Endo

Maynard, my numbers may be of limited use--as the display on my digital multimeter will not register less than one-tenth of a volt (eg. 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, etc... ). A few days ago, when I first tried the test--I thought the meter was incapable of the lower measurements; because after many minutes I couldn't get it to read anything other than '00.0'. I tried it again today and turned the volume up beyond normal listening levels... To my surprise, the meter began bouncing between 0.0 and 0.1, sometimes 0.2, with infrequent peaks to 0.3-0.4. Without touching the volume control, and with an EXTECH sound level meter--from my listening chair, 14 feet from the speakers--the music levels hovered in the 72-80 dB range, with peaks to 84-85 [This is louder than my normal, maximum levels by about 5 dB, but necessary to get readings for this "trial"]. So, with the numbers I'm seeing--that translates to... ? •Amp = YAMAHA SS, 70W+70W @ 8 Ohms •One pair '83 Cornwalls, with B3 crossovers Addendum: I had my meter set to low range AC; but I'm thinking I still did something wrong... those numbers can't be right?

Been reading through the available history... My initial confusion was in thinking CW drivers (all models) were configured "straight", like the current production. Seeing the older, previously optional driver configurations--it all makes sense. path to document: https://2d73e25b29782b6d6766-9c8af5cbfef16739445bc76457060528.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/Spec_600901_Cornwall_635120773557920000.pdf

^Thank you for clarifying that.

^ Thank you.

OK. I'm pretty dense. I had to read through this thread again to begin to understand what others were saying... I can finally see, in the third photo, that the motorboard configuration is asymetrical--and does not follow a single axis as I had imagined. One can just make out the three openings behind the screen (the two horns are turned on-end, high and to the right). Now I see why the arrows are helpful. I've since read through the Heritage 'Codes' posted by : Groomlakearea51 , and I see the "Horizontal" CW was discontinued in 1974. Interesting. (Thank you, Groomlakearea51; that must have taken some time to put together! A great resource.) This is all of interest to me as my tiny house does not present a lot of placement options for my CWs. Mine have the drivers arranged in a straight line. If I can lay them on their sides--then I might try that. Anything I do is going to be less than ideal due to my space limitations.

Thanks to all who responded. Did I read somewhere that both horizontal and vertical configured models were manufactured? The horizontal having the two horns stacked over each other (rotated 90 degrees) beside the woofer? Am I wrong about that? If a person were to lay a "vertical" CW on its side, is it a potential problem if the crossover is upside-down?

Thank you! I wasn't actually looking to buy the CWs--just curious about the placement marks. Yeah, I saw the other ad, too. I'm waiting to hear back from seller.

I did not know that. Do you know if/why one side is better than the other for horizontal placement--or is the stencil simply to encourage mirrored placement? Do you know if these were factory marks?

This pair of Cornwalls just posted to a local Craig's List: --> Curious, red, stenciled direction arrows are mirrored on the back of each. Does anybody know if these red markings were done at the factory? I thought speakers left the factory optimized for either vertical or horizontal placement--so, seems someone must have painted these markings after-the-fact... but they also look like they could have been done at the factory? Anybody know about this?

To my point: PWK had a patent on tuning rifle barrels, yes? Nobody had ever thought to do that before. That is exactly the kind of surprising serendipity that results from intelligence following its own curiosity. Einstein wasn't motivated by money, or power--although that stuff did follow.

Here's a thought... Obviously they are not. Bullshit in audio translates to easy-money, both in the shop and at the cash register. For this reason, bullshit attracts snake-oil salesmen, lazy-*** copycats, and other worthless, bottom feeders looking to profit from the efforts and ingenuity of others. Please correct me if I am wrong--but I do not believe PWK pursued excellence in audio in order to make money and get rich (yes, business is business; but, profit was incidental; and not the PRIMARY motivation). Rather, he was compelled by reasons less commercial: like, "I want to make the best flippin' speaker that will fit in an average living room"-- ?? Am I close? PWK had integrity. PWK was an artist. The fact that some of his work presents rather spartan aesthetics speaks to the man's integrity--and his distaste for inefficiency, on any level. I'm not done. Imagine all these copycat types, and snake-oil salesmen had to live on a separate planet all-by-themselves (nothing to prey upon, but each other). If not Hell to begin with, it soon would be. These miserable people get by in this world because others are doing-it-right. Parasites. Ignorant people, at the mercy of self-interested salesmen.

Holy Crap. Beautiful. My day just got better.

In one of his papers (discussing first-watt theory), Steve Deckert (of Decware) describes an "average" residential noise-floor as being around 55 db. Upon reading this, I got curious... (I just happen to own an industrial sound level meter). My sound-floor measures 56. I expected better-than-average and was disappointed. My exterior is masonry; wall insulation is rigid, sprayed-on, closed-cell polyurethane; all doors and windows are double-glazed; attic is 18" of blown cellulose. My closed-up house has always felt quiet--and yet, according to Deckert--my conditions are average. 30 to 35 seems like it would be outstanding--hard for me to imagine conditions getting better than that. Especially since 30-35 db is 100 times more quiet than 55. (log base 10, correct?). Who out there has a low noise floor, and how do you do it?

Not to make a big deal out of it, or anything; but, considering printing technology of the time (printers were using negatives and stat cameras, waxing type to paste-boards, etc.) I would say the image, as presented, is likely authentic. I did graphics in a print shop back then: As I look at the secondary and tertiary lighting, shadows, reflections... It would have been next to impossible to pull that off (no Photoshop)--and even if you did a great job--you still couldn't avoid 'leaving tracks in the snow' with that arrangement of objects in those lighting conditions... In addition, it seems out-of-character for PWK. Its hard to imagine him tolerating less-than-accurate marketing and not being embarrassed by it. Its a matter of integrity. Just my 2 cents. Who knows...

I'm sure someone will correct me if I've got this wrong... But, starting with v1.5, wasn't the CW available from the factory with an optional riser? That might account for the difference in height. The photo might be accurate (?).

I enjoy thinking about this topic. Imagine what a bottle of your favorite beverage costs. Now imagine what you'd be willing to pay for that same bottle if its contents never spoiled and never ran empty? And when you pass from this life, the bottle passes to future generations with no loss of its magical properties... A best-in-class set of speakers is a lot like that bottle, in my mind. Buying them might be the the responsible thing to do.

As an aside: Back in the 1950's, the German optics company, LEITZ Camera (aka: 'Leica') published an article which spoke to the peculiar and desirable qualities that had come to be associated with photographs produced from LEITZ optics (commonly understood to be among the best available at that time). The writer made the point that other lens manufacturers from that period (notable Japanese firms, in particular) were known for their high resolving power and clarity, but they lacked what some would call "roundness", "fullness" or "space" in the printed image. The argument was that the Japanese engineers were over-correcting for aberrations; in other words, they were "too good". By "over-correcting", these other lenses--although impeccable in their sharpness and contrast--suffered from appearing "flat" when the negatives were printed. LEITZ engineers, in contrast, stopped short of correcting everything possible--and identified boundaries beyond which they would not go. They deliberately engineered certain amounts of very particular aberrations be retained in lenses used for 35mm, consumer cameras--because they knew these aberrations resulted in what viewers were calling "space" and "volume" in the final, printed image. [Please don't misunderstand, Leitz lenses were not lacking in their sharpness--they just had something more] What's my point in all this? I guess, its that if a person had tried to choose the "best" lens back then by only reading numerical specifications--then they were missing the point. Turns out there was a portion of art in all that optical science. Is there a place for art in the science of audio? I sometimes wonder if "natural" sound (as opposed to reproductions of sounds) has certain and particular aberrations that might sometimes get "corrected" during the process of recording and reproduction? Do we ever "over correct" the signals in a way that makes them feel less natural? Do tubes fit in here somewhere? The digital/analog thing? I have no idea. Just know I'm diggin' these Cornwalls. I feel like a kid again. What's that worth? ( priceless. )

Am thinking heat (and sudden pressure?) might be an adversary here. I was thinking of using cool steam, like a vaporizer, and ample amounts of time to gradually ease things back to their original dimensions.

^ Good points, thank you. I think I'll press them against white melamine covered hardboard to avoid discoloration. Contemplating a steam box, like the ones used to steam-bend hardwoods. Wouldn't have to be elaborate, just a case to contain steam. I'll leave an update if I discover anything worth sharing.

I've got recently acquired 1983 Cornwalls with their original cane grills... But they need help. The cane seems intact--no breaks--but is pulled/shrunk so tightly on one of the grills that its curled beyond useable. I'm considering making a press that will gradually flatten them over several weeks; with the grills sandwiched between damp towels (not wet) or maybe occasional misting with a water spray bottle. Once the press is completely flat, I would remove the towels (or stop misting them) and let them stay pressed until they dry out. I'm guessing they won't be perfect, but might flatten enough that the velcro will once again hold them on. The grill frame (is it plywood?) might be the most difficult part. I'm concerned the moisture, over time, may cause the cane to release from the edges of the frame--does anyone know what kind of adhesive was used? Or maybe I'm wrong about the cane slowly stretching under the right conditions? • Anyone know why this might be a bad idea? • Is there a better solution to this problem? • !! Also, does anybody know if the Cornwall III Special Edition uses linen for the grill fabric? The photos on the corporate site sure look like the unprimed, Belgian linen I'm used to seeing used for stretched canvas used by fine-art painters. Curious. That would be an easy fix. Just order the linen from Utrecht. What is it that makes some fabrics sound-transparent and others not? Or are most fabrics a safe bet for sound transparency?

If I said this place is friggin' awesome... I'd be repeating myself; so, I won't be doing that. However, the responses I got (above) from my initial post are "180-proof-awesomeness". Best taken slowly... I am pleased to announce that I am the new steward of a pair of 1983 Cornwall (1.5?) with all original drivers and B3 crossovers, looking like they've been in a time capsule. [As an aside, both capacitors tested at 67.2 microfarads--exactly matching each other... Are they both fading at exactly the same rate, or is this how they left the factory, within nominal specs?]. I'm not touching them. The cabinet interiors were imbued with the soul of a man that could only result from both competency and a labor of love. Having never before listened to any of the Heritage designs, I went to listen to them--with a few of my favorite recordings--and what I expected to take less than an hour, turned into 4 hours of listening (no, read: "experiencing") the Cornwalls. Intoxicating. ... I'm old enough to know better. But it occurs to me, an entire generation in this world, has grown-up without experiencing high-fidelity. In my mind, the real Paul Klipsch could just as easily replace the imagined Howard Roark in the Fountainhead. I love this place.

jimjimbo, Seadog, John: Thank you for the responses--and for explaining what seemed crazy. All else being equal... I never understood bass extension as a function of sensitivity.

I'm new here (obviously--as evidenced by the profile, left of this post... ) I'm in no hurry, but am in the market for some heritage Klipsch to improve my current system. As I read about the different designs--voodoo mystery is keeping me awake at night: 1. Why does a Cornwall, with a 15" driver, extend down to 38 Hz; but, an RF5, with 8" drivers, extends down to 34 Hz? This makes no sense to my small brain. 2. The 15" driver moves more air than two 8" drivers--and I speculate this translates to a difference in the quality of sound produced; but, what is this difference? If I had unlimited funds, I would buy everything and keep what I like. Alas, this is not me. Would anyone care to comment?

Nice work. Taking "what is" and doing the work necessary to make it "something more" is admirable. That said, you've now got some very nice Heresy's that are even more bullshit proof than the originals (if that's possible). Thank you for sharing details. I love this place.

Impressive. You guys are great... Sincere 'thank you' to all who posted. The demonstrated understanding and clarity is more than I expected (although, this is the first place I thought of as a source of true and correct info). Thanks, again. [As an aside: In my experience, complex and esoteric subjects (eg. astrophysics, cellular biology, color theory] can be explained to children in a meaningful way. The limiting factor is not so much complexity of topic as it is the understanding of the one doing the explaining. ]