The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Lexicon 300 or 300L?
Old 21st June 2012 | Show parent
  #31
ValhallaDSP
 
seancostello's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLastByte View Post
Ok......Sorry if their was confusion - what I'm saying really comes down to this!
A concise summary.

Quote:
In Real Fact is a single 300M/L Algo "Instance" is actually 120% Faster then a Single Algo in a 2 x HSP card 480L. (Yes.......This means a Stereo Single Algo of Random Ambience is faster in a 300 then the 480L & has more power!). Now this is "HUGE" as for a 1st time Lexicon release a 300 that in Digital DSP processing can beat a 480L in most S/ware circumstances, meaning 480L Analog version 2.0. x 2 HSP Boards Vs the 300's Digital Boards and Daughterboards in the 300 make it 3/4's in total processing, closer to a version 3.1 480L unit.....Yes a 300 Unit can do it after all?
I wouldn't presume that the Lexicon 300M/L had more complex algorithms than the 480L, just because the Lexichips would allow for this. Some of the LXP algorithms had null instructions, presumably from being ported from a platform with less CPU power. From what Casey and others have said about the 300, there are algorithms that started on that platform that were later ported to the 480L, but just because a unit has more computational power doesn't guarantee that this power will be taken advantage of.

A modern example of this would be the PCM92/96. This box runs a TigerSHARC processor. 500 MHz (maybe 600 MHz?), VLIW, a very powerful DSP for its time. The PCM plugin algorithms use a few % of modern CPUs. If the TigerSHARC was programmed in assembly intrinsics, it would be possible to create far more complex reverb algorithms than what is in the PCM 92/96/Plugins, as the low CPU use on the PC/Mac suggests that the TigerSHARC is not being stretched to its limits at all. However, a more complicated reverb algorithm doesn't necessary sound better - and it may not have the "Lexicon sound." My guess is that Michael Carnes specified the TigerSHARC processor in the PCM92/96, in order to have a CPU that could be programmed in C++, which could then be ported to all sorts of targets, including plugins.

Quote:
at the very least a 224XL emulation, to which myself I find acceptable, is on the UAD card (I just don't want the other stuff that comes with it)
The UAD 224 is a 224 emulation - not a 224XL emulation. The 224 ran at a much lower sampling rate, which has a huge impact on the sound. The 224XL had variants of the 224 algorithms as far as I can tell, but added Rich Chamber and Rich Plate, which are closer to the "modern" Lexicon sound.
Old 21st June 2012
  #32
Lives for gear
 

Sorry Sean,
I'm Not a Reverb designer nor pretend to be - and thus come at it from a Layman/User's perspective, though as I said the UAD 224 (XL is often added in haste -See my sorry for rushing at the end) though you still can't take it and plug it into a Snd/Rtn of a Midas XL 3000) in the 300M/L the Algo ported into version 2.0 of 300M/L I.E 224XL Rich Plate + might be a better assumption.

Though correct Re: Programming Language and C++ - in the 92 their is constant Algo change that makes the Verb sound Finer though also as though it has brilliance! - the 96/92 sound far more modern (Almost Beyonce R'n'B & Rap/ Hip Hop Stereo bright) then any other verb I've used - Res Chords is insane though - pity I can't reproduce that EFFECT with Virtual Hammers & Drums!

As had been said numerous times previously it's not the Hardware or ARU's or Gizmo's that make a program better or faster it's the actual programming of the reverb algo's and the code written. (You wrote it far better then I ever could

Having gone through this.....I'd trust a 300 more then a 224/M/X/XL or a 480L (In which version 4.1 fully loaded with SME board is near impossible to find) - I guess that's what happens when the upgrade path is as quick as it was..... and users are satisfied with what they have! in 224/XL 480L Land!

From the service notes I have ......I can not see a 300M/L upgrades that does make use of computational power thus introducing more lift into the Algo's - Like adding a Daughter board of 1 Meg instead of 512K or less - this upgrade got around the Splice level of the 300's Pitch Shifting over the 40MS Line without Glitching -(You know how Pitch Shifting works Sean.... so no lesson here) though this gave a total of 10 seconds Stereo - plenty of breathing room when M300's started with 128K boards Making 40 Milliseconds in Stereo Choppy & Shifty almost aliasing on the outs, so people complain then-upgrades get done - people sit easy - don't test - zip happens - PCM96 FW an ideal point!

Having spoken with Michael, I was told that the PCM80 was meant to be their PRIMETIME II Type Midi machine though no one seemed to max out the memory or use the Parameters in the way the were designed with full Midi control literally ramping like a Synthesizer -

I was going to swap out the Ram of a PCM81 and install 8 Megs (9 parity) though the Ram on the 81 though is hard soldered, you might get it out - though it's a shaky call Plus...their is....No Daughter-board (As on the 80) for the extra memory - just a trace cut and W1 jumper change! (Thus a PCM81 can die at your own hands - far two easily!) with AES being all you get Plus Pitch/Vox (No need for the cards)

Looking at the PCM 81 Schematics - It's interesting to see a Lexicon "TACO" Chip and an FPGA Gate array take over in 2006 (Well after ROHS) Any idea what's up with that?
TACO Chip and FPGA Array - My Next project!
TLB.

<EDIT: - OK TACO Board the new PCM81 PCB board with FPGA used instead of Processing odds & ends due to Lead solder removal in all Audio Products compliance with ROHS etc. >

I will ad this Sean ... As I told Michael.....In PCM80 Res Chords or M-Bands etc you have 42 Seconds of Stereo Delay with no regeneration or recirculation making the unit a hard core 42 second moded DDL - though a PCM Native Res-Chords won't go near this - indeed most DDL's doing 42 seconds of stereo delay would crash a DAW.....so again the difference in hardware & software implementation proves huge and again, I'm talking of near 20 year old technology from 1994.....anyone have a Plug in that can modulate for 42 seconds straight - and NOT crash a 16 GIG 64 bit DAW?
TLB.
Old 31st August 2014 | Show parent
  #33
Lives for gear
 
Rumi's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike H View Post
Wow, time keeps rolling along.
No, no LARC.
In fact, no Lexicon hardware reverbs any more, although I do use the UA Lexicon 224 reverb plug-in some times.

I am doing fine with Yamaha reverbs, QRS, Bricasti, etc.
The only reverb that I've sold that I really miss is the EMT 250. I got an offer I couldn't refuse. But it is still the best reverb ever made, period. Nothing touches that magical swirl. The UA plug-in isn't bad, but no, not the same.
Hi Mike,

you mention Yamaha, then QRS, then Bricasti... that makes me wonder what Yamaha unit it is that you put at the beginning of that list.

And what made you sell your Lexicons?
Old 31st August 2014 | Show parent
  #34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumi View Post
Hi Mike,

you mention Yamaha, then QRS, then Bricasti... that makes me wonder what Yamaha unit it is that you put at the beginning of that list.

And what made you sell your Lexicons?
The Yamaha SPX2000. Great unit.....lots of uses, quiet, just works for me.
I sold the Lexicon units because I just kept going to the other units first (SPX2000, QRS, Bricasti, DPS-V77, etc.).

Times still moves on. I'm mixing mostly ITB now. Plug-ins have come a long way, particularly reverbs and EQ's. A few years ago I would have said never ever ITB, but.........

Even using some guitar tracks from an Axe-FX II, rather than miking a cab. Much faster than miking and the tracks can sound great, once you tweak the effects and settings.

Never say never.
Old 1st September 2014 | Show parent
  #35
Lives for gear
 
Rumi's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike H View Post
The Yamaha SPX2000. Great unit.....lots of uses, quiet, just works for me.
I sold the Lexicon units because I just kept going to the other units first (SPX2000, QRS, Bricasti, DPS-V77, etc.).

Times still moves on. I'm mixing mostly ITB now. Plug-ins have come a long way, particularly reverbs and EQ's. A few years ago I would have said never ever ITB, but.........

Even using some guitar tracks from an Axe-FX II, rather than miking a cab. Much faster than miking and the tracks can sound great, once you tweak the effects and settings.

Never say never.
Thanks! I only briefly had an SPX90, but didn't test it fully. That's all I know about Yamaha.

I once had a PCM80, but never really used it. I used the Dynacord DRP15 more than that Lexicon.

I used to use a QRS XL and an EMT 246 as my main Reverbs, and then switched to plugins (Exponential Audio Phoenix and R2, IRCAM, Spaces, UAD 250, 140 and 224, Valhalla Room, Nebula, IRs, etc.), and apart from some Nebula programs, none has the same organic and solid sound of those hardware units. I have recently bought a DN780, and while it isn't considered top by most people on this forum, it still sounds quite a bit better to me than those plugins.
What plugins do you use that you find comparable to those hardware reverbs?
Old 1st September 2014 | Show parent
  #36
nkf
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumi View Post
Thanks! I only briefly had an SPX90, but didn't test it fully. That's all I know about Yamaha.
Only few people seem to realize that the SPX2000 has a 'Classic' Bank integrated with all the SPX90 FX algorithms. And it is an AES/EBU device with up to 96 kHz.
Old 1st September 2014 | Show parent
  #37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumi View Post

I used to use a QRS XL and an EMT 246 as my main Reverbs, and then switched to plugins (Exponential Audio Phoenix and R2, IRCAM, Spaces, UAD 250, 140 and 224, Valhalla Room, Nebula, IRs, etc.), and apart from some Nebula programs, none has the same organic and solid sound of those hardware units. I have recently bought a DN780, and while it isn't considered top by most people on this forum, it still sounds quite a bit better to me than those plugins.
What plugins do you use that you find comparable to those hardware reverbs?
No plug-ins compete with the EMT 250's beautiful swirl, the QRS Taj Mahal, or the SPX2000 reverbs. I find the UAD 140 works well on lead guitars, the UAD 250 works fine on snare, and the Lexicon PCM Native Reverb bundle does a good job on vocals and others uses where "authentic" is called for. I also like the Flux Ircam Verb Session V3, Relab LX480 complete, Valhalla Room, Vintage Verb, and Shimmer, sometimes Exponential Audio R2 and Phoenix, and some others (I see you have most of these).

But no, I haven't found anything that stacks up to my 3 favorites: SPX2000, QRS, EMT 250. These 3 hardware reverbs are truly exceptional, IMHO. But the good news is the plug-ins now sound good and get the job done just fine.
Old 2nd September 2014 | Show parent
  #38
Lives for gear
 
Rumi's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike H View Post
No plug-ins compete with the EMT 250's beautiful swirl, the QRS Taj Mahal, or the SPX2000 reverbs. I find the UAD 140 works well on lead guitars, the UAD 250 works fine on snare, and the Lexicon PCM Native Reverb bundle does a good job on vocals and others uses where "authentic" is called for. I also like the Flux Ircam Verb Session V3, Relab LX480 complete, Valhalla Room, Vintage Verb, and Shimmer, sometimes Exponential Audio R2 and Phoenix, and some others (I see you have most of these).

But no, I haven't found anything that stacks up to my 3 favorites: SPX2000, QRS, EMT 250. These 3 hardware reverbs are truly exceptional, IMHO. But the good news is the plug-ins now sound good and get the job done just fine.
Hi Mike,

thanks for your reply!
That is in accordance with my findings, more or less. "Get the job done just fine" is a good description.
I couldn't get warm with the PCM bundle nor the Relab. Maybe Lexicon simply isn't that exciting for me.
The small version of IRCAM often sounds a bit strange to me. And I seem to prefer the R2 over the Phoenix, even for natural rooms (I am more interested in rooms and spaces than in 80ies 3-seconds-of-wash stuff - my main field for reverb is acoustic instruments in natural sounding spaces). I like Nebula 70 small room & Co most in plugins. Nebula has that hardware solidity and organic grip.
The UAD EMT 250 and 140 are nice, and Valhalla can have some of that solid quality of hardware, too. The ERS is very similar to the UAD, only a bit more gritty and grainier, as far as I can tell from a rather short comparison.
I am looking forward to testing the B2, it seems to be quite a bit more convincing than Aether, and has a lot of tweaking options. It seems to be dense and lush. I am also interested in the Hofa reverb, of which I know little.
But I guess I will look for some new hardware reverbs... Shouldn't have sold that EMT 246. Soon Siegfried Welzenbach will (hopefully!) fix my Quantec QRS XL. And when I bought that AKG BX-15 I took the Klark Teknik DN780 with me that stood next to it without knowing much about it, and I don't regret it.

I notice that this conversation has little to do with the OP's topic. Sorry for that!

Thank you for making me curious about Yamaha devices.
Old 2nd September 2014 | Show parent
  #39
nkf
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike H View Post
But no, I haven't found anything that stacks up to my 3 favorites: SPX2000, QRS, EMT 250. These 3 hardware reverbs are truly exceptional, IMHO.
Would you agree that the SPX2000 (I have two of them) compliments, with its quite bright and hard rooms, quite nicely all the fluffy reverbs, especially on drums? I really like the SPX90 retro possibilities.
A reverb system which is also still truly exceptional is the TC System 6000. Especially the fine adjustable surround reverb algorithms are fantastic.
Old 2nd September 2014 | Show parent
  #40
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkf View Post
Would you agree that the SPX2000 (I have two of them) compliments, with its quite bright and hard rooms, quite nicely all the fluffy reverbs, especially on drums?
Yes, agree, each does its own thing and they do compliment. In particular, the SPX2000 bright reverbs just seem to sit perfectly on guitar tracks at almost any predelay. I had several, and I really miss them.

I sure wish they would make an SPX plug-in. The UA 140 is really very good on guitars........but still different.
Old 3rd September 2014
  #41
Lives for gear
 
Rumi's Avatar
Wow, this thread is 10 years old!
And totally OT - Mike, I just discovered by a row of coincidences that you were the one who sold the Pearl mic on ebay some months ago. Since then I frequently have thought "Oh well, I should have bought that mic". Especially for that great price. I hope it has found a good new owner!
Old 13th February 2015 | Show parent
  #42
Gear Addict
 
Pyxis360's Avatar
 

Can anybody tell me what year the Lexicon 300 debuted?
Old 14th February 2015 | Show parent
  #43
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyxis360 View Post
Can anybody tell me what year the Lexicon 300 debuted?
If I correctly remember, its first year was 1993.
Old 14th February 2015
  #44
Gear Addict
 
Pyxis360's Avatar
 

Thanks Max
Old 15th February 2015
  #45
Lives for gear
 

M300 in 1993.......spot on!
Old 26th April 2015
  #46
Lives for gear
 
Rumi's Avatar
I have bought an SPX2000, but haven't used it much yet, and it seems I haven't found its forte yet. From what I can tell so far, it is quite bright and rather hard sounding. What do you use it on? I read drums and guitars (I'm assuming electric guitars?). Anything else it shines on? And are there things to be aware of (like "Use some pre effect EQ to tame the highs")?
Also, is there a big difference between SPX900, SPX990 and SPX2000?
Old 27th April 2015 | Show parent
  #47
Lives for gear
 
Motoxxx's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumi View Post
Also, is there a big difference between SPX900, SPX990 and SPX2000?
I have owned a bunch of the SPX boxes from the early 90 and 90ii, the SPX900 (still have 4 of them!) and the 990s. I have used the 2000 but do not own any.

I loved the moxy of the first ones (the 90) and they were great color tools for having such non impressive specs by todays standards. The 90ii was basically the same programs (as far as I can remember) but with 16 KHz bandwidth.

The 900s were and are my favorites. I use them mostly live these days. They have a sort of gritiness to them that makes them not so pristine and for some reason it seems to impart an accent to the space you are using and makes it sound musical. Especially on drums. Today so much emphasis is placed on making things sound "real" and in my opinion that often translates to "not musical". They are not the purest sounding reverbs and the multi effects stuff for me is basically not usable. But the Symphonic patch is used so much on lead vocals and nothing I have found does with that pre set does. I still have my settings I used on Layne Staley from Alice In Chains in one of the 900s I used all the time!

I had a rack of 900s and 990s I would take out on tours and eventually sold the 990s. Yeah, the 990s had better specs for sure. They were harder to navigate and some guest engineers would inevitably mess up my favorite settings when fiddling with them. I also found that I was not finding the exact same kind of love from them I was getting from the 900s. I just couldn't make them sound the way I wanted to even when trying to match settings from a 900 to a 990 for something simple like a Large Hall for a big ballad vocal. So I sold them.

The SPX2000 is a great clean sounding box for sure. However for my taste it is almost too clean. I think some of the algos are a bit hard sounding and if my minds imprint of the 2000 compared to the 900 is accurate, I just found the smooth gritiness of the 900 more pleasing to my ears. Would I own a 2000 today? Absolutely! However the love I have for my 900s runs pretty deep.

Last edited by Motoxxx; 27th April 2015 at 01:07 AM..
Old 27th April 2015 | Show parent
  #48
Lives for gear
 
Rumi's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motoxxx View Post
I have owned a bunch of the SPX boxes from the early 90 and 90ii, the SPX900 (still have 4 of them!) and the 990s. I have used the 2000 but do not own any.

I loved the moxy of the first ones (the 90) and they were great color tools for having such non impressive specs by todays standards. The 90ii was basically the same programs (as far as I can remember) but with 16 KHz bandwidth.

The 900s were and are my favorites. I use them mostly live these days. They have a sort of gritiness to them that makes them not so pristine and for some reason it seems to impart an accent to the space you are using and makes it sound musical. Especially on drums. Today so much emphasis is placed on making things sound "real" and in my opinion that often translates to "not musical". They are not the purest sounding reverbs and the multi effects stuff for me is basically not usable. But the Symphonic patch is used so much on lead vocals and nothing I have found does with that pre set does. I still have my settings I used on Layne Staley from Alice In Chains in one of the 900s I used all the time!

I had a rack of 900s and 990s I would take out on tours and eventually sold the 990s. Yeah, the 990s had better specs for sure. They were harder to navigate and some guest engineers would inevitably mess up my favorite settings when fiddling with them. I also found that I was not finding the exact same kind of love from them I was getting from the 900s. I just couldn't make them sound the way I wanted to even when trying to match settings from a 900 to a 990 for something simple like a Large Hall for a big ballad vocal. So I sold them.

The SPX2000 is a great clean sounding box for sure. However for my taste it is almost too clean. I think some of the algos are a bit hard sounding and if my minds imprint of the 2000 compared to the 900 is accurate, I just found the smooth gritiness of the 900 more pleasing to my ears. Would I own a 2000 today? Absolutely! However the love I have for my 900s runs pretty deep.
Thank you very much for that thorough reply!

Grittiness - I do a lot of acoustic music, but even there I seem to like a bit of grit. The original Quantec QRS seems to sound better to me than the more refined QRS-XL, from what I can tell, which seems to come from more grittiness.
I will test the SPX2000 a bit more, and maybe look out for an SPX900 on ebay (one just went for about USD 40 on ebay.de).

I read somewhere (maybe even in this thread?) that the 990 was designed by a team in the UK, whereas the other boxes were designed in Japan. That would / could imply that the 990 sounds different than the others. Is that your experience?
Old 27th April 2015
  #49
Lives for gear
 
edvdr76's Avatar
Unless you have a huge control room where you have to go accross the room to change a setting, then you don't need the remote. I have a Lexicon 300 with no LARC and i absolutely love it!
Old 28th April 2015 | Show parent
  #50
Lives for gear
 
Motoxxx's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumi View Post
Thank you very much for that thorough reply!

Grittiness - I do a lot of acoustic music, but even there I seem to like a bit of grit. The original Quantec QRS seems to sound better to me than the more refined QRS-XL, from what I can tell, which seems to come from more grittiness.
I will test the SPX2000 a bit more, and maybe look out for an SPX900 on ebay (one just went for about USD 40 on ebay.de).

I read somewhere (maybe even in this thread?) that the 990 was designed by a team in the UK, whereas the other boxes were designed in Japan. That would / could imply that the 990 sounds different than the others. Is that your experience?
I would certainly say that the 990 does sound a bit different but cannot confirm as to why. It is decent but not as groovy to me as the 900. I think I have owned about 6 of the 990s and about 12 of the other SPX boxes and I just dig the 900 more than any of the others.

I find it sort of like comparing Windows 95 (SPX90) to Windows 98 (SPX90ii) : still the same but better! Then stepping into Windows XP Pro (SPX900) YEAH! Everything works flawlessly! and then going to Windows Vista (SPX990) :Hey! It (XP Pro) used to be bad ass! Why change what was already killer? This is sort of the same flavor as the last version...only worse! Can I have my XP Pro (SPX900) back instead of this newer but worse version (SPX990?)
Old 28th April 2015 | Show parent
  #51
Lives for gear
The SPX2000 has the USB Editor which allows you to remotely control it off your computer. Lexicon has it with the MX series and T.C has the ICON software.
Old 28th April 2015
  #52
Gear Nut
 

I have a 300 sitting... not used since I switched to an M7 about 5 years ago...
It's availavble !!
Old 29th April 2015 | Show parent
  #53
Lives for gear
 
Motoxxx's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by leadplayer View Post
I have a 300 sitting... not used since I switched to an M7 about 5 years ago...
It's availavble !!
Which version of the 300?
Old 29th April 2015 | Show parent
  #54
Lives for gear
 
Rumi's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motoxxx View Post
Which version of the 300?
Ha! After reading this, this seems to be a very important question.
Old 29th April 2015 | Show parent
  #55
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Motoxxx View Post
Which version of the 300?
It's v3.5 software... the one with the Random Hall....
non Larc - standard 300

Last edited by leadplayer; 29th April 2015 at 07:04 PM.. Reason: needed more info
Old 19th June 2015
  #56
Here for the gear
 
vocals07's Avatar
Lexicon 300L

Hey Guys,

I've used plug ins for the last 10 years and pretty much have every plug in you can think of. Now, I'm pretty picky about reverbs and got a hold of a Lexicon 300L. Got to say, NOT impressed!! this is supposed to be the 40L's little brother? I think these reverbs sound very washed up as someone else said. First off how do you even control the wet dry mix? I cant seem to find the page that shows that. I am probably going to re sell this. Not impressed at all and I am a big time Lexicon fan.

Old 20th June 2015 | Show parent
  #57
Lives for gear
 
GYang's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by vocals07 View Post
Hey Guys,

I've used plug ins for the last 10 years and pretty much have every plug in you can think of. Now, I'm pretty picky about reverbs and got a hold of a Lexicon 300L. Got to say, NOT impressed!! this is supposed to be the 40L's little brother? I think these reverbs sound very washed up as someone else said. First off how do you even control the wet dry mix? I cant seem to find the page that shows that. I am probably going to re sell this. Not impressed at all and I am a big time Lexicon fan.

As always different uses and experience.
When I am on vacation I do all productions on my notebook and strange enough I have feeling that I really don't need anything else.
Than I enter into room full of gears and completely different things happen.
I use 300s (pair) on vintage synths and they blend with all that old fashion electronic in crazy way that stimulate whole process further.
Not that anyone needs old gears these days, it is question on personal taste and nostalgia.
Old 23rd June 2015
  #58
Gear Head
 
SoundWow's Avatar
 

I had a 300L for years. LARC added about $500-600 to the price people paid on ebay and plain 300's sat quite a while as I remember. I think Casey (Bricasti / former Lexicon) wrote in a post the 300L had better converters over the 480L though only the one engine. He thought it sounded better though better is personal i guess.

I have the PCM bundle which is great but think Exponential's Pheonixverb and R2 are better. Michael Carnes programmed both. Pheonixverb and Bricasti are both amazing and could fit similar uses as being transparent and glueing a mix.
Old 25th June 2015 | Show parent
  #59
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by vocals07 View Post
Hey Guys,

I've used plug ins for the last 10 years and pretty much have every plug in you can think of. Now, I'm pretty picky about reverbs and got a hold of a Lexicon 300L. Got to say, NOT impressed!! this is supposed to be the 40L's little brother? I think these reverbs sound very washed up as someone else said. First off how do you even control the wet dry mix? I cant seem to find the page that shows that. I am probably going to re sell this. Not impressed at all and I am a big time Lexicon fan.

Are you sure you've got the uni plugged in correctly? And what Algo's or Patches are you using and what or where do you perceive the L300's huge problems to be?

Does it sound thin? Or.....You just don't like the sound etc..how are you using it, with DAW interface, Console, Summing....I mean if you can expand on that, I might be able to help you get the L/300 up and running, though if you want a 300 to sound like a PCM bundle which is a PCM-92/96 I'm afraid they are Totally different Algorithms etc. Are you sure you've done the RTFM ordeal and then gone through the LARC......etc? Are you in Cascade mode or Split or Single Algo mode etc? Maybe you're stuck in PONS dither or some program....seriously, do reply so we can help you out!

Regards
TheLastByte
Old 26th June 2015 | Show parent
  #60
Lives for gear
 
ionian's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLastByte View Post
Are you sure you've got the uni plugged in correctly? And what Algo's or Patches are you using and what or where do you perceive the L300's huge problems to be?

Does it sound thin? Or.....You just don't like the sound etc..how are you using it, with DAW interface, Console, Summing....I mean if you can expand on that, I might be able to help you get the L/300 up and running, though if you want a 300 to sound like a PCM bundle which is a PCM-92/96 I'm afraid they are Totally different Algorithms etc. Are you sure you've done the RTFM ordeal and then gone through the LARC......etc? Are you in Cascade mode or Split or Single Algo mode etc? Maybe you're stuck in PONS dither or some program....seriously, do reply so we can help you out!

Regards
TheLastByte
^ Trust this man. He knows his lexicons.
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 131 views: 57923
Avatar for the operator
the operator 29th July 2020
replies: 63 views: 20373
Avatar for seancostello
seancostello 26th April 2012
replies: 43 views: 4812
Avatar for Sofa King
Sofa King 21st April 2014
replies: 1263 views: 118438
Avatar for Crash
Crash 1 week ago
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…
🖨️ Show Printable Version
✉️ Email this Page
🔍 Search thread
🎙️ View mentioned gear
Forum Jump
Forum Jump