Lexicon MPX100 reverb / vocals advice

[Mr Steve]

Hi,

 

I've had an MPX100 effects processor for a few months now, which was originally purchased 2nd hand to provide a 'spooky' voice in a panto. I'm now using it for live sound work with a rock covers band. I want some reverb on the band's vocals to smooth the sound so they aren't as dry. I've read the manual and had a play with various reverb settings but am overwhelmed with the numerous options and don't know where to begin. Has anyone here any experience with the MPX100, or, have any advice for a starting point to get a subtle reverb on vocals without it sounding like some horrible 80s wedding DJ effect?

 

Any advice welcome.....

 

Thanks,

 

Stephen

[Bobbsy]

It's a while since I've used an MPX100 but I seem to recall that there were a couple of vocal presets in the "Chamber Variations" section that made useful starting points. If memory serves, I reduced the delay time slightly but otherwise used the presets, balancing the wet/dry signals by ear on the return channel.

 

However, it's worth noting that your system/room will have a big effect on what's acceptable in terms of reverb--what sounds natural in one location will suddenly be wrong in a new place. As always, your ears are your best guide!

 

Bob

[Mr Steve]

It's a while since I've used an MPX100 but I seem to recall that there were a couple of vocal presets in the "Chamber Variations" section that made useful starting points. If memory serves, I reduced the delay time slightly but otherwise used the presets, balancing the wet/dry signals by ear on the return channel.

 

However, it's worth noting that your system/room will have a big effect on what's acceptable in terms of reverb--what sounds natural in one location will suddenly be wrong in a new place. As always, your ears are your best guide!

 

Bob

 

Thanks Bob, I'll have a look/listen.

 

One more thing.....I've set this up in the sound chain as an insert over a group (routing vox to groups 1+2 then inserting the FX processor over the group, sending groups to the main mix out). Is this the best / accepted / usual / most rubbish way to do this?

 

Thanks,

 

Stephen

[MarkPAman]

One more thing.....I've set this up in the sound chain as an insert over a group (routing vox to groups 1+2 then inserting the FX processor over the group, sending groups to the main mix out). Is this the best / accepted / usual / most rubbish way to do this?

 

It's much more normal to run effects from one (or 2) of the aux outputs & return 100% wet through channel strips (if you have them spare) or FX returns.

 

This lets you send anything you want to the FX unit and control the amount of effect you hear from the desk rather than messing with the Dry/Wet control of the effects unit. Also will let you eq the effect return & sent it to monitors should the mood take you.

[eviljohn2]

I'm also curious about how others do this. Would you normally run it out of a pre- or post-fade aux? And would you continue to send the original signal to the mix in addition to the "effected" channels?

 

My instinct would be for post-fade and in addition to the original signal. ;)

[Ben Langfeld]

[snip]

My instinct would be for post-fade and in addition to the original signal. ;)

 

That's quite right, yes.