Jump to content
zebra03

Is there any chance Cornwall III's can be better than my RF7II's?

Recommended Posts

I have had my RF7II's for a year . I still have this nagging feeling Cornwall III's are far and away better than the RF's .  What say you ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zebra03,

 

Welcome to the forum.

 

1 hour ago, zebra03 said:

I have had my RF7II's for a year . I still have this nagging feeling Cornwall III's are far and away better than the RF's .  What say you ?

Very nice speakers in the RF-7II.

 

What do you mean by "better"?

 

I love my RF-63s that I have owned since May 08 and have never had a reason to "upgrade" to anything else.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on what you listen to i think. Go find a member that has some and listen to them. Your talking about new ones or older ones? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cornwall III now uses the horn from the Heresy. If the mid-horn was bigger, I think the comparison would be closer to fair. I've heard the Cornwall III several times, and was never particularly impressed. I even consistently picked the RF-7 over the Cornwall III in a blind test in Indy after it was first reintroduced.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Deang said:

Cornwall III now uses the horn from the Heresy. If the mid-horn was bigger, I think the comparison would be closer to fair. I've heard the Cornwall III several times, and was never particularly impressed. I even consistently picked the RF-7 over the Cornwall III in a blind test in Indy after it was first reintroduced.

Agree with Dean. I've had the CF-2, Forte I, II, Heresy 1, 2, 3, Cornwall III. My favorite? Forte III. Great looking and excellent sounding speakers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven’t heard the Cornwalls vs RFs but did so vs Hersey’s. To my ears, they sound wayyyyy more open than the Hersey iiis, shared mid horn notwithstanding.  I think people are irked by the fact the Cornwall’s now share a driver with the Heresy and this may be impacting, via expectation bias, what they are hearing.  I think you need to judge for yourself.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If by better... you mean different, then yes. Cornwalls are better.

It's a different sound, not a better sound.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ODS123 said:

To my ears, they sound wayyyyy more open than the Hersey iiis,

How does that work -- they use the same tweeter, same mid-driver, same mid-horn, and same crossover topology.

 

If they sound more open, it's because they're at ear level.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also a different cabinet, this would only change the bass except for the height as Dean said. BUT when you change any part it's going to sound different, like on a old receiver with 3 tone controls, if you turn up the mid range and tweeter, it sounds like less bass and just the opposite.

2 hours ago, ODS123 said:

I think people are irked by the fact the Cornwall’s now share a driver with the Heresy and this may be impacting, via expectation bias, what they are hearing.  I think you need to judge for yourself.

Even with the same top half drivers "to me" the Hlll and Clll sound a good bit different from each other, I guess the big difference is the bass could throw off my perception of the top horns ?

 

9 hours ago, zebra03 said:

I have had my RF7II's for a year . I still have this nagging feeling Cornwall III's are far and away better than the RF's .  What say you ?

I have no idea with the RF line,  but if you consider any change I would only do it after listening to a FEW other models, you wouldn't want to change for only a slight difference, that would  be silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you should ask... is the CW3 better than the CW1/2... the answer is fairly clear.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a more general comment regarding version II vs. version III of both the Heresy and Cornwall:

 

 It i's totally predictable that when a newer version of a speaker is introduced there will be those who claim that all improvements ended w/ the particular version they own.  It's as if the crack team of engineers who made their great speaker suddenly became incompetent just as they were designing the successor.  Or that the engineering focus abruptly changed from improving performance to only cutting costs.  I recall reading this when Vandersteen went from 3A to 3Asig, Paradigm from Studio 100 ver4 to 5, Paradigm S8 v2 to v3 (w/ Berrylium Tweeter), and so on.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will make this observation:

 

Both speakers sound fantastic - but different.

 

RF-7ii is a 2 way with a compression driver that goes down to 1200 hz, below that are  dual 10 inch direct radiators.

CWiii is a 3 way with compression driver(s) that go down to 800 hz, below that is a 15 inch direct radiator (same driver that is used in some or their pro speakers and the La Scala and Klipschorn)

 

The mid horn in the CWiii is exponential while the horn in the RF is tractrix.

 

If you're my age (~50) and are looking for that classic Klipsch sound, the CWIII is the speaker to choose.

 

The RF-7 is also an astounding speaker, there is no wrong choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ODS123 said:

As a more general comment regarding version II vs. version III of both the Heresy and Cornwall:

 

 It i's totally predictable that when a newer version of a speaker is introduced there will be those who claim that all improvements ended w/ the particular version they own.  It's as if the crack team of engineers who made their great speaker suddenly became incompetent just as they were designing the successor.  Or that the engineering focus abruptly changed from improving performance to only cutting costs.  I recall reading this when Vandersteen went from 3A to 3Asig, Paradigm from Studio 100 ver4 to 5, Paradigm S8 v2 to v3 (w/ Berrylium Tweeter), and so on.  

All else being equal, the larger horn will typically sound better. Even when things are not equal -- the larger horn still sounds better.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Ouachita said:

CWiii is a 3 way with compression driver(s) that go down to 800 hz, below that is a 15 inch direct radiator (same driver that is used in some or their pro speakers and the La Scala and Klipschorn)

 

The mid horn in the CWiii is exponential while the horn in the RF is tractrix.

The CWiii does not use the same compression driver as the LaScala or Klipschorn, or the same tweeter.

 

While one would think the edge goes to the tractrix horn, consider that with these two-ways, all of the midrange is being reproduced by large cones, as opposed to a compression driver and horn. IOWs, by the time the horn takes over, there is no midrange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to horns bigger is better as Dean stated. The optimal crossover for a 3 way from research done many years ago in technical papers was 500 hz and 5K hz. This way all the mids are handled by one driver or speaker. Optimally you do not want the crossover point to be in the most critical part of sound the midrange. This is in theory with all things being equal. In reality there are many 2 way systems that sound better than a 3 way even crossed over in the mid range. Too many other factors contribute to good sound. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Deang said:

The CWiii does not use the same compression driver as the LaScala or Klipschorn, or the same tweeter.

 

He was saying that the 15" was the same between them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Deang said:

All else being equal, the larger horn will typically sound better. Even when things are not equal -- the larger horn still sounds better.

 

Hmm..  So why then does the CWiii sound better (to my ears, anyway) than the Forte III, which has a larger mid-horn?  I listened to both in the same room and in quick succession using the same music.  ..The CWiii's sounded more open and detailed.

 

Your comment also begs the question, why did the Klipsch engineers use a smaller mid-horn in the 3rd iteration if LARGER is ALWAYS better??  ..I'm not an acoustical engineer but I somewhat suspect there is more to the calculus than you are suggesting.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "rumor" is the mold for the K600/601 was lost somehow. So, the Heresy III horn was apparently used because it was in the barn. Or so I've read. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×