Jump to content
The Klipsch Audio Community
Sign in to follow this  
Allhartfidelity

Cornwall IV decision? New VS. Orig

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Allhartfidelity said:

Come to think of it, it's the only one without a version 2 even? The Belle?

With the fact that they made the LaScala "pretty," I don't see them ever bringing back the Belle. It would make no sense at this point, since it was mostly designed as a center mono for a wide 2PH2 array with 2 Khorns, just like PWK had at his house. This sort of thing has fallen out of favor many years ago. I had it myself for over 30 years with KCBR's and a Mono LaScala, but I guarantee I was the only one in many, many square miles that did for a time. Now I have 11 channels and multiple subs. LOL. Technology marches on!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, HDBRbuilder said:

As for the DIY crowd(and I am one of them!)….but I have never heard of any of them doing the "voicing work" which went into the Heritage line as it currently stands today with the new Heresy IV and Cornwall IV, which are NOW identically voiced to the entire rest of the line...and that was the MAIN reason for that side-by-side comparison of them all in the Lab listening room a few weeks ago!...K-horn, LaScala, Forte, Cornwall, and Heresy are NOW all identically-voiced!!  Which really IS A VERY HUGE THING!, considering the differences that each of them has with the other speaker models in the now-current Heritage series! There are so many other options available due JUST TO THIS IDENTICAL VOICING, NOW!  Home theater applications, YOU NAME IT!

 

PLUS, it is a GREAT SALES TOOL...and smart salespersons should take SERIOUS note of this!  Roy out-did himself on this, for sure!!

 

And just WHO in the DIY crowd has been using TRACTRIX porting???  The Heritage line-up is a WHOLE NEW BALLGAME, NOW!

 

 

How can the entire Heritage line now be voice matched as you call it? What is "voice matched"? Timbre, is that what you mean? The latest versions of Khorn and LS still employ different mid and hi drivers than the CW4 and Her4. And the former CW3 and Her3 used identical mid and hi drivers and horns.....surely they were "voice matched"?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, glens said:

"...without the DIY group here, there would be no CW4 at all"  (I am assuming Glens did not say this but quoted from someone else. Perhaps he will get attribution in here to clear this up)

 

I have no possible way of anything but surmising that that statement is likely as far out in left field as it can get.  I've only been a Klipsch fan for roughly one year, but I can readily see that they've been very busy over the last several years updating everything Heritage.  The Cornwall has to have been on their list ever since they brought it back with that wimpy mid horn.

Any good technology out there gets a look at by Klipsch since audio is an evolving art. Now I say art because for instance internal baffles to stop standing waves has no modeling software so experience has to determine where you start and how you move forward. Some things are measured like output from drivers/horns but then integration has to go from there. There is nothing out there that is not based in large part on prior work from everywhere and this is true with all speaker builders. I saw Roy's sound lab and it was littered with examples of research into product improvement and I think the DIY group here might bring ideas to the table Klipsch considers but by far it is the whole industry and dedicated hobbiests world wide that have contributed to ideas that move things forward. Those mumps for instance. Simple thing when you think about it and corner treatments on horns have been done for some time but Roy took it further and made something of it. Roy also has a superb testing environment to see exactly what each thing does.

 

  I believe the Cornwall has been undergoing research and testing for some time and yes Klipsch pays attention to the outside world for ideas but the sum total was designed and built by Klipsch. If there was no forum at all advancement would still go on.

 

  Yes the new port has a tractix flare inside and out and it is claimed that the overall efficiency of the speaker is slightly improved. The less the drivers have to work to get to X db the les the distortion so like all the rest it all adds up.s

6 hours ago, Allhartfidelity said:

Tractrix porting? No one I'm aware of. I've been keeping an eye out for sure. I've heard the port itself is some kind of ring add on. I look forward to actually seeing it, and hearing what it can do.

   The tractrix mid horn, and mumps though, that's been around a long time as I'm sure you know.

   I did read on the facebook Klipsch about the product demo of the New Heritage line, and I think if there that would have worth some airline miles to hear. I had no idea there was an identical voicing between the New Heritage though. Given the size of the horn in the Klipschorn/Lascala that sounds quite a feat for the Heresy.  Meaning similar tone but not output? 

  I dont really understand all the xover stuff, I just install what my wallet provides and see if I like it. Sounds like I might be pissing up a rope modifying my CW 1.  But, it's a bit less expensive, and they will voice well with my Belle.

  I'm leaving the Khorn stock accept the xover.

   Perhaps in time the New Heritage line will be complete. For now there seems to be only 1 missing from the new production.  Come to think of it, it's the only one without a version 2 even? The Belle?

  The process of research and elimination at Klipsch is not try this and see if it works if they are lucky. It can easily take years to make the final determinations and juggle that with how many ongoing projects at the same time. I think I have one of Roy's first examples of traxtix horn and if I am correct it was the 506 on the KPT-456's and that goes back some years so Roy has been a proponent of them for some time. The Mumps are new corner treatments which is why Klipsch was granted a patent just like they were with the K-402. If they did not provably do something different then the patent would not have been granted.

 

  I like to build stuff too but I don't for one second think I do more than just dabble compared to people like Roy who design with standards in mind and accountant restrictions on quality of ingredients allowed and must come up with superb sound for dozens of speakers. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say Allhartfidelity I went to your web site to see your system and there is nothing there. Whats up with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dave A said:

Say Allhartfidelity I went to your web site to see your system and there is nothing there. Whats up with that?

 

Click on one of the pics in the middle of the page and you can scroll through his system pics, crossovers, and so on. Don't click on the yellow box that says "Some Pics" and that just takes you to Google.

 

Bruce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, polizzio said:

 

How can the entire Heritage line now be voice matched as you call it? What is "voice matched"? Timbre, is that what you mean? The latest versions of Khorn and LS still employ different mid and hi drivers than the CW4 and Her4. And the former CW3 and Her3 used identical mid and hi drivers and horns.....surely they were "voice matched"?

The entire point in us all sitting there and listening to them all, one at a time, being changed from one speaker to another using the same upstream components and source material was to show the identical voicing they now have.  Roy explained some of what had to be done to accomplish this feat during that portion of his presentation and afterwards .  BUT IT IS FOR REAL IDENTICAL VOICING!  Just ask anybody who was there!

 

And the former CW3 and Her3 used identical mid and hi drivers and horns...Now the Heresy IV and Cornwall IV do NOT use the same identical mid horn lenses, anymore.  Horizontal Dispersion is increased for both, along with the CW using the "mumps" while the Heresy didn't need the "mumps" to accomplish that feat.

 

The demonstration Roy had set-up with a mono source, and was being emitted by each speaker in an array of them all...one speaker at a time...left to right and back again numerous times...it was amazing!  Current LaScala, Cornwall IV, Forte III, and Heresy IV were what was used for demo.

 

Over the weekend, and especially so during the demonstration, Roy reiterated PWK's saying that "no matter how much testing on equipment is done to prove the performance of a speaker, we all live in the Real World and it is our the ears which make our decisions, no matter what the testing equipment proves to us".  So Roy put the identical voicing up front where it belongs!  Roy explained that over the years as changes in individual models were implemented, it had gotten to the point that the reliance upon testing equipment had left the concept of identical voicing behind, and he wanted to fix that!  So he did!  That was part of his tribute to PWK!

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dave A said:

If they did not provably do something different then the patent would not have been granted.

 

Dude!  You had me nodding my head all along 'til that part.  You're granting a bit too much credit to the patent examiners, IMO.  Witness the myriad of software patents now on the books.  Much of them not novel in the least to those who practice the art at whatever level on even a semi-regular basis.

 

One thing about the mumps I'm marginally curious about: adding them surely alters the overall expansion rate, so was that maintained via alteration of the plane curves or were they merely stuck into the corners on an otherwise unaltered horn?  ;^)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, glens said:

 

Dude!  You had me nodding my head all along 'til that part.  You're granting a bit too much credit to the patent examiners, IMO.  Witness the myriad of software patents now on the books.  Much of them not novel in the least to those who practice the art at whatever level on even a semi-regular basis.

 

One thing about the mumps I'm marginally curious about: adding them surely alters the overall expansion rate, so was that maintained via alteration of the plane curves or were they merely stuck into the corners on an otherwise unaltered horn?  ;^)

Roy ensured that his explanation of things would be readily understood by all of us, even those of us who "are not so much technically-proficient in horn designing methods" could understand what had happened.  His goal with the mumps in the Cornwall mid-horn was to improve over-all dispersion, with heavier emphasis on the horizontal dispersion by those mid-horns.  He explained how the testing measurements of even the exponential horn designs showed one thing on  the plane curves, without telling the whole story about what was going on with the tractrix horns.  So this meant that the mumps added to the Cornwall mid-horn were SPECIFIC to that particular speaker and its components in order to produce the desired results of increasing dispersion without adding in any  distortion of the waves which would have occurred without the use of those mumps specific to that particular horn lens.  Does this cover your question?

 

Roy discovered that the new tractrix mid-horn lens for the Heresy IV, OTOH, actually had no need for mumps in order to achieve a wider horizontally-heavy-weighted dispersion with minimal distortion.  This is just one of the reasons why the Heresy IV and the Cornwall IV now have differing mid-horn lenses.

 

This was explained in both the listening room as we were exposed to the identical voicing "show", and again when we went back out into the lab where he went over his decision matrix for cross-over points in both speakers as he compared stored curves on the computer and explained how the desired "best points" for the crossover to happen was reached.

 

As for the decision to port the Heresy IV, he explained that numerous times, PWK had expressed a desire  to do that, but never got around to it during his lifetime.  So Roy decided to do it for him....simply because its time had FINALLY come...and with the tractrix porting now being possible, it could happen with minimal outside dimensional changes of the cabinet being REQUIRED to make it happen!

 

Numerous people have already expressed a "worry" about how the Heresy IV, with its slant riser and rear-porting, will perform in different applications at different distances away from a wall or corner at its rear.  Let me just say this about the demonstration of its performance:  The Heresy IV was quite a distance out from its nearest wall or corner (at least a good FOUR to SIX  FEET or more!), and it was READILY APPARENT that its performance was much better in its bottom-end than ever before!  Hearing is believing!  So, IMHO, what will happen with it in its "ideal distance out" from a wall or corner in a home listening environment SHOULD be even MORE AMAZING than what we ACTUALLY heard! 

 

I can say the same for the Cornwall IV being out about the same distance from its nearest corner or wall!  But due to the Heresy having REAR-PORTING, I just want to emphasize this!  We weren't SUPPOSED to take any pics in the lab building, so I don't personally have any showing how far out they were from the nearest corner or wall...sure wish I did!  Sorry!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was seriously considering being part of that event.  I have equal parts regret and non-regret for choosing not to participate.  Quit talking about it; please!

Share this post


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

I can say the same for the Cornwall IV being out about the same distance from its nearest corner or wall!  But due to the Heresy having REAR-PORTING, I just want to emphasize this!  We weren't SUPPOSED to take any pics in the lab building, so I don't personally have any showing how far out they were from the nearest corner or wall...sure wish I did!  Sorry!

 

You can get an idea of the placement here. Just imagine the various models taken a stereo pair at a time, but occupying the same basic positions as the outer pair shown there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Marvel said:

 

Click on one of the pics in the middle of the page and you can scroll through his system pics, crossovers, and so on. Don't click on the yellow box that says "Some Pics" and that just takes you to Google.

 

Bruce

OK I will look. Thanks for the tip.

 

50 minutes ago, HDBRbuilder said:

Roy ensured that his explanation of things would be readily understood by all of us, even those of us who "are not so much technically-proficient in horn designing methods" could understand what had happened.  His goal with the mumps in the Cornwall mid-horn was to improve over-all dispersion, with heavier emphasis on the horizontal dispersion by those mid-horns.  He explained how the testing measurements of even the exponential horn designs showed one thing on  the plane curves, without telling the whole story about what was going on with the tractrix horns.  So this meant that the mumps added to the Cornwall mid-horn were SPECIFIC to that particular speaker and its components in order to produce the desired results of increasing dispersion without adding in any  distortion of the waves which would have occurred without the use of those mumps specific to that particular horn lens.  Does this cover your question?

 

Roy discovered that the new tractrix mid-horn lens for the Heresy IV, OTOH, actually had no need for mumps in order to achieve a wider horizontally-heavy-weighted dispersion with minimal distortion.  This is just one of the reasons why the Heresy IV and the Cornwall IV now have differing mid-horn lenses.

 

This was explained in both the listening room as we were exposed to the identical voicing "show", and again when we went back out into the lab where he went over his decision matrix for cross-over points in both speakers as he compared stored curves on the computer and explained how the desired "best points" for the crossover to happen was reached.

 

As for the decision to port the Heresy IV, he explained that numerous times, PWK had expressed a desire  to do that, but never got around to it during his lifetime.  So Roy decided to do it for him....simply because its time had FINALLY come...and with the tractrix porting now being possible, it could happen with minimal outside dimensional changes of the cabinet being REQUIRED to make it happen!

 

Numerous people have already expressed a "worry" about how the Heresy IV, with its slant riser and rear-porting, will perform in different applications at different distances away from a wall or corner at its rear.  Let me just say this about the demonstration of its performance:  The Heresy IV was quite a distance out from its nearest wall or corner (at least a good FOUR to SIX  FEET or more!), and it was READILY APPARENT that its performance was much better in its bottom-end than ever before!  Hearing is believing!  So, IMHO, what will happen with it in its "ideal distance out" from a wall or corner in a home listening environment SHOULD be even MORE AMAZING than what we ACTUALLY heard! 

 

I can say the same for the Cornwall IV being out about the same distance from its nearest corner or wall!  But due to the Heresy having REAR-PORTING, I just want to emphasize this!  We weren't SUPPOSED to take any pics in the lab building, so I don't personally have any showing how far out they were from the nearest corner or wall...sure wish I did!  Sorry!

Excellent summary. Mumps are patent worthy.  The time spent with Roy made the expense and travel worth while. The rest of it not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2019 at 6:25 AM, polizzio said:

 

How can the entire Heritage line now be voice matched as you call it? What is "voice matched"? Timbre, is that what you mean? The latest versions of Khorn and LS still employ different mid and hi drivers than the CW4 and Her4. And the former CW3 and Her3 used identical mid and hi drivers and horns.....surely they were "voice matched"?

 

 

 

 

My experience in "voicing" loudspeakers with different box sizes and different drivers, with different crossover points, etc. says it's IMPOSSIBLE to make "IDENTICAL" because different is NOT identical and can be easily detected by instrument or by ear, even without using and ABX test box. So I beg to differ with the original comment. However and ATTEMPT at making the voicing as close as possible when forced to do so with different speakers, is a worthwhile endeavor, but you can only claim the results to be "as good as you can make them," but never "IDENTICAL." Different is different, never identical. Tolerance is the word of the day, literally and figuratively.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one considers the voicing of speakers to be the process / methodology used and not any specific result achieved, they should have a clearer understand of the statement.

 

If more than one complete loudspeaker design have been voiced the same, it may be expected that they'll interact with an environment in similar ways but not that they'll possess or express identical sonic capabilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2019 at 11:56 AM, glens said:

If one considers the voicing of speakers to be the process / methodology used and not any specific result achieved, they should have a clearer understand of the statement.

 

If more than one complete loudspeaker design have been voiced the same, it may be expected that they'll interact with an environment in similar ways but not that they'll possess or express identical sonic capabilities.

I had an issue with the term "identical," which, even some same models vary by way of parts tolerance. 10 percent stacked up is way more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently auditioned CW IVs at HiFi Sound in Minneapolis, MN.  The CW IVs were running with an MC 275 amp.  I am running Khorns with a Mac C50/MC302 at home.  I purchased the Khorns new in 2012.  This was not an apples to apples comparison by any means.  I will say 3 things about the experience.  The highs were wonderful to listen to.  The high end bite I get from the Khorns on occasion, never happened with the CW IVs while playing music I was very familiar with.  The mids left me as satisfied as I am with my Khorns.  The bass was awesome, no sub woofer was used.  There was some base heavy material played and I got more than I was expecting from the CW IVs.  Here we go, At the end of my 15 minute session,. I was thinking I might prefer theCW IVs over my Khorns!  I will be auditioning the CW IVs again.  Also, I would like to know if the tube amp would make the large difference in the high end I experienced over my SS gear?  Is the new CW IV tweeter significantly better than the 2012 Khorns?  I know this was a small sample, but I was very impressed.  This is my first post - ever.  The impressiveness of the CW IVs pushed me to write about them.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just posted a thread about the new Heresy 3 and the Cornwall 2 (1988 vintage) and to be honest its no comparison the older Cornwall is not great IMO ( that said I don't know the state of the crossovers in these older Cornwall's). The newer tweeter and midrange horn are considerably better IMO, in the newer Heresy 3 anyway, I'm going to assume they are better in the forte and Cornwall as well.  I'd go for the newer 3's or 4's if I was you I believe it will be more satisfying with the updated tweeter and midrange drivers (Titanium I believe). I have a very revealing system though so your experience may differ. I have zero fatigue, zero tweeter sibilance and smooth midrange with the new heresy 3 so much so I'm rather pleasantly pleased at how well they perform for the money. 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

I just posted a thread about the new Heresy 3 and the Cornwall 2 (1988 vintage) and to be honest its no comparison the older Cornwall is not great IMO ( that said I don't know the state of the crossovers in these older Cornwall's). The newer tweeter and midrange horn are considerably better IMO, in the newer Heresy 3 anyway, I'm going to assume they are better in the forte and Cornwall as well.  I'd go for the newer 3's or 4's if I was you I believe it will be more satisfying with the updated tweeter and midrange drivers (Titanium I believe). I have a very revealing system though so your experience may differ. I have zero fatigue, zero tweeter sibilance and smooth midrange with the new heresy 3 so much so I'm rather pleasantly pleased at how well they perform for the money. 

 

 

 

Heresy 3 and CW 3 have identical mid and high range drivers and horns. K-53-ti and K-107-ti respectively.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...