Lexicon PCM vs. MPX what exactly is the difference?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JOAT
  • Start date Start date
J

JOAT

New member
Hi all.

This is my very first post in this forum and I was wondering if you all could help me out on a question. Did a search but came up empty.

What exactly is the difference between Lexicon "Pro" reverbs in the PCM family as opposed to the "consumer" units in the MPX line?

I am assuming the PCMs sound much nicer and that the reverbs do not sound the same in the cheaper line.

What I don't understand is that since R & D time and money was spent developing the PCM reverbs and since all the information is basically a program in a chip, why is there another set of inferior reverb programs made for the lower end MPX units? Wouldn't this mean that they would have had to spent even more R & D resources to produce a downgrade version of the PCM reverbs to incorporate it in the MPX machines?

Just curious.

Thanks guys.

JOAT
 
JOAT said:
What exactly is the difference between Lexicon "Pro" reverbs in the PCM family as opposed to the "consumer" units in the MPX line?
Click to expand...
About $2000.........

;)


Bruce
 
Oh, if I were a rich man.................

But seriously, understanding that it is diminished returns and all: is there that much quality difference in the reverb?

JOAT
 
Put it this way, it's diminshing returns relative to the gear you're using it with.

For example, if I use an MPX-500 with a fostex x15 cassette Portastudio, and then try a PCM80, it's very unlikely that I'll notice any difference because the lo-end gear isn't of a calibre that allows me to hear the difference.

Take those same to units into a world-class pro control room, equipped gear running into the 7-digits, then you WILL hear the difference.

Somewhere in between those 2 extremes is your answer! Look at your gear setup, and see.... if you don't have at least 1 mic pre that is the same price as the PCM80, then it's probably not the best use of your funds to buy one.

Bruce
 
Thanks for the reply, Bruce.

Actually, I have no intention of buying a PCM any time soon for the very reasons you gave. I am planning to purchase an MPX in the near future, though, which put this puzzling thought in my head.

What I have trouble understanding is how and why the MPX line came about the way it has? The reverb in the two lines of units are basically algorithms programed into a chip or set of chips. These are two different sets of programs, each needing time and effort (and money) to write and develop. The PCM line has been around for a long time and undoubledly, these reverb programs were created way before the MPX line was introduced.

Now why did they actually make the effort to create an inferior product instead of just using the PCM algorithms (which sound amazing) and just take away certain features such as extensive tweaking ability and build them with cheaper, lower grade parts? I believe this was the logic behind the long discontinued LXP line which was quite successful.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Anyway, just thinking out loud. Any further input would be appreciated.

JOAT
 
Thanks for the reply, Bruce.

Actually, I have no intention of buying a PCM any time soon for the very reasons you gave. I am planning to purchase an MPX in the near future, though, which put this puzzling thought in my head.

What I have trouble understanding is how and why the MPX line came about the way it has? The reverb in the two lines of units are basically algorithms programed into a chip or set of chips. These are two different sets of programs, each needing time and effort (and money) to write and develop. The PCM line has been around for a long time and undoubledly, these reverb programs were created way before the MPX line was introduced.

Now why did they actually make the effort to create an inferior product instead of just using the PCM algorithms (which sound amazing) and just take away certain features such as extensive tweaking ability and build them with cheaper, lower grade parts? I believe this was the logic behind the long discontinued LXP line which was quite successful.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Anyway, just thinking out loud. Any further input would be appreciated.

JOAT
 
would you buy a 480l if an mpx 500 did a better job?

same goes for the mpx1 if it worked better then a pcm91 would you still by the 91 you might do so when you can afford it but i am more pointing out here that if it was an inital purchase and its all you could get for startersas a first unit.

by doing what they do they keep consumers buying at all different levels so this way they trap bigger shares of the market place and more bottom line proffit.

anyway the two units i,ll be buying are the mpx1 and roland srv3030 the pcm91 may have to wait till i can afford it or when becomes cheaper to purchase

i believe the mpx500 is a nice unit if it only had the dual chip i was seeking in the processor id have bought it.

I was kind of dissapointed as i really did want an mpx500
 
PCM ... MPX 500 ... MPX 100

I remember to have read a good article from Paul White (I'm sure you will enjoy his prose !) in Sound-On-Sound (UK pro recording magazine), comparing the MPX500 with other stuff from Lexicon.

You will find this article dated February 2000 if you pay a visit to the SOS web site and make a search on MPX500 :
http:\www.sound-on-sound.com

By the way, you'll get also info on the MPX1 and MPX200.

Cheers,

Patrick
Brussels
 
The main price difference is most likely in the hardware components (DAC, RAM, Processor, Jacks, etc ) and not the algorithms. A faster processor can handle larger algorithms more efficiently. That is the advantage of plug-ins in that you pay for the program and use your own hardware.

Companies will also use the newer algorithms in the pro gear and the older ones in the consumer line so you pay top dollar for the latest programming and R&D.

All industries have pro and semi-pro levels of equipment. The pro gear is usually a lot more expensive because that is what the market will bear. If your living depends on having the latest technology for a competetive edge you are willing to pay more than it may really be worth on paper. You are paying so you can advertise that equipment in your studio brochure and attract top dollar clients who are also willing to pay for the latest technology.

I sell $25,000 CAD software in a market where most people can get away with a $500 program. But the big clients wont give jobs to companies without the latest technology.
 
Thanks for the replies, guys.

Patrick (B):
Thanks for the link. It was a good overview. I haven't read Sound on Sound in a while. The new site is much easier to navigate than the old one.

TexRoadkill:
Thanks for your thorough explaination. Yeah, I assumed that market forces was the major reason for the difference but I thought maybe something else may have played a major roll besides better components (which I think would still be pretty cheap as processing chips go).

Oh well, its a mute point anyway, I won't be getting a PCM anytime soon.

JOAT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top