Quantcast
Lexicon reverbs: a brief bestiary - Page 5 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Lexicon reverbs: a brief bestiary
Old 7th April 2009 | Show parent
  #121
Lives for gear
 
Casey's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by seancostello ➡️
Different principle, or just simpler than the 300/480 Random Hall? Is the randomization type the same?

Does this use Random Hall type randomization?
I'm sorry Sean, but that is beyond what I can say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seancostello ➡️

I really need to HEAR a good example of Random Hall one of these days - I keep looking for Lexicon bargains in the local Craigslist, but have only managed to find an LXP15. Are there any good sound files out there where I can hear Random Hall in action? Preferably with the settings turned up too high.

Thanks,

Sean Costello
Didn't NS post an example of the PCM96 random hall a while back?



-Casey
Old 7th April 2009 | Show parent
  #122
Lives for gear
 
Warp69's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by seancostello ➡️
Here's a list of the algorithms described so far, as well as an attempt to match algorithms to Lexicon units. Feel free to add on to this list, or suggest other boxes that use the listed algorithms.
As Casey pointed out - the algorithms varies more or less between the machines and sometime they're very different, but they usually use the same principles.

Concert Hall : 224(X/XL), PCM90/91, 480L (Classic card)
Random Hall : PCM90/91, 480L
6 Voices/Dense : 480L (the first algorithm available for the 480L)
Surround/HD : 480L (Surround/HD card)
Rich Plate : 224(X/XL), PCM90/91, 480L (Classic card)
(Random) Ambience : PCM90/91, 480L

224(X/XL) : Small Plate, Constant Density A/B, Room, Chamber............ etc
PCM90/91 : Room, Chamber, Inverse
480L : FX

Regarding shape/spread : Some of the 224(X/XL) algorithms have Attack as a parameter - more or less the same as Shape.
Old 7th April 2009 | Show parent
  #123
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Sean, that's quite a novel! A few additions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seancostello ➡️
Concert Hall: 224, 224X/XL, PCM70, PCM91 with additions (according to Casey), PCM96. Was this in the 200 as well?
4-and 5-channel versions in the PCM96 Surround. Don't know about the 200.



Quote:
Random Hall: 480L, 300, PCM90/91, PCM96
960L



Quote:
Blesser Hall: PCM96. I know this isn't the name, but this is to differentiate the algorithm from earlier Hall algorithms.
Also 4-and 5-channel versions in the PCM96 Surround.


Quote:
Surround Hall: 480L w/Surround Cart. Based on Random Hall.
4-and 5-channel versions in the 960L and PCM96 Surround. Not the same as in the 480L.


Quote:
Rich Plate: 224X/XL, probably every Lexicon that came afterwards
4-and 5-channel versions in the 960L and PCM96 Surround.


Quote:
Room: PCM96
4-and 5-channel versions in the 960L and PCM96 Surround.


Quote:
Rich Chamber: 224X/XL
Were the later chambers closer to the Rich Chamber algorithm?
There's a new Chamber (a little denser and less colored) in the 960L, PCM96 and PCM96 Surround. The 960L and 96 Surround have 4/5 channel surround versions.


Quote:
Ambience: 300, PCM91 (I might be missing some)
960L in stereo, 4 and 5 channel. In addition, the ambience reflection pattern is also included in the PCM96 (4-5 channel versions in the 96 Surround).


Quote:
Inverse: PCM70, PCM91, probably others
Rather than recode inverse (which was essentially a cheap hall with a truncated reverb loop), we added a reverse parameter to the PCM96 room algorithm. Any of the room patterns can be reversed. In addition, any of the 960L or PCM96 reverbs (excepting ConcertHall) can be made to do something very similar by setting TapSlope to Max, driving MidRT all the way down, and using high values for Shape and Spread. Tweaky or what?


Quote:
Infinite: I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but it usually appears as a variant on the Chamber algorithm.
With the exception of ConcertHall, all reverbs in the PCM96 have an infinite parameter which works the same way.


Quote:
Are the reverb algorithms in the PCM80 closer to the 224XL/PCM70 era, the 480L era, or some mixture of both? The Concert Hall description sounds like the PCM70, while other algorithms have Spin, Shape and Spread, much like the 480L and later units.
Essentially correct. Barry Blesser changed a few aspects of some reverbs in the PCM80.


Quote:
Would the reverb algorithms in the PCM80 be close to some of the simpler algorithms in the PCM91 - I forget their name, but the ones that are designed to be run in parallel?
Yep. As in the PCM80/81 those algorithms had to be squeezed into a single Lexichip2, so they don't sound as rich as the full PCM90/91 algs.

Thanks for adding new beasts to the bestiary.
Old 8th April 2009 | Show parent
  #124
ValhallaDSP
 
seancostello's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody Special ➡️
Sean, that's quite a novel!

Thanks for adding new beasts to the bestiary.
Your novel, your beasts. I was the typist.

Did Barry Blesser officially work for Lexicon, or was he a consultant? Or pal?

Thanks for all the info on this subject.

Sean
Old 8th April 2009 | Show parent
  #125
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by seancostello ➡️
Did Barry Blesser officially work for Lexicon, or was he a consultant? Or pal?
Barry's been all of those things. He was one of the first employees, writing the software for the Delta-T 101. He came back in for a year or two and served as the project manager for the PCM80 back in the early nineties. Since then he's consulted once or twice, but has been a good sounding board the whole time.

If you're listing designers, you need to add a few (and I'm sure I'm missing a couple):
  • Jim MacArthur - instrumental in the MPX-1 and Vortex (a truly strange box)
  • Frank Cunningham - a lot of work on the LXPs, 300 and 480.
  • Jim Muller - MPX 100-550, as well as the automatic EQ that's in Lex receivers and JBL speakers.
  • Tom Hegg - EQs and more in Opus.
  • Gary Hall - PCM41-42

As you can see Dave G was the public face for a long time, but there have been a lot of very sharp people who've been part of building the brand.
Old 8th April 2009 | Show parent
  #126
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
To my ears, the PCM70 hall sounds quite a bit different, maybe even a bit ringy, compared to the halls in the PCM91. I would guess they're quite a bit different inside based on the difference in sound. Most other reverbs across the PCM70 and the PCM91 and the PCM80 sound similar to my ears. The 91 sounds more refined, though. I rather like 'Vocal Magic', my 91 hardly strays from that preset.

I was looking more carefully at SDRAM timing. I missed a key feature. You could efficiently run a 'traditional' reverb coding method (sample-by-sample) by having four parallel threads and interleaving the memory accesses between banks - and interleaving the algorithms.
Old 8th April 2009 | Show parent
  #127
Lives for gear
 
Casey's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by dale116dot7 ➡️
I was looking more carefully at SDRAM timing. I missed a key feature. You could efficiently run a 'traditional' reverb coding method (sample-by-sample) by having four parallel threads and interleaving the memory accesses between banks - and interleaving the algorithms.
You are of course right. If your product ran 4 "machines" this would work great. But I'm not clear on why burst accesses are anathema to you. It is after all the way SDRAM was designed to work. Why not go with the flow?

Maybe these discussions would be better moved to the geekslutz forum? I never see any general reverb technology discussions there, and yet some of the questions on this thread seem to run in that direction. It would be much easier to discuss technology in general terms on a technology thread as opposed to a commercial thread. There does seem to be a reverb subculture here that would be interested. Start one up!



-Casey
Old 8th April 2009 | Show parent
  #128
Lives for gear
 
Casey's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by seancostello ➡️
Did Barry Blesser officially work for Lexicon, or was he a consultant? Or pal?
Buy his book, it's a great read.



-Casey
Old 8th April 2009 | Show parent
  #129
Gear Guru
 
elambo's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey ➡️
Maybe these discussions would be better moved to the geekslutz forum?
Yes, please! This is a great "bestiary" for Lexicon, and for the history of reverb in general, but some of the coding and SDRAM discussions seem like mental hurdles for the original topic. Or maybe I'm just simple.
Old 8th April 2009 | Show parent
  #130
Gear Addict
 
Hysteria's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
This is a wonderful thread! I've been wondering about what algs were used in what devices (etc)for a long time and read many people's thoughts on what has what but never felt they were in a position to really know.

Couple of extra questions:

What about the MPX1. Does it have the 80/81 algs or something different. Presumably the Lexichip 2 is the same device in both units...?

Fellow Harmon company, Digitech is using Lexicon reverbs on its recent (and maybe not so recent) products. How might say the reverb in one of its guitar processors (such as GSP 1101) compare to those in the MPX/PCM ranges?

Is it a totally different alg? How much processing power would the AudioDNA2 (is that what Digitech calls its custom chips?) bring to bear on such an alg.

I ask as I've owned a PCM91/MPX1 and the GSP and I find the GSP Lexicon algs (halls expecially) to be subjectively surprisingly 'lush'.

When the MPX x00 line came out, I remember reviews comparing say the MPX500 to the MPX1 and citing sonic differences in favour of the MPX1. I wondered at the time if Lexicon would have bothered re-engineering algs to be subtly different for between say the MPX1, 500, 550. After all, if you already have an alg that's in the right ballpark I would imagine it being most cost-effective to say 'just use the MPX1 alg in those new devices'

thanks again guys!

Simon
Old 8th April 2009 | Show parent
  #131
Gear Nut
 
Acousticas's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody Special ➡️

Convolution can be very nice and is a useful tool for things other than reverb.
I am a little bewildered by the fact that an industry leader, such as yourself, with extensive knowledge of reverberation, would make such a comment about the convolution technology.

A person of your caliber, surely, is capable of distinguishing the advantages which convolution technology has over
"algorithmic technology" and vice versa.

The purpose of any reverberator is to simulate "space".
The "sound" of a "space" is something that "man" created by designing architectural constructs or should I say "containers",
in which, people may seek shelter from the forces of nature. One could argue, that "man" did not create the forrest or the mountains which also yield multiple echoes which translates into what we refer to as "space".

Be that as it may, the fact remains that human beings find the atmospheric echoes of a "container" or room to be pleasant and given the fact, that most people prefer the sound of a symphony orchestra recorded in an orchestra hall, over the symphony orchestra recorded on a large poppy field with no forrest or mountain vicinity, warrants the development of:

1) The construction of a designed "container" or venue, yielding "space" = "Natural" Reverberator
2) Convolution reverb using an Impulse Response or "captured recording" derived from any venue = "Natural" Reverberator
3) Algorithmic Reverberators, producing a series of distance-varying reflections (echoes) and/or modulation based on advanced algorithms = Artificial Reverberator.

Artificial or Natural, both are merely words representing a meaning which in this case is not meant to be good or bad.


"Natural" Reverberation

Placing single or multiple sound generators, typically speaker(s), inside the venue enables the user to "bus" or place, his source of sound into that venue.
The result is captured, live, by single or multiple microphones which are bussed into the signal chain.
Disregarding the fact that speakers and microphones, vary in quality and linearity, this approach is the closest that one can get to "placing" a sound source, recorded elsewhere, into a "foreign" real-world construction.

An impulse response, derived from the example above, enables its user to "apply" the exact* same "space",
using a convolution reverb

* In todays processor-realm, this would only be possible with off-line** application calculation, at least if the application(Plug-in) is considering more than 12 or 24 analyzation bands.
Todays convolution plug-ins have to find compromises for accuracy versus cpu efficiency and instantiation counts.
The quality of today's online convolution is however, great, although mathematically it could be better. Whether one is capable of hearing the difference, is a very different question. An analogy could be 48khz versus 96khz. Theoretically, latter is better but there are many claiming they cannot hear the difference.
But as the processing power rises, so does the accuracy(bands of analyzation) of "online***" convolution reverbs.

** Offline analogy = Digidesign - Audio Suite
*** Online analogy = Digidesign - RTAS

Advantages of Natural and Convolution Reverberators are that they yield the information, or acoustical "finger print" which the actual venue produces once excitation occurs.
Those "finger prints" contain every little detail such as; beads, fillets, boarders, walls, ceiling, floor, furniture, screws, door-handles, lamps etc etc etc... All which consist of different materials and thus reflection-capabilities. Spending years within such a single construct or venue, would still make it impossible for an algorithmic reverb programmer to re-create all its aspects and reflection-sources.

The "disadvantage" of natural reverberation, is that the given construct is only capable of yielding "one" "result". One could, of course, alter the interior decoration or place objects inside of it to modify its reflection capability but that is connected with a large and often financial effort and is very, relationally, time consuming. Still, such effort would not be able to completely re-design the "result" of the construct, i.e a wooden room would never be able to yield the sound of a large church. So if natural reverberation is an instinct and obsession that one possesses, one would have to commence with the construction of a church in his backyard, unless he changed his mind and purchased an algorithmic reverberator.

Algorithmic Reverberator

Algorithmic Reverberators respond with with an algorithm which generates as many reflections (echoes) and/or "modulations" as the algorithm dictates, once any given source has caused its excitation. Depending on manufacturer and device, the user has control over various parameters which are interacting with the algorithm(s).
Depending on the supplied algorithms, the algorithmic reverb is capable of changing sound, instantly. Meaning, that its user can, apply to his source, instantly and again depending on device and algorithm, any given construct that "man" can imagine, by the turn of a wheel or knob. That is the great advantage of the algorithmic reverberator, which compared to a "natural" reverberator is a "sound chameleon".

The "disadvantage" of of the Algorithmic Reverberator is its incapability of, accurately, recreating a real venue and all its interior, gadgets, furniture, non-symmetrical walls and ceiling, material and even flaws. Even the slightest "bend" or curve in a wall or different material used in/on those, will cause the reflection of the sound wave to behave differently and ultimately alter the "sound".

We have, recently, entered into the process of making our own convolution and algorithmic reverbs, and find that, both "styles" of achieving reverberation are warranted and/or needed in the recreation of "space" for recorded material.
Both have their share of pros and cons.



I believe that it is irresponsible, of any industry leader in this field, to communicate to his audience, that either of above mentioned "styles" of reproducing "space", is unnecessary or "inferior" to the other, in oder to falsely advance his own choice of technology and thus ultimately his sales(s).

It seems that a "feud" exists, between those who prefer algorithmic over convolution reverberation technology and vice versa. A "feud" which in my opinion is totally unwarranted, as both technologies are capable of producing wonderful results and are here to stay and more importantly, here to advance and maybe even benefit from one another.

Simply using convolution technology for "measurement purposes" and disregarding it for reverberation, would be like buying a Lamborghini Diablo and never exceeding a speed of 20 mph.

Additionally, I would like to add that I find the Algorithmic Reverberator-hardware-manufacturer's hostility towards the Algorithmic Reverberator-PlugIn-manufacturer totally unwarranted and uncalled for.
Both cook with the same ingredients; water, as they both use software to communicate with hardware.
The programmer with the best ear for great sound will/should prevail.




Does the new Raw Processing-Power-Capabilities equal great sound.

Lexicon(Prior to 960) and EMT-Frantz are legends in reverberation and both generated and still generates wonderful results using technology, which today fits into a "*Pocket Calculator*" and still made history. Even today, with superior processing power, more advanced than what the EMT or Lexicon programmers, back then, had dared daydreaming about, algorithmic reverberation manufacturers are still chasing the tails (some their own tail) of those legends.

Does algorithmic reverberation sound better today, with the new technology? IMO, absolutely not. And that goes to show that RAW processing power has nothing to do with great sound.


You may well argue, that Acousticas is merely a company, ripping off other people's inventions and have no idea of reverberation, what so ever. Up until this point in time, all we offer, are impulse response libraries of what we refer to as legends.
Reason for that endeavor was simply that, lately, it has become extremely difficult if not impossible to actually repair those legends as the parts simply dont exist anymore. So getting them inside of the DAW, call it archival, in high and unmistakably quality, was of high priority to us. A nice "side Effect", of course, was the possibility of multiple instantiations of the devices granted by a convolution reverb.

Surely, if one would want to derive impulses from every single Lexicon parameter, he would have to conduct more than a million measurements. Which is impossible. However, what one can do with convolution technology, is to "record" and thus achieve eternalization of a particular setting of the device in question. And that is what we have done. And the tails of our impulses are not governed by artifacts, suggested numerous times, in many threads, on this very forum.

What everyone strives to achieve in one's mix, is a great sound with a great atmosphere.
Does it really matter whether one accomplishes that with an algorithmic or convolved result, as long as one accomplishes.
And is it really necessary for makers of algorithmic and convolution reverberators to undermine and battle each other ?
Old 8th April 2009 | Show parent
  #132
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acousticas ➡️
I am a little bewildered by the fact that an industry leader, such as yourself, with extensive knowledge of reverberation, would make such a comment about the convolution technology.
I guess you'll remain a little bewildered then. A convolver is no more a representation of a real space than an algorithmic reverb is. It's an accurate represention of an impulse reponse from a speaker or two to a single listener position. As I said before, a real orchestra is spread out in space. So is the audience. The impulse response from the second clarinet to seat 7C is different than the impulse response from the first clarinet to the same seat. A convolver effectively squishes the entire orchestra into a couple of points, quite accurately mimicking descent into a black hole.

On top of all that, you simply don't hear every single reflection in a hall. That's not the way the auditory cortex works. You may hear discrete reflections for a few tens of milliseconds, but after that, reverberation becomes a frequency effect (with interaural phase differences being quite important). If you do that part well, the listener is satisfied.

I didn't say that convolvers were bad. Sometimes they sound very nice. But to somehow say that they are natural and algorithmic reverbs are artificial shows a little too much susceptibility to marketing. News flash: They are both artificial.
Old 8th April 2009 | Show parent
  #133
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hysteria ➡️
What about the MPX1. Does it have the 80/81 algs or something different. Presumably the Lexichip 2 is the same device in both units...?
Yes, it's the Lexichip 2. The delay and modulation processing takes place on an old Analog Devices part. Audio is shipped over to the reverberator for processing and then back to the ADI part. The reverbs are similar to those in the PCM80/81 but without randomization.

Quote:
How might say the reverb in one of its guitar processors (such as GSP 1101) compare to those in the MPX/PCM ranges?
You know I really ought to listen to those pieces, but I tend to think that electric guitar reached its zenith with an L5 through a Twin Reverb. I think that the Digitech/Lex verbs are much closer to the Pantheon plugin that goes along with some of our I/O boxes.

Quote:
How much processing power would the AudioDNA2 (is that what Digitech calls its custom chips?) bring to bear on such an alg.
The DNA chips are pretty decent for low-cost reverbs. They're actually more powerful than the Lexichips were.

Quote:
I wondered at the time if Lexicon would have bothered re-engineering algs to be subtly different for between say the MPX1, 500, 550.
Sometimes the algorithms are different because they DSP designer preferred a slight change (Dave G often disagreed with himself) . Sometimes it's necessary because the new target chip can't quite do it the same way, so you have to make adjustments. It's fun to listen to users when they discuss these differences.
Old 8th April 2009 | Show parent
  #134
Gear Nut
 
Acousticas's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody Special ➡️
I guess you'll remain a little bewildered then. A convolver is no more a representation of a real space than an algorithmic reverb is. It's an accurate represention of an impulse reponse from a speaker or two to a single listener position. As I said before, a real orchestra is spread out in space. So is the audience. The impulse response from the second clarinet to seat 7C is different than the impulse response from the first clarinet to the same seat. A convolver effectively squishes the entire orchestra into a couple of points, quite accurately mimicking descent into a black hole.

On top of all that, you simply don't hear every single reflection in a hall. That's not the way the auditory cortex works. You may hear discrete reflections for a few tens of milliseconds, but after that, reverberation becomes a frequency effect (with interaural phase differences being quite important). If you do that part well, the listener is satisfied.

I didn't say that convolvers were bad. Sometimes they sound very nice. But to somehow say that they are natural and algorithmic reverbs are artificial shows a little too much susceptibility to marketing. News flash: They are both artificial.
I dont think you understood my point.

What I was trying to make clear is that any source, i.e., a vocal sent into a real room and fed back to microphones for reverberation can also be achieved with convolution, without the actual room. You would, of course need to have derived an impulse from "some" venue in order to be able to convolve it.

Placing "natural" in quotes did have a meaning and was not done randomly ;-)
Yes, all applied "space" is basically artificial. I was referring to the derivative of the applicator.

Of course, the result of the impulse response changes, based on where the microphone/ear and emitter is/are/were located.
But so does the result of exciting a real-world-room with a source to be reverberated, depending on emitter and microphone/ear positioning.
Just like it was done in the early days. No one ever strived to place the microphones where it sounded "bad" but where it sounded "good"....

Newsflash: Capturing a venue is not about capturing a venue from every theoretical and/or possible listening location of that venue. It is about capturing the venue itself, where it sounds the best. Which, may of course be highly opinionated

I dont know how you act when you are at a concert. Myself, I try to find tickets for a "nice" listening location. I dont run around the concert hall all the time to be able to say; that I head the orchestra from every imaginable position, when I get home and tell the story.
You may be thinking too much in terms of mathematical possibility. But that will not derive a great impulse response from any venue. :-)
Old 8th April 2009 | Show parent
  #135
Lives for gear
 
noiseflaw's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Interesting thread...

Bit above my head though. Thankfully we live in a an audio world that has both Algorithmic and Convolution based models. Am very interested in Vienna Instruments new MIR project - exciting times ahead - will probably need a new Mac though!

Carry on Boffins.
Old 8th April 2009 | Show parent
  #136
Gear Nut
 
Acousticas's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by noiseflaw ➡️
Thankfully we live in a an audio world that has both Algorithmic and Convolution based models. .
That is a wonderful summarization !
Old 8th April 2009 | Show parent
  #137
Gear Guru
 
elambo's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by noiseflaw ➡️
Interesting thread...

Bit above my head though. Thankfully we live in a an audio world that has both Algorithmic and Convolution based models. Am very interested in Vienna Instruments new MIR project - exciting times ahead - will probably need a new Mac though!

Carry on Boffins.
Beyond my total grasp as well, but as the owner of the best convolution currently has to offer (thanks to Acousticas' sampling of Lexicon verbs), the owner of a PCM96, and having heard enough samples of the Bricasti to have a good sense of its general character, I have a clear and strong preference for algorithmic reverbs. The density, complexity and realism are unsurpassed.

However, I've been following Vienna's MIR convolution reverb very closely and I believe that it will set the new standard for conv. verb. Will it equal algorithmic? I'm skeptical, but open-minded. I know it's going to be a beast on CPU when running wide-open.
Old 8th April 2009 | Show parent
  #138
Here for the gear
 
🎧 10 years
PCM 91

Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey ➡️
I'm sorry Sean, but that is beyond what I can say.



Didn't NS post an example of the PCM96 random hall a while back?



-Casey
Nord Electro 2 Organ/(PCM 91)
Attached Files

Organ-Gated Hall.wma (618.2 KB, 498 views)

Organ-Small Church.wma (950.8 KB, 865 views)

Organ-Great Room 2.wma (898.3 KB, 429 views)

Old 8th April 2009 | Show parent
  #139
Gear Guru
 
elambo's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Got WAVs? (or AIFs)
Old 8th April 2009 | Show parent
  #140
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acousticas ➡️
I dont think you understood my point.
I understood your point perfectly well. I've been hearing convolution 'verbs since Lake Audio demonstrated them years and years ago.

Quote:
Newsflash: Capturing a venue is not about capturing a venue from every theoretical and/or possible listening location of that venue. It is about capturing the venue itself, where it sounds the best. Which, may of course be highly opinionated
The impulse reponse doesn't 'capture the venue'. It captures the venue from a single source/destination perspective. Convolving a signal through that impulse response gives you the effect of the whole orchestra squeezed into that point. And as Barry Blesser has pointed out in a paper (don't know if he published it), the impulse response of a space differs, depending on signal strength. None of the convolvers that I'm aware of take this point under consideration.

Quote:
You may be thinking too much in terms of mathematical possibility
Sorry, but we developers are bound by the physical laws of the universe we inhabit. Like you, I find a good seat in a concert hall and enjoy the music. But I can't help but notice that the orchestra appears to be spread out in space, sitting in different chairs and all that. And some of them move. I myself might move my head a bit as I listen. All of that plays hell with the impulse response. My brain manages to average that in such a way that I hardly notice. That sort of tells me that a 'pure' impulse response isn't what it's about.

You might consider starting up another thread if you want to go into greater depth on your topic.
Old 8th April 2009 | Show parent
  #141
Gear Nut
 
Acousticas's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody Special ➡️
You might consider starting up another thread if you want to go into greater depth on your topic.
OK, point taken. Did not want to "HiJack" this thread. Sorry ;-)
Old 9th April 2009 | Show parent
  #143
ValhallaDSP
 
seancostello's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acousticas ➡️
It seems that a "feud" exists, between those who prefer algorithmic over convolution reverberation technology and vice versa. A "feud" which in my opinion is totally unwarranted, as both technologies are capable of producing wonderful results and are here to stay and more importantly, here to advance and maybe even benefit from one another.
But what does it say when you have 3 products that are convolution impulses taken from algorithmic reverbs? It is hard to make the argument that the impulse responses of the Lexicon 224XL, Lexicon 300, and EMT 245 will sound better than an algorithmic reverb that implements those algorithms.

A snapshot does not capture the time-varying behavior of real-world objects, and standard convolution is no more than a snapshot. Real acoustic spaces have lots of time variation, due to temperature variations, and this is not captured by convolution, which assumes LTI behavior. As has been mentioned in this thread, most of the higher end Lexicons (and most all Lexicons today) used time variation. Adding some chorusing on the output of the convolution does not adequately simulate this behavior.

Sean
Old 9th April 2009 | Show parent
  #144
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
I haven't tried acoustica's products, but I've made impulses from my hardware units via various methods and used various convolver plugins for testing. The hardware always won. IMHO the convolver makes a muddy bass and artificial sounding highs, the wet signal doesn't blend well with the source.
Old 9th April 2009 | Show parent
  #145
Lives for gear
 
Sigma's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
the 224 was a god send during the early drum machine days..the short room settings put "air" around the dead dry lynn drum samples [remember 1 chip per soud and changing chips in the org lynn?]

i forget which sofware ver but there was an early 224 that had a really fat sound the got lost on subsiquent versions

my father and i used i forget what raw setting and made it short and then set a 200 hz x over and a 2 k roll off..it made lead voacls especailly dynamic ones with singers who got nasal have some thickness without eq when the person started wailing

i remeber phil ramone coming in and saying }if i can't call up a setting on a piece of gear i just try another piec of gear..LOL the 480's on sure had enough pages LOL


i really liked the delays [and things you could do with them and the repeats] in them also

i think we had like 4 224's 2 480's and 2 960's at one point plus a number of pcm 42's, 70's and 90's [uhhh "tile room" LOL]

i used the old warm ver 224 during mixes with the 960 as an reverb also..they sounded sooo different it was nice having both flavors
Old 9th April 2009 | Show parent
  #146
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 10 years
NS,

I really appreciate that you take the time to participate in this forum.

A couple of quick questions.

1. Is the MX500 totally MIA? I notice there is still an info page on your website Lexicon Pro

2. Am I correct in assuming that the reason Lexicon don't release high quality plugins is a commercial choice (users pirating and competitors copying your IP) rather than a technical choice?

3. How good is Pantheon compared to say LXP-15 or MPX-1?

Cheers,

Scott
Old 9th April 2009 | Show parent
  #147
Gear Nut
 
Acousticas's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by seancostello ➡️
But what does it say when you have 3 products that are convolution impulses taken from algorithmic reverbs? It is hard to make the argument that the impulse responses of the Lexicon 224XL, Lexicon 300, and EMT 245 will sound better than an algorithmic reverb that implements those algorithms.

A snapshot does not capture the time-varying behavior of real-world objects, and standard convolution is no more than a snapshot. Real acoustic spaces have lots of time variation, due to temperature variations, and this is not captured by convolution, which assumes LTI behavior. As has been mentioned in this thread, most of the higher end Lexicons (and most all Lexicons today) used time variation. Adding some chorusing on the output of the convolution does not adequately simulate this behavior.

Sean
Hi Sean,

I respect NS' thread and topic and we should seize getting off the original topic of this thread. Therefore, I am going to send you a PM and try to respond to your message. Maybe, a new thread about convolution and algorithmic reverbs would be a good idea.
Old 9th April 2009 | Show parent
  #148
Lives for gear
 
Warp69's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acousticas ➡️
Hi Sean,

I respect NS' thread and topic and we should seize getting off the original topic of this thread. Therefore, I am going to send you a PM and try to respond to your message. Maybe, a new thread about convolution and algorithmic reverbs would be a good idea.
There's a more technical thread about algorithmic reverbs - https://gearspace.com/board/geekslut...ubculture.html -

You could start an additional thread regarding convolution vs algorithmic reverbs and more people could participate.
Old 9th April 2009 | Show parent
  #149
Lives for gear
 
aeonlux's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Lexicon NuVerb Single Algos:
  • Random Hall
  • Random Ambience
  • Rich Plate
  • Stereo Adjust

Lexicon NuVerb Dual Mono/Cascade Algos:
  • Dual Delay
  • Split Chamber
  • Compressor
  • PONS


cheers,
Ian
Old 9th April 2009 | Show parent
  #150
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottkrk ➡️
1. Is the MX500 totally MIA? I notice there is still an info page on your website Lexicon Pro
The MX500 is not to be. After a tremendous amount of work, we decided it wasn't going to be the product we'd hoped.
Quote:
2. Am I correct in assuming that the reason Lexicon don't release high quality plugins is a commercial choice (users pirating and competitors copying your IP) rather than a technical choice?
Sorry but I can't comment on internal company stuff.

Quote:
3. How good is Pantheon compared to say LXP-15 or MPX-1?
It's a different fish. Pantheon is a single reverb algorithm (a little less capable than those you'll find in the MX-series, but not bad). The LXP-15 and MPX-1 both provided many different reverb algorithms as well as FX of various sorts. Pantheon is awfully convenient in a DAW environment, but either of those older boxes could do good service on a AUX path.
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 55 views: 5105
Avatar for synthetic
synthetic 4th October 2008
replies: 4175 views: 718630
Avatar for Firechild
Firechild 3 weeks ago
replies: 547 views: 65360
Avatar for psycho_monkey
psycho_monkey 1st October 2015
replies: 152 views: 45281
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