Best FRFR?? Atomic Actives Vs Studio Monitors Vs tubes & cabs

K

krcassid

Inspired
First off, I LOVE my new Axe 2! And, it is a huge change from my Ultra. Now, in my quest for the best tone, I must turn to you guys for a question I cannot answer: Should I consider Atomic Actives?

I have virtually any option EXCEPT the Atomics. I have multiple studio monitors ranging from Mackie HR824s on the low end to JBL LSR 6332s (powered by Bryston 4B SST) on the higher end. I have multiple Mesa tube power amps and cabs of all sorts. In general, here is my experience so far:

The Axe sounds good through the HR824s and the Bryston JBLs but lacks the "balls" I get through tube power amps and cabs. However, I'm concerned that the Mesa tube amps (20/20, 50/50 & 2:90) through cabs are coloring the sounds I hear too much. they sound very good. but, probably not too flat. This is a good "tool" if I want to change the sound of the Axe. But, what if I want the Axe to have "balls" AND be FRFR?

So far, as I've posted here before, my best solution has been to use a pair of old (original from RCF Italy, not Chinese or V2) Mackie SRM450s. These sound great, are louder than heck and seem pretty flat (I've attached specs from Mackie which are generally Greek to me). But, how flat are these?

I've heard a lot of good things about the active Atomics. Unfortunately, I can't try these without ordering a pair. So, before doing so, I'm eliciting general opinions from those who have tried them Vs options similar to those above. The Atomic Website does not seem to have any response curves so I have no way of comparing them with the SRM450s. In a way, the Atomics seem to be a "tube version" of the SS SRM 450s.

I have heard that the RCF (Italy) designs that Mackie bought originally are quite good. But, I'm not an audio engineer. They are the best sounding option I have so far (understood that the Bryston/ JBLs are flatter).

So, question of the day: Might the active Atomic Reactors be better?

Thanks for your help!
 

Attachments

  • 450 Specs 1.JPG
    450 Specs 1.JPG
    161.5 KB · Views: 19
  • 450 Specs 2.JPG
    450 Specs 2.JPG
    61.8 KB · Views: 11
  • 450 Specs 3.JPG
    450 Specs 3.JPG
    34.8 KB · Views: 11
  • 450 Specs 4.JPG
    450 Specs 4.JPG
    73.1 KB · Views: 6
The general consensus on the atomic reactors is that they are bass heavy, however I love mine. There's quite a few threads on here discussing monitor options, the best ones will be the flattest response ones as far as tones translating to other situations. However, of you have a pair that your ears are really familiar with and you know how the sounds translate to other systems then you should be good to go with those. Any that you mentioned would work fine, best in a quantities term is flattest response, but best for you is what your ears like the most so it's pretty subjective.
 
For me, the studio monitors don't work in the studio! As I said in OP, they are good. But, they don't have the punch. Even the big JBL 3 ways (w/ a 12" woofer) don't do it. And, with the Bryston, it's not for lack of power. If anything, it may be because I'm afraid I'll blow them up. Part of this also must be attributed to 25 years of playing on stage and it's attendant loss of hearing. But, the monitors just don't have the guts. Also, I have an ideal studio situation: fully soundproofed with a great location so I can get as loud as I want in my studio. In others' studios, I make do. So, for me, this really comes down to whether the Atomics can beat the Mackie SRM450s. My suspician is that the answer is "no". The old Mackies have 300w to the low end and 100 to the high. They're clean, crossovers are good... I know 400 SS is not "louder" than 50 tube. I think what this really comes down to is whether the design of the Atomics can beat the Mackies. I can (to some extent) get an idea by using a Mesa 20/20 or 50/50 through 12" cabs. That sounds great too. But, even with power and cabs bypassed, it's not the same as the Atomic w/ a tweeter. I think JDOLL was right on. To me, the Mackies kick butt and sound great so they are probably the ticket. Still, one can't help wondering...

Just a caveat: I am in no way endorsing newer Mackie SRM450s. I got lucky and bought 6 of the ones from Italy. My understanding is that the subsequent Chinese and V2 versions are not comparable. You can find the old ones out there (typically @ $3-400) but be forwarned: parts are hard to come by and expensive. However, if you are prepared to maintain them, they are a great option. They are pretty bulletproof, sit like a wedge onstage and you can connect a bunch of them serially on stage if you need to. I'd be interested to hear if anybody else has tried them or, even better, tried the Atomics too.
 
Wassup Kevin? I have a pair of Atomics and 824's. Every tone I've ever created and recorded using my Atomics has translated wonderfully to every playback system. Not the case with my 824's. I have never thought my Atomics to be bass heavy. Even if they were I could just use my global EQ. I say go for the Atomics. They sound amazing to me. I sold every last real amp I own too!!! No regrets!!!


I'm a high gain djent djent meedley meedely meedely type player...

Sent from my iPod.
 
I have decent studio monitors and I bought the Atomic passive wedges and use them with an Atomic 50/50 amp. I love the combination and holds up real well with a band. I also like how the Atomic speakers have a tweeter control so you can blend to taste with the presence control on the Atomic 50/50 amp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom