QSC HPR 122i vs Verve 12ma

Cool.

Did you get a chance to mess with the preset I emailed you?

Really enjoying your ongoing review of this.
 
why do you choose the 12ma over the 12a? do you use it just to monitor your sound or as the primary source of your sound?
 
fatoni said:
why do you choose the 12ma over the 12a? do you use it just to monitor your sound or as the primary source of your sound?
Click to expand...

I chose the 12ma over the 12a because the 12ma has a coaxial speaker system whereas the 12a has separate horn and woofer. I chose to try a coaxial speaker system based on some suggestions from Jay Mitchell. As is often the case, Jay was right on.

The 12ma is capable of being either the primary source of my sound or a monitor. In rehearsal it is my primary source. Live I plan on running direct to FOH from the pass through on the 12ma.
 
If you don't use the loop in the Axe-FX you can use output2 for the monitor and run the Output1 straight to foh.
That way you can control the monitor level from the Axe-FX front panel and even EQ the sends independently using the global EQs.

The QSC has issues with phantom power when the is sent to a mixboard that has no individual phantom. Don't know about the FBT.

I'm very interested but it seems no Netherlands dealer has the Verves. Odd. It's an Italian company.

I would also be interested in a comparison between the FBT and the EV sxa360. My brother is planning to get Sx300s (the passive version) for his part-time sound company.
 
Dutch said:
If you don't use the loop in the Axe-FX you can use output2 for the monitor and run the Output1 straight to foh.
That way you can control the monitor level from the Axe-FX front panel and even EQ the sends independently using the global EQs.
Click to expand...

I really like that idea!

Dutch said:
The QSC has issues with phantom power when the is sent to a mixboard that has no individual phantom. Don't know about the FBT.
Click to expand...

That's good to know - our other guitarist will most likely be using one of my QSCs for his GT-10. We don't use any mics that require phantom power so it should be alright.
 
Dutch,

might wanna take a look at the LEM T-4MA.
Also Italian, coaxial design.
I compared it to the QSC and liked it a lot more.
So did everyone else who listened at both speakers.
 
Well I bit the bullet and bought a pair of 12ma's. They sound great! They really don't sound like the typical stage monitor I'm used to hearing, they sound very neutral.

I was wondering about using output 2 for the monitors. It seems the ma's only have a balanced input so how would I use the unbalanced output 2 for the ma's?
 
I was wondering the same thing.
Would you use a converter for this?
If I were to run unbalanced, if I used leads less than 4m in length, would that be OK?
 
mitch236 said:
Well I bit the bullet and bought a pair of 12ma's. They sound great! They really don't sound like the typical stage monitor I'm used to hearing, they sound very neutral.

I was wondering about using output 2 for the monitors. It seems the ma's only have a balanced input so how would I use the unbalanced output 2 for the ma's?
Click to expand...

One possible idea:

a2zcables_2021_127507391


Audio Adapter - XLR Male / 1/4" Female Mono

http://store.a2zcable.com/ava142.html
 
I know this would have added to the cost but it would have been perfect if FAS had balanced outputs in both outputs.
 
Well, I did my first live gig ever going direct with the Axe-FX. I used the FBT Verve 12ma as my stage sound.

I was really apprehensive about this all week and I *almost* reverted to grabbing a tube rig and a pedalboard. But I went for it.

It worked fucking fantastic! Anyone that has concerns about this thing cutting through the mix, I can assure you it cuts fantastic. I got a bunch of compliments on my tone. The guy running sound for us is a guitar playing buddy of my who is a total tone nut and a hardcore tube guy and he thought the rig sounded killer.

I still have a bunch of tweaking I want to do of course, but this was a very encouraging gig!
 
hippietim said:
Well, I did my first live gig ever going direct with the Axe-FX.... I was really apprehensive about this all week and I *almost* reverted to grabbing a tube rig and a pedalboard. But I went for it.

It worked fucking fantastic!
Click to expand...
Congratulations on your epiphany. It is clear that your first Axe-Fx experience was not entirely satisfactory. At the time, you attributed your experience to the limitations of modeling in general. Would you not now agree that the potential has been there all along, and that it is simply up to the player to realize it? IOW, that there is indeed a learning curve, but that that is truly all that stands between the player and the sounds he wants to make?

Anyone that has concerns about this thing cutting through the mix, I can assure you it cuts fantastic.
Click to expand...
"Cutting" or "not cutting" is far more a function of control settings and playing choices than of equipment selection. Poor choices of settings can make an Axe-Fx as muddy and indistinct as anything can be, just as good choices can make it as articulate and distinct as the very "best" physical amp there is. It's all in your settings and playing. The tool is not in itself a limitation.

I got a bunch of compliments on my tone. The guy running sound for us is a guitar playing buddy of my who is a total tone nut and a hardcore tube guy and he thought the rig sounded killer.
Click to expand...
As I have pointed out for more than a year, the other guitar players who hear me play my Axe-Fx/FRFR rig never figure out that I am not using a tube amp until I give them a tour of my rig. It does eventually become apparent to most listeners that something must be different, because I can create the kinds of well-produced sounds you would normally hear only on recordings or a well-mixed live system, but I'm doing so with just a small stage monitor and a very small PA with no sound man.
 
Jay Mitchell said:
Congratulations on your epiphany. It is clear that your first Axe-Fx experience was not entirely satisfactory. At the time, you attributed your experience to the limitations of modeling in general. Would you not now agree that the potential has been there all along, and that it is simply up to the player to realize it? IOW, that there is indeed a learning curve, but that that is truly all that stands between the player and the sounds he wants to make?
Click to expand...

I knew it was there all along. I've been into modeling since the Rocktron Chameleon first came out. I'm a huge fan of the Roland VG stuff, etc.

My initial experience was not actually unsatisfactory. I never did get along with FRFR at the time - I always ran the Axe-FX into a Boogie and Port City Cab. I got as far as the 5.x software and things are much better now. The user cabs were just getting some momentum and I was quite frankly just tired of fooling with gear.

Honestly, I was lured by the simple side again. I was playing a Straub Cantus (brilliant hot rodded Plexi type amp) and 4 stomp boxes. My tone was brilliant with that setup.

Then the Fish reissue was announced. Ruh-roh. Rack time again! All along I kept up with the reading and updates here so the next thing you know I'm thinking a Fish and Axe-FX would be kick ass. Then I exchanged some PMs with you (Jay Mitchell) who suggested I try a coax rig.

And here we are!

The simple truth is that using modeling gear is harder than traditional gear until you land on the right combo of modeler and amplification. This is why the Line 6 amps are so compelling - they've done the work for you to match the modeler with an amp and speaker. And no matter what you think of the Axe-FX relative to the Line 6 stuff, I've found that I could get up and running with a Line 6 amp in no time - they are not the pinnacle of great tone but they are pretty kickass at delivering very good tone simply.
 
hippietim said:
The simple truth is that using modeling gear is harder than traditional gear until you land on the right combo of modeler and amplification.
Click to expand...
That depends entirely on the level at which you approach the use of "traditional" gear. I always wanted sounds and feels that unmodified amps were not generally capable of producing. As a result, I ended up analyzing and modifying the last half dozen amps that I owned. When I was done - a process that typically took several months - the improvements were radical, but the effort required was nontrivial. Given this point of view, even if a budget modeler could really produce a convincing replica of the sound of a specific amp - in my experience, they all fall flat on their faces in that regard - that would not have been enough. I needed access to design parameters in order to fine-tune an amp's sound and feel. The Axe-Fx was, for me, orders of magnitude easier to work with than "traditional" amps, and it can produce results that are not even remotely possible with any other modeler at this time. All that is required to take full advantage of its potential is a sonically neutral amplification system. As you have discovered, identifying one of those can also be nontrivial, but there is nothing "special" about one model of neutral-sounding monitor as compared to any other. Ergo, there is no "right combo of modeler and amplification," but instead an optimum type of amplification to use with an Axe-Fx. BTW, the exact same attributes that render a monitor optimum for Axe-Fx use will also make it an excellent vocal/keyboard/sax monitor.

If you want "quick and dirty" or "plug and play," the Axe-Fx is probably not the best tool for the job. If, OTOH, you can recognize the sounds you want to create when you hear them, and if you're willing to invest the required up-front time, nothing else even comes close. You will find that the learning curve ceases to be a major factor a few months into the experience, and creating new presets will take successively less time.
 
Jay Mitchell said:
If you want "quick and dirty" or "plug and play," the Axe-Fx is probably not the best tool for the job. If, OTOH, you can recognize the sounds you want to create when you hear them, and if you're willing to invest the required up-front time, nothing else even comes close. You will find that the learning curve ceases to be a major factor a few months into the experience, and creating new presets will take successively less time.
Click to expand...

man, that is the best statement that I've read...just nails it and should be required reading for new AXE users.

I just bought a second 12ma...gonna experiment with stereo...if I decide to stick with mono I'll have to figure out what to do with an extra 12ma.
 
archangel said:
...
I just bought a second 12ma...gonna experiment with stereo...if I decide to stick with mono I'll have to figure out what to do with an extra 12ma.
Click to expand...
I think once you try stereo, you'll love it (and you'll keep the second 12ma). If not, there are plenty of folks on this forum who will buy it from you (will you ship to Canada? ;-)
 
Dpoirier said:
archangel said:
...
I just bought a second 12ma...gonna experiment with stereo...if I decide to stick with mono I'll have to figure out what to do with an extra 12ma.
Click to expand...
I think once you try stereo, you'll love it (and you'll keep the second 12ma). If not, there are plenty of folks on this forum who will buy it from you (will you ship to Canada? ;-)
Click to expand...

Do you run stereo live?

I've never found stereo to be effective - particularly since most "clubs" are really restaurants that clear tables out of the way for a "stage" :lol: The rooms sound so band as it is - we're just happy to project decent sound around the room at all - there is no way stereo is going to work out in these places. I could see it working in the right venue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom