+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34

Thread: An Epic Tale Of Two Celestion Ditton 66 Refurbishments

  1. #1
    Join Date: Feb 2015

    Location: Glasgow

    Posts: 109
    I'm Richard.

    Default An Epic Tale Of Two Celestion Ditton 66 Refurbishments

    An Epic Tale Of Two Celestion Ditton 66 Refurbishments

    My latest Celestion Ditton 66 refurbishment is now complete, meaning I now own two stellar pairs of these majestical loudspeakers. I have chosen to document the refurbishments in this new and hopefully more focused thread than my previous one, in case Admins wish to make it a ‘Sticky’ as a resource to assist others.

    What follows is a summary of the issues these speakers had prior to the refurbishment and what the refurbishment entailed.

    2018 Ditton 66 pre-refurbishment nearfield:


    Issues identified through listening and confirmed by measurements:
    - Distorted midrange output and treble in one loudspeaker (measurements confirmed elevated THD levels and also a large resonance at 5kHz).
    - Different midrange timbres between left and right speakers (measurements confirmed different MF sensitivities and responses).
    - Significant peak at 5kHz in one loudspeaker.
    - Different treble timbres between left and right speakers (measurements confirmed different HF responses).
    - Louder bass in one loudspeaker (measurements confirmed different LF sensitivities).

    2018 Ditton 66 refurbishment process:

    1) Drivers:
    - 1a) Remove all drive units and measure in free space with sine sweeps to check frequency response and distortion.
    - 1b) Source replacement T2619 bass units, MD500 mids and HF2000 tweeters, measure and pair-match to be as close +/- dB tolerance as possible.

    The original drive units measured as follows:




    The new drive units I selected to replace the original units measure as follows:




    2) Crossovers:
    - 2a) Replace original jump wires on TBC crossovers with solid core 1mm PCOCC.
    - 2b) Replace original hookup wires with Van Damme Studio Blue 1.5mm.
    - 2c) Replace original capacitors with like-for-like equivalents selected to preserve the original voicing. Measure capacitance on DVM and pair-match caps between crossovers. Measurements revealed all electrolytics to be around 4% higher than printed value, polys were +/- 1%. Printed cap values used as follows: 72uf Alcaps in LF and 4uf Alcap in MF shunt positions, 22uf Mundorf ECap + 1uf Ansar Supersound in MF circuit, 4uf and 6.2uf Ansar Supersound in HF circuit.

    3) Binding posts:
    - Replace original binding posts with 4mm 5-way gold-plated solid brass posts.

    4) Damping:
    - Replace original but mismatched open-cell foam damping with other original but matched open-cell foam damping. (I discovered one cabinet contained 40mm thick foam but the other cabinet contained a mixture of 40mm and 52mm. I’m not sure why, but perhaps thicker damping was used to compensate for one bass driver being louder than the other? I replaced everything with 40mm thickness, pilfered from another pair of Ditton 66 enclosures!

    5) Test and listen:
    - I allowed the speakers to burn-in with pink noise for a minimum of 12 hours before I measured or performed any critical listening.

    - Having owned Ditton 66 for more than a decade, I know that they are quite fussy about listening height, especially in modest-sized rooms. Unless you slouch on a beanbag or sit a considerable distance from the speakers, you simply can’t just plop them on the floor and expect a smooth response through the mids and highs. In my experience, the HF2000 should ideally be raised above ear level, otherwise you will experience a combination of comb filtering between the MD500 and HF2000 units and diffraction off the top lip of the cabinet, causing a recessed response in the upper mid and lower treble frequencies that becomes progressively worse the lower the drive units are relative to your ears and the closer your listening position is to the speakers. You can clearly see the effect in the nearfield measurements I previously took of my 2015 Ditton 66:

    2015 Ditton 66 post-refurbishment nearfield at varied heights:


    - I therefore measured each 2018 Ditton 66 loudspeaker on the 185mm high plywood plinth that I normally use when listening to the speakers, and I positioned the microphone at ear height (1.04m). This places the mic almost exactly halfway between the MD500 and HF2000 axes. I also included nearfield measurements on-axis with both the MD500 and HF2000 to re-check the effect of varying the listening height. These measurements once again confirm that it is preferable to align your ears closer to the MD500 unit than the HF2000 if you seek a more linear response:

    2018 Ditton 66 post-refurbishment nearfield at varied heights:


    - All measurements were made with the grilles OFF. Like most vintage loudspeakers, the Ditton 66 I presume was designed to be used with the grille on. However, unlike typical wood-frame cloth grilles that usually have a very even and subtle dampening effect on the high frequencies, the Ditton 66 grille is a heavy, fabric-clad metal grid with a rectangular cutout for the HF2000. It effects a significant change in the output above 3kHz, and the change is not entirely even across the frequencies. I was particularly concerned about the grille causing additional diffraction for the nearfield measurements, another reason why I removed it.

    - The Ditton 66 was of course not designed to be a nearfield monitor, and the comb filtering between the MD500 and HF2000 becomes less of a concern as the listening distance increases. I have therefore also included farfield measurements taken at my listening position, which is just over 2 metres distance from the speakers. I toed-in the speakers so that their beam hits just behind the listening position (my listening room has been acoustically treated with absorption and I find the imaging and definition on most of my speakers is better with toe-in).

    - The farfield measurements, in my opinion, provide a more realistic representation of the Ditton 66 mid and high frequency balance. Once again I have included measurements taken on-axis with both the MD500 and HF2000 to allow comparison of the effect of varying the listening height at the 1 metre nearfield distance vs the 2 metre farfield distance. The seemingly large differences you see between the left and right speakers in the low and mid frequencies in the farfield measurements should be ignored, as my room's layout/construction is asymmetric and therefore the left and right speakers are subject to a different combination of peaks and nulls.

    2018 Ditton 66 post-refurbishment nearfield pair-matching:


    - As you can see from the nearfield measurements, pair-matching is generally excellent and there are only a few occasions where it diverges by more than 1 dB. My ears are particularly picky when it comes to channel imbalances and I cannot detect any appreciable difference between the two loudspeakers even when isolated and fed a mono signal, and that is a first! I’m pretty sure this is as good as I’ll ever get and I suspect I am probably in possession of one of the best matched pairs of Ditton 66 on the planet!

    - I also repeated the measurements with the Ditton 66 I refurbished in 2015 to see how my efforts compare. (My 2015 Ditton 66 use the same model of HF2000 but earlier MF500 and T1600 drivers, and I used the exact same capacitor compliment as in my 2018 Ditton 66 with the exception of the MF circuit, where I fitted 30uf instead of 24uf):

    2015 Ditton 66 post-refurbishment nearfield pair-matching:


    - When selecting the drive units to use in the 2015 refurbishment, I did not perform any measurements, but instead pair-matched by ear using pink noise. As you can see, I did very well with the bass and mid units but not so well with the tweeters which diverge by as much as 3.5 dBs in places above 6kHz. As I explained in an earlier thread however, I have since discovered much larger variations than this in other HF2000 units, so the pair-matching isn’t nearly as bad as it might have been. While it isn’t noticeable during normal playback, I may re-visit this at some point in the future and see if I can locate a more closely-matched pair of HF2000’s for my 2015 Ditton 66 as I do enjoy a challenge!

    - I thought it would be interesting to compare and contrast the tunings of my 2015 and 2018 refurbished Ditton 66 so have overlaid the measured nearfield responses of both in the following graph:


    2018 Ditton 66 post-refurbishment nearfield vs 2015 Ditton 66 post-refurbishment nearfield:


    - The nearfield frequency response of the 2018 Ditton 66 is generally smoother and more neutral through the MF and HF than the 2015 Ditton 66. The 2015 Ditton 66 has a +2dB hump between 550Hz-1kHz and is +4dB hotter above 8kHz. The 2015 Ditton 66 is however more neutral between 300Hz-600Hz. Compared to the published anechoic measurements, I’d say my 2018 Ditton 66 is a closer match to stock specification:

    Ditton 66 published anechoic measurements:


    - As I did not take free space measurements of any of the drive units I installed in my 2015 Ditton 66, it is difficult to say whether the frequency response differences that are evident below 5kHz are due to: a) intentional design revisions to the drive units and/or crossovers, b) unavoidable intersample variations, or c) a combination of both. I think c) is the most likely explanation.

    - As the HF circuits are identical in the crossovers of my 2015 and 2018 Ditton 66, I am attributing the differences in HF output above 5kHz entirely to intersample variations in the HF2000 units used. During the 2018 refurbishment I measured a total of thirteen HF2000 units to select the closest matching pair, and I found significant differences in both sensitivity and linearity by as much as 8dB is some cases (see https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1803/...1c515378_b.jpg). Finding a closely matched pair of HF2000’s was NOT easy!

    2018 Ditton 66 post-refurbishment farfield from listening position (mic at MD500 height):


    2018 Ditton 66 post-refurbishment farfield from listening position (mic at HF2000 height):


    2015 Ditton 66 post-refurbishment farfield from listening position (mic at MF500 height):


    2015 Ditton 66 post-refurbishment farfield from listening position (mic at HF2000 height):


    - The farfield measurements show that, as expected, the balance between the mid and high frequencies is less affected by listening height than it is for nearfield. However, to my ears, the tonal balance still sounds better when the MF unit is closer to ear level than the HF unit. The measurements reveal an undesirable null in the response at 700Hz when the mic is at the exact height of the MF unit. This is either being caused by floor-bounce or possibly cancellation between the MF and LF drivers, as the null is significantly diminished when the listening height is varied by a small amount, and it is therefore not a cause for concern IMO.

    2018 Ditton 66 post-refurbishment farfield vs 2015 Ditton post-refurbishment farfield from listening position (mic at MD500/MF500 height):


    2018 Ditton 66 post-refurbishment farfield vs 2015 Ditton post-refurbishment farfield from listening position (mic at HF2000 height):


    - Ignoring the measurements for a moment, and commenting instead on my subjective listening with both speakers, I feel that both the 2018 and 2015 Ditton 66 benefit from some EQ to reduce the output of the lower mid frequencies. I appreciate that it is part of the tuning or ‘character’ of the 66, however I feel the elevated output here adds a wooly warmth that is detrimental to the overall transparency of the speaker. I find the areas requiring EQ to differ slightly between the two models, with the 2015 Ditton 66 benefitting from having the 500Hz-1.25kHz region reduced, and the 2018 Ditton 66 benefiting from extending the area of adjustment down by a couple of hundred Hz to cover 300Hz-1.25kHz.

    Conclusions:
    - I am delighted with how my 2018 Ditton 66 refurbishment has turned out. I best not contemplate the man-hours and expense that has gone into them, but the proof is in the measurements and listening, and it is clear to me that going the extra mile with pair-matching both the drive units and capacitors has been worth it. I don’t think I’ve heard a closer matching pair of vintage loudspeakers, and before embarking on this project I wouldn’t have thought such close convergence on 40+ year old transducers was possible.

    - As for the sound, it really is quite stunning. The 2018 Ditton 66 isn’t as immediately impressive upon first audition as my 2015 Ditton 66 or other references for that matter. As a Tannoy Monitor Gold and Sennheiser HD800S user for many years, I am used to a hotter than neutral top end, so my 2018 Ditton 66 did require a brief period of acclimatisation. Once my ears adjusted to its smoother top end, it was evident that all the detail was still there in spades, it just wasn’t being etched into the soundscape quite as explicitly. I could quite happy listen to this speaker for hours without the worry of listener fatigue, and also without feeling that I’m missing out on detail. It’s not often that a speaker is able to walk this proverbial tight rope without inevitably leaning to one side.

    - To sum up my 2018 Ditton 66 in one sentence, I’ll simply say, “you’ll have to prise these mothers from my cold, dead hands!!!…”


    .
    Last edited by ToTo Man; 31-10-2018 at 12:52.

  2. #2
    Join Date: Feb 2015

    Location: Glasgow

    Posts: 109
    I'm Richard.

    Default

    2018 Ditton 66 Refurbishment Photo Diary:




















  3. #3
    Join Date: Feb 2015

    Location: Glasgow

    Posts: 109
    I'm Richard.

    Default

    2015 Ditton 66 Refurbishment Photo Diary:




















  4. #4
    Join Date: Sep 2014

    Location: brighton uk.

    Posts: 4,737
    I'm jamie.

    Default

    top quality work there mate,1 thing ive always wondered,is there any difference between the bass drivers with the larger dust caps compared to the smaller early ones?
    My System
    John Wood KT88 Amp.
    Paradise Phono Stage
    Sony TTS-8000 Turntable.
    PMAT-1010 MK6 Tonearm.
    Ortofon Cadenza Bronze
    Sony X555ES Cd Player
    Yamaha NS1000m Speakers

  5. #5
    Join Date: Feb 2015

    Location: Glasgow

    Posts: 109
    I'm Richard.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jamie123 View Post
    top quality work there mate,1 thing ive always wondered,is there any difference between the bass drivers with the larger dust caps compared to the smaller early ones?
    I measured three pairs of T1600 and two pairs of T2169 drivers (results here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/131651...7699207168765/). Apart from small differences in sensitivity which are likely due to inevitable intersample variations, they all have fairly similar frequency responses. I think the T2619 version looks more impressive from a cosmetic perspective, the shallow being that I am!
    Last edited by ToTo Man; 29-10-2018 at 16:55.

  6. #6
    Join Date: Mar 2017

    Location: Seaford UK

    Posts: 1,861
    I'm Dennis.

    Default

    When I first heard these in the 70s, I thought they were better then my Tannoy Golds.

    Looking at the Xovers I would now be concerned about potential transformer coupling between the coils.

  7. #7
    Join Date: Feb 2015

    Location: Glasgow

    Posts: 109
    I'm Richard.

    Default

    I'm looking for information on the Celestion MF500 and MD500 domed midrange units, specifically what the difference is between them?

    AFAIK, Celestion first introduced the MF500 sealed dome mid unit with 50W power handling and later replaced it with the MD500 with increased 80W power handling.

    Anecdotal reporting suggests the two units had slightly different frequency responses, the latter MD500 apparently had stronger mid frequencies but rolled off sooner at the bottom and top (perhaps this is the reason it was able to achieve a higher power handling).

    Having measured a selection of MF500 and MD500 units (in free-space without a baffle), these are my findings:

    1) The response is nowhere near flat/linear, it is around 7dB louder at 1kHz than it is at 3kHz-5kHz.
    2) Left/right matching between all pairs of MF500 and MD500 units is excellent (within 1dB across most frequencies).
    3) One pair of MF500 and one pair of MD500 units have identical frequency responses.
    4) Two pairs of MF500 have different frequency responses between 3kHz and 5kHz (SEE GRAPH BELOW).
    5) There is not a significant difference in lower/upper frequency roll-off between the MF500 and MD500 until it reaches 14kHz (SEE GRAPH BELOW).



    I appreciate my sample size is small, and that measurements can be notoriously unreliable out of context, but finding #3 contradicts the anecdotal reporting that the MD500 has a different tuning to the MF500.

    Possible explanations?
    - Perhaps there was a there was a transition period during which Celestion mis-labelled MD500 units as MF500.
    - Perhaps there was originally inherent and unavoidable manufacturing variation in the tuning of MF500/MD500 units.
    - Perhaps the ageing process / deterioration is responsible for the apparently different tunings between the MF500 and MD500.
    - Perhaps Celestion made a different tuning of MF500 for other loudspeaker makers (the pairs of MF500 I tested that displayed weaker output between 3kHz and 5kHz were taken from B&O Beovox speakers).

    Interestingly, once installed into a Ditton 66 loudspeaker, I find the differences in tuning in the upper mid frequencies pale into insignificance in the frequency response measurements of the complete loudspeaker. This could be due to:
    1) Overlap with the tweeter. The crossover frequency is 5kHz so the tweeter's response likely still makes a significant contribution between 3kHz and 5kHz. (I have measured a total of thirteen HF2000 units and all exhibit a rising response below 4kHz, though the sharpness of this rise varies greatly from unit to unit).
    2) The fact that 30uf capacitance is used in the MF500 circuit vs 24uf in the MD500 circuit. (I've just learned that reducing the capacitance from 30uf to 24uf shifts the crossover frequency from 500Hz to 600Hz, so perhaps this is responsible for the MD500's increased power handling?)
    3) Baffle-step effect might mean the raw frequency response measurements I made of the MF500 and MD500 in free space are irrelevant.
    4) A combination of all of the above!

    Are there any other plausible explanations I've missed?

    It would be great to step into a time machine to find out how an MF500 and MD500 measured when it left the production line in the mid-1970's!
    Main System: Mac Mini > Schiit Yggdrasil 2 OG > Yamaha A-S3000 > Celestion Ditton 66
    Headphone System: Mac Mini > Schiit Yggdrasil 2 OG > Sparkos Aries / Schiit Mjolnir 2 > Sennheiser HD600

  8. #8
    Join Date: Feb 2015

    Location: Glasgow

    Posts: 109
    I'm Richard.

    Default

    I ought to change the ‘two’ in the title to ‘three’, having just completed my third - and what my dad hopes will be my last! - Ditton 66 refurbishment (…time will tell!…)

    I’ve actually learned more during this refurbishment than either of my previous two, having finally taken the opportunity to measure all of my spare MF500/MD500 and HF2000 units as part of a complete 66 system. (The crocodile leads I bought to enable the speedy swapping of drive units came in REALLY handy!)

    Most surprising was the extent to which the HF2000 interacts with the upper (i.e. >1.5kHz) response of the MF500/MD500, and likewise the extent to which the MF500/MD500 interacts with the lower (i.e. <10kHz) response of the HF2000. It has now become obvious to me that pair-matching by only considering the driver’s responses in isolation does not produce the expected result. Some HF2000s that measured ‘abnormally’ with one pair of MF500 drivers measured ‘normally’ with another pair, and vice versa, so lots of swapping was required to identify the best integrations! Notice how differently 'HF7' (highlighted in red) measures when partnered with an MF500 that rolls off earlier compared to an MF500 that rolls-off later).




















    Through lots of trial and error I settled on a driver combination for this latest refurbishment that track within about 1.5dB of each other throughout most of the audible range and have impeccably clean distortion plots, a result I am very pleased with. They were delivered to the new owner yesterday with freshly painted and polished enclosures.



    During my testing, I tried several T1600 bass drivers, several MF500 units and about a dozen HF2000 units. I noticed that regardless of the T1600 and MF500 combination used, this pair of 66s sounded consistently less coloured through the lower midrange and upper bass frequencies than my 2018 refurbished 66s. As well as being rather jealous I am also curious as to why this is?!

    My 2018 66s have measurably more lower midrange and bass output than the 2019 66s, but we’re only talking a difference of about 1.5dB, which I wouldn’t have thought would have much of an audible impact on the perceived clarity and colouration of the presentation.

    If I apply a low-shelf filter EQ to my 2018 66s to reduce output by about -2dB below 500Hz, their overall presentation does become clearer and less wooly/bloated and they sound much more like the 2019 66s, however they still don’t seem to have as much freedom/openness/dynamics, the kind of qualities that aren’t being picked up by the microphone. There are several potential explanations I have identified:
    1) Differences in bass drivers (the 2018 66 have T2169 drivers fitted while the 2019 66 have T1600 drivers fitted).
    2) Differences in mid drivers (the 2018 66 have MD500 drivers fitted while the 2019 66 have MF500 drivers fitted. I did try a lone spare MD500 driver in the 2019 66 and it sounded sublime. As with all the Ditton drivers however, each pair of MF500/MD500 was assembled by hand so will inevitably vary in their tonal and impedance characteristics).
    3) Crossover differences (my 2018 Ditton crossovers were re-capped while the 2019 Ditton crossovers were left as original).

    Interestingly, while testing drivers for the 2019 66, I stumbled upon one particular combination that produced the best (i.e. clearest, smoothest, most transparent and dynamic) sound I have ever heard from a 66. I literally spent the entire night listening to it utterly captivated! This was achieved by pairing my only spare working MD500 driver with a flat-measuring HF2000 unit. This MD500 in particular has approximately +2dB stronger output from 1kHz to 7kHz than any of my other MF500/MD500 units.




    Again, there isn’t a great deal of measurable difference between this combination and my 2018 66, yet the difference was clearly audible to my ears.



    Sadly I only have one MD500 unit with this response, its matching partner developed a buzz many years ago and regretfully I sent it away to a certain used hifi dealer in Bournemouth who was confident his tech could fix it, but when I got it back it had lost 3dB to 4dB of efficiency and had even more distortion than before!

    If I wish to make my 2018 66 sound more like the 2019 66, I presume I should begin with a process of elimination starting with the low-hanging fruit? i.e. try swapping out the T2169 bass units for T1600 units, then try swapping out the MD500s? Or do you think the issue is more likely to be in the crossover? I have just been advised on another forum to remove the 1uf poly bypass cap from the MF filter because it causes a “transient pulse error” that can smear the sound. Does anyone have thoughts on this? Or thoughts on my choice of capacitors in general? To preserve the original 66 tuning I was originally advised to use ALCAPs in the LF and MF shunt positions, Mundorf ECap Plain in the MF filter, and Ansar SuperSound poly in the HF filter.
    Last edited by ToTo Man; 04-06-2019 at 11:34.
    Main System: Mac Mini > Schiit Yggdrasil 2 OG > Yamaha A-S3000 > Celestion Ditton 66
    Headphone System: Mac Mini > Schiit Yggdrasil 2 OG > Sparkos Aries / Schiit Mjolnir 2 > Sennheiser HD600

  9. #9
    Join Date: Mar 2017

    Location: Seaford UK

    Posts: 1,861
    I'm Dennis.

    Default

    I've always had a sneaking admiration for this speaker, and you've clearly got to grips with high res computer measurement, a field I am afraid of, lovely resolution.

    Still I would like tidier Xovers, less spaced components, less potential coil coupling and thicker connecting wire, but this is instinctual.

  10. #10
    Join Date: Feb 2015

    Location: Glasgow

    Posts: 109
    I'm Richard.

    Default

    2019 Ditton 66 Refurbishment Photo Diary:























    Main System: Mac Mini > Schiit Yggdrasil 2 OG > Yamaha A-S3000 > Celestion Ditton 66
    Headphone System: Mac Mini > Schiit Yggdrasil 2 OG > Sparkos Aries / Schiit Mjolnir 2 > Sennheiser HD600

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •