Cornwall 3 vs Cornwall 4 impression

[Dave A]

4 hours ago, ODS123 said:

If you're implying I'm a solipsist I think you need to re-read your freshman year Philosophy text book.

I am stating it as fact, not implying it. I see once again you are right.

 

 To the OP. Jimbo stated the improvements very well and I agree 100% with his comment. Ultimately you need to listen to both, before buying either. Big boomy box sound was a big enough problem for me that I quit looking for old CW's to fix up because I did not like the box effect. Which by the way was still there with the CW3. The CW4 has new mids and HF and has bracing from the front to back in two places which eliminates that tone killing resonance effect you get with big pieces of wood. When I want to hear the resonance of deeper bass stringed instruments for instance I want only that and not the added interference from board vibration. There will always be some I know but it needs to be muted. For my taste the CW4 is more lifelike and noticeably more so than it's forerunners.

[Flevoman]

@Dave A just curious, did you hear the CW4 play on a tubeamp or on a SS amp. 

[Darkscience]

I love my CW IV, I run them with SS and use room correction, they are AMAZING!

[Flevoman]

In a few weeks I want to do a nice upgrade with my amp. But I don't know anything about amps. 15 years ago i heard that a tubeamp is the best combo for the lascala. So I bought the Dynaco ST70....and thats all I know 😅

I have no comparison experience at all and don't know what you can expect in terms of improvements with an upgrade . One says tubeamp is the best, and the other claims that an SS amp is the best choice.... So many people, so many opinions 

[henry4841]

Both SS and tube amplifiers can sound good. I think the biggest difference you will hear is going from a push pull amplifier to a single ended one. I have many of both and like changing them out on a weekly, monthly basis for a different sound. 

[mustang_flht]

8 hours ago, Dave A said:

I am stating it as fact, not implying it. I see once again you are right.

 

 To the OP. Jimbo stated the improvements very well and I agree 100% with his comment. Ultimately you need to listen to both, before buying either. Big boomy box sound was a big enough problem for me that I quit looking for old CW's to fix up because I did not like the box effect. Which by the way was still there with the CW3. The CW4 has new mids and HF and has bracing from the front to back in two places which eliminates that tone killing resonance effect you get with big pieces of wood. When I want to hear the resonance of deeper bass stringed instruments for instance I want only that and not the added interference from board vibration. There will always be some I know but it needs to be muted. For my taste the CW4 is more lifelike and noticeably more so than it's forerunners.

Hi @Dave A and all,

 

CWIII also has the same wooden braces as CWIV. On the other hand CWIV has a plywood board at the top of the enclosure this is perhaps the difference with CWIII which does not have the plywood board.

 

wooden braces in CWIII

 

Dtel pics

 

 

plywood board in CWIV at 2:10 > 2:58

 

😀

[Flevoman]

Omg.. Pulling a brand new 8000 euros costing speaker apart 😳

[KT88]

1 minute ago, Flevoman said:

Omg.. Pulling a brand new 8000 euros costing speaker apart 😳

It‘s called entropy😀

[billybob]

Yes man keep listening... not looking for subtle or nuanced.

BTW, guess your Cornwalls are about breaking in by now.

Lol... congrats @Flevoman

[ODS123]

10 hours ago, Dave A said:

I am stating it as fact, not implying it. I see once again you are right.

 

I've not called anyone names - never.  Sorry you feel the need the do so.  ..Even if you're understanding of Solipsism is suspect.

 

And BTW I've not heard ANY resonating from my CW3's.  Not once.  And I've played every imaginable genre of music from whisper levels to 100db.   So while it's possible they've reduced resonances from a measurable standpoint, that alone is not proof the improvement will be audible.  ..Kinda like McIntosh (or any other amp mfg) making a big deal about reducing THD another .0002% in their latest amplifier.

[Flevoman]

Thank you @billybob 👍🏻

Funny that you start talking about it, I was just counting how many hours break in time the speaker will have by now.

25 hours in the store +- 30 hours at my house. So I estimate around the 60 hours of playtime. 

 

@ODS123 agree on that, I won't say there wasn't resonance in the CW3, but I never heard it as such myself. 

[billybob]

1 minute ago, Flevoman said:

Thank you @billybob 👍🏻

Funny that you start talking about it, I was just counting how many hours break in time the speaker will have by now.

25 hours in the store +- 30 hours at my house. So I estimate around the 60 hours of playtime. 

Think that hourly now you will notice a subtle, nuanced change. Some say 100-200 hours and more. Enjoy that and you will be able to tell us, instead.

 

[ODS123]

And as an added comment about not hearing resonances....   I find this very surprising considering how little bracing ALL klipsch speakers have relative to competitors.  My CW3's (and the CW4's and La Scalas I saw at a dealer) sound as hollow as a shoebox when you knock on them.  By comparison, my Vandersteen 3A sigs, and Paradigm S8 v2's, sounded like cinder blocks when you knocked on them.  I guess what matters is how the resonances are controlled.  Even voluminous hollow speaker cabinets (like the CW's) will sound inert w/ thoughtful bracing.

[billybob]

21 minutes ago, Flevoman said:

Thank you @billybob 👍🏻

Funny that you start talking about it, I was just counting how many hours break in time the speaker will have by now.

25 hours in the store +- 30 hours at my house. So I estimate around the 60 hours of playtime. 

 

@ODS123 agree on that, I won't say there wasn't resonance in the CW3, but I never heard it as such myself. 

Dang man, I would have 1000 hours on them by now. Turn it up and help yourself. Resonance is good. See if you can detect it...

Want to see them 15 inch woofers move!

[Dave A]

6 hours ago, Flevoman said:

@Dave A just curious, did you hear the CW4 play on a tubeamp or on a SS amp. 

SS and it was a QSC theater amp Roy used if I remember right.

 

3 hours ago, mustang_flht said:

CWIII also has the same wooden braces as CWIV. On the other hand CWIV has a plywood board at the top of the enclosure this is perhaps the difference with CWIII which does not have the plywood board.

I have never really looked closely at the CW3 cabinet so it is good to know they added braces. Even if the CW3 I heard had those braces in there it still sounded muffled and boomy to me compared to the CW4.  To be honest after fiddling with CW1's and 2's my prejudice against CW's was large enough that I had lost all interest in them.

 

  The CW4 is more then just the plywood top which I was not aware of. New design crossover, a foam lined open backed shroud built around the tweeter which uses new drivers. New midhorn setup and I have no idea if the woofer was tweaked. It is a complete system integration different then the first three versions. The tractrix ports for instance do not add much but they do add some improvement and 5% here and there as an aggregate add up to real improvement. I think those ports were the least of the improvements though.

1 hour ago, ODS123 said:

And BTW I've not heard ANY resonating from my CW3's.  Not once.  And I've played every imaginable genre of music from whisper levels to 100db.   So while it's possible they've reduced resonances from a measurable standpoint, that alone is not proof the improvement will be audible.  ..Kinda like McIntosh (or any other amp mfg) making a big deal about reducing THD another .0002% in their latest amplifier.

If they have bracing as pointed out then the objectionable resonance would be stopped. I was not aware they had that until today. My prejudice against CW3's was based on what I heard in Hope against the CW4 and past experience with CW1's and 2's.

[Shakeydeal]

As I stated before, haven't heard the CW III. But I did own the CW II and Bob Crites Cornscalas. Both of those had midbass resonances to varying degrees. I heard none of that on the CW IV.

 

 

[Flevoman]

29 minutes ago, Shakeydeal said:

As I stated before, haven't heard the CW III. But I did own the CW II and Bob Crites Cornscalas. Both of those had midbass resonances to varying degrees. I heard none of that on the CW IV.

 

 

Maybe you're right.. 

And perhaps is this the reason why i miss some emotion in the CW4 and think it's a bit too analytic 

[Shakeydeal]

2 minutes ago, Flevoman said:

Maybe you're right.. 

And perhaps is this the reason why i miss some emotion in the CW4 and think it's a bit too analytic 

 

How many hours do you have on the CW IVs?

[mikebse2a3]

49 minutes ago, Dave A said:

If they have bracing as pointed out then the objectionable resonance would be stopped

It’s not panel resonance you hear…. think more like acoustical standing wave resonance that is suppressed in the new design. 
 

miketn

[KT88]

However, this slightly analytical first impression of the CW4 may also be due to the brand new polyester capacitors in the CW4. I bought such types a year ago for my old Lascala network and it took a while before it sounded "rounder". Steve Guttenberg even did a second short review of his CW4 a year after his long review because he thought it was significant how much more detail his CW4s could deliver after a year of playing.