Fishman Aura questions

se7ent7 · Aug 29, 2012

Hi there,

Would any of you Fishman Aura fans or admirers (or haters) please help me out here? ?

I'm impressed by the Fishman Aura technology, but there's a few things I would like to know:

1.

Most importantly, how well does it work with magnetic sound hole pickups like the Fishman Rare Earth ?
The documentation claims it can work with this, but how does it compare to a Fishman Matrix UST - the one which they used to make the images with?

I've seen some lists of the early versions of the Aura pedal (Blend version, 2004?) that actually has images made with Fishman magnetic pickups. It bothers me that they seemed to have stopped doing this... Does anyone have information on that?

There's a James Taylor video on youtube ("One morning in may") of him playing Rare Earth into a Aura spectrum that looks promising, but I can't decide based on one video like that :-/

The thing is, I want to add a pickup to an acoustic, preferably non-invasively (i.e no UST), and I was dead kean on the Rare Earth Blend before I stumbled upon the Aura technology. However, the Aura images are (mostly?) made with Fishman Matrix UST pickups. If the RE works well I'd rather go that route, and then I also have an interesting alternative when playing without the Aura DI.

2.

The only negative comments about Aura sound, is that is can sound and feel too digital, "phasey" and not dynamic enough. Anyone who's used it care to comment on that? (I have a feeling that most of those comments I've seen are about the pre-Spectrum era versions of the Aura ?)

The "digital feel" is a major concern to me, since, in the electric guitar world I've definately been impressed with the sounds out of digital emulation systems like the Boss GT, Digitech and especially Line6 pedals, when others play, but playing through it myself, it felt terrible.

I feel disconnected from the amp, and have the distinct sensation of the signal being recorded, processed and played back (even if it happens in a few milliseconds).

Coincidentally the only digital multi-fx amp-modeller that I can tolerate is the Vox tonelab. Maybe the true bypass and analog look and feel of the physical thing tricks me, but with humbuckers especially the "digital feel" doesn't bother too much.

AlanRatcliffe · Aug 29, 2012

se7ent7 wrote: 1. Most importantly, how well does it work with magnetic sound hole pickups like the Fishman Rare Earth ?

That I can't say with certainty, but if the Rare Earth sounds good, the Aura can only add to that. There are more than enough images that if you are patient and try them all in your application you will find at least one that works well for your tastes.

There's a James Taylor video on youtube ("One morning in may") of him playing Rare Earth into a Aura spectrum that looks promising, but I can't decide based on one video like that :-/

No, but it's a really good starting point.

The thing is, I want to add a pickup to an acoustic, preferably non-invasively (i.e no UST)

I understand, but I generally take a bit of a hard line on that topic. What use is having a nice guitar if you can't use it in your playing situation? USTs are the best option currently for playing amplified and imaging gets it even closer. I understand if it is really a truly irreplaceable and "perfect" instrument, but that kind of an instrument has no place in the situations where you need amplification anyway - if you can't abide having a small hole in the saddle slot and enlarging the endpin hole to fit a UST, then the rigours/horrors of gigging will be anathema. Rather get a second guitar with a UST for that purpose.

2. The only negative comments about Aura sound, is that is can sound and feel too digital, "phasey" and not dynamic enough.

Sorry, but that is cobblers. Too many luddites automatically label anything that has a digital component as having a "digital sound". Good digital has no discernible sound AFAIC - far less so than most analogue circuits. The Aura does not digitise the original guitar/pickup sound - it merely mixes in the missing body resonance component to the unadulterated original signal - completely unlike modelling (where the original sound in it's entirety is changed to become something else).

Fishman's "Imaging" is merely convolution, which done properly with high enough resolution (and it is) is capable of stunning realism, even with incredibly complex signals like natural reverb from real acoustic spaces, valve and speaker breakup (BTW, the Kemper "Profiling" is also convolution). Where convolution falls down is it is processor hungry (not a problem with a dedicated device - more a problem if you want to run a dozen different convolution reverbs in a recording) and with limited editability (you can do things like EQ, but it will not necessarily mimic the interactiveness of something like an AC30's tone stack - it's a snapshot of one single state of the item being captured). Neither of these "problems" apply in any way to imaging the sound of a good acoustic guitar with a good mic in a dry room.

If it is not dynamic enough, set the trim to have more headroom and turn down the compressor. If it's too "phasey", that's a function of the original micing used for capture (as with recording, mic placement gives you a plethora of options and tonalities) - choose a different image made with a different mic or miked differently.

I could go on, but proof of the pudding is in the tasting and the Aura tastes good. Provided you approach it with an open mind and are prepared to spend the time doing some critical listening to select the best image for your application.