Just out of interest, in what samplerate were you processing ?

Hey! Great question!

So no kidding about the time you posted that, I was thinking..."I wonder what the differences would be at a higher sample rate?"

My initial session was at 48k.

I re-did the test at 96k (maximum sample rate for the PCM-92). Guess what? They sound MUCH closer now but with some significant caveats. The hardware now sounds smoother, wider, deeper, and much "better" than the plugin. (Subjective claim)

So I guess my question(S) now becomes..is the hardware doing something wonky at lower sample rates? Is there a deficiency in the Lexicon SRC? Is there some sort of clocking issue? Is there a setting on the Lex I missed?

Everything in the system is clocked off of Dante...and I have not had any issues like this with other effects hooked up via Dante (Eventide H9000, AXE FX 3).

Interesting....

I hope you do realize there's an innate flow - or, rather, a great oxymoron - in your post ?

They cannot sound "MUCH closer" (which reads: both pleasing to the ear in a way that is not immediately discernible) and at the same time "the PCM is now smoother, wider, deeper, and much 'better' " (or any words that ends with "er").

It was only when I started processing reverbs (ANY reverb) at 88.2 that I came to realize why HW guys "snubs" their SW siblings. reverbs "lives" in the upper registers. that's where all the magic happens. only at >48kHz can you fully understand this. it was from that moment that I came to realize that the statement "HW is ALWAYS better" becomes moot. it's just shades of good.
you might process your SW reverb with some distortion down the road, and suddenly it'll become better than your hw. then, you process your HW with some processor further down the road and it becomes "better". the loop would go on forever.

Don't go there. if you prefer your HW reverb, use it, enjoy its results and OWN the feeling.

I cannot (nor ANYONE ELSE. complete noobs or top elite engineers) tell you which is "better" (I thought people would got over this never ending game in 2021...). or why (why does it matter anyways ?...).

I can only say that I advise you to process any spatial effect at >48kHz in order to fully realize it's sonic potential... and you'd be good to go

Thank you. I understand what you are saying and it makes complete sense. I can easily hear the benefit of the higher sample rate...at least with the HW.

What I do not fully understand is why the HW reverb is quite different @ 48k while the SW remained almost the same at multiple clock settings.

The SW subjective 'quality' of process remained about the same going from 48k -> 96k....the HW process 'quality' made quite a leap...hence why I say it now sounded 'better'. This was more than just extended frequency response...but literally similar to a very subtle quantization noise...really only evident in long tails with lower register sounds at 48k.

I would like to comfort myself in thinking it was not due to some other aspect of my setup...and that the 'problem' (if there is one) - lies in the HW unit and how it is programmed / addressing it's internal SRC.

I checked over all the other settings and everything looks like it should...both within the Lex unit and also throughout the system. Everything is clocking properly and the Dante Controller software is not reporting any errors or clock issues.

Can anyone else with the hardware confirm this behavior?

** I am attaching two files: the software tail decay, and the hardware tail decay @ 48k . These files were normalized so you can hear the issue clearly.

Here is the same sound.....hardware.... @ 96k . Again, tail has been normalized so you can hear the quality difference

Your files are great to illustrate what I said above :

The HW obviously has more "weight" to it due to the harmonic distortion (that is the nature of electronic components). as a consequence it add harmonic components and "stretches" the audio in all axis (what you experience as "deep", "wide", "substantial" or - in everyday language - "better" ). try adding some sort of light distortion after the reverb return (insert a distortion or saturation on your aux right after your reverb. that is : you distort the tail alone), you should end up with the same perceived results.

The 96kHz proves, again, my post above : reverb tails sounds - in my experience - COMPLETELY different when processed at higher sample rates. the processor can be "aware of" - or, rather, "sense" - all the high-end info that is getting lost in the lesser sample rate. and that high-end info translates to the dimensions we experience in sound (wide, deep, encompassing, etc.). I was amazed of the results I could cox out of even your "bread-and-butter", much less hyped - SW Reverbs... when processed at 88.2/96kHz.

Not so long ago I processed a pad with Greg Hopkins' IR's, loaded onto Reverberate. and man... I was, like, overwhelmed. for real. the same things you experienced : it was HUGE, encompassing, buttery smooth and not "pasted" onto the processed pad.

Again, sw or hw... everything goes. just process at 88.2/96kHz. always (unless you seek purposely the grained, lo-fi sound of the lesser sample rates. which is also fine... if that is what you seek for).

So what I am hearing you say is: the artifacts present on the 48k hardware tail are a product / limitation of the lower sample rate.

I believe you....but if this is correct, why doesn't the Lexicon plugin exhibit the same character at 48k? Is the plugin always upsampling to process, and then downsampling to output while the hardware simply processes at the lower sample rate? Or vice versa?

Clearly it is not a universal answer of "always process spatial effects at higher sample rates"....otherwise the plugin would have the same character at lower sample rates. It does not.

Just trying to get to the bottom of the 'cause'.

I just discovered another interesting difference.

The lower sample rate anomaly I posted about above was using the "Random Hall" algo. If I switch to "Large Hall", the tail artifacts are not harsh at the lower sampling frequencies in the 92. The HW and SW exhibit very similar tails.

So this would lead me to believe it has to do with the way the Random Hall algo was coded for the hardware.

The plot thickens.....

It's not thick -- they are the same algorithms. You might be hearing differences but you've mentioned several reasons why that might be, none of which are due to the products themselves but the way they are being used. I'd advise that you carry on using whichever fits better into your studio ecosystem and not worry about the comparisons.

Not trying to be pedantic here...but I'm not talking about differences in algorithms between the hardware and software. It is well established by Michael Carnes the algos in both the HW and SW are the same. It is also been established here on GS that the coding for how those algorithms are implemented varies between the plugin and hardware. The hardware has tail artifacts at 48k on the Random Hall that the Plugin does not. Those artifacts disappear at higher sampling frequencies on the hardware....at least they do on my system, clocked externally, and running digital I/O.

I don't see anything wrong in noting those differences and discovering any others so we as a community can benefit from how these 'quirks' - or whatever they may be - manifest and how to use them to best 'effect'...so to speak lol.

What I guess I should do is pray for more work so I don't have time to let my OCD get the best of me!

Here's a post from the guy who, among others, designed the PCM 96:

Michael Carnes
Lives for gear

Joined: Mar 2008
Location: Salt Lake Valley
Posts: 1,099
My Recordings/Credits
My Studio
? 10 years
Lexicon PCM Native Reverb Plugin Bundle
Hey guys, just dropped by (I don't get to GS very often anymore) and saw this thread. It's been about decade since I wrote (or even listened to) those verbs, but I can say that, yes the plugins were direct ports of the hardware. Both were written in C++ with 32-bit floating point. I do seem to remember that I fixed a small bug in ConcertHall, but that would only have shown up with extreme settings. I don't think the A/D/A conversion would have any sort of audible effect. Those converters were really excellent. Any audible differences would more likely be the result of distortion/non-linearity in the send/return circuitry of the desk.

Regarding nulling, I don't think a PCM96 would even null with itself! The randomization going on in there was really quite strong--even when the device maintained a consistent sound. Statistically, frequency response was well-managed, but moment-to-moment was a different story. I don't remember how I did the random number generation in the plugs OR the hardware device, but I'm guessing it would be pretty hard to set up a test in which the things would actually null. At times, this would extend all the way up to the most-significant bits.

The 48kHz file shows significantly reduced diffusion on the reflections. Nothing to do with "harmonic distortion" from the "nature of electronic components."

I'm with you 100% on that, just trying to clarify that it's not the products that are incapable of mimicking each other but the ways in which they're being used. And, as mentioned, reverbs tend not to null so striving for this phenomenon will be frustrating. You've pointed out the variations between hardware and software, due in part to sample rate discrepancies, and that's a good point to mention.

Who would have thought:
https://proforums.harman.com/lexicon...9-download-now

Me is also happy? now hoping for no bugs?

Who's gonna try this and let us know if it works? I'm too nervous to install the reverbs, though I guess I'll do the fx since the old one wouldn't install at all (and I no longer have them operational).

edit: the FX installer worked and the plugin load, faster than previously.

Let’s hope they update the gui for both windows and Mac for 4K screens....

Not in these updates. GUI looks the same.

It looks like these new versions are different enough from the previous ones that they no longer load in older sessions. Any session I attempt to open which used the Lex verbs gives an error stating that the Lexicon reverbs cannot be found in my session folder.

Luckily, those instances of the Lex verbs are greyed-out and you can reselect the appropriate matching reverb from the list and it seems to apply the proper settings saved in your session. I'm not 100% sure that the settings are identical to what was saved, I only know that upon reselecting the reverb it moves all parameters away from their defaults, so it *seems* to be applying the saved settings.

These new plugins do not load any faster than the previous ones. Opening and closing sessions still have that delay and the accompanying beachball.

edit: I decided to revert back to the previous reverb plugins. There's no advantage to updating and a major disadvantage to using the new ones.

I understand that speech just about some changes in the installer / plugin identification, and nothing related to fixing bugs in the plugins themselves. (I will not be surprised if this is will not possible at all)

I know you don't need to sign in to download, but:

Just curious - why won't my account be recognised? Could it be that I bought back in the Lexicon days pre-Harmon ownership and that is why?

Thanks guys.

OK, just realised it's the forum. That'd explain it.

Didn't see any way to log in at the main site, which is strange to me 'cause I've got a password and whatnot.

seems to work... mac Catalina 12 core trash can
I wonder why after 4 years they are finally motivated.. Mr Samsung?

Like them or not they are a flagship asset I think
But used mostly by “ engineers “ making “ records “

Not BMW buying tech for their cars or Samsung’s feature set on their gadgets

I'm finding they load noticeably slower than before for some reason. At least the presets aren't a jumbled mess anymore though! (on MacOS Catalina)

Anti aliasing filters at work at - that’s why you hear it smoother.

I am not a specialist about reverbs but what about some serious sound examples. I do not mean separate track with reverb but full mix. Let listen to some full mixes and hear software vs hardware results. Of course those mixes must be top notch to really see the quality difference between the reverbs. Is here anyone who can send some files to shootout blindly?

It would show the skillfulness of the person mixing more so than anything else.

And that is the point. Talking about the part and ignoring the whole does not make sense to me. In such approach you can just judge the one is different to another but never understand the benefits of one over another in real situation

The whole is not ignored, it is tacitly assumed. My point was, a mix is too complex as a unit of information (program material) to pick out the signatures of the reverbs used. They may be heavily processed, modulated, intermingled, they may be quite lo-fi to begin with, but well chosen for the task.

One way of judging the quality of a reverb is to watch how it reacts to the specific resonances of an audio source. It is better to do this instrument by instrument, track by track etc. Once you get the signature of a reverb, you'll know as a principle its character will add up when used repeatedly in mix.