Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[zmix]

Damn... there was just one on e-bay!

[C.Cash]

I will be sending the 224 to Tom Maguire hopefully next week.
I really hope  he can get it up and running,everything I have read and heard tells me this is truly an incredible piece of gear. D-Verb ain't doin it for me. I will keep my fingers crossed.

[ssltech]

C.Cash wrote on Fri, 08 May 2009 10:18

everything I have read and heard tells me this is truly an incredible piece of gear.

Well, ANYTHING is better than D-verb...

But I never liked much about the 224. Now the 224XL was a WONDERFUL thing, but a completely different piece.

Keith

[compasspnt]

ssltech wrote on Fri, 08 May 2009 10:55

C.Cash wrote on Fri, 08 May 2009 10:18 everything I have read and heard tells me this is truly an incredible piece of gear. Well, ANYTHING is better than D-verb... But I never liked much about the 224. Now the 224XL was a WONDERFUL thing, but a completely different piece. Keith

Interesting, because I always had the opposite reaction...liked the 224, didn't care as much for the X, or esp the XL.

Whatever Works, as they say!

[ssltech]

Oh wow... Maybe we experienced completely different software versions or something, but for me the 220XL was THE sound of Dave Bascombe/Trevor Horn/Steve Lipson/Julian Mendelsohn mixes in the 1980's.

Like the PCM80, NOTHING does what the XL did to a piano, when you rolled in a 'chorus' parameter setting of 54-56 in a reverb tail. (settings 00-50 did NOTHING, and settings 60 and up were preposterous, but the mid-fifties brought GLORY to so many things!) I never -ever- (not even once) met a 224 which had that ability... but then this was the luscious excess of the 1980's, and I was addicted to that box as most Los Angeles hair-rock producers were to cocaine...

The 480 removed that parameter, and was the first step backwards after MANY steps forward, for Lexicon.

...To my ears at least.

Keith

[compasspnt]

Ah-ha.

Those are things I just don't care about.

I always just wanted it to sound like reverberation.

[ssltech]

compasspnt wrote

I always just wanted it to sound like reverberation.

C'mon... these were the EIGHTIES!!!  

See Terry; -It's this sort of dogged stubbornness which has ALWAYS limited your prospects!  










(...just kidding... of course!)

Keef

[zmix]

Keith,
I am completely with you in terms of the 'chorusing' parameter, but I believe that this was a part of the original 224 "Large Concert Hall" algo???

Lexicon apparently ported the 224 algos to the PCM-70 and it certainly has that parameter in the hall...certainly my favorite part of the 1980s, too..!

[compasspnt]

Well, I was indeed guilty of some gated snare reverb in those 80's...

AMS NonLin though...

[ssltech]

zmix wrote on Fri, 08 May 2009 15:03

Keith, I am completely with you in terms of the 'chorusing' parameter, but I believe that this was a part of the original 224 "Large Concert Hall" algo???

You may of course be quite right, but I don't think that I ever discovered it, and I did go looking on the couple which I encountered. I'm inclined to suspect that not all of the programs may have had it?

-By the time of the mature 224XL software versions however, they had built it into the rooms, the halls, the plates, -everything. The 224XL also had some nice 'splits' which allowed TWO full stereo output reverbs from the one box. -Again, in the "gotta have more reverb choices" 1980's, this played well with most of the producers for whom I twisted dials.

The PCM80 acted in precisely the same way, so I'm not surprised to hear that it may have been a direct cross-port. I do love me some PCM80!

Keith

[zmix]

ssltech wrote on Fri, 08 May 2009 22:57

zmix wrote on Fri, 08 May 2009 15:03 Keith, I am completely with you in terms of the 'chorusing' parameter, but I believe that this was a part of the original 224 "Large Concert Hall" algo??? You may of course be quite right, but I don't think that I ever discovered it, and I did go looking on the couple which I encountered. I'm inclined to suspect that not all of the programs may have had it? -By the time of the mature 224XL software versions however, they had built it into the rooms, the halls, the plates, -everything. The 224XL also had some nice 'splits' which allowed TWO full stereo output reverbs from the one box. -Again, in the "gotta have more reverb choices" 1980's, this played well with most of the producers for whom I twisted dials. The PCM80 acted in precisely the same way, so I'm not surprised to hear that it may have been a direct cross-port. I do love me some PCM80! Keith

The PCM80? Really? I never heard that...good to know.  I asked Lexicon about the PCM-70 and they said that they had originally planned it as an FX box and at the last minute ported the 224 reverb algos to it....

[Phil Mayor]

ssltech wrote on Fri, 08 May 2009 18:47

Oh wow... Maybe we experienced completely different software versions or something, but for me the 220XL was THE sound of Dave Bascombe/Trevor Horn/Steve Lipson/Julian Mendelsohn mixes in the 1980's. Like the PCM80, NOTHING does what the XL did to a piano, when you rolled in a 'chorus' parameter setting of 54-56 in a reverb tail. (settings 00-50 did NOTHING, and settings 60 and up were preposterous, but the mid-fifties brought GLORY to so many things!) I never -ever- (not even once) met a 224 which had that ability... but then this was the luscious excess of the 1980's, and I was addicted to that box as most Los Angeles hair-rock producers were to cocaine... The 480 removed that parameter, and was the first step backwards after MANY steps forward, for Lexicon. ...To my ears at least. Keith

Totally with you Keith, the 224XL is still my favourite reverb box. Luscious is the right word. Never liked the 480L for reverb, really underwhelming box for me. I like it for everything but reverb.

Terry: I used the Non-lin AMS program just the other day on snare, sounded great...though a little more subtle on the send than the 80's  

[compasspnt]

Phil Mayor wrote on Sat, 09 May 2009 19:20

Terry: I used the Non-lin AMS program just the other day on snare, sounded great...though a little more subtle on the send that the 80's

Ha.

Yes, the AMS is really a good little box; the Ambience setting is a nice one too.

I feel so lucky reverb-wise here to have two of the AMS, the Lex 224/224X/200/etc. (but TLA now has my old XL), 4 EMT plates, EMT 250, and my custom chambers.

No need for plug-ins!

[Phil Mayor]

Mr Cash: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Lexicon-224-digital-reverb-remote-cabl e-14-ft_W0QQitemZ190306573948QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDo main_0?hash=item190306573948&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_t rkparms=66%3A2%7C65%3A10%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318%7C301%3A0%7C2 93%3A1%7C294%3A50

[ssltech]

Typo alert!

I meant PCM70. NOT PCM-80

Please accept my apple-hoagies.

There was more than one iteration of the nonlin algorithm, as well as reverse. -'Nonlin' was a mono reverb on one output, and a ragged series of reflections on the other. "Nonlin-2" was the stereo reverb. -The same also applies to "Reverse" and Reverse-2".

Our RMX-16's were nearly ALWAYS used on programs 1 or 8 -Ambience or nonlin. very occasionally, I used to sneak the 'room' on a couple of things, as a subtle way of altering their sonic signature without screaming 'reverb' or 'efffect'. -It's a nice, under-used way to change something's "place" in the mix, but you can't use it on many things. -That was my only other use for the AMS, and it was EXTREMELY occasional.

Keith