New: Zoom B3n Multi-Effects

[smeet]

B3n is not an early digital multiFX gadget.

No. But it is a low-priced one. So my question is not about digital vs analog. It is about digital at this low price point, and this particular implementation. It's also about the feel for live playing, which can be quite different from the player's point of view (compared to what the audience hears).

 

[Jazz Ad]

If it helps, I sent back the BFR because I much prefered the sound and reliability of my B3 (not n). Both have pristine bypass, through different ways though : quality buffer for the BFR and excellent ADA conversion for the B3.

 

[smeet]

If it helps, I sent back the BFR because I much prefered the sound and reliability of my B3 (not n). Both have pristine bypass, through different ways though : quality buffer for the BFR and excellent ADA conversion for the B3.

Interesting. And is the sound of the B3n equivalent? Better? Just different?

The price seems almost too good to be true, and the convenience would be amazing. I might have to try one out...

I took a quick look at the specs and couldn't tell, is the whole signal (clean and processed) going through the ADA at all times, even when bypassed?

 

[Jazz Ad]

I haven't tried the B3n. From what we can tell it uses the same conversion as the B3.
The signal goes through conversion even in bypass mode, same as for all multis.

 

[FuzzFacetious]

Remember when CDs came out unleashing the concept of digital audio and a debate ensued about whether digital sound quality was indistinguishable from the best that records had to offer? Only the purists thought they could hear the difference, and only the purists cared. And they cared for reasons that seemed bigger than just sound quality; there was something heartfelt and perhaps slightly irrational behind it.

I think such is the current state of things in the DSP modeling vs. authentic "real" pedal discussion. I think the B3n's sound quality is good enough to satisfy all but the most ardent purists, who might not be able to prove they can actually hear a difference.

I'm glad that the Internet wasn't a thing then as it is now!

Then again, I can imagine downloading an mp3 file and saving it onto ten thousand punch-cards to listen to later. I'm sure we would love our all-valve, room-filling PCs.

 

[David Sutkin]

I record quite a bit and and have headphones on for the majority of each recording allowing a for a better opportunity to hear wether the bypass tone is colored or not with the B3n in the chain .... I can't hear any discoloration in sound when when I run a B3N (bypassed) between the two.

Hope that helps bro.

 

[jimfist]

Finally used the B3n on the gig last night. Sounded great. I used a couple of different core patches:

- SansAmp BDDI model into the 8x10 SVT cab sim, with the 1176 limiter model at the back end.
- SVT amp/Cab models with the 1176

The music format didn't really call for any distorted or heavily effected sounds, but I did use the Bass Auto Wah effect for a tune and it added some interesting character and bite to the tone, which is exactly what I wanted.

All-in-all, the B3n passed with flying colors going through my full range pair of stage cabinets (Atomic CLR passives). Looking forward to giving the pedal a more thorough workout in the weeks ahead.

=)

 

[-Asdfgh-]

No. But it is a low-priced one. So my question is not about digital vs analog. It is about digital at this low price point, and this particular implementation. It's also about the feel for live playing, which can be quite different from the player's point of view (compared to what the audience hears).

It's possible in theory to split a signal, send it straight to a DAW, and also through a B3n with a patch that does nothing, and then match the gain and subtract the signals. In practice matching things, including phase, would be tricky, but for a given static superposition of sinusoids you could use a Fourier transform and ignore phase. It would certainly give you and idea of whether the B3n was significantly degrading anything.

If I get sufficiently bored after mowing the lawn, or as a way to avoid it, I'll maybe try it with my B1on, assuming I can find a suitable signal generator. However I might get sucked into creating room EQ correction filters again...

 

[smeet]

I record quite a bit and and have headphones on for the majority of each recording allowing a for a better opportunity to hear wether the bypass tone is colored or not with the B3n in the chain .... I can't hear any discoloration in sound when when I run a B3N (bypassed) between the two.

Hope that helps bro.

It does, thanks.

It's possible in theory to split a signal, send it straight to a DAW, and also through a B3n with a patch that does nothing, and then match the gain and subtract the signals. In practice matching things, including phase, would be tricky, but for a given static superposition of sinusoids you could use a Fourier transform and ignore phase. It would certainly give you and idea of whether the B3n was significantly degrading anything.

If I get sufficiently bored after mowing the lawn, or as a way to avoid it, I'll maybe try it with my B1on, assuming I can find a suitable signal generator. However I might get sucked into creating room EQ correction filters again...

That would be a really interesting test. it would also show exactly how much processing lag it introduces.

The reason I'm obsessing about this, is that I probably be running without effects for most of the show, and kick them on as needed. So since I would be running on bypass most of the time, I want to make sure that it isn't weakening the tone or feel in some way.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

It does, thanks.


That would be a really interesting test. it would also show exactly how much processing lag it introduces.

The reason I'm obsessing about this, is that I probably be running without effects for most of the show, and kick them on as needed. So since I would be running on bypass most of the time, I want to make sure that it isn't weakening the tone or feel in some way.

For lag I'd need to determine the actual latency (not what the DAW quotes) of out and in to the DAW first (via an impulse) then measure with a unit in. To measure for sound quality by using a Fourier transform on a static signal I wouldn't need to worry about lag (phase) and can normalise gain relative to one frequency (e.g. 1kHz), so it simplifies that too.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

It does, thanks.


That would be a really interesting test. it would also show exactly how much processing lag it introduces.

The reason I'm obsessing about this, is that I probably be running without effects for most of the show, and kick them on as needed. So since I would be running on bypass most of the time, I want to make sure that it isn't weakening the tone or feel in some way.

If you're worried about the no effects tone and rarely use effects then maybe use a Boss LS2, and just select the B3n as required?

 

[andreas_flf]

Not sure if mine is the one you meant but it's described in detail in my signature.

Thanks Spblat, indeed I meant you. This link has answered all my questions.

 

[Spblat]

No. But it is a low-priced one. So my question is not about digital vs analog. It is about digital at this low price point, and this particular implementation. It's also about the feel for live playing, which can be quite different from the player's point of view (compared to what the audience hears).

Yeah. Apologies for my combativeness. Just stating the obvious I guess, which is that you'll find folks who believe that aside from its versatility it delivers a perfectly clean signal and has effects that will put your high end pedals to shame...and the only way to confirm or refute that claim will be to hear it for yourself. Do let us know what you think once you've tried it out.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Before long it will be possible (maybe it is already, I'm not really up to date with what the processing power of the DSP in the Zoom is) to model a boutique pedal in the digital domain by modelling the circuit directly.

 

[BassikLee]

Call me a simpleton, but I never got the folks who are concerned if things like this change the tone when bypassed. In my brain, assuming you're planning on using this as the heart of your rig, make its bypassed tone your new starting point. Even if it is different from your tone today, as long as it works. Dunno

 

[smeet]

Call me a simpleton, but I never got the folks who are concerned if things like this change the tone when bypassed. In my brain, assuming you're planning on using this as the heart of your rig, make its bypassed tone your new starting point. Even if it is different from your tone today, as long as it works. Dunno

I won't call you a simpleton. But in MY brain, I don't see the sense in spending money to make my basic sound worse.

I don't plan on making the B3n the heart of my rig. I just want a simple and inexpensive substitute for my somewhat large and expensive pedalboard. I have an excellent rig that I spent a lot of time, effort, and money to put together. I won't accept a degraded version of that just so that I can use this (or any) pedal.

 

[BassikLee]

Who said worse? It might be different, yes. Worse? You won't know until you try. I'm thinking if it will do most of what you need, and do it well, AND you can get a sound that works for you for the "just grab the smaller board" gigs, win/win.

 

[kasbrey]

I won't call you a simpleton. But in MY brain, I don't see the sense in spending money to make my basic sound worse.

I don't plan on making the B3n the heart of my rig. I just want a simple and inexpensive substitute for my somewhat large and expensive pedalboard. I have an excellent rig that I spent a lot of time, effort, and money to put together. I won't accept a degraded version of that just so that I can use this (or any) pedal.

I think the difference between this and the old B3 is that it's easily possible to get a "basic" sound on the B3n that's an improvement on bypassed tone. There's a depth and resolution that isn't quite there on the B3.

 

[Jantelagen]

I won't call you a simpleton. But in MY brain, I don't see the sense in spending money to make my basic sound worse.

I don't plan on making the B3n the heart of my rig. I just want a simple and inexpensive substitute for my somewhat large and expensive pedalboard. I have an excellent rig that I spent a lot of time, effort, and money to put together. I won't accept a degraded version of that just so that I can use this (or any) pedal.

The pros are obviously easy to find but one of the cons, for me, is that If you're using pedals like Tech 21, Darkglass etc you will hear the difference! The b3n will make your bass and rig sound like Zoom no matter what. The bypassed signal is degraded. The tone suck made it useless for me as a substitute for my pedalboard. But, many other users find it works great for their purposes or like the idea of having so much on tap that it is a fair compromise in sound. If it works for you then it'll be a good purchase for the price

 

[Jazz Ad]

If you're worried about the no effects tone and rarely use effects then maybe use a Boss LS2, and just select the B3n as required?

For the record, the buffers on the LS-2 are way less transparent than the bypass of the B3.