Quick help :) --difference between Celestion Classic Lead and G12-65

[axuality.com]

I am ordering one this morning and need to know sound difference, if you have experience with that.

I have read that the Classic Lead is lousy on clean music since it "has no bass". I play a fair amount of clean, so this concerns me. But it is said to have good attack, which I like.

I don't play metal, but more of a classic rock distorted tone, when I'm using distorted.

Thanks.

[EL34]

When broken in properly, the CL80 has plenty of bass....in fact, IMHO, it's the most balanced Celestion speaker across the entire sonic spectrum. Conversely, the G1265 is very midrange oriented....it has lean bass and subdued highs.

[VanR]

I like the Classic Lead although I find them a bit "stiff" at first. Never played a 65 though.

[blackba]

Originally Posted by EL34

When broken in properly, the CL80 has plenty of bass....in fact, IMHO, it's the most balanced Celestion speaker across the entire sonic spectrum. Conversely, the G1265 is very midrange oriented....it has lean bass and subdued highs.

+1 this is spot on in my experience. Its hard to recommend one over the other with out knowing the amp/cab that the speaker is going to be used with.

[axuality.com]

Thanks you guys. I'm sure I'd love the Classic Lead, but I tried the G12 65 instead. I was afraid the Lead might be a bit too sharp.

[zombiwoof]

When the CL80 first came out, Celestion advertised it as their "American Sound" speaker, because it lacks the mid-hump of other Celestions. I find that it works well in Fenders, but some like them in 4X12 cabs also with Marshalls, etc.

Al

[blackba]

Originally Posted by zombiwoof

When the CL80 first came out, Celestion advertised it as their "American Sound" speaker, because it lacks the mid-hump of other Celestions. I find that it works well in Fenders, but some like them in 4X12 cabs also with Marshalls, etc.

Al

I don't really like CL80's with Fenders. The lack of mids does not suit the BF/SF voicing very well.

[thegame]

Originally Posted by EL34

When broken in properly, the CL80 has plenty of bass....in fact, IMHO, it's the most balanced Celestion speaker across the entire sonic spectrum. Conversely, the G1265 is very midrange oriented....it has lean bass and subdued highs.

I find the 65s have lots of bass. Its not as tight, but produces far more bass than a V30 for example.

[papersoul]

I am going to try a G12-65 mixed with a CL-80 and will report back.

[zombiwoof]

Originally Posted by blackba

I don't really like CL80's with Fenders. The lack of mids does not suit the BF/SF voicing very well.

Many of the "classic" Fender speakers had scooped mids, and the CL80 sounds great in the Super 60 I spoke of. It is one of the few Celestions that has the Celestion sound without the mid-spike that many of them has. Maybe it wouldn't sound as good in a different Fender, but in this case it worked well. Actually, the CL80 isn't scooped in the mids, just neutral. In the Super 60, it added some Brit tonality without totally losing the Fender character.

Al

[rockon1]

Originally Posted by thegame

I find the 65s have lots of bass.

Yeah me too. The G12-65 has plenty of bass. As much as I would want in any guitar speaker.Bob

[papersoul]

So, I have the Egnater Elite 80s which are tweaked CL-80s for more bass to use in 212s. Now, I am tempted to try CL-80s or G12-65s. Has anyone tried G12-65s in a 212 cab? My cab is an oversized 212. I don't want to lose any biggness.

[papersoul]

Which gives a bigger, thicker sound for Marshall and Bogner type amps?

Is the bass on the G12-65 that much more loose compared to the 80?

[pgissi]

Which gives a bigger, thicker sound for Marshall and Bogner type amps?

Is the bass on the G12-65 that much more loose compared to the 80?

Think it depends on what you mean by thicker meaning more lows or lower/middle mids?

The problem with all of the opinions is the comparisons are made with all of the posters individual gear, guitars amps and cabs and ears, not really a great set of conditions or standards for a baseline.

I cant imagine them being dramatically different but where the 65 is no doubt a more midrange dominant speaker and the 80 is a more neutral or flat speaker, my money is on the 80 for slightly more bottom than the 65 if a proper comparison is done and I dont think it has to do with response curves, its more about threshold of breakup in my line of thinking but I may be wrong, I would have to compare

The increased mids of the 65 will mask the lows even though, the 65 on paper has a slight increase in the 100hz range and the 80 has a higher lower mid to upper mid/lower treble plateau, brighter overall than the 65!

open these pages and click on each in the taskbar alternatively to see a quick sumperimposition of the curves

65
http://professional.celestion.com/gu...tail.asp?ID=32

80
http://professional.celestion.com/gu...etail.asp?ID=8


after clicking back and forth, I can see why D tone players like the 65, its slightly darker overall on paper but my ears still say it has more midrangey character

maybe thats thats due to an earlier breakup threshold?

if bigger and thicker is derived of a darker voiced speaker then the 65 should be that but I would expect that may fall apart once the speaker goes into breakup and all bets are off

this is why you need to be a speaker collector, too many variables

[pgissi]

The G12-65 overall has more low end, a slight hump at 75hz or so and even a serious hump way down to just below 40hz

subtle subsonics maybe

the 80 is more efficient at 99db and the 65 is 97db so you'll be pushing the 65 harder for the same volume and into breakup possibly where what happens is harder to predict

both have the same resonant freq and range but the 65's magnet is a meager 35oz where the cl80 is a heavyweight at 50oz

here is my bottom line-

the 65 will surely go into breakup sooner and as we know has greenback like midrange character, with clean tones this speaker should be darker and fatter but into od, will bark with greeny sizzle, mids dominate and I expect the lows to hit some peak

the 80 with its higher power handling and increased efficiency will stay cleaner longer maybe edging out the 65 in the low end dept above the 65's breakup threshold where the 80 is still clean and the bottom is still round, not broken with the heavier magnet keeping it tighter on the low end. I know from experience this speaker has a very balanced crunch and is not mid dominant given its overall plateau response curve from 130hz to 2k which is slightly more than the 65 in this range

I think its less about how much amplitude wise for a given signal level but more about ratio of lows tomids to highs along the response curve and the 80's has that plateau plot

at lower levels the 65 will stay fatter but the 80 will best it in the sheer volume dept staying cleaner, fatter longer then when in breakup, presenting a more balanced tone

just my opinion and if I wanted earlier onset of od that is fatter at lower volume levels, the 65 would be it

I would favor the 80's for loud stages

So my answer to your question-

Which gives a bigger, thicker sound for Marshall and Bogner type amps?

Is the 65 at lower volumes but the 80 at higher volume


Cant prove any of this since I dont have any 65's but it would be fun to try and if I can, will grab a few in the future, seems to be a celestion that passed me by