Vienna Symphonic Library Forum
Forum Statistics

182,242 users have contributed to 42,214 threads and 254,723 posts.

In the past 24 hours, we have 5 new thread(s), 25 new post(s) and 51 new user(s).

  1. Home
  2. Software
  3. Vienna MIR & Vienna Suite
  4. Lexicon vs. convolution

  • Lexicon vs. convolution

    W
    W

    I had two questions: Does anyone have any real experience with Lexicon hardware in comparison to Altiverb or other convolution?  I mean, not just guessing or following trends but actual experience with both in comparison as to quality?  I am very attracted to using hardware as it works instantly and is totally convenient to use compared to convolution.

    Also, do the "lower end" Lexicons such as mpx500 or mpx400, which are still 24bit and digital interface etc.  compare to the ultra-expensive Lexicons, but just fewer bells and whistles?  I have both the above models and they sound very good, and in fact usually sound better than Altiverb to me.  Though my ears have a tendency to get fooled during mixes, so I am wondering if anyone else has an opinion about this.
  • M
    M

     I'm not really a fan of convolution reverbs because of the lack of possible tweaking. I very much like the Lexicon 960 which I rent when I have a surround mix to do.

    I quite like the 960. I have a much harder time getting nice reverbs out of a pcm90 or 91. Even the 300 is tricky sometimes.

    The difference between the models is the dsp power, i.e. complexity of the reverbs, and thus the complexity of the algorithms. But I'm not too surprised that you like the results of your lower cost units better than your altiverb. There is something "live" about algorithmic reverbs which I miss with a convo reverb.

    That said, for the chamber music  I currently mix I very much like the convo reverb I have at hand. It is just there and not noticed as something added to the instruments. This is different than how I mix orchestra: In a orchestral setup reverb is more of an instrument, for example my recent film music is mixed more as a "music for orchestra and reverb".
  • DietzD
    VSL Team
    DietzD
    Mathis is right when he says "Reverb is more of an instrument".

    This is why I always had the impression that sampled reverb (i.e. convolution reverb) interacts better with sampled instruments than synthetic reverb (like the Lexicons).

    William's impression that IRs from those synthetic reverbs never sound as the original has a simple reason. Most reverb algorithms, and especially those by Lexcion rely a lot on the modulation of the reverb tail - something static convolution can't mimic by definition. A real room is more or less a linear system, something static convolution is able to mimic very well.

    Mathis' "instrument idea" is exactly the reason why we invented the MIR, BTW. The underlying concept is all about multi-sampling a room, just as we did with all those instruments.
    /Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library
  • B
    B
    last edited
    last edited

    @Dietz said:

    Mathis is right when he says "Reverb is more of an instrument".

    This is why I always had the impression that sampled reverb (i.e. convolution reverb) interacts better with sampled instruments than synthetic reverb (like the Lexicons).

    Hi Dietz,

    I'm not sure I understand this statement.  It is my understanding that any sound source that goes through a microphone and ends up on a hard drive is sampled...whether it's used as a sample library or not doesn't change the fact that the information on the hard drive is a digital representation (i.e. a sample) of a physical waveform of air molecules.  Yet people use synthetic reverbs with digital audio data all the time?

    Brian

  • M
    M
    last edited
    last edited

    @Dietz said:

    A real room is more or less a linear system, something static convolution is able to mimic very well.
     

    But who wants reality anyway? Are you involved in music because you embrace reality? ...

    I'm looking forward to MIR as this concept makes sense to me with its inherent complexity. I guess there is something unpredictable when there are hundreds of convolution reverbs involved. Unlike one single convo reverb which behaves constantly and mathematically the same. This is what I find boring.
  • DietzD
    VSL Team
    DietzD
    last edited
    last edited

    @mathis said:

    [...] one single convo reverb which behaves constantly and mathematically the same. This is what I find boring.
    That's true as long as you talk about a single IR. This is much like a single sample from a Grand Piano.
    /Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library
  • DietzD
    VSL Team
    DietzD
    last edited
    last edited

    @Brian said:

    Hi Dietz,

     

    I'm not sure I understand this statement.  It is my understanding that any sound source that goes through a microphone and ends up on a hard drive is sampled...whether it's used as a sample library or not doesn't change the fact that the information on the hard drive is a digital representation (i.e. a sample) of a physical waveform of air molecules.  Yet people use synthetic reverbs with digital audio data all the time?

     

    Brian

    "Sampled" opposed to "synthetic" sources. Of course, convolution reverb behaves nicely with "recorded" real instruments, too. The point I was trying to make was that I prefer convolution reverb to synthetic reverb when it comes to the interaction - or call it "blend" - between the instrument(s) and the room they are meant to play in.

    ... of course, like everybody else I use synthetic reverb all the time for typical modern pop/rock/r&B-mixes, where the single signals are most of the time _supposed_ to be up-front, in your face, and clearly separated from each other.
    /Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library
  • B
    B
    Thanks Dietz!  Can't wait to hear MIR in action!!! [:D]
  • W
    W

    "I prefer convolution reverb to synthetic reverb when it comes to the interaction - or call it "blend" - between the instrument(s) and the room they are meant to play in."  - Dietz

    I have noticed this and the "reverb as instrument" sound in the Dietz mixes which are a very rich artistic blend of the instruments rather than a mechanically applied procedure.  I noticed this particularly in his mix of "Prospice" which - because I did a mix previously myself - was shocking to hear.  It was something like comparing Picasso (Dietz) to a chimp (me).
  • D
    D

    I like to use both sorts of reverb. The convolution gives a good feeling of a space and the synthetic gives a warmness and thickness to the samples, as long as it is used sparingly. For media work the Lexicon sound is sort of excepted, but for other types of work, convolution alone night be the ticket.

    DG
  • C
    C
    Hi William. I am familiar with a little of Picasso's work but as yet have no knolwedge of any artworks by a chimp. Is there a web address you could direct us to that features such works so that we can make a more informed judgement in relation to the gulf between your and Dietz's mixing abilities!!! ....Colin.
  • W
    W

    Elegy   -     http://vsl.co.at/en/67/3848/4729.vsl

      

    Apotheosis, March (something else?)   -    http://vsl.co.at/en/67/3848/4689.vsl

    Albinoni  -   http://vsl.co.at/en/67/3920/4687.vsl

    Vaughn Williams (2nd symphony movement)  -    http://vsl.co.at/en/67/3920/4701.vsl

    Borodin "In the Steppes..."  -   http://vsl.co.at/en/67/3920/4943.vsl

    a couple others I think...
  • C
    C
    Hi William. I have already listened to your own compositions which you have posted on this site and enjoyed them very much. I am not usually particularly keen on orchestral song, but was impressed by Prospice. When I asked you to post some sites for me to visit, I was actually meaning those displaying the artwork of chimps, but am grateful for the links above and shall listen to them instead!..Colin.
  • W
    W

    I didn't mean to make that last post bold btw.

      

    The main thing concerning this I am thinking about is how everyone uses convolution because it is supposed to be more real.  But that is only the theory behind it.  There is in fact absolutely NOTHING real about it or recording/sampling in general.  It is all fake. If you want reality go to a live event.   A modeled, artificial reverb is an emulation that may sound more real than the theoretically more realistic convolution.

    Anyway that is my theory du jour. I will probably contradict it completely tomorrow.
  • A
    A

    William,

    your intuition is intact! The cheapest Lexicon Digital Reverberator produces nicer reverberation then all of the plugins together, where Lexicons are not the only hardware processor which have a good reverberation sound. For orchestral, as well any other recorded music, the most important parameters are those for the early reflections. A Lexicon Digital Reverberator features parameters to program the important reflections, as well parameter to make the reverberation more real, for example:

    Mid Reverb Time & Low Reverb Time:

    this for example permits you to program a boomy gran cassa, and at the same time a shorter Mid decay.

    Diffusion:

    controls how initial echo density increases over time.

    Attack:

    high settings cause an explosive sound, while low settings cause the sound to build up slowly with time with distances, this all within the critical first 50 milliseconds, and programmable that a loud burst make the room sort of explode.

    In Width:

    for example 45° is a normal stereo reverberation effect, while 90° excludes any nono center signal from the reverberator.

    Delay & Feedback:

    for wall reflection, including feedback path

    etc. etc.

    .
  • W
    W

    Thanks for that info Angelo.

  • S
    S
    I like the sound of chorused Lexicon reverb. I was listening to some '90s John Williams ('Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets,' 'The Williams/Spielberg Collaboration Vol 2') and there is very obvious synthetic, chorused reverb on those. Especially the Will/Spiel Vol 2 CD, the reverb on that is insane! Convolution reverbs don't have this chorus or "swirl" setting, perhaps that's why they can sound a bit boring. I'm saving my money towards a Lexicon PCM96 Surround. That piece sounds amazing. You can use it as two stereo or one surround plug-in in your DAW. They just released new firmware which people claim is fixing the bugs that people ran into early on. Pricey though!
  • DietzD
    VSL Team
    DietzD
    last edited
    last edited

    @Angelo Clematide said:

    [...] The cheapest Lexicon Digital Reverberator produces nicer reverberation then all of the plugins together [...]
    I know that you just wanted to make a point, Angelo, because taken literally, this is just on of those famous urban lengends in studio-land.

    Personally, I would prefer a t.c. electronic VSS3-algorithm or DigiDesign's ReVibe to an LXP-1 or LXP-5 any day. And convolution as a different animal alltogether.
    /Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library
  • A
    A
    last edited
    last edited

    @Dietz said:

    .... famous urban lengends in studio-land.

    Personally, I would prefer a t.c. electronic VSS3-algorithm or DigiDesign's ReVibe to an LXP-1 or LXP-5 any day. And convolution as a different animal alltogether.

    I like your Österreichisch-Ungarischen humour !!!

    urban

    http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/oo26/Angelo-Clematide/Racks.jpg

    legend

    http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/oo26/Angelo-Clematide/Credenza.jpg

    me in studioland

    http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/oo26/Angelo-Clematide/DSCF0013.jpg

    mixed

    http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/oo26/Angelo-Clematide/askbn_widerange.jpg

    mastered

    http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/oo26/Angelo-Clematide/askbn_45dBrms.jpg

    mastering engineer

    http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/oo26/Angelo-Clematide/Dog.jpg

    .
  • P
    P
    I'm thinking about this one.

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