|
|
Post by longscale on Jul 26, 2021 17:09:59 GMT -6
Wondered if anybody has given this box a listen as a hardware reverb box?
Most all of my reverb needs have been in the box plug-ins for quite a few years now but I've been having some fun with this pedal on guitar. I removed it from my guitar pedalboard and I'm giving it a go for a HW insert. I like it on my guitar rig quite a bit. I just got the cabling together today to give this a listen as a PT hw insert.
I've never had any substantial time with a 244 so I don't know how this pedal compares. I also don't run any UA gear - so I don't have the ability to compare this to their 224 plug-in. Curious if others have experiences with these offerings and can share their thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jul 26, 2021 19:41:50 GMT -6
This one is on my wish list! I’d use it more as a mix insert as well. I look forward to hearing your thoughts once you try it out that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by prene1 on Jul 30, 2021 20:53:34 GMT -6
I own 2. Love them. I use them on Lead Vox group or some key instrument group.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Aug 3, 2021 5:17:42 GMT -6
I think it's cool they got the entire effect into a box smaller than the original remote control for the rack 224.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 6, 2021 9:07:14 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Aug 6, 2021 11:14:24 GMT -6
Want.
|
|
|
|
Post by longscale on Aug 6, 2021 15:57:33 GMT -6
I've spent some time with the CXM 1978 as a hardware insert. I now have a big problem. I like it on my guitar pedalboard. I like it as a hw insert. I need more than one. dang.
It is a great box imo. Sounds really good. It is also an enjoyable box to use - a real interface vs my mouse. It sits on my desk, a perfect size. Serious fun to be had with this. Works great for me on vocals. Sounds really cool on guitars, in a number of ways; plate is awesome, room is really nice too. Lofi mode is somewhat were I have been spending some time lately- using it to mangle sounds in fantastic ways.
Must resist buying another two or three.....
|
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Aug 6, 2021 16:11:47 GMT -6
Were they running this through a pair of preamps in that VK video?
|
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Aug 6, 2021 17:02:07 GMT -6
Is it performing better than the 224 plugins out there?
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,099 
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Aug 6, 2021 17:40:38 GMT -6
Is it performing better than the 224 plugins out there? Wait till somebody makes a dedicated 224 plug-in controller! |
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Aug 6, 2021 17:55:44 GMT -6
Yes. It's called a mouse
|
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Aug 6, 2021 18:24:12 GMT -6
Is it performing better than the 224 plugins out there? I haven't used one yet but I did prefer it in the VK shootout over the UAD 224 plug in. |
|
|
|
Post by longscale on Aug 6, 2021 19:26:43 GMT -6
Were they running this through a pair of preamps in that VK video? It looked to me like they were. Looked like a pair of Meris 440's (but I could be wrong). Currently I don't run my CXM 1978 via any pre's. Sounds good to me just as a straight up hardware insert. Afaik this box is not supposed to be a 224 clone - just a tip of the hat in that direction. All I know is I like the sounds I get from it. To solve the Gutar pedalboard issue I just broke down and picked up a UA Golden. The attractive part to that for my pedalboard is size (the Golden is way smaller). Plus I wanted to hear it, and it was much cheaper than the CXM 1978. We shall see - it is downloading new firmware now. I fell in love with the CXM 1978 on the guitar pedalboard. Loved the plate and the room there in a w/d setup. Hopefully the UA Golden gets me in the same fun. |
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Aug 6, 2021 19:35:27 GMT -6
*broke down*
|
|
|
|
Post by longscale on Aug 6, 2021 19:36:26 GMT -6
Is it performing better than the 224 plugins out there? I can't compare - I don't have any 224 plugins. I too preferred the CXM 1978 to the UA 224 plugin in the VK video. But there was something cool going on in the mids on the plug-in 224 that I think I could like. Plus it was YouTube - and they were in theory trying to sell the CXM 1978, and it was a little unfair to run it through pre's but what do I know. |
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Aug 6, 2021 20:44:06 GMT -6
That’s what I’m saying. They were running it through preamps, and everyone’s like “oh, sounds much better than the plug-in!” Not a fair comparison though.
|
|
dougwendal
Junior Member
Posts: 69
Member is Online
|
Post by dougwendal on Aug 13, 2021 21:00:14 GMT -6
Were they running this through a pair of preamps in that VK video? It looked to me like they were. Looked like a pair of Meris 440's (but I could be wrong). Currently I don't run my CXM 1978 via any pre's. Sounds good to me just as a straight up hardware insert. Afaik this box is not supposed to be a 224 clone - just a tip of the hat in that direction. All I know is I like the sounds I get from it. To solve the Gutar pedalboard issue I just broke down and picked up a UA Golden. The attractive part to that for my pedalboard is size (the Golden is way smaller). Plus I wanted to hear it, and it was much cheaper than the CXM 1978. We shall see - it is downloading new firmware now. I fell in love with the CXM 1978 on the guitar pedalboard. Loved the plate and the room there in a w/d setup. Hopefully the UA Golden gets me in the same fun. Have you had time to compare the UA Golden to the CXM 1978? Do you prefer the sound quality of one over the other? Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by longscale on Aug 14, 2021 10:48:41 GMT -6
Have you had time to compare the UA Golden to the CXM 1978? Do you prefer the sound quality of one over the other? Thanks! I've not put the golden in a hw insert yet. It currently is holding down a spot on the guitar pedalboard. I've not had a ton of time to play with it to really know it well at this point. But the sound quality is very very good. I fell in love with the Spring Reverbs and have not explored other things all that much; other than messing with the 244 hall to create a pad; locking that in and then switching to the Spring and playing over the top of the pad sound (fun for live guitar noodling but not sure how much music I'll write with that). I do wish the golden had more ability to flip presets via midi but I knew what it could do going in so I'm not that sad. Eventually I'll try the golden in a hw insert - but so far I'm happy with the CXM 1978 there; and the golden on my guitar rig. I'm not all that motived at this point to move them. The CXM 1978 continues to be useful on the hw insert. I've spent a little time crafting a sound for vocals, and acoustic guitar primarily focused on the plate for that right now and using other plugins (Nimbus, Phoenix, R4 typically) for a touch of space on top of that. Very enjoyable to have a physical interface. Impressive sound quality. I like that the CXM 1978 has somewhat limited things to mess with; helps keep me focused on creating instead of screwing with settings for hours. |
|
|
|
Post by lpedrum on Dec 5, 2022 16:14:59 GMT -6
The CXM 1978 continues to be useful on the hw insert. I've spent a little time crafting a sound for vocals, and acoustic guitar primarily focused on the plate for that right now and using other plugins (Nimbus, Phoenix, R4 typically) for a touch of space on top of that. Very enjoyable to have a physical interface. Impressive sound quality. I like that the CXM 1978 has somewhat limited things to mess with; helps keep me focused on creating instead of screwing with settings for hours. I like my verb plugins but I can't say I'm ever truly inspired by them. I'm seriously considering the CXM 1978 as a "reasonably priced" way of adding outboard reverb to my studio, with hopes of gaining that missing dimension plugins seem to lack. Do you feel that the 1978 truly sounds better than say Valhalla Vintage verb or a good plate plugin? Or is it the hands-on tactile thing that keeps you coming back? I did get to use an OTO BAM last weekend while in a Boston studio. I liked it, but it doesn't do line level, and it's designed to capture only vintage digital verb whereas the CXM 1978 does that along with a modern fidelity setting. |
|
|
|
Post by longscale on Dec 22, 2022 20:14:10 GMT -6
I like my verb plugins but I can't say I'm ever truly inspired by them. I'm seriously considering the CXM 1978 as a "reasonably priced" way of adding outboard reverb to my studio, with hopes of gaining that missing dimension plugins seem to lack. Do you feel that the 1978 truly sounds better than say Valhalla Vintage verb or a good plate plugin? Or is it the hands-on tactile thing that keeps you coming back? I did get to use an OTO BAM last weekend while in a Boston studio. I liked it, but it doesn't do line level, and it's designed to capture only vintage digital verb whereas the CXM 1978 does that along with a modern fidelity setting. Hard one to answer. The only HW lately that has inspired me was a Bricasti M7. I think the CXM 1978 easy holds it own against good plugins at least for my use. Does it sound better? Really hard to answer. I think it sounds very very good - and I do use it. Better? idk. It is a win for the inspiring angle because it is real HW with an attractive control interface. I do use it for creating some writing inspiration. I don't use plugins for that role ever while writing. I do still like this box and not just because of the interface. If it did not sound great - the interface would not make me keep it. It does still hold a well worn spot on my desk. I think it is worth giving a listen. |
|
|
|
Post by lpedrum on Dec 5, 2023 20:12:59 GMT -6
Follow up: Meris has designed a new reverb box with many of the settings included from the CXM 1978. Less $$ ($600) and more verb options. It's called a pedal but there's little doubt that it was designed for studio use. Stereo line in and out.
|
|
