Jump to content

Cornwall 3 vs Cornwall 4 impression


Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, ODS123 said:

 

 

 To me, the fact remains that audible differences b/w generations of speakers - in my personal experience - have always ended up being much smaller than proclaimed by the mfg.  In in the present case, they were designed by the same person.

 

And I'd still like to know what leaps in audio engineering have taken place since 2005.   

I think you make a valid point here . The  law of diminishing returns is at play here ,and everywhere else , and we all know that the older versions of these speakers are pretty darn good . It’s hard not to be a little skeptical 🤓

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Shakeydeal said:

 

How many hours do you have on the CW IVs?

Around the 60 hours now i think. 

Don't get me wrong, the CW4 is really good. Just different compared to the CW3 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Flevoman said:

Around the 60 hours now i think. 

Don't get me wrong, the CW4 is really good. Just different compared to the CW3 

 

Well you haven't really even heard this speaker yet. Report back when you have at least 200 hours of listening. They will improve, I assure you.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Tom05 said:

I think you make a valid point here . The  law of diminishing returns is at play here ,and everywhere else , and we all know that the older versions of these speakers are pretty darn good . It’s hard not to be a little skeptical 🤓

exactly...  And CW3 and CW4 were designed/ engineered by the very same person with - unless someone can correct me on this, i've asked several times - the very same tools and technologies available to them.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Travis In Austin said:

I found some examples of Chief Bonehead's trickery and brainwashing at the unveiling of the CW IV - you guys know who you are

 

 

More of that pesky data.jpeg

Pointing out validity.jpeg

Looking at data.jpg

Yes, Ralph?

Who is that dude, the wizard behind the curtain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, ODS123 said:

the very same tools and technologies available to them.

You are really struggling here, and it's quite obvious.  So, what you are saying is that the "very same tools and technologies" were utilized for the development/engineering of the CW3 AND the CW4, even though their releases were quite a number of years apart?  I don't think so.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jimjimbo said:

You are really struggling here, and it's quite obvious.  So, what you are saying is that the "very same tools and technologies" were utilized for the development/engineering of the CW3 AND the CW4, even though their releases were quite a number of years apart?  I don't think so.

 

Designed more than a decade apart, to different price targets, with the availability of different components and materials, with the aid of more advanced design tools. If two of my designs, made a decade apart, were identical, my manager would fire me for not keeping up with engineering technology.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't for the life me understand why ANYONE would ever belittle a timeless proven design that has been modernized with better construction techniques and more advanced component treatments... EVEN IF performance is only marginally better.

 

To me this is, ONCE AGAIN, a economics discussion... and that is tiresome and lowly subject.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Schu said:

I can't for the life me understand why ANYONE would ever belittle a timeless proven design that has been modernized with better construction techniques and more advanced component treatments... EVEN IF performance is only marginally better.

 

To me this is, ONCE AGAIN, a economics discussion... and that is tiresome and lowly subject.

 

Do you think it's ever possible that newer things may not always be better? The OP shared their opinion. You know plywood is not as dense as compressed particle board, but it's way more expensive. Why are the cost of these speakers so absurd? I know why, but I wonder if others know why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, angelaudio said:

 

Do you think it's ever possible that newer things may not always be better? The OP shared their opinion. You know plywood is not as dense as compressed particle board, but it's way more expensive. Why are the cost of these speakers so absurd? I know why, but I wonder if others know why.


 

If you think 6600.00 for quality speakers is absurd, you need to get out more…..

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Klipsch Employees
3 hours ago, ODS123 said:

exactly...  And CW3 and CW4 were designed/ engineered by the very same person with - unless someone can correct me on this, i've asked several times - the very same tools and technologies available to them.  

 

 

I know right.  My guys and I must suck at this……you can ask all you want.  Doesn’t mean I have to answer. And it’s because my answers will not matter. Mr K had a sign on his desk that I always laughed at…..don’t bother me with the facts. I got my mind made up. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Schu said:

I can't for the life me understand why ANYONE would ever belittle a timeless proven design that has been modernized with better construction techniques and more advanced component treatments... EVEN IF performance is only marginally better.

 

To me this is, ONCE AGAIN, a economics discussion... and that is tiresome and lowly subject.

 

I hope you're not referring to me as I have not "belittled a timeless design".  Suggesting that the differences b/w generations of speakers are often not as great as a mfg would have you believe is NOT belittling anyone or thing. 

 

And I don't blame a mfg for shouting "new and improved" from the tallest mountain top.  This is to be expected.

 

But skepticism from those who not long ago bought the previous version should also be expected.   Again, both were designed by the same person.  What exactly has changed in audio engineering b/w 2005 and now?

 

Sheesh..

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ODS123 said:

 

I hope you're not referring to me as I have not "belittled a timeless design".  Suggesting that the differences b/w generations of speakers are often not as great as a mfg would have you believe is NOT belittling anyone or thing. 

 

And I don't blame a mfg for shouting "new and improved" from the tallest mountain top.  This is to be expected.

 

But skepticism from those who not long ago bought the previous version should also to be expected.   Again, both were designed by the same person. Has much changed in audio engineering b/w 2005 and now?

 

Sheesh..

The tools to develop loudspeakers have changed. You can use your favorite search engine to find out.

 

Perception is what mainly changes. Customers perception(s). This is what drives a product to constantly evolve. In most cases, it is marketing or sales driven. Engineers are stubborn and constantly pushed by sales to make a "different & better" product so they can sell the next latest and greatest item. Not all engineers are stubborn, but most are not marketers or salesmen. 

 

Perception is usually reality (in the sales world) and if a product design is viewed as tired and old, a new product must be developed. Plain and simple. If new technology is not available or slightly different, marketing will put a twist on something to give the new product a fresh look & life. 

 

I have not heard the lll or IV, so I cannot comment on that aspect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Chief bonehead said:

I know right.  My guys and I must suck at this……you can ask all you want.  Doesn’t mean I have to answer. And it’s because my answers will not matter. Mr K had a sign on his desk that I always laughed at…..don’t bother me with the facts. I got my mind made up. 

Yep. I’ve been meaning to speak to you guys about my “underground” Jubes 😏

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Curious_George said:

I have not heard the lll or IV, so I cannot comment on that aspect. 

 

I should mention that, prior to the Bonehead Class in late 2019, I had never heard a Cornwall of any flavor. So my exposure to the CW3 and CW4 was with no prior history, no preconceptions, and no skin in the game. I thought that the CW4 offered superior sound quality to the CW3.

 

YMMV, and that's OK with me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that the CW3 vs CW4 controversy has been resolved , maybe we could debate on something less contentious ,like the virtues of horn subwoofers vs ported vs hybrid etc.🤓

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Tom05 said:

Now that the CW3 vs CW4 controversy has been resolved , maybe we could debate the virtues of horn subwoofers vs ported vs hybrid etc.🤓

Yea, that whole loathsome economics discussion that has offended so many.

  • Like 1
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...