• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

New: Zoom B3n Multi-Effects

#1,881
BassikLee said:
There is already a theory brewing in my brain. Not so much a theory as a thought. "who says the XLR and 1/4 inch out on that bass sound exactly the same??".

Given that, I suggest you do the test the way you suggested, but then repeat it with the bass plugged directly into two channels of the mixer, and have two pairs of tracks for us to listen to. To make it extra fun, don't tell us which of those is which either.

Can you hear the zoom? Can you hear the 1/4 vs xlr?
Click to expand...

I could always do an A/B of each of the direct signals (XLR vs 1/4") out of the bass leaving the B3n out of the equation, just to see. True, though, you do make a valid point, though I wouldn't expect there to be a noticeable difference in tone. I'll consider including that.
 
#1,882
That's what I'm saying. Do two groups. One is XLR and 1/4", without telling us which is which. The second is XLR and 1/4"-zoom, also without telling us which is which. For the bonus round, don't even tell us which group is which. The playing won't be identical, obviously. That's how I'd do it.

"OK, boys, here is group one, A and B. Here is group two A and B. Tell me what you hear"…
 
  • Like
Reactions: jimfist
#1,883
VonSledgehammer said:
I would suggest you only take one input to the mixer (XLR or 1/4") and then use the mixer to send the direct signal to one output and use an aux or similar to send to another output and then the B3n. My thinking being the XLR and 1/4" outs on the Wal may have different levels and thus require different amounts of gain to level match in the mixer.
Click to expand...

If I have time, I'll give a run through this, also, but I'd rather have the signal path running through the B3n reflect how it will be used in the real world, and I'm not sure what other elements of aux-feeding the B3n from the mixer might introduce. However, my general suspicion is that all of these methods will be so close that it may not matter. I'm keeping an open mind, and hope to find something really significantly different tonally, which I've yet to discover to this point.

The thing is that the two inputs on the mixer, no matter what the source, are being set up identically. The variation in level going to the mixer from the B3n is being handled by the Global output level. I don't see this as a major possible source of a flaw, tonally. What do you think? My output from the B3n is set around 45 to match the other direct input.
 
#1,887
I forgot to give this link about Case Against "True Bypass", which has also inspired me a bit to make my argument re inserting a DI before the B3n. Note, the B3n has according to the specs an input impedance of 470 kΩ. This is about half of what an Amp input might/should have (1 MΩ). My good Di2 Mkll has also 1 MΩ input impedance and it sounds really great.

Cheers, Andreas flf
 
  • Like
Reactions: VonSledgehammer
#1,889
Jazz Ad said:
I'm surprised to see how people link price to quality. They're barely linked in any way when it comes to gear.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty generalized comment if you're saying that low to moderately priced gear has no bearing on the quality, functionality or longevity of the item being purchased.

"You get what you pay for" isn't some bullsh*t cliche'
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jantelagen, Guest of Honor and Frellin Smesh
#1,890
David Sutkin said:
That's a pretty generalized comment if you're saying that low to moderately priced gear has no bearing on the quality, functionality or longevity of the item being purchased.

"You get what you pay for" isn't some bullsh*t cliche'
Click to expand...
It absolutely is in the world of manufatured products.
You may pay for a reputation, a brand, a method of production, advertisement, good looks, decency of worker wages.
The retail price of a manufactured product barely depends on the product itself. It's a social and commercial construction.
One of the most often quoted illustration of this concept is that Fender and resellers get a better marge on a Squier than on a MIA instrument.

A widely distributed product saves so much because of wide scale production that it can often offer way better specs and quality than boutique products of the same kind, yet the feeling of buying something unique make people rate a rarer product higher.
In the case of Zoom (and others), the quality of ADA converters they use is equivalent or higher than the vast majority of recording and monitoring devices used by common musicians for their cherished analog gear, yet the price makes them consider the quality as inferior.

We listen not only with our ears but also with our wallets, eyes and brains.
If Zoom decided to use gold plated jacks, switches with a louder clank, industrial looks and double their price, they'd get a completely different appreciation.
This kind of decision is taken by commercial, not engineering services.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lemmolo, Polfuste, Ikkir and 3 others
#1,891
Jazz Ad said:
It absolutely is in the world of manufatured products.
You may pay for a reputation, a brand, a method of production, advertisement, good looks, decency of worker wages.
The retail price of a manufactured product barely depends on the product itself. It's a social and commercial construction.
One of the most often quoted illustration of this concept is that Fender and resellers get a better marge on a Squier than on a MIA instrument.

A widely distributed product saves so much because of wide scale production that it can often offer way better specs and quality than boutique products of the same kind, yet the feeling of buying something unique make people rate a rarer product higher.
In the case of Zoom (and others), the quality of ADA converters they use is equivalent or higher than the vast majority of recording and monitoring devices used by common musicians for their cherished analog gear, yet the price makes them consider the quality as inferior.

We listen not only with our ears but also with our wallets, eyes and brains.
If Zoom decided to use gold plated jacks, switches with a louder clank, industrial looks and double their price, they'd get a completely different appreciation.
This kind of decision is taken by commercial, not engineering services.
Click to expand...

"Cherished analog gear"?... Analog boutique pedals sound great which is why multifx pedals attempt to model them the best they can but lower price point products don't quite get there because that would be more, eh hem, "expensive"!. Zoom are doing a great job nowadays, but you've got to be realistic and not over generalize based on assumptions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jantelagen
#1,892
Not sure why you're talking about assumptions.
I own and use old pedals from various eras as well as new one, digital and analog alike.
I try to go with what sounds the best to me and it's not always the most expensive units.
There are worthless boutique units as well as fantastic retail products.

Filters for example, I'll take digital filters from the B3 or Korg 300b rather than even a MuTron III or Moog because they sound better to me. I however stick to the EHX BMS because nothing sounds like it.
Multis offer a lot of models because it sells but also original effects that often are unique and interesting.
I try not to be a snob, however if what I want only comes from an obscure Albanian builder I will gladly pay the price.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ikkir, -Asdfgh- and DJ Bebop
#1,893
OK folks, I ran my bypass tests with:
Bass into a single channel on the DL1608
Aux channel5 into B3n into computer interface right
Aux channel6 into a bypass looper into computer interface left

I had the looper in the mix so that I could have identical cables for both signal paths.
I then adjusted levels at the computer interface until the levels looked identical.

Well, it seemed to work quite well. I recorded slap and fingerstyle. I never got to pick playing because listening back on headphones or my monitors, the differences were minimal to point of being insignificant. I could not have picked them out in a blind test. Wow, OK.

I then took the cables that went into the computer interface, and plugged one at a time into my amp, listening through the Big Twin II (a VERY accurate and flat response speaker). I had two identical cables in my hand, so I flipped them around and randomly plugged one and then the other in. Interestingly I could hear a difference in the "body" of the low end through the amp, and I could readily distinguish one from the other as I shuffled the cord around and plugged it in. But the difference was very subtle, and this is with me sitting directly in front of the most accurate and revealing bass speaker I've ever heard.

So, I'm not going to put up samples, because I don't think anybody would reliably hear differences (I listened on my HR824 monitors as well as decent Audio-Technica headphones and couldn't hear differences). There is of course a lag in the signal, I didn't measure how much. It's not a lot, but it's enough to cause nasty phase issues if you try and use an external blend, so I definitely wouldn't do that. The two signals played back together had that out-of-phase hollowness, but not enough so that I could hear it as a delay or slapback. That delay could perhaps account for the perception of the attack being less immediate, since the player can feel that delay although the listener cannot.

So in a clinical situation (bypassing with identical cables etc., I'm satisfied that there is not enough tone suck to be audible. What worries me a bit is that I really did hear differences when swapping cables so I wonder if the real-world results might be more audible. But just a bit.

I have to say, I'm happy to be kind-of-proved wrong, in that it appears that given the right cable and impedence situation, the tone suck is minimal (or at least it's less than the difference between brands of cables).

So I'm going to try to take this bad boy out on my next gig. On my big-boy pedalboard, the main always-on effects are a B7K Ultra and a Origin FX Compact Bass compressor. From my listening, the B7K simulation in the B3n gets the essential character of the real thing very nicely. It would be great if the blend and drive is accurate also, tomorrow I'll test that out. The compressor situation however... The Origin CB is crazy good, and I can compress my signal hard to even out the playing while also making it more aggressive and attack-y, but it still sounds almost completely unprocessed. I doubt I'll find something like that in the B3n, but a boy can dream...

TL;DR - B3n is good. Choose your cables and impedence match carefully.
 
  • Like
Reactions: andreas_flf, Jantelagen, Rafbass77 and 8 others
#1,894
Well, here's all I've had time for to this point...playing warts, farts, and all. Let me know if you can tell what is what from these short clips.
I wanted to post .wav files to avoid compression artifacts, but talkbass didn't allow me to do this, so you'll have to download the raw wave files to audition them.

Here's a dropbox public link:

Invalid Link Removed

riff_01_direct_track_01
riff_01_direct_track_02
riff_02_direct_track_03
riff_02_direct_track_04

of these tracks, only one is the B3n in tuner bypass mode.

riff_01 is pop and slap; riff_02 is played with a pick. FWIW, the tone settings are: both pickups, tone knob for each picke is wide open
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eli_Kyiv, andreas_flf, BoydG and 2 others
#1,895
@smeet, most real-time digital effects these days have a latency at around 2 msec or less. I found the B3n to be somewhere around 1.2msec in tuner bypass mode. As you noted, this slight delay will really mess with your tone if you are mixing it with a dry, direct signal (depending on the nature of the B3n effect(s) being used - "dry" tone-shapers will be more apparent than echo/reverb).

Interesting to read about your discoveries, and I hope that you have good luck on the gig with your B3n.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BassikLee and Danielz
#1,896
andreas_flf said:
I forgot to give this link about Case Against "True Bypass", which has also inspired me a bit to make my argument re inserting a DI before the B3n. Note, the B3n has according to the specs an input impedance of 470 kΩ. This is about half of what an Amp input might/should have (1 MΩ). My good Di2 Mkll has also 1 MΩ input impedance and it sounds really great.

Cheers, Andreas flf
Click to expand...

ThAt was the basis of my question about input impedance earlier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jimfist
#1,897
TodaysTomSawyer said:
"Cherished analog gear"?... Analog boutique pedals sound great which is why multifx pedals attempt to model them the best they can but lower price point products don't quite get there because that would be more, eh hem, "expensive"!. Zoom are doing a great job nowadays, but you've got to be realistic and not over generalize based on assumptions.
Click to expand...

Often boutique pedals and non-boutique use the same components. A well-soldered, metal chassis one with good QC is going to pretty similar quality to a mass produced one in quality, excepting design flaws. Is a boutique pedal worth it? Absolutely, if it has a unique sound, features, or replicates an old pedal you can't get anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CharlieC and jimfist
#1,898
jimfist said:
@smeet, most real-time digital effects these days have a latency at around 2 msec or less. I found the B3n to be somewhere around 1.2msec in tuner bypass mode. As you noted, this slight delay will really mess with your tone if you are mixing it with a dry, direct signal (depending on the nature of the B3n effect(s) being used - "dry" tone-shapers will be more apparent than echo/reverb).

Interesting to read about your discoveries, and I hope that you have good luck on the gig with your B3n.
Click to expand...

I remember when with some multis you could certainly feel the latency, I.e. closer to 10ms.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jimfist

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back