AxeFest UK monitor shootout

clarky

clarky

Axe-Master
when we did the shootout [someone else will have to provide the details cos I don't know them] we got some very interesting results.....

we compared 3 FRFR powered wedges and my Marshall backline with a pair of 1960b cabs [just because it was there and so it was rude not to]

Sukh did the demo and it became clear that monitor A was the best, B was pretty good and C was pretty ok

then, just for fun, we replaced Sukh's Axe with mine, compared the 3 monitors again and the results were reversed...
it was really quite dramatic.. and seriously unexpected...

EDIT: maybe someone else that has the details can expand upon this.....
anyways....
what it revealed was that your preset config made quite a difference as to how the monitors were perceived..
and so a "straight shootout" turned out to be not quite as straight as expected...
 
Last edited:
... another bloody spanner in the works. The plot thickens.....

So, the immediate possible influencial difference that comes to mind: The cab block types in each other's presets ... any major differences there?
 
In the test, Monitor A was my RCF NX12-SMA, B was the Matrix CFR rig and C was a QSC (don't recall which one...).

I used my guitar (PRS Sunburst 22 with 57/08s) and played the same riff repeatedly, using my Axe FX II and my main riffing patch (which uses a stereo cab with 2 stock IRs). With that setup, the RCF was the clear winner; lots of thump, clarity and full, rich tone. The matrix was a close second, but neither as full or as clear, and the QSC third, which sounded a little shrill in the top end.

When we changed things up and plugged into Clarky's Axe FX II, but still me playing with my guitar, the Matrix easily sounded best, then the QSC (which sounded better than before) and the RCF came third!!!!

The conclusion at the time was that it was all very dependent on the patch and IR choice, that you had to build your patch with *your* FRFR in mind to get the best out of it and that any setup can be made to sound good if you build your patch around it. To take it a step further, we then tried a rig (I think it was Clarky's) with his guitar and then with someone else's guitar and the results were different again. However, we then tried my rig, but with Jim Richmond (Octatonic) using HIS guitar and it sounded great!

Again, the conclusion was that its all dependent on patch, IR and guitar. Anything can be made to sound fab if you build with that system in mind. It also re-iterated to me why patches built by others sound great in their sound clips but sound like a bucket of sweaty bollocks when I try them with my rig!

I also remembered a conversation with Scott Peterson a while back when I switched from my Atomic to the RCF. To try out the RCF, I got my best patch (built with the Atomic), plugged into the RCF and it sounded HORRIBLE. So much so, that my immediate reaction was that I didn't like the RCF. Scott wisely suggested rebuilding the patch from scratch for the RCF, and he was right - building the patch with the RCF in mind resulted in a different result altogether that sounded far far better *TO ME* than anything I had previously achieved with the Atomic. Unsurprisingly, taking the new patch and then plugging the Atomic in again sounded awful!

So, to me, those were the key set of findings from the shootout. Patch, guitar and IR choice are *key* and should be used to build your patch on your system and anything can be made to sound good if u build with that system in mind. The rest will just be down to personal preferences due to the individual characteristics of the systems themselves.

Good fun!
Sukh
 
Last edited:
The QSC was the HPR(?)112 thing.

Was quite unexpected. With Sukh playing his guitar though his rig into his RCF, man that TOTALY killed. The Matrix was all mids - no top sparkle or depth. Those Frequencies are what gave the energy and thump in the RCF. The QSC was frankly god awful. No bottom, something really harsh and spiky in the 3k range - and nasty top.

So - Clarkys rig into the same speakers - the QSC now totally rocked, the Matrix had exactly the same characteristics it did with Sukhs rig (didnt sound the same - had the same characteristics), while the RCF now sounded spiky and harsh with no top.

Comparing that to the power amp and marshal cabs - there wasnt much in it. The Marshall had more kick in the chest - but that was 2 x 4x12s v a 1x12 and horn. Pretty close tonally though.

Now - Id also taken some studio near fields (Events) - and while the volume was obviously no-where near the other solutions, the Matrix rig sounded closest to that monitor.

Strange indeed. Id almost be tempted to say the Matrix was the more accurate rig (ie producing what you would dial in with studio monitors), but lacked the punch and more 3d top end sparkly the other two rigs could generate. it really wouldn't matter which of the other 2 you chose though - its all in the patch dialling.

to add to this, on Sunday I had chance to play with the Matrix rig myself. First off, adding a 2nd CRF (not in stereo - just a link to the same feed) made a HUGE difference. Not in volume (there was a little lift obviously) but the bass response jumped up. This actually sounded really sweet - and with some patch tweeking the top came out as well. At this point there wasn't any other speaker to A/B, but Id be perfectly happy with the Matrix rig - though in truth Id really prefer two speakers. That makes the same cost in the UK (for 2 x CRFs v 1xRCF) about the same. The advantage of the RCF being its powered and the advantage of the Matrix being you can go stereo.

I also tried 3 x CRS using a GT1500 3 channel Matrix amp in a wet/dry/wet config. the AFX grid ran into a drive, then amp. The chain then split to a cab each. the dry then went to OP1, and the wet had a delay and reverb added - with another block I changed from and LFO controlled filter, to a phaser, to a chorus (just to play). then out of OP2 panned hard L/R. WOW - just totally WOW. Not even sure Id want to back to stereo after than experience let alone mono !!!

Finally - I am wondering if the initial impact of the RCF/QSC (when dialled in) was down to the energy in the low and sparkle in the high - rather than being an actual true reflection of the input. Over time that "might" get fatiguing where as the Matrix was very detailed (especially in the frequencies that really count) and could possibly be the more pleasing after some time - however this is conjecture. Still - if anything its rather confused matters lol. If I had to pick on right now, I think Id take an RCF (purly down to aesthetics/size/weight it has over the QSC) .... Unless I could have 3 CRFs for the price of 2 - then the W/D/W would take the crown :)
 
Last edited:
I notice me and Sukh had different thoughts on take 2 - where he prefered the Matrix over the QSC (both of us put the RCF third) - which also shows your own ears and preferences make a difference as well.
 
Really nice to hear that you tried to be as objective as possible when comparing the monitors. I also think that guitar, patch and player are a much more important link than the FRFR speaker... on condition that you have a decent one. At first I played my Axe through a Matrix GT1000FX into my V30 cab and to be honest I felt limited by the sound of the cab. I sold it and planned to buy a Matrix CFR, but in the end I settled with a Electro Voice ELX112 passive wedge, which costs around 300€. I'm really pleased with the sounds I get and I'm sure that with the right amount of tweaking, I can get a very professional sounding rig. For the price of the Matrix CFR, I can even buy two of those ELX112's and go stereo.
 
Paul - you've just reminded me of something....

given that the Marshall's essentially have a 'voice' and the FRFR monitors are supposed to be flat..
I was actually quite shocked at how similar the QSC was to my cabs..

and I actually expected all of them to be much more different to the Marshall's than they were..

and yeah totally... you would expect the Marshall's to have more kick in the chest and power..
it's not only the number of speakers, it's also the size of the cabinet, and the fact that the cabs are sealed and not ported..
to really hear the Marshall's sing you need distance because that have such a huge throw...

but it's a totally different job...
the monitors are designed to focus at head height cos they point right at you..
the Marshall's are designed to fill a room..

and of course my presets were dialled in to my Marshall's, and Sukh's dialled in to his RCF
so that tells me that:
- the RCF has a voicing of it's own
- the QSC sounds more like Marshall 1960b
- no matter if you liked the tone or not, the Matrix was most consistent

this leads me to believe that the Matrix was possibly the most neutral
what we missed I guess was an Axe where someone had dialled in specifically to the Matrix so you could hear it at it's best..

I suspect that I could easily have made all of those monitors sound great..
you simply dial in to what you're running...

the other surprise [although I've no idea why I should be surprised - I should know better] was the guitar choice through the Axe
when folk started playing their own guitars through different folks Axe units, the tone changes were far more dramatic than I expected..
I like my guitars to be tight and bright and build my presets to work this way...
Sukh's PRS was much softer and warmer than my V6.. through his own Axe he sounded great.. through mine he went muddy
and likewise, my V6 through my Axe [to my ears] is pure joy, and through Sukh's I got quite shrill

I have more experience with FX units that with amps...
generally, it's the FX unit that makes the noises and you can swap guitar etc and the tonal differences tend to be seriously small
the Axe is completely the reverse... it seems to be very sensitive to the guitar's voice..
it seems to preserve the guitar's voice much better and does not stamp it's own voice all over your guitar in the way that lesser units do...
I guess you could say that the Axe allows itself to be one of the parts of which your guitar and monitoring provide the remainder of the sum..
whereas most other units are the total of the sum and nothing else contributes in a meaningful way...

so in this respect, I think the Axe is very much like a real amp.. because it allows the guitar's voice to be heard..
 
paulmapp8306 said:
I notice me and Sukh had different thoughts on take 2 - where he prefered the Matrix over the QSC (both of us put the RCF third) - which also shows your own ears and preferences make a difference as well.
Click to expand...

Hey Paul, yes I guess it's down to personal preference too. I preferred the thump from the QSC to the Matrix (due to the way THAT patch was dialled in - I have heard the Matrix before and it had balls of thunder), but there was a shrill top end to the QSC that was always there no matter what combination we tried. Again, I'm convinced any of the three could be made to sound fantastic OR pants, depending on how you dial in your patch. I've gigged the hell out of the RCF and it never gets fatiguing, but that is also down to my patch, my guitar etc etc and not just a reflection of the speaker.

I guess the message here is you can read as much as you want about any speaker and listen to as many demos as you like before deciding on which one to try, but ultimately its going to come down to you, your patch, your guitar.... pretty much like trying to mate any REAL head to a REAL cab and how they interact with YOUR guitar/pickups etc.
 
Last edited:
all of this is kinda telling me that FRFR isn't particularly FRFR

and........
silly bollox here has just realised why his Axe sounded a lot like a Marshall through a FRFR with the cab sims on...

it's cos I use the FAS 4x12 25W cab...
which is a FAS take on a Marshall...

duuuhhhhh ! ! !

now I'm thinking.... jeez... that QSC sounded seriously seriously like my 1960b cabs

posthumously, I'm seriously impressed...
 
clarky said:
I think the Axe is very much like a real amp.. because it allows the guitar's voice to be heard..
Click to expand...

I've said to people, and with all credit to Cliff Chase for getting this right, "It thinks it's real amp.", and people have generally agreed.

paulmapp8306 said:
Finally - I am wondering if the initial impact of the RCF/QSC (when dialled in) was down to the energy in the low and sparkle in the high - rather than being an actual true reflection of the input. Over time that "might" get fatiguing where as the Matrix was very detailed (especially in the frequencies that really count) and could possibly be the more pleasing after some time - however this is conjecture. Still - if anything its rather confused matters lol. If I had to pick on right now, I think Id take an RCF (purly down to aesthetics/size/weight it has over the QSC) .... Unless I could have 3 CRFs for the price of 2 - then the W/D/W would take the crown :)
Click to expand...

I've done 6 hours listening to people play the AF2 through an GT800FX and 2 CFRS and I found it a easy. As has been said there are no thumping lows and sparkling highs; however, it's an enjoyable listening experience. I'll admit that I'm a Matrix fanboy, but that's due to the fact I really enjoy the product, so I don't want to say anything negative about other products - I am biased. Andy and Matt at Matrix are really nice people and I've only had a great customer relationship. I'm sure that anyone who's dealt with them will tell you the same.

Mapps, you need the Matrix GT1500FXBD with three CFR12s, and so do I. I was really enjoying the Wet/Dry/Wet yesterday. Mark Day, you were right (as always): It does sound fantastic in real life. I was having a great time doing the Brian May Brighton Rock echo thing. It sounded HUGE!!!
 
I can't say enough good things about the Axe II through an RCF HD12a.
I tried all the main players and that one stood out for me. The price is great too.
I paid £620 for mine and it kind of shat on ones almost twice the price.

So I suppose I'm saying try one before deciding on an FRFR cab.
 
Hmm - but would it not be necessary to NOT build your patch around your monitor but around the cabs used as PA that are most likely to be used? Difficult though...
BTW, this is why I did not come to terms with the Atomic wedges. My patches sounded great through them but not so great was what came out of the QSC K12 loaded PA. My experience is that most PAs (at least where I gig) are loaded with QSCs or RCFs so I went for the QSC as monitors too. Haven't seen a PA with Atomic wedges so far... ;-)
 
I was packing up and loading stuff into my car while all this was going on but I heard bits and pieces of it.

It seemed to me that FRFR isn't completely neutral.
Patches that were designed with one FRFR system WILL have to be redesigned if you find yourself in a situation with a different FRFR system.

I was using the CFR's for my demo's.
They sounded really good but I wasn't happy with my tone because I hadn't had time to work with them long enough.
I just took my presets I use for recording (where I use some Dynaudio studio monitors) and away I went.
There was a larger bottom end to the CFR's to my Dynaudios and I needed to fix a few things which I didn't have time to do other than cutting a bit of bottom end in the global EQ.

When I plugged into Sukh's rig (his Axe FX and RCF) I was hearing something closer to what I would have wanted but all of his patches were designed when plugged into that system.
When I got home plugged back into my studio monitors I was hearing it properly again- because those patches were designed on those monitors.

So, my take on it is FRFR is a full range freq response but it isn't "totally flat" and in fact any speaker will have a degree of colouration to it.
Any patches designed on one system are really only for use on that system if I want to be 100% happy with my tone.

For this reason I will pick up a FRFR system but I will also maintain a bank of patches that I use with my in ear monitoring system, then it is down to the live engineer to do his thing and make me sound good.
It is a bit of a PITA to maintain multiple patch banks but IMHO I'm happier than trying to design patches that sound approximately ok on all systems.
 
guitardoc said:
Hmm - but would it not be necessary to NOT build your patch around your monitor but around the cabs used as PA that are most likely to be used? Difficult though...
BTW, this is why I did not come to terms with the Atomic wedges. My patches sounded great through them but not so great was what came out of the QSC K12 loaded PA. My experience is that most PAs (at least where I gig) are loaded with QSCs or RCFs so I went for the QSC as monitors too. Haven't seen a PA with Atomic wedges so far... ;-)
Click to expand...

Building presets for specific speakers / PAs? Doesn't seem the right approach to me, unless it concerns a power amp and traditional guitar speaker. When going FRFR, the amplification should be as flat as possible. If there are audible differences between monitors, obviously one is not as flat as the other. Or one may just like that mid boost or cut in a monitor, but in that case we're not talking FRFR anymore.
 
I still don't understand it. When there are so many sonic differences in monitors which are all supposed to be FRFR I am inclined to say there is no FRFR at all, is there? My experience is that they all affect the sound in one way or the other. How to eliminate this influence is beyond me though.
 
clarky said:
all of this is kinda telling me that FRFR isn't particularly FRFR
Click to expand...

It clearly shows how building patches on a non-flat system leads to undesirable results when those patches get inserted into a another system, with that second system being either flat or simply different from flat is an an other fashion from the original system.
 
luke said:
It clearly shows how building patches on a non-flat system leads to undesirable results when those patches get inserted into a another system, with that second system being either flat or simply different from flat is an an other fashion from the original system.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a fair summation, as Clarky's patches would have been created with his 4x12s in mind, so putting his Axe and patches through my RCF wouldn't have sounded the same. However, my patch through the Matrix and RCF were pretty close in character, but the EQ difference was clearly noticeable.

Based on observations, I'm inclined to agree with Mapps, that it probably points to the Matrix being the most 'Neutral', as it remained consistent throughout the tests.
 
guitardoc said:
I still don't understand it. When there are so many sonic differences in monitors which are all supposed to be FRFR I am inclined to say there is no FRFR at all, is there? My experience is that they all affect the sound in one way or the other. How to eliminate this influence is beyond me though.
Click to expand...

FRFR = flatish responce, fullish range

I couldn't stress this enough..
yuo need two sets of presets...
the home practice ones, and the live ones..

cos even if you practice and gig through the same monitors, you do so at very different volumes..
so even when using the same monitoring system.. expect things to change when you wind them up..
 
luke said:
It clearly shows how building patches on a non-flat system leads to undesirable results when those patches get inserted into a another system, with that second system being either flat or simply different from flat is an an other fashion from the original system.
Click to expand...

maybe the second systems is a slightly different kind of flat...

even in major recording studios they acknowledge that different monitors have [to greater of lesser degrees] different tonal charactistics..
this tells you that there is actually no such thing as being "truly flat"..
because if this were the case, they'd all sound exactly the same...

but in reality.. they don't..
 
yek said:
Building presets for specific speakers / PAs? Doesn't seem the right approach to me, unless it concerns a power amp and traditional guitar speaker. When going FRFR, the amplification should be as flat as possible. If there are audible differences between monitors, obviously one is not as flat as the other. Or one may just like that mid boost or cut in a monitor, but in that case we're not talking FRFR anymore.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with this...

the only sensible approach has to be...

make sure that you personally sound amazing on stage...
because this will directly and absolutely effect your performance...
and let the sound man worry about the PA..
you do your job and let him get on with his...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom