New: Zoom B3n Multi-Effects

[ChubbyJerk]

I'm not saying you can't get a good sound with modelling and I'm not saying it shouldn't replace your SVT as long as you're happy with it. I also use MultiFX through a power amp so I'm certainly a proponent of what ZOOM and Line 6 is doing.

I'm saying that modelling is falsely represented and that you could get the exact same sound using EQ and compression in the MF unit. The modelling essentially acts as a preset, but often lacks the fine tuning you can then do with your own EQ/comp settings. It fools the consumer by offering a false representation of what it's doing.

Case in point, modelling a SVT amp/cab through one class D and speaker is going to sound different from another set of class D and speaker. More than likely their modelling was designed and tested on studio monitors, so what the end user is getting running a sim through any given combination of real amp/cabs is a crap shoot.

So for example, using a modelled SVT amp/cab, through an ART preamp, through a Mesa class D, into a Ampeg 410 is going to sound completely different than using that same modelled SVT amp/cab through an Aguilar tone hammer into a Hartke 410. So yes, it is smoke and mirrors because what does the modelled SVT really "sound" like?

It's a gimmick. Personally I don't care if a comp is called "Ross" or "Grey" or "ZOOM comp #2" as long as it sounds good but expecting the same results as a real Ross is a gimmick.

I've never seen amp/cab modelling falsely represented by anybody. Of course it's largely done through things like EQ and compression. It's all about how they handle certain frequencies.

I'm not sure why you're including amp sims in this though. Your rant doesn't apply at all to any amp sim I've used. It's far more than just EQ and compression, and there's plenty of knob tweaking and fine tuning to do. Cab sims tend to be more "pick one and that's it" with no tweaking.

As for your examples, yes, of course they use studio monitors...something FRFR, to avoid coloring the sound. And they heavily recommend that you use FRFR speakers. Otherwise, you're essentially nullifying (or at least modifying) the cab modeling. That's rather obvious, isn't it? "Uh, yeah, Line 6, I've got a complaint...when I play your Hiwatt model through my Fender amp, it doesn't sound like a Hiwatt any more." It's basically like complaining that stacking a Muff after a Darkglass pedal changed your tone.

You get a different sound from headphones than you get from studio monitors than you get from a guitar amp than you get from a bass amp than you get from a PA than you get from going direct to FOH. This is not a secret, and it's not unique to modeling.

If you're really going to be consistent, you have to say nothing really has a sound. How can we say what a Muff really sounds like? It's very dependent on what bass you use, how you set the bass's tone or EQ, what amp you're running it through and how you tweak that EQ, and all sorts of other things including playing style and the rest of the signal chain. So it must be "smoke and mirrors because what does the Muff really sound like?!?!" Hell, what does a P-Bass sound like? The sound changes drastically depending on what amp you use and how you tweak the knobs etc and so on. That's an inane line of reasoning.

 

[ga_edwards]

To help clarify, the B3n supports up to 7 effects per patch arranged in any order within a chain. One may switch any effect On/Off in real-time, but know that only 3 effects are visible to do so at any one time. Real-time scrolling allows one to overcome this physical limitation. To help minimize scrolling, the hardware also stores one's optimum scroll position along with the saved patch.

Here is this depicted on a Zoom G5n, but on a larger scale (notice the top display vs. below displays)

I understand, but it's not useful if say in the above example, you wanted live switching control over compression, tremvibe, chorus and delay. You would have to alter the effect order to allow this.

Thinking about the order I like to run my effects, I don't think this unit will work in my favour.

 

[CharlieC]

I understand, but it's not useful if say in the above example, you wanted live switching control over compression, tremvibe, chorus and delay. You would have to alter the effect order to allow this.

Thinking about the order I like to run my effects, I don't think this unit will work in my favour.

In that case I would prepare specific patches for these maneuvers and simply change patches during performance. In this way I need only change patches, with ordering and switching controlled via patch selection.

Cheers!

 

[jimfist]

I'm not saying you can't get a good sound with modelling and I'm not saying it shouldn't replace your SVT as long as you're happy with it. I also use MultiFX through a power amp so I'm certainly a proponent of what ZOOM and Line 6 is doing.

Good. =)

I'm saying that modelling is falsely represented and that you could get the exact same sound using EQ and compression in the MF unit. The modelling essentially acts as a preset, but often lacks the fine tuning you can then do with your own EQ/comp settings. It fools the consumer by offering a false representation of what it's doing.

I'm not following your explanation of how "modelling is falsely represented". Unless you know the root level programming of the amp and cab simulations, you really don't know what is going on under the hood. I'll go out on a limb and say that the Amp Block in the Fractal AxeFXII or AX8 is more than just some fancy footwork EQ and compression. I hope this isn't going to become a debate on the veracity or usefulness of multi-fx with amp modeling and cab sims. That train left town ages ago.

Case in point, modelling a SVT amp/cab through one class D and speaker is going to sound different from another set of class D and speaker. More than likely their modelling was designed and tested on studio monitors, so what the end user is getting running a sim through any given combination of real amp/cabs is a crap shoot.

True, which is why it is in the best interest of anyone creating modeled tones (to be used in a D.I. format) to be very careful about the speaker system used in crafting those tones. This is the crux of the entire exercise of modeled amps and cabinet simulations. Really, digital modeling/cab simulation is the virtual equivalent of mic'ing an amp in isolation in a recording studio with excellent reference monitors. Personally, I use the Atomic CLR as my reference. Excellent full range, flat response cabinet down to 80Hz.

So for example, using a modelled SVT amp/cab, through an ART preamp, through a Mesa class D, into a Ampeg 410 is going to sound completely different than using that same modelled SVT amp/cab through an Aguilar tone hammer into a Hartke 410. So yes, it is smoke and mirrors because what does the modelled SVT really "sound" like?

See my previous response. Digital simulations assume that ideal results are achieved when using speaker systems that are designed to produce accurate results. If you use a delivery system that is inherently going to color the simulations, you're already in for an uphill climb, and likely an unrewarding one. Another approach: I've used amp simulation (SVT) with a Crown XTi 4002 (bridge mono) powering my SVT 8x10. The witnesses in the room were not questioning whether my rig sounded like a "real" SVT amp rig....because it did...and does. MOdeling via traditional speaker is one thing. Modeling + Cab Sim into a full range system (DI) is something else.

It's a gimmick. Personally I don't care if a comp is called "Ross" or "Grey" or "ZOOM comp #2" as long as it sounds good but expecting the same results as a real Ross is a gimmick.

Ok, so it's a gimmick. Call it what you will. These are just digital tools, no more or less valid than transistors and tubes IMHO. You are 100% correct that your ears should ultimately be your guide.

 

[CharlieC]

...Hell, what does a P-Bass sound like?...

It sounds like the voice of God!

 

[ShadowImage]

I've never seen amp/cab modelling falsely represented by anybody. Of course it's largely done through things like EQ and compression. It's all about how they handle certain frequencies.

I'm not sure why you're including amp sims in this though. Your rant doesn't apply at all to any amp sim I've used. It's far more than just EQ and compression, and there's plenty of knob tweaking and fine tuning to do. Cab sims tend to be more "pick one and that's it" with no tweaking.

As for your examples, yes, of course they use studio monitors...something FRFR, to avoid coloring the sound. And they heavily recommend that you use FRFR speakers. Otherwise, you're essentially nullifying (or at least modifying) the cab modeling. That's rather obvious, isn't it? "Uh, yeah, Line 6, I've got a complaint...when I play your Hiwatt model through my Fender amp, it doesn't sound like a Hiwatt any more." It's basically like complaining that stacking a Muff after a Darkglass pedal changed your tone.

You get a different sound from headphones than you get from studio monitors than you get from a guitar amp than you get from a bass amp than you get from a PA than you get from going direct to FOH. This is not a secret, and it's not unique to modeling.

If you're really going to be consistent, you have to say nothing really has a sound. How can we say what a Muff really sounds like? It's very dependent on what bass you use, how you set the bass's tone or EQ, what amp you're running it through and how you tweak that EQ, and all sorts of other things including playing style and the rest of the signal chain. So it must be "smoke and mirrors because what does the Muff really sound like?!?!" Hell, what does a P-Bass sound like? The sound changes drastically depending on what amp you use and how you tweak the knobs etc and so on. That's an inane line of reasoning.

The difference is that a Muff isn't claiming to be anything other than a Muff. It does what it says it does. A modelling amp claims to model another piece of gear but as you admit, it is completely dependant on what you run it through. Including amp and cab modelling is important here because a specific Marshall head through a specific Marshall amp is always going to sound generally the same, but that scenario is impossible with an amp/cab sim.

Mods are another animal and at least with digital mods I'm sure they can get damn close to the real deal. The amp/cab Sims are a gimmick though and are why no one takes Line 6 seriously outside of modulation.

Your example with the studio monitors illustrates the problem. They model in a setting which the end user will never duplicate. That is the smoke and mirrors. ZOOM and Line 6 should drop the modelling malarkey and focus on marketing quality priopiatary amp, dynamic, and mod processing. The smoke and mirrors is calling an eq/comp set up an "SVT" model instead of "ZOOM amp 28" etc.

 

[jimfist]

I understand, but it's not useful if say in the above example, you wanted live switching control over compression, tremvibe, chorus and delay. You would have to alter the effect order to allow this.

Thinking about the order I like to run my effects, I don't think this unit will work in my favour.

You would just scroll left or right so that the effect you want is highlighted within the 4 slot "window". The "window" isn't locked in a static state. Granted, the example you cite REQUIRES scrolling, but that is not to say you have no reasonable access to the front end comp. You just may not also be able to access the other FX readily, and scrolling is required.

 

[jimfist]

The difference is that a Muff isn't claiming to be anything other than a Muff. It does what it says it does. A modelling amp claims to model another piece of gear but as you admit, it is completely dependant on what you run it through. Including amp and cab modelling is important here because a specific Marshall head through a specific Marshall amp is always going to sound generally the same, but that scenario is impossible with an amp/cab sim.

Tube amp aficionados over at the Fractal and Kemper forums are always finding how a modeled amp varies from the same amp they own, while others claim it to be a dead accurate representation. I know what you mean, but it isn't always the case. I can vouch for this with respect to SVT Classic rigs I've played. Some have incredible mojo, while others...meh. Digital models are based on real world amps, and thus are subject to the tonal variables inherent to just about any series of amp model...wear and tear on components and speakers, variables within the tolerance of electronic components, etc.

Mods are another animal and at least with digital mods I'm sure they can get damn close to the real deal. The amp/cab Sims are a gimmick though and are why no one takes Line 6 seriously outside of modulation.

If you stopped at the PodXT or the HD500, then maybe you're right. There's this Line6 Helix thing out there, though, and it's another level of good.

Your example with the studio monitors illustrates the problem. They model in a setting which the end user will never duplicate. That is the smoke and mirrors. ZOOM and Line 6 should drop the modelling malarkey and focus on marketing quality priopiatary amp, dynamic, and mod processing. The smoke and mirrors is calling an eq/comp set up an "SVT" model instead of "ZOOM amp 28" etc.

It doesn't matter that this may not be duplicated in a live gig situation, but that the tones were conceived on a relatively flat response system, hopefully within the context of other instruments. Bedroom volume tone tweaking is a recipe for disaster.

The sonic limitation is starting to be within the grasp of a lot of players now. I cited the Atomic CLR, and there are also excellent full range cabinets from Turbosound and others, priced from $700 up to around $1500. Weekend warriors may not outlay for a pro quality FR speaker system, but I have, and a lot of other players have (mostly guitarists). FWIW, I've always been pretty happy with my SVT settings on my B3 capturing the essence of what my real SVT sounded like. JMHO. YMMV.

 

[ticol07]

I'm really curious to hear how this b3n will sound compared to the b3. More subtle sounding overdrives would be great.

However having 7 effects in the same patch is a hudge step !

 

[Big Hoss]

I honestly thing the B3 can be improved, but the direction I saw there, not a fan...

I'd love to see...

#1. More / longer looping / loops.
#2. Built in expression pedal.
#3. Keep the interface they have. It works really well, even without my glasses...
#4. More / more adjustable built in drum loops...

 

[CharlieC]

If I had to guess, I believe the number one user-requested improvement to the B3, by a significant margin, would be the ability to use more than 3 effects at one time.

If asked what feature would next become extinct, never would I ever have suspected it to be the balanced XLR output.

I have absolutely no doubt that Zoom will forever preserve their "Bomber" effect model for generations to come.

With Zoom's next bass product likely another 5-years away, I am left with only one thing to say...

 

[AndreasR]

I honestly thing the B3 can be improved, but the direction I saw there, not a fan...

I'd love to see...

#1. More / longer looping / loops.
#2. Built in expression pedal.
#3. Keep the interface they have. It works really well, even without my glasses...
#4. More / more adjustable built in drum loops...

It has more beats and longer looping at least.

 

[Big Hoss]

It has more beats and longer looping at least.

Those are plusses for sure, but at least for me, like I mentioned before, the tiny display is a deal breaker. I need to be able to read the thing on stage without my glasses...

 

[AndreasR]

Those are plusses for sure, but at least for me, like I mentioned before, the tiny display is a deal breaker. I need to be able to read the thing on stage without my glasses...

Why don't you wear glasses on stage. Also, why do you need to read the screen?

 

[CharlieC]

Those are plusses for sure, but at least for me, like I mentioned before, the tiny display is a deal breaker. I need to be able to read the thing on stage without my glasses...

In "Performance" mode, referred to as "Memory" mode in the G3n manual, the hardware uses the full height of the display screens to label the slots.

I know this will help me greatly, as I am approaching a similar challenged eyesight situation.

My hope is that Zoom will eventually come out with a B3-J "Jitterbug" edition next time when I really will require it

 

[ShadowImage]

Tube amp aficionados over at the Fractal and Kemper forums are always finding how a modeled amp varies from the same amp they own, while others claim it to be a dead accurate representation. I know what you mean, but it isn't always the case. I can vouch for this with respect to SVT Classic rigs I've played. Some have incredible mojo, while others...meh. Digital models are based on real world amps, and thus are subject to the tonal variables inherent to just about any series of amp model...wear and tear on components and speakers, variables within the tolerance of electronic components, etc.



If you stopped at the PodXT or the HD500, then maybe you're right. There's this Line6 Helix thing out there, though, and it's another level of good.



It doesn't matter that this may not be duplicated in a live gig situation, but that the tones were conceived on a relatively flat response system, hopefully within the context of other instruments. Bedroom volume tone tweaking is a recipe for disaster.

The sonic limitation is starting to be within the grasp of a lot of players now. I cited the Atomic CLR, and there are also excellent full range cabinets from Turbosound and others, priced from $700 up to around $1500. Weekend warriors may not outlay for a pro quality FR speaker system, but I have, and a lot of other players have (mostly guitarists). FWIW, I've always been pretty happy with my SVT settings on my B3 capturing the essence of what my real SVT sounded like. JMHO. YMMV.

I think that's the problem, "digital models are based on real world amps" when they shouldn't be. As I've said, how often are you going to be duplicating the scenario which these models were tested? The portability of these multi-effects seem evident that their prime intended use are gig situations, precisely where they are least likely to achieve the intended sound. That isn't to say they won't sound good, but that they won't sound "as advertised", hence my statement about false advertisement.

So, my whole point is that by focusing on modeling, Line 6 and ZOOM will always be riding the coattails of other manufacturers, always trying to be "as good as" rather than better. The unintended consequence is that they are often not taken seriously and get scoffed at by tone snobs (I'm not one of them). Many people view them as fakes or digital wannabes, as "not real". Line 6 particularly would be better served promoting their own unique processing, similar to but equal (or better) than the classics. Instead of a modelling an SVT, call it "Line 6 Super Valve" and drop the little brother connotations.

A good example is BOSS who are generally taken more seriously and better branded. While their effects have similarities to other companies, they are known for their original processing. People buy BOSS to get BOSS sounds. People buy Line 6 to get other company's sounds.

 

[jimfist]

I think that's the problem, "digital models are based on real world amps" when they shouldn't be. As I've said, how often are you going to be duplicating the scenario which these models were tested? The portability of these multi-effects seem evident that their prime intended use are gig situations, precisely where they are least likely to achieve the intended sound. That isn't to say they won't sound good, but that they won't sound "as advertised", hence my statement about false advertisement.

So, my whole point is that by focusing on modeling, Line 6 and ZOOM will always be riding the coattails of other manufacturers, always trying to be "as good as" rather than better. The unintended consequence is that they are often not taken seriously and get scoffed at by tone snobs (I'm not one of them). Many people view them as fakes or digital wannabes, as "not real". Line 6 particularly would be better served promoting their own unique processing, similar to but equal (or better) than the classics. Instead of a modelling an SVT, call it "Line 6 Super Valve" and drop the little brother connotations.

A good example is BOSS who are generally taken more seriously and better branded. While their effects have similarities to other companies, they are known for their original processing. People buy BOSS to get BOSS sounds. People buy Line 6 to get other company's sounds.

Couldn't disagree more on almost all points. My impressions and experiences with modelers and cabinet simulators must be totally contrary to yours. I don't consider myself a very easy person to please, but maybe I am. Oh well. These types of posts and sentiments are pretty common, on TB Live Sound and Amps & Cabs forums, and a lot of other forums. Not sure it needs to be further litigated on an Effect thread.

 

[FuzzFacetious]

If I had to guess, I believe the number one user-requested improvement to the B3, by a significant margin, would be the ability to use more than 3 effects at one time.

If asked what feature would next become extinct, never would I ever have suspected it to be the balanced XLR output.

I have absolutely no doubt that Zoom will forever preserve their "Bomber" effect model for generations to come.

With Zoom's next bass product likely another 5-years away, I am left with only one thing to say...

I have found that if you turn the bomb noise volume right down it actually adds a cool sound behind the playing But as is, when you engage the effect with default settings, it's naaaasty

 

[ShadowImage]

Couldn't disagree more on almost all points. My impressions and experiences with modelers and cabinet simulators must be totally contrary to yours. I don't consider myself a very easy person to please, but maybe I am. Oh well. These types of posts and sentiments are pretty common, on TB Live Sound and Amps & Cabs forums, and a lot of other forums. Not sure it needs to be further litigated on an Effect thread.

Good point. Perhaps this wasn't the best place for such a rant. For what it's worth, I'm a fan of ZOOM and LINE 6. I use their gear and my post wasn't an attempt to bash them or modelling in general, as it seems it was received.

 

[CharlieC]

I was hesitant to post this, but if you are curious about the hardware UI in-action and other usage elements, this G3n video should help satisfy that.

You may want to skip around the video as I did, as ear-fatigue kicks-in quickly being that it is a guitar demo!