the inside-recursion pitch modulation, for example. There are other things which Lexicon always did which aren't in there. Without that fundamental architectural premise, you CANNOT do what the Lexicon does. Unless someone has seen something which I haven't. THIS IS NOT PRESENT IN THE BEHRINGER UNIT. so they do this dual-density approach, and allow the user to select the 'xover' point between the two processes. low-density HF tends to 'flutter' or 'scatter', and high-density LF tends to sound bass-light and 'thin'. But when I use a PCM70 or 224XL, I so idiosynchratoc things like moving the crossover all the way up, (the classic lexicon uses different densities for LF and HF. it's impossible not to build a reverb without standing on the shoulders of those who've built reverbs before you. The reverb is mostly their own algorithm, though there are commonalities of approach. it has to sit RIGHT back for most of the tune, because it gets RIGHT in the way, and there are musical clashes when the chords change.Īnyhow, it's pretty gimmicky and mostly useless. It's the 'arpeggio' sound at the very beginning and at the very end. the ONLY exception which I can think of was on 'Margarita' by 'the traveling wilburys'. and a program which almost NOBODY ever used.

it was a program first implemented on the 224X I think. The only thing which it really does which 'ONLY' Lexicon does, is the 'crossover delay' which is a multiple delay with bandpass on each band, and individual regen, delay etc. Processing? -Well processing is getting cheaper and cheaper, while growing more powerful than ever before, and the best value is mass-production, so the Behringer unit can outperform every single 'classic' Lexicon unit out there.

Artsacoustic reverb review