celestion 66 needs Mid-range - Page 2 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Gallery Wiki Blogs Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11th March 2007, 07:07 PM   #11
diyAudio Member
Join Date: May 2006
To graham

1-Well first I disagree regarding the sound of the 66’s, in fact yours may have had other issues……..there are really 3 versions of the 66/662 line, orig 66 line like you 2 have, then the 66 second gen like I have, then the 662 line which was very different again!
The first gen 66 used a MF500 at reduced watts…
A far as the bass goes you’re the fist person to say the bass is somewhat less……….these 66 have some of the best bass available, that being said I mounted spikes on the bottom and I just cant remember hearing any better bass out side of live…….

To all

2-Note to all: im looking for the second version of 66 crossovers…for experimentation…

To Grahame

3-Do you have a digital camera? Reason why im asking is it’s much easier to show you than to produce a complete step by step…
Do your 66’s have black baffle board or finished wood?
Do your crossovers look black and red? Paper cap types used?
The other guy’s honk is what happens to the earlier version when everything fails together, but I know what he’s saying…

  Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2007, 08:03 PM   #12
Graham Maynard's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: UK
Hi tonedef2.

Bass on the 66s I liken to -
never mind the quality feel the (band)width.

Someone else thinks like me with their Celestions -

The bass goes low, and for their time was powerful and great for parties and discos in a large room, but it is not SQ accurate for home hi-fi. There is quite a timing delay at low frequencies and it stands out as error when compared to other properly damped low Fs bass drivers. Once you recognise the bass phase/timing error it becomes annoying because you can't get rid of it; it is caused by the ABRs.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2007, 09:23 PM   #13
diyAudio Member
Join Date: May 2006

We need to keep the 66's within context! I'm not comparing these to xx,xxx.xx speakers, and yes I have heard better low register reproduction, as I mentioned as well they do need spikes, and the delay phasing is really quite minimal, again keeping the speaker in context, you would agree one would need to spend a lot to do better than a restored pair of these, they do have a unique sound tuned by ear not computer......anyway for 500.00 try and find a 18-40 frequency unit......these process a real nice tone you will not find on your flat graph! If only we all heard like a flat graph, then making a speaker would be 1, 2, 3 ………

Thanks anyway im just trying to help the other fellow out, not join in a subjective/objective speaker debate.

Remember my name TonDef2 what’s that mean to you? lol
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2007, 10:33 PM   #14
Grahame is offline Grahame  United States
diyAudio Member
Grahame's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007

Lets keep it on topic!

I like the way mine sound, I'd like to keep it that way.
Other people may be in the same position as me.

Back to the topic at hand

Yes, I do have a digital camera (but I'd like to know what I'm letting my self in for , before I start)

Hopefully these pics will answer your questions on cabinet construction / Crossover layout. The Crossover is mounted on the cabinet wall behind the 12" woofer.

Picture link.

Its been a, er, "few" years since I knew what L, R, C meant in physics, but I make that 5 inductors and 8 capacitors (L1-5, C1-8)
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2007, 11:22 PM   #15
diyAudio Member
Join Date: May 2006
Congrates you have the last version, probably 78 to 80 built, same as mine.....
Good news is your crossovers probably are ok, military grade back then, linkwriley setup too!!!

These sell for a lot more too.

What your DC resistence on both?

This will take some time..........
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th March 2007, 02:30 AM   #16
Grahame is offline Grahame  United States
diyAudio Member
Grahame's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
I assume you mean DC Resistance for each element in the crossover
(L1...LN, C1..CN)?

I have a multi-meter somewhere. Let me know if there are any other measurements you want in advance.

  Reply With Quote
Old 12th March 2007, 04:19 AM   #17
diyAudio Member
Join Date: May 2006

I was ferefring to the md500's coil resistance.

The crossovers are best load sweep tested, but i think you'll find they are in good condition. The earlier series had paper caps........

I'm still looking for the photos i took.......

  Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2007, 05:46 AM   #18
Grahame is offline Grahame  United States
diyAudio Member
Grahame's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007

The multi meter only measures resistance in Kilo Ohms!,
Time to treat my self to a cheapo digital multi meter I think.

Any one have any recommendations - given that I think I'll want to measure results in the 4-8 Ohm range?

This looks like it could be fun.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2007, 03:49 PM   #19
diyAudio Member
Join Date: May 2006
What do you do with your kilo Ohms? heh. Electrical engineer?
We are not measuring this under load.........DC resistence/continueity only. How this speaker behaves under variable loading has been worked out by the designer......

Any cheep one will work, or just swing them by a car/stereo store.
See if we have burnt coils first... we don’t want to be restoring paperweights....

This is hard since I cannot inspect these speakers, but do you know how to look test for vulcanization?


By definition from Ohm's Law, a device has a resistance of one ohm if a voltage of one volt causes a current of one ampere to flow (R = V/I). Alternatively and equivalently, a device that dissipates one watt of power with one ampere of current flowing through it has a resistance of one ohm (R = P / I 2).

Since 1990, the ohm has been maintained internationally using the quantum Hall effect, where a conventional value is used for the 'von-Klitzing constant', fixed by the 18th General Conference on Weights and Measures as R{K-90} = 25812.807 Ù.

The complex quantity impedance is a generalisation of resistance. Its real part is resistance and its imaginary part is reactance. Impedance, resistance and reactance all have units of ohms.

The symbol for the ohm is the Greek capital letter omega (Ù). If the Greek letter cannot be used, the word ohm is used instead. The various guides for the use of the International System of Units do not explicitly forbid the elision of the final "o" of some SI prefixes, although there is nothing in them to suggest that it is allowable, either. As a result, one is just about as likely to see "kilohm", "kiloohm" and even "kilo-ohm", and the same holds true for hecto-, micro-, nano-, pico-, femto-, atto-, zepto-, and yocto-. The only other SI unit to suffer from this kind of orthographic uncertainty is the ampere. In the particular case of the ohm, one even sees the "a" prefixes lose that vowel: hence megohm and gigohm. Higher prefixes are rarely used with ohm. In the other direction, milliohms (or millohms) are seen where the resistance of cables, etc., are measured.

Units of ohms, kilohms (103 Ù) and megohms (106 Ù) are used in electronic design documentation. On schematic diagrams and parts lists kilohms are abbreviated "K" and megohms are abbreviated "M". Thus, 33 kilohms would be rendered as 33K, and 5.1 megohms would be 5.1M. Another commonly used convention is that the multiplier is used to replace the decimal point, so that 5.1 megohms can also be represented as 5M1. This convention is used because a decimal point can be difficult to see in small or cluttered print. Values less than 1K are rendered either (a) without any symbol, or (b) with an "R", following the number; so 680 ohms can be shown as 680 or 680R. Resistors are usually identified by a reference designator, R, and a cardinal number, e.g., R12.

  Reply With Quote
Old 14th March 2007, 03:31 AM   #20
Grahame is offline Grahame  United States
diyAudio Member
Grahame's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
One Digital Multi Meter Later.

The "Bad" (Buzzy) MD 500 reads 6.7 ohms.
The "Good" MD 500 reads 6.9 ohms.

You can see the results here (picture link , no 7 + 8)

"you know how to look test for vulcanization?"

Sorry, no
What should I be looking for?

Thanks in advance
  Reply With Quote


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:59 PM.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2017 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2