Rola 80's vs CL 80's

  • Thread starter Thread starter MikeytheG
  • Start date Start date
MikeytheG

MikeytheG

Active member
Has anyone done a decent shootout on this, or anyone have any direct insight on these. (all the vids ive found are not the best capture) I have CL80s, I dig em, but I have an opportunity to get some rola 80s... wondering if its really worth the money.
 
Only if the Rolas have the 444 bass cone. Very nice, unique speakers. Tons of tight low end, prominent mids and a smooth rolled off high end. A bit flatter sounding than GBs. v30s, or even g12-65s. Rola 80s w/1777 lead cone are more similar to CL80’s but I don’t like either of those.
 
That's good info. I know EJ loved the old 80s to use with his Dumble SSS, which he then would put a TS and a Fuzz in front of. His Dumble was designed to sound like a massive JTM45/100, and was L O U D. Heard it in person back in the day ('86 or so).
 
Only if the Rolas have the 444 bass cone. Very nice, unique speakers. Tons of tight low end, prominent mids and a smooth rolled off high end. A bit flatter sounding than GBs. v30s, or even g12-65s. Rola 80s w/1777 lead cone are more similar to CL80’s but I don’t like either of those.
thanks... this is pretty much exactly what I was lookin for. I think they were stamped with 444 on them, so i feel alot more comfortable grabbing em now. Thanks
 
Nice speakers, very underrated - to me they're better than the 65s and 75s from that era, which get so much more attention. I agree the bass cones are the ones you want,
 
  • Like
Reactions: Geo
Mesa C-90’s are still built like old school CL-80’s. Bob Gjika sources them for that very reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Geo
Only if the Rolas have the 444 bass cone. Very nice, unique speakers. Tons of tight low end, prominent mids and a smooth rolled off high end. A bit flatter sounding than GBs. v30s, or even g12-65s. Rola 80s w/1777 lead cone are more similar to CL80’s but I don’t like either of those.
Nice speakers, very underrated - to me they're better than the 65s and 75s from that era, which get so much more attention. I agree the bass cones are the ones you want,
They are nice; if a little more ‘neutral’ sounding than a 65. But well balanced across the spectrum.
 
Here's a raw example of the 444 cone version. That mid frequency is unmistakable. It's easy to hear how the mid peak on these speakers sits at a lower frequency than the upper mid peak of any V30:

 
  • Like
Reactions: Geo
Mesa C-90’s are still built like old school CL-80’s. Bob Gjika sources them for that very reason.
I have the cm90's (black shadows) in my mesa cab... and when I turn it up, it sounds like a rectum prolapsing... are those different (ie cm-90 vs C-90) cus honestly the ones in that cab do not sound that great to me. I would definitely not compare it to any sound in that anthrax /sabbath cover.
 
I have the cm90's (black shadows) in my mesa cab... and when I turn it up, it sounds like a rectum prolapsing... are those different (ie cm-90 vs C-90) cus honestly the ones in that cab do not sound that great to me. I would definitely not compare it to any sound in that anthrax /sabbath cover.
I believe there's only one Mesa 90w speaker, the MC-90. People just say MC-90 or C-90 interchangably. Anyway, the MC-90 uses the 1777 cone and always has. Again the Rola 80 w/444 is a very different beast than any other iteration of the 80w family and by far the best IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Geo
CL80s are different than the C90s are also different than the 444 G12 80. All 3, different tones.
 
I like the G12-80’s and have two quads. I just checked a spare quad sitting and the cones didn’t have any markings like 1777 or 444. The speaker comes are original though. I could have sworn they all had 444 on them.
Note the tape is to cover the vent holes to prevent dust and dirt from entering while not in use.
1649198223404.jpeg
 
Bygone tones has the Celestion T code list; which also mentions what cone was used.
 
Back
Top