FRFR wedge solutions and cost comparison

    Quote from mullassiff

    I guess we can agree to disagree then :) A lot of choises = Good.

    LOL
    I don't think there's much to agree or disagree here... ;)
    Just to clarify, I'm not stating that we all should like the same things. But the Matrix are not (and this is a fact) as transparent as the CLRs are. Just that.


    Many factors help in this, linearity and phase-coherence being only two of them.
    I've been carefully following the CLR project since the very beginning, and have collected all the available documentation related to them.
    Not trying to bash anything here, just stating facts.


    This having been said, of course different tools satisfy different needs and tastes.


    Peace and axes :)

    Quote from mikenothing

    Don't dismiss the altos because of their low cost. I love my TS115A's. I tried the 12" versions and they sounded great as well. I recommend taking your kemper into your local guitar store and trying out a bunch of speakers.


    Here is my current setup:


    [Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/hQPpoSH.jpg]

    I have this EXACT setup. Exactly lol. I found that one TS115a just wasnt loud enough for metal with a full band. It was REAL close, EQ;ing the live sound to cut through did help.. however, after adding the second. Nailed it.


    And stereo delay live is awesome.

    Quote from viabcroce

    LOL
    I don't think there's much to agree or disagree here... ;)
    Just to clarify, I'm not stating that we all should like the same things. But the Matrix are not (and this is a fact) as transparent as the CLRs are.

    Exactly what "facts" are you supporting this statement with ?

    Quote from mullassiff

    Exactly what "facts" are you supporting this statement with ?


    Are there any frequency response graphs for the Q12a that we can compare to these for the CLR? I couldn't find any at all.


    [Blocked Image: http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y287/spetersonmusic/AtomicCLRFrequencyResponse_zps2d82b0f9.png]


    [Blocked Image: http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y287/spetersonmusic/CLROffAxisResponses_zps9deaedad.png]


    Also, do you dispute Atomic's claim that the CLR is the only product in its class that offers coincident response between the tweeter and woofer? Or do you think it's a meaningless attribute?

    One more Yamaha DXR 10 User here.


    I tried to order a CLR and was on the waiting list for over 6 month!
    Because I needed a solution for a live gig I ordered the DXR 10, which was recommended by some user here in the forum.
    The day when I received the DXR 10 I got the e-mail that I can order the CLR now.
    But when I checked the DXR 10 I was very surprised that the sound is really great, and playing live was very good.
    So i´ll stick with the DXR 10.
    I can recommend to try this box with the Kemper - it´s a good deal.


    Kunerl

    Quote from mullassiff


    Nope I havnt been able to find any either. Wich is exactly why i ask what "facts" he is using.

    Just my knowledge, users' reports (from stage and studio, and using them as monitors as well), and the whole set of information I've read from Mr. Mitchell. If you have any electrotechnical knowledge I can pass you the material I've been collecting since the CLR have been introduced to public.
    The CLRs have been designed to be transparent, and are crammed with special ideas and techniques. The amplitude response is only one of the variables here.


    Nothing in the Matrix technical specs says they're special under this regard, and they're most probably not aimed at being so. When you create a new device, you sell it by marketing all its best qualities and peculiarities, you're not going to hide them. No-one from Matrix has ever written anywhere AFAIK that their cabs have been designed to be as transparent as possible nor phase-aligned.
    This, and the fact that I had never heard of or seen anything like the CLRs before in their price range, leads me to my conclusions.


    Just to be clear:


    I'm saying that the CLRs sound more transparent and faithful than any system in their price range (and above, by a fair bit) with a wide variety of instruments. I'm not saying that their sound is the most "pleasant" to most people, because this is subjective.
    Furthermore, I'm not trying to tell you what you should like most! But, if you're on the market for a versatile, transparent loudspeaker system, you can't be wrong for the buck.


    Peace

    So no real facts other then users comments. Well then we are back to agreeing to disagree.


    Alot find Matrix is more flat them Atomic, and alot the other way. Bottom line is that both are amazing products with very litle, if any, audiable difference.


    Anyways, as I said earlier, alot of good options, and I am not trying to tell you what you should like more then others aswell.


    Some "experts" find that a Ferrari drives more agressive then a Lamboghini, and some "experts" find it the other way around.


    Bottom line is that both are amazing cars that would make 99,99% more then happy.

    Pursuing the goal of creating a linear and transparent audio device is a very demanding and expensive task. In certain fields this is not even a quality, and current electric guitar world's culture is one of those. Hence, electric guitar world is crammed with products that are not very linear, but rather sound the way many players want. Do you realize that a device doesn't have to be more transparent to sound "better" to a player, or closer to their idea of how a guitar amp should sound? It's usually the other way around, at a point that many guitarists prefer to use guitar cabs along with their digital devices, f***ing the whole concept of digital modelling :D


    OTOH, once a manufacturer reaches the goal of a strong linearity (if he ever pursued it), he certainly doesn't want to omit this quality when promoting his product. Nothing I'm aware of, or have read, or has been shown about the Matrix says it's more linear or transparent than the CLR, which has been designed to fulfil this exact goal instead.
    I've nothing specific against being proved wrong, since I don't sell them, but I'll believe it when I read specs demonstrating this. And no, amplitude response is not enough, while critically important.


    Again, I'm not saying that the CLRs "sound better" or "drive faster". I'm not talking about opinions or taste. I would never argue with a guy saying that the Axe-FX sounds much better that the KPA. What some people say is not in discussion here, and there are several (too many actually) ways of forming own opinions.
    Very few individuals in the world can really listen to a cab playingback a guitar sound and decide whether it's "more transparent" than another. They may well say they like it more than another tho, or that they find it to be more transparent. Nothing against it, but it's a different story. I'm still under the impression we're talking about two different things here.


    Take the KPA for example. Some people have said that it sounds digital and thin. None of the professional musicians or studio owners using it have reported anything on this line, and Michael Wegener uses it for his top level productions. Most of them (Wegener included) clearly stated more than once they can't hear a difference with the profiled amp. Whom are you going to trust? Are you sure that all the opinions have the same weight? :whistling: ^^
    But let's go back to topic.


    How many people have written they're using their Matrix in studio as monitors? And who's more likely to be right, those who state that a cab (designed with linearity and transparency in mind) showing the most spectacular specs ever seen for the price are exceptionally linear, or those who state that the more linear one is a cab which has not being designed with this goal in mind, and whose specs are not shown (and with a reason)? And keep in mind that CLR's specs are conservative, according to Mr. Mitchell himself.


    Anyway, talking about opinions: have you seen the CLR's specs and engineering facts? Are you aware of their meaning and weight? How do you believe those specs and facts do affect performance, and how do they compare to other manufacturers' solutions? IOW, how many products do you see around that can beat them? And how much they cost?
    Facts and engineering culture, not opinions.


    Again, I'll gladly change my mind, if proven wrong. In general I love to be proven wrong, because this is the essence of a researcher's mind and of the scientific spirit :)


    Peace

    Edited once, last by viabcroce: Some typos ().

    Quote from mullassiff

    Alot find Matrix is more flat them Atomic, and alot the other way.


    The thing is, flatness isn't something you can reliably "find" with your ears in random environments. It is a scientifically measurable characteristic. Don't you think it's odd that Matrix hasn't produced comparable graphs, when they must know that buyers are interested in seeing them? And do you think coincident response between the drivers isn't an important feature?