THANKS Clifford. While I like the blend the most, for more vintage tones I'd suggest the X200 and for more modern sounds the Triple Cone. Why? They are both Full Range, but the subtle difference in the top end adds just a bit more sizzle (and I mean just a bit) on the Triple Cone. And... for a one and done solution, the smaller form factor depth wise on the Triple Cone make that the winner in that it will fit in just about any combo or enclosure. I'll keep an eye on this thread if you've got more questions. Have a GREAT weekend and again, THANKS:)
I've run 2 Katana mk. 1 112 with F12-X200s for about two years now. I run a Variax JTV-69 through a Helix so when I need acoustic sounds there is no limitation. What I can say is it really works, especially when you add lush efx big reverbs and modulations. The clean power of the Katana with this speaker is very impressive, I don't think you'll ever need more. Putting 2 of these speakers in a 212 should work as they come in 8 Ohms, and running them in parallel would be 4 Ohms and should not be a problem. FWIW
Doug/Celestion- I went ahead and bought a triple cone and put it in a used Marshall vs100 1x12 combo. Plugging the quad cortex into the fx return of the valvestate amp results in very muffled and muddy tones with not much volume. For comparison I plugged a separate solid state power amp into the speaker with much better results. I know in the demo you use a VS 80 amp which is a generation older than the VS100, is there any difference in the power amp design of the two?
I had similar results using the power amp in (return) fro Catalyst 200, the amount of headroom dropped a lot, this is not because of the speaker it is the amp, because I have the stock speakers in the Catalyst. At the end I started to use a Harley Benton 212 active cabinet, it is a totally different thing, huge amount of headroom, stereo and now I'm going to replace the stock speakers with F12M-150. I think this will be lighter and do the same job as the F12X-200.
Great video and great playing. Just watched it for the third time:) Would putting one of each of these speakers in a 2x12 cabinet and using something like a Seymour Duncan Powerstage with a modeler make for a great sounding rig? Also in a 2x12 upright cabinet, would speaker location matter?
Thanks Chris! Yes, the combination would be great (cab and power amp), and yes, you'd hear the higher speaker more predominantly if you had the cabinet upright. Ideally, you'd place them 'horizontally'. Cheers ~ Doug;)
Doug, using the Smaller vs 4x12 Marshall cab in the x-pattern and power station 700. My FRFR's are 8 ohm speakers? I'm changing out the recessed cone input jack plate but not sure which jack plate to purchase? Versatile? Is there a preferred wiring to run the four 8 ohm speakers cab load at 4ohms, 8ohms 16? My thought is to future proof if adding another 4x12 cab or not? Should the jack plate include stereo in? Finally..I have the football..recieved all the gear...just need the jack plate.Play it like ya own it brother..Keep'em coming!
In tha A/B test starting at 2:50 which speaker is which? I assume that the one that I hear on the left is the X200 and the other is the triple cone just because of the order of the two frequency response charts. I must say that I prefer the one on the left by much.
Hello and yes, X200 then Triple Cone. The differences are subtle, but audible. And GREAT to hear what other people dig. Curious to know what style/s you play and what made the X200 more appealing to you. Enjoy your weekend ~ Doug;)
I usually play classic rock, so I mainly use clean and crunch. I can't explain why, but I hear a more nasal tone for the triple cone. This is weird to me because, usually, when I face this issue I tend to fix it reducing low mids (less than 1 kHz) but I don't see much of a difference there in the frequency response.
@@plant30 What's REALLY interesting about these speakers is that they are really close sonically, which given the differences in construction is pretty remarkable. And aside from the bit at the top of the EQ spectrum they are visually really close. That said, the subtle differences are there and sometimes it's not about how different something is, but where that difference occurs in the EQ spectrum. For Metal, the Triple Cone the triple cone is just a bit more pronounced in the top end which is good. For Classic Rock cleans and crunch, the X200 albeit subtly (and I mean really) will deliver a bit gentler top end, which for you matters. Please keep in mind the depth of the enclosure itself. The X200 fits in every cab I tried, but not every combo... Cheers ~ Doug:)
Hola Bandido - GREAT question! The JC-120 being a great example, per the original amp, it works really well, I think largely due to the open back nature of the enclosure. The bleed from the back does a lot to keep the JC-120 from being as directional as a 4x12 or 2x12 closed back cab. Standing (or in my case here) sitting in the sweet spot of the JC-120 is luscious for pretty much anything stereo. Obviously the further you get off axis from the center of the cab the more you venture out of the sweet spot of the stereo field. While I mentioned running the Marshall cabs in stereo, I tend not to do that with closed back cabs. With the JC or an open back cab the results are much better, and again that has a lot to do with the blend coming out of the back of the cabinet and the lack of shotgun effect you get when you have an open back. For most stereo work, I do opt for second amps or cabs, but since most of us don't play on giant stages this is a worthy option. I am a stereo nut, and in a smaller environment this works really well and is just one thing to haul around. And in the sweet spot you do get a really lovely stereo image. Hope that helps ~ Doug;)
@@DougDopplerMusic Hola! Thank you for the detailed reply, I appreciate it mate. As I've recently acquired a Quad Cortex I've noticed the plethora of choices to amplify the sound. I'm deciding on something between what you have done with the JC-120 or the power cab route, like the Mission engineering Gemini 2 or maybe 2 x 112 line 6 power cab to get a wider spread. Trying to figure out the right gigging rig between practicality and performance running in stereo is tricky. Thanks again!
@@blondebandido4304 Hello again. And yes, there are a LOT of options. One of the things I REALLY love about these speakers is being able to use some of the combos I've got as an FR solution via the loop/direct in. Just checked, the newer versions of the JC-120 have swapped out the Mains inputs for a stereo FX Loop. And yes, practicality and performance are key - hope you find the perfect solution for you! Cheers ~ Doug:)
I am currently doing my research in preparation to build a frfr rig for my rehearsal space / studio. I am planning to use my amp sim plug ins with my laptop, build 2 frfr 2x12 cabs to run in stereo, but what I can't decide on is the power sorce, to either run a powerstage 700 or a rack mount tube power amp? Something like a Mesa 50/50 or a synergy etc. My biggest concern is loosing the tube feel under the fingers if I go solid state. Your opinion on this ?? Thank you for your time.
Doug, thank you for all these videos!! I am a professional luthier and cabinet maker. What internal dimensions does Celestion recommend for the X200 and 150TC when building a 1-12 closed-back cabinet? Would it be acceptable or desirable to have the back be removable for open-back use? Thanks in advance!
Hallo good morning i have a answer. I have an old Atomic reactor 112 18 watt amp wit original speacker rated at 150 watt . You think Is possibile too change with the frfr Celestion 200 watt? I have Really no idea and Is nothing in Google about this combination. I hope you can help me . When not ok too. Thanks
Doug Doppler/Celestion UK,... I have a Roland GA 212 which has a stereo power amp very similar to the power amp in the JC 120. It has stereo inputs in the back which bypass everything except the master volume. I believe it is the perfect candidate for a pair of the F12-X200 to use with my Kemper Stage. Unfortunately it is an open back combo. A local amp guru quoted me a fair price to convert it to a closed back, including matching tolex and padding. How much difference would that make ? (Edit) After reading a response to another posting It may be better to leave it open back for optimum stereo imaging,.... Any opinions on open vs closed back is much appreciated as the Celestions will arrive next Monday and I must decide, save money with open back, or splurge on closed back conversion, (either way the F12's are really going to top off my entire tone).
Is it still possible to use this with a normal Amp head or it is not ideal? Also, How do you mic this in a live setting or you should connect directly to FOH via your amp sim?
Hi, lovely review. Did you use global eq.? I have the f12-x200 and finding it far too bass heavy with my helix stomp. Do you have any recommendations how to eq (low/high cut) to make f12-x200 sound good? thanks
I output my GT-1000 Core through the FX In on a Valvestate VS100 into a VS112 closed back loaded with an X-200. It's definitely woofy by default, but the GT-1000 was woofy through the guitar speaker too compared to how it sounds direct, say through headphones. Sounds better through the X-200, especially since getting some Celestion IR's. I still have to pull some low end out though, I do this at patch level using an EQ block.
@@jazzapv How did you go mate? I just had a look at the exact EQ adjustments I'm using in the GT-1000 Global EQ...low cut 160k at -1db, mid +1db at 5K (Q4), high cut 20K at +5db. On my rig that killed off the woof and got the standard patches real close to how they sound direct.
@@Techo1329 Thank you, I finally got there. I did as you said (well my controls are low cut/low peak/mid peak/high peak/high cut) so a bit different from yours, but tried to get as close as I could to what you said. Actually it sounds much better. The mid 5k +1db gave it some liveliness to it. So thank you for your help 🙂
Hello September! If you're wanting to use pedals with a modeler and running your modeler in the FX loop (bypassing the preamp section of the amp to eliminate unwanted coloration) then yes. If you're just wanting to use 'traditional' pedals into your Peavey and no modeling (but aren't happy with your speaker) there are some other great speakers in the line that will do that better - these are specifically for the unique amplification needs of modelers - they have the range of PA speaker systems but the response of a guitar speaker. Hope that helps:) Have a great weekend ~ Doug;)
I have same set up QC and 700 I go stereo no cab sims in my Mesa 4x12 why would anybody use IRs live ,,,worthless sounds like shit …no irs live …ever !
