Typical PA Speakers vs Specialized FRFR Options

I am hoping to gain a better understanding of the purpose of specialized FRFR options from the likes of Friedman, Xitone, etc. vs typical PA speaker say, for the sake of discussion, something like powered QSCs or something similar. I can only assume the specialized FRFR options aimed towards the modeling crowd simply sound better than your average PA speaker but if that’s not what is being used for the actual house sound, then I am not understanding the point. Is it so the player gets a more enjoyable on-stage experience while perhaps the FOH sound is more compromised?
 
in my experience, most regular PA speakers are voiced for FOH. they have a lot of bass and treble and are designed to throw the sound far. many can do double-duty as a stage monitor as well, but those characteristics are still there. some have buttons or dials to go to "monitor mode" to help compensate for some of these EQ issues.

many FRFR speakers are more ideal for a monitor setup, as they don't push these frequencies from the start. generally, you have to add what you want to these speakers.

majority of music gear is designed to sound good "out of the box" but also at the music store. if you take a stock FRFR speaker and listen to an iPod through it, it won't sound good. then use a QSC K10 and WOW it's sounds so much better, more bass, more treble... i'll take 2! but that can bite you at the gig when you suddenly turn up to 100 dB and you can't control anything.

i own a Flat Response speaker (RCF NX12-SMA) and i love it. it's a bit big for my weekly gigs, and i enjoy running stereo but only have one. so i bought some QSC CP8 speakers. i've previously used QSC K10, Yamaha DXR, etc. - a range of "normal" PA speakers. they are all used as monitors for both guitar and vocals in a duo setup.

the RCF speaker is way easier to use at the gig - i can leave it flat and not worry about feedback, unless the room is completely horrible. then i add some bass to the output EQ if i want it, add treble, etc. i rarely have to notch out any mids.

the QSC speakers sound great, but i have to cut a bunch of frequencies at different areas to compensate for a lot of bass and mid bumps (which help vocals cut through). once it's dialed in the way i like, it sounds great. but it takes more work. this work though i feel is par for the course for any sound system. i choose to leave the speaker's EQ dial set to normal/mains, rather than constantly changing them depending on the situation. then my setup is completely repeatable. (i use a Digital Mixer which can save all that EQ per gig.)

so i'd say that true FRFR speakers are best for monitoring because they don't add their own preconceived notion of EQ to the situation. that said, regular speakers are easier to get and replace, and you just need to be able to EQ them as needed.

also know that "FRFR" is being thrown around these days to mean various things. many speakers are "Full-Range" but not actually "Flat-Response."
 
The only real advantage is with a coaxial design like atomic CLR and xitone, that avoids phase cancellations around the crossover frequency (which usually is in a crucial area for guitar tones).
Other FRFRs are just normal PA speakers with a pretty look for guitarists IMHO.

PS: I'll add that some of them also incorporate a DSP which corrects the frequency response to make it really flat (even though the room you're playing in will alter it once again).
 
chris pretty much said most everything there is to be said - PA speakers aren't near fields and they aren't flat until you get very expensive. The main design goal of a PA is to offer a lot of volume at a distance. Even though many are advertised for stage monitor duty, they're rarely designed to be good at this role.

The good FRFR systems diverge from PA designs in particular ways. XiTone, L6 Powercab, and Atomic are coaxial deisgns. The Friedman isn't coaxial but uses a circular horn that offers a much better dispersion pattern than you normally get from a PA. A Headrush is just a PA box though, so it's not universal.
 
in my experience, most regular PA speakers... are designed to throw the sound far.
I've come across some people who say this, and I'd nodded along but never been quite sure what they mean :p What do you mean PAs are designed to throw the sound far? They're loud? Narrow directivity? Woofer & tweeter cohere farther away? All of the above or something else?
The Friedman isn't coaxial but uses a circular horn that offers a much better dispersion pattern than you normally get from a PA.
Are you saying that the Friedman "offers a much better dispersion pattern than you normally get from a PA" because it's uses a circular horn? Maybe in the general where all else being equal that is true, but too little info to make that call about a specific product, isn't it? Or maybe I'm reading too much into it.
 
I've come across some people who say this, and I'd nodded along but never been quite sure what they mean :p What do you mean PAs are designed to throw the sound far? They're loud? Narrow directivity? Woofer & tweeter cohere farther away? All of the above or something else?
near-field monitors focus the sound close, and it sounds good there. most PA speakers get it to sound good farther away, where the audience is, compared to the position of the speaker. 100 feet out. far.

Are you saying that the Friedman "offers a much better dispersion pattern than you normally get from a PA" because it's uses a circular horn? Maybe in the general where all else being equal that is true, but too little info to make that call about a specific product, isn't it? Or maybe I'm reading too much into it.
a typical speaker has a circular woofer on the bottom, and a tweeter or horn on the top. that horn is meant to push sound out usually 90 degrees to the left and right of center, and much narrower dispersion above and below center, say 50 degrees (i'm estimating).

when you put a speaker on the ground, it's now sideways, and the horn is now on the left or right of the woofer. the 90 degree dispersion is now going vertically, not left and right, as well. so that affects how the speaker sounds on the ground.
 
near-field monitors focus the sound close, and it sounds good there. most PA speakers get it to sound good farther away, where the audience is, compared to the position of the speaker. 100 feet out. far.
That way of talking about it confuses me cus it's not like near-field monitor designers are tweaking for monitors to "focus" the sound close (i.e. it doesn't "unfocus" when you go further away) and vice versa with PA speakers. I think you're alluding to what's simply a function of the tweeter & woofer vertical displacement. PAs use bigger woofers and have sizable horns for the compression driver, so the drivers are farther apart and as a result its far-field radiation condition occurs at a farther distance compared to near-field monitors.
a typical speaker has a circular woofer on the bottom, and a tweeter or horn on the top. that horn is meant to push sound out usually 90 degrees to the left and right of center, and much narrower dispersion above and below center, say 50 degrees (i'm estimating).

when you put a speaker on the ground, it's now sideways, and the horn is now on the left or right of the woofer. the 90 degree dispersion is now going vertically, not left and right, as well. so that affects how the speaker sounds on the ground.
Ah gotcha, that's what he meant. A horn that's 90x90 (let's say) isn't necessarily circular, so I didn't catch that he might be alluding to the narrower dispersion issue with many PAs when they're in monitor orientation. That clears it up, thanks.
 
why are they called near-field then?
Only Studio monitors are titled that way.
And it's to give he proper understanding of the optimal distance to create the proper stereo field listening position.
 
There is no general answer to the question. But mainly, you have to think of a PA speaker as something that - generally - will be used as part of a multi enclosure system to be able to reach a lot of people. (I'm not including small crappy stuff like Eons as PA speakers).
The beauty of the CLR and other such speakers is that they are NOT made to be used as part of a multi-enclosure system. A 90 degree dispersion is great for monitoring but lousy when used in multi-enclosure systems. You can use CLRs as a small PA and it'll sound great. You can't use it for a large PA. The dispersion pattern will make a comb filtering mess.
Today's PA speakers benefit from a lot of research done by guys like Bob McCarthy on Line Arrays. They are designed with very narrow horns that have a 7 or 10 degrees dispersion range to be able to project far - like Chris said - and can be arrayed so that the sum of the system is greater than the parts. Smaller PA speakers that are made to stand alone have wider dispersion patterns and can be used to great effect as FRFR solutions for guitar.
 
The beauty of the CLR and other such speakers is that they are NOT made to be used as part of a multi-enclosure system.
I don't think that's true. In an email exchange with the designer (Jay Mitchell) in the past, he said they were original designed for FOH duties and/or Movie Theaters....which would be multiple enclosures.
 
I think it simply comes down to quality and design of the solution.

Take a JBL JRX dual 15" enclosure. It's specifically designed for FOH PA. It is absolutely a gross sounding speaker at any distance.
Chris, your RCF NX12ma would destroy that JBL for FOH duties.

There are good and bad solutions in every form factor.
 
so "near-field" means "small"?
In pro-audio product marketing speak, basically yeah.

I dunno, I find the name "near-field monitor" more a marketing tool. It's not like the sound from "near-field monitors" begin to unfurl cus you take a step back. It's more that they can't be as loud (small drivers) so they can't produce SPL when you're far away, can't be as directional (small horn/drivers) so they disperse more sound and aren't as efficient, etc.
 
so "near-field" means "small"?
In case you missed my earlier post because there were a few posts around the same time:

Only Studio monitors are titled that way.
And it's to give he proper understanding of the optimal distance to create the proper stereo field listening position.
 
In case you missed my earlier post because there were a few posts around the same time:

Only Studio monitors are titled that way.
And it's to give he proper understanding of the optimal distance to create the proper stereo field listening position.
Saw it. Was asking him.

So it’s just an informational term?
 
I don't think that's true. In an email exchange with the designer (Jay Mitchell) in the past, he said they were original designed for FOH duties and/or Movie Theaters....which would be multiple enclosures.
Absolutely, but I do believe the CLR is not designed with that philosophy in mind. If you go to Jay's website, you'll see his Frazier speakers and those that are arrayable (and they are noted as such) have a much smaller directivity (55 degrees) compared to the 90 degrees of the CLR. And the enclosure designed in such a manner that the HF do not generally overlap.
The CLR is definitely born out of the Frazier heritage, but the application is not necessarily the same, so the design would be accordingly modified.
 
Saw it. Was asking him.

So it’s just an informational term?
Near-field and far-field are acoustics terms. It seems to me one of them got misappropriated as a marketing term for small studio speakers.

You're not listening in the (acoustics term) near-field with so called (marketing term) near-field monitors, that would suck. (Acoustics term) near-field is where the response is complex, unintegrated and unpredictable, which is not what you want when listening to a studio monitor. (Marketing term) near-field monitors exhibit (acoustics term) far-field radiation condition at a nearer distance. So (marketing term) near-field monitors have nothing to do with (acoustics term) near-field listening. See how confusing this gets cus of the naming? lol

Here's an excerpt from a textbook Loudspeakers: For music recording and reproduction:
However, at very close distances some rather more complex relationships manifest themselves. Academically speaking, this region is known as the near-field, but it should not be confused with the more colloquial ‘near-field’ that many recording personnel speak of. In fact, it is better to use the term ‘close-field’ for desk-top monitors, because the true near-fields are not good distances to listen within as the frequency balance can be strange in those regions.
 
Absolutely, but I do believe the CLR is not designed with that philosophy in mind. If you go to Jay's website, you'll see his Frazier speakers and those that are arrayable (and they are noted as such) have a much smaller directivity (55 degrees) compared to the 90 degrees of the CLR. And the enclosure designed in such a manner that the HF do not generally overlap.
The CLR is definitely born out of the Frazier heritage, but the application is not necessarily the same, so the design would be accordingly modified.
CAT 40 is similar to CLR's directivity, and its data sheet alludes that it can be arrayed. But I mean, it all depends on the application.
 
Back
Top Bottom