http://www.exponentialaud...ixVerb/PhoenixVerb.php

Plus, it goes on a 30% off sale starting Monday Feb 24th.
 
The best reverb... ever.
 
Tell Michael an idiot sent ya. :-)

Dunno why he had to uglify the GUI.  The original was unique and nice-looking, I thought.  Now it's drab and boring.  I can't see all that many new presets, either.  If you own this plugin and don't dislike the GUI, don't bother upgrading.  Just my opinion. 
 
Thankfully, the sound is the same as before ... nice verb!
 
Cheers,
Eddie

mike_mccue
The best reverb... ever.

Beter'n a Lexi 480L?

 

Michael Carnes
from: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/3927153-post18.html
"Hi...
...Some things change, but many things remain consistent (wishy-washy answer but it's true). Back when David Griesinger was doing products like the 224, there were zillions of things he wanted to do that the hardware wouldn't allow. As hardware became more powerful, fewer corners needed to be cut. On top of that, time, thought and experimentation led to better ways to make a reverb algorithm. So there's been a continual process of improvement. Lots of times, customers may not see it that way: if you cut your first hit record with a 224, the last thing you want is to see it change. But on our side of the fence, we're always looking for some way to make things sound better. But still there are some things that make a plate a plate, and we try to respect and extend that.

In terms of specific products, the 70 was a simplified version of the 224 and the algorithms sound pretty similar. The 480 extended that with a better S/N ratio and more algorithms. The 960 was a further extension. It was a little lighter and more transparent: some people loved it and some people hated it. The PCM96 incorporates qualities of both, and can be leaned in either direction. It was also our first floating-point processor, with considerably better performance.

The chorusing sound of the 224 family was a characteristic of the ConcertHall algorithm. It's the only algorithm that works that way. You'll also find variants of that sound in the PCM91 and PCM96. As I indicated in an earlier post, it sure isn't realistic but it might just be the thing you need. Other algorithms approach time variance (we call it randomization) in other ways and for other purposes. Ideally, it's not something you should hear as chorusing. It's intended to break up room modes and improve frequency response.

Randomization has been a feature of most of our products in recent years. Ten years ago it came down as far as the PCM90/91. A few years later it came down as far as the MPX100. Now it's in everything. It's obviously a little slicker in the high-end products, but even in a product like the MX-200 it's more complex that the 480. I kinda like Moore's law."

 
Else where Mr. Carnes speaks of how he was amazed to experience the power of Native CPU processing and he claims that that his current work presents complexity and detail that was never before available in *real time* processes.
 
I wouldn't argue with anyone that loves their 480L, but I've never heard anything as nice as Phoenix or R2.
 
It's been one of the most rewarding purchases I have ever made.
 
all the best,
mike

So my MPX VST is better'n a 480L?

Can I get back to you on that?

Actually I meant LXP. Hope that didn't mess up your analysis.

I was almost done pondering.
 
Now I have to start over.

Butb it's LXP vs MXP so you won't to ponder as hard.