CLR compared to studio monitor

I'm having trouble comprehending this information. Am I reading that the CLR is both wider and narrower in directivity than everything else?

Would I be correct in reading this to mean that while the CLR's sweet spot is wider than the sweet spot of most other speakers, outside the sweet spot you get almost a total signal drop as opposed to a traditional guitar loud speaker's gradual, consistent high end rolloff as you move away from the sweet spot until you're only hearing bass and low low mids?
 
Last edited:
GiRa said:
A lot of people does not get the the CLR's are more directional than many monitors out there. It's by design.
Source: The Gear Page - View Single Post - Part II: Atomic Amps - "Coincident Linear Reference" Designed by Jay Mitchell!!!

Keeping the directivity narrow down to 500Hz, does not masks the high and mid frequencies.
Click to expand...

I read what Jay is saying but I'm hearing a wide dispersion across the speakers that's much wider than typical studio monitors. The imaging is affected by this and it's quite audible.
 
GreatGreen said:
I'm having trouble comprehending this information. Am I reading that the CLR is both wider and narrower in directivity than everything else?

Would I be correct in reading this to mean that while the CLR's sweet spot is wider than the sweet spot of most other speakers, outside the sweet spot you get almost a total signal drop as opposed to a traditional guitar loud speaker's gradual, consistent high end rolloff as you move away from the sweet spot until you're only hearing bass and low low mids?
Click to expand...

DIRECTIVITY:
Sorry, I use dispersion b/c it's commonly used (incorrectly I suppose and I know Jay doesn't like the term). But what I'm referring to is the area around the speaker which as a flat response. With the CLR, this is very wide. With say, the RCF, it's quite narrow. I want it to be wide for smaller venues and mixing sessions with multiple people. But I want it to be very narrow when fighting feedback, mic bleed, and musicians complaining about stage volume as well as when mixing alone (although room treatment could fix the majority of issues here...).

SWEET SPOT:
The sweet spot I'm referring to is with the stereo image (which is affected by the directivity). It wasn't in reference to stage monitoring at all but rather studio monitoring since the OP was asking about the CLR's compared to other studio monitors.

SPACE:
In mixing context for a single user, the sweet spot seems wider b/c of the directivity. However, separating the speakers improves this greatly and I pointed that out b/c space seems to be concern for users trying to decide what to buy.

BOTTOM LINE:
You need to try them to see if they work for you. Specs are one thing but experience is another. My real world test indicates that the CLR has wide, flat coverage, the sweet spot is larger and not as distinct as typical studio monitors, and that I needed more space than expected. None of these are really issues but points to consider when buying.
 
GreatGreen said:
I'm having trouble comprehending this information. Am I reading that the CLR is both wider and narrower in directivity than everything else?

Would I be correct in reading this to mean that while the CLR's sweet spot is wider than the sweet spot of most other speakers, outside the sweet spot you get almost a total signal drop as opposed to a traditional guitar loud speaker's gradual, consistent high end rolloff as you move away from the sweet spot until you're only hearing bass and low low mids?
Click to expand...

Here follow some more quotations from Mr. Mitchell:


The terms "nearfield" and "farfield" are technical descriptors that are not tied to a loudspeaker type.
Back in the day, it became common to call the small and usually very mediocre-sounding speakers that became popular for testing mixes to see how they'd sound on "typical" consumer systems "nearfield monitors," but not because of any attribute that made them more suitable for that use. The thing that separates nearfield from farfield is distance from the source. My designs function just as well in the nearfield as they do in the farfield, and they have been used as nearfield (and main soffit-mounted) monitors in a number of recording studios.

There is a fundamental misconception about the CLR's directivity vs. that of other speakers of similar size. The misconception is that the CLR's coverage is broader than that of other small two-way speakers. This is incorrect.
The truth is that the CLR's coverage is much tighter over a meaningful bandwidth than that of any two-way speaker that uses a direct-radiating woofer (IOW, a cone speaker mounted on a baffle). It is also much more consistent over frequency than the alternatives. For example, the directivity of one popular monitor is specified as "60 degrees." In fact, this descriptor only applies at frequencies above 5-6kHz. Below that frequency range, the speaker's coverage becomes very broad. Below 1kHz, the speaker is essentially omnidirectional. The coverage of the CLR, by contrast, remains essentially unchanged down to 650 Hz. Below that frequency, it gradually becomes broader.

The CLR will produce consistent response over a much larger angle than any guitar cab possibly can. At the same time, it will do a much better job of confining its radiation to its defined 90-degree pattern. IOW, it has a broader coverage pattern, but it also does a better job of minimizing stray radiation outside of that pattern. Both properties are beneficial.

Due to its midrange horn-loaded configuration, the CLR's directivity (the word "dispersion" is an unfortunate misnomer) is narrower in the band from approximately 500Hz-1.5kHz than of that any speaker that uses a direct-radiating woofer.
Given that it is physically impossible to get 60-degree directivity from devices this size in the sub-2kHz region (which is much more important than narrow directivity at high frequencies), it is moot whether narrower-than-90 degree directivity is desirable. It is not achievable without going to much larger devices than floor wedges.

the directivity (the word "dispersion" has a meaning unrelated to directional properties) of the CLR is 90 degrees conic (90 x 90) from 550 Hz upward. Below 550 Hz, it gradually becomes broader.

The pattern is 90 by 90 degrees from 550 Hz on up.
When the desired pattern is a broad one, the break frequency (the frequency below which directivity steadily broadens) is lower for a given size radiator. Had we gone for 90 x 40, the 40-degree part would have only been achievable above ~1.2Khz with a system of this size. It is nonsensical to pretend that that is useful "pattern control." All of my designs offer usable, nominal directivity to frequencies well below crossover. For this reason, the only directivities I design into smaller speakers are broader ones.

The coverage of the CLR is 100 degrees at 500Hz, 100 degrees at 1kHz, 90 degrees at 2kHz, and 80 degrees at 10kHz. Not only does it provide useful coverage over a wider angle, it does a better job of confining its radiation within that pattern and maintaining a consistent pattern over most of its bandwidth.



Loudspeaker directivity is a very complex subject and is very poorly addressed - it at all - in the specifications of consumer-type devices. The "coverage" angles given in spec sheets for speakers of this type - when they are even provided - apply to the high-frequency limit behavior of the speaker. For example, the manufacturer of one popular two-way monitor claims a directivity of "60 degrees," when in fact this descriptor applies only to frequencies above ~5kHz. At lower frequencies, the directivity of the speaker becomes much broader. There are many reasons that this directivity behavior creates problems, including substantial loss of high frequencies just a few degrees off axis and excess excitation of early reflections and reverberation. There is neither time nor space to provide a comprehensive explanation of the issues involved here. This is an issue to which many professionals - myself included - devote substantial portions of their lives. Here is an excellent introductory tutorial by colleagues of mine: Loudspeaker Facts - Directivity as a Design Issue.

The short answer about the CLR: like all my designs, the CLR produces controlled, constant directivity over the maximum possible portion of its bandwidth.

One piece of this is that the beamwidth of the CLR does not collapse significantly in the high-frequency limit. The pattern at 2kHz is very similar to the pattern at 10kHz and above. This is a nontrivial attribute on its own, but there is more to the story.

The lower limit of the directivity-controlled band (called the "break frequency") is determined by the size of the speaker. The lower the frequency you want to control (and the smaller the included angle you want to cover), the larger the speaker must be. To produce a 90-degree pattern at 100 Hz, a horn mouth (IOW, the front of the speaker) would have to have dimensions of just over 10 feet. Based on its size, the CLR can produce a 90-degree pattern at frequencies from 650 Hz upward. Below that, its directivity willl gradually broaden (although there is beneficial pattern control well below the break frequency). This limitation is fundamental and due to the laws of physics. However, the CLR is unique in its ability to fully exploit its size in maximizing the band over which it has controlled directivity. It is also unique in the consistency of response within its design 90-degree coverage pattern. The thing that sets the CLR apart from all other devices in its market is that it uses a controlled-directivity radiator (aka a "horn") for its low-frequency section. All the competition use direct radiators (cone speakers mounted on flat baffles) and therefore are incapable of controlled directivity at any frequency below crossover.

Because of its directional discipline, a CLR will facilitate your ability to play at a reasonable volume while minimizing annoyance to the neighbors. This one attribute may make it worth considering, even if you will never need its maximum output capacity.

"CLR's off-axis sound is going to be very similar to its on-axis sound."
That's one piece of the puzzle. The other is that the radiation pattern is well-controlled (IOW, relatively little energy is radiated outside the pattern), which minimizes the magnitude of reflected energy, especially of early reflections.

HTH :)
 
let's keep it simple - smaller speakers were suited better for less distance between speaker and listener - these were called nearfield monitors for mixing purposes. These speaker doesn't need high sensitvity, it's not necessary to fill the room with sound. Bigger speakers and especially those with greater sensitivity were made for larger rooms and greater distances between speaker and listener. So if you think to use a 12" woofer with a sensitivity of 99dB @1W on 1M within a 3 - 5 feets distance - this is up to you - for me, this is way too much!
I also believe that the stiffness of the cone suspension of a PA woofer is not able to give the same performance as a soft cone suspension below a certain volume level, which would be needed for me, when listen within the same close up distance as my nearfield monitors

I respect all the knowledge of the speaker scientists here, but my opinion goes more into my real world application/experience!

Cheers
Paco
 
Atomic does not market the current CLR Series as replacements for near field monitors but the fact is that we now have many customers including professional and home studio owners and at least one mastering engineer using them for this purpose. The CLRs have received very positive feedback from these groups and this includes comments about the imaging. Many have compared them favorably to high quality near field monitors.

Most of us make decisions about what gear we use based on our needs, feedback from people we trust and ultimately what works for us through experience. If you are seriously considering to use the CLRs for studio reference monitoring, hearing them for yourself by checking out a friends or through our trial period will be the only way to know for sure.

-TK
 
Tom's response makes the most sense.

It is best if you can evaluate speakers for yourself in your room and then decide what works and what doesn't.

My only monitors at home were vintage NS10's. So using the CLR's as a second monitor set made sense to me and sounds terrific in my room.
 
Again from Mr. Mitchell:

The CLR is more accurate and transparent than many widely-praised "studio" monitors. If you can find an appropriate place to set a pair - they really are a bit larger than the typical nearfield - they will provide an excellent reference for recording.


The terms "nearfield" and "farfield" are technical descriptors that are not tied to a loudspeaker type.
Back in the day, it became common to call the small and usually very mediocre-sounding speakers that became popular for testing mixes to see how they'd sound on "typical" consumer systems "nearfield monitors," but not because of any attribute that made them more suitable for that use. The thing that separates nearfield from farfield is distance from the source. My designs function just as well in the nearfield as they do in the farfield, and they have been used as nearfield (and main soffit-mounted) monitors in a number of recording studios.
One recording engineer with major credits installed a pair of larger SR speakers of my design as his main soffit monitors. His remark to the consultant who had recommended them to him was that, on listening to them for the first time, he heard details on CDs of his own recordings that he had never heard before.
The dimensions of the space determine bass behavior, regardless of the size of the source. The smaller the space, the more ragged and position-dependent the LF response will be, whether you use a nearfield monitor or a CLR.
 
barhrecords said:
My only monitors at home were vintage NS10's. So using the CLR's as a second monitor set made sense to me and sounds terrific in my room.
Click to expand...

Sure, because the NS10 were not use for analytic mixing, they were mostly use for A/B just because of the proven fact that if a mix does well on a NS10 - it does well on most common radios and home stereo systems. I never would recommend the NS10 just for mixing purposes only. ;)

For home studio use - I work with a pair of MSP5, since 1999 - for "real" mixing, I recommend a pair of PMC TB2 or also known as Digidesign RM2 - according to my experiences ( I have full access to a nice protools based studio in my area, a pair Digidesign RM2 nearfield and Quested VH3208 passive midfield with a big 18" QSB118 each side - driven by a 4 channel amplifier from MC2 audio).

The main reason why a nearfield monitor is called nearfield monitor is because of their close proximity to the user aka the Producer or Engineer whatever you call it. These were made for analytic listening, A/B-ing (such as the famous NS10 or the broadband Auratone speaker). Saying these would be usually medicore, is not true - of corse these people mostly talking about NS10s which were very popular but medicore sounding. There were many great designs, which were not medicore - such as the PMC TB2 for example.... Of corse you can use a mid/far field systems (soffit mounted or free standing) for mixing - It's the reaseon why most bigger studios had a soffit mounted main monitor system or a free standing midfield monitors - but then we talking about different sensitivity, higher sound preasure levels, bigger rooms.

as I said - I don't own a CLR, I use a Q12a from matrix - and I would never use it as a mixing monitor just because I know better performance from so called "close proximity" standing speakers in terms of analytic listening. ;) My opinion....

I'm not saying others were wrong - use what you like - but I can't imagine myself to use a speaker with higher sensivity very close to my ears for analytic listening

Cheers
Paco
 
PacoCasanovas said:
Sure, because the NS10 were not use for analytic mixing, they were mostly use for A/B just because of the proven fact that if a mix does well on a NS10 - it does well on most common radios and home stereo systems. I never would recommend the NS10 just for mixing purposes only. ;)

For home studio use - I work with a pair of MSP5, since 1999 - for "real" mixing, I recommend a pair of PMC TB2 or also known as Digidesign RM2 - according to my experiences ( I have full access to a nice protools based studio in my area, a pair Digidesign RM2 nearfield and Quested VH3208 passive midfield with a big 18" QSB118 each side - driven by a 4 channel amplifier from MC2 audio).

The main reason why a nearfield monitor is called nearfield monitor is because of their close proximity to the user aka the Producer or Engineer whatever you call it. These were made for analytic listening, A/B-ing (such as the famous NS10 or the broadband Auratone speaker). Saying these would be usually medicore, is not true - of corse these people mostly talking about NS10s which were very popular but medicore sounding. There were many great designs, which were not medicore - such as the PMC TB2 for example.... Of corse you can use a mid/far field systems (soffit mounted or free standing) for mixing - It's the reaseon why most bigger studios had a soffit mounted main monitor system or a free standing midfield monitors - but then we talking about different sensitivity, higher sound preasure levels, bigger rooms.

as I said - I don't own a CLR, I use a Q12a from matrix - and I would never use it as a mixing monitor just because I know better performance from so called "close proximity" standing speakers in terms of analytic listening. ;) My opinion....

I'm not saying others were wrong - use what you like - but I can't imagine myself to use a speaker with higher sensivity very close to my ears for analytic listening

Cheers
Paco
Click to expand...

I don't have anything to go on but what I have tried for myself.

I find my mixes on NS10's translate pretty good to other systems. But I can't say if that is the case for anyone else.

I bought 2 CLR's for use with the AxeFx II. After trying them for mixing, I can say they are great for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom