Can anyone help with LExicon MX200?

Hey gang I have a Lexicon MX200 and I can't seem to figure this thing out....


My setup is:

E-mu-1616m (with Patchmix) - Sonar 7

Also have a Grace 101m, and a RNC

Well the lexicon is an effect processor. so put it in your signal chain and dial in any effect you want. Put it after your lacie or RNC or before it, depending on what your recording. you can do most anything you want with it, as long as your gain stage is correctly set
Cj

Tell us how you are trying to use it with your gear.

I don't know if you are using it as a plugin or as outboard gear.

I use mine with my external mixer and my Firepod for Vocal monitoring. I don't use the USB cable at all with the MX200.

Peace

I'm trying to use it as a plug-in.... IT shouldn't interfere with any of my other drivers and hasn't...
The trick is to create sends and inserts either in Patchmix or Sonar... And I can't seem to figure it
out.....Sure would be nice if they would have created this thing with plug-n-play USB/Firewire with VST
plug...But nooooooooo that would be too simple..........lol

You are probably aware that the usb inplemetation is strictly to change the program parameters on the Lex, yeah an update that allows audio to go thru the usb would be great, it is a very nice sounding effect unit, best of luck with it

Read this

http://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=167844

Peace

Some of the other posters are mistaken. I have one. Whats confusing initially is that the usb feature is used one way NOT round trip. You install the drivers.
Then in sonar you right click in a stero outbuss and insert the mxp200 as if it were a vst plugin (which by the way it's not).
Then, in any channel that you want to use the effects in, you add a send TO this buss.
now the signal goes from you voice channel (or whatever) to the buss, to the wpx200 out in your rack.
TO GET THE sound back into sonar, you have to plug the outputs of the actual lexicon hardware into two of your audio interface's inputs, aurora, echo, delta, m-audio. etc
You set up a NEW track channel in stereo , set the track inputs to correspond to the ones the lexicon's outputs are plugged into and use that same new channel as the mxp200's stereo return.
be sure to set the lexicons mix knob to 100% effect, or the sound will be wrong.
kind of a hassle but it has some nice sounds, actually. I think better than Pantheon, not as nice as waves.
you have to connect the spdif clock from you interface to the mpx100 clock in as well

A wonderful set of instructions, but let me help you out with some carriage returns.

I have an MX400 (big brother to the MX200), an EMU 1820m, and Sonar 7, and this is how I have it working.
As sonickg said, the USB is only for 2 way communication of MX effect parameters between the MX and the host program, and has nothing to do with the audio, whether analog or digital. You must have either analog or digital physical cables connected between the MX and the EMU. That is usually pretty straightforward, and you probably have that figured out.
The more complicated part is to properly configure Patchmix and Sonar. The plugin itself is not even required to make this work. The only functions of the plugin are to allow tweaking of MX parameters from within Sonar, automation of those parameters during a song if desired, and storing of those parameters as a preset saved with the song.
The MX units can be used in several different ways, so it's a good idea to set up different Patchmix sessions to accomodate those scenarios. It sounds like what you want is equivalent to what I call my "mixing" session, so I'll focus on that for now.

In this scenario, you want to pass audio from Sonar through Patchmix to the MX, then back to Sonar through Patchmix, but without monitoring the audio as it passes through Patchmix. This enables you to hear only what Sonar is "hearing" so that you can do accurate mixing within Sonar.

First, you configure Patchmix. I'll assume you're somewhat familiar with it and give mostly concepts instead of every little "click on..." detail.

Add a new channel to your Patchmix session using an available ASIO host source, leaving the Aux Send Pre-Fader unchecked.

Insert a Send Output on this channel to either the S/PDIF output or one of the the dock's analog output pairs. If you have the appropriate cables, I recommend using the S/PDIF, as this will require fewer conversions, which should result in higher quality and lower latency, but the analog will also work fine.

Then mute this channel but leave the fader at 0. This will allow the dry audio to flow from Sonar to the MX without being monitored on the way out. You may want to change the label on this channel to something like "MX200SND" so that you remember what it is for.

Next, add another new channel to Patchmix, using a physical source of either the S/PDIF input or one of the dock's analog input pairs, but this time, make sure that Aux Send Pre-Fader IS checked. Insert a Send Output on this channel to an available ASIO host source.

Then set the fader on this channel to -132. This will allow the wet audio to flow from the MX to Sonar without being monitored on the way back. Don't forget to rename this channel "MX200RTN", and save the Patchmix session with a memorable name so you can load it whenever you need it.

Confirm that all your physical cables are connected to the ins and outs that are being used on the MX and EMU.

Now you need to configure a song in Sonar. As you're probably aware, the MX is a single DSP device, so there can only be one instance of it in your song. I usually use it on an effect bus rather than a single track, so I can send audio from multiple tracks to it. But it would also work the same way on a single track.

On your chosen bus/track, add the External Insert to the effects bin, selecting the send and return that the MX is associated with.

On the MX, bypass all effect processing, then set the delay compensation from within the External Insert.

Turn the effects on the MX back on. If you're using an effect bus for this, configure one or more tracks to send audio to the effect bus.

You should now be able to hear the MX applied to the appropriate audio when you play the song.

As mentioned, you don't even need the plugin to make this work. But if you want the ability to control the MX from within Sonar, simply add the plugin to the same bus/track that has the External Insert.

That's it for the "mixing" session. I'm sure I didn't answer every possible question, so let me know if you can't get this to work. The setup for using the MX as an effect while tracking is very different, but I'll save that for another day. One more helpful hint: in order for everything to be aware of the configuration, you must turn the MX on first, then load the Patchmix session, then start Sonar.

Edit: Well done pthiesen, almost makes me want to go out and get an MX400 myself.

edentowers,

Thanks for the compliments and carriage returns. I actually like to use them myself, but I decided against it because my post was so long. Oh well.

You should consider getting an MX400. They are very versatile and the sound quality is excellent for the price.

Compared to most plugins, the MX reverbs have a more three-dimensional quality to them. Another way to put it is that with most reverbs, even if they have a good, natural sound, you still feel like you're listening to a good recording through the speakers in your room, whereas the MX400 can create the illusion that you're sitting in the space where the performance is taking place. I'm not sure, but it seems to be able to do what is called "true stereo" effects in its highest quality mode, which may be the reason for the three-dimensional character.

So go out and get one today! Now if only I got a commission.

bump...TIA

muzic_maken,

I haven't been on the forum for a while, so I didn't see your last posts until now.

This is a somewhat complicated arrangement, but I know it does work, because I use it regularly. There's probably something I assumed that you did not assume which is preventing it from working for you. You said that you have gotten farther, but I'm not clear on just what is working and what is not. Maybe if I explain the concepts a little better, a light will go on in your head.

There are a number of ways to integrate the MX with the computer via hardware, software or a combination of both. This arrangement uses both, and is possibly the only way that allows full control of the MX from within Sonar on a per song basis, which is what I think your ultimate goal is. If that is not the case, please give me some more specifics on what you're trying to do.

The Patchmix session outlined previously is meant to be pretty much "set and forget". The reason I suggested saving it with a meaningful name, is that you most likely will want at least a couple of different Patchmix sessions to accomodate different stages of a Sonar song. I have a Patchmix tracking session and a Patchmix mixing session, and I load the different sessions when I am at the corresponding stages of a particular song. The tracking session is quite different, because the needs are quite different between tracking and mixing. My tracking session also incorporates the MX, in a way that allows it to be heard at very low latency while recording audio, but not actually recorded. This comes in handy when the singer wants to hear some reverb while they are laying down the vocals, but you only want to record the dry vocals so you can decide what processing should be applied to it later, when you're mixing.

So, back to the mixing session concepts. What I described in my previous post about setting up the Patchmix mixing session was adding a path for the audio going to and from the MX. But you still need a separate path for your dry audio. This may be one thing that I assumed and you didn't. Your Patchmix mixing session needs at least one other channel that uses an available ASIO host source as it's input. This channel would leave the Aux Send Pre-Fader unchecked, and does not need any inserts, but should not be muted.

Then in Sonar, one or more tracks/buses would have their output assigned to this channel. There are a number of ways to arrange this in Sonar, but a typical simple arrangement would be to assign all tracks and buses other than the master bus to output to the master bus, and assign the master bus to output to the Patchmix channel described above.

It sounds like you may be adding the external insert for the MX to a single track in Sonar. This works fine, but you also need to remember the difference between this and using the MX on an effect bus. When using it on an effect bus, the MX is in parallel with the rest of your audio. You would typically have it set to output 100% wet, and then mix the proportion of dry and wet audio via the controls in Sonar, i.e. the track effect send and/or the effect bus volume fader. When the MX is inserted on a single track, it is in series with the audio on that track. This means that the wet/dry mix must be set on the MX itself, and that the dry audio is now subject to the same latency as the wet. In either case, you will most likely want to add the MX plugin wherever the external insert is, so that you can set up the MX for that particular song and save the MX setup as a unique preset in the plugin. Then, any time you open that song in Sonar, the MX will automatically be configured according to that preset.

I hope this helps you to get it working. If not, please provide some detailed specifics about what is and is not happening.

just a little curiosity - i own an lexicon mpx1 which is pretty old but was back in the days the top notch of the middlerange stuff...
now it is still sold today (new) at double the price as the better mx ones ...
anyone having both who could tell me about the quality of the mx series ???
thanks

ps: i hear a lot of people saying that a lot of older lexicon units sound better than the new ones (which is a little crazy on one hand but not improbable on the other .. )

ORIGINAL: b rock

anyone having both who could tell me about the quality of the mx series ???

I had an MX for a short time, Tom. It was OK ... I never did have the chance to A/B the unit with my MPX-1, but I do recall a preference for the older Lexicon Vortex in limited testing. Now, the MPX-1 ... you've got to love that thing. It's about the most configurable multi-FX device that I've ever owned. The only 'problems' that I have involve the limitations with a number of the heftier effects active.

I remember reading how you picked up an MPX-1 just before Christmas. Have you gotten a chance to use it as a MIDI generator yet? Fully half of my custom presets focus on the MIDI aspects alone. I haven't seen a comparable controller device (in the same price range) that could match it.

lol funny you remebered this ...
actually i have to say that in the first moments i was a bit dissappointed with it ... but then i realized the depth of programmability that is actually overwhelming to me...really a bit too much (the way you edit patches is just a bit clumsy imo) and soundwise - well, the reverbs sound great but all in all its a very "traditionalistic" unit - conservative i would say from its soundaestethics ... still i think it feels better than most of the plugs i ever heard (and i have heard plenty)
maybe i will heve to go much deeper into it ... but as i said editing is a bit of a pita...
would be interseting to hear some freaky patches programmed by some users - the standard presets supplied by lexicon are very 90ies like - i miss some weird delay with strong panning resonance and filtersettings - but i guess the mpx1 wasnt made for that - more for ballade like sounds ...
what do you actually mean by "using it as a midigenerator???)
hey would you eventually send me some cool preset ??? (if you want i can pay you for them ...)


cheers

WOW--- THANKS for that great post b-rock !!!
really thanks for taking you the time to explain -- so i see that there is light at the end of the tunnel
actually i am pretty a "tweaker" - but mostly with synths - there i know how to do what .... i always was a bit lazy to get into fx processors.... and i have to say that every time when i try to read more than 5 pages at a time of the mpx manual i feel a bit sick...
the whole routing and block routing and assigning - hell - i see it might bring great results but its a hard way to get there -- i am happy that you confirm my opionion about the poor presets - i was really afraid it couldnt do more in the first moments.
sorry if i might be a bit demanding, but could you eventually send me just one "good" preset of yours - just to sort of get inspired



do you use it via analog or only spdif??? what amout softlimit (good bad??)

sorry that you brilliant answer raised more questions - but its good to have some conversation about he mpx with someone knowing the unit.....

BIG THUMBS UP

edit: reread the post and understood one of my questions was stupid so i erased it

ORIGINAL: ptheisen

I don't own an MPX1, but I did a fair amount of research on it and other higher end Lexicon units when I was trying to decide what fit my needs and budget. So here's my $.02, though I don't want this thread to get too dominated by the MPX1, since the OP was asking about the MX200.

As was mentioned, the MPX1 has very flexible routing capabilities, and the whole midi generator thing. The MX series has none of this. The MPX1 is advertised as using the "famed LexiChip", the MX series is not. The MPX1 has the DSP horsepower to run all its effects in true stereo at all times. The MX200 does not do true stereo at all. The MX300 and MX400 have configurations that use true stereo, but the trade-off is fewer effects or fewer channels, depending on the model. When in true stereo mode, the MX300 and MX400 will have almost identical effect parameters as the MPX1, so you have pretty much the same control over the actual sound of the effects, but the parameter resolution is lower than on the MPX1. For example, using approximate numbers, a parameter that has 100 different settings on an MX unit might have 1000 different settings on the MPX1. The extremes of the range are probably the same, but the ability to really fine tune is greater on the MPX1. One thing that the MX series has that the MPX1 does not is the ability to use it as a plugin from within a DAW. It has a USB port and drivers/software so that as far as parameter control is concerned, it works just like any other in-the-box effect. This is something that I really like. I'm guessing that the sound quality of a specific effect on an MX300 or MX400 when in true stereo mode is pretty close to a comparable effect in the MPX1, but you can have more simultaneous true stereo effects with the MPX1.

thanks for your reply... as far as i can tell from your post and some other info i have it really seems that the mpx1 is "somehow" better than the mx serie - which is imo a bit crazy cos its almost 10 years older and was bacvk then also aimed at the same sort of customer (middleclass product range...) now when lexicon makes units in the comparable range ten years later one should assume that they would kick the ass of its predecessors...shopuldnt they --- but reading the specs they are WEAKER (except for thd and dynamicrange)???
funny that especially for lexicon units there are really much discussions (on gearslutz for insatance) that claim specific old and very old lexicons are much better than new ones - hell...whats that kind of a evolution concept of a firm??? i guess in 10 yeras the dsp power might have incremenetd by thousands of percents - and then they sell something weaker??
again i am not bashing the mx series - havent heard more than a few demos - i just wonder about the datasheets...
and what is actually the hype around the proprietary lexichips?? wouldnt a modern dsp do the same?

cheers & thanks for further explanantions

a bit sick...
the whole routing and block routing and assigning - hell - i see it might bring great results but its a hard way to get there -- i am happy that you confirm my opionion about the poor presets - i was really afraid it couldnt do more in the first moments.
sorry if i might be a bit demanding, but could you eventually send me just one "good" preset of yours - just to sort of get inspired

ORIGINAL: ptheisen

After reviewing the manual for the MPX1, I realized that some of the information in my previous post is not accurate. The MX units do have some routing flexibility, just not as much as the MPX1. Not all of the effects in the MPX1 are true stereo at all times, nor do they need to be. The reverb effect is true stereo at all times. The parameter resolution difference between the MPX1 and the MX units is not as great as I had thought. (I was probably thinking of a 480 or 960). An actual example is the shape parameter for a reverb, which has 64 settings on an MX400 compared to 256 settings on an MPX1. Also, the extremes of the ranges may be different in some cases. For example, the range of the size parameter for the chamber reverb is listed as 4-35m for the MPX1, and 4-20m for the MX400. Sorry for any misinformation.

no problem still i dont see 10 years of evolution taking form in the newer units....