480L or 224XL - What do you prefer? - Why?
Steve Rhodes
I've got a 480L with the classic card, using plates most of the time.
I was wondering what the 224XL could offer me?
Is it worth to have one if you've already got the 480L?
What's you fav preset/algor.?
Thanks for any input,
Steve
rme/ London
EnsnareYou
I prefer neither the 480L or the 224. If I had to pick one I'd take the 224XL
over the 480. Personally I think Lexicon had originally been a forerunner in
Reverb technology. Nowadays their gear is nothing more than reconstituted
garbage. Cheapen up an algorithm from the 480, throw in a few new IC's and DSP
processors and rebadge it as a PCM80, 90 or LEX300 and what do you get??...
Supposedely new technology that's way over priced and highly overrated.
Buyers should base their reverb purchases on how good the unit sounds and not
what name it has on it. There are several Reverbs that rival the LEX's and
cost considerably less money. I think the AMS RMX16 is leaps and bounds above
the 480 and 224. Even a Quantec does considerably better at producing a
natural room sound. Perhaps the Quantec doesn't have a LARC and isn't cool
looking, like I care., it sounds great.
Whenever I want a phenomenal sounding reverb I turn on one of my Roland R880's.
Sure if you're a Lexicon "Knob Jockey" something like the R880 isn't for you.
You actually need to program this box to make it sound great. Interesting
concept huh? Most everything else is digital dreck not worth powering up in my
opinion. Then again there's always the trusty EMT plates!!! Gotta love em.
Want a great plate sound on your LEX480? Here's how to get it.... Put the 480
on top of an EMT140 ST and hook up the EMT instead. At least the 480 will have
a home to rest upon. :)
My FX rack has few devices for a reason. I could afford to buy any FX device
made... And yet I choose ones I feel actually do what they were intended to do.
EnsnareYou
Fletcher
The 480L is allegedly two 224XL's in one box...I don't especially care
for wither, and Lexicon (a Harman Internation Company) will *not*
service 224's any longer!!!! If you absolutely have to have one, get
the 480, just because if it breaks, you don't live 30 minutes from the
factory like I do...hence you'll have a really difficult time getting
one of their guys to service it in his spare time...
--
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
TEL: 508-543-0069
FAX: 508-543-9670
http://www.mercenary.com
Rob Reedijk
EnsnareYou (ensna...@aol.com) wrote:
(blah blah blah) about his roland unit.
You're the guy hawking the roland 880 stuff so I think you may be slightly
"overbiased". Maybe you should start selling Roland emulations for use in
Lexicon units too.
: EnsnareYou
^^^^^^^^^^
That says it all.
Rob
EnsnareYou
In a mesage dated Dec 17, 1997 Rod Reedjik wrote:
>From: ree...@hera.med.utoronto.ca (Rob Reedijk)
>Date: Wed, Dec 17, 1997 4:01 PM
>EnsnareYou (ensna...@aol.com) wrote:
>(blah blah blah) about his roland unit.
>You're the guy hawking the roland 880 stuff so I think you may be >slightly
>"overbiased". Maybe you should start selling Roland emulations for use in
>Lexicon units too.
Reed,
My opinion is hardly overbiased. I've had a LEX 480 and put it side by side my
R880 and I know that the R880 sounds considerably better. The Roland factory
programs stink and most people don't know how to program the unit. That's why
people assume it's not a great reverb. Don't believe me about how great the
R880 sounds? I'll give you references from people who own both the R880 and
LEX480 who use my custom programs and they'll let you know for themselves. I'm
not hawking anything. I could care less whether or not anyone buys my R880
programs. I'm only posting them for people who have R880's and aren't
realizing the full potential of the unit.
As for emulating the Roland R880 on a LEX480? That's impossible! The R880 is
way too smooth and dense sounding. The Lex480 couldn't emulate the R880 even
if I tried to program it. It's way to grainy sounding to produce a smooth
reverb tone. I might be able to get a few Alesis Midiverb 2 or 3 emulations on
that 480. Maybe even an ART 01A emulation or SPX90II?
EnsnareYou
John Etnier
EnsnareYou wrote:
> Don't believe me about how great the
> R880 sounds? I'll give you references from people who own both the R880 and
> LEX480 who use my custom programs and they'll let you know for themselves. I'm
> not hawking anything. I could care less whether or not anyone buys my R880
> programs. I'm only posting them for people who have R880's and aren't
> realizing the full potential of the unit.
For the information of other readers- a programmed card costs $162.00
(shipped via FedEx, unspecified as to speed). EnsnareYou provided three
references in response to my request. They are: "Steve", "David Morley"
and "Clark Hagen". (contact info was provided which I am omitting here.)
I am unfamiliar with these names (well, I know a lot of Steves and have
tripped over more #$&#/@ Morley pedals than any other brand...), but
then I'm hardly Mr. Au Courant.
In response to my question about a guarantee (as in: what if I didn't
agree with Him, Steve et. al.), EnsnareYou said none was provided. I
guess it depends on how attached you are to your $162.00.
In this electronic community, people have an infinite variety of handles
to choose from. This guy is filling this newgroup with aggressive posts
under the handle...
..."EnsnareYou" ?????
I dunno- I really like -my- R-880 too. (and I used to own a 480L.) I
just don't think this guy is presenting himself well.
--
=============================================
John Etnier
Studio Dual
-------------------------------------
http://www.studiodual.com
=============================================
Eleven Shadows
> ...I don't especially care
> for wither
...but you just have to accept it as the natural process of aging.
Sorry, Fletcher...
--
Ken/Eleven Shadows
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* Eleven Shadows * ES songs on Real Audio * Music Reviews
* Travels-India * Tibet * Real Audio Radio Shows * More...
http://www.theeleventhhour.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
hank alrich
John Etnier <etn...@studiodual.com> wrote:
>> EnsnareYou wrote: <snioped>
>
> ..."EnsnareYou" ?????
>
>
> I dunno- I really like -my- R-880 too. (and I used to own a 480L.) I
> just don't think this guy is presenting himself well.
Maybe that was his alma mater.
--
hank alrich - secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"if laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
EnsnareYou
In response to what John Etnier at etn...@studiodual.com wrote,
John,
It's interesting you felt the need to post about me and my R880 programs on the
newsgroup. Yes my programs sell for $162 on a new Roland RAM card shipped
overnight FedEx. Prices do vary dependent upon whether or not I copy the
programs to the R880 users RAM card or if I supply them on a new Roland RAM
card. As I told you in an e-mail it's $100 to copy them to the RAM card you
provide. I'm not selling these programs to get rich if that's what you're
thinking. If you felt the references I provided you weren't satisfactory,
that's your problem not mine.
I don't see how you feel I'm not presenting myself well? That is merely your
opinion. Just because I say that the R880 sounds better than the 480 you get
bent out of shape? Personally I have never dealt with you and I provided you
with real references in the event you needed them. Your insinuation that they
weren't legitimate is insulting. Obviously you didn't need the references
because if you had checked with any of them, you would have received glowing
praise about my R880 programs.
If you felt that the $100 I charge for my programs is too high, consider the
time I spent doing the programs. The fact that I was able to have an EMT plate
, LEX480, LEX300, AKG, AMS and other reverbs at my disposal to be able to copy
these programs is a feat in and of itself.
I'm hardly hiding behind some screen name. I gave you my real name and my
company name as well. I've only done honest business online and all of the
people I have dealt with will attest to that.
Lee Quintana
Q Factor Productions
User762697
Wow, this is a real dogfight here. Hey Fletcher, U47's sound like shit.
Wanna fight. My Mackie sounds better than a SSL and is quieter than a
Capicorn. What a ya think about that.
I can't believe this stuff. If someone is doing honest biz online you gotta
let him do his biz. Yeh, bias is in every piece of this "life saving" piece
of gear we all own. Unsubstantiated opinions abound. I have use both of these
reverbs and I honestly liked the 480l for some things. I for the life of me
can't figure out why Lex has dumbed itself down and is creating these wimpy
boxes now. They have so much they could be build on with the 480L concept.
Lex has the ablity to create a monster if they would apply themselves. Instead
they shun the big league to go into the minors. Absolutely dumbing down the
industry. There are still people out there buying this expensive early 80's
technoligy. We don't buy 1985 Pro Tools. Hell, you guys will go out there
and spend 5K on there upgrades at the drop of a hat. Why? Because it works or
sounds better.
Well I spent the money on those stupid Roland programs. I don't have the time
to screw around programing all day and night. I guess I bought them because
Nobody has done anything to help out the 480 in quite a while. Well, I
gambled 150.00 on this expensive piece of gear and it transformed it to a
pretty amazing box. No B.S. just the honest truth. I got something that I
did'nt have to spend two grand on to sound better.
Thanks I did'nt expect to get so much for my money.
Steve, one of those references.
Tommy Uzzo
In <3497052A...@rage.demon.co.uk>, Steve Rhodes <st...@rage.demon.co.uk> writes:
>I've got a 480L with the classic card, using plates most of the time.
>I was wondering what the 224XL could offer me?
>Is it worth to have one if you've already got the 480L?
>What's you fav preset/algor.?
>
>Thanks for any input,
>
>Steve
>rme/ London
YES, YES, YES!!
Theres nothing better than having both. You can hook the 224xl
up to the same larc as the 480 and have 3 machines. As great as the
480 is, There are creamy, delectable vocal sounds that only seem to
come from the 224xl hardware. Try the 224 Rich Plate, as it's a fav of
mine and doesn't sound the same on the 480.
Tommy Uzzo
Mirror Image
SKelly6372
To the dude that totally ragged the 480l & the 224 and boasted about that
Roland piece. Hey cool if you found a piece that you think is the king of the
hill in processors but dude, you need to smoke a serious fatty and relax. Both
the 480 and the 224 are used by the majority of the top guys (& ladies) in the
biz. I've personally heard Phil Ramone create some great stuff with them. And I
think that Phil has racked up enough hours to make a solid choice.
I'm sure that your Roland piece is bad to the bone, and I'll give it a fair
shake if I get the chance, but in the mean time, relax with your opinions.
Everyone hears different and therefore we like diffent things. Get with the
program!!!!
Stylin's Steve
Fletcher
User762697 wrote:
>
> Wow, this is a real dogfight here. Hey Fletcher, U47's sound like shit.
> Wanna fight. My Mackie sounds better than a SSL and is quieter than a
> Capicorn. What a ya think about that.
I'd love to fight with you...but unfortunately, unless U-47's have
received maintenance/excellent care and feeding for the last 40+
years...you're right...a great many of them out there *do* sound like
shit...
As for the Mackie sounding better than an SSL, no argument on the 6000
series...half hearted, no intensity argument on the 4000 series,
definate argument on the 9000 series...as for the Capricorn...isn't that
the half million dollar AMS version of the 02R? I doubt your Mackie is
quieter, but I'm sure it sounds better...it definately sounds better
than an 02R...and I've heard from some fairly knowledgeable folk that
the 02R sounds better than the Capricorn.....................
John Etnier
Since this post seems to be a response to mine (not backquoted), and
since I received some mail from EnsnareYou on the topic, I am going to
respond to this--
User762697 wrote (excerpted):
> I can't believe this stuff. If someone is doing honest biz online you gotta
> let him do his biz.
Actually, no one is keeping your friend from doing hiz biz. I did
provide information (price, shipping) and comment on some aspects of
EnsnareYou's sales method. As I had to remind EnsnareYou, this is a
discussion group.
> I for the life of me
> can't figure out why Lex has dumbed itself down and is creating these wimpy
> boxes now. They have so much they could be build on with the 480L concept.
> Lex has the ablity to create a monster if they would apply themselves. Instead
> they shun the big league to go into the minors. Absolutely dumbing down the
> industry.
Well, I can figure out why ($$$$), but I agree with you 100%.
> Well I spent the money on those stupid Roland programs. I
> gambled 150.00 on this expensive piece of gear and it transformed it to a
> pretty amazing box. No B.S. just the honest truth. I got something that I
> did'nt have to spend two grand on to sound better.
> Thanks I did'nt expect to get so much for my money.
> Steve, one of those references.
If you're referencing my post, which it appears you are, I didn't call
EnsareYou's card "stupid Roland programs" or an "expensive piece of
gear". I think the price is fair if the card contains programs as
advertised. The problem is that it's a blind gamble- excepting your
reference and EnsnareYou's very hypey sales pitch, I have no way of
auditioning the card and no recourse if I am not as impressed with
EnsnareYou's work as he is.
Rob Reedijk
EnsnareYou (ensna...@aol.com) wrote:
: In a mesage dated Dec 17, 1997 Rod Reedjik wrote:
: >Maybe you should start selling Roland emulations for use in
: >Lexicon units too.
: As for emulating the Roland R880 on a LEX480? That's impossible! The R880 is
: way too smooth and dense sounding. The Lex480 couldn't emulate the R880 even
: if I tried to program it. It's way to grainy sounding to produce a smooth
: reverb tone. I might be able to get a few Alesis Midiverb 2 or 3 emulations on
: that 480. Maybe even an ART 01A emulation or SPX90II?
I guess I should have put a
; )
after my message (or whichever one the United Nations has deemed as
signifying sarcasm).
Rob
Pier 1
I believe there is a card with the exact algorithms from the 224, so the
question becomes moot. I trained in a studio that has both in seperate rooms
and never found myself wishing I had the 224 when the 480 was available. Even
without that card it seems to me that you would be better served adding
something like an M5000 from TC Electronics. If you want variety then I'd go
all the way and try a different manufacturer.....a 24 bit manufacturer at that.
>>I've got a 480L with the classic card, using plates most of the time.
I was wondering what the 224XL could offer me?
Is it worth to have one if you've already got the 480L?
What's you fav preset/algor.?
Thanks for any input,
Steve
rme/ London<<
*******************************************************
Pier Giacalone
PERMANENT RECORDS Mastering/Recording Studio, NYC
24 Bit Mastering on Sonic Solutions
24 Track Hard Disk Recording
*******************************************************
Palermo141
I have to add my 2 cents
Personally I love the PCM-80 and 90 and think they sound just wonderful. I
also like my Ensoniq DP\4 and DP\2s versatile with plenty of texture, +best
digital comps I've heard yet.
Don't get me wrong, I do whish I had a 480L an EMT, and an AMS, but only for
two reasons so I could say to my buddies, look what I got, WOW. and so I could
proove to my fiance what a good deal I got on my FX units and how much worse
things truly could've been.
Oh yeah i heard the FX from the Roland R880 are the same as those in the
VS-880, hence the name lineage. BTW is that R880 a bonifide Roland or does it
per chance bare the BOSS monicker.
F.
In article <19971224162...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
paler...@aol.com (Palermo141) wrote:
>I have to add my 2 cents
>
>Personally I love the PCM-80 and 90 and think they sound just wonderful. I
>also like my Ensoniq DP\4 and DP\2s versatile with plenty of texture, +best
>digital comps I've heard yet.
"Best digital comp(ressor)s"? Isn't that a contradiction in terms? Like
"Central Intelligence Agency"?
>
>Don't get me wrong, I do whish I had a 480L an EMT, and an AMS, but only
for
>two reasons so I could say to my buddies, look what I got, WOW. and so I
could
>proove to my fiance what a good deal I got on my FX units and how much
worse
>things truly could've been.
If those are the only 2 reasons then I'd have to submit that 1) you haven't
used these units much or 2) whatever you're recording doesn't need them.
Not the the PCM 80/90 aren't killer cause they sound great, but they all
have distinctive sounds and some of the ones from the old boxes you can't
get w/ the newer stuff. Much to the chagrin of MY fiancee.
>
>Oh yeah i heard the FX from the Roland R880 are the same as those in the
>VS-880, hence the name lineage. BTW is that R880 a bonifide Roland or does
it
>per chance bare the BOSS monicker.
At best guess this is not the case. The R880 is a two-space, four-out,
remote-controlled, completely professional-market product that came out a
few years ago and was most likely Roland's attempt to answer the Lex 480L.
F.
Make It Work Productions
Palermo141
<<Oh yeah i heard the FX from the Roland R880 are the same as those in the
VS-880, hence the name lineage. BTW is that R880 a bonifide Roland or does it
per chance bare the BOSS monicker.>>
This was a bit of a joke sorry no one got the humor.
I tend to use digital FX sparingly as opposed to compressors which I use not so
sparingly, particularly those with big bake-Lite nobs and tubes or my personal
favorite the EL-8.
Frankly despite having access to a lot of these super hi-end verbs including
TC5000, EMT Lex 480 etc. I still often use various subtle delays on voice
instead of reverb. I've just never been that crazy about that aftertaste reverb
leaves on the harmonics of a voice, particularly if that voice is grainy, very
rich in harmonics and overtones or given to stridency.
User762697
What do you prefer? I prefer the old one to the older one. I am going to try
to address something here that needs to be said. These are all fine boxes,
ok. Thats the only disclaimer your going to get out of me one this old crap.
We are all ready to go out and buy some new wiz bang piece of gear and then
compare it to some other piece of "state of the art" crap. When in hell is
anyone going to stand up and tell these manufacturers that we don't want baby
steps toward better sound, we would like some of these bright people to stop
jerking us all off and make something that expands the envelope for a change.
One example is, Fletcher takes a two inch Studer and turns it into an eight
track! The thing probably sounded pretty amazing. Who got to really hear
what it sounded like. You sorry soles that think you heard it on the CD are
kidding yourselfs. I wish I could of heard it. Maybe Fletcher can tell us all
about it sometime. The point is these spineless guys running these billion
dollar corps are so afraid to push the technology to new ground it drives me
crazy.
Oooh, the new 24 bit this and 96k that. Your fired, is what I would tell the
engineer if he stepped into my office with that crap. Make it 72 bits asshole.
Make it 384k bone head, or go to work in as a cookie cutter. Push it. Make
it happen. We are to blame for this lack of expansion be cause we are all
happy with this incremental bullshit. Imagine if one of us told Sony to make a
Mini Disk sound like that 2" Studer. Who would buy it? Would it be a success?
You answer the question, and think about the piece of backwards thinking crap
they are feeding us. The next concept they come up with just might be a CD
that sounds like a cassette with Dolby B. Just think about what is going on
here people.
Now I don't want to put money into the discussion because it taints the
thought process for advancement. The moon. Nobody ask. It was a goal. 2" 8
track. A goal. Why not let these brilliant people run the concepts of
thinkers through the course of expanding the technology of sound? I don't know
the complete answer.
There is alot of people on this board who spend time ripping people for liking
or disliking a piece of crap gear, myself included, when we probably should
be ripping the one who made the damn thing.
So, to answer the question, I like a live chamber or live room. Make me
something that can do that, Lexicon, Mackie, Sony, Roland, et al.
Lets get on them, lets start making these guys do something they are capable
of for once. Don't let them off the hook so easy and keep the heat up.
Enough said, thanks.
Palermo141
Whew and I thought I had a temper.
Monte P McGuire
In article <67t2rb$i...@camel20.mindspring.com>,
F. <makei...@mindspring.com (F.)> wrote:
>
>"Best digital comp(ressor)s"? Isn't that a contradiction in terms? Like
>"Central Intelligence Agency"?
It's not a contradiction at all, it's quite a desireable thing! It's
also an easy thing to determine, since most digital compressors stink;
if you find one that sounds good, then it's safe to call it "the best
digital compressor". ;-)
Most modern digital compressors are so concerned with using lookahead
(to avoid overshoot or uncontrolled peaks? or simply because it's now
easy to do?) that they end up sounding too smooth. This is a polite
way of saying that they suck _every_ shred of life out of a signal.
I like a compressor to add some bounce; I sometimes use phenomenally
long attack times and fast release times to increase the pk/avg ratio
of a signal. I wish they'd forget about that stupid lookahead and
emulate an analog box! OK, maybe allow the those broadcast guys
scrambling for the last .1dB of modulation to use this stuff, but for
recording and production uses, these ultra smooth, ultra polite full
lookahead boxes are a disaster.
Fortunately, I stumbled onto _one_ digital compressor that's good in
1997 (the one in the Lexicon NuVerb, also the 300). Perhaps I could
find another in 1998? It sure is annoying to have to use only that
one algorithm for all compression, but I have this problem in that I
don't like to use compressors that sound bad!
For some odd reason, I still haven't heard the Waves Renaissance
compressor; maybe I'll try it out soon. Also, the Focusrite d3 plug
in sounded cool in a trade show demo, but who knows... Hope and pray
for a good digital compressor!! I need one bad! If you know about
one, let me know soon!
Thanks and happy holidays,
Monte McGuire
mcg...@world.std.com
ThBarr
How's the compression on the Eventide DSP4000?
ai
Hello,
I'm looking to buy a used sampler for use with a S760 and
an S2000. I'd the sampler to be:
1. < $500 or so
2. able to produce a "lo-Fi" sound (ie sample word size
of 8 or 12 bits, not 16); ( < 44k1 sampling rate useful also?)
3. multi-outputs (> 2)
Would an Akai S612 or S900 or Korg DSS-1 work here?
Thanks in advance for any suggestions to me at: a...@wco.com
EnsnareYou
I'll agree with what User762697 said. Make me a multi FX box that does it all
and sounds like a million dollars out of the box. I don't care if it costs me
$10K. Hell people pay that for a LEX480 and it's supposedly the reverb
"standard". Why should I have to program my ass off to make my FX devices
sound like they should have sounded from the get go? I could care less if the
box claims to have 24 bit resolution and a 96K sample rate, how does it sound?
Isn't that what matters?
I think most of us today have "settled" for what these manufacturers are
pushing down out throats. Let's stand up and say "Stop repackaging that same
old crap and giving it a new name or model number". I'm not stupid, It's not
like you fooled me. You manufacturers know who you are.
That's my 2 cents worth. I'm through venting now.
EnsnareYou
no one
In article <19971226050...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
user7...@aol.com (User762697) wrote:
SNIP
->You sorry soles that think you heard it on the CD are kidding yourselfs.
that should be "souls" and "yourselves."
SNIP
->Your fired, is what I would tell the engineer[...]
that should be "you're" as in "you are"
SNIP
->There is alot of people on this board [...]
that should be "There are"
Jesus K MotherfuckingGoddamned Christ, pal!! Learn English first! I
won't even begin to address the rambling mess that is the rest of your
post.
I think the biggest problem facing the engineering community is the wealth
illiterate assholes like user762697 (how original).
--
Josiah N. Gluck
Audio Production Services
New York, NY USA
http://www.users.interport.net/~josiah
Skyberlark
>>There is alot of people on this board [...]
>that should be "There are"
No... "Is" is correct. The object here is "lot". There "is" a (singular) lot of
people; as in... "There is a group of people..."
There IS a group of people on this board blah, blah, blah...
Paul Braunbehrens
In article <ELsBC...@world.std.com>, mcg...@world.std.com (Monte P
McGuire) wrote:
> Most modern digital compressors are so concerned with using lookahead
> (to avoid overshoot or uncontrolled peaks? or simply because it's now
> easy to do?) that they end up sounding too smooth. This is a polite
> way of saying that they suck _every_ shred of life out of a signal.
Monte, I know you have C1, and it does allow you to disbale lookahead,
right? So you just don't like it's sound...? I'm just curious, because I
have used C1, but not to make things sound "nice", I mostly use it for
light "surgery". I tend to compress going in, and then only apply it
inside PT if it's really necessary.
I did use the Renaissance, and it does sound interersting. I haven't
palyed with it enough to really have an opinion yet. I can't wait to try
out the one in my 300, after reading your message, but this of course means
going back to 16 bits. I suppose it would be ok if I used it before any
other process and level change since the original signal is 16 bit anyway.
Cheers,
Paul Braunbehrens
In article <blah-di-blah-blah...@news.interport.net>,
blah-di-...@blah.org (no one) wrote:
> Jesus K MotherfuckingGoddamned Christ, pal!! Learn English first! I
> won't even begin to address the rambling mess that is the rest of your
> post.
>
> I think the biggest problem facing the engineering community is the wealth
> illiterate assholes like user762697 (how original).
>
> --
> Josiah N. Gluck
> Audio Production Services
> New York, NY USA
> http://www.users.interport.net/~josiah
I don't know what you are trying to say, but "the wealth illiterate
assholes" is clearly not english.
I think it's ok to make mistakes when you get mad. What I don't like is
the form of the message. I actually didn't read it because the line breaks
looked awful on my computer, and there seemed to be no paragraphs. I'm not
going to ruin my eyes on some long ramble if it isn't legible.
Cheers,
Eleven Shadows
> > 3. multi-outputs (> 2)
> >
> > Would an Akai S612 or S900 or Korg DSS-1 work here?
I think it's #3 that may hang you up on these last two here...I know
that the DSS-1 does not have more than two outputs, and seeinas as the
S612 is *considerably* lower tech and older than the DSS-1, I seriously
doubt that it has it either!!!! Maybe the Ensoniq EPS, which does have
the option for multiple outputs, may be a good choice.
hank alrich
no one <blah-di-...@blah.org> wrote:
> In article <19971226050...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> user7...@aol.com (User762697) wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> ->You sorry soles that think you heard it on the CD are kidding yourselfs.
>
> that should be "souls" and "yourselves."
>
>
> SNIP
>
> ->Your fired, is what I would tell the engineer[...]
>
> that should be "you're" as in "you are"
>
>
> SNIP
>
> ->There is alot of people on this board [...]
>
> that should be "There are"
Try again, professor. Your grade after that one is 66.67%.
> Jesus K MotherfuckingGoddamned Christ, pal!! Learn English first! I
> won't even begin to address the rambling mess that is the rest of your
> post.
>
> I think the biggest problem facing the engineering community is the wealth
> illiterate assholes like user762697 (how original).
You assume that _English_ is the first language. Are you unaware that
there's an entire world of people here for whom _your_ first language is
NOT _their_ first language.
And assumptions that apparent literacy reflects intelligence are
comfortable for those who think their education makes them _smart_.
One of the biggest problems is myopic megalomania.
--
hank alrich
secret__mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
User762697
To the guy named Gluck,
Thanks for the english lesson. Last time I was tested I flunked. I can admit
my short comings without any blows to my self-esteem.
As for calling me an asshole, maybe you are to kind of guy I'm addressing in
that little note I wrote. I am not mad at the electronic engineering world, I
just think we need to push bright people to take leaps.
If you don't want to be civil to me, fine, I think you are the one that is
coming across as an asshole.
Good luck to you and happy new year.
Fletcher
Here's where it gets fun...deciphering who's a feriner and who's
illiterate...ie. I would think that the guy that posted "I am intereting
to purchase" would be from a distant land, while the fellow that posted
the topic "increasing soundquality of projectstudio" I think was a
domestic semi-literate type.
The first I thought had to be from a foreign land, 'cause round these
parts we hit the yellow pages when looking things like potting
epoxy...the second know quasi slang in using the term "zillion-dollar
budgets" but was merely lacking in basic language skills...
One of the first clues is the return address...it often givesa clue to
the country of origin. The other is the ISP...it seems that the
illiterate gravitate toward AOL...and the dreaded WEB-TV...with the
Christmas holiday that just passed, it will be interesting to see the
increase in traffic as the de-WE(e)B-TV presents find their way onto the
NG's...if the internet is the great equalizer...the question is how much
more literacy/proficiency limbo this group can stand..."How low can we
go?"...
--
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
Danny Caccavo
<snip>
> For some odd reason, I still haven't heard the Waves Renaissance
> compressor; maybe I'll try it out soon. Also, the Focusrite d3 plug
> in sounded cool in a trade show demo, but who knows... Hope and pray
> for a good digital compressor!! I need one bad! If you know about
> one, let me know soon!
>
>
> Thanks and happy holidays,
>
> Monte McGuire
> mcg...@world.std.com
Yep, the Focusrite is a nice one. The Waves is completely different from
a "normal" compressor, but can do some very nice things as well. These
are the first two digital compressors I've liked (haven't used the
Lexicon).
DC
--
Danny Caccavo (dan...@interport.net)
http://www.users.interport.net/~danielj/
"Hey, Bee-atle - we shall have fun, eh?"
(delete the xx from my return address for replies.....)
Steve Miovski
ai wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm looking to buy a used sampler for use with a S760 and
> an S2000. I'd the sampler to be:
>
> 1. < $500 or so
>
> 2. able to produce a "lo-Fi" sound (ie sample word size
> of 8 or 12 bits, not 16); ( < 44k1 sampling rate useful also?)
>
>
> Would an Akai S612 or S900 or Korg DSS-1 work here?
>
How 'bout an Akai X7000 ?
Monte P McGuire
In article <BakaliteNews-ya02408...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
Paul Braunbehrens <Bakali...@Bakalite.com> wrote:
>In article <ELsBC...@world.std.com>, mcg...@world.std.com (Monte P
>McGuire) wrote:
>
>> (to avoid overshoot or uncontrolled peaks? or simply because it's now
>> easy to do?) that they end up sounding too smooth. This is a polite
>> way of saying that they suck _every_ shred of life out of a signal.
>
>
>Monte, I know you have C1, and it does allow you to disbale lookahead,
>right? So you just don't like it's sound...? I'm just curious, because I
>have used C1, but not to make things sound "nice", I mostly use it for
>light "surgery".
I guess it's not only lookahead, but that whole "let's make it smooth
and do all sorts of ungodly things to reduce distortion" philosophy
that ruins a compressor IMHO. Like soft knee, lookahead,
bandsplitting. The C1's not a horrible compressor; I find that if I
set the release time fast (i.e. to 2), set the attack time to anywhere
from 10-20 and use low ratios, then I can get some reasonable sounds
out of it. But, I've never been able to get it to sound as good as
the NuVerb comp, unless the goal was to squash something flat. The
output of the NuVerb comp always sounds more exciting.
It is good for surgery though... bandsplit mode with the EQ at around
1.2K is excellent for taming vocals that are too loud in the mix, it
makes a fantastic de-esser, etc. etc. Lots of great possibilities
there, but again, nothing along the lines of a good overall sounding
compressor.
>I tend to compress going in, and then only apply it
>inside PT if it's really necessary.
That does seem to be the most predictable way to go at the moment...
>I did use the Renaissance, and it does sound interersting. I haven't
>palyed with it enough to really have an opinion yet.
I've got the demo, so maybe I should try it out...
>I can't wait to try
>out the one in my 300, after reading your message, but this of course means
>going back to 16 bits. I suppose it would be ok if I used it before any
>other process and level change since the original signal is 16 bit anyway.
It's a 20 bit box, so if you have 24 bit IO, dither to 20 before
sending to the 300. My favorite settings are:
ratio: 1.3 to 1.56
attack: 60 - 240ms
release: 9? - 114ms
predelay: 0-6ms
gain: 10-20dB, unless I'm also using the expander
Adjust the threshold for 2-5dB of gain on average and there it is.
This usually sounds great on a well mixed program. Follow that with
an L1 and it's good enough to charge people money for. I sometimes
use the expander too, but only when I get some mix that's already been
squashed by someone else poorly. If the comp seems to breathe too
much, reduce the attack time and possibly check out the LF content of
the mix. There's no sidechain, but if the mix is good, you won't get
any pumping; conversely, if the LF of the mix is too big, the
compressor can pump.
I've also used it to level vocal tracks and found that higher ratios,
faster time constants and use of the expander can work well. It's
almost as good as the Manley for that task, although it's a lot more
complicated to set up. The Manley el-op is so simple to use by
contrast... just send the signal in and you're done!
Regards,
Monte McGuire
mcg...@world.std.com
User762697
Thank God I have a sense of humor. I am a proud product of the public school
system. That's why I'm sending my son to private school.
Well, I really got ripped a new asshole for what I wrote. The guy seems to be
an alright guy, just felt a little helpless, like all of us do.
So, look what we have all been reduced to; Correcting some poor guys English.
Gotta laugh out loud over this one. Now, get back to rolling tape and being
happy.
imp...@peak.org
Eleven Shadows wrote:
>
> > > 3. multi-outputs (> 2)
> > >
> > > Would an Akai S612 or S900 or Korg DSS-1 work here?
>
> that the DSS-1 does not have more than two outputs, and seeinas as the
> S612 is *considerably* lower tech and older than the DSS-1, I seriously
> doubt that it has it either!!!! Maybe the Ensoniq EPS, which does have
> the option for multiple outputs, may be a good choice.
Korg DSM-1, the rack-mount version of the DSS has 16 multiple outs, and
more memory than the DSS. I've seen them for around $450. I still use
mine all the time, though I have other (newer) samplers
Eleven Shadows
Does it come stock with 16 outputs, all assignable? Just curious. The
one thing to be aware of is that I don't believe the DSM-1 has the two
digital delays like the DSS-1 does, but this is probably a really small
point.
Herald Johnson
ai <ai@shell.> wrote in article <67vnif$qs$1...@news.ncal.verio.com>...
> I'm looking to buy a used sampler for use with a S760 and
> an S2000. I'd the sampler to be:
>
> 1. < $500 or so
>
> 2. able to produce a "lo-Fi" sound (ie sample word size
> of 8 or 12 bits, not 16); ( < 44k1 sampling rate useful also?)
>
> 3. multi-outputs (> 2)
>
> Would an Akai S612 or S900 or Korg DSS-1 work here?
Try an an Emu Emax. 12 bit, multi outs, and SSM filter chips. Go for the
one with an HD. The DSS-1 rocks, however, it does not have multi outs.
Otherwise try a Prophet 2000/2002 or Casio RZ-1.
dave
Larry Hendry
>>> Would an Akai S612 or S900 or Korg DSS-1 work here?
>>I know
>>that the DSS-1 does not have more than two outputs, and seeinas as the
>> S612 is *considerably* lower tech and older than the DSS-1
Neither of the above mentioned. HOWEVER, the Korg DSM-1 could be the
answer.
The DSM-1 is 12 bit, sample rate selectable at 16,24,32 or 48, uses
standard HD 3 1/2 disks and has 16 individual outputs. The DSM-1 is a rack
mount module. It has great analog filters. However no resonance filter and
no effects. (the DSS-1 has 2 DDLs). The DSM-1 is a great drume sampler.
I paid $225 for my last one, however, I think the going rate is closer to
$350-400. I see them for sale at $450 - 500 but those are STILL for sale.
If you want more specific information about the DSM, send E-mail.
Steve Rhodes
Have you already heard the Drawner?
Is it worth to buy the Focusrite if you already own the Renaissance?
What's the difference between the two?
BTW: I like the Renaissance, it was the first good sounding for PT.
Do you know when Digi will support the Magma chassis with their PT24 system?
Sooner or later I'll lose my temper....
Steve
rme / London
Rob Reedijk
Skyberlark (skybe...@aol.com) wrote:
: >>There is alot of people on this board [...]
: >that should be "There are"
: No... "Is" is correct. The object here is "lot". There "is" a (singular) lot of
: people; as in... "There is a group of people..."
: There IS a group of people on this board blah, blah, blah...
I think that you incorrect. When choosing the verb (pun!) for this
sentence you must apply the verb in its plural form since we are describing
a plural form of "person. "A lot of people" is equivalent to "many people".
If we were discussing a group of people as a single entity (such as a
math club or a motorcyle gang) then yes, the correct form of the verb would
be "is". Although "a lot" on its own is a single quantity when it
comes to describing a piece of land, in this case it means "a large number".
By the way, I must say, I am a fan of yours.
How do you keep it all straight? Aren't you afraid of fucking up and
accidentally replying as MrFXGuy or EnsnareYou or User####? Or am I being
overly suspicious in thinking that there are a lot of people on AOL who
are agreeing with each other when it comes to hating Lex 480s and other
things?
Rob
Al Theurer
Did anyone say finalizer. Attack and release parameters are all adjustable
and look ahead is selectable/defeatable. Al
In article <ELsBC...@world.std.com>, mcg...@world.std.com (Monte P
McGuire) wrote:
> In article <67t2rb$i...@camel20.mindspring.com>,
> F. <makei...@mindspring.com (F.)> wrote:
> >
> >"Best digital comp(ressor)s"? Isn't that a contradiction in terms? Like
> >"Central Intelligence Agency"?
>
> It's not a contradiction at all, it's quite a desireable thing! It's
> also an easy thing to determine, since most digital compressors stink;
> if you find one that sounds good, then it's safe to call it "the best
> digital compressor". ;-)
>
> Most modern digital compressors are so concerned with using lookahead
> (to avoid overshoot or uncontrolled peaks? or simply because it's now
> easy to do?) that they end up sounding too smooth. This is a polite
> way of saying that they suck _every_ shred of life out of a signal.
>
> I like a compressor to add some bounce; I sometimes use phenomenally
> long attack times and fast release times to increase the pk/avg ratio
> of a signal. I wish they'd forget about that stupid lookahead and
> emulate an analog box! OK, maybe allow the those broadcast guys
> scrambling for the last .1dB of modulation to use this stuff, but for
> recording and production uses, these ultra smooth, ultra polite full
> lookahead boxes are a disaster.
>
> Fortunately, I stumbled onto _one_ digital compressor that's good in
> 1997 (the one in the Lexicon NuVerb, also the 300). Perhaps I could
> find another in 1998? It sure is annoying to have to use only that
> one algorithm for all compression, but I have this problem in that I
> don't like to use compressors that sound bad!
>
> For some odd reason, I still haven't heard the Waves Renaissance
> compressor; maybe I'll try it out soon. Also, the Focusrite d3 plug
> in sounded cool in a trade show demo, but who knows... Hope and pray
> for a good digital compressor!! I need one bad! If you know about
> one, let me know soon!
>
>
> Thanks and happy holidays,
>
> Monte McGuire
> mcg...@world.std.com
--
Al Theurer/Room with a View-NYC
syna...@pathcom.com
Hey there -
It's not suitable for _all_ program material, but the SONY F7, from
the DPS series has a dynamics processing algorithm that is very cool.
I'm not sure if its included in the 'new' V-77, but it might very well
be.
As far as the 480/224XL thing goes.... I've never used a 224, only the
200, 480, and 300. Is the 224XL a 2-in 4-out unit?
Does it have two machines like the 480? My guess is that it probably
doesn't, which would be at least a starting point for a pro/con list.
In addition, there is the Lexicon "Classic Cart" available for the 480
which supposedly emulates a lot of 224 patches pretty faithfully, but
who knows?
J.
athe...@roomwithaview.com (Al Theurer) wrote:
>Did anyone say finalizer. Attack and release parameters are all adjustable
>and look ahead is selectable/defeatable. Al
>Al Theurer/Room with a View-NYC
------------------------
Synaptic Gap Productions
Toronto, Ont.
syna...@pathcom.com
(416) 410-6595
-------------------------
Monte P McGuire
In article <ELsBC...@world.std.com>,
Monte P McGuire <mcg...@world.std.com> wrote:
>Fortunately, I stumbled onto _one_ digital compressor that's good in
>1997 (the one in the Lexicon NuVerb, also the 300). Perhaps I could
>find another in 1998? It sure is annoying to have to use only that
>one algorithm for all compression, but I have this problem in that I
>don't like to use compressors that sound bad!
(OK, I know it's odd to follow up my own posts, but what the heck...
I'm used to talking to myself on a regular basis... ;-)
I checked out the Digidesign dynamics plug in again as part of a
general checkout of a ProTools installation I did and found that under
certain conditions with some programs, it can actually sound better
than the Lexicon compressor when used in a similar manner...
Here are the settings I used: compressor mode, attack time ~= 350ms,
release time ~= 120ms, ratio = 1.25:1, and threshold set to give
around 5-6dB of gain reduction all the time. I followed both the Digi
dynamics and the NuVerb with an L1 doing pretty light peak limiting
and dithering. This sounded really pretty interesting on some mixes
and was a little more forward and more interesting than the NuVerb.
I poked at it a little bit and found another trick that improved the
sound: I placed a Q2 EQ before and after the compressor to do some
preemphasis / deemphasis around the compressor. I used a shelving LF
cut of 2dB at 95Hz ahead of the comp and a complementary boost after
the comp. This helped to tame some of the pumpyness of the compressor
and prevented it from eating up any punch in the LF.
On the other band of the pair of Q2s, I tried the same thing but at HF
using a 1dB @ 7.5KHz shelving filter. For some reason it sounded
better when I boosted ahead of the comp and cut after the compressor,
but I'm at a loss to understand why. Maybe it had to do with boosting
or cutting HF artifacts in the compressor output? Who knows...
Just thought I'd pass it along since I'd completely written the Digi
dynamics plug in off as useless. It still has a release time that's
way too long to use with any ratio but the 1.25:1 minimum ratio, but
at least that ratio does something useful. I guess it just goes to
show you that there's a use for just about everything out there.
Also, that preemphasis / deemphasis trick is useful with any sort of
compressor, as long as you can get complementary EQs. It's a good way
to do a lot of what you can do with a sidechain without actually
having a sidechain available, as is the case with many 'vintage'
compressors and limiters.
Regards,
Monte McGuire
mcg...@world.std.com