Sansamp RBI is a LOT better than BDDI

basadam · #1 10-07-2007, 02:30 PM

I was greatly happy with BDDI's tone and a while ago switched to programmable version to have channel switching capability. All that time RBI did not intrigue me because I thought it's just the same thing with an extra mid control and some nice routing options which I didn't need! Why would I pay more for something I didn't need?

When our guitarist switched from GT2 to PSA we were awed by the huge improvement in tone and I started wondering if things would be same with RBI. I posted here asking this but all answers highlighted the mid control! Not the answer I was looking for.

Finally I bit the bullet and bought one! I can safely say that RBI is a LOT better and I'm not talking about the mid control. It sounds deeper, richer, more complex and more open. Compared to it, my poor PBDDI sounds boxy and two-dimensional.

There I said it - at the expense of invoking unneeded GAS in otherwise perfectly happy BDDI (or PBDDI) owners; if you think BDDI is cool, just wait until you hear RBI.

idoru · #2 10-07-2007, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by basadam

<snip't>

Compared to it, my poor PBDDI sounds boxy and two-dimensional.

EDIT: too early, 5 month old not settling. P for Programmable in this case...

Which one do you have? I'm confused here. I find the combination of Presence + Mid controls to be far superior to Presence by itself, but the LM300's Para channel doesn't seem to suffer for the lack of the Presence control.

I hate to say it, but I think it all comes down to the mids

basadam · #3 10-07-2007, 04:19 PM

I am comparing the pedal version against rackmount version. I don't have hands-on experience with Landmark but being a rackmount unit it should be as good as RBI.

Jazz Ad · #4 10-07-2007, 04:27 PM

I used both and got a chance to compare them during almost a week.
They sound 100 % similar to me other than a higher output gain on the RBI.

johnnycat42 · #5 10-07-2007, 04:33 PM

I have both. I use the PDDI as a direct box for recording or to the PA for rehearsal, etc. I used the RBI for gigs. The RBI has higher output, for sure. That in itself gives it a little more ooomph. You can compensate with the PBDDI with some tweaking though and they sound pretty similar. If I had to pick one, I would pick the RBI though.

basadam · #6 10-08-2007, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jazz Ad

I used both and got a chance to compare them during almost a week.
They sound 100 % similar to me other than a higher output gain on the RBI.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnycat42

I have both. I use the PDDI as a direct box for recording or to the PA for rehearsal, etc. I used the RBI for gigs. The RBI has higher output, for sure. That in itself gives it a little more ooomph. You can compensate with the PBDDI with some tweaking though and they sound pretty similar. If I had to pick one, I would pick the RBI though.

Interesting. I definitely hear a big improvement in sound quality. When I set both units to for the same sound - and RBI's mid@12 - the difference is day and night to my ears. Also, the SVT sample for example is different on RBI documentation than the one on PBDDI documentation. I've also tried that with the same observation. What I'm talking about is not the coloring of tone, they work more or less the same. But there is definitely a hi-fi-ness in RBI. Better lows, highs, etc.

I'll investigate this further.

johnnycat42 · #7 10-08-2007, 08:50 AM

It could be the way we EQ our basses as well. I may be able to dial in the sound I am looking for easier on both. FWIW-I am agreeing that the RBI is better. It has more mojo. Just saying that I can make my PBDDI sound pretty similar with some tweaking.

pickles · #8 10-08-2007, 09:14 AM

If possible, match the gains with a dummy load and multimeter before comparing (both are cheap). When you're splitting hairs, slightly different gains (small differences than you can detect as "louder") can change your impressions significantly.

basadam · #9 10-09-2007, 11:38 AM

I described this Tech 21 and they responded (as usual within a few hours):

Now, as far as the differences between the RBI and the PBDR... the EQs are different (the RBI's Bass, Mid and Treble have specific center frequencies, while the Bass Driver uses a shelving-type EQ, where the centers are constantly shifting), and the Presence controls are slightly different (since one product has a Mid control and the other doesn't), but if you set everything at 12:00 on both, you can barely tell which is which. However, once you start moving knobs, they do sound different. I've never heard anyone call the Bass Drivers "boxy", but I don't think yours is necessarily broken. Keep in mind the Bass Driver has 9V of headroom, while the AC-powered RBI runs on + and - 15V, which comes to 30 volts of headroom. It's always going to be more "high fidelity".

Best regards,
Lloyd

It all makes sense now and I think the most important thing is more headroom available to RBI.

BTW, my "boxy" remark (highlighted above) was only in comparison to RBI. Otherwise I don't think BDDI is boxy at all.

'Nuff tech-talk, let's go and play!!

Geezerman · #10 10-09-2007, 12:23 PM

Any one have clips of ether? I looking for some slight overdriven tubes...

1954bassman · #11 11-19-2007, 01:35 PM

Are you still heads over on the RBI? I am looking at both, and not planning on much eq'ing. Should I save my bucks and get the bass driver or go for thr RBI? I would like to have a great DI to use at church with my G&L and my Lakland. With a little eq, if I need it. We use IEM's and I don not use an amp.

Mark

Geddyfleaharris · #12 11-19-2007, 05:51 PM

The RBI gets my vote. Use it and love it. Would not be without one now.

basadam · #13 11-19-2007, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1954bassman

Are you still heads over on the RBI? I am looking at both, and not planning on much eq'ing. Should I save my bucks and get the bass driver or go for thr RBI? I would like to have a great DI to use at church with my G&L and my Lakland. With a little eq, if I need it. We use IEM's and I don not use an amp.

Mark

Definitely. The only thing I'm missing is the programmability, other than that and if you have the dough, get the RBI.

Earwaxsculptor · #14 11-19-2007, 06:28 PM

I have been using the Landmark 600 for about 5 years now, I used a Bassdriver into a solid state head prior to that, and I did notice quite a difference in fidelity when making that switch (a much deeper sound). Occasionally when doing looping and stuff I will bypass the preamp on my LM600 and put my bassdriver on my board before the loop station so as not to effect the loop station itself, when I do this the change in tone between the LM600 preamp stage and the Bassdriver pedal is not so apparent to me, maybe it has to do with the power stage you are using also? I know the power amp stage of the LM600 is brutal (I think very modestly rated), and I love that I can bypass the preamp completely, this is the reason I am looking for a GK preamp to try out at the moment

Hemispheres85 · #15 11-19-2007, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezerman

Any one have clips of ether? I looking for some slight overdriven tubes...

+1 I'd love to hear the differences.

fishtx · #16 11-19-2007, 06:44 PM

Although so far I haven't needed it (fingers crossed) since I started using an RBI about 3 months ago...I wish it had a ground lift...

musicman7722 · #17 12-03-2007, 03:49 PM

I must disagree. I have bought and sent back 2 RBI rack units and 1 SABDI programable. I still feel the second geration SABDI to be the best. Chris P.

basadam · #18 12-04-2007, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by musicman7722

I must disagree. I have bought and sent back 2 RBI rack units and 1 SABDI programable. I still feel the second geration SABDI to be the best. Chris P.

2nd gen as in:

1st gen is bass driver original
2nd gen is bass driver di

or
1st gen is bass driver di without line/inst output selector
2nd gen is bass driver di with line/inst output selector?

musicman7722 · #19 12-04-2007, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by basadam

2nd gen as in:

1st gen is bass driver original
2nd gen is bass driver di

or
1st gen is bass driver di without line/inst output selector
2nd gen is bass driver di with line/inst output selector?

Sorry about that. In my mind the first generation DI was the unit with the adjustments inside the case. It also was limited to an XLR out and an uneffected (sp) out. The Second generation placed all controls on the outside and added an effected (gulp sp) on the outside. The third generation added a lot of boost buttons on the outside. I found these very noisy and for months I thought I had a bad rig. Finally discovered this version was just to hot for me. I found 2 of the second generation on Ebay and bought them both. Noise solved.

I had hoped the RB unit would be a big brother of the Bass DI but it is a whole different beast. As I wrote I gave it 2 chances but couldn't make it work.

Regards....Chris P.

bassman251 · #20 12-04-2007, 04:49 PM

I think sometimes we subconsciously listen with our eyes instead of our ears ( Even me ) We think maybe since its a rack unit it will be better then the pedal version. I think it would be more accurate to do a blindfold test where someone else plays the bass using both of them using different setting. Then have whomever is listening choose what they think is the best sounding. I believe the only advantage sound wise is maybe a mid control & higher voltage of RBI. but roughly sound pretty much the same. But I never heard the RBI but definitely like to try it.