celestion 70/80 speaker

[gary mitchell]

Any love for them in here my brother raised hell with me for getting rid of mine. To me it was a bad sounding speaker I could not believe Paul Rivera used it in the amp I bought. I bought me a brand new Rivera Clubster Royale a while back when they were 50 watts combo 112 and it had that speaker in it. I order it from ZZounds so I didn't get to play it first but I am a big fan of Rivera amps. When I got the amp I did not liked the 70/80 right of the get go. I had a brand new Eminence 1218 speaker in a box i had purchase purchase for another project but never used. So I put it in the Rivera and I just love it, I gave the 70/80 to a friend and he put it in a Fender Super Sonic 112, which I think it sounds not so good but i didn't say nothing cause he really likes it.

 

[Triple Jim]

I like the Seventy 80 that's in my Monoprice 15. I think you either like them or hate them from what I've read here.

Speakers are one of those things that sound good if you make a change. Then change it again to a different one in a month and it'll sound better than the first two.

 

[RetiredNSquired]

I didn't "hate" the seventy 80 that was in my MP15. It's generally used as Celestions mass production speaker, so it shows up in quite a few different amps. To fit that niche, it's voiced very generic. I guess that was my main beef, no real tone personality. My swap to the CRex was to get a specific range for my tastes.

 

[duceditor]

I agree. Generic. flavorless. Flat and souless.

Fine for a modeling amp -- because such shape the sound (or can) apart from the speaker. But apart from that nada.

-don

 

[ZENITH59]

The 70 /80 is a pretty good speaker I have heard it in a small combo and it can crunch nicely and sounds pretty good with mild o/d but haven't really explored its full potential as yet..the thing with speakers is that they are dependent on the quality and dimensions of the cab as well as other equipment further back along the chain of sound.. I've been using jensen vintage speakers for the last 8 years and I don't see any change for me there..

 

[Triple Jim]

I agree. Generic. flavorless. Flat and souless.

Fine for a modeling amp -- because such shape the sound (or can) apart from the speaker. But apart from that nada.

-don

I made a 2x12 closed cabinet with two Seventy 80s in it. A friend who has been into music a very long time came for a visit and we played various guitars and amps, including my clone of a '65 Princeton Reverb, the Silvertone 1484, and the MP15, using various cabinets with speakers ranging from an Eminence GB128 to some old Pyle 10" and 12". Then I turned on my '57 Princeton (5w) clone that was plugged into the 2x12 Seventy-80, and connected my old Strat. As soon as I started playing his face lit up with amazement. It was by far his favorite combination that day. We can say that a speaker has particular characteristics in a particular application we've tried it in, but it's difficult to be correct with blanket statements that a particular speaker is always good or bad or always brilliant or lifeless.

 

[duceditor]

it's difficult to be correct with blanket statements that a particular speaker is always good or bad or always brilliant or lifeless.

That is certainly true. Broad-based statements rarely are accurate or fair.

In my own case it is the speaker built into a Fender cabinet by Fender.

At first I was wholly disappointed with it. Then as it broke in I was less so. But over time I found myself using it less and less. Even the Champ-type amp (with its own 8 inch speaker) I bought it for now is used just with the built in speaker.

I tried it with two other amps with for me similar results. Not "terrible." Just uninteresting and uninspiring. "Generic. flavorless. Flat and souless." To me.

I'm glad you had a different experience!

-don

 

[JohnnyMac]

I wasn’t impressed with the 70/80 in my MP15. Even after some forced break-in time. It just didn’t have enough personality to make me want to play through it.

I plugged the amp into various other 10” and 12” cabs they all sounded notably better to me. I sold the amp before I replaced the speaker. Not because I didn’t like the amp but because it was redundant to some others that I have. The MP15 is indeed a very nice amp for the price.

 

[howserx]

I haven't tried them but no reviews I've read makes me want to. Pretty much echos what people have said here. I like the price though . Don makes a good point about them probably sounding fine with a modeling amp. Andertons did a speaker swap with the katana and IIRC the stock speaker either won or fared pretty well when put against a whole pile of other celestions. Like everything it's all subjective. Probably my most expensive speaker is an G12H anniversary in my EVH cab. To me it's just "OK" I prefer my vox cab. (not fair comparison though, open back 212 versus a closed back 112)

 

[RegularJim]

"Flat and soulless" might be the sound your looking for. I always say "Bald" is a hairstyle, too!

But seriously, I see nothing wrong with them. They do the job, either you like them or you don't.

 

[duceditor]

Just a couple of other related or semi-related points...

"Celestion," ain't. Ain't Celestion that is. It is now merely a name bought by an entity other than Celestion for marketing purposes. Just as is "Hanes" and "Fruit of the Loom." Except that speakers matter more to most of us than does our underwear.

At one time Celestion was a speaker brand that had a sound of its own.

When I bought "The Beast" -- my 1976 Fender Twin-Reverb -- it came with Celestion Speakers built in. Mammoth things with a bottom end unlike any other speaker that equalled its smooth and sweet upper ranges. I also had (then in boxes) the original speakers that came with the amp.

​

When I bought the DuoVerb I sold most of my classic tube amps because the DV very effectively modeled their sound. But the Twin Reverb I kept because the DV could not get anywhere near its tight and deep bottom -- a sound I'd come to cherish.

A few years back I took out those old (real) Celestions and put the Twin Reverb's original speakers back in. This because I was deep into my Surf revival stage. And for that purpose the Twin Reverb was just lovely. BUT... yeah, you knew this was coming, right? Its sound then (now) was very, very close to what the DV modeled Twin Reverb sounded like. I.e., I'd have sold the Twin Reverb, too, if I'd switched the speakers earlier.

The relevant point here is that at one time Celestion was not just a name, it was a sound. Or, more accurately, a group of related sounds -- just as are Fender voiced amps. "Twin Reverb" "Deluxe Reverb" etc.

I hoped for at least a smattering of that sound when I chose (sound unheard) my Celestion Seventy-80 loaded Fender cabinet. But it just was not (is not) there.

BTW, the DV and its sister 2/12 cabinet also have "Custom" Celestions and in that application -- modeling -- they sound very, very good. The amp makes their curves and response whatever the user wishes it to be -- even allowing switching between and open back and a closed back cabinet's sound.

I do not reject modern Celestions. They are to my knowledge well built and reliable. They offer no "surprises." -But the later equally to me is their weakness and their strength.

But those old ones. Those real ones. Those can sound just wonderful!

-don

 

[SubSailer671]

Except that speakers matter more to most of us than does our underwear

Now hold on there Don. Comfy undies is pretty darn important!

 

[RegularJim]

Now hold on there Don. Comfy undies is pretty darn important!

Unlike underwear, I think it's important to have a speaker.

 

[duceditor]

Comfy undies is pretty darn important!

The new "Hanes" and "Fruit-of-the-Loom" undies are plenty comfortable. They just don't last as long as the "real" ones did.

Go on! Ask me how I know!

-don

 

[DJGranite]

I seek out old speakers.
I just like them.
I think they sound better after... years, of being broken in.
I think older speakers were made with different materials, with a different work ethic.
50+ speakers.
the newest, 5- 1990-96, all the rest are older.

I don't have any newer speakers because they generally don't inspire me as much, not that I have anything against them in particular although some just sound very generic to me. I guess as noted above that would work well for modeling amps etc.
I prefer to have the amps they model.
IME the speakers are a big part of the end result.

So I like Classic music, 60's-90's rock and rock related music.
The equipment they used to make the music, while getting harder to find and increasing in price is still available if you seek it out.
So that's what I do.
And so I end up with old speakers.

I'm sure the 70/80 is a fine speaker in the right application.

Different strokes for different folks

 

[Jim Belaye]

I don't like the 70/80. I upgraded my MP 15 with a Celestion Greenback and to me it's sound a lot better.

 

[duceditor]

I think they sound better after... years, of being broken in.

Softer and more flexible surrounds. Weaker magnets. -Both come with extended time and use.

Interestingly such means a loss of absolute control -- of the speaker not following the electrical signal quite as closely as they might have when newly broken in. But such is the magic of traditional tube amps too. "Distortion" -- the bane of engineers but quite often a boon to we players!



-don

 

[Angry Possum]

I have them in my 2x12 Marshall bottom. Not a huge fan either. I'm going with the celestion V type soon.

 

[Angry Possum]

Just a couple of other related or semi-related points...

"Celestion," ain't. Ain't Celestion that is. It is now merely a name bought by an entity other than Celestion for marketing purposes. Just as is "Hanes" and "Fruit of the Loom." Except that speakers matter more to most of us than does our underwear.

At one time Celestion was a speaker brand that had a sound of its own.

When I bought "The Beast" -- my 1976 Fender Twin-Reverb -- it came with Celestion Speakers built in. Mammoth things with a bottom end unlike any other speaker that equalled its smooth and sweet upper ranges. I also had (then in boxes) the original speakers that came with the amp.

View attachment 208201​

When I bought the DuoVerb I sold most of my classic tube amps because the DV very effectively modeled their sound. But the Twin Reverb I kept because the DV could not get anywhere near its tight and deep bottom -- a sound I'd come to cherish.

A few years back I took out those old (real) Celestions and put the Twin Reverb's original speakers back in. This because I was deep into my Surf revival stage. And for that purpose the Twin Reverb was just lovely. BUT... yeah, you knew this was coming, right? Its sound then (now) was very, very close to what the DV modeled Twin Reverb sounded like. I.e., I'd have sold the Twin Reverb, too, if I'd switched the speakers earlier.

The relevant point here is that at one time Celestion was not just a name, it was a sound. Or, more accurately, a group of related sounds -- just as are Fender voiced amps. "Twin Reverb" "Deluxe Reverb" etc.

I hoped for at least a smattering of that sound when I chose (sound unheard) my Celestion Seventy-80 loaded Fender cabinet. But it just was not (is not) there.

BTW, the DV and its sister 2/12 cabinet also have "Custom" Celestions and in that application -- modeling -- they sound very, very good. The amp makes their curves and response whatever the user wishes it to be -- even allowing switching between and open back and a closed back cabinet's sound.

I do not reject modern Celestions. They are to my knowledge well built and reliable. They offer no "surprises." -But the later equally to me is their weakness and their strength.

But those old ones. Those real ones. Those can sound just wonderful!

-don

I had stock Jensen speakers in my 1966 Twin Reverb *photo enclosed below of the twin. I bet those speakers sound amazing today. Broken in nicely, like a good pair of Fruit of the Looms.

 

[backporchmusic]

Not a fan of the 70/80. Stock in my MP15 and Ampeg GVT 15. Replaced them (with two different types of speakers) and the amps both sounded significantly better.

Flat and soulless? I'd say so. No chime, no sparkle, no full round bass. Just bland.