juicyjjj Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 I am considering purchasing a pair of cornwalls but was just wondering if i should save my money and save up for a pair of La Scalla's? I will be using them for only HT. I already have a pair of herseys, i plan to use one of them as a center. Also if i do go with the cornwalls, what are some things i could do to upgrade them? Replace the xovers? Woffers? or mid and tweeter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest " " Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 no...cornwalls will be better for you.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garymd Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Go with the cornwalls. Trust me. They are the best speaker for the money and you can place them just about anywhere. I doubt you will feel the need for any crossover upgrades although a refreshening wouldn't hurt, especially if they are pre-1980. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.4knee Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 oops double post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.4knee Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 This where you will find a very diverse opinion. IMO go with the LS. To me the CW is my least favorite Heritage line speaker. Its the mid's the LS is vastly superior, without the tubby muddy sound of the CW woofer in that cabinet. The CW will go lower for sure but I'll take a LS and a good sub, you'll need one for your HT anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laager Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 I am considering purchasing a pair of cornwalls but was just wondering if i should save my money and save up for a pair of La Scalla's? I will be using them for only HT. I already have a pair of herseys, i plan to use one of them as a center. Also if i do go with the cornwalls, what are some things i could do to upgrade them? Replace the xovers? Woffers? or mid and tweeter? This is where you need to be more specific. Do you mean the original La Scala or the La Scala II? Cornwall, Cornwall II or Cornwall III? Heresy, Heresy II or Heresy III? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdm56 Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Hard to compare the two. Cornwall III's list for $1750/each; La Scala II's for $3000. That's a pretty big difference in my world. Whether or not the LS2's are worth it to you is a Q only you can answer. The La Scalas will also require subs for HT use, where the CW2's won't. But, if you have heard the LS2/Klipschorn midrange, and love it, only the LS2 or Klipschorn will satisfy you. If not, or you're looking for max value, the Cornwalls are hard to beat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverSport Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 I agree with J4knee...seems some of us prefer the LaScala (and LOVE the LaScala II) over the Cornwall...I wish I preferred the Cornwall but the mids seem lacking to me when compared with K'Horns, Heresy, Quartet...I guess that's why PWK made the different speakers...[]...so we could ALL be happy... Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill H. Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 My impression after having the opportunity to A/B them side by side.......... 1. The LaScalas have crisp clean mids and upper sounds that blow you away. (to me).Edit: See Coytee's comment below............. 2. The Cornwalls sounded fuller, and went deeper with Bass sounds, but have a more physical "Punch" to them. 3. Both are excellent speakers, thus two diverse feelings will prevail...............it is almost like the "Speaker Wire debate"........... 4. If you go on the Cost/price basis.................Cornwall's , used, are a better overall bargain as to the bang for your Buck. neither speaker has a good WAF................. Again, just my humble feelings................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coytee Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 I agree with all of them...so "yes"! [6] That said, I'm personally more familiar with the LaScalas, having owned a pair for 30 years. If you are going to have a sub in your HT then I'd say LaScalas for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 As was said earlier, Cornwalls are the best for the money and they sound good EVERYWHERE. AND, they don't need a sub (except for movies), unlike La Scala's which sometimes do. A caveat -- I'm sure Gary meant Cornwalls I or II, which are only available used. These have a very special sound, which I think is due to the K-600 midrange horn. Super-clear, lifelike, and lively frequencies of 600 Hz and above are critical for world-class transient response and detail from guitars, cymbals, drums, brass and woodwinds, and for overtones that are critical to making clear what the bass is doing. I think they're special in non-classical music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverSport Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 In fairness to Cornwalls...most of my listening have been on the newer Cornwall IIIs and Cornwalls with the Heresy mid which might explain my choice better...LarryC's response reminded me of that...thanks, Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juicyjjj Posted February 22, 2009 Author Share Posted February 22, 2009 Well im only gona be using them HT. Is there any way to replace the mids and tweeters in the cornwalls to give them better sounds? The cornwalls im looking at are from 1981. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garymd Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Well im only gona be using them HT. Is there any way to replace the mids and tweeters in the cornwalls to give them better sounds? The cornwalls im looking at are from 1981. Why would you want to replace the mids or tweets? '81 was a fine year for Cornwalls. They should sound great as-is. BTW - I just happen to prefer Cornwalls to Lacallas. It's a personal preference. Both are fine speakers. I love my Khorns and Cornwalls alike. The jury is still out with my Belles. I've never actually owned Lascallas but I've heard them a few times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverSport Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Juicyjjj...hope I didn't confuse...you have excellent mids in the Cornwalls you have...I am using three Heresys across the front (with BEC CT-125 tweeters) and it soundsgreat for Home Theater...good luck with yours... Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesV Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Is there any way to replace the mids and tweeters in the cornwalls to give them better sounds? The cornwalls im looking at are from 1981. If I were you I would sit back and enjoy the speakers as is. I currently have two sets of Cornwalls, one from '69 and the other from '71. When I purchased the '69 they already had the x-over mod and the '71 are still stock. I would at least listen to them for a few months so if you do make any modifications that you have a starting point to reference from. Good luck, James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frzninvt Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 The 1981 Cornwall will have the dual phase plug solder terminal K-55V which is the best one Klipsch used and it is better than today's version's as well. The K-77M is a fine tweeter as well. I would just refresh the capacitors in the network with some quality ones like Kimber Kaps or Auricaps. The Cornwall has the closest overall top to bottom performance to that of the Klipschorn despite the fact that it is not fully horn loaded. I have heard them all side by side and I would take Cornwall's over Belle's or Scala's any day. The Belle and La Scala are missing the lower octave of bass response and require a subwoofer and good placement to ideal performance. I use a La Scala for a center channel since vocal presentation is what it was designed to do. I thought about a Belle but the midhorn is smaller and I wanted the larger K-400 horn at center whether it made a difference or not. When I went from Belle mains to Klipschorn's the missing bass octave was immediately noticeable once the Klipschorn's were in place. We all hear and perceive things differently though so to each his own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winchester21 Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 I am using both Lascallas-rears and Cornwalls- surrounds with a set of front K horns. I would like the idea of 3 Lascallas as fronts/center. If you have a sub- the lascalla is the best choice. Don't get me wrong- I don't think you can go wrong in either direction. The Cornwalls are great- just a little more bass specific whereas the Lascallas produce voice notes better.In either case I would not modify anything without a long tryout of the stock components. The Lascallas are not that much "better" just different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCOOTERDOG Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Well Hi guys...Long time no speak. I have been hanging around a lot over at the avs forum mailnly because of all my video and HTPC upgrades I have been doing for the last year but I had to chime in on this one he he. You know there both nice speakers but for HT i have to go with LS. I have them in my home theater along with my custom center and heresy surrounds and when it comes to wide dynamics there is no way imho the corns can hang in there. There is something to be said for the fully horn loaded system and in a theater application oh man sweet. If you want deeper base get a nice sub and your LS will shine like the sun. Mine are older and have Bobs upgraded xovers in them and that really made a big difference. My HT is 28 x 18 and the LS are between a 124" AT screen. But hey I'm biased. Scooter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 1. The LaScalas have crisp clean mids and upper sounds that blow you away. (to me).Edit: See Coytee's comment below............. 2. The Cornwalls sounded fuller, and went deeper with Bass sounds, but have a more physical "Punch" to them I agree completely with the above comments by Bill H. I have heard some older La Scalas with very aggressive midrange & highs that are wonderful and crystal clear with good soundtracks, but might make some moderately harsh soundtracks (even Lawrence of Arabia, and East of Eden, which I saw/heard last night) sound a bit hard (compared to the Cornwall). A good subwoofer might neutralize this, balance-wise. I have been known to boost the bass very slightly (yes, I believe in tone controls), and/or sneak up the sub a bit to balance poorly balanced soundtracks. If all recordings were good, I would guess that the best of the best might be a La Scala II center, a great subwoofer cutting in at about 40 Hz, and Klipschorn left and right fronts, with some surrounds of similar timbre but lower cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.