Jensen C12N or C12K for Blues deluxe?

PCalugaru

Member
Messages
1,244
Well if the EQ could universally save the day we would only need the one speaker, wouldn't we? There are different kinds of low end and highend, you know. Strangely the RIs tend to sound garbled without being very woofy and potentially harsh without being particularly bright, in my experience. It's supposed to be bright, really, so that you wouldn't want to turn down the treble other than for taste.
Tex.. this flies in the face of 90% of all critism of SICA/Jensen RI's that ive read. Most say the Jensen RI C12Ns have a harsh treble bite on the top end. So you think Jensen RI's are woofy and harsh without being bright?.. I don't hear it...

When it comes the Jensen RI C12N.. IMO after they get broken in they sound extremely close to the originals.. (I have some originals.. and I'm not alone in my assesment, there are other internet source that say as I) But!!!! I'll add so do Weber's 12F150s and WGS G12Cs.. All three sound really close to the originals.

It's all what one prefers...

I think it's the speaker snob splits hairs over the fact Jensen Ris have a voice coil of 1.472″ inside diameter, 1.125″ form length, .375″ windings width, 8 ohms vs the #6969 seamed cone vintage Jensen VC w/ 1.522″ inside diameter, 1.0″ form length, .375″ windings width, 8 ohms. or....... # 8220 unseamd cone VC w/ 1.522″ inside diameter, 1.25″ form length, .437″ windings width, 8 ohms.

The SICA/Jensen RI C12N is a mixer of both vintage models; It has a thicker voice coil than both vintage models: it has the same coil windings at the #6969 and the same form length as the #8220

Splinting hairs is what T Weber did... and a bunch of people bought into it because he chumed it up with on the phone. A+ for customer service.. F for being bias and splitting hairs...

Let me point out... The SICA Jensen RI has the same outside measurements of 12″ outside diameter, 3.33″ deep, 1.5″ voice coil opening as the originals Jensens...

So the one real difference: Sica/Jensen RI has a modern voice coil that is thicker which created a design change in the cup spider and the dust cap.... With the original Jensen designs : "Were they not prone to the voice coild frying out from heat?" I do believe so... For all we know SICA had this VC already in a few speakers and it was "tried and true" and went with the design.. maybe being a thicker walled VC they believe it dissipates heat better than the original design so the ahesive on the windings doesn't fail as much (when over powered)

My point.. Speaker snobs point to Jensen RI's as say they are not the same... but can't tell anyone how SICA changed the design or why...

Have you ever seen any original Chicago Jensen prints? (Alnico or Ceramic) I'm mean originals ... not an internet slappy posting up unverified specs.. but the actual prints with the licencing, patent no# (if any) with the design changes to the current/final print(s) ?? I haven't.. I looked far an wide multiple times on the internet (using a few metasearch engins).

I had to look at the re-coning kits of the Jensen RI and the two vintage C12Ns model .. then examined what is different.

Did Vintage Jensen C12Ns really use 40oz magenets as Webers? My vintage Jensen are not 40z magenets..... So where's the claim of authencity coming from with some that Weber makes a more authentic speaker.. Did Weber copy one design ala.... say the #8220.. Ok... but he still used a 40 oz magenet (which effects the speakers tonality just as much a voice coil change)

Webers make a great speaker.. Not saying they don't ... but its all subjective..
 
Last edited:
Messages
5,671
Tex.. this flies in the face of 90% of all critism of SICA/Jensen RI's that ive read Most state the Jensen RI C12N have a harsh treble bite on the top end. So you think Jensen RI's are woofy and harsh without being bright?.. I don't hear it... certially not consistant with your previous reviews on the Jensen RI's

When it comes the Jensen RI C12N.. IMO after they get broken in they sound extremely close to the originals.. (I have some originals.. and I'm not alone in my assesment, there are other internet source that say as I)

I think it's the speaker snob splits hairs over the fact Jensen Ris have 1.472″ inside diameter, 1.125″ form length, .375″ windings width, 8 ohms vs the #6969 seamed cone vintage Jensen w/ 1.522″ inside diameter, 1.0″ form length, .375″ windings width, 8 ohms. or....... # 8220 unseamd cone w/ 1.522″ inside diameter, 1.25″ form length, .437″ windings width, 8 ohms.

The SICA/Jensen RI C12N is a mixer of both vintage models outside a thicker voice coil than both vintage models: it has the same coil windings at the #6969 and the same form length as the #8220

Splinting hairs is what T Weber did... and a bunch of people bought into it because he chumed it up with on the phone. A+ for customer service.. F for being bias and splitting hairs...

The SICA Jensen RI has the same outside measurements of 12″ outside diameter, 3.33″ deep, 1.5″ voice coil opening as the originals... So one real difference: Sica/Jensen RI has a modern voice coil that is thicker which created a design change in the cup spider and the dust cap.... With the original Jensen designs : "were they not prone to the voice coild going from heat?" I do believe so... For all we know SICA had this VC already in a few speakers and it was "tried and true" and went with the design.. maybe being a thicker walled VC they believe it dissipates heat better than the original design so the ahesive on the windings doesn't fail as much (when over powered)

My point.. Speaker snobs point to RI's as say they are not the same... but can't tell how you how SICA changed the design or why...

Have you ever seen any original Chicago Jensen print (Alnico or Ceramic) I'm mean original ... not an internet slappy posting up unverified specs.. but the actual prints with the licencing, patent no# (if any) with the design changes to the current/final print(s) ?? I haven't.. looked far an wide multiple times on the internet (using a few metasearch engins).

I had to look at the re-coning kits to a RI and the two vintage C12Ns .. then examine what is different.

Did Vintage Jensen C12Ns really use 40oz magenets as Webers? My vintage Jensen are not 40z magenets..... So where's the claim of authencity coming from?

Webers make a great speaker.. Not saying they don't ... but its all subjective.. Note" I discussed Weber's because you brought up Webers... I could have easly use WGS...
I think you're misreading what I'm trying to say here, perhaps on purpose for me to fit some mental image of a "speaker snob" or something else quite disagreeable.

You have to understand there is bitey highend and there is airy highened. The SICA Jensens have plenty of presence bite, which you mention, but not so much of air to them, which are frequencies beyond the presence range. And looking at the plots of them you can tell their response is nowhere near to that of the originals in the airy region. Simply turning the treble down would obviously lower the air even more. The Weber plots, on the other hand, are/ were spitting images of the Jensen original ones, though perhaps less sensitive. E.g. the peak of the curved seam cone and the later '60s pulp cones have a distinctive shape to the mid hump that would explain why they sound airier - and, need I say, not a bump in the lowend of the SICAs.

I may not be in full agreement with the late T Weber Sr, but he was never a fan of plots but of perceived sound. This is why they don't typically publish plots and preformance specs and the ones from way back since are no longer available for viewing. Furthermore: unfortunately Weber seem to suffer from weak magnets in general, perhaps particulary so with their alnicos (often ceramic or neo boosted because of this), and a tendency of in actuality going slightly below spec'ed magnet weight. Hence the best result is achieved by having them recone a vintage Jensen. Also: could they be using A5 or use subpar alnico alloy, by chance? Speaker alnico should really be A8 not to loaf out so early.

Earlier I did mention the Tesla - JJ parallell, remember. Looking at the construction of both they seem to be made very similarly, probably using the same materials, dimensions and measurements. But they don't perform very much alike, do they? I don't know about you but I'd rather go with something that sounds the part rather then is made to the same specs of the original without sounding like them. That would certainly be listening with our eyes trying to convince our ears that what we hear is the real deal because the specs says so.
 

PCalugaru

Member
Messages
1,244
I think you're misreading what I'm trying to say here, perhaps on purpose for me to fit some mental image of a "speaker snob" or something else quite disagreeable.

I may not be in full agreement with the late T Weber Sr, but he was never a fan of plots but of perceived sound. This is why they don't typically publish plots and preformance specs and the ones from way back since are no longer available for viewing. Furthermore: unfortunately Weber seem to suffer from weak magnets in general, perhaps particulary so with their alnicos (often ceramic or neo boosted because of this), and a tendency of in actuality going slightly below spec'ed magnet weight. Hence the best result is achieved by having them recone a vintage Jensen. Also: could they be using A5 or use subpar alnico alloy, by chance? Speaker alnico should really be A8 not to loaf out so early.

Earlier I did mention the Tesla - JJ parallell, remember. Looking at the construction of both they seem to be made very similarly, probably using the same materials, dimensions and measurements. But they don't perform very much alike, do they? I don't know about you but I'd rather go with something that sounds the part rather then is made to the same specs of the original without sounding like them. That would certainly be listening with our eyes trying to convince our ears that what we hear is the real deal because the specs says so.
Not misreading your post... you often put Weber’s over Jensen RIs claiming “authenticity” .. was I just supposed to read this specific post? If so, then my bad..

You would rather go with something that sounds the part over something made with the same specs? Again .... Then why the Weber authenticity tag on previous posts?

Or did you buy into Weber played semantics with vintage specs? (As so many have)

As far as publishing plots and performances.. that’s the only way of backing up claims like you just made..

Not try to bust your chops.. just giving you my opinion..

You have the floor and the last word..
 

stratzrus

Philadelphia Jazz, Funk, and R&B
Silver Supporting Member
Messages
20,871
I wouldn't judge the speaker until you change the preamp tubes in V1 and V2. Get the proper tubes in there, break in the speaker, and then see if you like it or not.

I had an Italian reissue P12N in my Lacquered Tweed Hot Rod Deluxe and it sounded great. Much better than the speaker that shipped with the regular HRD.
 

BlueRiff

Member
Messages
6,056
I wouldn't judge the speaker until you change the preamp tubes in V1 and V2. Get the proper tubes in there, break in the speaker, and then see if you like it or not.

I had an Italian reissue P12N in my Lacquered Tweed Hot Rod Deluxe and it sounded great. Much better than the speaker that shipped with the regular HRD.
Without question - the Jenson P12N has cavity inducing sweetness in the mids and to OPs concern also a softer bass. Love this speaker.
 

BlueRiff

Member
Messages
6,056
Without question - the Jenson P12N has cavity inducing sweetness in the mids and to OPs concern also a softer bass. Love this speaker.
You might not have noticed - but I’ve introduced a new term into the TGP tonal lexicon... “Cavity inducing mid sweetness’” . This term will likely replace “haunting” mids. This is how disruption happens. I wanted you to be aware so you can say youwhere there when the term was introduced.
 

Rod

Tone is Paramount
Silver Supporting Member
Messages
21,201
Another great speaker for a DR (or any Fender) is the Jensen Tornado Neo. It handles the bass of Fender amps with no flub and never any harsh high end. It has more clarity than most speakers along with a smooth warm, balanced sound. And... it only weighs 4.4 lbs!
I have a Jensen Tornado Neo in my Juke and Bassbreaker 18 combos... sounds incredibly good in both amps. Very well balanced lows/mids/highs. Never flubby.....or harsh
 

Tele81

Member
Messages
558
I just had a blues deluxe that I put a eminence gb128 in. Jans 5751s in v1 and v2 and a 12at7 in v3. I traded the amp to a Friend as I just picked up a Friedman Buxom Betty but with that combo the blues deluxe could hang with amps 3 times the price. 5751s tamed the amp without neutering it. Cleared up gain smoother highs, clearer low end and less boominess with this combo.
 
Messages
6
The p12n is far superior, IMO, even sweeter midrange than the c12n, and lower resonant frequency, so tighter bass. Not boomy at all. The p12n, especially with the bell cover, is much more expensive than the c12n. Otherwise, I think you'd see and hear a lot more of/about them. I love the p12q, personally. That's my compromise between the price of the p12n (almost 300 bucks) and the c12n (85 bucks)... the p12q is like 150. Has the ultra sweet alnico attack and beautifully complex, forward midrange, tight bass, and sweet treble, and lower efficiency than the p12n or c12n, so you can crank the amp up a little higher. Very early breakup... found in some limited edition Fender Blues Deluxes, Deluxe Reverbs, Princetons, etc... If a c12n can come anywhere close to a p12q, it would be fantastic. I am getting one soon for my Fender Champ 12 :) champ 12.jpg
 

Tootone

Member
Messages
5,445
It’s still sounding bassy. I have bass all the way off.
6l6 by JJ
13ay7 by JJ in V1 and V2 ,12AX7 in V3.
Using filtertron pickups
I have a Blues Deluxe ReIssue FSR that has a Jensen P12Q Alnico.

Mine is also very Bass heavy and like you I keep the Bass control all the way down.

There is something else however I did which helped. The design of the amp and cab has the metal Amp housing squeezed in up against the top wood panel (where the handle is). I noticed the amp casing would vibrate against the wood and make a loud horrendous noise.

I took it apart and put a long strip of rubber tape between the two. This certainly made the whole thing less farty/rumbly because a big part of that was "unnatural" cab resonance.



 
  • Like
Reactions: Rod

Gemini2

Member
Messages
1,538
As long as I’m not playing heavy rock or blasting the front end with OD pedals I actually prefer the Jensen RI’s, C12N, P10R’s as far as mass produced American voiced speakers go. I agree they NEED to be broken in.

The Fender/Emi blueframe is my absolute favorite. However it’s only available through custom shop order.
 

Steviecaster

Member
Messages
601
Another great speaker for a DR (or any Fender) is the Jensen Tornado Neo. It handles the bass of Fender amps with no flub and never any harsh high end. It has more clarity than most speakers along with a smooth warm, balanced sound. And... it only weighs 4.4 lbs!
I don't know how this speaker isn't more popular. It's a real gem.
 

drbob1

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
26,820
The thing about switching speakers to try and tighten up the bottom end of that amp is that the problem is NOT the speaker. The problem is that the Fender amp design has poor damping, and if the speaker can reproduce the bass frequencies they will be "wooly and out of control". So, two choices. One is a speaker with DIMINISHED bass response-not sure what that would be. The other is to reduce bass upstream. Preamp tubes might help, although finding ones advertised to "suck bass out" might be hard. Power tubes might make a bit of difference as well. You could use an EQ before the preamp to try and reduce incoming bass. Or you could slightly modify the amp-I think increasing negative feedback would help. Then changing the HPF cap values, but that's way beyond my expertise.

@HotBluePlates, any suggestions?
 

HotBluePlates

Member
Messages
9,724
... @HotBluePlates, any suggestions?
Not really; for the average (non-tech) player a speaker change is the biggest impact they can have, apart from choosing to use a different amp.

The Blues Deluxe Reissue schematic shows large cathode bypass caps, and mostly large coupling caps. There's a lot of bass going through the circuit (for a warm clean sound) unless the Bright Switch is engaged.

The power supply has reasonably-large filter caps so it could be tighter than the average vintage Fender. Amount of negative feedback is kinda tied-up with the Presence control. I would assume there's enough in this amp to keep a speaker's bass-resonance under control.

That just leaves the tendency by Fender to voice amps for the clean sound, which is almost always bass-heavy compared to an amp voiced for distorted sound.

FWIW, I turn the Bass control on all my vintage Fender amps down to 1-2, except for occasional fatter clean sound at home.
 

drbob1

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
26,820
Well, if I'm playing VERY quiet I might have a Fender amp up to 3 on the bass :) But yeah, they all let too much thru and I end up with them all mostly off in louder situations (Fletcher Munson, you know).
 




Trending Topics

Top