Jump to content

Cornwall Horn Installation Opinions


CANT
 Share

Cornwall Horn Installation Preference  

6 members have voted

  1. 1. Which mounting do you prefer aesthetically?

    • Rear (Cornwall)
      3
    • Front/Flush (CWII/CWIII)
      3
  2. 2. Which mounting do you prefer for functionality?

    • Front/Flush (CWII/CWIII)
      4
    • Rear (Cornwall)
      2

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 11/01/17 at 05:00 AM

Recommended Posts

So, I've bee slowly working on a pair of Cornwalls I bought a few years back... 

 

My first mod was to replace the K77's with K107's and the B3 network's with CWIII's. Then I later replaced the K601 horn with a K604T and rounded the horn/woofer baffle cut out's.

 

So far, I've left all of the drivers and horns rear mounted because that's the way they came and I do like the look but I have recently wondered if they might not sound better front/flush mounted? Also, after playing around with my Frankenstein Heresy's I've been wondering if I should maybe switch out the K107's for K704T's and a driver yet to be determined? Due to the irreversible nature of this type of mod and my indecisive nature, I thought I would ask for opinions...

 

Go.

 

   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ouachita said:

So - you replaced the crossover in a Cornwall I with the crossover from a CW III?  

 

If so, you raised the crossover point to the mid horn to 800hz.  That probably is the biggest criticism of the CWIII.  

Yes.

 

And while it does seem to be a common talking point, I'm not quite sure it should be considered a criticism? I owned a single CWIII before purchasing the Cornwalls I mentioned above, in fact that single speaker is why I bought the pair. Over a period of time, after that purchase, I listened and compared the 2 generations and over all preferred the CWIII... so when an opportunity to purchase a pair of crossovers came my way, it absolutely seemed like a worthwhile venture. I also consider it absurd to denigrate the CWIII (crossover) for a 200Hz change without fully reviewing the implementation. There is a lot more going on in that network then just that change. Like anything else in this world though this a preferential opinion and I can wholly understand some one preferring a B series or CWII if they'd already spent a number of years with them?

 

Edit: I really need to not reply to thing with my phone... sigh

Edited by CANT
Stupid iPhone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I own CWIII's and love them.  Although it does irritate me that Klipsch didn't invest the money to manufacture the CW 600hz horn due to a lost mold.  While 200 hz doesn't sound like much - it is half an octave that is no longer horn loaded.

 

Also, I wonder if the output levels of the CWII mid driver and the titanium driver in the CWIII is the same?  Probably not.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

22 minutes ago, Ouachita said:

I own CWIII's and love them.  Although it does irritate me that Klipsch didn't invest the money to manufacture the CW 600hz horn due to a lost mold.  While 200 hz doesn't sound like much - it is half an octave that is no longer horn loaded.

 

Also, I wonder if the output levels of the CWII mid driver and the titanium driver in the CWIII is the same?  Probably not.  

 

 

I think it's more than just a cost issue... you have to remember the HIII went from 700Hz to 850Hz with no change to the midrange horn. The changes to the HIII and CWII networks may result in better response curves, may sound better, may protect the driver diaphragm from damage better, etc. The Ti diaphragm change likely came with it's own series of compromises as well? Objectively, it seems to be faster and more articulate but may not safely go as low (I believe the output is roughly the same)? One would have to imagine that the engineers poured over their options and played around with various designs before settling on what became the production model. 

 

I would also add that Roy has spoken at length in various places/posts about the reasoning behind the CWIII... so with that in mind, I believe some general trust is required. In the end, the CWIII may not be the most advanced version of it's design concept but may be the best series of compromises needed to achieve the goal at the heart of the project.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, moray james said:

Klipsch does afford you the opportunity to make the jump to the K510 in large format better than any new K600. You can also consider both horns and drivers by Pro Faital and 18 Sound to go large format two way better than Klipsch offers.

 

I've actually been wanting to try out a KPT-310-HF/KPT-310-N2 setup with these boxes... 

 

Not sure where to order the parts though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Haven’t had much time for these lately but I did remount the mid horns flush and there was a noticeable improvement in sound... I also ran the tweeter signal to the old input terminals and a put a K704T/D202TI combo on top

E9CEB5DB-90E8-463A-914F-DA5DEAA73BA5.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
49 minutes ago, CANT said:

Big thanks to jjptkd for helping me out in acquiring the second K603!

Glad I could help! I love mine with the A55-g's in my 362's, very wide, open and detailed sound with a noticeably bigger and lower tone than the Chorus 1 mid drivers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...