battle: Cornwall IV vs Tannoy Legacy Arden

[MeloManiac]

Both speakers bear the 'legacy' (or Heritage) title, so I wonder what the Klipsch crowd thinks of this 'battle'. They both go back to the 1970s, and they are similar in size and weight too and both are highly efficient spearkers. Other than that, they are very different beasts. 

https://www.trustedreviews.com/reviews/tannoy-arden / https://www.audioaffair.co.uk/blog/review-tannoy-arden-legacy-series-loudspeakers/

vs

https://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2020/04/13/klipsch-cornwall-iv-speaker-review-the-gentle-giant/

 

vs 

 

This video review also gives some of the Tannoy history information:

 

 

[Shakeydeal]

I'd love to hear the Arden. Certainly looks the part.

 

Shakey

 

 

 

[MeloManiac]

19 minutes ago, Shakeydeal said:

I'd love to hear the Arden. Certainly looks the part.

 

Shakey

 

 

 

 

What I find intriguing is the fact that they seem to have a history (post WW2) that is similar but different, choosing a different technological path, Klipsch Heritage with the horn design, and Tannoy with the full range 'dual concentric driver' in 1947. Tannoy's horn design evolved into the 'dual concentric driver', while Klipsch perfected the horn.

https://www.tannoy.com/our-story.html 

[OO1]

You got me curious ,  the Arden , looks awesome ,  I gotta go and  listen to a pair , the Arden looks like it would be great for Classical music/Jazz  ,while the CW 4 would handle  Rock music on top of Classical and Jazz ---

[mustang_flht]

The Tannoys have the reputation of being a little dark and the highs are a little listened to, they are sometimes a little soft and not too dynamic, some find that the junction between the bass cone and the midrange horn is sometimes dug. They are soft and immerse you in the middle of the music, their coaxial speakers are a fantastic source point.

 

The Klipsch they are direct, the sound is often uncompromising with a powerful medium, the bass is light. And depending on the models, they are criticized for being a little short at the bottom (Heresy, La Scala). With a dynamic close to live sound, the Klipsch propels you into the heart of the music, the bass is punchy and articulate, the mids are deep and the treble goes high.

 

Be careful, these are a little caricatural outlines, some listeners will prefer one, others the other or both. The art will be to make a happy marriage with electronics. I heard big Tannoy monitors with 2x15" and 500 liters of loads of the Gold Monitor series in a mixing studio in Paris: the sound was fantastic.

 

😎

[MeloManiac]

6 minutes ago, mustang_flht said:

coaxial speakers

 

This is new to me. What does it mean?

 

Update: // Most full range speakers are coaxial, right?

 

Coaxial speakers are 2-way speakers mounted on the same “axis” – in other words, multiple speakers built together in the same speaker assembly. Most coaxial speakers provide a woofer cone and a separate tweeter with crossover for improved sound quality over that of a standard single cone speaker.

[mustang_flht]

 

The sqwaker & treble driver and horn is in center of bass speaker  >>>  Tannoy = 2 voices, Klipsch Heritage = 3 voices

 

[mustang_flht]

One thing that I really like about the Tannoys is that there are adjustment pads, it's better than rotary Lpad

 

 

Exemple sur Arden Legacy

[Fido]

Tannoy speakers sound incredible. I think they look frumpy but they do sound amazing. Upscale Audio carries them and when I auditioned my Primaluna amp they played thru Tannoys and they blew my mind.

[merkinman]

I've owned the Tannoy Legacy Cheviot and had the Forte III for audition at the same time.  The Cheviot was far superior in imaging and refinement.  Much better tone as well.  By comparison, the Forte sounded more transparent but also grainy and gritty.  I chose the Tannoy, but ended up selling it later on because the horn was way too fatiguing...beaming and ringing was crazy.  Maybe it was just me, but I didn't get the same fatigue from the Klipsch.   The main shortcoming of Klipsch is the lack of refinement.  I would add that if you are not comparing them directly, these characteristics would not be as apparent.  That being said, I do think Klipsch are more engaging.  

Edited December 10, 2020 by merkinman

[Fido]

18 hours ago, merkinman said:

I've owned the Tannoy Legacy Cheviot and had the Forte III for audition at the same time.  The Cheviot was far superior in imaging and refinement.  Much better tone as well.  By comparison, the Forte sounded more transparent but also grainy and gritty.  I chose the Tannoy, but ended up selling it later on because the horn was way too fatiguing...beaming and ringing was crazy.  Maybe it was just me, but I didn't get the same fatigue from the Klipsch.   The main shortcoming of Klipsch is the lack of refinement.  I would add that if you are not comparing them directly, these characteristics would not be as apparent.  That being said, I do think Klipsch are more engaging.  

I liked the Cheviots I heard at Upscale very much  but was actually surprised how much more ALIVE my Forte 1s sounded once I hooked the PL up to them. Even better now that I have Dave A's Lmahl Tweeters -- just a different energy - but I could easily live with the Tannoy if Klipsch did not exist

[moray james]

when folks compare Tannoy to Forte they should insure the tweeters are at the same height up off the floor. Most Tannoy fire at your knees much like the Klipsch Epic series do.

[merkinman]

6 hours ago, Fido said:

I liked the Cheviots I heard at Upscale very much  but was actually surprised how much more ALIVE my Forte 1s sounded once I hooked the PL up to them. Even better now that I have Dave A's Lmahl Tweeters -- just a different energy - but I could easily live with the Tannoy if Klipsch did not exist

I would agree with you.  I would really need to crank up the Tannoys to get engaged and otherwise they sounded a bit dull.  The Klipsch sound engaging at any volume.  I own Cornwalls now and I'm still trying to optimize them.  Very sensitive to placement and any other equipment you hook up to them.   The CWs can be placed much closer to the front wall without bass becoming boomy.  I had to place the Cheviots about 4' off the wall before the bass sounded right in my room. 

[merkinman]

4 hours ago, moray james said:

when folks compare Tannoy to Forte they should insure the tweeters are at the same height up off the floor. Most Tannoy fire at your knees much like the Klipsch Epic series do.

Why?  Cheviots were designed that way and it didn't seem like the soundstage was any lower than the Forte.  

[merkinman]

Soundstage depth is also better on the Klipsch.

[Fido]

I prefer my Fortes to the Tannoy I listened to and found the Tannoy sounded best even further out in the room. Again - The Tannoy sound very good but sound is a subjective thing and i think the Fortes feel more like a live dynamic experience.

[moray james]

2 hours ago, merkinman said:

Why?  Cheviots were designed that way and it didn't seem like the soundstage was any lower than the Forte.  

Why? Horns are directional so you don't want to be off axis. For this reason when frequency response measurements are taken they are all taken at the same distance and on axis. What ever the manufactures reason(s) for product design choices it matters not, recognized frequency response and polar response are all taken at a standard distance and on axis with polar response on a turntable for 360 degree measurements. For this reason many raise their speakers up on stands to achieve best results.

[D Jenson]

I have owned Tannoy Ardens for over 35 years.  The mids and treble as described on this forum and other audio sites are very laid back even with the treble setting at it’s brightest.  The low end is very nice.  The Telarc 1812 recording with the cannon warnings never fails to shake my pant legs when played at loud levels.  They handle heavy low end demands comfortably.  These are rated down to 28Hz.  I always needed more from the treble.  If the new Arden Legacy has improved the mid range and treble and at at least maintained the original bass output it will be an outstanding speaker.  

I have heard the Cornwall IVs three times and was massively impressed.  I am running 2 channel audio with Khorns , new 2013.  I prefer the Cornwall IV highs to the Ardens and the Khorns.  There has never been any high end “bite” with the Cornwall IVs which I some times get with my Khorns.  The Ardens sound as if someone put a blanket over the tweeter.  The midrange is tight  and wide, very pleasing with the Cornwall IVs.  I would have to do some detaled  listening before I could say I prefer the Cornwall IV or the Khorn.  The Ardens again are laid back, smooth, and some say dark.  Their mid range may appeal to some people but I would never call them accurate or live sounding.  If you play an instrument or go to live concerts,  isn’t that the sound you want your speakers  to produce?

I use 2 CDs to test speakers bass handling ability.  The first is La Bamba, by the O-Zone percussion Group, track 10 Jazz Variants.  The second is the Telarc SACD, Monty meets Sly and Robbie.  Pretty much any track.  I call the Monty CD a very dense or heavy or thick recording, it hits hard.  I bought these 2 disks when I read the reviewers blew up their speakers when playing them.  I have abused my Khorns with these when friends come over.  I played these 2 on the Cornwall IVs at very loud levels as well and they also handled them easily.  The Ardens handle this type of low end just fine.  The Cornwall IV is rated to 34Hz and the Legacy Arden to35Hz.  I would like to hear the Legacy Arden with these 2 disks

The price on the Legacy Ardens is $8K and $6K for the Cornwall IVs.  If the Mid range and Treble of the Legacy Arden matches the clarity and smooth presentation of the Cornwall IV, I believe you go Cornwall IV based on price difference.
 

[merkinman]

20 hours ago, moray james said:

Why? Horns are directional so you don't want to be off axis. For this reason when frequency response measurements are taken they are all taken at the same distance and on axis. What ever the manufactures reason(s) for product design choices it matters not, recognized frequency response and polar response are all taken at a standard distance and on axis with polar response on a turntable for 360 degree measurements. For this reason many raise their speakers up on stands to achieve best results.

But if the Tannoys are intended/designed with the tweeter firing just below you ears, why would you want to raise them up to compare?  They are not intended to be placed on stands.  The soundstage has realistic height without them being elevated ...not like the Heresy where you get the impression of the sound coming up from below.  I would think the designer compensated for the height to achieve the desired tonal balance.  

[moray james]

You can think all you want but no matter how badly you may want something won't necessarily make it so. Tannoy have a round horn (take a tape measure they are well below your seated ears) and they radiate vertically much more so than the rectangular mid horn which a Klipsch uses. You set up a speaker so that you are on axis to the mid driver if you want to hear what it can do. If that is to much trouble for you or it upsets the sensibilities don't feel bad you are in the majority but that doesn't change a thing. The market decides in the end what a product is going to be, how big how much, you can't fight reality and the market does not know anywhere near as much as they would like to think otherwise if they were so smart they would build it themselves. But that's not the case and as a manufacture you do the best that you can given the budget you that you have and the technology available to you and you sell the people as close to what they want as you can.