PS: an active cab is nothing but a(ny) cab with an internal power amp. HTH
I'll make one correction. There is a difference between a powered speaker with one channel of amplification and a passive crossover and one with two channels of amplification and an active crossover at line level. The distinction is important for several reasons. I would call the former a powered speaker and the latter an active speaker. The CLR has two channels of amplification and an active crossover.
Ok, could you please tell me which scenario the passive crossover in the CLRs was optimized for? Should I be running the CLR in tilt or FF for best performance?
It will work very well either as a wedge or elevated with no additional rqualization. Used in an elevated position, you may decide to boost low frequencies a few decibels, but that will depend on local acoustics as much as anything else.
QuoteMy plan was to get in the ballpark with your settings(Type and order of crossover, time-alignment, etc.)
I suggest you remove and reverse-engineer the passive crossover as a beginning point, then. FYI, there is no "time alignment" in either the passive or active crossover, as none is needed. The components are placed such that alignment is achieved acoustically.
Quoteand then fine tune using RTA.
That won't be a productive exercise, for reasons that time, space, and technical level make impossible to explain in an online forum.
QuoteI'm just interested mainly as a hobby and figure I'll be experimenting away regardless.
You own 'em; you can do anything you like with them. Since it's a hobby for you, it would be a useful learning experience to study the circuit design of the factory crossover by drawing up a schematic. I suggest you do extensive critical listening both before and after modification. That should be trivially easy, since you own two . It would also be a good idea to make sure that any changes you make are reversible. Just in case....
There is no straightforward way to replicate the filtering in an active CLR with generic settings for an unknown DSP system. The same settings in different systems will produce different results - which seems quite counterintuitive, but is true nonetheless - so there is no "one size fits all" configuration.
As for DIY "biamping" a passive CLR, that would be an ill-advised move. You would have to modify the speaker to defeat the passive crossover, and you could never equal, let alone improve upon, the performance of the speaker as manufactured. You would place the transducers as risk of damage as well, and, of course, void the manufacturer's warranty.
Maybe this is less of a CLR issue and more of an Axe-FX issue.... ?
Given your tonal issues over the years, one would have to conclude that you are very unlikely to be satisfied with any modeler through any amplification or speakers. Whatever your problems may be, they cannot be solved by gear purchases.
If moving your CLR is a problem, I recommend your either acquire a hand truck (I use this: http://www.musiciansfriend.com…r-cart?rNtt=dolly&index=6) or a caster board (http://www.musiciansfriend.com…-kit?rNtt=caster&index=13). Permanently attaching casters would be a bad idea for a number of reasons.
There is a neodymium-magnet version of the active wedge. It weighs 33 lbs. and costs an additional $400.00. See Atomic's FB page for more.
I'll offer one more clarification/correction: I deal directly with my customers on a daily basis. Many of them have been doing business with me for 15 years or more, and several of them are close friends.
When you do not know someone personally - which is the definitely case with everyone posting in this thread - it is best not to make assumptions about them. The odds are very high that any assumptions you make will turn out to be incorrect.
One more note of clarification is apparently in order: I do not represent Atomic Amplifiers. I am neither an employee of nor agent for that company. I own my own company, and I have my own customers, most of whom have been purchasing my products for decades.
I designed the CLR as an outside consultant to Atomic, and I continue to provide support for QC and continuing development work on the product. I am therefore in a position to provide definitive information about its design, performance, and optimal use. I also communicate with Tom King on a regular basis, and he passes along to me customer requests, questions, and observations that he considers important.
FYI, I am reachable privately by anyone who has questions.
As for you being busy, I made no speculation: I wrote that rumours are that you might be working on something new,
That is the definition of the word "speculation." Adding a disclaimer such as "some people say," "I read somewhere," or "rumours are" does not alter the fact that you are engaging in blind, useless speculation.
QuoteThe requests and suggestions from me and other users have nothing to do with how the CLR produces its sound or what results it accomplishes.
Where exactly are are those "requests and suggestions?"
Quotewhich implies tens of further aspects (no need for me to list them again),
Again? You have yet to list them once.
QuoteOTOH, part of the observations I reported were from early adopters, so - while English is not my mother tongue - I don't think I phrased it mistakenly.
You did. Here's what you said: " the early adopters have actually created a list of requests for a Mark II." The truth is that you created a list - which you never published - from postings you selected on various forums. There is no evidence that any items on such a list came from "the early adopters" - you are not among them - nor that any of the items represent legitimate, practical requests. Even if you were to now decide to post the requests, there is still the fact that it was you who decided what was worthy of attention and, conversely, what was not worthy of attention. A collection of "requests" selected by one individual does not constitute a consensus.
QuoteAnd, most of all, I don't think it makes much of a difference, unless you want to enforce the idea that adopters' wishes are negligible.
Incorrect again. What is "negligible" is your interpretation and filtering of the ideas of others that you have copied and pasted from internet forums, especially since you haven't even bothered to offer any of them here.
QuoteI've read so many bs about the Profiler in the last few years that I could write a book on the subject.
Let me make sure I understand you. Are you using that statement as justification for propagating bs about another product?
QuoteToo bad you don't know how to deal with people..
I know exactly "how to deal with people." If you don't always find the result to your liking, there is one surefire way to change that: refrain from speculation about subjects on which you have no information.
I did not write that the list has been sent to you, nor that someone has made it public.
Your post stated that "the early adopters" had created a list of requests for changes to the CLR. Seeing as how I had personally communicated with numerous CLR users for more than a year before you received a CLR and had never seen such a list from any of them, you would presumably understand my surprise at your claim.
QuoteI joined some opinions posted by users on TGP, and by personally talking and exchanging emails with Tom I had the opportunity to add my thoughts on the matter, since I received the CLRs for evaluating them and reporting my opinions.
Two items of note:
1. You created the list to which you refer from publicly-stated opinions that both Tom and I had already seen, since we both monitor the forums.
2. The CLR had been out for more than a year before you received yours. The phrase "early adopter" would therefore appear to be be something of an exaggeration.
QuoteSo Tom has got a list, compiled by me,
That is what you should have stated at the beginning.
I will attempt to clear up the waters which have now been so thoroughly muddied. Please read carefully.
The CLR's design format is thirty years old. It does not represent "new technology," but rather is a manifestation of optimal use of physical principles that will not become outdated. My company manufactures loudspeakers of the same format that have remained in continuous production for that entire time, and those products continue to set standards for performance. In case it has not yet become evident, no "Mk II" version of the CLR is being planned, nor will one ever be. There have been and will continue to be - as with any viable product - minor running production changes, but the basis of the design is fixed. No future version will render the present one "obsolete." Your speculation that our being "busy" is somehow responsible for a "delay" in introducing a new version of the product is incorrect.
Quote from paultsIf it is any consolation, there are lists like that for just about every product, all over the internet
First, no "consolation" is needed. I was expressing surprise, not dismay.
Second, if what you say is correct, then posting a link to such a list should pose no challenge. A Google search turns up nothing, and I have encountered no such list in regular visits to a number of equipment-oriented internet forums. If one really is out there, I'd be extremely interested in seeing it.....
Quote from viabcroceAs for your last question, the early adopters have actually created a list of requests for a Mark II.
Really? That comes as news to me, and I've been rumored to have some knowledge of the CLR. I'd be interested in a link to a "list of requests" from "early adopters," as I have never encountered such a thing.
I am curious how the CLRs respond in the sub 100 region.
Per the published specifications, it responds down to 70 Hz (3 dB down at that frequency).
QuoteA real amp tends to have some energy in that region
Most real guitar cabs, however, cut off quite sharply above 100Hz. It is common to mistake a response peak at or just above 100 Hz for extended low frequency response. FYI, quite a few bass cabs go no lower in frequency than the CLR.
Fact is I do not make any money whatever customers decide to buy.
You are making an obvious assumption about the basis for my compensation. While it is none of your business and I will not divulge details, I will say that there are many ways to compensate outside consultants for their work and that any assumption you make along those lines is almost certainly incorrect.
Correcting factual errors is not being "dogmatic." To someone who is not knowledgeable in a field - especially when the individual believes (s)he possesses such knowledge - it may seem so, however. The greatest problem is being unaware of what you don't know.
Gianfranco, engaging with dada is an exercise in futility. He has an agenda and will not be deterred by facts.
I have the backline CLR raised off the floor perched on a roadcase, and is at equivalent height to my waist/torso.
You are using the CLR's free field ("FF") switch selection then, correct? If not, then you should do so. The "BL" setting is only appropriate for placement of the speaker on the floor.
Looking at things in terms of sound pressure level, as viabcroce pointed out to me, I learnt that for 6 db implies a doubling of the SPL
No. A 3dB increase requires doubling power. To double the apparent volume (to make something sound "twice as loud") requires a 10dB increase.
QuoteSince the DSR112 has a 4 db higher SPL,
It does not. The manufacturer's rated peak SPL is a bigger number. Even if this were accurate, it has nothing to do with how "loud" a speaker can get. The important specification is continuous average SPL. According to the independent lab tests that Yamaha commissioned (by a lab that used one of my speaker designs to check its calibration when it was first being set up), the DSR 12 is capabe of 118dB continuous maximum output. This is an accurate figure, and it tells you all you need to know. The data file with this information is on the downloads page for the product.
QuoteI think it's safe to say that the DSR112 is louder than the CLR.
No. The DSR 12 will produce maximum SPL that is indistinguishable from that produced by the CLR. If you're looking for something louder than a CLR, you won't find it in a single-woofer two way speaker. It's those pesky laws of physics at work.
I always would prefer a FRFR-system without a horn (CLR,...)
The CLR has two horns.
I was having trouble getting over a sit-in second guitar one night, and went into the desk to see if that helped. No problem being heard (but there is a pair of them) but more importantly I preferred the sound and feel.
The explanation is in your post. Based on your other comments, you used the CLR on the floor aimed horizontal (IOW as backline) and the other speakers either on poles or as wedges. Backline placement of any speaker will adversely affect its tone and reduce its ability to be heard. So, in addition to comparing a single CLR to a pair of the Yamahas - which by itself has a major effect on tonality - you were comparing speakers in two different placements. Odds are that, had your PA comprised CLRs, you would have had exactly the same comparative result, preferring a pair of them in wedge or pole-mount position to a single one in backline use. Hardly a surprising result....
