Atomic Reactor FR vs Verve 12ma

R

Rocket Brother

Power User
Hi Guys
I´m considering getting an FRFR solution for my Axe Fx Ultra.
Right now I´m using IEM for live work, but I have something coming up where a (non-IEM) FRFR solution would be appropriate.
So for those of you that have tried both the FBT Verve 12ma and the Atomic Reactor FR what are your opinions? Is one better than the other and what do you think is the pros, cons or similarities of these boxes when you compare them?
There are naturally obvious differnces in one being solid state, one tube amplified and one being a wedge design, the other a "traditional" guitar cab box design, but from a sound/tone perspective how do you rate the Atomic Reactor FR vs the Verve 12ma??
Thanks
RB
 
I just got my Atomic FR today. I already had a Verve 12ma.

I think they are very comparable. Both sound fantastic. The Atomic might have the slight edge, but not by much, if any. I liked the Verve better with my backup setup (based on a Tech 21 Character Brit pedal) but give the edge to the Atomic for use with the AxeFX.

If I were choosing between the two for the AxeFX I would get the Atomic (especially since it's cheaper). If I already had one I probably wouldn't get the other one thinking that it would be an upgrade because they are, to me, very comparable (of course in my case it's all hindsight). As it is now, I am trying to decide if I'm going to return the Atomic or sell the Verve.
 
I have both. I have had the FBT for a while and just recieved the Atomic yesterday so I haven't really had a lot of time with the Atomic. However, for the Axe, the Atomic wins hands down. Here's the comparo:

The FBT sounds very good. It has decent bass extension with a boominess around 120hz (I'm guessing here). The high frequency extension is quite good.

The Atomic wouldn't sound as good for pre-recorded music as the FBT because while it has better (smoother) bass extension, its high frequency extension isn't as great. I think the high frequency response was by design as much of the digital harshness is found there. The Atomic sounds more like a real guitar cab and less like a stereo speaker. This is where the advantage is for the Atomic. It was designed for this one purpose. The FBT was designed more as a vocal monitor and high frequencies are more important for that application.

The only downside I found with the Atomic as compared to the FBT is the amount of squealing. I have to work that one out. I haven't had a chance to jam with the Atomic (that will happen Thurs night) but I'm worried that I won't be able to get full on band volume without some squealing. I guess another downside could be tubes. In reality, I don't notice them so far and I doubt there will be a reliability issue but I really want to get out of the tube business!


That's it so far. I will update this thread after tomorrow night when I give this thing a good workout!
 
mitch236 said:
The Atomic wouldn't sound as good for pre-recorded music as the FBT because while it has better (smoother) bass extension, its high frequency extension isn't as great.
Click to expand...
If this turns out to be true, it is not a Good Thing. It will lead folks to rely on the Atomic FR to add coloration to their sound, as opposed to creating the desired sound from the Axe-Fx alone. This would cause significant issues in recording as well as in getting a good FOH sound.

I want my FRFR rig to sound as transparent and natural as possible with recorded music. That means that what goes in is what comes out. If you've dialed in a harsh sound, it's far better IMO to hear it as is and have to fix it than to Band-Aid it with a speaker that doesn't have flat HF response. YMMV....

I think the high frequency response was by design as much of the digital harshness is found there.
Click to expand...
The Axe-Fx produces no "digital harshness." If it sounds harsh, it is because you have it set to do so, or your playback system is exaggerating the frequency range that is perceived as harsh-sounding.
 
Jay Mitchell said:
mitch236 said:
The Atomic wouldn't sound as good for pre-recorded music as the FBT because while it has better (smoother) bass extension, its high frequency extension isn't as great.
Click to expand...
If this turns out to be true, it is not a Good Thing. It will lead folks to rely on the Atomic FR to add coloration to their sound, as opposed to creating the desired sound from the Axe-Fx alone. This would cause significant issues in recording as well as in getting a good FOH sound.

I want my FRFR rig to sound as transparent and natural as possible with recorded music. That means that what goes in is what comes out. If you've dialed in a harsh sound, it's far better IMO to hear it as is and have to fix it than to Band-Aid it with a speaker that doesn't have flat HF response. YMMV....

I think the high frequency response was by design as much of the digital harshness is found there.
Click to expand...
The Axe-Fx produces no "digital harshness." If it sounds harsh, it is because you have it set to do so, or your playback system is exaggerating the frequency range that is perceived as harsh-sounding.
Click to expand...

I'm too lazy to break apart your responses so I will answer here. You are right about wanting a "pure" FRFR system. Neither monitor is even close to that goal. I'll have to listen more closely when I have more time but there is a harshness to the FBT that is not apparent with the Atomic. However, I don't think the Atomic has as much high frequency extension as the FBT but maybe what it does have is smoother? The bass response is definately better with the Atomic. That much seems certain. But the Atomic is considerably bigger too.
 
Well said, Jay. My thoughts exacty. How well the speaker plays recorded music is how I measure the worth of the monitor. To have a speaker that is filtering is deceiving. The FOH would still be hearing the "harshness". That defeats one the great advantages of FRFR. If that was my approach I. Would go back to my VHT power amp and vintage 30's mic'ed by 57's.
 
The specifications of the Reactor FR also allow it to work as part of a music reproduction system. People who have taken the time to listen to them in this capacity have had very favorable comments - this includes members of this board. I am currently using a pair in place of a stereo.

In this thread as an example, Joe compares them to monitors costing 2-3 times as much as the Reactor FR: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=9226&hilit=first+contact

Joe said:
Yes, just to confirm it again, it sounded great with my acoustic, really wonderful. I'm using a Furch built Standford OM5 Vintage with a B-Band UST with my Ultra and one of the custom IRs someone made from the DTAR Mama Bear body images and the tones were wonderful and sweet.

1) and 2) I have not tried it with a bass or with vocals. I gave them a listen with some CDs and got fine results, so
3) I think that this could work really fine.
4) the powered monitors are KS CPA1, which I really love and know, we bought them a few years ago, are using them on every rehearsal and with every gig where we have to provide the sound system. We have a few of them (also subs) so we even can do open air gigs (if not too large) with them. They sound fantastic, so we often even bring them along if the local sound system doesn't look so ... good. They are small, lightweight and the system is assembled in almost no time. But the retail price for one single CPA1 is 1.739,- Euros (equals $2.500 for each cab). Ease of use, weight, transporbility are similar.

The KS is my reference point for a small, transportable sound system with a wonderful sound and enough power. If you listen to a CD with the KS and the Reactor FR the KS still has some pros, but hey, they cost twice as much.

And, I don't want the Reactor FR for CDs, I want it for my Axe-Fx and to me this combination is fantastic. I already compared the Reactor FR with the KS using my acoustic guitar and while both systems sound great, the Reactor might perhaps sound a bit sweeter. Perhaps I should do a comparative test with the electric guitars, but at this moment I'd say that I feel more comfortable with the Reactor FR, because it gives you a more "amp like" feel. If you'd asked me if I would take the KS and the Reactor FR to our next gig you'll get a "Definite YES!" The Reactor FR would be for me and the KS for the audience if needed.

Cheers

Jochen
Click to expand...
Bottom line - while the Reactor FR was purpose built to accurately reproduce the sound of a processor like the Axe-Fx while giving the sensation of playing an amp in the room, it holds its own as a music reproduction system.

Given my position as the President of Atomic Amps, 'IMHO' and any other pertinent caveats certainly apply here.
 
mitch236 said:
The only downside I found with the Atomic as compared to the FBT is the amount of squealing. I have to work that one out. I haven't had a chance to jam with the Atomic (that will happen Thurs night) but I'm worried that I won't be able to get full on band volume without some squealing.
Click to expand...

This is the reason my Atomic FR went back. The squealing made it completely unusable for me. Even at very moderate volumes it squealed worse than Ned Beatty. Tom King said his engineer looked at the one I returned and it had a bad tube. So you may want to check your tubes.

The bad tube cost me about $40 in return shipping and I've never heard a properly functioning Atomic FR - oh well.
 
Hey Guys
Thanks for all the replies so far - Keep them coming please.
I have a clear idea about which way I´ll go, but would still like more opinions and comparisons.
RB
 
Rocket Brother said:
I have a clear idea about which way I´ll go, but would still like more opinions and comparisons.
Click to expand...
RB. . . . which solution are you leaning toward at this point (if you don't mind me asking)?

Terry.
 
I still have yet to do the music comparo with the 12ma and the Atomic but I have to reiterate that if you are trying to decide which one is better let me make this much clear, the Atomic sounds better! Unless you need a wedge, you should get the Atomic.
 
mitch236 said:
I still have yet to do the music comparo with the 12ma and the Atomic but I have to reiterate that if you are trying to decide which one is better let me make this much clear, the Atomic sounds better! Unless you need a wedge, you should get the Atomic.
Click to expand...
I'm struggling with that part... bear with me while I try to explain. Assume a PA system that sounds like the 12mA. Then you tweak your patches to sound great with the 12mA, and when you come out through the PA, you sound exactly the same (of course, since the PA and your personal monitors are the same 12mA speakers). So that one is a no-brainer. Now switch your personal 12mA to a Fratomic, tweak your patches so they sound good on it, and feed the PA (which uses 12mA's, remember?). You get great sound on stage, but not so great to the PA. Now flip this entire scenario around, and imagine a PA that sounds more like the Fratomics... tweaking your patches if you have an on-stage monitor similar or identical to the PA will give best results. The question therefore is NOT which sounds better, but which sounds CLOSER to the PA. And of course, there isn't a single PA out there, so in the end, you want the monitor that sounds closest to *most* PA systems.

In that category, is the 12mA more likely to be close to most PAs? Or is the Fratomic closest? I haven't heard a Fratomic, so my opinion doesn't count, but my *impression* is that the Fratomic was designed further away from conventional PAs (and closer to classic guitar rigs) than the 12mA. Therefore, IMHO, the fratomic is better for on-stage sound (but will give you less reliable tone out to the PA), and the 12mA will give you better FOH tone.

Or am I in delusion?

Daniel
 
You're not delusional at all but if you think the average PA sounds anything like a good studio system, you are mistaken. I understand what you are trying to accomplish but I think that the difference in sound quality between the 12ma and the Atomic won't affect your FOH tone. In fact, I really didn't have to adjust my presets when I switched to the Atomic. If you have a decent sound engineer, (s)he should have no problem tweaking your tone to sit in the mix no matter which monitoring system you use to build your presets. In fact, if you take two guitarists side by side and had them each build a preset based on the same amp/cab without any effects, they would sound different. But most likely they would both sound good.

Does that make any sense?
 
Well, sure it makes sense, but...

People are talking about the difference between the 12mA and the Fratomic, and are trying to choose between one or the other. Some are even contemplating replacing their 12mA with a Fratomic. And (lastly), some are saying they needed to tweak their patches when they did the switch from a 12mA to a Fratomic. So my quandary remains: have these people tweaked towards a better FOH sound, or a worse FOH sound? I agree with you that both will sound good, but when some forumites are splitting hairs and getting all GAS'ed up (as in "gear acquisition syndrome", just to be clear), I think it's worth considering the question I asked in my previous post. What are these people's goals? *Just* better stage tone? Or are they taking FOH in consideration? And if the latter, then which on-stage monitor will lead them to tweak better FOH tones? The Fratomic or the 12mA? That's my philosophical questioning right now.
 
I have yet to play through a Verve and based on what others are saying it sounds like it's a close 2nd to the Reactor. I'm of the opinion that the Reactor is the closest to a real guitar amp sound when used with the Axe with any of the sims with the only issue being the squeeling with high gain amp sims.

To be fair I have also had this issue with other FR systems so sounds like it's part of the FR deal. Yes you can tune out some of it but not all of it and when trying to get musical feedback it can wonder unpredictably when looking for the right note to happen. I never had these issues when I ran amp and cab I was always able to get a predictable feedback note. Might that be a deal braker for some... yup for most I doubt it.
 
Dpoirier, I gave your concern some thought last night and if FOH tone is your ultimate goal then you should most likely dial in your patches in the recording studio. That way you get a true representation of your tone with very little coloration from sound reinforcement. Then going FOH, your input tone would be consistent and it would depend of the quality of the house system and the sound engineer as to how good you sound.

Now on to last night. I had a chance to put the Atomic through its paces in a loud band setting. It sounded incredible! My tone has never been better and there was no squealing! I guess not standing on top of the cab made the difference. It was plenty loud. I was able to get great sustain too! I plan to do a real music comparo this weekend to really get the truth about its frequency range compared to the FBT.
 
Ok, I've done the music comparo. I used my music reproduction system to be the front end. I set the monitors (Atomic and FBT 12ma) in fairly proper position to take advantage of the sound treatment in the room. I fed a balanced signal to each of the monitors from my Theta Casablanca processor.

My findings:

High Frequency:
The FBT has better high frequency extension, no doubt. One could use the Atomic as a stereo speaker but the lack of high frequency extension would limit its ability to do so well.

Mids:
This is where the Atomic shines, and I mean they really shine with smooth, believable mids. Vocals sound natural and relaxed. The FBT mids are constricted and almost non-existent.

Low Frequency:
The Atomics win here. There is bass with the FBT but it is weak and anemic compared to the Atomic. Neither cab really get great bass though with very limited extension but I wouldn't really expect either cab do bass well. They really aren't designed to get into the really low ranges. I'm guessing but I think 100hz is the limit, below that the response falls off.


The Verdict:
I've already said the Atomic is better for me. Now that I gave a good listen to both, the FBT seems to have an eq that gives its response a "loudness" type of tone compared to the Atomic (like someone turned on the loudness control). I'm sure that's why we all liked its sound. For the bedroom player, the FBT may sound better as it probably adds some "excitement" to the sound but for louder applications, it would pale in comparison to the Atomic, however in the long run, even the bedroom player would be better off with the more accurate Atomic.

The main drawbacks to the Atomic are size and tubes. I will admit, I wasn't going to get the Atomic because of the tubes but I broke down and I'm glad I did. That said, I still wish they had been designed and built with a SS amp. The size is a pain for me because I frequently fly to play and the FBT was perfect in that regard. The Atomic will be a challange to keep it safe on the plane but I'll figure that one out!
 
mitch236 said:
Dpoirier, I gave your concern some thought last night and if FOH tone is your ultimate goal then you should most likely dial in your patches in the recording studio. That way you get a true representation of your tone with very little coloration from sound reinforcement. Then going FOH, your input tone would be consistent and it would depend of the quality of the house system and the sound engineer as to how good you sound.
Click to expand...
That is my approach. I develop patches on my studio monitors, which are as close as I can get to flat amplification. My ideal FRFR monitor will match my studio monitors and one patch can then serve both recording and live purposes. Since I haven't found one that does that yet, I use the AxeFX output EQ to match it (or try) to my studio monitors. My frustration to-date is that there has been more colouration than I can dial out, so I'm looking for something that requires minimal eq (or ideally none).

mitch236 said:
My findings:

High Frequency:
The FBT has better high frequency extension, no doubt. One could use the Atomic as a stereo speaker but the lack of high frequency extension would limit its ability to do so well.

Mids:
This is where the Atomic shines, and I mean they really shine with smooth, believable mids. Vocals sound natural and relaxed. The FBT mids are constricted and almost non-existent.

Low Frequency:
The Atomics win here. There is bass with the FBT but it is weak and anemic compared to the Atomic. Neither cab really get great bass though with very limited extension but I wouldn't really expect either cab do bass well. They really aren't designed to get into the really low ranges. I'm guessing but I think 100hz is the limit, below that the response falls off.


The Verdict:
I've already said the Atomic is better for me. Now that I gave a good listen to both, the FBT seems to have an eq that gives its response a "loudness" type of tone compared to the Atomic (like someone turned on the loudness control). I'm sure that's why we all liked its sound. For the bedroom player, the FBT may sound better as it probably adds some "excitement" to the sound but for louder applications, it would pale in comparison to the Atomic, however in the long run, even the bedroom player would be better off with the more accurate Atomic.
Click to expand...
I have an old set of Tannoy dual concentric home speakers that just need a bit of high end extension and they are there. They are the only FRFR speakers I have tried that work for me (but are not portable of course). The QSC K10, for example, has more "colouration" than I can EQ out with the AxeFX so they are not a viable solution for me. A set of powered Tannoy's meant for stage use are $2K+. If the Atomic requires some added highs but little else, like the Tannoy's, it would meet my needs. The Atomic is of course much more affordable.

Thanks for the information mitch. Very helpful. I hope others can add some perspective on how close the Atomic is to a good set of studio monitors, and what it takes to match them.

Terry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom