Dedicated power amp (like Matrix) vs. powered monitors?

[romanianreaper]

I really love my GT1000FX. It sounds great, adds only 1U to my Axe rack and weighs next to nothing. But the big win here is versatility. Guitar cabs or (passive)FRFR. Works and sounds awesome either way. Yes you CAN have it all.

So I mostly use guitar cabs.. I have 3. One stays at home in my music room, the other two get dragged around for rehearsals/gigs regularly. Last Sat I gigged with my 4x12... just cause I wanted to, dammit! This Sat I have another gig, I'll probably bring the Mesa 1x12 since it's a little smaller space. But I also have a pair of older passive JBL wedges with 12" and conical horn (can't recall the model#). These sound pretty nice with cab sims on and Matrix power. They sometimes get used as vocal monitors.. at band rehearsal I no longer bother bringing the PA power amp, I just use channel B on the Matrix to power both wedges (for vocals) at the same time I'm using channel A for my guitar cab. Or if I'm lazy, I don't bother bringing the cab at all, run Axe-FX direct and power the monitors for the whole band with the Matrix.

I still own some powered speakers (EV SXa and one QSC HPR12) but I fail to see any advantage at this point.

Dude, after all of my frustration and questions you might have actually steered me toward the Matrix.

 

[nater]

Yep, and as MusicMan77 said, I might just be like Deion and say "both". Commercial - Pizza Hut - YouTube

The powered monitors will serve multiple purposes for myself as a possible vocal monitor and AXE monitor, and all those options... and I'll probaby swap my VHT for a Matrix so I can rip through cabs and still have passive options in the future....


I LOVE GOOOOOOLLLLLLLDDDDD!!!!

Austin Powers Goldmember - I Love Gold - YouTube

 

[funny_polymath]

I switched to passive for several reasons. The biggest is that if I got loud enough, the amp in my active monitors would rattle. This was true of Mackies and QSCs. The other reasons: 1) I thought I could get better, more flexible (i.e. more lows for when I do bass and keyboards) through a fEARFULL 3-way enclosure 2) I really beleive that vibration and amps, even solid state amps, really don't belong together. Yeah, I know guitar amps have been marrying the two forever - but it isn't a great idea from a design standpoint - expecially with tubes, but with any kind of amp. So, I've got a Matrix 100FX 2U in my rack with my Axe II and a few other goodies, and a speakon over to a few feet away, where my speaker (soon to be plural when I can afford to tgo stereo) sits. It sounds incredible. There's no rattle of cooling fins, faceplates etc., and I beleive it's a more robust solution for long-term use. My $0.02 for the day.

 

[dpeterson]

almost as bad as asking what is the best guitar to use with the axe. will get 100101010 opinions. too many variables.

 

[Rocket Brother]

Depends. I much prefer the tones from my Matrix/cab than the K12 I tried.

Class A/B v D. the gap is closing but GENERALLY speaking class A/B is better for critical audio - class D is better for high pwer applications. Thats mainy due to the weight/heat issues with a of high pwer class A/B amps v Class D from what I understand.

Its also important to remember its not just the class that matters, its the amplification device itself. Mosfets are the best option from an audio quality perspective in SS amps. you CAN get class A/B amps that dont use MosFets. Cliff has stated any decent Mosfet class A/B amp is the best option for a SS amp - and the Matrix is such an amp.

Now - the amp in the RCF is a quality module as well -and is designed for a different purpose. It give great results BUT i wouldn't use that module with a passive speaker. So if you want an amp/speaker (be it guitar cab or passive FR) then Id go Matrix + whatever. IF I wanted a powered monitor - the RCF is currently the best option (at that price or below at least), however the active Matrix wedges are near. That will mate a similarly high quality co-axial speaker with their Mosfet Class A/B amp (and be of similar price - possibly a touch higher in the states). Choosing between that and the prooven RCF wedge is going to be a closer/harder choice than amp/cab or single active solution - which is more based on personal preference.

Ultimately - to answer the initial Q, a quality amp is a quality amp regardless of class. If I had to make a choice, Id say the Matrix power amp is slightly higher quality than the RFC module - based price. Think this way - the Matrix is built in house, and sold direct which keeps prices low v comparative products (even though you may find the price high on a personal level). The RCF incurs other "add ons" via distributors/reseller proffit margins AND is priced for both the module, speaker and crossover while the Matrix is just for the amp - so youd need to look at "cost" prices (and of just the module v the GT amp) to really gert a direct comparrison. How important that extra "quality" might be once you get to that standard (and higher - which are available at a price) is highly debatable.

Paul,
Anybody who follows the amp and cabs section knows of your love for and loyalty towards Matrix, and I´m sure really they really deserve it.
If I were in the market for a stand alone SS power amp I´d buy a GT1000 in a heartbeat, no doubt about it.
I agree with your first couple of paragraphs which contains a lot of good information, but your last paragraph bugs me as it's not objective rather speculative and advertising.

Don't take this the wrong way, but:
Did you try out the RCF NX12-SMA with the Axe Fx yourself ??
Did you try the RCF NX12-SMA and Matrix+cab setup with the Axe Fx at the same time, in an A/B test manner ??
If the answers to those 2 questions are no, then you are purely speculating when you say that the Matrix power amp is higher quality than the power amp in the RCF NX12-SMA - it might even be the other way around (not saying it is, as I haven´t tried any of the 2 options). Does it matter much ? The important thing is the performance of your entire amplification system, as in how does a Matrix + chosen cab stack up against a RCF NX12-SMA for your intended purpose.
Also you say that the RCF is made for a different purpose, which I don't agree with as the Axe Fx is designed for going direct, which means it´s designed to be played back through a FRFR system such as the RCF NX12-SMA, it´s can also be played back through a regular guitar cab - different strokes for different folks !

Also I know about Matrix designing and building in house and selling direct, which is very commendable, as it keeps the quality up and the prices down. However do you have any particular insights into the RCF business model that qualifies you to make a statement like the one above ? We the public will never get a "cost" price on either the Matrix nor the RCF power amp, and retail price isn´t always indicative of actual quality. RCF as a business is a whole other animal than Matrix, it's a much larger company selling a lot more units, which means that the direct approach is not viable for them, hence the distribution network, which naturally incurs profit margins, but - and that's a big but - RCF probably buy parts in bigger bulks reducing their price, the distribution network helps sell more units, again reducing price and so on. So how do you know which of the 2 companies brings the best quality product to the marked at the best price ?? I for one don´t.
I´m not praising one company over the other, just saying that there is a lot of factors that determines the quality and final prices of these products.
Again I'm not routing for any of the 2 companies here, I'm would think that both the Matrix+cab and the RCF NX12-SMA would be vastly better than the K12, which I have tried and did not really care for.

It's a great time to be a guitarist, so many great options that it´ll make your head spin. I've been using IEM mainly for a few years, but as I´m getting involved in a project where I'd need non-IEM personal monitoring I'm really looking forward to the release of the active wedge from Matrix, the Atomic CLR and are going to test them against a RCF NX12-SMA if I can get my hands on one of each for a shoot-out.

 

[paulmapp8306]

To answer briefly, and to try and put things into perspective.

I have tried many FRFR solutons (some much higher price/quality than the RCFs) and personally dont gell with them - hence my preference for the Matrix + cab. Thats personal though.

I can see the point/need for an FRFR solution at times though - hence why I prefer a separate amp that I can use to drive passive monitors. If the RFC came as a passive version Id be extremely interested.

i have not tried the RCF, but my point about the quality of the amplification in the RCF is logical rather than factual - and I admit that. The RCF is twice the price of a Matrix amp, in fact 3 times if you consider the module versions, but that includes both the enclosure, the speakers, crossovers, and amp module. Given that the price also includes shipping (the Matix doesnt), a markup for re-sellers, and a markup for distributors its reasonable to speculate the quality (of components rather than design I guess) of the MODULE in the RFC isnt up to those in the Matrix. Of course that could be wrong - but its a maths & business exercise that leads to that rather than an engineering one.

Ultimately though - whether right or wrong - that makes no difference. the RFC is an active cab, a complete FRFR solution. The Matrix is an amp only - that can be paired with whatever you choose (so more flexible but probably a less perfect match). As such they dont compare. If RCF made a passive version, you could power it with the Matrix and get a better comparison - but they dont so you cant.

Ultimately when Matrix release their own Active wedge - THEN you can compare two powered FRRF solutions. There both going to be around the same price though - so by the same maths/business model the component parts of the Matrix should be of a slightly higher standard - though again not really an issue as the RCF is a pro piece of equpt in its own right so relative quality is pretty meaningless at that level.

I totally agree with your points on bulk purchase on components. Though, Matrix make a lot of their own - so the QC is up there, and price will be comparative. Still - what matters is the final piece of equipment. The RCF is pretty good (there are better - for a HIGH price) and is currently though to be the best relatively affordable FRRF option. If that was what I wanted, Id almost certainly have one. Not saying its bad. The initial OP questioned the quality of Class A/B and class D - which I tried to address, and also the quality of the particular amps - which as we cant know for certain I speculated on, using reasonable assumptions - but they are only assumptions.

 

[Scott Peterson]

To answer briefly, and to try and put things into perspective.

I have tried many FRFR solutons (some much higher price/quality than the RCFs) and personally dont gell with them - hence my preference for the Matrix + cab. Thats personal though.

I can see the point/need for an FRFR solution at times though - hence why I prefer a separate amp that I can use to drive passive monitors. If the RFC came as a passive version Id be extremely interested.

i have not tried the RCF, but my point about the quality of the amplification in the RCF is logical rather than factual - and I admit that. The RCF is twice the price of a Matrix amp, in fact 3 times if you consider the module versions, but that includes both the enclosure, the speakers, crossovers, and amp module. Given that the price also includes shipping (the Matix doesnt), a markup for re-sellers, and a markup for distributors its reasonable to speculate the quality (of components rather than design I guess) of the MODULE in the RFC isnt up to those in the Matrix. Of course that could be wrong - but its a maths & business exercise that leads to that rather than an engineering one.

Ultimately though - whether right or wrong - that makes no difference. the RFC is an active cab, a complete FRFR solution. The Matrix is an amp only - that can be paired with whatever you choose (so more flexible but probably a less perfect match). As such they dont compare. If RCF made a passive version, you could power it with the Matrix and get a better comparison - but they dont so you cant.

Ultimately when Matrix release their own Active wedge - THEN you can compare two powered FRRF solutions. There both going to be around the same price though - so by the same maths/business model the component parts of the Matrix should be of a slightly higher standard - though again not really an issue as the RCF is a pro piece of equpt in its own right so relative quality is pretty meaningless at that level.

I totally agree with your points on bulk purchase on components. Though, Matrix make a lot of their own - so the QC is up there, and price will be comparative. Still - what matters is the final piece of equipment. The RCF is pretty good (there are better - for a HIGH price) and is currently though to be the best relatively affordable FRRF option. If that was what I wanted, Id almost certainly have one. Not saying its bad. The initial OP questioned the quality of Class A/B and class D - which I tried to address, and also the quality of the particular amps - which as we cant know for certain I speculated on, using reasonable assumptions - but they are only assumptions.

Paul,

Logical issue here - if the Matrix amp module is far superior due to pricing 'logic' to the RCF module... and the RCF NX and upcoming Matrix powered wedge are going to be the same price... then by your logic, the RCF has a far better speaker and enclosure. Personally, I have no idea. But I am attempting to have the RCF NX 12-SMA, Atomic CLR and Matrix Powered Wedge all in one place at one time and compare them in person. Then - and only then - I'll render my personal opinion.

You can't have it both ways.

I'd suggest for your credibility that you wait until you actually have tried specific gear before rendering your opinion.

My advice to you - and I've been accused of partisan opinion myself - is to not give into the temptation of negative commentary or implications on gear you have not tried personally. That's been my mantra for my entire life and it has served me well.

 

[miketheman]

sooo... which one isn´t better than the other one?

:roll:roll:roll

:lol

/Mike

 

[BBN]

I am attempting to have the RCF NX 12-SMA, Atomic CLR and Matrix Powered Wedge all in one place at one time and compare them in person.

I'm doing my best to keep my credit card in my wallet until I see/hear this!!

 

[paulmapp8306]

Paul,

Logical issue here - if the Matrix amp module is far superior due to pricing 'logic' to the RCF module... and the RCF NX and upcoming Matrix powered wedge are going to be the same price... then by your logic, the RCF has a far better speaker and enclosure. Personally, I have no idea. But I am attempting to have the RCF NX 12-SMA, Atomic CLR and Matrix Powered Wedge all in one place at one time and compare them in person. Then - and only then - I'll render my personal opinion.

You can't have it both ways.

I'd suggest for your credibility that you wait until you actually have tried specific gear before rendering your opinion.

My advice to you - and I've been accused of partisan opinion myself - is to not give into the temptation of negative commentary or implications on gear you have not tried personally. That's been my mantra for my entire life and it has served me well.

didnt say tr was far better - I just said better. I suspect theres not really that much in it, but I dont necessarily agree about the speaker, enclosure etc.

Look at it this way, the RCF and the Matrix FRFR will be roughly the same price. the RFC is built with 3rd party sourced components (mostly at least), and the price it sells for had to include a profit margin for the manufactures, distributors and re-sellers. Matrix also source 3rd party components - and will probably pay more (relatively) for those they do - however they manufacture a lot of their own parts as well. its selling price only has to include a mark up for the manufacturer. Its reasonable to assume then, that what you get with the Matrix is probably a little above what you get from RFC - quality wise. As I said though its not going to be night and day, there may be some components that are one notch up in the Matrix compared to the RCF, but thats about it.

As I saud - the RCFs (clips I have heard0 sound good for FRFR, but having tried speakers 2 and 3 times the price of the RFC and still preferring amp/cabs - thats my preference. Currently, I believe the best amp solution to drive passive speakers (FR or guitar) is the Matrix (size, weight, quality, freq response etc) and the best powered FRFR solution at a reasonable outlay is currently the RCF. Its really for the individual to decide which way he wants to amplify his AFX - and that will decide his preferred product (and there are others - as always - if price is an issue or if you dont like what you try). Once the active Matrix wedge comes out then there will be a choice in the FRFR stakes - and when the Active CLRs come out there will be another. At present there is little in the way of passive FR cabs available. The JBLs are a lot of money, arnt co-axial, and weight a lot. The Matrix passive cab is now close (orders being taken0 but the CLRs arnt as yet. If the RCFs were available in passive form - they would probably be the cab to mate with a Matrix currently - at least for the next couple of weeks or so.

im really not pro Matrix, or Anti RCF as such. There both great by all accounts - and if i was an FRFR guy Id have an RFC at present. I was initially trying to comment on the Class A/B v Class D thing - and the "which amp is better" thing (which is always going to be personal to a degree). I dont wish to knock RCF, or their product, or those happy users of any equipment.

 

[Rocket Brother]

To answer briefly, and to try and put things into perspective.

I have tried many FRFR solutons (some much higher price/quality than the RCFs) and personally dont gell with them - hence my preference for the Matrix + cab. Thats personal though.

I can see the point/need for an FRFR solution at times though - hence why I prefer a separate amp that I can use to drive passive monitors. If the RFC came as a passive version Id be extremely interested.

i have not tried the RCF, but my point about the quality of the amplification in the RCF is logical rather than factual - and I admit that. The RCF is twice the price of a Matrix amp, in fact 3 times if you consider the module versions, but that includes both the enclosure, the speakers, crossovers, and amp module. Given that the price also includes shipping (the Matix doesnt), a markup for re-sellers, and a markup for distributors its reasonable to speculate the quality (of components rather than design I guess) of the MODULE in the RFC isnt up to those in the Matrix. Of course that could be wrong - but its a maths & business exercise that leads to that rather than an engineering one.

Ultimately though - whether right or wrong - that makes no difference. the RFC is an active cab, a complete FRFR solution. The Matrix is an amp only - that can be paired with whatever you choose (so more flexible but probably a less perfect match). As such they dont compare. If RCF made a passive version, you could power it with the Matrix and get a better comparison - but they dont so you cant.

Ultimately when Matrix release their own Active wedge - THEN you can compare two powered FRRF solutions. There both going to be around the same price though - so by the same maths/business model the component parts of the Matrix should be of a slightly higher standard - though again not really an issue as the RCF is a pro piece of equpt in its own right so relative quality is pretty meaningless at that level.

I totally agree with your points on bulk purchase on components. Though, Matrix make a lot of their own - so the QC is up there, and price will be comparative. Still - what matters is the final piece of equipment. The RCF is pretty good (there are better - for a HIGH price) and is currently though to be the best relatively affordable FRRF option. If that was what I wanted, Id almost certainly have one. Not saying its bad. The initial OP questioned the quality of Class A/B and class D - which I tried to address, and also the quality of the particular amps - which as we cant know for certain I speculated on, using reasonable assumptions - but they are only assumptions.

didnt say tr was far better - I just said better. I suspect theres not really that much in it, but I dont necessarily agree about the speaker, enclosure etc.

Look at it this way, the RCF and the Matrix FRFR will be roughly the same price. the RFC is built with 3rd party sourced components (mostly at least), and the price it sells for had to include a profit margin for the manufactures, distributors and re-sellers. Matrix also source 3rd party components - and will probably pay more (relatively) for those they do - however they manufacture a lot of their own parts as well. its selling price only has to include a mark up for the manufacturer. Its reasonable to assume then, that what you get with the Matrix is probably a little above what you get from RFC - quality wise. As I said though its not going to be night and day, there may be some components that are one notch up in the Matrix compared to the RCF, but thats about it.

As I saud - the RCFs (clips I have heard0 sound good for FRFR, but having tried speakers 2 and 3 times the price of the RFC and still preferring amp/cabs - thats my preference. Currently, I believe the best amp solution to drive passive speakers (FR or guitar) is the Matrix (size, weight, quality, freq response etc) and the best powered FRFR solution at a reasonable outlay is currently the RCF. Its really for the individual to decide which way he wants to amplify his AFX - and that will decide his preferred product (and there are others - as always - if price is an issue or if you dont like what you try). Once the active Matrix wedge comes out then there will be a choice in the FRFR stakes - and when the Active CLRs come out there will be another. At present there is little in the way of passive FR cabs available. The JBLs are a lot of money, arnt co-axial, and weight a lot. The Matrix passive cab is now close (orders being taken0 but the CLRs arnt as yet. If the RCFs were available in passive form - they would probably be the cab to mate with a Matrix currently - at least for the next couple of weeks or so.

im really not pro Matrix, or Anti RCF as such. There both great by all accounts - and if i was an FRFR guy Id have an RFC at present. I was initially trying to comment on the Class A/B v Class D thing - and the "which amp is better" thing (which is always going to be personal to a degree). I dont wish to knock RCF, or their product, or those happy users of any equipment.

Paul,
As I said earlier on, I agree on your general part about class A/B and class D amps in your 1st post, but after that there are serious flaws in your logic in both you original post and the 2 that I´ve quoted above.
I pointed it out and so did Scott; be careful applying a one-sided or agenda-driven logic, rating products you have not tried yourself, speculating about business models and making assumptions (they are the mother of all FU's you know) to the extend that you do - you are loosing your credibillity here, and I´d personally hate to see that happen as you've been a voice of reason until now.
Best
RB

 

[BBN]

The JBLs are a lot of money, arnt co-axial, and weight a lot.

JBL SRX712's weigh 33lbs (15kg). Matrix are 29lbs (13kg).

IMO, that's not enough difference to care about (or classify the JBL as "weighing a lot").
Both speakers are light.

 

[Robboman]

This thread has gone rather OT if you look back at the thread title.

"Dedicated power amp (like Matrix) vs. powered monitors?"

Hope no-one minds if I quickly make my point (again).. a dedicated amp will power a cab or FR monitor equally well. I can easily A/B between my proven guitar cabs and a (passive) FR wedge (with cab IR), and change my mind on a whim. I can try different FR speakers without having to keep re-purchasing power amps in the form of built in 'modules' for each speaker.

For any Axe newbies coming from a background with real amps/cabs: I strongly recommend starting with a good poweramp like the Matrix and using it with the guitar cab you already own. Try FR later with a passive wedge.

Scott: you mentioned doing a shootout of three different powered monitors. If I recall, you started with a JBL, then went QSC HPR12, onto a Verve 8ma, then a 12ma, then the RCF, and I'm sure you'll have a powered Atomic CLR soon. Correct me if that's not accurate.. just sayin.. why not use rack power and passive monitors? The GT1000FX sounds amazing and whatever box you use at the end of the speaker cable will be lighter and cheaper sans onboard amp module. Faster set up too with only one cable to attach!

 

[CrazyTrainer]

I'd suggest for your credibility that you wait until you actually have tried specific gear before rendering your opinion.

I think I am big enough and ugly enough to form my own opinions on the reliability or otherwise of peoples opinions, without instructions from on-high about who to listen to.

 

[Rocket Brother]

This thread has gone rather OT if you look back at the thread title.

"Dedicated power amp (like Matrix) vs. powered monitors?"

Hope no-one minds if I quickly make my point (again).. a dedicated amp will power a cab or FR monitor equally well. I can easily A/B between my proven guitar cabs and a (passive) FR wedge (with cab IR), and change my mind on a whim. I can try different FR speakers without having to keep re-purchasing power amps in the form of built in 'modules' for each speaker.

For any Axe newbies coming from a background with real amps/cabs: I strongly recommend starting with a good poweramp like the Matrix and using it with the guitar cab you already own. Try FR later with a passive wedge.

Scott: you mentioned doing a shootout of three different powered monitors. If I recall, you started with a JBL, then went QSC HPR12, onto a Verve 8ma, then a 12ma, then the RCF, and I'm sure you'll have a powered Atomic CLR soon. Correct me if that's not accurate.. just sayin.. why not use rack power and passive monitors? The GT1000FX sounds amazing and whatever box you use at the end of the speaker cable will be lighter and cheaper sans onboard amp module. Faster set up too with only one cable to attach!

The OT here was necessary to keep the info here correct and fair.
Different strokes for different folks, so FRFR will be right for some and the amp + cab approach will be right for others, it's all good and your advice is worth noticing, and if I was in the marked for a SS power amp I´d definitely go for an GT1000FX.
One thing though, not all good FRFR monitors are available as passives, and there are important reasons to go for active FRFR monitors, as 1) the power amp module, enclosure and speaker are (if the design is executed well) designed to work together as an integrated unit, 2) you save weight, heat build up and space in your rack.
I use my Axe II and Ultra with both my tube amps and direct through FOH with IEM, both can yield great tones, but franky I vastly prefer FRFR as it offers a lot of versatility using the amp and cab sims - just IMO and YMMV.
I´m waiting for the Atomic CLR and the Matrix active FRFR wedges to be come available, so I can try those 2 and the RCF at the same time, and then make up my mind about which solution is right for me.

 

[paulmapp8306]

No agenda. Obviously the points I'm trying to get through are being lost. Debate on things are a natural progression sometimes, and I was trying a reasoned argument, to which others have offered different views which I agree with in part. It's all good really. Your right though, assumptions about a v b (particularly on business model) are maybe pointless. Does it matter which is better quality? Not really as there both great.

I'd love to try an rcf, but there's no chance where I live, and I'm not taking s punt as I'm not an frfr guy.

As most say, ultimately try things that are of interest and decide yourself. Something can be top notch yet may be worse for you than something mediocre, if that does what you want while the top stuff foesnt (in general. Not related to the matrix/rcf thing)

 

[Scott Peterson]

didnt say tr was far better - I just said better. I suspect theres not really that much in it, but I dont necessarily agree about the speaker, enclosure etc.

Look at it this way, the RCF and the Matrix FRFR will be roughly the same price. the RFC is built with 3rd party sourced components (mostly at least), and the price it sells for had to include a profit margin for the manufactures, distributors and re-sellers. Matrix also source 3rd party components - and will probably pay more (relatively) for those they do - however they manufacture a lot of their own parts as well. its selling price only has to include a mark up for the manufacturer. Its reasonable to assume then, that what you get with the Matrix is probably a little above what you get from RFC - quality wise. As I said though its not going to be night and day, there may be some components that are one notch up in the Matrix compared to the RCF, but thats about it.

As I saud - the RCFs (clips I have heard0 sound good for FRFR, but having tried speakers 2 and 3 times the price of the RFC and still preferring amp/cabs - thats my preference. Currently, I believe the best amp solution to drive passive speakers (FR or guitar) is the Matrix (size, weight, quality, freq response etc) and the best powered FRFR solution at a reasonable outlay is currently the RCF. Its really for the individual to decide which way he wants to amplify his AFX - and that will decide his preferred product (and there are others - as always - if price is an issue or if you dont like what you try). Once the active Matrix wedge comes out then there will be a choice in the FRFR stakes - and when the Active CLRs come out there will be another. At present there is little in the way of passive FR cabs available. The JBLs are a lot of money, arnt co-axial, and weight a lot. The Matrix passive cab is now close (orders being taken0 but the CLRs arnt as yet. If the RCFs were available in passive form - they would probably be the cab to mate with a Matrix currently - at least for the next couple of weeks or so.

im really not pro Matrix, or Anti RCF as such. There both great by all accounts - and if i was an FRFR guy Id have an RFC at present. I was initially trying to comment on the Class A/B v Class D thing - and the "which amp is better" thing (which is always going to be personal to a degree). I dont wish to knock RCF, or their product, or those happy users of any equipment.

That's a liteny of assumptions man. RCF manufacturers all the components of the NX series in-house from what I understand. You honestly should try them before sharing your opinion of them; and research the things like business model (including where/who they source their components from) before expounding upon it to reach a conclusion.

Paul, I've nothing but respect for you, but this is very flawed logic and without first-hand personal knowledge of what you are discussing it really doesn't hold any weight or credibility of your other assessments. I'm not an apologist nor 'defender' of RCF, I just own one of their speakers and it is among the best I've ever used in that regard. I'm hoping the Atomic CLR and/or the Matrix can match or exceed it at a better price. In the end, that's all that matters to me - the performance. Not brand loyalty. I could care less about RCF. But I sure do like this speaker and can honestly say that because I both own it and use it almost daily.

This thread has gone rather OT if you look back at the thread title.

"Dedicated power amp (like Matrix) vs. powered monitors?"

Hope no-one minds if I quickly make my point (again).. a dedicated amp will power a cab or FR monitor equally well. I can easily A/B between my proven guitar cabs and a (passive) FR wedge (with cab IR), and change my mind on a whim. I can try different FR speakers without having to keep re-purchasing power amps in the form of built in 'modules' for each speaker.

For any Axe newbies coming from a background with real amps/cabs: I strongly recommend starting with a good poweramp like the Matrix and using it with the guitar cab you already own. Try FR later with a passive wedge.

Scott: you mentioned doing a shootout of three different powered monitors. If I recall, you started with a JBL, then went QSC HPR12, onto a Verve 8ma, then a 12ma, then the RCF, and I'm sure you'll have a powered Atomic CLR soon. Correct me if that's not accurate.. just sayin.. why not use rack power and passive monitors? The GT1000FX sounds amazing and whatever box you use at the end of the speaker cable will be lighter and cheaper sans onboard amp module. Faster set up too with only one cable to attach!

I've no comment no the OP's original intent or question; but instead felt compelled to speak out against something that I have an admitted pet peeve about - and that's expressing opinion of gear without first hand knowledge. Especially when some of the opinions expressed are in error.

I've owned and/or used - personally, first-hand - the powered monitors you name and more. Carvin, Yamaha, EV, Mackie, Alto, etc.. I'm not shy about trying gear. I have no interest at all in a power amp with passive speakers. I find the powered monitor setup fits my personal situation far better. I would lay bets that my dual-cable setup (I use ProCo "Siamese Twin" 1A1P14 cable) is not any 'slower' or 'faster' a setup or trouble than your single cable setup). My rack is also lighter and I have zero heat build up. I prefer having the power amp purpose built for the actual enclosure and speaker; IMHO, when they do it right, it works flawlessly. Thus far, I've not had any issue with even the budget level stuff's amps or speakers in terms of reliability or dependability. I've heard the first Matrix power amp in use and it was fine; there's nothing negative to say about it or the company from my experience. In the end, poweramp/cab or powered cab is just personal preference.

That's IMHO, YMMV.

I think I am big enough and ugly enough to form my own opinions on the reliability or otherwise of peoples opinions, without instructions from on-high about who to listen to.

No one here is telling you how to form your opinions; no one here is 'on-high' and no one here is telling you who to listen to. I am glad you are 'big enough and ugly enough to form your own opinions' - that we all have in common.

 

[Robboman]

.... I'm not shy about trying gear. I have no interest at all in a power amp with passive speakers. I find the powered monitor setup fits my personal situation far better.

Sure. Totally respect your opinion Scott. I guess I just like to express the benefits of a rack power amp because it seems like some folks think they're only for guitar cabs when the truth is they're great for FR too.

I would lay bets that my dual-cable setup (I use ProCo "Siamese Twin" 1A1P14 cable) is not any 'slower' or 'faster' a setup or trouble than your single cable setup).

You're right, no big deal, but I also didn't like having to reach under my wedge to find the power switch or adjust the gain.. I prefer that stuff in my rack with the Axe-Fx personally.

My rack is also lighter and I have zero heat build up.

I honestly don't sense any heat buildup from the GT1000FX at all.. runs very cool. Marginal weight addition. My 4U rack is still lighter than the average monitor - it's an easy one-handed carry.

I prefer having the power amp purpose built for the actual enclosure and speaker.

But why do you prefer it? IMHO The idea that 'internal amps are perfectly matched and purpose-built for the drivers' sounds great in marketing, but from (lots of) personal experience I can't hear any sonic improvement attributable to this. You can prefer it that way, but I think the marketing point on that one is over-rated. IMHO. Of course I can't prove it, but my gut says that if I could A/B Matrix power against some of the class-D modules in some of the FR boxes it would be a big win for the Matrix. FWIW I've spent LOTS of time comparing various speakers, active and passive, for FOH and general stage monitoring applications over the years, besides Axe-Fx use. (I've switched back to a passive FOH PA from all active boxes prior).

In the end, poweramp/cab or powered cab is just personal preference.

Agreed, valid arguments either way.

For sure it's a factor if one of best choices (RCF) simply isn't available in passive form. But there are lots of other great passive choices and more coming soon (Matrix, Atomic CLR).

That's IMHO, YMMV.

Me too! Cheers... [/QUOTE]

 

[funny_polymath]

I think I am big enough and ugly enough to form my own opinions on the reliability or otherwise of peoples opinions, without instructions from on-high about who to listen to.

Anyone who compares two products and has only tried one is doing all of us a disservice by rendering a comparative opinion.

BTW: I LOVE my Matrix 1000 2U. But I have not compared it to the RCF, so I would never deign to render an opinion, as I only like to render informed opinions.

I will agree that an amp gives you the option of a cab with cab sims off and FRFR with 'em on - an obvious point, but still a worthy one.

I will also chip this in again:

my current setup, AxeII->Matrix 10002U->Art of Noise fEARFULL 12/6/1 passive FRFR, A/B'd against the following, BLEW THEM ALL to Smithereens:

AxeII->Matrix 10002U->Fender Twin 2X12 cab (Celestions, I think).
AxeII->Hafler Trans-Nova P3000->Fender Twin 2X12 cab
AxeII->Matrix 10002U->Harry Kolbe Custom 1X12 (EVM12L) front-ported cab
AxeII->Hafler Trans-Nova P3000->Harry Kolbe Custom 1X12 (EVM12L) front-ported cab
AxeII->Mackie 450 (my standard amp/speak solution since '08, when I got my ultra)
AxeII->QSC K12

Downside to my current setup: my rack is heavy. (it is NOT hot AT ALL, though, Scott
Upside: my speaker is so light I can press it overhead with one arm. Light, tight-sounding, and able to handle everything I plug into my signal chain, which includes bass, viola, and an 88 key weighted keyboard. I highly recommend Art of Noise's 'bass' enclosures to anyone! They are true FRFR, and just continue to blow me away. And, no, I do not have an endorsement deal - how can I? I'm a friggin' hermit!

 

[cobbler]

But why do you prefer it? IMHO The idea that 'internal amps are perfectly matched and purpose-built for the drivers' sounds great in marketing, but from (lots of) personal experience I can't hear any sonic improvement attributable to this. You can prefer it that way, but I think the marketing point on that one is over-rated. IMHO. Of course I can't prove it, but my gut says that if I could A/B Matrix power against some of the class-D modules in some of the FR boxes it would be a big win for the Matrix. FWIW I've spent LOTS of time comparing various speakers, active and passive, for FOH and general stage monitoring applications over the years, besides Axe-Fx use. (I've switched back to a passive FOH PA from all active boxes prior).

Agreed, valid arguments either way.

For sure it's a factor if one of best choices (RCF) simply isn't available in passive form. But there are lots of other great passive choices and more coming soon (Matrix, Atomic CLR).

These are the questions I have and I admit I have done ZERO research on the topic. Take either the Matrix or the Atomic future offerings. If I were to purchase the amp and two passives is it the same as purchasing two powered? Obviously there is a form factor and the amp part of the powered speaker but are there any other differences? Are they configured specifically for that speaker where a seperate amp might have differences so as to be more general and accomidating other brands? Or is the amp part of the powered speaker a clone of the solo amps one channel output?

I can see where on one hand you have a seperate amp that would give you the versatility to use with other equiptment and on the other powered speakers would give you the flexibility to plug them in to any non amplified rig.

Am I being too newbieish here? I guess the ultimate questions is, does the Matrix and Atomic powered monitors sound and behave exactly as the passives used with thier amp counterpart? If so then it 's just a matter of form factor and pricing no?

My head hurts!