Cornwall III's or Forte III's??

[ozolius]

I have 3 Klipsch systems currently in my home. Palladium 37F's in the family room with 2 RSW15 subs, Cornwall II's in the basement and Rf7II's also in the basement to jam on my drums with. I'm thinking about selling my 37F's and picking up either Cornwall III's or perhaps Forte III's for the family room. I've only heard Forte I's back in college when I had first bought my Cornwall II's. I thought the Cornwalls blew them out of the water. My question is two fold: 1. Are the Cornwall III's as inferior as many a thread on here imply? (Bad crossover frequencies, underwhelming midrange and boomy, resonant cabinets are mentioned). 2. Do you think the Forte III's would be the better fit when combined with the two 15" subs I already have? Theoretically I'd be getting the better midrange, a tight punchy 12" direct firing woofer with the added bass of the passive radiator and dual subs. The three 7" woofers in the Palladiums just don't seem to "move the air" like I've grown accustomed to all these years of being a Klipsch fanatic. Any thoughts would be appreciated, especially from those few who have heard the Fortes.

[pzannucci]

8 hours ago, ozolius said:

I have 3 Klipsch systems currently in my home. Palladium 37F's in the family room with 2 RSW15 subs, Cornwall II's in the basement and Rf7II's also in the basement to jam on my drums with. I'm thinking about selling my 37F's and picking up either Cornwall III's or perhaps Forte III's for the family room. I've only heard Forte I's back in college when I had first bought my Cornwall II's. I thought the Cornwalls blew them out of the water. My question is two fold: 1. Are the Cornwall III's as inferior as many a thread on here imply? (Bad crossover frequencies, underwhelming midrange and boomy, resonant cabinets are mentioned). 2. Do you think the Forte III's would be the better fit when combined with the two 15" subs I already have? Theoretically I'd be getting the better midrange, a tight punchy 12" direct firing woofer with the added bass of the passive radiator and dual subs. The three 7" woofers in the Palladiums just don't seem to "move the air" like I've grown accustomed to all these years of being a Klipsch fanatic. Any thoughts would be appreciated, especially from those few who have heard the Fortes.

 

You have 2 115s. How much air do you need to move.  Considering that you think there is a problem, it is likely the matching of the 37s to the 115s in the crossover region.

I'm not sure I would sell the 37s for a pair of Forte IIIs but you would have to decide for yourself.  For your system though, if you really wanted to part with the 37s, Forte IIIs would likely sound better, mids, and tighter bass, than the Cornwalls.  The mid horn in the Cornwalls is inferior to the Forte and I myself always found the bass a bit tubby.  If you want to do some cabinet tweaking, that may be fixable though I still would rather have the newer mid horn.  

 

Haven't heard the Forte III but just looking at the design criteria and implementation so this is opinion.

[totalcomfort]

I have always loved the Cornwall, but heard the forte III at the gathering. The new mid horn was awesome, if you were going to change forte III is the way to go imo. 

[Frzninvt]

Those are R-115SW subwoofers not the RSW-15 those had passive radiators on the back and were not ported.  The RSW line of subwoofers were probably the best Klipsch ever produced.  That said subwoofers are certainly not Klipsch's forte' (pun intended) there are far better options.  Anyway back to your question I would go with the Forte' III because of the midrange and passive radiator which I think it would have a superior frequency response in a smaller footprint.  Not thrilled that they used the Heresy midhorn in the new Cornwall III they should have gone Tractix.

[willland]

1 hour ago, Frzninvt said:

Not thrilled that they used the Heresy midhorn in the new Cornwall III they should have gone Tractix.

They still can and call it the Cornwall IV.

 

Bill

[Grizzog]

Having heard fortes/heresies with the exponential mid (same as the Cornwall 3), vs the Chorus II with the tractrix, my vote would be Forte III. I'm trying to figure out how to get a set myself.

[haydukej]

Like the rest that have chimed in, the FIIIs would get my vote if you're itching to buy something new. I would suggest bringing your 7iis back up from the basement and seeing if you like them paired with your R-115SWs better than the palladiums...although that seems a shame to relegate the palladiums to the basement due to their eye candy factor.

 

[chriswhotakesphotos]

I'm sure I'll be buying one or the other for myself in due time and my interest is very much with the FIII. I like it for having bigger mid horns, plus everybody here swears by the 'mumps' horns that used to only be for Klipsch Pro speakers. Based on some of the chatter I've seen on the forum it seems like they're taking a lot of what people like about KP and using Forte III to put it in a home speaker.

[ozolius]

Thanks for the feedback. The RF7II's were with the 2 subs in the past in the family room. I thought the RF7's sounded more balanced with the subs than the Palladiums. That said, I like the separate mid/highs on the Palladium. I think if I had purchased the Palladiums 39's with the three 9" woofers I would have been happy. When Palladium was deeply discounted I pulled the trigger on the 37's. I've been having a difficult time totally embracing them. The company Hifi Heaven is willing to give me $600 more than I paid for them on a trade in for a brand new pair of Cornwall III's. (i.e. $4000 for the Palladiums which I paid $3400) I'm hoping the Forte III's come out soon so I can get a quote on a trade in for them. I want my next move to be my last for a while.

[CECAA850]

The F3 with the new mid horn is a sweet sounding speaker.  Very balanced.  I would take them with a sub in a heartbeat.  They really impressed the crap out of me when we heard them last month.

[Peter P.]

On 5/9/2017 at 7:08 AM, pzannucci said:

You have 2 115s. How much air do you need to move. 

Ask me that after I've eaten a bowl of chili.

[jimjimbo]

F III's

[LarryC]

Do you have a Palladium sub to team up with the 37F?  When I played around in Indy several years ago with 37's, 38's with subs, and 39's, I concluded that:

1. The 37's were not terribly adequate and I wasn't interested.
2. The 38's w/sub were wonderful, were very satisfying in classical music because the bass was so ideal.  In particular, I could easily and clearly hear the string basses under the cellos in the Dvorak New World.  Even my K-horns don't do that.
3. The larger 39's w/o a sub were a little boomy, but not as nearly as nice bass-wise, as the 38's w/sub.

The above reactions were predicated on using the superior Aragon electronics that Klipsch had at that time.  Their later (and lesser) Asian-based pre-pro was greatly inferior and did not leave me with the same inspired feeling.  (It wasn't Onkyo, but some Asian brand that I think was made by Onkyo.)  I wouldn't have been interested in the same speakers with that mediocre pre-pro!

 

The Palladium sub was beautifully engineered to complement the F line.  I didn't hear or  compare with any other subs.

 

The 38's with the Palladium sub provided much better classical bass than the larger 39's without.

 

Those subs are really big!  Obviously, careful listening to your choices is important.  But I don't blame you for being dissatisfied with the 37's.

 

I don't mean to suggest that I think a sub will solve your 37 problem, or that the Forte III's would benefit much from adding a sub.  I am strictly praising the 38's and the Palladium sub.

[willland]

5 hours ago, LarryC said:

1. The 37's were not terribly adequate and I wasn't interested.

Though I do believe you heard what you heard with the 37's(3--7" woofers), it is perplexing(to me) all the same.  The reason I am making these comments is because I have owned and enjoyed immensely my pair of RF-63's(3--6.5" woofers) from the top of the scale to their bottom frequencies, though adding subwoofers has taken them to the next level.   In just true stereo playback(no sub), the 63's bass response is authoritative as well as punchy and fast, with about the sweetest midrange I have ever heard in person from 2-way speakers.  I do though think these factors are in play partly because of the fine Acurus A200 amp I am using with it's neutrality and copious bass drive capabilities.

 

5 hours ago, LarryC said:

The above reactions were predicated on using the superior Aragon electronics that Klipsch had at that time.

Were the 37's also driven by the Aragon?

 

Bill

[LarryC]

6 hours ago, willland said:

Though I do believe you heard what you heard with the 37's(3--7" woofers), it is perplexing(to me) all the same.  The reason I am making these comments is because I have owned and enjoyed immensely my pair of RF-63's(3--6.5" woofers) from the top of the scale to their bottom frequencies, though adding subwoofers has taken them to the next level.   In just true stereo playback(no sub), the 63's bass response is authoritative as well as punchy and fast, with about the sweetest midrange I have ever heard in person from 2-way speakers.  I do though think these factors are in play partly because of the fine Acurus A200 amp I am using with it's neutrality and copious bass drive capabilities.

 

Were the 37's also driven by the Aragon?

 

Bill

I am a demanding listener, and classical music is particularly demanding in my book.  I was comparing the 38's-plus-sub on Aragon with the 37's under circumstances that I don't recall.  (As you can tell, I have a fair amount of confidence in my audio memory and judgement.)  "The next level" describes what I heard from the 38's-plus-sub.

 

The RF series is not as much my cup of tea, are different from what I usually prefer for classical.

 

I haven't heard Acurus, but your comment is similar to my reaction to good vs. so-so electronics on Klipsch.

 

I'm not sure you and I are listening to the same kind of music in the same way, e.g., punchy and fast, which is just one criterion of several that I apply.  That can be an issue in comparing different peoples' reactions to different speakers, etc.

[dtel]

On 5/9/2017 at 10:18 AM, chriswhotakesphotos said:

Based on some of the chatter I've seen on the forum it seems like they're taking a lot of what people like about KP and using Forte III to put it in a home speaker.

It sure seems like it, and sounds like it.

 

As far as the question Cornwall lll or Forte lll, I'm still thinking, I would have to hear them together, it's definitely going to be different, only have one and not the other and I really like it. 

 

Really want to mess things up, not considering pretty, throw in the KPT-396 in the comparison, I think that's still in the price bracket, could be wrong I don't know prices really.

[derrickdj1]

I would figure out why my Pallladiums are not satisfying me.

[jjptkd]

I personally feel the new forte III with the new and improved mid horn will be (and should be) the death of the Cornwall III. It's time to either move to a Cornwall IV with a larger mid horn or just plain put it to rest. Honestly though, I'd much rather see a Chorus III than a new Cornwall IV unless the Cornwall IV reverted back to the Heritage style k-77 tweeter and k-55 mid driver along with a larger style mid horn. These are just my opinions, take them as you will.

 

I also agree with the above statements about figuring out why your current Palladiums aren't up to task, I'd have to think they'd easily outperform the RF-7 II's. The Palladiums are 4 ohm I believe? and have a much lower sensitivity rating meaning they would benefit greatly from a quality, high powered amplifier.

[ozolius]

8 hours ago, jjptkd said:

I personally feel the new forte III with the new and improved mid horn will be (and should be) the death of the Cornwall III. It's time to either move to a Cornwall IV with a larger mid horn or just plain put it to rest. Honestly though, I'd much rather see a Chorus III than a new Cornwall IV unless the Cornwall IV reverted back to the Heritage style k-77 tweeter and k-55 mid driver along with a larger style mid horn. These are just my opinions, take them as you will.

 

I also agree with the above statements about figuring out why your current Palladiums aren't up to task, I'd have to think they'd easily outperform the RF-7 II's. The Palladiums are 4 ohm I believe? and have a much lower sensitivity rating meaning they would benefit greatly from a quality, high powered amplifier.

I do believe they outperform the RF7's. I guess they just don't dig deep enough and there's a "gap" between the subs and the speakers that I can seem to eliminate, tried different crossover points, switching phase etc.  I think I'm used to a larger woofer punch from the main speaker and not relying as much on a sub to compensate. I am powering them with a 130 watt Arcam surround receiver, I have a slightly less powerful Arcam powering my Cornwall II's and I'm very pleased with the sound. I also tried them with my Hafler XL600 and I like the Arcam sound better. I'd love to see a Cornwall IV with 1" MDF cabinet and a bad case of the mumps......

 

[jjptkd]

11 hours ago, ozolius said:

I do believe they outperform the RF7's. I guess they just don't dig deep enough and there's a "gap" between the subs and the speakers that I can seem to eliminate, tried different crossover points, switching phase etc.  I think I'm used to a larger woofer punch from the main speaker and not relying as much on a sub to compensate.

Have you considered buying a Palladium sub? I've never heard one but know that the older RSW / RT line of subwoofers are very musical and would probably blend better than the new subs.

 

I'm a fan of big power amps, even if only a few watts get sucked of the top most of the time. I've never had the P-37's but did have the smaller P-17's for awhile and they certainly needed a lot more volume to get sound out of them, probably more than any other Klipsch speaker I've owned.

 

 I use to joke around about being able to run my old Chorus II's with an alarm clock radio and probably rarely put more than 4 watts into them but to really crank them up and push them it took about 300 watts. They sounded extremely good with just a few watts but I needed a lot more to get that chest thump feeling out of them.