-
An earlier post reminds me that I've posed this question a couple of times before and didn't get a meaningful response (except from lespauldeluxe, who has committed to make a few measurements if he EVER gets his 15 inch speaker).
I've looked at the Weber website, lots of people regard the products highly so naturally I'm interested. I understand that the founder recently passed away, that's a shame, we lost a knowledgeable man in an area that, with a few exceptions, hasn't produced many notable figures.
I base this comment on reading his forum posts on his website. He addressed speaker questions with an enviable amount of knowledge of the subject and an ability to express technical material with articulation. It's very difficult for me to reconcile his writings with the section on the website that offers and describes his speaker products.
On the website are descriptions of the speakers, expressed in meaningless terms that appear to be focused on a teen male audience that become glassy-eyed if a "specification" is mentioned. Here's a hypothetical problem: if we want to select a speaker for a specific application, how would we do so if we were interested in Weber products ?
One can look at a website concerning the Jensen MOD 10 (or whatever), examine the measured performance curves and get an idea of how loud the speaker will be over a specific range of frequencies, driven with a certain amount of power. But how can one then compare the Jensen with a similar size, similar cost Weber speaker that has "well-defined crunch, articulation and sledgehammer midrange" (using terms that are typical on the website) ?
I guess really my curiosity makes me wonder how an unknown speaker designer obtained a seemingly loyal following when there is no way to evaluate his products other than buying and trying one out ? Does anyone know ?
Thank you,
randyc
-
11-23-2009 10:12 PM
-
yeah I think like you, Weber website is very (too) light for speakers : no graphics, no samples, ... It just says it's well for replacing this Jensen or this oxford.
So, for a lower price, I ordered an original Jensen Speaker. And, I 'm very happy with it.
-
That's a good question (again)! I had a Weber California 12 (ceramic magnet, paper dome) in my Rivera R55-12, and I was extremely pleased with it. Why did I get it? I think there had been a lot of positive comments on the TDPRI (Telecaster forum). I wasn't thrilled with the stock Celestion in the amp, and the 'Cali' was described as being 'like' an old JBL, so I gave it a try. Well, it wasn't exactly like a JBL, but sort of in the ballpark. That's my only experience with Weber speakers, but it was a positive one - I'd get that speaker again if I was considering a replacement. Anyway, with his high power series, he describes them in terms of what they're supposed to emulate: California = JBL, Michigan = EV, etc. That kind of description works for me, if I have experience with the original.
Last edited by Tom Karol; 11-24-2009 at 08:54 PM.
-
Yup, still waiting -- I got the speaker I ordered, but they mounted it in the wrong cabinet (I ordered both from Weber). It was a California Ceramic 15" (described as a D130F clone, but then, every speaker maker says their fifteen is a D130F clone), and in the event, it was responsive, with a focused top end and a rich low end; notes on the A and D string above the ninth fret that sounded recessed on other speaker/cab combinations in my menagerie were present, with the strength related to the pick attack. This is the rig I will be using with my 335 with Gibson '57 humbuckers.
I was really sorry to send it back, but the head I am using with it overhung the speaker box by several inches on each side, and I knew that, every time I looked at it, I'd be disgruntled. I hope to get the replacement in a week or so.
There is a web site where T A Weber (Ted's son, now operating the company) will answer questions: Amps n More - Index
I relied on their reputation when I ordered, knowing I could return it...now I sort of wish I had ordered two of the smaller cab, and set the head across them!
Anyway, I'll update this as events transpire.
-
I ordered my first weber speaker based on good reviews. Second based on the first.. third based on the first two.
The 4 I will order in the spring are based on a)excellent price compared to comparable Jensens b) excellent customer service over the past 2-3 years. c)My experience with current productions jensens in my ProJr and my brother-in-law's GuitarMate.
I understand Randys troll where jensen provide tons of curves, mechanical compliance figures, total q factor etc. These things dont mean as much to me as terms like midrange punch, early breakup etc. It does make sense to provide these figures to the users but is at the discretion of the manufacturer. I am sure he has lost a couple of sales because of this. Next time I have an order I will ask TA about this (reminds me of old traynor marketing literature from Traynor that refused to include output power specs for their amps).
-
I totally understand this line of logic, and find it to be much like trying to buy after market pups. SD has the profiles, and descriptions of their different pups online, along with sample clips. While helpful, there is still a certain amount of risk involved. After reading a bunch of review, checking clips and youtube demos, I make a decision.
So too with speakers. I have spoken on the phone with the good folks at Weber in the past, and got quite an education. I have also had similar positive experiences with Eminence, so I tend to gravitate toward those two brands first. However, it is not to say that others aren't as good or even better. I just know that I don't particularly care for any Celestion I have had.
-
Eminence's web site is better as far as data goes: they indicate some basic things like the sensitivity and resonant frequency and a bunch of stuff I have no idea what it means
In jazz we want later break up, right? While in rock they often want the complete opposite. It would be nice if a company, among other information, ranked the speakers in break-up order, but it may not be as simple as that.
-
The time I called Weber, I got a whole education on speaker efficiency and how that effects performance, loudness, etc. I had no idea.
Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
Eminence's web site is better as far as data goes: they indicate some basic things like the sensitivity and resonant frequency and a bunch of stuff I have no idea what it means
In jazz we want later break up, right? While in rock they often want the complete opposite. It would be nice if a company, among other information, ranked the speakers in break-up order, but it may not be as simple as that.
-
That's a fair position to take BUT how do you compare one company's "midrange punch, early breakup" against another conpany's claim of "heavier midrange punch, earlier breakup" ? I'm NOT trying to lure you into an indefensible position, I just want to KNOW how people make comparisons between two speakers when there are no SPECIFICATIONS. Originally Posted by dh82c
A marketer can say anything he/she wants to about a product and, unless it violates FDA rules, NEVER get called on it ! Truth in advertising laws are a joke, just watch late-night television any night of the week and see what miracle products are available for $19.95 + S & H.
-
Uh...er...I still use my Propeil Pocket Fisherman, AND the ginsu knives that came with it. Originally Posted by randyc
-
Randy, go to your collection of amps and pick one. Now describe how it sounds.
-
Well, that would be my WHOLE POINT Originally Posted by dh82c
It's not possible. In order for you and I to have a meaningful discussion regarding amplifiers and speakers, we each would have to own the same amplifiers/guitars. So that when you said "It's as sharp and clear as a '59 Telecaster with D'addario strings (10 - 52) through a Twin with XXXXX speakers and the EQ adjusted as follows: bass 6, mid 8, treble 4, in a 25 x 25 room that is accoustically treated and volume on 3, with the guitar's controls set to 10."
If I didn't have your setup replicated, how in the world would I know what "sharp and clear" meant (I'd bet that you and I would have completely different interpretations) ?
But if you made the standard SPL measurement, which is simple and quick, and provided me with one curve, that would tell me all that I needed to know. If I admired your sound, I'd pick a speaker that had a response curve very close to yours. Then I'd make a quick analysis to see if the amplifier I had in mind had enough EQ range to get the same performance, (using free internet software - 10 second exercise). Done.
Only by measurement can we make an intelligent comparison between two speakers and the speakers would have to be measured in the identical manner. Hence my "chicken before the egg" original question. Be assured that I'm not denigrating Weber speakers ! As I said originally (in a different way), so many people have become believers that there's gotta' be some substance to their popularity, other than those stupid expressions used to describe them on the website.
Hey, I'm not trying to start an argument and I'm not knocking the speakers, I just wondered how - without any means of reasonable comparison - they got so popular ! This has been rattling around in my head for about five years, since I decided to replace the tiny little speaker in my Champ with a 10.
I spent several days comparing speakers on the internet, even made a speaker performance spread sheet to predict frequency response and ampitude. That's how I ended up with the Jensen MOD 10. The Weber counterpart never was considered because I had no way to compare it with other similar speakers, get it ?
The point of almost ALL of my posts, from the beginning, is that there's too much witchcraft, phase-of-the-moon BS going around musical circles - it's always been like this and it doesn't have to be. These companies exist to serve US, if we decide that we won't buy products that aren't clearly defined, they WILL start defining them.
Peace -Last edited by randyc; 11-24-2009 at 06:51 PM. Reason: danged typos my fingers are as bad at this as they are on my guitars
-
Ok Randy. . I understand what you are saying hard numbers for speaker comparison. But you did not describe a speaker. You danced around the request. I am not going to provide you with a curve. If I want to buy an speaker from you what information can you provide me? Pretend I am your average guitarist (and not the sub-average hack that I am).
What will mean more to me:
Desc: High-mid chime with a tight low end
OR
Desc: resonant frequency@90Hz + a graph to back it up.
I would wager neither.
BUT I would also wager that it would be easier for non-ee musicians to understand midrange-punch than a pronounced 800Hz to 5500Hz range with a noticable notch at 3200Hz.
I like to compare apples and elephants. If you appreciate good wines you know that we dont speak of PPM of sulfites and we never use our spectroscopes to measure tannins. We taste. Is the wine dry? Fruity? Hints of leather? Chocolate? Floral? Some wines "open up" when decanted. What does THAT mean? There are no hard and fast rules.
With speakers, pickups, guitars, tubes etc: We taste with our ears (and dare I say our hearts). I have been asking for years: What is CHIME? What does BLOOM sound like. Sorry, the BBB doesnt define these terms. These terms have entered in to the vernacular.
I will say this however: a manufacturer who advertises clean high end and tight bass response for an alnico speaker with a smooth cone better have some serious witchcraft going cuz another guys ceramic speaker with a ribbed cone is probably going to leave it in the dust.
If you have the time, inclination, and money I would suggest buying a Weber speaker. Make them work for it tho. Call them. Explain what you want and why. I am certain you will be happy with their recommendations.
P.S. for Derek. I have to admit, I havent give Eminence much of a chance. TQR is quite fond of them. I have a 2x10 Tremolux cab that maybe I will try them in.
-
Well, mine sounds warm, smooth, deep, balanced, loud, clean, clear, lush, powerful, punchy, dynamic, detailed, sparkling, complex, and succulent; but sometimes there’s a steely grayish coloration in the upper midrange!
Seriously, Randy, I think it would be cool if you called Weber and discussed your preferences and their subsequent recommendations. I for one would be very interested in reading your impressions of the ensuing conversation.Last edited by Tom Karol; 11-24-2009 at 08:45 PM. Reason: typo
-
.. and to be fair: I am rebuilding a 53 Gibson GA-40.
I dont have a speaker for it. before I consult the forums I will shop around (although the amp screams p12q) Jensen describes it like this :
The P12Q has a very warm, mid-focused bite with clear, bright highs. When presented with overdrive distortion the P12Q remains well-balanced.
Geee.. that helps
-
No, my friend, I didn't dance around your request, I simply am unable to comply with it, as I said in my response. UNABLE is not the same as UNWILLING, regardless of how you spin it Originally Posted by dh82c
You didn't seem to pay much attention to my long-winded analogy about needing identical equipment to compare sound accurately. But that's the best I can do to illustrate why the terms used on these forums and by advertisers mean nothing to me.
Without putting words in your mouth, I THINK that your position is that "some" information is better than none, did I understand it correctly? Based on long years of observing how the peddler of a product will say anything about it as long as you send the money (ever watch any of the Televangelists ?) I have serious doubt about the utility of adjectives as a basis of procurement.
So far as I'm concerned, that method of describing performance is a built-in conflict of interest. No one's feet can ever be held to the fire because their speaker didn't produce the "thrilling highs" that were advertised. BUT if the manufacturer doesn't meet the performance standards of his own published specifications, that's a different situation entirely.
I think that you're coming from a background of purchasing one or two of something, there's little risk of being burned for a LOT of money and generally, dealing with small businesses, you can probably negotiate a return + restocking fee if you're seriously unhappy.
My background is a lot different, I've placed orders for, as an example, HUNDREDS of electronic parts costing $5,000 (sometimes even MUCH more) each. It would be INSANE to accept a vendor's statement like "try it, you'll like it". There is an obvious need to express limits of performance, beyond which the equipment requiring the purchased component would not FUNCTION.
Maybe that's an equally invalid approach to the current subject compared to spending one's money based on flowery descriptions of performance, LOL. I think that you and I represent the two extremes of the spectrum. I also think that those who shy away from specifications do so because (a) they've never done it that way before and (b) don't want to take the time to learn about the subject.
And that is certainly understandable, we're all busy, we tend to stick with the things we understand and the products that we know ... I'm no different except that I like to understand how things function and I have a healthy amount of skepticism, where making money is involved. As the former owner of two businesses (plus years of engineering/industrial experience), I'm very careful about where my money goes and why.
Not to mention that I now have a lot of time on my hands to research things like this and write about what I learn. And, not for the first time, I wonder about the time I spend writing when few really read it .... (I can tell when people are paying attention because there is feedback, usually in the form of well thought-out questions).
But I normally swallow any disappointment about that part of the "job" and instead derive a great deal of satisfaction if I generate interesting discussion with lots of participants. This one is pretty good, so far !
To those that suggested that I call Weber and discuss the subject, that's a fine idea. I hesitate only because intruding on family grief with questions that might be construed as negative (concerning their advertising practises and lack of specs) would be in poor taste.
cheers, keep up the good work, guys !
-
DH, I didn't address this earlier, but now that I'm sipping a '97 Cab, I can get back to points where we "might" differ on how to select purchases. Originally Posted by dh82c
You are absolutely, unequivocally correct about the wines. As anal as I can be about just about everything in my life, wines are relatively important to me and I judge them almost emotionally The thought of instrumenting something as subtle as chemical "taste" isn't practical or desirable.
If it WAS, be assured that the billion dollar annual industry would have figured out a way to exploit the situation, LOL ! I suspect that they don't have a compelling desire to (a) disclose their ingredients and (b) reveal some of those multisyllabic chemical additives.
I like your line of thought (comparison of apples and elephants) because it stimulates more interesting discussion, I think.
I believe that sensations of smell and taste are much more sophisticated and complex than hearing. Hearing tests are routinely administered to school kids, this stuff is real simple and easily quantifiable, compared to whether - and WHY - one prefers sweet potatoes to broccoli.
I'll resist the temptation to compare more sophisticated sensory perceptions to simpler ones, at least for now, LOL. And, if it's not obvious, a lot of my conversation doesn't come necessarily for the sake of disagreement; I do have points that I want to make but also, I LIKE discussion and I miss it sometimes.
Getting back to wine, unless I have two vintages of a Viogner to compare, side-by-side, how could I make an intelligent decision one week later of which brand to buy ?
If I tried those two wines (assuming both are of reasonable quality) on two different days, one wine on Tuesday, one wine on Wednesday, then I couldn't be confident of picking the "right" one a week later. And if I tried the two vintages a few MONTHS apart ... ?
I know that many have better memories and more subtle tastes than I do. But since you made the analogy of wine to speakers, my point should translate well too.
cheers,
randycLast edited by randyc; 11-25-2009 at 01:09 AM.
-
Originally Posted by dh82c
.. and to be fair: I am rebuilding a 53 Gibson GA-40.
I dont have a speaker for it. before I consult the forums I will shop around (although the amp screams p12q) Jensen describes it like this :
The P12Q has a very warm, mid-focused bite with clear, bright highs. When presented with overdrive distortion the P12Q remains well-balanced.
Geee.. that helps
OK, NOW you're pushing my buttons. DH, you're very reliable - I depend on you to oppose most of what I say about almost anything, but BE FAIR, even in your humor !
The Jensen website, in addition to the quoted mumbo-jumbo has the following:
1. Sound sample, normal conditions
2. Sound sample, overdriven conditions
3. The full SPL curve
1 and 2 above, wouldn't mean much to me because there are so many variables that aren't qualified. Remember that I wrote the following:
"So that when you said "It's as sharp and clear as a '59 Telecaster with D'addario strings (10 - 52) through a Twin with XXXXX speakers and the EQ adjusted as follows: bass 6, mid 8, treble 4, in a 25 x 25 room that is accoustically treated and volume on 3, with the guitar's controls set to 10."
And I didn't even mention the microphones, their placement and how the sound was recorded
OK, here's what Jensen said about their sound samples:
"Kurt Prange played guitar on all of the sound samples using a Mexican Strat set on the neck position only. The volume and tone controls were set all the way up.
For the clean sound samples a Fender Bassman 70 was used. The overdriven samples were all played through a Vox Berkeley Super Reverb (tube type with EL84's). The amps and control settings were kept constant for all of the speakers.
A Sennheiser 421 microphone was used for all of the sound samples and was set 1.5 feet back at 30 degrees off center. All sound samples were recorded with Ableton Live 6 recording software through an M-Audio interface on a Macbook Pro. No external effects or compression were used on any of the sound samples."
My head whirls at the lack of control in this "comparison".
Musicians need to come out of the dark ages, use modern tools to evaluate modern equipment, not the same, tired old expressions that we've used for years - overused, they have become almost meaningless (if they ever had meaning).
Standardized SPL measurements are the only means that we have for rational comparison - other methods might be better but although the industry has standardized a simple, effective method many manufacturers won't allow their products to be compared to the standard method.
Anyway, that's my underemphasized scooped tonal response, with front stage articulation of bass harmonics tightly focussed while slightly suppressing the ice-pick highs occasionably experienced with 6L6 tubes made in the Vladivostok factory from June of 1998 until March of the following year opinion.
I've discussed this subject a lot in the past - especially comparing amplifier power with speaker efficiency. There seems to be an aversion to acknowledging the gap that exists between what marketeers "say" and how their products "perform".
You DON'T have to be an EE to "get" this stuff but I wonder what education/experience is required to make sensible comparisons between one manufacturers salespeak and the salespeak of a competitor ...
SHEESH !
-
Regarding this speaker performance thing, I feel like a terrier that's got his teeth into a toy and won't relinquish it. I can't apologize for this characteristic because it would be aplogizing for my entire personality
(Not to mention the fact that this aspect of my personality was often valued by those that employed me and those that used my consulting services.) Sooooooo, what does all this mean ? It means that I believe that FINALLY I have come to grips with the speaker evaluation "quandary". First the background ...
I've made my opinions emphatically, irritatingly, boringly clear: all the verbiage in the dictionary will not predict what a loudspeaker will sound like.
There is a very REASONABLE objection to my viewpoint, one that I readily accept. The argument goes something like this (and please correct me if I don't have it right): the SPL curves are total gibberish to a musician. In fact, they're gibberish to ANYONE that does not have a technical background.
Granted, and I'll even take it one step further: the curves aren't all that insightful to people who DO have technical backgrounds, me included !
While continuing to work on an article about designing vacuum tube power amplifiers (34 pages so far), I've been having nagging thoughts about how to reconcile our differing opinions, it should be possible. And I now know that it's not only possible, it's almost ridiculously easy to compare different speakers at home, using only your computer.
I've made the comparison on a sample sound track tonight, and it worked very nicely, illustrating the deficiencies of a randomly selected speaker from the internet with SPL curve. I don't want to get involved in the process just yet, for several reasons, mostly because it's going to involve making a couple of graphic presentations which will take a while to produce.
I DID want to titillate your interest, however, and in the process bump this post back up to the top. Hopefully by this time tomorrow, I'll have worked out the details in the procedure and can make it available to everyone. I'm pretty pumped up about it now, if you can't tell !!
I feel confident about the validity of the test - confident enough to offer a prediction: that most people will NOT be able to pick out their favorite speaker from other similar speakers in a blind test with a perfectly flat amplifier and accoustically "dead" environment.
cheers,
randycLast edited by randyc; 11-25-2009 at 11:37 PM. Reason: toyp, I mean TYPO
-
Have a good Thanksgiving, Randy, and all the other Yanks on the forum. I'm in Austin, TX, staying with my kids and shopping for a new Dobro. After two days, I'ved got a lead on a squareneck, which is not really what I want -- but, as with all instruments and amplifiers and speakers, I will get it IF it sounds the way I want it to.
On the other hand, if it's not what I want, then I can look forward to a road trip with a close friend to continue the search.
What's going to happen when I finally have the amp, speaker, electric, bass, and Dobro of my dreams? Guess I'll either have to find a new hobby or do something useful for a change.
-
11-26-2009, 05:04 PM #21Archie Guest
If you're staying in Texas for a while, maybe you should look for a fiddle.
-
Take a quick look at the upper right corner of LPD's post, you'll note that he LIVES in Texas
(He probably already owns a fiddle, too.)
-
Yes: I live a mere 240 mi E of here (300km). Texas is the size of France, after all.
We had dinner at Threadgill's (famous home of Janis Joplin of sainted memory), but something less caloric is in store for the rest of the day.
-
My brief flash of intuition regarding how to "hear" the speaker SPL curves is described in the new post "Comparing Speakers That You Don't Have"
-
Back from the dead, or, at least moribund: I emailed Weber earlier, and, as I suspected, my cabinet/speaker had been set aside for more pressing business. TA called not long after the email was sent and apologized for the delay -- the speaker had been pulled from the original (wrong sized) cabinet, and the new (correctly sized) cabinet was on hand, but the two had not yet been formally introduced. He promised they would be on the way tomorrow, which puts delivery probably next Wednesday.
A full report will be sent Randy upon completion of measurement so that all of us may revel in his insight.
If he's not out racing around the countryside with his new driver's license.
Reply With Quote
Enharmonics
Today, 09:59 AM in Theory