Quantcast
Lexicon reverbs: a brief bestiary - Page 3 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Lexicon reverbs: a brief bestiary
Old 26th March 2009 | Show parent
  #61
Lives for gear
 
Casey's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by living sounds ➑️
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.
The guts (if you will) of the Nuverb are pretty much a 300. So the reverb processing capability is the same IIRC. The difference is in the soft control vs the HW 300 front panel (or LARC) control. These are not identical, so you do pick up some small changes related to that in how the presets are constructed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dale116dot7 ➑️
Is that 300 = 20% faster than one of the two boards in a 480, or a 480 total (both boards)?
I'm sorry for the confusion in my wording. The 300 is 20% faster than one of the two boards in a 480.



-Casey
Old 27th March 2009 | Show parent
  #62
Gear Guru
 
Animus's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody Special ➑️
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.
I am a big lover of Lexicon reverbs. I have 3 Nuverb cards, a PCM80 and a PCM90. But I must confess, I have a Eventide DSP4k coming tomorrow! I will have my effects covered.


One thing I would die for is a modern pci express dsp card (a la Nuverb) that ran some Lexicon goodness. I think Nuverb was an awesome idea and wouldl like to see a modern implementation. Or better yet, develop something for the UAD2 card. People would go nuts.
Old 27th March 2009 | Show parent
  #63
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey ➑️
I'm sorry for the confusion in my wording. The 300 is 20% faster than one of the two boards in a 480.


-Casey

Just for clarification: So for a given stereo instance the 300 has actually more power than the 480? But again, the latter sounds better due to better algorithms?
Old 27th March 2009 | Show parent
  #64
Gear Nut
 
🎧 15 years
Any guesses folks, where we can get memory RAM cards for our PCM91?

Regards,
DLevy
mgr, Legacy Lab
Old 27th March 2009 | Show parent
  #65
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey ➑️
I'm sorry for the confusion in my wording. The 300 is 20% faster than one of the two boards in a 480.
Thanks, that's what I thought. It sounds like the PCM96 has enough guts to do all of the various algorithms in any of the older boxes, plus new ones. The new ones are interesting to me. I wanted to try one out, but as soon as it arrived at our local recording store, someone bought it. I guess it's a toss-up between the 96 and the M7.

Memory cards? You might want to try Digi-key, I think they still have PCMCIA SRAM cards. I haven't used them as I haven't filled up the internal registers in my '91 yet.
Old 27th March 2009 | Show parent
  #66
Lives for gear
 
bleen's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Animus ➑️
One thing I would die for is a modern pci express dsp card (a la Nuverb) that ran some Lexicon goodness.
Gimme! I'd jump all over something like this!
Old 27th March 2009 | Show parent
  #67
ValhallaDSP
 
seancostello's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by living sounds ➑️
Just for clarification: So for a given stereo instance the 300 has actually more power than the 480? But again, the latter sounds better due to better algorithms?
Or, are there algorithms on the 480L that use both of the boards together?
Old 27th March 2009 | Show parent
  #68
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by seancostello ➑️
Or, are there algorithms on the 480L that use both of the boards together?
You can use them "together", but that means chaining one through the other. No real combined algorithms.
Old 27th March 2009 | Show parent
  #69
Lives for gear
 
Casey's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by living sounds ➑️
Just for clarification: So for a given stereo instance the 300 has actually more power than the 480?
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by living sounds ➑️
But again, the latter sounds better due to better algorithms?
My "better algorithms" comment was comparing the 300 to the 91.

As to whether a 300 or 480 sounds better is up to you! Both are great.

Quote:
Originally Posted by living sounds ➑️
You can use them "together", but that means chaining one through the other. No real combined algorithms.
There is a combined algorithm. It is available in the optional surround cart for the 480. The surround alg can be used for stereo.



-Casey
Old 28th March 2009 | Show parent
  #70
ValhallaDSP
 
seancostello's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey ➑️
There is a combined algorithm. It is available in the optional surround cart for the 480. The surround alg can be used for stereo.
Does the surround algorithm use all of the surround outputs, combined to stereo? Or is this something that has to be done by the user outside of the box?

Also, are there any Lexicon algorithms of past or present that DON'T work well when summed to mono? All of the ones I have played with seem to work well both in stereo and mono, which is not true of many other reverb designs.

Sean Costello

Last edited by seancostello; 29th March 2009 at 10:12 AM.. Reason: I repeated a question that had already been answered, like, in the post just above mine. I must have been tired or something.
Old 28th March 2009 | Show parent
  #71
Lives for gear
 
Froombosch's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Any word on what is different about the 480 HD card? Warp sended me some impulses and I loved the colour/smoothness of that sound.
Old 28th March 2009 | Show parent
  #72
Lives for gear
 
Warp69's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by seancostello ➑️
Does the surround algorithm use all of the surround outputs, combined to stereo? Or is this something that has to be done by the user outside of the box?
The surround and the HD use the exact same algorithm, where the HD combine the 4 surround outputs to stereo inside the algorithm.
Old 28th March 2009 | Show parent
  #73
Lives for gear
 
Warp69's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Froombosch ➑️
Any word on what is different about the 480 HD card? Warp sended me some impulses and I loved the colour/smoothness of that sound.
The HD & Surround algorithm have an early reflection engine - only one other algorithm use an early reflection engine and thats the Ambience algorithm.
Old 4th April 2009
  #74
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Nobody Special, Casey

I'm a professional software developer, and i'm curious what the tools and environment are like for developing software for the pcm96 and other lexicon products. Have the tools made it easier for you guys to get software out the door? You touched on this earlier, can you elaborate a little bit without giving anything away? Feel free to comment about obsolete machines, they would probably be more interesting anyway.

What challenges have rising requirements complexity, ie plug-in integration, firewire, ethernet, etc posed?

How many developers are working on the pcm96?

I'm a software consultant that writes boring business code all day so i can go home and play in my studio. I love programming and playing in my studio, and I've always wondered what it would be like to marry the two. Can you give some insight on what it is like? Do you guys all work together out of a source repository? What is integration like? When you're building something cool, it's even cooler to test. I would be super motivated to be more productive so I could do more testing of the PCM96. Do you find working on products like the pmc96 have a feedback loop like this? On a side note, I've been looking for a good reason to take a guitar or mic to work for a long time.

On second thought, I bet you can't actually answer any of these. Anyhow, I envision that you guys are using a really cool design tool from the dsp manufacturer with some custom in house tweeks or tools, using some cool agile methodologies.

Sorry to everyone else for geeking out in this thread.
Old 4th April 2009 | Show parent
  #75
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by qtuner ➑️
Nobody Special, Casey

I i'm curious what the tools and environment are like for developing software for the pcm96 and other lexicon products. Have the tools made it easier for you guys to get software out the door?
I've been a professional software developer for nearly thirty years. It never gets any easier. The tools get much more powerful, but that simply increases your ambition to do more. So you end up in a pickle no matter what.

I can't speak for Casey (he's a competitor after all), but I'd wager there are many similarities in the way he works and the way I do. Your toolkit is always a mix of what's commercially available and what you have to invent. For proprietary processors like the Lexichip family, you've got to write assemblers and debuggers. On top of that, there are various sorts of compiler-like tools you must develop. They're typically only used by a handful of people, so they're seldom polished. They're usually butt-ugly, to tell you the truth.

If you need to do research, it gets even crazier. There are commercial tools like Matlab that may be useful, but you're more likely to cobble up some sort of tool on your own. As you explore more deeply into a problem, the code usually looks worse and worse. I don't have a clue how many tools I've written that served a purpose and were then abandoned.

Oftentimes you can find free stuff on the web that can be quite helpful. CSound might be one. SoundHack is one I've used a lot. I have both a PC and a Mac in my office, so I'm pretty agnostic about platforms (OK, OK, I like the Mac better). You can do what you need on either.

Quote:
What challenges have rising requirements complexity, ie plug-in integration, firewire, ethernet, etc posed?
They can create real problems and they typically require very special expertise. Harman has a very strong commitment to networking (our System Architect program can set up an entire stadium from a single laptop), so we're continually building strength in that area. But integrating all that stuff is really hard. There are still aspects of the Firewire streaming that we're working on.

Quote:
How many developers are working on the pcm96?
Can't really tell you, but it varies quite a lot depending on the phase of a project.

Quote:
I love programming and playing in my studio, and I've always wondered what it would be like to marry the two.
That's something you can find out for yourself with the simple commitment of your time. You can explore the VST API, or AudioUnits or Juce, and play around with plugins, using whatever DAW you like. There is often source code provided for examples and there are a number of open-source projects you can look at. If you're curious about the kind of chips we use, you can download a free 90-day evaluation copy of the Analog Devices tools (with a simulator) and play around with your own ideas. I mentioned SoundHack which is a nice little Mac tool. Csound is available on any platform and source code is available.

Audio programming requires a mix of skills, not all of them related to audio. The early parts of my engineering career were dedicated to real-time programming and control systems. I've found ways to make that helpful in DSP. I'm sure that some of the skills you've developed in business programming will be useful as well.

Quote:
Sorry to everyone else for geeking out in this thread.
Heck, we're all nerds here.

NS
Old 4th April 2009 | Show parent
  #76
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
thanks for the detailed reply. I think this is the first time i've had dialogue with an actual DSP engineer. I got the answer i was really hoping for.....90 day license of analog devices tools. I've written VST plugs, and wasn't too into it because I write code for PC's all day. It's not what I want to do in my spare time, and i'm not sure dsp code is either, but I plan on checking out the tools. Thanks for the direction.

What are your feelings on convoluton reverb in general as a reverb solution? I personally suspect that we see convolution a lot in VST's because of its ease of implementation rather than the merits of convolution itself.

How heavy is the math involved in desiging a reverb?

In the next 10 years, what areas in effects processing do you think will see the most innovation? Will we see big advances in algorithms/new algorithms or is effort mostly concentrated on DAW integration? (I hope not). I think the latest realtime hardware effect to be invented is the Access Music atomizer on the Virus TI.
Old 4th April 2009 | Show parent
  #77
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
I don't do this for a living, and my effects are not intended for sale, but....

I'm a professional embedded systems programmer, and other than buying Lexicons (PCM60/70/91, LXP15), I build some of my own effects boxes, too. I picked one of the same processors that I use at work (MC9S08AW60) for the host, and since I'm very fast at writing in assembler, I did the host (UI) that way. A little 20x2 VFD, a couple rotary encoders, and a few pushbuttons. My first reverb/effects design started out with two Wavefront AL3201 chips in series. I wrote a new assembler because Wavefront's did not do what I wanted. I wanted to have the assembler also have parameter numbers embedded in the code, as well as base addresses to allow the host to easily modify the DSP code, and having an automatic link between the UI and the DSP. As for learning how to program those chips, there is some example code out there, and there is the 'infamous' publishing of one reverse-engineered Lexicon algorithm. I tend to write 'effects' rather than reverbs because I have so many of those in my racks that I don't really need to.

A lot of the older reverbs had very short programs, so assembly is nice for that type of platform. The AL3201 is like that, and I've worked a bit with the DSP56300 family. Most of the VLIW DSP's need high-end toolsets, that's why I picked the DSP56k family. Easy to write in assembly, cheap dev tools. That one uses a MCF51AC256 host, a DSP56366, and 512kx24 SRAM. I'm also working on an effect-specific FPGA which should be impressive when I'm done.

IMHO, if you reverse engineer something, it might be ok to learn something from it, but DON'T publish it, and DON'T copy it. The original engineers spent a lot of time designing that algorithm and I'm inclined to give them my money to buy their product. I've done some reverse engineering of various products, it is easy to forget that there are people out there that can take an EPROM and figure out how an engine controller (my day job), or a PCM70, or a KT780, or an obsolete automation system for a mixing console works.
Old 4th April 2009 | Show parent
  #78
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by qtuner ➑️
I've written VST plugs, and wasn't too into it because I write code for PC's all day. It's not what I want to do in my spare time, and i'm not sure dsp code is either, but I plan on checking out the tools. Thanks for the direction.
Don't be in too big a hurry to ditch VST. The key to understanding audio programming is understanding what's happening to the samples. C and C++ are a very nice way to do this. In addition, it's generally much easier to run with breakpoints on a Mac or PC than on a proprietary chunk of gear.
The real key to writing DSP is to have an understanding of the chip you're running on. It's about placing things in the right chunk of memory so that your busses are all busy and you're not starving the processor. SHARCs, Blackfins and TigerSHARCs are nicely tailored to do that sort of thing. But your plain old PC is pretty powerful too. If the PC feels too much like work, you could pick up a Mac Mini for $600 (development tools are free). That might then feel like a "play" machine.
Quote:
What are your feelings on convoluton reverb in general as a reverb solution? I personally suspect that we see convolution a lot in VST's because of its ease of implementation rather than the merits of convolution itself.
Convolution can be very nice and is a useful tool for things other than reverb. But it always gives you a fixed impulse pattern recorded from point source(s) to point destination(s). Real reverberation is a little less linear and real performers rarely cluster in a fixed point. In making a mix, you're generally interested in getting the right sound for a particular instrument or group. An algorithmic reverb is easy to adjust. With a convolver, you've got to go looking for another impulse response.

Quote:
How heavy is the math involved in desiging a reverb?
It can get a little
hairy way off in the corners, but for the most part it isn't bad at all.

Quote:
In the next 10 years, what areas in effects processing do you think will see the most innovation?
Can I answer that question in 10 years? If I was that good at predicting things, my 401K would still be worth something.

NS
Old 5th April 2009 | Show parent
  #79
ValhallaDSP
 
seancostello's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody Special ➑️
The real key to writing DSP is to have an understanding of the chip you're running on. It's about placing things in the right chunk of memory so that your busses are all busy and you're not starving the processor. SHARCs, Blackfins and TigerSHARCs are nicely tailored to do that sort of thing.
Some SHARCs. Stay away from the 2126x series, up through the 21364. Writing reverbs for these was dreadful, due to the chips having no external memory interface. All external memory interfacing was through a DMA. So, for every sample accessed from external memory, you had to spend about 50 cycles for "waitForPPDMA" or some such subroutine to finish up. The 21369 and later SHARCs restored the memory access pins.

Quote:
But your plain old PC is pretty powerful too.
And your plain old PC probably has several MB of cache, which helps get around most of the slow memory problems.

Quote:
Convolution can be very nice and is a useful tool for things other than reverb. But it always gives you a fixed impulse pattern recorded from point source(s) to point destination(s). Real reverberation is a little less linear and real performers rarely cluster in a fixed point. In making a mix, you're generally interested in getting the right sound for a particular instrument or group. An algorithmic reverb is easy to adjust. With a convolver, you've got to go looking for another impulse response.
You can redesign an impulse response on the fly if it is synthesized, or you can apply amplitude and filter envelopes to an existing response, resample the response, etc. However, it will always be time-invariant, which is not the case for a real room or hall. Plus, convolution is a resource hog compared to an algorithmic reverb running on most machines. I have seen a time-varying convolution algorithm, that cross-fades between different inpulse responses, which seems completely wasteful from a resource perspective. Using 70% of a modern CPU to emulate a reverb that originally ran on a 6 MHz part...

Sean Costello
Old 5th April 2009 | Show parent
  #80
ValhallaDSP
 
seancostello's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Cheesy, softball on-thread question for NS and Casey:

What are your FAVORITE Lexicon algorithms of the past 30 years? And why?
Old 5th April 2009 | Show parent
  #81
ValhallaDSP
 
seancostello's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by qtuner ➑️
thanks for the detailed reply. I think this is the first time i've had dialogue with an actual DSP engineer.
Well, there are at least 6 of them on this page of the thread...
Old 5th April 2009 | Show parent
  #82
11413
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by seancostello ➑️
convolution is a resource hog compared to an algorithmic reverb running on most machines. I have seen a time-varying convolution algorithm, that cross-fades between different inpulse responses, which seems completely wasteful from a resource perspective. Using 70% of a modern CPU to emulate a reverb that originally ran on a 6 MHz part...
so why can't someone design a decent reverb plug-in?

hardware is still king in this realm
Old 5th April 2009 | Show parent
  #83
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by seancostello ➑️
Cheesy, softball on-thread question for NS and Casey:

What are your FAVORITE Lexicon algorithms of the past 30 years? And why?
Sean, I'm probably incapable of answering that honestly, because I don't really know. David Griesinger's favorite algorithm was always the one he'd most recently worked on, and it's probably a little true for me as well. He never understood why someone would want to use one of the older algorithms when there was a better solution available. Of course, if you just mixed a hit record with ConcertHall, why would you want to change? But the choice also depends heavily on the sort of material you're working with.

For pop music, I like RandomHall in both the 480L and PCM96 variants. But I don't listen to much pop or rock music, to tell you the truth. Since popular music in its many incarnations was never about recreating a live experience, the modulation of that algorithm adds a pleasant background.

For jazz, I like the 960L or PCM96 Chamber. Just sounds appropriate, considering the history of jazz recordings. I like some of the smaller settings of the PCM96 Room for individual instruments or small groups as well.

For classical, which is where my ears spend most of their time, I like the PCM96 Hall. While it's time-variant, its modulation isn't noticeable. Its initial onset is also just a little less dense than RandomHall, so I think it's easier to slot into a mix.

For post, I really like the room algorithm for its more problematic (and realistic) spaces. This was the result of a long-ago conversation with Tomlinson Holman where he complained that our reverbs were too sweet for ADR. Of course, the PCM96 is relatively new and has only been on dub stages for a few months, so I'm going to have to talk to some dialog and foley mixers and see if it's really being used that way.

Ask me again in a couple of years and I'll probably have a different answer!
NS

Last edited by Michael Carnes; 6th April 2009 at 12:15 AM.. Reason: Oops, meant to say time-variant
Old 6th April 2009 | Show parent
  #84
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by seancostello ➑️
All external memory interfacing was through a DMA. So, for every sample accessed from external memory, you had to spend about 50 cycles for "waitForPPDMA" or some such subroutine to finish up. The 21369 and later SHARCs restored the memory access pins.
The Freescale DSP56364 is like that, too. I should have checked the manuals before picking up a couple of them. I also bought some 56366 which does have a real memory bus. The difference is night-and-day in terms of code efficiency.
Quote:
And your plain old PC probably has several MB of cache, which helps get around most of the slow memory problems.
This is important with DRAM. Most people just do not believe that today's DDR SDRAM's really don't access memory orders of magnitude faster than DRAM's of two decades ago. They can burst the data out faster, but at random access, they generally aren't that great. But most people can't read and understand a timing diagram. Since I don't worry about cost on a one-off, I just use a 512k by 32 SRAM.
Quote:
Using 70% of a modern CPU to emulate a reverb that originally ran on a 6 MHz part...
Sometimes I find it amazing that Windows can't boot in under a minute, where my 40 MHz engine controllers do a full bootup in about 15 milliseconds, and have an interrupt latency of usually two or three microseconds.
Old 6th April 2009 | Show parent
  #85
Lives for gear
 
Casey's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by dale116dot7 ➑️
Most people just do not believe that today's DDR SDRAM's really don't access memory orders of magnitude faster than DRAM's of two decades ago. They can burst the data out faster, but at random access, they generally aren't that great. But most people can't read and understand a timing diagram. Since I don't worry about cost on a one-off, I just use a 512k by 32 SRAM.
I have two words for you Dale; Strip Mining.

Todays DDR SDRAMS are much faster than the SRAM you are using. What do you have against burst access?

Nobody Special never really bought into burst access. I don't know why. The PCM96 does not use SDRAM for it's main reverb loops. The PCM96 uses a SHARC with barely enough internal memory to run a pair of Lexicon reverbs. This is a huge limitation on advancing the quality of Lexicons algorithms.

This is either because NS does not understand how to use modern SDRAM, or much more likely, by keeping the memory cycles in the chip, it makes it harder to reverse engineer the algorithms. Neither explaination is a satisfactory reason to limit the capabilities of a high end system IMO.

-Casey
Old 6th April 2009 | Show parent
  #86
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey ➑️
I have two words for you Dale; Strip Mining.

Todays DDR SDRAMS are much faster than the SRAM you are using. What do you have against burst access?

Nobody Special never really bought into burst access. I don't know why. The PCM96 does not use SDRAM for it's main reverb loops. The PCM96 uses a SHARC with barely enough internal memory to run a pair of Lexicon reverbs. This is a huge limitation on advancing the quality of Lexicons algorithms.

This is either because NS does not understand how to use modern SDRAM, or much more likely, by keeping the memory cycles in the chip, it makes it harder to reverse engineer the algorithms. Neither explaination is a satisfactory reason to limit the capabilities of a high end system IMO.

-Casey
Can't tell you how wrong you are about that Casey, but thanks for the chuckle. I'm not sure what puts you in a position to know anything about the internals of the PCM96, how it's coded, or what I might know about SDRAM. Why might there be 8 megawords of SDRAM on the PCM96? How do I manage to run a pair of very high quality reverbs at 96K on a single chip (unlike other boxes which require multiple chips to run a single algorithm)? I think your mind-reading implant may need a new battery.
Old 6th April 2009 | Show parent
  #87
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by dale116dot7 ➑️
This is important with DRAM. Most people just do not believe that today's DDR SDRAM's really don't access memory orders of magnitude faster than DRAM's of two decades ago. They can burst the data out faster, but at random access, they generally aren't that great.
Dale, you're basically correct here (with a big caveat that I'll get to). I think Casey missed the point you were making. I might substitute the word SRAM for your DRAM, but that's a minor point. SDRAMs (and DDRAMs) are extremely fast when doing contiguous accesses, generally running at full buss speed. But as soon as you start hopping around (as you might do with a traditionally-coded reverberator) you may easily incur 12-15 wait-states for every access.
Normally SDRAMs are used in systems with decent-sized caches, so you can take advantage of the speed when pulling in a burst (without as much penalty from the random accesses). Caches on most DSP chips don't quite work as efficiently, so you have to adjust the way you code so you can still get all the goodies.

So if you're working with regular DRAM or static RAM, one memory access is pretty much the same as another. But those parts are obsolete. SD/DDRAMs are in the sweet spot for cost/performance, so you have to learn to get the most out of them.
Old 6th April 2009 | Show parent
  #88
AB3
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
The PCM 96 sounds great. It is a great reverb. I have not tried the M7, but I have not heard anyone complain about the sound of that reverb - it is so unanimous - that I have to assume that it is great.

What is not great is the following: People who represent manufacturers, distributors or dealers arguing about the products of others. All that goes out of my evaluation or decision-making process when reading posts on this board. I would advise others to do the same.

There should be a code for posts that are by "plain old consumers" that are not connected with any dealer, distributor or manufacturer.

Now when a dealer, distributor or manufacturer is kind enough (and many are) to answer questions about THEIR OWN products, that is certainly courteous and appropriate. It is when they discuss the products of others, that I tune out. And I have to imagine that others do as well.

I do not mean to be judgmental. These are probably hard times for all manufacturers, distributor and dealers, and I am grateful to all of them for the competition and gear that is produced.
Old 6th April 2009 | Show parent
  #89
Lives for gear
 
Casey's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by AB3 ➑️
What is not great is the following: People who represent manufacturers, distributors or dealers arguing about the products of others.
Get off your High Horse AB3. This is a discussion of Lexicon and other reverb architectures. It has become very technical. I commented on the latest Lexicon technology. NS corrected me. Start a Bricasti technology thread and I'll comment on Bricasti technology. If you have the technical chops then chime in. Not everything is a sales pitch.

-Casey
Old 6th April 2009 | Show parent
  #90
ValhallaDSP
 
seancostello's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by AB3 ➑️
Now when a dealer, distributor or manufacturer is kind enough (and many are) to answer questions about THEIR OWN products, that is certainly courteous and appropriate. It is when they discuss the products of others, that I tune out. And I have to imagine that others do as well.
I'm all for courtesy, especially in forums, where it often falls by the wayside. However, the particular posts above that you are referring to (and I just made a copy of them in case cooler heads prevail and edit their posts) are NOT simply competitors sniping at each other.

What we have here are 2 reverb designers. Each one is the principal architect (I am presuming) of the highest end reverberation processors currently available. The discussion, although it has gotten heated, is not about which processor is better, but about very technical issues regarding the design of such processors. This is not the sort of thread you usually see outside of comp.dsp, and you will never see a discussion this specific outside of boothside arguments at AES, or perhaps in internal company meetings. This is about design philosophy, not sales.

The RAM arguments are fascinating. And very technical. And there are a number of us that are reading every word of this thread eagerly, if for no other reason than it is so rare to be able to talk shop in this very secretive industry.

Sean Costello
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