Quantcast
Lexicon reverbs: a brief bestiary - Page 2 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Lexicon reverbs: a brief bestiary
Old 19th February 2009 | Show parent
  #31
Lives for gear
 
Empty Planet's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Really interesting material, thank very much for sharing it.

If you have data that's more PCM70-specific I would dearly love to hear it.


Cheers.

Old 19th February 2009 | Show parent
  #32
Lives for gear
 
Waltz Mastering's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey ➑️
The forerunner to todays convolution reverbs.
Thanks for the info.

TW
Old 20th February 2009 | Show parent
  #33
Dan
Lives for gear
 
Dan's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Hi Quality thread. Thanks!
Old 20th February 2009 | Show parent
  #34
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
If only all threads were like this...
Old 20th February 2009 | Show parent
  #35
Gear Guru
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
One other thing

Interesting thread, thanks to nobodyspecial. I noted the One Other Thing near the end of the thread. Shape and Spread were mentioned briefly and how to minimise problems caused by them! I hope they are not being phased out or disregarded. IMHO they were THE LEX sound or at least the part of it that I loved and found indispensible. i.e. 480
I just love that ghostly after bloom of reflections, which is kind of like a soft delay but much richer more complex and more mysterious. I miss that now because I can't hire a 480 anymore. My 91 makes an attempt at the same thing but... I will have look into those Altiverb samples.
I do hope the 96 proves a success. Lex, like Neumann, Urei, GML, have always been one of the pillars of my world and I would like to see them continue.
Best Regards, DD
Sound Sound - Homepage
Old 20th February 2009 | Show parent
  #36
ValhallaDSP
 
seancostello's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody Special ➑️
As far as ConcertHall goes, Shape and Spread are in the original (although perhaps by a different name--I don't have a 224) as well as the new version.
Are you sure about that? The 224XL manual I have shows a Depth control, which sounds somewhat different from Shape and Spread. Depth sounds like it controls virtual "microphones" from within the Hall, while Shape and Spread seem to control the energy injection into the hall. I am wondering if Tap Slope on the PCM96 is a better analogy for Depth in the 224XL Halls.

The illustration of the Hall algorithms in the 224XL manual shows 4 lines from each side (left right) of the reverb block going into the box marked "Depth," with one of the lines from each side delayed by a block marked "Fine Predelay." Presumably the Depth control adjusts the relative slope of these "microphones," although I am not presuming that the illustration is an accurate reflection of the exact internals of the algorithm.

For people that express preference for the pre-480L boxes, is it safe to presume that setting Shape and Spread to their minimums would be a good suggestion for emulating this sound with the PCM96? Or is the sound of the older units due to fixed point issues / frequency bandwidth / converter differences / all in people's heads and not really based on any truth?

I would also like to join in the chorus of thanks to NS, and to the others who are adding to this thread.

Sean
Old 20th February 2009 | Show parent
  #37
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan ➑️
Shape and Spread were mentioned briefly and how to minimise problems caused by them! I hope they are not being phased out or disregarded. IMHO they were THE LEX sound or at least the part of it that I loved and found indispensible.
Sound Sound - Homepage
Not to worry. Shape and Spread have compromising photographs of several Lexicon engineers. No way they're going anyplace. Thanks for the nice remarks.
Old 20th February 2009 | Show parent
  #38
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by seancostello ➑️
Are you sure about that? The 224XL manual I have shows a Depth control, which sounds somewhat different from Shape and Spread. Depth sounds like it controls virtual "microphones" from within the Hall, while Shape and Spread seem to control the energy injection into the hall. I am wondering if Tap Slope on the PCM96 is a better analogy for Depth in the 224XL Halls.
Hmm. Now you've got me stymied. I worked from an old diagram that Barry Blesser extracted about fifteen years ago. That was augmented by discussions with Dave Griesinger more recently. The actual source code was lost many many years ago. I don't have a 224, so I'm going to wing it on this one. First of all, tap slope isn't an analogy for anything in the 224 (of course if you discover one, I'll claim I knew it all along). Tap slope is the tweakiest of parameters, with a decreasing effect as reverb time increases. The only time you're going to notice much about it is with very short reverb times, as in my description of Inverse earlier today. Was that on this thread?

The Depth parameter on the PCM96 version of Concert Hall affects the amount of time modulation in the chorus, while Rate affects the rate of modulation. Turn them both up and say goodbye to lunch. There is another parameter called Definition which may be closer to what you're describing. It controls the reflection density within the reverb.
Quote:
For people that express preference for the pre-480L boxes, is it safe to presume that setting Shape and Spread to their minimums would be a good suggestion for emulating this sound with the PCM96?
ConcertHall was the only Lexicon algorithm that ever worked the way it does. None of the other algorithms sound remotely like it. By the way, Dave G thought I was nuts to try to bring it back. While I agree with him that it's not very useful for the classical music I primarily enjoy, I still thought it was valuable for other applications.

I'd focus on Definition and the two Chorus controls. I think that Shape and Spread are primarily doing what you described with the 4 pseudo-microphones. Minimizing those values may make a preset "pop" more immediately. That's not always good. I'd recommend experimenting with those until you get the effect you like.
Quote:
Or is the sound of the older units due to fixed point issues / frequency bandwidth / converter differences / all in people's heads and not really based on any truth?
It's certainly true in some areas. The 224 had a very limited bandwidth and a notably dark sound. That in part is why I put damping controls and optional 2-pole filters in the PCM96. The converters certainly played a part in it, but who could say how much? Converters in those days were pretty nasty. DSP limitations and memory bit depth are responsible for a lot of the sound that some people describe as grainy.
Quote:
I would also like to join in the chorus of thanks to NS, and to the others who are adding to this thread.
Sean
Thank you Sean. I do hope that folks will dive a little deeper into programming these boxes over time, and then share what they've learned. I always enjoy being surprised by what someone has discovered (Well, not always. Sometimes they discover bugs). I think I've babbled enough for one day. Good night, everyone.
NS
Old 21st February 2009 | Show parent
  #39
Gear Nut
 
🎧 15 years
While we have the experts ear, what current machines if any can accurately reproduce the 'vocal jiz' preset found on our old nuverbs? The reason I ask, is that we have some archived scores that need brought out, which used this preset (with only pre-delay times altered), and must be done exactly as were originally printed. (Just in higher resolution mixes)

Regards,
DLevy
mgr, Legacy Lab
Old 21st February 2009 | Show parent
  #40
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by labcomp ➑️
While we have the experts ear, what current machines if any can accurately reproduce the 'vocal jiz' preset found on our old nuverbs? The reason I ask, is that we have some archived scores that need brought out, which used this preset (with only pre-delay times altered), and must be done exactly as were originally printed. (Just in higher resolution mixes)
mgr, Legacy Lab
Sorry, I don't know the preset. Probably your best bet is to make note of the underlying algorithm and the parameters, then try matching them up on another box. Nuverb was a low-fat version of the 300, so you could probably match it directly there. The PCM91 would probably get you close, as would the PCM96. Ranges of some of the parameters are likely to differ, so some experimenting would be in order. Good luck!
Old 21st February 2009 | Show parent
  #41
11413
Guest
one of my favorite WTF?! effects is in the PCM90. Route an LFO to stereo pan and let the seasick inducing roller coaster ride begin! stereo panning goes from mono to stereo to out of phase and back again with one number (+/- 360). the sound folds in on itself then gets unnaturally wide...

dub madness

this application is rather comical.. but having a number for fluid stereo panorama is great, especially for the out of phase widening tricks...

in more subtle doses it can really add movement without really drawing the attention of the listener to what exactly is causing the movement... which is whatcha want with ear candy...
Old 21st February 2009 | Show parent
  #42
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11413 ➑️
one of my favorite WTF?! effects is in the PCM90. Route an LFO to stereo pan and let the roller coaster ride begin... stereo panning goes from mono to stereo to out of phase and back again with one number (+/- 360). the sound folds in on itself then gets unnaturally wide...
dub madness
this application is rather comical.. but having a number for fluid stereo panorama is great, especially for the out of phase widening tricks...
My, you do have unusual tastes. There's a parameter on all the 960L and PCM96 stereo reverbs called "Tail Width". It's the same thing. Neither box has the same sort of LFO as the PCM90/91, but you can automate via MIDI and get the same thing. Most people can't take too much of it.

BTW, if you set the width to -22 degrees (or +338 degrees), you'll get a reverb tail that encodes nicely into any stereo matrix. With a decoder like Logic 7, ProLogic2 or Circle Surround, you'll end up with a nice multichannel 'verb. It's both stereo and mono-compatible, too. We put it there for people whose delivery medium was stereo but who wanted a little more if the recording was played back on a matrix decoder. The early reflections are still anchored in the front channels in case there's still something like a PhazeChaser (nasty thing) in the circuit.
Old 11th March 2009 | Show parent
  #43
ValhallaDSP
 
seancostello's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Another question for NS:

Do you know how to classify the reverb algorithm used in many of the LXP15 algorithms (Delay/Reverb, Pitch/Delay, etc.)? My guess is that it isn't a plate, as the Plate algorithm is also present, and sounds a lot like the Rich Plate I have heard elsewhere. Is the reverb algorithm a Chamber, Hall, other?

Thanks,

Sean Costello (who just picked up an LXP15 today)
Old 11th March 2009 | Show parent
  #44
Lives for gear
 
Casey's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
It's a dumbed down 480 type hall. Similar to the Lexiverb hall that was available as a protools plugin. The same basic algorithm was used as the "hall" setting in several home stereo products.



-Casey
Old 11th March 2009 | Show parent
  #45
ValhallaDSP
 
seancostello's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Thanks Casey. I presume that this is different from the Random Hall algorithm? I don't have access to a 480L.

Also, are the Shape and Spread controls from the 480L incorporated and just preset, or are they left out of the simpler algorithms?

Thanks,

Sean Costello
Old 11th March 2009 | Show parent
  #46
Lives for gear
 
Casey's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
There will always be some specific shape and spread. It's just fixed in some cases.



-Casey
Old 11th March 2009 | Show parent
  #47
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by seancostello ➑️
Another question for NS:
Do you know how to classify the reverb algorithm used in many of the LXP15 algorithms
Casey's descriptions are accurate. I'll add that the basic hall reverb in the LXP-15 is the same one in the LXP-1, Alex and Reflex. They may have been tweaked just a teensy from box to box, but not enough to make any real difference.

Many of the parameters available in the larger boxes were still there, with preset values as Casey indicates. If you ever tried to edit an LXP-1, you'll know why we simplified.
Old 25th March 2009 | Show parent
  #48
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
I am wondering about the 'Moore's Law' aspect of, say, the PCM96 against some of the older boxes and how that relates to 'the sound'. I have a pretty good idea of the computational power of the older boxes (224 - PCM70 - LXP1-5-15 are similar, 300/PCM91 are about double that, and 480 is about double that again) - observations that come mostly from fixing them. Oh my, the 480 sure has a lot of chips in it.

Obviously it should be quite easy to recreate, say, the older PCM60 and 480L algorithms on a newer, faster processor (provided you don't have to reverse engineer the old box to extract how it works). Certainly it should be easier to design an algorithm without having to manually split up that algorithm between two or more Lexichips.

What I'm interested in is more 'progress' and 'process' rather than digging backwards, and how that makes something like the PCM96 an improvement over a 480L both from a user's perspective - the sound - and from a developer's perspective - the approach to writing a new reverb or effect algorithm.
Old 25th March 2009 | Show parent
  #49
Lives for gear
 
Tube World's Avatar
 
5 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Thanks for giving us this information on Lexicon. That helps confirm that the PCM 96 is not just a 91 that can record up to 96. It also confirms that your not stuck with the lush reverb of the Lexicon past, but you can obtain some cleaner reverbs as well. thumbsup
Old 25th March 2009 | Show parent
  #50
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
wonderful thread.

can't believe no one's mentioned autopark for rock n' roll toms.
Old 26th March 2009 | Show parent
  #51
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by dale116dot7 ➑️
What I'm interested in is more 'progress' and 'process' rather than digging backwards, and how that makes something like the PCM96 an improvement over a 480L both from a user's perspective - the sound - and from a developer's perspective - the approach to writing a new reverb or effect algorithm.
Hi,
The more powerful processor in something like the PCM96 brings a lot of advantages. You'll be hearing more of them as time goes along. I can give you few ideas. The older processors all required strange assembly languages (there are only 4-5 people in the world who ever programmed a Lexichip 3). Now we can use high-level languages. This makes prototyping new algorithms much faster and more intuitive. The sheer number of algorithms in the box is a testament to this. This also shows up in the new reverbs by their much-more flexible equalization architecture. This allows us to approach the dark sound of the 480 as well as the lighter sound of the 960--all within the same algorithm. And of course, we're now working in floating-point as opposed to the rather strange version of fixed-point in the earlier processors. This gives higher dynamic range, better signal-to-noise and considerably fewer math artifacts.
Old 26th March 2009 | Show parent
  #52
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by raal ➑️
can't believe no one's mentioned autopark for rock n' roll toms.
Now someone has.
Old 26th March 2009 | Show parent
  #53
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
So is it true the PCM91 and 300 have roughly the same processing power? Because to my ears the 300 always sounded better (denser, rounder, more natural, better depth perception) etc. and most people I know agree. And is it true a single (stereo) instance of th 480l uses twice the processing power of the 300?
Old 26th March 2009 | Show parent
  #54
Lives for gear
 
Casey's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by living sounds ➑️
So is it true the PCM91 and 300 have roughly the same processing power? Because to my ears the 300 always sounded better (denser, rounder, more natural, better depth perception) etc. and most people I know agree.
The 300 sounds better because the algorithms are better.

The 91 Halls are derived from 224/70 series halls. IMO the 91 hall algorithm used the extra resource available to overdo a good thing and as a result they lost a bit of the earlier quality.

The 300 halls are very (90%) similar to the 480 halls.

Quote:
Originally Posted by living sounds ➑️
And is it true a single (stereo) instance of th 480l uses twice the processing power of the 300?
No. The 300 has about 20% more processing power than a single 480 machine.



-Casey
Old 26th March 2009 | Show parent
  #55
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
I was always quite fond of the 200. It was great for the big '80's snare drum. The 480 was always great and I simply loved the PCM 90 for it's rhythmic delays a Bee Gees must have. In my early days I couldn't do without the PrimeTime it's best feature was the voltage control I used to control it with an ARP 2600. Today... I like waves plugins
Old 26th March 2009 | Show parent
  #56
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Thanks Casey! So last question: Does the Nuverb differ from the 300 in terms of processing power or algorithmic quality (apart from the fact that it has less algorithms)? Because to my ears, as far as I can remember, they sounded the same with the same presets.
Old 26th March 2009
  #57
Lives for gear
 
Bob Ross's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody Special ➑️
That's not really what's happening, but it can sound that way.
Cognitive scientists would have a field day with that sentence!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody Special ➑️
Other algorithms approach time variance (we call it randomization) in other ways and for other purposes. Ideally, it's not something you should hear as chorusing. It's intended to break up room modes and improve frequency response.
Are you referring to the "simulated" room modes in the "virtual" room created (implied, suggested, emulated, whatever) by the reverberator, or do you literally mean actual room modes captured by the microphones in the source material?
Old 26th March 2009 | Show parent
  #58
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey ➑️
No. The 300 has about 20% more processing power than a single 480 machine.
Is that 300 = 20% faster than one of the two boards in a 480, or a 480 total (both boards)? Since I've done recent repairs on a 91, I recall that the 91 should be about 40% faster than a 300, but that's just from memory of a number stamped on a part on the board, and my memory's starting to get a bit intermittent.

Thanks for the insight on algorithm design, that's sort of what I thought.
Old 26th March 2009 | Show parent
  #59
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
The 480 extended that with a better S/N ratio and more algorithms. The 960 was a further extension. It was a little lighter and more transparent: some people loved it and some people hated it. The PCM96 incorporates qualities of both, and can be leaned in either direction. It was also our first floating-point processor, with considerably better performance.
So is the PCM96 now your flagship processor, or will you be coming out with a higher-end LARC-type piece in the future?
Old 26th March 2009 | Show parent
  #60
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duardo ➑️
So is the PCM96 now your flagship processor, or will you be coming out with a higher-end LARC-type piece in the future?
Sorry Duardo,
I can only discuss products we have available or have announced. The PCM96 is currently the king of the hill. There will be even more algorithms for it, but I can't say anything further at the moment.
πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 55 views: 5105
Avatar for synthetic
synthetic 4th October 2008
replies: 4175 views: 718637
Avatar for Firechild
Firechild 3 weeks ago
replies: 547 views: 65361
Avatar for psycho_monkey
psycho_monkey 1st October 2015
replies: 152 views: 45282
Avatar for electro
electro 4 weeks ago
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump