Zoom A3 vs Fishman Aura Spectrum DI

cspencer · #1 01-26-2014, 02:01 AM

Hi,
I'm deciding between Zoom A3 and Fishman Aura Spectrum DI. Some say the imaging on Spectrum is better than A3. I don't have a shop here to test DI's and am buying online. Greatly appreciate your help

dnf777 · #2 01-26-2014, 08:28 AM

Hi Spencer,

I'll try to be careful and honest in this reply, beginning with I have not used the zoom A3. I do have the fishman aura, and have been very happy with it. As to sound, it is amazing. It has several body shapes, and each shape has multiple "images" to choose from, representing different guitars or mics. I found early on, that these are not to be strictly conformed with, rather I have experimented with all different images and combinations to find several that really work well with my set up. I try to remember these are imaging settings, not modeling, and that helps.

There is quite a price difference between the zoom and fishman that cannot be ignored. I suspect this is largely due to the R&D of the imaging software and sampling involved in the fishman's development, and maybe more so due to the quality in construction. Again, I do not have the zoom A3, but do own several other zoom pedals. I am generally very happy with zoom products, but admit they are a tier below the fishman cnstruction. It is all-metal and seems to have very heavy-duty switches and pots, as where the zoom products I own do not.

Personally, I would go with the fishman if budget allows, with my set up and past experiences.

Doubleneck · #3 01-26-2014, 10:34 AM

Really comes down I think to what pickup you are using? If its a Fishman UST the Spectrum is ideal since the images were made with their UST. If you have a UST and it's not Fishman then the image may still work, if you do not have a UST then the Spectrum is probably not the best. Hear good things about the Zoom probably a good choice for option 2 and 3.

RockerDuck · #4 01-26-2014, 04:29 PM

One thing the Zoom A3 has that Fishman doesn't have is a microphone input. This allows you to model and mic your guitar together for the best sound. I think this clearly outweighs the Fishman Aura.

jonfields45 · #5 01-26-2014, 04:38 PM

I've had and sold both. And my current performance guitar has a piezo UST. I found myself endlessly fooling with the Aura and never settling into a stable setting. I found the A3 mic and guitar modeling too subtle and the foot switches too close together for reliable performance usage. Of all things I am using a Zoom MS-50G these days for volume changes, reverb, some slight equalization (rarely), and amp modeling for my A6's humbucker.

Bottom line: Aura sounds unnatural unless you get it just right, which I could spend the rest of my life tweaking. The A3 modeling is too subtle, the foot switches are too close together, and the user interface makes the MS-50G look like a simple toy (and it could be better too). My A3 demo is pasted below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA1mPm70QJs

Jon

DavidE · #6 01-26-2014, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockerDuck

One thing the Zoom A3 has that Fishman doesn't have is a microphone input. This allows you to model and mic your guitar together for the best sound. I think this clearly outweighs the Fishman Aura.

I wouldn't say clearly. The last thing I want to do at one of my gigs is mic my guitar. This feature would be no advantage to me.

I haven't looked into the Zoom, but I would guess it offers much more than the Spectrum DI in terms of effects. That could be handy if the guitar sound is good.

And yes, the Aura will work with other USTs. It may not be as exact a match for the image, but I don't think it's a huge deal.

jimmy bookout · #7 01-26-2014, 06:09 PM

I have both and IMO there is NO comparison between the 2. The Aura Spectrum is better by a factor of 10....it's easier to use, the images are better. I am a fan of Zoom's products (I have a Q2HD video recorder and a H4N recorder) but the A3 is just about as NON intuitive to use as anything I've ever seen. I spent HOURS messing with the thing and NEVER got a tone anywhere close to an Aura Spectrum. Also, the image bank is VERY limited, and the images themselves lack strength. You have to crank the image blend ALL THE WAY UP on the A3 to equal the amount of image an Aura has with the image blend at 30%.

As far as other UST's not working well with the Aura Spectrum, I have not found that to be the case. I have MiSi's (Baggs Element pickup with battery-less preamp) in all of my gig guitars and it works great. I took about an hour with each guitar, recording the same passage with each of the 16 images in a given body style, and then weeded through till I came up with a winner. From that point, the Aura is set and forget. Also, the Aura totally eliminates the piezo "quack", another thing the Zoom will NOT do.

Jimmy

PS. As you know, the ONE advantage the A3 has is built in effects (which are very good). Since I have Hardwire pedals anyway, that is not a big deal to me but could be for someone trying to simplify.
And finally, all the above is MY opinion, YMMV.

cspencer · #8 01-26-2014, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmy bookout

... the image bank is VERY limited, and the images themselves lack strength. You have to crank the image blend ALL THE WAY UP on the A3 to equal the amount of image an Aura has with the image blend at 30%.

Wow, that's interesting. A3 has 3 mic images and that's limited. Although 1 good quality Shure SM57 image is probably good enough, but if the quality is not as close to Aura... And having "to crank the image blend ALL THE WAY UP on the A3 to equal the amount of image an Aura has with the image blend at 30%," is very interesting to note.

cspencer · #9 01-26-2014, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dnf777

Hi Spencer,

I'll try to be careful and honest in this reply, beginning with I have not used the zoom A3. I do have the fishman aura, and have been very happy with it. As to sound, it is amazing. It has several body shapes, and each shape has multiple "images" to choose from, representing different guitars or mics. I found early on, that these are not to be strictly conformed with, rather I have experimented with all different images and combinations to find several that really work well with my set up. I try to remember these are imaging settings, not modeling, and that helps.

There is quite a price difference between the zoom and fishman that cannot be ignored. I suspect this is largely due to the R&D of the imaging software and sampling involved in the fishman's development, and maybe more so due to the quality in construction. Again, I do not have the zoom A3, but do own several other zoom pedals. I am generally very happy with zoom products, but admit they are a tier below the fishman cnstruction. It is all-metal and seems to have very heavy-duty switches and pots, as where the zoom products I own do not.

Personally, I would go with the fishman if budget allows, with my set up and past experiences.

Hi dnf777,
The main concern I have is budget, and Fishman costs $100 more. I have chorus and reverb on my amp. I use at most half reverb and a tad of chorus, so that's OK. But the chorus on my Marshall AS50D is mid-heavy and A3 allows me to 'darken' the chorus somewhat (from what I read). Also, having effects on the pedal is handy so you don't need to go to the amp if it's some way away. Second thing, probably most important to me, is compression. I am a heavy strummer and I mean really attacking at times. And moving in and out of playing gentle intros and single notes is not easy through the amp. I either get too noisy strumming or loose volume on intros and single notes. So I feel compression is what I need (or a boost switch on the A3). Finally, sound quality. I really like to hear true unplugged sound coming through the UST, as if using a mic.

MikeBmusic · #10 03-14-2014, 09:48 AM

Could the MIC input on the Zoom A3 be used for the balanced Taylor ES output?

daddyvettes · #11 04-25-2014, 06:18 AM

i have a martin cutaway with a piezo in it. the a3 doesnt eliminate the quack from the attack ( my biggest peeve). i installed a lr baggs lyric in the guitar and blend the two. the lyric sounds better than a quacky piezo but the downside is the wolftones from a natural airy guitar innerd

billder99 · #12 08-30-2014, 09:33 PM

I'm re-opening this thread to see if any more people have compared the Fishman Aura Spectrum to the Zoom A3. I don't own either, but I will be buying one in the next few days. From what I have read about both, things that struck me:

The Fishman may be a better choice with my Fishman UST pickups, maybe not so much with my K&K pickup (I can't imagine why it would make much difference with fully EQd control). The Fishman appears to have a better compressor function. The HiZ-In, LowZ-Out specs are written more clearly for the Fishman, no way of knowing if it is better. Modelling only, no effects. Cost = $300

The Zoom, in addition to modelling and Preamp/DI function, also has a range of effects. This is attractive if the effects are good... one pedal for all issues. I do not see in reading specs that the Zoom has a compressor. Feedback from users indicates that this unit is less intuitive, more difficult to use on stage. Cost = $200

Obviously, advantages and disadvantages for each. Any new feedback from users of either unit?

Doubleneck · #13 08-31-2014, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billder99

I'm re-opening this thread to see if any more people have compared the Fishman Aura Spectrum to the Zoom A3. I don't own either, but I will be buying one in the next few days. From what I have read about both, things that struck me:

The Fishman may be a better choice with my Fishman UST pickups, maybe not so much with my K&K pickup (I can't imagine why it would make much difference with fully EQd control). The Fishman appears to have a better compressor function. The HiZ-In, LowZ-Out specs are written more clearly for the Fishman, no way of knowing if it is better. Modelling only, no effects. Cost = $300

The Zoom, in addition to modelling and Preamp/DI function, also has a range of effects. This is attractive if the effects are good... one pedal for all issues. I do not see in reading specs that the Zoom has a compressor. Feedback from users indicates that this unit is less intuitive, more difficult to use on stage. Cost = $200

Obviously, advantages and disadvantages for each. Any new feedback from users of either unit?

Since initially posting a reply I had a chance to purchase a same as new A3 on ebay for $140 so couldn't resist. I have a Jumbo Aura pedal no the full Spectrum, but the guitar I use is a Jumbo with a Fishman pickup. I can relate to much of what has been said above.

On Aura, if you get the right image it is very good. But getting the right image
I think is a bit tedious and can lead to a lot of endless experimention. The best use of Aura I have found is with one of my instruments with a onboard Aura
Pro preamp with 4 images of the instrument itself. That is a powerful combo.

On the A3, you need to look at the total package. Yes, the images are more subtle, but you can use a 100% image if you wish and it still useful. Aura at 100% is typically tinny and not helpful. On the A3 the large aray of models is a bit of marketing, very subtle differences between them. But I fine one and they do make a positive difference. The power of the pedal are in its other effects that can be added. Reverb, chorus, EQ, delay, compression, and more and mutiple forms of each. The effects are quite good and the pedal very quiet. Other criticism have been you can only gave two effects after the model. True but I don't use more than two. The pedal is more complicated but I know it very well in two days of messing around. In performance you would have to create the patches you want to use save them and switch between them. For me I would tend to have one I like with each guitar, so not as much issue with me either. To me if you are looking for one pedal to do it all (with many compromises) the A3 is a very cost effective alternative. If you are looking just for imagining to eliminate quack and will use other effects from another source, Aura may be better for you.

Personally I am using the A3, as a total compact processor. To me also the other effects such as reverb and EQ mean more to your sound than imaging, though all are helpful.

billder99 · #14 08-31-2014, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doubleneck

...If you are looking just for imagining to eliminate quack and will use other effects from another source, Aura may be better for you.

Personally I am using the A3, as a total compact processor. To me also the other effects such as reverb and EQ mean more to your sound than imaging, though all are helpful.

Thanks Doubleneck, that's helpful. The A3 sounds like a good all-around unit, very compact and portable, decent quality tone and effects, but cumbersome to use on stage... impossible to use hands-free.

I am coming to the conclusion that the Aura may be the better quality choice for a base DI/PreAmp... with better compression, modeling, and overall tone for a specific guitar. Though requiring a bit of fiddling to dial in, once you have the tone you want you are good to go (slight EQ adjustments for different venues, but model stays the same). Also, very good quack & feedback resistance according to many reviews.... only big negative is that the tuner sucks... Snark serves me well in all situations.

For on stage effects, and given that the Aura has a very good FX loop and true-bypass, it seems adding the specific effects I want with high quality pedals will give a better sound and will be easier to use. At this point, the only FX I want are Reverb/Tremolo (Strymon Flint) and an easy-to-use on-stage looper (Boss RC-20? TCE Ditto2x? DT Jamman?... still reading reviews and mfr. manuals).

More money, more pieces, but better quality output and easy to use on stage. Seems my choices are nearly made.

Doubleneck · #15 08-31-2014, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billder99

Thanks Doubleneck, that's helpful. The A3 sounds like a good all-around unit, very compact and portable, decent quality tone and effects, but cumbersome to use on stage... impossible to use hands-free.

Impossible to use hands free is a little harsh cause I use it hands free. Foot pedal for excellent notch filter if sudden feedback, foot pedal for boost, and center foot pedal to cycle through presets. I have three presets and I use two.

The Fishman Spectrum and the Strymon Flint are taking you well beyond $500, so a comparison to the A3 becomes moot really. I am curious as to the Strymon Flint which seems more electric guitar oriented by simulating old reverbs and tremolos of the 60s 70s and 80s that were on electric guitar amps at the time?