it. Not a ringing endorsement and not one that made a lot of sense to me, I could understand how it could have no effect but I don't undersatand how it could have a negative one. If vibrations made an instrument sound worse we wouldn't be talking about instruments breaking in , but rather breaking down. What had happenned? JT changed not one thing, but two. He applied the ToneRite for three days AND he put a new set of strings on. So this question is for JT. I know you can't unshake your guitar but you can put a different set of strings on. So, JT- Have you changed strings again on the chance that you had a dud set when you changed them the first time? Just curious. I hope it is just a dud set and that guitar is really OK.
Thanks-Brian

Hi, Brian ...

Oh, yes ... after putting the first set of strings on the guitar, and listening carefully to the sound, I absolutely hated what I heard. I did stretch the strings out well, and let them sit for a while before trying again, and it sounded just as bad. These were actually a higher gauge string than I had used in the past on the Gibson, (EXP19s) thinking that the slightly heavier strings would move the top a little better. Afterwards, I immediately got them off the guitar, and put on a regular set of Gibson 12s, and then went through the whole routine again (tune it up, stretch the strings, play a bit, let it sit, tune it up, stretch the strings, play a bit, etc, etc,) That didn't help ... the volume was so diminished I had problems hearing harmonic pitches so I could tune accurately.

This morning I played it, and while it seemed to have improved slightly, it still sounded pretty awful. It is now a below-average sounding guitar, with fairly good balance, and virtually no projection. Whether it will stay that way ???, your guess is as good as mine.

I only tried this because I was fairly well convinced before I started that the device could be a real asset in helping me break-in the guitar. I thought the worst that could happen would be that I'd not notice anything at all, and at best the guitar would be much more sonorous with rounder, bigger trebles. That the worst case scenario was that the guitar became a much deader instrument ... that never occurred to me at all.

By the way, I moved it at least once a day to a slightly new position between the sound hole and the bridge. I thought I'd mention that after reading the quote from Ryan Frankel.

I did get rid of the guitar today. It's out on consignment, even as we speak. Hopefully I'll get at least part of my investment back out of it when it gets sold. I swapped it for a '92 Gallagher 72 Special that is in excellent condition, with a tone that has to be experienced to be believed. It's the only Sitka guitar I've ever played that has as much headroom as a guitar with an Adi top, even though the tonal signature is different compared to my Collings D3A. It is incredibly warm, without overwhelming the trebles, which are fat and round. The mids are defined, clear and powerful, and it has a truly wonderful Martin-like bass. The treble cut is not quite as prominent as the Collings, but the over-all balance from string-to-string is the best I've ever heard. I played a 25 year old Martin D42 last year that was very similar (and quite amazing), but the Gallagher is better. It is actually a louder guitar than the Collings, with unusually good note separation for a Sitka guitar. Heck, for any guitar. You can flat-out flatpick this guitar, and still play fingerstyle with round ringing tones and a warmth that is best described as lush.

I had played it a few weeks ago, and couldn't get it out of my head. And when I heard the sound of the Gibson this morning, I decided not to waste another moment and I went to bring that Gallagher home. I've spent the last four hours cleaning it with Virtuoso and playing it. (It was absolutely filthy, with a thick sticky hard scum all over it that I at first thought was scuff or scratch marks. But it cleaned up beautifully, far, far better than I thought it would, and all that gunky film is gone. It looks almost brand new, but with that delicious deep golden color that Sitka can obtain, with tight, straight grain and a massive profusion of silk. The rosewood is a dark, rich color after being cleaned and buffed for 45 minutes. The neck is mahogany, with a matte finish. 1 /3/4 inch bone nut & saddle, and gold Schaller tuners. Ebony fretboard and bridge. It must have been refretted at some point not long ago, as there is no fret wear. There's plenty of saddle, and the neck looks great. No cracks anywhere. It was perfectly set up (that has NEVER happened to me before!), and has a Highlander IP1 pickup.


It was on consignment, so I was not charged any tax, and they waived the fee for selling the Gibson for me on their website.

Gallagher 72 Special

Between this one and the Collings, I think I'm all set. I finally own the two best guitars I've ever played, after wanting something outstanding for 40 years.

But the ToneRite is still going back on Monday. EEK! I wouldn't dare put it on either of these, not after that experience! I just hope this never happens to anyone else, and that my results were an anomaly.

JT

This message has been edited. Last edited by: JT Foote,

A daunting tale. Now, I may have to read this whole bleeding novel from the beginning to get a sense other than "your actual experience may vary". Yours is the only truly cautionary tale. The others were either "I love it", or "it's okay, but not all that." I could take "no difference"; I could not take "my guitar's been ruined". tom

One might look at it this way: better to get rid of the Gibson now, rather than not have used the ToneRite and hear it gradually deteriorate over the next five years and get rid of it then.