Cornwall 3 vs Cornwall 4 impression

[Flevoman]

Good day,

I do my best to tell my story as clearly as possible, but I'm Dutch and English ain't my native language.
My apologies if I am formulating strange sentences or misusing words.

I would like to share my personal story/short review and opinion about the Cornwall 3 vs Cornwall 4
I also hope to initiate a conversation where Cornwall listeners and interested parties share their experience and opinion.
I think it's nice to read each other's opinions and experiences, but maybe this can also be informative for others.
To my great frustration, I could hardly find any information about the Cornwall 3 vs Cornwall 4.
A listening demo at the dealer was possible, but there I listen to a different audio set in a different room with different acoustics.  Also, an A/B comparison between the Cornwall 3 and the 4 is not possible.  So any information I could find was welcome... And this was very disappointing.

A little bit of information about my situation:
I am a lover of the Heritage sound.
Have also owned a number of Heritage speakers and now own the Cornwall 4.
I don't have much experience and knowledge in the audio field and have almost only listened to Klipsch speakers.
Read my experience and opinion as a great enthusiast, but nothing more than that.

As equipment I have a tube amplifier, the Dynaco ST70 with El34, the NAS 1000s as a preamplifier and the Cambridge Cxn V2 as a streamer (Tidal)
Listening room is a living room of 12m x 5.5m where the speakers are placed on the long wall.

While impressed with the Chorus 1 I owned at the time, I was looking for more and decided to give the Heritage 4 a shot.  After a listening demo at a very good hi-fi shop, I was impressed by the CW4 and Forte4.  In this demo I found the Forte4 only the winner.  The CW4 sounded bigger, more open, but also quite boomy.  Maybe because I was used to the Chorus, which has very little bass.  Maybe because of the acoustics or because of the equipment that was used.  I don't know, but on this demo, the Forte 4 won me over due to the dominant bass of the CW4.
But my interest was triggered in the Heritage 4 line.

By pure chance I came into contact with a man who had a nice set of CW3 and wanted to sell it.  I was able to buy them for a very reasonable amount and so the Chorus 1 went into the corner of the living room and the CW3 was now set up.
Perhaps this speaker was enough of an upgrade for me and a heritage 4 speaker set was not even necessary.
It took me a while to get used to the CW3.
The basses were much fuller and more present.  The CW3 could also sound quite boomy at times.  The midrange seemed a bit smaller than with the Chorus 1. But overall I thought it was an upgrade compared to the Chorus.  It sounded more like a full range speaker, only the bass was sometimes a bit too fat and I had the idea that the midrange was smaller and less open.  (I have never checked with an A/B test whether this is correct)
After a period of getting used to, I can only say that I really liked the sound of the CW3.  Maybe not perfect, but I could really enjoy the sound that the speakers produced.  Still, the CW4 continued to itch.  All reviews are so very positive about this speaker.  I couldn't find any negative opinion or experience anywhere.  So yes.. I remained greedy for more.  More of all this fine and good.. So the need to try the CW4 still remained alive.

After owning the CW3 for a few weeks, I was offered a nice deal from another hi-fi dealer.  There I got a listening demo and I could listen to the CW4 for the second time.  This time I brought my own amplifier.
Again the CW4 sounded different than expected.
The bass was fine now, but I thought the sound was a bit duller than the CW3 I had at home.  Again no idea what caused this, acoustics, his tube preamp or his streamer.  But if I were to judge purely on my impression of this demo, I wouldn't have bought the CW4.
However, because of all the rave reviews I read, and also because I spoke to someone on facebook who had made the upgrade from the CW3 to CW4 and was very positive about it, and because there was also a bit of greed played with it, I took the gamble and i bought them.

I had hooked up and positioned the CW4 exactly as I had done with the CW3.
3 meters between the speakers, listening position 3.5 meters from the speakers.  Towed the speakers in so they are facing me and removed the grill.
The first thing I noticed was a clear sound.  The small details were more audible.  And the midrange seemed a bit bigger.  Until it was really time to go to sleep I listened to music, which amounts to about 10 hours of listening to music.  My first findings are therefore based on speakers and my ears that probably still need to break in. 
I hear some say 200 hours, 50 hours, and others say that breaking in speakers is bullshit.  I have no idea who is saying the right thing, time will tell.
After two days of listening, these are my first findings:

-the CW4 seems to have a larger midrange
-the CW4 shows more detail (I'm sure of this)
-the sound seems a bit clearer with the CW4
- the bass is significantly less.  The CW3 could sometimes sound a bit boomy and there I sometimes wanted to turn the bass back with the tone control.  With the CW4 this is the opposite, I have now turned up the bass by +1/+2.
- the bass seems a bit tighter from the CW4 and I think I hear a bit more detail.
-overall the sound of the CW4 seems a bit more analytical a bit more "audiophile"
- the speaker looks really nice.  I really like it a lot better than the CW3

-I can't get used to the new grill of the CW4.  And that's because of the color.  There is a kind of yellowish bronze glow over the grill which I don't like matching with that chic walnut veneer.  Plain black or silver/iron look would have been much nicer.  Unfortunately..
-the CW3 seems a bit warmer in the sound, a bit more easy to listen to.
-the CW3 sometimes seems a bit more airy in the midrange, playing the music with a little more ease.  I find this a bit more difficult to describe.  But this is something that always struck me with the CW3.. The ease with which some instruments were reproduced.  It sounded very light and detailed.  The CW4 also does this with a lot of detail and dynamics, but I miss the ease in it.. The airy sound. (maybe because they need some more break in time, who knows)

Based on my first impression, is the CW4 the better speaker?
I do think that the sound is different/improved on a number of points compared to the CW3.
Whether it's the speaker that still needs to break in, or my ears that still have to get used to it, I don't know.  But the CW3 definitely contains something in the sound, warmth..a certain ease and emotion  which I don't hear in the CW4 yet and which I really liked with the CW3. 

So far my very first impression after two days of listening to the CW4.  I know that things can still change and there is also a good chance that I will come back to my previous findings.  My intention is to update this topic later and share my thoughts on the CW4 again.

I'd also like to share a bit of text from a conversation I had with someone who thought their CW3 sounded better than the CW4.
I find it so striking because for me this was the first and only person I heard talk less positive about the CW4 and even thought the CW3 sounded better and so did his friend. His friend also changed his CW4 for a CW3.  Now that I own the CW4 myself and can compare the 3 with the 4, I recognize some comments and I understand better why the CW4 might not be a better speaker for everyone.

my personal findings are still the same, my general impression of cornwall III is that it sounds more open and fuller than the cornwall IV, maybe the cornwall IV goes a bit more in detail, but when it comes to live music, the cornwall III gives you  the feeling that you are in the middle of it .it just makes me smile...

it's something strange...if you've never heard or had cornwall and you hear or buy cornwall IV then you think wow I'm never getting rid of this one!  and then you really don't think after that I'm going to cornwall III because the general trend is loudspeakers are getting better and better...

but if you've had the cornwall III first, and then you hear or buy cornwall IV, Then it can be positive or perhaps  disappointing , because they sound different...and cornwall III sounds better to me.

but who am I ... tastes differ, opinions differ, listening and comparing yourself is still the best, chances are you will be disappointed if you go from III to IV!  I personally would never trade my III for an IV.

meanwhile my friend has exchanged his IV for a III and is very happy!
 

[Racer X]

Very nice, interesting read, thank you very much for relating.

[MeloManiac]

Thank you for your post!

 

Comparing set ups like that can drive people crazy... Personally, my 1972 Heresy speakers hooked on my Leben CS300 is my personal reference system. I'm not saying this is the best system in the world, but for me, it works best and is 'easy listening', while I'm totally 'zen' with the fact that there are better amps and speakers out there. 

[Flevoman]

I think it can indeed drive you crazy, you are going to spend a lot of money on new speakers but it is very difficult to make a good comparison.  If after purchase it turns out that something in the sound is disappointing, it can seriously ruin your listening pleasure.

[parlophone1]

Interesting experience, thank you for sharing.

Often people value less appreciated speakers better than more advanced speakers based on their own opinion. And that is ok.

Try to find measurements of each speaker output and that would give you something to start with. No doubt that Cornwall IV should measure better than the III.

I would suggest to play with your room acoustics for better results with Cornwall IV.

[Flevoman]

If it seems I'm drawing already my conclusions, no...this is definitely not the case.  I only share my very first findings.  Indeed I still have to tweak, break in period, ears still have to get used to, etc

[ODS123]

14 hours ago, Flevoman said:

meanwhile my friend has exchanged his IV for a III and is very happy!

 

thanks for sharing your impressions.  I have III's and have heard IV's at a dealer.  Did I like them?  Sure I did...   In fact, they reminded me quite a bit me of my III's - which I love.

 

Your impressions are more thoughtful and therefore believable than the crowd that has been saying, "..I heard the IV's - they crush the III's"  Oy vey.  Such comments are difficult to take seriously.   No matter how great the III's sound, people just couldn't get past the fact that Klipsch chose to use the same mid/tweeter as the H3.  

 

I reiterate a point I made a few months ago:

EVERY speaker I've ever owned was described as being vastly superior to the previous generation and vastly inferior to the next. Yet, in EVERY case where I was able to directly compare one generation to the next (side-by-side, volumes carefully matched), the differences ended up being very very subtle - so subtle that in some cases you'd be hard pressed to distinguish them while blinded. This was true even in cases where the cabinet was re-braced and EVERY driver was supposedly upgraded and improved.   And when a difference was heard, it wasn't necessarily an improvement - I.e., took a step closer to the sound of real live music.

[Flevoman]

56 minutes ago, ODS123 said:

 

Your impressions are more thoughtful and therefore believable than the crowd that has been saying, "..I heard the IV's - they crush the III's"  Oy vey.  Such comments are difficult to take seriously.   No matter how great the III's sound, people just couldn't get past the fact that Klipsch chose to use the same mid/tweeter as the H3.  

 

 

This was one of my problems when I was searching for information. All I could find was CW4 is the best,way better then the CW3 who suffers far too much from resonance. I hope that more members give their opinion in a nuanced way so that this topic can be interesting for those who are looking for some info. 

[mikebse2a3]

16 hours ago, Flevoman said:

I had hooked up and positioned the CW4 exactly as I had done with the CW3.
3 meters between the speakers, listening position 3.5 meters from the speakers.  Towed the speakers in so they are facing me and removed the grill.

 

I would strongly encourage you to treat each speaker independently and not assume that the best position for the CW3 and CW4 would be the same.

 

In my experience the CW3 “which is a very good loudspeaker” but it does have some box related acoustical resonance “not to be confused with panel resonance” that the CW4 design has clearly improved upon. I experience this acoustical box resonance as a coloration and lack of clarity/masking effect on some recordings that excite this region. In my experience this “type of coloration” can be experienced as “good or bad” depending on recordings and also depending on the loudspeakers positioning relative to room modes.

 

One important test (among many) I like to use when setting up/evaluating loudspeakers and optimizing there location relative to the room modes is Pink Noise. If a person educates themselves to how Pink Noise should be experienced as smooth and uncolored when reproduced (Reproducing Pink Noise over good quality headphones is one good method to educate the ear to properly reproduced Pink Noise) then you have a good tool to evaluate the loudspeaker as well as its positioning in the room relative to the room modes for the best positioning and also helps in locating the best listener position as well. I suggest listening to Pink Noise from each loudspeaker in mono first while adjusting loudspeaker/listener locations until the smoothest and least colored reproduction is experienced and then in stereo to test for best spacing between loudspeakers for good center imaging with again the smoothest reproduction of the Pink Noise.

 

 

miketn

[Flevoman]

@mikebse2a3thx for your advice. And yes, I will certainly try everything to get the sound so optimal. But i will wait until after the break in period and I am used to the sound. Then I can better hear the small differences. But good tips. 👍🏻

 

I've read a lot about the resonance of the CW3

I never really noticed it to be honest.

Maybe because I never play the music at a loud volume, or maybe the resonance was the warmth in the sound that I liked with the CW3. 

[Idontknow]

Like I’ve said. Newer isn’t always better.

[billybob]

Welcome back again @Flevoman.!

Once again, a search of the forum will yield threads using about the same title topic.

[OO1]

14 hours ago, Flevoman said:

If it seems I'm drawing already my conclusions, no...this is definitely not the case.  I only share my very first findings.  Indeed I still have to tweak, break in period, ears still have to get used to, etc

the biggest mistake is to compare ,  the CW III to the CW IV looking for a clear winner ,  while they are 2 different speakers using the same box  .

 

-the woofer is higher up in the 3  with the drivers closer together  which packs the warm vocals sound of a Heresy with the enhanced  bass of a Cornwall .

 

-in the 4 , the woofer is placed lower and the HF drivers are farther apart making for a more wider sound stage  , and the bass is balanced  with the HF .

 

[ODS123]

8 minutes ago, RandyH said:

the biggest mistake is to compare ,  the CW III to the CW IV looking for a clear winner ,  while they are 2 different speakers using the same box  .

 

-the woofer is higher up in the 3  with the drivers closer together  which packs the warm vocals sound of a Heresy with the enhanced  bass of a Cornwall .

 

-in the 4 , the woofer is placed lower and the HF drivers are farther apart making for a more wider sound stage  , and the bass is balanced  with the HF .

 

 

Weren't the CW111's developed by the same engineering team??  ..Klipsch had computer modeling and anechoic chambers then, as they do now.  ..To me, it's basically amounts to product life-cycle management.  ..Make small changes but proclaim them to be quite large.  ..But when you compare them side to side w/ volumes matched and the listener blinded, I'm betting they sound pretty much alike.

[OO1]

43 minutes ago, ODS123 said:

 I'm betting they sound pretty much alike.

 

[mikebse2a3]

1 hour ago, ODS123 said:

 

Weren't the CW111's developed by the same engineering team??  ..Klipsch had computer modeling and anechoic chambers then, as they do now.  ..To me, it's basically amounts to product life-cycle management.  ..Make small changes but proclaim them to be quite large.  ..But when you compare them side to side w/ volumes matched and the listener blinded, I'm betting they sound pretty much alike.

Not to my ears at least under well controlled conditions as you describe with the exception of being in the blind there were obvious differences which I have no doubt I would be able to perceive in the blind as you say. 🙂

 

miketn

 

 

 

[ODS123]

38 minutes ago, mikebse2a3 said:

with the exception of being in the blind there were obvious differences which I have no doubt I would be able to perceive in the blind as you say.

 

yeah, well... that can make all the difference. 

 

To wit:  In pivotal clinical trials for a current sleep medication, people taking a placebo still experienced 20% improvements in Latency to Persistent Sleep (LPS - sleep onset) and Waking After Sleep Onset (WASO - sleep maintenance).  These were objective measurements using polysomnography, not merely self-reported.  And note that these these improvements were measured among people who KNEW they might be taking a placebo.  ..IF they were deceptively told they were definitely taking the studied medication their improvements would have likely been far greater.  I'm not suggesting anyone was trying to deceive the listeners during the unveiling of the CW4, I'm merely pointing out the power of suggestion.

 

In every other scientific field the placebo effect is acnknowledged, respected, and accounted for.  ..But not in audio.

[mikebse2a3]

9 hours ago, Flevoman said:

I've read a lot about the resonance of the CW3

I never really noticed it to be honest.

Maybe because I never play the music at a loud volume, or maybe the resonance was the warmth in the sound that I liked with the CW3. 

 

Its not a volume issue with loud music playback levels but a case of certain recordings that have the required frequency/energy in that part of the spectrum to excite the acoustical cabinet resonance. This is similar to how room modes can be excited by some recordings and not by others due to the frequency/energy spectrum of the recordings.

 

 

miketn

[ODS123]

9 hours ago, Flevoman said:

I've read a lot about the resonance of the CW3

I never really noticed it to be honest.

 

Nor have I despite playing every imaginable genre at volumes ranging from whisper to "turn it down, the neighbors are complaining!".

[mikebse2a3]

6 minutes ago, ODS123 said:

In every other scientific field the placebo effect is acnknowledged, respected, and accounted for.  ..But not in audio.

 

Yes the placebo effect “can” play a part in a comparison and should always be taken into consideration… so do you always blindfold yourself when you make your comparisons…? 🙂

 

Like you said Roy has the knowledge, equipment and ability to verify his advancements in designs and I’m sure he is well aware of the dangers of the placebo effect.

 

miketn