Cornwall and solid states

[ODS123]

22 minutes ago, mdm7eb said:

I will note, I have a McIntosh tube amp and solid state preamp. They cost multiples of  electronics that are equally technical competent. Why do I have them then? Is it irrational on my part? That would be the case if I truly believed is was purely for sonic reasons and not those of aesthetics, build quality, prestige, and in my case also nostalgia (for the tube amp anyways). All of these reasons also effect my perception of sound, and I probably believe my McIntosh gear does sound better (when in reality, I probably can't tell the difference). The important point though is, they make me happy -- which is beyond the limit of science (at least in my view) and that to me is what really matters. 

 

Much to like about your post.  Thanks for "entering the fray".

 

I too am a devotee of McIntosh gear.  But do I believe that it sounds better than other modern day amps that are similarly engineered to be linear when driven w/in their limits - even ones without autoformers?  ..Nope, I don't.  And I have carefully compared it to my Bryston, Peach-Tree, NAD, even a $140 DaytonAudio amplifier from PartsExpress.

 

So why spend so much on a Mac integrated?   I love Mac gear for many of the reasons you mention.  I love how it looks, the wattage meters, the tactile experience operating it; build-quality, fit & finish,  heritage, and the fact that it is built (assembled really, as many parts probably come from elsewhere, incl overseas which I'm fine with me) in a small upstate NY town, etc...   But perhaps most of all, I LOVE that they still see the merit in retaining Bass/ Treble, and Mono controls - items which have all but disappeared these days (except Luxman, Accuphase, and Esoteric)....  Items I use on the fly (versus room correction) to make the not-so-rare poorly recorded song sound better.

 

 

[mdm7eb]

56 minutes ago, ODS123 said:

 

Much to like about your post.  Thanks for "entering the fray".

 

I too am a devotee of McIntosh gear.  But do I believe that it sounds better than other modern day amps that are similarly engineered to be linear when driven w/in their limits - even ones without autoformers?  ..Nope, I don't.  And I have carefully compared it to my Bryston, Peach-Tree, NAD, even a $140 DaytonAudio amplifier from PartsExpress.

 

So why spend so much on a Mac integrated?   I love Mac gear for many of the reasons you mention.  I love how it looks, the wattage meters, the tactile experience operating it; build-quality, fit & finish,  heritage, and the fact that it is built (assembled really, as many parts probably come from elsewhere, incl overseas which I'm fine with me) in a small upstate NY town, etc...   But perhaps most of all, I LOVE that they still see the merit in retaining Bass/ Treble, and Mono controls - items which have all but disappeared these days (except Luxman, Accuphase, and Esoteric)....  Items I use on the fly (versus room correction) to make the not-so-rare poorly recorded song sound better.

 

 

 

I have McIntosh for many of the same reasons (my dad gave me a MC240 and MX110 so I also had that going for me). When I became tired of fussing with the MX110 (and I wanted to try something a bit different) I bought a used C41 from Audio Classics, in large part because of the tone controls, loudness, mono, etc. features you can't find on a lot of other gear. The C41 is also one of the last all analog preamps McIntosh made before switching to preamps with digital (dacs etc.) built in. I am an old soul in way that likes engaging in the old ways of music reproduction (if I had a land line, I would have a rotary phone).

 

A big reason I wanted to pair Klipsch speakers with the Mac gear, was because of the legacy/story of Klipsch. I like that Klipsch is made in a small town in Arkansas (I grew up in Kansas and have a kinship for that part of the country). I also like the scientific foundations Klipsch is built upon -- similar to McIntosh. 

 

I guess I also like stereo equipment that has heft (in more ways than one).

 

At the end of the day, I view my sound system as toy -- an appliance if you will, to create soundscapes that provide pleasure and entertain. For me, a big part of the pleasure is the history/story and being able to participate in a slice of Americana. 

[ODS123]

1 hour ago, mdm7eb said:

 

I have McIntosh for many of the same reasons (my dad gave me a MC240 and MX110 so I also had that going for me). When I became tired of fussing with the MX110 (and I wanted to try something a bit different) I bought a used C41 from Audio Classics, in large part because of the tone controls, loudness, mono, etc. features you can't find on a lot of other gear. The C41 is also one of the last all analog preamps McIntosh made before switching to preamps with digital (dacs etc.) built in. I am an old soul in way that likes engaging in the old ways of music reproduction (if I had a land line, I would have a rotary phone).

 

 

 

All great points...  And maybe something the OP can benefit from in his/her search for an appropriate amp to drive his Cornwalls.

 

I love the look of the C41.  ..I strongly dislike Mac's more recent move away from mounting single purpose knobs and switches on the faceplate in favor of single a push/scroll knob. Operating a Pre-amp such as yours is much more enjoyable than scrolling through menus to find bass/treble/balance and Mono.  Still, at least my Int. amp has those.  Plus, I do like being able to volume match all of my inputs.  Anyway... great food for thought for the OP. 

 

here's a pic of my Amp beside my CWIII's

 

[mustang_flht]

Hi,

 

I use this beautiful MC2125 on the K33E of my CW III, the sound is fantastic with great bass. But if I were to buy a CW today and have the $: I would definitely go with an IV.

 

[billybob]

Are you sure it is a K33E?

[mustang_flht]

Hi @billybob

 

 

 

This is what is written on the CWIII sheet by Klipsch, they say: LOW FREQUENCY DRIVER K-33-E 15 ”(38.1cm) Fiber-composite cone
woofer   (But I believe these are no longer K33E made by Eminence USA, maybe a new supplier?)

Cornwall-III-v03.pdf

 

 

Here is the label of one of mine

 

 

 

To get back to the subject > In any case SS Mcintosh is excellent on CWIII, I use it on the woofer, but I also listened to my MC2125 on the whole speaker (K33 + K53Ti + K107Ti) and it was superb with a very fine sound and crystal-clear treble !!!

 

😎

[Shakeydeal]

2 hours ago, mustang_flht said:

To get back to the subject > In any case SS Mcintosh is excellent on CWIII

According to this thread, you may as well have bought a 99.00 receiver from a Big Box store. 

[ODS123]

2 hours ago, Shakeydeal said:

According to this thread, you may as well have bought a 99.00 receiver from a Big Box store. 

 

Sorry, but that could well be true - especially if the OP's ONLY criteria is sound.  ..But there ARE other considerations: Power output, tactile build quality, fit & finish, feature-set, etc...

 

For years there have been endless debates over the audibility of differences b/w audio amplifiers that are engineered to be linear.  To wit: on the internet you'll find numerous listening experiments of audio clubs where members have participated in ABX (blinded) tests in an attempt to settle this debate.  There's also the famous Richard Clark $10,000 challenge which offered anyone $10k if they could reliability (ie., more often than mere chance) distinguish two amplifiers.  No one ever claimed the money.

 

Does this prove there are no two amplifiers that can be distinguished?  No, of course not.  ..To do that you'd have to get EVERY human to compare EVERY amplifier.  ..Won't happen.

 

What it DOES prove, IMHO, is that the differences b/w amplifiers - IF they exist at all - are apt to be very very very small.  Much smaller than suggested by the hyperbole you'll read on web-forums.  Comments like "Pioneer AVR's make my ears bleed!" are utterly ridiculous and maddening because they hurt this hobby.  Unfortunately, audio dealers can't be expected to spread the truth because they MUST sell more to customers than just a pair of new speakers.  They need to sell amps, cd players, DACs, cables, etc.. too to survive.  And speaker companies can't be expected to spread the truth either because they NEED their network of sellers to survive.

 

IMHO >95% of how a system sounds is determined by speakers and room acoustics.  ..All of the other stuff - amp choice/ DAC/ interconnects and speaker cables (please!)/ power cords (double-please!!) - matter very little.  Turntables are a notable exception b/c they are highly mechanical which accounts for all-important speed accuracy/stability AND noise (rumble).  But even where they are concerned, once a certain degree of measureable achievement is reached, differences b/w them become small, if detectable at all.

 

[Shakeydeal]

I've said it before, but it bears repeating.

 

Two systems in identical rooms with the same speakers. One with very good supporting equipment, the other with throw away crap. No doubt in my mind which one rules the day.

 

You could (should?) have spent about 10K on speakers on 300.00 on electronics. Put the rest toward your retirement.

[mustang_flht]

I'm French so I'm sorry guys but sometimes I don't understand all the subtleties of your remarks  🥵 🤪

 

Anyway at home, I have had the McIntosh SS MC 2125 for over 20 years (bought in late 1999 or early 2000) and it beat Pioneer M90a Urushi serie (high end and big Pioneer), Audioreseach D100B, Perspective A1 (French amplifier), a small Yamaha integrated amplifier, a Yamaha audio-video amplifier, only Cary's SLI 50 (with good tubes) competes in the midrange / treble, but not in the bass; I always prefer the depth of bass of the MC2125.

 

The M90a of Pioneer

 

 

 

 

Currently I would like to replace it, because after more than 20 years I just wanted to change for something more modern in the bass with a class D amp with dsp and active filter from Lab Gruppen, the possibilities of Lab Gruppen are huge compared to the MC, but I don't know if the sound will be good

 

 

[mdm7eb]

2 hours ago, Shakeydeal said:

I've said it before, but it bears repeating.

 

Two systems in identical rooms with the same speakers. One with very good supporting equipment, the other with throw away crap. No doubt in my mind which one rules the day.

 

You could (should?) have spent about 10K on speakers on 300.00 on electronics. Put the rest toward your retirement.

 

The first piece of stereo equipment I bought myself was a NAD 7220PE (or something very similar, I can't exactly remember and I am still bummed I gave it to my brother) that I got for $10 at Goodwill. It's very possible it has been all down hill from there (I kid I kid). Particularly, since I have gone the high efficiency speaker route. 

 

My MC240, which Audio Classics sells used for $4500 does not sound 450x better and maybe no better. The MC240 has been completely restored, and I have peace of mind no deteriorating capacitor or bad resistor will detract from the sound for years to come. I keep it because it was a gift from my dad, because it looks really cool, that it has a story, and makes a statement in my living room (among other reasons). It also does hurt that it pairs very well with my Forte speakers and helps the Forte's sound fantastic. 

 

I plan on selling my MX110 (also restored by Audio Classics) for the same amount of money I spent on it to cover the cost of the addition of the C41 (also the same amount of money). I am not moving to the C41 for sonic reasons. The MX110 sounds great! I am wanting a more modern piece/aesthetic and less maintenance.

 

I did think very hard about a late model Yamaha integrated (something like an a-s1100)  and be done with it (yes, selling both the MC240 and MX110, would have been able to pocket a nice chunk of change and get that much close to new Cornwall's). However, choosing appliances to reproduce sound requires balancing and weighing a number of criteria. And for me, those trade-offs tipped towards getting the C41 and keeping the MC240. 

 

Most of us are fortunate this is a hobby and we can afford to pursue a variety of aesthetic trade-offs when building our systems. And when we get bored, we can go explore a different direction.

 

One thing that has not been mentioned is deprecation (which is a factor for any luxury good purchase). McIntosh and Klipsch depreciate far less than the average consumer electronics.  The fact that I can always get my money out of my McIntosh gear and can sell my Forte's without losing my shirt, is another important piece of the puzzle. 

 

I don't think any of us would argue or suggest one should get a low cost AV receiver and be done with it. We are suggesting the reason you would not go that route, is based on differences between the equipment other than an improvement in sound.

 

Audio is my hobby and I can't really speak to other hobbies, but I imagine this plays out in other areas (shoes/clothes, watches, cars to an extent, art, and many many more). For example, a well tailored low cost suit is going to look much much better than a fancy high cost non-tailored suit. And between the low cost tailored suit and the high cost tailored suit, only a select few people could really tell a difference. What matters is how the garment makes the person feel that is putting it on (besides how it looks). Continuing the analogy, are handmade shoes in England worth the 4x price premium over similar quality made in America shoes? Can any normal person really tell the difference? Does a Timex keep time in a similar fashion to a Rolex? A VW gets you to point a to point b just as well as Porsche (holding all else constant). 

 

Shakey, I love your passion for Klipsch and the hobby. Your posts on my first thread here, nudged me to get my Klipsch Forte's a few years ago (and I have not regretted the decision since). Your enthusiasm really is a gift.

[Shakeydeal]

Thanks for the kind words. It always leaves me a little perplexed when I see posts in forums stating there is no sonic difference between this component or that one. It has been my take that once you have a certain level of listening experience and your system is resolving enough, even the smallest changes can reap improvements (or perhaps denigrate the sound). But a difference most things will make.

 

But it's not linear, as you expressed in your post above. An amplifier that costs 4X as much won't necessarily sound 4X better. But we (most of us) as enthusiasts are willing to accept an incremental improvement for a given cost. That's just the way it is. So if you tell me my amp doesn't sound twice as good as yours, but it cost twice as much, I just say "ok" to that. Maybe it is just better enough to my ears to justify the cost.

 

I think a lot of people that espouse "it all sounds the same" have never taken the time to develop listening skills that will allow them to appreciate small improvements. Either that or they don't care. They don't care that a new DAC will sound better than their old one if it doesn't absolutely gobsmack them. Small change = no change for these people.

 

And then there is the other side of the coin. Some actually don't have systems that are resolving and transparent enough to track these changes. Doesn't really matter to me. I hear what I hear and I pay the price (or not).

 

Shakey

[mdm7eb]

1 hour ago, Shakeydeal said:

Thanks for the kind words. It always leaves me a little perplexed when I see posts in forums stating there is no sonic difference between this component or that one. It has been my take that once you have a certain level of listening experience and your system is resolving enough, even the smallest changes can reap improvements (or perhaps denigrate the sound). But a difference most things will make.

 

But it's not linear, as you expressed in your post above. An amplifier that costs 4X as much won't necessarily sound 4X better. But we (most of us) as enthusiasts are willing to accept an incremental improvement for a given cost. That's just the way it is. So if you tell me my amp doesn't sound twice as good as yours, but it cost twice as much, I just say "ok" to that. Maybe it is just better enough to my ears to justify the cost.

 

I think a lot of people that espouse "it all sounds the same" have never taken the time to develop listening skills that will allow them to appreciate small improvements. Either that or they don't care. They don't care that a new DAC will sound better than their old one if it doesn't absolutely gobsmack them. Small change = no change for these people.

 

And then there is the other side of the coin. Some actually don't have systems that are resolving and transparent enough to track these changes. Doesn't really matter to me. I hear what I hear and I pay the price (or not).

 

Shakey

 

So sorry to the OP about derailing your thread (I hope you have found the discussion, while not on topic, interesting).

 

Shakey, I agree that you can hear differences between certain components. When I went from a 1990s era Linn dac to low cost Schiit dac, the change was very noticeable. Likewise when I upgrade my turntable from a Rega P5 to a P6. The same was also true with jump from the MX110 to the C41. In all cases, I replaced gear with more modern equipment that is no doubt state of the art and likely engineered beyond the limits of audibility (okay, maybe not for the turntable) for human hearing (at least that's what I believe). For preamp and the dac, the S/N went from 80 for the MX110 to 105db with the C41 and a similar jump with the Linn dac from 90db or so to 110db for the Schiit dac (which I am sure contributed to the sonic differences I perceive). 

 

As I run a tube amp, I am aware that tubes are not considered the vanguard of amplification by some and some would say I am missing out by not going solid state, others would say you can't hear a difference, and while others would say tubes have a magic that has been lost with the advancement of technology. I guess at the end of the day, I like to be informed about the differing opinions/perspectives, but I am cautious to let any one opinion stop me from enjoying the music. Or letting my priors prevent me for exploring the different nooks and crannies of this hobby.

 

Another way I have sidestepped this conversation in this hobby is by jumping straight to Klipsch and McIntosh -- where I have a lot of confidence these products are engineered to the highest standards and performance.  

 

Because there is so much we don't know about psychoacoustics, I am willing to admit one might be able to hear audible differences -- deviating from the conventional science perspective -- its just really really hard to prove. I am placing a lot of my confidence in the engineering teams at Klipsch and McIntosh to sort all that out. 

 

When you look back at all the comments in this thread, it's pretty clear we agree more than we disagree. I think all of us, if money was not a factor, would pick Klipsch Cornwall IVs over Cornwall IIIs (and we would probably also all agree McIntosh gear is really great and hard to beat -- if price is not a concern).

 

Thanks all for the conversation, we will probably never see completely eye to eye on any of these more weedy topics -- and that's what makes this all so much fun. 

Edited March 10, 2021 by mdm7eb

[ODS123]

34 minutes ago, mdm7eb said:

 

So sorry to the OP about derailing your thread (I hope you have found the discussion, while not on topic, interesting).

 

With all due respect, I don’t think The thread has been derailed.  I think this discussion and certainly your posts are very relevant.

 

We have given the OP good reasons for skepticism about expecting to hear big differences between different amplifiers. He may not be convinced by it, but at least he’s been exposed to the discussion. If I were him and new to this hobby, I would appreciate hearing these views.  
 

And I agree that there are still many important differences between modern day amplifiers, I just don’t happen to believe that sound quality is one of them. 
 

I have enjoyed your posts… And certainly shakydeals too.  Even if the OP has left the discussion, others reading this thread and maybe learning something from it.

[billybob]

As long as the Pioneer is working correctly, would not hesitate to rock out... cool.

[mdm7eb]

11 minutes ago, ODS123 said:

With all due respect, I don’t think The thread has been derailed.  I think this discussion and certainly your posts are very relevant.

 

We have given the OP good reasons for skepticism about expecting to hear big differences between different amplifiers. He may not be convinced by it, but at least he’s been exposed to the discussion. If I were him and new to this hobby, I would appreciate hearing these views.  
 

And I agree that there are still many important differences between modern day amplifiers, I just don’t happen to believe that sound quality is one of them. 
 

I have enjoyed your posts… And certainly shakydeals too.  Even if the OP has left the discussion, others reading this thread and maybe learning something from it.

 

Fair enough (I struck the derailed portion of my comment)! I also have enjoyed both yours and Shakey's posts. And I also find it fun to engage in the different perspectives/opinions we all bring to the table. 

 

The Klipsch forums for me, have been a really great place to engage in online community, learn, and nerd out about audio.

 

I wish the OP luck in their audio pursuits (you really can't go wrong with Cornwalls) and urge them to continue to ask questions. 

[Irisonray]

23 hours ago, mdm7eb said:

Entering the fray here (maybe foolishly). I think it is prudent to acknowledge the limits of knowing and ability to make definitive casual claims. Making a causal claim (which in my mind is required before saying x is better than y) is exceedingly difficult. Of course, we are entitled to our preferences, but we should be clear the limits of what a preference denotes. The task of saying x is better than y becomes even more difficult when you are on the bleeding age of the state of the art, which for the most part, is where we all live in this hobby/forum. 

 

Almost all of academia (both the hard and social sciences) is focused on research design and methodologies that allows the testing/validation of causal claims. I think it is also helpful to remember the study of sound and how it is perceived  is called psychoacoustics. The point being, psychology plays such an important role when it comes to human perception. Concepts such as confirmation basis, placebo effect, endowment effect, among others are real and cloud our ability to make casual claims, or in other words, to say a Klipsch Cornwall III does not sound as good as a Klipsch Cornwall IV. To even make that argument, we would have to define and all agree on what does "sound better" even mean. A difficult task indeed. 

 

Don't get me wrong, when I can, I plan to upgrade my Forte III speakers to the latest Cornwall and I am sure I will "perceive" a noticeable difference -- but I want to be clear about, I would not be able to make the claim the Cornwall sounds "better" than than the Forte -- only that I prefer it. To say x sounds better than y, again, we would need to define what "better" means and carefully articulate what dimension of "better" we are describing and comparing (I think sometimes what we really mean, x sounds different than y and I prefer that difference). Then we could test those claims by designing and administering an experiment, including conducting  a sufficient number of trails that rise to the level of statistical significance (n>30 at least), and then see what the data shows to see if our claims are indeed valid. 

 

I am not about that. This is a hobby for me and I listen for pleasure and enjoyment. I do, however, think it is helpful to bring some rationality to the conversation, particularly when making claims of superiority.   

 

On the amplifier front, all the above applies. While I will agree you will notice the difference between speakers (room/speaker interaction also plays a huge role which I will not address) one is less likely to notice a difference between amplifiers if they are properly compared using a rigorous and scientific methodology. Why? Almost any modern amplifier (and even a lot of vintage amplifiers) are designed to specifications that beyond the limits of human audibility. Think S/N ratio, distortion %, and other design characteristics. The same holds true for digital audio. As we all know, humans perceive louder as better, and it is important that is accounted for when making comparisons. For example, does a more powerful amplifier allow for greater dynamic range/headroom and the perceived increase in dynamics (louder) is the reason we think amplifier x sounds better than amplifier y? 

 

I will note, I have a McIntosh tube amp and solid state preamp. They cost multiples of  electronics that are equally technical competent. Why do I have them then? Is it irrational on my part? That would be the case if I truly believed is was purely for sonic reasons and not those of aesthetics, build quality, prestige, and in my case also nostalgia (for the tube amp anyways). All of these reasons also effect my perception of sound, and I probably believe my McIntosh gear does sound better (when in reality, I probably can't tell the difference). The important point though is, they make me happy -- which is beyond the limit of science (at least in my view) and that to me is what really matters. 

 

Have I tested this theory? No. Again, not a scientist and I don't enjoy these elements of the hobby (in part because I am not capable of conducting experiments with the necessary rigor to derive beneficial knowledge/wisdom) -- I am in it to enjoy the music. But, I am fully aware of the power of my mind and its ability to influence my perception limiting my ability to make causal claims and/or definitive judgements of superiority (and folks have won noble prizes proving this is in fact the case).

 

To the OP, I doubt you can go wrong either way. At the end of the day, both speakers are likely better than 99% of all other speakers out there. I would spring for the Cornwall IV, but I am sure the Cornwall III is also great. We all have tradeoffs to negotiate and only you can decide what value judgements you will make to help you navigate those tradeoffs. I would also agree, listening is still valuable -- the more high quality information (read first hand) you can gather when weighing a decision is always helpful! 

 

Anyways, let's all keep having fun, enjoy the tunes, and when the fancy strikes us -- piss off the neighbors. 

 

 

 

Agreed... "My perception of sound" and all that it encompasses to attain it... at that point, if you like what you hear, thats all that matters.

[mdm7eb]

4 hours ago, mustang_flht said:

I'm French so I'm sorry guys but sometimes I don't understand all the subtleties of your remarks  🥵 🤪

 

Anyway at home, I have had the McIntosh SS MC 2125 for over 20 years (bought in late 1999 or early 2000) and it beat Pioneer M90a Urushi serie (high end and big Pioneer), Audioreseach D100B, Perspective A1 (French amplifier), a small Yamaha integrated amplifier, a Yamaha audio-video amplifier, only Cary's SLI 50 (with good tubes) competes in the midrange / treble, but not in the bass; I always prefer the depth of bass of the MC2125.

 

The M90a of Pioneer

 

 

 

 

Currently I would like to replace it, because after more than 20 years I just wanted to change for something more modern in the bass with a class D amp with dsp and active filter from Lab Gruppen, the possibilities of Lab Gruppen are huge compared to the MC, but I don't know if the sound will be good

 

 

 

I hear really good things about the latest class d chips. I have not heard them, but I think that's probably the future of amplification. It seems the technology is reaching (or has reached maturity). The two chip makers that all everyone seems to be using are Purfi and Hypex (both based in the Netherlands I believe). NAD, McIntosh, among other respected companies are using Hypex chips. If you buy the argument that amplification more or less sounds the same (of course considering distortion % and S/N are beyond audible limit) then class d have some advantages -- the run cooler, take less power, and weigh a lot less.

[billybob]

29 minutes ago, Irisonray said:

 

Agreed... "My perception of sound" and all that it encompasses to attain it... at that point, if you like what you hear, thats all that matters.

Agreed... welcome to the forum!

[Pearlybaker]

Thanks all for the lively debate and great insight. I ultimately decided to be patient and holdout to purchase IVs when the time is right for me - a time when I can add the Mac components at the same time. 
 

thanks for sharing