ODS123

Pricing sensitivity is omnipresent; it didn't suddenly become a consideration just after someone's "best" version was developed. It was ALWAYS there. Does not explain how Klipsch could make a speaker that 99% of people hate. ..A crazy claim.

Beautiful setup! A great choice in integrateds! While I'm not a big believer in the audible differences b/w amplifiers (ie., some call this "voicing") there are some REAL primo features offered by Mac amps that are becoming harder and harder to find, thus making it a perfect choice. Specifically, tone controls and mono mode. Tone controls are great b/c they allow you to soften those imperfect recordings and Mono b/c recordings from the early days of stereo were often marred by bad engineering. A perfect example is some of the early Beatles songs where the voices came out of one channel and music out of the other. ..Hitting the mono switch (or, in your case, using the Function knob and scrolling to mono mode) makes these songs much much better (IMHO). Also, you'll find your amp to be incredibly quiet. ..Very little or no hiss audible from the speakers when no music is playing and volume almost turned all the way up. ..Evidence of great engineering. If your amp was available when I bought my MA6600, I would have opted for the MA5300. 100 w/channel is WAYYYYYY more than enough. You'll see You'll be hard pressed to get those meters beyond 10-15 watts before your walls begin shaking. ..And you'll love the sound even more when you get those babies spread out. Nice! Here's a pic of mine.

Tried working my way through this thread but stopped at the claim that 99% of people seem to hate the CWIII and HIII. ..How could someone possibly know this? I absolutely love my CW III's and so too has everyone who has heard them in my room. Not to be too harsh here, but it seems inevitable that there will always be some people who think that a given brands engineering excellence (Klipsch, in the present case) ended w/ whatever model they own. They'll argue that whatever followed their beloved iteration was diminished by craven cost-cutting efforts or dim-witted engineers. Also, and I mean this sincerely, how can one capacitor sound warmer than another?

I adamantly believe that modern day amplifiers which are operating w/in their design limits that are indistinguishable from one another in terms of sound quality. To read more on this proposition, see this fairly exhaustive discussion If you're persuaded by this then you'll find any integrated or AVR would suffice provided it can drive your speakers loudly enough without distorting (an easy feat w/ Klipsch's b/c of their efficiency). So, while I wouldn't worry too much about which amp has better "voicing" (a nonsensical term that makes me cringe), I'd look for a sensible set of features. To that end, I'd recommend two features that can make music so much more enjoyable - bass/treble controls (tone) AND a Mono switch. I recommend tone controls because very few recordings are perfect. In fact, there are some wonderful songs which were rendered nearly unlistenable by poor micing, bad venue acoustics, or bad mixing, etc.. In such cases, a simple adjustment of the treble control can make this song enjoyable. Some will say such tampering basically undermines what the artist wanted you to hear but I say BS: if the song goes from "unlistenable" to "enjoyable", I'm quite sure the artist would strongly approve. I suggest that a Mono switch is equally indispensable. Do you listen to any music from the 40's - 60's?? During the early days of Stereo some songs had some very strange mixing. Instead of using stereo to replicate a soundstage where each instrument and voice is placed somewhere b/w two mics some treated it like a special effects opportunity. For example, some early Beatles songs had Vocals coming completely out of one channel and the music out of the other. When would this ever happen on a real stage??! To me, these otherwise fantastic songs are almost too goofy to listen to and problem is exacerbated if your sitting closer to one of the speakers. There are a great many Sinatra, Sarah Vaughn, Ella Fitzgerald, etc... recordings that suffer from this. After hitting the mono switch, all is brought into the middle and sanity is restored. In short, good Stereo is best, but Mono is wayyyy better than bad Stereo.

Where's the evidence? ..You're simply piling on more and more assertions. As I said, if it's true that using Birch would add 40% to the wood cost, it's important to remember that is only ONE of the great many costs of producing a speaker, and it's probably way down the list (labor being first, then overhead, then drivers, then - possibly - wood). Worst case scenario, I would guess it add just $30-40 (and probably way less) per speaker pair of Heresy's. It's unbelievable to think Klipsch would rather pocket a small cost savings, than - for the low low price of $30-$40 - gain the HUGE audible advantage you seem to think using Birch guarantees. A decision which would inevitably lead to an increase in sales. Why would they NOT do this?

Expectation bias is not a myth. ..If you believe it is, please explain. So what sort of empirical evidence would you accept as conclusive in settling the question, "are there audible differences b/w modern day audio amplifiers?" You certainly don't believe mere anecdotal evidence - which is all that is being offered in this thread - is sufficient, do you?

I believe you believe they sound better, but that doesn't mean they do. Without taking any steps to mitigate expectation bias you're simply making the same "yes, I can hear the difference" claim that many others do in this hobby. Again, in a clinical trial for a popular Asthma inhaler, 30% of the patients who received a placebo claimed to experience a reduction in symptoms. And this happens almost EVERY time patients are given a placebo in a double-blinded clinical trial. This doesn't mean they are weak-minded, they are simply responding to the expectation that the medication they've been given will help them. An identical phenomena happens in this hobby when it comes to hearing differences b/w amps, cables, MDF vs Birch, tuning rocks set on speakers, power cords, and on and on. Thankfully, when it comes to medications, the use of blinded trials to ensure true efficacy and safety is widely embraced (and mandated by the FDA), unfortunately this is not so w/ audio gear. I'm betting if PWK were here today, he would wholeheartedly agree that this hobby suffers terribly from a widespread disinterest in empirical evidence.

Richard Vandersteen, Paul Barton and Andrew Jones are all pretty terrific speaker designers too - and all use MDF. Remember, it's a 40% reduction of only ONE of the great many costs of producing a speaker. That could literally equate to just $30-40 per speaker pair. It's pure folly to think Klipsch would rather pocket a small cost savings, than gain the significant audible advantage you seem to think using Birch guarantees.

So why then does nearly every high-end speaker mfg use MDF? Are you saying Vandersteen, PSB, Revel, KEF, Paradigm, etc.. would all be better speakers if they used Birch Plywood? If all it took to gain an audible advantage over a competitor was to use ply instead of MDF, I suspect they'd be doing it - the incremental cost not withstanding.

It i's totally predictable that when a newer version of a speaker is introduced there will be those who claim that all improvements ended w/ the particular version they own. It's as if the crack team of engineers who made their great speaker suddenly became incompetent just as they were designing the successor. Or that the engineering focus abruptly changed from improving performance to only cutting costs. I recall reading this when Vandersteen went from 3A to 3Asig, Paradigm from Studio 100 ver4 to 5, Paradigm S8 v2 to v3 (w/ Berrylium Tweeter), and so on.

Are you taking any measures whatsoever to rule out expectation bias?? As I've suggested before, use a different cable for L and R channels, play a mono song and push your speakers close to each other (Yes, you have K-horns. Still, get a friend, put 'em on some sliders, and this can be accomplished easily), now switch back and forth using your balance control. You really hear these big differences?? I highly doubt you will. As for amps.. Any modern day amp that is engineered to be linear, and is not driven beyond it's operating limits will sound identical to any other such amp. This is even true of comparing a well-engineered Tube amp to a SS amp. ..Don't believe me? Go to a McIntosh dealer and compare their SS amps to their Tube amps. ..If volumes are precisely matched (a MUST when comparing amps) you will not be able to tell them apart. that's a promise. I so wish PWK was around to weigh in on this. I would bet all my gear that he would say what I've said above is true.

PSB, Paradigm, Vandersteen, KEF... indeed, darn near every audiophile speaker mfg uses MDF, and has been for a long long time. While the idea of using plywood has a nice artisanal appeal, the fact is that MDF is better because it's denser (less resonant), more consistent from sheet to sheet and takes cuts and routes more cleanly. And while it may be marginally less expensive, it is supposedly harder on cutting tools. As for pushing the drivers together, I'll defer to others to explain why. ..My hunch is this was done to improve the blending b/w the drivers.

An interesting read. Clearly loves the H3's and who could blame him, it's a great speaker. I will say, though, his credibility is diminished a bit by his insistence that Heresy's be driven by expensive electronics with pricey interconnects and speaker cables. ..I think even PWK himself would say this is nonsense. He would point a finger at his BS button, so to speak. Audible differences between modern amplifiers/ receivers, etc.. that are functioning w/in their operating limits (which would be easy for Heresy's given their incredible efficiency) will be indistinguishable. Ditto with respect to cables, etc..

So you’re suggesting that using a larger horn would make it sound too good and therefore would cannibalize on their pricier speakers? That does not make sense to me. Even if true that making their own large (like the lost mold) horn in house was prohibitively expensive, they could have simply procured something similarly sized elsewhere as evidenced by all of the horns seen on parts-express. I can’t believe they would instead decide to use an off-the-shelf horn that is woefully undersized and put at risk disappointing fans of this speaker and brand. I suspect there was a legitimate engineering reason to go with the horn they went with. The fact that the speakers sound as good as it does tells me they made the right choice.

I’m so sorry to be so stubborn on this point, but I simply cannot believe that to be true. I’m not doubting someone told you that, but I just can’t believe it. Even taking into account the relatively small production volume there’s no way it should cost that much. It’s a mold for injected plastic for gosh sake. My sons robotics team in high school make parts using CNC machines that are every bit as precise as that horn mold would be. And do so for tens of dollars not tens of thousands. I believe that if Klipsc felt another horn would sound better in that speaker they would’ve gone to the trouble of making it. A new horn is way less expensive than disappointed devotees of the brand

I've read that here as well, but I must say that this is so incredibly hard to believe. ..Making a mold is not some elite rarefied skill. If the K600/601 was the holy grail of horns, then making a new mold from a sample horn would have been well within the capabilities of any competent mechanical/ industrial engineer.

Hmm.. So why then does the CWiii sound better (to my ears, anyway) than the Forte III, which has a larger mid-horn? I listened to both in the same room and in quick succession using the same music. ..The CWiii's sounded more open and detailed. Your comment also begs the question, why did the Klipsch engineers use a smaller mid-horn in the 3rd iteration if LARGER is ALWAYS better?? ..I'm not an acoustical engineer but I somewhat suspect there is more to the calculus than you are suggesting.

As a more general comment regarding version II vs. version III of both the Heresy and Cornwall: It i's totally predictable that when a newer version of a speaker is introduced there will be those who claim that all improvements ended w/ the particular version they own. It's as if the crack team of engineers who made their great speaker suddenly became incompetent just as they were designing the successor. Or that the engineering focus abruptly changed from improving performance to only cutting costs. I recall reading this when Vandersteen went from 3A to 3Asig, Paradigm from Studio 100 ver4 to 5, Paradigm S8 v2 to v3 (w/ Berrylium Tweeter), and so on.

Haven’t heard the Cornwalls vs RFs but did so vs Hersey’s. To my ears, they sound wayyyyy more open than the Hersey iiis, shared mid horn notwithstanding. I think people are irked by the fact the Cornwall’s now share a driver with the Heresy and this may be impacting, via expectation bias, what they are hearing. I think you need to judge for yourself.

Convenient no, but certainly feasible for most people (after all, not everyone has Khorns). And think of future savings that would arise from this. To discover for oneself that there are no audible differences b/w (suitable for the purpose) interconnects and speaker cables, etc... could save an audiophile hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars and prevent endless bouts of audiophile neurosis. This experiment certainly brought my buying anything pricier than radio-shack grade wiring to a very abrupt end. I’m thankful for the lesson. I've also done this to test the notion of speaker break-in. With both my Paradigm S8's and Vandersteen 3A sigs, I Played one of the new pair overnight, then played both side by side. Again, a myth (imho)

I elected to get Cornwall iiis over the LaScala ii’s because they extend deeper. The additional efficiency and maximum SPL of the LaScala mattered less to me then the Cornwall being closer to full range. With just 3-5 Watts, the Cornwall’s are mind blowingly Loud and dynamic so it’s not like I’m missing out on the advantages of the LaScalas Like some of the others here I’m not keen on subwoofers. I don’t like the added cabling, additional cabinets and what seems like endless tweaking to get them to integrate properly.. That said, if I were to one day have my own listening room where aesthetics matter only to me, I might consider trying two subwoofers for a weekend to see what I am missing

Yes, have an open mind. But this also means open to the possibility that the difference you are hearing are due to expectation bias. Any person wanting to discover for themselves whether or not there are audible differences b/w speaker cables, interconnects, new cables/broken-in cables, etc. need only follow my simple recommendation: Place your speakers side by side, then have someone connect cable A to one channel cable B to the other channel (without telling you which is which of course) then as you sit back and listen have that person switch between the two speakers using the balance control as you play a MONO recording. I firmly believe the differences that seemed so obvious will disappear.

Again, as with comparing interconnects one could do the same w/ speaker cables: Place your speakers side by side, then have someone connect brand A speaker cable to one channel brand B to the other channel ( without telling you which is which of course ) then have that person switch between the two speakers using the balance control as you play a MONO recording. I strongly suspect the differences that initially seemed so obvious will disappear. The biggest con, IMHO, is that of the upgraded power cord. ..To think that current that travels through hundreds of miles of power line, then hundred yards of so of Romex in one's house, could be improved by changing the last 6 feet of wire that exists b/w an outlet and the component is, to me, ridiculous.

Can they still be ordered with the black textured Finish? The Heresy iii’s?

..Haha, yes I see that now. ..Oh well, the my point still stands. ..That there is a tendency for people to think that all improvement ended with whatever version they happen to own.