Atomic Active Cab vs. Matrix Q12a

Status
Not open for further replies.
scotts said:
A dedicated FRFR sound reinforcement system should not impart "feel" or create "response" in a guitar cabinet way. It should be as transparent as possible. To the degree possible, within the limits of loudspeaker design, an FRFR system should just accurately reproduce and amplify what it is receiving.

If you want to run the Axe as a full simulation then all the feel, mojo, vibe, warmth, squish, grease, butter, etc. et. al. is produced by the virtual rig inside the Axe. The completed soundscape, with all its feel, etc., comes out the back end of the unit finished; needing only to be presented at the desired volume. The Axe is capable of this level of simulation. Most sound reinforcement gear is not capable of just reproducing and amplifying the Axe and otherwise "staying out of the way".

Think about it in terms of a traditional rig.

In any given traditional guitar rig, the feel, mojo, vibe, warmth, squish, grease, butter, etc. et. al. is produced by the amp, cabinet and effects. When you mic a traditional rig you don't want the sound reinforcement system to change your sound, you just want it reproduced at a higher volume.

Usually with a mic'd traditional rig, some amount of global EQing is necessary at the sound board for FOH. If the sound reinforcement system is of a reasonable quality this global EQing is to compensate the inadequacies of the room, not the loudspeakers.

For the solo Axe simulation user, assuming a sound reinforcement system of high enough quality, a little global EQing can sometimes be necessary from venue to venue. With a high quality loudspeaker, this will usually only mean slight global reductions in the low frequency. The Axe, through its global EQ section, functions as its own FOH board and handles that part internally as well.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you. I did a very poor job of asking my question clearly and I appreciate your clarification. A FRFR speaker should not impart feel or create response. That is the job of the AXE-FX and the guitar player.....but an FRFR speaker can most certainly have the reverse effect and remove or mask response.

That being said I my question is....

Aside from accurate frequency response....Do these two options, the CLR and the Matrix, accurately reproduce the feel/response produced by the AXE-FX (and the player of course)?
 
I didn't mean recording through the CLR, just Line Out of the Axe into a recorder.
I want to hear how the patch sounds through my speakers.
 
paulmapp8306 said:
Id say the Atomics are flat from that graph, BUT there are LITTLE peaks and troughs that could lead someone with a natural sensitivity in those areas to prefere something else over the Atomic.
.
Click to expand...


I think you'll find that, unless you are listening in an anechoic chamber or an acoustically sorted room; you'd find the rooms own frequency response to have far more drastic peaks and troughs (and therefore affect on response) than that atomic graph..

You know people spend fortunes on high end monitoring gear and acoustic treatments to get mastering / studio control rooms 'flat' - yet some members of the guitar community now seem to think that sort of performance is achievable using a portable device in any room they then play that portable device?? - go figure!

As a manufacturers design goal I totally get it - but as a guitarist if you are concerned about .5 db humps and spikes on a frequency response graph - well that puts you right there with the audiophiles - and as we all know they are bat sh*t crazy!

Bottom line is listen with your ears not your eyes!
 
Trazan said:
Are we now judging speakers by frequency charts? If frequency charts told the whole truth, chosing speakers and other audio eqipment would be easy, eh! 8)
Click to expand...


If you take the same speaker and put it in to different cabs -- they will sound different
One cab will sound great with one amp source and sound "challenged" with another
Amp/guitar/speaker combination will sound great to your ears using one guitar cable and sound muffled with another
One set of strings will sound great to you while another set made of the same material and gauge will sound and feel like crap

Why would cab/amp selection for the Axe-fx be any different?
 
LVC said:
I posted this in my review thread -- but

It is possible what I perceived as Boomy with the Atomic Active CLR Cab has nothing to do with the cab itself but how it is being amplified?

Remember I do not use the cabs as monitors I use them as my only source of amplification at gigs. No FOH --

If the cab designs are both equally flat then the variable between them is the amplification source.

I used two amp sources

1. The built in one in the Atomic CLR
2. The Matrix GT1000

The Matrix amp is designed to drive monitors as well as standard guitar cabs.

Have we been focusing on the wrong thing to nail down the source of the boom I experienced with the CLR?

Again --- I am not using my cabs as monitors. I am using as only source of amplification (at gig volume) for shows.

Could it be that the amp in the CLR works well as a monitor and at moderate volumes but not as well when used as a sole source of amplification with a full band in a club/bar setting at gig volume?
Click to expand...
I appreciate that you're still looking for answers on this, Laz but I can assure you that the amp is not to blame. All the response data we've been looking at and talking about is for the whole system including the amp. The amp is ruler flat and is capable of driving the amp to 120dB continuous at our published spec. One of the selling points for the CLR is it's ability to perform this way at those high levels while being incredibly well behaved through the specified dispersion pattern.

I think part of the confusion is that some people seem to be saying that the two systems being compared should be "about the same". This is not the case. The design of the CLR is very different from nearly all FRFR sytems, even ones that are coaxial. Some of the differences are easy to see like the horn loaded midrange/LF driver and the way the CLR's HF driver is physically in line with the LF driver (as opposed to being mounted behind it). These parts of the design are at the core of many things that make the CLR perform the way it does but there are other important differences.

Based on your observation that cleans sounded "boomy" and that overdriven patches sounded great, leads me to believe the patches that you were using are the culprit here. If the CLR was creating boominess, that effect would be present throughout all patches. One of the Axe-Fx's greatest attributes is it's nearly limitless flexibility. That combined with the fact that the presets are not calibrated for every firmware release leaves an opportunity for some patches to need some tweaking to get them the way you like them (not to mention different guitars, pickups, strings, cables, etc.).

As to why you don't have that issue with your current choice of monitor, I really can't address.

I will say that I'm sincerely happy for you that you seem to have found a solution that out of the box works for you. I clearly understand that this is the only thing that should matter to you. I'm sorry things didn't' work out with you and the CLR - whatever the reason. Yours was the 1st CLR I received back (of many shipped). This is a disappointment for me but that's life. I feel better knowing that your experience is isolated and that the consensus from our other customers is that the CLR exceeds lofty expectations.

I wish you the best of luck with all your gear, gigs and life in general.

Best,

Tom
 
Last edited:
MrGuitarabuse said:
"boomy" and "soon" are the 2 words that get people going the most on the forum right now ;)
Click to expand...


Well "soon" I will be doing a show with an amp/cab solution that I find less "boomy"

b5c5f2a9.gif
 
brokenvail said:
So far I think only one other person said they have both but just got the CLR and have not gigged it yet. I have always wanted to hear more head to head to head reviews with the matrix, CLR and RCF
Click to expand...

Yes, that was me. I said this on another post as well, but anyone in the Washington DC area is welcome to come by and try these out side by side.
 
Tom King said:
Based on your observation that cleans sounded "boomy" and that overdriven patches sounded great, leads me to believe the patches that you were using are the culprit here. If the CLR was creating boominess, that effect would be present throughout all patches. One of the Axe-Fx's greatest attributes is it's nearly limitless flexibility. That combined with the fact that the presets are not calibrated for every firmware release leaves an opportunity for some patches to need some tweaking to get them the way you like them (not to mention different guitars, pickups, strings, cables, etc.).

Tom
Click to expand...

thanks for your note -- but lets be clear it was not on a single patch and there really was no need for me to go there. I focused on one patch (which was a default patch on the Axe which uses an amp I really dig and has all the basic effects blocks already in the chain. Nothing fancy. I added scenes to make it easier for me to use in gigs since I still do not have an MFC).

I also reset the Axe several times and started from scratch.

Overdrive I tune to to a tone that I like and it was easily done with the CLR and it sounded great. I adjusted that pedal (Zendrive) for the Matrix/Q12 as well to achieve the type of tone I liked and it also sounds great through the matrix/cab setup.

Dialing in an overdrive tone is easy (at least the sounds I go for). -- what the challenge was to get the cleans on the Fender amp to sound like a fender amp without subtracting too much bass frequencies (after a while it just did not sound like the Fender amp it was suppose to be) especially at gig volumes with a full band.

Again my application is as a single source of amplification for gigs -- NOT monitoring which is maybe why what I experienced had nothing to do with the cab but the amplification source.

Again I keep repeating this but it is very important to note.

I am not using either solution to monitor myself but as a stand alone source of amplification at a gig as if you walked into a club and setup your Vibrolux plugged in and started to play with your band.

NO FOH --- No Monitoring
 
Last edited:
MrGuitarabuse said:
perhaps find some "boomy" girls in the audience ;)
Click to expand...

couple of weeks ago things got really out of hand. The "boom" girls got up on the tables and started dancing -- then they proceeded to give a couple of the more quiet male patrons lap dances.

It got a little out of control.
 
LVC said:
If you take the same speaker and put it in to different cabs -- they will sound different
One cab will sound great with one amp source and sound "challenged" with another
Amp/guitar/speaker combination will sound great to your ears using one guitar cable and sound muffled with another
One set of strings will sound great to you while another set made of the same material and gauge will sound and feel like crap

Why would cab/amp selection for the Axe-fx be any different?
Click to expand...

Not sure we're talking about the same thing. I'm just saying that these frequency charts only tell som much. Two microphones with close to identical frequency response charts may sound radically different. It seems that some people think the frequency graphs presented here is all there is to it, and that their flatness shows that these speakers are better, or more correct than other speakers.
 
LVC said:
couple of weeks ago things got really out of hand. The "boom" girls got up on the tables and started dancing -- then they proceeded to give a couple of the more quiet male patrons lap dances.

It got a little out of control.
Click to expand...

Now thats what we guitarists are talking about. Who the heck cares if you play CLR or Q12... laaaapdaaaaaannnnnnceeeeeee!!! ;)
 
I agree with you.

A good statistician (or politician - LOL) can take the same data points and present them in such a way to support the outcome they want to covey.

I am sure a skilled engineer can do the same thing.


Trazan said:
Not sure we're talking about the same thing. I'm just saying that these frequency charts only tell som much. Two microphones with close to identical frequency response charts may sound radically different. It seems that some people think the frequency graphs presented here is all there is to it, and that their flatness shows that these speakers are better, or more correct than other speakers.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom