Darkglass B7K vs B7K Ultra

[zacharybass76]

I am looking for the best DI/preamp to run direct (without using any amplification or cab mic) for recording metal music, and after doing research, the Darkglass B7K seems to be the ideal DI for me. Is there a significant difference between the B7K and the B7K Ultra as far as clean sound, preamp, and recording goes? Will it be worth the extra money to have the Ultra, or is the regular B7K suffice enough?

 

[ole Jason]

Personally I wouldn't use either of them if you're looking for a clean DI. They're fine for that but there are better choices. The B7K really excels at low to medium gain. The Ultra certainly has more options but the vast majority of people would be fine using the original version IMO.

 

[dannybuoy]

There's not much better out there for modern metal tones. I would get the Ultra purely for the switchable EQ points. The clean/dirty switching is a plus, but not always useful if you find yourself needing drastically different EQ settings between clean and dirty.

 

[CoarseBass]

Personally, I find there is magic in the B7K - it's EQ points, how the preamp gain is structured, and the layout make it some how more special than the Ultra. In theory, you can replicated any sound on a B7K with an Ultra, and more, but I have stuck with the B7K because it does 'B7K' better, more pure, than the Ultra.

I went Ultra on the Vintage, because I felt like it needed more help - I don't have the same love for the Vintage tone, though, so there is definitely a lot of YMMV in the choice.

 

[dannybuoy]

Interesting. I have definitely noticed a difference between the B7K set flat and the B3K but have never tried the Ultra. I have the amp though, where I do find those frequency selectors for the mids rather useful.

 

[zacharybass76]

Personally I wouldn't use either of them if you're looking for a clean DI. They're fine for that but there are better choices. The B7K really excels at low to medium gain. The Ultra certainly has more options but the vast majority of people would be fine using the original version IMO.

I'm open to suggestions other than the B7K for clean DI recording.

 

[ole Jason]

I'm open to suggestions other than the B7K for clean DI recording.

Check out the Sansamp VT Bass (which can also do dirt tones) and the Mesa Subway DI.

 

[vivaknoxvegas]

I personally want a MXR M81, check out demos on it OP and see if it's the one.

 

[zacharybass76]

Check out the Sansamp VT Bass (which can also do dirt tones) and the Mesa Subway DI.

Out of the two, which would be a more ideal studio DI for recording metal?

I personally want a MXR M81, check out demos on it OP and see if it's the one.

Do you think the MXR M81 would be a good studio DI?

 

[vivaknoxvegas]

I couldn't say 100% because I still haven't owned one, but I would guess yes.

 

[ole Jason]

Out of the two, which would be a more ideal studio DI for recording metal?

Depends on what kind of metal you're recording. I do a lot of metal stuff and I just plug the bass straight into the interface and then use amp sim plugins. I'm not convinced a DI is necessary for recording unless you want a really specific tone like the b7k.

 

[Fuzzbass]

I am looking for the best DI/preamp to run direct (without using any amplification or cab mic) for recording metal music, and after doing research, the Darkglass B7K seems to be the ideal DI for me. Is there a significant difference between the B7K and the B7K Ultra as far as clean sound, preamp, and recording goes? Will it be worth the extra money to have the Ultra, or is the regular B7K suffice enough?

I have B7K and B7KU -- my favorite pedals for modern rock/metal bass tones. I typically set one or the other for low to moderate gain, and stack with a second pedal when I need heavier dirt (but the B7K will get heavier on its own).

In short: IMO, the Ultra features are nice-to-have, rather than must-have. I always leave Hi Mid on the Ultra set to 3kHz, which is essentially the same as the 2.8kHz Hi Mid on the non-Ultra. I sometimes vary Lo Mid on the Ultra. The Ultra allows you to use EQ without distortion, but I never do -- I use EQ with distortion, or bypass the pedal entirely. I rarely use the B7K anymore -- but that's partly because the Ultra has top jacks rather than side jacks. I would still be thrilled with the regular B7K if that's all I could afford.

 

[Chriso21]

i've toured with both and prefer the tone of the b7k. It seems more aggressive.

 

[TyCobb]

i've toured with both and prefer the tone of the b7k. It seems more aggressive.

Are the electronics that much different? I only own the Ultra, but I was under the assumption that the Ultra just added more adjustments. I figured you could get the same tone if you futzed around with the EQ points and knobs enough. But of course I know what happens when one assumes

 

[MichaelPatrick]

I like the B7k option. But, I like options that keep the bass fully separated from the guitars in metal, which I think when you start adding too much distortion or low end grind, it becomes easy to get lost in the mix.

 

[MojoPenguin]

I have the B7K, for most "metal" genres it's great, although I do prefer the sound of the Alpha Omicron I own.
Now if you play Doom/Stoner, I guess you'd prefer some kind of Fuzz instead.

 

[FLV]

I've recently tried the B7K through Neural DSP Plugins and I've instantly fell in love with it. I want to buy a physical version. Would you rather recommend getting the regular, Ultra or Ultra v2 version? I want to be able to use the XLR out as I often go direct and use in-ears. Can anyone share their experience in this matter?