Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Hi,
It looks like I mis-remembered the article, yes, the reviewer put
it
between the _MPX100_ and the PCM90.
Regardless, I'm still wondering how well the MPX500 is in general.
Since
any MPX is not much more than some hardware chips and software, I was
hoping that the "new" MPX500 would have a reverb fairly close to the PCM90.
>From just a hardware/software standpoint, I'd expect the MPX500 to blow
>the
MPX100 and MPX1 out of the water due to the MPX500 being a much new piece
of equipment.
Perhaps hardware/software based musical instruments don't follow
Moore's
Law as closely as the PC marketplace does. :-D
Anybody own an MPX500?
Tom
At 02:15 PM 2/29/00 GMT, you wrote:
>Steven Woods suggested:
>
>>The reverbs are not the same as the MPX 1
>>they are the same as the MPX 100.
>
>>For a magazine to suggest that to the readership is ridiculous, they
>should
>>look at the price point.
>
>To be fair to all sides, I'm not sure that the "Sound on Sound" reviewer
>*did* claim the MPX 500 and the MPX 1 shared reverbs.
>
>In part it reads:
>============================================================================
>===================================
>The Lexicon MPX1 is an established multi-effects/reverb all-rounder that
>started life at over a grand, but now sells for little over half its
>original price, while the more recent MPX100 is an altogether simpler
>device
>based on presets with limited editability at under £200. I think it's fair
>to say that the MPX100 set a new standard for very-low-cost
>reverb/effects,
>but although it sounds impressive for the price, if you put it up against
>a
>PCM90 or 91 you can hear straight away that the more expensive unit sounds
>richer, smoother and more spacious.
>
>While the MPX100 is a fine reverb for the fiscally challenged project
>studio, the more serious user may demand a little more sonic refinement
>and
>more editability, which is why Lexicon developed the subject of this
>review
>— the MPX500. Based on the same Lexichip III reverb engine that powers the
>new generation of Lexicon reverb processors, the MPX500 expands on the
>MPX100's philosophy while offering a sound quality that lies somewhere
>between the MPX100 and the PCM90/91. So new is this processor that I had
>to
>visit the Lexicon factory in Boston in order to get my hands on one in
>time
>for this review, and while I was there, I was able to do direct comparison
>with other Lexicon products in a studio environment before bringing it
>home
>to do further tests. If the MPX100 sits at 1 on a scale of 1 to 10 with
>the
>PCM90 at 10, I'd say the reverbs of the MPX500 score a five or better.
>
>
> Conclusions
>
>You can buy more versatile multi-effects boxes than the MPX500 for around
>the same price, but I don't
>think any of them offers the quality of reverb available here. Similarly,
>the non-reverb effects may provide
>nothing new, but they sound just right. Is the MPX500 an alternative, or
>even a replacement, for the more
>expensive MPX1? Their reverb quality is certainly comparable, but the MPX1
>is a far more capable
>multi-effects unit, with rather more depth to its editability. At the same
>time, more flexibility makes the
>MPX1 more time-consuming to program, and for tweaking effects during a
>session, the MPX500 is about
>as close to perfection as you can get.
>
>In fact, the only real criticism I can make of the MPX500, given its very
>attractive price, is its limited
>number of user memories. I'd recommend the MPX500 either as a second
>reverb/general effects box for
>someone who already has something better, or as a main reverb for the
>smaller studio owner who
>appreciates the benefits of a Lexicon reverb. I'm buying one to back up my
>PCM90!
>
>============================================================================
>===================================
>
>Hope that clears things up!
>
>Cheers
>
>David
><http://www.mp3.com/davidcooperorton>
>
>