Conference napalm::commusic_v1

	Funny you should mention this unit...  I was at a store at lunch-time
that introduced me to the beast.  I have the brochure in front of me.  BTW,
the price he gave me was $399.

	From what the guy said, it has 30 pre-set effects, and 60 memory slots 
to store your own versions.  It's not rack-mountable, though 8^(...

	Some specs:

	Effect freq. resp.		20hz to 12khz
	Dynamic range			Effect: 74db	Direct: 80db
	THD				0.1% @ 1khz

	16 bit A/D/A conversion, 31.25kHz sampling freq.

	Input level (unbalanced) (X2)	-10dbm imp. 10k ohms
	Output level (unbal) (X2)	-10dbm imp. 10k ohms
	MIDI IN

	Size: 10 3/4" X 1 3/4" X 7 3/4"
	AC powered (no adapter needed)

	The pre-sets:

	1	REV 1 Hall
	2	REV 2 room
	3	Rev 3 vocal
	4	rev 4 plate
	5	early ref. 1 (?)
	6	gate reverb
	7	delay L, R
	8	Stereo Echo
	9	Stereo Flange
	10	Chorus
	11	Stereo phasing
	12	Symphonic
	13	Reverse Gate
	14	ADR-Noise Gate
	15	Compressor
	16	Reverb & Gate
	17	Pitch change A
	18	Pitch change B
	19	Pitch change C
	20	Pan (as in Peter?)

	21	Distortion
	22	Dist. & Rev 1
	23	Dist. & Rev 3
	24	Dist. & gate rev.
	25	Dist. & reverse gate
	26	Dist. & delay
	27	Dist. & echo
	28	Dist. & flange
	29	Dist. & chorus
	30	Dist. & symphonic

	BTW, I didn't listen to it, so don't know how it sounds...  With all the
distortion settings, sounds like they had guitar heavily in mind in the 
development.

	Dan

    
    re: .-2
    
    Guy in my band (the guitar player) just bought one. Aside from his
    annoying habit of stopping in the middle of rehearsal to d**k around
    with it, it sounds like an SPX90, although it sits on top of his
    amp, not in a rack, which makes no sense to me. I read the manual,
    perhaps tonight when I'm over there I can grab it and type in some
    of it. We transferred some patches from the SPX90 to it, seems to
    play fine. For guitar it probably is okay, I wouldn't use it in
    my keyboard space.
    
    /pjh

    
    
    I have the rex50 and I love it. It gets some weard sounds that you
    can't get from a delay unit. It has presets so you can change the
    settings. for ex. if you wanted to set delay longer, just hit memory
    and change settings. Also what I like about it, is that if your
    running delay on one channel, and you want to jump to say flange,
    just set the rex to delay, hit load, then change the number to flange
    and when your ready to play with the flange, just hit load and it
    is right there. It also has the optional punch-in foot switch.
    
         This unit is nice. I own a recording studio and I use this
    unit all the time, it is real quiet. Before I bought it, I looked
    at the SPX90 and for what small difference the REX50 had, and the
    big price difference, the rex was the best bet.
    
    
       price for REX50 - $375.00 I paided
       price for SPX90-  $795.00 I could of paided $725.00 - $695.00
    
            well good luck on your pick. Just keep in mind, that would
       you use all the settings on the SPX90 or would the REX50 be enought.
    
                                                 ken

    The REX-50 is sooo close to what I want and is a bargain at that
    price, but it has two shortcomings which ruled it out for me:
    
    	o max .5 sec of delay
    
    	  I frequently use between .5 and 1 second of delay to do
    	  various guitar/DDL effects like volume swells.
    
    	o NOT a rack mounted device.
    
    	  Sorry, I've already got enough stuff to lug around and
    	  setup.
    
    Also, the SPX-90 has an optional pedal board (MIDI) which makes
    it easier to use when performing.  The pedal board is an option
    and an expensive one at that, but I think it can be used to control
    other things besides the SPX.  However, I get the impression that
    that's true only if your other stuff is pretty flexible MIDI-wise.
    Most MIDI effects aren't (fixed program number assignments for
    example).
    
    Anyway, the rack mounting business was compelling enough for me
    to 'pass' on the REX-50.
    
    	db

    Re: .4
    
    I'm with you Dave.  If it's not rack mountable, forget it.
    Manufacturers making this kind of stuff and not making it easily
    rack mountable should be shot with a knife.  At least provide a
    kit to attach "ears" to it!
    
    		Now off my soapbox,
    		Derek

    I agree in Derek.  I keep saying "Why the hell are they making these
    table top style things instead of racks."
    
    I may have said this elsewhere, but I'm told the rationale behind
    the table-top design seems to be that these units are designed 
    for hobbiests who don't carry them to gigs and just put them on
    top of their RD-300-type pianos.
    
    My answer to this is that even so, it's much more convenient to
    have these things in racks even if you never cart them around.
    I'd like to find the designers of these table top things and say
    what would you do if you had a stereo system you couldn't stack
    the receiver, cd player, tape player, etc?  You don't carry those
    to gigs either!
    
    I think this table top design is misguided.  Arghhhhh!!!!
    
    	db

    
    case in point: When was the last time you saw a top-loading home
    stereo cassette deck? we'll very carefully leave out the plethora
    of home-studio cassette decks since they have more knobs than would
    be useful to rack-mount....
    
    I wish everything was rack-mountable (except my controllers...)
    
    /pjh

    The REX50 is smaller than a rack-mount unit, and has no sharp edges.
    And it is also probably ligher than it would be in a full rackmount
    enclosure.
    
    I could see dumping it in a bag with my music (if I had any...)
    and other stomp boxes (if I had any...).
    
    
    I think the REX50 is for the guitar only player, and I can certainly
    understand not being lashed to a rack just for one effects unit.
    
    I HATE carrying rackmount gear  (as I mentioned in the ``carrying
    less stuff'' note).
    
    Personally, I think the non-rack is great for this application.
    
    Steph
    

    re: .8
    
>    I could see dumping it in a bag with my music (if I had any...)
>    and other stomp boxes (if I had any...).
    
>    I HATE carrying rackmount gear  (as I mentioned in the ``carrying
>    less stuff'' note).

    I'd think anyone who wants to carry less stuff wouldn't even
    consider stomp boxes nor express hatred for racks, unless
    you've bolted the stomp boxes into a permanent pedal board type of thing.
    
    Otherwise stomp boxes are a royal pain (more things to carry, more 
    cords to set up, batteries or worse yet - power supplies, more noise than
    rack units, lower quality).  Yeah, inidividually they do cost less,
    but nowadays with these multi-effect units, chances are if you've
    got four stomp boxes, you coulda saved money and ended up with
    something vastly superior in most respects by getting any of the
    new multi-effects units.
    
    	db

    Perhaps I'm missing something, but I reckon there's a lot to be
    said for a unit that sits on top of your keyboard, within easy reach.
    
    If you're playing with a smallish band, and all you want is one
    or two keyboards on a single stand, a neat little effects box on
    the top is ideal. No midi-patch-change-button-pushing, and no rack
    full of gear you just don't want on a Sunday lunchtime. I mean.
    if all you want is the effects provided by, say, a REX-50, then
    why carry a rack about with you? (Good for the steel industry, I
    suppose).
    
    Richard.

    How about a compromise.  The manufacturer makes an adapter that
    would allow one of these things to be put in a rack, similar to
    what Yamaha did for the FB01 (except I guess you have to have two
    and mount them side by side, right?).  Might cost $30.  Sounds worth
    a coupla extra $$$ to me...
    
    		Derek

    If all you have is one box (effect/synth/processor/etc) there's
    no significant advantage to a rack.  If you have two, well, maybe
    there's a small advantage but it's still not compelling.
    
    If you have several (most of us end up that way for good or for
    bad) you can set up the rack so that it acts as one 'virtual' box with all
    the functions of the boxes it contains.    You can (and should try to) 
    arrange your rack so that basically you just plug one or two cords
    into it and you're ready.  You don't need to worry about connecting
    all the separate boxes together because you can just leave them
    connected in the rack.
    
    To pack up the rack you typically just unplug one or two things
    and pop the covers on.  Your stuff is well protected during transit.
    
    With these boxes, you have to unplug more cords, pack up the cords,
    pack up each box individual.   Stomp boxes are pretty durable and
    you can just throw them all together into a bag, but these table
    top things tend to be delicate and thus you have to have some kind
    of carrying bag or what not for EACH ONE of them.  I certainly wouldn't
    throw an MMT-8 for example into a bag with some stomp boxes without
    some kind of padding.
    
    I've tried both, I'm utterly sold on racks.  In my experience, if
    you even a modest amount of valuable equipment, racks are by far
    the best alternative.
    
    Once I get mine setup the way I've planned, I expect that it will
    take no more than 2 minutes to setup and connect the rack with
    my instruments.  In the past, setting things up individual took
    as long as 15 plug whatever time it took to figure out what I didn't
    set up right (or what cord was bad, since cords last a lot longer
    in a rack).
    
    	db

    By the way, what would you carry your REX-50 around in anyway?
    
    You can probably get a rack for the same price as a flight case
    or gig bag for the REX-50, and the rack can hold/protect several
    things at once.
    
    I mean you need something to carry it in anyway right?  Why not
    a rack?
    
    	db

    
    
    (Bring out large foot to insert ...)
    
    Re: .-1 and all pro-rack comments.
    
    I actually agree with these for a variety of the reasons listed.
    However, I notice with some humour that the MT-32 non-Yamaha product
    isn't rack mounted either. Has that received the same level of comment
    in the various notes on it? (Can't remember.)
    
    Or is it ok to have something non-rack mounted on the basis of either
    the functionality or name (Roland) ?
    
    
    
    Just kidding!  (Not a flame about anyone, anything, any product,
    any manufacturer, etc.)


    Re: something else to look into before laying down the folding green
        
    One other thing to check in such beasts as this Yam-machine (and also
    the above mentioned Roland box) is the real implementation of MIDI
    control of its features. I don't have any info on this particular
    product, but have seen (particularly in the case of low cost Roland
    "entry level" proucts) that MIDI control is frequently sacrificed. 

    Even if someone doesn't currently use MIDI, this should be kept
    in mind for future expansion.
        
    Personally, once limitiations are discovered, I tend to loose interest
    in the product since I can't include it in the entire set up parameters
    for voice/track production/recall. 

    Robert
    

    The Roland MT-32 *is* rack-mountable.  Roland sells an adaptor.
    I don't have it yet, but I've ordered it.
    
    The key point is that the controls and displays are easily accessible
    from the front (as opposed to only being accessible from the top)
    and it fits within a single rack space.
    
    The front panel of the MT-32 is slanted and so it doesn't look quite
    as elegant and neat as true rack-mounted equipment, but it's entirely
    functional and that's all I care about.
    
    I can imagine a device so functional or even cost-effective as to
    get me to relax my 'rack requirement', but fortunately I don't have
    to with the MT-32.

    	db

    
    
    Ah ha. Hoisted by my own product ignorance.
    
    Apologies to Mr. Roland and Co.
    
    (I never pursued the rack mount question since I decided not to
    buy one and save the pennies for something bigger ...).
    
    Good that it can be rack mounted.
    
    Robert
    

    
    I think we are in danger here of forgetting that not all the music
    equipment buying public is as sophisticated as ourselves in that they
    need copious amounts of effects and equalisers etc etc... I have
    even seen some guitarists recently playing with nothing more than
    an amplifier. Imagine how much better they would sound with just
    one effects box neatly placed on top of the old Peavey/Marshal.
    Sounds like a marketing need to me.
    
    Incidently I am also a buyer of rack mountable devices however
    occasionaly this can cause problems. I have a 15 Unit rack which
    sits on the floor next to my mixer. My Keyboard is on the other
    side of the room. Imagine the fun programming new voices into my
    Racked Tx802. Now if only it would just perch nicely on top of the keyboard
    next to or under my QX5.
    
                                        Paul.
    					

    re: .-1

>    side of the room. Imagine the fun programming new voices into my
>    Racked Tx802. Now if only it would just perch nicely on top of the keyboard
>    next to or under my QX5.
    
    I bought (for about 32 bucks) a pair of rack mounts which have attached
    to them the clamps for my KMD keyboard stand (which looks and acts
    astonishingly like an Ultimate). Although this eats up half the
    space on the bottom tier of my three-tier stand (which is too low
    to put a keyboard on anyway), it places my effects (and the
    soon-to-be-purchased rackmount synth replacement for my ex-DX100)
    somewhere off the floor, within arm's reach. The rack can hold 6
    single-height rackmount devices, and it unclamps within seconds
    (I'd say about 30 seconds). I thought it was a pretty good idea.
    
    /pjh
        

    re: .17
    
    Paul,
    
    I agree with everything you've said.  It was not my intention to
    tell folks to get racks, although rereading what I've said it may
    well appear that way.
    
    My intention was to point out ONE advantage to racks and mention
    that in my case, that advantage was rather compelling.  It's a function
    of both the  stuff I have, and my extreme reaction to having to
    deal with networks of cords.

    	db

    
    RE -2
    
    Yep I have seen similar devices which are free-standing and have
    castors on and are designed for use with rackmount tapedecks which
    will swivel from the horizontal. However these are about 85 pounds
    and I only have the poblem with th one device. I have it stacked
    at Keyboard level to my left on a Bed/Tray at the moment. This is
    not aesthetically pleasing but works OK.
                                
    Re. -1.
    Dave no insinuations intended (Why do I always get into these things?)
    I just thought it was worth considering your favorite manafacturers
    marketing motives, thats all.
    
    Incidentally I tried my Strat through A REX and it sounded awfull.
    
    					Paul.
    
    					
    
    				

    >Incidentally, I tried my strat through A REX and it sounded awful.
    
    !
    
    Richard.
    

    re .20, .21 - musta been 'cuz it wasn't rack mounted!
    
    Which one - the strat or the REX50?
    
    ;^)
    
    len.
    

    Rack mount vs other formats.
    
    I personally prefer rack mount equipment. I can think of 1000
    reasons why, but I can also think of a few disadvantages to rack
    mount. Racks tend to be heavy and awkward to carry, especially
    if one person has to carry a rack 10 spaces or more. Since most
    rack connections are rear mounted, it means you have to get behind
    the rack, and have some kind of light inside to see what you are
    doing. In certain application table top equipment can actually
    be better, for instance for Keyboard players, equipment is more
    convenient mounted right to the keyboard stand.
                                                      
    	By the way, there are a few companies making stereo gear which
    is not stackable. Bang & Olefson (sp?) and Meridian come to mind
    to name a few. Many people don't like their equipment for this reason
    but for some applications it is nice. If you have a nice long table
    of shelf, the B&O equipment is convenient to use, and looks real
    sleek. It is a matter of "to each his own".
    
    	One question just for the heck of it. Why would a keyboard
    player be interested in the REX50 ? What good is digital distortion
    to a keyboard player ?
            
    Mark Jacques_who's_goal_is_to_build_a_three_story_effects_rack_
    with_attached_two_stall_garage.
                                                  
    

	I just bought a used REX-50 for $125.00 (Reasonable Price??).

	I like the REVERB functions much better than the MicroVERB I
	(Alesis unit).

	I purchased it for use with Vocals & wanted the pitch transposer
	& it's ability to respond to MIDI to define the transposition
	of a note (Ie, you can change it dynamically as needed within a
	song).

	For an interesting effect, detune 3 full steps & use to sing along
	with some soul tunes (lower 3 steps).

	For a fuller sounding vocal track, detune + 5 cents. Fun Stuff.

								Jens

Does anyone out there have the SPX50D?  How does it compare
to the SPX90?  Primarily, I need some delay, reverb, and 
occasional chorus/flange.

thanks,
andy

    
    
    Yes I have both the SPX50d AND THE SPX90..
    
    I like them both and certainly the 50 provides good reverb and effects.
    The only real difference *I think* is in the availiability of
    distortion on the 50 and the set-up which is geared a little more
    to guitarists. However I use mine mostly in the studio and it sounds
    O.K.
    
    It is certainly better than the REX50 which I found to noisy.
               
    				Paul.
    
    			

    isn't the real difference that the spx90II has two seconds of
    storage, and teh spx90 has 1/2 second, and the spx50
    has much less?
    Tom

    And the SPX50 has a slower sampling rate, with correspondingly lower
    top end response.

    
    I came across a cool application of the SPX-50 last night.
    
    One thing that bugs me about most delays is that when you hit "bypass"
    it shuts off the delay output but not the *input*, i.e. when you kick
    out of bypass, any stuff you had just been playing is still circulating
    through the loop.  One the other hand, it's nice sometimes to open up
    the input for just a certain note or phrase, then shut it off.  Check
    out any dub reggae to hear this effect.
    
    Since the effects send on most boards are knobs, it's hard to do this,
    since you have to twist the knob pretty damn quick to make it work.
    But Yamaha has a better way.  The SPX-50 has an "insert" loop, which
    can be used as a secondary input.  Run the board's effects send to the
    insert return instead of the normal input.  Now, until you hit the
    "insert" button on the front panel, nothing goes into the delay. When
    the section comes up that needs delay, hit insert, then hit again when
    the section is over.  If set for lots of regeneration, the section will
    continue to repeat.  
    
    Now time to start doing those Yellowman covers  8^)  8^)  8^)  
    
    							Brian
    
    P.S. The above should probably work on any delay unit with a loop ahead
    of the delay.

It's not great, but it is weird and very cheap compared to buying a vocoder.

And you really should play with your SPX50D, it's a great piece of gear.  If
you grabbed yours on the blowout sale, you may not have noticed what you can do
with this beast.

Use the Pitch A algorithm.  Set the semitone shift to +1, set the fine-shift
control to -100 (that's right, NO shift, if everything worked right).   Now the
delay parameter is a pitch control for an internal oscillator (implemented by
using 100% feedback)  that you can modulate via the input signal.  You can get
better intelligibility by reducing the feedback slightly.

The adventurous might wish to play with controlling the shift interval via
MIDI.  I got less useful results that way, but learned that there was a
chipmonk chorus lurking at +12 semitones.

Have fun,
Eirikur