Jump to content
The Klipsch Audio Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About Falcar

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I love the sound of Klipsch horns, but it sure seems like it a lot of audiophiles consider horns primitive and harsh. The old phonographs use horns and even the new ones do. I just feel like horns provide a crispness that cones cannot duplicate in the mids and highs. But of course, I like cones for the lower bass frequencies. When and why did the speaker industry (other than Klipsch and maybe a few others) steer away from horns in favor of cones? Or has it always been just a few speaker manufacturers that integrated horns into their home audio speakers? Thoughts?
  2. I've heard good things about McIntosh. Thanks for the response.
  3. Nah, I think bi-wiring doesn't make anything sound better and just complicates things for no reason. IMO, it's totally pointless.
  4. That's interesting because I also am running two Cornwall IIIs, one Heresy III in my home theater in my living room. And I'm also running two Paradigm X15 subs with an Anthem AVM 60 pre-amp and Monolith 5 amp. I run them in "all channels" mode right now, but I haven't set up my Anthem ARC room correction yet. I still absolutely love the way everything sounds!! The funny thing is that it seems like music sounds even better when I have all channels on compared to just 2-channel stereo. Maybe it's just because I am used to listening to music like that now, but it still sounds amazing!!
  5. La Scala was once considered a pro speaker. That’s fine. Doesn’t matter cause it’s considered a audiophile home audio speaker now. But I certainly won’t be using a pro Class D amp. No Crown Audio stuff for me. I don’t know what’s the deal with the pro audio agenda on this forum, but whatever, everyone has an opinion, and you are not changing mine. I’m as hard-headed as they come.
  6. I’m not going to get into a childish argument. But I will say it’s well known that speaker manufacturers are known for making speakers smaller and lighter when they come out with new versions to save on costs of materials and shipping. I’m not saying Klipsch will do this with the Cornwall, but I wouldn’t be surprised. The bottom line is profit and if a speaker manufacturer can save on materials and shipping and create an equal sounding speaker, they will often do that. For example, the original Cornwall had real wood cabinets whereas the Cornwall III has MDF cabinets. So I wouldn’t be surprised if the new Cornwall IV is smaller and/or lighter than the Cornwall III. I’m not so quick to believe newer models are better. And from the website ad I saw, it looks like the Cornwall IV will be the same price in stores as the current Cornwall III. But we won’t know for certain until it’s released. For the record, I love Klipsch speakers and none of this is a knock on Klipsch. I’m just stating reality.
  7. Okay, whatever you say. You are obviously just trying to be a contrarian for the sake of it. And of course I’m sure some audiophiles will pretend to hear a difference even if there isn’t a noticeable one. But in blind tests, good luck. And even if there is a noticeable difference (very unlikely), who’s to say whether it will be better or worse? I’ve often heard of people preferring older Heritage models more than modern ones. It’s all subjective. It’s not like we are comparing a Heritage speaker to an entry level Klipsch sold at Best Buy. The Cornwall III and IV are literally two of the same speakers with very minor differences and the sound will no doubt reflect very tiny differences (if any at all).
  8. What I meant was that in a blind test I bet it would be extremely difficult to tell apart a Cornwall III and a Cornwall IV. Nothing wrong with evolving the Cornwall though. Innovation and/or evolution of electronics is a good thing. However, I wouldn’t expect a noticeable difference in sound. That’s just kind of how it goes with new versions of the same model of speakers.
  9. I bet the Cornwall IV will sound no different than the Cornwall III, even though the Cornwall IV supposedly will cost more. If I was in the market for Cornwalls, I would try to get Cornwall IIIs while they are still available. That is, unless the Cornwall IVs end up actually costing the same as the current Cornwall IIIs (because you can never believe prices on unreleased speakers until they actually hit the market), then either Cornwall IIIs or Cornwall IVs are fine. Luckily, I already have my Cornwall IIIs
  10. I haven’t purchased La Scala IIs yet. I’m just trying to get a general idea of a good pre-amp and amp if I decide to purchase the La Scalas in the future. It will probably be for 2-channel music only, but with two subwoofers as well.
  11. Please recommend a good solid state pre-amp and amp for two La Scala IIs. Something that allows two subwoofers. No pro audio recommendations please. Thank you.
  12. I have Cornwalls, a Heresy, and two subs. I think putting pro audio stuff into a home is silly for various reasons, hence my snarky remarks. No one is going to talk me into putting pro audio stuff into my house because it's illogical and totally unnecessary and brings up other problems too. It's simply not meant for home use.
  13. I'm sure this speaker is inferior too because it's an audiophile home speaker and not a pro speaker, and probably doesn't require 1200 watts to power it. That's how it works around here, right guys?? Train horns rock!!!!
  14. So you are saying they make the Cornwalls bigger for no reason other than looks? That makes no sense at all considering the Cornwalls are way more expensive to ship too because of larger size and weight. The Cornwall is a 3-way speaker too which should have better separation than the KI-396 (which is a 2-way speaker) and the Cornwall goes significantly lower than the KI-396 too. But you are ignoring the virtues of the Cornwall and saying the KI-396 is better no matter what. Seems quite bias to me.
  15. To all the people saying the Klipsch pro speakers are better, how about explaining this to me: Why is a Cornwall III significantly bigger and heavier than a KI-396 if the KI-396 sounds better? Is Klipsch making the Cornwall bigger and heavier just for fun while purposely neutering it? To me that makes no sense at all. Some people claim the Forte III sounds better than the Cornwall but when I demoed them both, the Cornwall sounded a lot fuller due to its larger size, so why wouldn't it be the same when comparing a Cornwall to a KI-396?
  • Create New...