dannybuoy

[quote name='Mickyk' timestamp='1489682205' post='3258962'] Thanks for the reply,i take your point maybe will give it another go on the Ibanez. ?Which do you think is the better Bass between a Yamaha bb424x,and a Squier Vintage Modified Jazz Bass 70s [/quote] I would take the Yamaha any day as the BB is my favourite bass, but for slap you can't beat a Jazz or a Stingray, IMHO. A SUB Ray4 should make your shortlist too!

Gotcha - that might just work, the only problem being if you crank the B7K volume then there won't be much clean signal in the output in terms of ratio. That's fine if the sound you want from the pedal is pretty wet and set to fat to give plenty of low end; however another way to use the pedal is to set it to thin mode so the distortion is just mainly in the mids, then blend just a touch of that with the clean tone. If you happened to enjoy that tone you might struggle to get enough overall output volume.

Give the soundman two separate feeds as suggested above. Andy - I would watch it if trying to blend a Torpedo with clean DI live. The Torpedo is digital so has a slight processing delay. This is only a few ms, so not big enough to be noticeable by itself, but if you mix that with clean you might experience comb filtering effects like a flanger stuck at one point of its sweep. This is a benefit of the analog nature of the OmniCabSim!

In a word, no. The B7K is designed to operate at around unity volume rather than boosting your volume up to the level expected by your typical power amp. This is mainly due to the unusual (and infuriating if you ask me) way the blend control works. Your dry signal cannot be boosted whatsoever - the volume knob only affects the overdrive level, and the blend knob fades between that and the constant level dry signal. The B7K Ultra is different though - it has a master volume control, which can be used to boost the overall signal; hopefully loud enough for most power amps but I can't confirm. You can always PM Doug, he's a user here and good guy who's always happy to help. One more thing - the parallel out is not buffered or boosted and is simply hard wired directly to the input. This is effectively no different to using a jack splitter cable/adapter, so you would struggle to use that socket to run a second clean power amp even with the Ultra version.

Not many would require the FX Loop, almost every cab has dual sockets for daisy chaining, and 350 watts should get you by, especially with two cabs... looking like an obvious choice unless you need those features or extra volume. If the 500 contains an extra fan, that might be a plus point for the 350 - I returned my 500 due to the fan kicking in loudly after 10 minutes with the amp sat idle when it didn't even feel warm to the touch and nor did the air being expelled from it. It wouldn't have been an issue on a gig but was obtrusive enough to make me not want to use it for practising or recording at home.

Check this video out - it perfectly shows how (if you listen with good speakers!) the Aguilar sounds so fat and all cohesive with the clean tone when blended, but a bit bland by itself; and the Octabvre sounds fat soloed but loses something when blended: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQdg9tp--Bg I think I need an Octamizer.

Well everyone's experiences, expectations, ears, rigs, etc are all different so take this with a pinch of salt, but expanding more on my experience comparing the COG T16 to the Octabvre Mini... I got the T16 first, quite a while after stupidly getting rid of an OC-2 and a Pearl a few years ago. Fantastic build quality, tiny and looks awesome. Tracking is probably the best I've ever found in an octaver. Rolling down the filter all the way results in such low sub bass that you might not hear it well in weaker rigs; I preferred it around 10-11 o'clock to get it more audible. I had to max the volume of the octave voice though, and found it wasn't loud enough when soloed. Opening up the filter made it more raspy, but it still didn't have that hollow square wave like synth character of the OC-2. I was after a decently loud and punchy soloed octave sound so got the Octabvre Mini in next after hearing the sound I wanted in clips. Immediately after hitting the first note I had the biggest grin and new the T16 would be headed out of the door. Instantly reminded me of the OC-2 tone I was struggling to get out of the COG. The COG sounded very smooth but this had so much more character - like "donk donk donk" instead of "mmm hmm hmm", if you catch my drift. It really punches you in the chest too, it has more going on the mids and seems less compressed with a more thumpy attack. The filter knob on the Octabvre has less range though - I think it actually crossfades between OC-2 and Mutron voiced octaves rather than operating a filter like the COG and Aguilar pedals. I like it set to minimum. The downside of this pedal is that the actual octave sound is so in your face that it doesn't sound as cohesive as the COG when blended with clean, where a more subtle sounding voice works better. One more thing, the Octabvre Mini apparently has the 'Tim tuning' built in, a feature which later came as a build option and later again as a toggle switch on the bigger Octabvre. There is a comparison vid online, but it results in a darker more bass heavy tone.

I've compared them side by side and the COG T16 sounds nothing like the Octabvre or OC-2. The Octabvre has way more midrange punch and is the better choice for soloed octave IMHO.

Depends what you want out of it - if you want to solo the octave sound and play higher up on the neck to get that keyboard synth sound, the Octabvre Mini is amazing. Just like the Boss OC-2 but more versatile and no volume drop. For some reason though I don't like the sound of it as much in the role of adding smooth background sub bass to higher register playing. I had a COG T16 that sounded really good in this situation apart from the fact it didn't have enough output volume. I would like to try an Octamizer next, they are meant to get very subby like a Meatbox with the filter turned down! Then you have digital octavers to look into, which I class as a different effect altogether. Never heard one that sounded good to me though.

I'm not against programmability; if I had needs complex enough to require presets then I would probably end up using some kind of multi or a MIDI switcher + separates. But at the level I use, i.e. just one or two pedals on at a time, nothing too complex that would require tap dancing to operate, then I don't want to compromise on tone or the ability to live tweak just to get presets. You say people would not notice the difference between an dedicated octave down and a multi... well I certainly would, and it would be enough to put me off when playing. I have not found a single decent octave down in anything that Zoom, Line6, or the various apps on iOS have to offer for example, and if you want the synthy sound of a Boss OC-2 style analog octave with no processing delay, analog is your only option. I doubt even the big boys like AxeFX and Eventide would be able to compete there. Similarly, when it comes to dirt, I am very very picky. I've tried to replicate the tones of my analog overdrives and fuzzes in plugins / apps / multis, and have not been able to get anywhere near satisfactory. Ultimately it comes down to your needs and a balance between how many sounds and presets you need vs how fussy you are about your tone.

Joyo Orange Juice is getting a lot of love amongst bass players, very tubey sounding with a decent amount of low end, under £50 new delivered! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq9CDL4Jdyo

Of course if you have requirements like BigRedX, then a multi is the way to go. The other 99% who just need a few usable tones and no presets or MIDI malarkey would be best off with separates!

I spent £800 odd on a Fender P5 a few years ago until I saw the light and upgraded to a £200 Yamaha BB415! Much more playable neck and better sounding low B too!

You would need to be competing with these guys then! https://templeboards.co.uk

Shepherd's Bush Empire is a terrible venue, the last one at Hollywood Bowl was great though!

[quote name='funky8884' timestamp='1488971367' post='3253326'] Is it possible to buy a mid range bass and have a solid B string ? [/quote] Most definitely yes. I'm waiting for a certain someone with an expensive taste in basses to come along and say otherwise! I have a 34" scale Warwick Rockbass Streamer V that has the best low B I've ever experienced. Stiff multi-laminate neck and solid construction, it's very defined and piano like. They are worth a fair bit more but I got it from an Italian store for under £280 delivered! My Yamaha BB has a decent low B too, miles better than the Fenders I've tried, but it doesn't sound as clear and defined as the Warwick.

I far prefer the flatter boards of my Sandberg, Yamaha and Warwick basses. My Fender P has a 9.5" radius and is also very comfy to play; but I can't get on with the 7.25" radius of the vintage styled models. It feels like I have to move my hand more to press down that E and G strings, and can't even see the G if I look down. Also, I have a Squier CV Jazz that on paper has a 9.5" radius but it looks way more curvier than my US Standard P and wouldn't be surprised if it was a typo and actually 7.25"! I don't get on with this neck and intend to move it on.

I thought it was all of them?

I didn't know they made 5 string versions! Nice score.

Essentially, yes they are. The eq section of both the B7K and Vintage Ultra appear to be identical so you could pair 1 Ultra and 1 standard pedal of your choice to do as you describe. However there is a limitation with the Ultra design; you can't have different EQ settings with the drive on and off, so you might not be able to switch between clean and dirty without some kind of compromise on EQ settings. For example, you might want the bass and treble boosted on your clean tone through the B7K Ultra. But then you find yourself using the grunt and attack switches to get your drive sounding how you want it, both of which boost bass and treble also, so with the dirt on you might not want the same EQ. Also, the original Vintage is rather dark sounding; I found myself trading it in for the Deluxe so I could boost the treble control (which actually affects more of the high mids on that one). The newest Vintage Deluxe also adds in the attack/grunt switches from the BXK lineup.

If you don't like the colour turned to the right you might not like the B3K then. I prefer the left side too, very midrangey and jumps out of the mix.

Separate pedals all the way for me. I love being able to swap things in and out so that I end up with the best of each effect that suits my needs. Multis are always a compromise, especially when it comes to dirt. Aside from the tonal aspects, I find them a pain to tweak and program, and far prefer the hands on usability that separates offer. I'm no technophobe either, I work in IT and am a tech geek.

Overdrive is the only essential for me, I have several favourites that all sound different and match up better with certain basses. But envelope filters are the most fun, especially the Mini Q-Tron or Fwonkbeta. Serious bass face.

[quote name='NancyJohnson' timestamp='1487575868' post='3240774'] Yikes. Why so expensive? [/quote] On the plus side, a set will last you years. My TIs have been on for 7, and 20+ is not unheard of!