Matrix GT800 Amp vs Active Atomic CLR built in Amp.

C.H.O.A.M.

C.H.O.A.M.

New Member
Matrix GT800 Amp vs Active Atomic CLR built in Amp?

Hello All,

I am thinking of purchasing two of the Atomic CLR wedges but am at a bit of a crossroads with my current setup. I am not sure whether I should go full FRFR setup with active CLR and sell my power amp and cabs or go passive and use the Matrix amp.

Current setup is: AxeFxII with MFC101---Matrix 800----Mesa 2x12 Recto (and mesa 2x12 powerhouse cab I swap out for when I want play bass).

What I am looking to do is have one simple unified system that I can use for both guitar and bass and not fumble about.

I am very interested in 2 x Atomic CLRs. I see with the active version I can hang off a sub woofer and switch on the LPF for the low frequencies. This would be ideal for bass.

Then I see the passive CLRs which I could just use the Matrix 800 to power, but there is no ability to attach a subwoofer.

Curious how the sound of the CLRs with their own integrated amp sounds vs using a Matrix 800 to power it.

Anyone have any experience with comparing the Matrix amp to the active Atomic CLR amp?

I appreciate the help and thoughts.

Regards,
 
Last edited:
Hi,
I have 2 CLR active wedges. They cannot be powered by another power amp as they have an active crossover and EQ tool to adjust for the position they are used in I have never played a Matrix power amp with a passive CLR. But I would make the point that the amp in the CLR was custom designed to work well with the speaker in all positions and as a combination the sound and performance is stunning. Whether you will get the same performance with the matrix is doubtful and you would have to compensate in some other way for the EQ changesbrought about from use in different positions, especially when uncoupled from the floor, which the active CLR with its DSP takes care of. It would still likely sound great though as both are great products, but all Jay Mitchell and Tom Kings expertise in designing the amp and speaker to complement each other and work together is likely to give the CLR active the edge IMHO
James
 
I would NEVER switch my MOS-FET based Matrix 1000 for a Class-D amp. But I have made decisions on a passive CLR many times. And every time I wonder if the amp-box in the powered CLR has digital time-alignment for the off-set voice-coils in the CLR's woofer and tweeter. The crossover is of course working in the digital domain, time-alignment maybe or not. (Tell us Atomic, please).

Untill then the passive CLR are just a time-nonaligned two-way box with a passive cross-over that just can't handle the irregularities time-wise.

For me it's two Matrix 1000's and the Behringer 24/96 digital crossover with all bell's and whistles of time-alignment. More Doe - and extra 2 rack-units. And nooo Class-D.
 
pdup said:
I would NEVER switch my MOS-FET based Matrix 1000 for a Class-D amp. But I have made decisions on a passive CLR many times. And every time I wonder if the amp-box in the powered CLR has digital time-alignment for the off-set voice-coils in the CLR's woofer and tweeter. The crossover is of course working in the digital domain, time-alignment maybe or not. (Tell us Atomic, please).

Untill then the passive CLR are just a time-nonaligned two-way box with a passive cross-over that just can't handle the irregularities time-wise.

For me it's two Matrix 1000's and the Behringer 24/96 digital crossover with all bell's and whistles of time-alignment. More Doe - and extra 2 rack-units. And nooo Class-D.
Click to expand...

Dear Peter this diatribe against the Class D amp in the CLR is plain nonsense.

Have you actually heard it? I think its funny that you are using a Behringer product and yet are putting down a very well designed Class D/speaker combination that likely blows the sock off your set-up.

As a hifi "buff" you should be using your ears not turning your nose up just because its a class D amp in the CLR. The specs are one thing, but my ears tell me the CLR sounds stellar and thats what I believe

James
 
James Cullen said:
Dear Peter this diatribe against the Class D amp in the CLR is plain nonsense.

Have you actually heard it? I think its funny that you are using a Behringer product and yet are putting down a very well designed Class D/speaker combination that likely blows the sock off your set-up.

As a hifi "buff" you should be using your ears not turning your nose up just because its a class D amp in the CLR. The specs are one thing, but my ears tell me the CLR sounds stellar and thats what I believe

James
Click to expand...

I was debating the fact, that passive speakers need's time-alignment if the voice-coil's are non-aligned or you need to notch, further phase-align etc. etc..
With some tweaking the Behringer is quite impressive sound-wise and gives a lot of digital corrections if you want a coherent sound-source based on speakers with physically inherent need's . No hi-fi here - it's made for venue-use.
 
pdup said:
I was debating the fact, that passive speakers need's time-alignment if the voice-coil's are non-aligned or you need to notch, further phase-align etc. etc..
With some tweaking the Behringer is quite impressive sound-wise and gives a lot of digital corrections if you want a coherent sound-source based on speakers with physically inherent need's . No hi-fi here - it's made for venue-use.
Click to expand...

Ok fine but you couldn't resist having a pop at the Class D amp in the CLR as well. All I'm saying is it sounds really good and that's what counts. I am sure you know your stuff but its the sound that counts that's my experience
 
James Cullen said:
Ok fine but you couldn't resist having a pop at the Class D amp in the CLR as well. All I'm saying is it sounds really good and that's what counts. I am sure you know your stuff but its the sound that counts that's my experience
Click to expand...

No offence James.

The big thing is, that Class-D opened up for a "small package" unit with several power-amps AND a digital front-end making lot's of corrections instead of a passive Kilo of coils, hi-watt resistors and cap's, that can only divide frequency and nothing more.

I just like the old Class A/B better than D.

And yes, the sound counts, of course. The key-point of not leaving my Matrix 1000 is the natural warmth I was accustomed to with my late Matchless Phoenix. Phill will probably kill me saying "It's all frequency Dude".

Where would we be if we could not argue personal differences (and later hearing-aid's)...
 
I use two CLR with a matrix 1000 and they sound great! I do use them free standing. If you use them on the floor you will definetly want to reduce the bass. I also have a matrix 1600 to power two full marshall stacks. Yes I'm spoiled and wouldn't sell any of it.
 
I have the active CLR and the matrix gt800fx with a XITONE cab. I had a hard time choosing between the two but I play the CLR more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom