Got the 224X the same Mainframe then the 224XL ???

Does it sound the same ???

thanx

if you really have the X model then yes, sound the same.
There are 3 model i've known:
224 original: black front panel, uses very old remote (Beige color)
224X uses newer remote (blue color), different converter, more presets
224XL has a similar 480L (but not exacly) LARC, but use the same X vesion main frame (same engine but different look at front panel)

thanx

i can get a 224X for cheaper then a 224XL

so i will get the 224x

:-)

of course 224X is much cheaper 224XL, people wants to get XL because of the LARC, beside it looks similar to 480, it also easier to use and can control multiple unit

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~adamc...ute%20Page.htm

Ive had this up for a while and would like some more info or details from anyone who cares to contribute.

i also in the search of a 224x in germany.....no luck...

In theory, they should sound the same... in practice, the 224XL pales in comparison. The plates, especially the "constant density plate" on the 224X buried the plates on the 224XL.

The 224X seemed to have a far less delicate nature to the tone of the reverbs. Sonicly, a far superior unit IMNTLBFHO

Funny about that, I totally agree. I really liked the 224 and the 224X, thought they were in the ballpark with the real deal and was very let down by everything that came after from lexicon.

ds, What *ARE* the differences between the LARC's of the 224xl & the 480?

The difference between the 480 and 224XL LARCS are a couple of Key Cap names. They are the same other than than. I think the XL had a 2nd Func key, the 480 has a MACH key.

from the Lexpro site:

Question: What are the differences between the Lexicon 224, 224x and 224xl?

Answer: The 224STD with V4.3 software has 7 programs. There was a V4.4 software release with 2 additional programs that required that the optional NVS card be installed in the OPT slot of the 224STD.

The 224X had higher end timing/control and converter cards and came complete with the NVS card and more programs.

The 224XL used the LARC controller.

can you use the larc from the 480l with the 224xl ?

I believe it's a yes

There was a box with one LRC in and four out called the LRC4 LARC Framelink that allowed you to use one LARC on any combo of 480L, 300L and 224XL.

All LARCs are the same.The key caps were changed.

From the Lexpro site:

"Question: Can a M300 LARC control a M480L?

Answer: Yes, The LARC that is used for the M224XL, M480L and M300L are the same machine with the exception of the lables on a few buttons. "

That... and they sound different.

"Pro-Tools is to audio what fluorescent is to light"

I LOVE that quote - sooooo true.

Fletch, can you describe the constant density plate in the old 224? Things like; What where the settings and how did it react? Was it like a random hall or infinite reverb algo? Did it resemble the EMT 250's?

Fletcher - the LARC never processed audio, though Dave G did have a version of software in the lab that used the LARC's processor to do pitch-shift on the 224XL. The display become veeerrrrry sloooooooooow.

No, the LARC never passed audio... but the programs in the 224XL were different than the programs in the 224X. You had to change more than graphics chips when you "upgraded" the 224X to a 224XL and that affected the tone of the unit.

I've used them both on actual records... have you? They sound different, and IMNTLBFHO, the overall tone of 224X was thicker than that of the 224XL... especially when it came to the plate programs [which were kinda useable in the 224X and have sucked ass in every Lexicon product since].



SiliconAudioLab: I have no idea what settings I used to use except that it was the "constant density plate" setting in the "plates" set of programs... I remember that I used to pull the pre-delay out to at least 15ms and usually shortened the lowend response a bit... I don't believe I messed with the "early reflection" stuff as it was time consuming and generally counterproductive to the flow of the session. As for sounding like an EMT-250... nothing but an EMT-250 sounds like one of those... though some of the programs in the Kurzweil KSP-8 seem to come close in terms of 'density'.

Cool thanks!

What would be the closest algo around today on units like the 300 or 224xl?

I'm trying imagine the sound of that plate - and you've commented about it pretty strongly a number of times that now I simply MUST check it out damn you! heh It's become an itch and.... well you know the rest.

I know what you mean about the sound of the 224. From the X forward, there was much more HF bandwidth. I think the 224 couldn't get past 8kHz. If you take the HF controls and bring them back to 8k or lower you will be a lot closer to the "good old sound". Much less tizzz.

The algorithms changed when the 480L came out. The PCM 70 was essentially 224X algorithms in a different package.

btw - I only worked at Lex for 15 years ;-) '84-'99.

I KNEW I recognized your name. It's written right here in the back of my 300L manual.

Kevin Monahan a co-worker buddy at Emu Systems gave me that (your) contact.

I don't think I ever needed to call you, but nice to meet you (in the virtual sense anyway).

Now if I can get it upgraded to work with my LARC w/o costing an arm and a leg. NEVER got the upgrade beyond version 1.

heh

Joel,
Great to have you here, hope you can stick around and share your knowledge with the rest of us. If you'd be willing, maybe you can aswer a question I've had regarding the pcm70 for some time now. I have a pcm70 with ver. 1.2 installed. Everyone seems to be enamored with ver. 2.0, yet all the presets everyone talks about seem to be present in ver. 1.2.....Tiled Room, Rich Chamber, Rich Plate, etc.. My question is, was there anything that ver. 2.0 has that 1.2 doesn't? What makes ver. 2.0 the most sought after pcm70? Or is this just name recognition, like Neve 1073's and 1066's?
Thanks,
Sean

Don't make this a long-term memory test ;-)

The only difference was sysex was added. No sounds were changed.

V3 had a new set of presets. It was recommended to copy the old (V1.2 or 2) into the registers before installing 3 and to save the chip in case you lost the registers.

FYI - there is a lot of info about the "vintage" Lex gear at http://www.lexiconpro.com/kbase/index.asp

I'm quite aware that you did sales at Lexicon for many years... I was talking about working in the field, as in making records, as in practical use of the product vs. sales rhetoric.

Sorry, I suppose I should have clarified that earlier.

You know what they say about assume ;-) Why would you assume that someone with a sales gig doesn't use the gear and make "real" records? Isn't that what you do - (yank that chain).

Just teasing, but you KNOW it's a bogus assumption.

I got my 224X back a few years ago. I modified it into a 224XL version 8.2. I had a chance to use it before and after the upgrade.

I much perfer the 8.2 software over the 4.2 versions.

I find the rich plate program to be more dense and thick than the CD plates on the 4.2 software.

The splits program is also a nice addition.

The XL upgrade also changes the data stream from 14 to 16 bits so it does improve to my ears.

Everytime I get an X in for work I fire it up just to hear what I may have missed from the upgrade, each time it convinces me I made the right decision.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

Huh?

Is it true?

It's spooky for me to think that I'd used 224s and pcm70s for years and never realized that they had ANYTHING in common....

It's all in the presets. It was always amazing there was seldom anything stored in the user areas too.

People just used the presets and moved the RT control a bit.

Gary Hall spent a long time developing the resonant chord programs, and almost no one knew they existed in the 224XL - hey it's just a reverb :-)

The 70 originally was going to have just the effects from the 224XL. We decided to throw in some reverb at the last minute.

Joel,

Are these algorhythms in the PCM 70 ported over or were they re-coded?

I have never thought that they even sounded close...

It's haunting.

also,

What can you tell me about Bob Olhsson's claim that the 224, 224x and 300 caused the pitch to go flat if you used predelay? I say it's nonsense, but he claims it's a documented fact. I've looked in the 300 manual and found no reference to any such problem. and I've never heard this on any old metal-remote 224

It wasa port if I recall correctly.

I would never doubt Bob's ears but the delays had no pitch aspect to them.

The concert hall algos have that though and increasing the pre-delay owuld make it more noticable.

If you listen to a real space, the pitch does change on the tail over time, so that algroithm was simulating that aspect.