Quote:
Originally Posted by zmix  Can you be more specific or elaborate on your observations a bit for us? Also, you mentioned above that: "the algorithm developer has been developing reverbs at Lexicon for the better part of a few decades " who are you referring to? |
Nobody Special - the user name on Gearslutz, not a snide answer.
Check out his Gearslutz profile. Also, read his posts on the Lexicon bestiary thread:
Lexicon reverbs: a brief bestiary Quote:
|
Listen to the stereo spread. What accounts for the narrow phasey tail in the PCM96?
|
It sounds wide to me, but I am using headphones. I would think that there might be a difference between the mono summing of the PCM70, and the true stereo of the PCM96 (and the 224).
Quote:
|
As for the actual algo design, I find that the ringing in the PCM-70 is much more benign and shows better eigentone distribution than the PCM96. The PCM96 actually changes the chord voicing of the piano!
|
I just hear discrete echos and metallic allpass ringing in both of the reverbs with the modulation off. It seems like this particular algorithm REQUIRES modulation to sound halfway decent. The PCM70 sounds like it has a bit more high frequency attenuation, but I hear some very pronounced sine waves ringing out in the tail. If I listened closer, I could probably hear more subtle differences, but since both of the algorithms sound bad without chorusing, this is where I will stop.
Quote:
|
Why do we modulate taps and FB in the first place? To tame the runaways! The chorusing in the PCM-70 (and the 224) is magical and lovely. The PCM96 is cyclic, grindy and not very pretty.
|
If the Concert Hall algorithm is as dependent on modulation as your examples would indicate, then the particular type of chorusing is probably critical to the sound.
Sean