The original Dimension D certainly has more body and fullness, but I don't typically mind when chorus or other spatial widening effects are a little leaner of tone; helps keep them out of the way of the dry material in a mix so they can be more audible without washing out the dry sound. At 1/5th the price new, I'm grabbing the KT.
@@davidfaustino4476 very true… at this point you’ll likely hear more as much if not more of a difference between various original Dimension Ds than between an ideal (original) Dimension D and this clone.
Thing I am not too keen with the Klark is on 4, it goes all warble and chorusy on us, where with the Roland it stays tight and wide without the more obvious chorus like sound. It is a good chorus effect, however, if that's the application that's needed.
The clone is very neat sounding, hi fi and less ear fatigue to me. The bass roll if could have some uses, eg guitar in a mix or any backline insrrument the engineer will bottom shelf the bass in the mix anyway. This is to get rid of muddyness in the bottom end. Keep it tight down low. A lot of three peice strat players used the original to makexthe trio sound bigger and more muddy so that is a usefull scenario for original. I like the original as i love the way guitar heros used it. I think having both would be nice.
With the comparison its clear to me the Roland is more body, richness, and energy, its even slightly forward in the sense of the sound within the 'dimension' if you get my meaning, and overall much more pleasing when compared to the Klark. Other than that i own a klark which doesn't get much use, but when it does and im making sense of it in a mix it can sit quite well and achieves in that context usually something i'm genuinely happy with, but yes, stripped bare and compared its quite different, where the klark seemed further back in its translation of the 'dimension' and felt thinner and weaker in some subtle but real way.when held up against the original gangster
Thanks for the comparison! I used to use the Dim-D on BGV's back in the day. I bought the Klark BBD-320 as an impulse buy, based on the price and fond memories of the Roland Dim-D. A few months later, It's still in the box and I don't know if it's worth 2U of rack space and wiring to my patchbay when there are so many plugins that could do similar things with regard to chorus and spacial effects. Just listening to your comparison (something I should have done before buying), the Klark unit certainly does a similar thing to the Roland, albeit a bit more aggressively. It seems to flange and warble more than the Roland unit and you can certainly hear the imprint of the BBD-320 on the vocals. The original Dim-D was much more subtle and organic to my ears. The benefit of the Dim-D in the studio was that you could add a little width and movement to tracks without stamping the sound with an identifiable or pronounced chorusing effect. The past few years I've made a conscious effort to streamline my hybrid setup and get rid of most of my "low-end" hardware. Rack space is reserved for select gear that you can't easily emulate or replicate in the box (SSL summing, analog compressors, EQ's for buss processing). I'm realizing that a hardwired, 2U rack chorus unit likely wasn't the best choice for my application. Great video!
I'm saying the same thing as the folks below me, if it just needs the eq/bass bumped up a C.H., and it's 1/5 - 1/10 the price and it's new with a warranty?? Buy two ffs. First one that takes a dump, goes to someplace that can mod it to D specs as close as possible. Amirite or amirite....
Beautiful tune! And personally I don't mind the KT being less subtle: if I like an effect I want it to be heard clearly. And for the bass and volume drop, they can be adjusted after all...
It's really odd that Behringer, sorry Klark Teknik, let these out with a slightly lower output and weaker low end sound. Makes me think there must be some fundamental limitation in their circuitry such as the power supply or bbd or something? I can't believe it was just to save a few pence on an extra buffer stage.
The Klark seems cool def, but also seems to have a bit more of a weird phasey sound in some cases, and not in a good way to my ears. Did you sort of feel the same way? I think whats happening also is that the Roland is retaining the mono info much better, whereas the Klark just seems to get way more spread, and seems more modulated, and spread sort of.
Yeah, I wasn't really a fan of the 3rd Dimension. I still have it but don't use it. I think you could probably get closer with the Boss/Roland WazaCraft DC-2W. About the same price as the Klark Teknik unit and much more useable tones and interface!
Hi I am looking at an vintage SDD-320 - and I am not quite sure it is functioning properly. The effect is there - but it is subtle - and when i BYPASS i experience quite a lot of volume loss. Is that normal operation? There is a difference between Bypass mode and off.
Interesting about the gain reduction and bass roll-off even in bypass. The gain difference is noticeably even in bypass? That seems like a malfunction. I wonder if there is a crappy transformer handling the balanced input/output on the Klark. I am surprised the results are as different as they are.
I know some folks are modding the 3rd Dimension and maybe there are trim pots inside that could help bring them closer together but I felt like an "out of the box" comparison was probably the most honest way show the differences between them.
@@BIGEGO Right, I just wonder if it is a design problem or a quality control issue with that particular unit. I guess it doesn't matter too much, if it isn't performing then it isn't performing. The Roland sounds beautiful though, gives me those nostalgia vibes. So many of my favorite records use that sound.
Your comparisons are always the best, but I have to know do people ask you if you are Andrew Scheps cousin, because you guys look like you could be family?
Interesting...I've listened to several comparisons now (not all with an original) and my general impression is that the Klark Teknik does a good job of emulating the original (the robbing of the bass not withstanding). However, I also find that that means it's no where near as versatile as the Boss DC-2w!! Switching from mode 1 and 4 seem to be the most pronounced on both original and Klark Teknik and very close. 2 and 3 sound kind of flat and boring in comparison to my ears on both units whereas on the DC-2w each has a distinct character and is useable depending on the context. Just my 2 cents.
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'.
The Klark has an ugly midrange bump and the BBDs are distortion a lot, just like the old Behringer Dimension C clone. The BBDs were vltage starvedin the Behrnger, probably the same chips running at the same 5v in this new one.
The Klark Tek is ok. I think adding compression would beef it up some. The BBE Sonic Maximizer adds subtle sweetness for improving presence. You would like the KT much more adding these spices to your recipe imho.
I used the original for years and it’s obvious in this comparison that they did not a faithful recreation. Might be a useful effect but it isn’t a solid clone
man, now if Behringer's engineering dept had as much talent and all-round hutzpah as their marketing and rip-off dept. The BDD-320 is not musical, phasing is all over the place and mush (its heading into flanging/comb filtering) - this is obvious even on laptop speakers, if you can't hear it then you need to get your hearing checked. The Roland Dimension D- is musical, warm and present. Also your bass doesn't get cut off at the knees
The issue around these comparisons The owners refuse to acknowledge that the clones sound a lot like the original. Despite your best efforts, your prejudice is evident on your entire countenance!
I still own the Klark Teknik and sold the Roland. I never thought the original Dimension D could justify the prices it was selling for and I'm glad folks are making clones!
The original Dimension D certainly has more body and fullness, but I don't typically mind when chorus or other spatial widening effects are a little leaner of tone; helps keep them out of the way of the dry material in a mix so they can be more audible without washing out the dry sound. At 1/5th the price new, I'm grabbing the KT.
Exactly
Old components :) Its literally impossible to tell.
@@davidfaustino4476 very true… at this point you’ll likely hear more as much if not more of a difference between various original Dimension Ds than between an ideal (original) Dimension D and this clone.
I use the BBD320--KLARK-TEKNIK-3RD-DIMENSION as a parallel effect. Use aux sends and control the blend. Its awesome.
Thing I am not too keen with the Klark is on 4, it goes all warble and chorusy on us, where with the Roland it stays tight and wide without the more obvious chorus like sound. It is a good chorus effect, however, if that's the application that's needed.
came for the reviews, stayed for the tunes (Y)
Appreciate that!
The clone is very neat sounding, hi fi and less ear fatigue to me. The bass roll if could have some uses, eg guitar in a mix or any backline insrrument the engineer will bottom shelf the bass in the mix anyway. This is to get rid of muddyness in the bottom end. Keep it tight down low. A lot of three peice strat players used the original to makexthe trio sound bigger and more muddy so that is a usefull scenario for original. I like the original as i love the way guitar heros used it. I think having both would be nice.
With the comparison its clear to me the Roland is more body, richness, and energy, its even slightly forward in the sense of the sound within the 'dimension' if you get my meaning, and overall much more pleasing when compared to the Klark. Other than that i own a klark which doesn't get much use, but when it does and im making sense of it in a mix it can sit quite well and achieves in that context usually something i'm genuinely happy with, but yes, stripped bare and compared its quite different, where the klark seemed further back in its translation of the 'dimension' and felt thinner and weaker in some subtle but real way.when held up against the original gangster
That's an excellent book.
That book tho!!! I appreciate that you did a sincere out the box comparison. The dimension D is so much fuller in the low end!
Thanks for the comparison! I used to use the Dim-D on BGV's back in the day. I bought the Klark BBD-320 as an impulse buy, based on the price and fond memories of the Roland Dim-D. A few months later, It's still in the box and I don't know if it's worth 2U of rack space and wiring to my patchbay when there are so many plugins that could do similar things with regard to chorus and spacial effects. Just listening to your comparison (something I should have done before buying), the Klark unit certainly does a similar thing to the Roland, albeit a bit more aggressively. It seems to flange and warble more than the Roland unit and you can certainly hear the imprint of the BBD-320 on the vocals. The original Dim-D was much more subtle and organic to my ears. The benefit of the Dim-D in the studio was that you could add a little width and movement to tracks without stamping the sound with an identifiable or pronounced chorusing effect. The past few years I've made a conscious effort to streamline my hybrid setup and get rid of most of my "low-end" hardware. Rack space is reserved for select gear that you can't easily emulate or replicate in the box (SSL summing, analog compressors, EQ's for buss processing). I'm realizing that a hardwired, 2U rack chorus unit likely wasn't the best choice for my application. Great video!
Thanks Eric. I'm with you! Space in the studio is limited and it's hard for me to justify space for the KT unit.
I'm saying the same thing as the folks below me, if it just needs the eq/bass bumped up a C.H., and it's 1/5 - 1/10 the price and it's new with a warranty?? Buy two ffs. First one that takes a dump, goes to someplace that can mod it to D specs as close as possible. Amirite or amirite....
the Klark is wider and phases a bit. Sounds more present. Might be better
Beautiful tune! And personally I don't mind the KT being less subtle: if I like an effect I want it to be heard clearly.
And for the bass and volume drop, they can be adjusted after all...
Thank you! And yeah, I agree. If you need this effect and are okay making a few concessions (and saving $1,000 or more) then the KT is fine!
prolly be able to fix the bottom end by changing some caps :)
It's really odd that Behringer, sorry Klark Teknik, let these out with a slightly lower output and weaker low end sound. Makes me think there must be some fundamental limitation in their circuitry such as the power supply or bbd or something? I can't believe it was just to save a few pence on an extra buffer stage.
Thanks for this. I'm going to save for the Original Gangster. The Klark isn't even close.
It works ok in mix?I want to take klark teknik to give to the mix spacial sound.Thanks!
It’s such a shame Behringer only clones the low voltage BBD’s. The extra headroom of the higher voltage BBD’s does a lot for the sound IMO.
The Roland is more musical. The KT sounds like it has some type of phase issues
The Klark seems cool def, but also seems to have a bit more of a weird phasey sound in some cases, and not in a good way to my ears. Did you sort of feel the same way? I think whats happening also is that the Roland is retaining the mono info much better, whereas the Klark just seems to get way more spread, and seems more modulated, and spread sort of.
Yeah, I wasn't really a fan of the 3rd Dimension. I still have it but don't use it. I think you could probably get closer with the Boss/Roland WazaCraft DC-2W. About the same price as the Klark Teknik unit and much more useable tones and interface!
Would it be weird to record with these (commit) on the way in ?? Or would must folks send / return ?
Not weird at all! However, if you’re cutting vocals you’d want to keep them as an aux effect.
Hi I am looking at an vintage SDD-320 - and I am not quite sure it is functioning properly. The effect is there - but it is subtle - and when i BYPASS i experience quite a lot of volume loss. Is that normal operation? There is a difference between Bypass mode and off.
Interesting about the gain reduction and bass roll-off even in bypass. The gain difference is noticeably even in bypass? That seems like a malfunction. I wonder if there is a crappy transformer handling the balanced input/output on the Klark. I am surprised the results are as different as they are.
I know some folks are modding the 3rd Dimension and maybe there are trim pots inside that could help bring them closer together but I felt like an "out of the box" comparison was probably the most honest way show the differences between them.
@@BIGEGO Right, I just wonder if it is a design problem or a quality control issue with that particular unit. I guess it doesn't matter too much, if it isn't performing then it isn't performing. The Roland sounds beautiful though, gives me those nostalgia vibes. So many of my favorite records use that sound.
No transformer In- or Outputs by design. My device does not have these problems btw
For 300-400 man,the Klark is useable and came close to the Roland!
Chris...you left me hanging. What did you decide?
*your mind made up"
I thought the original Roland unit sounded like a completely different effect - and much better to my ears. Now, is that one effect is worth $1,500?
DD all day
Your comparisons are always the best, but I have to know do people ask you if you are Andrew Scheps cousin, because you guys look like you could be family?
HA! No relation but sometimes we wear the same costume.
@@BIGEGO 🤣😂HAHA love that answer, cheers!!!
Interesting...I've listened to several comparisons now (not all with an original) and my general impression is that the Klark Teknik does a good job of emulating the original (the robbing of the bass not withstanding). However, I also find that that means it's no where near as versatile as the Boss DC-2w!! Switching from mode 1 and 4 seem to be the most pronounced on both original and Klark Teknik and very close. 2 and 3 sound kind of flat and boring in comparison to my ears on both units whereas on the DC-2w each has a distinct character and is useable depending on the context. Just my 2 cents.
I picked up a DC-2W recently and thought about making another quick video comparing the two! Appreciate your comment.
@@BIGEGO That would be great. Please do!
The Roland seem to hold a better balance , the Klark is swirling more , the image isn’t as nice
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'.
No comparison. The roland, hands down.
The Klark has an ugly midrange bump and the BBDs are distortion a lot, just like the old Behringer Dimension C clone. The BBDs were vltage starvedin the Behrnger, probably the same chips running at the same 5v in this new one.
Original sure
The Klark Tek is ok. I think adding compression would beef it up some. The BBE Sonic Maximizer adds subtle sweetness for improving presence. You would like the KT much more adding these spices to your recipe imho.
I used the original for years and it’s obvious in this comparison that they did not a faithful recreation. Might be a useful effect but it isn’t a solid clone
Roland only
man, now if Behringer's engineering dept had as much talent and all-round hutzpah as their marketing and rip-off dept. The BDD-320 is not musical, phasing is all over the place and mush (its heading into flanging/comb filtering) - this is obvious even on laptop speakers, if you can't hear it then you need to get your hearing checked.
The Roland Dimension D- is musical, warm and present. Also your bass doesn't get cut off at the knees
roland !!
The dimension D sounds so much better in my opinion
It doesn't sound better..it sounds fuller.
The issue around these comparisons The owners refuse to acknowledge that the clones sound a lot like the original. Despite your best efforts, your prejudice is evident on your entire countenance!
I still own the Klark Teknik and sold the Roland. I never thought the original Dimension D could justify the prices it was selling for and I'm glad folks are making clones!