Outstanding! I'm happy that worked out for you! I appreciate the comment!

Thanks for the kind words and sharing my videos! That means an awful lot to me! Considering that I've only been uploading videos consistently for about a year, I'm quite content with the way the channel has grown but it's flattering to read that people think it should be bigger 🙂

Thanks for noticing. I've been trying to make the editing a bit more interesting

Cheers! All that time in the wind tunnel paid off!

Thanks, man! I really appreciate that!

That's awesome! Thanks for commenting! If my theory is correct, that new V30 shouldn't be far off the 2002-2003 ones!

100 rocks??? That's a sick find, man! Congrats!

They quite possibly share the same qualities. I just haven't gotten my hands on any 99s yet

Hahaha! Love it! Thanks for watching!

I hope for at least a small change. Otherwise it will be a tough test and and even tougher video to make. I'll have to decide when to stop.

@@bdguitarsservice3359 Thanks. I'll make sure to clock that

I'm not sure about the wattage. As the Micro Terror delivers 20 watts of clean output power, I presume it will be somewhat more than 20 watts. I suppose I could dust off the old oscilloscope and try to measure the approximate output power. I'll be looping a ~ 25 minute loop of riffs I recorded recently. I just pressed record on the DI when I was noodling the other week

I have had all the Creamback variants and like them very much

and why do you make so much videos about v30@@TheOtherJohnBrowne

@@dominikpohli2381 because I want to. Every video on the V30 I've done was an effort to share research or investigate myths about the V30 through means of testing. The myths surrounding that speaker have fascinated me and to an extent bothered me for years. I thought some people would feel the same so I made my research and testing public. The Creambacks don't have that mystery. The only other speaker with a similar history is the Greenback which I like but don't love and the T-75 which I despise

solve the v30 mytery when i found the wgs retro 30 and the tonespeak liverpool @@TheOtherJohnBrowne whats good mystry speaker is is the g12h 30watt 75hz

Hi there, interesting question. I can think of a few possibilities. I suppose it could be that one side was used more than the other but I think it's improbable. Especially in two cabs. It could be that you have speakers with two different cone batches per cab. The speakers may all have the same production date but the cones itself may be from different bacthes though I find it improbable that these have landed seperated to the left and right in two seperate cabs. Are you sure that you are micing both the cab AND the speakers in the same relative positions? Nolly made a video where he pointed out that not only the distance from the centre of the cone affects the sound but also the radial position or how far one is away from the glue blobs where the wires come out of the cone. He made a cool video about that here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/r5anZ7x3u9KbZ6s.html I verified this in my ico cab but I didn't make a video about it. So are you micing both speakers at the same position relative to the glue blobs AND are you micing the same position on the cab (both sides mic'd to the outside or to the inside of the cab)? Congrats on the great cab scores. I too have a Mesa OS with 2003 speakers and it brings the thunder.

​@@TheOtherJohnBrowne First of all, thank you for promptly answering me. It's my first time trying to do some "science" about guitar tone. Labeling (to facilitate understanding): Speaker 1: top left (seeing from behind the cab, original position) Speaker 2: top right (seeing from behind the cab, original position) Speaker 3: bottom left (seeing from behind the cab, original position) Speaker 4: bottom right (seeing from behind the cab, original position) I'd like to point some facts: A) 2003 (23EN) speakers: 2,3 and 4 have D19-444 cones and 1 have D20-444. B) 2005 (29FQ) speakers: 1 to 4 (all) have E10-444 cones. Ps 1.: Both of my cabs (traditional and oversized) are slants. Ps 2.: I recorded speakers 1 and 3 (left side) at the top left position (swapped them) and speakers 2 and 4 (right side) at the top right position of the cab (swapped them), miking perpendicularly facing the grill cloth (same distance) on the outer side of the speaker where the cone meets the cap (in the middle of the dust cap height), which means the mic was in the same relative position to the glue blobs, although in the 1-3 pair (left side) it was closer to the ground side wire and in the 2-4 pair (right side) it was closer to the hot wire. Ps. 3.: I marked the grill cloth to position the microphone every time in the same place, however I didn't measure the relative distance between the microphone and the glue blobs and I don't know if the glue blobs are positioned in exactly the same place if we compare between speakers (I may do this in the next few days), which may result in small differences in distance between the mic and the glue blobs. Now I ask you: 1) Do you think my difference in tone on the right and left pairs is explained by this greater proximity to the ground or hot wire side? 2) In case I record everything again, if I position the microphone dead center, it will make a difference if I record speakers 1 and 3 on the left and speakers 2 and 4 on the right (both at the top of the cab). I ask this because the soldered wires are short and not long enough to allow me to record all 4 speakers in the same position (all at the top left of the cab, for example). If you agree, I'd love to keep talking about it, please PM me. Cheers!

Interrsting for sure. The top speakers in a slant cab will sound different due to geonetry but you already know that. I can't think of a compelling argumenr why the left side would sound different than the right side. I can't really imagine proximity to ground or hot wire would affect the tone but I don't really know. Have you tried switching the speakers from left to right in the cab to see if it is the speakers or the cab affecting the tone. I assume you are using the same mic?

@@TheOtherJohnBrowne It took me a while to respond to you because I had to redo all the recordings of my experiment, as I discovered some flaws in my method. First I need to make some considerations: - Labeling speakers (to facilitate understanding): Speaker 1: top left (seeing from behind the cab, original position) Speaker 2: top right Speaker 3: bottom left Speaker 4: bottom right - Labeling the mic position: HB: mic centered in the horizontal glue blob VB: mic centered in the vertical glue blob C: mic centered in the speaker's center - In both 2003 and 2005 quads: speakers 1 and 4: HB: connected to the hot wire VB: connected to the ground wire speakers 2 and 3: HB: connected to the ground wire VB: connected to the hot wire - 2003 (23EN) speakers: 2,3 and 4 have D19-444 cones and 1 have D20-444. - 2005 (29FQ) speakers: 1 to 4 (all) have E10-444 cones. - I only used my oversized slant cab table for comparison; - I always used the same Shure SM57 dead centered in the speaker (I made a fixed support to always guarantee the same position); I discovered some new things that answer my own questions I asked you previously: 1) My cab's speaker holes are not 100% centered in the baffle. I found out that the speakers on the right are 14mm closer to the outer wall of the cab than the ones on the left. This way, I did an experiment recording all 8 speakers (the 4 from 2003 and the 4 from 2005) in the two positions of the cab (right and left at the top) and I discovered that the tone obtained in all speakers when positioned on the left it has a boost in the bass frequencies (60-600hz), while in the other frequency ranges the position (right or left) tends not to affect the tone. 2) For both quads of speakers, each different year of manufacture is grouped in its own way in terms of general tone from 60-6700hz, however in the higher frequency range (from 6700hz onwards) there is no standard, as each one of the 8 speakers presented peaks at different frequencies. In general, the 2003's speakers have lower treble peaks than the 2005s, however the 2003 "speaker 2" has the highest peak at around 11khz which makes it a little bit fizzy. 3) In general, when I fixed the speaker position variable within the cab, both quads of speakers (2003 and 2005) have a very similar response at frequencies from 60-2300hz in all 8, with the most apparent differences being between quads being a drop at frequencies around 2700-3000hz and another drop between 5000-6200hz of the 2003's speakers in relation to those of 2005. 4) Fixing the variable of the year of manufacture and position of the speaker inside the cab (top right): - 2003: 60-600hz: all 4 behave very similarly 600-2000hz: speakers 2,3 and 4 (D19-444 cones) behave very similarly, while 1 (D20-444 cone) is a little lower. 2900hz: slight drop of speaker 1 in relation to the others. Would it be a different cone effect? 5200-6200hz: all 4 behave very similarly Around 7200hz: speakers 1,2 and 4 behave very similarly, while 3 has a peak in this range. 8000-10000hz: all 4 behave very similarly. Around 11000hz: speakers 1,3 and 4 behave very similarly, while 2 has a peak in this range. - 2005: 60-5600hz: all 4 behave very similarly 5600-6500hz: speakers 2,3 and 4 behave very similarly, while 1 is lower in this range. From 6500hz: there is no standard, each speaker presents different peaks. 5) About glue blobs (both 2003 and 2005): - speakers 1 and 4: 60-2600hz> the 3 positions behave very similarly (C, HB, VB) 2900hz> C: higher, HB: intermediate, VB: lower 5000hz and highs (above 7000hz) range> C: higher, HB: intermediate, VB: lower (drop) - speaker 2 and 3: 60-2600hz: the 3 positions behave very similarly (C, HB, VB) 2900hz> C: higher, HB: intermediate, VB: lower 5000hz and highs (above 7000hz) range> C: higher, HB: lower (big drop), VB: intermediate First conclusion that I was impressed with is that a small asymmetry in the positioning of the speakers inside the cab (14mm) generated a lot of difference in the bass responses of the speakers, that is why I fixed the position variation when testing, which gave me a lot of work because I had to open the cab 8 times to change the speakers. I was very intrigued to discover that not only do glue blobs affect the tone of a speaker when you're miking up close, but also to learn that the tone between which glue blob you're miking also matters, since the region over the glue blobs connected to the hot wire generate higher pitched tones compared to glue blobs connected to the ground wire. Also, I mic'd the speakers where the cone meets the dust cap in an intermediate position between the two glue blobs, where I found tones with intermediate peaks between those reported for the position on the hot wire glue blob and the ground wire glue blob. Finally, I mic'd the speakers where the cone meets the dust cap on the side diametrically opposite the glue blobs (vertical and horizontal), where I also noticed a difference in tones between the two positions, reinforcing that not only the position of the microphone in relation to the glue blobs matter, but also whether it is the glue blob connected to the hot wire or ground wire. Have you ever noticed this difference?

@@marcelopm3 That is an insanely detailed comment. Thank you. Your findings are pretty much in line with mine. The offset to one side and its effect were particularly interesting. I have not yet mic'd a speaker at the different glue blobs. I assume that the difference has more to do with the orientation in the cab though. I cannot imagine the polarity having anything to do with it as it is an AC signal going through the speaker

You raise a lot of interesting questions. I would assume that different audio sources could affect break in differently. I've read of quite a few people using white/pink noise or sine waves to break in speakers. However, in a video on Kohlekellers channel Ignacio from Jensen Speakers advised against such approaches, as the permanent excitement of the voice coil in those approaches may cause it to overheat and burn out. Hence I chose the more "natural" approach of playing guitar through the speaker despite the fact that the load the speaker will see is harder to quantify that way but I also believe that this is the way the majority of speakers will be broken in. The potential effect of the cab never occured to me. It's an interesting thought. Given that the cab affects the sound of the speaker and the speakers movement generates pressure inside of the cab, it could affect the way the speaker moves and hence the break in pattern. That really would be a larger follow up test. The first step for me would be to validate speaker break in as a concept and then investigate what affects the process. One would really need to break in a big batch of speakers. Sounds fascinating to me but I don't really have the means to do so. Speaking of means, you asked if you could buy me a cup of coffee on youtube. There should a a feauture active called "Super Thanks" where you can pay a small amount and get your comment highlighted too. I myself have not used that feature but only Super Chats in live streams so I'm not very familiar with the feature. I just know youtube will pass 70% of that on to me. Feel feee to take a look at that but please don't feel obliged to do so. The exchange/engagement here has been very rewarding to me as it is.

I respect your opinion. At the same time I believe you might be hearing the effect the cab has as well as the difference in voice coil impedances. Marshalls use 16 Ohm speakers while Mesas and Engls use 8 Ohm speakers. I shot over 50 V30 variants out in a big test a couple of months ago and I could not determine a specific characteristic for a Marshall G12 Vintage or a Mesa Boogie OEM V30. A Marshall G12 Vintage, Mesa spec V30 and a regular V30 of the same impedance made during the same period will pretty much sound the same in my experience. Since I released that test, some people in the know have reached out to me and confirmed that the OEM V30s and the regular V30s use the exact same parts that generate the tone and essentially sound the same. Some OEMs may have some specified tolerances but the design is the same.

@@TheOtherJohnBrowne There's one piece of evidence that you're ignoring: V30s are 60W. "Marshall Vintage" are 70W. Unless Celestion is lying about power ratings, the design is different. 1960V cabs are rated 280W. I don't understand why Celestion and Marshall keep this aura of mystery around those speakers, but Marshall Vintage cabs have their own tone which is completely different from any V30-equipped cab. It can't just be the plywood.

Celestion rate their speakers very conservatively. The older Mesa cabs with V30s were also rated at 280 watts. I would assume they keep the aura of mystique up because it sells. The design is 38 years old and we are still talking about it today. People buy Mesa and Marshall cabs specifically for the "special" V30s in them. Celestion would be doing their customers a diservice if they came out and stated that their customers coveted OEM V30s were the same as the bog standard V30s. Celestion have nothing ro gain from that. It would only piss off their OEM customers. Yes, Marshall V30 cabs do sound different, I believe you are correct in that and I also believe you are correct in saying it is not all about plywood. From what I have heard and seen the material used in the cab doesn't even play that big of a role. What moves the needle are the internal dimensions of the cab and the construction. Baffle construction, baffle angle, bracing, speaker spacing and how well sealed the cab is all affect resonance frequencies and which frequencies are affected by phase cancellation and thus the sound of the cab.

I have been waiting for this comment. Haha. Well, it's a bit of a clusterf*ck and you're not far off. I'm Irish but have lived in Germany for pretty much all my life. So the English speaking TV I'd be able to see as a kid was predominantly American. Most of the customers I deal with in my day job in the last decade are Canadian though so those influences will without a doubt have crept in to an extent, despite me trying my best to speak without an accent.

@@TheOtherJohnBrowne haha thanks for the explanation. I thought I detected some Irish but wasn't sure... and I also thought you pronounced some words like what's his name... Henner? Who is German so I just said "European" to be safe hahaha. A cluster f*ck, hahahaha. I'm Aussie, accents don't get more fkn annoying than us though so don't worry lol. Keep up the good work, love your videos. First time commenter though "I think" 🤘

@@KaddysJamKave Awesome! Thanks man, I appreciate it! I for one love Aussie accents. In my opinion an Aussie accent is optimal for cursing, followed closely by a Scottish accent but I am conviced "the c word" was created for the Aussie accent

@@TheOtherJohnBrowne haha I'll take it... But yeah you can't really beat Billy Connolly's Scottish accent cursing hahahah

@@KaddysJamKave LOL! That's exactly who I was thinking of