Lexicon PCMvst vs MX400

MagashMusic

New member
Hi!

Up untill now I have been using the Lexicon PCM native vst for my reverbs. I recently got a Lexicon MX400 and I was hoping to switch to the hardware version. I'm disappointed with the MX400... The PCM sounds a lot richer and smoother. Has any of you had the chance to compare the PCM vst and PCM harware? Is there any difference?
Am I doing something wrong..?
Example:
(the MX was connected via SPDIF, and the settings were as close as I could get them to match)

PCM vst
Dropbox - PCMnative.wav

MX400
Dropbox - MX400.wav
 
I have the PCM native and PCM80 and 90. Hmm. Not much help probably. Much of the native bundle uses verbs from the higher end and more recent hardwares- 480, PCM 92/96 IIRC. I don't use the 80 and 90 much anymore. What's the motivation to get the mx400 / 'do it outboard?
 
The PCM units cost ten times what the mx400 does... There is going to be a difference, that is what you are hearing.

What is the advantage of dropping the high end vst's in favor of the low end hardware?
 
Well, I got the MX basically for free. Everyone is always talking about how hardware stuff is better than vst so I thought that even the ''real'' lower range would be better than the ''fake'' vst. If the plugin sounds just as good as the hardware unit doesn't it make the hardware obsolete..? I mean, the plugin bundle is 600$ while the PCM92 is 1800$ 3 times the price...!! Plus, you can use more instances with the plugin and plus you don't run a risk of it breaking or deteriorating over time... The only plus side of the hardware as I see it is that i lowers the cpu usage...
 
yeah that seems to be a lot of my findings, justifying hardware these days.
maybe the vst technology has just gotten so good.?

I dont have those units but listening to the samples....the hardware sounded less blurry to me. The hardware seemed it had more clarity less 350mush or something at the 15second guitar part.
This is splitting hairs ..Im not saying its like twice as clear, but seems the hardware was 10% better.

The working and ease of software might overrule the hardware 10% with 50% better ease and controls though, and as you said no degradation over the years etc...vst has its upsides.
 
Let's think about this for a second.

The hardware is essentially a computer processor running an algorithm and applying it to the audio you send through it.

A vst is the same algorithm running on your host computer.

Could the signal chain leading to the hardware unit and actually make the algorithm better? In your case, you connected digitally. So you were essentially running an outboard vst.

Hardware units are for people with analog setups, or hybrid setups that need some effects outside the box.

With analog hardware gear, you could make a better argument for coming out of the box to use it. But digital hardware will be the same as the vst. (Minus the signal path used to get to the hardware)
 
.. If the plugin sounds just as good as the hardware unit doesn't it make the hardware obsolete..? I mean, the plugin bundle is 600$ while the PCM92 is 1800$ 3 times the price...!! Plus, you can use more instances with the plugin and plus you don't run a risk of it breaking or deteriorating over time... The only plus side of the hardware as I see it is that i lowers the cpu usage...
Not exactly. The hardware -at least using Lex PCM80 and higher for examples (300, 480 etc) were at the pinnacle of their development. In feature, flexibility and functions wise.. the plugs flat out pail in comparison.
https://3e7777c294b9bcaa5486-bc9563...1340215350/PCM80_User_Guide_Rev1_original.pdf
Take a gander at the algorithms section 3 here.
In one rack space, things you could never do with their FX/Verb bundle combined.
Not that most of us will ever use much of that depth.
 
yeah that seems to be a lot of my findings, justifying hardware these days.
maybe the vst technology has just gotten so good.?

I dont have those units but listening to the samples....the hardware sounded less blurry to me. The hardware seemed it had more clarity less 350mush or something at the 15second guitar part.
This is splitting hairs ..Im not saying its like twice as clear, but seems the hardware was 10% better.

The working and ease of software might overrule the hardware 10% with 50% better ease and controls though, and as you said no degradation over the years etc...vst has its upsides.

To my ears the vst sounds better... It has a softer attack and decay, longer decay, seems more full and seems a lot larger although the sizes were set identical...
Anyways, the ease of controlling is identical because the MX400 can be controlled via USB just like a plugin.
 
Let's think about this for a second.

The hardware is essentially a computer processor running an algorithm and applying it to the audio you send through it.

A vst is the same algorithm running on your host computer.

Could the signal chain leading to the hardware unit and actually make the algorithm better? In your case, you connected digitally. So you were essentially running an outboard vst.

Hardware units are for people with analog setups, or hybrid setups that need some effects outside the box.

With analog hardware gear, you could make a better argument for coming out of the box to use it. But digital hardware will be the same as the vst. (Minus the signal path used to get to the hardware)

Yes, I get that it's just an outboard processor running an algorithm but the question is if it's the same algorithm or is the hardware versions one better for some reason...
 
Not exactly. The hardware -at least using Lex PCM80 and higher for examples (300, 480 etc) were at the pinnacle of their development. In feature, flexibility and functions wise.. the plugs flat out pail in comparison.
https://3e7777c294b9bcaa5486-bc9563...1340215350/PCM80_User_Guide_Rev1_original.pdf
Take a gander at the algorithms section 3 here.
In one rack space, things you could never do with their FX/Verb bundle combined.
Not that most of us will ever use much of that depth.

It doesn't matter to me if it has more options or not, I'm just interested in which one sounds better. The fact that it has more options doesn't mean that it's better. Like guitar fx processors, they have a ton of options but a real jcm800 with just one channel beats them all with no problem...
 
Yes, I get that it's just an outboard processor running an algorithm but the question is if it's the same algorithm or is the hardware versions one better for some reason...
The PCM algorithms are better than the mx400 algorithms. You aren't really testing hardware vs. software, you are testing PCM vs. MX.

Any of the 'magic' or 'mojo' of something like the PCM70 would come from the analog front end and/or the vintage converters.

The JCM800 analogy doesn't work because the amp sims are simulations. The lexicon algorithms are the same, just ported over to work as VST's.
 
Everyone is always talking about how hardware stuff is better than vst so I thought that even the ''real'' lower range would be better than the ''fake'' vst.

I note you put "fake" in quotes, but nevertheless, there is nothing fake about a VST.

If the plugin sounds just as good as the hardware unit doesn't it make the hardware obsolete..?

Kind of. Hardware is till useful for analog systems (as someone noted), and also for live systems.

I mean, the plugin bundle is 600$ while the PCM92 is 1800$ 3 times the price...!!

A lot of the difference in cost is due to, well, the hardware: the case, the circuit boards, the components . . . and so on.
 
I get everything you all are saying but I just want someone to somply say: ''I've used both harware and vst PCMs and they sound the same. :)
 
It doesn't matter to me if it has more options or not, I'm just interested in which one sounds better. The fact that it has more options doesn't mean that it's better. Like guitar fx processors, they have a ton of options but a real jcm800 with just one channel beats them all with no problem...

I addressed 'doesn't it make the hardware obsolete'.
The sound can be as good, or better -depending, and the hardware can do more- or less depending.
You can apply whatever single factor you like.
 
its getting harder to defend hardware.
listened to the tracks several times and I still find the hardware track a little brighter and clearer but its splitting hairs.
in other words its not going to make or break the tune, imo.

maybe the real question is do I spend $300 on a hardware piece? when the VST does just fine.
seems theres an ocean of freeware on KVR and places too.
 
Thank you all guys for the input, I think I got everything I needed. Basically, I'll keep using the vst PCM and trade the MX for a preamp or cempressor...
 
Back
Top