Review: ToneRite Play-In Device for Acoustic Guitars

Guitar World ^ | 02/01/2013 | Billy Voight

[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.

[nikos1121]

This is exactly why I’ve opened it up for discussion. I’m curious to hear if ANY FReepers have used the device. All of us are just speculating, esp when you consider the demos are from people who are SELLING the thing.

I will say that when you buy for example a Martin Authentic that presumably has recreated a 70 year old guitar down to the glue and bracings, you want it to sound as good as it can as fast as it can. A five year old guitar sounds better at ten etc. IF you own more than one guitar it’s not easy to play them all the same amount of time.

[nikos1121]

Like I keep saying. Unless you’ve tried the device, I don’t really understand why you’re criticizing professional musicians who say it is so. I’ve posted this to see if there’s someone out there with some experience with the thing. So far, no one.

[LambSlave]

I've been playing electric and acoustic guitar for thirty years. I like to think in terms of what really matters-- the overall objective: nailing a recording, a live performance,etc. Instruments, gadgets, technology have little value in that context, it is talent (experience and technique), and focusing on the objective (arrangement, composition, mixing, microphone setup, EQ). It is also a very subjective process; my perfect sound may be crap to you.

Today I can pick up a $200 guitar and get a great sound on record that sits right in the mix and suits the composition perfectly. I couldn't do that twenty five years ago when I was chasing the best "sound" for my instrument; it was all ego. I was too focused on having "my sound", the elusive perfect tone and the technical chops to show it off. Here's the thing, even when you get it, it doesn't mean jack-- it won't make a better song, and the chase will prevent you from developing as a complete musician and composer. The perfect "sound" only matters to your ears when you are practicing, 'cause it aint going to sound good in every mix, and chances are it won't sound good in ANY mix because it is too BIG. The more perfect and resonant that sound is, the harder it is to make the big EQ cuts required to sit in a complex mix; or alternately, the more it will dominate a simpler mix and make it impossible to get that perfectly blended sound.

So if sounding good while practicing is the priority, then fine, I could see something like this; but life is short, if you have a goal that involves a greater artistic product, then I think in the long run time spent working on technique and your recording/live performance setup to work the nuances to get the best product will be more rewarding for you. Also, as a physicist, this product's claims seem entirely baseless.

[kjam22]

Okay.... first off... someone is going to go to all this trouble to break in the guitar..... and to document if the device worked or not.... and to document it they are going to record the guitar with an SM57? Really?

[nikos1121]

I have the same question. If you, for example, follow their break in period, (non-stop exposure to the tone for X amount of hours (120?), is that it, or do you have to do this again and again. If so, then it’s a waste of money.

What I’ve heard is that it DOES mellow the sound and the sound stays mellowed. The demos I’ve seen of brand new guitars clearly shows that they’re less harsh.

They come with a solid 30 day money back guarantee. I think I’m going to try it.

[kjam22]

There is a reason why no one you know has experience with it....

[nikos1121]

I just bought the device. Cost on Amazon right around $133 new. THere were others for less, and Ebay has others cheaper yet. I think that’s about as much as I’d be willing to pay for something like this. I’m going to try it on the three guitars I have. They range from 3 years to 35 years old. The new one is a used Martin D-18 Authentic 1937 (2010).

[Scoutmaster]

I agree. Acoustic guitar players know that the sound of a guitar will open up over a period of years as the guitar is played, and improved technique is not the primary reason for the better sound.

As a former guitar collector, I had guitars that I played and guitars that stayed in their cases. If improved technique was the reason for improved sound, then I should have noticed the improvement in all guitars. Instead, I noticed it in the guitars that were played regularly.

I've heard about methods to improve a guitar's sound by leaving it in front of speakers, or using the suction cup attachment to a Conair massager, or other methods to make the guitar vibrate for an extended period. I don't know of a method that beats frequent playing.

[nikos1121]

I agree with everything you say. I’ve played as long as you have. You are precisely the person I’d like to see try the device and report back on your thoughts.

[nikos1121]

“Instead, I noticed it in the guitars that were played regularly.”

Then you agree, you heard a distinct difference in the guitars you played vs the ones that stayed in their cases.

[Scoutmaster]

Exactly. Because I was a collector, in several cases I'm talking about the same model guitar, such as a blonde J-200 and a sunburst J-200.

The J-200s sounded almost identical when new, but I played the sunburst. After three to five years, the sunburst had a distinctly more open sound; friends who have played both notice the difference.

Same experience with 000-28s, and a 2004 Brazilian D-28GE which I should never have cased.

My experience with Collings guitars is that they sound open when new. Gibson guitars also seem to have a shorter break-in period than Martins.

[nikos1121]

I agree with what you’re saying. It amazes me when I hear a 1930s Martin D-18. The guitars are light, but extremely powerful and easy to see why Doc Watson, Kenny Smith and many other’s use them for recording. There’s an interesting posting on UMGF by a guy who is comparing his guitars. See: http://theunofficialmartinguitarforum.yuku.com/topic/137995/1936-D18-vs-2011-D18-Authentic

He weighed his D-18 Authentic 1937 (made in 2011) vs his actual 1936 Martin D-18. There was a 5 oz weight difference between them. 5 oz!!! The older being lighter, yet it has the more fuller sound.

I assume it’s the shrinking of the glue, the drying of the wood etc. This comes only with time.

[cuban leaf]

Good point.

Carry on, but buyer beware. I’m a member of a HI-Fi site where, because “enhancement stuff” like this are major advertising contributors, you disrespect even the most ridiculous stuff at your own peril. They’ll ban you for even suggesting a published double blind test showed no difference in sound. They consider it “argumentative”.

[nikos1121]

I’m not a contrarian. I spent the better part of last night listening and reading about the device. I don’t think there’s any question that it registered a difference in the sound of the guitars played esp the new ones. I recently purchased a D-18 Martin Golden Era 1934 (made in 2008). It’s a great sounding guitar, that’s why I sold it and upgraded to an affordable D-18 authentic. I can’t wait to get it and see the difference. Many people say there is very little to no difference. This makes sense if the guitars are relatively new.

I thought there would be a lot more guitar and violin players on this forum.

[nikos1121]

And what might that be? :-)

[cuban leaf]

Many people say there is very little to no difference. This makes sense if the guitars are relatively new.

---

I would expect it to make the biggest difference if the guitar is new. It’s kinda like a rubber band. It’s pretty stiff at first, but as you stretch it to a reasonable limit repeatedly you notice that the limit keeps increasing until it hits a maximum, at which point their is no perceivable difference in the amount of stretch.

A brand new guitar seems to need to be worked in to “loosen up” the fibers of the wood, but once it does, it sort of reaches a maximum. It may change a little bit every time you play it, but not perceptibly so. The big difference is in the beginning.

But so much of this is subjective. If this thing is five bucks, I’d probably get one, just for the novelty, if nothing else. If it’s over $20 I’d probably never get one.

But the thing is, to me sound is subjective. As with the Hi-Fi stuff, many people perceive an improvement that, in double blind tests, disappears.

[nikos1121]

I just picked up a new Emotiva Pre-Amp XMC-1 and an accompanying AMP. I think it’s the best thing I’ve heard, but I’m sure I don’t have the ear perception as fine tuned as you when it comes to HIFI. With guitars Ican close my eyes and hear the difference in guitars.

There’s a guy on youtube who is boasting about the Chinese Martin D-45 Copy. This is a pure knock off with the name “MARTIN” on the headstock.

THe guitar sound terrible to me, but he’s happy with it.

[cuban leaf]

but I’m sure I don’t have the ear perception as fine tuned as you when it comes to HIFI.

---

My ears are terrible. I used to argue this stuff a lot in the 70’s, but I’ve spent too much of the last 15 years playing bass next to a loud drum kit to have hearing all that good any more. And I’m 60.

I’m talking academically.

Regarding the acoustic guitars, yes, I can hear the difference even now. Clearly. But I can’t name the guitar. And yes, some very much sound better to me than others.

But to put this in perspective regarding the hi-fi stuff. I can hear the difference between a $50,000 hand made class A mono block amplifier system vs a Pioneer or Marantz receiver. But if you replace the ten feet of 12 guage zip chord speaker with the $250 a foot “custom” cable supported on little ceramic stands to bring it off the carpet (forget their price, but they are expensive), I doubt I’ll hear the difference. And double blind tests have proven I’m not the only one.

That’s the sort of thing I’m talking about. If this device is cheap, or your income level makes that issue moot, you might want to score it. It can’t hurt. But I’ve seen plenty of youtube videos demonstrating the difference in sound between some exotic product and “standard stuff” that were completely bogus.

And on a side note, DON’T EVEN GET ME STARTED ABOUT BOSE! ;-)

[nikos1121]

“But if you replace the ten feet of 12 guage zip chord speaker with the $250 a foot “custom” cable supported on little ceramic stands to bring it off the carpet (forget their price, but they are expensive), I doubt I’ll hear the difference. And double blind tests have proven I’m not the only one.”

Fellow Baby Boomer,

Thank god!

I can recall in college, some of my fellow students worked at the local stereo shop. Bose was the rage. Even you have people swearing it’s the best. Pure junk...

I’ve decided to bypass the big screen tv and put the money first into a really good stereo system, (NOT SURROUND). It makes me laugh when you see these people buying 5K to 8K big screen tvs 80 inch or more that have the built in tweeters for the sound.

I love the Emotiva line of electronics. They’re affordable and made in America. I love also Triad speakers for the same reason.

PS-Got you beat age wise. :-)

[Scoutmaster]

Vintage D-18s are my favorite old Martins and one of my favorite guitars overall.

Given a choice, however, I'll take a late 40s-early 50s Gibson J-45 or Southern Jumbo (the same guitar, but with a Grand Ole Opry pimp factor). It has more of an 'Americana Sound' and you feel the low notes in your gut.

One thing that helps the sound is that the nitrocellulose lacquer finish becomes harder and thinner with age. The wood also ages more for some years, and I think all the vibrations simply loosen the guitar so it can vibrate more. All I know is, it makes a difference, and I think it makes more of a difference with mahogany soundwood than maple or rosewood. That's just my opinion.