Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
Welcome to TalkBass! Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Some later MITs are made with a different chip that's generally regarded as worse sounding. The earlier ones are identical to the MIJs in terms of components. Unless the seller specifies which version the MIT is, I'd go for the MIJ given the pretty small price difference and guarantee of getting the preferable chip. I'd suggest looking up some shootouts. Dunno if there are any good demos with different OC-2s, but there's OC-2/3 comparisons for sure. Most of my knowledge on these is based on this video which I strongly recommend watching:
lol...I was gonna say the same thing. I read the post and figured necro thread from several years ago...nope yesterday. Seems about in line w 2020 so far.
I already pull the trigger for MIT and it'll arrived today. The MIT one are everywhere in Indonesia for this past weeks, but someone always ahead of me. The MIJ one just pop up few days ago. But after what I heard, I think I'll satisfied with MIT. Why Boss not making OC-2w tho?
A very good question. The OC-3 isn't horrible but it's not as good as the OC-2. BTW, I've heard comparisons of the MIJ and MIT OC-2's and I can't tell a difference. My OC-2, unbeknownst to me when I bought it in 2008, ended up being one of the transition models that had a Japanese PCB, and while it's excellent, I haven't heard anything out of it that I haven't heard in the Taiwan models. And if a cheapo Chinese company like Valeton can do a credible OC-2 clone, then I don't see why Boss couldn't.
That said, I went MXR
The Vintage Bass Octave gives me that sound with better tracking, more available gain, and a nifty little mid switch that I use very subtly but effectively.It's already arrive. After finish my jobs, I'm going home, play with it, and make an NPD thread about it. Thanks guys!
TBH, I'm looking for Valeton and MXR too, but MXR one hard tk find here and the Valeton is at the same price with MIT OC-2, so I pull the trigger on the real deal. It's my 3rd octave in a year (not bothered to get one before), I hope the search is over.A very good question. The OC-3 isn't horrible but it's not as good as the OC-2. BTW, I've heard comparisons of the MIJ and MIT OC-2's and I can't tell a difference. My OC-2, unbeknownst to me when I bought it in 2008, ended up being one of the transition models that had a Japanese PCB, and while it's excellent, I haven't heard anything out of it that I haven't heard in the Taiwan models. And if a cheapo Chinese company like Valeton can do a credible OC-2 clone, then I don't see why Boss couldn't.
That said, I went MXR
Well the OC-2 is certainly a classic, and as far as I'm concerned, the one all others are judged by. I predict much happiness.
To my ears; OC-2 sounds better for what it does, but has a significant volume drop on common settings (measured). OC-3 doesn't necessarily drop the volume and has more options, but doesn't do the OC-2 sound as good (analog vs digital). But you probably can't tell in a mix.
My preference? Octamizer, lately.
My preference? Octamizer, lately.
You can add some gain with the compressor to make up for volume drop if you experience that as an issue. However to reach unity with your input signal, you'll have to dial the output back when the OC-2 is not in use. Bear in mind that the OC-2 doesn't have the best dynamics regardless, so the synth signal coming out of it will be a bit compressed regardless of compressor pedal. With the OC-2, I'd put the compressor before seeing how
a) the signal coming out of the OC-2 will be pretty compressed which means you won't gain as much from the compressor. Compressing the dry signal will be easier as the comp isn't dealing with the (low dynamic range) synth signal on top of the dry, so it will respond more nicely and accurately to your playing
b) the OC-2 doesn't have a lot of headroom, so feeding it a loud signal will cause clipping on the synth signal even with compression afterwards
Exactly how you wanna set it up is up to you and depends on what you want to get out of it. But I'd wager you'll want to tune it to a bit of peak limiting to avoid the clipping. If the rest that you want is sustain, just go for that. With the Hyper Luminal that should mean turning the blend to mostly wet.
a) the signal coming out of the OC-2 will be pretty compressed which means you won't gain as much from the compressor. Compressing the dry signal will be easier as the comp isn't dealing with the (low dynamic range) synth signal on top of the dry, so it will respond more nicely and accurately to your playing
b) the OC-2 doesn't have a lot of headroom, so feeding it a loud signal will cause clipping on the synth signal even with compression afterwards
Exactly how you wanna set it up is up to you and depends on what you want to get out of it. But I'd wager you'll want to tune it to a bit of peak limiting to avoid the clipping. If the rest that you want is sustain, just go for that. With the Hyper Luminal that should mean turning the blend to mostly wet.
have had an OC-3 on my board for awhile. I liked it.. but the source audio c4 handles the job pretty equally.
I honestly never had an issue with the output of the OC2. I always thought it was fine and never got why people complain about it so much. Maybe I'm weird.
Nobody needs to reply to that last sentence, you wisenheimers!
Nobody needs to reply to that last sentence, you wisenheimers!