# BBE Sonic Maximizer differences



## raximkoron (Apr 15, 2009)

I'm looking to pick one of these things up in the near future and something is confusing me.

Is there a difference between the 362 and the 482i other than the 482i has two separate processors? Also, if there is a difference between them, is the stomp box based on the 362 or 482i?

Also, because I think it'd be amusing to try but doubt it'd be useful in the least, has anyone tried to use a 482i both in front of an amp as well as in the effects loop?


----------



## Elysian (Apr 15, 2009)

They're all based on the same process, so they aren't going to sound any different, the 482 is just more flexible. The pedal is based on the same thing the racks are.


----------



## CynicEidolon (Apr 15, 2009)

They all suck for guitar.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Apr 15, 2009)

CynicEidolon said:


> They all suck for guitar.


----------



## TomAwesome (Apr 15, 2009)

The 482i is the newer version of the BBE process, and the Sonic Stomp is basically one channel of a 482i. Running two Sonic Maximizers in the same chain would be a bad idea.


----------



## silentrage (Apr 15, 2009)

I heard they're all equally bad for guitar as well, but some people do swear by them, so I don't know...


----------



## TomAwesome (Apr 15, 2009)

Depending on the gear and how it's used, it can either be a beneficial addition to a rig or it can sound crappy. I've heard them in both situations.


----------



## CynicEidolon (Apr 15, 2009)

If you have a rig where they ARE beneficial... You should have saved the money and get a better rig with out a BBE.


----------



## TomAwesome (Apr 15, 2009)

These kinds of mindless and ignorant BBE bashing comments aren't constructive or helpful at all.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Apr 15, 2009)

Well..the original version was meant to put in frequencies that get lost with long rack effect chains. Some pedals suck tone, so the BBE was meant to put the highs and lows back..which makes sense. On the other hand, everyone is using this thing now as a dummy EQ to scoop their sound, which is why it sounds like ass. You want an EQ..buy one. The BBE isn't for that


----------



## CynicEidolon (Apr 15, 2009)

I'm trying to be helpful in saying... If you aren't happy with the way your rig sounds, a BBE Maximizer won't help. Get something different. I'm not bashing them... Shit, I HAVE one. But, they just don't work for guitar purposes 90&#37; of the time.


----------



## Sepultorture (Apr 15, 2009)

forgive me for not knowing, but really, what does the BBE Sonic Maximizer do really


----------



## raximkoron (Apr 16, 2009)

TomAwesome said:


> The 482i is the newer version of the BBE process, and the Sonic Stomp is basically one channel of a 482i. Running two Sonic Maximizers in the same chain would be a bad idea.



Thanks for the info!

I should say that what I meant by "looking into getting one of these" is more that I'm curious about them, and want to play around with one to see if I like what it does. Guitar Center always seems to have these things laying around, unlike most of the things I want to play with, so I have that to my advantage at least.

I really have no problem with my tone at all, I love it. The only complaint I really have is that my other guitarists rig roars like a lion so it's pretty difficult to cut through (He's got an ART SGX2000 pre going through an old Randal Warhead head into the Warhead cab swapped out with some crazy speakers, two of which are bass/acoustic speakers). I realize that the BBE SM won't help me a bit with cutting through, I'm already looking into an EQ to help with that.

And maybe a chainsaw


----------



## CynicEidolon (Apr 16, 2009)

Sepultorture said:


> forgive me for not knowing, but really, what does the BBE Sonic Maximizer do really




*The BBE Process-"What it Is"*
Loudspeakers have difficulty working with the electronic signals supplied by an amplifier. These difficulties cause such major phase and amplitude distortion that the sound reproduced by the speaker differs significantly from the sound produced by the original source.
In the past, these problems proved unsolvable and were thus relegated to a position of secondary importance in audio system design. However, phase and amplitude integrity is essential to accurate sound reproduction. Research shows that the information which the listener translates into the recognizable characteristics of a live performance are intimately tied into complex time and amplitude relationships between the fundamental and harmonic components of a given musical note or sound. These relationships define a sound's "sound".

When these complex relationships pass through a speaker, the proper order is lost. The higher frequencies are delayed. A lower frequency may reach the listener's ear first or perhaps simultaneously with that of a higher frequency. In some cases, the fundamental components may be so time-shifted that they reach the listener's ear ahead of some or all of the harmonic components.

This change in the phase and amplitude relationship on the harmonic and fundamental frequencies is technically called "envelope distortion." The listener perceives this loss of sound integrity in the reproduced sound as "muddy" and "smeared." In the extreme, it can become difficult to tell the difference between musical instruments, for example, an oboe and a clarinet.

BBE Sound, Inc. conducted extensive studies of numerous speaker systems over a ten year period. With this knowledge, it became possible to identify the characteristics of an ideal speaker and to distill the corrections necessary to return the fundamental and harmonic frequency structures to their correct order. While there are differences among various speaker designs in the magnitude of their correction, the overall pattern of correction needed is remarkably consistent.

The BBE Process is so unique that 42 patents have been awarded by the U.S. Patent Office. - Musiciansfriend.com


----------



## silentrage (Apr 16, 2009)

Is it physically possible for different frequencies of sound to travel at different speeds? Or am I misunderstanding?


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Apr 16, 2009)

silentrage said:


> Is it physically possible for different frequencies of sound to travel at different speeds? Or am I misunderstanding?



BBE says all that crap and others will repeat it, having no clue what the hell any of it means. All it does is add lows and highs to your sound


----------



## TomAwesome (Apr 16, 2009)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> BBE says all that crap and others will repeat it, having no clue what the hell any of it means. All it does is add lows and highs to your sound



Nope. There's a linear delay set up. The low frequencies are delayed 2.5 miliseconds, and the mids are delayed 0.5 miliseconds. The highs (above 2.5k) are not delayed. This is to compensate for the fact that when sound is run through a speaker, the highs and mids come out slightly delayed compared to the bass, which is what they mean by envelope distortion. This is also why I said earlier that it would be a bad idea to run two of them in the same chain. You'd end up with overcompensated delays that would give you envelope distortion more or less inverted from what the speakers impart to the sound on their own.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Apr 16, 2009)

TomAwesome said:


> Nope. There's a linear delay set up. The low frequencies are delayed 2.5 miliseconds, and the mids are delayed 0.5 miliseconds. The highs (above 2.5k) are not delayed. This is to compensate for the fact that when sound is run through a speaker, the highs and mids come out slightly delayed compared to the bass, which is what they mean by envelope distortion. This is also why I said earlier that it would be a bad idea to run two of them in the same chain. You'd end up with overcompensated delays that would give you envelope distortion more or less inverted from what the speakers impart to the sound on their own.



Yeah..that's how it works. But to the ears, at least mine and my bassists when we had them, as well as a few people who owned studios who deal with guys that use them all the time..it just adds lows and highs and most of the time it makes a rig sound worse. To it's credit it can make for some hifi cool sound if dialed in right, but me and my bassist both went through the same thing at different times. In the end the 10 band eq won out as there wasn't much the BBE could do against it


----------



## TomAwesome (Apr 16, 2009)

Well, if you're just comparing what the knobs do, then yeah, an EQ probably wins. But comparing the BBE process to an EQ is an apples and oranges kind of thing. I run the knobs really low on mine since I prefer to use an EQ for EQing, and the BBE usually sounds like crap if they're up too high.


----------



## jsousa (Apr 16, 2009)

save your money


----------



## maat (Apr 16, 2009)

If I ever get one, I'll be getting that Acoustimax Preamp...The one with a parametric EQ and BBE Process.


----------



## cosmicamnesia (Apr 16, 2009)

CynicEidolon said:


> If you have a rig where they ARE beneficial... You should have saved the money and get a better rig with out a BBE.



my other guitar player has one in the rack system he runs through his triple rec and it sounds fucking great


----------



## MTech (Apr 16, 2009)

DrakkarTyrannis said:


> Well..the original version was meant to put in frequencies that get lost with long rack effect chains. Some pedals suck tone, so the BBE was meant to put the highs and lows back..which makes sense. On the other hand, everyone is using this thing now as a dummy EQ to scoop their sound, which is why it sounds like ass. You want an EQ..buy one. The BBE isn't for that



More or less.


DrakkarTyrannis said:


> All it does is add lows and highs to your sound


No.

It's meant to put the sound in phase which is exactly what it says in the product description, and goes on to tell you how it does it. Problem is people get on and do what Drakkar said and make a muddy mess. Working in a live environment one may notice only one guy in the band using this (we'll say the guitarist) so his cab is putting out sound that's In Phase....but than the whole band is mic'd and put through a PA..which 90&#37; of the time I notice the sound guy doesn't have a BBE in their rig... this completely defeats the purpose of running one because it's all mic'd put through the board and than pushed out the PA unbalanced.

If you want something to change your sound or add something to it than you need the Aural Exiter.
APHEX Systems 204 Aural Exciter&#174; - Optical Big Bottom&#174;


----------



## raximkoron (Apr 16, 2009)

MTech said:


> More or less.
> 
> No.
> 
> ...



I had seen these when surfing for information on the Sonic Maximizer, and had kind of thought these were a more expensive version. On Aphex' site, they describe it as a high/low extender, which is what most people state that the Sonic Maximizer does as well.

Obviously they'll have a different effect on tone as they're two different manufacturers and processors, but do they achieve the same goals for an instrument or are they vastly different?


----------



## MTech (Apr 16, 2009)

raximkoron said:


> Obviously they'll have a different effect on tone as they're two different manufacturers and processors, but do they achieve the same goals for an instrument or are they vastly different?



The BBE puts the sound in Phase and like somebody else said people try using it like an EQ and that's not what it's meant for hence it sounds like mud when you do it.. (FWIW: I own a BBE and after hearing it on/off and learning to dial in I never use it anymore) the Aural unit on the other hand is meant to add to the sound harmonically. 

I didn't watch this yet but I would assume it'd show you what's up.


----------



## canuck brian (Apr 16, 2009)

I've got an old 461 (ancient) and a 482 (new) and they sound pretty much the same. I really dig having one in my rig - I like the overprocessed tube sound. Can't help it.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Apr 16, 2009)

TomAwesome said:


> Well, if you're just comparing what the knobs do, then yeah, an EQ probably wins. But comparing the BBE process to an EQ is an apples and oranges kind of thing. I run the knobs really low on mine since I prefer to use an EQ for EQing, and the BBE usually sounds like crap if they're up too high.



Right. That's what I mean. People are mainly using it as an EQ and for it's purposes..it's cool, but they rarely sound good because people use them the wrong way. Even when you figure it out...it's not really even worth it


----------



## guitardedhero (Apr 17, 2009)

i never leave home without my sonic stomp...


----------

