Atomic CLR vs.Yamaha DXR 10

  • For personnal monitoring the goal is to please our ears IMHO!


    For me the goal of monitoring is to hear the most accurate representation of the signal I'm sending to FOH. I try to achieve the goal of pleasing my ears further upstream. Yes, you lose control once your signal hits the mixing board, but I still prefer to reduce the number of weak links in the chain.


  • For me the goal of monitoring is to hear the most accurate representation of the signal I'm sending to FOH. I try to achieve the goal of pleasing my ears further upstream. Yes, you lose control once your signal hits the mixing board, but I still prefer to reduce the number weak links in the chain.


    +1


  • For me the goal of monitoring is to hear the most accurate representation of the signal I'm sending to FOH. I try to achieve the goal of pleasing my ears further upstream. Yes, you lose control once your signal hits the mixing board, but I still prefer to reduce the number weak links in the chain.

    You're right as long as the soundman well know the particular behaviour of the speakers he use in a specific venue. Otherwise, as Ingolf said, the corrections needed is all up the the FOH guy. Some are good and some... ;)


    But, as I said, I agree with you that it is always better to send the most accurate signal as possible to the FOH.

  • Well after about 10 days of working stupid hours, I finally have the time to post my findings on these fine cabinets.


    I've never tried adding pictures so I hope this works. Obviously I'm an idiot and cannot figure out how to reduce the size of the photos to work here so! I wish I could have recorded a video of my little shoot out like Ingolf did, but alas no video camera.


    I eliminated the Mackie coax 12 pretty much right off,as compared to the CLR and the DXR10 it did'nt cut it. It sounded OK but not as good as the other two.If size and weight are a factor It is still a contender


    I used a little a/b box as well and did a few backup loops with my GR55. I used both set up as a monitor and dsp off on DXR


    First off playing music from IPhone the CLR won hands down. just seemed more natural like my studio monitors. Playing loops with the GR I noticed a slight lack of clarity in the DXR with an accentuated mid.


    Initially I played a strat ( out of phase p-up tone ) through a super reverb rig I thought the DXR sounded a little better then the CLR , but after playing through the CLR I noticed when I went back to the DXR it sounded a little thin (not bad ,just different) Now don't hit me ,a little like a strat through a Rockman, with the out-of-phase tone accentuated. Which in some ways I liked alot.


    Mid gain sounds I noticed a pronounced mid range honk, which might work good to cut through on on stage. With heavier distortion Boogies, Diezels, Marshall they both sounded very good, but the tones started to sounded much more simular on the DXR, then the CLR. With the CLR the tonal differences in rigs seemed to have more clarity and definition.


    My bottom line, and mind you just my opinion, the CLR is the winner. Not that the DXR wouldn't be completely usable and I'm sure would sound great on stage, I just thought the CLR was better. Also at stage volume the DXR didn't seem to be able to handle low and full synth sounds of my GR55 nearly as well. I don't play one but guess the DXR10 might have the same problem with a 7 string.
    As far as the foot print I didn't find there to be that significant a difference, but appreciated the DXR being lighter. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Paul


    PS: I watched Ingolf's video's and our conclusions seem to be pretty close


    Was able to add a picture finally , So you didn't think I was pretending. :D


  • For me the goal of monitoring is to hear the most accurate representation of the signal I'm sending to FOH. I try to achieve the goal of pleasing my ears further upstream. Yes, you lose control once your signal hits the mixing board, but I still prefer to reduce the number of weak links in the chain.


    No, IMO. The most accurate signal is sent to FOH when you have made sure you got your rigs tweaked right using the most neutral speakers possible.
    After that, monitoring is there for you (and your bandmates on stage) to hear you properly and as pleasant and inspiring as possible.
    And exactly this (the monitoring situation) can differ vastly from what should be sent to FOH. IOW, the most accurate signal you send to FOH might not work for your stage conditions. In this case, make yourself comfortable by optimizing your monitoring conditions.
    BTW what do you mean by pleasing your ears further upstream? Isn't this a contradiction then? Or did you misunderstand me and we mean the same? ;)

  • BTW what do you mean by pleasing your ears further upstream? Isn't this a contradiction then? Or did you misunderstand me and we mean the same? ;)


    The way I conceptualize this stuff, the job of producing pleasing sounds resides entirely within my hands, my guitar and the KPA. The job of my monitor is to faithfully reproduce those sounds at volume on stage. And the job of the PA is to faithfully reproduce those sounds at volume for the audience, with adjustments as necessary for the room and the mix. I want what I'm hearing to match as closely as possible what the audience is hearing so that I can properly calibrate my playing.


    I totally understand that nothing is ever perfect and that others have a different approach. What I've described is simply how I prefer to operate.

  • Hi Ingolf - I don't know if you tried this or if it was asked already. Were you able to match the two speakers using the global EQ from the Kemper? Wondering if you were able to get the DXR10 close to the CLR.


    Thanks for taking the time to do the tests and post :thumbup:

  • Hi Ingolf - I don't know if you tried this or if it was asked already. Were you able to match the two speakers using the global EQ from the Kemper? Wondering if you were able to get the DXR10 close to the CLR.


    Thanks for taking the time to do the tests and post :thumbup:


    What I used to do an aporoximation was the output EQ in the master/output menu.
    IMO I can achieve exactly this, an approximation. The differences (more pristine highs, more clarity and cleaner midrange on the CLR) remakn though.
    I didn't have the ambition to do more sophisticated EQing for a closer match as I'm still very content with the DXR as it is.

  • Hope this worked

  • Interesting reading!
    Just curious to hear if anyone have tried the bigger DXR12?
    Are there any benefits going for the 12" speakers compared to the 10"?


    Also, I had the chance to test the HK Audio L5 112 FA.
    HK Audio


    To me they sounded amazing, but I don't know if they are that much better than the DXR12's that it's worth the extra bucks..?
    Has anyone else tried these?
    They also come in wedge's: L5 112 XA
    HK Audio Wedge


    PS:
    Sorry if I hijacked your thread Ingolf!


    Regards
    Einar

    Edited once, last by einnyste ().

  • Hello,
    one thing I'm curious about, apart the tonal differences between the two speakers, is their phisical projection area (don't know how better define it)...


    I have one active SR Technologies speaker, that sounds very good if the listener is (almost) in front of it, but as he goes a bit of-axis the sound changes dramatically.
    Some cabinet seem to have a wider "projection cone", while others are narrower.
    Do the Atomic and Yamaha differ in this sense?


    I'd also like to know if someone did try the KPA wint a linear array speaker, liek the Bose L1 system, or similar...

  • I believe the DXR has a coverage of 60 degrees horizontal and 90 degress vertical.
    The CLR's are 90 degress H and 90 degress V. I asked a similar question to Ingolf in another thread and his view was that both had great dispersion.

    I have the DXR and the sound varies only slightly moving around inside the coverage area. I've read the CLR's field is even more consistant - but I've never heard one in person.


    Hope it helps.

  • I have a question I hope some of you DXR10 owners will help answer. I'm not currently in a band and basically play along backing tracks for practice and fun, the DXR has several inputs and I wonder if it would be possible to connect let's say an ipod with the backing tracks to the DXR using one input and the kemper to another and have both the BT and the Kemper mixed and sounding properly. Is this possible?


    Could the CLR do this also?.


    Maybe it's a lame question but never used a powered wedge before.


    Thanks.


    Matt.

  • I have a question I hope some of you DXR10 owners will help answer. I'm not currently in a band and basically play along backing tracks for practice and fun, the DXR has several inputs and I wonder if it would be possible to connect let's say an ipod with the backing tracks to the DXR using one input and the kemper to another and have both the BT and the Kemper mixed and sounding properly. Is this possible?


    Yes, the DXR has 3 inputs that can be mixed.


    Could the CLR do this also?.


    Matt.


    Yes, the CLR handles 2 different inputs.

  • I believe the DXR has a coverage of 60 degrees horizontal and 90 degress vertical.
    The CLR's are 90 degress H and 90 degress V. I asked a similar question to Ingolf in another thread and his view was that both had great dispersion.


    I have the DXR and the sound varies only slightly moving around inside the coverage area. I've read the CLR's field is even more consistant - but I've never heard one in person.


    Hope it helps.

    Actually the coverage of the Yamaha DXR10 is 90 degrees horizontal and 60 degrees vertical as per its specs sheet:


    http://usa.yamaha.com/products…ers/dxr/dxr10/?mode=model