I've FINALLY found my speaker !

[blackba]

Cool. My '82 65s were my main speakers for almost 15 years and loved them. I've bought and sold 4 or 5 other quads in the last few years, but they seem to be a little inconsistent. I read somewhere they had several different versions in the few years they originally made them.

I have read there are a ton of versions as well. Troublehead, do you have a reissue or ones from the 80's?

 

[troublehead]

Cool. My '82 65s were my main speakers for almost 15 years and loved them. I've bought and sold 4 or 5 other quads in the last few years, but they seem to be a little inconsistent. I read somewhere they had several different versions in the few years they originally made them.

I have read there are a ton of versions as well. Troublehead, do you have a reissue or ones from the 80's?

Reissues

 

[richedie]

They're pricey, but I can't imagine the hundreds of dollars I would have saved if I just bought these a long time ago.

I've tried every Celestion (outside of the Blue and Gold), Eminence (you name it), Weber (1230, 1225, 1265, Silver Bell), Scumback (H75), and WGS (all of the British Series !). As well as every combo of the speakers above that you can imagine.

For whatever reason, these just "work" with my setup and put out the sound I have been chasing for a long time. I was extremely disappointed with the WGS ET-65 so I was a bit leary (too nasally/honky). Wasn't blown away by the Weber 1265 either (too flat sounding). Straight out of the box, these have none of that nonsense. I can only imagine they will get better as they break in. I'm glad I can finally put this chase to bed. Cheers for the 12-65

What didn't you like about the ET65s?

What kind of music you play? Are these british or are they new Heritage versions? I hear they are like Greenbacks in a way. I would love to get some to try. Maybe I will sell my CL80s to score some. Any cone cry issues as I hear with 65s from reports?

Also, check the back of the cone. A good source told me the only G12-65s to own are the ones marked 444 on the back of the cone.
I was told that G12-65s lack low end unless you find the ones with 444 on the cone but those are hard to find because they only came in the Legend cabs.

 

[blackba]

^ Did you read the thread? A lot of your questions were already answered, like that the G12-65's are reissues and what was wrong with the ET-65's (though I would like more detail on that too). Not sure what cones the reissues have, that would be good to know.

 

[ledvedder]

Hmm, now you have me wondering. I have a 2x12 cab loaded with an ET65/Vet30 combo. It has this midrange honk and mushy low end. I was thinking it was the Vet30 that I should look into replacing. Maybe it's the ET65 that I should replace?

 

[richedie]

I wonder how versatile the G12-65s are. I would like to try them with my Bogner Shiva and Mesa Dual Rectifier.

 

[El-Kabong]

Also, check the back of the cone. A good source told me the only G12-65s to own are the ones marked 444 on the back of the cone.
I was told that G12-65s lack low end unless you find the ones with 444 on the cone but those are hard to find because they only came in the Legend cabs.

1777 is the cone number most desired for guitar. 444 cones were used for the bass cab, and usually muck things up some on the low-end, but YMMV.

Love those speakers. I have G12-65's in several cabs, two 2x12's, one with old ones ('82?) one with reissues, and a 4x12 with 2 reissues and 2 WGS ET65's. All sound great, IMO.

Still would love to have back the JCM800 B cab I bought new 30 years ago that had G12-65's. Oh well, gear, it comes in, it goes out...

 

[richedie]

Also, check the back of the cone. A good source told me the only G12-65s to own are the ones marked 444 on the back of the cone.
I was told that G12-65s lack low end unless you find the ones with 444 on the cone but those are hard to find because they only came in the Legend cabs.

1777 is the cone number most desired for guitar. 444 cones were used for the bass cab, and usually muck things up some on the low-end, but YMMV.

Love those speakers. I have G12-65's in several cabs, two 2x12's, one with old ones ('82?) one with reissues, and a 4x12 with 2 reissues and 2 WGS ET65's. All sound great, IMO.

Still would love to have back the JCM800 B cab I bought new 30 years ago that had G12-65's. Oh well, gear, it comes in, it goes out...

Interesting spin on the cone code. I was going by my buddy who I know knows his stuff and says the 444 is the cone to get in V30s or G12-65s. But, your argument makes sense. All I can say is my 444 V30 sounds great.

I am considering trying the G12-65s in my Bogner 212 but not sure how well they will go with my Bogner Shiva. Do you find a large difference between the Heritage and the older Celestions?

 

[El-Kabong]

Interesting spin on the cone code. I was going by my buddy who I know knows his stuff and says the 444 is the cone to get in V30s or G12-65s. But, your argument makes sense. All I can say is my 444 V30 sounds great.

I am considering trying the G12-65s in my Bogner 212 but not sure how well they will go with my Bogner Shiva. Do you find a large difference between the Heritage and the older Celestions?

Well, it wasn't intended as an argument or a theory. ;-)

There was a dude on one of the vintage amp forums a few years back who was a key guy at Celestion for a long time, he was an effing encyclopedia regarding Celestion history, tooling, production methods, etc. I believe the phrase he used was "low resolution 0444 cone", but I remember that the 1777 and 0444 were mold numbers, and the pulp mixture and other items changed for different models using the same tool number, so your 444 stamped cones in a V30 were made from the same type tool, but were likely a different pulp configuration from other cones stamped the same way. I'll have to search around and see if that's all still hanging around the internets, very interesting look into speaker manufacturing, as I remember.

And, IIRC, that bloke from Celestion was where the information on Marshall's use of the 444 (bass) vs. 1777 (lead) cones specific to the G12-65 speakers came from. Some may prefer the 444 cone model, most say the ones from the Lead Model cabs cut through the mix better. Again, YMMV.

As for the tone of Heritage vs. old, I did notice a difference, most likely because the cabs are very different, but as the new ones break in, they seem to be losing a bit of top-end hair and are becoming very familiar and pleasant. At least to my old trashed ears. The G12-65 was originally designed as a higher-wattage version of the Greenback, but they have a tone of their own. I should think they would work well with the Shiva, but you really never know until you try. I will say that having used them with a number of Marshalls, they obviously excel there, and with Marshall modules in my current Egnater MOD 50 rig, they shine. But they also sound great with Fender Bassman and SLO tones. Great for rock, but I do like them for blues. So, I suppose they are at least somewhat versatile. Hell, Robben Ford likes 'em. He has nice tone...

Pricey for new, harder and harder to find good old ones, but I like 'em enough to make them worth it to me.

 

[glassjaw7]

FWIW Avatar sells the Heritage G12-65s for $159 each/$300 a pair. Seems a bit cheaper than most places.

 

[richedie]

Interesting spin on the cone code. I was going by my buddy who I know knows his stuff and says the 444 is the cone to get in V30s or G12-65s. But, your argument makes sense. All I can say is my 444 V30 sounds great.

I am considering trying the G12-65s in my Bogner 212 but not sure how well they will go with my Bogner Shiva. Do you find a large difference between the Heritage and the older Celestions?

Well, it wasn't intended as an argument or a theory. ;-)

There was a dude on one of the vintage amp forums a few years back who was a key guy at Celestion for a long time, he was an effing encyclopedia regarding Celestion history, tooling, production methods, etc. I believe the phrase he used was "low resolution 0444 cone", but I remember that the 1777 and 0444 were mold numbers, and the pulp mixture and other items changed for different models using the same tool number, so your 444 stamped cones in a V30 were made from the same type tool, but were likely a different pulp configuration from other cones stamped the same way. I'll have to search around and see if that's all still hanging around the internets, very interesting look into speaker manufacturing, as I remember.

And, IIRC, that bloke from Celestion was where the information on Marshall's use of the 444 (bass) vs. 1777 (lead) cones specific to the G12-65 speakers came from. Some may prefer the 444 cone model, most say the ones from the Lead Model cabs cut through the mix better. Again, YMMV.

As for the tone of Heritage vs. old, I did notice a difference, most likely because the cabs are very different, but as the new ones break in, they seem to be losing a bit of top-end hair and are becoming very familiar and pleasant. At least to my old trashed ears. The G12-65 was originally designed as a higher-wattage version of the Greenback, but they have a tone of their own. I should think they would work well with the Shiva, but you really never know until you try. I will say that having used them with a number of Marshalls, they obviously excel there, and with Marshall modules in my current Egnater MOD 50 rig, they shine. But they also sound great with Fender Bassman and SLO tones. Great for rock, but I do like them for blues. So, I suppose they are at least somewhat versatile. Hell, Robben Ford likes 'em. He has nice tone...

Pricey for new, harder and harder to find good old ones, but I like 'em enough to make them worth it to me.

Thanks, I have 444 cone (4416 magnet) V30s in my Bogner 212. These are the Mesa Boogie modded V30s and seem to work with my Shiva because they still have some upper mids, but I can hear the upper mid spike that might bother me, or might be fine in the band mix. The Shiva has a fair share of low mids as is.
Tough call! If your Mod 50 works with 65s, I might have to try them.

Which do you thin is more fogiving, 65s or V30s? I was under the impression that smaller dust cap speakers are more fogiving and less stiff. Are the 65s stiff?

Maybe I will just try them in my Bogner and compare to my V30s. Remember my V30s are the Mesa tweaked models so I would think they would work with Bogners too since both have decent low mids.

From what I hear 444 cone 65s are very tough to find!