JR149 or Celestion ditton 15 XR

[Wakefield Turntables]

I've decided i would like a small pair of speakers for my valve system. Currently I use some very heavily modified Celestion ditton 15xr's. They sound excellent, but I cant help thinking the 149's would produce a better sound. I intend to use them for classical, vocals, and jazz. I think the 15's are more suited to rock musci. Any comments would be most welcome.

[DSJR]

If you can find a pair in good order, do it! You won't lose any money if they get sold on later ;)

[istari_knight]

Having owned ditton 15's (hated them) & LS3/5a's (loved them) they are voiced very differently so its entirely down to your personal preference but IMO JR149's will be far superior.

I know LS3/5a's arent identical to JR149's at all but from what I've read they are certainly similair and if in good fettle probably better !

[Alex_UK]

Only heard the JR149s at Scalford last year, but I was smitten by them - definitely on my "bucket list" - no idea how good your upgraded 15's are though Andrew, but as Dave says you won't lose on a pair of JR149s so go for it!

[StuN]

Don't know about the Dittons, but I can certainly vouch for the JRs. I also have some LS3/5As and there is little to choose between them. Don't be put off if the foam covers are missing - they are readily available.

[walpurgis]

Its not a realistic comparison. Ditton 15s against JR149s?

I've used both on the end of good systems and never really liked the somewhat weedy sound of the JRs and LS3/5a speakers.

The original first series Ditton 15 though (not the XR), with the HF1300 tweeter is a really nice speaker, possibly not as accurate through the mid as the aforementioned KEF B110 equipped speakers, but to me the Celestion has a much more vibrant sound and more transparent treble.

But really, you just wouldn't use the speakers in the same systems.

The Dittons sound great on the end of modestly powered valve amps and the JRs work better on beefy solid state amps (although a punchy valve amp would work).

[Wakefield Turntables]

The Dittons sound great on the end of modestly powered valve amps and the JRs work better on beefy solid state amps (although a punchy valve amp would work).

Good job I have both types of system then! :D Thanks for the heads up.

[DSJR]

I don't remember the JR149 mark 2, but they were made and were even better according to a detailed review at the time.

[Wakefield Turntables]

There are a couple of websites dedicated to the 149's but its the 1st version i'm after.

[Audioman]

There are a couple of websites dedicated to the 149's but its the 1st version i'm after.

Auditioned JR149s in late 70's and was most unimpressed. Ended up buying RAMs. I recon the Ditton 15 would be better of the two.

[Marco]

Its not a realistic comparison. Ditton 15s against JR149s?

I've used both on the end of good systems and never really liked the somewhat weedy sound of the JRs and LS3/5a speakers.

The original first series Ditton 15 though (not the XR), with the HF1300 tweeter is a really nice speaker, possibly not as accurate through the mid as the aforementioned KEF B110 equipped speakers, but to me the Celestion has a much more vibrant sound and more transparent treble.

But really, you just wouldn't use the speakers in the same systems.

The Dittons sound great on the end of modestly powered valve amps and the JRs work better on beefy solid state amps (although a punchy valve amp would work).

+1, although I also like the JRs and LS3/5a speakers, used within their limitations, in appropriate systems.

My (totally original) Ditton 15XRs sound superb, down in the lounge, on the end of my system upstairs; indeed some of my friends visiting, who own top-notch systems and aren't usually fans of small speakers, were shocked at how good they were!! :eek:

I've never understood why some people don't like the Celestions. Perhaps using them with a top-notch modern valve amp (and source) helps? If they truly exhibited some of the traits I've read attributed to them, then I can assure you that a system, such as mine, would've revealed those deficiencies in all their glory, instead of creating highly enjoyable and believable sounding music...! ;)

Maybe the Celestions were simply too revealing for the budget systems that they were originally designed to partner, especially with some of the somewhat ropey sounding T/Ts and solid-state amps, not to mention preamps, commonly used in those days? Current evidence, based on experience, appears to suggest that there may be some truth in that.

Marco.

[Wakefield Turntables]

Hmmm..... very mixed debate here, I suppose the only way of finding out is to buy a pair and then flog them if i dont like them.. :D

[Marco]

A pair of 15XRs or JR149s? I thought you already had a pair of the former? :)

Marco.

[walpurgis]

I think Marco has hit the nail on the head.

The developing solid state amplifier designs of the time (seventies), were as a whole just not delivering the goods sonically. Valves had generally fallen out of favour, largely because everybody was seeking more and more watts and partly because solid state power was cheaper! The biggest draw in advertising then was to quote ultra low distortion and high power.

Nobody sat down and properly compared their Leak or Quad valve amps to the Cambridge P50, Rogers Ravensbourne transistor amps and the like. Seemingly, the assumption was, newer was better and valves were 'old hat'.

Another thing to take into account is that valve pre-amplifiers of the time were really not that great and nowhere near able to show valve power amps in their best light.

Overall, modern amplifiers, whether valve or solid state, have moved on enormously in terms of sound quality and are better able to get the best out of older speakers like the JRs and Celestions (and old B&Ws, KEFs, Tannoys, Goodmans and IMFs, etc.).

[Wakefield Turntables]

A pair of 15XRs or JR149s? I thought you already had a pair of the former? :)

Marco.

I do I've modified the hell out of them and they sound very good but I wonder if more can be had out of the 149's :scratch:

[Marco]

No worries. The reason I asked is that I'm going to be selling mine soon (with their matching Atacama stands), so I thought I'd give you, or any other members of the forum, first dibs. Unfortunately, since I've moved the bigger 66s into the lounge, where the 15XRs were, they're not getting any use, and so deserve to go to a good home :)

They'll be getting advertised soon in Private Exhibitions, but if anyone is interested now, PM me and you'll get a good deal!

Marco.

[Marco]

Hi Geoff,


The developing solid state amplifier designs of the time (seventies), were as a whole just not delivering the goods sonically. Valves had generally fallen out of favour, largely because everybody was seeking more and more watts and partly because solid state power was cheaper! The biggest draw in advertising then was to quote ultra low distortion and high power.

Nobody sat down and properly compared their Leak or Quad valve amps to the Cambridge P50, Rogers Ravensbourne transistor amps and the like. Seemingly, the assumption was, newer was better and valves were 'old hat'.

Another thing to take into account is that valve pre-amplifiers of the time were really not that great and nowhere near able to show valve power amps in their best light.

Overall, modern amplifiers, whether valve or solid state, have moved on enormously in terms of sound quality and are better able to get the best out of older speakers like the JRs and Celestions (and old B&Ws, KEFs, Tannoys, Goodmans and IMFs, etc.).

Spot on. The fact is, that every time I've paired top-notch modern valve equipment (and a top-notch source) with quality vintage speakers (e.g. my Tannoy MGs, Celestion 66s and 15XRs, amongst others), the results have been sublime!

Therefore, I think this proves that there's something in our theory :exactly:

Marco.

[Marco]

Overall, modern amplifiers, whether valve or solid state, have moved on enormously in terms of sound quality!!

:rfl: not to my ears

Not the shite stuff, Andre, that sounds unmusical and 'hi-fi' - I'm with you on that - but the best stuff. For example, I've not heard any vintage amps yet (despite how good they may be in their own right) that I'd swap my Croft/Copper amp combo for! ;)

Marco.

[Wakefield Turntables]

No worries. The reason I asked is that I'm going to be selling mine soon (with their matching Atacama stands), so I thought I'd give you, or any other members of the forum, first dibs. Unfortunately, since I've moved the bigger 66s into the lounge, where the 15XRs were, they're not getting any use, and so deserve to go to a good home :)

They'll be getting advertised soon in Private Exhibitions, but if anyone is interested now, PM me and you'll get a good deal!

Marco.

I've also got some 44's which are great and I mainly bought these so i didn't have to pay silly '66 prices! ;)

[Marco]

44s are great (I love 'em), but they don't have the sense of effortlessness and scale of the 66s (in the right system)! ;)

Marco.

[Rare Bird]

'33's :whistle:

[Marco]

TBH, they're all good. It was a brilliant range of speakers. Celestion, in those days, were a proper loudspeaker company - and one amongst many in Britain.

Sadly, those days have long gone! :(

Marco.

[Rare Bird]

Sadly, those days have long gone! :(



Not in our house they aint :lol:

[walpurgis]

I do I've modified the hell out of them and they sound very good but I wonder if more can be had out of the 149's :scratch:

Have you tried them with the HF2000 type perforated phase corrector/diffuser over the T27 tweeter, as per LS3/5a? Might be worth a try to smooth the top end a touch.

[DSJR]

The mesh peaks the tweeter up, not smooth it. The T27 always had a slightly wirey quality to it. Not a problem for me at all, but not really up to modern standards in all honesty.

I drove past the site of the old Celestion factory today since I work not far from there now. Celestion Drive leads into Ditton Close. At least these oldies are remembered in some way :)

[Wakefield Turntables]

Have you tried them with the HF2000 type perforated phase corrector/diffuser over the T27 tweeter, as per LS3/5a? Might be worth a try to smooth the top end a touch.

Nope, I could also try and snag a pair of HF2000's? Are these the older tweeters used in the 15's and not XR's, sorry for being lazy and not checking tweeters. I've heard lots of people highlighting the benefits of the early tweeters in the 15's over the XR's version.


The mesh peaks the tweeter up, not smooth it. The T27 always had a slightly wirey quality to it. Not a problem for me at all, but not really up to modern standards in all honesty.

I drove past the site of the old Celestion factory today since I work not far from there now. Celestion Drive leads into Ditton Close. At least these oldies are remembered in some way :)

So thats how celestion ditton came to be named. :doh:

[walpurgis]

No, the HF2000 would not be of any use to you in the JRs. Its usually a 6 ohm device anyway which would require crossover mods and it has a pretty high crossover point too, at least 5kHz upwards to avoid overloading the voice coil and also exciting the diaphragm's natural resonance.

The perforated diffuser was 'borrowed' for the LS3/5a. They do crop up for sale on eBay now and then.

They weren't used in the Ditton 15, that was the HF1300, which by the way would also be of no use to you in this context.

[Wakefield Turntables]

thanks for the info.

[DSJR]

So thats how celestion ditton came to be named. :doh:

That's how the new-build mini-estate came to be named after the old celestion factory was pulled down ten or so years ago.... :(

[PLINIUS]

HF1300 = 13,000 HZ
HF2000 = 20,000 HZ
The HF1300 was more commonly used with a polymer " Super Tweeter" to extend the system response to 16,000 HZ, as in the B&W DM2/2As & the 66's older brother the Ditton 25.

[walpurgis]

HF1300 = 13,000 HZ
HF2000 = 20,000 HZ
The HF1300 was more commonly used with a polymer " Super Tweeter" to extend the system response to 16,000 HZ, as in the B&W DM2/2As & the 66's older brother the Ditton 25.

Quite right.

Never understood why so many manufacturers (Spendor/IMF/Rogers/B&W) chose to pair the HF1300 with the hard sounding Coles/STC/ITT super tweeter, probably down to cost I expect.

The use of the HF2000 with the HF1300 was vastly better. The KEF T27 also worked quite well as a super tweeter with the HF1300.

I tried the various combinations out myself many times using an 18db/oct slope filter @ circa 13kHz.

I've still got 3 pairs of HF1300s and a pair of HF2000s tucked away for use in speaker projects! They are nice devices.

[DSJR]

The Coles tweeter should come in at such a high frequency, you won't hear it at all more than a foot or two away and in no way is there enough up there for it to be called "hard toned!" It should come in possibly out of phase with the HF1300 at around 11kHz or so to help smooth the 14k peak in the latter. That's how Spendor did it for seventeen or more years and if it's good enough for them............ Its main purpose was to help high frequency dispersion, was a tax getaround I believe at the time and furthermore, it helped broadcast engineers hear the UK TV 625 line-whistle at around 15.4kHz. So many DM2 and BC1/BC2 owners have them blown anyway and don't even know it - mine were blown upon receipt but I was able to obtain the Coles' originally fitted to my BC1's that had been stored for thirty years or so...

[walpurgis]

You'd expect the effect to be virtually inaudible, but the hardness of the Coles/STC/ITT tweeter is clearly noticeable despite being brought in at high frequencies. Substituting just about any other tweeter with a reasonably smooth and extended response seems to bring benefits. I tried this for myself many times.

Also, there is very little that could be called a peak in the HF1300 response, its virtually flat from 2kHz to 13kHz with just a minimal rise up to the response cut off according to the response graphs I have. And yes, I do know there are ways of making a graph look smoother than it is, 'averaging' for instance (a trick Tannoy and Decca used to use I believe), but it will still give the general picture.

[Wakefield Turntables]

Well I finally bought a pair of 149's. All I can say is WOW! I'm very surprised. They are not as easy to drive as my 15XR's but boy do they have more accuracy. I've not played them for more than an hour and can already notice areas where the 15's are lacking. I need to get some more jazz and vocals going through them but I think the 149's are the better speaker. Well worth a purchase if you can get a pair. :cool:

[Rare Bird]

HF1300 = 13,000 HZ
HF2000 = 20,000 HZ
The HF1300 was more commonly used with a polymer " Super Tweeter" to extend the system response to 16,000 HZ, as in the B&W DM2/2As & the 66's older brother the Ditton 25.


'15XR' don't use 'HF1300'.. they use 'HD1000'

[Wakefield Turntables]

HD1000 so did this only go to 10,000 hz ??

Didnt the first version of the Celestion 15 and not the XR use the Hf1300 ??

Which is better the HD1000 or the HF1300??

[DSJR]

Also, there is very little that could be called a peak in the HF1300 response, its virtually flat from 2kHz to 13kHz with just a minimal rise up to the response cut off according to the response graphs I have. And yes, I do know there are ways of making a graph look smoother than it is, 'averaging' for instance (a trick Tannoy and Decca used to use I believe), but it will still give the general picture.

This rise varies on the speakers then I reckon, because it's clearly there in BC1's and 2's, although the SP1 model had a tweak to the dome's surround I believe, which helped. Increasing the output on the Coles on my old BC1's (Spen sorted a pair out for me) actually dulled them too much.. I thought the Coles in mine were down too much (they are working), but I found that changing the speaker cables sorted them out..