FRFR - I think I'm just missing the grandness of the concept

[jeffinaustin]

(this is based on my perception from threads. I have no experience in this arena...)

There seems to be quite a bit of discussion about how different the various FRFR monitor options sound. I thought the purpose of going FRFR was that the translation of the tone and the ability to use all the tools (p.a., cab, and mic sims) in the Axe were the reason for going that route. It seems as though there isn't a "standard" that FRFR monitors have to adhere to. If there is such a wide span in this particular arena what are the real benefits of going this route? It seems like a moving target based on the feedback that's been written around here.

Not trying to start "this vs. that" thread. I'm just genuinely curious.

 

[Tone Seeker]

You've asked some very good questions.

There seems to be quite a bit of discussion about how different the various FRFR monitor options sound. I thought the purpose of going FRFR was that the translation of the tone and the ability to use all the tools (p.a., cab, and mic sims) in the Axe were the reason for going that route.

A lot of what you're seeing is the collision of high volume, portability and low cost. It is more expensive to produce a reference quality monitor that is portable and capable of very high volumes, than one that sits in a home studio. I can purchase a nice set of studio monitors that are reasonably flat for ~$1200 CDN, maybe less. It seems that finding a single FRFR monitor for the same price that is considered reference quality may not be possible. I suspect this requires 2 - 4x the money, but that's just a guess on my part. The products you generally read about on the forum seem to compromise linearity to achieve their price point and high SPL's.

It seems as though there isn't a "standard" that FRFR monitors have to adhere to.

I do some photography work on the side. In that world we have colour management standards that manufacturer's adhere to, and they work pretty well. I can print an image on different papers, using different ink sets, and on different printers, and I can produce a print from each that substantively looks the same. This is done by printing a test chart with a standard set of colour patches on each combination, and then measuring the patches using a calibrated instrument. The measurements are then compared to a reference file, and a "profile" created that corrects for the gaps. The same process is done on a monitor, so the edited image on screen and the print look substantively the same. If I did not calibrate and linearize my devices, I would run into the same problems you are reading about with FRFR monitors.

We need something similar in the audio world, something that is affordable and easy to use. The interaction of room and speaker of course complicates this. If I could play a reference sound through my speaker in my room, measure the response with a reference mic and then have a compensating equalization curve automatically generated for me, I would be ecstatic. In the absence of that, I have to attempt to do this manually, which is what I try to do.

If there is such a wide span in this particular arena what are the real benefits of going this route? It seems like a moving target based on the feedback that's been written around here.

Although there are issues, IMO you'll have a better chance of matching to the FOH with an equalized FRFR stage monitor than you will with other approaches. The other benefit is being able to leverage the full capabilities of the AxeFX (power amp and speaker sims).

Terry.

 

[setzinger]

The theory behind using a FRFR system for amplifying the AXE-FX is to get neutral tone amplification in all physical parameters of sound like frequency, phase and dynamics.

With this kind of amplification it would be possible to change every sound character when changing between patches on the AXE-FX.

But IMHO this goal will never be 100% achieved in the real world.

Some years ago I was in the audio high end scene and there it's the same.
The search of the holy grail will never become to an end because IMHO it's not possible.
Even at very high prices there are hearable differences between sound reinforcement gear.
Therefore the discussions for the perfect sound will never end.

So IMHO you have to find a FRFR speaker which is the best compromise for your real environment.

Personally I've heard many active FRFR speakers with the AXE-FX (JBL, RCF, Atomic FR, FBT) and none of them is 100% perfect.

But nevertheless I will stay with FRFR because of the sound variability I get from it: acoustic, fender, vox, marshall, modern and so on ....

IMHO if one finds a FRFR speaker he or she is content with one should stay with this, be happy and make music.

 

[Dpoirier]

I don't think the goal is to find an FRFR monitor that is "perfect". Even if it was perfect, then your patches (tweaked for that perfect monitor) may not sound all that good on the wide variety of FOH systems you're likely to play though in gigs.

Instead, I think the real goal would be to find an FRFR monitor that sounds the closest to the "average" FOH system (and as a result, tweak your patches for the greatest number of FOH solutions). And since the average FOH system is an unknown, the best you can actually achieve will, by definition, be an imperfect solution.

But if you can find an FRFR monitor that is neutral enough, and if you tweak your patches to it, then when you play trough an unknown FOH system, all you will need is relatively minor tweaks on the EQ. And that will be the best you can sound on that particular FOH system. There is no super-duper FRFR monitor that will make that tweaking-for-FOH unnecessary.

I found an FRFR solution (Verve 12mAs) that sounds good to me, and translates well on both my PC recordings and my reference studio monitors. That's the end of my search. Now, when I play out, I go out front during sound check and look for the necessary adjustments in the EQ, and usually can correct it right at the mixer, or with the Axe-FX global output graphic EQ. No deep editing needed.

Daniel

 

[archangel]

IMHO if one finds a FRFR speaker he or she is content with one should stay with this, be happy and make music.

I think this is the key to making FRFR work for anybody. Just as in traditional guitar amps and cabs we've all tried out different brands and models, so too in FRFR its prolly a good thing to check out some of the several available options and A/B them to find "yours".

Speaking only from my personal experience, I love FRFR because it allows me to downsize my rig, yet not sacrifice tone and punch. I don't like hauling 4x12 cabs and heavy tube based power amps/heads. With FRFR I can load in and setup very easily and quickly and my stage footprint is small and the dispersion of my tone across the stage is far more consistent than with a traditional guitar cab.

My FRFR rig consists of a 28lb rack (4 space SKB roto) + a 42lb FRFR monitor...one trip and 5 minutes gets me loaded in and setup...and I don't need a visit to the chiropractor the next day.

My old tube rig was a 90lb 6 space rack + a 100lb 4x12 cab and took 15 minutes to setup the cabling and mics.

 

[march]

We need something similar in the audio world, something that is affordable and easy to use. The interaction of room and speaker of course complicates this. If I could play a reference sound through my speaker in my room, measure the response with a reference mic and then have a compensating equalization curve automatically generated for me, I would be ecstatic. In the absence of that, I have to attempt to do this manually, which is what I try to do.

There are products available that do just that, check out the KRK ERGO Room Correction System and IK Multimedia ARC System (Advcanced Room Correction System) for example ?

 

[Dutch]

We need something similar in the audio world, something that is affordable and easy to use.

Like a frequency analyzer, very crude but better than nothing.

The interaction of room and speaker of course complicates this.

Yes and it always will. That's physics. Sound moves in a less linear and more interferencing (is that a word?) way than light. Since acoustics determine that you hear things differently in the same space with the same source depending on your location in that space, any change you can make to the source will only improve it to the best common denominator and might even deteriorate the sound at some worse-off locations.

If I could play a reference sound through my speaker in my room, measure the response with a reference mic and then have a compensating equalization curve automatically generated for me, I would be ecstatic.

Actually, there are several units out there that do exactly that. dbx and Behringer make them very affordable and there are several more expensive out there. Put mics in a number of places in a room, play some noise (pink), calculate the average and reverse that. I've tried the Behringer Ultracurve in my room and even that actually improved it a bit. Of course my room is awful and so are my speakers, but still...


Anyway, going FRFR, even with the controversy, will still take us some leaps closer to FOH than guitar cabs, You'll always be at the mercy of FOH. And FRFR eliminates a number of factors with guitar cabs (boominess, directionality, mic choice and placement, weight, size, singularity in tone, etc).
FRFR is controversial. Guitar cabs are exponentially more controversial.

 

[randocaster]

We use an analyzer to flatten the PA to the room. Absolute best investment ever. We run sound from the stage, and only minor tweeks are needed from room to room. My sound from the Axe-FX have also been much more consistent. Win/Win...