FRFR aren’t they all the same?

andyp13

andyp13

Power User
there seems to be quite a few FRFR active cab options around lately from Friedman, line-6, Matrix, Headrush, Atomic etc etc...
Wondered if someone could tell me what exactly is the difference between say an expensive option like the Friedman and a cheaper option like the Headrush.
If they are both FRFR - which as far as I am aware is a ‘neutral’ a sound as possible then surly with a bit of eq to compensate for the cab materials/design they can sound the same...
 
I think this is a good question, actually. One of those F's is supposed to signify Flat. If two speakers are actually flat in their response across the practical bandwidth, why should I choose one over the other?

Practically, I think that some are flatter than others, and some designs allow that flatness over a broader dispersion pattern than others as well. I'm using a set of JBL LSR28p's that I've had for a decade or more to set up my base tones, and I find that I regularly have more at around 500Hz than I want when I move to my CLR or a well-EQ'd PA. But those are supposed to be pretty flat speakers. So it may just be the room has a null there that I compensate for.

But with studio monitors and FRFR, I think to at least some degree the flatness of that second F is linked to what you pay for the cabinet, unfortunately.
 
andyp13 said:
there seems to be quite a few FRFR active cab options around lately from Friedman, line-6, Matrix, Headrush, Atomic etc etc...
Wondered if someone could tell me what exactly is the difference between say an expensive option like the Friedman and a cheaper option like the Headrush.
If they are both FRFR - which as far as I am aware is a ‘neutral’ a sound as possible then surly with a bit of eq to compensate for the cab materials/design they can sound the same...
Click to expand...
They are not all FRFR. Most pa speakers can be considered full-range, which is the first FR, but few are flat response. The CLR and NX12-SMA are the flattest, while almost all others have a far from flat response.

So they are definitely not the same.
 
I’m using a RCF TA08 at the moment but using it on a showcase I struggled to hear it (the band were loud), I wondered if a 10 or 12” loaded cab would give me a better sound (and shift more air). The Headrush Bost 1,000 watts (2,000 peak) are a great price and it was this that got me wondering why the massive difference in price? are people just paying for the name and thinking they are getting something better for the money? Doesn't FRFR mean FRFR?
 
The Friedman as an example isn't Flat - on purpose. They have designed as a Full Range system that will make guitar modellers such as the Axe Fx 3 will sound good. Which means purposefully adding filters and EQ's or similar in the speaker to make it not-flat, but sounding more appealing. A truly flat speaker wouldn't care what you're playing through it.

Having a flat response and sounding good is not the same thing. I've played through a cheap Alto PA speaker and PA speakers are not supposed to colour the sound so should be flat-ish. But it sounded like a speaker with a blanket on top of it. You can also find flat-ish speakers that are really harsh sounding.

There's also other important aspects of speaker design. Good near-field monitors would all be flat response, but being near-field, you have to sit in a good position for the speaker to sound as intended. The Atomic CLR as an alternative has a coaxial design (the tweeter sits in the middle of the cone) and has a 90 degree dispersion all around so you can stand pretty much anywhere in front of it and it'll sound good and as intended. All Full range speakers has at least two speakers in them and if they don't have a coaxial design like the CLR (most don't), they will sound different depending on where in the room you are, and they typically has a narrower dispersion so you're more limited to where you can stand while listening.
 
chris said:
They are not all FRFR. Most pa speakers can be considered full-range, which is the first FR, but few are flat response. The CLR and NX12-SMA are the flattest, while almost all others have a far from flat response.

So they are definitely not the same.
Click to expand...

Hi Chris,
I realise PA cabs will all have their own character (I liked the DRX-10)
The Headrush are advertised as FRFR as is the Friedman and all the others I mentioned in my original post And the price difference is huge...
 
andyp13 said:
Hi Chris,
I realise PA cabs will all have their own character (I liked the DRX-10)
The Headrush are advertised as FRFR as is the Friedman and all the others I mentioned in my original post And the price difference is huge...
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, FRFR has turned into a marketing term which has lost its actual meaning.

Again, most of those are definitely not flat response. Look at the response curve, and regardless of that (which could still be inaccurate for marketing), listen to the speakers, most which definitely do not sound flat in real life.

Again, the CLR and NX12-SMA are the flattest of the bunch. The others have their own sound. If a $300 speaker sounded the same as the $1000 ones, no one would use the $1000 ones. I’ve heard mixed reviews of the Headrush, stating it’s a good budget option but doesn’t really sound that good, and definitely not flat. I haven’t heard one in person.
 
Last edited:
Nothing is really flat, across a wide frequency range and over varying intensity levels.

It’s more a question of what speakers are the least colored.

A really good monitor is going to be maybe +\- 1.5 or 2db at a given frequency while lesser ones could be +\- 6dB which is a pretty big difference.

Better ones will sound more linear at different volume levels while lesser ones will start to lack accuracy as volume levels change.

Better ones will be accurate over a wider range, while lesser ones may start to roll off bass/lows.

Just because soemthing says it can produce down to 37Hz doesn’t mean it’s doing it accurately. A lot of specs reveal that it’s 37Hz but it’s 10dB reduced at that frequency so very inaccurate.

Overall FRFR is kind of a stupid term because it’s more of an ideal which isn’t possible in reality no matter how much you spend
 
andyp13 said:
If they are both FRFR - which as far as I am aware is a ‘neutral’ a sound as possible then surly with a bit of eq to compensate for the cab materials/design they can sound the same...
Click to expand...

A studio monitor is also "FRFR." The quotes, because how accurately the monitor approaches a theoretical perfect FRFR is subject to price targets, which in turn control manufacturing cost targets. How well the monitor satisfies those requirements is then subject to the skill of the engineer designing the system, the manufacturer's production capability to reliably and consistently produce units that meet the specs within a certain tolerance level, and so on.

I've had two sets of monitors in my studio. The originals were M-audio BX8s. Nice, but I was hearing things that just did not seem right. So I engaged in a listening session involving JBLs, newer M-Audio stuff, Yamaha HS8s, and a couple other models/brands I cannot remember. While they all sounded "good", the HS8s were what came home, because they didn't have odd artifacts - overemphasis of certain ranges, blurring of notes, etc. Love them.

But even an HS8 isn't perfect. You can spend a little more, or a lot more, and get even better results. Lots of threads in the Amps and Cabs forum about what you could choose. It's like the old line about racing: "Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go?"

EQ in itself won't fix the differences between monitors. Far too many other factors are in play.
 
Basically any speaker, with the exception of soemthing like a dedicated tweeter unit for a car stereo could be said to be FRFR, depending on how loosely you want to define “flat”

$19 pc gaming speakers are more or less FRFR. Stuff you play sounds more or less like what you expect it to, and they can cover a pretty wide range, and are kind of flat

If your spec for flat is +\- 10dB over 70 Hz to 16,000 kHz then they count lol

If your spec is +\- 2db or less over a range of 20hz to 2000O Hz then no they aren’t

But there is no universal spec so FRFR is kind of meaningless
 
Think of it like 'Organic', which has no real standard LEGALLY attached to it. Anyone can say it, but what does it really mean? (yes, pendant's, there is a certification organization there, but there are few penalties for saying it, and it not really being so.)

FRFR is roughly the same way. Depending on who's selling, it can mean a range of things. I use the CLR and it's IMO the best out there. I've heard the Friedman, but it felt more tailored to a midrange bump and punch that is appealing to guitarists. My HS80's as studio monitors are in the very good category, but I wouldn't call them completely flat.

Any trip to a big box music store will have a number of these. Listen to them all and the differences (I found) are shocking. Again, as was stated before, nobody can agree on what is FRFR, so it can be a large range of products.
 
andyp13 said:
In the UK the Headrush are advertised as FRFR along with the Line-6 and Friedman, Matrix - is this not the case elsewhere?
Click to expand...
I updated that post because I did a google search and saw the manufacturers use that term.

FRFR to them means “FRFR compared to non FRFR” really. There is a varying degree of “flat response” so technically they could say it.

But it’s just like saying “this is the best speaker!” You can’t really prove it because it’s opinion. FRFR has turned into opinion as well.
 
Johan Allard said:
The Friedman as an example isn't Flat - on purpose. They have designed as a Full Range system that will make guitar modellers such as the Axe Fx 3 will sound good. .
Click to expand...

If you can't make it FRFR, it's much easier to say, that it's on purpose.

edit: or do you think they created a trully FRFR speaker, then they said, meh let's just add some coloring, because modelers don't sound good with true FRFR. :D
 
chris said:
Unfortunately, FRFR has turned into a marketing term which has lost its actual meaning.
Click to expand...

It a shame that companies are allowed to advertise something they are not. It seems the Axe FX is the only thing that is much more than advertised :)
 
Big diff in price in the AXE3 and a Pod too. Lots of things go into the pricing structure. Not everything is flat.
 
The ideal "monitor" should produce sound pressure proportional to the voltage at it's input with zero distortion. Real-life monitors never achieve this, regardless of price. The degree to which they deviate from this ideal is what differentiates the bad from the good. Typically the more you pay the better the performance but not always.

Most consumer-grade monitors are nothing more than boxes with some cheap speakers, a cheap Class-D power amp and some connectors. Pay a little more and you *might* get a crossover network that was properly designed and uses components with better than 50% tolerance, key word "might".

FRFR means nothing. It's not an official term and shouldn't be. Any "full-range" speaker should be flat response. Otherwise what is the purpose?

With full-range monitors it's no different than hi-fi speakers. Listen to a bunch and pick the one that sounds best to you. There is some correlation between price and quality but higher price does not necessarily mean better.

The MI industry is all about cheap. Most companies use the lowest cost components they can. There is zero regard for fidelity. It's all about price (and marketing).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom