Atomic Reactor FR vs Verve 12ma

[alchemist]

Can somebody post the frequency response curves for the Reactor? I know many people have said that specs don't matter and that as long as it sounds good -- that's what matters. But that does not answer the question on whether it is colored or not, or whether or not it is a better FRFR solution than something else. That's like saying a mic's frequency response doesn't make a difference. It does, and that's what gives it its "color" to a large degree.

The manufacturer has previously stated that frequency-response curves will not be published for the Atomic Reactor FR.

If you don't publish these measurements, then how can you say it is a better FRFR solution than another PA monitor? Simply stating that it "sounds better" does not make it a better FRFR solution -- only that it "sounds better." For example, my tube amp might "sound better" than my solid-state amp, but the SS amp might be a better FRFR solution ...

In my opinion, a truly great FRFR solution is uncolored and is pure to the incoming signal. If the incoming signal sounds great, the resultant sound should also be great. If the input is crappy, the output sound should also be equally crappy. It should NOT make something crappy sound better. If it does, then it is coloring the sound. And in my experience, tube amps tend to do this -- esp with guitar signals as inputs.

That is not to say that tube-based systems cannot be built as good FRFR systems. But the proof is in the measurements, and in listening tests as compared to known, golden FRFR reference systems.

 

[Tone Seeker]

In my opinion, a truly great FRFR solution is uncolored and is pure to the incoming signal. If the incoming signal sounds great, the resultant sound should also be great. If the input is crappy, the output sound should also be equally crappy. It should NOT make something crappy sound better. If it does, then it is coloring the sound.

Very well put.

That is not to say that tube-based systems cannot be built as good FRFR systems. But the proof is in the measurements, and in listening tests as compared to known, golden FRFR reference systems.

For perspective, the specs I've looked at on the Verve 12ma do not include a frequency response plot. The 12ma frequency response specs do not identify any bounding parameters. The same is true for the Sound Pressure Level rating.

My point, given the above and given the ease with which audio manufacturers can spin specifications to serve their purposes, is that listening tests which compare a product to a "known, golden FRFR reference system" is our most pragmatic and arguably best, tool of comparison. The downside is that this is very subjective and a given room may colour the results.

What I'm concerned about are comparisons made by testers who do not have a good set of reference speakers. Saying that one sounds better than the other does not mean we can conclude that one is more FRFR than the other. It could easily be that the colouration of their existing FRFR solution has been compensated for with the AxeFX (within their patches), and that an alternate powered monitor that is truly FRFR sounds worse. The reverse may also be true, depending on the colouration involved.

I think it is possible that some AxeFX uses may prefer the colouration of a particular powered monitor, and what it does to their tone. They may have no need to match to another system, such as a PA or studio monitors. That's cool, and in that case their requirements are met. Personally I believe that a well designed and implemented flat system is still more desirable, even on a standalone basis, but that's IMHO.

What I'm pleased to see is some good discussion on this topic. Given our long and rich history leveraging a myriad of frequency colouration and other distortions as guitar players, our "community" has much to learn about flat response, full range solutions.

Terry.

 

[alchemist]

In my opinion, a truly great FRFR solution is uncolored and is pure to the incoming signal. If the incoming signal sounds great, the resultant sound should also be great. If the input is crappy, the output sound should also be equally crappy. It should NOT make something crappy sound better. If it does, then it is coloring the sound.

Very well put.

That is not to say that tube-based systems cannot be built as good FRFR systems. But the proof is in the measurements, and in listening tests as compared to known, golden FRFR reference systems.

For perspective, the specs I've looked at on the Verve 12ma do not include a frequency response plot. The 12ma frequency response specs do not identify any bounding parameters. The same is true for the Sound Pressure Level rating.

My point, given the above and given the ease with which audio manufacturers can spin specifications to serve their purposes, is that listening tests which compare a product to a "known, golden FRFR reference system" is our most pragmatic and arguably best, tool of comparison. The downside is that this is very subjective and a given room may colour the results.

What I'm concerned about are comparisons made by testers who do not have a good set of reference speakers. Saying that one sounds better than the other does not mean we can conclude that one is more FRFR than the other. It could easily be that the colouration of their existing FRFR solution has been compensated for with the AxeFX (within their patches), and that an alternate powered monitor that is truly FRFR sounds worse. The reverse may also be true, depending on the colouration involved.

I think it is possible that some AxeFX uses may prefer the colouration of a particular powered monitor, and what it does to their tone. They may have no need to match to another system, such as a PA or studio monitors. That's cool, and in that case their requirements are met. Personally I believe that a well designed and implemented flat system is still more desirable, even on a standalone basis, but that's IMHO.

What I'm pleased to see is some good discussion on this topic. Given our long and rich history leveraging a myriad of frequency colouration and other distortions as guitar players, our "community" has much to learn about flat response, full range solutions.

Terry.

Well said, and I agree on all points.

BTW, I have a pdf file of the FBT Verve series preliminary manual, with frequency response plotted (SPL vs Freq) as well as horizontal and vertical polar diagrams. It's too big to attach, unfortunately, but you can download it from here: http://www.fbtusa.net/files/VERVE_activ ... manual.pdf

 

[Tone Seeker]

BTW, I have a pdf file of the FBT Verve series preliminary manual, with frequency response plotted (SPL vs Freq) as well as horizontal and vertical polar diagrams. It's too big to attach, unfortunately, but you can download it from here: http://www.fbtusa.net/files/VERVE_activ ... manual.pdf

Got it. . . . thanks.

Terry.

 

[hippietim]

The Reactor FR is as, or more flat than most of the non-tube FR solutions discussed on this board. People making an argument to the contrary are not properly informed.

-TK

Tom, where is this information? Further down in this thread someone said that you guys won't be publishing the frequency response curves - isn't that precisely the information that folks would need to be informed? A bunch of guys saying it's flat on an Internet BBS doesn't count :lol:

 

[hippietim]

Regarding the squealing on the Reactor. Mine squealed at *very* moderate volumes using something as basic as the "Brown Sound" preset. I could turn my Verve 12ma up to a painful volume and stand right in front of it with no squeal on the same patch. This was not "normal" tube squeal - I've been playing through tube amps for over 25 years so I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between "way too much gain and you're standing too close" and "something ain't right".

Tom King called me up after I returned mine and we had a great discussion. Props to Tom and co. for great customer service. He wasn't sure what was wrong with mine because apparently a tube was shattered upon return so there is no way to be sure what was going on when it was here with me. It is highly likely that I will give another go at the Reactor FRFR eventually.

 

[raz]

The manufacturer has previously stated that frequency-response curves will not be published for the Atomic Reactor FR.

Yikes. That's disappointing, and gives the lie to my earlier conjecture that we'd be more likely to get such information from Tom & co than from FBT. That's really disappointing. I don't like this at all.

 

[brettllingle]

This topic is getting to be ridiculous. If it sounds good and your happy with it who cares what the specs are on something. If you guys would spend more time playing guitar and making music than getting on message boards an nitpicking every little detail on equipment you may all be better musicians. :roll:

 

[Dpoirier]

For perspective, the specs I've looked at on the Verve 12ma do not include a frequency response plot. The 12ma frequency response specs do not identify any bounding parameters. The same is true for the Sound Pressure Level rating.
...

I don't know where you got that impression. Both of my FBT Verve 12mA units came with an operation manual that included frequency response plots, as well as polar diagrams showing the dispersion. And the back end of the manual provides full technical specifications, including maximum sound pressure level, sensitivity, and a few dozen other things. Furthermore, you don't even need to buy a unit to get that manual, it is downloadable here: http://www.fbtusa.net/FBTVerve12matcf.html (click on "Operation Manual", near the bottom).

FBT provides plenty of documented specs for their products, much more so than many of the other products out there.

Daniel

 

[BMH]

This topic is getting to be ridiculous. If it sounds good and your happy with it who cares what the specs are on something. If you guys would spend more time playing guitar and making music than getting on message boards an nitpicking every little detail on equipment you may all be better musicians. :roll:

How smart for you to say that as you, yourself, post here and waste time. :roll:

 

[Tone Seeker]

For perspective, the specs I've looked at on the Verve 12ma do not include a frequency response plot. The 12ma frequency response specs do not identify any bounding parameters. The same is true for the Sound Pressure Level rating.
...

I don't know where you got that impression. Both of my FBT Verve 12mA units came with an operation manual that included frequency response plots, as well as polar diagrams showing the dispersion. And the back end of the manual provides full technical specifications, including maximum sound pressure level, sensitivity, and a few dozen other things. Furthermore, you don't even need to buy a unit to get that manual, it is downloadable here: http://www.fbtusa.net/FBTVerve12matcf.html (click on "Operation Manual", near the bottom).

My comments were based on a visit to the manufacturers specification web page. alchemist was kind enough to point out the data that was in the manual last night. . . . .

BTW, I have a pdf file of the FBT Verve series preliminary manual, with frequency response plotted (SPL vs Freq) as well as horizontal and vertical polar diagrams. It's too big to attach, unfortunately, but you can download it from here: http://www.fbtusa.net/files/VERVE_activ ... manual.pdf

Got it. . . . thanks.

Terry.

 

[Tone Seeker]

If it sounds good and your happy with it who cares what the specs are on something.

I completely agree!

If you guys would spend more time playing guitar and making music than getting on message boards an nitpicking every little detail on equipment you may all be better musicians. :roll:

The issue, for me at least, is that I can't go visit my local store to hear most of these products. I live in Canada so the 15 or 30 day trial offers are difficult to take advantage of (border crossing, brokerage fees, duty, taxes, etc.). I have to do my research, make my best educated "guess", pull the trigger and hope for the best!

I agree btw, that it's easy to get sucked into naval gazing and let your playing suffer.

Terry.

 

[raz]

This topic is getting to be ridiculous. If it sounds good and your happy with it who cares what the specs are on something. If you guys would spend more time playing guitar and making music than getting on message boards an nitpicking every little detail on equipment you may all be better musicians. :roll:

If this topic is ridiculous to you, don't read it and don't post on it. Go play guitar and make music while we nitpick every little detail and you might become a better musician than we. :roll:

 

[alchemist]

This topic is getting to be ridiculous. If it sounds good and your happy with it who cares what the specs are on something. If you guys would spend more time playing guitar and making music than getting on message boards an nitpicking every little detail on equipment you may all be better musicians. :roll:

Thankfully we DO have people who nitpick on every little detail on gear -- they are the ones who are responsible for producing such top-notch stuff like the Axe-FX!

From my point of view, there is a valid reason for nitpicking on FRFR. If someone says they have a great FRFR system -- they should back it up -- not by saying it sounds good. The specs do make a difference (why do you think the Axe-FX sounds so good? Not just the algorithms, but the specs on the components, as Cliff has mentioned before -- both in the quality of the converters and op-amps).

My belief about the Axe-FX are that the algorithms and method of creating the sound is where the value is. Anything past that needs to be pure. That means converters, op-amps, etc. to get it into the analog domain. Then a pure FRFR system to convert that to sound. This is why we are nitpicking about the FRFR. So that we can truly realize the potential of the Axe-FX.

 

[hippietim]

This topic is getting to be ridiculous. If it sounds good and your happy with it who cares what the specs are on something. If you guys would spend more time playing guitar and making music than getting on message boards an nitpicking every little detail on equipment you may all be better musicians. :roll:

The thread didn't get ridiculous until your post. You are completely dismissing other people's situations - I'm fairly certain that the majority of folks here have absolutely no opportunity to try out either the Atomic Reactor or the FBT Verve 12ma without shelling out over $800. And trying out both costs $1600+.

As for playing instead of posting, nice irony there...

 

[Sixstring]

The manufacturer has previously stated that frequency-response curves will not be published for the Atomic Reactor FR.

Yikes. That's disappointing, and gives the lie to my earlier conjecture that we'd be more likely to get such information from Tom & co than from FBT. That's really disappointing. I don't like this at all.

I asked Tom about this and the response that was given is valid from his prespective and I agreed. Let your ears be the judge and don't rely to heavily on a plot graph to tell you what's better. Not saying the Verve sucks as I own a few 12m's but the Reactor (I think) has a better AMP sound then the Verve's do plain and simple but the Verves serve my situation better so I was willing to give up the better sounding soulition at least for now or untill Tom can finnish building my tube powered FR wedge :mrgreen: .

 

[alchemist]

The manufacturer has previously stated that frequency-response curves will not be published for the Atomic Reactor FR.

Yikes. That's disappointing, and gives the lie to my earlier conjecture that we'd be more likely to get such information from Tom & co than from FBT. That's really disappointing. I don't like this at all.

I asked Tom about this and the response that was given is valid from his prespective and I agreed. Let your ears be the judge and don't rely to heavily on a plot graph to tell you what's better. Not saying the Verve sucks as I own a few 12m's but the Reactor (I think) has a better AMP sound then the Verve's do plain and simple but the Verves serve my situation better so I was willing to give up the better sounding soulition at least for now or untill Tom can finnish building my tube powered FR wedge :mrgreen: .

If the question is ... "does the reactor sound better than other FRFR systems?" ... then yes, I agree that you should let your ears be the judge on "what's better." But if the question is "is the reactor a better FRFR system than other FRFR systems?" then you HAVE to consider the measurements.

This is the key point: when I say FRFR -- it has nothing to do with sounding better. It is exactly as the acronym says: Full Range Flat Response. That means a flat response from 20 to 20kHz (full range). For me to compare FRFR systems, they need to be measured as well as listened to. You have to back it up with measurements and listening tests compared to golden FRFR reference systems.

As an analogy -- look at the cab IRs available for the Axe-FX. I can surely say that I prefer the Royer 121 to a SM57, or that both sound great. But that says nothing on how FLAT their response is! If you want flat -- you have to use a different mic -- like the Earthworks TC30. And most assuredly the measurements corroborate listening tests. I guarantee you that no engineer will believe you if you say you have a flat response reference mic and know that JUST BY LISTENING TO IT! You need to see the measurements.

Check out the TC30 plots: http://www.earthworksaudio.com/10.html
Now compare to SM57: http://www.shure.com/stellent/groups/pu ... _large.gif

Wow -- that TC30 is flat! Maybe an SM57 would sound better on a Celestion V30 at high gain, but that's because it is COLORING THE SOUND!

My philosophy is that I prefer the coloration to come from the Axe-FX -- not from anything else. I am sure the Reactor sounds great -- but if it is adding coloration and harmonic distortion -- even in a pleasing way -- I would rather not go that way. Saying that it "sounds better" and leave it at that -- sounds like an admission that the FRFR measurements would corroborate it as "colored." Only measurements would dissuade me from this.

 

[mitch236]

When I did my comparison, I did adjust the bass and treble controls on the FBT, I had to from the very beginning when I recieved them.

As for comparing both solutions to a proper monitor, I am using a pair of Vandersteen model 5a's with Ayre model MX-R mono block amps. If you aren't familiar with either of these, do a search. I don't think most studio monitors can match the performance of this system. Also, the room where I did the comparison was professionally treated for sound.


Again I will state, if you are happy with your FBT's, then great for you. For me, the Atomics were the last ingredient needed to achieve my tone. They rock! I just returned from Philly where I did a Zep tribute and at full stage volume, these Atomics are awesome! (and no squealing)


BTW, Don't get caught up in the plots of FR for any speaker system you buy. There's no substitute for just listening. There's a return policy, just try one!

 

[Jay Mitchell]

As for comparing both solutions to a proper monitor, I am using a pair of Vandersteen model 5a's with Ayre model MX-R mono block amps. If you aren't familiar with either of these, do a search.

I am familiar with Vandersteen. Given that they provide no performance data of any kind on their products - see their "technical information" page here: http://www.vandersteen.com/vandersteen_005.htm - I'd say you're flying blind.

I don't think most studio monitors can match the performance of this system.

Without credible performance data, the phrase "I don't think" is perfectly appropriate. I think you might be shocked if you knew the truth, but that's just my opinion....

An adamant refusal to disclose relevant performance data is not the mark of marketing integrity....

 

[mitch236]

As for comparing both solutions to a proper monitor, I am using a pair of Vandersteen model 5a's with Ayre model MX-R mono block amps. If you aren't familiar with either of these, do a search.

I am familiar with Vandersteen. Given that they provide no performance data of any kind on their products - see their "technical information" page here: http://www.vandersteen.com/vandersteen_005.htm - I'd say you're flying blind.

I don't think most studio monitors can match the performance of this system.

Without credible performance data, the phrase "I don't think" is perfectly appropriate. I think you might be shocked if you knew the truth, but that's just my opinion....

An adamant refusal to disclose relevant performance data is not the mark of marketing integrity....

While arguing with you about speaker quality is not wise for me, suffice to say that 35+ years of audiophilia has educated me about what good systems sound like. I've heard very high end studio equipment and home equipment as well. Vandersteen speakers for me, were the best value for the dollar in the high end marketplace. I don't think RV cares about your perception of his marketing integrity and given his 20+ years of success selling very expensive speakers, I don't see why he would change how he runs his business.

To get back on topic, my mention of my equipment was in response to this comment:

What I'm concerned about are comparisons made by testers who do not have a good set of reference speakers. Saying that one sounds better than the other does not mean we can conclude that one is more FRFR than the other. It could easily be that the colouration of their existing FRFR solution has been compensated for with the AxeFX (within their patches), and that an alternate powered monitor that is truly FRFR sounds worse. The reverse may also be true, depending on the colouration involved.