PCM92, or 2016 ?

[wallyburger]

Well, FWIW, I've decided to get the 2016, the Lexicon looks like a cheap free view box, on that basis alone I wouldn't want to have to look at it for more than few minuets, the 2016 looks amazing, sounds amazing, and that's all I want to know. I don't know why Lexicon changed the classic blue/black image, this new brushed beige aluminum thing is awful, it could be anything, I can imagine someone coming in here and asking what I'm doing with satellite receiver in my studio. I don't know about you guys, but how something looks is important,

WB.

[666666]

Originally Posted by wallyburger

... I can imagine someone coming in here and asking what I'm doing with satellite receiver in my studio. I don't know about you guys, but how something looks is important.....

I really hope you're kidding.

Never used a 2016 but I can tell you that the PCM92 sounds incredible. It should cost twice what it does in terms of its sonic value. So, if you should ever get one, with the money saved you could maybe have the faceplate chrome plated or powder coated or something.

[ABBA]

PCM92 is really really good.
Ugly? You are kidding right?

[string6theory]

Yep, great sound and value aside, the platinum-gold velvet metal face and non-cluttered controls are quite classy and inviting. Inner and outer beauty in audio quality & design. What more do you want, slut?

[wallyburger]

Originally Posted by string6theory

Yep, great sound and value aside, the platinum-gold velvet metal face and non-cluttered controls are quite classy and inviting. Inner and outer beauty in audio quality & design. What more do you want, slut?

Classy ? "platinum-gold" "velvet" if this were a car it would be an executive Lexus.....all the 92 needs is a bit of beige leather upholstery on the end cheeks.

Sorry folks, but I like my stuff a bit utilitarian, why waste money on unnecessary decoration, all that metal finishing costs money, I like things to look basic and functional, with knobs, lots of them, not menu screens and buttons. The 80's have a lot to answer for

WB.

[666666]

Originally Posted by wallyburger

...I like my stuff a bit utilitarian...

...I like things to look basic and functional, with knobs, lots of them, not menu screens and buttons....

I totally agree!!!

But the PCM92 is indeed very utilitarian, easy to control. It's laid out intelligently. Try one before you knock it, it's likely not what you're thinking.

Yes, some slightly older units force you to go deep into menus and can get a little crazy, the PCM92 is not like that. Yes, there are menus, but overall it's a breeze to get to where you want to go 95% of the time. For the most common parameter tweaks all you need to do is twist one of the three smaller knobs on the front, no need to dig deep into menus.

I think more recently the user interfaces with these types of units have gotten a lot better. They may seem overly sleek with an absence of physical controls, but they're generally easy to deal with.

There was a point though when a lot of units WERE more of a pain to deal with. Actually, if I remember correctly, the PCM91 has even more buttons etc but is still a bit more of a headache to deal with, plenty of menus and overall a bit less intuitive, on several occasions I've had assistants complaining that they had trouble adjusting the older Lexicon units, etc. I'd say that the PCM92 is more simple and superior in that regard.

In any case, the 2016 may be a fine unit, I'd love to check one out eventually, but the PCM92 is surely a killer piece. And for the money, it's a no brainer. It's like exactly HALF the price of a Bricasti, but sonically is very much in the same ball park.

[string6theory]

^ well said, although the PCM92 new 'street' price looks to be more like ONE THIRD that of the Bricasti. I paid $1k new from an online retailer, and have seen many new for 1.2k. I've never seen a new Bricasti for under $3.3k (but haven't looked as extensively). I'd also love a Bricasti down the road... hopefully.

[sensorfold]

The PCM 96 won the SoundonSound award for best effects unit for 2012. The PCM 92 is basically the same unit, only without FireWire and memory card. I'll never sell my PCM 92. Only a hobbyist and a beginner using effects units but the effects you can come up with on the 92 are astounding. I went to the website and read the manual then did the math- you can get into the parameters of the algorithms; the possible iterations are almost incalculable. There could be a thread a thousand pages long knocking the PCM 92 and I would just laugh. I have highly regarded reverb and effect software which I rarely use any more because of the 92. Lots of great effects units out there, the PCM92 is certainly one of them.

[shortstory]

It's also worth noting Wally that you said you wanted reverbs & some delays. The pcm92 does both of them beautifully with great options. The 2016 only does reverbs.

And I own both. They are both great but the 92 will give you more options and it's half the price. I got my 92 & an MX300 combined for $1200 online.

But if looks are more important than...

[work2do]

PCM92

the 2016 never did it for me.

[wallyburger]

Originally Posted by shortstory

It's also worth noting Wally that you said you wanted reverbs & some delays. The pcm92 does both of them beautifully with great options. The 2016 only does reverbs.

And I own both. They are both great but the 92 will give you more options and it's half the price. I got my 92 & an MX300 combined for $1200 online.

But if looks are more important than...

Oh all right then ! I'll try and get a demo, but at the end of the day i just wanrt to dial up a reverb and not get involved in editing, thats the attraction of the 2016, and the presets are very usbale, and if I do need to tweak things, the knobs are right there, but I'll check out the 92 and report back when i've heard one, I have used lexicons in the past, but no high end ones, only the LXP1 and the rack mount version.

WB.

[Kronos147]

Originally Posted by wallyburger

...at the end of the day i just want to dial up a reverb and not get involved in editing

Ahhhh, the Lexicon 200 then.

[wallyburger]

Originally Posted by Kronos147

Ahhhh, the Lexicon 200 then.

Yes, nice unit at the time. I gave up buying vintage gear though, it's too much trouble, I'm only looking at good used modern stuff these days. I sold my vintage synth's because I was spending a lot on repair bills, and, I rarely used them. Stuff like that is a nostalgia trip, lets face it, which is fine if you can afford it, but when it comes to pure value for money and actually getting the job done, the computer wins hands down, and it also wins on pure experimentation, and sound exploration, vintage equipment was good at "the time" but time, and technology moves on.

WB.

[shortstory]

Wally- the 92 works just like the 2016 in the sense that it gives you dedicated controls for the reverb parameters; no digging around looking for parameters deep in the unit. so in that sense it is similar. Also- I really do think the reverbs are outstanding sounding as well as the delays it offers (they are the kind of delays that are shimmery & special- not simple time delays based on ms for say a vocal; I use them a lot on GTRs for instance).

Also- I have to point out again that even the options of how you use it- stereo in/stereo out vs. mono in/stereo out vs. running one effect into another effect- is all very simple and again accessible from the basic controls. I'm someone who hates having to dig deep into digital FX boxes.

Having said that- I get the appeal of the 2016; I own one- and it is also laid out very simply including RT60, pre-delay, diffusion, & hi/lo EQ- but it's expensive & really only handles reverbs.

You may want to look at the MX300. It too is laid out simply with 3 dedicated controls & sounds great. I use this usually for dedicated verb on individual tracks like a snare for instance; and I think it is only about $300. Another killer option at a seventh of the price of the 2016.

My .02c

[lupo672]

hey guys,

on my Lexicon PCM81, I have a maximum limit of 4 voices for the pitch shifters alghorythm and 6 voices for the resonators, with a maximun delay time of 21 seconds.

my question is:
has the PCM92 more voices for the shifters/resonators and more delay time?

Let me know,it's important

thanks a lot

[sensorfold]

Lupo672,

The PCM92 has no advantage over the 81 with the effects you mentioned. Looks like the same algorithm on Resonator and the 81 looks to have more voices and longer delay time on Pitch Shifting. Strength of 92 is reverbs. I wanted a new unit which is why I bought a 92. Very happy with it BTW.

[wallyburger]

Originally Posted by shortstory

Wally- the 92 works just like the 2016 in the sense that it gives you dedicated controls for the reverb parameters; no digging around looking for parameters deep in the unit. so in that sense it is similar. Also- I really do think the reverbs are outstanding sounding as well as the delays it offers (they are the kind of delays that are shimmery & special- not simple time delays based on ms for say a vocal; I use them a lot on GTRs for instance).

Also- I have to point out again that even the options of how you use it- stereo in/stereo out vs. mono in/stereo out vs. running one effect into another effect- is all very simple and again accessible from the basic controls. I'm someone who hates having to dig deep into digital FX boxes.

Having said that- I get the appeal of the 2016; I own one- and it is also laid out very simply including RT60, pre-delay, diffusion, & hi/lo EQ- but it's expensive & really only handles reverbs.

You may want to look at the MX300. It too is laid out simply with 3 dedicated controls & sounds great. I use this usually for dedicated verb on individual tracks like a snare for instance; and I think it is only about $300. Another killer option at a seventh of the price of the 2016.

My .02c

Thank's Shortstory, I had been thinking just that, about the Mx300, but money isn't really the issue, I may get both units, the 2016, and the 300 for delay. I haven't been into lot's of effects for a long time now, preferring a more basic, direct and aggressive type of sound. I had to audition a guy for my band and he turned up with just about every high end box in his rack that you could imagine, and when I heard him play I thought........."WHY" .......so much processing power to achieve sod all.

OK, I have listened to the 92, and my opinion ? It was "OK" very lush, nice, and all that, very "Lexicon" ....but boring, the 2016 has something, and I like it, whatever "that" is, I used to own an H3000, and I liked that a lot, the reverb's were so good, that swirly swishy almost chorus'y sound was extremely lovely. The 2016 has a bit of that sound, and is a bit grainy in a nice way, and the simplicity of use wins hands down for me, the 92 is a good reverb, but for me, not very inspiring.

WB.

[wallyburger]

Originally Posted by 666666

It's like exactly HALF the price of a Bricasti, but sonically is very much in the same ball park.

I have heard a Bricasti, I was so underwhelmed it was unbelievable. Why it has this high end reputation I will never know, it was a bit like the Lexicon, sort of nice, but a bit boring, this just goes to show that this game is so personal, I know of tracks that have been very successful, where reverbs were done on a Boss SE50 so it's what you like, and what works for you at the end of the day.

WB.