Cornwall III or Heresy III Matched to Modern Electronics?

[Darren HEal]

Newbie here, although I have several Klipsch speakers in my home, including a pair of Reference II 42s bought as a Christmas present for me a couple of years ago.

 

We've just moved into a brand new house and I finally have a dedicated home theater / hifi room where (hopefully) I can listen to music in peace once in a while.

 

I don't particularly like the Reference 42s as the drivers are just too small to move enough air, and I'm casting about for alternatives, brand new or nearly new.

 

The Cornwalls and the much less expensive Heresys caught my eye because of their "squat" cabinets.  As opposed to the more modern "tall and thin" cabinets, the "squat" configuration might work better for me than the "tall and thins" because I could place them beneath the edges of a projector screen rather than either side of a smaller (narrower) one.

 

Does anyone have any thoughts  on using Cornwall III or Heresy III speakers with modern electronics?  My sources will be mostly CDs, either direct or converted to FLAC files on a media PC, and played back through either Cyrus or Primare electronics.  I have had Cyrus kit in the past, which I would characterize as being very detailed to the point where they sound (but aren't) weak in the bass department, easily corrected with bass-friendly speakers.  The Primare electronics would be a shot in the dark, but the reputation in the UK is very very good.

 

Musical choice would be mixed, mostly 80s / 90s throwbacks.  Show me something that can deliver the goods on Kate Bush's "The Red Shoes" and I'll be sold.

 

My media room measures about 15 feet x 25 with an 8 foot celling, speaker would be positioned across one of the short walls tilted slightly upwards if necessary.

 

Anywhere in greater Houston TX where I can get a demo?

 

 

Edited November 19, 2015 by Darren HEal

[CECAA850]

Welcome to the forum.

 

Will these speakers double as HT speakers or be strictly 2 channel?

[Darren HEal]

^{Undecided yet.}

^{I have HT speakers set up in a 7.2 configuration (FL, FR, center, overhead left and right half-way down the room, rear left and right) in the walls.}

^{I am debating whether, when I upgrade my receiver to 9.2 (or 7.2.2 in Atmos speak), to use the in-walls as front high / front wide, and use the "proper stereo" speakers as the HT front left and front right, or add side speakers and keep using the front in-walls with HT, reserve the "proper stereo" speakers for "proper stereo" use.} 

^{What I can say is that in either case the "proper stereo" speakers will be fed from a "proper stereo" amplifier, not an HT receiver / processor.  I will hook up the front left and front right pre-amp outputs from the HT receiver to the "Aux" inputs of the "proper stereo" amplifier (or pre amplifier).  I'm quite happy to do this as I've done it before and as I'm quite happy to play with two volume controls as and when required.}

^{IMHO HT receivers still can't produce the same sound quality for music that a "proper stereo" setup can.}

[CECAA850]

IMHO HT receivers still can't produce the same sound quality for music that a "proper stereo" setup can.

 

Stereotypically I agree.  (see what I did there?  LOL).

 

 

For MY tastes, Heresy's need a sub for listening to music whereas I feel a sub is not required with Cornwalls.  From 60-80 Hz and up they're pretty close top each other SQ wise (to me).

[Budman]

get the Cornwalls   end of story

[oldred]

 

get the Cornwalls   end of story

+1

[jason str]

Cornwall III would be the best of the two as you could probably get by without a subwoofer.

 

Heresy III needs a good subwoofer to go along.

 

Either way you will end up spending about the same.

 

I always advise to go out and find a place where they have both hooked up so you can determine what sounds best to you so there is no doubt in your mind you made the right choice.

[garyrc]

While AVRs are not generally as good as separates, using a good AV preamp/processor and a good multichannel power amp gets around that IMO.

 

If price isn't too important, Cornwalls + sub, and a good AV preamplifier/processor and a good multichannel power amplifier (rather than an AVR) would work well with both "proper stereo" (2 channel) and HT, plus it would make playing multichannel SACDs, etc., possible, some of which are delicious.  Get a pre/pro with Audyssey XT32 (or a used one with Audyssey XT).

 

I could place them beneath the edges of a projector screen rather than either side of a smaller (narrower) one.

 

If you get an acoustically transparent ("AT") screen, like those available from Seymour, you can put your speakers behind the electrical roll down projection screen, rather than beneath (or to the sides).  Your screen can then be bigger.  I recommend a 2.35:1 screen.  Ours makes no audible difference, and even if it did, Audyssey would probably fix it.  We ran Audyssey with the screen down, and it sounds good (great, with the best Blu-rays and SACDs) with the screen down or up.

Edited November 19, 2015 by garyrc

[willland]

IMHO HT receivers still can't produce the same sound quality for music that a "proper stereo" setup can.

 

I eagerly agree with that.  

 

But, my NAD pre/pro(and NAD flagship AVR) sure can hold it's on with stereo music against some of the midfi stereo offerings I have owned and heard.

 

Oh, and welcome to the forum.

 

Bill 

Edited November 20, 2015 by willland

[garyrc]

But, my NAD pre/pro and NAD flagship AVR sure can hold it's on with stereo music against some of the midfi stereo offerings I have owned and heard.

 

Separate power amps tend to be rated honestly.  AVRs tend to be rated with only "2 channels operating;" this can mean that one can get only about 70% - 80% of the rated power, when all channels are operating.  I've always wondered if some AVRs overheat, because so much stuff is crammed into one box.  Also, I'd think the power transformers would have to be beefier in separate power amps.

 

My NAD pre/pro of a few years ago was good, but had residual noise (from beyond the volume control) through Khorns.  NAD said it was up to spec.  Cornwalls are less efficient, so the noise might not have shown as much with them.  Believe it or not, my newer Marantz pre/pro is quieter, and seems to sound better (with mostly NAD power amps -- see below).

Edited November 20, 2015 by garyrc

[willland]

My NAD pre/pro of a few years ago was good, but had residual noise (from beyond the volume control) through Khorns. 

 

Was that model the T163?  If so, they had hum/hiss issues that can be heard through highly efficient speakers.  My T773 AVR has a slight hum/hiss that is barely detectable through my Heresy I's.

 

Bill

[Darren HEal]

FWIW my idea of a "proper stereo" would consist of something like a Cyrus CD-T Signature Transport, DAC-XP Signature DAC / Pre-Amp and two Cyrus X300 Signature power amps, pretty much what I had back in the UK last time around.  I am, however, thinking about Primare kit, probably an A32 pre-amp with the digital media board, and at least one A34.2 power amp.

 

I'm not into BestBuy quality stereo!

 

On the subject of the Heresy vs Cornwall choice, people on a UK board have also said the Heresys are a bit light in the bass department.  Now, I'm not looking for ghetto $5000 subwoofer shaking my $500 Corolla to bits levels of bass, but I would like something capable of providing decent, dynamic, oomph to the music.  I'll have two Klipsch PSW110 subs hooked up to the receiver, might be able to chain those to the power amp(s) instead.

 

my "got-to" CD for testing stereo is Kate Bush's wonderful "The Red Shoes", possibly Paul Simon's "Graceland". Both a bit old, I know, but albums produced (IMHO) to the best standards possible, and ones that are complex enough to trip up any poor sounding kit.  If a stereo can reproduce all the detail in Kate's "Eat the Music", with punchy not wallowy bass, and reproduce the bass crescendo in "The Buildings of New York", or the drums in "The Obvious Child" I'm sold.

 

Any more thoughts?

Edited November 20, 2015 by Darren HEal

[willland]

On the subject of the Heresy vs Cornwall choice, people on a UK board have also said the Heresys are a bit light in the bass department.

 

A bit light in the low bass dept. but the midbass punch is about as "accurate" as I have ever heard. 

 

possibly Paul Simon's "Graceland"

 

Speaking of Paul Simon, fire up "50 ways to Leave Your Lover" and listen to the intro.  With my Heresy I's and Heresy II's(without subs) that snare and kick drums sounds fantastic.

 

Bill

[Darren HEal]

Sounds like Cornwall III is the preferred choice over Heresy, but the prices are quite a bit higher.  And if there still isn't enough bass, chain in the subs.

 

Just got to watch the 'Bay and the bank balance.....

[Ski Bum]

Since you have a dedicated room, and since even bass coverage is more easily achieved with properly located subs (plural), and that those sub locations for optimal bass rarely coincide with that of the mains, I'll throw my vote to the Heresy/sub array option.

[Khornukopia]

I have Cornwall IIs and Heresy IIIs and recommend the Heresy III with a GOOD subwoofer(s), because that combo will have deeper bass response, may fit your space better and will utilize the dedicated sub channel in home theater mode  (and for the reasons mentioned by Ski Bum).

 

In a different room I might suggest the Cornwalls without subs for 2 channel music because they will sound very good, and may be less expensive (GOOD subs = $$$).

 

If using high quality subwoofer(s) with either Heresy's or Cornwalls, then it is just a matter of what looks good to you, fits in your space, and meets your budget.

 

I emphasize GOOD subwoofer because an inferior sub will degrade the sound quality of any speaker system.

 

 

(pictured;  Heresy III, Klipsch KW-120, Cornwall II)

[Kevin S]

I am so sorry that I am so late to this. I have Heresy IIIs and have owned many other Klipsch seakers in the past. The key to the Heritage series speakers, IMO, is to place them as closely as possible to how PWK intended. In corners if possible, otherwise at a floor/wall junction. Sitting on the floor. Separated as widely as possible. Toed in 45 degrees. My Heresy's are flat to 40hz doing this, no subwoofer needed except for H/T. My subs crossover at 40hz and barely make a sound when listening to music.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Kevin S

[wvu80]

For MY tastes, Heresy's need a sub for listening to music whereas I feel a sub is not required with Cornwalls.

 

I'm late to the party having discovered 5.1 only in the last couple of years, but I have done a 180(o) from traditional stereo rigs and now believe every speaker set needs a sub to fully fund that lowest octave.

Edited November 24, 2015 by wvu80

[rockhound]

Welcome to the board.

I bounce from digital to physical media often and have found that most Klipsch speakers play both beautifully. I honestly think you will be happy with either. I started my Klipsch journey a few years ago and have tried most. My listening room is small 12x12 so I don't get the full experience as others in regards to the bigger Klipsch speakers. I recently picked up a pair of heresy 3's and I'm very impressed with what they deliver. I have come to the conclusion for my taste subwoofers are required this shouldn't turn you off the H3 as you can build high quality subs for dirt cheap.

If space and budget are true limiting factors I would get the H3's and build a pair of subs.

[ChuckAb3]

Add another Cornwall vote here.

 

With regard to HT, I've learned that sonically matching speakers is critical to good sound. I.e., match Heritage with Heritage, KLF series with KLF, etc. Then and only then do I concern myself with finding a sub that fits into the system. Just my opinions, but they are based on real screw ups and real successes from the past.

 

Good luck!