New: Zoom B3n Multi-Effects

[andreas_flf]

Looks like one big difference is adding switches to scroll up and down each bank. There's a very cool thread on here somewhere showing how to mod the B3 to have this feature. I think there's also a mod in the same thread to add a tap tempo switch. Great useful and easy mods, I did the bank up and down mod for about $15 and about 20 minutes of my time.View media item 1340View media item 1339

I have done such mods on my two B3's. I would not want to miss them and they have never failed me once. To gig I can disable the rhythm machine button to not accidentally turn it on during performing. Here the link to the details: Invalid Link Removed

Here details on my stage gear, i.e. how I use the B3: Invalid Link Removed

Cheers, Andreas_flf

 

[andreas_flf]

Where did you hear the samples?

I have absolutely no idea how DSP, sample rate, etc. work in relation to each other, but I thought DSP is the algorithm that is responsible for how an effect or model responds/feels. If that's the case I'm a little disappointed that the number of effects have gone up while keeping the sample rate the same - I hear what I think are digital artifacts more often than I wish for more effects.

The DSP is the Digital Signal Processor. This is dedicated hardware component, a CPU like chip that is specialized for processing signals such as sound in contrast to any other general computing CPU. An algorithm is a software component and describes a particular approach to compute something. Any sound effect uses at least one algorithm. The firmware of a unit such as the B3 or B3n contains almost all algorithms that are used for processing sounds, except for a few hardwired into some chips.

If a latest generation DSP is used, progress is possible in terms of quality of sound processing, e.g. higher sampling rates (e.g. 44.1 (CD) vs. 48 vs. 96 kHz) or higher resolution of the sound range (16 (CD) vs. 32 vs. 64 bits) become possible and/or algorithms can be made more sophisticated to simulate an amp or a cabinet or an effect etc. Thus digital sound processing becomes so sophisticated that it becomes almost indistinguishable from analog originals, e.g. in case of effects that have an analog, legendary original from the 60s or other epochs.

 

[Rafbass77]

The quality of the b3n bypass is better than b3 ms60b b1on?
This is the only reason that makes me doubt the purchase. It is very important for me to have even the pure sound of my instrument and my amp, without digital artifacts.

 

[Ricky Caboverde]

The quality of the b3n bypass is better than b3 ms60b b1on?
This is the only reason that makes me doubt the purchase. It is very important for me to have even the pure sound of my instrument and my amp, without digital artifacts.

I never knew there to be an issue with the bypassed tone of the 60b...? At least, I've never noticed an issue having owned one (and currently use a 70CDR). I'm pretty sure the B3n has a great bypassed sound.

 

[khutch]

To expand a little on what Andreas said a DSP is a computer that has been optimized to do the math commonly used to process "signals". Signals can be any time varying information and DSPs have a wide variety of applications but here on TB and in this thread we are mostly concerned with audio signals. DSP's operate on time sampled signals and in many applications the amount of time they take to process information is not critical as long as the human being in charge does not get bored while waiting for the result. Post-processed audio like preparing recordings for release to the public is not time critical. It's fine if it takes an hour or two to process each 5 minute song in your band's new release. But of course your multifunction pedals have to process audio in real time. There can't be a terribly large delay (ie, latency) between when the first sample comes into the unit and when the first processed sample goes out to the next stage in the chain. And the samples have to come out of the unit at the same rate they go in. So speed is at a premium in real time signal processing like live audio.

As a result in addition to the things that Andreas mentioned one big factor in determining the quality of DSP audio functions is how many mathematical operations the DSP can complete in the time between when one sample comes in and the next one arrives. Because that is all the time you have to do whatever audio magic you hope to do. A DSP chip that can do 100 math operations between samples will generate higher quality effects and will be able to do more effects at the same time than one that can only do 10 math operations between samples. Therefore as you move from one DSP chip to another that can do more math between samples the quality of your effects will increase and/or the number of effects you can process at one time will increase. If the sound quality of the B3n is an improvement over that of the B3 and the others of that Zoom generation then it is likely that the speed of the B3n DSP chip is higher than those used in earlier generations.

The speed of your DSP chip is a bit like the pixel count of your digital camera. Faster DSPs produce clearer, more life-like, audio "images". As Andreas said they sound more like analog effects.

 

[andreas_flf]

Excellent post, @jimfist !

I am in agreement that even more excellent would have been the ability to cross platform.

Who knows? Perhaps someone is up to cracking this software-imposed limitation in the future... Hmmmm...

Cross platform may not be possible for all effects, amp, cab sims, since there may indeed be differences in the algorithms, such as parameters set to the particular pitch/frequency range of the guitar vs. the bass. For some effects, this may not matter, for some it may. Thus it may well be there are not just marketing reasons behind this limitation.

 

[Jazz Ad]

I have thought for a long time that a standard interface is needed for digital effects, which would avoid multiple ADA conversion and allow cross platforming.

 

[andreas_flf]

Well, well, well, spend a couple of months not checking the Zoom site and THIS happens! Looks promising for my purposes even if the firmware load right out of the box is a little on the spare side. IF Zoom would actually address that over time with downloadable firmware updates as they do on their guitar pedals that complaint will evaporate in the months ahead. Everything else looks and more importantly, sounds, great!

I really do not understand why Zoom has guitar and bass specific multi-effect pedals in the first place. It costs a ton of money to have two product lines simply from things like marketing and maintaining multiple part numbers in their production and distribution system. They even have to have two colors of paint! It would make more sense economically to just make a single pedal platform common to the two worlds and let users download the effects modules they need to make their personal hardware as bass or guitar specific as they need. As far as I can tell this would add nothing to the hardware cost or the firmware cost or the cost of production, it would only save them money on all the hidden costs that multiple product lines incur. "Cross pollination" is not an evil to be suppressed, it is the most efficient way to deliver these units to the market and it should be embraced with vigor!

I am owner of two Line6 POD X3's. This device was made and marketed for both guitarists and bassists. While I fully agree with you that it would be technically possible that one could run on the same hardware (given it is powerful enough) even exclsusively as a guitarist guitar only or as a bassist bass only effects as one wishes, I never felt very much at home as a bassist on the POD X3. One stumbles all the time about designs and arguments having most of all a guitarist in mind. Bassists are then treated like "oh yes, and as I have forgotten to mention, this also works for bass simiarly. The same way really? I think so, but perhaps no..." etc. Of course, in an ideal world where no such partiality would exist, yes, all would be fine. But in the real world, where guitarists dominate everything in terms of being thought of always first, I prefer the Zoom approach for making guitarist vs. bass specific devices.

 

[Pietro Stimoli]

To expand a little on what Andreas said a DSP is a computer that has been optimized to do the math commonly used to process "signals". Signals can be any time varying information and DSPs have a wide variety of applications but here on TB and in this thread we are mostly concerned with audio signals. DSP's operate on time sampled signals and in many applications the amount of time they take to process information is not critical as long as the human being in charge does not get bored while waiting for the result. Post-processed audio like preparing recordings for release to the public is not time critical. It's fine if it takes an hour or two to process each 5 minute song in your band's new release. But of course your multifunction pedals have to process audio in real time. There can't be a terribly large delay (ie, latency) between when the first sample comes into the unit and when the first processed sample goes out to the next stage in the chain. And the samples have to come out of the unit at the same rate they go in. So speed is at a premium in real time signal processing like live audio.

As a result in addition to the things that Andreas mentioned one big factor in determining the quality of DSP audio functions is how many mathematical operations the DSP can complete in the time between when one sample comes in and the next one arrives. Because that is all the time you have to do whatever audio magic you hope to do. A DSP chip that can do 100 math operations between samples will generate higher quality effects and will be able to do more effects at the same time than one that can only do 10 math operations between samples. Therefore as you move from one DSP chip to another that can do more math between samples the quality of your effects will increase and/or the number of effects you can process at one time will increase. If the sound quality of the B3n is an improvement over that of the B3 and the others of that Zoom generation then it is likely that the speed of the B3n DSP chip is higher than those used in earlier generations.

The speed of your DSP chip is a bit like the pixel count of your digital camera. Faster DSPs produce clearer, more life-like, audio "images". As Andreas said they sound more like analog effects.

I Think that the dsp of the zoom b3n are the same of the zoom b1xon.

 

[CharlieC]

I Think that the dsp of the zoom b3n are the same of the zoom b1xon.

Not so. The B3n is all new DSP, built from the ground up.

 

[Pietro Stimoli]

Not so. The B3n is all new DSP, built from the ground up.

Go to zoom and see the specifications.

 

[CharlieC]

Go to zoom and see the specifications.

Although technical specs may appear the same, Zoom themselves have stated that the DSP for the new "n" series is completely new and greatly improved.

 

[andreas_flf]

So my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that in patch (memory) mode, I have access to three different, patches I can switch between at any given time. Then by switching to stomp mode, whatever patch is active comes up with three effects slots that I can then switch on/off using the foot switches. If this is correct, then this thing will be gold to me. I'll find out Thursday!
Johno!

Yes this seems to be correct and is indeed very useful life, I believe.

 

[Spblat]

So my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that in patch (memory) mode, I have access to three different, patches I can switch between at any given time. Then by switching to stomp mode, whatever patch is active comes up with three effects slots that I can then switch on/off using the foot switches. If this is correct, then this thing will be gold to me. I'll find out Thursday!
Johno!

Yes. But I would add this:

• Patch mode: three stompable patches are visible to choose from. The scroll switches flip through patches three at a time. There's room for 150 patches.
• Memory/stomp mode: there are up to seven effects in your patch. You see three at any given moment and can stomp them on and off. The scroll switches let you scan across the "portal" through which you view your 7-effect patch.

I try to design my patches so that the effects I might need to adjust during a performance are all visible at once. Example:

• Compressor (always active, not visible, off to the left)
• Drive/dirt (visible, stompable)
• Flange (visible, stompable)
• Chorus (visible, stompable)
• Pedal volume (invisible on the right, always active, lets external pedal manage volume)

I'm not yet committed to cab/amp modeling so once that bug bites me I'll need to figure out how to integrate them into this strategy too.

 

[Stu_Bass]

So i'm thinking..
Two B3n + two expression pedals + tuner
Hmmmmmm.....

 

[khutch]

Go to zoom and see the specifications.

I don't see any specs on the Zoom site that I would associate with the actual DSP chip. They are all input/output specs that characterize the ADC and DAC components. They do say that the processing is 32 bit but a 16 bit processor could do 32 bits very inefficiently and a 64 bit processor can also do 32 bits so that by itself does not tell us much.

I somewhat doubt that a company the size of Zoom is designing their own DSP chip. More likely they are buying a commercial DSP and designing their system around it. When they say they have "built" a new DSP they more likely mean they have designed a new circuit board around a new DSP chip from another vendor. UNLESS they are actually using an FPGA device to build a DSP or to do DSP-like signal processing. That is an intriguing possibility, you'd have to tear your new B3n apart and an older Zoom model to compare the markings on the chips to try to sort that out. Assuming Zoom has not obscured them, which some companies in competitive industries routinely do.

In any event one component of "building" a new DSP could be refining your processing algorithms to work more efficiently. An FPGA is essentially a large array of logic components which FPGA engineers refer to as a "fabric" and which can be configured by the user to do almost anything a digital circuit can do. They literally could be building their own DSP in an FPGA. Effectively an FPGA is a hardware algorithm, by changing the configuration commands you send to it from a program running on a PC you could make it do something new. For example you could update your DSP-like configuration to be more efficient which would improve your effect quality. And if you build a new version of an old product line around a new FPGA with more "fabric" you can also improve the quality and quantity of the effects you can offer. FPGAs kinda blur the line between hardware and software/firmware....

Anyway, I cannot tell you what Zoom is doing, I'm not privy to their designs. If I were I would probably only know what I know because of a Non-Disclosure Agreement and I would not be able to tell you. If you want to know for sure you have to be willing to tear your new and old toys apart, sorry to say.

But its fun to speculate and collectively we are probably not too far off the mark.

 

[Rafbass77]

I never knew there to be an issue with the bypassed tone of the 60b...? At least, I've never noticed an issue having owned one (and currently use a 70CDR). I'm pretty sure the B3n has a great bypassed sound.

thanks for reply, I lost frequencies in b3 and ms60b bypassed or activated tuner, compared to the bass sound attached directly to the amplifier, the frequency loss is even more evident with the b1on.
This is the fault of the analog-digital converters zoom that are not of high quality.
Someone else has opinions about it?

 

[Johno Dunn]

I don't care how they are doing it, I'm just happy they are! I played with my Funk band last night, and have never sounded better. I love this thing.
J!

 

[BassikLee]

I find it interesting that lots of the models in the B3n take up more space than in the earlier pedals. Not complaining, just an observation. They sound better, too. I was digging into my ms60b last night, and even the AcBsPre that everyone seems to be waiting for in the N would take up two slots, and have to lose one parameter. It has three pages of three controls. That's nine. Two slots on the N is eight. Just thinking that something like the 60b, or especially the 100BT, with up to six effects(some of which would be three windows in the B3n, amp sim, spkr sim), those little MS pedals are nothing to sneeze at.

 

[andreas_flf]

I am sorry brother Johno, but I have positively tested the B3n and MS-60B to both whine when chained in this way.

I believe you are being spared from this due to the limited frequency response of 210AV cabs not reaching above 4.5 kHz where the whine exists and/or you have a ZNR in place in the chain masking the issue.

I would say, if you cannot hear it then you are a lucky man and I envy you

Cheers!

Dear CharlieC, BTW, I have also whine on my B3 when I plug in the USB chord. I have recently overhauled my Invalid Link Removed quite substantially and have now most of it digital (mixing etc. having parted from my beloved analog Mackie mixer). With this advent came whine when I leave the B3 connected to the computer system via a USB cable and USB hub (running on a different power supply as the Mac itself etc.). I doubt I might be able to do much about it, since all is quite complex with many USB cables running to and from many devices, where the B3 is only one device of many.

What I do is the following: I have the B3 normally disconnected and I connect the B3's USB port to the studio system only for patch saving/editing.