GR-55- Anyone using a BBE sonic maximizer on the 55?

Started by Fusion, January 03, 2015, 04:18:37 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Fusion

I love these units myself, for live sound enhancement. Adding a second rack unit for my GR55 rig. Make a big difference in my live sound clarity and punch, been using them for ages, on my 4th generation unit. For a mere $100 it is the best thing I have every gotten for such few bucks. I know some recording mavens have their issues with them but on my live sound guitar it really does work and really does "sound like you took a blanket off your cabs". Some use the unit wrong, yeah hard to believe isn't it, but keeping the settings around 12:00 just makes a wonderful difference on my rig. Looking forward to seeing what it can do on the synth rig.
So far over the course of the last decade playing era everyone that has heard my rig(s) doing a simple A/B on/off goes out and gets one. I dig them myself. For a mere $100 for the stereo rack TS unit, just too cool.
"Long ago in days of old when magic filled the air..."

Pete1959

Interesting....
My singer's AH console & effects has one for our live sound and swears by it.
I feed my GP-10 & GR-55 into a Yamaha console keeping all EQ flat and send the mains out into a Behrigner Ultragain Pro MIC2200 tube preamp and into my Behringer power amp. The result is noticeable after a little tweaking. Also sells for about 100 bucks.
Not sure if that is crazy. My intention was to add a little tube sound to my 13 pin guitar FRFR rig.
Perhaps put aside some extra money on a second hand BBE and see if it helps with/without the tube preamp in the output path.


mojo thorne

I absolutely use my sonic maximizes on the GR-55 when playing live and rehearsing.  It adds a tremendous amount of fullness, and since I play in a duo, it makes the sound a lot bigger.  I don't use it when recording, but then, I use my Aphex aural exciter in moderation a lot during mixing and it's essentially the same thing, although it sounds a little better, IMO.

Fusion

Quote from: Pete1959 on January 03, 2015, 07:13:12 AM
Interesting....
My singer's AH console & effects has one for our live sound and swears by it.
I feed my GP-10 & GR-55 into a Yamaha console keeping all EQ flat and send the mains out into a Behrigner Ultragain Pro MIC2200 tube preamp and into my Behringer power amp. The result is noticeable after a little tweaking. Also sells for about 100 bucks.
Not sure if that is crazy. My intention was to add a little tube sound to my 13 pin guitar FRFR rig.
Perhaps put aside some extra money on a second hand BBE and see if it helps with/without the tube preamp in the output path.

Actually I use a Presonus tube instru/mic preamp before my signal hits my power amps. It is a clean unit without much dist gain but adds that tube analog roundness to the power amp. I've been using a Presonus and BBE on my guitar rig for ages adding the same to my synth rig, BBE is first as it is so low priced.
I love what they do to my sound and when not on it is something you notice right off. Sounds good without it but with it even better.
"Long ago in days of old when magic filled the air..."

Fusion

#4
Very cool, I had hoped some have tried the unit, as long as one keeps the levels around 12:00 seems to do wonders but after you get accustomed to the enhanced fidelity it seems to be rather transparent and natural, never sounds to me like a processor is running, clean, all manner of dirt and tones seems to add that icing on a good cake. 
Quote from: mojo thorne on January 03, 2015, 07:40:44 AM
I absolutely use my sonic maximizes on the GR-55 when playing live and rehearsing.  It adds a tremendous amount of fullness, and since I play in a duo, it makes the sound a lot bigger.  I don't use it when recording, but then, I use my Aphex aural exciter in moderation a lot during mixing and it's essentially the same thing, although it sounds a little better, IMO.
That's what I find as well. Ideally the unit is a live sound correction device, it does not work in recording as one is capturing what it might do to an instrument but does not phase correct from a recording so some do not like it in that realm. For me in a live sound scheme just is a must have. I have never had an Aphex unit so I cannot compare. But the BBE is marvelous for so little money.
I have seen a few run the unit wrong, with the levels way up or not on the most ideal location. One cat was feeding one side into the other which is ludicrous. I try to explain it is not an "effect" per se but a frequency correction circuit which ideally the closer you get it to the final power amp stage the better it does. I think the stomp pedal caused many to have the unit in the wrong place and they crank it like an effect. Works no matter what but does better if located last in chain. Mine is in front of my tube preamp before the power amp but that is mainly because I have the TS unit and not the TRS which is a another possible upgrade as things proceed. Anyway, big fan of the BBE max, this new one is now my 4th generation unit. Best $100 bucks or so one will ever spend on their rig. 
Since I do not have a 2nd Presonus unit the synth BBE will go right from the stereo outs on the 55 into my small no EQ Mackie mixer I use for blending, into the Behringer 1000 Nuke power amp which is a pretty good sounding class D power amp.
"Long ago in days of old when magic filled the air..."

aliensporebomb

I've got a 422 stereo rackmount but have never tried it on my VG-99.  Might give that a shot.
My music projects online at http://www.aliensporebomb.com/

GK Devices:  Roland VG-99, Boss GP-10, Boss SY-1000.

Fusion

#6
You should. It has been a must have always on unit for me for over a decade now.
I can hit the one button on my rack, on/off and no one yet has failed to hear the difference and how much better fidelity, tighter, punchier and clearer the sound is. Most get one after hearing it on my rig. I think the stomp box version has caused a lot of bad placement and usage like an effect pedal cranked up too much. Few are bothering to place it in their amp loop for the best placement.
If any of you adventurous players give it a try I'd be interested in what you thought of it.
My 2nd rack unit is due Tuesday, can't wait to hear it on my synth rig.
"Long ago in days of old when magic filled the air..."

Deus02

I have used the BBE stereo 482 in my rack for a few years now and it does make a noticeable difference.  At the beginning, I saw it as a unit that probably was most accurately described as "lifting the veil" from your sound and depending on your adjustments, to me, it is one of those pieces of audio equipment that although the difference doesn't jump out at you right away, you will notice it more after you use it continuously for awhile, then turn it OFF.

Fusion

Added my second BBE on my synth rig today. Does the deal kids. Just as it does on my std guitar rig, less mud, more clarity and punch. Just adds that icing on a tasty cake. Like said above, by setting the unit up properly, once you use it a while it sounds natural to the sound and sounds like you tossed a blanket over your cabs when off. I noticed on the tech side on things the low contour is centered at 50hz and the high at 5khz. For me I needed a little EQ enhancement and brightness to my sound as I am not using fullrange speakers. Just what it needed, some sparkle and range on the highs and a cleaner more defined punchier low end.
"Long ago in days of old when magic filled the air..."

Fusion

#9
Just got done watching these cats bad mouth and spectrum analyze the BBE. Was interesting to see what it was actually doing but their negative hate of the unit before it even began was a little off putting. Some facts apparent, yes, it is not true bypass and when off if cuts some low end and there is some phase correction going on and the overall level is slightly reduced. That is neither here or there for me as I knew it was not a true bypass off and I never use the unit off.

I think his comment that your sound is being messed up when off so the on seems more dramatic is not really true either, it is reducing the over all level slightly which is the worse of it. The bass low end roll off and some phase correction on the bass is probably sounding better verses worse. But again, I am not using the unit while off, processor on is of more use to me. And it seems the unit does what it is claimed to be doing and speaking for the ears. I like what it does. I must I use two of them on my guitar and synth rigs.

It does a typical bell curve EQ at 50hz and 5 khz which is what it says. Using the unit from one extreme to the other is not relevant. At 12:00 the effect is moderate and on my rig exactly the EQ I need. It does indeed 180 reverse the phase one is getting the low end before the highs just as it states and he showed that on the analyzer. All in all it was a hate fest before it started and his complaints over vocals and whatnot again left out there is phase correction going on despite no mid range EQ. The common thing that a graphic 30 band or a parametric EQ can do what this does is just not true. I was using a dual 30 band EQ and I pulled it because it is frustrating and the BBE is so easy to use and produces a nice EQ result PLUS the phase is correcting just as it says. I love them on guitar on both my rigs. A mere $100 is not much. For instrument use I like them for anything else that is the users call if it serves a good result.
"Long ago in days of old when magic filled the air..."

imerkat

I actually have pretty much done what you've done with the Presonus and Maximizer
Here is e thread I started a while back:
https://www.vguitarforums.com/smf/index.php?topic=8435.msg60307#msg60307

I went a different route since I see your not using a FRFR rig. I used the JoeMeek MC2 newer version. it's a compressor with Stereo Enhancer and Preamp. The thing with the Maximizer is that it didn't sound optimal on all my patches. With the JoeMeek I could add a side chain for the compressor to work on Bass Heavy Synth patches only. the Stereo Enhancer work better for me in terms of layered sounds. Made strings, Piano, and Reverb more articulate and with the added FET Preamp added a sense of realism. I also used an effect found in the Eventide Space Pedal. MangledVerb has a Reverb effect into an overdrive. When used lightly it enhanced the whole spectrum when using singled sound type synths.


Deus02

#11
Quote from: Fusion on January 07, 2015, 06:26:12 AM
Just got done watching these cats bad mouth and spectrum analyze the BBE. Was interesting to see what it was actually doing but their negative hate of the unit before it even began was a little off putting. Some facts apparent, yes, it is not true bypass and when off if cuts some low end and there is some phase correction going on and the overall level is slightly reduced. That is neither here or there for me as I knew it was not a true bypass off and I never use the unit off.

I think his comment that your sound is being messed up when off so the on seems more dramatic is not really true either, it is reducing the over all level slightly which is the worse of it. The bass low end roll off and some phase correction on the bass is probably sounding better verses worse. But again, I am not using the unit while off, processor on is of more use to me. And it seems the unit does what it is claimed to be doing and speaking for the ears. I like what it does. I must I use two of them on my guitar and synth rigs.

It does a typical bell curve EQ at 50hz and 5 khz which is what it says. Using the unit from one extreme to the other is not relevant. At 12:00 the effect is moderate and on my rig exactly the EQ I need. It does indeed 180 reverse the phase one is getting the low end before the highs just as it states and he showed that on the analyzer. All in all it was a hate fest before it started and his complaints over vocals and whatnot again left out there is phase correction going on despite no mid range EQ. The common thing that a graphic 30 band or a parametric EQ can do what this does is just not true. I was using a dual 30 band EQ and I pulled it because it is frustrating and the BBE is so easy to use and produces a nice EQ result PLUS the phase is correcting just as it says. I love them on guitar on both my rigs. A mere $100 is not much. For instrument use I like them for anything else that is the users call if it serves a good result.

Interesting, in that before I bought my BBE 482, I had a 30 band stereo graphic EQ, which ultimately I found just too frustrating as well and I was constantly tweaking.  Settings on certain sounds would be good, yet, crappy on others.  In addition graphic EQ's particularly with their sliders, can add considerable noise to the signal chain so I pulled it.  The 482 is much easier to use. I don't know who you were referring to at the beginning of your comments and the so-called "critique", but, it does remind me sometimes of A/V snobs who attempt to review a piece of equipment and the moment one senses their bias(which can be quite often), the review then becomes irrelevant.  These types also spend too much time looking at testing equipment and graphs and not enough time listening. 

Frankly, in their intended design and the literature I have read on the subject, I never really perceived sonic maximizers like the BBE to be that similar to EQ's of any kind.  Like in any form of audio enhancement,  graphic and parametric EQ's were essentially designed to tailor(and alter) the sound coming out of the source, whereas the maximizer was primarily designed to enhance the performance of the speakers, hence,  what the pundits refer to as creating optimum "linearity".  This is shown by the fact that adjustments with the sonic maximizer even at their extreme positions, are somewhat more subtle than any EQ.  Ultimately, regardless what the so-called "pundits" say, it does its job quite well.

Elantric

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exciter_%28effect%29

Exciter (effect)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Exciter (disambiguation).
An exciter (also called a harmonic exciter or aural exciter) is an audio signal processing technique used to enhance a signal by dynamic equalization, phase manipulation, harmonic synthesis of (usually) high frequency signals, and through the addition of subtle harmonic distortion. Dynamic equalization involves variation of the equalizer characteristics in the time domain as a function of the input. Due to the varying nature, noise is reduced compared to static equalizers. Harmonic synthesis involves the creation of higher order harmonics from the fundamental frequency signals present in the recording. As noise is usually more prevalent at higher frequencies, the harmonics are derived from a purer frequency band resulting in clearer highs. Exciters are also used to synthesize harmonics of low frequency signals to simulate deep bass in smaller speakers.
Originally made in valve (tube) based equipment, they are now implemented as part of a digital signal processor, often trying to emulate analogue Exciters. Exciters are mostly found as plug-ins for sound editing software and in sound enhancement processors.
Contents  [hide]
1 Aphex Aural Exciter
2 Other brands
3 Uses
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
Aphex Aural Exciter[edit]
The Aphex Aural Exciter was one of the first exciter effects. The effect was developed in the mid-1970s by Aphex Electronics. The Aural Exciter adds phase shift and musically related synthesized harmonics to audio signals. The first Aural Exciter units were available in the mid-1970s, exclusively on the rental basis of $30 per minute of finished recorded time. In the 1970s, certain recording artists, including Jackson Browne, The Four Seasons, Linda Ronstadt and James Taylor stated in their liner notes "This album was recorded using the Aphex Aural Exciter."
Aphex started selling the professional units, and introduced two low-cost models: Type B and Type C. The Aural Exciter circuit is now licensed by a growing list of manufacturers, including Yamaha, MacKenzie, Gentner, Emu and Bogen. The original Aphex Aural Exciter, first offered in 1975, came without the Big Bottom circuit, which was added in 1992. Later revisions of the Aphex Aural Exciter included the Model 104 Type C and Type C2 units. Aphex released in 2001 [1] the Model 204 Aural Exciter and Optical Big Bottom, yet another refinement of the original unit. According to Aphex, the Model 204 updates the Aural Exciter and Big Bottom processor blocks with improved circuitry, including an optical gain-control element for the Big Bottom compressor.
Other brands[edit]
Functionally similar units from competing manufacturers are generically known either as "psychoacoustic processors", "psychoacoustic exciters", "harmonic exciters", or "enhancers". In the 1990s and 2000s, broadly comparable products now available from BBE, Joemeek, SPL and Behringer. Most are analogue signal processors, although a few digital units began to appear in the 2000s. The BBE Sonic Maximiser utilises a similar process of frequency-dependent phase shifting, as do other brands to a varying extent.
Uses[edit]
Enhancing dull recordings, especially analog reel-to-reel tape recordings that have lost their "sparkle" due to repeated overdubs.
Restoring old recordings by simulating lost spectral content.
As an audio enhancement for hardware and software media players.
Exciters are sometimes sold in a "stompbox" pedal format, in units designed for use with an electric guitar, electric bass, or electronic keyboards.
See also[edit]

Toby Krebs

Many Hip Hop and Dance music DJs used them in giant PA systems around here for years. Back in the giant rack dual 18in. subwoofer PA days my band used one in our PA rack. Boss GT10 users bought Harmonic Balancers and used those (same thing). I don't think we have many anti aural enhancer purists around here lol! I certainly am not.Tonight I will take my stand alone configured GR55 out to a club gig and use a Zoom MS50  in my home brew effect loop for EQ and Boost functions before my guitar pickups hit the GR55s amp models.That a wah pedal and of course the Talk Box and thats it. Beginning of the year downsizing time for me.

Use what works for you.The only reason I dont use one of those things is I dont want more stuff to patch in to my chain.I want less.

Fusion

Quote from: Deus02 on January 07, 2015, 10:07:29 AM
Interesting, in that before I bought my BBE 482, I had a 30 band stereo graphic EQ, which ultimately I found just too frustrating as well and I was constantly tweaking.  Settings on certain sounds would be good, yet, crappy on others.  In addition graphic EQ's particularly with their sliders, can add considerable noise to the signal chain so I pulled it.  The 482 is much easier to use. I don't know who you were referring to at the beginning of your comments and the so-called "critique", but, it does remind me sometimes of A/V snobs who attempt to review a piece of equipment and the moment one senses their bias(which can be quite often), the review then becomes irrelevant.  These types also spend too much time looking at testing equipment and graphs and not enough time listening. 

Frankly, in their intended design and the literature I have read on the subject, I never really perceived sonic maximizers like the BBE to be that similar to EQ's of any kind.  Like in any form of audio enhancement,  graphic and parametric EQ's were essentially designed to tailor(and alter) the sound coming out of the source, whereas the maximizer was primarily designed to enhance the performance of the speakers, hence,  what the pundits refer to as creating optimum "linearity".  This is shown by the fact that adjustments with the sonic maximizer even at their extreme positions, are somewhat more subtle than any EQ.  Ultimately, regardless what the so-called "pundits" say, it does its job quite well.

My experience as well. An EQ does not phase invert correct the signal just as BBE claims the unit does it does.
I would be rather amazed if someone tried the unit on any guitar system and did not immediately hear it sounds better.
The reviewer who was technically proficient to be sure was bad mouthing the unit before he started, and yet the testing simply indicated the unit was doing exactly what BBE stated. He complained and railed on the unit not being true bypass, which it is not claimed to be. Yes, true, the "out" is not the same as your straight signal, I think most  will use the unit when "on" so that hardly seems like a deal kill, and, I might add the slight level drop is probably a good thing as most overdrive the unit, the slight bass roll off and some phase inversion can be argued that maybe the "off" on the unit might sound better than your virgin signal.
Bottom line using the unit wrong and then hating it is doing a disservice, some place the unit badly, overdrive the input levels, mismatch the impedance, or use the levels just too high. Use it subtly levels around 12:00 and as close to the power amp as possible and your rig will sound better.
Have fun with parametric and graphic EQs they are not the same and the frustration factor is off the scale, great way to really screw up your sound. A 382 BBE is only like $100 which is less than most EQs I have seen. Obviously playing for more years than I can remember I would not be using two of them on both my rigs if it was not an improvement.
"Long ago in days of old when magic filled the air..."

Toby Krebs

Yes they work well.Even the little Boss Enhancer pedal does.

mojo thorne

I've been lugging around my 482 rack mount for my Gr55.  I see musicians friend has the 282iQ for $40. That would fit right on my board.  Anyone have experience with that particular unit?

sixeight

I have seen the 282iq top at mf. Was considering buying it, though getting it to the Netherlands almost doubles the price for transport and taxes. Is it worth it?

Fusion

All I have used are the rack units and had a floor pedal for a brief time. I run stereo rigs and use a rack so the choice was simple for me. I am sure all the units have the same circuit. Apparently many like to bad mouth the BBE or say they can do the same with an EQ which is just not the case at all. I simply have to have one on my guitar rig and it stays on as it becomes quite natural to your tone once you get used to the enhancement you miss it when it is not there. I paid like $100 for my new 382i stereo channel one set of controls model, which is also instrument level. It is more important when you pick a unit the impedance is matched for your use and placement. Optimal is last in chain in the amp loop if you are using a std. guitar amp. Some units are made for line level, TRS, XLR low impedance configs.
"Long ago in days of old when magic filled the air..."

Tek


vtgearhead

Thanks for the heads-up.  At that price it's definitely worth a try.

Pete1959

Thanks Tek!
For that price, I picked up the XLR model as well as the 1/4" unbalanced inputs.


Fusion

I think you chaps are going to like what it does for the sound. I think many times the BBE gets a bad rap from acting as if it is a very sophisticated circuit when it is not really, but, for sure it is no simple parametric or graphic EQ. The phase inversion helps considerably and whatever you adjust the process levels amounts to a bell curve boost at 50Hz and 5kHz which for my rigs is ideal where I need the bump. As Guitar Player listed in their review, "the best value enhancement you can do for your rig". I wish everything worked this satisfying and low cost. Dude, you stole those desktop models.
"Long ago in days of old when magic filled the air..."

Toby Krebs

I think it also,lessens listener fatigue which can be a problem with all this digital stuff when played at volume.
Trying to resist buying and carrying/ stetting up/ powering and loving one of these things lol!

Fusion

Yes, a good point. My sound engineer brother some years ago demonstrated to me the issue of sound fatigue. He used to run live sound for various jobs and ranges of events. He played me an unEQ'ed, non analyzed, mix of the music through his massive 15"/horn giant Altec Lansing cabinets and it sounded good but indeed you got tired listening to it. Then after proper EQ flat response of the system, how sweet the sound had become pleasant to the ear with all low sub sonic, mud, peaks and valleys, being spectrum analyzed to the room. He showed me that proper use of an EQ could do wonders for a system. Back then they did not have the BBE but it was a fine class on using pink noise to spectrum analyze a sound system. He explained the same idea worked across the spectrum of sound reproduction, even guitar which often featured speakers and cabinets which colored and created a lot of rumble and phase distortions that were not a part of good sound or tone. A lesson I carried w me, just got into a long argument of chaps using big hollow box speaker cabs and how the lack of any dampening or design baffles was allowing the cab to generate phase distortions, standing waves, bass woofing, and rumble, from the reflective bounce going on instead the cab. Removing the bad makes things sound better. Some would argue that is a part of the tone. all that sound artifact being created by the box was not tone. A speaker should produce what it is given not create its own whacked range of tones which are little more than mud rumble and unwanted reverberation. The argument made to me was that some consider that part of the "tone", really, some also believe a lot of things that have no basis in reality, facts or numbers.
Anyway, that went on and on with the point being obscured by "opinions" not based in fact or understanding sonic physics.
They did not understand flat response was not "lifeless and dull" but pleasing to the ear and balanced, one changed the Eq to suit what one wanted to do via amo/effects/guitar types, point was that a speaker should reproduce what it is given not create its own range of sonic disorder you cannot EQ or control.

BBE also made the point that a loudspeaker will not produce the various frequency waves at instance, reaching the listeners ear in a time lag. Bass reaching first then the high end. BBE does a phase inversion of the signal delaying the bass end which cleans up the over all tone dramatically. I would think for the GR55 chaps using full range speaker/amp rigs this is even more important to unify the sound being split by a cross-over circuit. i like using my better quality guitar 12" cabs myself which have been slightly dampened the BBE adds high end clarity and removes the low end much adding the punch and crispness of the music. I do not like having my signal split on a cross over right at my amp source but the BBE helps this issue on all facets. Makes the guitar 12s sound much better and more range. Some indeed present the speakers have high end roll off around 5K, which is indeed true but sort of mulls the point that guitar amp presence controls are 10K and you can for sure hear that being added into the signal on guitar 12s. So.........
The bell curve EQ bump boost at 50Hz and 5kHz is ideal for my system and provides the EQ I need to compensate without having to mess with the massive graphic adjust EQ which I had been using. Adjusting an EQ by ear is another argument I have had, without the factual rendering no two pair of ears or even each on one head are identical. As long as the BBE is kept around 12:00, magic. I wish other things I have bought were so inexpensive and worked so well.
"Long ago in days of old when magic filled the air..."