zmix wrote:Oh no!!! Chuck's calling me out!
extrememixing wrote:Uh...yes, you did...! :)
I didn't say "for the money". But I guess did suggest taking his wife out to dinner with the change!
Maybe it's because you're mixing outboard, that you feel they are too dense. In the box, I find that I can use the extra weight. I like the decay and the cascade that they have. They feel good to me.
There was a time when I loved the Lexicon 200! So cool. Never spent much time with a 224, but lots of time with the 480L and the PCM300. I never was a very loyal Lex guy.
think for $200 I'd try the Valhalla Room, Plates, and Vintage reverbs.
Then take your wife out for dinner with the $50 you have left.
And I'd like to know what could you possibly be thinking when you suggest that somehow "mixing outboard" has anything to do with the inherent density of the algorhythm of a reverb..?
I think Larry brought up the $200, so I was responding to him. I don't judge the stuff I have by the price I paid. They get used or they don't.
And I can't get inside your head to know exactly what you mean when you say things like the reverb is too dense for your taste. Or your contention that reverbs are "developed and tweaked in isolation to meet some sort of ideal". What does that even mean? Should the code be written in a shopping mall so that anyone can stop by to give feedback? Do you really think his way of working is conceptually that different from the guys at Lexicon in the 70's?
Not trying to start a war here, just saying that surely whether or not a reverb is useful is a thing where mixers can disagree.
And mixing inside the computer is a bit different than mixing on a console. I think that MUST be the reason you use one. Because things sound different. Right?
Don't be a dick, Steve.. I'm not "calling you out"... Larry asked about the UAD 224, and he specifically asked me. You didn't have an opinion about the 224 he was inquiring about, but instead told him that he could save MONEY by using the plugins you suggested, so how did I get that wrong?
On to your second misapprehension: You apparently do not have a lot of experience with designing or tweaking reverb algorithms (and I mean at the design / tuning stage, NOT the end user stage). These are almost exclusively designed by people who do not make records for a living, or at least not very good ones. A "plate" reverb might be tweaked for days while listening to only a single snare hit or impulse, they grow obsessed with perfectly exponential decays and maximum density (in their own words, actually)...it's like painting, except that you're actually formulating the paint and might not have the experience to see that the end user might have an entirely different subject and suddenly the colors aren't quite right. The beauty of the EMT digital reverb, or the Ursa Major Space Station, or the Lexicon 224 (the Original one, the one we used for the UA model) is that they might not sound very impressive in isolation, but have remained popular because they WORK within the context of a mix. Every new reverb designer comes along and declares that they're going to "improve" these well known algos yet the classics remain.....
Thirdly I find your assertions about mixing on a console being "a bit different" than mixing in the computer when talking about completely different approaches to reverb design to be completely irrelevant, which is why I asked what you meant, rather than "calling you out" for such a ill founded generalization. Do you think that converters, opamps, or even cables have a bigger effect on the sound of a reverb than the inherent algorhythm design?
I can tell you that they do not, and I can prove it...