Freud Posted June 15, 2002 Share Posted June 15, 2002 Hello everybody, Can anybody tell me why the "Cornwall I" (98,5 db) are less sensitive than the "Cornwall II" (101 db)?! The speakers in the highs & mids of the "Cornwall I" are more sensitive than the speakers of the "Cornwall II" so why?! Is it the woofer of the "Cornwall I" wich is less sensitive?! Maybe they limit the output level??? I saw somewhere that the "Cornwall I" was rated at "99,5 db" is that possible? I bought some "K-55-V" & "K-77-M", i just need to buy the woofers (K-33-E?) with the ALK crossover and build the enclosure to make some "CORWALLS I" I am living in France and it's impossible to find some old KLIPSCH. I have the "RF 3" and it's the best speakers i ever heard, now i want to take a risk building some "Cornwall" without listning them, but i have the feeling that it will worth it! I listen a lot of things about all the KLIPSCH lines, and it's seems that the "Cornwalls" are the favourites. One thing is sure...I have found my brand and it's name is: KLIPSCH Best regards, Freud, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djk Posted June 15, 2002 Share Posted June 15, 2002 98.5dB at 4' equals (((48"/39.4"=1.218))log10)*20=1.71dB or 100.21dB at 1M This message has been edited by djk on 06-16-2002 at 02:46 AM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted June 15, 2002 Share Posted June 15, 2002 I don't quite understand what the normally insightful djk is getting at since according to the Klipsch spec sheets the 98.5 dB for the Cornwall and the 101 dB for the Cornwall II are from measurements at 1 watt @ 1 meter. Any difference in output is basically because they are different products. The woofer, squawker, and tweeter are all different between the two products. Good luck building your Cornwalls. I am sure you will like them when you are finished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mace Posted June 16, 2002 Share Posted June 16, 2002 On Klipsch's web site the Cornwall's are listed at 98.5 dB with 1 W at 1 m (nothing about feet). Another interesting thing in the Cornwall I's cut sheet is that they are rated 38 - 20,000 Hz with +/- 5 dB. It seems every other model's frequency response is given as +/- 3, including the Cornwall II's. Does anyone understand this difference? Good luck building the Cornwall's. I love mine. Mace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djk Posted June 16, 2002 Share Posted June 16, 2002 If you can find an old 70s data sheet you will find they were rated at 4' not 1M. " Sound pressure level (Sensitivity) Broadband Pink Noise was applied to loudspeaker terminals. The applied voltage was 2.83 V which corresponds to electrical power of 1W at 8 ohm (nominal impedance). The loudspeaker sensitivity is defined as sound pressure level (SPL) at specified distance 1.21 meter (4 feet). The specified value for Klipsch Cornwall is 98.5 dB/1W/4 ft which corresponds to 100 dB/1W/1m. Measured sensitivity was exactly as specified: 98.5 dB at 4 feet (121 cm), broadband pink noise. It was quite impressive to see SPL meter needle "dancing" +/-1 dB around 98.5 dB value. This fact contributes to conclusion that 14 years old Cornwalls show no noticeable degradation of electroacoustic parameter whatsoever." http://www.belgaudio.com/kcmeasurements2.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipschguy Posted June 16, 2002 Share Posted June 16, 2002 DJK is right about the four feet business. I have an old Klipsch speaker manual that says the speakers were measured at that distance. Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mace Posted June 16, 2002 Share Posted June 16, 2002 djk: thanks for the info. One more question: What about the other older speaker ratings like La Scala's, Belle's and such? Were they tested at 4 ft. distance? These are rated at 104 dB. Are they really even more sensitive (105.7?)? Also: any background on the +/- 5 dB vs. +/- 3 dB for frequency response rating? (Cornwall I vs. II) Always curious, Mace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boa12 Posted June 16, 2002 Share Posted June 16, 2002 since i got my rf-3, i thought my Cornwall I were more efficient than my rf-3, though rated same from klipsch. thanks djk! ------------------ My Home Systems Page Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freud Posted June 16, 2002 Author Share Posted June 16, 2002 Thank you all! djk, thank you for the info!...that change a lot of things, 100,21 db 1w/1m that seems more correct for the "Cornwall I". Mace is right, their frequebcy responce is given for +/-5 db but i think that ALK crossover will correct this...Correct?! Best regards, Freud, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djk Posted June 16, 2002 Share Posted June 16, 2002 I can't remember the exact year they came out with the new data sheets, mid 80s. But it was definitely after they had changed the network in the Klipschorn and given it a +/- 3dB spec instead of the old +/- 5dB spec. I believe this was enough to account for the change here. The Cornwall got new parts and a new network too. I really liked the Cornwall II much better than the original Cornwall. It was not only smoother, but it also went higher, and was 'tighter' sounding (which I attribute to the 2 X 4 brace from front to the now glued in back). The old EV T35 spec was -3dB at 15Khz, the K77 -5dB at 17Khz. With the K77M it will have a bit more way up there because of the bigger magnet, but I think it takes a K79 to make it -3dB to 20Khz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freud Posted June 17, 2002 Author Share Posted June 17, 2002 Everybody else prefer the "Cornwall II" over the "Cornwall I" like "djk"? It seems that people prefer the "CI" and other the "C II" Hmmmm...and it's difficult in this forum to found some one who had both(expect "djk"), maybe because when you have "Cornwall I or II" you just feel happy with them! Is the presentation of the sound diferent?! (particularly in the Mids because the K-55-V is bigger) Thanks in advance every body. Best regards, Freud, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipschguy Posted June 17, 2002 Share Posted June 17, 2002 Although opinions vary widely here, there is quite a large group (including myself) that prefer the sound of Cornwall I's with the early, simple crossovers. IMHO, the sound of the said, early Cornwall is: smooth, warm, clear, dynamic, punchy, full bass, excellent driver transition, somewhat midrange foward, almost mellow in the highs (cymbal sounds just like a cymbal). I've heard both types extensively - both sound good. Of course, it really doesn't matter what my ears like, it's what YOUR ears like! Rely on your ears, not the numbers - it can be a trap. Regards, Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freud Posted June 18, 2002 Author Share Posted June 18, 2002 Thank you "Klipschguyk"! I trust my ears, but different opinion are very important to decide!... Best regards, Freud, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djk Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 A very important point I forgot, the internal wiring for the Cornwall I is soldered to the drivers. On the Cornwall II they used push on connectors. If you do not cut off the connectors and solder the wires direct to the drivers the II will sound 'dirty' in the highs and the midrange will lack 'presence' and seem to 'wander'. All Klipsch with the front mounted drivers use these connectors. Soldered, the low level detail is greatly enhanced, silence decays to black rather than grey (dirt or noise). The decision to use these connectors was strictly a bean counter thing, less assembly labor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mace Posted June 19, 2002 Share Posted June 19, 2002 Speaking of how things are wired... I'd like to add banana plug type binding posts to my Cornwall I's. Is there any type which is better than others? I'm aiming for convience but don't want to sacrifice sound quality. Based on the appearance of the screw type connectors I can't imagine a gold plated banana plug sounding worse. I'm considering these posts: Binding Posts @ Parts Express Also, would rewiring the insides make any improvement in sound? Thanks in advance! Mace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 I would consider quality 5-way Binding Posts before the bananas as they provide a far more secure and airtight connection. Cardas costs a bit more but makes some excellent posts that can be tightened down with a nut driver or postman wrench. The provide more contact area as well. While Bananas are easy the binding post is worth the extra few seconds of labor. kh ------------------ Phono Linn Sondek LP-12 Valhalla / Linn Basic Plus / Sumiko Blue Point CD Player Rega Planet Preamp Cary Audio SLP-70 w/Phono Modified Amplifier Welborne Labs 2A3 Moondog Monoblocks Cable DIYCable Superlative / Twisted Cross Connect Speaker 1977 Klipsch Cornwall I w/Alnico & Type B Crossover system one online / alternate components / Asylum Listing f>s> 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.