Atomic Reactor FR vs Verve 12ma

[felken]

If I designed and built speakers and sound systems for a living I doubt I would use one of these also, but without good data what is to be done??

[quote="Tone Seeker":1unn6yo1]Interesting, and I have to say that I'm surprised that many of you seem to have shifted your view of this level of FRFR product.

My view has not shifted. I won't be using one of them myself. It is surprising to me that, so far, nobody has reported dramatic differences among them.[/quote:1unn6yo1]

 

[Sidivan]

Here's the hurdle that's been banging around in my head for the last 6 months. Why doesn't anybody compare their FRFR monitoring system to what their P.A. sounds like? Granted a lot of places have house PA's, but what I'm looking for is a system I can use to dial in tones that will translate well to FOH. That's the sound that matters since we use IEMs. I'm tempted to setup our full PA in the practice spot and dial in there instead of through any FRFR system at home. I just LIKE to do it at home because I have access to the editor/user tones as well as tips on the wiki/forums.

So, for me at least, the real question is: Which of these translates well to the PA?

 

[Gasp100]

Has anyone posted about using one of the popular options: Atomic FR, FBT Verve 12ma (or 8ma), QSC K10's for FRFR and personal monitoring and being completely unsatisfied with their FOH tone? Everything I have read is quite the contrary; I know that Scott P has been using the Verve 8ma for quite a while and he seems to be really enjoying his live tones, I'm assuming he is doing most of his building/tweaking on the 8ma at home?
I'm not really a good test subject because I'm only playing at home right now and the Atomic FR kicks ass imho. Also, I'm finding when I tweak my patches on the Atomic FR and then bring them back to my Adam A5 monitors they sound better than they used to -- that works for me.
I guess what I'm saying is that maybe people are getting a little too nuts? We all know that none of these options is going to be a perfectly FRFR solution, especially at their respective price points. BUT, are they so far off that you build and tweak using them and it's sounding great, but not acceptable when running to FOH?

 

[felken]

I think I have read of some doing that by getting to a venue beforehand and plugging the axe in to the board and tweaking.

It seems to me that there can't generally be that much tweaking involved to get it to sound good unless it is a really crappy PA or the patches were off or put together on really crappy monitors or headphones. I am saying stuff that has already been said, oh well.

Here's the hurdle that's been banging around in my head for the last 6 months. Why doesn't anybody compare their FRFR monitoring system to what their P.A. sounds like? Granted a lot of places have house PA's, but what I'm looking for is a system I can use to dial in tones that will translate well to FOH. That's the sound that matters since we use IEMs. I'm tempted to setup our full PA in the practice spot and dial in there instead of through any FRFR system at home. I just LIKE to do it at home because I have access to the editor/user tones as well as tips on the wiki/forums.

So, for me at least, the real question is: Which of these translates well to the PA?

 

[Tone Seeker]

That makes more sense, thanks for the info.

Glad that helped.

One question in general I have is how much deviation is generally tolerable before the FOH is off if the patches are dialed in using the monitor?

I think that everyone will have a different threshold for what they're prepared to live with. Ultimately, that could probably be expressed as a dB deviation in some form. Another consideration is how many will, or can, take the time to compare what they hear on-stage with how they sound through the FOH.

I would think some rule of thumb, gained from experience knowledge would perhaps be helpful in dialing in patches in a bit of a compromised way for those that want to use their own studio monitors to dial them in and then plug into whatever PA is used. Thoughts??

IMO, it's best to make a comparison between FOH and your FRFR monitor. The FOH mixer can then be used to apply minor compensation, or the AxeFX Output equalization can be used if more extensive compensation is needed. This of course assumes you have the opportunity to make such a comparison. If the PA is good and the system has been equalized for the room little, if any, compensation should be needed. That's why you want your FRFR monitor to be as uncoloured as possible, and why your patches should sound like you want when using it.

The reality for many may be quite different, working in bad rooms with poor and un-equalized equipment. I suggest that trying to design your patches to take this into account will be a lost cause. The deficiencies in one venue may be quite different from those in another.

Terry.

 

[Tone Seeker]

If I designed and built speakers and sound systems for a living I doubt I would use one of these also, but without good data what is to be done??

Do your best to match your live FRFR solution to a good set of studio monitors (i.e. your reference source), if you have them. Hopefully, this will remove most of the colouration, and give you a reasonably flat system without spending mega dollars. I've been using my ears to attempt this but the approach I'm going to try next is described here. . . viewtopic.php?f=13&t=12148&p=117557&hilit=RTA+measurement#p117557

Terry.

 

[Tone Seeker]

I guess what I'm saying is that maybe people are getting a little too nuts? We all know that none of these options is going to be a perfectly FRFR solution, especially at their respective price points. BUT, are they so far off that you build and tweak using them and it's sounding great, but not acceptable when running to FOH?

I've taken an extended break from from playing live to address a tinnitus issue and some burnout, so let me give you an answer from a recording perspective. This is of course subjective, but for me the difference between the K10 I tested and my studio monitors was too large to ignor and live with. A patch that sounded good on the BM5A's for example, had an unpleasant "bite" on the K10. Dialing that out in the patch would have changed the tone noticeably on the studio monitors, and in my recording.

Terry.

 

[felken]

Tone Seeker,

I felt the K10 compared to my Rokit 5s had more bite also, but I am puzzled that you had to bump the highs on the K10s to more closely match your studio monitors.

I have not spent but 20 minutes so far with the K10 so...

I wonder if the perceived bite is because we are listening to the K10 at such small distances. I also wonder how much difference a coax design makes in that.

 

[Tone Seeker]

I hope that no one feels I'm singling out the K10. It's just happens to be the only monitor in the recent shootout that I've tried.

I felt the K10 compared to my Rokit 5s had more bite also, but I am puzzled that you had to bump the highs on the K10s to more closely match your studio monitors.

I'm not sure why.

For perspective, this was a test in my room against my studio monitors, and the compensating equalization that I posted was where I ended up after 30 minutes of tweaking by ear. The K10 sounded better with it, than without, but it was still not a match. So, please don't take the numbers as anything definitive. The reason I posted them was to bring another perspective to the discussion, based on what I've found with my limited and somewhat crude testing.

Tone Seeker,I wonder if the perceived bite is because we are listening to the K10 at such small distances.

I really don't know. However, when I play live my FRFR guitar monitor is in front of me near the floor, to my right, and my PA monitor is on the floor to my left. That's about the same distance between monitor and ears as when I was testing.

I also wonder how much difference a coax design makes in that.

Again, I'm not sure. I can say however, that the only FRFR solution I've been able to satisfactorily match to my studio monitors is a 30 year old Tannoy, dual concentric, home stereo speaker. The Tannoy sounded a bit dull without compensation, but once I bumped the 2KHz slider up +3.4dB and the 4KHz slider up +3.0dB I had a match. That's it, two adjacent adjustments and the Tannoy's sounded essentially the same as the Dynaudio's. I think the key is that the mids were in good shape, which is really critical for guitar. The Tannoy also had the same dimension, complexity and "sweet gooey" feel that I enjoy when I play my guitar through the Dynaudio. Everything is balanced, and I don't hear displeasing artifacts. It's too bad they are not suitable for live use.

Terry.

 

[MKeditor]

It is up:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=13032

 

[archangel]

So, for me at least, the real question is: Which of these translates well to the PA?

I use a single (mono) 12MA for live shows the past year...when I setup, I plug in the 12MA to my rack power and fire up my patches, make sure my guitar is tuned up and that my midi is working, etc. Then when I'm done on stage getting my gear put together, I turn my 12MA off...of course my signal still goes direct to the board and so instead of listening to my git thrum my 12MA, I step off stage and play while listening to it thru FOH. To date, with numerous shows using this rig, I've never been unhappy with my tone and I've never had to use global EQ either...in fact quite the opposite...I'm usually saying, "wow, is that MY guitar...that rawks!"

IME the FBT does a good job of giving an accurate, flat tone from your AXE...and then when played thru a decent PA, you're FOH is gonna be real close to what you dialed in during your private tweaking/patch creation sessions.

 

[Rocket Brother]

So, for me at least, the real question is: Which of these translates well to the PA?

I use a single (mono) 12MA for live shows the past year...when I setup, I plug in the 12MA to my rack power and fire up my patches, make sure my guitar is tuned up and that my midi is working, etc. Then when I'm done on stage getting my gear put together, I turn my 12MA off...of course my signal still goes direct to the board and so instead of listening to my git thrum my 12MA, I step off stage and play while listening to it thru FOH. To date, with numerous shows using this rig, I've never been unhappy with my tone and I've never had to use global EQ either...in fact quite the opposite...I'm usually saying, "wow, is that MY guitar...that rawks!"

IME the FBT does a good job of giving an accurate, flat tone from your AXE...and then when played thru a decent PA, you're FOH is gonna be real close to what you dialed in during your private tweaking/patch creation sessions.

Archangel,
Thanks for the info. Thats a testement to the Verve 12MA and very good to know.
I think yours is a very good approach when it´s doable, and I think that the better the house PA is (and the better it is calibrated and equalized to the room), the less of a problem you´ll ever have. Same thing applies with the FOH tech, a competent one is naturally key to a good sound for the audience.

We mainly use IEM and work with the same FOH tech and the same IEM-monitor tech at every show, so we do extended soundchecks at tour start and every bandmember (sans drummer and Hammond) get to check his sound from the FOH with the full band playing, after that we just do normal soundchecks and trust the FOH tech, as he does an exelent job and knows our sound. He's over the moon with the Ultra, eventhough he's an oldtimer and have a soft spot for some of my tube amps as well. I typically only bring the Ultra and a small micked up combo with a pedal board as a back up (never needed it) on the smaller gigs, but also bring one or two bigger amps and the Ultra on bigger stages. I could do any show with only the Ultra, but 1) I need a back up 2) I still love a few of my amps, and as long as there are roadies ... 3) the artist likes the traditonal look of amps on stage, although he is cool about it if I want to go all Ultra. In a not to distant future (after I get a FRFR system) I´ll get a 2nd Ultra as a back up and leave the amps at home.