New: Zoom B3n Multi-Effects

[jimfist]

The fact that gear like the Zoom G5n and B3n can even be in the conversation vs. AxeFxII and Helix should tell you something about how surprisingly good the limited amp/cab offerings are. Zoom has done some homework, and I think they've done well.

Now, let's not get carried away here. These are over-performing, low-cost Zoom units. The higher you go up the food chain of cork-sniffery (technical needs, sonic needs, etc.) the more it becomes apparent that Zoom is clearly in the minor leagues vs. Fractal and Helix. But that doesn't mean that the new "n" series of pedals cannot compete. YMMV. It really just depends on your needs, and I think ZOOM couldn't possibly do much better considering the target market, price, and components they're using.

Even though all logic says that the AxeFxII should absolutely slay the G5n/B3n, I've found myself quite happy with the tones I can get from them. No, they don't have all of the features and range of the big-league units, but really not as far behind as Zoom was with the previous G3/G5 amp/cab modeling IMO. The gap is closing, and that's a good thing for consumers.

 

[Jantelagen]

Of course, that will probably change come Winter NAMM, as Digitech, Boss et al launch their responses...

Yep, I'm looking forward to NAMM. Perhaps more competition in this market could lead to more from Zoom

 

[Jantelagen]

The gap is closing, and that's a good thing for consumers.

Very good thing for consumers and bassists!

 

[Cider]

So I have a cheap Mackie audio interface (this one Onyx Blackjack USB Audio Interface - Mackie) and it has a built-in Hi-Z instrument input. Should I still get a dedicated DI box to run the B3n to first, or do you think the Hi-Z inputs will be ok for home recording here and there?

Also, do I need to use both L & R outputs on the B3n, or just the L one is ok?

 

[king_biscuit]

The fact that gear like the Zoom G5n and B3n can even be in the conversation vs. AxeFxII and Helix should tell you something about how surprisingly good the limited amp/cab offerings are. Zoom has done some homework, and I think they've done well.

Now, let's not get carried away here. These are over-performing, low-cost Zoom units. The higher you go up the food chain of cork-sniffery (technical needs, sonic needs, etc.) the more it becomes apparent that Zoom is clearly in the minor leagues vs. Fractal and Helix. But that doesn't mean that the new "n" series of pedals cannot compete. YMMV. It really just depends on your needs, and I think ZOOM couldn't possibly do much better considering the target market, price, and components they're using.

Even though all logic says that the AxeFxII should absolutely slay the G5n/B3n, I've found myself quite happy with the tones I can get from them. No, they don't have all of the features and range of the big-league units, but really not as far behind as Zoom was with the previous G3/G5 amp/cab modeling IMO. The gap is closing, and that's a good thing for consumers.

The Zoom and Fractal are both just computers running software to model amps, cabs, pedals, etc. Just as all computers have gotten more powerful and cheaper, so has/will units like the Fractal; and we are already seeing that with something like the Zoom b3n. There really is no reason why inexpensive modeling devices can't sound just as good as more expensive modeling devices these days.

I saw this recently and it demonstrates just how good even the little MS-60B is at modeling:

 

[BrianBass91]

I just got my B3n on Monday, I absolutely love it! Thanks to everyone on TalkBass for their input on this thread, I used this a lot to reference before purchasing.

For what I'm doing, the B3n works perfect! I play in two cover bands and have set up 2 banks of patches for each band. I've used just the B3n on it's own without amps for 2 rehearsals this week and was just blown away by how great it sounds. Now I can show up to rehearsals with just my bass, B3n and a D.I. box and go through the PA (FYI - I have a $25 D.I. box I got from Amazon and haven't had any issues with it. Been using it for a while now). Before I was lugging my full rack-mounted rig to each rehearsal. I'd still use my full rig for medium to large gigs, along with the B3n, but for rehearsals and small gigs the B3n will be just fine!

On a different note - are there any B3n owners that are interested in starting a separate thread to share custom patches? I'd love to see how others are using it. Big thumbs down to Zoom for not having a way for users to share custom patches, but that's the only con I have about the B3n. Fingers crossed that they might fix this eventually!

 

[Stu_Bass]

So I have a cheap Mackie audio interface (this one Onyx Blackjack USB Audio Interface - Mackie) and it has a built-in Hi-Z instrument input. Should I still get a dedicated DI box to run the B3n to first, or do you think the Hi-Z inputs will be ok for home recording here and there?

Also, do I need to use both L & R outputs on the B3n, or just the L one is ok?

You can run just the left channel in. I would not use the high-z setting as the output of the B3n is relatively low impedance, just set it to line.

 

[steve_rolfeca]

So I have a cheap Mackie audio interface (this one Onyx Blackjack USB Audio Interface - Mackie) and it has a built-in Hi-Z instrument input. Should I still get a dedicated DI box to run the B3n to first, or do you think the Hi-Z inputs will be ok for home recording here and there?

Balanced lines and a DI box are important for long cable runs, like down a 100 foot snake. Also, to reduce treble loss when plugging passive basses into low-impedance inputs.

In most home studios, you're practically on top of your audio interface. With such a short cable run, the quarter inch output from the B3n is fine.

Also, your bass is always buffered when you're using the B3n anyway- no treble loss. So in this case, the Line input on the Mackie might offer better tone or signal to noise than the Hi-Z input.

I suggest that you try it both ways and see.

 

[Cider]

Balanced lines and a DI box are important for long cable runs, like down a 100 foot snake. Also, to reduce treble loss when plugging passive basses into low-impedance inputs.

In most home studios, you're practically on top of your audio interface. With such a short cable run, the quarter inch output from the B3n is fine.

Also, your bass is always buffered when you're using the B3n anyway- no treble loss. So in this case, the Line input on the Mackie might offer better tone or signal to noise than the Hi-Z input.

I suggest that you try it both ways and see.

Thanks so much. What if I only use the B3n as a pedal sim (not amp sim)?

So, my chain is Bass into Boss LS-2 in, B3n (as NYC Muff) into line A of LS-2, Distortion pedal into line B, LS-2 out into Mackie.

I'm trying to get a no amp direct recording thing. Would I need a dedicated DI box, or is the Hi-Z setting on the Mackia ok?

 

[BAG]

Hi all. I've been looking at the B3 verses the new B3n. From what i can see the new model doesn't run on batteries. Is that correct?

Is it drastically better than the B3 or just an evolution.

 

[Johno Dunn]

Is it drastically better than the B3 or just an evolution.

Yes, and yes.

 

[steve_rolfeca]

Thanks so much. What if I only use the B3n as a pedal sim (not amp sim)?

So, my chain is Bass into Boss LS-2 in, B3n (as NYC Muff) into line A of LS-2, Distortion pedal into line B, LS-2 out into Mackie.

I'm trying to get a no amp direct recording thing. Would I need a dedicated DI box, or is the Hi-Z setting on the Mackia ok?

No DI needed at home. Unless you have the B3n set up on the front porch, and your computer in the basement...

The B3n is basically a small computer, built into an audio pedal.

It doesn't make any difference whether you are running the reverb program, the distortion program, the amp simulation or all three- the audio section of the B3n is still providing the level gain, impedance buffering, etc. that you need for a solid 1/4" unbalanced connection.

 

[FuzzFacetious]

Hi all. I've been looking at the B3 verses the new B3n. From what i can see the new model doesn't run on batteries. Is that correct?

Is it drastically better than the B3 or just an evolution.

No comparison, B3n is Infinitely better.

The real competition is B3n vs GT-1B but there isn't anyone on the Internet that u can find that acts as a comparison so when I get my GT-1B I will hopefully be able to make a decent comparison video.

 

[Stu_Bass]

I just got my B3n on Monday, I absolutely love it! Thanks to everyone on TalkBass for their input on this thread, I used this a lot to reference before purchasing.

For what I'm doing, the B3n works perfect! I play in two cover bands and have set up 2 banks of patches for each band. I've used just the B3n on it's own without amps for 2 rehearsals this week and was just blown away by how great it sounds. Now I can show up to rehearsals with just my bass, B3n and a D.I. box and go through the PA (FYI - I have a $25 D.I. box I got from Amazon and haven't had any issues with it. Been using it for a while now). Before I was lugging my full rack-mounted rig to each rehearsal. I'd still use my full rig for medium to large gigs, along with the B3n, but for rehearsals and small gigs the B3n will be just fine!

On a different note - are there any B3n owners that are interested in starting a separate thread to share custom patches? I'd love to see how others are using it. Big thumbs down to Zoom for not having a way for users to share custom patches, but that's the only con I have about the B3n. Fingers crossed that they might fix this eventually!

B3n patch library.

 

[BrianBass91]

B3n patch library.

Thanks Stu! I'll check it out.

 

[Spblat]

The real competition is B3n vs GT-1B but there isn't anyone on the Internet that u can find that acts as a comparison so when I get my GT-1B I will hopefully be able to make a decent comparison video.

You can't judge a book by its cover but pictures of the GT-1B aren't tantalizing. Regardless of whether it has good sound I have the impression that it's a nightmare to deal with during an actual gig. B3n advantages in this area seem to be more foot pedals and more intuitive overall layout. Still my GAS has been flaring up so I'm quite interested in your actual hands-on impressions.

 

[FuzzFacetious]

You can't judge a book by its cover but pictures of the GT-1B aren't tantalizing. Regardless of whether it has good sound I have the impression that it's a nightmare to deal with during an actual gig. B3n advantages in this area seem to be more foot pedals and more intuitive overall layout. Still my GAS has been flaring up so I'm quite interested in your actual hands-on impressions.

Well I use the GT-1 for guitar with a FS7 foot switch to add two extra buttons and with the assign functions (not present in Zoom products ) it is great in terms of what you can do with the seemingly limited controls, it has a lot of advantages and disadvantages vs the G5n, so I feel that the GT-1B+FS7 will be more or less the same vs the B3n with an added expression pedal, in that respect.
My concerns are regarding the med/high gain tones.

The gt are more "computerised" or automated in a sense, while the Zoom are more pedalboard-esque, but both IMO are totally usable live with the right preparation and foresight! Maybe not for everyone, it depends if you have any really complex patch/effect-change needs that one or the other can't supplement.

I haven't found foot switch placement a problem with either layout, but it's hard to engage the tuner or looper on the GT while standing.

 

[Jazz Ad]

No comparison, B3n is Infinitely better.

The real competition is B3n vs GT-1B but there isn't anyone on the Internet that u can find that acts as a comparison so when I get my GT-1B I will hopefully be able to make a decent comparison video.

I wouldn't draw such a drastic line. B3n models are indeed way better than the B3, the new overdrive models are great too. All the rest sounds and performs identically to me, except for the missing effects and functions in the B3n.
For somebody not interested into modelization, I'd recommend a used B3 rather than a B3n.

I don't know why the GT-1B is even discussed. It's a toy on all accounts compared to the Zooms, not worthy of attention from serious musicians.

 

[Jantelagen]

I don't know why the GT-1B is even discussed. It's a toy on all accounts compared to the Zooms, not worthy of attention from serious musicians.

Well, The Boss MS-3 has the same new improved modelling, more available processing power, and etc. as the new GT-1B and it is brilliant! I even based my MS-3 purchase from demoing the Gt-1B. The only real difference I've found was that the Boss sounds more organic and the Zoom has better functionality. Both are super cool, imo, and a good sign for bassists getting some attention in the modern multifx world. Which, is why the GT-1B would be discussed here

 

[ChubbyJerk]

Well, The Boss MS-3 has the same new improved modelling, more available processing power, and etc. as the new GT-1B and it is brilliant! I even based my MS-3 purchase from demoing the Gt-1B. The only real difference I've found was that the Boss sounds more organic and the Zoom has better functionality. Both are super cool, imo, and a good sign for bassists getting some attention in the modern multifx world. Which, is why the GT-1B would be discussed here

Yeah. GT-1b is solid.