The g-force is a guitar effects processor and a very good one. I own one that I run through the effects loop on my amp. It don't change the tone of my amp at all, like some other processor's. That's what I like about the g-force the most.

The other two, I know nothing about.

Peace............Scoobie

does anyone know of a good lexicon multi effects processor with emphasis on effects not including delay and reverb? it can be discontinued if you knwo of one

Still haven't figured out google huh? I'll give you a head start:

http://www.lexiconpro.com/ProductPortal.aspx

MX200, MX400

I must say this "hardware plugin" thing is intriguing. Maybe it's old news but it's news to me.

i am assuming the only two main products from lexicon, excluding the pcm 70 and the 960's, etc. worth mentioning would be the m 300 and the mpx 500. so between these two what do you think?

I think that I would have to demo one first.

Well aqualand666, Lexicon is known for their reverbs, first and foremost. Why would you want a Lexicon, without reverb?? That's like saying, "I want a Steinway, without that soundboard in it". Everything they've made (Lexicon) has their reverbs. You might want to look into an old LXP5? It gives you a bunch of delay effects with only a couple of reverb patches. You've already figured out the rest.

A classic Yamaha SPX 90/900 were nice processors with lots of lovely delays, flanging, phasing, pitch change. I never liked their reverb's. They were dark and muddy to my ear, by comparison to the lexicon, EMT, Eventide, etc., but their effects were nice. That doesn't mean I didn't use their reverb algorithms. I thought they were nice on string sections without getting too metallic sounding.

So you want all sorts of delay effects? Why must it be a Lexicon??

The Lexicon of engineers
Ms. Remy Ann David

alright cool advice, because i have a pcm 70, thats why i said exclude it. thanks

i was assuming that the spx-90's were discontinued and hard to find.

Consider the Kurzweil Mangler and Rumor. They are both quite nice and they certainly do not focus on reverbs (although the algorithms in the Rumor certainly ain't bad.)

i think the reason the spx 90 might have sounded muddy to you remy is because the conversion is 20 to 12, you know its missing those high frequencies which so greatly contribute to clarity.

do you think the mangler is as good as the spx 90 cucco?

Never used the SPX 90...couldn't tell you.

What do you mean about the conversion is 20 to 12?

instead of 20-20 its 20-12 (kHz)

Although I believe the SPX 90 was a nice unit, I had 2. Now I have 1, still. I believe aqualand666 is quite correct about that 12 bit internal processing, so sometimes a little gritty, sometimes a little lacking? Of course the original Lexicon 224, had the same problem. Bandwidth to only 10kHz. But then, who was complaining when that thing came out? The EMT plate, still blows everything away.

Hey!

That's it!

A digital plate! You feed digital audio data into the transducer which vibrates the plate. Then you pick up that reverberate data, convert that back to digital and combine that in with the other audio! I figure it would sound outstandingley way..........confusing. But it would be a brand-new fresh sound. Old marries new!

Thinking beyond normal physics, like Ex-Lax
Ms. Remy Ann David

see cucco this was my point in the other topic. the fact is that tube gear by definition is more coloured because it has a higher noise ratio. this especially rings true when transparency means clarity. in addition to clarity in noise ratings there is also clarity that is achieved by boosting high frequencies, like in the "top heavy" 414 you described. let's face it, is the 414 not one of the most "top heavy" mics you've ever heard?

violins are naturally pretty squeaky instruments to your ears, and i don't doubt something like the C12 or M150 would be a good choice on it opposed to the 414, so you don't have to go all joe jazz jeremy cucco on me. i think your violin scenario and psychoacoustic analysis only goes to prove even further how transparent the 414 is. however you are distorting this analysis with what transparency really means. no microphone will ever be as transparent as your ears.

The studio standard SPX-90 is a low cost version of the Rev-7 if I remember correctly. It was pretty much the first affordable digital first multi-effects processor that also had MIDI. I remember many Rev-7 owners were pretty upset seeing how much value the SPX90 was. I remember being impresssed enough to sell my Rev-7 and got two SPX-90's. (even though the Rev-7 was better for reverb) I long ago sold my pair and got the SPX-900 with the RC1 remote that I still have and use.

Since the SPX-90 is such a standard that any body using outboard effects should know how use, most places that own them often don't sell them as there are now so cheap, not worth the effort. SPX-90 has also been a popular standard for live/PA use for the last 15+ years.

aqualand666 wrote: see cucco this was my point in the other topic. the fact is that tube gear by definition is more coloured because it has a higher noise ratio. this especially rings true when transparency means clarity. in addition to clarity in noise ratings there is also clarity that is achieved by boosting high frequencies, like in the "top heavy" 414 you described. let's face it, is the 414 not one of the most "top heavy" mics you've ever heard?

violins are naturally pretty squeaky instruments to your ears, and i don't doubt something like the C12 or M150 would be a good choice on it opposed to the 414, so you don't have to go all joe jazz jeremy cucco on me. i think your violin scenario and psychoacoustic analysis only goes to prove even further how transparent the 414 is. however you are distorting this analysis with what transparency really means. no microphone will ever be as transparent as your ears.

No dude. I just don't think you get it.

If it's true that a mic with a tweaked/tilted top end, then the inverse is also true - a mic with a lean low-frequency could be described as transparent. Either way, it's ridiculous.

The C12, M50 (or M150) and the AKG 414 are all WAY down on my list for what I'd want to use for violin. All of these mics are very bright. That would exaggerate the already screetchy nature of the violin.

Of course no mic is as transparent as the human ear but MANY come VERY VERY VERY close. DPA 4006, Schoeps CMC62, Gefell M296 (the single most realistic mic I've heard to date). None of these have a boosted high end (except for the case where they are to be used as diffuse-field mics, which is fine if used for just that).

As for tube having more noise thus more coloration....occassionally that's true, but it's usually not the noise that lends the coloration. One of my favorite pieces of gear is the Manley Vari-Mu. It's quite colorful and has a lot of tubes (and isn't exactly my quietest gear). Very little tube gear has enough noise to interfere with the CD snr of 96 dB.

However, it was tube gear which everything (including some of the greatest and most definitive symphony recordings ever....Szell/Cleveland/Beethoven Symphonies) was recorded on until transistor gear became readily available (Beetles/Stones/Hendrix). Tube gear, when designed well can either be colored or clear and open. As DaveDog mentions, it's usually transistor-based gear nowadays that we rely on for color, not tube gear.

By the way, violins are not naturally squeeky to my ears. When recorded, if done improperly, they can come off squeeky. But as a person who played violin for 15+ years of my life, I would find it hard to describe as squeeky. Put a 414 over them to mic it and YES...squeeky. Try a shoeps CMC621 or a Beyer M160 and no more squeeky.

Let me put this as simply as possible:

Boosted (extended, tilted, tweaked, whatever the heck you want to call it) high-frequencies are NOT synonymous with clarity and transparency. They are synonymous with BRIGHT. Bright is not equal to transparent.

bright is certainly a term associated with colouration palette, however high frequencies do influence transparency or clarity whatever you want to refer to it as.

like i will continue to say, if your point is merely to be anal about the way you use the words transparency and colouration, then by all means do what you have to do.

if you want to continue to associate transparency with what comes in being equal to what comes out, then you successfully have no such thing as a transparent microphone. but at least we have the psychoacoustic spin on this assessment brought to you a la jeremy cucco jazzman.

jeremy, although it may not directly be the noise that you think influences the colouration, tube and vinyl gear not to mention many other pieces of equipment with high noise ratings are synonymous with color.

actually the beetles, and not beathoven were recorded with numerous ampex 350's as i'm sure was jimi, that's not even to consider which tube mics might have been used. (or the fairchild for that matter, or the old pultecs...or the guitar and bass amps)

but i'm sure you already knew that

think about transparency in terms of a picture, the definition of transparency would be something that is so bright and light that you can see through it.

Yo, aqualand666. You started this thread and the topic is stereo effets. Please stay on topic.

The Digitech GSP 2101 does some very cool tricks. Great for guitars vocals and flutes. Even has a tube in it - can you say "voicing options"?

AudioGaff wrote: Yo, aqualand666. You started this thread and the topic is stereo effets. Please stay on topic.

Trolls often wander Gaff.....

Let me finish my statements on this whole subject and my final statement to you Mr. 666...

You look like a troll, you smell like a troll and with your more and more asinine statements of late, you are sounding like a troll.

First of all...why are you referring to me as Jazzman? I do very little with Jazz and I am certainly no jazz player.

Second, until you supply me and the rest of the forum with your credentials, I'm officially writing you off as an uninformed yutz with a toilet seat full of musician's friend catalogs and back issues of mix magazine.

You clearly have no concept of what is considered to be colored or uncolored (transparent) even by INDUSTRY standards, not "Jazzman Cucco's."

So, either you are here poking the pot just for sh*ts and grins, or you really are asking these inane questions and have no clue.

Cheers -

J.

alright whatever you say joe jazz

Okay, aqualung....gaining knowledge is a great thing to aspire to. Doing so without rancor or malice is a wonderful exercise in humanity. Using this knowledge gain as an excuse to bash people in a forum is just plain cheap. So you either knock off your little game and play nice or you will be gone. Capice'?