@@TheOtherJohnBrowne I don't understand "WHY" you pretend that 2 woofers sound "exactly the same" in the 5 kHz region... 🙄 Until up to 1 kHz the MATCH perfectly! Why this n0n-sense obsession??
Influencers like Glenn Fricker really ought to be more careful when they create hype like that, even if unintentional. This video was great- thanks for the thorough work you put in.
@@TheOtherJohnBrowneu deserve it man, your videos are great I discovered your channel about a month ago just because I wanted a reference for the sound of a Laney VHR 100R and decided i liked the character of the vhr over the ironheart also on reverb was 150 dollars cheaper used
Fascinating video, well produced, and informative. I use a Modeler (HX Stomp), and about a year ago was having trouble taming fizziness on many of my Presets. Brian Wampler replied to one of my comments, and informed me that most guitar speakers have a significant reduction in the frequency response at around 5kHz. This is something I was unaware of at the time. The Speaker Block default "High Cut" on the HX Stomp is set at 8kHz. Lowering the High Cut to 5kHz got rid of the fizziness. Your tests and comparisons really highlight how significant the 5-6kHz range is. Thanks
Good! That's why it's always good to have a broad knowledge of the stuff that makes up the signal chain. May be some lost knowledge if you dive right in to the digital stuff.
Thank you so much getting deep geek with this stuff and sharing with us. I try to think sounds as a complete product where single elements in the whole signal chain have diminishing roles. I have built a few cabs myself, recorded them in various settings and trying to make actual DATA for me to study. Too bad I have nothing saved but a CONCLUSION which your videos give support to: with speakers having this kind of differences between them, the whole difference can be thrown out the window when using a single SM57 as a mic and placing the mic a few millimeters here or there. I just ordered a brand new V30 and excited to see the batch numbers and perhaps making a signal-sweep to measure it and have a look at that 5kHz area
I have a set of 1987.2000,2003,and 2019 V30’s…Mine are all the Marshall variant,but they do all sound a little different…I have two from 2000 that sound smoother than all the rest…I didn’t go down the rabbit hole to the extent you did,but I started out trying to match my 87’s….then I found out the 87’s were my least favorite,Lol!!anyway,great video…Looking forward to the break in video..
At every mention of sample size I was wondering what your shopping cart at various dealers looks like... Seriously though - that level of dedication and detail is just insane - and thus naturally greatly appreciated! Having gotten new speakers this year I haven't been able to place my finger on the whole break-in topic though - so I'd love to see that! Cheers mate!
I will be doing that. Yeah, honestly, this endeavour has been a financial catastrophe and is not sutainable 😂 I hate to buy gear new but I just had to go down this rabbit hole. I had a lot of fun so no regrets but this has been anything than profitable financially
Love your analysis on these speakers as the controversy continues. Unfortunately, most of us that are in the market for the correct version of the V30 don't have an opportunity to look at serial numbers before buying. Maybe in the used market, but not for new, at least this is my perception. The break-in speaker period vid you have planned should be an eye-opener as well! Thanks, John!
Thanks man! Yes, it's very much luck of the draw with new speakers. I ordered the xix new speakers between April and June of this year and their production dates are up to 16 months apart
My hat goes off to you for the your hard work on setting this up, doing the work and analysis and sharing your results. What you're video shows is a few things, and you are correct in pointing out that your sample size is too small to make definitive statements, but the main thing is tolerances during manufacturing. Speaker cones are made from paper and trying to get a composite material like paper to be absolutely identical from batch to batch will be impossible. Each cone will have variances at a cellular level, and there is nothing we can do about that. The luck of the draw analysis is probably the correct one. It was a good analysis to identify that the dust cap is not responsible for this audible change, but the cone itself. Considering our ears are most sensitive to the 2-5kHz region (+/-), this is probably the downfall of trying to find the perfect V30 speaker and expecting that any new off-the-shelf production V30 will be so smooth. That approx. 5-6kHz spike in some V30s is what makes them sound harsh and therefore so different from the 'golden' V30. But, now that I know the 5-6kHz range can be problematic, I can probably correct some of that spike by either using an EQ pedal in my amp's FX loop and cut the 5-6kHz range to minimize how much of those frequencies I push into the speaker, or do the same with post-eq in my DAW.
Great test and analysis. Admittedly not a large sample, but much larger than most of us would have done. Speaker break in especially with the Vintage 30 would be nice to see. I have heard it, but not graphed it, and with a much smaller sample size.
I'm preparing it right now. I have another reamp box on the way wo my primary one isn't tied up for several weeks. As soon as that's here, the process can start
Again, an absolutely fantastic video, and this time more concise, more to the point and sprinkled again with your personality and humour. Enjoyed it alot!
I just bought an ENGL xxl cab with the "new" model v30s early 2022 with the see through dust caps and I have used the mesa cabs in the past with their uk version the new version in the engl sound great however I can not yet form an opinion on the newer v30s because one of my damn preamp tubes are microphonic so I must wait another week to crank my amp and decide. So far they sound at least as good as the v30s in the mesa cabs Ive used. I believe I have used some marshal cabs with the less liked chinese model and they did to me sound shrill and lacking in the bottom end but thats also probably because of the cabs they were in.
Glad I found this vid. I have one of the newer ones that sound great. Was thinking of selling it because its 16 ohm and I need an 8. Think I’ll keep it now!
Hi John! Thanks for all of your amazing work. I couldn't help but notice that like myself, you also have a TwoNotes Torpedo Reload. It is seldom picked as a "shoot-out winner" against things like the Suhr Reactive Load but I am curious to know your thoughts on it. Obviously, it has far more features but if you have any insights of observations to share, I'd love to hear them.
I dunno man. Mendel bij de Leij did a shootout of various load boxes a few months ago of which one was a Two Notes Torpedo Reload and he gave it a favourable assessment. I think it is a great unit and I use it frequently. I do however think that Two Notes missed a few opportunities to make it even sicker: - It annoys me that it doesn't have a thru out for the DI feature. One has to route the signal out of the DAW back into the unit in order to play an amp at the same time and no matter how powerful your computer is, there will be some latency. With a thru out it could be used exactly like a regular DI box. - I wish it had a thru out for a speaker cab. As it is you cannot bypass the internal load like you can on the Captor or Torpedo Live. - I wish it had a line in for the onboard solid state power amp in order to use it on its own, kind of like the Fryette Powerstations have. With that it could be used as a power amp for preamps or be used to create IRs. I am not familiar with the units internals but I can't imagine my three criticisms would have been crazy difficult or expensive to implement and with those three wishes, this already powerful unit would be insanely cool.
Absolute madman/legend, and the best videos on youtube for the discerning tone junkie.. Would the real John Browne please stand up! Also, i am keen to see/hear the D-Moll get some love with your great riffs mate if you find an excuse or another amp to shoot it against! Keep killing it John!
Thanks, mate! I really appreciate it. Don't worry. The D-Moll shall return. I have two ideas lined up: D-Moll vs Fireball (idea credit goes to Behavioural Sink). In a mix and analysis of their mid voicings. I like that as those are Diezels and Engls "entry level" metal amps (if ypu can even say that). I will definitely be doing that at some point. The other idea is D-Moll vs Diezels big 3 (VH4, Herbert & Hagen) but I am still on the fence on that one
@TheOtherJohnBrowne I look forward to the Fireball comparison. Both would be entertaining with your antics mate(like the valve boxes thrown at the Herbert) haha Great work!!
Very interesting results, my most recent V30 is a 31A cone batch, lets hope it's a good one after i install it. Would love to see a before/after break in test, i do break them in before install with a looper as i don't actually play my guitars speakers that often so natural break in would take a long time.
Based on the cone batch no. I thinknit should be one of the smoother ones. I'm about to start the break in test and I will be doing before, after and during sweeps and recordings
I finally got the chance to test the speaker and what can I say. It is finally a tone I can work with. Im so so happy. Thanks for all your work. For me it's safe to say the A41 cone is a smoother one. I finally can compete with Nolly's IRs or even get a better tone with my setup. Now it's time to shop another speaker for the bottom of my mesa cab to have a different flavour. So long!@@TheOtherJohnBrowne
Great video. “Spectre Debunked”😆 Recone experiment would be the cherry on the cake, no? Where you replace the cone of a speaker that is found sounding like modern V30’s with a cone from the Fricker batch and then find it sounds like an early 2000’s V30? 🤔
Actually i seem to like the sound of the year 2000 speaker the best. However, if I were in the situation of having to buy one, I'd go for the 2019 model. The fizziness, that can be heard in your lab environment will be eaten away in the rehearsal room or on stage in no time, and there is alway the posibility of eq'ing things to your liking. And what isn't there can't be added afterwards, so if I should need all those high frequencies for whatever reason, they are there in the case of the 2019, but not so with all the others
Have you ever thought of modifying the fizziness on a v30 by removing some of the doping. I’ve also heard of people painting a thin layer of silicone I’ve the dust caps. Just some fun thoughts.
Thanks for continuing to demystify the v30 mythology.. the celestion rep told me in an email months ago that they haven't changed a thing and any differences are natural from one speaker to the next. Oh and that goes for the supposed "mesa" version speaker too.
just from listening, I think that you are right the feb 2022 are closer to the old ones, but still I think the new ones sound better than the 2019 ones. That could be a total coincidence, but still, maybe they improved something.
I bought 4 the beginning of 2022..all four start with Z.. I was pleasantly happy with them. I bought them to sell an empty Marshall cab I had..i sold the cab, kept the speakers..😂
Great score! Oddly, I had a similar experience. I wanted a cab for testing speakers in. I was going to sell the speakers once I had the cab but they were great Marshall G12 Vintages with Z cones from 2021 and I ended up keeping the all
Definitely do a “speaker break in test” next. Based on your thoughts are you able to at least summarise the proportion of v30s over the last 20 years that sound smoother in that presence area? Eg: is 10%, 50%? Etc etc. Thanks for making this excellent video. Regards.
I can't really quantify the amount but there seem to be two distinct clusters in production period. All of my speakers made between 2000 and 2003 have the smooth character. 2004 is hit or miss and 2001s seem to have the tendency to be quite dark. The second cluster seems to be quite recent around 2021/2022. Look for cones of which the batch designation starts with Z or A (after the numbers for those).
Absolutely love your deep dive stuff. Thank you for making the investment to find the truth! Now you need to go down the deep dive of reconing the ones that sound meh, see if they become magic. And where to source cones from? Incidentally I work in the paper industry so I'm curious to know what the composition is, and why the cones are so different 🤔
I believe it has both to do with the actual wood fibre that varies and changes to the production processes. That is a few more deep dives in there. Let's see how restless I become 😂 Thanks for commenting!
If you run pink noise into two speakers, and adjust one speaker to phase cancel the other, two identical speakers should be perceived as silent, right? They’re not identical but running the best against the worst should get progressively quieter as the bad speaker breaks in, right? Or running two nearly identical speakers out of phase to look for changes. Might not have to listen to the same loop for months, it’d possibly be quieter, might have the same end result by just looking for measurable change.
It's interesting to see the differences, but EQ solves all the issues anyways. Don't bother looking for certain year speakers, just get a well matched pair and EQ to your liking. Throwing an EQ in the FX loop of your amp always does wonders.
Back in the old days, guys would slash the speaker cone for a "better" sound (Hendrix, for example), I wonder if modifications or different cones could help tailor the V30 better, or at least get something new and interesting out of them. I've heard cleaning some of the excess doping off with solvent can change the tone for the better. What makes a cone sound good?
That question isn't easy to answer. I think the cone plays a massive role in that and I imagine it is the most difficult part to produce with consistently. I would say stiffness and mass play a big role which are influenced by thickness, density of the fibres, fibre length, distribution and probably by the process used to form the cone. Doping affects the tone too. The Bad Cat OEM V30s had their doping removed and they were the only OEM V30 that I was able to determine sounded a little different. There are certain paints/doping you can brush onto the speakers that change the tone. Inversely, some people apply fine sandpaper to the cones to change the tone. Johan Segeborn did an experiment like that on his channel. Ignacio from Jensen spoke about the effects of cone thickness in a video on Kohlekeller Studios youtube channel. Both videos are really worth watching
Ok. So if I take an EQ pedal, throw it in the loop and reduce the volume in the 5-6k hertz range, should that reduce the fizz as well? I guess I learned something! Thanks man 🤘🏻🤘🏻🤘🏻
Great video! The one thing i'd still like to know is, since we now know the major difference is in the 5-6kHz range, can you eq the differences away? If yes, i wouldn't care too much about the batch. I'd just use some eq to get the sound i want.
I am not great at mixing so I can't say for sure. At the same time, I don't see a reason why not but supposedly it's best practice to get it right at the source level
I have a set of new production speakers that I just got from Mesa and the cone reads 37A-0444. I was wondering if you had any in your shootout that matched that.
Dear john, from my long experience with spectrum analysers (+20 years now) , yes they shows what we are hearing and helps us visualysing it, but we always hear things that somehow don't translate in graphs. Remember they make some interpolation of peaks and rms ... (2 + 4 )/ 2 = 6 the same way (4+2) /2 =6.... getting my point? give less importance to the graph and more to what you're hearing! Very nice video though!
Cool! What's your background, mate? That's pretty much how I used the graph tools - to guide me to areas I need to listen closely to by using filtering to isolate certain frequency bands. In my opinion it lined up pretty well with the audible differences and Voxengo SPAN and REW pretty much delivered the same results. Can you hear anything in particular that is not accounted for in the graphs?
@@TheOtherJohnBrowne you're using the right tools and aproch but I remember there's a ponit on the video we're you kinda change your mind due to what you're seeing, not what you're hearing! I'm sure you know that's the most common error for sound engineers. I do it also, but I was fortune to start in the old analog/ tape world.
There was an OEM version of the Vintage 30 made for Hughes & Kettner in the early 2000s and possibly late 90s. These however are long out of production. All other V30 have and have had 444 cones. I show some of the H&K speakers in this video ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EhrSlRhFsR8.htmlsi=R8jbPOwcM5L9NELU
Seems like the mass of the cone might impact the frequency response. If the highs are harsh, what would tape or drum dampening gel like moon gel do to the high frequencies? Differential effects of inertia and momentum on a cone’s frequency spectrum and whatnot. I’m sometimes curious too about how the number of frequencies coming through a speaker affect any particular frequency, if at all. Will a harsh and a soft speaker respond the same way to a sine way oscillating only one harsh frequency? Or do other simultaneous frequencies from the same speaker affect the harsh frequencies?
These are great questions for follow up tests. Reducing or increasing the cone mass definitely will affect the sound. That's why speaker doping is a thing. Johan Segeborn took some sandpaper to a Greenback reissue in one of his vids a few years ago and the effect that had was very noticeable if I recall correctly.
For me, I much prefer an Eminence to Celestion. I have a few Eminence models in 12s and 10s. The Eminence GB 12 and Governor in a 2x12 box is much smoother, but I know many like the Marshall/Celestion sound. One mans ice pick is another's ice cream.
I have a early 90s 1960 cab with 4 v30s in it, made in UK and they sounded like the 2019 models. Now i know theres not realy a "difference" with the mesa uk celestions. But the mesa sounds more like the early 2000s one.
I remember there's a ponit on the video we're you kinda change your mind due to what you're seeing, not hearing! I'm sure you know that's the most common error for sound engineers. I do it also, but I was fortune to start in the old analog/ tape world.
I changed my mind in regards to context. In the previous large test I had placed that speaker more with the 2004 to 2020 speakers but on further inspection it did sound smoother than those in this test.
@@TheOtherJohnBrowne many shades of V30s and to me the vast majority sound pretty good and useful, if your willing to move some knobs (just a couple of dbs)!
While all the speakers still sound different I'd put the early 2022s in the category or aggressive compared to the harsh and noisy 2019 and the later 2022 models. Some are smoother than others but I'd be happy with any of them but that 2019 speaker and what seems like the newest ones especially one of those 2022 december speakers hurts my ears and is everything about v30s that got hate for years. If celestion can't be consistent at least can they reissue the v30mf because that speaker rocks and has room to be slightly harsher.
I agree but the more I dig, the more I suspect that Celestion can't be blamed. I get the impression that 90% of the variance I have seen in my tests come from the cone. Maybe Celestion is at the mercy of the cone manufacturer here. I believe Celestion had a surplus of Vintage 30 MFs but as they were Marshall OEM speakers, they couldn't be sold as such so the relabled them. I am 99% sure that the G12-60S Special Edition is a relabled Vintage 30MF. TAD had them for a while and I believe there is a retailer in Spain that still has some and is selling for lesd than what a regular V30 costs.
@@TheOtherJohnBrowne interesting, I've seen the tad ones but they are all being sold for super inflated prices online along with the Marshall labelled ones. Might have to do some more digging. That makes sense most of the biggest changes in celestion history are the cones, it's just such a sensitive range for guitat that it almost sounds like a different speaker when the cones differ.
Meant to ask- Did you notice any patterns/differences in the U.K. vs. Chinese-made V30s during your journey? Or do you believe that too boils down to cone composition?
If they were made during the same period i.e. used the same or similar cone batches, they were pretty much the same. I have since been told by reliable sources that they use different glues in the UK and China speakers which have a minimal effect on the tone but that is so small that is drowned out by manufacturing tolerances. For all intents and purposes UK made and Chinese made speakers from the same period sound the same
an addendum to your conclusion at the end of the video (or inconclusion haha), from your list you can see that both china and uk from the early 2000s are good, at the same time as those from the 2010s', china or uk, are bad (general speacking took by your comenst on the list). I think the tip is to look for the old speakers, or try your luck with the new batches from 2021, 2022, some of them were actually good.
Since the difference seems to be pretty well defined, can the presence/treble eq on the amp or daw compensate to make them indistinguishable? The differences were so pronounced, I could clearly hear the differences on iPad speakers. But I’ve heard this kind of fizzyness on real amps and it wasn’t hard to compensate for.
I've been wondering that myself to be honest. I haven't mixed/post EQ'd guitars in years and I keep hearing stories from producers that just can't get later V30s to sound liie the golden age but ton be honest. I don't see a reason why one or the other EQ method wouldn't work. You know what? I'm going to make another test about that.
@@TheOtherJohnBrowne maybe it would be another video, but you can also try tricks like putting things between the mic and speaker like tissue paper, paper towels, wash rags, sponge and so on with increasing absorption to see how that takes the treble. I worked with a guitarist who used various layers of tissue paper (not Kleenex, but that super thin paper that is nearly transparent) to tame the treble because he claimed EVH did it.
Celestion just cobbles all their jank together with whatever they can get their hands on. Their quality control isn't thorough enough to say the least.
"It's all in the cones and composition of the cones. Which changes from batch to batch." - Which begs the question do other manufacturers experience the same issue, or is it a product of the way Celestion defines their tolerances? Also has me wondering if Celestion has more than one paper manufacturer contracted, which might explain some of the variances.
@@TheOtherJohnBrowne My hunch is that they all "suffer" from it to one degree or another. The paper has wood product in it (plus whatever other materials) and like back-to-back guitars coming off the assembly line, wood will sound different no matter how hard you try to minimize it. Once again, absolutely amazing work and dedication on your part. I would think you've got some sales and engineering folks sweating a bit at the Celestion offices!
@@divebomb99 This would be the way to truly answer if the differences are from manufacture or not. The only thing I'm skeptical about is the fact all the speakers are identical up to about 5k. So what are the chances that the variations in cone material only affects this range?
@@3rett115 Good stuff. We can only guess. My guess is that it's the way the speaker materials resonate and/or react at those naturally occurring frequencies. Then the other half of my brain tells me that when we get to this level of dissection and analysis that it's time to cut the cord and get back to focusing on the fretboard! haha. 🙂
My theory is that it has to do with the stiffness of the cone. Most guitar speakers frequency responses are only specified up to 5 kHz. Most speakers efficiency take a hefty dive at that point. I believe more or less stiffness in the cone could shift the point at where this drop off happens in one or the other way. Stiffness could be affected by the material composition and/or the production process
I muted my vocal mic in editing when the speakers samples were being played and only blended it back in when I said something while a sample was playing. The voice over and the screen recording with the speaker samples were recorded using two seperate computers. There was no microphone connected to the main computer playing back the speaker audio at the time of recording the screen so it seems unlikely that there would be bleed from the headphones
Yeah I saw that video. Very cool results. I figure that alters the stiffness and to an extent the mass of the cone which will habe a noticeable effect on the tone
Cones are paper…paper is wood…all woods are different…each batch will be different…so every speaker will be different. Thats my simple brain conclusion.
Actually just one. I think I have an 8 Ohm V30 from 91. I don't think I have tried more than the one from 91 or ones 1990. I like the sound of it though
I think the biggest thing we've learned is that everything Glen Fricker says needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Opinions are like assholes, and some people have bad gas. My opinion has been the same for 40 years. The condition of the speaker, and specifically the actual cone assembly itself, will go through its natural break in period, differently, everytime, guaranteed. The variances being measured all fall into the acceptable range of normal frequencies for the speaker. In other words, find speakers you "think" sound good/better and swap them into your favorite cab, like every good guitarist has forever, and rock out. Peace.
it makes the most sense it's just supply chain issues giving the 2019-2022 lockdowns - in general I've seen a lot of quality discrepencies in lots of products and for the business where I work there have been issues getting and the same supplies or even same quality supplies - especailly in regard to cardborad boxes - since cones are made of paper it'd make the most sense that for a time they had to make a slight change in materials - I do thing were going to see much more variances like this in the future as well. The other factor could possibly be - idk if you did any electrical tests on the speakers, but I'd be curious how much of a variance there was in the actual magnets - or if the older speakers have the same freqencies compared to the newest ones - magnets do lose charge over time in general as well as if they are dropped so it could be a factor in the sound as well - they could have a different metalergy blend as well - there's so many factors aside from ripping them apart and testing everything idk you will get to the bottom of it - but I think we can assume the change was due to supply chain issues as well as we can probably expect more change in future speakers. I suppose that's partly why I'm kinda partial to eminence since they are largely still assembled in the US Also I'd be curious your opinion - I've kinda always really disliked the celestion 70/80's speakers - the speaker not the era in time - but it seems for metal that'd be more the sound your might want? Is that the case or are those even still too muddy for metal?
I like your theory about the supply chain issues. It sounds entirely plausible and likely to me given the circumstances of the time. I was not able to test things like the strength of the magnets as I don't have the means. At the same time I believe ferrite magnets as used in these speakers lose their magnetism so slowly that many consider them to have almost permanent magnetism. I did check the DC resistance of all of the V30s I had and the values were pretty much identical. I suppose I could have checked the inductance too but didn't think of that. I am convinced the variance mostly comes from the paper cones. We're pretty decent at metallurgy as a culture at least for these applications and are able to manufacture metals and coils very consistenly which is why I don't believe it's the magnets and/or voice coils in this case. I appreciate all your insightful and detailed comments!
The ones that have Z batch and early xxA batch cones likely will. There doesn't seem to be any difference between Mesa and regular V30 other than production location (which doesn't appear to affect the tone in any significant way) and the orientation of the sticker on the back cover.
My transparent dustcap v30 has 37a-444 on the cone. Date code is CH18. Guessing it will be a lot harder to identify a "good" one short of hearing it...
@@TheOtherJohnBrowne Do you think there will be a diffrence in sound between the same speaker but diffrent impedance? I want to buy one, and my amp can handlle both so I'm curious if should choose one over another . Thx
