The Big FRFR Shootout

MKeditor

Experienced
FRFR%20_shootout2.jpg


The Great FRFR Shootout.

Probably five minutes after Dr. Cliff created to the black box and exclaimed, “It’s alive!” there has been a search for the perfect way to amplify the gizmo. Those of us that are of the FRFR persuasion (Full Range Flat Response) hunt for the most transparent system that adds the least amount of flavor to the signal. The goal is to produce an identical tone through all systems. We want the audience to hear the same guitar tone we hear through our speakers regardless if it is live or recorded.

Our quest has not been easy. Many of the speakers that are considered to be good candidates aren’t readily available to be auditioned at your local music store. Even players who live in small towns can try a Marshall, Fender or VOX amp without leaving their state. Some of the favored FRFR monitors you won’t find in stores. I suppose if you are really ambitious you can travel to the top of the mountain in Italy and beg the FBT monks to let you try one. If your last name is Trump or Rockefeller you could just order them all then choose. The rest of us poor schmucks are just trying to make the best choice we can. Everyone on this board has been sharing what information and experiences they have had with this or that. The problem has been that no one has ever had all these speakers in the same room at the same time…until now.

A few of us pulled our gear together in an effort to hear for ourselves what the top contenders have to offer. DISCLAIMER: We are not rocket scientists. We left our slide rulers and pocket calculators at home, but we did bring our ears and years to sample what most here consider the front runner FRFR speakers. We wish that all of you could have flown in to be with us, but unfortunately we were told the Fractal company jet was in the shop. I video taped some of the test and had hoped to share it with you. I find that an audio or video clip conveys more than 500 postings of people’s opinions. For this video I used an AKG C 1000 S microphone. I have had decent success with it as a room mic for live recordings. After reviewing the footage, I am sad to say that the audio just doesn’t document what we heard live and feel it would probably confuse rather than bring clarity to the discussion. In hind sight I wish I would have spent some time testing microphones. Perhaps my Lawson L47 would have been a better choice. Therefore this review will just be based on the findings of our in the field testers.

We tested four of the usual suspects. The Atomic Reactor, QSC K10 and the offerings from FBT: The 12MA and 8MA.

FRFR%20_shootout1.jpg


The first test was with recorded music. I have found this to be very revealing compared to guitar tones which are much more subjective. I find that frequency shifts in the human voice and acoustic instruments are much more obvious than electric guitar. I choose Shadowfeet by Brooke Fraser. Brooke’s vocal was mixed very dry. Her naked vocal accompanied by just a piano in the first verse, then the addition of drums for the chorus followed by the rest of the band for verse two had just the right build to let us hear different attributes of each speaker.

The second set of tests was with us playing my Suhr Standard through the Axe-FX. We limited this to just three patches otherwise we might still be there experimenting.


Here is what we found:

FBT 12MA:
FRFR_12ma.jpg

It was unanimous that 12MA did the best job in reproducing the recorded track. To our ears the 12MA didn’t add or omit frequencies. All the other speakers had to have tweeters boosted, roll off switches by passed and grill cloths removed in an effort to try and match but in the end they just weren’t as smooth as the 12MA. Interestingly, guys switched back all the above changes on the guitar tests feeling that their speakers were too bright otherwise.

When we switched to guitar/Axe-FX the opinions were more splintered. No doubt our individual tastes preferred some tones over others. I personally like the 12MA best for my tri-stereo patch. None of the others had the highs as clear. Some of the others guys preferred the high end rolled off, though. Of course the patches were built on my system, so some might conclude that the home team had an advantage. I would like to think that since the 12MA reproduced the track the best that the patches were what you would hear through an honest system.


QSC K10:
FRFR_k10.jpg

The QSC K10 was a close second for reproducing the recoded track. There was only a slight dip in the low mids. We would have liked to have had a K12 to compare and wondered if it would have closed the gap. The Axe/guitar patches sounded excellent and one patch in particular sounded better to us on the K10 than the 12MA. I personally like the fit and finish of QSC’s products the most of those reviewed. Even the blue LED is a nice touch and a testament of the streamline quality of QSC.


Atomic Reactor:
FRFR_atomic.jpg

Easily the biggest cabinet in the line up, the Atomic Reactor has the familiar look of a traditional guitar cabinet. The Fratomic was the only tube powered system we tested. In our recorded music test, the big bugger placed last even after cranking the tweeter and even removing the grill cloth. The high end still sounded dull. This could be due to the design of the cab/speaker to be limited to guitar tones. When it came to those geetar sounds, the Atomic sounded good and full. Raz thought he felt just a little more immediacy to the attack of his pick but I wasn’t able to detect it when I was playing.


FBT 8MA:
FRFR_8ma.jpg

These little watermelon sized cabs may have been diminutive in size being about half as big as the 12MA but they packed excellent tone. We were all amazed at what came forth from the little guys. I had heard this pair before when jiagap first purchased them.
At that time I had a pair of QSC HPR122i’s. Though the 8MA’s were a fraction of the size, their clarity convinced me to sell my QSC’s and invest in my current 12MA’s. Even though I had heard them before, they still didn’t fail to amaze me at what they do.

The 8MA’s sounded very smooth when listening to the recorded track. The FBT clarity has a transparency that is so clean. The low end was there but there was a little something missing that words are failing me to articulate. It wasn’t a huge deficiency. Just a slight dip.

The same can be said for the live guitar/Axe test. Just a slight dip in the low end. The coaxial design projects sound from a central area that is tight and focused. I fund that it not only is more pleasing to the ear in close proximity but interacts better with the guitar.

I will say that these speakers don’t carry the room like the others tested. Sound falls off pretty quick after a short distance. This is understandable with their size. Even the best set of headphones that sound huge will diminish when held a foot from your head. The 8MA’s were made to be an up close and personal monitor. They are excellent at meeting that goal. They would make splendid personal vocal monitors that contain their dispersion.


FRFR%20_shootout3.jpg



The bottom line:

We agreed that the speakers tested were all good options. They execute their duties well and all are up to the task. People will make different choices based on slightly different needs or aesthetic style.

My personal thoughts:

I am very happy with my FBT 12MA’s and out of those tested they meet my needs the best. I greatly value how well music plays back in speakers. That barometer is the one I use to determine my FRFR choices. Nevertheless, FBT is not easily found in the USA. I have always suspected that there had to be a company with a strong presence here that could provide an equal or better product. If I were in the market today, I would seriously look at the K12’s. They sound great and you can go to any Guitar Center and hear them.

Thanks to Raz and jiagap for contributing to this test. I am sure they will share any thoughts that I have failed to include. No doubt this won't be the end of the discussion but will just inspire more conversation. Of course by the time you have gotten to the end of this page there will be new challengers to consider. The journey never ends.

Enjoy!
 
Very nice to read this review and I feel that it is presented well. This wasn't a science experiment more than a get-together to compare gear.

I am interested to read the other participant's thoughts as well.
 
Good job, Michael. Thanks for posting this. You said it all better than I could. It was a fun time.
 
Thanks to all for their time and effort.

Tone Seeker: The K10 results seem to verify your finding somewhat by the fact they felt the low mids were lacking and you were bumping them some on your K10. It could also help explain why I thought them brighter than my Rokit 5's.
 
I understand the QSC K10 has a bass boost (extension) called DEEP. Was this ever engaged during your test, and if so, could you comment on its effect?
 
Thanks for the time and effort put into this ... very much appreciated. Quick question - when you say that a certain speaker did better or worse in reproducing the recorded music what provided the reference for the recorded music that you were judging that against?
 
Good question. We only had our ears to reference the track. With a voice track it is pretty easy to recognize frequencies that are out of balance. Take a voice track and give a frequency a good bump in either direction and you will hear the imbalance.
 
THANK YOU! You have made my FRFR decision pretty easy. I am going to need to invest in a couple 12ma's. It seems like the perfect option for my usage. Now it's a matter of Stereo vs Mono...
 
Thanks for the efforts you've all gone to with this. Do you have any impressions on maximum usable volume level (before limiting/clipping)?

I've made the point before, but minor shortcomings with flat response are trivial compared to shortcomings in absolute SPL. For example, my RCF 322A works well in most bands I play with, but it does NOT cut it as backline next to a Fender Twin.

IMHO, an FRFR solution that has noticeably more headroom than another (for similar cost/reliability, etc) has a significant advantage in uncontrolled and variable live situations, even if it needs some minor tone correction. I think potential buyers would be interested to know if they'd need to buy 2 of brand X to get 3dB more to match the same headroom as brand Y.
 
Very good review.

GM Arts said:
Thanks for the efforts you've all gone to with this. Do you have any impressions on maximum usable volume level (before limiting/clipping)?
This is what I am very interested in. I think that 400W RMS of the FBT should produce a different SPL than the 50W Tube-Power of the Atomic.
 
GM Arts said:
IMHO, an FRFR solution that has noticeably more headroom than another (for similar cost/reliability, etc) has a significant advantage in uncontrolled and variable live situations, even if it needs some minor tone correction. I think potential buyers would be interested to know if they'd need to buy 2 of brand X to get 3dB more to match the same headroom as brand Y.

One 12ma or one K12 as a backline will keep up with just about ANYTHING as far as SPL's are concerned (with headroom to spare). If not, your band's stage volume is way too loud. 2 are nice for stereo, but not necessary and unless you are conservative with your output, you might have some pissed off band mates.

Can't comment on the Fratomics as have no experience with them.
 
Thanks for the shootout and review. Not surprisingly, the observations made are similar to what I would have expected based on reviews of the units available elsewhere as well as measured specifications. For reproducing music -- that seems a better basis for FRFR analysis rather than guitar tones -- and the best and worst in that category don't seem out of line with measurements (or lack thereof).
 
felken said:
Tone Seeker: The K10 results seem to verify your finding somewhat by the fact they felt the low mids were lacking and you were bumping them some on your K10. It could also help explain why I thought them brighter than my Rokit 5's.
Yes, I had 128KHz bumped up +2.3dB, with everything left flat after that until 2KHz.

Terry.
 
mkeditor said:
It was unanimous that 12MA did the best job in reproducing the recorded track. To our ears the 12MA didn’t add or omit frequencies.

Weeeeeeelllll...no, that wouldn't quite be unanimous. What was unanimous was that we preferred the FBT-12ma's rendering of the recorded track played back from your playback device. I don't know whether it added or omitted frequencies. It had a big bass sound, and I like big bass sounds, but that doesn't mean it didn't add or omit frequencies or had a truly flat, even response.

As for the Atomics - it was certainly true that I couldn't adjust the controls on the speaker in any way to get it to sound equal or better than I thought the FBT-12ma's with the recorded track.

But we have to be careful swinging pejoratives around - on the one hand, you said playing recorded music was "very revealing" and on the other you said the Atomics sounded "dull and lifeless" when playing that recorded song. But a speaker that makes a sound we all liked doesn't equate to the best reproduction - it only equates to making a sound we liked. How we define "best" becomes a suddenly critical issue. If by best we mean what I'd like to listen to my iPod on, then the FBT's win. But if my priority is to be reasonably assured that what I'm hearing resembles what the audience is hearing, well, that's now another ballgame, and it's an issue we didn't address in anything remotely resembling a scientific fashion (as Jay pointed out). The FBT's big bass response rocked that Brooke Fraser song. While that doesn't rule out accuracy, it certainly doesn't imply it either - in fact it suggests the opposite. But "suggests" doesn't mean "is". And we haven't fully copped to the fact that the Brooke Fraser song was the only song we used.

The fact that once we switched to guitar tones there wasn't a consensus preference is more revealing to me than the recorded music. It reveals that reproducing recorded music and reproducing guitar audio are two different considerations, and it suggested to me that Atomic's claims to have engineered in favor of the latter have some amount of credence.

As for the home-field advantage, your Tri-chorus patch - that's a killer patch (and I can't find it here on the Forum BTW, can you point me to it?). But as I said on the other thread, I thought it sounded vastly better on the Atomics. Glassier and more 3-dimensional. You thought it was missing high end detail, but I LIKED that some of the high end was rolled off. To me, on the FBT's the patch had a vaguely papery sound. But it's your patch, so there's nothing objective that can be concluded except that it didn't meet your expectations on the Atomics...but it sure lit me up. As for your distortion patch, I thought that got floppy in the bottom on the 12ma's, but sounded right and tight on the K-10's. But again, that's me - the fact that you tuned that patch and use it on those FBT's while I prefer it on the K-10s in and of itself demonstrates the subjectivity. I'm put in mind of the immortal words of Dr. Frank N. Furter, "...I didn't create him for YOU!"

For the purpose we're concerned with here, ALL of these speakers would be excellent choices, and our comparison was not scientific enough to make any hard claims, except that they're all excellent choices.

If you want to be absolutely sure that what you're hearing reasonably represents what the audience is hearing, our comparison wasn't scientific enough to tell you.
 
raz said:
The fact that once we switched to guitar tones there wasn't a consensus preference is more revealing to me than the recorded music. It reveals that reproducing recorded music and reproducing guitar audio are two different considerations,
No. When the processor creates all the nonlinear and nonideal (e.g., guitar cab) sounds, the considerations for reproducing recorded music and guitar are identical within the band of guitar frequencies plus overtones created by distortion products (practically speaking, no higher than ~10kHz).

If one were to set out to engineer a guitar-specific FRFR system, accommodating the reduced bandwidth requirement - say, 40-10kHz to accommodate detuned instruments, 80-10kHz for standard tuning - would not result in significant unit cost savings, but it would require a purpose-designed transducer (a HF driver with upper cutoff frequency of ~10kHz). This is one of the primary reasons I have not bothered with this application in any of my design work.

If you want to be absolutely sure that what you're hearing reasonably represents what the audience is hearing, our comparison wasn't scientific enough to tell you.
Reaching that goal would require more than a sonically-neutral FRFR monitor anyway.
 
Jay Mitchell said:
raz said:
The fact that once we switched to guitar tones there wasn't a consensus preference is more revealing to me than the recorded music. It reveals that reproducing recorded music and reproducing guitar audio are two different considerations,
No. When the processor creates all the nonlinear and nonideal (e.g., guitar cab) sounds, the considerations for reproducing recorded music and guitar are identical within the band of guitar frequencies plus overtones created by distortion products (practically speaking, no higher than ~10kHz).
Perhaps there were more definite, and differing, opinions on what comprised "good guitar tone" and "bad guitar tone". I say "definite" because most of us spend of time fine tuning patches, pay close attention to the nuances, and arguably have a highly developed sense of what we like and don't like and the ability to pick that out.

Terry.
 
Jay Mitchell said:
No. When the processor creates all the nonlinear and nonideal (e.g., guitar cab) sounds, the considerations for reproducing recorded music and guitar are identical within the band of guitar frequencies plus overtones created by distortion products (practically speaking, no higher than ~10kHz).

Yes, but that's my point: the quality that most stood out about the FBT-12ma's playing the recorded music was bass response. The significance of such response when reproducing a recording of a full ensemble is a different consideration than when reproducing only the signal from a single instrument. The fact that all present preferred the sound of that speaker reproducing that device playing that song in that acoustic environment, without considering what factors contributed to it, doesn't lead to any objective conclusions, does it?
 
Back
Top Bottom