LVC
Fractal Fanatic
Post a recording of the patch that sounds boomy through the CLR.
Maybe with the Pretty Woman intro riff.
I already returned the CLR sorry.
No issues with the Matrix amp/passive combination whatsoever
Post a recording of the patch that sounds boomy through the CLR.
Maybe with the Pretty Woman intro riff.
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.
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.
.
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)
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 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?
"boomy" and "soon" are the 2 words that get people going the most on the forum right now
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
Well "soon" I will be doing a show with an amp/cab solution that I find less "boomy"
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
perhaps find some "boomy" girls in the audience
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?
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.
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.
Can we get a recording of the patch, LVC? Please.