yamaha spx-900
ka...@mambo.berkeley.edu
including the Yamaha SPX-900, Alesis Quadraverb, Digitech DSP-128+,
etc. They thought that the SPX-900 was the best of the bunch, being
cleaner (90db S/N vs 85 db for the Quadraverb), more programmable
(though with fewer MIDI modulation routings), and having (besides
the usual EQ, delay, reverb, detune) more algorithms, including
distortion, compression, excite(ment?), and MIDI-controllable
pitch shifting (up to several octaves). They also thought it
had "studio quality" reverb, much better than any of the other
boxes. Of course, it costs twice as much ($995 list vs $449 for
the Quadraverb). Does anyone on the net have one of these things?
Is it really worth twice the price of the Quadraverb? Are the
distortion/compression/exciter algorithms usable? (For an extra
$800 or so, forward-looking individuals can get the SPX-1000,
which has digital I/O for compatibility with next year's all-
digital, software-controlled, DSP-based studio ... which will
make everyone's audio "racks" obsolete. Well, give it three or
four years....)
Since my needs are pedestrian (I mostly need straight delay
and reverb) I'm leaning toward a Quadraverb. (I guess I wanna
"bah Amurkin" too.) For the price of the SPX-900, it seems it
might be more useful to have two cheaper (but independent!)
effect boxes. I notice that Guitar Center has already advertised
the SPX-900 for $699, so I guess the market must agree with me.
Or have I missed some cost/benefit factors?
==============================================================================
Kalle Nemvalts 289 Evans Hall ka...@violet.berkeley.edu
University of California ucbvax!violet!kalle
Berkeley, CA 94720 (415) 642-7582
Are Nundal
In article <1989Aug28.2...@agate.uucp>, ka...@mambo.berkeley.edu writes:
> A recent "Keyboard" review compared several multi-effect processors
> including the Yamaha SPX-900, Alesis Quadraverb, Digitech DSP-128+,
> etc. They thought that the SPX-900 was the best of the bunch, being
> cleaner (90db S/N vs 85 db for the Quadraverb), more programmable
> (though with fewer MIDI modulation routings), and having (besides
> the usual EQ, delay, reverb, detune) more algorithms, including
> distortion, compression, excite(ment?),
I rewiewed the two former pluss the lexicon LXP1 for a norwegian music
magazine, and I was really impressed by the SPX900.
The multieffects were good. The compressor works very well for guitar
type sounds, and the distortion works well for rythm type sounds, but
for lead sound you will need more distortion than the SPX900 alone can offer.
In adition you have eq, and reverb (which is good), and the choice of
echo/chorus/symphonic/exiter.
If you only want echo+reverb the SPX900 is outstanding.
The quadraverb is also a very good device, but it has several drawbacks:
No compressor or distortion. And if you want the complex multieffects
(eq,echo,chorus,reverb) the reverb effect is not very good, to put it
straight it sounds lousy. It seems the DSP processing power is sligtly less than for the SPX. But when it comes to combining various effects
it is more flexible than the SPX900. It has been mentioned in this newsgroup that the quadraverb lacks anti aliasing filters, and this can be very NASTY.
I guess you are still wondering what to choose, but I have two suggestions of combinations that migth be an alternative to the SPX:
Quadraverb + Lexicon LXP1. You will get eq,chorus,echo from the Quadraverb.
These things it does prety well. Then you get reverb from the LXP1.
These reverbs are *outstanding*! this solution will probably cost you about the same as a SPX, however you still have no compressor/distortion.
Wait for the new low cost new multi-effect from yamaha, the FX500.
It will be priced lower than the quadraverb, Having the same sound quality
as the SPX, but not the exotic single effects. It will have the
same multieffects as the SPX, although with a little shorter delay.
I have not heard this one.
Hopes this is some help in finding your way out of the multi-effects jungle.
Are Nundal.
Doyle W. Donehoo
>(For an extra
>$800 or so, forward-looking individuals can get the SPX-1000,
>which has digital I/O for compatibility with next year's all-
>digital, software-controlled, DSP-based studio ... which will
>make everyone's audio "racks" obsolete. Well, give it three or
>four years....)
I dunno.... One of the things on the plus side for having alot
of different moduels (FM,DSP,samplers,analog,...) and not just
blowing into a 'workstation' only is the character of the
different moduels, and what they can lend to a particular
composition. I have noticed a particular 'sameness' of some
recording because they were done on one instrument (M1, Fairlight,
SynClav,...etc.).
Yeah, I know you were simi kidding, and I know it will all be
possible some day...when they are able to duplicate everything exactly,
as well as manipulate it as well as the original instrument did.
I am surprised, BTW, that nobody got excited about the IBM DSP board
mentioned in Keyboard....
Jim Archambault ~
>A recent "Keyboard" review compared several multi-effect processors
>including the Yamaha SPX-900, Alesis Quadraverb, Digitech DSP-128+,
>etc. They thought that the SPX-900 was the best of the bunch, being
I am also looking at mulit-effect processors. I can't afford a
SPX-900, so I am try to decide between the Quadraverb and the
DSP-128+. A local store is selling the DSP-120+ for $300.00.
Is this a good price? Any ideas about which is the better unit?
What's a good price for a Quadraverb?
I have a 4-track and a Micro-verb (sucks) to do mostly acoustic guitar,
vocal, and some electric guitar recording.
I assume that both of the units will fit me needs very well.
ka...@mambo.berkeley.edu
>Yeah, I know you were simi kidding, and I know it will all be
>possible some day...when they are able to duplicate everything exactly,
>as well as manipulate it as well as the original instrument did.
>
never become obsolete. For example, a DX7 or wavetable synth or reverb
will still be usable even if its functions can be simulated in software.
(Presumably, however, the software will let you go beyond the hardwired
box, e.g., to do 8-operator FM, or independent LFO modulation of operators,
or whatever.) The real payoff will be in open-endedness and flexibility,
where you get new instruments by installing new software instead of new
hardware--the opposite of the concept of buying an HR-16B (black!) drum
machine when you get tired of the gray model. Besides, there are real
advantages to doing everything in the digital domain--no ground loops,
for one.
But, yeah, I have noticed the "sameness" you talked about. There are ways
in which certain synthesizers always sound the same, regardless of the
particular patch. (And have you ever noticed how, in large halls and arenas,
it's even hard to tell one synthesizer from another? Harder than to tell
a sax from a trumpet, for example.) Why is this? Is this characteristic
sound determined by the particular hardware (analog or digital), or by the
architecture (routing of signals among oscillators, mixers, filters, etc.)?
If you were to simulate an Oberheim Xpander in software, would it still
sound like an Xpander? Or would it acquire a cold, "digital" sound?
Doyle W. Donehoo
>(And have you ever noticed how, in large halls and arenas,
>it's even hard to tell one synthesizer from another? Harder than to tell
>a sax from a trumpet, for example.) Why is this?
I have noticed this too, and I believe it is because:
1) The sound system stamps its image on the sound, colors the sound,
so that it a) all sounds a particular way b) and the same frequencies
are cut or reinforced all across the spectrum. Probably due to post
mix EQ as well as the amp and speaker colorization.
2) Frequency overload at very high volumes, where it everything is smashed
together drowning each other out to the point of things sounding better
with your ears plugged. Or just everything masked by a particular
instrument, such as guitar.
3) Certain frequencies overloaded with instruments, causing things to
cancel out. A smart composer spreads their instruments throughout
the spectrum.
The best system I have ever heard live was Genesis touring their
"Selling England By The Pound". The PA was essentially a large stereo
system played at a relatively low volume. Everything was crystal clear
and nearly exactly a duplicate of their LP. I have not heard anything
better since. (Not even ELPs quad stereo system....)....
(If this turns into a discussion of PAs, lets move it to rec.music.makers)
David Blevins
the other -verbs. I had always thought of the LXP-1 as the Rolls Royce
of these, at least with the MRC controller. Having aquired one through a
trade recently, it strikes me as a very capable (but complex) box. Of
course it's not strictly a multiFX box, but you can get three delays
simultaneously for those Edge-type things. And it was the first to
implement real-time MIDI parameter control in a "low" cost effect.
I've been playing around with the new LXP-5 which IS supposed to be a
multiFX gizmo. I've been using mostly the pitch shift and the chorus, and
both are excellent. If only the pitch shift was of the intelligent sort,
like the new Digitech -33 whatever... For someone who needs Lexicon quality
reverb as well as other cool FX in one box, this seems like the ticket.
One thing that confuses me is why would you want the LXP-1 rather than the
-5; Lexicon's ads imply that the -5 is not a replacement but a supplement...
But I can't figure out what the LXP-1 can do that the new product can't.
Anyway, for those who care, the older MRC controllers must be upgraded to
run the LXP-5. The upgrade, costing $85 (!!!) retail, removes the DX-7
controller mode and adds LXP-5 support as well as new programs for the
LXP-1 and some of the other Lexicon products. Apparently it's more than
just a simple ROM swap so it costs big bucks.
dB hplabs!hpccc!blevins
Brian Willoughby
>I've been playing around with the new LXP-5 which IS supposed to be a
>multiFX gizmo. I've been using mostly the pitch shift and the chorus, and
>both are excellent. If only the pitch shift was of the intelligent sort,
>like the new Digitech -33 whatever... For someone who needs Lexicon quality
>reverb as well as other cool FX in one box, this seems like the ticket.
>One thing that confuses me is why would you want the LXP-1 rather than the
>-5; Lexicon's ads imply that the -5 is not a replacement but a supplement...
>But I can't figure out what the LXP-1 can do that the new product can't.
>
I purchased the A.R.T. MultiVerb before the LXP-5 came out. At the time,
the single effect LXP-1 didn't do all I needed, but the single effects
had much finer and more intricate control. Is the LXP-5 of the same high
quality? Have they shaved down on the complexity to fit more in?
What are your problems with the pitch shift? What is the "intelligence"
that is missing (knowledge of key)?
Is the LXP-5 limited to fewer simultaneous effects when it is set to a
complicated patch like pitch shift? In comparison, the 4 effect
MultiVerb can only do E.Q. (lowpass) and mono delay when pitch shifting.
Brian Willoughby
UUCP: ...!{tikal, sun, uunet, elwood}!microsoft!brianw
InterNet: microsoft!bri...@uunet.UU.NET
or: microsoft!bri...@Sun.COM
Bitnet bri...@microsoft.UUCP
Mark E. Glickman
> I rewiewed the two former pluss the lexicon LXP1 for a norwegian music
> magazine, and I was really impressed by the SPX900.
I have an SPX-90 (1st version), and am aware that if I wanted I could
get an upgrade to an SPX-90-II for some nominal amount (if you call
an amount $100 or so nominal). I haven't really heard much about
the SPX-900. Does anyone know if I can get a direct upgrade from
the 90 to the 900? Is it a completely different animal?
Thanks in advance!
- Mark