Jump to content

Cornwall 3 vs Cornwall 4 impression


Recommended Posts

  • Klipsch Employees
1 hour ago, Edgar said:

 

We're talking about subjective differences here. Are you claiming that I need to prove statistical significance when I say that I prefer strawberry ice cream to chocolate? No? Then why here?

 

While double-blind tests with controls are appropriate for determination of whether a difference exists, they are not appropriate for preferences. If people preferred the CW4 because it was "prettier", then so be it. One doesn't have to justify one's preference.

Bro strawberry over chocolate?  Nyet!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Klipsch Employees
2 hours ago, ODS123 said:

 

Statistically, that means nothing.  ..Did everyone know what they were hearing?  Then of course they're going to think the newer model with the visibly larger mid-horn is going to sound better.  ...Especially if it's preceded by a product presentation explaining how it was improved and what to listen for.

 

This hobby could learn soooo much from how the pharmaceutical industry must prove clinical efficacy (and safety, but obviously not as relevant).  In clinical trials participants taking a placebo ROUTINELY report symptom improvement - often to an astonishing degree - just from believing they MIGHT be taking the studied med.

Ok. I give up. Those that heard the Cornwall IV vs the III…….I tricked you. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Chief bonehead said:

Ok. I give up. Those that heard the Cornwall IV vs the III…….I tricked you. 

 

Yeah, Roy, we knew. We were on to you the whole time. We were just going along with the joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Tom05 said:

I miss the days of going into the stereo shop and being able to compare seemingly dozens  of speakers a/b . It wasn’t always the perfect setup , but  it sure beat what we have today. Today it’s almost  impossible for buyers  to make meaningful comparisons , a big leap of faith may be required,yikes🤓

 

 

Once went to a demo where the guy had about ten different pairs of speakers in a room and you used a flashlight to trigger the photoswitch above each speaker pair supposedly already leveled matched.  His transmission line speaker sounded very nice, but the speaker I was there to compare was LaScala.  Interestingly, of course every speaker sounded different.

 

Today, it is always a big leap of faith tainted by hours upon hours of brainwashing and confirmation bias as one tries to sort through the abundance of available information.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Idontknow said:

 

This is only because of the recent burst of youtube reviews coinciding at the same time the CWIV's were introduced. Why would Klipsch send any of these channels CWIII's or II's for that matter when they are trying to market the IV's? It's simply because there is no money in anything old to generate YouTube subscribers. The YouTuber's know people are only interested in new gear so that's all they review. People forget that Klipsch is a business now with a big marketing agenda.

 

The new Khorn's with their closed backs have not gotten good reviews compared to the previous models. Klipsch has tried to claim they don't have to be in the corners. Many of the people who claim the newer models are better are not doing real side by side comparisons. Instead they just go online claiming everything newer is better. I work in the telescope industry. I've probably reviewed more telescopes than anyone in the world. I've been doing it for 30 years. The same nonsense happens in the telescope industry so I can easily tell when people are just being marketed. 

 

I don't mind newer things, but when people make claims without doing some real side by sides, it gets a bit difficult to swallow and I'm amazed at how easily people believe everything they're told. 

 

 

 

Those are absurd claims, sorry.

It's easy to see, for anyone who knows a thing or two about speaker design (especially with the Cornwall IV) WHY the version IV is better. You see it immediately even before listening to it. Then you listen to it, and you hear exactly what is to be expected from the upgrades.

I'm sorry but that tiny *** midrange horn of the previous version is just a bad compromise. It's never been designed for the Cornwall, they used the Heresy horn for years (and even in the Heresy, that horn wasn't so good to start with). It's too small and when it comes to horns, size matters A LOT. It's also an outdated exponential design. 

With the new midrange horn, and new driver, Klipsch finally offers the Cornwall a quality design in the most important part of the frequency range. Add to that a better crossover from our friend Roy Delgado and his team, and yes, it's a much better design altogether, and it sounds better as a result, as it should.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes for the most yet, each have a different sound character.

Signature, if you will. Being the case, certain as time brings age, the enthusiastic Early CW still popular, rightly so. Dang, I want one. 

Like Chorus 3 sounds dang good to me. Without having to hear first. Pretty decent chops.

Welcome...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Rolox said:

Those are absurd claims, sorry.

It's easy to see, for anyone who knows a thing or two about speaker design (especially with the Cornwall IV) WHY the version IV is better. You see it immediately even before listening to it. Then you listen to it, and you hear exactly what is to be expected from the upgrades.

I'm sorry but that tiny *** midrange horn of the previous version is just a bad compromise. It's never been designed for the Cornwall, they used the Heresy horn for years (and even in the Heresy, that horn wasn't so good to start with). It's too small and when it comes to horns, size matters A LOT. It's also an outdated exponential design. 

With the new midrange horn, and new driver, Klipsch finally offers the Cornwall a quality design in the most important part of the frequency range. Add to that a better crossover from our friend Roy Delgado and his team, and yes, it's a much better design altogether, and it sounds better as a result, as it should.

 

Have you had the CW3 yourself or been able to listen to it properly? If so, what didn't sound good to you regarding the midhorn? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the CW III dates back to 2005? 

 

So WHAT new technologies have surfaced since 2005 that allows such a quantum leap in design & manufacturing - as some seem to suggest the CWIV represents??  Roy designed the CWIII's.  ..So why does he know now he didn't know then? 

 

When I read the 2005 thread about the CWIII everyone was praising Roys incredible engineering skills (and I do too) and (for the most part) praising the resulting CWIII.  So what's changed??  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My humble contribution to this topic. I have the suspicion that very different intentions are confused. On the one hand, we have here in the forum many interested members who have experience with vintage Klipsch Heritage speakers and who (like me) are very interested in the historical development of these series. Many even own older and new models at the same time or one after the other. From this circumstance lively discussions can arise in the forum, one learns something and exchanges experiences. Subjective impressions are shared and usually respected. Even if a newer model sounds demonstrably better and nine out of ten listeners share this impression, one out of ten may like an old model better for personal reasons, even in the same room in a comprehensible A/B comparison...or with one model each over longer periods such as days or weeks.

 

In contrast, many youtube and internet reviews, for example, are something different in my opinion. Because what is the situation… If I understand it correctly, the whole new Heritage range is in a new bloom or it enjoys a „second spring“ as we say in Germany when an older guy feels his manhood again after a longer pause.

It may be due to the first-class quality of the products, and due to the "rediscovery" of "real" great speakers, and this may be related to a new audio zeitgeist that is increasingly reaching a new generation. And last but not least, Roy's successful work was sold by a very good marketing, a marketing that also takes into account all the above mentioned factors, also on an emotional sales level which reaches the target groups.

 

What does this mean: Most younger people who see a Heresy4 or Cornwall4 review may never have known about Klipsch Heritage speakers before. They are new to the brand and the brand is new to them.
And there is absolutely no point in going into differences and comparisons with previous models. It is only important that this new customers „know“ that Klipsch Heritage is a very competent and long term experienced Brand which enhances felt value (and is real value)  Just take it as it is.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will never be settled on this forum. With any product a newer model is going to be touted as better then the old, for instance cars. A Cornwall is an expensive investment for most people. Those may just want to replace the woofer with a newer one to tighten the bass. The brains of any speaker system is the crossover. Small changes there are really going to change the sound either better or worse. Different drivers for the horn are also going to change the sound. For those on a budget with the older Cornwalls experimenting doing these changes is a much better solution then changing the entire speaker system for a newer model. I am sure there are differences in the sound of an older Cornwall vs a model lV but IMHO subtle when an older Cornwall is going to sound great as well. Then there are those on this forum that can afford to change speaker systems and I am sure they can hear differences over the previous one they had. There are no dogs, no matter how old, in the Heritage line. An older Heritage speaker is most likely going to sell for more then the original owner paid for it. Great investment most cannot say with any other speaker other then the giants of the audio world such as Altec Lansing, JBL, etc. A lot of nitpicking goes on in any product forum. 

 

There is a mid driver that is rarely talked about on this forum that I have found to be an excellent sounding one for not a lot of money. The Selenium D250-X that cost $100 a pair. Selenium is a value product from JBL. It uses a phenolic diaphragm that many claim to be a smoother sounding one. All I can say for the owners of the older Heritage speakers is give it a try. Not a lot of money considering the price on a new Heritage speaker. About the price of a good meal for the family these days. Eminence make some of the best woofers one can buy. One of the brands Klipsch has, if not uses now, for some of their speakers. Experimenting changing for a newer one of them is another alternative. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ODS123 said:

So the CW III dates back to 2005? 

 

So WHAT new technologies have surfaced since 2005 that allows such a quantum leap in design & manufacturing - as some seem to suggest the CWIV represents??  Roy designed the CWIII's.  ..So why does he know now he didn't know then? 

 

When I read the 2005 thread about the CWIII everyone was praising Roys incredible engineering skills (and I do too) and (for the most part) praising the resulting CWIII.  So what's changed??  

 

 

 

 

Better is the enemy of the good. Always has been. 40 years ago, a 200 hp car was considered fast. Today a Honda Civic is faster than a late 70s Pontiac Trans Am.

 

If engineers like Roy couldn't come up with a better product, a lot of companies would be out of business. Doesn't mean older products aren't good, they are just as good as they've ever been. But a new sheriff always comes along.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Shakeydeal said:

Better is the enemy of the good. Always has been. 40 years ago, a 200 hp car was considered fast. Today a Honda Civic is faster than a late 70s Pontiac Trans Am.

 

If engineers like Roy couldn't come up with a better product, a lot of companies would be out of business. Doesn't mean older products aren't good, they are just as good as they've ever been. But a new sheriff always comes along.

 

Not really a car guy but I know that today's honda civic has 4v/cyl, fuel injection, overhead cams, lighter engine block, etc...  Technological advances that account for WHY it's faster than a 70's trans am.

 

So what technological advances have occurred in speaker design since 2005 that would explain why a CW4 "blows away" a CW3? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never said "blows away" when comparing any two speakers. As a matter of fact, I've never heard the CW III, so I really don't have a dog in this fight. But I have heard the CW II and as good as it is, the CW IV is significantly better. I'll leave the term "blows away" for the more juvenile crowd to use.

 

Same with earlier versions of the Forte vs the Forte III which I owned. Better to my ears, but not a slam dunk. Just better. I'm sure the Forte IV would be an improvement over the III as well.

 

I think you are getting all worked up over nothing. If you've heard them both and found nothing wanting with the III, just consider yourself $$ ahead.

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...