Right - I did patch the Optomix in stereo to kind of match the DXG during my comparisons. The problem is that DXG's mixer functions means it works to mix 3 stereo signals (including the aux) - whereas one Optomix really only gives you one LPG for a single stereo image (+ one mono aux input I guess). So it's just MUCH less flexible for signal flow in a stereo forward system like mine (unfortunately). I will say though - the imperfections of the two channels/vactrols on Optomix make the stereo imaging so much more gorgeous on the Optomix compared to DXG - again, it gives this very three dimensional quality to the stereo sound, and lots of stereo imaging and animation can be achieved with tweaking of each channel separately. I would love to have an Optomix sounding LPG with more stereo signal flow options, but I realize that would be a much more expensive module than DXG and MN are still having a hard time sourcing vactrols as I understand. In any case, definitely keeping the optomix.Stereo Optomix = muted envelope/gate, one to each channel. I do top is L, bottom is R, using the same envelope/gate for both. It certainly won’t be as tight as DXG because of the natural variations in vactrols. Even though MN does some form of matching, no 2 are exactly alike. You can use the mix out for a mono input effect like Erbe-Verb.So I ended up getting an Optomix to try it out against the DXG for myself. I spent about an hour A/B'ing their sound across a range of pitches/timbres from the XPO yesterday. Here are some initial impressions, in case this is helpful or interesting to anyone:
DXG - much more dry, "rhythmic", precise and at the same time more flat, kind of one dimensional. Has more of a bass thump and a stiffer/quicker attack and release.
Optomix - in comparison, much more wet, resonant, acoustic, natural sounding. Has more sustain and resonance, longer release/decay. The optomix seems to allow for more control and ability to dial in a wider range of sounds and tones with the damp control.
I tried to match the sounds between them, and for the most part couldn't. They both have their own distinct character and range, hard to recreate one on the other, and vice versa. If you have the luxury of having both in your system, mixing them together can get some pretty incredible LPG sounds.
Ultimately though, I definitely prefer Optomix. The way it animates and brings the sound to life is much richer and more interesting and emotional to my ears. Much more musical and alive. On the other hand, I can see where DXG would excel if what you're after are very tight and hard hitting rhythms, which the Optomix doesn't do quite as well. I would swap out the DXG and just keep Optomix, if it wasn't for one thing: the stereo properties of the DXG...which for my stereo MN system is really nice to have. I would need two Optos to accomplish the same signal flow functions. So holding on to both for now...as I figure out how to work around the stereo absence on the Opto and see if I can't live without the stereo options of the DXG in the long run.
I’ve been using DXG almost exclusively as a mixer, with only rare LPG use. I’d use it for both, but I have about a page’s worth of reasoning in this thread as to why not, and even having had it for a while (in a MN-only system), the shortcoming seems to pop in its head to say high.
I too prefer the sound of Optomix. I don’t dislike the sound of the DXG as a LPG, but it doesn’t have that nice decay. Definitely better suited, as you noted, to fast, tight rhythms.
Statistics: Posted by Ankaret — Sun Jun 02, 2024 10:34 pm