Klark 3RD Dimension versus Roland Dimension D. The comparison!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 жов 2024
- Comparison between Dimension D and 3RD Dimension.
Klarks eager workers have soldered a clone of Roland's Dimension D for you, cheap cheap! And edited the schematics and partlist to suit the Cheap! Cheap! mentality.
This unit, again, borrows legacy and credibility created by another great brand (the inventor) and sells the illusion very, very cheap, but is it any good?
Well...
The audio recording of my voice sure isn't! Thanks to The IPhone 11Pro we have a voice recording similar to an old cassette recorder from a thrift store... From HELL! Sorry for that, but i really couldn't be bothered doing this all over again!
Anyway...
The audio recording of the two compared machines was done straight from the mixing console, blended in a video editor with my crap recorded voice, but... You know the drill with these crap amateur vids... Chew through it!
The units performance:
We noticed here that, when given the same input level, the Klark was a bit overly sensitive, and even generating a bit of distortion while it isn't beeing overloaded yet. Even when we tamed the input, the audio was still a bit "cruchy". Probably because the original design by Roland was compromised by using different components like the opamps.
The output gains were however equalled on the console to appear evenly loud.
The input sources are a TB303 and a TT303. (which is which?) :-)
Enjoy the test!! And.... Don't shoot the messenger!!
Fart sounds may have not been the best choice.
Thanks for the comparison, but why did you have to talk during the comparison? makes it so hard to listen to any differences! Really seems that I'll have to buy a KT unit to compare to my Roland.
Had high hopes for this, but yeah it’s pretty bad.
Because someone else says so..smh think for yourself sometime
If you ask me there is some confirmation bias going on here I'm sorry to say. Like the other comparisons I've been listening to in the last couple of days I find them all but indistinguishable. So much so that I am now lusting after the Boss DC-2w because I find It offers more than the vintage unit (just make sure you keep an eye on the input levels). The DC2w has more distinct flavours in the different modes than either the Klark or the Roland to my ears making it more versatile.
Monitors help in finding the truth here. No bias, i would have LOVED it if the Klark was any good. And on the other hand, if you are a musician you might mistake the Roland for a chorus, while this is a MIX tool. And the difference for mixwork is huge. It renders the Klark useless.
i'm sorry he you sound bias! So, right there its pointless.. I think you wanted the world to here your rant!
"Lets hear how the Roland D sounds with a simple bassline"
..... Plays the best bassline in the world.... :P
You got it!!
Is it “What Time Is Love”?
@@infindebula Correct !
Anne Clarke?
Great & usefull review,thanks. But how would those chair noises sound Chorused!
Why this crappy sound quality when you have a pro studio!?
glad you said "clone" we got 2 for $89 dollars each....sounds great to my ears and pedal pricing...my only "complaint" is...why not make it a pedal as well? single rack would have been good too......
Please don't play baby music. Never seen so many bad demo's so far and have no idea why the wrong material is demos into it. If one would just play a basic synth sound maybe we could hear the difference instead of over complex sounds you would not demo?
I agree on what is said in the video!
A REAL sound engineer would have patched the sound correctly for the video. And I don't see any NS10s
You are right.
Klark sounds terrible in comparison
Would love to see a studio tour, thanks for the content!
That lamp and switch is consistent with other recent Klark units, like their 1176/LA2A/etc. Cheers for the comparison.. I notice the level meter is going much higher on the Klark than the Roland when you're noticing the distortion?
But there are other sources much more interesting than synthesizer basses. That klark sounds GREAT as a stereo image for a bus on Vocals or parallel effects on Master mixes. For 150€ is a very good toy 🧸
exactly. If we are really going to be objective, I think there are more suitable sources to make a more fair comparison. "Sounding better"? Not quite so sure
Maybe its time to run a diagnostic on the potato you used to do the audio recording
What did anyone expect for £130? lol. . .
🤣😂🤣😂
As you said, how can you not be biased. Bias is pervasive on UA-cam with KT products! However there are a lot of poor chaps like me that get a taste of your world for a fraction of your cost. If I had spent thousands for OG stuff; I'd be furious too. But for me and my "PAUPER" friend; we say "THANK GOD" for Behringer and their "knockoff-fest". I got their LAs,1176s, EQ and the 808 drum machine and could never afford the orginals of these. I can't wait to get this cheap Roland clone and put this ALMOST PERFECT" sounding Roland clone into my mixes. I'm am ordering this thing from Sweetwater today! Thanks for your video.
Great demo.
I found almost all 80s Roland gear (their fx and digital synths) have a very pleasing quality which I attribute mostly to their output amps and chips. Nowadays the Chinese/Korean/etc chips just dont give us the same results, and the opamps while much better on paper per the specs somehow dont sound as good (probably slower slew rate on older opamps actually help the sound and shape it to our ears in a more natural way, while modern preamps are fast and clean and thus do not "help" the sound).
I this case you can hear even through youtube how pleasing the low end is on the original which I cannot hear in the Klark. However of course this is just one of many ways you can treat sound and I'm not sure an original Roland Dimension D is worth $1500-$2000 they regularly go at. I mean sure if money is not an objection its an excellent unit but thats a lot of money for a basically one trick pony. I have some Roland rack units and I love the DEP-5 and SDE 1000 and they go for super cheap sometimes if you're lucky to get one. In fact I consider a second SDE 1000 just to build a stereo delay, it just oozes 80s Roland character.
How can you have such expensive recording studio equipment but then a 20 Dollar camera with a 5 Dollar microphone???????
Klark sounds like it has a slightly longer delay so more chorused, less subtle and phasing maybe due to the subtraction technique for left and right
I heard this unit is thiner sounding & lower dB.
I am thinking to buy one and add a BBE Sonic Maximizer (to at least enhance bass, like a mod).
I also heard this unit can me 'modded' like other units. yes?
all the pedals don't do it. and to use plugs, a computer-dependent (digital) system is needed.
so far, this is it! wondering if a year or so later, owners are satisfied.
You know, this unit 's circuitry 'could' be re-housed in a long pedal. Just sayin'.
You don't sound convinced by the Boss DC-2W Waza Craft Dimension C Pedal (set to SDD-320 mode). Care to elaborate on your thoughts between that pedal and the original?
Klark is known for making shitty copies of good gear.
Thoughts from just over headphones. Roland sounds warmer and fatter. More open and natural.
Klark is a bit brittle and thin in comparison. Still would definitely pick up one for the price
the compression charactheristic of the SDD-320 is somewhat present but the parameters sound altered on the Third Dimension. On the Roland the compression onset has a pleasingly fast attack that allows some transient through and a well balanced decay that compliments the timing of the 303 bassline envelope, as if it has been run through a transient shaper tailored to it before passing through the BBDs. The Klark Technik on the other hand seems to remove more of the transient on the attack phase and takes longer to recover in the decay phase, making it sound just a touch squashed.
this test, while set up expertly in the studio, does not translate as well in the video due to the fact that audible bleed from the room sound enters the vocal mic when he is indicating which unit is being heard, making it hard to judge the incoming representation against what was previously heard which, momentarily, was both the alternate unit sound plus the room sound plus the distracting voiceover. a better way to do it would be to use the 100% mix off the console in the video and overlay some text when the switch is made that indicates what we're hearing, and that way we could hear a more immediate A/B comparison in stead of A/A+X+Y/B+X+Y/B.
They are identical. Anyone who thinks they have any meaningful difference has never worked on an actual mix
ua-cam.com/video/NpU8wkZL9WE/v-deo.html
Dig the MCI! I've got one too!
thanks for doing the video mate... saved me a bit of money on this junk..I really was looking forward after the compressors but this seems way off.
So because someone else doesn't like something, you call it junk lol...dumbass ppl.
Thanks! You saved my money :-)
*What you hear now is my chair* 😂
Chances are it's going to get on a record and it will be released, but no one wont know if it's a roland once couple of 🍺🍻🍻🍺in the system. 😁😁😆😆😆😆😆😆😆🤣
That is exactly why a lot of music sounds cheap and crap these days. Its good, because the listener is deaf or drunk... 😂😂😂
Een Nederlander...
Ja goed he. 😉😂😎
The 3rd dimension sounds mono LOL
The dimension D costs almost 2k
Not everywhere. But thats not the point. If there was a 3rd dimension copy that sounded even worse, but costs even less, would that than be even a better choice? In studio gear the only winning factor is sound. If it has gotten expensive, thats a pity, but shit happens. These devices have gained a place amongst mix tools for doing some special trick. The Klark attempt has definitelt not got the properties that the real unit has. It is just a different class device. A good plugin does a better job than this Klark chorus made to look like a Dimension D.
I did a bit of research. There are some guys that got the cheaper version and swapped out the cheap parts to make them sound the same. You can find all the info online. Maybe I’ll try it one day ha ha@@mixroomonestudioengineerin2176
I hear a subtle difference in the low mids, The Klark 3d Dimension sounded better.The highs in the second bass line sounded better with the Roland, I think the bass is more succinct in the low mids and bass in the Bass line
I like noise and buzz and grit. I’m cool with grabbing it for how low it costs!
appreciate the effort but a little 303 bassline does not really cover the duties of this unit i think. at least a pad would have been nice, a vocal, a piano. i will check later in the studio but on my laptop it didnt sound that far off tbh
It is what it is. You can hear what it does clearly. And on a bass sound you hear the swirly chorussy crap of the Klark really good. Even an old SPX90 does a better job. The Klark is way too pushy to left and right and thin above all! Thats why i used bass on it in the first place. A 303 bass has a very grabbing waveform that, when compromised, you easily hear it get thin. Oh and mate, listen on quality MONITORS in a proper STUDIO please... Laptop, come on bro. 😉
I want this track
Actually prefer the klark on guitar...but this video does a good job on demonstrating low end & distortion threshold.
Roland retains more low end fatness.
Very good ears Jermaine. That's because Roland DD has a crossover where the chorus does not effects some low frequencies, so the lows stays clear (not modulated). The Klark teknik version does not have this subtlety, and you can hear it. This subtle detail is decisive and makes the difference between a real Dimension D and a chorus.
@@discosmacuto8912
Makes sense👍
What about the Boss dc2 pedal version? Is it as good as the rack or just a different thing actually? Moreover I'd like to hear some feedback on the new dc2 waza reissue.
I don't think a demo of the DC-2w Waza can get better than this: ua-cam.com/video/l2UP2amAJx0/v-deo.html
Nice studio, and nice phone too.
I dont think its all about the cost... it the chips.. havent heard a new mn3005 copy chip that is even close..
Is it possible to replace the new bbd IC by a NOS Panasonic MN3005? That would be the best solution
@@DynamicRockers no.. it seems a different circuit.. this from someone that knows.. "The circuit as expected is very similar to the Roland. The key difference being that the Roland used MN3007 BBDs running from 0V and -14V while the KT uses the V3207 running from +8V and 0V. This doesn't really have a massive impact on the sound of the unit on its own but the swap from a negative supply to a positive one does have an important effect on the high frequency VCO circuits that directly control the delay time of the BBDs. The reason being is that the LFO, the slow modulation oscillator, outputs a signal that goes from around +3V to -3V. This is piped through a resistor (or two) to control the delay time. The Roland's BBD circuitry always sees an LFO signal above its own operating voltage. While the KT sees the LFO signal below its operating voltage.
For Modes 2, 3 and 4, this change in BBD supply voltage should not affect operation too much if the correct resistor vales are used in the KT's VCO circuits. However, Mode 1 uses a simple FET transistor and resistor to change the depth of the LFO modulation. When engaged in Mode 1 this crude circuit not only lowers the modulation depth but also runs the VCOs at a much lower frequency. Thus in the original unit the delay in Mode 1 is significantly longer than in Modes 2, 3, and 4. Whether this was a deliberate design decision who can say.
Mode 1: The Roland SDD-320 produces a delay time that varies from 8ms to 12ms. In the KT BBD-320, it varies from 3.8ms to 7.1ms. The modulation depth is thus 4ms in the Roland and 3.3ms in the KT. However, the key difference is those absolute delay figures which are almost half that of the Roland.
Mode 2: The Roland is 5ms to 10ms. The KT is 3.7ms to 8.5ms. Again the modulation depth is similar but the delay time overall is less.
Modes 3 and 4: The Roland is 6ms to 9ms. The KT is 4.7ms to 7.6ms. Again the modulation depth is similar but the delay time overall is less.
The upshot of all of this is that Modes 2, 3 and 4 probably don't sound that much different to the original Roland, at least a with a simple synth sound which is what I was testing it with. But there is a difference, both measurable and audible.
Mode 1, however, sounds a lot different. The Roland's longer delay times sound better to my ears.
On my unit changing R87 and R128 from 5K1 to 5K6 helped bring modes 2, 3 and 4 in line with the original. These resistors I think are 0603 size so it is possible to hand solder them in. So I would recommend doing this. However, although it improves things for mode 1 too, it doesn't fix it completely. And, because of the change from a negative to positive power supply to the BBDs, clock drivers and VCOs, getting Mode 1 on the KT to match the original is not trivial.
I have some success with using the output of the Mode 1 switch which is a +15V/-15V control signal that turns on the FET attenuators that control the LFO depth. Take a 1N4148 and a 30K resistor in series from the wiper of the mode 1 switch (it's the middle pin of the connector that goes to the switch board) to the lower pad of R87, and then do the same for R128. The diodes are aligned so that the cathodes face the connector. This will engage a small negative current into the VCO control inputs and lower the clock to give you bigger delay times. I am now getting a delay between 7.6ms and 10.4ms. Not quite the 8ms and 12ms but close enough I think. It certainly sounds better."
@@jsaulkane5893 You're the best J Saul! You hacked your unit pretty well. I was really interested in uying the KT even if it requires modding it. I'll do it anyway. The few ms you describe is responsible for the overall character of the unit, it has to match the Roland's specs. This is the most serious post I read about this FX. Thank you very much for your tip. PS yesterday I bought the Arturia VST Modulation FX pack for 49$ and the dimension D emulation is excellent you should take a look.
@@bamfasaurusrex you end up doing this?
Killjoy! But you are spot on.
thanks karel. by the way that klf bass line is awsome.....
Good Review, Many Thanks.........................
Look at those classic Prophets.
Thanks for this comparison ! :)
much higher input level on the Klark yields distortion
It gets a split signal, hard split so the level is the same. The metering in the Klark is off the correct specification. Not very well calibrated. :-)
Geabonneerd!
What is that blue looking LA-2A style compressor?
BLOO LA2A. A kit once sold which built a 100% authentic 1968 LA2A with all the correct parts including the UTC transformers. Sounds better than later originals and miles better than clones. It has the subtle vintage transformer harmonics that most real and clones miss out on.
That room is awesome!!!
I wouldn't touch either of those with a 10 foot pole. So many better software options for cheap/free
i quite like the sound of both together :)
Good review Karel, but Is the Roland 10 times better?? I don't think so... So fo nearly a tenth of the price, the Klark is going to work for me..
Its sold as a replacement, looking near equal. If you want a plain stereo chorus, you better buy a SPX90 for 75 bucks, which is four times better on its Symphonic setting. Plus it can do a 1000 things more. Someone that thinks this does the trick adequately, might not know WHY the Roland became the legend it did. The Klark doesn't offer THAT effect, so even at 150 bucks, the SPX beats it in spades.
so you are buying something because it is cheap.. not because its good..? just use plug ins if we are going there..
J Saul Kane Not at all? I actually really like it . While I agree, very few reissues are as good as the original, I think it does a very good dimension effect and my point about the price was purely reflective on how much an original would cost these days?
as mentioned earlier.. they are using the look the EXACT look the same functions and selling it as a replica ..but the key element ...the sound ...is pretty far off ..its not even a great chorus.. most DAWs have better.. like logic's ensemble.. btw this just came out earlier ! ua-cam.com/video/CyPkZr3enes/v-deo.html
@@jsaulkane5893 So, do you have either yourself
Sounds like the bass track from Anne Clark ...
K
L
F
It is klf stole it 👍🏻
You should have A&B'ed between the two starting with the signal bypassed.
Not necessary.
@@mixroomonestudioengineerin2176 It is necessary for the listener (your subscribers) it gives us a clear demarcation and distinction between what the unprocessed and processed signal sounds like.
@@TheRTM
I appreciate this comparison vid but I agree, a clean signal vs juiced would be better.
did u go mono in stereo out?
Of course, you can't hear the maximum effect if you already go in stereo. And of course a TB303 is mono anyway.
Klark Teknik = Behringer
Klark Teknik is dead, long live Klark Teknik!
Thanks for the comparison! I'll keep my money for now. The narrow stereo image on a device whose main purpose is to add stereo width, is a complete turn-off foe me.