Jump to content

Cornwall IV burn in time


Chermerkin

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, ODS123 said:

Some companies (not necessarily Klipsch) know if they specify a long-enough break-in time, people will simply grow accustomed to the sound of their new speakers and become resigned to keeping them

 

  • I think one Klipsch engineer, IIRC, said that a 1/2 hour break-in/burn-in time would be appropriate for woofers.  I could be wrong, but I'm confident it was a short time.
  • OTOH, when we upgraded our Klipschorns to AK4 (from AA), mounted the K77F tweeters flush with the front of the baffle board (using the bracket supplied by Klipsch), replaced the K400 mid-horns with K401s, and changed to the new (then) AK4 crossover networks,  the sound was clearer, but not quite balanced.  The AK4 upgrade did not require a change in the woofer -- they stuck with the K 33E, which is still in the Cornwall IVs and the Klipschorn AK6, as well.  After about  (??? 50 hours of burn-in ???) it sounded distinctly better.  I know this could be merely psychological adaptation, but like so many who have noticed a change after burn-in, I don't think so.
  • They were later improved by adding a subwoofer coming in at 60 Hz, room treatments (both absorption and diffusion), using painstakingly adjusted Audyssey, then adding approximately 6 dB boost to the sub.  Finally, after adding a center channel (NAD 150 watt power amp and Belle Klipsch), we have the best sound we have ever had, soft or loud. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I have never heard a Cornwall, so not even the Cornwall IV, but I read with interest the various threads here in the forum that deal with the hearing impressions and especially the first hearing impressions.

I think it's time I finally listen to the CW4 myself. I am very curious. Because there is hardly a speaker that generates such controversial hearing impressions.
Some are overwhelmed from the start, others think the CW4 has no bass at all. Still others, like in this thread, think it just plays louder well. The CW4 seems to be a phenomenon. Assuming the amp does its job well (i.e. no 2 watt exotics, even if they can wow their owner on the CW4) and in this thread it seems to be a full solid 60 watt amp, then there should be no obvious supply problem. By the way, I am also a fan of tone control on the integrated or pre, and I also use it.

My guess is that the CW4 delivers a performance that is old school as far as bass is concerned. I suspect what I would hear with the CW4 and I think that I personally will like it very much. 

My 2 cents are as follows. Many listeners come from "modern" speakers and then they are confronted with the sound of a CW4. What do I mean by "modern" speakers. Often bass chassis with soft suspension, strong magnets and a lot of diaphragm excursion. This often sounds very deep and full. But it is riddled with large mechanically caused distortions.

 

However, the "strong" bass response is often the result of deception. We can very easily identify distortions in the mid and high tones. It is more difficult with basses. Many people have never heard a bass with little distortion. These are basses that are either based on the horn principle or basses that are produced by large diaphragms that a) have little excursion and b) are suspended harder. In this way you hear basses that are clearer and more natural but produce less distortion. You have to change your listening habit to hear what is closer to the recording (or the real signal). With the CW4 it doesn't "pump", there is no strain from puffing and hard working soft suspended cones that are often smaller as well. My guess is that this type of bass driver also produces more distortion in the sense of a "side effect" at quieter volumes. You think you hear more bass. A CW4 quite simply produces a good clear and air moving bass even when played quietly...but it is felt to be a quieter bass. That's where the tone control helps in the beginning. And later you don't need it so much once the ear has "recognized" that it is getting substantial bass information. Otherwise I can't explain myself why the hearing sensations are so different with the CW4. And in principle the people are right who say that you have to get used to the CW4 to be rewarded very richly in the end...even if I don't want to deny a certain break-in time.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. You are into something here. Corwall bass is so tight. Never heard bass guitar  and basslines so clearly before. No boomines or one note resonance. Reminds me more of La Scala bass I heard some time. Just wish it was more of it on background level. Btw. Cornwall III had way more resonances when I auditioned them. Salesman said  the last edition have a better and more rigid cabinet. And the midrange seemed a lot more open. Sounds just popped out more natural and effortlessly. It was easily worth the extra cash

Edited by Chermerkin
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Chermerkin said:

Yes. You are into something here. Corwall bass is so tight. Never heard bass guitar so clearly before. No boomines or one note resonance. Reminds me more of La Scala bass I heard some time. Just wish it was more of it on background level. Btw. Cornwall III had way more resonances when I auditioned them. Salesman said last the edition have a better and more rigid cabinet

Yes, you are experienced. What I mean is give the CW and yourself just a bit more time. And if you then think it is too lean when played softly then I would go back to the tone control option. BTW I do not know your amp but (just a thought) could it be that an amp with so much damping factor could „overdamp“ or „overcontrol“ natural selfdamping (or returning to a halt if that makes sense) of such a speaker like the CW? In the end it could hesitate to let the CW sound „full“ at low levels? So that this strong amp damping is addressed to those soft suspension speakers I was talking about in my above post?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, KT88 said:

could it be that an amp with so much damping factor could „overdamp“ or „overcontrol“ natural selfdamping (or returning to a halt if that makes sense) of such a speaker like the CW?

 

At one point, JBL said that some damping factors were too high for some of their speakers. This was in the 1960s, perhaps the 1970s.  It could have been in an article by George Augspurger.   Or not.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are right to consider damping factor of the amplifier when driving woofers that have high mechanical damping like with heritage. Too much damping can translate to an accurate but thin sounding bass response. That's why tube amps can sound lush and full, they have nearly no damping.  The JBL reference is interesting because I run  0.5ohm resistor in series with my JBL 130A's for this very reason, to get a fuller sound. It is still punchy and tight because I didn't over do the resistance, I just made the damping closer to what a tube amp would have.

  • Like 2
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.

×
×
  • Create New...