Zoom B1Xon blew away the Zoom B3n. Why?

[drdog]

Final resolution to this thread so far...
Ok, final update....I started this thread, and here is how the dust all settled so to speak.

In summary:
Please review my initial creation text of this thread. As I stated...I absolutely LOVED the B1Xon.
Here is what happened since then.
I went back to the store and compared against the B3n (and yes, I DO know how to program both).
The B3n still had nothing on the B1Xon. B1Xon still blew the B3n away in clarity.
Please read on...
I loved my B1Xon so much...then I got to thinking....I really wish I had an XLR output though. SO....why not pick up a used B3 (NOT the B3n) that was on sale locally. So, I take my B1Xon to the store with me (this time, to compare against the B3). I spent over 2 hours comparing. The B1Xon still sounds better....it is cleaner, crisper and I think overall BETTER than anything I still yet tried in all these past years.
I still bought the B3. Why? Because I decided that I still liked it enough...but the real test would be at home on my own system. My intent was that even if the B3 did not sound quite as good, I could still play INTO the B1Xon then out from the B1Xon into the B3, and use the XLR out of the B3.
(Note: I previously sent a note to Zoom asking what would happen if I "chained" two Zoom devices together in this fashion....would there be any degradation in signal quality? Would it be in effect the same as having a single self contained unit that had EIGHT total effects (B1Xon having 5, B3 having 3). The answer was....there should be no difference in sound quality by chaining both devices together). So I bought the B3.
When I brought it home, there still was noticeable difference between the two (BUT, not as much difference as the B3n in my opinion).
Here is the thing....and this is VERY SURPRISING to me...
When using the B1Xon...I got absolutely fantastic sounds ONLY BY USING AMPS AND CABINETS ONLY !!!!
I could NOT get the same great sounds from the B3 when I used only amp and cabinet modeling. Other effects had to be used in addition to amps in order to get it to approach the sound of the B1Xon.
The amps and cabinets of the B1Xon alone are all I need....I get fantastic sounds just using only amps and cabinets !!!!!!!!!!!!!
The B3 amps and cabinets do not hold a candle to the B1Xon. Using other effects such as bass exciter and the DI effect and/or the sans amp simulator did a fine job. BUT, I still prefer the overall sounds of the amp/cabinet modeling of the B1Xon better.
I gigged out this past weekend with the B3 (due to XLR). NONE of my sounds I created this week used any amp/cabinet modeling....it was all the other "preamp" type effects that I had to use to get decent sounds.
My next step: I will begin to chain the B1Xon into the B3 and use the XLR out of the B3. That will be my new setup from here on out.
Bottom line: IN MY OPINION, sound quality goes: 1) B1Xon, 2)B3 and 3) B3n.
That's my end of story.

 

[rgptalkbass]

Hello, I really appreciate how you prefer the b1xOn. I was going to buy a b3, but I cant find a 2nd hand one (the xlr out and audio interface are two good points, buuut the audio interface is 44100/16b not so good, and the xlr you can find an external mini pedal, the zoom xlr doesnt seems to be really good), so I was looking for a b3n, but when I see the b1xon has the same operative system and caracteristics than b3 I decided for this, In argentina the b3n is 300 dolars and the b1xon 70, the b1on 50. I dont know if I would use the expression pedal, maybe i finally will decide fox b1on thas is more compact

 

[andruca]

Now that we're resurrecting a thread... I experienced the same last year between the MS-60B (same gen as the B1on/Xon/B3) and a B1XFour (same gen as the B3n). I had tried some B3ns before and had such impression, but wasn't quite sure and blamed the diverse situations and amps used to I try them. But after getting the Four it definitely sounded BOXY (annoying 180hz peak), dead overall and noisier. I A/Bed them for weeks and summarized my experience in this thread...

New Zoom B1X Four sounds several levels of DEAD & NOISY compared to MS-60B

Don't get me wrong, the Four could be tweaked to sound decent for my needs, but the necessary additional EQ and ZNR (also de Bass PEQ is now single band, was 2-band before) defeated the purpose of having more FX slots really. In the end I ended up selling it, kept my MS-60B, and have bought a B3, a G3 and a G1Xon all for dirty cheap (I customized my G1Xon's firmware to have all bass relevant stuff from the B1Xon -also did the same with the MS-60B to have some guitar amp sims from the MS-50G-). Can't really tell much of a difference between the MS-60B, B3 or G1Xon as per sound, all sound full and clear (my main business is crunch fat SansAmp emulation and compression -own a SansAmp RBI, lives permanently in a studio, prefer using the Zooms almost every time-). I've used the MS-60B and G1Xon indistinctly live lately, same patches sound the same. The B3&G3 stay mostly home for recording (either thru' the DI or as my audio interface). Not the first time it happens to me with Zoom. Went from a B2.1u back to the 708II because I liked my crunchy fat compressed tone there better (and ditched that after getting the MS-60B). I'm still a HUGE Zoom fanboy and am definitely looking up to their next generation of multiFX, just bypassing the current B3n/B1four/Xfour series.

After thoroughly comparing, the only thing I'd miss from the new gen is Darkglass emulations, but I can sorta' fake that with either the DI+, the RAT or plain Metal Zone emulations (all with blend control and sorta "CMOSey"). People usually remark the "novelty" of a hi-pass filter in the current generation, but the previous one already had that, the "depth" parameter in the ACBSPre (Fishman emulation).

 

[rgptalkbass]

I have both now, b1xon sounds more artificial than b3, b3 is really natural, the reason I see is that b3 has a balance between the processed signal and the unprocessed, configurating the knob in the point of 100% processed and 0% unprocessed it outputs a little unprocessed, so it gives more attack, I feel disconected when I use the b1xon, not a big difference but is makes the sound natural

 

[andruca]

I have both now, b1xon sounds more artificial than b3, b3 is really natural, the reason I see is that b3 has a balance between the processed signal and the unprocessed, configurating the knob in the point of 100% processed and 0% unprocessed it outputs a little unprocessed, so it gives more attack, I feel disconected when I use the b1xon, not a big difference but is makes the sound natural

Yep, no global wet/dry setting. Still, most FX emulations have a blend control in them, the lack of a global blend control is not that much of a loss to me (don't use it indeed in my B3). Things like compression or EQ should be 100% wet IME. So I prefer deciding clean blend on and effect by effects basis.

 

[SteveCS]

Yep, no global wet/dry setting. Still, most FX emulations have a blend control in them, the lack of a global blend control is not that much of a loss to me (don't use it indeed in my B3). Things like compression or EQ should be 100% wet IME. So I prefer deciding clean blend on and effect by effects basis.

The individual blends do not work the same as a global blend. With global, the dry is blended in at the output. With per-effect blend the 'dry' output of the second effect is the combined wet and dry blended output of the first effect. If you add in a third model, that 'dry' is the blended output of the second which includes a non-removable portion of the first, and so on. The B1on has no way to get pure dry signal back in at the end. Perhaps it is this layered blending that gives the illusion of sounding richer and fuller.

To my ears the B3n is audibly cleaner, preserves the original signal - tonally and dynamically - far better and is very transparent and natural sounding. The B1on (and its MS-xx relatives) sound quite synthetic and 'voiced' by comparison.

 

[rgptalkbass]

I thougth B3 and B1xon had both the same sound quality because all the forums says that, but I have realized that B3 has better sound quality, is not subjetive is related with the total blend. I couldnt try the b3n but the audio interface and xlr are 2 points that I really use so the b3n is not for me, maybe a new model wich cames with that

 

[Michael Moore]

Final resolution to this thread so far...
Ok, final update....I started this thread, and here is how the dust all settled so to speak.

In summary:
Please review my initial creation text of this thread. As I stated...I absolutely LOVED the B1Xon.
Here is what happened since then.
I went back to the store and compared against the B3n (and yes, I DO know how to program both).
The B3n still had nothing on the B1Xon. B1Xon still blew the B3n away in clarity.
Please read on...
I loved my B1Xon so much...then I got to thinking....I really wish I had an XLR output though. SO....why not pick up a used B3 (NOT the B3n) that was on sale locally. So, I take my B1Xon to the store with me (this time, to compare against the B3). I spent over 2 hours comparing. The B1Xon still sounds better....it is cleaner, crisper and I think overall BETTER than anything I still yet tried in all these past years.
I still bought the B3. Why? Because I decided that I still liked it enough...but the real test would be at home on my own system. My intent was that even if the B3 did not sound quite as good, I could still play INTO the B1Xon then out from the B1Xon into the B3, and use the XLR out of the B3.
(Note: I previously sent a note to Zoom asking what would happen if I "chained" two Zoom devices together in this fashion....would there be any degradation in signal quality? Would it be in effect the same as having a single self contained unit that had EIGHT total effects (B1Xon having 5, B3 having 3). The answer was....there should be no difference in sound quality by chaining both devices together). So I bought the B3.
When I brought it home, there still was noticeable difference between the two (BUT, not as much difference as the B3n in my opinion).
Here is the thing....and this is VERY SURPRISING to me...
When using the B1Xon...I got absolutely fantastic sounds ONLY BY USING AMPS AND CABINETS ONLY !!!!
I could NOT get the same great sounds from the B3 when I used only amp and cabinet modeling. Other effects had to be used in addition to amps in order to get it to approach the sound of the B1Xon.
The amps and cabinets of the B1Xon alone are all I need....I get fantastic sounds just using only amps and cabinets !!!!!!!!!!!!!
The B3 amps and cabinets do not hold a candle to the B1Xon. Using other effects such as bass exciter and the DI effect and/or the sans amp simulator did a fine job. BUT, I still prefer the overall sounds of the amp/cabinet modeling of the B1Xon better.
I gigged out this past weekend with the B3 (due to XLR). NONE of my sounds I created this week used any amp/cabinet modeling....it was all the other "preamp" type effects that I had to use to get decent sounds.
My next step: I will begin to chain the B1Xon into the B3 and use the XLR out of the B3. That will be my new setup from here on out.
Bottom line: IN MY OPINION, sound quality goes: 1) B1Xon, 2)B3 and 3) B3n.
That's my end of story.

I have a B1on, no Xpedal. I also have a pedal board with 10 pedals. I get a much better sound overall out of my ZOOM B1on. Solid, reliable, portable. Fits in my gig bag pocket with an direct box. Bang for the Buck it's the best. My friends STOMP HX is nice but I can come really close,.. at a fraction of the cost!