Quantcast
Lexicon reverbs: a brief bestiary - Page 9 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Lexicon reverbs: a brief bestiary
Old 16th April 2010 | Show parent
  #241
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budda ➑️

Then again, 2 years for Bricasti v2 and no one is beeyatching about that. At least their v1 works properly.

Potato, poh-ta-toe. Everyone has their different issues.

Now, back to talking about Lexicon reverbs.
Bricasti V1 works as advertised.

-R
Old 30th May 2010 | Show parent
  #242
Here for the gear
 
🎧 10 years
Well, I've spent WAY too long reading through this entire thread from the top, but it's almost like old home week.

If memory serves (and that's getting to be more questionable by the day), I may be able to fill in a few holes from before NS's time. I arrived at Lexicon in 1979 the week they had release parties for the PrimeTime and 224, rather fortuitous timing in my book. I worked as a bench tech up through the 224X (on which I was the lead tech when it was introduced), and did double-duty working on the Lexicon booth at trade shows. (In those days, it was basically Keith Worsley, Gary Hall, and myself manning the booth.) A good handful of my presets made it into the 224X release. In those days, that was novel and fun.

My recollection of the Constant Density Plate program was that it was pretty consciously a response on Dave G's part to the EMT250. Remember that when the 224 first hit, there was the 250, the QuadEight reverb, and *maybe* one other I'm forgetting, but that was it. And the 250 had established a market for digital reverberators.

The first programs were, indeed, only 100 lines of microcode; I can remember David being delighted at the realization of a code change he could make that would remove lines from two different code functions at once. Man, he worked every line of that stuff.

I have always thought that Gary Hall never really fully got his due for the work he did at Lexicon. Gary, who has been a close friend for 35 years, was the person who convinced David to put effects into the 224X. In classic Dave G fashion, he didn't quite understand the applications of the programs Gary was asking him to code, but he trusted Gary enough to believe that there were sufficient people who would have such applications as to justify expending time and energy on them. (I don't believe any of those algorithms have been listed either: Resonant Chords, Multi-band Delays, etc.)

Gary also wrote the microcode for the Super PrimeTime (pretty bug-free code given the size of the honkers he was smoking on the way in to work) and was a strong contributor to the PCM70, the LXP series, the MRC, and a good deal more. He was the first actual musician to be involved in Lexicon marketing, and provided the phenomenally rare service of having fluency in the languages of both the Engineering and Marketing departments. He suffered for serving the go-between role, but it was an invaluable contribution.

And, of course, he was The Man behind the PCM41 and 42. The 41 was a great box, but Gary added some great touches in the 42, including the crude analog limiter in the front end which kept guitarists from slamming the ADC through the roof, and the use of a microcontroller for the front panel. Microcontrollers were brand new at the time, and Lexicon would not authorize Gary to spend any time trying to develop their use, so he did it at home on his own time and brought it in to show them when it was a fait accompli. He also developed a whole family of mods for the 41 and 42, including the memory extension/loop record mod that eventually evolved into the Jam Man.

Re: algorithms. No one has mentioned what might be my favorite Lexicon effect algorithm (tonight; tomorrow I might have a different favorite), which was the Chorus program. Why did I like the Chorus program so much? Because in the 224X it used the same random modulation on the delay voices that was used in the reverberators, rather than LFO modulation of the voices. What a difference!

The "random chorus" (as it was never called) made it as far as PCM70 v3 software, but the one preset using it was gone in the v4 software. Consequently, I kept one of my PCM70s at v3.

Did anyone mention the Split Halls and Plates and the Plate/Chorus algorithms?

The introduction of digital reverb at Lexicon obviously changed things forever. One of the ways it did that was that Dave G brought a much more systematic and rigorous listening evaluation program (as one might expect from a professor of low-energy nuclear physics) to product development there than had been used before.
Old 30th May 2010 | Show parent
  #243
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry the O ➑️
Well, I've spent WAY too long reading through this entire thread from the top, but it's almost like old home week.

If memory serves (and that's getting to be more questionable by the day), I may be able to fill in a few holes from before NS's time. I arrived at Lexicon in 1979 the week they had release parties for the PrimeTime and 224, rather fortuitous timing in my book. I worked as a bench tech up through the 224X (on which I was the lead tech when it was introduced), and did double-duty working on the Lexicon booth at trade shows. (In those days, it was basically Keith Worsley, Gary Hall, and myself manning the booth.) A good handful of my presets made it into the 224X release. In those days, that was novel and fun.

My recollection of the Constant Density Plate program was that it was pretty consciously a response on Dave G's part to the EMT250. Remember that when the 224 first hit, there was the 250, the QuadEight reverb, and *maybe* one other I'm forgetting, but that was it. And the 250 had established a market for digital reverberators.

The first programs were, indeed, only 100 lines of microcode; I can remember David being delighted at the realization of a code change he could make that would remove lines from two different code functions at once. Man, he worked every line of that stuff.

I have always thought that Gary Hall never really fully got his due for the work he did at Lexicon. Gary, who has been a close friend for 35 years, was the person who convinced David to put effects into the 224X. In classic Dave G fashion, he didn't quite understand the applications of the programs Gary was asking him to code, but he trusted Gary enough to believe that there were sufficient people who would have such applications as to justify expending time and energy on them. (I don't believe any of those algorithms have been listed either: Resonant Chords, Multi-band Delays, etc.)

Gary also wrote the microcode for the Super PrimeTime (pretty bug-free code given the size of the honkers he was smoking on the way in to work) and was a strong contributor to the PCM70, the LXP series, the MRC, and a good deal more. He was the first actual musician to be involved in Lexicon marketing, and provided the phenomenally rare service of having fluency in the languages of both the Engineering and Marketing departments. He suffered for serving the go-between role, but it was an invaluable contribution.

And, of course, he was The Man behind the PCM41 and 42. The 41 was a great box, but Gary added some great touches in the 42, including the crude analog limiter in the front end which kept guitarists from slamming the ADC through the roof, and the use of a microcontroller for the front panel. Microcontrollers were brand new at the time, and Lexicon would not authorize Gary to spend any time trying to develop their use, so he did it at home on his own time and brought it in to show them when it was a fait accompli. He also developed a whole family of mods for the 41 and 42, including the memory extension/loop record mod that eventually evolved into the Jam Man.

Re: algorithms. No one has mentioned what might be my favorite Lexicon effect algorithm (tonight; tomorrow I might have a different favorite), which was the Chorus program. Why did I like the Chorus program so much? Because in the 224X it used the same random modulation on the delay voices that was used in the reverberators, rather than LFO modulation of the voices. What a difference!

The "random chorus" (as it was never called) made it as far as PCM70 v3 software, but the one preset using it was gone in the v4 software. Consequently, I kept one of my PCM70s at v3.

Did anyone mention the Split Halls and Plates and the Plate/Chorus algorithms?

The introduction of digital reverb at Lexicon obviously changed things forever. One of the ways it did that was that Dave G brought a much more systematic and rigorous listening evaluation program (as one might expect from a professor of low-energy nuclear physics) to product development there than had been used before.
One of the best posts I have ever seen on gearslutz

Thanks!
Old 30th May 2010 | Show parent
  #244
Gear Guru
 
elambo's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Yep - great post!
Old 31st May 2010 | Show parent
  #245
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Thanks Larry. Good post. Gary went on to do a lot of good work at Sonic Solutions as well.
Old 15th June 2010 | Show parent
  #246
ValhallaDSP
 
seancostello's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry the O ➑️
My recollection of the Constant Density Plate program was that it was pretty consciously a response on Dave G's part to the EMT250.
Apparently the timing of the first several reflections in the CD Plate matches the EMT250 early reflections pretty closely.

Quote:
The first programs were, indeed, only 100 lines of microcode; I can remember David being delighted at the realization of a code change he could make that would remove lines from two different code functions at once.
Is there a chance that Griesinger moved from the original Schroeder allpass topology to the 2-multiply topology that Moorer introduced in his 1979 paper? This seems like it could make things more efficient.

Quote:
(I don't believe any of those algorithms have been listed either: Resonant Chords, Multi-band Delays, etc.)
Seems like these would be worthy additions to the thread.

Quote:
Re: algorithms. No one has mentioned what might be my favorite Lexicon effect algorithm (tonight; tomorrow I might have a different favorite), which was the Chorus program. Why did I like the Chorus program so much? Because in the 224X it used the same random modulation on the delay voices that was used in the reverberators, rather than LFO
Was this similar to the randi type modulation found in the Music-N languages, or something different? Also, did each of the voices have independent modulation?

I used the 224XL chorus back in 1992 in a studio recording, and it is an INCREDIBLE sound. My guess is that the Lexicon chorus was a "secret weapon" for Eno/Lanois during the 1980's - a DX7 doesn't sound that lush on its own.

Thanks for your detailed post.
Old 22nd June 2010 | Show parent
  #247
Here for the gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by seancostello ➑️
Apparently the timing of the first several reflections in the CD Plate matches the EMT250 early reflections pretty closely.

Is there a chance that Griesinger moved from the original Schroeder allpass topology to the 2-multiply topology that Moorer introduced in his 1979 paper? This seems like it could make things more efficient.
Well, the timing of all of this is key. I remember Dave telling me how he came to design what became the Lexicon reverb. He was both a classical musician (vocalist) and recording engineer. He was recording a lot of music in really horrible sounding churches and such around Boston, so he often would more or less close mic to minimize how much of the natural reverb he captured. (He didn't close mic as in pop production, but closer than he would have preferred for classical.)

Since his recordings now didn't have enough ambience, he set out to find a way to add more. He said he tried everything: setting up speakers in good-sounding spaces and recording that, plate reverbs, etc. None of it pleased him.

As a professor at Harvard, he had become aware of these new things called "microprocessors" and set out teaching himself how to program them. He then combed ten years of back issues of the AES Journal to see what he could find about digital reverb and found nothing, so he proceeded on his own to breadboard a prototype digital reverb. In this case, the breadboard was literally a piece of plywood with the circuitry affixed to it.

He got it working, but was not able to get it to sound right. Around this time, he bumped in Barry Blesser and mentioned what he was doing. Blesser asked him if he had started with the Schroeder algorithms and Dave said, "The what?" It turns out that Schroeder's original reverb papers had appeared in AES Journal *fifteen* years before, which is why he hadn't found them only combing the previous ten years' journals. (Just goes to show how far ahead of his time ol' Manfred was!)

David got the Schroeder papers and tried the algorithms, but he described the Schroeder algorithms to me as sounding like "nasty little rooms." Still, they set him on the right track and he went about modifying and further developing some of Schroeder's concepts, as well as introducing some of his own. Eventually, he started to get it to sound pretty good.

He had gotten wind of the existence of Lexicon, who was, at the time, making the Delta-T series of digital delays and the Varispeech, a forgotten product for the blind that was WAY ahead of its time: a variable-speed Wollensak cassette recorder with a custom chip in it that provided pitch shift to compensate for the upward shift when the cassette deck was speeded up. Keep in mind, this is the mid- to late-1970s, and these guys were doing pitch shifting and custom ICs!

Anyway, David went to a Boston AES chapter meeting, walked up to Dr. Francis Lee (the inventor of digital delay and founder of Lexicon), who was attending the meeting with David Dunetz, a Lexicon engineer, and said to them "I have something you want. You need to come hear it."

Lee and Dunetz were a bit nonplussed at this direct approach, but they followed up and thus did Lexicon acquire Dave G's reverb and his services.

Now, as I mentioned the 224 was released in mid-1979, so David certainly had not seen Andy's paper. At the time, there were maybe half a dozen people in the world fooling with digital reverb, Dave G and Andy M being two of them. (Tony Agnello of Eventide was another.) That's not to say that David didn't use any of the techniques Andy suggested, I don't know about that one way or another. But my understanding is that he worked quite alone in his development, though I'm sure he got some feedback, tips, and kibitzing from Blesser and a few other choice friends.

Quote:
Was this similar to the randi type modulation found in the Music-N languages, or something different? Also, did each of the voices have independent modulation?
My recollection is that the voices all have independent modulation, which is why it sounded so great.

Quote:
I used the 224XL chorus back in 1992 in a studio recording, and it is an INCREDIBLE sound. My guess is that the Lexicon chorus was a "secret weapon" for Eno/Lanois during the 1980's - a DX7 doesn't sound that lush on its own.
That program is one of the biggest reasons I intend to resurrect my 224X by hook or by crook.

Quote:
Thanks for your detailed post.
My pleasure. Best that I get some of that stuff on the record before I am entirely feeble.

Maybe I already said this (warning: approaching feebleness!), but back in '86 or so I convened a roundtable discussion on digital reverb with Dave G, Tony Agnello, Andy Moorer, Richard Neatrour (from ART), and one other person I can't remember right now. The discussion appeared as a five-part series (!) in Mix magazine. Sometime before too long, I hope to post that in the Article Archives on my website (Toys In the Attic).

One of the things I remember from that is Tony Agnello fantasizing about being able to have a reverb where you could design a room and all the materials in it...exactly what Universal Audio's Dreamverb (and probably some other reverbs) now does.
Old 22nd June 2010 | Show parent
  #248
Here for the gear
 
🎧 10 years
Oh, and just to fill in a bit more of Gary Hall's CV:

he also worked for Sony supporting their earliest digital recorders, mixer, and editor. He did that for six months with neither training nor schematics! I believe when he left Sony was when he returned for his second stint at Lexicon (glutton for punishment).

I believe he worked for Auris, a very early virtualization company started by some guys from U of I Champaign Urbana, and he was a technical editor for Electronic Musician for several years. THEN he went to Sonic Solutions. He worked for another DVD authoring manufacturer after Sonic Solutions, then decided to retire to Thailand, where he lives now.
Old 22nd June 2010 | Show parent
  #249
Lives for gear
 
Warp69's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Thank you very much for this great information.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry the O ➑️
Maybe I already said this (warning: approaching feebleness!), but back in '86 or so I convened a roundtable discussion on digital reverb with Dave G, Tony Agnello, Andy Moorer, Richard Neatrour (from ART), and one other person I can't remember right now. The discussion appeared as a five-part series (!) in Mix magazine. Sometime before too long, I hope to post that in the Article Archives on my website (Toys In the Attic).
I will be looking forward to read it
Old 23rd June 2010 | Show parent
  #250
ValhallaDSP
 
seancostello's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Wow, thanks for the history! A few questions:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry the O ➑️
Now, as I mentioned the 224 was released in mid-1979, so David certainly had not seen Andy's paper. At the time, there were maybe half a dozen people in the world fooling with digital reverb, Dave G and Andy M being two of them. (Tony Agnello of Eventide was another.) That's not to say that David didn't use any of the techniques Andy suggested, I don't know about that one way or another. But my understanding is that he worked quite alone in his development, though I'm sure he got some feedback, tips, and kibitzing from Blesser and a few other choice friends.
Do you know if Griesinger had read the Michael Gerzon reverb papers from Studio Sound at that point? Gerzon introduces nested allpasses in his 1972 paper. I know that Griesinger mentioned Gerzon's papers in his 1989 AES paper, but this doesn't mean that he had read the Gerzon papers by the time of the 224. The nested allpass concept was originally described by Schroeder in his 1962 AES paper, but it is unclear if Schroeder grasped how it was a far different algorithm than just using 5 allpasses in series.

Quote:
That program is one of the biggest reasons I intend to resurrect my 224X by hook or by crook.
How similar is the PCM70 Chorus algorithm to that in the 224X?

Quote:
Maybe I already said this (warning: approaching feebleness!), but back in '86 or so I convened a roundtable discussion on digital reverb with Dave G, Tony Agnello, Andy Moorer, Richard Neatrour (from ART), and one other person I can't remember right now. The discussion appeared as a five-part series (!) in Mix magazine. Sometime before too long, I hope to post that in the Article Archives on my website (Toys In the Attic).
I look forward to seeing those!
Old 29th June 2010 | Show parent
  #251
Lives for gear
 
SIXTWOFOUR's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I will say that I have a lexicon 200 and a 480L and nothing does what they do. I have almost every other reverb made and nothing sounds like a lexicon. BTW there new stff does not compare to there old stuff. I also have a bricasti and it destroys the NEW Lexicon stuff but I will never sell my 480!
Old 29th June 2010 | Show parent
  #252
Lives for gear
 
Beyersound's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry the O ➑️

Re: algorithms. No one has mentioned what might be my favorite Lexicon effect algorithm (tonight; tomorrow I might have a different favorite), which was the Chorus program. Why did I like the Chorus program so much? Because in the 224X it used the same random modulation on the delay voices that was used in the reverberators, rather than LFO modulation of the voices. What a difference!

The "random chorus" (as it was never called) made it as far as PCM70 v3 software, but the one preset using it was gone in the v4 software. Consequently, I kept one of my PCM70s at v3.
Nice post Larry! You reminded me of something I hadn't thought about for years. I had forgotten how much I loved that Chorus program as well. Back in the early 90s I had the pleasure of mixing Warren DiMartini (and Ratt) live. He had one of the best guitar sounds I have have ever heard to this day. He used a ver3 PCM-70 into a Soldano with that same amazing chorus. I have worked with many great guitarists and tones, but that Lexicon was just flat out the best I ever heard in a guitar rig. What's cool is that the sound is used in the studio through his rig all through the Mike Shipley mixed "Detonator" record, and shimmers like nothing else. Anyone who hasn't heard that chorus should take a listen to that record (Shipley's mix kicks a**!). Thanks Larry
Old 7th July 2010 | Show parent
  #253
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry the O ➑️
That program is one of the biggest reasons I intend to resurrect my 224X by hook or by crook.
The last time I talked to Jim Fabiano (a month or so ago) he still has a number of parts for the 224's.
Old 15th July 2010 | Show parent
  #254
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
I'm still waiting for when somewhone can algorithmically
model the Byzantine Cistern
Old 17th July 2010 | Show parent
  #255
Lives for gear
 
jrakarl's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody Special ➑️
The two boxes together cover a lot of ground in a mix, but I've never thought of them as a 'system'.

If you're considering a PCM90, you might want to think about a '91 instead. Same sounds and more, and easier to service.
Hi NS. Thank you for your response and thank you so much for being an active part of the community. Folks like you and Larry add enormous value.
I've since purchased a PCM70 and will certainly consider a '91 when it comes time for me to invest in newer equipment.

Kind regards,
Julian
Old 14th October 2010 | Show parent
  #256
Gear Head
 
🎧 10 years
wow this is an incredible thread very informative.

I am a llittle confused as to the first post, you say some algorithms are only just 1st introduced into the pcm96, wheras its quite obvious that a pcm80 has halls and rooms, whilst I applaud your total transparancy, its not entirely obvious, a slight contradiction however you say below that one, can't remember, hall or room is actually closer to a diffferent algorithm so that must be the case with the contradictory one.

There are a few things I would like to ask and hope you would be gracious enough to explain them.

1/Whilst I understand that the comlplexity is in the programming, the 480l is revered but really is quite ancient, one would have thought the electronics design would limit it and it would be quite easy to surpass, measurement-wise, is the programmikng THAT good that even things say 10 years later llike the pcm91 can't approach it? must be something then....

2/ a few algos in the 480 I don't really get...

1/ teh prime times, I am trying to relate them to conventional delays, so max pitch event would be oscillator rate? and max pitch change mod. depth? I can see you;'ve tried to extend the ability of the modulation, but I just don't quite get the controls, its a bit obtuse.

2/ the 40 voice fx, again, how can you thicken without detuning?

3/ in the pcm80/1 the glide algo again, I haven't a clue what a 2 tap glide delay is really, as far as I can tell, glide simply means pitch change/mod, as in a conventional mod. delay time with a lfo. sometimes these changes of lingo are unhelpful as one cannot really grasp the concepts.

and if it pitch mods, why the need for a separate chorus algo?

these above are changes on conventional fx that have never been done by anyone else, why? ppl like TC elec. are, equally respected for their quality, and am sure are capable of it, one wonders...I feel any new twist on fx is useful, we all get a bit bored of a mod. dly after a while...

its fascinating to see your orignal mans ideas on new algos that he thoght the concet hall wasn't worth re-implementing?

why did he think that? I am qutie fascinated about design decisions, why one thing is done and another not.

please try to take a few mins to answer my questions, I appreciate your time and thanks for your input, lovely to see a maker doing such
Old 14th October 2010 | Show parent
  #257
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Hi. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to pick and choose on answers to your questions. I'm a bit busy, but more importantly, I haven't recently had my hands on some of the pieces you ask about. It's one of the perils of R&D: I know a lot more about what I'm doing now than what I did then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianm2 ➑️
am a llittle confused as to the first post, you say some algorithms are only just 1st introduced into the pcm96, wheras its quite obvious that a pcm80 has halls and rooms, whilst I applaud your total transparancy, its not entirely obvious, a slight contradiction however you say below that one, can't remember, hall or room is actually closer to a diffferent algorithm so that must be the case with the contradictory one.
You do run out of names after a while. "Hall" is still the best description of a particular type of reverb, even if the details have changed. The PCM96 (as well as our newer plugins) certainly includes many architectural aspects of early boxes like the 480, 81, etc. But it introduces many other new concepts. While it has the character of older boxes in many regards, it goes places the others can't.
Quote:
1/Whilst I understand that the comlplexity is in the programming, the 480l is revered but really is quite ancient, one would have thought the electronics design would limit it and it would be quite easy to surpass, measurement-wise, is the programmikng THAT good that even things say 10 years later llike the pcm91 can't approach it? must be something then....
The 480L is a creature of its age. In terms of bit depth, CPU speed, audio quality or any other measurement, it is orders of magnitude behind what's available now. In spite of that, many people like it specifically because of the many artifacts, and perhaps because of their long experience with it. If someone is happily mixing with a 480L, the last thing I would do is to try to talk them out of it. I do appreciate some aspects of that character, and have brought them forward. I've been less interested in re-introducing quantization error and coefficient zippering.

Quote:
these above are changes on conventional fx that have never been done by anyone else, why? ppl like TC elec. are, equally respected for their quality, and am sure are capable of it, one wonders...I feel any new twist on fx is useful, we all get a bit bored of a mod. dly after a while...
A lot of the effects have become so much a part of mixing vocabulary that you exclude them at your peril. There are some pretty weird new effects in the PCM96, though. For example the multivoice pitch shifter is a complex delay with separate pitch shifts on each tap.

Quote:
its fascinating to see your orignal mans ideas on new algos that he thoght the concet hall wasn't worth re-implementing?
why did he think that?
Dave G is a classical musician. So am I (played a bit of rock several decades ago, but that was then). We're both interested in unobtrusive, natural modeling of space. ConcertHall isn't exactly unobtrusive, so Dave bypassed it in favor of more promising directions. I do think the sound is pretty neat, and I'm glad it's back, but I couldn't imagine using it in a mix of classical music.

NS
Old 15th October 2010 | Show parent
  #258
Gear Head
 
🎧 10 years
this is just a comment post, so no need to reply to it, I appreciate your busy.

I read the first post and a few pages with great interest, but by the time I made my reply, I had forgotten the specifics of the particular algorithms you mentioned, but I was aware one of them, hall or room, that you said was new, had appeared long ago, you mentioned 2 of them with a qualifier on one that it was closer to a different algo. so I assumed that must've been the case with the other, as well.

In reality, I should have checked the first post again, but I wasn't really terribly anal about that point really, it merely appeared from the readers POV contradictory or with some error, however, I knew like I said there must've been some explanation from where you where coming from.

Its not important.

perhaps as a theoretical point, it MAY be interesting to incoroporate a "best of" not in preset types, but perhaps algos that appeared in other units, eg. make an all in one device that would replace all these revered units so you could have all the old ones and the new one, too in one box, but that would be perhaps nigh on a lifetimes work. be nice tho'

evey lex unit in one box uncompromised. hah imagine that

to engineers and companies, items are merely a job to be implemented, and a tool to make profit, us gearsluts come to know and love these as items of history and indispensible work tools, we recognise the sweat, hard work and long hours you make and appreciate the engineering quality, sadly many of them have disappeared into obscurity, other items I refer to,

sadly perhaps, some makers consider certain devices to be a loser, inconvenience where we cherish and love them, I partic. refer to jap mass production items here, some of which are being re-discovered, of any nature. what was once muck has suddenly become a diamond.

say a classic car for instance, you buy a car one day, find out its great, love and cherish it over the years, then call the maker one day, being a nerdish sad jerk, and the maker thinks you are mad, that car is 20 years old, the people who designed and built it are long retired or dead, we have no info on it.

yes but we have lived with it,and have come to love it and wish to know more about it, surely for something so great you must've kept archives and libraries of records?

nope...its just a job, a product, we have much better things now, things move on so fast, that'll never make us money anymore...

that's a kind of consumer vs. maker POV.

I am waffling but the point is, some of us get a little rose tinted and sentimental about some things in the past for some reason, I think its to do with the modern things being a bit teccy and lacking in character, the failings of the time instill some character which progress takes away.

here's a q., perhaps sensitive...!!

are you able to give us some insight into the direction lexicon is now heading, ie a kind of roadmap, it seems to be at some kind of mid life crisis ( some of the products have been bizarre, a foray into guitar amps, a very good one BTW, home theatre multi channel power amps) hint stick with what your good at, ie DSP implementation of fx

, perhaps a bit harsh, but in the new age, one always has to question ones direction and way forward. what I meant was its an awkard time, probly always has been. any new items planned that your at liberty to divulge?

meant in the nicest way.thanks again! always nice to speak with someone who takes time esp. a maker, Intel were superb once to me, I phoned them on a holiday and someone was SO helpful.

I almost forgot, this is an intersting point, I am sure you have, well, considered a sampling reverb, on the lines of a sony or yamaha one, and presumable rejected it.

these are expensive devices and are meant to be good, however, in the synth arena, modelling synths are considered superior to sample and synthesize, however, it appears to be the opposite in the reverb world, a sampled space is better than a dsp reproduced one...that is an apparent contradiction

as an aside, I notice on the rear of the 960 there is a cheap computer switch mode psu to power it...no nvidia sli gaming hi end power supplies..may make it sound better
Old 15th October 2010 | Show parent
  #259
Shy
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
As for product "consumer" vs maker point of view, no one in the company dismisses the old products' sound quality in any way and if anything, many explanations and observations of factors that affect the perception of sound quality in the old products have been made by some in the company as well as customers. Along with that, the current reverb designer in the company has explained his perspective and preferences that affected his design aesthetics.

People forget that behind the brands and products there are individuals responsible for a "product" and that the sound design behind this type of product is, after all, in very big part an art and not just a bunch of technicalities. One cannot be expected to do a good artwork if he's not passionate about it and if it doesn't fit his personal preferences. Just like you can't expect a song writer or a painter to produce something in the style of another, the same applies here. You know one may be able to imitate another, but it's far from guaranteed to have the same effect, especially if the maker was not passionate about it.

So, it's not really about "we have moved on", it's about "that was then, this is now" and "person A is not person B and therefore product A is not product B" and "in a perfect world, machine code could be perfectly or even feasibly portable between vastly different machines, but it's not".

Regarding "sampled space is better", I disagree to say the least, not just because this method has many technical flaws, but because it never sounds nearly as good as a good algorithm to me and it doesn't even matter if the sampled impulse response was taken in a world class concert hall, it always sounds like a bad, rough sketch compared to it, unsurprisingly.
Old 15th October 2010 | Show parent
  #260
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianm2 ➑️
are you able to give us some insight into the direction lexicon is now heading
North! No, I mean West... Sorry, but I really can't talk about things in the queue or a longer term roadmap. The guitar amps are ten years gone. The home theater stuff has long been worked on by a completely different group of engineers, although we're happy to share ideas.

I really do appreciate your interest. Sorry I'm not able to offer longer responses.

NS
Old 4th September 2012
  #261
Lives for gear
 
nickelironsteel's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Ive stumbled across the term "Constant Density" a lot of times... does anyone know which reverbs use this design, cause i appear to be a sucker for what they do to a mix
Old 4th September 2012 | Show parent
  #262
Lives for gear
 
zmix's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickelironsteel ➑️
Ive stumbled across the term "Constant Density" a lot of times... does anyone know which reverbs use this design, cause i appear to be a sucker for what they do to a mix
Yes.

The most popular constant density reverbs on the market were the EMT 250, AMS RMX16, the SONY DRE 2000, SONY MUR-201 / IBANEZ SDR 1000, SONY R7, etc... The Ensoniq DP/2 and DP/4 and DP/pro have separate diffusion parameters for the input and the "tank" network, so you can create constant density reverbs with them as well.

The telltale characteristic of a constant density algorhythm is that the reflection pattern repeats (sounds a bit like a pebble skimming across water), where a "non-constant density" algo grows more dense and diffuse as the reverb decays.
Old 4th September 2012
  #263
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
I have a PCM96 Surround and a 300. What's the closest algorithm to the "Random Ambiance" from the 300 on the 96? I love that algorithm.
Old 5th September 2012 | Show parent
  #264
Lives for gear
 
Warp69's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghosted ➑️
I have a PCM96 Surround and a 300. What's the closest algorithm to the "Random Ambiance" from the 300 on the 96? I love that algorithm.
The Random Ambience algorithm is not available on the PCM96 - I believe the closest algorithm would be Room (with all the different ER patterns).
Old 5th September 2012 | Show parent
  #265
Lives for gear
 
nickelironsteel's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by zmix ➑️
Yes.

The most popular constant density reverbs on the market were the EMT 250, AMS RMX16, the SONY DRE 2000, SONY MUR-201 / IBANEZ SDR 1000, SONY R7, etc... The Ensoniq DP/2 and DP/4 and DP/pro have separate diffusion parameters for the input and the "tank" network, so you can create constant density reverbs with them as well.

The telltale characteristic of a constant density algorhythm is that the reflection pattern repeats (sounds a bit like a pebble skimming across water), where a "non-constant density" algo grows more dense and diffuse as the reverb decays.
thanks, let me be more precise model-wise: how about the

EMT 244, 245, 246, 251, 252?
SONY: so basically all sony reverbs except the DRE777?
LEXICON 224, 224X, 224XL, M300, 300L, 480L ?
QUANTEC QRS, QRS/XL, Yardstick 2402
URSA MAJOR SST-282
YAMAHA REV 1, REV 5, REV 7

cheers, this helps a lot explaining to me why i dig those units so much
Old 6th September 2012 | Show parent
  #266
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warp69 ➑️
The Random Ambience algorithm is not available on the PCM96 - I believe the closest algorithm would be Room (with all the different ER patterns).
According to Mr. Carnes, the Early Reflections are time-variant in the 300 and 960.
(EDIT: According to Mr. Carnes it's really only the 960, that has time-variant ER's.)
The Room algo in the Native Bundle (I suppose it's the same on the hardware, eg 96 + 92) is not, according to my tests.


Any chance for the random ambience in your LX plug, Mr. Warp?

Last edited by cowudders; 7th September 2012 at 02:05 AM.. Reason: set straight by the guru
Old 6th September 2012 | Show parent
  #267
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by cowudders ➑️
According to Mr. Carnes, the Early Reflections are time-variant in the 300 and 960.
On further--ahem--reflection, I don't think the 300 had time-variant early stuff. It was as direct a port of the 480 as Dave and Frank Cunningham could make it. I think the 960 was the only beast with randomized reflections.
Old 6th September 2012 | Show parent
  #268
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Carnes ➑️
On further--ahem--reflection, I don't think the 300 had time-variant early stuff. It was as direct a port of the 480 as Dave and Frank Cunningham could make it. I think the 960 was the only beast with randomized reflections.
Correct, on the 300 the early reflections consist of a matrix of static delays around the reverberator.
Old 7th September 2012 | Show parent
  #269
Lives for gear
 
Warp69's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Carnes ➑️
I don't think the 300 had time-variant early stuff. It was as direct a port of the 480 as Dave and Frank Cunningham could make it. I think the 960 was the only beast with randomized reflections.
The Random Ambience algorithm from 480L does have randomized delays controlled by the Wander parameter. It can't be a direct port if the 300 doesn't have randomized delays. Is "Wander" then a dummy parameter on the 300 version of the 'Random' Ambience algorithm?
Old 7th September 2012 | Show parent
  #270
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warp69 ➑️
The Random Ambience algorithm from 480L does have randomized delays controlled by the Wander parameter. It can't be a direct port if the 300 doesn't have randomized delays. Is "Wander" then a dummy parameter on the 300 version of the 'Random' Ambience algorithm?
The "Wander" parameter definitely makes a difference tweaking the 300. But it might not affect the ER, only the tail.
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