| Author |
Topic: Weber Speakers??? |
Bob Carlucci
From:
Candor, New York, USA
|
Posted 1 Jan 2007 6:27 am |
|
I have swung a swap deal with a fellow forumite .. I am sending him my Eminence/Fender speaker .. Bought from Fender several years ago.. It is whatever speaker they used in the latest model Vibrosonics and Custom Twin.. That is what I asked for when I ordered it direct from Fender... Huge magnet, cast frame etc... It is a very good speaker but for some reason I have grown weary of the kind of dark thick tone it posesses and am wanting a more bright "twangy" speaker... I explained this to my "swap mate" and he says thats fine he likes darker sounding speakers...
In any case, his part of the deal is a Weber California... I have heard of this speaker but know nothing about it.. I do know they came with either ceramic or Alnico magets.. not sure what this one is... If anyone is familiar kindly let me know what you can.. Its no biggie. I plan on doing the deal regardless, but I am just wondering what to expect.. If I don't like it, big deal, I just pass it down the line to someone who will like it.. I would appreciate thoughts on Weber speakers in general and the California in specific..bob |
|
|
 |
Jon Light
From:
Saugerties, NY
|
Posted 1 Jan 2007 9:12 am
|
|
The Weber California is designed to sound like a JBL D series speaker. (Their Michigan speaker is an EV clone, the Chicago = Jensen)
Interestingly, although the JBL is an alnico speaker, the Cali most often referenced and compared with the JBL is a ceramic (but it is also available as an alnico.)
I currently own 7 ceramic Calis in 10", 12" & 15". I prefer the 15" Weber to my D130F--it is more even across the freq. spectrum. It is a pretty neutral speaker--compared with a 'darker' speaker, it would be perceived as bright.
Be aware that Calis are rated for 80 watts. I have pushed the 15" Cali with a 100 watt Dual Showman Reverb pretty hard with no problem. But I'd never put it in a high powered solid state amp. |
|
|
|
Greg Simmons
From:
where the buffalo (used to) roam AND the Mojave
|
Posted 1 Jan 2007 9:40 am
|
|
Jon;
Do your 15"s have the aluminum or paper dustcap (or both)?
_________________
<i>�Head full of this kaleidoscope of brain-freight, Heart full of something simple and slow�</i>
-Mark Heard
|
|
|
|
Jim Sliff
From:
Lawndale California, USA
|
Posted 1 Jan 2007 10:00 am
|
|
DUnno about John's, but my Cli's have paper dustcaps, as recommended by Ted. The aluminum destcap was requested when he first made them as it was more "JBL-like", but many have commented (especially those like me who don't care for JBL's) that the aluminum cap versions have a harsh top end (like JBL's). The paper cap smooths out the highs and keeps you far away from "icepick" territory.
There's also now a larger screen dome that's supposed to be even warmer sounding. I haven't tried one yet, but it'll probably be what I'll try in my Vibroverb.
Weber is pretty conservative in their power ratings. The Cali has a pretty good history of handling things like 100-watt Vibrosonics without trouble. Realistically, you're not going to pump full power very often anyway. But as far as SS amps with higher power ratings, I'd do two things; 1) check that the power rating is actually RMS power and not exaggerated "marketing" stuff, and 2) call Weber and see what Ted can do for higher power handling. If you really need it and he can't make it, he will direct you to a competitor, which is really a good service IMO.
_________________
No chops, but great tone
1930's/40's Rickenbacher/Rickenbacker 6&8 string lap steels
1921 Weissenborn Style 2; Hilo&Schireson hollownecks
Appalachian, Regal & Dobro squarenecks
1959 Fender 400 9+2 B6;1960's Fender 800 3+3+2; 1948 Fender Dual-8 Professional |
|
|
|
Jon Light
From:
Saugerties, NY
|
Posted 1 Jan 2007 10:02 am
|
|
| Greg--I've got paper caps on everything except one 12 that I've got in a SFDR. I haven't had enough chance to fully evaluate that one yet. Although conventional wisdom out there is that you want at least a paper cap on these, if not the large H screen dome (which I've never tried and know nothing about), my preliminary impressions of the aluminum dome are favorable. This DR is a pretty warm amp and can take the extra brightness. |
|
|
|
Greg Simmons
From:
where the buffalo (used to) roam AND the Mojave
|
Posted 1 Jan 2007 10:19 am
|
|
Thanks guys - gonna go with paper - and Jim, luv the Pterydactyl 
_________________
<i>�Head full of this kaleidoscope of brain-freight, Heart full of something simple and slow�</i>
-Mark Heard
|
|
|
|
Bob Carlucci
From:
Candor, New York, USA
|
Posted 1 Jan 2007 10:29 am
|
|
Well.. I don't worry about blowing speakers unless they have JBL printed on them...The ONLY way I would be using ANY hi powered SS amp is with a loaded .357 magnum pointed at my head... If the California's sound is similar to a D 130 I will probably like it...
I was never too crazy about the Eminence, even though I have used it for several years.. I bought it for its superior power handling capabilities actually.. It lacks that glassy top that JBL and EV and various clones thereof possess.. Many steel players like that lack of a glassy top ,, I am one that prefers some serious bite in the top end.... bob |
|
|
|
Dave Van Allen
From:
Doylestown, PA , US , Earth
|
Posted 2 Jan 2007 9:27 am
|
|
Bob- I have a 4 ohm Weber California ceramic 15 with alum dome in my '68 Twin Reverb ... have had it for about 4 years now I guess... after the "break in" period it's mellowed considerably. it started out somewhat shrill... now it's damn near perfect.
I just don't know if you can hang on to a piece of equipment long enough to let it grow on ya  |
|
|
|
Bob Carlucci
From:
Candor, New York, USA
|
Posted 2 Jan 2007 2:03 pm
|
|
| Dave Van Allen wrote: |
Bob- I have a 4 ohm Weber California ceramic 15 with alum dome in my '68 Twin Reverb ... have had it for about 4 years now I guess... after the "break in" period it's mellowed considerably. it started out somewhat shrill... now it's damn near perfect.
I just don't know if you can hang on to a piece of equipment long enough to let it grow on ya |
Oh sure Dave knock a guy down just because I swap gear twice as often as I change my drawers.   .... In any case, the Weber would seem like a nice match for any of the Fender heads I have around this joint...bob : |
|
|
|
Jim Sliff
From:
Lawndale California, USA
|
Posted 3 Jan 2007 6:08 am
|
|
Bob - If you lieke that top-end bite then aluminum is the way to go. I prefer a more midrangey "Les Paul through a Marshall" sound, so paper has worked well to smooth out the top end.
_________________
No chops, but great tone
1930's/40's Rickenbacher/Rickenbacker 6&8 string lap steels
1921 Weissenborn Style 2; Hilo&Schireson hollownecks
Appalachian, Regal & Dobro squarenecks
1959 Fender 400 9+2 B6;1960's Fender 800 3+3+2; 1948 Fender Dual-8 Professional |
|
|
|
David Doggett
From:
Bawl'mer, MD (formerly of MS, Nawluns, Gnashville, Knocksville, Lost Angeles, Bahsten. and Philly)
|
Posted 3 Jan 2007 8:24 am
|
|
My understanding is that, on the old BF and SF Fenders, the power rating on the back of the amp is the recommended power handling capacity for the speaker, not the actual output of the amp, which would conservatively be a bit lower.
Bob, I too have found the Eminence in the Vibrasonic to be too muddy for my taste. I think part of the problem is that it is designed for 200+ watts. Because of the way we steelers use the volume pedal, even a 100 watt amp is rarely putting out more than 50 or 60 watts for us. A 60 watt speaker such as the JBL and Weber Cali is just going to sound better at that volume. The few times I have used the Eminence near top volume with my 180 watt Super Twin Reverb, it sounded better than it did at low volume. But I still prefer the more sparkley highs and better string separation I get with two JBLs at that volume level. I think it is interesting that when manufacturers of 6-stringer amps want high volume speakers, they go with cabinets with four low wattage speakers rather than one or two high wattage speakers. There may be a good reason for that. |
|
|
|
Jim Sliff
From:
Lawndale California, USA
|
Posted 3 Jan 2007 7:54 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
| My understanding is that, on the old BF and SF Fenders, the power rating on the back of the amp is the recommended power handling capacity for the speaker, not the actual output of the amp, which would conservatively be a bit lower. |
It's not really that way, but is sort of true from a practical standpoint. Fender changed speaker suppliers quite often and the actual power handling of various Utah, JBL, CTS, Oxford, Eminence etc. varied. However, the amps DO normally put out slightly less power than noted on the back panel. The power of the amp is really irrelevant to volume, and is a marketing tool only - a "100 watt" amp is only about 3bd louder than a "50 watt" amp, all else being equal. But in the 60's and 70's everyone wanted higher power - "100 watts" being the magic "normal" number for stage use.
Same thing with Marshalls - a 50 watt Marshall is a 38 watt amplifier, usually. But you could not tell the difference except with test equipment - that difference in power is inaudible.
I certainly agree with the idea of using speakers of lower power-handling whenever possible, just as I like the sound of an amp driving hard (to me, nothing is more horrid in the tube amp world than a twin Reverb turned up to "2".). Even running clean with a lot of headroom, a speaker driven towards its upper power limit will always sound better than one being pushed weakly (there are notable exceptions to this, but 90% of the time it's amp 101 stuff).
_________________
No chops, but great tone
1930's/40's Rickenbacher/Rickenbacker 6&8 string lap steels
1921 Weissenborn Style 2; Hilo&Schireson hollownecks
Appalachian, Regal & Dobro squarenecks
1959 Fender 400 9+2 B6;1960's Fender 800 3+3+2; 1948 Fender Dual-8 Professional |
|
|
|
David Doggett
From:
Bawl'mer, MD (formerly of MS, Nawluns, Gnashville, Knocksville, Lost Angeles, Bahsten. and Philly)
|
Posted 4 Jan 2007 11:07 pm
|
|
| I think we agree on all this, Jim, but I think you misinterpreted my ambiguous comment. I didn't mean to imply that the watts printed on the back of Fenders apply to the actual stock speaker in a Fender combo. Rather it was Fender's recommendation for the power handling capacity of any speaker (or set of speakers) one might want to use in the amp. Thus, they always recommended a speaker with a little more power handling capacity than the amp actually put out. So if you compare what's printed on the back of the chassis to the actual measured output, the measured output is always a little lower. From that standpoint, it wasn't necessarily false advertising; rather it was an honest and conservative speaker recommendation. |
|
|
|
Jim Sliff
From:
Lawndale California, USA
|
Posted 5 Jan 2007 6:04 am
|
|
David - that would make perfect sense. I've never heard that one from the Fender guys, but it DOES sound logical.
_________________
No chops, but great tone
1930's/40's Rickenbacher/Rickenbacker 6&8 string lap steels
1921 Weissenborn Style 2; Hilo&Schireson hollownecks
Appalachian, Regal & Dobro squarenecks
1959 Fender 400 9+2 B6;1960's Fender 800 3+3+2; 1948 Fender Dual-8 Professional |
|
|
|
David Doggett
From:
Bawl'mer, MD (formerly of MS, Nawluns, Gnashville, Knocksville, Lost Angeles, Bahsten. and Philly)
|
Posted 5 Jan 2007 11:00 am
|
|
I remember reading this here on the Forum quite awhile back. It could be what Fender was thinking at the time, or it could be pure speculation that happens to fit the facts.  |
|
|
|
