Jay Mitchell and the power of flat response

[Jay Mitchell]

First we'd have to have a clearer definition of "in the room feel," in acoustic terms.

That's a very poorly-defined phrase even in a purely subjective sense. No two individuals will have the same idea of what it means. Having done direct A/B comparisons between tube amps and my Axe-Fx rig, I can say that I have always been able to dial in the Axe-Fx to the point that there is no deficiency whatever in feel or sound as compared to the tube amp. Obviously, my comparisons are limited to the amps I've had access to, so it's not possible to say with certainty that it will always be possible to achieve as good a match. However, I've seen no evidence that it is not possible at this time.

 

[srooijens]

Which ones, and how is the volume on your 8"? From what I've heard, the 8" (QSC, FBT, EV, etc.) *might* not be loud enough for gigging levels of a loud, full band.

RCF TT08a ( RCF - TT08-A )
My volume requirements are relatively low but a Yamaha stagepas 300 system was not loud enough for me next to a drummer. The RCF's are plenty loud. I only use them for personal monitoring and when they're aimed at your ears form a normal distance they are capable of serious damage to your ears.

 

[zslane]

First we'd have to have a clearer definition of "in the room feel," in acoustic terms. How does one objectively measure this?

Yes, ideally, we would search for a clearer definition. But Jay is right, you can't count on there being a consensus definition to lean on. I'd settle for a response from each person who has observed the Atomics adding this special texture and using their own definition as the basis for assessment. Clearly they perceive some sort of added quality that only the Atomics are responsible for, and they characterize it as "in the room feel", which usually equates to "whatever I experience in front of a physical amp+cab in my typical playing space." It is surprising to me that the Atomics, being as linear as they are supposed to be, would add anything so noticeable.

Assuming that this is not a design goal of the Atomics (because transparency is supposedly the goal), then it is either a product deficiency serendipitously coinciding with (certain) user preferences, or a misinterpretation on the part of the user(s) of some other sonic phenomenon at work. I understand that no sound reinforcement system is perfect, and that all products--especially those in the price tier we're discussing--must involve compromises that impact on ideal transparency. But I find it hard to believe that the necessary compromises found in the Atomics just happen to express themselves as authentic "in the room feel", by anyone's definition of the concept.

 

[scotts]

(zslane) It is surprising to me that the Atomics, being as linear as they are supposed to be, would add anything so noticeable.

In his reply to your post Tom King pointed out to you that the Atomic power amp is very linear. He made no claim as to the flatness of the Atomic cabinet.

Carefully read the following excerpts from the Atomic website regarding the combined Atomic amp/cabinet product:

(Atomic) For today's advanced guitar processor, you need a system which delivers high full range quality audio with the familiar feel and format of a real amp.

and...

(Atomic)The Reactor Series delivers the performance of a full-range flat-response ("FRFR") system in a format that also brings the qualities that guitarists have sought since before the dawn of rock 'n roll—punch, power, and presence.

I do not find any claim that the Reactor cabinet is transparent, flat, linear, whatever. The Reactor has better flat response characteristics than some products and worse flat response characteristics than other products. That is the nature of the FRFR market. The Atomic website claim is simply that the Reactor is full range, is classified as a FRFR product, and sounds good with the Axe.

The term FRFR in the speaker market is a mostly meaningless product category identifier. Marketing a product as full range flat response has no bearing on how flat response any given product is.

If a strictly controlled, mandatory, independent testing system was in place any FRFR speaker could be somewhat accurately compared to any other on paper. Then FRFR cabinets could be labeled something like:

Cabinet X by JBL: FR-65%Flat Response
Cabinet Y by Fender: FR-20%Flat Response

Unfortunately, no such uniform testing or regulation exists. We are stuck with a market where everything that has full range capability at any level is billed as FRFR.

 

[Sidivan]

After reading through 33 pages, I have some random thoughts on things that were discussed.

First: if it sounds good, use it. If you like the sounds your current setup is giving you, close this thread and go play guitar. I will be taking my own advice right after posting...

Second: Tone is in your hands. I was doing sound for a band tonight and the guitarist was using a crappy peavey 15yr old amp into a marshal 4x12 cab and it sounded amazing. He said he used to use a horrible peavey 1x12 and everybody talked about how he got "the good one" from the factory. He eventually sold it to a guy who happily paid three times the retail price of a new one. He bought a new one and it sounded exactly the same. I know frfr is important and you need a white canvas ect... But in the end isn't it about dialing in good tone? See point one.

Three: I read an article awhile back that had some if the top mastering engineers in the country talking about monitors. I had never heard of the brands they were talking about, so I googled them. The cheapest pair was $10k. There's no way you can expect to get even remotely close to that for $3k, which apparently seems "too steep" for the majority of people on this board. This is why Jay says his monitors are complete overkill for use as a guitar monitor. It's a totally different level here. Not consumer. Not self taught home audio engineer. Not playing 4 nights a week in a bar band (not that there's anything wrong with that). He works in the "we're building a venue and metallica is scheduled to play here" market.

That being said, would I love to hear my patches through one of these monitors? Absolutely. Do I want one? Yes, but I also want a band of minstrels to follow me around and sing songs about the adventures of living in north dakota; also they would announce my arrival at any destination I arrive at. No matter how "reasonable" (relative word) the price is, I simply can't afford to play in that league.

 

[Jay Mitchell]

First: if it sounds good, use it.

Not exactly a world-shattering revelation. I'd say most of the participants here would agree with that homily. That does not mean that you should take no interest in equipment that improves the accuracy with which you are able to hear your music, however.

I know frfr is important and you need a white canvas ect... But in the end isn't it about dialing in good tone?

In this case, it really does matter whether your "good tone" comes from your Axe-Fx alone or from some unknown combination of Axe-Fx and colorations from an amplification system that is supposed to be neutral. How close you want to get to that ideal of neutrality is a personal choice.

I had never heard of the brands they were talking about, so I googled them. The cheapest pair was $10k. There's no way you can expect to get even remotely close to that for $3k,

First, at least make a valid comparison. A pair of my monitors would retail for $6k. If we manufactured them with a furniture finish and all the cosmetics that studio buyers would expect, they could easily hit the $10k/pair price point.

Second, you might want to rethink your assertion about "remotely close," because it's mistaken. I manufacture studio monitors for an OEM customer who designs world-class recording studios. Those monitors sell for more than $8k/pair. They sound really good, and the folks who hear them - experienced recording artists, engineers, producers, etc. - all rave about them. My floor wedge is more transparent than they are.

Point here: don't assume too much. Some of the most highly-regarded studio monitors have easily-identifiable (to my ears) sonic defects. I personally find it disturbing to listen to them, and I would not voluntarily do so. I know one studio engineer with hit-record credits who had a pair of sound reinforcement speakers we manufacture installed in his studio. As part of the initial tune-up, he listened to a CD he had mixed and was astonished. He said that it made him feel like he was not a very good engineer, because there were things on his CD that he had never heard before. And he definitely had experience mixing on $10k+/pair monitors.

He works in the "we're building a venue and metallica is scheduled to play here" market.

My business is hugely different than you imagine. I would appreciate it if you would keep your speculations private, as it only muddies the waters more.

No matter how "reasonable" (relative word) the price is, I simply can't afford to play in that league.

I have no idea why anyone feels they need to publicly disclose information about their personal finances. There are many guitar players who make exactly the same statement about the Axe-Fx, so you're already traveling in a pretty rarified atmosphere. I think we all understand that most guitar players choose to focus their investments in areas other than sound quality. Nobody takes issue with those choices, and they need not be justified here. Ever. Do what you like, it's all OK.

Since you referenced a remark I made several years ago, I'll repeat for the record that I believed - past tense - that a speaker as transparent as my monitor would be overkill for guitar use. I now know that, at least for some players (including myself), it is not. I spoke about that epiphany earlier in this thread.

 

[zslane]

In his reply to your post Tom King pointed out to you that the Atomic power amp is very linear. He made no claim as to the flatness of the Atomic cabinet.

Ah, okay, well I thought we were talking about FRFR systems as a whole (a power amp is rather useless all by itself, except as a possible heat source). I congratulate Atomic on obtaining "very linear" results from their amp. However, if that feeds a "somewhat opaque" cabinet--and I'm not saying it does, just saying that if it does--then the whole question of (overall) transparency remains on the table. In the absence of Atomic claims (and data to support them) of linearity, transparency, neutrality (whatever you choose to call it) for the entire FRFR system they provide as a solution, users themselves are left to determine these characteristics on their own. Nobody should be surprised that misinformation and misunderstanding arises easily and frequently when this "information" is exchanged online.

 

[Rex]

In the absence of Atomic claims (and data to support them) of linearity, transparency, neutrality (whatever you choose to call it) for the entire FRFR system they provide as a solution, users themselves are left to determine these characteristics on their own. Nobody should be surprised that misinformation and misunderstanding arises easily and frequently when this "information" is exchanged online.

+1. The absence of complete information from just about all manufacturers — not just Atomic — is yet another reason why you can't rely on published specs to evaluate speaker systems.

 

[aleclee]

In the absence of Atomic claims (and data to support them) of linearity, transparency, neutrality (whatever you choose to call it) for the entire FRFR system they provide as a solution, users themselves are left to determine these characteristics on their own. Nobody should be surprised that misinformation and misunderstanding arises easily and frequently when this "information" is exchanged online.

This issue is nearly as old as the audio industry. My Dad (a retired electrical engineer) is neither a tone hound nor an audiophile but he's often remarked to me how, when solid state stereos came out, people like him were so wowed by the specs of the SS gear than they failed to notice that it didn't sound as good as the tube stuff.

There is no formula or specification for what sounds good, particularly when the spec comes from a manufacturer playing a specs game. We need to go with what sounds good to our ears, not our eyes. Unless someone is seeking eCred for their gear choices, that's really the only way to be happy with a rig in the long run.

 

[Jay Mitchell]

My Dad (a retired electrical engineer) is neither a tone hound nor an audiophile but he's often remarked to me how, when solid state stereos came out, people like him were so wowed by the specs of the SS gear than they failed to notice that it didn't sound as good as the tube stuff.

There's more to the story than that. Some - not all - early ss stereo amps had crossover distortion, which was the result of poor engineering work, not an intrinsic characteristic of transistors. This type of distortion is at a maximum percentage at the lowest signal levels, and it is obnoxious-sounding. The "specsmanship" that covered up this onerous behavior was to disclose distortion at maximum power only. Had the disclosure included distortion at small-signal levels (a watt or less), the distortion figure would have been so high that nobody would have ever considered buying those POS products.

It is the unfortunate lapse in the work done by the EEs who designed some of these amplifiers (and by the marketers of the products) that led directly to the myth that "tube amps sound better than ss ones." This is a textbook example of generalizing falsely from one or two specific instances, and it is the same kind of flawed "reasoning" that leads to "digital sounds harsh," and all sorts of other audio myths. As I am fond of pointing out, it is one thing to observe an effect - almost anyone can do that - but another thing altogether to correctly identify the cause, which most often requires insights that go far beyond those that can be acquired by reading enthusiast publications and manufacturers' ads.

There is no formula or specification for what sounds good,

While this is true, it misses the point of using FRFR. You're not looking for "sounds good," you're looking for "sounds exactly like what you put into it." If what you put in "sounds good," then a proper FRFR system will preserve that "goodness," neither adding anything nor taking anything away. There is a "formula," albeit a very complex one, for determining how well a given loudspeaker meets that criterion. And, given the opportunity to compare loudspeakers, it is possible to train your ear-brain system to identify the one which does the best job of preserving the signal at its input.

particularly when the spec comes from a manufacturer playing a specs game.

That will continue to be a problem. When an entire industry is in the habit of "enhancing" product data - as is the audio industry - then the "data" that is available to prospective buyers of a product is useless. That is not proof that you can't identify sonic attributes with data, however. It is most definitely possible to acquire data that correlates directly with sonic performance. Unfortunately, it won't ever be an option for the buying public.

We need to go with what sounds good to our ears, not our eyes.

Ears are the final test instrument. As I have pointed out many times in the past, the evaluation process in which the ears are involved, if it is to be successful, must be disciplined and thorough. Going with what sounds "best" in a poorly-arranged, brief "shootout" will often as not lead to disappointment.

 

[aleclee]

While this is true, it misses the point of using FRFR. You're not looking for "sounds good," you're looking for "sounds exactly like what you put into it." If what you put in "sounds good," then a proper FRFR system will preserve that "goodness," neither adding anything nor taking anything away.

I quite understand the point but I also view my speakers as a means, not an end. While I might love to have some über FRFR rig, my priorities dictate that it ain't likely to happen any time soon. As a result, I tailor my rig to my particular circumstances rather than some global optimization. My stuff isn't the fullest range or the flattest response but I'm really okay with that. What comes out might not be exactly what went in but since I like what comes out, I'm not going to spend a lot of cycles analyzing it.

I'll take the tools I have and do what I can with them. Given my ability, neither my K8 cabs nor my MR5 near fields are the weak link in the chain.

 

[Sidivan]

Not exactly a world-shattering revelation. I'd say most of the participants here would agree with that homily. That does not mean that you should take no interest in equipment that improves the accuracy with which you are able to hear your music, however.

In this case, it really does matter whether your "good tone" comes from your Axe-Fx alone or from some unknown combination of Axe-Fx and colorations from an amplification system that is supposed to be neutral. How close you want to get to that ideal of neutrality is a personal choice.

First, at least make a valid comparison. A pair of my monitors would retail for $6k. If we manufactured them with a furniture finish and all the cosmetics that studio buyers would expect, they could easily hit the $10k/pair price point.

Second, you might want to rethink your assertion about "remotely close," because it's mistaken. I manufacture studio monitors for an OEM customer who designs world-class recording studios. Those monitors sell for more than $8k/pair. They sound really good, and the folks who hear them - experienced recording artists, engineers, producers, etc. - all rave about them. My floor wedge is more transparent than they are.

Point here: don't assume too much. Some of the most highly-regarded studio monitors have easily-identifiable (to my ears) sonic defects. I personally find it disturbing to listen to them, and I would not voluntarily do so. I know one studio engineer with hit-record credits who had a pair of sound reinforcement speakers we manufacture installed in his studio. As part of the initial tune-up, he listened to a CD he had mixed and was astonished. He said that it made him feel like he was not a very good engineer, because there were things on his CD that he had never heard before. And he definitely had experience mixing on $10k+/pair monitors.

My business is hugely different than you imagine. I would appreciate it if you would keep your speculations private, as it only muddies the waters more.

I have no idea why anyone feels they need to publicly disclose information about their personal finances. There are many guitar players who make exactly the same statement about the Axe-Fx, so you're already traveling in a pretty rarified atmosphere. I think we all understand that most guitar players choose to focus their investments in areas other than sound quality. Nobody takes issue with those choices, and they need not be justified here. Ever. Do what you like, it's all OK.

Since you referenced a remark I made several years ago, I'll repeat for the record that I believed - past tense - that a speaker as transparent as my monitor would be overkill for guitar use. I now know that, at least for some players (including myself), it is not. I spoke about that epiphany earlier in this thread.

Jay, my apologies for not being clear in my post. In no way did I mean to imply that your speaker could not compete with the other high-end monitors. I realize that, as previously stated by somebody else, your BUILD COST was around $3k, not your sale price. My comments about a $3k monitor not being able to compete with a $10k monitor was to illustrate that people's perception of what "High End" really costs is skewed. I should not have used the $3k number as it mistakenly led you to believe I meant your monitor specifically.

Also, what I said about your business was speculation based on what I've read on these forums. I apologize for making assumptions as now that I look at the Frazier site it would seem that you do a lot of church installations and large meeting halls. Again, I meant no ill words towards you, your products, or your company. My post was meant to back up your stance on not selling to the public and illustrate that I belive most people don't realize just how expensive high-end monitors actually are.

 

[Jay Mitchell]

I quite understand the point but I also view my speakers as a means, not an end.

That is exactly the point of pursuing the most neutral FRFR speaker you can. My monitor is not now and has never been a factor in any decisions I have made about my Axe-Fx settings, because I know that I am never having to compensate for any deficiencies that it causes.

While I might love to have some über FRFR rig, my priorities dictate that it ain't likely to happen any time soon.

Nobody here has ever stated or implied a belief that you have to have some minimum level of performance from your monitor in order to get good results from an Axe-Fx. As with everything else, you work with the available tools to do the best possible job. That in no way negates the value of a discussion such as this one about the relative merits of different tools.

 

[hippietim]

Your test requirements seems very fair. I believe the Turbosound TCS-59 could meet your criteria. I am entirely convinced that a system at the level of Jay's powered monitor would floor you. The criteria you list seem to be the things that are important to me as well.

Ok, good to know I'm not unreasonable or insane (or we both are).

In light of this offer (and your username and picture) I would be happy to engage you.

Be careful, I'm seriously considering this! :lol

Seems to me that you hit a similar FRFR wall to the one I was hitting. If you are as sound sensitive and experienced as your posts indicate, and if you have gotten "almost there" with several mid line products then the only way for you (and me) might be the expensive world of high end. Having said that my TCS-59s really deliver in ways that many other comparable products I tested could not.

I really wish there were some of these around here that I could try out. I need to go look at some of the rental places around here - maybe they've got them.

Here is where I agree with you only in part. I have cycled through traditional rigs for 38 years. I have had rigs that sounded amazing... ...until I use them in this room or that. I have spent most of my performing life being extremely frustrated at how bad my great sounding rigs sound from venue to venue and from listening position to listening position in any given venue. Also, the beaming and unevenness issues of 12" guitar speakers has always driven me nuts everywhere but in my living room. Having the Axe global EQ alone has been a game changer for me.

As far as responsiveness and "bloom" (I believe I grok what you mean) the TCS-59s are enough "there" for me that I am at least at parity with the rig I mentioned above (I tested against it when I first got the Axe). I have also tested against several of my friends very nice rigs and I find nothing lacking (except for the tail not worth chasing part). FWI I completely agree with you about the insanity sinkhole that is that issue.

So this past weeked really finally got to me. Aside from being in a local cover band, I regularly go out to play at informal jams and open mics at a variety of clubs in the area - probably 4-8 times a month. I sit in with other bands as well. I end up playing rock, country, folk, blues, funk, etc. - basically anything I can do just to learn and have fun. For a while I was just showing up with an acoustic guitar. A while back started showing up with an electric and a Mustang II amp. It's a simple modeling amp that actually sounds pretty decent (particularly for $150). The last couple months I've been using a Bogner Mojado 1x12 combo that only has two knbos with a Tube Screamer or sometimes I'll bring a small pedalboard.

There are a number of folks that see me play at these things and see me with my band where I use the Axe-FX. Since I've been using the Bogner, folks have been telling me that I sound better than with the band. Guitar players call out the gear specifically, normal people say "your guitar sounded better last Thursday". I got an earful of that at my band's last gig on Saturday. D'oh. And they're right. The Bogner does feel better when I play it (so I play better) and it cuts through even at low volumes whereas my Axe-FX rig can get lost at times.

I'm wondering if a better FRFR is going to make up that difference.

 

[zslane]

Since I've been using the Bogner, folks have been telling me that I sound better than with the band. Guitar players call out the gear specifically, normal people say "your guitar sounded better last Thursday". I got an earful of that at my band's last gig on Saturday. D'oh. And they're right. The Bogner does feel better when I play it (so I play better) and it cuts through even at low volumes whereas my Axe-FX rig can get lost at times.

I'm wondering if a better FRFR is going to make up that difference.

A "better FRFR" might make up that difference, but the real question is what set of parameters are not set the way they need to be in order to capture the kind of tone and "feel" you enjoy with the Bogner. Any ideas?

My gut tells me that even with Jay's Frazier cabinet and the world's most linear amp, your Axe-FX will still fall short until the right amp and cab parameters (and IRs) are set exactly as they need to be for your goals. Are you certain what those are and that they are already set appropriately? If not, then you are quite possibly starting at the wrong end of the signal chain.

 

[Sixstring]

A "better FRFR" might make up that difference, but the real question is what set of parameters are not set the way they need to be in order to capture the kind of tone and "feel" you enjoy with the Bogner. Any ideas?

My gut tells me that even with Jay's Frazier cabinet and the world's most linear amp, your Axe-FX will still fall short until the right amp and cab parameters (and IRs) are set exactly as they need to be for your goals. Are you certain what those are and that they are already set appropriately? If not, then you are quite possibly starting at the wrong end of the signal chain.

You could be right but the real question is will average joe listener hear it in the context of what type of music your playing? Jay and Scott both play a light jazz and most if not all of the content can be discerned. I doubt you would be able to hear the same nuances in a rock and hard rock setting.

 

[Jay Mitchell]

Jay and Scott both play a light jazz

In my case, add funk, and blues, and rock 'n' roll, and pop tunes. My trio covers tunes from Jimi Hendrix to Donald Fagen to Mose Allison to Miles Davis, albeit at volumes that will not cause anyone hearing damage. Scott is capable of playing whatever style he wants, but you'll have to ask him about the range he covers on gigs. I can definitely say that the phrase "light jazz" sells him short. He does a whole lot more than that.

I doubt you would be able to hear the same nuances in a rock and hard rock setting.

The styles Tim mentioned did not include hard rock. And, as he pointed out, he can tell the difference and people who hear him play can tell the difference. Based on that, it is clear that it would be productive for him to make progress in the direction he wants to go. I'm afraid that an upgraded monitor won't be much help in that regard, however.

 

[Rex]

You could be right but the real question is will average joe listener hear it in the context of what type of music your playing?

There's a key question. IMO, Average Joe Listener won't know whther you're using an Axe-FX or a POD, just like Average Joe Symphony Attender can't tell whether the concert master is playing a $1000 student violin or a $1 million Amati. Average Joe is too busy watching the lead singer. Quality tone is for the guitarist, and a handful of the musicians he plays with.

 

[Friedlieb]

IMO, Average Joe Listener won't know whther you're using an Axe-FX or a POD, just like Average Joe Symphony Attender can't tell whether the concert master is playing a $1000 student violin or a $1 million Amati. Average Joe is too busy watching the lead singer. Quality tone is for the guitarist, and a handful of the musicians he plays with.

May be you are right under some circumstances. But for me, if I'm on stage, there is an interaction that takes place between my quality tone and my playing. Even if Average Joe could not tell the difference between crappy equipment and good equipment, I can hear it as I play, and I play better when I am comfortable with my sound, and that difference of my better playing can also be heard by Average Joe.
In my opinion, there is a chain of cause and effect, with good equipment (and a good player) at the beginning, and a satisfied Joe Listener at the end.

 

[Rex]

...if I'm on stage, there is an interaction that takes place between my quality tone and my playing. ...I play better when I am comfortable with my sound, and that difference of my better playing can also be heard by Average Joe.

+1. And I agree that Average Joe can hear that difference — on a good day.