Atomic 50/50 vs. MATRIX GT800FX

We're getting a lot of subjective information from these "Atomic VS....." and "Matrix VS...." comparos, but nothing very objective. One comment, above, was that the Atomic (at 50W per side) sounds louder than the Matrix (at 400W per side). As most of us should be aware, distorted sound appears, to most ears, "louder." While I have neither the Atomic nor the Matrix, I do have Carvin and Mesa 50W/side tube amps to compare to a 750W/side SS amp. In listening to both, it seemed that the tube amp was much louder than I expected. But when we put an SPL meter out front, I realized how badly my ears had tricked me. When I was thinking the tube amps were very loud, they were actually well past 10% THD (Total Harmonic Distortion), while the SS amp was still clean. And the SS amp was actually putting out much higher dB levels!

The takeway: DON'T trust your ears.

The other takeway: Get some accurate measuring gear.

Most of us are more than willing to spend the money for an Axe, a set of speakers, an expensive guitar, a MIDI foot pedal. But not a single poster here has ever provided objective data to go with his comments. And honestly, I think when that begins to happen, a lot of manufacturers within the guitar industry might be running for the hills. Here's the thing: you can do this with your iPhone or iPad.

There are two apps (and, I'm sure, a lot more) that might be worthwhile. One is something called SPL Meter, the other is AudioTools. These apps work pretty well with the mike built into the Iphone/iPad itself (despite some bottom rolloff), and there are more expensive interfaces available, etc. AudioTools includes a Real Time Analyzer and a Generator that will allow you to profile an amp and speaker setup within an environment to see what kind of coloration is going on that's being added by the amp, the speaker and the walls/floor, etc. Good sound engineers have used these for years to EQ PA systems, home stereo systems, etc. A simple SPL Meter will tell us how loud something really is. A Real Time Analyzer will tell us how loud something is at separate frequencies, and depending on the quality of the RTA and the granularity you want (1/3 octave is more than enough for our purposes) over a given frequency range, can show where the sound is being influenced by walls, floors, room size and by the speaker and amp itself.

Price on this stuff for the basics is around $20, I think. The more people that have objective data to add to their posts, the better. I think we'll begin to see some interesting patterns emerging...
 
I know what dspellman is saying and I agree with him but u r right also...at the end our ears is all we can trust.
 
Perceived level and SPL are so different in regards to clean vs. high gain patches, for me, just using my ears produces the best results and is reasonably fast.

Plus for me, its a required skill... to be able to make changes during soundcheck quickly to produce the results I am going for.

When my patches don't cut a mix the culprit is typically EQ and/or compression (too much compression).

- Richard
 
I have an RTA on my HTC. I also have a pink and white noise generator. I saved that file to my PC and fed the AFX into the Tube pre. I played them through both my VHT and Matrix before I sold the VHT. It showed to my how coloured the VHT was, despite it being reputed as the monst neutral valve PA (at the time - pre Atomic). The Matrix OP was very close to the Input (volume aside - but relative freqs). The VHT was quite a way off. it was another deciding factor fin favour keeping the Matrix for me.


Of course this doesnt stop me - or anyone - LIKING the valve power amp better. It does mean the SS one is a truer reflection of what the AFX is putting out but the two dont necessarily go together.
 
dspellman said:
We're getting a lot of subjective information from these "Atomic VS....." and "Matrix VS...." comparos, but <em>nothing very objective</em>. One comment, above, was that the Atomic (at 50W per side) sounds louder than the Matrix (at 400W per side). As most of us should be aware, distorted sound appears, to most ears, "louder." While I have neither the Atomic nor the Matrix, I do have Carvin and Mesa 50W/side tube amps to compare to a 750W/side SS amp. In listening to both, it seemed that the tube amp was much louder than I expected. But when we put an SPL meter out front, I realized how badly my ears had tricked me. When I was thinking the tube amps were very loud, they were actually well past 10% THD (Total Harmonic Distortion), while the SS amp was still clean. And the SS amp was actually putting out much higher dB levels!<br>
<br>
The takeway: DON'T trust your ears. <br>
<br>
The other takeway: Get some accurate measuring gear. <br>
<br>
Most of us are more than willing to spend the money for an Axe, a set of speakers, an expensive guitar, a MIDI foot pedal. But not a single poster here has ever provided objective data to go with his comments. And honestly, I think when that begins to happen, a lot of manufacturers within the guitar industry might be running for the hills. Here's the thing: <em>you can do this with your iPhone or iPad.</em> <br>
<br>
There are two apps (and, I'm sure, a lot more) that might be worthwhile. One is something called SPL Meter, the other is AudioTools. These apps work pretty well with the mike built into the Iphone/iPad itself (despite some bottom rolloff), and there are more expensive interfaces available, etc. AudioTools includes a Real Time Analyzer and a Generator that will allow you to profile an amp and speaker setup within an environment to see what kind of coloration is going on that's being added by the amp, the speaker and the walls/floor, etc. Good sound engineers have used these for years to EQ PA systems, home stereo systems, etc. A simple SPL Meter will tell us how loud something really is. A Real Time Analyzer will tell us how loud something is at separate frequencies, and depending on the quality of the RTA and the granularity you want (1/3 octave is more than enough for our purposes) over a given frequency range, can show where the sound is being influenced by walls, floors, room size and by the speaker and amp itself. <br>
<br>
Price on this stuff for the basics is around $20, I think. The more people that have objective data to add to their posts, the better. I think we'll begin to see some interesting patterns emerging...
Click to expand...
<br><br>Great post... I used to have a couple of SPL meters on my iPhone when I used to download hacked apps... just looked up and there are about 4 free SPL meter apps now that I'm downloading as I type this message. One thing I notice about the iPhone is that it will indeed clip very easily... so as you've mentioned, a higher quality interface is definitely worth getting for a more accurate reading (especially in louder environments).<br><br>My experience with the Ultra/Axe2 has been that the low gain amps (especially ever so slightly driven clean amp sims) can definitely be louder than a distorted tone with a high gain amp sim... case in point... I used to have my cleans tip close to about 80-90% on the output meter in the Ultra/Axe2 and couldn't get my distortion to not clip because no matter what I did, it would clip and still sound lower than the clean tone... I flip flop between this setup and then having my clean at around 50% on the meter and the distortion set accordingly... but for whatever reason I love the sound/feel of the clean amp around 80/90% on the output meter... I know it's been documented that there is no "difference" and to just use the main level... but it just feels better.<br><br>As to why it sounds better it's usually because the mids are are more pronounced (as is probably the case with the clean tones) when compared to the distortion tones which seem to be more bass heavy... and to quote SP... YMMV IMHO.
 
I have the Studio Six Digital apps for SPL, FFT and RTA on my iPad2.

I'll give them a go with my Axe II and see if the SPL meter craps out or not.


Richard
 
The Stevie Wonderlic Test...

James Cullen said:
It should, and gets very close but it cannot absolutely replicate the signal passing through the circuitry and the electrons of the valve to give a truer sparkle to the sound. its the same in my recording experience. Analog valve EQ just sounds better than the very best modelling plugin digital wizardry. Its particularly noticeable on clean sounds like acoustic guitar and Fenderish clean amp sounds. I hear the difference and is better. Whether it "ought" to sound the same is irrelevant, the fact is it is not as good. The power amp warmth and saturation of the modelled sounds is very good and makes cranking an ear splitting valve amp unnecessary , so I agree with you there. It is specifically the sonic lushness of the valve circuitry adding the character I am alluding to which I prefer. Having worked with sound for a long time now I trust my ears not what "ought to or should" People try to convince themselves that something should sound better because they own it or have bought it when in fact it does not and we need to be honest here. Trust your ears always

James
Click to expand...

James,

Just curious here...Have you ever subjected your trusty ears to a "blindfold-test" to see if you truly can hear the difference, or are you just convinced that you can? No disrespect here, and maybe you have done such blinfolded-tests," but I just wonder with how much tangible proof you can purport in hearing such differences, without the true "blinfold-challenge?"

BTW, I also have been doing this (performing-musician, studio-musician, instrument-instructor, producer, studio-mixdown engineer, FOH-mixer) for a long time, but I personally am not confident enough to claim to be able to pass such a blindfold-test...Perhaps you can pass or have passed such tests? BTW, I know there are many professionals who "hear it" more distinctly and with more detail than I do, and you very well could be yet another qualified-pro who could pass such a "blindfold-test?!?"

Bill
 
billmeedog said:
James,

Just curious here...Have you ever subjected your trusty ears to a "blindfold-test" to see if you truly can hear the difference, or are you just convinced that you can? No disrespect here, and maybe you have done such blinfolded-tests," but I just wonder with how much tangible proof you can purport in hearing such differences, without the true "blinfold-challenge?"

BTW, I also have been doing this (performing-musician, studio-musician, instrument-instructor, producer, studio-mixdown engineer, FOH-mixer) for a long time, but I personally am not confident enough to claim to be able to pass such a blindfold-test...Perhaps you can pass or have passed such tests? BTW, I know there are many professionals who "hear it" more distinctly and with more detail than I do, and you very well could be yet another qualified-pro who could pass such a "blindfold-test?!?"

Bill
Click to expand...

Thanks Bill,

Sorry for the late reply I have been playing with my new AXE FX II for the last couple of weeks. With version 3.03 this thing is stunning and I have to say sounds like a real tube amp especially the clean sounds and Vox TB AC30. Truly excellent. And the ain't a single flaming bottle in that thing so it is challenging my preconceptions.

My observations and opinion did come over a little dogmatic and you are right. I have not done blinded tests with the very best in plug ins. I have 2 DW Fearn EQs and patching that in on acoustic guitar is unrivalled in the sound I get. But...I have only compared with Oxford EQ and Massenburg GML in Tc electronic System 6000. Two of the best digital EQ out there. The Fearn is so flattering, but that might be its overall circuit design not the valves I have to admit. I have been thinking maybe if the modelling could be as accurately done as possible with the kind of processing power that Cliff has put in the AXE II then mayebe it will sound the same. Especially as it has been pretty much done with valve amps for guitars. Maybe Cliff could have a side line to model all high end boutique studio EQ and you could us the Axe in line to process tracks during mixing recording. Perhaps folks are already doing this with the PEQ on the Axe II. Just a thought. I am prepared to admit I may be wrong but have not had tools to compare with my Fearns and Manley Massive Passive that are on an equal footing as the TDM plugins in Protools HD don't have the processing power

I think my ears are reasonable and I can hear differences, but as yet have not had the chance to experiment as much as I should have as I get the job done quickly with the analog EQ I have. I am sure that digital will get there

James
 
I purchased the Matrix and sold it almost immediately after plugging it in. Not enough power. I'm sure that the tones could be tweaked to sound great.....but I was so use to my "colored tone" that, paired with lack of power for my needs, I gave up.

Also....I did not like that you needed to (MAKE SPECIAL CABLES) in ordered to get bridged power. They should design it to do this without the need to start stripping wires and soldering.

I will say that the bloke over seas from them was extremely nice and spent enormous amounts of time with me. Very responsive to emails too.

Again.....most people like the amps....just wasn't for me.

What I really want is to have a single FRFR passive cab in stereo(2x12) that I can hook my Mesa 2:90 up to and turn cab sims on......That would be ideal for me, and I believe a lot of players too. Anyone know of something like this? Again....must be stereo. The Atomic is mono....and I'm not sold on their build quality.
 
Last edited:
The "special cable" is a deliberate thing. On the XT - with Speakon only OPs if is available with a single end - but with the GT Matrix thought that making it bridgeable through a single socket - that could take a jack plug would leave open the possibility for someone to push 800W into a jack plug. There not built to take that amount of power and could easily melt the plug - potentially welding it into the amp as well.

Unfortunately, Speakon do not make a combo Speakon/Jack socket that also uses 4 poles on the speakon section - so including a socket with the ability to take the bridged OP ONLY via a speakon plug (tke preferable way) wasnt possible.

So the choice - make it only bridgeable using speakon only plugs but having to make up that cable - or making it bridgeable into the single socket via either Jack or speakon. They went for safety over useability.
 
paulmapp8306 said:
The "special cable" is a deliberate thing. On the XT - with Speakon only OPs if is available with a single end - but with the GT Matrix thought that making it bridgeable through a single socket - that could take a jack plug would leave open the possibility for someone to push 800W into a jack plug. There not built to take that amount of power and could easily melt the plug - potentially welding it into the amp as well.

Unfortunately, Speakon do not make a combo Speakon/Jack socket that also uses 4 poles on the speakon section - so including a socket with the ability to take the bridged OP ONLY via a speakon plug (tke preferable way) wasnt possible.

So the choice - make it only bridgeable using speakon only plugs but having to make up that cable - or making it bridgeable into the single socket via either Jack or speakon. They went for safety over useability.
Click to expand...

I see...
 
@Tremonti: FWIW, the point of a very flat, transparent power amp is to use the Axe to simulate that "color", thus getting more out of the Axe's modeling. If you sold it right after plugging it in because you missed the "color", then it would seem you didn't completely re-edit your patches, or at least the global EQ (especially) to bring back that color. If your Axe was originally tweaked with the Mesa PA and then you switched right over to the Matrix without editing, it's not surprising you sold it right away.

Cheers :)
 
I used to have the Mesa 2:90 and got used to its 'color'. Switched to using my studio monitors after selling the 2:90, had to rework all my presets. Recently got my atomic 50/50 and wedges, again had to rework all presets.
 
I have recently been researching power amps and speaker systems to use with my Axe-Fx II and, like many others, have been on the fence over the solid state vs. tube issue. I still haven't made a final decision yet, but I wanted to put this out there:

First of all, I'm not a techno guru, but I have been playing guitar for over 35 years and believe I have a decent ear for good tone. Going back to the videos Mark Day made doing the A - B comparison between the Atomic 50/50 and the Matrix GT800, I think there's some validity to the point raised that the Axe-Fx II could likely have been tweeked to sound more "tubelike" in conjuntion with the Matrix amp (personally, I favored the tone of the Atomic 50/50 in the comparison).

Now, if we step back and look at the big picture, most people are using the Axe-Fx direct to FOH and using smaller SS or tube power amps for their guitar monitors (in this case, Atomic tube vs. Matrix SS). It would seem that it would be in your best interest to have a monitor power amp similar in design (SS or tube) to your FOH power amps so when you dial in your Axe-Fx amps, the same sounds (generally speaking) are projected to the audience. Now, I understand the tonality of P.A. systems and room acoustics play a big part in the overall picture, but I believe the idea is to use your monitor setup to establish your overall tone that ultimately gets fed to FOH (although not through the same power amp/speaker system).

I would love to see another A - B comparison where someone actually dials in more tube tone on the Axe-Fx II used with the Matrix amp. Also, Mark Day's A - B is using 2-12 cabinets. How about an A - B using Atomic FRFR cabs?

Thanks to all who have contributed to this discussion thus far! There's some great stuff on these forums!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom