The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Lexicon PCM 92 to replace dead 80 Reverb/Delay Processors (HW)
Old 2nd September 2018
  #1
Lives for gear
 
Looneytune's Avatar
 

Lexicon PCM 92 to replace dead 80

Hey guys,
My Lexicon PCM 80 with dual fx card died and can’t be fixed.

It was used on the send and returns along with a couple of M7”s.

I have thought about a PCM 70 but really can’t be bothered with old Lexicon units now the 80 died. So I thought about buying the new PCM 92 but after reading mixed reviews I thought I would ask for some opinions from those who use it and what they think?

I know the 92 is similar to the 96 except no dual engines or FireWire. Not interested in using it as a plugin and also not interested in plugin reverbs.

So are the mixed reviews/ bad ones because of all the issues people had with the FireWire and dual engines? It sounds great on the demos but I can’t rely on demos and for me it’s how it stacks up when I’m using it in the Studio. M7 stacked up extremely well and love it.

Was closing to buying a 92 the other day but thought I will wait a little longer to see what options I have.

What else is there if it is not an M7 or Lexicon? I thought about the Eventide by Princeton, the remake.

I already own an Eventide H8000 and 3500 so thought I will leave Eventide alone.

Thanks
Old 2nd September 2018
  #2
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

The 92 is better than the 80, and it's current. I guess if you don't want a 70, you don't want a 300 either. But it's darn close to a 480 for a lot less risk.
Old 2nd September 2018
  #3
Lives for gear
 
Looneytune's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
The 92 is better than the 80, and it's current. I guess if you don't want a 70, you don't want a 300 either. But it's darn close to a 480 for a lot less risk.
Thanks. How would you compare it to a 70? Cleaner. 70 sounds like an obvious choice but then it’s a headache to maintain.

You think the 92 sounds close to the 480?
Old 2nd September 2018
  #4
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Looneytune View Post
Thanks. How would you compare it to a 70? Cleaner. 70 sounds like an obvious choice but then it’s a headache to maintain.

You think the 92 sounds close to the 480?
Two issues, plasticky brightness and richness. For 1. plasticky brightness, which you'll find yourself trying to get rid of, and 2. richness, which is what it is, in order of worst to best I'd say 200, 80, 81, 224, 90****-92, 70, 300, 480. I've never used a 960.

Of course I've never had all these in one place at the same time, so I could be completely full of crap.
Old 2nd September 2018
  #5
Lives for gear
 

pcm70, 300l and pcm96s here - the newer devices are easier to handle but have less options to tweak; soundwise, they are in the same family as older devices (lexicons from every area have something unique which only ever gets partially ported).

i'd recommend the pcm96s (the 's' making the difference): no firewire but two stereo devices (or quad mono, one stere and dual mono or one surround efx) in one box!

(plus i can control them from my studer vista)
Old 2nd September 2018
  #6
Lives for gear
 
Looneytune's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
Two issues, plasticky brightness and richness. For 1. plasticky brightness, which you'll find yourself trying to get rid of, and 2. richness, which is what it is, in order of worst to best I'd say 200, 80, 81, 224, 90****-92, 70, 300, 480. I've never used a 960.

Of course I've never had all these in one place at the same time, so I could be completely full of crap.
Does not sound very promising for a unit at this price. You think it would shine given the Lexicon history but yet I feel stuck thinking I need to get an older unit. Weird and crazy.
Old 2nd September 2018
  #7
Lives for gear
 
Looneytune's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
pcm70, 300l and pcm96s here - the newer devices are easier to handle but have less options to tweak; soundwise, they are in the same family as older devices (lexicons from every area have something unique which only ever gets partially ported).

i'd recommend the pcm96s (the 's' making the difference): no firewire but two stereo devices (or quad mono, one stere and dual mono or one surround efx) in one box!

(plus i can control them from my studer vista)
96 and 92 same sound engine right? Except no dual engine capability or FireWire on the 92?

So you think the 96 holds up to the older units?
Old 2nd September 2018
  #8
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Looneytune View Post
96 and 92 same sound engine right? Except no dual engine capability or FireWire on the 92?

So you think the 96 holds up to the older units?
No, they are different. I have a 96-S and it will do lots of modulation, pitch shift and delay effects too. But that's not what you buy a high-end Lexicon for, you buy them for the reverb.

I still love my PCM-80 for that "multi-effects" sound... modulation effects mixed with good reverb.... (But the reverb isn't quite as nice as the 92 or 96.)

The 96-S is the best reverb I have now.
Old 3rd September 2018
  #9
Lives for gear
 
Looneytune's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noisewagon View Post
No, they are different. I have a 96-S and it will do lots of modulation, pitch shift and delay effects too. But that's not what you buy a high-end Lexicon for, you buy them for the reverb.

I still love my PCM-80 for that "multi-effects" sound... modulation effects mixed with good reverb.... (But the reverb isn't quite as nice as the 92 or 96.)

The 96-S is the best reverb I have now.
Interesting. Some love the new Lex and others thing it’s crap.

Yeah I would only buy it for reverb, I have other stuff for processing FX.
Old 3rd September 2018
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Looneytune's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AuldLangSine View Post
Beamish in Ohio specializes in fixing the older Lexicons.
Can't they fix this?
I am in Australia and it’s not worth the trouble and costs associated with sending this unit overseas for a fix.

Maybe someone here in Australia may be able to fix it.
It keeps getting an error message on screen and switches off, turns back on, then off again
It’s screwed.
Old 6th September 2018
  #11
Lives for gear
 
string6theory's Avatar
Get the 92 and make music. It’s an excellent reverb + FX unit. Very easy to navigate and tweak to taste. I like that in a reverb. You won’t be disappointed as it’s classy, modern Lex. I’ve got 70’s, 81’s, a 92 and an M7 r2 for reverb duties here and the 92 is not going anywhere.

Old 6th September 2018
  #12
Lives for gear
 
huub's Avatar
We had 2 480L's, they became too unreliable to use at some point (We do outside broadcast, a lot of live TV).
We replaced them with a bunch of PCM92's and we're quite happy with them.
The 480 and PCM92 are different, but both good and very "lexicon". That's usually a good thing but sometimes they're too smooth and artificial.
The PCM92 is even more smooth than the 480, sometimes that's very good and sometimes I wish I still had a 480 available.
What I have not done yet, is experiment with less modulation on the PCM92. It does not invite me to experiment because I find it near impossible to operate

Don't know if this was mentioned yet, but the 92 *is* a two engine machine, you're just limited to 2 in 2 out.
So two reverbs with mono ins, outputs mixed to 1 stereo.
Huub
Old 21st September 2018
  #13
Lives for gear
 
italo de angelis's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Looneytune View Post
Hey guys,
My Lexicon PCM 80 with dual fx card died and can’t be fixed.

It was used on the send and returns along with a couple of M7”s.

I have thought about a PCM 70 but really can’t be bothered with old Lexicon units now the 80 died. So I thought about buying the new PCM 92 but after reading mixed reviews I thought I would ask for some opinions from those who use it and what they think?

I know the 92 is similar to the 96 except no dual engines or FireWire. Not interested in using it as a plugin and also not interested in plugin reverbs.

So are the mixed reviews/ bad ones because of all the issues people had with the FireWire and dual engines? It sounds great on the demos but I can’t rely on demos and for me it’s how it stacks up when I’m using it in the Studio. M7 stacked up extremely well and love it.

Was closing to buying a 92 the other day but thought I will wait a little longer to see what options I have.

What else is there if it is not an M7 or Lexicon? I thought about the Eventide by Princeton, the remake.

I already own an Eventide H8000 and 3500 so thought I will leave Eventide alone.

Thanks


Get an used 81 and keep using the DualFX card with it. You also get the PitchFX on it and delays aòready extended to 10+ seconds, in case you didn't add the SIMMs to your old 80.
These units are reliable. I have my 80 from the very first production batch and added an 81 to it a year and a half ago.
The magic you get from the DualFX algorithms is just stunning, perticularly if you like to program your presets. The post processing possibilities are endless there!
Old 21st September 2018
  #14
Lives for gear
 

if you're a lazy tweaker, get a pcm96s (with emphasis on the 's'!): quad mono, dual stereo, dual mono plus stereo, stereo in quad out, surround in surround out - more options, more i/o, 'classy' sound.

if you're having fun tweaking until no end, i agree with italo: get a pcm 81 (or of course any eventide).
Old 21st September 2018
  #15
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah View Post
if you're having fun tweaking until no end, i agree with italo: get a pcm 81 (or of course any eventide).
Yeah, but with an 80 or 81, half the tweaking you do is to tweak out the ick. Or I did, anyway.
Old 21st September 2018
  #16
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
Yeah, but with an 80 or 81, half the tweaking you do is to tweak out the ick. Or I did, anyway.
absolutely! to have a limited function set (as with the newer pcm's) is quite nice sometimes...
Old 21st September 2018
  #17
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
Yeah, but with an 80 or 81, half the tweaking you do is to tweak out the ick. Or I did, anyway.
At the risk of asking about something possibly unquantifiable, what would that be?
Thanks
Old 21st September 2018
  #18
Lives for gear
 
italo de angelis's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
Yeah, but with an 80 or 81, half the tweaking you do is to tweak out the ick. Or I did, anyway.
Never happened to me... in 24 years with the PCMs.
Any and every machine can have some weak areas; once you know them you can be quick at working with it anyway.
Old 21st September 2018
  #19
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne View Post
At the risk of asking about something possibly unquantifiable, what would that be?
Thanks
Couple things.

First off, 80's and 81's have always sounded too bright to me, and it's a plasticky digital-EQ kind of bright. Terrific for "She Blinded Me With Science," but not much else. In my opinion. Un-rich, as well, by comparison to a 300 or 480. But that's not something you can tweak back in.

And the chorus thing.

In real spaces, long reverb tails come back flat. I'm no physicist, maybe it's because those sound waves get tuckered out and slow down, I dunno. Anyway, that little bit of flatness is part of why long sustains from an orchestra or choir in a big space sound so lush -- because the realtime music is rubbing a little with the music that came a second before.

I don't know if Lexicon was trying to emulate that or what, but in any case they dial in a little bit of chorusing into their tails. But chorusing, unlike a real hall, involves pitches bending both down and up. In the 300 and 480 presets I don't mind it so much, but in the 80 and 81 it seems to be a bigger proportion of the recipe, more immediately noticeable, and sometimes it strikes me as obnoxious and unnatural.
Old 21st September 2018
  #20
Lives for gear
 
italo de angelis's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
Couple things.

First off, 80's and 81's have always sounded too bright to me, and it's a plasticky digital-EQ kind of bright. Terrific for "She Blinded Me With Science," but not much else. In my opinion. Un-rich, as well, by comparison to a 300 or 480. But that's not something you can tweak back in.

And the chorus thing.

In real spaces, long reverb tails come back flat. I'm no physicist, maybe it's because those sound waves get tuckered out and slow down, I dunno. Anyway, that little bit of flatness is part of why long sustains from an orchestra or choir in a big space sound so lush -- because the realtime music is rubbing a little with the music that came a second before.

I don't know if Lexicon was trying to emulate that or what, but in any case they dial in a little bit of chorusing into their tails. But chorusing, unlike a real hall, involves pitches bending both down and up. In the 300 and 480 presets I don't mind it so much, but in the 80 and 81 it seems to be a bigger proportion of the recipe, more immediately noticeable, and sometimes it strikes me as obnoxious and unnatural.

"Chorusing" in digital reverb in an ancient technique to avoid bad metallic resonance in the delays network, caused by time patterns, etc.
Lexicon used two kind of smooting approaches, randomization and modulation.
The first may sound less effect-ish but still introduces pitch warbling. The Lex300 (Random Hall/Rich Plate/Random Ambience) was a champion at this, followed by the 480. Chorusing is added to some of the delays inside the delays of the verb and can be stronger.
The 80/81 have both (chorusing/spin/wander) so you can have unpleasant results is used incorrectly. But ot's good to have both for options.
There is no real "natural reverb" reason for these techniques; it's an algorithmic design technique. Fact is that it has been used in music for so long that it's a flavor many desire; it's part of an aesthetic style. Bricasti *had* to add it to the second software release fot their magic reverb unit. It's a classic.
On the 80/81 it's a bit tricky because having both techniques in the same algorithm one can end up with some exaggerated or unpleasant tails warbling and mid-low end artifacts. If well used... boy... can be spectacular!

Some examples of chorusing or randomization in reverb:






and a PCM80/81 little thing you can't do on most units out there...
Old 21st September 2018
  #21
Lives for gear
 
italo de angelis's Avatar
 

Some nice PCM80/81 verbs...





and a tricky bunch... reverbs made without using reverb algorithms... on the PCM80/81:




Old 22nd September 2018
  #22
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
Couple things.

First off, 80's and 81's have always sounded too bright to me, and it's a plasticky digital-EQ kind of bright. Terrific for "She Blinded Me With Science," but not much else. In my opinion. Un-rich, as well, by comparison to a 300 or 480. But that's not something you can tweak back in.

And the chorus thing.

In real spaces, long reverb tails come back flat. I'm no physicist, maybe it's because those sound waves get tuckered out and slow down, I dunno. Anyway, that little bit of flatness is part of why long sustains from an orchestra or choir in a big space sound so lush -- because the realtime music is rubbing a little with the music that came a second before.

I don't know if Lexicon was trying to emulate that or what, but in any case they dial in a little bit of chorusing into their tails. But chorusing, unlike a real hall, involves pitches bending both down and up. In the 300 and 480 presets I don't mind it so much, but in the 80 and 81 it seems to be a bigger proportion of the recipe, more immediately noticeable, and sometimes it strikes me as obnoxious and unnatural.
Thank you, I appreciate that.

It could also tie (in my rather limited experience with the 80 and 90) into my general preferences toward their Chambers.
Old 22nd September 2018
  #23
Lives for gear
 

It just may be that the op is ready for a Bricasti. My pcm60, 80 and others (oh yeah, I had the lxp stuff too) that I bought new all eventually died. I personally will never buy another hardware reverb as far as I can see. But I suppose if I were, the Bricasti would be the one I'd look at.

Doesn't Casey have a pretty strong history with Lexicon anyway from the heyday era?
Old 22nd September 2018
  #24
Lives for gear
 

some of the things bricasti is famous for quantec does even better imo - and some of their devices can do multichannel/surround!
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump