New RCF NX12s—My personal monitor shootout

I received my NX12 last week and the first thing I did was set the input sensitivity to LINE--or at least I thought it was.
The output was very low and I had to crank the Axe II to get some reasonable volume.
After looking at the diagram on the panel, it appears (IMHO) that the labeling is reversed. The actual "picture" of the switch position does not reflect the correct MIC/LINE label position.
After I switched it to match the picture rather than the label name everything sounded as I expected.

Here is a pic for reference.

DSCN0155.jpg

Wow....good catch.
I actually read this thread thinking "how could somebody not think this was loud enough? I had it switched to line level and the RCF was RIPPIN loud"

But not that you've pointed it out with that picture...I had it set to MIC as well.
 
Ah ha! I told you so. :D :D

*Just kidding. On break at a gig, just checking in. The RCF is F****** loud tonight... and that's a good thing. :D
 
I'll probably start a war with this, but...I don't think speaker break-in exists. The speakers don't break in. Instead, your ears get used to the way they sound.I've seen and experienced it again and again. You get a new pair of speakers that's brighter than what you're used to. They sound brittle. You use them more and more, and you get used to them. They sound "broken in." Then you go back to your old speakers, and they sound dull—until you get used to them again—until they get "broken in" again.krcassid: thanks for your honest and informative review, and your courageous owning-up when you discovered the problem. :)
It is a fact that brand new drivers' response and tone will change after a break-in period. This is due to the mechanics of cone, suspension systems, and adhesives. This difference is measurable, response and T/S specs.

How audible it is can vary depending on cabinet design and other factors. Generally it is effective for LF drivers, I have never heard of any benefit for HF drivers which have no cone travel to speak of. Bass response in LF drivers will usually increase, so in a 2-way system it could be perceived as "taming" high end even with no change in the HF driver response.

It is a one time process, and best done using a sine wave generator and controlled amp output. I build custom cabinets, and use a little 10 watt power amp for driver break in. It doesn't take much power @30hz to generate plenty of cone movement. I would expect the higher quality manufacturers use a burn in process.
 
Last edited:
i just checked my NX-10's and they were both set to mic as well. it seems to be the default factory setting. i'd misread the label also. might explain why they were stupidly loud and a bit hissy at maximum volume. i'll try them on line level tonight and see how i get on.

might be worth putting that pic and info in a new thread so other owners can catch it.

sim
 
OK. The $million test: My acoustic guitars. If I'm nuts (like the rest of you) about my electric guitar tone, I am insane about my acoustic sound. I use Trance Amulet transducers (which give me seperate bass/ treble side balanced outs). I used to run my acoustics through 2 Avalon U5 DIs, into 2 EL8 distressors, a stereo EQ and then an Eventide H8000. I'm not saying this to brag about my gear but so that you understand how truly insane I really am about my acoustic sound. I 've spent months perfecting my Axe acoustic presets (which are different for each guitar)...

Krcassid, have you ever uploaded / shared some of these presets? Would you be kind enough to share one or two? I may not be as obsessed as you seem to be for acoustic sounds, but I would like a very good acoustic guitar preset and haven't had much luck yet with my Ultra. I don't know if you use a gen I or a gen II Axe, but either way, I'd love to see what you've done in your signal chain to achieve good acoustic presets.

Thanks!
 
It is a fact that brand new drivers' response and tone will change after a break-in period. This is due to the mechanics of cone, suspension systems, and adhesives. This difference is measurable, response and T/S specs.
Can you point me to a description of what changes occur in the driver that cause break-in? I've never seen an explanation that went beyond "it's a mechanical thing," and I've never seen any measurements that support the claim.
 
Krcassid, have you ever uploaded / shared some of these presets? Would you be kind enough to share one or two? I may not be as obsessed as you seem to be for acoustic sounds, but I would like a very good acoustic guitar preset and haven't had much luck yet with my Ultra. I don't know if you use a gen I or a gen II Axe, but either way, I'd love to see what you've done in your signal chain to achieve good acoustic presets.

Thanks!
. I'd be happy to! I'll put one up in the presets forum tomorrow. However, the secret is in the pickups and guitars. The Trance system is a game changer for acoustics. But, I've had good success with other under-bridge transducers (primarily K&k). Unfortunately, most of the acoustic pickups I've heard and tried put out pretty lousy renditions of the guitar. The other thing is that each preset is very ""guitar specific", especially the EQs. The axe does a great job if you give it a decent signal. Another thing that is peculiar to my setup is that the Trance system utilizes 2 balanced outputs: treble side and bass side. The EQs and compression are often quite different for both. But, if you can plug your guitar into a mixer or FRFR amp and get a decent representation of the guitar to work with, the Axe can do wonders from there. I also advocate using a good impedance matched preamp b4 the Axe. Most good passive pickups need a 1-5 Mohm load. There's a lot that goes into it. But, in the end, the Axe is an excellent signal processor. If you give it a good signal, it can do the rest.
 
i just checked my NX-10's and they were both set to mic as well. it seems to be the default factory setting. i'd misread the label also. might explain why they were stupidly loud and a bit hissy at maximum volume. i'll try them on line level tonight and see how i get on.

might be worth putting that pic and info in a new thread so other owners can catch it.

sim
. I think that's why all you guys thought I was crazy when I said the output was modest at lower levels. I was the only guy using line level! But, seriously, now that I've got things sorted out with placement, they are pretty loud on line. Ive got the RCFs pretty much full up and Axe output at about 45% and they are plenty loud enough. I still think the Mackies were louder but that might be perception due to their hyped high end. Also, I think the RCF volume pot may have an odd taper. If you turn a 700 watt speaker on at 2-3, you'd expect it to be pretty loud, right? Mine aren't. But, get them up to 75% and it's another story. Volume pot tapers! The bane of my existence! I am just in the process of replacing the pots in many of my guitars because the tapers are not useful.
 
Yes the tapers are not very linear, but that does mean you get finer control at low levels. I tried the other switch position at soundcheck last night and it turns out I was already using line level and had switched to mic. I only touched the bottom E string and almost lost my fillings. Just glad I didn't hit a powerchord, otherwise it would have been a bit of a Marty McFly moment. The moral is: don't trust the label, just try it and see, but do it quietly!!
 
Toadfish;642455hit a chord and almost had an involuntary bowel movement. [/QUOTE said:
Depending on where you were standing this could bring all new meaning and insight to the term .... muddiness. :shock
 
It is a fact that brand new drivers' response and tone will change after a break-in period. This is due to the mechanics of cone, suspension systems, and adhesives. This difference is measurable, response and T/S specs.

How audible it is can vary depending on cabinet design and other factors. Generally it is effective for LF drivers, I have never heard of any benefit for HF drivers which have no cone travel to speak of. Bass response in LF drivers will usually increase, so in a 2-way system it could be perceived as "taming" high end even with no change in the HF driver response.

It is a one time process, and best done using a sine wave generator and controlled amp output. I build custom cabinets, and use a little 10 watt power amp for driver break in. It doesn't take much power @30hz to generate plenty of cone movement. I would expect the higher quality manufacturers use a burn in process.

Could you share how much time you use to breakin your drivers? Also what are you refering to when you say LF driver? I have a set of EV ELX 112p two way speakers. Would the speaker be refered to as the LF driver, and change with break in time, and the horn be refered to as the HF driver and not change with break in? Sorry for the noob questions. Steven.
 
Don't have an RCF yet but what's the problem with the picture posted by Mercury25? ... if the black rectangle represents the switch, then the switch position and labeled pictures line up. Are you guys saying the white rectangle represents the switch?
 
Try both positions of the Mic/line and floor/free field switches and go with what sounds best to you.

Very good point on the floor/free field switch. Since I wasn't technically using them on the floor as a monitor (I had them on end or stacked on other cabs), I first figured "Free Field". It was a muddy/ bassy mess! I looked at the manual and it said free field is really for stand/pole mounting. This is actually a more crucial setting. You can get good sound on mic or line. But, IMHO, that free field setting will give you way too much bass unless they are in the air.

I've spent 3 days with mine now. I can't recall who said it--I think it was Scott (gotta give him his props as he hung in there while I whined) but they were totally right. My ears are now accustomed to the NXs and I can't imagine going back to Mackies (or a similar solution). The NXs are awesome.
 
Very good point on the floor/free field switch. Since I wasn't technically using them on the floor as a monitor (I had them on end or stacked on other cabs), I first figured "Free Field". It was a muddy/ bassy mess! I looked at the manual and it said free field is really for stand/pole mounting. This is actually a more crucial setting. You can get good sound on mic or line. But, IMHO, that free field setting will give you way too much bass unless they are in the air.

I've spent 3 days with mine now. I can't recall who said it--I think it was Scott (gotta give him his props as he hung in there while I whined) but they were totally right. My ears are now accustomed to the NXs and I can't imagine going back to Mackies (or a similar solution). The NXs are awesome.

I actually like the "Floor" setting even when up on a stand; just sounds better to me.

I just finished a lot of loud playing this weekend with the NX - including a full rehearsal (used as a backline), then two full gigs, last night being a 4 set night. My ears are not fried at all, which is saying a lot. Though last night I did get put right next to the drummer and that damned ride cymbal (ping! ping! ping! on the bell, arrrgggghh!!!). LOL.
 
Can you point me to a description of what changes occur in the driver that cause break-in? I've never seen an explanation that went beyond "it's a mechanical thing," and I've never seen any measurements that support the claim.
Hey Rex, besides the links someone would post here's some idea about what you ask:
to make it simple, there're two moving parts involved in a speaker: the rear one, which works similarly to a piston and a cylinder; and the front one, usually made by a paper foil pushed back and forward by the rear one.

The movements have to be as accurate (and analog(ic) to the signal feeding the loudspeaker) as possible, in order for the most exact reproduction of the input to be performed.
Since the inputted signal is typically very rich (harmonically complex) and fast (the moving parts may have to be moving up to 20,000 times per second, as we all know), every single micro-movement performed by the two parts must be perfect; and, on such a scale of accuracy, any alteration of the perfect response of the two parts ends up in an altered sound.
For example, the ideal cone membrane (diaphragm) is a disk with no mass, no aerodynamic friction, no inertia, and completely isotropic (meaning, its characteristics don't change from point to point so the mechanical wave reaching it from the piston is transmitted to the air as accurately as possible).

It's easily seen that there're many things that can change the ideal response: static and dynamic friction in the cylinder/piston system, for example, and even a membrane which is not completely flexible and therefore doesn't transmit the cylinder's movement to the air in a transparent way.

Usually all these aspects do improve after the loudspeaker has being working long enough: micro frictions fade away, the membrane becomes "smoother".
Imagine you have a paper handkerchief made of thin pasteboard: if you start scratching and "working" it between your hands, it become softer, its hard fibers get broken; on the whole, it becomes less rigid, more "coherent", and its response to small movements gets smoother.

Of course a loudspeaker is a much more advanced device than a handkerchief: so the before/after differences are not so meaningful. But you get the idea.

HTH!

Disclaimer: not being a native English speaker, I've tried to be simple and "to the point". I would have benefited by a more complex vocabulary and a greater ability to articulate my thoughts tho. I realize some sentence may sound naive, but thought it's the content that matters X)
 
quark said:
Don't have an RCF yet but what's the problem with the picture posted by Mercury25? ... if the black rectangle represents the switch, then the switch position and labeled pictures line up. Are you guys saying the white rectangle represents the switch?

I was looking at the white as the position marker because it seemed so prominent--I could be wrong.
All I know is that when the switch is lined up with "MIC" name label, it WILL DEFINITELY rattle your teeth!!
 
Hey Rex, besides the links someone would post here's some idea about what you ask:
Thanks, Gianfaranco. Your English is excellent and clear. And you're right: there are many imperfections that conspire to make loudpseakers become imperfect transducers of sound. But the things you mentioned don't change in a normal, healthy speaker.

Aerodynamic friction is a function of air pressure, temperature and geometry, and these do not change with age or use, with the possible exception of some sagging of components with age. But that would make speakers less accurate with age; it would not be an improvement.

Mass and inertia of the speaker's parts—these things don't change. Compliance of the surround and spider don't change until those parts are damaged or near the end of their useful life. Yes, if you stress a thin piece of paper, its fibers will break, and it will become softer. But this doesn't happen in a healthy speaker, and even if it did happen, it would not be desirable. That part's response to audio stimulation would become less predictable, and it would do a poorer job of supporting the speaker. Engineers design for the parts they have available, not for their best guess at what those parts will deteriorate to.

And even if this kind of wear and fiber damage were normal parts of speaker break-in, there would be nothing to stop it. The wear would continue, and the speaker's response would continue to change, until it failed completely. IMO, this is the strongest single argument against the existence of break-in.[/QUOTE]
 
Thanks, Gianfranco. Your English is excellent and clear. And you're right: there are many imperfections that conspire to make loudpseakers become imperfect transducers of sound. But the things you mentioned don't change in a normal, healthy speaker.

Aerodynamic friction is a function of air pressure, temperature and geometry, and these do not change with age or use, with the possible exception of some sagging of components with age. But that would make speakers less accurate with age; it would not be an improvement.

Mass and inertia of the speaker's parts—these things don't change. Compliance of the surround and spider don't change until those parts are damaged or near the end of their useful life. Yes, if you stress a thin piece of paper, its fibers will break, and it will become softer. But this doesn't happen in a healthy speaker, and even if it did happen, it would not be desirable. That part's response to audio stimulation would become less predictable, and it would do a poorer job of supporting the speaker. Engineers design for the parts they have available, not for their best guess at what those parts will deteriorate to.

And even if this kind of wear and fiber damage were normal parts of speaker break-in, there would be nothing to stop it. The wear would continue, and the speaker's response would continue to change, until it failed completely. IMO, this is the strongest single argument against the existence of break-in.
Thanks Rex, despite my "good English" you post is the proof I did not do a good job LOL
I agree with many things you wrote. I'm aware that aerodynamic friction does not change over time (I must have learned it somewhere in my uni years LOL). I was rather referring to the micro-frictions any mechanical, moving device is subjected to, specially at the points of interaction between parts (thinking of a moving coil, for example).
Since the system working is based on the movement of physical parts reciprocally connected and interacting, some less-than-ideal restrain is always present and some form of settlement (bedding?) takes place over time.

As for the paper cone, I now realize my example was not ... ideal itself. I was not meaning that the paper must be dead beaten until it loses it tissue structure: I was rather trying to show that a structure gifted with a rigidity greater than zero destined to move and get deformed with a rich array of stimuli as a loudspeaker cone is destined, in time, to (very slightly) change its response. I believe some variations in the overall performance of any physical system subjected to movement are expected. I agree that in this case the figures involved are very small (it would otherwise mean a weak design or an engineering failure), but my point was that, in my opinion, this is what people refer to as "break-in".
It's not necessarily true that such a phenomenon makes the sound get better (more linear): in my opinion, the increment of pleasantness many people refer to as "break-in" is a mixture of the system slowly settling (by small figures) and their getting accustomed to the sound.
I may be wrong, but I've heard the opinions of many people I take in great consideration, people able to recognize that a cable of a different brand has been used in a Hi-Fi system from its sound.

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion :)
 
Back
Top Bottom