Speaker Question - Weber Ceramic 1265

Glowing Tubes

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
8,612
Anybody have any experience with the Weber Ceramic 1265?
Im getting ready to purchase a 2x12 cab and I have a choice of two V30's (which I know I like) or One V30 and One Weber Ceramic 1265.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Richard
 

Gary Brennan

Platinum Supporting Member
Messages
1,853
I have one and like it a lot, but as I never have knowingly heard the celestion model (beyond Robben Ford recordings) I can't speak for its authenticity. Good full range, nice and smooth on top. I got it to go with a Fuchs bassman mod thats away getting some work done, and have been using it with a GT Soul-o 75 head/cab as a clean platform for pedals. Not much help I suppose, but I only have positives to say about it.

gary
 

scottl

Member
Messages
17,063
Originally posted by Andersonguy
Anybody have any experience with the Weber Ceramic 1265?
Im getting ready to purchase a 2x12 cab and I have a choice of two V30's (which I know I like) or One V30 and One Weber Ceramic 1265.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Richard
I have both the alnico and ceramic Weber 1265. Both are nice. On the other hand, I totally hate the V30. The harsh spikey V30 mids slay me in a bad way. I like the Eminence Tonespotter best of all fwiw.

Scott
 

tjs

Senior Member
Messages
4,257
scottl said:
I have both the alnico and ceramic Weber 1265. Both are nice. On the other hand, I totally hate the V30. The harsh spikey V30 mids slay me in a bad way. I like the Eminence Tonespotter best of all fwiw.
How does the Tonespotter compare to the two 1265s (alnico and ceramic), and what do you prefer about the Tonespotter?

We seem to have somewhat similar tastes, as the 1265 and Tonespotter are the two leading candidates in my current speaker search.
 

David-R

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
1,790
I replaced the stock speaker in my Carr Mercury with a 1265C. I'm very pleased with it. Strong mids and a smooth top is how I'd describe it. Not harsh at all.

Please note that I don't have a lot experience with different speakers but I chose the 1265C to tame some of the brightness in my Mercury. It did the trick.
 

Gary Brennan

Platinum Supporting Member
Messages
1,853
Scott, do you prefer the Tonespotter to the RWB for Fuchs applications?

FWIW I found the RWB superior to the Weber 1265 for Fuchs applications.

gb
 

tjs

Senior Member
Messages
4,257
Gary Brennan said:
Scott, do you prefer the Tonespotter to the RWB for Fuchs applications?

FWIW I found the RWB superior to the Weber 1265 for Fuchs applications.

gb
What about the RWB did you prefer?
 

Gary Brennan

Platinum Supporting Member
Messages
1,853
The RWB smoothed out the top, and reeled in the bottom. I mentioned to Andy F that it is such a great match for my Bassman 50 mod its hard to believe the RWB wasn't custom spec'd for these amps. He said that the Weber 1265 is a great speaker but not ideal for Fuchs amps. I think ScottL came to the same conclusion re the Weber/RWB choice with his amps.

gb
 

hipfan

Member
Messages
2,301
I have four Weber C1265's - two standard models with the stock 30 oz. magnet and two with larger 50 ounce magnets. The 50 ouncers started out life as C1230's, which I just didn't bond with that well. I sent them back for a recone as C1265's.

I like the tone of the standard ones a lot, but my amp (DST U34-CL)overwhelmed the pair of them with bass response, in a 2x12 configuration. The bass got sloppy, and I think the "M" sized magnet is the culprit. They sound awesome in a 4x12 though, as it seems other smaller-magnet British speakers do, like Greenbacks for instance. I'm going to hold onto them in case I get a 4x12 again some day.

The 50 ouncers sound much like the standard ones tone-wise, but they hold their stuff together better in a 2x12, open or closed back. The larger magnet seems to also make the mids a bit clearer and less "chewy" than the standard ones. Not sure if I miss the chewiness or not yet. I'll have to break them in a while longer before I can truly tell. Oh, and the 50 ouncers seem to be more sensitive as well. They're louder IMO.

I haven't tried any of the Eminence models mentioned, or any original Celestion G12-65's to compare to the Webers.
 

tjs

Senior Member
Messages
4,257
hipfan said:
Oh, and the 50 ouncers seem to be more sensitive as well. They're louder IMO.
How much louder would you say they are? IIRC, the regular 1265s are somewhere around 96-97dB. What do the ones with the 50oz magnets sound like to you?
 

hipfan

Member
Messages
2,301
Hard to really say, but I'd say if the regulars are 96-97, then the 50 ouncers are 98-99. Not sure if it's the improved bass response that's making me perceive increased volume though...
 

tjs

Senior Member
Messages
4,257
hipfan said:
Hard to really say, but I'd say if the regulars are 96-97, then the 50 ouncers are 98-99. Not sure if it's the improved bass response that's making me perceive increased volume though...
So they'd still be a bit quieter, you think, than a G12H (100dB) or the Eminence speakers (some of which get up to 102-103dB)?
 

hipfan

Member
Messages
2,301
Once again hard to say. You'd have to put them in identical cabs side-by-side to really tell. From what I understand, there is no standardized methodology for measuring speaker sensitivity, at least not one adhered to uniformly by the different speaker manufacturers.

For instance, I've heard that Eminence measures sensitivity at a certain frequency point and calls that the speaker's overall sensitivity. I don't think Celestion and Weber do it this way.
 




Trending Topics

Top