New: Zoom B3n Multi-Effects

[khutch]

Since the audio is always passing through the A/D & D/A converters it cannot be completely uncolored. The graphs in a previous post show that through and tuner bypass are extremley close in frequency resonse but it does not compare them to a true-bypassed cable
Randy

The frequency response is flat to within 1dB from 20Hz to 20kHz which is, by itself, essentially uncolored. A piece of wire would be precisely 0dB over that frequency range or perfectly uncolored.

The transient response shows the effects of passing through the digital processes inside the box. It has ringing on the rising edge and a slightly trapezoidal shape that becomes more apparent at lower frequencies. Any coloring you here is likely to come from this although it appears to me that the frequency of the ringing is around 15kHz which is well beyond what I can hear anymore. You younger guys might be able to hear it but I think if you do you would be more likely to describe it as a whine than as a signal coloration. Like the sound of the 15kHz sweep rate of an old CRT monitor but then anyone old enough to remember them is too old to hear that anymore!

 

[Jantelagen]

The frequency response is flat to within 1dB from 20Hz to 20kHz which is, by itself, essentially uncolored. A piece of wire would be precisely 0dB over that frequency range or perfectly uncolored.

The transient response shows the effects of passing through the digital processes inside the box. It has ringing on the rising edge and a slightly trapezoidal shape that becomes more apparent at lower frequencies. Any coloring you here is likely to come from this although it appears to me that the frequency of the ringing is around 15kHz which is well beyond what I can hear anymore. You younger guys might be able to hear it but I think if you do you would be more likely to describe it as a whine than as a signal coloration. Like the sound of the 15kHz sweep rate of an old CRT monitor but then anyone old enough to remember them is too old to hear that anymore!

I ended up with a Helix LT and just judging by ears I find that the bypass signal difference compared to the b3n obvious. Also, tried the FX8 and Eventide H9 (sucks only one effect at a time) was obvious as well. Another thing was that when trying the b3n with other boutique pedals the bypassed signal from the b3n affected the other pedals' output and performance. Could've been user error and maybe I should've adjusted the b3n output level, not master, to -10 db if that's an option, which is about what an instrument signal is, but already being able to hear the coloration or additional noise placing it before other pedals in the chain wasn't ideal due to the bypass IMO

 

[smeet]

The frequency response is flat to within 1dB from 20Hz to 20kHz which is, by itself, essentially uncolored. A piece of wire would be precisely 0dB over that frequency range or perfectly uncolored.

The transient response shows the effects of passing through the digital processes inside the box. It has ringing on the rising edge and a slightly trapezoidal shape that becomes more apparent at lower frequencies. Any coloring you here is likely to come from this although it appears to me that the frequency of the ringing is around 15kHz which is well beyond what I can hear anymore. You younger guys might be able to hear it but I think if you do you would be more likely to describe it as a whine than as a signal coloration. Like the sound of the 15kHz sweep rate of an old CRT monitor but then anyone old enough to remember them is too old to hear that anymore!

I have good ears, but not golden ones. Also, my hearing in the 15kHz range is not great. But I hear a distinct and definite difference when I compared (very informally) bass into amp and bass through B3n tuner bypass into amp. By informal, I approximated the volumes to be the same by ear, and used whatever patchcords were around and switched them and played the same licks both ways. So, there are several places I could have been mistaken or fooled.

Given those disclamers, what I heard in my informal and non-scientific listening tests was that at approximately the same volume, the B3n seemed to have less attack, less highs, and less lows.

Now that I have determined that I like the B3n enough to care, I will repeat my tests with more rigorous controls. However, the results will NOT be charts or numbers. They will be recordings that you can listen to. I believe in science and measurements. But, if you are not measuring the right things in the right way, measurements can be misleading. So I will play a bass, and split the signal into two. One side will go directly into the DAW, the other will go into the B3n in tuner bypass mode and then to the DAW. I'll also test the "empty" patch sound.
The variables here will be:
1) impedence issues
2) The two patchcords for the B3n side vs the one for the DAW side.

For #1, I don't know what to do, but an active bass should not have any issues I believe. for #2, I will use good cables and switch them around to see if it makes an audible difference. I will detail what hardware and software was used and how.

If you have suggestions on how to make this a more relevant or fair test, then please make some suggestions on how I can improve my methodology. I want this test to show what most users will experience in real life, and not simply theoretical limits of fidelity or whatever. So far it appears to me that the charts and numbers are not matching up to the user experience, so it seems there is something missing in what is being measured.

I'll try to do this in the next week, and I'll put a few files up for people to listen to. I'll probably put them up without revealing which sample is which, and reveal the identities after a few days.

Here's a (loaded) question for y'all: What 1/4" cables do you feel would impact the test the least? Is a decent quality Planet Waves good enough? Mogami? ... ?

 

[Stu_Bass]

The frequency response is flat to within 1dB from 20Hz to 20kHz which is, by itself, essentially uncolored. A piece of wire would be precisely 0dB over that frequency range or perfectly uncolored.

The transient response shows the effects of passing through the digital processes inside the box. It has ringing on the rising edge and a slightly trapezoidal shape that becomes more apparent at lower frequencies. Any coloring you here is likely to come from this although it appears to me that the frequency of the ringing is around 15kHz which is well beyond what I can hear anymore. You younger guys might be able to hear it but I think if you do you would be more likely to describe it as a whine than as a signal coloration. Like the sound of the 15kHz sweep rate of an old CRT monitor but then anyone old enough to remember them is too old to hear that anymore!

I have spent many hours next to crt's with signals at 15.75k so i'm certain i have a notch in my hearing there

 

[moles]

Did you come to this conclusion based on listening, or how, exactly? I'm not saying your incorrect about this, but I've not seen any sort of comprehensive comparison between a true bypass signal graph and the tuner bypass from the B3n. If I missed it, point me. Thanks.

In my case, there was no "scientific method"... plug in, play a few notes, plug through the B3, listen... this through both my Ashdown rigs, and the other day through the house amp at my Monday thing... it was truly obvious, and should be to anyone who does this professionally.

I understand why we do double blind testing, I understand the possible psycho-acoustic biases.... this is really a case where I don't think demanding reams of test data to prove the sky is really blue is at all necessary... It's blue, and I'm happy to leave it at that.

And again I'll say that the tone suck issue matters little if the tonal benefits from the amp models and whatever else you're using are worth it. This past Monday at my gig it turned out that was the case.

 

[jimfist]

In my case, there was no "scientific method"... plug in, play a few notes, plug through the B3, listen...

But how did your B3n sound through your rig?

 

[Stu_Bass]

If you have suggestions on how to make this a more relevant or fair test, then please make some suggestions on how I can improve my methodology. I want this test to show what most users will experience in real life, and not simply theoretical limits of fidelity or whatever. So far it appears to me that the charts and numbers are not matching up to the user experience, so it seems there is something missing in what is being measured.

I'll try to do this in the next week, and I'll put a few files up for people to listen to. I'll probably put them up without revealing which sample is which, and reveal the identities after a few days.

Here's a (loaded) question for y'all: What 1/4" cables do you feel would impact the test the least? Is a decent quality Planet Waves good enough? Mogami? ... ?

 

[BassikLee]

But how did your B3n sound through your rig?

See, that's what matters to me. Is it the same as a wire? Maybe, maybe not. Does it matter, as long as I can work with what it does? Not to me.

 

[andreas_flf]

... snip... So is there any way to tell which effects are on or off when looking at the full chain?

Understand there are two fundamental modes or states in which the B3n can be in at any moment in time: Either it is in STOMP mode or in MEMORY mode.

No you cannot tell which effects are on or off when looking at the full chain, since being on or off is part of the unit settings, which you see only once you focus on 3 units/slots only. Looking at the full chain is useful during editing of a patch, but of little use while playing. The 3 LEDs are mostly useful during playing.

If you are in normal STOMP mode as triggered by rightmost footswitch, you see what you want automatically (once the full chain view has disappeared). This is what you need in a live setting.

Note, in MEMORY mode, there is no way to tell, which effct units are on or off, since there are only 3 LEDs, where only one of them is used to indicate, which patch is currently in use. It is of course a disadvantage that you see via the LEDs only which patch is in use, but not which effects of it are active or not. But I argue this is the price you pay for being able to easily switch patches in this mode, where you can switch patches with a single push on one of the 3 stomp buttons. I like that, and for me in live settings this is the mode to play in.

Note, even if you would wish to have one effect on and then off or vice versa, say in the middle of a song, you might do that by having two patches side by side (easily arrangable using the software). This would be particularly the preferable solution if you have many effects in your signal chain. Live I hate having to fiddle with many stomp switches, e.g. during gigging I would have no time to scroll from effect 1 to effect 7 only to turn it on or off in STOMP mode. I'd rather have then two almost identical patches, where only some effects are turned on or off as the only difference. This is the advantage of MEMORY mode, which you also need for switching banks, which you may need anyway when you use many patches during a gig.

Alternatively of course the STOMP mode has its name for a purpose. If there are only 3 effct units you wish to turn off or on in any sequence during playing and these units are side by side in your signal chain, ok. Then the STOMP mode is the way to go. E.g. ZNR being in the first slot of the signal chain and the expression pedal, say for volume control, being in the last slot of the chain, no need to see those two. Then the effects inbetween are the ones of actual interest for control via the stomp switches. Make sure you have the 3 in focus you wish to control that way as the result from the last scroll in that patch during editing. The B3n remembers that last scroll position and after activating that switch, you see exactly the effects you have seen last time you did visit that patch.

As you can see, you can make arguments for both modes, STOMP and MEMORY, depending on circumstances and use of the B3n. The LEDs adjust accordingly. Use the two modes to your liking, considering above arguments for pros and cons, depending on your current/actual needs. And since the B3n allows to switch so easily and anytime berween those two modes, you have actually the best of the two worlds at your toe tips. ;-)

Enjoy!

 

[CharlieC]

Another successful gig weekend under my belt and I could not be happier with the B3n handling 100% of my tone, including full-time amp and cabinet simulations along with various effects.

If I were to bypass the B3n in this application, I would just pack up and go home.

Cheers!

 

[VonSledgehammer]

Another successful gig weekend under my belt and I could not be happier with the B3n handling 100% of my tone, including full-time amp and cabinet simulations along with various effects.

If I were to bypass the B3n in this application, I would just pack up and go home.

Sounds like you want the ROADIE effect. Hopefully coming soon!

 

[andreas_flf]

Also, on every Amp sim to the far right of the parameters, there is an adjustable boost that you can engage. Really cool feature. Has made my life infinitely better!

Good you make this point Johno. The manual is indeed not helpful on this at all.

Let me explain more: With an Amp sim, you need two slots, meaning you have two stomps, left and right, each with its LED, that you can use in STOMP mode (note, Zoom uses in the manual the term "control switch" for what I prefer to call the stomps or stomp switches). The left stomp switch of the Amp sim (depending of your scroll state this may be the middle stomp of the 3, not necessarily the leftmot of the 3 stomps) then turns the Amp sim on or off and the 2nd right stomp switch of the Amp sim engages the so-called 'SOLO' function. 'SOLO' is described in the FX list manual part as "Sets the volume when the control switch is on". That should actually be described better by saying that only the right stomp switch of the two slot effect is meant. This all refers to the last parameter of every Amp sim, called SOLO and which gets a value between 1-9 (by default on 3). This is the boost level you can add to the amp in your signale chain, a boost that you can engage or disengage with a simple stomp during playing. Indeed neat as Johno states.

BTW, there is a similar, not at all obvious feature for other 2 slot effect units, again not at all described in the manual part called FX list: E.g. the BassGEQ is one of those (Bass "Graphical"
Equalizer). When using this effect, this feature is quite important to clearly understand. This effects knows two states: A and B. With the left stomp switch of the BassGEQ you control again whether the entire effect is actually on or off. However, with the 2nd right stomp of the BassGEQ you control which of the two settings you want to use. Both, the A and the B setting includes all parameters of the 7 frequency ranges you wish to eq, including the overall volume parameter of this effect unit. Meaning with the BassGEQ you have actually 3 settings available, either bypass the entire equalizer or then use it by using either the A or the B settings, the latter choice being controlled by the 2nd stomp of the effect.

Along similar lines, some single slot effects, e.g. the Bomber, have a parameter that allows to specify what the stomp switch, here the one and only stomp, is doing. This may be useful whenever an effect could be meaningfully used for more than simply on or off as this is the case for the Bomber. E.g. the Bomber: If in latching mode, the stomp switch works the usual way, i.e. it controls whether the effect is on or bypassed in the signal chain. However, there is also a trigger mode for the Bomber. Trigger mode for the Bomber means not your playing triggers a shot to go off, but your foot only. I use this in one song about a mafia boss being electrocuted causing x-mas trees being without power and where some gun shots triggered by my foot may trigger the imagination of some in the audience , while I can play may bass normally happily .

Cheers,
Andreas flf

 

[andreas_flf]

I do like that you can chain up to 7 effects in the signal chain, but my least favorite aspect of executing this is the necessity of having to step on the far right bottom row switch after scrolling. Obviously, there's no way around this given the number of screens and switches, but that extra step is a bummer IMO.

This is why I was hoping for a B5n format pedal with the same design features as the G5n. With the G5n, you have the same "mode" selection for MEMORY or STOMPBOX, but once you're in stompbox mode, you only need to scroll left or right. There is no extra step to access the "off screen" effects that you are scrolling to, as is the case with the B3n (or G3n, which is the direct guitar equivalent to the B3n).

That said, it is a little bit of a learning curve to understand the procedures for scrolling/engaging stomps, but once you've wrapped your head around it, not so bad. I'll take this 10 out of 10 times over what was offered with the B3, which always felt extremely limited for live use. JMO

yes indeed, unless modifed with a stomp bar as I have been doing. See my previous posts on this. Then the B3 is also (still) IMHO a very good unit.

 

[Johno Dunn]

Good you make this point Johno. The manual is indeed not helpful on this at all.

Let me explain more: With an Amp sim, you need two slots, meaning you have two stomps, left and right, each with its LED, that you can use in STOMP mode (note, Zoom uses in the manual the term "control switch" for what I prefer to call the stomps or stomp switches). The left stomp switch of the Amp sim (depending of your scroll state this may be the middle stomp of the 3, not necessarily the leftmot of the 3 stomps) then turns the Amp sim on or off and the 2nd right stomp switch of the Amp sim engages the so-called 'SOLO' function. 'SOLO' is described in the FX list manual part as "Sets the volume when the control switch is on". That should actually be described better by saying that only the right stomp switch of the two slot effect is meant. This all refers to the last parameter of every Amp sim, called SOLO and which gets a value between 1-9 (by default on 3). This is the boost level you can add to the amp in your signale chain, a boost that you can engage or disengage with a simple stomp during playing. Indeed neat as Johno states.

BTW, there is a similar, not at all obvious feature for other 2 slot effect units, again not at all described in the manual part called FX list: E.g. the BassGEQ is one of those (Bass "Graphical"
Equalizer). When using this effect, this feature is quite important to clearly understand. This effects knows two states: A and B. With the left stomp switch of the BassGEQ you control again whether the entire effect is actually on or off. However, with the 2nd right stomp of the BassGEQ you control which of the two settings you want to use. Both, the A and the B setting includes all parameters of the 7 frequency ranges you wish to eq, including the overall volume parameter of this effect unit. Meaning with the BassGEQ you have actually 3 settings available, either bypass the entire equalizer or then use it by using either the A or the B settings, the latter choice being controlled by the 2nd stomp of the effect.

Along similar lines, some single slot effects, e.g. the Bomber, have a parameter that allows to specify what the stomp switch, here the one and only stomp, is doing. This may be useful whenever an effect could be meaningfully used for more than simply on or off as this is the case for the Bomber. E.g. the Bomber: If in latching mode, the stomp switch works the usual way, i.e. it controls whether the effect is on or bypassed in the signal chain. However, there is also a trigger mode for the Bomber. Trigger mode for the Bomber means not your playing triggers a shot to go off, but your foot only. I use this in one song about a mafia boss being electrocuted causing x-mas trees being without power and where some gun shots triggered by my foot may trigger the imagination of some in the audience , while I can play may bass normally happily .

Cheers,
Andreas flf

One of the filters (Variable Filter?) has the toggle switch option. It can be used almost like a wah. I use it in my pseudo fretless patch to add mwah at the end of certain notes.

 

[FuzzFacetious]

Since I play through the front of a clean combo, and like how the it sounds with amp and cab sims through it, is there any advantage to getting monitors / frfr?

I plugged my guitar multieffects unit into the computer which has small cheap USB powered speakers, not frfr and not studio speakers, $10 things, and only changed the output mode (as I also do the same with guitar: into a clean amp but many patches have an amp and cab sim) and, although the speakers themselves had trouble with the sound (farting out a bit under the strain) the tone, while slightly different from what I get from the amp wasn't so drastically different from what I get through the amp and didn't feel the need to change any eq settings or anything, I felt that with better quality speakers such as studio monitors the tone would be great as is. Made me realise I don't really need that for guitar but I doubt the speakers could handle bass freqs to check that out too. I imagine it would be the same result if I could do the test, but just wondering if anyone has any experience of the same thing?

 

[andreas_flf]

Are we sure that the sound will be completely uncolored using this method? ... I'm hoping so as it seems the easiest way. Just wondering if everyone is in agreement on this tip?

and do you really hear the difference? In a blind test? As I said before, at least I can't hear a difference (using hight quality studio monitoring headphones) if the signal chain is empty and volume settings are set perfectly to unity gain. I have tested this by closing my eyes while using a bypass switch and losing track of the current setting by switching with closed eyes many times quickly until I can't tell which is which anymore. I believe my ears are always the final judge, even if they might have gone worse with age and loud playing (sic). Hearing is what music is really all about, isn't it?

I am quite sceptical here in this respect, coming from a family (my father was a classical cellist) where I saw so many people claiming they would hear differences, they actually did not hear when tested in a blindfolded setting (e.g. cheap vs. very, very expensive cellos) or various concert and studio settings, recordings, recording equipment etc. This context also reminds me, there is also quite a bit of scientific literature out there e.g. comparing Stradivari and other old Italian luthier built instruments with other instruments including modern ones, partly questioning some of the reported differences. Perhaps some of these differences are more subjective than many subjects may be willing to admit . Or this reminds me also of the debate on mini-disc vs. CD: In a blindfolded test the majority within the group of testing experts found the mini disc the best quality, while they had published many articles on the advantages of the CD quality over all compressed audio formats. I for one have now to say, having made many blind tests, all these tests have generally just humbled me. In short: At least I hear less than I know.

But perhaps, all your ears are simply much better than mine and I should therefore better shutup with this argument.

Cheers, Andreas flf

 

[andreas_flf]

I have good ears, but not golden ones. Also, my hearing in the 15kHz range is not great. But I hear a distinct and definite difference when I compared (very informally) bass into amp and bass through B3n tuner bypass into amp. By informal, I approximated the volumes to be the same by ear, and used whatever patchcords were around and switched them and played the same licks both ways. So, there are several places I could have been mistaken or fooled.

Given those disclamers, what I heard in my informal and non-scientific listening tests was that at approximately the same volume, the B3n seemed to have less attack, less highs, and less lows.

Now that I have determined that I like the B3n enough to care, I will repeat my tests with more rigorous controls. However, the results will NOT be charts or numbers. They will be recordings that you can listen to. I believe in science and measurements. But, if you are not measuring the right things in the right way, measurements can be misleading. So I will play a bass, and split the signal into two. One side will go directly into the DAW, the other will go into the B3n in tuner bypass mode and then to the DAW. I'll also test the "empty" patch sound.
The variables here will be:
1) impedence issues
2) The two patchcords for the B3n side vs the one for the DAW side.

For #1, I don't know what to do, but an active bass should not have any issues I believe. for #2, I will use good cables and switch them around to see if it makes an audible difference. I will detail what hardware and software was used and how.

If you have suggestions on how to make this a more relevant or fair test, then please make some suggestions on how I can improve my methodology. I want this test to show what most users will experience in real life, and not simply theoretical limits of fidelity or whatever. So far it appears to me that the charts and numbers are not matching up to the user experience, so it seems there is something missing in what is being measured.

I'll try to do this in the next week, and I'll put a few files up for people to listen to. I'll probably put them up without revealing which sample is which, and reveal the identities after a few days.

Here's a (loaded) question for y'all: What 1/4" cables do you feel would impact the test the least? Is a decent quality Planet Waves good enough? Mogami? ... ?

Yes, go for it and please do not reveal what is what (first).

Your question re cable: Take a good cable that has been soldered properly is what I would say by measuring its resistance, which should ideally be zero. If you worry about that, make perhaps even a small test with different cables. But from all what I know I would say, any good, well soldiered instrument cable should do.

Admitted, let's not forget that the length of the cable, diameter of its wires, its capacity etc. are all affecting the tone. Remember, these days you can have digital emulation of straight cable effects (e.g. Line6, wireless systems such as the G30 have a switch to control cable tone, since the wireless connection is "better" than a cable). So, in the end even a simple cable affects the tone very slightly in a scientifically reproducible manner. All this is IMHO triggering the basically unanswerable purist question: What is the pure actual tone we are after? In particular also considering that the original signal is coming from an electric instrument? I admit, I do not know the answer. And I also admit I do not care that much: Music counts!

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Perhaps someone can run their bass through a splitter then feed an A/B box with and without the B3n and do a comparison. Not really scientific but at least ones ears can tell if there is tone suck or not. Or maybe someone can do it it in a somewhat scientific manner. I just don't have the time right now, sorry

I'm out of town, but intending to try this with a B1on at least, as I don't have a B3n, although with reference tones.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

In my case, there was no "scientific method"... plug in, play a few notes, plug through the B3, listen... this through both my Ashdown rigs, and the other day through the house amp at my Monday thing... it was truly obvious, and should be to anyone who does this professionally.

I understand why we do double blind testing, I understand the possible psycho-acoustic biases.... this is really a case where I don't think demanding reams of test data to prove the sky is really blue is at all necessary... It's blue, and I'm happy to leave it at that.

And again I'll say that the tone suck issue matters little if the tonal benefits from the amp models and whatever else you're using are worth it. This past Monday at my gig it turned out that was the case.

Doing an Fourier analysis with a wire bypass and the B3n should be more definitive in terms of indicating if there is a difference. It won't indicate how it will sound if there is one. Recorded tones from this, when normalised for amplitude, will be a good ABX test.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Yes, go for it and please do not reveal what is what (first).

Your question re cable: Take a good cable that has been soldered properly is what I would say by measuring its resistance, which should ideally be zero. If you worry about that, make perhaps even a small test with different cables. But from all what I know I would say, any good, well soldiered instrument cable should do.

Admitted, let's not forget that the length of the cable, diameter of its wires, its capacity etc. are all affecting the tone. Remember, these days you can have digital emulation of straight cable effects (e.g. Line6, wireless systems such as the G30 have a switch to control cable tone, since the wireless connection is "better" than a cable). So, in the end even a simple cable affects the tone very slightly in a scientifically reproducible manner. All this is IMHO triggering the basically unanswerable purist question: What is the pure actual tone we are after? In particular also considering that the original signal is coming from an electric instrument? I admit, I do not know the answer. And I also admit I do not care that much: Music counts!

Technically resistance of a cable will not affect tone, but rather impedance as part of the total circuit.