Get the Atomic CLR or keep existing rig?

This is why you really have to try these in your own setting with your own fingers and ears. My regular gig requires a relatively quiet stage and good monitoring is critical. I can't crank a backline loud enough to be able to hear myself without blasting those right in front of me and throwing off the whole mix (all instruments and vocals are going through the house).


mrstrat said:
That's funny, I found just the opposite. When I moved my CLRs from wedge to backline is when I really started enjoying playing with them in a band setting. Just goes to show that the only way to really know how they are going to work for you is to try out different configurations. It took me 6 months of trying different combinations to figure out what was going to work for me. I went through 4CM into an amp, two amps, Matrix GT1000FX into speaker cabs, FRFR, I tried it all. :)
Click to expand...




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
What is it about your current setup that you would like to improve? I use the CLR in a wedding band. Some people use FRFR so they can have lots of tones that are good matches to specific players/songs that they cover. CLR is great for that and I have tried it, but I don't really do that. I prefer to use "bread and butter" tones rather than different presets for every song.

The CLR sounds good to great in almost every room I've ever played it in. That is not true in my experience with guitar cabs. The CLR is very clear, detailed, contained, yet it rocks and is loud. No one can tell you what you will prefer. If your whole band has great monitoring and great PA then the CLR will be a very high quality experience for everyone. It won't be the same as a guitar cab pushing a bunch of air from the back line though.
 
OP, if you're happy with your existing sound, why change?

I've been using 2 x CLRs for a few months now and I'm still not 100% convinced that FRFR suits me (my fellow band members are not great fans of it, which doesn't help). Like kmanick, I have a love-hate relationship with FRFR, and I oscillate between those two extremes on almost a weekly basis. However, regardless of that, there's no doubt in my mind that the CLR is a quality product (though I wish they were lighter to lug around).
 
adew said:
OP, if you're happy with your existing sound, why change?

I've been using 2 x CLRs for a few months now and I'm still not 100% convinced that FRFR suits me (my fellow band members are not great fans of it, which doesn't help). Like kmanick, I have a love-hate relationship with FRFR, and I oscillate between those two extremes on almost a weekly basis. However, regardless of that, there's no doubt in my mind that the CLR is a quality product (though I wish they were lighter to lug around).
Click to expand...

This is my problem with FRFR, most (non guitarist) people in bands aren't used to hearing the guitarists rigs like this for the most part. It is changing but i have some old school people I play with and they are used to a couple 412's on stage. I like my band to enjoy my tone, even though I know FRFR would probably sound great, they just don't get it. Me being on in ears and an avid axe fx user, I'm used to the nice direct tone. Musicians just aren't used to that mic'ed sound. I mean look at how many newer axe fx users aren't even used to it.
 
I've not tried them, but there are traditional guitar cab designs in wedge format

Pro Monitors

I've seen these used. Basically it forgoes the HF driver and uses more traditional guitar cab speakers. So you don't get the ice pick of doom that a full range design can throw at you.

With any wedge, FRFR or not, I'm never afraid to use EQ to tame the highs (and lows).

I get the impression some guitar players that aren't familiar with running sound systems hesitate to use EQ on their wedge mix OR they end up playing with wedges that are EQ'ed for vocals and their guitar in the wedges sounds like shite.
 
Keg8605 said:
This is my problem with FRFR, most (non guitarist) people in bands aren't used to hearing the guitarists rigs like this for the most part.
Click to expand...
Agreed, agreed!

I think it is interesting that when we all discuss "amp in the room", we're generally only thinking of our selfish, guitarist perspective. However, my experience matches yours - band members are into this "amp in a room" thing too, although they may not be able to describe it as such. I think this is something for the OP to bear in mind, assuming he enjoys the tones he's getting with his existing rig.
 
adew said:
Agreed, agreed! I think it is interesting that when we all discuss "amp in the room", we're generally only thinking of our selfish, guitarist perspective. However, my experience matches yours - band members are into this "amp in a room" thing too, although they may not be able to describe it as such. I think this is something for the OP to bear in mind, assuming he enjoys the tones he's getting with his existing rig.
Click to expand...

I do enjoy my tone and have no issues. Mainly interested in FRFR because most patches listed online by others are done in this fashion(make it easy to find stuff quickly I want to use), I can use cabinet simulation for broader spectrum of sounds, and the FOH will mirror what I hear.
 
And I like my CLR in wedge. Easier to do feedback and 'feel the air' IMHO.

But anyway you slice it, it's the best sound I've ever gotten out of the axe - from other FRFR solutions (including Matrix, Mackie, QSC and others), and from real guitar cabs.
 
Ideally you would be able to keep both rigs, trad cab and FRFR, long enough to do some serious A/B and evaluation.

Most people, myself included, tend to remember old gear with a little bit of "rose colored glasses" :)

Especially if you are new to using IR's, you need some time to find some similar to your cab rig. That would make the transition easier IMO.
 
TOMIC TOMIC TOMIC TOMIC



post-27763-John-Belushi-eyebrows-gif-Anim-rOdx.gif

 
What about passive CLR vs active? I would use my Matrix power amp if passive. Pros and cons sound wise???
 
Passive will be cheaper and somewhat lighter. But I advice against it.

Major USP of the CLR is its capablity to optimize its tone using presets. You don't get that in the passive version.

Also, I think it's much handier to have and use an active monitor. Unless you need a separate power amp for other stuff too.
 
Thinking of getting the passive cabs not wedges. I like a traditional BL. Who has this and loves?
 
I definitely do not have experience of either but I kinda disagree with these guys since you have a good power amp right now. You could have the choice of either traditional cabs, frfr or both... I mean I think you will get the frfr effect either way and if you don't like it then it's an easy switch. Totally just my opinion and two cents from someone who does not own any of these but would love to haha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
kmanick said:
I agree with Yek, I believe these CLRs are tuned to work with their on board power source /settings/Crossover etc..
Click to expand...

I believe that the original CLR announcemenet video had Jay Mitchell using a Crown Macrotech to power the CLR Passive Cab.
I also believe he said the Passive and Active would sound the same?
I would recommend going and watching that video.....(because I could be completely wrong).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom