• We would like to remind our members that this is a privately owned, run and supported forum. You are here at the invitation and discretion of the owners. As such, rules and standards of conduct will be applied that help keep this forum functioning as the owners desire. These include, but are not limited to, removing content and even access to the forum.

    Please give yourself a refresher on the forum rules you agreed to follow when you signed up.

Camper 112cx vs Matrix q12a vs Atomic CLR

tompa909

New Member
Here's an idea, how about instead of criticizing the fine gentlemen and fellow guitarists who created the video, you upload one yourself.

There seem to be a lot of people who think they can do a "MUCH" better job. I for one would like a scientific shoot-out, as I'm looking for a speaker solution and don't have the opportunity to try the speakers beforehand. I'm sure there would be plenty of people willing to lend you any speaker if you so choose.
 

cobbler

Fractal Fanatic
If I had a dollar for every cobbler/LVC battle, I could retire. :)
You would have 3 dollars. Not much to retire on. I have argued with him 3 times. Everyone of the arguments were because he doesn't grasp simple logic. He can pull the sympathy card all he wants and say it's people ganging up on him because they perceive an unfavorable comment about the CLR but that simply is not true. His accusations that "folks might get paid to post" is absurd in so many ways. I would simply like to enter a thread about monitors and just once not see him making false statements about the CLR that are solely based on misinformation. He clearly doesn't understand the function of the DSP switches and he clearly didn't grasp why he originally found them to be "boomy". Hundreds of logical explanations later by much more knowledgeable persons than me have changed nothing. If CLR is mentioned, here comes Laz with his agenda. And lets call a spade a spade here. He had an unfavorable interaction with Tom and Jay and he is taking every opportunity to bash them and their product whenever it is mentioned in a thread. I am not the only one to notice this, comment on it, and ask him to give it a rest.

I had several PM conversations with him trying to calm the seas with reference to our arguments and his ongoing issues with another poster. I sincerely offed up the olive branch and said hey let's all just bury the hatchet and all get along. I asked him politely to not refer to me as "dude" which I find juvenile in the way he was using it. (It is really no big deal)

I was told "DUDE" stay out of my business!!! So I subsequently jump in a thread to read about a shootout that the OP was generous enough to share and of course there is Laz with his passive aggressive agenda bashing the DSP functionally of you guess it the CLR when he obviously doesn't understand it's intention. I took a few minutes to try to explain where he was incorrect with his assumptions and get responses of "DUDE DUDE DUDE". Yes I absolutely know he was baiting me. Yes, I know it would be bigger of me just to walk away and let him post his juvenile retorts with no response.

But if you guys don't know me by now you never will. I try my best to help people here and in all walks of life. And I think I do a pretty good job if it. But one thing I do not do is take shit. If you are going to bash me, my friends, my country, my family then you are going to hear it back. I am not going to apologize for pointing out misinformation. Laz clearly has his agenda where CLR monitors are concerned and dozens of posters here have pointed it out. He has derailed just about every thread where they are mentioned and not only on this forum. If my pointing that out several times makes me the jerk then so be it.

Enjoy that three dollar retirement beer on me! :)

BTW, I was hoping to hear more about the Camper monitors. I was surprised to hear the OP's opinion on them as I have read favorable reviews elsewhere. I am very curious to see what he hears back with respect to if they had a defective one.

Thanks to the OP for posting the shootout!

.
 
Last edited:

LVC

Fractal Fanatic
Here's an idea, how about instead of criticizing the fine gentlemen and fellow guitarists who created the video, you upload one yourself.

There seem to be a lot of people who think they can do a "MUCH" better job. I for one would like a scientific shoot-out, as I'm looking for a speaker solution and don't have the opportunity to try the speakers beforehand. I'm sure there would be plenty of people willing to lend you any speaker if you so choose.
I agree 100% - I thought these guys did terrific job and if someone thinks they can do better -- then go for it.

As far as a "test" goes .... I like the way they did their evaluation -- it is more in line with how the gear will is used by most folks that play out.
 

Patzag

Fractal Fanatic
I'm confused! Is this a re-enactment of the previously re-released rehash of the same thread that was started before?

"CLR is Boomy"
"No it isn't"
"You're a douche"
"talk to the hand"
"My speaker is better than yours."
"I will not back down"

Ad nauseum ...

Jeez guys!

Doc, thanks for posting and offering you're insight on how it was to be in the room with these three speakers.
Maybe you can upload the original uncompressed video to dropbox so those who are interested can listen to it without YT distortion?
 

romanianreaper

Power User
You would have 3 dollars. Not much to retire on.
.
What if I just eat soup? :)

I hope I didn't offend in any way, just trying to lighten the atmosphere.

I think a lot of folks make the comparisons too difficult. I think all of them sound similar (from what I've heard anyway). So the CLR has more bass, my Xitone has less bass. That is really what the settings in the Axe-FX II are for, to adjust. I'm sure we could get each speaker to sound similar to the other with the right adjustments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ole

cobbler

Fractal Fanatic
What if I just eat soup? :)

I hope I didn't offend in any way, just trying to lighten the atmosphere.

I think a lot of folks make the comparisons too difficult. I think all of them sound similar (from what I've heard anyway). So the CLR has more bass, my Xitone has less bass. That is really what the settings in the Axe-FX II are for, to adjust. I'm sure we could get each speaker to sound similar to the other with the right adjustments.
No offense taken at all. Just trying to explain my frustration and sadly why I felt the need to stoop to the level a couple times. It's all good!

...and I like soup! :)
 

Brick_top

Power User
To balance some of the speculation, here are some facts about the CLR:

The "Tilt" (Wedge) and "BL" (back line) presets in the CLR are both optimized in for a single person: the player. When you use the speaker as a floor monitor, you stand so that the speaker points up at your head (IOW, on axis). When you use it as backline, you will usually stand a few feet in front of the cab. In either case, if you use the speaker as described and select the appropriate preset, the sound you will hear will be tonally balanced.

In the video the camera mic was not positioned for either the "BL" or "Tilt" position. That is why it sounds different.

The CLRs presets are not limited to bass boosts and cuts. The filters are much more complex. Anyone with critical listening skills should be able to hear this by just listening to all three presets without changing the speakers orientation. Atomic never claimed the presets were "magic" (not sure where that came from) but they do work as described in the manual and as listed above. This has been noted by many actual CLR users some of whom, such as Pete Thorn, are quite well respected in this community.

If you wish to provide the same tonal balance to a large number of listeners, you should elevate the speaker and use the "FF" (free field) preset.

For specifics about the impact of floor reflections, listening pattern, etc. please refer to Jay's quote that was posted earlier in the thread.

Thanks!

-TK
Feeling really dumb now, I didn't think about the bold part!

the test in the video doesn't make much sense now.
 
Last edited:

paulmapp8306

Fractal Fanatic
Nothing is difficult: I do not have any knowledge or expertise of what the DSP is or is not doing and neither do you. I didn't design it, and neither did you. I've never described anything as 'magic' nor expressed anything subjective to the discussion.

Why do you have more posts than anyone else on any thread with Atomic mentioned on this forum? (Objective observation and fact). Again, you are a smart man and an experienced guitarist with so much to share. You have so much to share and add; this vendetta of yours really serves no one.
Against my better judgement, Im going to make comment here.

1. I get what is being said. The point of the DSP, is to correct for different response of the CLR in free space (on a pole) OR as a wedge - with all the ground reflections that adds.

2. the point of this, is so that you design a patch at home (or indeed at gig level at rehursals), but can use the CLRs in either configuration (which may be gig dependant) for a similar (not the same - that would depend on room size and floor type as well) response by selecting the DSP setting suitable for the speakers orientation/placement.

3. From the evidence of the video - the DSP fails to really do that, as the change from one set-up to another, with corresponding DSP setting isnt really that close at all. Id expect a much closer comparrison. Its not that the DSP changes the bass response - of course thats what its supposed to do, BUT it is supposed to change it so the resulatant sound is the same/similar regardless of its orientation/placement if the correct DSP settings are applied. From the video evidance it doesnt really work in that respect (thought the result may be further away still if the DSP settings are unaltered).

It could be argued, that room, with different sizes, different flooring materials and coverings (solid wood, solid concrete, hollow stage - carpet, o carpet, thickness of carpet etc etc etc) changes the response - so using the DSP couldnt possibly orrect for every situation. Thats perfectly valid - and true - but beggs the question asked - why bother with DSP at all in that case. Despite being great on paper, it has very limited practical use in reality

4. Despite this, you can not tell which speaker, or in which orientation is the closes to "flat response" as has been suggested. All you can do is compare the speakers to each other, NOT to an ideal flat response. The Matrix wasnt compared in any other orientation than on the floor pointing straight for instance - even angling it upwards would change its response and most likely nore so than the CLR as it doesnt have any DSP offset.

5. Both speakers were remarkably close in one comparrison - that is on the floor with the DSP on the CLR suitably selected. This means that if thats how you want to use the speakers - there both as good as each other. Size/weight/format (wedge v cab) are going to be the deciding factors based on an individual prefrence. Whether this placement is "flat response" is kind of irrelevant - it sounds good and you'd tweek your patches to sound how you want anyway. The result is "close enough" for that with either speaker.

6. Its likely - though not prooved (as no comparrison was done) that if you need to use the speakers in free space for some gegs and on the floor for others, that the CLR would be the better option - purly because the DSP will have SOME effect even if its not evough to totally negate the differences. HOWEVER, it may be the Matrix is just as good on a pole with no patch tweeks if the CLRs DSP isnt really working that well to offset the changes. Not likely, but possible - the comparrison wasnt made int he video.

Personally, at present - neither suit me. I want a POWERED WEDGE - which Matrix dont offer at present, but I want something lighter (big issue for me), smaller and preferably a little cheaper than the CLR (cant stretch to the UK asking price at present). The upshot is Im sticking with real cabs until a suitable wedge is released by someone. If I HAD to make a choice at present - Id go wth the CLR for the form factor of the active offerings. Tonally they both seem perfectly up to the job.
 
Last edited:

jlynnb1

Fractal Fanatic
people kill me, man....i mean kill me, lol.

if you have created your preset in a backline position, no matter how loud, you are dialing in certain freq's because of how you perceive them in that position. since you are not on axis with the speaker you are compensating on some level from the very beginning. this is even more pronounced with floor-coupling on the low end. when the CLR is tilted in the dsp is engaged to reflect the position, you are hearing a truer representation of your original tone....exaggerated freq's and all.....so of course it will be more pronounced. what Jay or Tom said was that the exaggerated low-end was present in your preset to begin with.

this seems like simple logic to me. i have nowhere near the understanding of those guys (or many guys on this forum) when it comes to the scientific principle of why sound behaves the way that it does....but that just makes sense to me on a simple, logical level.
 

barhrecords

Axe-Master
I think the camera mic should be moved when the CLR presets are changed in order to follow the manufacturer's recommendation. The CLR position, preset selection and mic position should match the recommendations of the manufacturer to get the results expected by the manufacturer.

But as a CLR owner, I experimented with all the settings using it as a wedge and on speaker stands. To my ears, the manufacturer suggested settings do what they say they do. I am listening in a treated room though for testing.
 

toolfanem

Power User
It could be argued, that room, with different sizes, different flooring materials and coverings (solid wood, solid concrete, hollow stage - carpet, o carpet, thickness of carpet etc etc etc) changes the response - so using the DSP couldnt possibly orrect for every situation. Thats perfectly valid - and true - but beggs the question asked - why bother with DSP at all in that case. Despite being great on paper, it has very limited practical use in reality
Think about it this way: The changing the DSP is a broad stroke that changes the sound to compensate for moving the speaker from one location to the next. They put it in there for guys that want to make changes to their monitor situation before a performance. We all know that different venues will have different sounding rooms, PA, mics, ect. So you were exactly right, it will never work perfectly since there is no way to correct for every possible scenario. BUT, it does make it easier to get closer to your desired sound without having to really mangle your patch if the room is really poor. Too much bass since its now on the floor as a wedge? Use the broad stroke FIRST so that you only have to make minor changes to your patch.
 

paulmapp8306

Fractal Fanatic
I do get the point of the DSP. I also get the point of tweeking patches to how you want to use them.

Thing is - you can dial all that in on the AFX, so why rely on the "broad brush" DSP - two position option on the CLR. If you still need to make changes to your patch when you change its position, why not do it all on the AFX. Just seems a little pointless. If it did what I believe the intention is (that is to compensate for either position almost completely) then its a great feature - as it is, Im not sure its that much more usefull than a solution without it.

Either way - its an OPTION as to if you use the DSP or not. Its OPINION how usefull it is to each individual. As the video shows - the CLR and Matrix offerrings "can" be extremely close. That means any differences brought on by changing the speakers position can be dealt with in the AFX totally, or in combination with inbuild DSP solutions.

That - for me at least - means to choice is driven by form, weight, size, cost --- not tone/sound. As I said, neither suit me perfectly so I havent bought either. If I HAD to choose right now - the CLR ould get my cash based on form.
 

toolfanem

Power User
Thing is - you can dial all that in on the AFX, so why rely on the "broad brush" DSP - two position option on the CLR. If you still need to make changes to your patch when you change its position, why not do it all on the AFX. Just seems a little pointless. If it did what I believe the intention is (that is to compensate for either position almost completely) then its a great feature - as it is, Im not sure its that much more usefull than a solution without it.


That - for me at least - means to choice is driven by form, weight, size, cost --- not tone/sound.
From my point of view, having the DSP available is just a bonus that could potentially make it faster, simpler to dial in changes on the fly without to many changes on the AFX. If you link the amp eq on the afx2 to the four dials on the front panel, between the DSP and the amp eq you could relatively easily compensate for the room on the fly. Plus, lets say you use more than one patch during your live show, changing presets will negate the on the fly changes to your patch UNLESS you save it, which will now permanently overwrite your preset that you dialed in at home/practice space. The DSP will make the change across the board, without having to access the global eq on the AFX (faster and easier than working the front panel button and knobs. Bottom line is its a convenience thing. Not everyone will use it, but its definitely nice that its there :)

I agree with you that the choice comes down more to the other specs (size, weight) when they are so similar sound-wise. Thinking that they sound similar makes sense since they should both be pretty flat.
 

Tom King

Experienced
I’m not posting to try to change opinions on what sounds better or works best for any given player.

I would like to say, however, that the presets in the CLR are actually very detailed and accurate when used as intended. They are not blunt bass boosts or cuts. The back line position is a little harder to account for in all scenarios because reflections can vary significantly based on the material of the floor and other boundary effects but it still gets very close.

Floor reflections don’t come into play as much (or at all) in the wedge or free field positions therefore they provide more predicable scenarios for comparing. CLR owners who have compared the presets in the intended listening positions typically agree that they work as explained in the manual (see barhrecord’s post above as a recent testimony).

Listen, play, enjoy!:)

-TK
 

kmanick

Fractal Fanatic
something else we noticed this past weekend during our little FRFR shoot out with the CLR is that when put on it's side
as a back line speaker the FF setting which is supposed to be for when it's up on a pole also sounded really good.
just an FYI for those who have one, you may want to try it (this was with somewhat high gain patches we dialed in, not death metal more 80's shred like)
 

LVC

Fractal Fanatic
something else we noticed this past weekend during our little FRFR shoot out with the CLR is that when put on it's side
as a back line speaker the FF setting which is supposed to be for when it's up on a pole also sounded really good.
Maybe the labels were placed backwards :lol
 
Shouldn't what the audience hears be the important thing? Isn't that the point of the Axe? Why would anyone change their settings simply because the player moved their own monitoring device? That makes me more interested in CLR's, so I would be able to use it backline if it was a weak PA, or wedge for a strong PA, or lastly FF if no PA.
 
Top Bottom