Lexicon PCM Native Reverb Plugin Bundle

[seancostello]

Originally Posted by gizeh12

How many reverb plugins have claimed to have based their algo's on flagship units, and how did they sound??

How many have run the exact same code as the flagship unit?

The PCM96 runs floating point C++. So do PCs and Macs. Why would Lexicon change the code for such a high end plugin?

The original 224 ran about 100 instructions per sample, the 224XL around 128. The 480L had 192 instructions per sample, IIRC. Mind you, these were special purpose processors, that had some nifty tricks. For example, the memory management was designed in such a way that you didn't need to manually update the delay buffer pointers. Still, these cycle counts suggest algorithms that could safely run at a few percent of the cycles in a modern CPU, even before undergoing extensive SIMD optimization.

[DCV_Musik]

Yes it is expensive at retail of $1899, I figure MAP will be around $1599 but it will worth every penny. I am sure a lot of hard work involved to make sure this plugin will sound "at least" as good as the hardware, for that, I will buy it even at retail. The 960L has been discontinued, replaced with PCM96, now a plugin version that almost ( without the pitch..chorus...) the PCM96. I dont know about the rest of you guys..but I am happy to carry around a PCM96 on an iLok...Thank you NS and Lexicon for such a break through... I can't wait to buy this...

[cowudders]

Originally Posted by seancostello

How many have run the exact same code as the flagship unit?

The PCM96 runs floating point C++. So do PCs and Macs. Why would Lexicon change the code for such a high end plugin?

The original 224 ran about 100 instructions per sample, the 224XL around 128. The 480L had 192 instructions per sample, IIRC. Mind you, these were special purpose processors, that had some nifty tricks. For example, the memory management was designed in such a way that you didn't need to manually update the delay buffer pointers. Still, these cycle counts suggest algorithms that could safely run at a few percent of the cycles in a modern CPU, even before undergoing extensive SIMD optimization.

sean, big thanks for sharing your knowledge around here!

this hardware-software-thinking concerning digital processors HAS to end -b

[SWAN808]

gosh the youtube demos even sound very good. even in YouTube quality you can hear that the reverb is a cut above. Its real space how reverb should sound- so beautiful to listen to. I really dislike most plugin reverbs. I wish I could afford it.

[gizeh12]

Originally Posted by seancostello

How many have run the exact same code as the flagship unit?

The PCM96 runs floating point C++. So do PCs and Macs. Why would Lexicon change the code for such a high end plugin?

The original 224 ran about 100 instructions per sample, the 224XL around 128. The 480L had 192 instructions per sample, IIRC. Mind you, these were special purpose processors, that had some nifty tricks. For example, the memory management was designed in such a way that you didn't need to manually update the delay buffer pointers. Still, these cycle counts suggest algorithms that could safely run at a few percent of the cycles in a modern CPU, even before undergoing extensive SIMD optimization.

Reasons to alter the algorithms:
- Vulgar marketing/financial reasons
- Lack of R&D
- Trade of CPU-load vs sound quality
- DSP- chip design platforms hard to transfer to a pc (mobo, ram, cpu).

But i have to check that Audio Damage EON out.

thumbsup

[gizeh12]

Originally Posted by SWAN808

I really dislike most plugin reverbs. I wish I could afford it.

I'm with you on this one.

At this studio i work i work with the lex 400 and high end tc-verbs, so my ears are quite spoiled, but also trained in recognizing good verbs.

In my home studio i have to rely solely on native reverbs, and i've tried them all (CSR, IK, Sonnox etc) and all of them seem to damage the overall esthetics of my mixes. (Metallic, thin, 2d, muddy, grainy etc etc)
I know all the tricks, gating, post pre eqing, stacking verbs etc etc etc but it just doesnt sound good enough to use 'm.

I even got to the point i don't even use them anymore since its so frustrating.
Now i use stacked delays with filters eq in stead for adding spatial dimensions. This doesnt sound great, but its at least not degrading to the audio as those reverb plugs are.

Maybe seancostello can jump in and explane why delay's sound better (or at least not degrading the source signal) than reverb.

[lllubi]

Originally Posted by SWAN808

gosh the youtube demos even sound very good. even in YouTube quality you can hear that the reverb is a cut above. Its real space how reverb should sound- so beautiful to listen to. I really dislike most plugin reverbs. I wish I could afford it.

let us hear what the X-Verb videos have to deliver

[Benmrx]

I'll be VERY curious to demo this..... hopefully there's some kind of fully functional trial period for a demo! IF this plug does what I hope it does.... I'll pay... I mean......., shouldn't companies charge what they feel their product is worth?

Everyone wants plugins to keep getting better and better, but want to pay cheaper and cheaper costs. Doesn't really add up IMO.

I mean, if this is a true Lex verb, ITB native solution where you can use multiple instances, automate paramters with ease, full instant recall, etc..... I'de actually rather have the plug than the hardware. That's just me though...

[Studio Dweller]

The rep at AES said MAP is $1,499, but he also made a point of saying that it should be able to be found for less.

EDIT: He also said that it will be available around Thanksgiving.

[elambo]

It's not hard to believe that they faithfully ported "existing" algorithms from their hardware unit (PCM96) to work with the CPU of a Mac or PC, so I think we can trust that the algos are the same. What I have trouble believing is the claim that the average computer will be able to handle them without choking.

If a G5 is all you need, why does the PCM96 have such powerful chips?

And $1900 is unexpected. Reverb is migrating towards software, so THIS is what Lexicon reverb will look like today and in the future, and I understand their feeling that $2k is what it takes to get their best algorithms. I'm not so sure people will warm up to such a high cost for software. Something about a rack-mounted box helps justify higher prices, even if the end result - the sound - is the same.

[jamieboss1]

I tested this plugin right next to my pcm96 and definitely noticed a sonic difference. The hardware seemed to 'blend' better on just about every source I a/b'd.
Just my own observations after a quick 20 minutes. I'll definitely be keeping my pcm96. Curious to hear everyone's thoughts.

[elambo]

How was that possible? I thought this plugin was unreleased. You're not comparing the demos...

[jamieboss1]

30 day ilok trial from AES.

[gizeh12]

Originally Posted by elambo

I'm not so sure people will warm up to such a high cost for software. Something about a rack-mounted box helps justify higher prices, even if the end result - the sound - is the same.

80% of the contemporary studio equip/software market are consumers.
I think it could be a smart strategy to keep the price out of the consumer range, and target the pro-market to bust out the development costs and later develop cheaper stripped down alternatives for the consumer market.

This way the brand will keep it's a-status, earn back the development costs with less sales. You can always discount it later when unforeseen alternatives arise from competitors or sales volume turns out to be too low .

It is still business unfortunately, but it seems like a solid move strategically speaking.

[gizeh12]

Originally Posted by jamieboss1

I tested this plugin right next to my pcm96 and definitely noticed a sonic difference. The hardware seemed to 'blend' better on just about every source I a/b'd.
Just my own observations after a quick 20 minutes. I'll definitely be keeping my pcm96. Curious to hear everyone's thoughts.

If you are really demoying it,,,,,

Did you try a/b it at different sample rates? 96khz vs 44.1khz processing.
It might also be your converters, do you monitor the pcm96 trough the converters as well?

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by jamieboss1

I tested this plugin right next to my pcm96 and definitely noticed a sonic difference. The hardware seemed to 'blend' better on just about every source I a/b'd.
Just my own observations after a quick 20 minutes. I'll definitely be keeping my pcm96. Curious to hear everyone's thoughts.

Are you connecting analog to your PCM96?

[jamieboss1]

Originally Posted by Gordon

Are you connecting analog to your PCM96?

No, FireWire via rtas plugin.

[elambo]

Originally Posted by jamieboss1

No, FireWire via rtas plugin.

I haven't compared the two myself, but many have claimed that an AES connection sounds better than firewire. I'd be surprised if it was true, but it keeps coming up.

[gizeh12]

Originally Posted by jamieboss1

No, FireWire via rtas plugin.

Please post some audio examples!!!

[Animus]

Originally Posted by jamieboss1

I tested this plugin right next to my pcm96 and definitely noticed a sonic difference. The hardware seemed to 'blend' better on just about every source I a/b'd.
Just my own observations after a quick 20 minutes. I'll definitely be keeping my pcm96. Curious to hear everyone's thoughts.

A blind test would be more revealing and would rule out placebo effect.Why don't you post some A/B samples and let us blind test it in a poll?

[seancostello]

Originally Posted by gizeh12

Maybe seancostello can jump in and explane why delay's sound better (or at least not degrading the source signal) than reverb.

I think that at least a few plugin reverbs sound good, but I am admittedly biased.

My questions are:

- How are you using the delays? What delay lengths are you using, what are the EQ settings, how are they routed to the output versus the input?

- How are you using the plugin reverbs? Long decays, short decays? Lots of diffusion, low or no diffusion?

- Which TC are you using? And how are you using it?

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by Animus

A blind test would be more revealing and would rule out placebo effect.Why don't you post some A/B samples and let us blind test it in a poll?

If the algs are the same, they should null with the same settings . . .

[seancostello]

Originally Posted by Gordon

If the algs are the same, they should null with the same settings . . .

Turn off the time variation (Spin/Wander), in order to get cancellation. Otherwise, nothing will cancel out at all, as the randomization of time variations will prevent this.

[Animus]

Originally Posted by Gordon

If the algs are the same, they should null with the same settings . . .

The gain staging would need to be the same to I imagine.

Anyways, the sound examples sound damn good to me. Who cares if the plugin is only like 98 percent the same even if that maybe the case. It's still sounds better than any other plugin I have heard. when there is a software demo I will immediately buy it if it is pleasing to my ears.

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by Animus

The gain staging would need to be the same to I imagine.

Anyways, the sound examples sound damn good to me. Who cares if the plugin is only like 98 percent the same even if that maybe the case. It's still sounds better than any other plugin I have heard. when there is a software demo I will immediately buy it if it is pleasing to my ears.

You're right, it's the wrong nit to pick. Where can we get blackmail photos of "Nobody Special" to get him to drop the price to $1200?

[xj32]

So...ok the real question. What and or why would anyone now spend 2x that for a PCM96???

I ask as I was very close to pulling the trigger on the hardware unit. Sonically speaking, What is the point pf the hardware now if this is the same? I realize with hardware it can be ran with external gear in an analog set up ect. But pound for pound and sound for sound...how soon before the hardware will be discontinued???

XJ

[elambo]

I wouldn't be surprised if other variations prevented a complete null as well, even if the algorithms were identical. I'd be happier hearing from a trusted and knowing insider, and, of course, we have.

Best yet, someone please post comparisons. Shouldn't be too hard.

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by elambo

I wouldn't be surprised if other variations prevented a complete null as well, even if the algorithms were identical. I'd be happier hearing from a trusted and knowing insider, and, of course, we have.

Best yet, someone please post comparisons. Shouldn't be too hard.

You're right, the random modulations will prevent nulling anyway. Forget I said it.

[elambo]

Originally Posted by Gordon

You're right, it's the wrong nit to pick. Where can we get blackmail photos of "Nobody Special" to get him to drop the price to $1200?

I know you're joking, but NS isn't the marketing guy. Even he didn't know the MSRP until he asked the market research guys.

[Shy]

Originally Posted by xj32

So...ok the real question. What and or why would anyone now spend 2x that for a PCM96???

I ask as I was very close to pulling the trigger on the hardware unit. Sonically speaking, What is the point pf the hardware now if this is the same? I realize with hardware it can be ran with external gear in an analog set up ect. But pound for pound and sound for sound...how soon before the hardware will be discontinued???

XJ

You were about to buy the PCM96 without knowing what effects it offers? You should look at the specs again, you'll find that it offers effects other than reverb.