jimfist

This is a topic I spent a little bit of time chasing last year. I currently use a Fractal Audio Systems FM9 Turbo, which has a very good "virtual capo" allowing for alt tunings. Though it is very good (better than anything I'd tried previously), a product called the Virtual Jeff Pro was brought to my attention as a product to try out for its low-latency pitch shifting. Long story short, the Virtual Jeff was very good, arguably on par with the FM9 pitch shifting, but in the end the FM9 won the comparison by a very slim margin. I was hoping to use dedicated pitch shifting in order to avoid having to carry a second bass guitar, tuned a half-step down (E-flat), 4-string basses only. My personal take is this: it CAN be done, but it depends on the content of the bass part as well as your tolerance for the bass sound being altered from its native tone. If you're plunking 1/8th notes at 110 bpm and just holding the bottom down, it's fine. Once tempo ramps up and bass figures get more speedy and complex (1/16th notes) on the low strings, the faults start to show. I've got an especially low tolerance for digital processing latency. In the end, I gave up on using pitch shifting for this type of stuff, though others do use it to their satisfaction, especially on 6-string guitars, where it can work very well.

What does your live rig consist of? What types of sounds/effects are you using in your multi-fx? Also, the amount of headroom your stage rig has will play a part in this, so can your stage rig otherwise keep up with the band, volume-wise? I agree with the idea of leaving the multi-fx out of the signal path for a go-around next gig/rehearsal. If you can get a good ballpark tone without the extra stuff, then that's a lot of the battle. If not, you've got other problems. Once you've established this, you can then start to methodically, one-by-one, introduce individual effects from the multi-fx. In fact, just adding a multi-fx totally bypassed has been known to suck tone.

Have you all seen the new Headrush PRIME? https://www.musicradar.com/news/headrush-prime-floorboard-guitar-fx-amp-modeller

This happens when you're playing or not playing...or randomly? If it doesn't happen at home then that would indicate something in the rehearsal room environment (electrically/electronically) or with the gear provided. A lot of buildings just have bad power and RFI noise issues. Did you try playing into their amp directly, no B6 in line? Personally, I've only had dead quiet operation everywhere I've used mine, home or at gigs, so no odd clicking that I can ever recall. I'd keep a close eye on this and triple check everything out at home using ( if you have them ) different cables, basses, amps, power sources. See if you can replicate it.

Agree regarding Zoom...historically great bang-for-buck products. I've been using them at home and on stage for many years and they've always done the job.

The bluetooth adapter is only compatible with IOS devices with the Handy GuitarLab for B6 app, which is only for basic functions on the B6 and IR downloading. Nothing about audio there IIRC. https://zoomcorp.com/media/documents/E_HandyGuitarLab_for_B6.pdf I, too am and Android user and a little bummed that Zoom didn't include an Android app. But also, I've read of some users who've said Bluetooth implementation with the adapter is less than stellar, FWIW, YMMV. That saved me from yet another purchase.

Nope to both as far as I'm aware. The DI selections are POST everything, or bypassed. No option to change it.

Zoom products are about as simple as you get for programmable multi-effects, and have generally represented the best bang-for-buck at the low to low-mid price range. I've owned and gigged the B3 (out of production), B3n, G5n (loved that layout!), and now the B6. Never was disappointed in any of them.

@JohnDaBass sums up my feelings on the B6, highlighting things that *might* be deemed intangible or not necessarily discernible to another player or listener. No real comment on the B2 Four, other than to say that it gives a sniff of some of the new B6 models while not quite really implementing the same B6 architecture, compared to for example the HX Stomp vs. Helix (LT). To me the sampling frequency of the B6 is noteworthy, though not published (yet) on the B2 Four. IMHO the higher B6 sample frequency is what gives it the more "open" and realistic sound and feel. All JMHO. A question: does the B2 Four stack up favorably to something like the NUX MG-30, feature by feature? Things are getting awfully crowded now toward the low-cost end of the market, and Zoom recently hasn't been exactly delivering many knockout products in the multi-fx pedal line, much as I do enjoy them.

Yes. You have the option to save to a new location when you want to save a patch. https://zoomcorp.com/manuals/b6-en/#unique_104

@fretmeister hits the nail on the head on all of this. @lobematt @LiturghianPope I also agree with your sentiment regarding the additional proper gear needed to create fully modeled amp tones with cabinet IR included. In addition to having a proper, powerful full-range speaker system at your disposal, so that you can monitor at gig-worthy volume, it also helps immensely to have not only lots of gig experience in a lot of different sized venues, but audio engineering/mixing chops (they go a long way to sorting this stuff out). - Speaking for myself, I have probably mixed as many live shows as I've performed (+/-200 mixing or performing gigs/year for a few decades). Having a solid foundation in the live mixing world was really the thing that allowed me to get along with full-blown modeling, understanding the challenges of sound reinforcement. As for creating the sounds (usually at home), I use an Atomic CLR full-range cabinet (it rolls-off below 80Hz) cranked up pretty loud (wife and kids not home). The accuracy of the speaker is the key, and any worthy full-range, relatively flat response speaker system doesn't come cheap, unfortunately. - Experience has shown me that if my sounds work on the CLR, then they'll work well for most situations with very little front-of-house tweaking necessary. I also realized long ago that the tones that can work on the gig may not sound quite like you'd think when isolated: for me, more "bite", less sub-low bass. As for the stage, I carry a GK1001RBII and either a pair of passive Atomic CLR cabs, or one or two ported full-range cabinets loaded with 15" coaxial (bi-amped) Ciare drivers. This all cost a pretty penny, too. - Since my stage rig is pretty much just for me and near proximity monitoring (for bandmates) I use my GK head as a clean amp that I can EQ for the specific environment at hand. The FOH mixer can worry about the rest of it...that's their job, and I've done all I can do to help them at that point. When there is no FOH provided, my stage amp(s) sound every bit as good as any other traditional rig I've ever had. - This was not an easy process. It cost me countless hours and a heap of coin to get to the point where things have settled in. Fortunately, the modeling tech gets better and better, but the aspects of proper monitoring to suss out your bass tone at gig levels is a necessary given. It most definitely can be a discouraging process, but IMHO full digital modeling of tones has come of age for guitarists AND bassists. If it floats your boat, keep at it and hopefully you'll find your way to unlocking it, mysterious as it may be.

I've always held Ampeg bass amp tones near and dear to my heart, so that's where I started with the FM9 and the results so far have been excellent. I have, though, loaded up the Dr. Bonkers Mesa Boogie 8x10 IRs to use with the SV Bass2 amp. I think that Dr. Bonkers IRs are the sweet spot for me, however he does what he does. I had contemplated getting the Austin Buddy Bass pack, but I don't think I'll need to spend the extra coin on that, the tones I'm getting are so nice. It's good exercise to build presets from scratch in order to get a better feel of the process, what the FM9 does and/or doesn't do well, and with respect to any limitations. There has been a lot of angst and gnashing of teeth in the past about the lack of bass stuff from Fractal Audio. Guilty as charged. The good news is that Cliff, though disinterested as he is in blessing us bassists with more bass items, has created a product that is so damn fine that it makes up for these deficiencies IMO. I would not have said that about previous iterations of Fractal products, having owned the AxeFx Ultra and AxeFxII. It was easy to poke holes in those products. Not so easy with the FM9. As a bassist, had the FM9 been my first experience with Fractal, I'd probably never have left the platform, let alone aggressively slag them for their treatment of bassists. I spent a couple minutes last night creating a really, really aggressive bass tone, that had a crossover split to a guitar amp model into a 4x12 cab IR. If you like that sort of thing, it was pretty amazing, and surprisingly easy to implement. Crazy heavy tones with the punch of the core bass amp retained, sonically seamless. I liken the Fractal products for bassists as I would a fine restaurant that does only a handful of things you enjoy, but better than any other restaurant out there. Other products certainly offer more bass options (and that's a good thing...the Zoom B6 has been my go-to rig), but IMHO just can't compare to the quality and attention to fine detail that Fractal currently delivers.

Well, my name came up on the FM9 invitation list last week and I caved to temptation. I've been futzing around with my new FM9 Turbo pedal for the last couple of days. It may not have a long list of well-known bass amps and cabinet IR simulations, what it does have is very, very good. The core of the modeled tones that I look to first (compression, amp modeling, cab IR) are all markedly improved vs. my last visit with the AxeFxII in 2015. Since I'm getting reacquainted with the way Fractal does things, and the inherent complexity, there's something of a steep learning curve when editing on the panel. However, the editor software is intuitive and excellent, so I'll be using that mostly. Sifting through hundreds or amp and cab models to find a couple lonely bass models is a pain. So far, the shining stars of the FM9 are the compressor and cabinet blocks. They've really come a long way. Amp modeling improvements not far behind. Most lacking is selection of popular bass cabinet IRs as stock items. Thankfully there are enough 3rd party IR providers that this is less of an issue than in previous years. This still doesn't scratch the itch for the need for more bass amp model flavors, but that is now mitigated by just the sheer quality (and number of options) for what they DO provide. I'll know a lot more about this after I've gigged the pedal a couple times. So far....very impressive.

This is correct from my recollection of doing just this when I first got the Atlas. The EQ section is not independent, like the rest of the dynamics processing. Dual mono works fine if you leave the EQ flat. I'm very happy with the Atlas, and use it to emulate an 1176 type of compression, which it does well IMO. With the editor, you can see how well thought out and full featured it is, and very flexible. The compression I prefer is 'always on' at the front of the chain, but with a slow attack time which lets transients through while fattening the meat of the sound that follows it.

Go with the pedals. You'll spend a ton of time trying to get one of the multi-fx modelers to do exactly what the Bass Butler & Drop pedals do. That is the strength of dedicated pedals that do specific things very well, whereas the strength of multi-fx modelers is that they can do a TON of things pretty well. This is not to say that the HX Stomp, for example, can't get you something very close (and only you could know), but it's a matter of time spent programming and testing. Even if your budget were tripled so that you could entertain a high end modeler, there's the down side of time spent with the programming. So IMO, based on what you're saying, spend the proper coin on the dedicated pedals and get down to making music ASAP. This coming from someone who is a pretty hardcore multi-fx modeler user. Get what the gear that you know will deliver the goods. Good luck!

I'd be tempted if I can find one under warranty at a fire sale price. I've always preferred the WYSIWYG layout in Stomp Mode for live use, and with the G11 having 5 pedal slots plus the amp controls at the ready, that's the ticket. If only Zoom would overhaul the cosmetics and make it look a bit more pro and less toy-ish.

The allure of the Quad Cortex is that you can make profiles of your own amps and dirt pedals, much like the Kemper Profiling Amp. These also have a broad community that shares the captures of their amps/dirt pedals, which adds to the appeal. This is all-for-naught if these digital profiles don't sound authentic...but evidently they sound very good when profiles are captured properly. Tens if thousands of dollars worth of your valuable gear stays at home while a single device allows you to virtually bring them to your gig at a fraction of the cost, size, weight, etc. If you haven't done so yet, I'd suggest you spend some time looking at the Fractal Audio AxeFxIII (rack) and FM9 (pedal) to see what they currently offer. Throw in the Line 6 Helix as well. These represent the state of the art for effects, amp and cab modeling. These are expensive products, but very widely used these days. I like the idea of an dream multi-fx rig that can run plug-ins, and dabbled with this many years ago with a laptop running Guitar Rig 3 with its companion control pedal audio I/O. Unfortunately, I couldn't get latency down to a manageable number, so I scrapped the idea. I'm sure this is less of an issue due to modern cpu processing speeds, but in the end, overall round-trip latency has to be +/-4msec in order for it to compete with hardware multi-fx.

Interesting option for bassists now. There are a lot of G11 effects that I wished they'd implement on the B6. The significant differences: - G11 has more capacity for fx slots - G11 has dedicated knobs for the amp model and a combination of the 4 knobs/per slot (x 5 slots) format along with the new touch screen - G11 has built-in expression, more/better switching and navigation - B6 has the higher sample rate (G11 is 44.1khz) - B6 has XLR output w/DI modeling options - B6 is smaller footprint; the G11 is pretty huge - significant price difference I might be able to forget about the XLR and DI modeling options if the G11 were a higher sample rate. I think this does make a difference. That said, if the price drops significantly from where it is now, it's a very tempting option. If there are factory refurbs with full warranty available at a nice price, this could be very cool.

Chances are that if you're using any amp with a tube in it, you're experiencing some form of compression. For compression to exist, you don't need to have a box with the label "COMPRESSOR" on it. Not to mention speaker compression when those speakers are being driven hard, even by a very clean, high headroom solid state amp.

One word: context It matters...except when it doesn't matter. When is that? It depends. It depends on what? A lot of things. There are a helluva lot of musicians and rock bands through the ages who've made a ton of money without being terribly nuanced performers with a broad range of dynamics. Much of rock music is this. Likewise, there are a ton of world-class musicians who've made their livelihood in some part due to being obsessive about technique and dynamics. Much of jazz and classical music is this. Whether that's anyone's cup of tea is their business. There's lots of room in the opinion pool. One last thought: Compression in all its forms can be a wonderful thing. Rock and Roll!

I agree with this sentiment, but this also need not be the case. This doesn't account for compressors that have discrete ATTACK control, and further, not just any variable attack range will do. I also prefer to preserve the attack dynamics of my sound, and thus set the attack parameter of my compressor ( currently, Source Audio Atlas ) to be fairly long, 40msec or so. Many compressors do not allow for these longer attack times, and thus wind up squashing the attack when it isn't desirable. When set for long attack time, what happens when the compressor is working is that it compresses the tone AFTER the primary attack has passed through, and it does some very pleasing things to the fullness of the tone. I will say that I learned the hard way with compressors, and it took a lot of trial and error with many different comps to figure out which tools are better (or not) at performing certain tasks. Just as a rubber mallet is used differently than a sledge hammer, though they are both in the "hammer" category, they are used differently for different tasks. Given the vast number of compressors available, from simple to sophisticated, it seems a shame that compression gets a bad rap for lack of a full understanding of what is possible, and misunderstanding. Typical compression - when not used as an obvious effect - will almost always enhance a (bass) tone when applied APPROPRIATELY. Not all compressors are capable of executing what may be appropriate for a given sound. What is appropriate varies greatly on many factors (the player, the tone, the context, etc., and the personal taste of the person employing the comp). As a bassist, one may or may not care to use or technically NEED to use a compressor. But the person at the mixing desk may have many good reasons to do so, for different reasons than the bassist may be aware of.

That's a shame, though I'm glad they're still trying to keep the Dwarf going while they 're-boot' after the fallout. Covid, supply chain issues, economic outlook taking their toll. Tough times.

The TC Spectracomp and Hypergravity are truly modern marvels of engineering, to be able to cram so much function into a pedal format, typically only found in modern plug-ins and old-school, expensive rack gear. The ability to have a true, fully featured, 3-band multi-compressor with programmable knobs for control for relatively dirt cheap cost is just ridiculous. I'm a huge, huge fan of what TC has done here, and have owned the Spectracomp. [The Source Audio Atlas, which I'm currently enjoying, is in the same category as the TC multi-comps, being full-featured in slightly different ways (dual inputs/outputs, various internal routing configurations, etc.)] But the strength of these pedals for power users (the vast tweak-ability & tons of parameters to mess with) is perhaps its biggest hurdle amongst those who are new to compression and/of somewhat vexed by it. It takes a lot of time, trial-and-error, and real world, in-context experience to know how to adjust a 3-band multi-comp to yield desired results. The vast majority of bassists, IMO, have their hands full with the endless adjustments available to them from a "simple" comp that has input, threshold, ratio, attack, release, and blend. This is why I think the toneprints make a lot of sense. Even though I'm pretty comfortable with multi-band comps, I'd still prefer to not have to do too much of a deep dive just to get a comp setting that works for me. I'd much prefer to have a comp/limiter that has what I want already "baked in". The problem there is that you can spend years and tons of money auditioning comp pedals until you find THE ONE that fits the bill. ...quite the dilemma...

Exactly this

Yes, at different times for different things. I don't do much recording these days, and that's when I'd be focusing on such things. For my gigging rig, I prefer not to go too far down the rabbit hole of adjusting parameters. If I can't get where I need to be by simple adjustment to threshold, ratio, attack, release, and blend/mix, then I'm likely to move on. When I do find a compressor that scratches that itch, I usually leave well enough alone.