Ultimate Twin Speaker

I know this has been done to death, but I have not seen it recently, sooooo......

So just like it says, what do YOU concider to be the BEST all around speaker for a Blackface/Silverface Fender Twin?

Weber, Eminence, Celestion, Jensens, JBL, someone else?

Well, someone posted that a pair of Jensen Neos took 17 pounds off their Twin. That's gotta go in the plus column.

gotta be the 2 JBL D-120's I put in last year. They're the early models, grey frame, etc. They add a sparkle that I haven't heard anywhere else (in my limited experience!)

For what I want, the Altec Lansing Alnico 417's work great. I had them reconed with paper dust covers since I don't like the hatshness of the alumminum covers. Joeman335td has me thinking I need to recone some grey JBL's the same way to see what happens.
I am the one who did the weight comparison that Joe Bob mentions; and if you are looking for the big sound and sparkling highs of say a Jensen C12N, the Neo performs well. I would place it sonically between a vintage C12N and an EV. Long term.....one of my pro customers has just put some Neo's in a UL135TR and will be reporting back as time goes by. If you are concerned about the weight, Neo's are definitely to be considered, imho. As Joe Bob said, between the Neos and the Altec Alnico's, there is a 17 pounds difference.

I recently put a pair of Celestion Vintage 30's (actually Avatar "Hellatone 60's, which are broken-in V30's) in my "Blackfaced" '69 Twin. I am VERY happy with these. I get a nice, warm clean, and a little "Hair" when I turn it up a bit. Less brittle highs too.

The CS Dual Proffesional's use these V30's as well.

I HAD a pair of JBL D-120's in there. Call me a heretic :twisted:

I have a pair of Altec 417-8Hs in my '65 and they aren't ever coming out. These AlNiCo speakers do some real nice things in a BF circuit.

Since I've read a lot of bad info on these speakers on the net the past few years, here's a link to get the specs straight from the mfg.: http://www.lansingheritage.org/images/altec/catalogs/1972-mi/page04.jpg

They also sound killer in a Deluxe Reverb.

Cheers,
--
Don

A friend has an Altec 417-8 in his old 60's Ampeg Reverberocket. It sounds great, it's LOUD. Check out the sound clips of the thing on the link below.

http://www.mighty-mike.com

Idylldon and Tremo, do you find that the Altec's create a totally different sonic pallette compared to Jensens/EV...almost anything else. I have 417's(one A and one B..I can't tell the difference visually or sonically) in a '67 TR. I find that they are less efficient, have a less pronounced low end and compress the high end, thereby creating more of a midrange in the TR. I achieved the same type of effect yesterday for my good friend John Sprott by changing the tone stack values. He wanted more mids and we got them. He is the fellow that is running the Jensen Neo's. He is now in tone heaven with his latest TR. He came in carrying the TR with the Neo's in it at such a pace I had to do a double take to see if he had his DR instead. I had to laugh. You just don't carry TR's that way, do you?
I have an Altec H back there that needs reconing. I suppose that I need to get these old Alnico cast frames going don't I?

Idylldon and Tremo, do you find that the Altec's create a totally different sonic pallette compared to Jensens/EV...almost anything else. I have 417's(one A and one B..I can't tell the difference visually or sonically) in a '67 TR. I find that they are less efficient,

I haven't done a direct, real-time comparison, so I can't say whether they are more or less efficient. In the Twin's case, efficiency really isn't a problem. :D

have a less pronounced low end and compress the high end

This is contrary to what I've heard with them. The bass response is tighter and more defined in my experience, and the highs don't have the JBL-like shrillness that I don't really care for. We all hear things differently, though, so everyone's mileage may vary for sure.

thereby creating more of a midrange in the TR.

I do think the net result is along these lines in my TR, but I don't think it comes as a result of compromised bass or treble response.

I achieved the same type of effect yesterday for my good friend John Sprott by changing the tone stack values. He wanted more mids and we got them. He is the fellow that is running the Jensen Neo's. He is now in tone heaven with his latest TR. He came in carrying the TR with the Neo's in it at such a pace I had to do a double take to see if he had his DR instead. I had to laugh. You just don't carry TR's that way, do you?

Well, one thing the Altecs aren't known for is being light. Sheesh! They add a lot of weight to an amp that's already heavy.

I have an Altec H back there that needs reconing. I suppose that I need to get these old Alnico cast frames going don't I?

Give 'em a good try. If you don't like them, you can usually at least get your money back out of them. They seem to sell easily on ebay and the boards. I know I've missed a few because they went so fast!

Cheers,
--
Don

idylldon wrote: "
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 8:39 am


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wally wrote:
Idylldon and Tremo, do you find that the Altec's create a totally different sonic pallette compared to Jensens/EV...almost anything else. I have 417's(one A and one B..I can't tell the difference visually or sonically) in a '67 TR. I find that they are less efficient,


Idylldon responded: "I haven't done a direct, real-time comparison, so I can't say whether they are more or less efficient. In the Twin's case, efficiency really isn't a problem."

Don, I did real time comparisons with the Altec 417(A&B) in a BFTR with some'65 Jensen C12N's and EV's. The Jensens were in a SFPro REverb cab and the eV's were in a '65 TR, so the cabinets were virtually identical. I ran the speakers from the same amp and left all settings the same; and the differences were dramatic. The Jensens and EV's put out much more volume than did the Altecs. The bottom end was tighter and more pronounced with the Jensens and EV's. The Altecs had a compressed, smooth high end. The jensens were shrill in comparison with the EV's being a bit more subdued than the Jensens but not compressed as with the Altecs.
As you say, efficiency is not a primary concern with a TR...as long as you are tlaking about making lots of volume. The difference with the Altecs was that you could turn the TR up without blowing walls down. Therefore, you could get the amp to do some breakup without ruining your ears. In that sense, efficiency can be a concern. I like being able to push the TR without causing ear damage. IT was an interesting experiment.

If your Altec 417s are "inefficient", then I'd say the magnets are probably down and need to be recharged.

As you know these are alnico magnet speakers. Well, as Ted will tell you, alnico can be de-magged rather easily by subjecting them to very high power or to mechanical shock. If your magnets are weak, that would explain the low efficiency and high compression. I personally have seen that happen on a JBL D130. Once that D130 was re-magged, it was a night and day difference.

The reason I believe your magnets may be down is because of the following - As I mentioned in my above post, my friend Mike Schermer has one of these 417s in his old mid-60s Reverberocket. The Reverberocket uses a pair of 7591 output tubes in hot cathode bias, and at somewhat low plate voltages. I have measured the output of his amp at 20 Watts at the onset of clipping. And yet, that amp is none the less quite loud. Plenty loud enough for use in medium size clubs, un-miked. In contrast, my 64 BFDR puts out slightly more than 20 Watts (22 or 23 or so), and yet is not quite (almost) as loud as Mike's Reverberocket. I'm running an old late 50s P12N. That should tell you that the 417 is a bit more efficient than a P12N. Mind you I can use my amp in the same size gigs, but I have to turn it up to 6 or so, and she's overdriving and compressing quite a bit. (Gotta love those bomb-proof JJ 6V6s! Thank you Bob and Jamona.)

I hope all this makes sense. Based on what I have observed with Mike's 417, to me they appear to be quite efficient. If your's are not, I'd suspect something is wrong.

How do they sound in general (assuming the magnets are full-up and the cones are in good shape), is somewhat like a JBL, with perhaps not quite as much high end sizzle. Listen to the soundclips on MIke's web page, particularly the older stuff. Mind you the Reverberocket is not known for big low end response, as you will hear. Ampegs were voiced completely different from Fenders, they were brighter.

If you'd like to have your magnets recharged, you might be able to talk Ted Weber into doing it, or maybe Ron Veil (Uncle Spot), and there is a speaker repair house in SoCal with a magger. Actually, I have several old alnico magnet speakers here at the crib in boxes, with down magnets. They all need to go get recharged, including a pair of original early 60s P10Qs. I must have at least 6 speakers needing help.

Tremo, thanks for upsetting my apple cart! :lol: 8)
Now I have to choose between some inefficient, weak magnets that make a wonderful sound that I find very usable in my TR and actually preferable to what I heard in comparison to the C12N's and Ev's out of the same amp or remagnetized speakers performing as designed but maybe making too much volume and too much high end....and hey too much bottom end, also. Here I thought I had found the answer to a TR that was too loud, too boomy and too bright! :D
I guess I could have the magnets pumped up and then do the tone changes to bring the amp into that midrange realm, eh? Skinning cats is more complicated every time you need to do it, right?

Idylldon and Tremo, do you find that the Altec's create a totally different sonic pallette compared to Jensens/EV...almost anything else. I have 417's(one A and one B..I can't tell the difference visually or sonically) in a '67 TR. I find that they are less efficient, have a less pronounced low end and compress the high end, thereby creating more of a midrange in the TR. I achieved the same type of effect yesterday for my good friend John Sprott by changing the tone stack values. He wanted more mids and we got them. He is the fellow that is running the Jensen Neo's. He is now in tone heaven with his latest TR. He came in carrying the TR with the Neo's in it at such a pace I had to do a double take to see if he had his DR instead. I had to laugh. You just don't carry TR's that way, do you?
I have an Altec H back there that needs reconing. I suppose that I need to get these old Alnico cast frames going don't I?

I always change the ceramic 250pfd treble cap to a silver mica 250pfd. I used .022's in the mid and bass cap positions. You can also change the slope resistor to 56K to see if you like that. The .022 is not written in stone. You could experiment with other values, but these worked in this situation.

I have a Weber 15" California with a paper cap in my '67 Twin, it sounds great with pedal steel and even better woth a Tele!

EV12ML :wink:

avatar was blowing them out at under 40$ I think..
they are four mounting hole baskets though...no prob with a later twin you just pull the grill baffle and back out the extra screws..

loud...crisp..not celestion sounding for sure! The right price and the right usage

Those Celestion G12H80's are wonderful, and Weber's are as well.

I always change the ceramic 250pfd treble cap to a silver mica 250pfd.

Wally,
Now I know that a silver mica cap is a better cap but can you hear the difference???

-Tony