Heideana

Congratulations! Does this mean you've graduated? Hope you have a great time christening the place...[<)] Hopefully you're neighbors can appreciate the fine sound of Klipsch...

Does anyone know if the CWIIIs response curve is flatter in the low-end compared to the RF-7 or 83s? I think Im asking the question correctly? After living with the CWIIIs for a week I realized that I can tell a real difference between triode and ultralinear modes, while the difference is way more subtle on my RF-7s. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> On the CWIIIs, the triode mode low end seems to have a real defined difference between bass drum and bass guitar and ultralinear sounds bigger and less defined, like listening to something further away. Both modes seem to have much better defined bottom ends compared to the RF-7s which made me wonder if the CWIIIs low-end response curve is flatter or dont start dropping decibels as rapidly as they approach their rated low frequency response? The CWIII cabs also seem to more solid/massive and books accidentally left on their tops dont fall off at higher volumes, unlike the RF-7s. Thanks<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Hopkins

Hi Michael. Its' been a few days since I've been here...nope, its' an omnirax rack. It definitly wasn't a "partner-friendly" piece of equipment []. I think it started my taking over the front two parlors as my music-room [8].

I've been playing the Triton thru my CW III's for a couple of days now without any problems and I can finally hear the different ramp up/down speeds on the low and high rotors when using the leslie simulations! Thanks for the side note about Marshall cabs Johny...I hadn't thought about it. Is it because the straights have more volume compared to the slant faces?

Just saw this. It looks like Cornwall III's are starting to populate. Congrats! Mine just arrived this morning...glad I bought them sight unheard as well. Welcome to the forum...

Thanks!

I'm hoping that their selling like hot cakes. I'm also really surprised how less obtrusive they are compared to the RF-7's I had in this space, probably because their not so tall I'm thinking.

Does anyone know how to read Klipsch serial numbers in terms of when the speakers where made?

I meant to mention that Audio Images is filling the Klipsch void in San Francisco quite nicely since Goodguys closed. Thought I'd mention it if any locals are looking for a Klipsch dealer without having to leave the city. I think their geared towards installing studios and home theaters, but seem really kewl to work with if your doing your own thing...

Opps...the jpg didn't seem to want to attach...sorry.

Didn't realize I couldn't attach more then one photo..here's another of my KG 3.2's in their new home as monitors...what a mess! I can already see that it'll be a weekend of re-arranging and listening

My cherry CW III's finally arrived and just set them up. Wow, not to knock the RF-7's, which I also own; however the CWIII's do have a crisper presence and a stonger, tighter bass and image. I'm listening to Love's "Out Here" and I can really hear all of the instruments, including the bubbling, churning bass lines of early psychedelia captured on tape. I listend to Gorrilaz first and bass jumped out at a much lower volume then the RF-7's. I know its' subjective and the RF's were designed to have subwoofer reinforcement, but it's nice to finally here music I grew up with like I remember it....Blue Cheer is next. I'm attaching photo of initial set-up in my music room...their kinda like having two Marshall cabs. They should do excellent as cabs for my Triton! Thanks to all who guided me to purchase them, dispite my fright of spending that much money...

I was worried about taking the thread over too, especially since it was pretty well developed before I jumped into it. However, it caught my eye and I couldn't help myself from commenting... At the risk of continuing to hijack it, I have to say Bob Marley lead me into the Police and U2. Its' kinda trippy to think of U2 as some quirky Irish band with some really interesting guitar stuff and a bad singer...look at them now! I still don't like Bono's vocals, but they certainly have come up with some different takes on hard rock...where would they fit in the heavy metal schema?

Sorry Oldbuckster, I missed your Blue Cheer when I first read the thread! Their second album "Inside/Outside", was a favorite of mine to blast and dance as a kid...Monster was pretty cool too! [<)] Oh my no! [] I'd never lump STH with any of the bands you mentioned. I meant that it defined the format, particularily the way the tempo keeps picking up during the song as it starts out slow and acoustical with the sudden huge electric onslaught of a suspended chord. Now the song sounds trivial I think because of overplay, but the first play was magical and I'd never heard anything like it. It certainly blew away the doom/gloom of those first two Sabbath albums in one fell swoop as I recall. Also, probably at the risk of offending folks, at the time I tended to find most "power ballads" from bands that followed Zep to be a bit hollow. By the time Journey was blasting the airwaves I'd taken refuge in jazz and bizarre bands like Amon Duul II. There was also a stint in blues and new age and it wasnt' until I heard something by the Smashing Pumpkins that I really started to tune back into rock. I'd forgotten about Aerosmith because they kinda seem like new comers/youngsters to me although I agree with you about Steve Tyler... In terms of placing the Who in my schema of heavy metal, I'd place them in "hard rock" because of their Mod roots and the way their sound always seemd too clean and refined for heavy metal. Flipside is that there ani't no denying that they were loud...really heavy decibels levels, and if I recall things correctly, early Marshall's were essentially designed around Pete Townsends' desire for ever increasing volume. I'm thinking its' really hard to keep from being those "old men", especially in the face of hip-hop and rap where it seems a lot of that anger has gone...

I agree it is hard to differentiate between hard rock and metal. I tend to think of hard rock sounding maybe more romantic and rooted more directly in the blues, while heavy metal is darker, more stripped down and rooted in blues via acid rock. In terms of power ballads, I think Zep defined the structure with "Stairway to Heaven"...everything that follows is derivative(although I've heard a few things by the Smashing Pumpkins and Weezer that seems to side-step reappropriation.). As I think about it, I hear a lot of Donovan's influence on prepping my ear for Led Zeppelin. It might be that I'm older, since no one else seems to remember Blue Cheer and Steppenwolf? "Astrodominy" and "Careful with that Axe, Eugene" are probably the first things I remember hearing that made me think of heavy metal...

So I just finished the thread and I wasn't too surprised that I didn't recognize alot of the groups/songs. I was surprised that none of the other "older dudes" mentioned Steppenwolf, especially with John Kay's leather pants in the middle of the Summer of Love, although I may have missed it. Jeff Beck was also missing in action I noticed, although he wasn't/isn't my favorite. Bye the by, does anyone care to define "heavy metal"? I always thought it was chord structures stripped down to the bare metal and all of those "power" fifths played with lots of crunchies, not to be confused with the "power balled"...it appears that I'm into "dinosaur metal", eh? [8]

Oldtimer, I'd second you on Zep, they're kinda the bedrock of heavy metal, along with Blue Cheer "Sumertime Blues". I always think of Blue Cheer as proto-metal...yikes that bank of Marshall's all wide open making mince-meat of a 50's song... In addition to Sabbath, how about "Hocus Pocus" by Focus with all of its' satirical riffs on heavy metal? [H] Then there's all of that early Cream stuff and Jimi Hendrix's use of all those power chords and pre-Wall Pink Floyd (particularily "Meddle", which I think was a play on Metal) and Iron Butterfly "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" with the relentless, screeching guitar (which I just had to dig out and play so I could dance around the house and type my reply []) and Deep Purple's "Sweet Child in Time" and of course Stepenwolf who's "Born to be Wild" is where the term heavy metal comes from [] and "The Pusher". I think I'm an "oldtimer" too and I'll be curious to see how many other old timers show up on this thread...

Which speaker taps have folks been hooking Cornwalls up to on tube amps, 4 or 8 ohms? I know they're listed as nominal 8 ohms, but so are RF-7's and they are much happier on the 4 ohm tap.

Oh my...apologies for starting a controversy here...I didn't mean to get folks so upset! I thought I remember reading that PWK was partial to Crown amps somewhere, which is what made me even consider them in the first place. [:$] Thanks again to all for the information and Dr. Who's head's up about input impedance!

Thanks for all the advice and places to start looking. I was thinking something under $100...my main requirement is that my significant other can change channels on the cable box, adjust volume on the receiver and and turn everything off/on without having to think too much. I'm not sure if anyone else has those issues or has experience with those specific needs? I'd be willing to pay a bit more if it provided an elegant solution to the nightly complaints about why the "tv" is so complicated to change channels on...[]

Thanks for the tips all! I was hoping it was the case that fan speeds could be changed when I realized all, but the K-1 had them. The K-1 would be a dream come true...[8-|] Chops, I never thought that I'd ever want an amp with that kind of power either and was really happy running my RF-7's off of my tube amp in triode off the 4-ohm tap (which gives me somewhere between 30-60 watts I think). However, I noticed that the RF-7's mid-range was a bit smoother and the bass was tighter when I moved them to my HT area and hooked them up to my Denon 2805. Granted, s/s is supposed to have better low-end traction then my beloved tubes, but I also got to thinking about my brother's La Scala's that I cut my hifi teeth on thru the late 70's to late 80's. Initially he ran them off of Sony's first V-FET (or maybee it was FET) model amp. It was expensive at the time, low-powered and supposed to sound like a tube amp without the hassles and definitely could power the La Scala's to terrorize the neighborhood with Herbie Hancock and Alice Coltrane with ease, much to our delight! Somewhere around the early 80's, he replaced the Sony with a Carver pre-amp paired with the M-400 cube and the La Scala's got much tighter sounding with better bass and I started to understand the conversation about the RF-7's needing big reserves of watts because of the physics of their dual-woofer design where the low-end swings down to the 4-ohm or lower realm. I'm a phenomenological kinda guy, its' a bit of a leaf of faith for me and don't think I can articulate the actual "why" details of low-end requirements for bigger reserves when the resistance starts fluctuate in that 4-ohm and lower realm so that the RF-7's can maintain really tight, clean focus, so it'd be hard to debate much of it with me. I can say that the CW-II's ohmage doesn't dip below 5 ohms at 20 and 100 Hz, at least that's what I read in what appears to be a critical review by Borko on the CW II that I found on the web (http://www.belgaudio.com/kcmap.htm). If I understand the conversation correctly, that's why they, unlike the RF-7s, don't require big reserves of power to maintain tight, focused low-end. I think I also read somewhere on the forum that the RF-7's mid-range cleans-up, becomes more refined when they have bigger power reserves because of their lower ohm fluctuances as well. Anyhow, that's my long answer. The short is that I want to keep my eyes out for a good deal on some high-power Crowns' to use as power amps in my HT rig where I have RF-7's and a RC-7's and wanted some advice. I'm also thinking that a lower wattage Crown, like a D-75, would be the hot ticket to use with my KG3's that the CW's are replacing...I'm planning on powering the CW III's I've ordered with my KT-88's [].

Thanks for the tips. I want a Crown amp for my RF-7's too...I probably should have mentioned that in my original post. I'm just a bit overwhelmed when I look at the various models. I'm looking for a few clues to start familiarizing myself with them so I can an eye out for sales and what shows up used at my local pro audio store here.

I'm looking for a remote to tie a Denon 2805, cable box and TV together. The Denon remote does a pretty good job, except it's kinda clunky and slow on the uptake when changing channels on the cable box; resulting in lots of significant other frustration. Anyone have any favorites that their wifes or significant others can navigate without to much stress? Thanks for any suggestions...

Can anyone tell me which of the current Crown power amps are suitable for home use? I see them on sale at Guitar Center time to time, but never know which ones are worth considering. I want something that gives me 200-400 watts channel. Thanks for any thoughts...

I'm hoping in the next few weeks, which should give me a bit of time to get things shifted around in my music room. I can't wait to see how the low end of various Hammond B3 simulations from my keyboard sound, especially with Leslie simulations. Thanks again gang for pulling me over to the "Heritage" side for my music room. It's like going back to being young when most of my serious music listening was thru La Scala's...[8-|]. I pity my poor neighbors' when they do arrive...first there's Electric Ladyland, then there's Blind Faith, then a bit of dark Scando jazz, then maybee some Weezer....