I like the Relab version better. It's not intrusive. I'm not a big fan of reverb in general and the Relab 480 sits nicely, and doesn't offend me, in pretty much every mix that I use it in.

From memory, the UAD version I think was too thick. It would just get in the way. I like their 224 though.

Recently, in their ads, Relab has claimed that their 480 is a "sample accurate" reproduction of the original unit. I'm not sure how they back up that claim, but if it's true in all settings you can't get a more accurate emulation than that.

Here is a detailed description how to set up your environment: https://relabdevelopment.com/learnin...-lexicon-480l/

all you need is a original 480L with digital i/o...

There is no single algorithm in the lexicon 480L.

I think companies should try to capture better 3D reverbs instead of catching the 480l.

And it could be pretty complicated, too.

I did this test before I sold my Lexicon 480L hardware unit with LARC.

The UAD 480 and the Relab 480 are no different when using white, pink and pure sine-wave tests. I am not going to bore anyone here with a lot of technical details but anything you think you are "hearing" as far as differences go are the result of your signal acoustics and have absolutely no bearing on the pure mathematic signal correlations that are near perfect between the hardware, Relab and UAD.

If you buy into the UAD ecosystem, you get to use less of your CPU than with the Relab 480 and as far I was able to assess, the differences are negligible in the 1-bit least significant bit to the measures of the digitial-to-digital waveforms that I tried for myself.

So I sold my Lexicon 480 hardware as there is no need today to waste time with mainentance and other problems.

However, I still have the Lexicon 300L with LARC because this machine is an original advancement, in the style of the 480 but its got some good differentiators, such as 20-bit resolution versus 18-bit. The other thing is that with the Lexicon 300, you can in fact use the LARC through some tricks with MAX MSP (Ableton Max for Live also) to have LARC'ified midi control. Updating the Lexicon 300L ROM for the LARC to continuously control parameters would be a nice project for someone to take up. Then you could use old LARCs for the UAD or Relab 480L. Cheers!

When you say they are no different do you mean that they null? I’m not sure what is meant by “signal acoustics”; when speaking of pure signal then acoustics are not yet in play. Given that the algorithms are frequency dependent I’m also not sure that white and pink noise would give you the whole story. And obviously, as mentioned in the official Relab instructions above, all time-variant algorithms are off the table if you want to have any hope of a null.

I don’t doubt the maintenance was giving you headaches though. A good buddy just sold his after it went on the fritz again - said he just didn’t feel secure enough to rely on it through a session. The 300 does have some differences from the 480 especially with regards to how it handles early reflections. I love mine but it does sound cleaner, obviously brighter and a bit “flatter” than the hardware 480 in the front-to-back dimension.

What I mean is that when you perform the tests entirely in the digital domain, use correlation to measure signal correspondence, therefore, removing the speakers and all other devices that transmit to your brain, you will quickly see how incredibly good the emulations have gotten. I still like the “analog electronics” and converter “sound” (480L is darker than 300L) but I can actually do both with filtering or unison preamps and the emulations. So I don’t see value in the same way I used to see about 10 years ago when hardware *always* beat the software emulations. Today it’s really just way too close to call, If you want hardware, buy an original. I mean, I still buy hardware - just not hardware that old and prone to maintenance.

I’m still not sure if I’m reading you correctly - did any part of your tests involve actually listening to the reverbs? You obviously didn’t achieve a null, and I doubt meaningful information about the differences in the three algorithms could be inferred from something as abstract as decorrelation values, even if they were quite low. Wouldn’t a simple double-blind test with an ABX switcher have done just as well?

After demoing them I bought ReLab LX480

Is LX480 full worth it over essentials? Got essentials for free and still use it

The developer is specifically creating it to replace his personal 480 and how that specific unit sounds so that he has a working version when the hardware fails. I cannot speak to sample accurate, but it wouldn’t surprise me

Have updated from Essentials yesterday, and basically tried presets on different sources.
Now must admit that all the possibilities and sound variations it gives are beyond spectacular.
Even twin delay and non-lin presets are cool and quite different sounding to me than both BigSky and Vintage Verb.

Dual engine stuff is very nice as well.

Is there some reason to think his 480L sounds different from any other? Especially using digital I/O?

It's not a given that units will sound different, but it can happen (for several reasons), so it's wise to factor in this possibility.

We just don't know, and it would seem the developer doesn't care - his motivation is not to make a representative model, but purely to replace his one machine with software that sounds identical. Nothing wrong with that, of course! But it could be a source of differences with other emulations.

When emulating any component whose originals varied between units, it's (typically) only possible to perfectly emulate one of those variants, as they're doing here. So, yes, it may sound different than others. In any case, it sounds just like a 480L. Probably a good one.

That would only apply to the analog components, correct? The main part of the plugin is the digital output of the reverb algorithms which, if sample accurate, would be identical to every other 480L running the same software.

For vocals definitely, For everything else essentials should be enough imo.
I used essentials before but needed more controls, and random hall algorithm, for vocals and acoustic instruments.
Relab LX480 sounds exactly what Lexicon reverbs are in my memory from past many years

Essentials does use the random hall algo per relab themselves. But overall yes.

That random hall algo on Essentials is pretty good for vocals. No real need for the full version IMO.

from the product page the Essentials version is based on just these FOUR Relab’s algorithm emulations:

Fat Plate
Medium Hall
Small Ambience
Large Wood Room

the Random Hall algo is NOT included in the essentials version, together with the more accurate and extended parameters options and FX features (like delay eq comp etc.)

From another thread

And

correct, thanks for chasing this one - you can even tell by listening to the tail.

I use it all the time. It's awesome for an "essentials" product (which you now also get for free with some audio interfaces).

I even prefer its GUI and simplicity to the full version.

so wondering why is not indicated into the product page seems very strange to me, would be a good selling point hum ?
I would have updated the product page on day one of Essentials release! :-))