Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
NEW: ZOOM B2 FOUR...
- Thread starter munnkyboy
- Start date
I bought a B3N earlier this year. I ended up fooling with it for a week or two and started buying individual pedals for the effects I found interesting (compressor, distortion, chorus, envelope filter, octave). I found all the menu diving to be extremely tedious and some of the effects are a little too computery(?) The ease of just reaching down and tweaking knobs is much more user friendly, imo. For the price and amount of fun that can be had though, I would still recommend one of these small multi deals to newer or budget constrained players
Here is a photo edited version of the new Zoom B2four that would suit me better:
Practically speaking, this layout would be more logical, at least for my approach to live performances, because I am always to the left of the drummer and slightly facing him, towards the center of the stage to my right. I only use my right foot to control the pedals, so with a layout like this I wouldn't block the LCD, and the whole device with my right foot, etc... Zoom uses the same/similar mold,form factor,and look as the previously released G2 FOUR/X, reducing production costs =and maybe their profit,a little bit, too?.I guess.
Last edited:
Personally what is most frustrating to me about the B2 FOUR, as a prospective buyer, is how much size is added to it for the sake of the DI model button. I definitely am not somebody who cares about different DI model settings anyway, but couldn't it have been a menu setting or something for people who want it? I look at the non-X version of the G2 FOUR and see how much smaller it is since it has neither expression pedal nor DI model switch, and I wish we could've had that on the bass side... it would've made this thing even better as the last step in the chain on a small pedalboard.
Anyone knows if it has the stompbox mode option like the old B3?
Also how workable are the compressors och the octaver? This has been a week point on the earlier B3s and B6.
I would be pleasantly surprised if they where improved on the B2 Four, but I don’t expect it.
Also how workable are the compressors och the octaver? This has been a week point on the earlier B3s and B6.
I would be pleasantly surprised if they where improved on the B2 Four, but I don’t expect it.
+1. I agree, as a long term user of Zoom pedals.
It's not a feature that justifies the added size and weight.
That'd be a very appealing prospect but it'd certainly be beyond my own capabilities, to say the least. I don't think, in my online travels, I've saw anything like as concerted an effort to open up and abuse the firmware of ZOOM units more recent than the MS generation, but I'm sure somebody would be capable of at least trying if the incentive were there. Though, I think part of why there was so much enthusiasm for using and cracking open the MS series was because it has a big fanbase of synth musicians as well as just the guitars crowd we're in, and without that, there might not be enough of an interest level to get it to happen.
Their unusual way of engineering and marketing, especially the new B2&G2/X-Four product line, really stands out from the rest in the industry. If that's their goal, then they've achieved it. Only they know why (?!) But to whom can ZOOM sell its latest investment dedicated to the bass guitar, if not to us bassists. They have no competition on the market dedicated to bass multiFX in this form, and we as bass players have nothing similar in THIS SIZE and characteristics (as, for example, guitarists have).
Zoom knows its job and place on the market & its market share. And for us bassists, maybe someone else will also offer a DEDICATED bassFX,... NUX maybe?
Zoom knows its job and place on the market & its market share. And for us bassists, maybe someone else will also offer a DEDICATED bassFX,... NUX maybe?
The major differentiator in the 2 FOUR series' effects is supposed to be the multi-layer IR tech, I think, along with some other improvements such as the XLR out that the 1 FOUR set don't have.
In MEMORY mode you can access three patches from a bank. You can also move amongst patchs with the arrow buttons (as opposed to the foot switches)--but it's not as easy, unless you take shoes off.
In "EFFECT" mode, you can make it so that 3 adjacent modules in the chain are viewed on the screen at once. And any of them can be bypassed using the footswitches. You can use the arrow buttons to scroll the view left/right. You can't freely choose which of the 5 FX are (dis/en)abled. The "6th" slot is dedicated to tap tempo & tempo entry.
I keep looking, but no. The few demos on YT aren't super helpful. However, I think the sounds are basically the same as the B6 (apart from the multi-layer IR thing)-- so those demos are pretty useful.
The B2 Four has better compressors, better sonics, and better connectivity. The reverbs are pretty similar across the recent offerings. And some modules have fewer parameters to adjust. The improved sonics are significant for me.
Aha. Thanks. I really didn’t like the compressors, octaver or choruses in the B6 so I sent mine back. So to find out if they’re better in the new B2 Four I guess I have to order one and try it in a live situation where, to me, the truth comes through.
What I like about it is, as opposed to the B3n the xlr out is back and that there’s a headphone output so that it can be used as a practice tool in hotel rooms. Do anyone have a take on whether the drumpatterns (& metronome) has been improved in the B2 Four because they really didn’t do anything for me in the earlier versions.
Just to be clear, is this improvement comparison vs. the B3n or the B6? I don't own the B2 Four, but I'd be very, VERY surprised if the algorithms for comps (and anything else) are different or better than the flagship B6, but sure, better than the B3n. I've got an open mind, though, and it would be great if someone who knows both the B6 & B2 Four well could weigh in, apples-for-apples. The B2 Four appears to only have one significant difference, that being the amp/cab marriage using the dynamic IRs. Curious as to whether you can wet/dry blend ONLY the cab sim in this new technology, or is it always 100% wet cab sim, with no ability to control blend amount if desired?
N
I didn't say the B2 Four was better than the B6. If you don't like the B6, don't get a B2 Four. The compressors, octavers, choruses, and drum patterns are likely identical.
I wasn't talking about the B6 at all. I think the B2 Four is a cheaper version of the B6, but with that cab difference.
All the amps in the B2 Four have a blend control, but that is Amp/Cab vs dry, not amp vs cab.
This is essentially how I got started on Zooms with my MS-50g. I had some cheap pedals already (a Bad Monkey and a couple of Behringers). The versatility of the MultiStomp amazed me! but after getting into a rabbit hole of researching what all the individual effects actually emulated I found myself collecting additional effect pedals where the MS fell short. I now have a hybrid board with standalone dirt pedals up front and the MS providing modulation and EQ. I too dislike the tedium of menu diving but with that said, the convenience of a (coat)pocket sized pedal board is hard to beat, especially when paired up with my pignose around the house/garden/travelling.
I've learned to resist the urge to tweak now that I've established some favourite settings.
Since I'm only now just starting on bass and the B2 four does seem like an easy win; a buy and forget solution. With that said, I'm also wondering if I might as well just get a MS-60b and squeeze it on the board I already have. As a 'home performer' the cornucopia of subtle refinements in amp/cab/IR sims and such like all seem like an attention sink I can manage happily enough without.
Can anyone tell me if the various Multistomp hacks out there allow the bass effects of the 60b to be put on the CDR to benefit from the extra effect slots it has?
Ok. My personal opinion on this is I own and have used the old B3 a lot. Never got the B3n because I didn't see any reason and that in my initial (brief) comparison I found the synth and the choruses not as good sounding as in the B3. This is not based on sonic improvement or so called 'multi-layer IR technology' but merely on what I hear with my sonic capability.
Also I didn't think it was a good thing that they removed the XLR out from the B3 on tn B3n.
End of first story.
The I got the B6, thinking this should be a big improvement and I used it for some time in real live situations, tweaking and trying to get into the functions needed for me. I should mention I never use the amp simulations or all the preamp alternatives since when trying them out I just though they made my initial, basic sound coming from my very beloved vintage Jazz- and P'bass sound more unbalanced, unclear and simply not an improvement on the bypassed sound. This may be because of the fact that these basses sound very good 'all natural' and for other basses it may be another story.
Also I very seldom need to use distorsion in the kind of situations I play and I prefer the slight 'hair' coming from raising the gain level on my Ampeg amps. I don't do metal or progrock so no need for the fuzz type.
What then surprised me was the fact that the choruses missed some of the parameters I was used from the old B3, then I could never get the same good old school synth tone I got from the B3. That, in combination with the fact that this thing (B6) was very big and bulky, looked kind of plastic, and always had a somewhat too boomy low frequency response, made me decide to go back to the B3. The low frequency thing might be a good thing for some but for me, already content with the amount of low end coming from my bass, it was an issue I couldn't solve. Lower the bass and the sound got thin. Raising (or normalize) it made it too bass heavy.
So when I saw the release of this new B2 Four my hope was that Zoom from feedback maybe would have improved the parameters that wasn't to my liking in the B6 although you're right, it definitely looks like a scaled down version of the B6. But my though was that this is just the cover of the unit and maybe the sounds, especially the ones that wasn't that good earlier, might have been improved, even though it's a smaller and not as expensive model as the B6. This comes from my experience with the B3 vs the B6, where to my taste obviously I prefer the B3 for some reason that only my ears can tell. Sometimes a higher sound quality doesn't always end up in a better sounding product, hence all the new production of vintage stomp-boxes and effects as well as vintage instruments in general. A matter of taste, and taste is different of course.
So I guess i probably will get the B2 Four in the near future just to find out by myself, in my musical situations, if there has been any improvements to my liking. Anyhow this box is about the same size as my old B3 (which is basically falling apart now) and it ticks many boxes and it's not that much of an investment so I'm willing to try it out.
Last edited:
We can't know whether or not Zoom will actually release any new modules for these types of units. They sure did for the MS-100BT. But I don't recall if the G3n/B3n series had (m)any post-release add-ons.
What seems like an almost criminal oversite is that few of these dedicated bass units have a (pizz) acoustic bass simulation (the SY-1000 has a good one, but requires GK pickup). And none have useable "arco" (bowed) simulation. These aren't just nice for gigs requiring that kind of sound-- like jazz gigs or music theater, but they are also useful in many other musical styles.
I've been able to get a fairly decent acoustic pizz using reverb to fake the body resonance. This helps with post-note "release" shape. EQ (perhaps along with that flip-top amp) might help simulate that humpy low resonance. However, I've not been successful at making a tone that just sustains notes in a similar way to arco. I think it will require using EQ and compression. The challenge is to make it dynamically responsive but I've not found the golden formula yet.
I wish Zoom would release an add-on module for the B2-Four (and B6) thit simulated both pizz and arco. The foot switch for that module could have three modes: bypass/enable, pizz/arco toggle, and pizz/arco momentary. With the last two, the foot switch be pizz when off and acro when pressed-- a bit like a sustain pedal.
What seems like an almost criminal oversite is that few of these dedicated bass units have a (pizz) acoustic bass simulation (the SY-1000 has a good one, but requires GK pickup). And none have useable "arco" (bowed) simulation. These aren't just nice for gigs requiring that kind of sound-- like jazz gigs or music theater, but they are also useful in many other musical styles.
I've been able to get a fairly decent acoustic pizz using reverb to fake the body resonance. This helps with post-note "release" shape. EQ (perhaps along with that flip-top amp) might help simulate that humpy low resonance. However, I've not been successful at making a tone that just sustains notes in a similar way to arco. I think it will require using EQ and compression. The challenge is to make it dynamically responsive but I've not found the golden formula yet.
I wish Zoom would release an add-on module for the B2-Four (and B6) thit simulated both pizz and arco. The foot switch for that module could have three modes: bypass/enable, pizz/arco toggle, and pizz/arco momentary. With the last two, the foot switch be pizz when off and acro when pressed-- a bit like a sustain pedal.
Last edited:
