JBryan

Excellent points Mr. Flood. I've had the opportunity to listen to the AG Duos and Trios on several occasions and each time I've come away a little less than impressed. Don't get me wrong, they are very nice speakers and in some respects, beat out the venerable Khorn quite easily. I recently had my amp in the shop and the tech had a pr of Duos and he let me hook it up. The first thing I noticed was how quiet my amp was (noise was the reason I had brought it in). I literally had to put my ear inside the mid horn to hear anything. By comparison, I could hear noise from 10' away using the same amp on the Khorns. The Duos' mids seemed smoother and the highs more detailed and extended. On the other hand, I didn't like the sub at all - very boomy and artificial compared to the Khorn. The Duos also had a more laid back image - much more like cone speakers than the Khorn. It could have been the room or other components but to my ears, the Duos didn't have the coherence of the Khorns as I could easily discern what each driver was putting out - especially the sub. To me, the Duos just didn't convey the music as a single offering but rather in distinct parts. That's the same impression I came away with when I heard the Trios as well and they were being demo'ed in a very large room which allowed plenty of space to mesh the speakers. And speaking of drivers, it should be noted that the speakers feeding the horns are housed in a chamber so the AGs are not exactly horns in the truest sense. I'm sure some folks love them and they have brought many of the uninitiated into the realm of horns but considering the compromises and the price - they're just not my cup of tea. Of course, I've been listening to Klipschorns for so long that I'm surely biased. Have fun, Bryan

Here's a Placette on A'gon http://cgi.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cl.pl?ampstran&1065233772&2&3&4& Another nice passive is the Reference Line Preeminence http://cgi.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cl.pl?preatran&1064953862 or its cheaper brother...http://cgi.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cl.pl?preatran&1064210455 You should also look at passives from Creek as they offer good value/performance. One caveat - check the output impedance and voltages of your sources carefully as some components do not match well with passives. Have fun, Bryan

I have tried various types of ICs and speaker wires and IMO, the differences are pretty obvious but as Shock-Late and Dave said, their based on preference more so than performance. Zip cord does exactly the same thing as a $5000 pair of speaker cables - it just does it differently. If someone tells you that the sound is the same, first check out their room and equipment for shortcomings and then hand them a Q-Tip and explain the finer points of ear wax removal. In my experience, silver transfers a more detailed signal while copper tends toward a smoother one. All components should match with each other and the room. In that sense, its easier to look at wires and cables as a way to equalize and mix the sound. For instance, if you feel that your Khorns sound too bright and forward, you may want to try a set of copper speaker cables known for their "laid back" image. If that's not enough, then you might try similar ICs. Conversely, if you're looking for more detail and a crisper image, try silver. The wires will also help with impedance-matching which also effects the sound and is especially important when using SET amps and horns. While wires do make a difference, often bass response is better addessed by room treatments. My point is that there's a price for everything but the most expensive wires and cables may not be the best sounding in your system. You can always improve your system and no matter how much time and money you spend, you'll never achieve perfect reproduction. Just my opinion of course and to each his/her own.

I too enjoyed most every issue of Listener and was heart-broken when it folded. I was in the process of re-subscribing when the magazine went under so I guess I was lucky enough not to end up with a full year's supply of AV. I also get Stereophile but there's only a handful articles and reviews each year that appeal to me but I still feel its worth $12/year for Michael, Sam and now Art's take on their slice of audio - at least until Listener is resurrected (don't hold your breathe).

I had a pr of Cornwalls in front of my Khorns for a few months while I switched around equipment and played with them. In my room, I really noticed a drop in the Khorn's lower-mids and bass and the imaging went out the window - so much so that I stopped listening to them and consentrated on the CWs so I could get them out of the way faster. The CWs are very nice speakers and I imagine they would be great in a room where the Khorn doesn't fit. I tried several different amps and found the 300b SET sounded best in my system. NIce detail and 8 watts seemed ideal for the woofers where my 2A3 (3.5w) and 45 (1.5w) amps didn't have enough juice for tough, complex passages like say, King Crimson. I also used them with a Dynaco ST70, Korneff EL84SE and Transcendent T8 OTL and they sounded fine as well - just not as nice IMO. Getting back to the subject, I eventually moved the CWs out of the way and the Khorn's imaging and bass was back - and more so than I had thought. I didn't think the difference would be so pronounced and realized that I couldn't really compare the 2 speakers with the CWs in front. For my purposes, the Khorn betters the CW pretty much across the board. JMHO.

Maybe the mags don't want to spend too much time explaining why a horn-loaded speaker designed 50 years ago sounds better than many of the lastest, more expensive offerings. Maybe the reviewers don't want to nor think their subscribers would want to go through the troubles involved with modifying and matching equipment to sensitive HE speakers. Maybe PWK pissed off too many people in the biz with his rather brutal dedication to honesty (BULLS@#T buttons anyone?). Maybe I've had too much coffee... What was the question?

Glass tops were not offered by Klipsch so its an afterthought to protect the finish. Good idea. I have a friend who just picked up a pr of 25 yr old Belles in Teak with thick glass tops and they are beautiful. Hope you get in touch with the guy and take a look at the CWs soon.

Dee, Here's a pair...http://cgi.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cl.pl?spkrfull&1064287298. Not mine but they look authentic. Good luck.

I have a pair of '72 CW IIs with the book-matched vertical horn configuration. Apparently, there were changes from the ones up for auction (1967 according to the serial#). First, the grill cloth is stapled to the motherboard on which the horns are attached making it very difficult to remove the cloth. Next, the cabinet is oiled walnut and the back has been finished with walnut stain as well (if this wasn't done at the factory, at least whoever finished them did a perfect job of re-glueing the stickers). Other than that, I think the speakers in the ad are most likely stock except for the ferrite K-33 woofer. One thing I particularly like about the CW of this vintage is that the factory used a single piece of matched walnut veneer on the sides and top unlike my Khorns which have 4 strips on the front panel. Just a nice touch aesthetically IMO and probably the reason I'm having such a hard time selling these behemoths to get them out of my basement. Some would argue that the Alnico woofer sounds better but some also say that the newer magnets are faster and go deeper. Whoever buys these speakers will have the opportunity to try both and figure it out for themseves. Thanks.

While we're on the topic, how does one go about removing light watermarks and surface scratches before applying the BLO? I know this has been covered but I can't seem to find anything specific in the archives. Thanks for all the good advise!

Jeez Jim, With that attitude and your keen sense of negotiation and compromise, its no wonder that you're "single again" - just kidding. Actually my wife has been very supportive and extremely tolerant of my hobby/obsession (she may read this). She also has her quirks of course and is the "techie" around here - buying and setting up alI the computer and office gear. Heck, she's the only one in the house that actually enjoys reading the manuals (before attempting installation). Its nice to have in-house technical support but to be honest, I don't know how I might react if she were constantly buying computers and copiers that caught her fancy. She's given me my "playroom" which I have filled to the brim with guitars, amps, cameras and audio gear. I'm sure she's aware that it's a guy thing but its never been a problem with her. As a matter of fact, I had the Cornwalls in the room for weeks before she even noticed them and once she did, she said she liked them but thought the Khorns sounded better - clever girl. For my part, I just don't look in her closet and all is well with the world. She appreciates good audio gear and probably has better hearing than me so I get her opinion whenever she's available and I consider myself very lucky to be with her (still reading dear?). Sorry for the rant and happy listening in your cold, dark and lonely room (again, I'm kidding).

That's all I could find from a quick search. Sorry for taking up so much space and I couldn't find the original thread I referred to but I hope you can get something from the above. Obviously, its been tried both ways with varying degrees of success and differing opiions. I did notice a couple of threads that mentioned the pointer cards on the rear of the speaker and that should help you determine the proper or rather, recommended placement but as always, it falls to your ears to make the final determination. BTW, have you listened to the Khorns with the CWs in front. In my room, the CWs block the bass cabinet and the lower frequencies are noticably diminished. I've got to find another spot for them or convince by wife's cousin to consider taking them instead of a pair of Heresy's I found for him. If I can't come up with any other options, their days under my roof may be numbered. My wife has been very patient with my ever-expanding stock of Klipsch speakers but I'm finally coming around to her contention that I can only listen to one pair at a time and the rest just take up a lot of space. They do sound good though...

Here's another tip from Chris Robinson... "Wes, I have a pair of the old Cornwalls like you with the vertical mids and tweeters. The thing behind the emblem is as follows ... the lefthand speaker has the emblem on the left, and the righthand speaker has the emblem on the right. This is designed to give the speakers the widest possible soundstage, since LF is omni-directional, and the HF is not. Might as well put the upper frequencies apart from each other. BTW, the vertical mounting of the horns gives the widest dispersion, contrary to conventional wisdom. The narrow dimension (in this case, width) of the horn gives the widest dispersion, and the widest dimension gives the narrowist. If the horn is oriented vertically, you get wide dispersion of the sound. That's why so many people with the old CW "II"'s swear by the imaging of these speakers, which I also testify as being superb." And ShapeShifter responded... "Yes, the imaging of the vertical II's is indeed superb. My greatest pleasure is the level of detail produced in the mid & high freq range. I did a side by side comparison with my 85 I's and the verticals are hands down champs. With their biggest advantage, at least to me, being the mid/high range. Slight advantage in the low freq area. Regarding the emblem placement. I remembered there were previous discussions in this forum regarding their placement, and recalled someone stating that their pair had the emblems mounted opposite in corners to their verticle horns. I had to run several searches but here's the link to the thread and the quoted post.

Dan-HO! tried them both ways - here's his findings... "...On another note, After reading one of your other posts a while back....., I tried swapping my mirrored II's around, so that the Horns were inbound (as you had stated something about that being the rec. positioning) and found that, at least in my listening room, to my ears....., I went from having FANTASTIC (your setting in the same room with the artist.....) "Imaging", to nearly none (it was much more like you were just listening to a couple of stereo spkr's in a room....). Thus I pulled the 2 wheeled hand truck, back into the house, and swapped 'em back to Horn's outbound (don't like to drag those metal feet across our tile floor...., and I sure don't lift these without some form of assistance....)." To each his own...

...and found this from Chris Robinson... ...the first Cornwalls were indeed "II"'s, which was basically an icon for the two HF, vertically-mounted horns. After they discontinued them (you needed to buy matched pairs which made production a little more complicated), they went to the Cornwall I's with the horizontal horns. I have a pair as well which I bought from the original owner last year, here in the Boston area. Prior to that (and concurrently for a while), I had a pair of 1985 vintage Cornwall I's ... I did some A/B comparisons and found the difference to be quite startling. For starters, the II's seem to have a wider HF imaging since the vertical orientation of the horns permits wider dispersion than a horizontal orientation (sounds counter-intuitive, I know). When you set them up, the PWK logos should go in the upper right (for right side) and upper left (for left side). IOW, the logos should be out be outboard in orientation. Secondly, the B series crossovers are a thing of beauty. They're very simple and lovely sounding. I'm sure they're still intact. They do very well with the Alnico magnets on your drivers.

In regard to the vertical orientation, I found this tidbit from HBDRbuilder... The age old problem with speaker cabinet design is getting each separate driver/horn to fire as close as possible from the same point of origin...along the same axis. As for the difference in what one hears from a cornwall with vertical horns in it laying on its side(which makes those horns become horizontal, by the way) vs. the cornwall with horizontal horns standing up...well, the design of the cabinet entails it be a baffle chamber, which, in order to achieve the desired results, places the woofer much farther from the midrange horn and tweeter horn...ie., farther off axis point of origin. In the horizontal horn cornwall, when the listener is in a sitting position, the top end is firing from a high point along a center axis even with the top of the listener's head or a bit higher, and the woofer is aimed much lower. In the vertical horn cornwall, when it is laid on its side(as intended), the horns become horizontal, giving the same horizontal dispersion as the other type, BUT, all the drivers are much closer on a vertical plane to the same axis point of origin, even though they are not so on the horizontal plane, thus...a different effect, since the tweeter and midrange aren't firing from a point at the top of the listener's head or higher...but instead are firing at the seated listener's center of mass...that is why in this model the horns are toward one corner and that corner is intended to be at the top in the laid-down configuration. Also, if one were to take that same vertical horned cornwall, and lay it on its OTHER side, where the horns were more toward the floor, it would present a different sound-staging effect, because the lenses of the horns would be firing lower down toward the listeners feet. If a pair of vertical-horned cornwalls had their drivers mounted in a mirror-image of each other, laying on their sides with the horns toward the top inside corner, but the woofers toward the outside walls in a corner, it would provide a nice balanced effect, but...these were not manufactured at a time when stereo was in its prime and therefore not made in matching mirror-imaged motorboard pairs.

I set them up the same way as you originally because I thought the CWs were symetrical (not book matched). Actually, I think I got the placement info via a search of this forum. A gentleman discussed his CWIIs and suggested the placement in that thread. If I remember right, he also knew why Klipsch offered them in vertical configuation in the first place. I'll look around and try to find it but I've always thought that in a generic set up, the tweeters usually are placed closer together than the woofers for better imaging (smaller vs. larger waves). I tried it the other way first and after finding the thread, realized my error and switched them around (at their weight, you want to keep the moving thing to a minimum). The image tightened up a bit but I wouldn't think of writing anything in stone. You may find that in your room, with your system the way you have them works best - have fun and I'll try to find that thread for you.

Congratulations on your purchase! I also have a pair of '71 Cornwall IIs with vertical horns in the bookmatched configuration (with Alnico drivers). As with your set up, I also have the CWs in front of a pr of Khorns with false corners. Somehow your system looks much more "finished" than mine - very nice! I noticed in your pic that your have the CWs set up with the PWK badges in the outside corners which would put the tweeters furthest apart. I was always under the impression that the CWs should be set up with the tweeters closest and woofers furthest apart (badges centered). Out of curiousity, did you place the CWs where you did because they sounded best like that or have you been informed otherwise? Thanks and happy listening.

Agreed Kelly, but in my experience (and that's all I have going for me) speaker efficiency is paramount to SET and 1.5, 3 or even 8 watt amps will compress and distort at high volumes with all but the highest efficiency speakers. My Korneff 45SE (1.5w) begins distorting complex passages when the volume exceeds 87dB or so on a pair of Cornwalls but easily handles the same passages at higher volumes on Khorns. Of course, one of the reasons is that the amp uses lower gain in the driver stage compared to most other SET amps and my Sun 2A3 modified to use 45 tubes uses higher gain and doesn't distort at the same levels even though it only puts out 1.3 watts. BTW, the 45 tube has the most visceral, dynamic bass with Khorns in any amp I've heard which includes 2A3, 300b, 845, EL84, EL34, 6550 in SET, P/P and OTL (EL509) designs. I can't really comment on SS since I only heard a McIntosh 2100 on them before I jumped to tubes but it didn't impress me at the time and I can't go back now. The higher power amps with few exceptions, have a fuller, more pronounced bass but the 45 delivers more dynamic and yes, deeper bass than the others in my system. Just my 2 cents, Bryan

All very interesting...Its good to see that few have been swayed in their opinions in what must be one of the most discussed topics in this forum. I admit to climbing the cable tree and IMO, both sides of the debate have merit. What I've been able to gather from my rather limited experience is that everyone's experience is limited to the cables they've auditioned in their system and all cables perform the same task in passing the signal to the next component and each does so with marginal variations that effect that signal in a way that most folks can easily hear. I feel all the confusion and debate arises from the purpose of cables. Some argue that - bottom line, its an electrical connection - nothing more or less and given the characteristics of the audio signal, any conductive material can do the job - period. Others look to the way that the signal is passed and therein lies the magic. I submit that with all the variables involved in the audio chain; room size and resonance, SS and tubed gear and their respective designs and components, and speaker size and type - cables certainly play an intergral role. I also think that because of these variables, there is no ultimate cable or wire for all systems. I suggest that cables be used to "mix" and equalize components together and with the room. For example, I tried all silver in my system and found it fast and dynamic but also too lean. By changing out wires and cables, I found a pleasing combination by changing the silver to copper ICs (Cardas) in the DAC and copper speaker wire (AlphaCore). This seemed to work best for me but I'd never think it'd be a universal set up. I also rewired my SET amp with silver only to return to copper after a few months because I liked the fuller sound six9 copper offered. Sure I tried zip and to some extent, magnet wire and it would be reasonable to think that they would sound fine in some systems - they just didn't do it for me. Finally, I've never heard anyone declare that they have put together a system that exactly duplicates the listening experience of a symphony, recital, rock concert, jazz club, etc. so all you can hope for in audio systems is an imperfect illusion, compromised by your choices in equipment and of course, your wallet. Everyone must decide for themselves how best to recreate the illusion within their own criteria and limitations. Wires and cables do make a difference but you must determine for yourself just how much trouble and expense your willing to go to satisfy your audio desires. Its my opinion and I'm sticking to it...unless someone comes up with something more interesting. Bryan

Sorry, that's the Horne Shoppe not Hammers, although I haven't heard them either. Kelly's right about trying to do both HT and 2-channel. Its full of compromises that ultimately, you may not be happy with. HT is all about sensation and effect whereas 2-channel is more about the illusion of being there. To each his own though. Good luck, Bryan

Guy, First, if you're keeping the Spectron why would you need efficient speakers? Those digital amps put out over 350 w/channel and don't really sound right at low watts. I had a D-1 for a while and I can't imagine a scenario where it would sound good with efficent speakers - especially horns. If you're looking to change amps as well - forget what I just said. The forum has been littered with opinions of late regarding Cornwalls and La Scalas and the gist is that the LS offers better detail and dynamics in the bass but the CW goes lower. Both have their benefits but, IMO the CW sounds a bit muddied in the lower frequencies and I have yet to hear a sub seemlessly integrated with any speaker much less a horn. You'll need 2 fast and musical subs (REL comes to mind) just to get close. Even the well-regarded Avant-Garde speakers sounded like 2 distinct systems to me. If you're going for a HT setup, then its not as critical but for 2-channel - its a very difficult and expensive experiment. On the other hand, I think your first choice is the best option as your room seems well-sized for Khorns and they offer most of what you seem to be looking for. The false corners are not that difficult to build and implement and frankly, I'd suggest them to anyone who doesn't have the ideal room. They really open up the possibilities and let you adjust the soundstage, image - even the bass response to some degree. Just build them even with the fronts of the Khorns and don't forget to use bottoms on carpet (better bass and much easier to move around). So, if you're still reading this rant, I'll sum up by saying that I haven't heard the Straight 8 or Hammers but can't imagine they'd have the detail and dynamics you'd get with the Klipsch. IMHO, the amp you have is too much for anything you've mentioned when a good 10-25 watts will do an excellent job. The LS w/subs would be the most expensive solution; the CWs the least but most compromised leaving the Khorns w/false corners as the best solution.

The second happiest day of a boater's life is buying his first boat. The happiest day is when he sells it...

LIVING ROOM!? If I tried to put a pair of LS in the living room, she'd change the locks - at best! No, the only finish in the LR is mahogany...period. She gives me a lot of leeway in the basement (bless her) and that's where ALL my crap is. One afternoon few months ago, I had just picked up a pr of Cornwalls and put them in my car when she called my cell phone to let me know that she was heading home. I quickly calculated and figured that I had at best, 25 minutes. I sped home and husked those speakers into the house and downstairs to relative safety without another thought. I'm not a big guy and those speakers are heavy but the spectre of her walking in on me was motivation enough. She caught me once, driving up just as I was lifting a JBL L-300 out of my car. "Oh no you're not" and she just had that look...you know the one? I called a friend and within 3 hours, he was the proud owner. I never got to hear how they sounded in my system. It would have been sooner but my wife wanted dinner first. Oh well, didn't like them anyway... and she did let me have the Khorns.

Lots of worthwhile advise from Kelly, et al but I thought I'd chime in anyway. I've played around with a lot of equipment in the last few years and have found that comparing amp designs as diverse as SET and P/P can be trying at best. I've never heard your speakers but I suggest that you consider your listening habits (loud) and that they may require more power than the Apollos' 3.5w provide without compressing the sound. I should preface that - the room is your first consideration. A flea-powered amp will often be more than enough in a smallish room - even with moderatly efficient speakers. With the same amp in a larger room, you may need an extremely efficient speaker just to get to reasonable listening levels. If your room size is fixed and you want to keep your speakers, then the only piece of the equation you can work with is the amp. The only other variable would be the room's dampening - carpet over concrete with masonry walls and acoustic ceiling sounds alot different than wood floors with drywall walls and ceilings and don't get me started on windows. If both amps can provide enough power to drive your speakers to the levels you require then great! you're ready to compare - almost. To really do this properly, you're system must match exactly. In my opinion, I like to use cables and wires to EQ a system. For example, if the bass is too boomy, I may switch a cooper IC or wire with a silver one or use a larger gauge wire on the woofer. Its really just a matter of trial and error for me and I'm always amazed how some combinations work when they really shouldn't. If your having trouble hooking up the Scott to your wire - just use simple zip cord for both amps. I definitely wouldn't biwire one amp if I couldn't biwire the other. Keep it simple. Finally, as Kelly said, you're looking for music that will bring out the best in each amp as well as what you want from them. Your choice of music should be something you're familiar with so keep that in mind as you look for music that highlights detail, separation, bass, voice, imaging, soundstage and anything else you want to hear from your system. The albums you've chosen certainly will demonstrate some of these qualities but not all of them and unfortunately, they were recorded during the darkest days of the industry and suffer from severe compression and smearing from endless overdubs and edits. That's compounded if you're using CDs - especially CDs made before the mid 90s. Of course, in my experience, with most SET amps and HE speakers you will hear the best and worst of a recording (I will never be able to listen to Pink Floyd the same again - there's just not enough alcohol, etc in the world). All things equal, it's then just a matter of taste and only you can decide what sounds good. Sorry for the rant and its just my opinion so don't take offense and have fun, Bryan