Lexicon PCM Reverb bundle! Worth getting?

[jcrosby]

IMO any discrepancies between an older 'poorly converted' version sounding "better" than a digitally identical port of the same code are psychosomatic.
It's like saying the exact same sample played on an MPC2000 sounds "better" than the same data played back on a computer with better converters.

The MPC actually has less fidelity, as converters have made quantum leaps in quality since the days of the hardware sampler. On a purely digital level; if the code was ported and is identical in the 'virtual' sense, than not only will the reverb have a 'richer' sound in terms of fidelity, it will also have a richer stereo image than its antiquated lofi predecessor.

You literally cannot get a truer digital stereo image than an 'in the box' 1-to-1 clone/port of the original code. (Especially when you consider crosstalk, noise, and other anomalies that come into play when using gear requiring a cabled connection.)

That being said, the lack of dynamic range on older converters could play a role in preference of fidelity... But personally, I believe it's psychosomatic.

I love these experiments below to remind me now and again that 'expensive' doesn't necessarily mean 'sounds better'... and, when blindly tested, we often find out when we "think" something sounds better it's actually psychological bias


https://consumerist.com/2008/03/03/do-coat-hangers-sound-as-good-monster-cables/
https://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the-difference-between-monster-cable-and/

Anyway, the real point is if you like the Lexicon sound than it seems like a no brainer to go for it!!

 

[Guido Negraszus]

Yeap, just got it. The price is too tempting. Playing around with it now. I think one can tell straight away that it blends really differently with the source signal than other reverbs. Even if I overdo the aux send it still sounds "right". Amazing.

If someone wants to share their favourite presets for individual instruments like strings, percussion, piano etc. please don't hold back.

 

[AC986]

Yeap, just got it. The price is too tempting. Playing around with it now. I think one can tell straight away that it blends really differently with the source signal than other reverbs. Even if I overdo the aux send it still sounds "right". Amazing.

If someone wants to share their favourite presets for individual instruments like strings, percussion, piano etc. please don't hold back.

Glad you like it. I had a PCM 96 and found out a while ago from Lexicon that if you could no longer use the software with the hardware beyond Snow Leopard I think it was, they then, after receiving proof of purchase etc gave me the Lexicon Full Bundle. I then sold the Lexicon PCM 96.

I find that I use the Random Hall settings more than anything else, but you should just experiment with as many settings as you want.

 

[pmountford]

@SidFrancis Many thanks Sid - Much appreciated - that has indeed solved the issue.

 

[Creston]

How are you guys using the Random Hall preset?

Over a whole mix with the mix slider set below 10% or on sections? Or sends?

Trying to get a early/mid 90s sound and also a bit of a modern Cliff Martinez sound.

 

[Diffusor]

Checked it out some time back. Def good, but if you think that you are going to be getting that 96/480L sound, think again, b/c you won't.

Cheers.

I call bullshit. First, it's not trying to be a 480. Second, the developer of the plugins has said repeatedly the PCM plugs are exactly the same as the PCM96 hardware except with the addition of some bug fixes and the extra algorithm of the Vintage Plate. He has said this repeatedly even since he left Lexicon and started his own company so he has no incentive to mislead. The PCM plugs are quality and equivalent to the hardware. I basically sold all my hardware Lexicon when those plugs came out (PCM80, PCM90, 300) because they filled the void no problem. With the PCM plugs and the Relab 480 you have the Lexicon sound pretty covered.

btw, the Total Bundle is $388 at Plugin Discounts. Total steal. I just picked up the effects bundle.

 

[mark812]

My god, I really don't get that "it's not as good as the hardware" obsession. Reverbs, synths, compressors...

Even Casey Dowdell from Bricasti, who is probably one of the top 5 reverb experts in the world, preferred $50 ValhallaVintageVerb over some much more expensive options in a blind test at Gearslutz.

Not "analog", "creamy" or "expensive"...who gives a f#$k? Does it sound good? Who cares if it isn't a $5000 box? 99% of the people can't recognize which is which without guessing in most cases.

I'd rather concentrate on making music instead on obsessing with same stuff over and over again, but that's just me.

Also, arguing about Lexicon plugins over and over again is pretty much pointless, because Michael Carnes, the man who is behind all those reverbs told more than once that those are exactly the same algorithms, both in boxes and plugins.

 

[DDK]

How does lex pcm compare to relab

 

[synthetic]

I have the Lexicon Native plugs and I prefer Valhalla's Vintage Verb. I like my Bricasti and PCM96S more, but it's a subtle difference. No one outside my studio could probably tell the difference. For $50, VVV is the biggest no-brainer in audio.

 

[synthetic]

Also, arguing about Lexicon plugins over and over again is pretty much pointless, because Michael Carnes, the man who is behind all those reverbs told more than once that those are exactly the same algorithms, both in boxes and plugins.

The hardware PCM96 sounds better than Lexicon Native. Deeper and bigger. It's really not hard to hear the difference.

 

[Nick Batzdorf]

Why? There has to be a simple reason.

 

[Diffusor]

Also, arguing about Lexicon plugins over and over again is pretty much pointless, because Michael Carnes, the man who is behind all those reverbs told more than once that those are exactly the same algorithms, both in boxes and plugins.

The hardware PCM96 sounds better than Lexicon Native. Deeper and bigger. It's really not hard to hear the difference.

Every AB test I hav ever heard have been basically the same sounding. What does deeper and bigger even mean? What if you don't want deeper and bigger? And if you want deeper and bigger you just change a few parameters to make a deeper and bigger reverb.

 

[AC986]

Also, arguing about Lexicon plugins over and over again is pretty much pointless, because Michael Carnes, the man who is behind all those reverbs told more than once that those are exactly the same algorithms, both in boxes and plugins.

The hardware PCM96 sounds better than Lexicon Native. Deeper and bigger. It's really not hard to hear the difference.

I had the PCM 96 from 2008 until this year and tbh can't really hear a difference. There may very well be one, but to these untrained ears I couldn't hear it. Sounded the same to me.

https://soundcloud.com/adrian-cook-79/walrus

 

[RiffWraith]

I call bulls@#t.

You can cry BS if you want, but I know what I heard. You can find me ten people who claim they sound the same, and if I try hard enough, I can find you ten people who claim they do not sound the same. And what does that tell us? There is a GS thread where a few say they both sound the same, and there are a few in that same thread who say they sound different. The ones who say they sound the same - are they missing something? The ones who say they sound different - are they hearing things? If I had the means to do an A/B and post the results, I would. But I do not. Maybe it was the converters - maybe something else... I don't know.

The one thing I can tell you - is that the relab 480L is virtually indistinguishable from the real thing. If there is a difference, I can't hear it. But the Lex native was distinguishable from the hw unit. Not a huge diff, but distinguishable. To me, anyway.

Cheers.

 

[renegade]

The only thing I take serious in comparing anything (especially barely) audible (different) is blindtests.

Anyway, I think the PCM bundle sounds great and I use them a lot.

 

[Creston]

How are you guys using the Random Long hall type stuff on your mixes? Curious how the Lexicon gear was often used.

Over a whole mix? Are you sending sections to it?

I do like that whole late 80s, early 90s sound. Curious how much of what I'm hearing on old scores like Basic Instinct etc is the room as opposed to a Lexicon.

 

[Nick Batzdorf]

The only thing I take serious in comparing anything (especially barely) audible (different) is blindtests.

So you're saying synthetic doesn't hear what he knows very well he did hear - and says is obvious - unless he does "blindtests."

Isn't that sort of insulting to him?

 

[Heath]

I tried Spat with its innate Verb 3 some months ago and was hugely impressed. Sadly I couldn't get it to work well in Cubase. But I thought the Verb by itself could be the best reverb on the planet. However, I demo'd the Verb 3 plugin by itself a few days ago thinking I might buy it at the new lower price. BUT I have to say that it performed no better than my Lex PCM Native reverb bundle. It was different, perhaps a little more clean and clinical, but not better. So it seems that its benefits only really come into play when used within Spat... which I can't use!

Anyway, the PCM native remains the best dedicated reverb I've heard. Because of its quality and flexibility, I'm beginning to suspect that it's the only reverb I'll ever need.

P.S. No... I'm not a shill for Lexicon.

 

[jcrosby]

The only thing I take serious in comparing anything (especially barely) audible (different) is blindtests.

So you're saying synthetic doesn't hear what he knows very well he did hear - and says is obvious - unless he does "blindtests."

Isn't that sort of insulting to him?

I'm pretty sure what he's saying is that what someone claims they can hear with "trained ears" is unquantified.
In other words it's simply a statement not based with any evidence to back it up.

A blind test on the other hand backs up its claim with data. It conducts an experiment with X amount of people and Y as the variable. It averages the results and the average shows whether there is a measurable difference Amongst X listeners with Y variables.

When engineers who claim they have magic ears agree to a blind test and are proven wrong by choosing the $50 plugin you're only confronted with one question. Why did their trained ears fail them?

It's like saying you believe person A over person B because:
Person A makes a philosophically or emotionally based statement that is in line with your beliefs, whereas person B presented scientifically gathered data that challenges your beliefes 8)

 

[Nick Batzdorf]

Well, this is a bee in my bonnet - when someone on the internet I've never met tells me I didn't hear what I know damn well I did hear. I'm not synthetic, but he's a friend, and I happen to know he's not an idiot.

Double-blind tests are very useful, but they tell you something different. It's much harder to hear when you're not in control of the switching. That's why you read about...I dunno, double-blind tests concluding that all audio interfaces sound the same and therefore you may just as well use the built-in computer I/O.

Here's the thing: any two things will *always* sound different from one another. The questions are how different and what's different.

There's a short period of time, maybe 30 seconds, when you can hear subtle differences. After that your ears seem to shut down and tell your brain to get a life. And there are other times when you can't hear something you were hearing very clearly the day before.

So I take double-blind tests with a huge lump of salt and I'm far more interested when someone whose ears I trust tells me what he heard.