Atomic CLR = Sonic bliss !!!

Quote from guenterhaas

What doesn't make any sense: comparing FRFR-systems with high quality studio monitors, FRFR-cabs like Atomic are constructed to act like a "real" guitar-cab, studio-monitors should be as linear as possible and give a detailed picture of all instruments and audio-sources. Nearfield-monitors are built for producing and mixing, not for cranking up guitars.

Hey Guenter,
Not sure whether you're referring to the CLR... If this is the case, they are not designed to act like a guitar cab, but are extremely linear (70-18000 +\- 2 dB IIRC) and transparent, apart from being made coherent in phase. They can be used as MF monitors, and have been so. Users report to be satisfied

Quote from viabcroce

Hey Guenter,
Not sure whether you're referring to the CLR... If this is the case, they are not designed to act like a guitar cab, but are extremely linear (70-18000 +\- 2 dB IIRC) and transparent, apart from being made coherent in phase. They can be used as MF monitors, and have been so. Users report to be satisfied

THIS!
The CLR is a different beast and can be used as MF monitors as well as stage amplification.

Quote from viabcroce

Hey Guenter,
Not sure whether you're referring to the CLR... If this is the case, they are not designed to act like a guitar cab, but are extremely linear (70-18000 +\- 2 dB IIRC) and transparent, apart from being made coherent in phase. They can be used as MF monitors, and have been so. Users report to be satisfied

Don't get me wrong, the CLR maybe a great FRFR-cab (like Matrix and kpa-solutions), but nevertheless there's a big difference between nearfield studio-monitors and FRFR-cabs. These are two different worlds like P.A. and studio-gear. My Matrix Q12a-cab (40-20.000 Hz) and all other FRFR-cabs with a 12" coax-speaker are built to be used mainly for live-occasions, good studio-monitors should be as "honest" as possible showing any failures in the mix.

Anway, the KPA is doing an excellent job in both worlds, it would be very interesting to have a comparison between the Atomic, Matrix and kpa-solutions cabs.

Quote from guenterhaas

Don't get me wrong, the CLR maybe a great FRFR-cab (like Matrix and kpa-solutions), but nevertheless there's a big difference between nearfield studio-monitors and FRFR-cabs. These are two different worlds like P.A. and studio-gear. My Matrix Q12a-cab (40-20.000 Hz) and all other FRFR-cabs with a 12" coax-speaker are built to be used mainly for live-occasions, good studio-monitors should be as "honest" as possible showing any failures in the mix.

Anway, the KPA is doing an excellent job in both worlds, it would be very interesting to have a comparison between the Atomic, Matrix and kpa-solutions cabs.

CLR is way out of my price comfort zone and overkill from a power perspective, but the idea that PA speaker shouldn't be flat is a symptom of the industry trying to "flavor" their product rather than letting the engineer/DJ do it. There's no reason for them to be bass boosted like they tend to be. Ideally, you'd want an as flat a system as possible for a PA in order to control EQ at the desk.

Quote from guenterhaas

Don't get me wrong, the CLR maybe a great FRFR-cab (like Matrix and kpa-solutions), but nevertheless there's a big difference between nearfield studio-monitors and FRFR-cabs. These are two different worlds like P.A. and studio-gear. My Matrix Q12a-cab (40-20.000 Hz) and all other FRFR-cabs with a 12" coax-speaker are built to be used mainly for live-occasions, good studio-monitors should be as "honest" as possible showing any failures in the mix.

Anway, the KPA is doing an excellent job in both worlds, it would be very interesting to have a comparison between the Atomic, Matrix and kpa-solutions cabs.

If we can find some time we can do a CLR/Matrix shootout.

Quote from guenterhaas

You should acquire actual hands-on experience with a CLR instead of offering blind speculation as fact.

That was the mission of the CLR. Based on both objective measurement and user reaction, it has successfully carried out that mission.

Keep in mind that there is ample precedent for this: a number of my sound reinforcement designs are sufficiently transparent that they have found use as studio monitors. In this regard, the CLR is no exception.

Quote from Ingolf

If we can find some time we can do a CLR/Matrix shootout.

Switching to German: wie ich sehe, bist Du auch aus Hamburg und wenn Du eine CLR-Box hast, würde ich die gerne mal mit meinem Kemper testen.

Now this American dummy wonders what was said

Quote from whippinpost91850

Now this American dummy wonders what was said

No problem, I said: "as I can see you're from Hamburg, too. And if you're owning a CLR-cab I would like to test it with my Kemper."

No secrets at all

Quote from guenterhaas

No problem, I said: "as I can see you're from Hamburg, too. And if you're owning a CLR-cab I would like to test it with my Kemper."

No secrets at all

Oh, that would be VERY interesting ! Would you mind if I would send you a BlueAmps 1x12" to test it in one run with the CLR and Q12 ?
This would give all KPA users a quite unbiased and neutral comparison review of all 3 available coaxial 1x12" FRFR solutions I am aware of at the moment.
What do you think ? I could send out a CX middle of next week.

Tilman

Quote from Tilman

Oh, that would be VERY interesting ! Would you mind if I would send you a BlueAmps 1x12" to test it in one run with the CLR and Q12 ?
This would give all KPA users a quite unbiased and neutral comparison review of all 3 available coaxial 1x12" FRFR solutions I am aware of at the moment.
What do you think ? I could send out a CX middle of next week.

Tilman

Hi Tilman (in English for our international friends): didn't you want to send me the BlueAmp 1x12" (with a little modification, so I can use the cab passive, too) for testing anyway? I'll try to reach Ingolf and a comparison between these 3 cabs (BlueAmp, CLR + Q12a) could be very helpful for a lot of users here. And of course for myself, too.

Alright, let's do it!
Awesome that Tilman let us compare with a Blue Amp as well!

It will be awesome to hear this comparison. Even though I own a CLR, I'm very interested in all the choices.

I just took delivery of two CLR's last week.

For the record, I do not have any affiliation with any of the manufacturers in this thread or any manufacturer that I might mention.

I think the CLR's sound fantastic. In my ears opinion, they represent quite accurately what you send them.

My studio chain for profiling and monitoring is quite high:

Apogee AD16x Converters
Mics Pres: Neve 1272s, API 512s, Telefunken V72s, Langevin AM16s, Altec 1567, RCA Tube BA2Bs, Rca Germaniums BA31's, Chandler TG2's, Electrodyne 201s tube
Mics: Royers R121s, SM57s, Sennheisers 421s, +50 more
Monitoring: Cranesong Avocet (DA, and monitoring controller), Unity Audio Boulders.

I find the CLR's represent the decisions that I made with the Boulders without any surprises. I find the Boulders as my indispensable audio tool and trust them 100% in my decision making process. The fact that the CLR's do not disappoint me in comparison is quite nice. If you do not know what the Boulders are look em up on the internet, this is what I use to make decisions when I am profiling.

These things can go loud. I have not had the chance of running them in a band context. I will next week.

For the record, I am not a shill, I am not endorsing anything, nor am I a fanboy. I have no skin in the game.

So far I am happy customer and thats all.

Those are serious monitors, that the CLR (5 times cheaper) can hold up with them is quite a statement....

Quote from guitarnet70

Those are serious monitors, that the CLR (5 times cheaper) can hold up with them is quite a statement....

Yes, they are The CLR's represent the decisions made on them quite nicely. No surprises which is what I want.

It follows then that the Boulders are incredibly overpriced or incredibly underachieving in relation to what performance they should deliver at their price point.

Quote from Sportsfreund

It follows then that the Boulders are incredibly overpriced or incredibly underachieving in relation to what performance they should deliver at their price point.

I do not agree with that statement, but if that is your experience using both, then we do see things differently. Each his or her own.

What my statement was, is that CLR's represent the decisions I made using the Boulders without any surprises and the translation from Studio Monitor to floor monitor is reliable and trust worthy for me. The requirements I have for a control room monitor and a stage monitor are different.

The dispersion on the CLR for me would not work for mixing, it would be too wide and blurred of an image. In my limited experience with the CLR's this is what also makes them a benefit on stage, a wider sweet spot.

I would not replace my studio monitoring chain for CLR's.

I would not hesitate pushing a mix from the control to the studio floor for musician to hear though.

Jay, if you read this, I'd appreciate a comment from you on using CLRs as studio monitors. Does their broad, yet confined dispersion pattern pose problems as indicated by driskel?

Quote from Sportsfreund

Jay, if you read this, I'd appreciate a comment from you on using CLRs as studio monitors. Does their broad, yet confined dispersion pattern pose problems as indicated by driskel?

Sportsfreund,

Please do not put words in mouth.

I am not saying they pose a problem, nor did I say there was problem. What I said was the wide dispersion pattern, which is a plus of the CLRs, would not work for me in a mix environment, that is all. One of the reasons, I purchased the Boulders was their incredible imaging. My mixing and tracking have improved so much with them that I have no interest in trying anything else for that purpose in the near to midfield monitoring. Granted I have not tried the CLRs as a studio monitor. I am in a fortunate position that I do not need to multi-purpose the CLRs.

This is what I said. Please notice the first sentence. Each of us have our own opinion on tools. My choice for mixing and monitoring in the control room is based off of tools that are build for that task.

Quote

The dispersion on the CLR for me would not work for mixing, it would be too wide and blurred of an image. In my limited experience with the CLR's this is what also makes them a benefit on stage, a wider sweet spot.

I think the CLRs are a fantastic tool. If you want to try them a studio monitor go right away. They may work for you, they may not. Either way the best way to make any decision is to try them out for yourself and make decisions based off of your own impression, verses someone like me on the internet.

I just wanted to share that I think the CLRs are fantastic and they translate what I hear in the studio monitors to the floor.

Sorry folks for clouding this discussion that was not my intent.