Matrix FRFR 1x12 Coaxial solution!

From what I can tell the supposed Matrix FRFR and the Jaytomic FRFR are one in the same...


I'm not "in the know" like my UK buddies here, but from my brief talks with Matrix, I can tell you for certain that this is not correct. Jay's FRFR is not the same as Matrix's FRFR.
 
I'm not "in the know" like my UK buddies here, but from my brief talks with Matrix, I can tell you for certain that this is not correct. Jay's FRFR is not the same as Matrix's FRFR.

You are talking about the soon to be Atomic CLR is not the same as the soon to be Matrix coaxial powered speaker?

You are not talking about Jay's personal Frazier rig, correct?

Richard
 
Outstanding. The world is getting very interesting and fun!

Spence, what RCF do you (did you) own that you are comparing this to?

I'm afraid it was only the ART 310a, not really comparable to the NX12 SMA which I presume would be more interesting to you :)

Spence
 
Personally, I don't think a single speaker can ever approach true FRFR. I am getting a 12/6/1 fEARFULL system made - essentially a PA speaker, but one that can produce very low fundamentals. One driver is always a compromise, IMHO, something between a traditional guitar cab and an FRFR system... I currently run through a Mackie 450, and it doesn't sound 'sterile' to me at all, just magnificently clean. My $0.02. P.S. I own a Matrix amp, and I love it.

I've not tried the Mackie so can't comment, however, I'm sure it's a great speaker. As others have said the Matrix offers a twin driver, coaxial speaker so it suffers from less phase cancellation issues. this is good for getting an even sound wherever you stand in relation to it. If you happy with what you got then that's all that matter here :)
 
I wonder what type of crossover they will be using, and whether there will be an advantage of using actives or passives (if offered) with the Matrix.

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that the crossover is built-in to the speaker itself, this would mean that it shouldn't make too much of a difference.

Spence
 
I'm glad the CLR's have some serious competition. The price seemed too high to me; hopefully one of these companies can offer the passives in the $500 range.
 
I'm glad the CLR's have some serious competition. The price seemed too high to me; hopefully one of these companies can offer the passives in the $500 range.

If they live up to their claims, and I have no reason to think they won't, then they are in no way overpriced....compared to the rubbish that's available,
i wouldn't even call them all that expensive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LMO
I seem to recall a ballpark number thrown out but whether or not it is what the price ends up being is anything close... I don't know.

I believe it was a $1000 USD per box for the CLR.
 
So now we got Matrix and Atomic cabinets coming soon? Jeez, I better start saving. I'm not too happy with my el-cheapo ELX112 and ART SLA2 setup, although we plan to use powered QSC 15s and 12s when playing out (bassist works for a stage rental company). I was going to shoot for a GT800FX this summer, but I might hold back for these FRFR wedges instead.
 
Maybe I'm the strange one, but I'm moving AWAY from active speakers, for this reason: I don't want my amp (or my Axe II, or anything else in my rack) exposed to that much punishing vibration. Yes, I have a Fender Twin, and a Princeton, and yes, those tubes (and Caps, and everything else) are vibrating when its loud (model that, Cliff! errr... unless you already have!). But given the choice I'd rather separate 'em - which is why I cut my twin down to a head and got a separate Herry Kolbe ported guitar cab. Now I'm going to the Matric GT800FX in my rack, a non-powered 3 way FRFR system (maybe two someday!) on the floor, and some distance between them to reduce the effects of vibration. The amps in my Mackies and QSC's rattle when I hit certain fundamentals loud, so, besides promoting the eventual formation of cold-solder-joint failures, they're also noisy in their own right. Hopefully, the steps I'm taking will eliminate that issue for good.
 
^ Absolutely. I'm assuming Matrix will release a passive version to compete with the passive CLR. I think most pro audio guys agree that the classic amp into passive speaker setup is more robust.
 
Maybe I'm the strange one, but I'm moving AWAY from active speakers, for this reason: I don't want my amp (or my Axe II, or anything else in my rack) exposed to that much punishing vibration.

Well I'm still going for the GT800FX too ..... but not because I'm overly worried that the powered cabs will vibrate or resonate.

As I'm likely, due to being 'geographically challenged', to be buying the cab(s) unheard I'd be more worried that they don't agree sound wise with me for some reason - at least that way I can still experiment with other speakers and having a spare amp channel if I'm running mono might come in handy some day.

I guess I'm just a traditionalist when it comes to racks - I like keep things separate and 'modular'.
 
I feel the same somewhat but there is Nothing wrong eather way.

Well I'm still going for the GT800FX too ..... but not because I'm overly worried that the powered cabs will vibrate or resonate.

I guess I'm just a traditionalist when it comes to racks - I like keep things separate and 'modular'.
 
Personally il prefer a passive version as I have the GT already, and I can drive my 2x12 fro jone side and a passive FRFR wedge from the other. Given the module is £200, Im assuming a passive version would be £200 less (or there abouts). Its wasted money to me I guess. that said - Im pretty sure Ill grab an active version at least for testing - Im geographically challanged as well.

FWIW - those wedges will n ot be cheap - Pure speculation at this point but I think they will be in ballpark as the RCF NX12s.
 
Back
Top Bottom