lexicon mx 300 + ufx spdif connections

[kobi_dog]

Hi people, tried in vain to find a definite answer. have a chance to buy a Lexicon mx300, I would like to connect it to my UFX through spidif, have a D connector at one end (ufx) and a round connector at the other. the mx 300 is spidif specific, the UFX has an Adat 2 (optical, D shape) which I believe doubles as a spidif connection. ( to be changed in settings) I believe I can buy connecting cables with both ends, i.e. round to D shape. would I be doing the right thing by connecting these in this fashion? Also, I see that the mx 300 can be used as a plugin configuration with usb, but all I see is vst, will this work with PT 12.7.1? AAX? bit confused with this, any help appreciated, thanks in advance.

[albee1952]

My 2 cents; skip hardware effects in a small recording setup. For the money to buy the mx 300(which gives you 1 reverb effect at a time), you could buy the Lexicon plugin and have a dozen of them inside your sessions(with all settings saved). As much as I love hardware, there are way more reasons to NOT use it(especially in a small system):o

[philgrab]

My 2 cents; skip hardware effects in a small recording setup. For the money to buy the mx 300(which gives you 1 reverb effect at a time), you could buy the Lexicon plugin and have a dozen of them inside your sessions(with all settings saved). As much as I love hardware, there are way more reasons to NOT use it(especially in a small system):o

Except.......plugins are not as defined as they fade and thus fx hardware, even inexpensive hardware will have a more spacious and defined sonics in certain types of music i.e. ballads, bluegrass, acoustic instrument music with accompanying vocals.

If it's rock or something with a lot of instruments, where ambiance is not a critical part of the picture you want to paint with sound, then yeah, plugins will suffice.

To answer the OP, the VST will work if you get use one of the bridge technologies available for VST plugins in Protools. Bluecat makes one called Patchwork. This will allow that VST interface to work in PT.

Regarding SPDIF to ADAT2 http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/350545552519
this might work.

[nigelpry]

Importantly, spdif comes in two formats ... coax (electrical) and toslink (optical).

The round connectors (usually phono type) are coax, and the toslink connectors (same as ADAT) are optical.

The two cannot be directly connected, you'd have to get a box to convert one to the other.

Also, bear in mind that the phono connectors require a digital (spdif) coax cable, not a bog standard analog phono connector cable. Proper cables will ensure no loss/corruption of the digital data. I have used analog phono cables at a pinch, but it has been hit and miss as to whether they work.

The box that another poster provided a link to will not convert from one format to the other, so it is useless to you for what you are trying to achieve.

Preferably, you need to connect in both directions, as only then can you use it as a hardware insert in Pro Tools. There are some cheap converters available on ebay, though I don't know how good they are. To connect in both directions you'll need both a toslink to coax convertor and a coax to toslink convertor.

Finally, you have to sync the digital clock of the two devices, otherwise you will get some horrible digital noise instead of pristine audio. You'll have to set one device as the clock master and the other as a slave.

Here are links to suitable looking boxes, though please understand I have no knowledge of how good or bad they are. They are pretty cheap, which makes me suspicious about their quality, but they might be fine.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Optical-SPDIF-Toslink-to-Coax-Cable-Converter-Adapter-Optical-IN-Coaxial-OUT-/311857553659?hash=item489c28a0fb:g:zLkAAOSw42JZAdK B

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Coaxial-to-Optical-SPDIF-Toslink-Convertor-Adaptor-Coax-RCA-IN-Optical-TOS-OUT-/252900341765?hash=item3ae208f805:g:SzYAAOSw42JZAdc N

Hope that's of help.

I agree with other poster comments that plugins are more flexible, but there is, in my view, still a place for hardware. I myself still use multiple hardware devices as inserts. Every one gives a different sound to equivalent plugins, down to a combination of the exact processing algorithms or analog circuitry inside the hardware, and the specification of the analog to digital and digital to analog convertors (for hardware without digital ins/outs).

[albee1952]

Solid points re the hookups. I would agree with high-end reverbs, but the mx300 doesn't really qualify:o Give me a Lexicon 480L or a Bricasti and I'm on board:D To me, this is much like when someone wants to insert their DBX 166 or Alesis 3360 compressor. It seems like a great idea on the surface, but at the end of the day, there are plugins that simply do the job as good(or better) without the hassle:D For anyone working with just the stock Avid reverbs, there is a huge world of great reverb plugins to explore...

[kobi_dog]

O.K. thanks people for all the advice, lots to consider, have to have a serious think about where my buck goes, thanks again for your help, Kobi.

[midnightrambler]

Except.......plugins are not as defined as they fade

What a complete load of crap. Where do people get off making stuff up like this?

[philgrab]

What a complete load of crap. Where do people get off making stuff up like this?

Because I own high end and low end units i.e. Lexicon 300L, TC M3000 and lower end units and have done extensive comparisons with UAD and Waves plugins. So my frame of reference is real world experience. What's your frame of reference? Dismissing my experience with snide comments completely negates your knowledge set in my mind.

[midnightrambler]

What's your frame of reference? Dismissing my experience with snide comments completely negates your knowledge set in my mind.

20 years working in studios and being able to hear the "differences" for myself, rather than going by what I've read on Gearslutz.

Ps post some actual, real life examples and I'll gladly eat humble pie and buy you a beer. I mean no malice. But we all have some wonderful, superbly programmed plug-ins at our disposal, and to dismiss them all in one sentence by inferring that they are somehow "below-par" - without any concrete evidence - just seems so unfair, in my humble opinion.

[philgrab]

to dismiss them all in one sentence by inferring that they are somehow "below-par" - without any concrete evidence - just seems so unfair, in my humble opinion.

When you say I inferred plugins as "below-par is something I did not say. Here are my actual words again.

"not as defined as they fade" "in certain types of music "

I stand by that.