Arturia releases LEXICON LX-24

[jamcat]

Second I loath "stuff on a desktop" interfaces but I realize the wasted space on the main window is needed on the advanced window (but is it really?)

It would have been better if the plugin window resized horizontally in advanced mode, the way so many Arturia plugins resize vertically in advanced mode. But maybe there are technical reasons for why they didn’t.

But at least when it comes to “stuff on a desktop,” the background just uses a standard image file, so you can at least have fun with it and add your own items in an image editor, or replace it with a different background completely. Just make sure it’s the same dimensions and has the same name.

[jamcat]

"Overall decay time" is not referred to the DECAY parameter, it's referred to the whole and actual reverberation sound.
If the mid/upper frequencies are set to DECAY in 5 seconds, and the lower frequencies end up taking 10 seconds because of the BASS OFFSET, then the overall decay time is clearly being affected by the longer time taken by the lower frequencies.

The bass offset changes the decay time of the bass frequencies, which surely you grasp. If you move it up, you make them longer than the decay time setting. That means the bass frequencies will have a longer decay than others-- So, yes, the 'overall' time is changing, because the bass frequencies are now decaying longer than the rest. You're kind of overthinking it, I'd say.

Thanks guys. I get it now. Yes, I was overthinking it. I was thinking of “overall decay time” as meaning the master decay setting.

[Teksonik]

Second I loath "stuff on a desktop" interfaces but I realize the wasted space on the main window is needed on the advanced window (but is it really?)

It would have been better if the plugin window resized horizontally in advanced mode, the way so many Arturia plugins resize vertically in advanced mode. But maybe there are technical reasons for why they didn’t.
But at least when it comes to “stuff on a desktop,” the background just uses a standard image file, so you can at least have fun with it and add your own items in an image editor, or replace it with a different background completely. Just make sure it’s the same dimensions and has the same name.

Yes there are several different ways they could have gone including just moving the controller all the way to the left and shrinking down the advanced page so everything could have fit on one tab.

Just blacking out the areas on the background image where the "stuff on a desktop" resides now reveals that there is a lot of available space:

LX Background.png

[jamcat]

SilverSheep over on Gear[space] did some tests regarding the Bass Offset, and had this to say:

EDIT: after some investigation I'm not so sure that is possible to replicate all sounds possible with the original Lexicon 224/UAD version with this implementation of Decay/Bass Offset.

For example if MID is set all down (value = 0.6s) and BASS all up (Value = 70s) on UAD with Crossfade all down (value = 100 hz) you've got a short decay with a very long sub-bass ringing under 100 hz. In the Arturia one even with bass offset all up (value = 100) the sub-bass ringing is not present.

Another example is if MID all up/BASS all down and Crossover is set to 2 Khz in the UAD you've got a progressive and frequency related very long tail on the mid/highs and very short tail in the lowmids/lows.

This is not possible with the Arturia. The bass offset range is too small from what I'm understanding. This implies that there are several shades and combinations not possible with the Arturia.

I can't see the benefit of this implementation sincerely given that it doesn't add anything and you lose many possible combinations of settings/sounds

This is a punch to the gut. It's what I was afraid of.

[mholloway]

SilverSheep over on Gear[space] did some tests regarding the Bass Offset, and had this to say:

EDIT: after some investigation I'm not so sure that is possible to replicate all sounds possible with the original Lexicon 224/UAD version with this implementation of Decay/Bass Offset.

For example if MID is set all down (value = 0.6s) and BASS all up (Value = 70s) on UAD with Crossfade all down (value = 100 hz) you've got a short decay with a very long sub-bass ringing under 100 hz. In the Arturia one even with bass offset all up (value = 100) the sub-bass ringing is not present.

Another example is if MID all up/BASS all down and Crossover is set to 2 Khz in the UAD you've got a progressive and frequency related very long tail on the mid/highs and very short tail in the lowmids/lows.

This is not possible with the Arturia. The bass offset range is too small from what I'm understanding. This implies that there are several shades and combinations not possible with the Arturia.

I can't see the benefit of this implementation sincerely given that it doesn't add anything and you lose many possible combinations of settings/sounds

This is a punch to the gut. It's what I was afraid of.

I mean.... would you have been upset by this if you'd just used the plugin, enjoyed its sound, and never known of it? Which is to say: would you ever have even thought to use it with those specific parameter ranges in the first place? So a few esoteric use cases can't be matched.... it's hardly a deal-breaker. The thing sounds great, sounds like a 224, and covers a very wide range of sonic territory, from small to huge.
But now you're going to dismiss it because some very specific combinations of sliders -- combos you'd likely never have likely thought to use anyway -- can't be achieved? I don't get the concern. The point is to use the 224 musically, not to to stare at it and wonder which possible combinations of decay times are and aren't possible...

Regardless of all that, in my actual use of the thing since its release, it's the choice of extra features that makes it more appealing to me than the UAD. Sound-wise I find them essentially 'much the same' -- meaning, when I want a 224 sound, I could use either and be happy. But Arturia added ducking, a High pass filter that can be set to 12 or 24db (extremely useful when using reverb as an insert, which I often do), an extra width control -- all of which I'm finding myself using regularly to dial in really ideal spaces and tails. As long as my system can handle the CPU usage (it can), these things will likely make me reach for the Arturia over the UAD, regardless of if it's "technically true" that certain combinations of decay times can't be achieved that, for all I know, I never would have tried achieving in the first place.

[jamcat]

It’s just that Arturia has this arrogance about them that they actually think they can improve on legendary gear, but in reality their “extended” features do the opposite.

What is the point in emulating the 224 “down to the finest detail of the original’s digital architecture” and then crippling it with unnecessary deviations that you can’t deactivate?

I’ve made the same defences of Arturia as you have, regarding Minimoog and its edge cases that don’t align with the hardware. And while I’d of course prefer it be 100% authentic, I understand modeling every quirk of analogue gear may be near impossible.

But in many cases, such as this one, these inaccuracies are completely elective and self-inflicted by design choices that deviate from the original gear.

Whether it’s adding a “Humana” voice to the Solina that doesn’t belong there, or building forced “automatic gain control” into all of their preamp models that can’t be turned off. Now they severely limit the bass and mid decay separation because they think they can do better than Lexicon. Do they really think they’re helping?

I don’t mind their “extended” features so much as long as they don’t get in the way of it being capable of being a 1:1 recreation of the original. Such as the Solina. Though I much preferred it when the Humana voice was at least hidden in the “Advanced” page, instead of being out in the open like an ugly wart on the Solina itself.

[Septic Underground]

Mwa I can understand you point on the LX24, but the humana addon was much appreciated here, you can choose whether you want it on or not. I am okay with that. Also the added modbusses and lfo's etc on their VIs are also an option you can choose to use or not. I am okay with that. Also I am okay at approaching authenticity and not doing it 100% like Roland Cloud, those offerings are just barren wastelands of missed opportunities. Gforce adding stuff is okay by me as well.

I have accepted that ITB and OTB are just not 100% identical. Some exceptions are ofc the Weiss offerings etc, but those don't have the ad/da also, so well /shruggs

I applaud added features to originals, perhaps after 30 years sometimes there is a need for adding more. Or that it was not possible due to tech/costs available at the time.

Again, the mid/bass separation is indeed a bit strange, but do not bother me. But I can understand that it might be an essential feature missing for someone looking for a replacement. I am not, so this is my take on it.

[kritikon]

SilverSheep over on Gear[space] did some tests regarding the Bass Offset, and had this to say:

EDIT: after some investigation I'm not so sure that is possible to replicate all sounds possible with the original Lexicon 224/UAD version with this implementation of Decay/Bass Offset.

For example if MID is set all down (value = 0.6s) and BASS all up (Value = 70s) on UAD with Crossfade all down (value = 100 hz) you've got a short decay with a very long sub-bass ringing under 100 hz. In the Arturia one even with bass offset all up (value = 100) the sub-bass ringing is not present.

Another example is if MID all up/BASS all down and Crossover is set to 2 Khz in the UAD you've got a progressive and frequency related very long tail on the mid/highs and very short tail in the lowmids/lows.

This is not possible with the Arturia. The bass offset range is too small from what I'm understanding. This implies that there are several shades and combinations not possible with the Arturia.

I can't see the benefit of this implementation sincerely given that it doesn't add anything and you lose many possible combinations of settings/sounds

This is a punch to the gut. It's what I was afraid of.

That's just ridiculous. So you can't have a ringing 70 second bass reverb tail that nobody in their right mind EVER used. You're starting to sound like that guy on here who jumps in on every synth emulation thread to decry how it's not a real emulation because the envelope decay doesn't snap off at exactly 1.837 seconds when you drive the high-pass filter into FM resonance on C8 played in staccato 1/128 dotted arpeggio played in F#7minmajaugmented9th with a labradoodle pissing on the rear left leg of the synth stand.

Spend more time making music with reverb on it than desperately trying to find some inane esoteric fault. TBH if I knew a 224 could make 70second ringing 100Hz bass tails...I'd be wondering what kind of Crack those Lexicon engineers were smoking and thinking to myself...no wonder they lost the plot eventually.

[bluesawsq]

Is there something wrong with the Modern mode in Arturia LX-24?
The Damping control is not affecting the highest frequencies above ~12 kHz. In many cases those frequencies might be inaudible, but if you put pitch shifter after the reverb it becomes quite annoying.

Of course, you could easily cut out the high freqs with an EQ plugin after the reverb, but still it seems like a strange limitation or maybe a bug in LX-24.

[Scotty]

I get that the marketing hype is not matched by the product in terms of slavish attention to parameter options if true, but to call the additional features “crippling deviations” is a stretch in the wrong direction and typical of your penchant for overtly dramatic hyperbole. As someone that owns the UA versions those extensions are the only reasons I would add it to my plugin folder. The few colours you “might” be missing verses a whole lot of new options that aren’t present in the original is a compromise I’m sure many people will accept. I can’t remember the last time I felt there was some magic in the bass ringing due to separation between the stated parameters. I’d put that factoid in the “good to know “ list and get on with using it. The plugin sounds excellent. If someone covets a lexicon style reverb and qualifies for discounted pricing on this product they will likely enjoy this very much. Perhaps Arturia will address the differences as they have a good track record of evolving their products. We’ll see.

It’s just that Arturia has this arrogance about them that they actually think they can improve on legendary gear, but in reality their “extended” features do the opposite.

What is the point in emulating the 224 “down to the finest detail of the original’s digital architecture” and then crippling it with unnecessary deviations that you can’t deactivate?

I’ve made the same defences of Arturia as you have, regarding Minimoog and its edge cases that don’t align with the hardware. And while I’d of course prefer it be 100% authentic, I understand modeling every quirk of analogue gear may be near impossible.

But in many cases, such as this one, these inaccuracies are completely elective and self-inflicted by design choices that deviate from the original gear.

Whether it’s adding a “Humana” voice to the Solina that doesn’t belong there, or building forced “automatic gain control” into all of their preamp models that can’t be turned off. Now they severely limit the bass and mid decay separation because they think they can do better than Lexicon. Do they really think they’re helping?

I don’t mind their “extended” features so much as long as they don’t get in the way of it being capable of being a 1:1 recreation of the original. Such as the Solina. Though I much preferred it when the Humana voice was at least hidden in the “Advanced” page, instead of being out in the open like an ugly wart on the Solina itself.

[rasmusklump]

SilverSheep over on Gear[space] did some tests regarding the Bass Offset, and had this to say:

EDIT: after some investigation I'm not so sure that is possible to replicate all sounds possible with the original Lexicon 224/UAD version with this implementation of Decay/Bass Offset.

For example if MID is set all down (value = 0.6s) and BASS all up (Value = 70s) on UAD with Crossfade all down (value = 100 hz) you've got a short decay with a very long sub-bass ringing under 100 hz. In the Arturia one even with bass offset all up (value = 100) the sub-bass ringing is not present.

Another example is if MID all up/BASS all down and Crossover is set to 2 Khz in the UAD you've got a progressive and frequency related very long tail on the mid/highs and very short tail in the lowmids/lows.

This is not possible with the Arturia. The bass offset range is too small from what I'm understanding. This implies that there are several shades and combinations not possible with the Arturia.

I can't see the benefit of this implementation sincerely given that it doesn't add anything and you lose many possible combinations of settings/sounds

This is a punch to the gut. It's what I was afraid of.

I mean.... would you have been upset by this if you'd just used the plugin, enjoyed its sound, and never known of it? Which is to say: would you ever have even thought to use it with those specific parameter ranges in the first place? So a few esoteric use cases can't be matched.... it's hardly a deal-breaker. The thing sounds great, sounds like a 224, and covers a very wide range of sonic territory, from small to huge.
But now you're going to dismiss it because some very specific combinations of sliders -- combos you'd likely never have likely thought to use anyway -- can't be achieved? I don't get the concern. The point is to use the 224 musically, not to to stare at it and wonder which possible combinations of decay times are and aren't possible...

Regardless of all that, in my actual use of the thing since its release, it's the choice of extra features that makes it more appealing to me than the UAD. Sound-wise I find them essentially 'much the same' -- meaning, when I want a 224 sound, I could use either and be happy. But Arturia added ducking, a High pass filter that can be set to 12 or 24db (extremely useful when using reverb as an insert, which I often do), an extra width control -- all of which I'm finding myself using regularly to dial in really ideal spaces and tails. As long as my system can handle the CPU usage (it can), these things will likely make me reach for the Arturia over the UAD, regardless of if it's "technically true" that certain combinations of decay times can't be achieved that, for all I know, I never would have tried achieving in the first place.

If this is a 224 emulation it should behave like one, even with more extreme settings. If you follow me you know that I don't like UA but most times they get their plugins right, this is no exception.. I have the UA one.

[SebAV]

Second I loath "stuff on a desktop" interfaces but I realize the wasted space on the main window is needed on the advanced window (but is it really?)

It would have been better if the plugin window resized horizontally in advanced mode, the way so many Arturia plugins resize vertically in advanced mode. But maybe there are technical reasons for why they didn’t.
But at least when it comes to “stuff on a desktop,” the background just uses a standard image file, so you can at least have fun with it and add your own items in an image editor, or replace it with a different background completely. Just make sure it’s the same dimensions and has the same name.

Yes there are several different ways they could have gone including just moving the controller all the way to the left and shrinking down the advanced page so everything could have fit on one tab.

Just blacking out the areas on the background image where the "stuff on a desktop" resides now reveals that there is a lot of available space:


LX Background.png

I realize that the vintage view is ridiculous not only because of the waste of space and the use of a 90’s computer keyboard, but because it imposes a complete interior decoration where all I want and buy is simply a reverb. I wonder why UI designers don’t think about what mindset UI implies on users and just think about the « coolness » of their piece of art…

[jens]

It’s just that Arturia has this arrogance

Arrogance? Because they dare to do their own thing and have their own ideas?

[jens]

I realize that the vintage view is ridiculous not only because of the waste of space and the use of a 90’s computer keyboard, but because it imposes a complete interior decoration where all I want and buy is simply a reverb. I wonder why UI designers don’t think about what mindset UI implies on users and just think about the « coolness » of their piece of art…

What I find weird is that they added several additional parameters to the plugin which they could have fit easily left and right from the controller thingie of the default view, but instead these are only accessible via the "Advanced" view. They could have named it "Vintage" and "Modern" view. I might have even preferred the Dewfault view then.

It almost seems like Arturia cared more about maintaining their own tradition (i.e. there is always an "Advanced" view that reveals additional parameters) than making a good UI.

But even if that's the case, the "Advanced" button could have shown/hidden these additional parameters for the default view (that way they could have even kept the wooden desk, headphones and what not... ) and in addition have added a Vintage/Modern view button.

[Teksonik]

I realize that the vintage view is ridiculous not only because of the waste of space and the use of a 90’s computer keyboard, but because it imposes a complete interior decoration where all I want and buy is simply a reverb. I wonder why UI designers don’t think about what mindset UI implies on users and just think about the « coolness » of their piece of art…

I think you hit the nail on the head. I think they focused too much on art or being "cool" and too little on function.

Again if I really liked the sound of the reverb the interface wouldn't keep me from buying but it certainly doesn't make me want to buy it.

Sure one could say "it's just an interface, it's not a big deal" and to an extent that may be true but I really would not like to see this trend continue or expand.

Imagine calling up plugin after plugin which have this "stuff on a desk" interface that contains as much wasted space as useful space.

I'm sure no developer is listening but if they were I'd say "please stop". Certainly emulate the look of a plugin whose sound you are also emulating but focus on function and leave the art to museums.