New: Zoom B3n Multi-Effects

[VonSledgehammer]

How and for what platform do you plan to do this. I would like to shortcut with you on this, being myself also a programmer. Ok?

I'm currently doing it for Windows only in C#. I'm ignoring Mac for now to try to get to a done state, but once I get it working I might be able to port it to .NET Core so it can run on Macs. Collaboration is possible, but I won't be open-sourcing the code in the near future. (This could change at some point.)

 

[smeet]

I'm currently doing it for Windows only in C#. I'm ignoring Mac for now to try to get to a done state, but once I get it working I might be able to port it to .NET Core so it can run on Macs. Collaboration is possible, but I won't be open-sourcing the code in the near future. (This could change at some point.)

Awesome that you are doing this work. I run on a mac at home, so I have a vested interest... As you go, if it's not too much work (and doesn't clash with your personal goals), if you could document the APIs (if any), data formats, and whatever else might help in implementing this for macs or other systems, that would be great. I wouldn't mind doing a mac (or universal) version in python at some point.

 

[Johno Dunn]

Will a Godlyke Ground Hog solve the whine problem?

 

[smeet]

I've noticed the SVT is pretty gainy as well - not being that familiar with the real thing, I figured that's what they sound like, and I'm currently digging a dirtier tone anyway, so I'm OK with it. If I really want clean (e.g., slapping), I just don't use that sim.

I have an SVT-II (no master volume), which really has a glorious tone, MUCH MUCH MUCH more versatile than most people give it credit for. The 100% clean tone is amazing, it has a sponginess and 3-D feel while still producing a wonderful attack, and contrary to what I've heard on many recordings and simulations, it can be extremely articulate.

Also, quick derail - thinking of getting a Barefaced BIG TWIN II to use with my B3n and Carvin HD3000 - does that power amp sound like a good match? (Using Fearless F112 at the moment, not loud enough for current gigs).

I have a Big Twin II, and it pretty much matches up well with anything. It works really nicely as a bass cabinet, but in many respects it's a very fullrange PA speaker with high power handling. So, its main drawback it also the main selling point - it doesn't have a built-in voice. So it can be a shock if you are coming from an Ampeg or similar. But if you are using cabinet modeling, it's kind of perfect, because it reproduces what you put into it. And it's LOOOUUUUUUD. And crazy light too. And talk about articulate. Just keep in mind it doesn't have the traditional low mid bump and high mid scoop, which can be tricky to eq in if you don't have good eq.

My Gain setting for the SVT was also at 30. Backed it down about 5 notches into the low/mid 20s and all was well.

@smeet, the amp model has a GAIN parameter, so this is where all of the overdrive lives. You lower the Gain and boost the VOL parameter to get things back up to level. As always, when creating patches, you should be going back and forth comparing your tone creations with BYPASS to make sure you're not too far over or under nominal un-effected level. I prefer to do this balancing on a slot-by-slot basis before resorting to the patch's overall volume parameter, but either way should work.

My guess is that the SVT model in the ZOOM is based on the old "Blueline" SVT from the early 1970s. I never owned one, but played on them a few times and they sounded great, really fat, due to the tube overdrive/saturation that was prevalent in the design. I owned an SVT Classic (purchased in 1997) and it seemed much cleaner at the front end by comparison, but could easily get into overdrive just by goosing the input gain and backing off the master volume.

I think I was missing something on the SVT model. I was just seeing 4 or 5 parameters, basically the eq and master volume. Was I looking at it wrong?

It's funny, a real SVT not purposefully pushed into overdrive has some saturation even at low or medium levels, but you don't really hear it as distortion, it just sounds clean but rich. Most simulations I hear make it sound kind of muddy and fuzzy.

 

[VonSledgehammer]

I think I was missing something on the SVT model. I was just seeing 4 or 5 parameters, basically the eq and master volume. Was I looking at it wrong?

The amp sims take up two slots, so make sure you are seeing both of them!

 

[jimfist]

I think I was missing something on the SVT model. I was just seeing 4 or 5 parameters, basically the eq and master volume. Was I looking at it wrong?

GAIN is on the second slot of the SVT amp model, first parameter.

 

[Johno Dunn]

Yes, 100 mA is not sufficient.

This was confirmed by Diago.

 

[SirMjac28]

Thanks for everyone posting some great information this is the reason I love TB. I love the B3n just playing around with some of the patches it is definitely more robust than the B3 I don't like the fact that you can't edit the patches with the Guitar lab software or am I missing something? I have to read the manual with this one because there seems to be more going on. The unit itself feels sturdier and the patch info looks easier to see.

 

[CharlieC]

Thanks for everyone posting some great information this is the reason I love TB. I love the B3n just playing around with some of the patches it is definitely more robust than the B3 I don't like the fact that you can't edit the patches with the Guitar lab software or am I missing something? I have to read the manual with this one because there seems to be more going on. The unit itself feels sturdier and the patch info looks easier to see.

Correct, Guitar Lab at this time is practically useless!

I have high hopes for future functionality though as this same software is also used by the Guitarists who usually get everything they want and in short order

Cheers!

 

[SirMjac28]

Correct, Guitar Lab at this time is practically useless!

I have high hopes for future functionality though as this same software is also used by the Guitarists who usually get everything they want and in short order

Cheers!

Correct, Guitar Lab at this time is practically useless!

I have high hopes for future functionality though as this same software is also used by the Guitarists who usually get everything they want and in short order

Cheers!

I don't understand why they changed that ?because with the B3 software you could do editing from the computer. I used to take pride with not having to read the manual but now l can't figure out this thing with the manual l can't figure out how to change the parameters on the amp models,?

 

[jimfist]

I don't understand why they changed that ?because with the B3 software you could do editing from the computer. I used to take pride with not having to read the manual but now l can't figure out this thing with the manual l can't figure out how to change the parameters on the amp models,?

If you've selected a patch in MEMORY mode, press the bottom right footswitch to enter STOMPBOX mode. To expose the parameters of the effect within the slots, press the rotary knob at the top of the unit. It is a dual function knob/switch. Once pressed, it will expose the parameters. If you no longer need to see the parameters and would rather go back to seeing the name of the effects in the slots, again, press the rotary knob once.

To scroll along the virtual stomp signal path, press or press/hold the < or > scroll switches on the bottom row. After the scroll screen indicates to you that you've scrolled to the slot(s) you wish to edit, press the bottom row far right footswitch to expose them.

 

[SirMjac28]

If you've selected a patch in MEMORY mode, press the bottom right footswitch to enter STOMPBOX mode. To expose the parameters of the effect within the slots, press the rotary knob at the top of the unit. It is a dual function knob/switch. Once pressed, it will expose the parameters. If you no longer need to see the parameters and would rather go back to seeing the name of the effects in the slots, again, press the rotary knob once.

To scroll along the virtual stomp signal path, press or press/hold the < or > scroll switches on the bottom row. After the scroll screen indicates to you that you've scrolled to the slot(s) you wish to edit, press the bottom row far right footswitch to expose them.

Thank you, Thank you l couldn't figure it out you're a life saver.

 

[khutch]

I was curious about the tone suck with the thru effect versus the tuner in the bypass mode so I connected it to my Picoscope. I have not had a chance to do the listening test that several of you have done but Picoscope doesn't see any tone suck in either mode. In fact as far as it can tell they are identical. Here is the frequency response data:

And here is a comparison of the square wave responses of the two modes:

I'd rather do an impulse response test instead of a square wave response but the Picoscope I have does not do impulses and I don't have anything else that does right now either. So I don't know what is going on but Picoscope isn't showing anything.

 

[andreas_flf]

I was curious about the tone suck with the thru effect versus the tuner in the bypass mode so I connected it to my Picoscope. I have not had a chance to do the listening test that several of you have done but Picoscope doesn't see any tone suck in either mode. In fact as far as it can tell they are identical. Here is the frequency response data:

snip

I'd rather do an impulse response test instead of a square wave response but the Picoscope I have does not do impulses and I don't have anything else that does right now either. So I don't know what is going on but Picoscope isn't showing anything.

Thanks. Very interesting. It shows that there is indeed no difference between thru effect versus the tuner in the bypass mode. I'd say if anyone hears a difference, it can only be some volume affecting settings (or perhaps a faulty B3n).

However, what one sees also is that the input signal and the output signal deviate at the hard knee of the rectangular wave, the signal being stable only after a fraction of a ms, looks like about 150 ns = 0.15 ms, isn't it? I guess also the initial overshoot is causing some compensating, given the slightly decreasing level thereafter. However, I doubt that difference is not really audible, given the square wave sounds anyway quite distorted. Any comment on that?

 

[Spblat]

I'm not a trained audio engineer but can I play? I think the square wave is a particularly good test for a2d/d2a systems because to reproduce it faithfully you need an extraordinarily high frequency response. I wonder if it's safe to say that a system that's spec'd for (say) 30Hz to 20KHz simply cannot (by the laws of physics) do better than what you see in the output above.

What I'm wondering now is the difference between a bypassed B3n, a well-respected buffer, and a plain wire running the same tests.

 

[andreas_flf]

I refer to posts #811 by tcl07 and #812 by CharlieC in thread "Zoom B3 As Preamp". There were graphs on amp sims such as the Flip Top (Ampeg B-15), e.g. in post #808, now no longer visible. The Flip Top being heavily used by me, in particular in one of my favorite patches on the B3. Unfortunately that amp sim is not (yet) available on the B3n. Can anyone help me to find the best replacement for the Flip Top? For instance, have you tcl07 or CharlieC perhaps those graphs still available somewhere, they might help to answer my question? At least at Zoom B3 where CharlieC was thinking of putting it up, I can't find those graphs at that site.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Andreas flf

P.S.: BTW, it might be anyway useful to consider having somewhere a Wiki where we could put up and share all the information on the original devices being simulated/emulated by the B3, MS-60B, or B3n, including measurements as tcl07 has been doing, in a nicely compiled manner. I have some personal notes along those lines, I would be happy to contribute. But doing it together might be much easier than each of us doing it alone.[/URL]

 

[CharlieC]

I refer to posts #811 by tcl07 and #812 by CharlieC in thread "Zoom B3 As Preamp". There were graphs on amp sims such as the Flip Top (Ampeg B-15), e.g. in post #808, now no longer visible. The Flip Top being heavily used by me, in particular in one of my favorite patches on the B3. Unfortunately that amp sim is not (yet) available on the B3n. Can anyone help me to find the best replacement for the Flip Top? For instance, have you tcl07 or CharlieC perhaps those graphs still available somewhere, they might help to answer my question? At least at Zoom B3 where CharlieC was thinking of putting it up, I can't find those graphs at that site.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Andreas flf

P.S.: BTW, it might be anyway useful to consider having somewhere a Wiki where we could put up and share all the information on the original devices being simulated/emulated by the B3, MS-60B, or B3n, including measurements as tcl07 has been doing, in a nicely compiled manner. I have some personal notes along those lines, I would be happy to contribute. But doing it together might be much easier than each of us doing it alone.[/URL]

Frequency plots for the B3 cabinet sims can be found here Zoom B3 | Cabinets

All credits to @ticol07

Cheers!

 

[andreas_flf]

Thanks CharlieC and tcl07. Please keep this website.

Do you have further secret treasures at this website? Anywhere an overview page?

 

[moles]

Just for the record - in my posts here I was never commenting on the bypass vs empty patch sounds...but on the (B3 and B1on) Bypass vs. Not Having It In The Signal Path At All. My experience with pedals that degrade tone tells me the buffer is usually the first culprit, as well bad converters can be a problem...

 

[Frellin Smesh]

Frequency plots for the B3 cabinet sims can be found here Zoom B3 | Cabinets

All credits to @ticol07

Cheers!

Thank you so much for linking to this archive!
I've been looking for these graphs for a while, and was quite upset that talkbass decided to delete them from the original thread for no apparent reason!

A set of new B3n spectrum graphs like these will be very useful (at least for me!).