13 Celestion Guitar Speakers Comparison - Shoot Out

[JohanSegeborn]

Hi!

In this Youtube clip I'm playing a ´77 Marshall JMP 2204 using 13 classic Celestion guitar speakers. All speakers are mounted into the same Marshall 1933 1X12 Closed Back Cabinet for a fair comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j9MwBC2 ... ymQupkHR02" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The speakers are:

1. ´83 G12-80 with 444 Bass Cone
2. ´78 G12-80 with 1777 Lead Cone
3. '65 G12 B025 AlNiCo Silver
4. '88 Vintage 30 (444 Bass Cone)
5. '71 Pre Rola Greenback G12H-30 (75Hz) (Pulsonic Lead Cone)
6. '74 Rola Greyback G12H-30 (75Hz) (Pulsonic Lead Cone)
7. '72 Rola Greenback G12H-30 (55Hz) (Pulsoic Bass Cone)
8. '80 G12-65
9. '89 G12M-70
10. '87 G12T-75
11. '79 G12-125
12. '93 G12T (100)
13. '91 G12B-150

I'm using an '08 Gibson Les Paul R9 into a ´77 Marshall JMP 2204 into a Weber MASS 100 Power Break (bedroom volume level!) The Tube mic is a Peluso 22 47 LE. The sound interface is an Apogee Duet connected to an IPad (Cubasis).

Any feedback would be most appreciated!

Cheers!
Johan

[Lefty Lou]

Hey Johan, nice little clip you put together there. I found that my preferences were 3,5,7 and 8,9,10, which tells me that my ears have a preference towards the 60s to early 70's, and 80s cones. There was something missing (and noticeable) with the sound of both 6, and 11. I didn't give 12 or 13 a listen, because for power handling my G12T-75s are sufficient enough. I know that Gary Moore used the Century 100 speakers on occasion. It's like Yngwie 008 said, Gary preferred to let his amps do the talkin' and not so much his speakers.

[louis]

Hi Johan !,

Nice job !!


I hated the 80's ,sounded to tin and harsh for lead tone ,

I was surprised that the 65 Alnico was honest but no wow factor for me,

I think that the 70 sounded better than the 80's

Too much mids on the 30

Too scooped on the 75......I know that Malmsteen did a great job with them !

My favorites were the Pre Rolas and for some reason ,the 74 Pulsonic sounded better for my taste !


Thank's !



Louis

[Lefty Lou]

I have to say this about the G12T-75 speakers, if they are scooped translating to a, "lack of mids" according to the speaker afficionados here on this forum, then all I can say is that my amps (and/or) cabinet shells have truly hellacious mids, as you would never know it by playing through my rig (or Gary Moore's cabs loaded with G12T-75s) for that matter.

[jape88]

In this Youtube clip I'm playing a ´77 Marshall JMP 2204 using 13 classic Celestion guitar speakers. All speakers are mounted into the same Marshall 1933 1X12 Closed Back Cabinet for a fair comparison.
I'm using an '08 Gibson Les Paul R9 into a ´77 Marshall JMP 2204 into a Weber MASS 100 Power Break (bedroom volume level!) The Tube mic is a Peluso 22 47 LE. The sound interface is an Apogee Duet connected to an IPad (Cubasis).

That's a lot of hard work you put in there and I don't really want to sound too negative to the work you have done but no amp can perform to it's true potential at bedroom volumes and all attenuators slowly kill tone the more they're dialed in. So really this is an example of what each speaker sounds like with your amp and attenuator in your bedroom sorry.
If I were to record a 2204 and that classic '72 g12H combo I'd be up in the higher end of the amps volume to get the power section working and also balance the volume to find the sweet spot in the cone then one mike on and one mike away from cone, even then it might still need post eq and compression. It really can be a nightmare I find, getting what sounds good in the room to record, plus the issues that youtube have with compression and the listeners monitors or even worse people who listen with their built in laptop speakers then make a judgment!
Sorry for waffling on but I find people disregard great speakers from endless YT clips that would probably work great with their set up at gigging volume.

[Lefty Lou]

I suppose that would depend on whether a person wanted distortion from the speakers or from the (pre/output) section of the amp. Clean amp with OD (and/or) attenuation on the output OR driving the amplifier hard and using high efficiency speakers.

[JohanSegeborn]

Hi jape88!

Low hanging fruit... Someone is bound to pick it. No offense.

Well, that's kinda obvious isn't it?

Now, there is no single fair test that covers all ground. However in my experience, there are advantages both with high volume recording (where the power tubes are cranked, producing that nice growl) and low volume recording (where sensitive condenser mics can be utilized for a more spatially complex sound). This test targeted low volume recording, which occurs more frequently than you might think in the industry. The next test will target power tube and speaker distortion.

Cheers
Johan

In this Youtube clip I'm playing a ´77 Marshall JMP 2204 using 13 classic Celestion guitar speakers. All speakers are mounted into the same Marshall 1933 1X12 Closed Back Cabinet for a fair comparison.
I'm using an '08 Gibson Les Paul R9 into a ´77 Marshall JMP 2204 into a Weber MASS 100 Power Break (bedroom volume level!) The Tube mic is a Peluso 22 47 LE. The sound interface is an Apogee Duet connected to an IPad (Cubasis).

That's a lot of hard work you put in there and I don't really want to sound too negative to the work you have done but no amp can perform to it's true potential at bedroom volumes and all attenuators slowly kill tone the more they're dialed in. So really this is an example of what each speaker sounds like with your amp and attenuator in your bedroom sorry.
If I were to record a 2204 and that classic '72 g12H combo I'd be up in the higher end of the amps volume to get the power section working and also balance the volume to find the sweet spot in the cone then one mike on and one mike away from cone, even then it might still need post eq and compression. It really can be a nightmare I find, getting what sounds good in the room to record, plus the issues that youtube have with compression and the listeners monitors or even worse people who listen with their built in laptop speakers then make a judgment!
Sorry for waffling on but I find people disregard great speakers from endless YT clips that would probably work great with their set up at gigging volume.

[JohanSegeborn]

Thanks Lefty Lou!

Well the G12-125 is voiced for an openback amp so thats probably why its kinda dark.

Cheers
Johan

Hey Johan, nice little clip you put together there. I found that my preferences were 3,5,7 and 8,9,10, which tells me that my ears have a preference towards the 60s to early 70's, and 80s cones. There was something missing (and noticeable) with the sound of both 6, and 11. I didn't give 12 or 13 a listen, because for power handling my G12T-75s are sufficient enough. I know that Gary Moore used the Century 100 speakers on occasion. It's like Yngwie 008 said, Gary preferred to let his amps do the talkin' and not so much his speakers.

[JohanSegeborn]

Thanks louis, appreciate it! Cheers Johan

Hi Johan !,

Nice job !!


I hated the 80's ,sounded to tin and harsh for lead tone ,

I was surprised that the 65 Alnico was honest but no wow factor for me,

I think that the 70 sounded better than the 80's

Too much mids on the 30

Too scooped on the 75......I know that Malmsteen did a great job with them !

My favorites were the Pre Rolas and for some reason ,the 74 Pulsonic sounded better for my taste !


Thank's !



Louis

[Lefty Lou]

I've gotten kinda used to the (alnico/ceramic) mix of my Tone Tubby Hempcone 10" loud speakers. I first tried the concept in my 66' Fender BFSR amp in what Tone Tubby speakers calls an "X Bomb" pattern. The sound mix covers quite diverse tones from crystal clean highs to punchy mids to smooth overdrive tones. The combination of tones are naturally of a ceramic 4 x 10" Super Reverb amp and a alnico 4 x 10" Super Reverb amp. You get tight, clean, muscular plus the smooth "alnico" clipping and harmonic qualities.

[JohanSegeborn]

Hi Lefty Lou,

I checked out Tone Tubby, they sound great, but they dont come cheap.. How would you they compare to Celestion AlNiCos?

Cheers Johan

I've gotten kinda used to the (alnico/ceramic) mix of my Tone Tubby Hempcone 10" loud speakers. I first tried the concept in my 66' Fender BFSR amp in what Tone Tubby speakers calls an "X Bomb" pattern. The sound mix covers quite diverse tones from crystal clean highs to punchy mids to smooth overdrive tones. The combination of tones are naturally of a ceramic 4 x 10" Super Reverb amp and a alnico 4 x 10" Super Reverb amp. You get tight, clean, muscular plus the smooth "alnico" clipping and harmonic qualities.

[Lefty Lou]

Hi Lefty Lou,

I checked out Tone Tubby, they sound great, but they dont come cheap.. How would you they compare to Celestion AlNiCos?

Cheers Johan

I've gotten kinda used to the (alnico/ceramic) mix of my Tone Tubby Hempcone 10" loud speakers. I first tried the concept in my 66' Fender BFSR amp in what Tone Tubby speakers calls an "X Bomb" pattern. The sound mix covers quite diverse tones from crystal clean highs to punchy mids to smooth overdrive tones. The combination of tones are naturally of a ceramic 4 x 10" Super Reverb amp and a alnico 4 x 10" Super Reverb amp. You get tight, clean, muscular plus the smooth "alnico" clipping and harmonic qualities.

Johan, the hemp cone alnicos will have some of the qualities of regular paper cone alnico speakers like smooth clipping and compression when driven.

Hemp fibre used for speaker cones provides a durable, tear resisitant and water resistant cone. The long fibre of hemp provides better sound reproduction and longer sound waves. Hemp cone® speakers deliver an organic and natural sound. By using hemp fibers instead of paper, the hemp cone delivers a consistently sweeter sound. Paper cones will dry out, become brittle and give a brittle tone. Hemp provides a rich, full spectrum of tone from a cone that is stronger and more flexable. Also, there is a noticeable lack of "cone cry" with hemp cone speakers. Artists such as Eric Clapton, Carlos Santana, and Los Lonely Boys use Tone Tubby speakers as part of their standard backline choice of speakers.

Tone Tubby Red Alnico

The Original Tone Tubby®, the favorite of Carlos Santana and many others. Rock-solid bottom end, silky rolled-off highs, and midrange that speaks to you. With ample clean headroom and plenty of power, this is a superb all-around speaker.

Tone Tubby Black Alnico DD

With an alnico magnet like its Red brother, the "Double D" has a specially treated "Double-Dipped" cone for increased power rating with solid bottom end and extended highs and high mids. A great choice for country, edgier rock, or to brighten up a darker sounding rig.

[demonufo]

However in my experience, there are advantages both with high volume recording (where the power tubes are cranked, producing that nice growl) and low volume recording (where sensitive condenser mics can be utilized for a more spatially complex sound). This test targeted low volume recording, which occurs more frequently than you might think in the industry.

Maybe not quite THAT low though...
I have to agree with Jape. Whilst lower volume clips do have a lot to offer, it helps to have the speakers at least doing some work. Many of these speakers are so stiff that their character just does not come into play at really low levels. And I can see that certainly is the case here, with some of these speakers displaying very "out of character" sounds.
To my mind, if it's not at a level that you would be jamming with a band at (even a quiet band), then it's barely relevant.

[Lefty Lou]

What you're saying demonufo makes sense but, it also makes sense that a speaker's sensitivity (if designed correctly) should allow it to perform equally well at lower volumes otherwise what good is the speaker if you want to turn down? How many speakers must one go through to get a low volume to high volume sensitive speaker A?

[JohanSegeborn]

Hi demonufo!
Any test, which is clearly defined and involves use cases of some occurance is relevant. It is however not complete, why a second test is upcoming. I think the difference in sound is not that big however, and much of that lower mid, bass distortion from higher volumes are lost in the mix anyway. If you work with music you tend to go for whatever sounds good. If you however are interested in music in s more theoretical way and maybe act more through your computer than your guitar, there is another set of preferences, which I totally respect. Thats just not for me though.

Which speakers would you say sounded out of character?

Thanks for your feedback. Perhaps you have some clips of "your" sound that could show me? Cause, you are talking from experience I assume?

Cheers Johan

However in my experience, there are advantages both with high volume recording (where the power tubes are cranked, producing that nice growl) and low volume recording (where sensitive condenser mics can be utilized for a more spatially complex sound). This test targeted low volume recording, which occurs more frequently than you might think in the industry.

Maybe not quite THAT low though...
I have to agree with Jape. Whilst lower volume clips do have a lot to offer, it helps to have the speakers at least doing some work. Many of these speakers are so stiff that their character just does not come into play at really low levels. And I can see that certainly is the case here, with some of these speakers displaying very "out of character" sounds.
To my mind, if it's not at a level that you would be jamming with a band at (even a quiet band), then it's barely relevant.