need help with decision WIth CLR vs NL12 vs RCF 12 sma

E

echo44

Inspired
So I already have two RCF SMA 12's, I kind of find them a little sterile on the high end.
A few months ago I joined the waiting list for atomic CLR, Now I got notice that its my turn to buy.

For those who have owned the RCF's tell me how much better you like the CLR's or what tonally is different.
Is it worth forking out another $2000 for that difference?

ANyone compare the 3 RCF, CLR or NL12? My other option is to go the matrix route with the NL 12,
very difficult to make these decisions as one can not just walk into a store and try all 3 out next to each other.

ANother consideration is the matrix q12 along with the matrix amp

Thanks

PS

I have 27 hours to decide!
 
Last edited:
It's not like you can't sell the NX12's for a good chunk of what 2 CLRs will cost. I had 1 NX12, sold for 2 NX10s. LIke them a lot. Now have 1 CLR. Like it better. Don't worry about my FRFR any more. Am on wait list for 2 more.

I say "go for it," but it's your $.
 
I was very happy with the NX12SMA. I am happier yet with the CLR. IMHO - TOTALLY worth it. The CLR does not suck. ;) :D

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4
 
Well, the NL12 is a very different experience to our Q12 FRFR offering.

There are plenty of threads comparing the various FRFR offerings out there to each other.

If you are finding the NX12SMA "sterile" maybe you will be happier with a non-FRFR solution? We designed the Q12 to "put out exactly what you put in", whereas we designed the NL12 to "sound totally awesome" :) With the NL12 the emphasis was on the biggest possible sound out of the smallest lightest box and being "maximum fun" and putting a smile on your face rather than being totally accurate. Cab sims on or off, whatever works best for you, its a fun cab.

The FRFR/tradiotional debate will roll on. There are plenty of people taking each approach right now, just go with whatever does it for you.
 
RobinMatrix said:
Well, the NL12 is a very different experience to our Q12 FRFR offering.

There are plenty of threads comparing the various FRFR offerings out there to each other.

If you are finding the NX12SMA "sterile" maybe you will be happier with a non-FRFR solution? We designed the Q12 to "put out exactly what you put in", whereas we designed the NL12 to "sound totally awesome" :) With the NL12 the emphasis was on the biggest possible sound out of the smallest lightest box and being "maximum fun" and putting a smile on your face rather than being totally accurate. Cab sims on or off, whatever works best for you, its a fun cab.

The FRFR/tradiotional debate will roll on. There are plenty of people taking each approach right now, just go with whatever does it for you.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your response! Such a tough decision!
 
I don't have tons of time with CLR and guitar but my recent test made a few things clear:

1. The CLR is clearer than the NX12SMA but you're not going to notice this too much in isolation or even on a lot of guitar material. For example, I noticed a clarity difference in tenor vocals on full material but would not have noticed without an A/B test. However, it may be the reason why it sounds closer to the "amp in the room" which only matters in small to medium venues at medium volume.

2. Oddly the NX12SMA required less preset tweaking to sound good. But ultimately, I liked the CLR better once tweaked.

3. The CLR dispersion is great for practice, and live for small, and medium venues. However, dispersion is not always desirable and the NX12SMA wins here. As long as you are in the sweet spot, it's good for you and good for the stage.

4. The CLR weighs a lot... so much so that for practice I'd nearly recommend looking into the NL12.

I don't know if any of that helps you or not but my advice to you is not to get anything at this point unless you KNOW it's worth the extra money to you.
 
Here are some of my subjective experiences. I thought the NX12 had kind of boosted muddy low mids for me. It was very directional, not good for backline purposes. That said I really like the NX12. It is a very good sounding speaker.

The CLR is very clear and sounds great. The difference is huge for me. Even more so when I use it as a vocal monitor. CLR is an amazing speaker.
 
sam said:
Here are some of my subjective experiences. I thought the NX12 had kind of boosted muddy low mids for me. It was very directional, not good for backline purposes. That said I really like the NX12. It is a very good sounding speaker.

The CLR is very clear and sounds great. The difference is huge for me. Even more so when I use it as a vocal monitor. CLR is an amazing speaker.
Click to expand...

The CLR active wedge absolutely kills the competition. Sounds amazing with Axe FX2 and is very versatile for a whole host of applications. Has power clarity and looks. Can't be beaten. Don't be thrown by some of the wacky threads on this forum. Find my review with a search and Rocket Brother as well. You won't be disappointed. Best bit of gear I've ever bought. And believe me I've bought a lot ....
 
If I went the CLR route would one be enough to start with? I currently have two RCF's I run in stereo.
How loud is it compared to the RCF?
 
echo44 said:
If I went the CLR route would one be enough to start with? I currently have two RCF's I run in stereo.
How loud is it compared to the RCF?
Click to expand...

For monitoring guitar 1 is certainly enough they are crazily powerful, but have a non-fatiguing sound and actually sound clearer at lower volumes than you might expect. I have 2 because I use them for a host of applications including as a small PA and monitoring for recording. They excel though as a FRFR monitor for guitar with a really clear authentic organic tone.

As vs the RCF I don't know Scott Peterson has used both and should be able to tell you. But IMHO volume isn't an issue with 1 cab as I have done gigs with both setups and 2 is overkill usually. But a nice kinda overkill :lol
 
Last edited:
echo44 said:
If I went the CLR route would one be enough to start with? I currently have two RCF's I run in stereo.
How loud is it compared to the RCF?
Click to expand...

the RCf's are as loud as the CLRs but the narrow dispersion makes them seem quieter.
One would be plenty, I'd run one with an RCF in stereo if you're keeping the RCF's
 
Last edited:
echo44 said:
If I went the CLR route would one be enough to start with? I currently have two RCF's I run in stereo.
How loud is it compared to the RCF?
Click to expand...

James Cullen said:
For monitoring guitar 1 is certainly enough they are crazily powerful, but have a non-fatiguing sound and actually sound clearer at lower volumes than you might expect. I have 2 because I use them for a host of applications including as a small PA and monitoring for recording. They excel though as a FRFR monitor for guitar with a really clear authentic organic tone.

As vs the RCF I don't know Scott Peterson has used both and should be able to tell you. But IMHO volume isn't an issue with 1 cab as I have done gigs with both setups and 2 is overkill usually. But a nice kinda overkill :lol
Click to expand...

kmanick said:
the RCf's are as loud as the CLRs but the narrow dispersion makes them seem quieter.
One would be plenty, I'd urn one with an RCF in stereo if you're keeping the RCF's
Click to expand...

What Kmanick said.

The CLR has as much volume as the SMA; it has an obvious advantage in off-axis behavior. I only run one and have only run one powered monitor on stage, even in loud two guitar rock bands with loud drummers. Never an issue with volume - within all reasonable situations. You can't take a CLR (or any other single speaker) on the floor and fill an outdoor venue for instance. ;)

Won't be long and I'll be able to try two CLR's at once. :shock Can't wait.

I loved the RCF, never had issues even given it's faults. I love the CLR and find it has less faults in comparison. Things to note when comparing the RCF and CLR: the CLR is heavy (though not unreasonably so; and the handle & balance more than make up for it when carried IMHO). It is taller than the RCF, but it is also narrower. In practice that is less a fault than a strength though. I prefer the control panel's location on the CLR; putting the RCF on a stand is ridiculous because the controls are on top in that orientation and the cables all stick up in the air. Looks stupid, and if you have the RCF up high at all, you cannot reach the controls. The handle on the RCF is stupid and non-ergonomic. One of the most uncomfortable handles ever put on a modern portable product in the history of man*. (*admitted purposeful hyperbole stated to underline my sincere dislike of the RCF handle).

The dispersion radius of the CLR is better, no debate. I find the CLR has almost no timbre or character - what you put in is what you get out. It's more accurate to source than many purpose built studio monitors in that regard. I've yet to hear a speaker under $2500 that was even on par with the CLR to date.

IMHO, YMMV.
 
well so I don't loose my place in line
I bought a CLR, If it doesn't work out than I will go the matrix route
Now I will probably sell my RCF sma 12 locally in Chicago or has any one used them as pa speakers?
Thanks peps for you help!!!
 
I tried the CLR, QSC K12, and Xitone powered cabs in an impromptu 'shootout' in my home practice space with another forumite (Apollonius).
IMHO the Xitone was the most representative in terms of guitar tone of the bunch...by a bunch. And Mick's customer service is most amazing! I've been meaning to post about this for weeks but havent had the time.
 
I just got two active clr wedges now to compare to my xitones but I'm not convinced either way yet. They both sound very good, but I'm finding I like the clr for some sounds and xitones for others. I need to spend more time with them. If I had to decide tomorrow, I'd probably send the CLR back and keep the Xitone. Luckily I have another week and a half to decide. Haven't tried the other speakers the op mentioned.
 
I played both, own matrix gt1000fx and 2 q12s. Both sound great buuuuuuuuttttt.
Was in guitar center this weekend to a/b axe with frfr(IRs) to axe with real cab. And i realised after 10 months of only frfr playing how much i missed the real cab sound. And i left the store buying a 2*12 fender cab with 2 g12 vintage 30s...

What i am trying to say is, the matrix route with matrix amp will give u the freedom to use both. And its a huge advantage to be able to choose what u want whever u want, a real cab or frfr...i have both and after 10 months i feel now more like playing with real cab, but iam sure there will be situations, stages where i will again prefer frfr. So matrix amp and nl12 means freedom :)
 
I ended up with the CLR, initial impression is it is a little more direct sounding than the RCF
still doesn't have that organic feel I am looking for. Anybody have any suggestions how they dial
it in? I have the eq switch set to simulate a guitar amp on the back of the CLR. Unless I can get it to sound
better will probably use this as another pa speaker and get the matrix in a few months.
 
Semih Yanyali said:
I played both, own matrix gt1000fx and 2 q12s. Both sound great buuuuuuuuttttt.
Was in guitar center this weekend to a/b axe with frfr(IRs) to axe with real cab. And i realised after 10 months of only frfr playing how much i missed the real cab sound. And i left the store buying a 2*12 fender cab with 2 g12 vintage 30s...

What i am trying to say is, the matrix route with matrix amp will give u the freedom to use both. And its a huge advantage to be able to choose what u want whever u want, a real cab or frfr...i have both and after 10 months i feel now more like playing with real cab, but iam sure there will be situations, stages where i will again prefer frfr. So matrix amp and nl12 means freedom :)
Click to expand...

Yep -- some days I feel like a cab and some days I don't :lol

GT1000FX amp Q12 FRFR and NL12 does it all and fills what ever I am in the mood for on that particular day!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom