What's so special about Matrix GT1000?

At least all the A/B tests I've heard have shown that tube power amps still sound a lot better. Don't mistake tube amp modeling + frfr ss power amp as a ending up sounding like a tube amp.

FRFR all the way is still the best solution IMO. Forget real cabs... they were designed for something completely different than what people are using them nowadays.
 
Clark Kent said:
At least all the A/B tests I've heard have shown that tube power amps still sound a lot better. Don't mistake tube amp modeling + frfr ss power amp as a ending up sounding like a tube amp.

FRFR all the way is still the best solution IMO. Forget real cabs... they were designed for something completely different than what people are using them nowadays.
Click to expand...

Couldn't disagree more on all counts.

Why are you even bothering with the Axe-FX at all if you really feel that way?

And what do you mean by your last sentence?
 
Clark Kent said:
At least all the A/B tests I've heard have shown that tube power amps still sound a lot better. Don't mistake tube amp modeling + frfr ss power amp as a ending up sounding like a tube amp.

FRFR all the way is still the best solution IMO. Forget real cabs... they were designed for something completely different than what people are using them nowadays.
Click to expand...

Great IRs used in recording sound like real cabs -- no question.

However, the sound and feel of a real cab driven by an amp is out of the realm of any IR I have used as well as any FRFR monitor I have used. It is just not there. You can try and talk yourself into the "yeah man this sounds like a real cab pushing air" ... etc etc but in reality it is just not there at least with the FRFR monitors I have tried (including Q12, CLR, Verve, JBL) nor any of the IRs I have tried including factory stock and Redwirez.

Many people cannot adjust to hearing a "miked" guitar sound on stage or at home (this is well documented on this forum by other players as well as the inventor of the Axe). One of the great benefits of the Axe-FX is that you can use either or both at the same time.

So I respectfully disagree -- real cabs were designed to be used with amps and they sound better (IMO) than any FRFR monitor. Again .. this is my opinion after 40 years of playing in clubs with amps and "real" cabs.
 
Last edited:
Oh I forgot the "IMO"... dammit! :)

LVC said:
real cabs were designed to be used with amps
Click to expand...

.. right after the second world war.

LVC said:
and they sound better (IMO) than any FRFR monitor.
Click to expand...

What I mean is that real cabs are very inconvenient as a monitoring solution IMO. Although it is the sound people's ears are used to hearing on a record they are not at ear height and on a stage they are behind you so you can't really use them for monitoring. And what I said inbetween lines there: the "crowd" is used to hearing a mic'ed signal on records and not a guitar cabinet sound. I'd much rather hear what the crowd is hearing instead of a boomy reverb of that sound which is how I would describe hearing a real guitar cab if it isn't at ear height straight in front of my face. :) At least these are the problems I've run into using real cabs with the Axe-Fx for three years now.

But sure this is a discussion with no right answers and that's why the IMO is necessary. Still if I did use an SS power amp it would most definitely be because of the weight alone. I trust that the Axe-Fx is easily capable as passing as a tube amplifier but I wouldn't go as far as stating that the Matrix is capable of doing so. If I understand correctly you're a part of creating this product so I understand the hassle but it was pretty obvious in some of the clips people were posting. Especially the Triaxis through Mesa power amp vs Triaxis through Matrix. Very much night and day difference right there. Sadly so. :(
 
LVC said:
Great IRs used in recording sound like real cabs -- no question.
Click to expand...

False! They sound like MIC'ED real cabs.

LVC said:
You can try and talk yourself into the "yeah man this sounds like a real cab pushing air"
Click to expand...

I agree. It is not wise to think that mic'ed cabs suppose to sound like real cabs only. It is even less wiser to keep repeating it.
 
levipeto said:
I agree. It is not wise to think that mic'ed cabs suppose to sound like real cabs only. It is even less wiser to keep repeating it.
Click to expand...

Yep ... but people still do .. this adds to confusion and disappointment to folks new to this platform especially after spending a hard earned G note on a monitor!
 
Chuck Link said:
I think I brought up Atomic CLR's. LOL!!! I didn't realize I was going to start so much trouble.
Click to expand...

No LVC brought it up in post #40. You didn't mention it until post #127. Now if not for one member and one member only, we could have civil discussions about these technologies and the CLR would not need to be a taboo topic. Unfortunately this is not the case.

I have nothing against LVC in general and I often Like his other posts, but his childish angry outbursts regarding all things CLR are ridiculous and out of hand. I don't know how many times people can say that just because they didn't satisfy him it doesn't mean that facts and other opinions about their performance are bullshit. There's just no getting through to him on these points. Unfortunately he has a vendetta about this topic and no respect for the community's desire for a more civil and reasonable discussion.

So sorry for the rant everyone.
 
sam said:
No LVC brought it up in post #40. You didn't mention it until post #127. Now if not for one member and one member only, we could have civil discussions about these technologies and the CLR would not need to be a taboo topic. Unfortunately this is not the case.

I have nothing against LVC in general and I often Like his other posts, but his childish angry outbursts regarding all things CLR are ridiculous and out of hand. I don't know how many times people can say that just because they didn't satisfy him it doesn't mean that facts and other opinions about their performance are bullshit. There's just no getting through to him on these points. Unfortunately he has a vendetta about this topic and no respect for the community's desire for a more civil and reasonable discussion.

So sorry for the rant everyone.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. For the record, I like them both.

When are the new atomics CLR's going to be available?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Chuck Link said:
I stand corrected. For the record, I like them both.

When are the new atomics CLR's going to be available?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If you are refering to the neo option on the atomics, I believe they are already available, but I think you have to special order them by contacting atomic and requesting them. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.

For the record I would like to try matrix amps and cabs some day, and I'm totally open to them sounding or feeling better than my CLRs with guitar, or not. Different strokes for different folks no doubt. I do not have an issue with anyone that prefers one or the other or any other solution.

Having said that, yes our experiences with speakers and amps are subjective, but I say let's not be so quick to judge the manufacturers' claims (at least the measurable fact-based ones) as BS. This stuff is complex and people might have different experiences due to a myriad of factors, but that doesn't magically turn facts and specs into BS.
 
sam said:
No LVC brought it up in post #40. You didn't mention it until post #127. Now if not for one member and one member only, we could have civil discussions about these technologies and the CLR would not need to be a taboo topic. Unfortunately this is not the case.

I have nothing against LVC in general and I often Like his other posts, but his childish angry outbursts regarding all things CLR are ridiculous and out of hand. I don't know how many times people can say that just because they didn't satisfy him it doesn't mean that facts and other opinions about their performance are bullshit. There's just no getting through to him on these points. Unfortunately he has a vendetta about this topic and no respect for the community's desire for a more civil and reasonable discussion.

So sorry for the rant everyone.
Click to expand...

#46 I tried to keep thread on track but regardless ------- however since you brought this up.

There is nothing childish in providing balance on discussions. Plenty of skepticism showed on this thread by folks that never tried a Matrix -- all have been treated respectfully by Matrix owners.

Same cannot be said about CLR owners who cannot stand having anything even remotely bad said about the CLR (even by those who own or owned it).

Case in point -- here is a response the #1 promoter of CLR made to someone without even fully reading his post (which was a response to someone who posted something about a Reactor not a CLR)

c7450a09-c7a5-4a7a-928c-7e81a97f81b4_zps9292f2f7.png


This to me is the typical childish auto response people get when they dare question or comment on the CLR (which in my opinion is way overpriced but that can be the subject of another thread).

Folks get over it -- that $1,000 you spent will soon be worth a lot less. No amount of posting is going to keep the resell value high.

The bottom eventually falls out of everything.
 
Last edited:
sam said:
If you are refering to the neo option on the atomics, I believe they are already available, but I think you have to special order them by contacting atomic and requesting them. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.

For the record I would like to try matrix amps and cabs some day, and I'm totally open to them sounding or feeling better than my CLRs with guitar, or not. Different strokes for different folks no doubt. I do not have an issue with anyone that prefers one or the other or any other solution.

Having said that, yes our experiences with speakers and amps are subjective, but I say let's not be so quick to judge the manufacturers' claims (at least the measurable fact-based ones) as BS. This stuff is complex and people might have different experiences due to a myriad of factors, but that doesn't magically turn facts and specs into BS.
Click to expand...

I emailed my information about 3 weeks ago. I guess I'm on a waiting list. I have AB the Matrix Q12A (I own the matrix) and the atomic CLR's. Both sound amazing. They do have a different sound and feel. I don't see how anyone could hate either one, and with enough time I am confident anyone in this room could tweak them to sound and feel pretty close to each other. I do like the wedge and the DSP options that come on the CLR.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I'm surprised these guys don't get talked about a bit more around here.

Power Amp

You could argue that if all the tube mojo in done in the Axe then all you need is a linear power amp but seeing as some people prefer whatever the 'mojo' Matrix claims to offer, perhaps it would be better to look here.

I don't have one of these but from the information and the videos, it seems to me that these guys really understand how tube amps work, why they sound like they do and therefore what needs to be done to recreate that using SS technology.

Seems to me this would be great if whether you have an Axe or maybe a traditional guitar pre-amp such as a JMP1, Triaxis, etc.

In all of the tech-talk in the thread the one thing that doesn't seem to have been mentioned is that tube/valve amps are designed to work like a constant current source whereas most linear solid-state amps operate as a constant voltage source. Aside from anything else, this affects the response of the amp with the impedance of the speaker and one of the reasons why a tube guitar amp sounds 'alive' and a linear SS amp sounds dead when connect to a guitar speaker. As the guitar speaker impedance rises around certain resonant frequencies (such as 80Hz and 8kHz) the tube amp develops more power (voltage increases) into speaker in order to maintain the current. A linear SS amp does the opposite.

These Retrochannel guys seems to have figured all of this out and we can now buy a lightweight SS tube-sounding amp that nobody ever talks about :D
 
The other thing is that guitar amps are far from linear and not meant to be. Tube hi-fi amps are designed (well the good ones) to be linear, though it's unlikely many or any can match modern SS but that's another argument...

Point is, talk of tube hifi amps in the context of guitar amps isn't too helpful.
 
Hysteria said:
I'm surprised these guys don't get talked about a bit more around here.

Power Amp

You could argue that if all the tube mojo in done in the Axe then all you need is a linear power amp but seeing as some people prefer whatever the 'mojo' Matrix claims to offer, perhaps it would be better to look here.

I don't have one of these but from the information and the videos, it seems to me that these guys really understand how tube amps work, why they sound like they do and therefore what needs to be done to recreate that using SS technology.

Seems to me this would be great if whether you have an Axe or maybe a traditional guitar pre-amp such as a JMP1, Triaxis, etc.

In all of the tech-talk in the thread the one thing that doesn't seem to have been mentioned is that tube/valve amps are designed to work like a constant current source whereas most linear solid-state amps operate as a constant voltage source. Aside from anything else, this affects the response of the amp with the impedance of the speaker and one of the reasons why a tube guitar amp sounds 'alive' and a linear SS amp sounds dead when connect to a guitar speaker. As the guitar speaker impedance rises around certain resonant frequencies (such as 80Hz and 8kHz) the tube amp develops more power (voltage increases) into speaker in order to maintain the current. A linear SS amp does the opposite.

These Retrochannel guys seems to have figured all of this out and we can now buy a lightweight SS tube-sounding amp that nobody ever talks about :D
Click to expand...


I think this was touched upon earlier

Class D vs A/B vs Mosfet with A/B topology
 
LVC said:
I think this was touched upon earlier

Class D vs A/B vs Mosfet with A/B topology
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure that's the same thing. It's possible to make a highly-linear amp out of all of those output configurations and that's why (arguably) linear solid-state power amps all the sound much the same. But it's also possible to make a SS amp that behave like a tube amp and that's why the Retrochannel guys seem to have done. And this will require a different approach to the output design to make it behave as a guitar tube amp does rather than just whether it uses FETs or is Class AB, etc. At least imho :)
 
The Matrix being designed for guitar playing is more marketing bait than anything else. The truth is, I have the Carvin DCM1540L before I got my Matrix GT1000FX. LOVE the Carvin. Still do. so much headroom, was loud, and had very flat response. But then I got the Matrix to see what all the fuss was about. It's 1U, lighter, has the cool lights and all that, but as far as tone goes, the only difference was that it DID have a little tone coloration. But for the better. It has a liveliness to it I can't really describe with my limited knowledge on the inner workings of amplifier design. Is it worth spending the extra scratch? If you have it, yes.
 
Hysteria said:
The other thing is that guitar amps are far from linear and not meant to be. Tube hi-fi amps are designed (well the good ones) to be linear, though it's unlikely many or any can match modern SS but that's another argument...

Point is, talk of tube hifi amps in the context of guitar amps isn't too helpful.
Click to expand...

Just as a point of reference, from post #131. . .

yek said:
For example: I owned an Atomic Reactor 50/50 tube amp. When compared directly to the Matrix, I preferred the Atomic. It sounded more 3D (for lack of a better word), the highs sounded slightly more natural. But: 2u high, extremely heavy, tubes ...
Click to expand...

Terry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom