• 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.

CLR vs JBL SRX712M

6L6C

Power User
Just curious if anybody has had the opportunity to compare these two.
A large part of the reason I have the JBL's is from going to shows were Fractal was present and had these (JBL) and other companies offerings present. And the JBL's just destroyed anything else present made the choice real easy.

BTW I have been very happy with my choice, but at the same time I hear so much about the CLR curiosity is getting to me

John
 

pdup

Experienced
From my POV it's a matter of EQ'ing your FRFR speakers to flat frequency or taste. The CLR's, Matrix's or whatever use the same run-of-the-mill drivers.. Maybe the cab is wood or plastic - the amps can differ somewhat. Either way, if you audit several brands they can be EQ'ed to sound very similar.
There's nooo vodoo in speaker design - no matter how much they put into marketing.

Don't fall for the FRFR hype. Even a studio monitor costing 20K is dependable upon room treatment etc. The term FRFR in the guitar world is just a speaker with a widened frequency responce compared with your ordinary 12" or more in a box. There's no free lunches.
 

BBN

Fractal Fanatic
From my POV it's a matter of EQ'ing your FRFR speakers to flat frequency or taste.

I disagree with this.

I have tried more speakers than I care to mention.
Yes, all can be Eq'd to sound 'similar', but that does not account for quality of components and the tone/sound it produces.

Easy (drastic) example is Seismic audio vs. Atomic CLR.
I could Eq'd the Seismic to sound similar to the CLR. But after about 20 minutes of playing through the Seismic, my ears needed a rest.
It sounded similar, but the tone/quality/pleasantness of the sound....was DRASTICALLY different.
Seismic is a drastic example, but I've had the same experience with other speakers as well.

I (regretfully) put my current PA speakers (JTR Triple 8's) side by side with the Atomic CLR.
I could Eq them to sound 'similar' again, but the Atomics just had a sweater top end. No amount of Eq can change that.
It made me mad because the JTR's are way more expensive (and I already bought them).
So price doesn't always mean better quality/sound....BUT there is still no way to Eq a bad speaker to sound 'as good' as a well built, high quality speaker.
(for the record, the JTR's are still great speakers)


As for the JBL SRX-712, I tried one a few years back and thought it lacked low end.
At the time I had it side by side with an RCF NX12ma. RCF carried more low end....but taking that out of the equation....they were like Coke/Pepsi.
Both sounded great, it was just a matter of personal taste/preference.
Since I already owned the RCF, I just stuck with that.

I will also say that I've tried the RCF NX12ma vs. a CLR.
If the RCF is 85% perfect, then the Atomic would be 90% perfect. Just my opinion.

That's about all the info/opinion I can give on the topic as I've never had the CLR and JBL side by side.

Since you're in NY and I'm in MA, you're more than welcome to ship me a JBL and I'll track a video of them side by side.....just throwing it out there. :)
 

jimfist

Fractal Fanatic
yeah, I'm in agreement with BBN on this.

"Don't fall for the FRFR hype." I'm not sure exactly what that is really supposed to mean.
 

Scott Peterson

Global Moderator
Moderator
A quality FRFR would be the antithesis of hype. Just sayin'.

;)

Other than hearing the JBL in question a few times, I can't really draw any conclusions or add anything about it to the discussion. Sounded like a quality speaker. The CLR is a quality speaker. I do not believe the CLR shares drivers with other speakers to the best of my knowledge; no more than the JBL or anyone else does either. IMHO, the sum of the product as presented is greater than the elements used to create it anyway.
 

BigD1977

Power User
I don't have either the CLR or the JBL (yet), but I do have to chime in on this.

Your ears are the most sensitive audio analyser that we currently have access to. They can pick up changes that are masked in a 1/3 octave frequency analysis. An accurate EQ cannot compensate for individual frequencies, just groups of frequencies. This is important to note because if two frequencies are close to each other, with one louder, then (dependent on loudness) the louder frequency will mask the other, and the lower will not be audible. As EQ adjusts a range of frequencies, it may attenuate or boost both equally, so the problem frequency may not be adjustable independently.

Secondly, speakers of different cabinet materials result in a different cabinet responses. If a material is heavier, more acoustic energy tends to be absorbed by the higher mass of the material (although this is also dependent on internal resonance). This can affect the dispersion characteristics, and also the phase of different frequencies (depending on how the cones are mounted).

Third, there is no such thing as 'flat' response. We have limits, just in the same way as we have tolerances in engineering. Typically you will see quoted "flat to +/-3db, 40Hz to 18kHz". What this actually means is that the speakers response will not deviate by over 3db above or below the 0db line from 40Hz to 18kHz. The wider the frequencies and the narrower the upper and lower limits, the better. The term FRFR actually means a cabinet with a wider frequency response, and the perfect one is yet to be built.

So what does this all mean?

1: You currently cannot EQ out some differences in frequency response. You can only get approximations.
2: Specs will only show you so much. They can tell you what to expect but not how you will perceive they sound.
3: Trust your ears. Try them before you buy, if you can. If not, look at the specs.

Just my 2 cents.
 

jimnov

Inspired
I agree with BigD, never seen a "ruler flat" speaker...
Other influences affect the sound we hear. Rooms can have a dramatic affect on sound: reflections, cancellations, standing waves...

I have a PreSonus 16.4.2AI mixer that has a built-in Smaart Analysis program.
I own two Matrix CFR-12's. They are supposed to have more of a guitar cabinet type sound.
I shot the CFR-12 and was surprised to see how "not FR" (Flat Response) they were in my room.
See the image below after PEQ correction. Now they are +/-1.5db flat for guitar frequencies!
There's quite a difference in the sound when I switch the PEQ on and off.

I'm beginning to like the flatter sound more and more. It's easier for me to dial in a preset to match one of my real amps.
The Atomic CLR's are also very flat out of the box, according to the specs.

Ideally, I would like my studio monitors, CFR-12's and PA Speakers to sound very similar, so my presets translate well for playing live and recording.
Know they'll never be exactly the same (unless I use the same speaker for all three purposes) but close is worth aiming for.
Studio monitors are Yamaha HS-80's. After the Smaart analysis on the CFR-12's, they better match the HS-80's tonality.

So there you go.

View attachment 21370
 
Last edited:

Sixstring

Axe-Master
I've read this topic before right here on this very forum only there was this one guy that used to post here that well... kind of knows his stuff when it comes to speaker design.
 

aleclee

Power User
I've read this topic before right here on this very forum only there was this one guy that used to post here that well... kind of knows his stuff when it comes to speaker design.
He is also a big advocate of accuracy in the time domain as well as the frequency domain. That coherence is a big factor in the CLR's clarity as well as the Beyerdynamic cans that many here (myself included) enjoy.
 

BigD1977

Power User
He is also a big advocate of accuracy in the time domain as well as the frequency domain. That coherence is a big factor in the CLR's clarity as well as the Beyerdynamic cans that many here (myself included) enjoy.

You are correct, the frequency response is only one part of it. Frequency response with regard to distance and direction from source is a more accurate representation of true performance.

The more coherent the cone mounting, then the differing frequencies will be radiated from the same source (or rather the distances can be minimised), meaning they are more time aligned than an above/below cone mount. This results in less constructive and destructive interference, which translates to less comb filtering and a more uniform dispersion characteristic for each frequency.
 

Solarfire

Experienced
One thing I always miss in threads like this is the fact that no 2 persons will have equal or the same lack of linearity in their hearing spectrum. I always have to take this into consideration after having gigged for many decades, which impaired my hearing in the 3-4 kHz range. In other words, what I’m hearing won’t be the same as the next guy. I’m pretty sure there are a lot of other long time players out there with the same issue (probably unknowingly), typical guitarist deficiency. This makes sound judging somewhat difficult.
 

Scott Peterson

Global Moderator
Moderator
One thing I always miss in threads like this is the fact that no 2 persons will have equal or the same lack of linearity in their hearing spectrum. I always have to take this into consideration after having gigged for many decades, which impaired my hearing in the 3-4 kHz range. In other words, what I’m hearing won’t be the same as the next guy. I’m pretty sure there are a lot of other long time players out there with the same issue (probably unknowingly), typical guitarist deficiency. This makes sound judging somewhat difficult.

It's a relative thing on a personal level not an absolute one.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
 
Top Bottom