Number 9
-
Posts
127 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by Number 9
-
-
The Chorus need a louder woofer and the Cornwalls need a little boost
in the midrange.
What?
This is the opposite of what I know. I alsways found my Cornwall's very "forward" sounding .. e.g. a prominent midrange.
-
Disagreeing to what?
Disagreeing with the prior posts where most everyone said: Sure, go for it.
That's all.
-
I'll disagree.
The tweeter will be aimed right at you, resulting in a very bright
presentation because you are so close to the driver. You will also have
poor driver integration sitting less than 6' away. And don't get me
started on standing waves being
exacerbated by such a small room, resulting in a muddled bass and
mid-range region. At least in a larger room, you can play around in
positioning the speakers to minimize this effect, but
in a room that size, you have way fewer options.
I moved into a smaller home a few years ago where I had to put my
Cornwalls into a 16 x 19' room, previously 29' x 21'. I had to get rid of them because
they not only visually over-powered the room, but sonically too. Using
smaller Fortes now and much happier. My 2 cents, on the flip-side.
If
you wait long enough, I'm sure someone will pipe up and say those
small-refrigerator sized speakers sound great in a closet too.
-
DrWho... I think that is what ALK has been doing with his xover
networks (redoing for a flatter impedance curve). However, I don't
think an ALK for the Forte would be something he would find worthwhile
doing ... even with the venerable Cornwall, there was limited demand.
I wish I had bookmarked the quote last night, but I came across an
article on speakers where the writer was suggesting that a very wide
swing in impedance can, with some amps, make speakers sound a little
brittle. I wonder if that is why some find Forte bright? I've never
felt that to be the case (I use McIntosh), but perhaps with some amps,
that may explain what is going on.
-
Such a wild swing in impedance seems like poor design to me. Please
correct me if I am wrong. Makes it a more difficult load for an amp to
manage and will result in wide variation in sonic performance from one
amp to another. Most speakers today are being designed to have a much
more benign load.
-
Look for the Stereo Review 1986 Forte review scanned here recently.
The speakers have a WILD impededance swing. ALK has made that comment a few times before too.
They drop to as low as 3.7 Ohms at one point, and hit a peak around 130.
Thank god they are effecient, but certainly not an easy load for an amplifier.
-
I've owned the Cornwalls and now use a Forte II. Spend time listening 50% Jazz, and 50% everything else include R & R.
This may sound VERY strange ... but what is the era of your R & R CD collection?
If much of it is comprised of CDs mastered in the 1980s, forget it, the
Corrnalls are going to make you cry (in a bad way). Forte may be better.
The Cornwalls are punchier and sound bigger (which is good) to my ears
than the current Forte IIs. On good source material, they are great.
But... there is so much R & R poorly recorded/mastered in the early
days of the CD back in the '80s whereby the Cornwalls willmake them
sound painful. The Forte II, with the smoother Trachorn may make them
sound a bit more bearable.
In a convoluded way, I'm just saying what many have said before, the
Cornwalls have a forward sound and very revealing, and there are
unfortunately, many very bad sounding R & R CDs dating from the 80s.
-
Except for us Heritage fans who still love
and appreciate these large plywood (and now MDF) boxes with horns, I
don't really think there are too many others in the audio world that
would even care if the Cornwall was resurrected.
I disagree on this point.
When Klipsch killed the Forte and Chorus when they did (circa 1997?), they could not have done it at a worst time. Why?
The whole low-powered SET amp movement was just getting started. In
fact, the movement back to tubes and vintage gear was also well
underway with the arrival of the Internet. They missed out on an
opportunity to ride this wave.
How many speakers today can be properly powered by 5-10 watts and don't
have to sit 5 feet out in a room? Not many. Sure you can get into
Lowthers or Fostex stuff, but you then get into other compromises.
This is where I see the niche for a Corwall III, or indeed, some other
speaker in the resurected heritage line that can be introduced in the
$3K to $5K a pair range. To feed those Paramours, Laurels, Decware
Zens, McIntosh MC30s/MC225s, Scott 299, Aleph J and 30 amps which
people appreciate for what they are, but are challenged in mating to
effecient speakers that are reasonably priced and well-engineered.
I think people what people really want, is a speaker that has all the
best attribues of the Cornwall (high effeciency, slam, engagement) with
some modern attributes (more modern dimensions, an impededance curve
does not go all over the map).
I do think if the old Cornwall dimensions are kept, there are few homes
(and wives) who will adopt them. Why spend $5K on a marginally improved
CIII when many C1s and C2s can be found for $1K or less. But if the
CIII is made to fit the "needs" of modern times, then it stands a very
good chance to be succesful.
-
I've got an MR67, which was updated by Paul Grzybek in Chicago and the
bass improvement was the first thing I noticed when I got it. Much more
solid than any other tuner I've tried to date. And voices, oh so
natural. I think it must do to being in proper alignment. I also had
quite a few of the old caps changed, and all the tubes checked out.
-
Not to make a mountain out of a mole-hill, but this "issue" of the
standing waves in the CIII, resulting in the need to move the woofer up
several inches, caught my attention.
If the CIII has similar dimensions to the original Cornwalls and is
using a similar woofer and is tuned in a similar way ... would that not
mean that the original Cornwall and Cornwall II probably had the same
issue? e.g. Has there been perhaps a standing wave issue with Cornwalls
all along?
-
Also worth adding, these speakers were often designed to be placed in
soffits in control rooms. Don't know if they would sound properly
"balanced" in a home living room. The ones I saw in recording studios
were also tri-amped using either Crown or BGW amps. These rooms were
also designed to sound "right" through acoustical treatments.
If you are familiar with the "JBL" sound, then you get a bit of an idea of what to expect with Westlake.
-
When I was in a couple of recording studios back in the late '70s, I
heard a few Westake's. Not the particular model you speak of, but ones
with 2 x 15" woofers or a single 15" mated to that large
distinct-looking wooden mid-horn.
These used Altec and JBL drivers primarily. Incredibly powerful. Effortless.
If you go to the Lansing forum, a couple of people there at one time
use them in their home systems. These speakers are huge and extremely
expensive. So not for everyone.
-
If you've got the room, then for sure the Cornwalls will give you the
"Klipsch" sound you like. They load a large room better than the
Fortes. I moved a few years ago to a home with a smaller listening
room, and that is the only reason I switched to Fortes.
Paul Klipsch supposedly had a hand in designing the Forte II. He also
supposedly had a pair in his office. That says something don't it?
The Mundorfs can be had from various online mail-order places. I picked
mine up from audiyo.com ... reasonably prices, quick ship and great
service.
I like Jazz, and espescially like listening to vocalists. The Mundorfs
actually improve the details. You hear better delineation. But you lose
the raspiness and dryness in the mids too, which is a veru good thing.
Much smoother. Ella's voices slices the air now like "butta".
If you eventually go with the Cornie's, Dean here does a special xover
mod based on an all new design by ALK. The xovers in the Cornies were
not all that great and are one of their biggest weakpoints. The ALK
crossover smooths out the frequency response and impedance curve. This
is more than just a parts swap. Talk to Dean.
You may also hold off to hear the "new" Cornwall III or Scala II due to
be out in the next couple of months. These may tickle your fancy.
-
I owned Cornwall's and now Forte IIs.
Do a search. Which is better has previously been a huge debate here.
Luckily no WMDs used as yet to settle the score.
My 2cents. Cornwalls mate better to a larger size room, where they will
sound bigger and punchier. In a smaller room, my vote goes to the
Forte (which is why I used them now instead). The Forte definetly
sounds less "aggresive" for good or bad, mostly I think due to the
Tractrix horn. Both need to be mated to the right amp. A Cornwall mated
to a cheap SS amp, will be painful and harsh sounding. If you've got
the room, certainly aim for the Cornwall, if you've got a smaller room,
the Forte would be a better match.
-
I have a pair of Forte IIs which I've done a full complete update.
1) Mortite on the horns
2) Replaced damping materials inside (better quality)
3) Replaced with better internal wiring
4) Replaced stock riser base with more conventional speaker stand (looks nicer this way IMO)
5) Cap swap with a Mundorf on the mid, and Auricaps on the highs in xover
6) Replaced the resistor in the bass xover with a better qualtiy Mills
7) Isolated the xover board from vibration using insulation material
8) Replaced phenolic tweeter diaphrams with newer Titanium ones sold by Bob Crites
Maybe you can say I threw some money away, but I was lucky to pick up
my Fortes cheap. WIth all of this, I still spent less than $120 which
in the big scheme of things, is still not much.
Based on Dean's suggestions, I did not replace the cap in the bass
xover (110uf value - would have been very expensive), nor did I swap
the 2 inductors.
I would say the most cost-effective change was exactly what Dean has
suggested ... swapping the caps in the mid/highs (3 in total). I first
used an Auricap in the mids, and then went to a Mundorf Supremes (which
was actually worthwhile IMO ... I should have done this from the
start). Soom pooh, pooh these exotic caps, but it did sound nicer to
me. It would have been too much green $ to go with Mondorfs in the
highs. The size of the caps is also a consideration in fitting them on the small xover board.
I have raised hardwood floors in my listening room, and the speakers
with the stock risers did not couple nicely to the floor, resulting in
a bit of muddy bass. I replaced them with 5" speaker stands, and that
made a nice difference in the bass. Some people fill the stock bases
with sand, that may work too.
In retrospect, the other stuff, I would not bother with ... espescially
caulking the horn. They Forte II has a plastic horn. I don't know about
the original Forte I horn.
The original Forte xover schmatic was posted at one time on the
board. Perhaps try a search. Or send them to Dean, he knows what he's
doing!
These are very nice sounding speakers, and certainly worth the try.
Surprise your friends!! So many "audiophiles" have an anti-Klipsch bias
its scary. Screw them. They don't know what they are missing. I never
found them bright from the get-go. I use a McIntosh amp though ... I
think that is the difference. McIntosh amps are a little bit dark (in a
nice way). The cap changes mde things sound "smoother" and fuller,
particularly in the mids and highs which had less of an "edge" vs. the
stock caps. Perhaps that is the "brightness" some people talke about.
-
The Pass Labs "Aleph" circuit has been described as "single-ended class A with Mos-Fet output." The Aleph 30 for example got many rave reviews back in the '90s. Now discontinued, but still well sought after on Audiogon and eBay.
-
I'm surprised you did not notice differences in the bass. Every B&O speaker I've heard had poor bass.
-
One of the record reviewer's at Stereophile made a comment a few years back that being a female Jazz singer is probably the hardest vocation because the bar is set so, so high due to such a great legacy they must follow. How would you like to be compared to the likes of Ella or Nena or Sarah at the start of your career?
I've seen Jane Monheit and Diana Krall live. I think the future of Jazz bodes well because they are still very young. They can only mature and get a lot, lot better.
-
Klipsch may learn a lesson or two from Bose and B & O.
(I can see the daggers raised
)But if a company has enough clout, which I think Klipsch has, they should exert far more control in how their products are demonstrated via dealers.
B&O took matters into their own hands and set up their own stores. Bose, insits on dedicated display space in retail settings.
I'm not suggesting Klipsch do exactly the same, but its a shame that such fine speakers as the Klipschorn are not heard in a proper demo room.
-
----------------On 7/2/2005 4:31:08 PM scriven wrote:Also, I checked Merriam-Webster Online, Cambridge Dictionaries Online and Rane Professional Audio Reference and I could not find entries for trifield and trinaural. What do the terms mean?----------------
Did you try and look at my original links? Did it possibly occur to you that these are trade names? Are these are not legit if it is not in a dictionary? Come on, this is absolutely silly ...
Trifield is a process owned by a company in the UK through 5 different patents. Ambisonics has been written about for years.
Some links where Trifield and Ambisonic are discussed ...
http://www.stereophile.com/digitalsourcereviews/201/index16.html
http://www.ambisonic.net/beyond51.html
http://www.guidetohometheater.com/dvdplayers/305meridian/index2.html
http://mistervideo.net/work/FAQ/Sound.html
http://www.agmworld.com/tss.html
-
Hardhead ... it is healthy to be a little skeptical, and I am of that persuasion too sometimes. But are you skeptical or just plain argumentative in this case? If it is skeptical, live and let be then. I'm not going to preach my religion on to you.
Here is a link to a review by Kalman Rubinson of his listening experiences with Trinaural.
http://www.stereophile.com/musicintheround/904music/
There are also a couple of listener comments on AA and AK, which are basically positive.
No, I have not bought one, but if I could (I just don't have the room for it in my current home setup) I would jump on it.
As for James Bongiorno ... well ... why would you think he is an idiot?
-
----------------On 7/2/2005 1:44:09 PM Royster wrote:What are you trying to say? That "Dope From Hope " is wrong, somehow less advanced than Bongiorno? ----------------
I'm not saying the Dope from is wrong. There are no absolutes. I had the original brochures back from the late '60s with the UBER setup of Klisch corners with a Belle in the middle. I'm not saying the whole concept is invaled and that YOU do not like it or hear a benefit.l
But what I AM saying, DFH is a less sophisticated solution to the problem than what James Bongiorno has come up with. Yes. I don't think you read what is going on behind trinaural, otherwise, you would not have made the HT comemnts. If you read what James Bongiorno has to say, he is very much PRO three-speaker setups. But wanted a much better solution than what has been put out there till today.
FYI. All McIntosh gear (amp, tuner, CDP). Forte IIs, formerly Cornwalls.
-
----------------On 7/2/2005 9:36:30 AM Royster wrote:HOG WASH........Read Dope from Hope vol 15, no. 6 760061 and YOU will have the blueprint for a supurb 3 channel stereo.----------------
What little do you know? James Bongiorno is probably the most anti-HT hi-fi designer out there. His trinaural circuit is ALL ANALOG. The guy does not even believe in CD players. Trinaural has nothing to do with HT.
I was never saying that a summed channel does not work. Just there are now more sophisticated approaches ... read the original links I posted above.
-
----------------
Oh, so now I am impure and unsophisticated?
----------------
Man you guys are touchy ... I did not mean it to be derogatory.
What I really meant to say: Is if you look at (for example) what takes place with trinaural or trifield, espescially the science and reasoning behind it, it is far more sophisticated than a summed channel. If you read some of the discussions about it, they also talk about the many downsides to just a simple summed channel.
Trifield, ambisonics and trinaural in fact recognize the benefit of a middle speaker, but just try to do it better. In fact, ambisonics began as research back in the 1960s. So why knock down progress and improvement?
)
Which Patricia Barber CD to get??
in 2-Channel Home Audio
Posted
I agree with Allan. Her singing style is not for everyone. She leaves me cold, cold ... make sure you know what you are getting in to.