Lexicon Reverbs heritage... the Grand Wazoo of audioclips!

Discussion in 'The Rack Space' started by italo de angelis, Oct 31, 2017.


  1. italo de angelis

    italo de angelis Member

    Messages:
    4,308
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    keelford and hydroquebec like this.
  2. mentoneman

    mentoneman Guest

    Messages:
    2,224
    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    awesome.

    I always gravitated to the concert halls in the 91. so good!

    sounds like some stereo steering in the second humongous clip, and some nice hi freq ducking in the abyss clip...
     
  3. italo de angelis

    italo de angelis Member

    Messages:
    4,308
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011


    None of that!
    Both presets run on Random Hall... the randomized delays in the reverb network create some incredible and unpredictable tonal colorations. Some short delays add space clues... and the SHELF filter in the reverb makes a lot to the frequency content!
    You are hearing those clips as processed thru the Lex300. The 90/91 should be very close to them.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2017
  4. looper309

    looper309 Supporting Member

    Messages:
    325
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    I wish I had a spreadsheet of every parameter of every preset on the 80 and 81 so I could study it when I'm away from the machine.
     
  5. hydroquebec

    hydroquebec Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2012
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    Hey @italo de angelis so you got a 91? Concert Hall sounds a bit different compared to the 80/81, doesn’t it? Not better, not worse. Just different. (I think its the delay structure)
     
  6. italo de angelis

    italo de angelis Member

    Messages:
    4,308
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    There is a set of parameters in both the effects AND reverbs which are tied. They interact. You change one and changes occur in the others.
    Looking at values isn't just enough... is the way they work together. But you can certainly dive into spreadsheets madness and fill them up.
    I found the manual reading more inspiring when away from the unit... lots of ideas pop up!
     
  7. italo de angelis

    italo de angelis Member

    Messages:
    4,308
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    Nope. Not yet. No 90/91 here. I can create presets for it because several of its algorithms are in the 80/81 and 300.
     
  8. italo de angelis

    italo de angelis Member

    Messages:
    4,308
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
  9. mentoneman

    mentoneman Guest

    Messages:
    2,224
    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    got it. the 300 sounds sweet!
    Just an observation—
    it’s kind of confusing that you promote the library for the 90/91 with sounds from the 300.
    I understood the soundclips and descriptions to mean you were emulating all of the aforementioned devices and cresting those clips exclusively using just the 90 or 91–
    You may want to rethink how to word the making of the soundclips a little differently on the site because i totally did not interpret it that way
     
    ctreitzell likes this.
  10. hydroquebec

    hydroquebec Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2012
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    Let me know if you need any testing. I've got 4 hrs to play this weekend. One thing i would really like to record for you is Concert Hall on the 80 vs. Concert Hall on the 91.
     
    ctreitzell likes this.
  11. hydroquebec

    hydroquebec Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2012
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    So you hear the difference! I don't prefer one over the other, but there is a distinctly different sound in the way the delays are spaced out, as well as the modulation.
     
    ctreitzell likes this.
  12. italo de angelis

    italo de angelis Member

    Messages:
    4,308
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    The 90/91 and 300 share some algorithms; they are just the same. So a preset running on Random Hall, Rich Plate or Random Ambience can be programmed in the same exact way on both units.
    Same thing between the PCM80/81 and the 90/91... as the Concert Hall, Chamber and Inverse structures are the same.
    The 90/91 is directly derived from the 300 and from PCM70>80 lineage ... plus it includes very few new things really, which are the Room/Room2/Surround Chamber/Matrix Chamber algorithms.
    They are just the same!
     
    ctreitzell likes this.
  13. italo de angelis

    italo de angelis Member

    Messages:
    4,308
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011

    Thanks for the offer but there is no need really.
    If you want to record a couple of clips thru Concert Hall on both PCMs, that would be interesting. Same exact settings, no surround...
     
  14. hydroquebec

    hydroquebec Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2012
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    Hey @italo de angelis, here is a recording of PCM80/81 Quad>Hall, PCM91 Concert Hall, and back to the PCM80: https://www.dropbox.com/s/79eq74wgn69v26d/pcm80 and pcm91.wav?dl=0

    Settings on both machines:
    RT 1.2x
    Mid Rt 17.2 sec
    Crossover 181 Hz (PCM91 is 0.2Khz)
    High Cut Off
    PreDelay 20ms
    Size 128
    Diffusion Full
    Def 15%
    Depth 2
    Spin Off
    Chorus 10
    Shape 128 (parameter only on PCM91)
    Spread 148 (parameter only on PCM91)
    Ref Delays Off

    EDIT: Changed Spread to 148
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2017
    ctreitzell likes this.
  15. italo de angelis

    italo de angelis Member

    Messages:
    4,308
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011

    GREAT!
    Downloading right now...
     
    ctreitzell likes this.
  16. hydroquebec

    hydroquebec Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2012
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    To me, it sounds like the 91 has far less diffusion? You obviously would be far more informed than I would.
    I could try PCM Concert Hall vs. PCM91 Concert Hall..
     
    ctreitzell likes this.
  17. italo de angelis

    italo de angelis Member

    Messages:
    4,308
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    Recording sounds nice. I tried both normalization at -0.1 dB and hard limiting at the same level. That brought out all the content max level.
    I hear 2 differences:
    -the staccato delays cluster in the 91 vs. the diffused counterpart on the 81... when you played yhose string transients.
    -the pcm81 sounds more mid/high freq. focused. The 91 has some better lows in the verb...more balanced.

    Now... about the test:
    -the best one would be to have the *same exact* material going thru the two units. Something you play&record dry and then put it thru each machine to re_record.
    This can be done in several ways on a DAW, depending on the audio interface routings. A simpler way is to master the dry track on a CD and use a player thru the two machines, recording each one separately. I love this one a lot!
    -the choice of algorithms... should be exactly the same. So, no Quad>Hall vs Concert Hall... but Concert Hall vs. Concert Hall.
    The 2 different chips in the 80/81 do work together at reverbs. Some of the delays load can be calculated by one or the other DSP.
    Only a direct 1:1 comparison would reveal the definitive details about the 2 machines/algorithms.
    If you can do something like that it would be the ultimate test.

    I am curious about the settings you used:
    -why such a low values for LOW RT? That sounds very Eventide-ish...
    -Definition does reveal E.R. and L.R. content as discrete delays, if used at high settings. Diffusion mask them.
    -high cutoff : a lot of people with reverb research on their projects refer about a strong loss of frequencies above 4 KHz in real Hall spaces. Not that you have to do like it, but full range off is a bit harsh... unless it's made for testing purpose.
    Make sure there is no algorithm master hicut at work too.
    -Spin/Chorus: spin IS the randomizer. Chorus is the periodic warble. You can mix both or choose one. Chorus at 10 is a lot! Depending on the audio source it can be a problem.
    just some ideas...
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2017
    ctreitzell likes this.
  18. hydroquebec

    hydroquebec Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2012
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    Hi @italo de angelis,

    I agree with you here. I am pretty sure the basics of the algorithm are the same (91 adds the compressor/expander and perhaps a few small things that were obviously turned off), but it seems like a more accurate test to do Concert Hall vs. Concert Hall with the same base track. I can play with that during this upcoming weekend.

    The Low RT is really just an example that I saw in the basic presets that are included with the Dual FX card (I think Pitch FX as well). That value (151 or 181 - can't remember) was in the preset. Other examples I have seen have the Low RT in the 500-600 range. Is there a particular spot that you recommend? I believe this separates the low/high frequency decay.

    The high cutoff was for testing purposes. I wanted you to hear the entire frequency spectrum. I normally cut these at around 5000 or somewhere around 3000 for a darker reverb.

    Every time I add Spin, I get a rippling sort of effect that I'm not really interested in. I added some Spin and Wander to my Random Hall preset on the 91, which works well, but I prefer the straight Chorus in Concert Hall. I will play with some very small values to see what sort of sounds I get. I don't hear these things in your presets..

    So all in all, it seems like something different is going on, right? While Concert Hall vs. Concert Hall is a true test, I am hearing the same things in that scenario. As I mentioned earlier, I don't dislike the 91's Concert Hall - it's just different. The 80/81 sounds far more smooth to me on the initial delays.
     
  19. italo de angelis

    italo de angelis Member

    Messages:
    4,308
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011

    It all makes sense.
    Random stuff... but not so random:

    -I suspect the Concert Hall "versions" within the PCM80/81 itself *might* be slightly different. The 4 voice version (more verb dedicated) vs. the 6 voice versions (verb AND fx). That may be interesting to investigate.

    -the LOW RT... that's a multiplier for MID RT.. so you get a range of parameter values from 0.2x to 4.0x. So if your MID RT verb decay is set at 3.4 sec and LOW RT is set at 1.5x... your low frequencies reverb will last about 5.1 sec. ( 3.4 x 1.5 ). The crucial parameter there is the Xover splitting low from mid frequencies. A LOT can be done there... like drying a reverb low end or extend a part of it.
    The manual has a couple of good hints:
    "Crossover sets the frequency at which the transition from Mid Rt to Low Rt takes place. This control should be set at least two octaves higher than the low frequency you want to boost. For example, to boost a signal at 100Hz, set Crossover to 400Hz. (This setting works well for classical music.) Crossover works best around 400Hz for boosting low frequencies, and around 1.5 kHz for cutting low frequencies." You can tweak a lot there, depending on the sound source spectral content.

    -spin...
    gotta play nice with it. Not much of it as randomization gets nasty. Wander arounf 10 ms. is the best... In general the spin thing doesn't need a lot of work... it's carried out by how you set the other reverb parameters.
     
  20. hydroquebec

    hydroquebec Member

    Messages:
    1,471
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2012
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    Ah yes, that's a very good observation. That makes the Concert Hall vs. Concert Hall test quite required.

    I was mixing up the crossover with the Low RT. It's the crossover that I am using 151-181 values with. Low RT is at 1.2 by example as well, but I will try something like 1.0 or less to reduce the low frequency build up that occurs.

    Thanks - that's where my Random Hall preset is. I need to play with these parameters more. That's one of the biggest reasons why I got the 91. I really need to explore it more...my ears always take me to the 80.
     

Share This Page