Speaker choice

[bluefireamps]

Has anyone tried the Ceramic Weber 1265? Cheaper than the Celestion anyway. It might be an alternative if it sounds the same. Opinions?
Dave

[mat]

Has anyone tried the Ceramic Weber 1265? Cheaper than the Celestion anyway. It might be an alternative if it sounds the same. Opinions?
Dave

I didn't like it at all with my nonHRM. I will try it with the HRM and report back.

[Bob-I]

Has anyone tried the Ceramic Weber 1265? Cheaper than the Celestion anyway. It might be an alternative if it sounds the same. Opinions?
Dave

I did, sold it for a big loss. Can't say anymore because BBQ boy keeps chasing me around threatening me for talking about his stuff.

[greiswig]

One thing that I'm having a hard time finding (if it's there) is something that outlines what cabinets are being used...at least whether they're closed back, ported, open back, etc. IME, some speakers that sound lousy in open back cabinets work well in closed back setups, and vice versa.

Also, what power is being run into them? I have a Celestion Blue that I was using with a 30-watt Bad Cat and a MASS attenuator, and I like it at low volume...but at stage volume, probably somewhere around 12-15 watts, it stops giving...I can't boost volume on leads. However, the Weber AlNiCo Blue Dog I have that's rated at 18W seems to keep up fine.

Anyone??

[Funkalicousgroove]

Try the Avatar Cabs, they have the oval port, I have 2 and I really like them!

www.avatarspeakers.com

[kleinm]

Try the Avatar Cabs, they have the oval port, I have 2 and I really like them!

www.avatarspeakers.com

+1. I've done a few mods to my Avatar, but its basically their G212H Premier with oval-back and Celestion G12-65s. Killer cabinet, regardless of the price. With the price, its gravy.

[hipbluescat]

Anyone tried the Jensen Blackbird out yet ?

Has anyone mixed this with a celestion GH12 65 ?

[stelligan]

Try the Avatar Cabs, they have the oval port, I have 2 and I really like them!

www.avatarspeakers.com

+1. I've done a few mods to my Avatar, but its basically their G212H Premier with oval-back and Celestion G12-65s. Killer cabinet, regardless of the price. With the price, its gravy.

+1 Very good cab at a VERY GREAT price. Tone to the bone. You might as well spring for it loaded - their Celestion prices are attractive.

[Tonegeek]

Anyone tried the Jensen Blackbird out yet ?

I was present a few weeks back when a friend tried an HRM 50 watt amp I built for him through a cab loaded with 2 Blackbirds. I thought it sounded very good. It was warm, and big sounding with smooth top end. this was at a healthy volume, but not overloading the power amp or speakers which are rated at 100 watts each. With the little bit I heard, I was not displeased. I would like to hear a 1-12" cab with this speaker sometime. My sense is it would work well with the D style amps. A bit pricey though and heavy at 12 lbs each...

[toml]

My build is a bluesmaster style eq, 50 watt non-hrm with EL34s. My cab is a oval port 1x12 that is a slightly darker sounding cab.

So far, my personal fav is a Red Fang. This speaker works really well for me. I play mostly country, and it lets my tone sit nicely on top of acoustic guitar, keys and bass. It is interesting in that, when auditioning the amp/speakers alone, this was not my favorite speaker. But, in the context of a band setting, it is fantastic.

I sometimes pair the RF with a Heritage G12-65. This combo is "big" sounding. The G12-65 fills in the lows and highs nicely and complements the RF. For me, the G12-65 alone, and the G12-65 paired with the RF also translated really well to a good live sound in a country band context.

I have also had good luck with a Scumback H75, particularly when paired with the RF. This combo puts a bit more emphasis on the mids compared to the RF/G12-65. I like this combo when I need to watch overall stage volume.

I also have a Scumnico. This speaker sounds good with my build. It is full, but a tad compressed on the top and can get a bit loose on the low end. Compared to the RF, the Scumnico low end is deeper and a bit looser. The RF is tighter in the low end, but does extend as deeply. The RF is also more aggressive in the mids. For my playing style, the RF won out over the Scumnico.

I have auditioned the Gold compared to my RF using a 2R custom sig. as the amp. Each speaker was in a similar 1x12 - same dimensions, same oval port, etc. On cleans, the Gold was more detailed in the highs and deeper in the lows compared to the RF. But, the Gold was also was way more spikey and touch sensitive. In this regard, I slightly prefered the RF, again for my style of playing and music type.

On overdrive tones, the Gold reigned supreme over the RF, imho. I am interested to see if this perception will hold for my build and in a live context, so this will likely be my next speaker purchase.

[blue_dog]

Speaking about speakers, just an interesting link that compares EVM 12L, G12-65RI, Eminence TonkerLite, Eminence DeltaLite II, Scholz Sugar Cone:

http://tubenexus.com/2008/03/31/5-d-sty ... rs-tested/

[dogears]

Interesting link, but pretty worthless IMHO. First off, what does measuring response with the tone stack set to such unuseable settings prove? A more useful test would be measuring things with the amp sounding its best.

Next, why not run a test with a signal injected into the loop return. That would bypass any amp colorations and give agood idea of the speakers real frequency responses.

The plots generated do not match the real world responses in many ways. For example, the mid dip of the EVM!

Speaking about speakers, just an interesting link that compares EVM 12L, G12-65RI, Eminence TonkerLite, Eminence DeltaLite II, Scholz Sugar Cone:

http://tubenexus.com/2008/03/31/5-d-sty ... rs-tested/

[odourboy]

Interesting perspecitve, but off-base IMHO.

First, the only variable in these tests was the speaker, so regardless of tonestack settings, the RELATIVE responses are meaningful for the testing environment. The fact that these curves may not look like something you might have seen elsewhere is irrelivant.

Second, I don't think the stack settings are either inappropriate or unuseful. For instance, if one speaker yields more bass responses at a particular frequency than another speaker, then it's probably valid to conclude that in the test environment, that will be true regardless of the stack settings. Further, the stack settings selected yield a response pretty close to 'flat' (a resonable alternative to your suggestion of bypassing the preamp all together.) But the fact of the matter is that the room response, the cabinet response and the mic response would so totally swamp any attempt to get 'realism' from the tone stack that these tests would be perfactly valid regardless of how the tone stack was set.

Finally, I have to give the tester enormous credit for getting off his pimply arse and assembling the gear, conducting the tests, collecting, colating and publishing the data. LOL!

Interesting link, but pretty worthless IMHO. First off, what does measuring response with the tone stack set to such unuseable settings prove? A more useful test would be measuring things with the amp sounding its best.

Next, why not run a test with a signal injected into the loop return. That would bypass any amp colorations and give agood idea of the speakers real frequency responses.

The plots generated do not match the real world responses in many ways. For example, the mid dip of the EVM!

Speaking about speakers, just an interesting link that compares EVM 12L, G12-65RI, Eminence TonkerLite, Eminence DeltaLite II, Scholz Sugar Cone:

http://tubenexus.com/2008/03/31/5-d-sty ... rs-tested/