Deang Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Interesting me look to them huh !! Wonder what the specs are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hofy Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 I take it by "Bigger" you mean bigger picture file? Holy cats does that little pic take a long time to load. But worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heresy2guy Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 They look great but heck ya, the pic takes a pretty long time to load, and I'm on broadband too! They sure look beautiful though, don't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cornwaller Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Oh ya they look cool with the copper cones....but I HATE all the tower style speakers! Since JBL put the design on the drawing board in about 1984 everybody and their brother has been making them since about 1991 or 2. At least JBL had the moxy to make a series that didn't require a subwoofer! The fact is, a tower design is deficient in reproducing anything below 35hz and you always see a sub-unit in the picture. This allows the maker to sell substandard designs and then sell another speaker(s) to make up for the deficiency and help further to line their pockets. ...and don't tell me about the fact that they take up less floor space--that's a givien; but it still is not reason enough to make such a design.(IMO) Don't get me started.... Cornwaller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strabo Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 ---------------- On 1/12/2003 10:46:35 AM cornwaller wrote: ...and don't tell me about the fact that they take up less floor space--that's a givien(IMO) Don't get me started.... Cornwaller ---------------- Does having to add an extra sub really take up less floor space? Doesn't seem to. And before anyone looks at my signature and says, "yeah, and you have one too". Mine is only used for movies and is hidden out of site behind the rack. The more I read about, and listen to new speakers, the more I like mine just they way they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkrop Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Over 30 minutes to load pic @50666bps modem connection! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornsandtubes Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 I hate wide front baffle, and ugly speakers! Slim towers and stand mounts image soo much better! I also would rather have the new towers that need a sub, because althought they cut off at 32hz, the bass is tighter than those boomy/floppy 15" cones stuck in ugly, wide cabinets. Sub bass is far superior to 15" old cones that cannot play all forms of music as well. Not to mention waf is low because they are pug ugly. So what if the CW BOOM out a lot of 30hz? it's lower quality and looser than a sub doing that. I did my listening to old CW's and disliked the bass and appearance. I don't regret that at all, and would never trade my setup for any 15" , wide front system in a ugly rectangular box. There, I took my turn at "The expected banter" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEAR Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 LOL It took me around 6 seconds to load. Yeah very nice,I like the new ports on the center channel Klipsch was "inspired" by James speakers port design. The new sub looks more promising then the old KSW series it replaces.A welcome change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Since when are any of us concerned about floor space? fini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cornwaller Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Hornsandtubes, What can I say...I told you not to get me started! Your experience with CW's I assume was rather limited....otherwise you would not have made some of your remarks...maybe? Funny thing is that even though my Cornwalls are stacked one on top of the other in 2 speaker pairs; and even though they have a dominating appearence in the room--they seem to dissappear when I turn on the music. Talk about a black backround--they are so black they become invisible! There is nothing more beautiful than that. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it! Cornwaller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornsandtubes Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Well, here goes: Thanks for the wholly unnecessary physics primer. It took me 5 seconds at the most to realize how ugly the cw's were. Looked like a box. that didn't take long term experiance. The Cw's bass is not as competant at 16-28hz as almost any semi decent 12" sub I can name. Output, and quality. The CW has significantly high distortion below 28hz. It additionally has much lower output at 20hz that a plethora of 12" subs, including svs, HSU, velodyne, VMPS, M&K and so on. That is pretty much varifiable by comparing the cornwalls measurements. Some music sounds poorly defined on the CW, loose and sloppy compared to a sub or other fullrange speaker systems. The techno I played did not sound controlled very well at all on the CW. The CW sounds good on most music types, but again, low bass is not that impressive to me anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike stehr Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Well, we know your preference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted January 12, 2003 Author Share Posted January 12, 2003 A speaker as big as the Cornwall does need a little room to breath. There is such a thing as having too much speaker for a room. Take it easy on Mark, he's one of our favorite people here. Without the primers on electronics and physics he provides, many of us would still be on a grade school level of understanding with things related to audio. Subs have dedicated amps, and can be positioned for optimal sound. There is power and flexibility here that gives them some advantage over the Cornwall. Also, Mdeneen didn't necessarily have the Cornwall in mind either -- but was speaking of distortion levels of large drivers compared to small drivers. Now, what gives you more pizza -- a large, or two mediums? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Hornsandtubes---What kind of horny are you anyway, even caring what the speakers look like? If you favor compact, slender design over performence you'll never have a first-rate horn system, never. The best horn stuff simply doesn't fit that criteria, period. You'll be stuck with the mediocre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornsandtubes Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Funny you should mention mediocre brennen, That is just what heritage is. The CW have more glaring flaws than I can shake a stick at. They are ugly to boot The Rf7 is far from medicore, and I have bass with the sub that is *FAR* superior to *ANY* heritage in terms of depth and SPL at 16-25hz. No brag, it's physics and fact. So, tough s--- if you think the Rf-7 is mediocre, your loss. Stick with the ugly boxes and thier flaws because you jerk a tear for nostalgia. I will stick with modern, and IMO dust the over bright ear bleeding heritage, and thier lack of lower 1st octave bass, or sheer boominess and distortion in that range I know, if you MOD the CW with better oil filled caps, or maybe TRT, or auricaps with cardas silver , and after mArket drivers you get: SOMETHING THAT ISN'T A KLIPSCH PRODUCT. I couldn't disagree more with you, not even if i tried. Your opinion just simply isn't fact, but an opinion. Edgar horns and Avante garde, as well as a capella slaughter heritage klipsch also, and they look a lot better too. ISN'T THE NET AMAZING? LOUD MOUTH JACK-OFF'S CAN ACTUALLY POST AND TRY TO CONVINCE ME MY OWN STUFF IS "MEDIOCRE" WHILE THIER OWN GEAR IS MEASURABLY FLAWED IN MANY WAYS. PRETTY HYPOCRITICAL I'D SAY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Hornsand----Perhaps you've noticed that Edgar Titans are hardly slender and compact? Bruce's Seismic sub is the size of a refrigerator. Nor are big Tannoys or the various JBL and Altec horn systems compact. Nope, if you want to go no-holds-barred horns slender and compact ain't gonna get it. The mid horns I'm using now are 28" wide, not going to fit in a RF-7 sized box. But I put performence first, when doing so with horns size can't be avoided. Nor are 12" long-stroking woofs the ultimate in performence either. Of course if you're not willing to dedicate the room for high-efficiency, low distortion bass enclosures they have to suffice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Robinson Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 I think Hornsandtubes is really just Yankee in cognito, back for retribution. Seriously HNT, easy on the vitriol ... It just makes your positions seem diminutive somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornsandtubes Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 You must be a) wanna be moderator Huge brennen fan c) heritage fan d) Hallucinating i am someone else e) All of the above. Sorry if I actually know there are obvious flaws in heritage products, and they are not perfect. No, I do not glaze over thier faults, nor do I worship them. Anyone who doesn't admit that has rose colored glasses, and has had too much to drink. Also, anyone who calls my stuff "mediocre" can KMA. Not to the left. Not to the right. But in the groove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjohnsonhp Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 First, what are the speakers in the photo? New Reference Series I assume but are they a new high-end? If I recall from the last CES announcement the RF7 was remaining as the flagship...but I haven't been paying too much attention. Do you think Klipsch will integrate a powered sub into the towers some day? Infinity and DefTech do this and are getting great reviews for the design...the mags seem to love the integrated sub design. I looked at the RF7's and Heritage speakers when I made my recent purchase. Here were my observations: NOTE: I'm not an experienced Audiophile so your perceptions may vary greatly... RF7 --- * form factor (fits both of my music rooms well, center and surrounds provide additional flexibility in form factor). * easy to buy (available new from local dealers) * attractive--I like the more subtle look with the grills on in my home. If I only had the speakers in the front of my room then I'd go for the sans-grill look (maybe for better sound, too)...certainly cooler for photos like the one in this thread. This is subjective and relative. I like the looks of the Martin Logans a lot better but for a more formal room I'd go with something like a Sonus Faber....I'm sure everyone's tastes differ... * relatively affordable (compared to new speakers) * as for sound, I think I need to spend more time listening to them...using a tube amp would interesting but very difficult to find a demo. I'm hearing them with a Pioneer Elite Receiver. My first impression was that the higher frequencies where much more notable than the other speakers I heard in the store (KEF, DefTech). I've hear them on about 4-6 different visits with movies very loud, Eagles DVD, etc. I just need to stay out of the KEF/KRELL room which sounds the best...maybe not 7+ times better though considering the price delta. Cornwalls: * form factor works well in one of my rooms but too wide for my other. Although I think I've gotten Heresys to work for surrounds and center this has been much more difficult compared to Reference Series options * harder to buy (only available used but I found a nice pair on ebay in my metropolitan area) * attractive but not to wife--I like the oiled walnut finish and dark bronze/brown woven grill cover with bronze badge. I would never call them "ugly". If I was buying on looks only then there are other brands I like better (ie Martin Logan or Sonus Faber). * $850 vs $2000 -- So far my perception is that Cornwalls are my best value under $1k...the local Klipsch dealer's recommendation for best speaker at $1k was Sonus Faber Concertino...this was at Tweeter. * as for sound...I'm getting experience with movies, rock and classical on my Cornwalls. I'm also about to hook-up my restored/updated Dynaco ST70 tube amp. As I buy video equipment I keep listening to other setups and asking the reps to show me alternatives to the Cornwalls....Tweeter=Sonus Faber Grand Pianos, Conertino Surrounds, Walls in back, Solo for center. Ultimate=RF7 or DefTech BP2000TL. I want to hear the Paradigm top-end that was speaker of 2002 by one mag ($2k/pr). I also want to hear Dynaudio and my friend B&W's. For bass in movies the best I've heard is Jeff Savage's Trio of SVS Ultras (w/Cornwalls)...well integrated for music and chest compressing for movies...totally different than the dual integrated DefTech subs in the BP2000Tl's and obviously apples to orange compared to the solo Klipsch sub I heard. So far I'm staying the course with my Cornwall/Heresy system. I have plans to add one SVS Ultra and another pair of Heresys. I'm open to better speaker systems. The good thing about Heritage is that they are easily sold for +/- roughly what I paid. I'm just not motivated to spend more than twice the dollars for a new pair of Klipsch based on what I've heard so far... I'm not an experienced audiophile so MILEAGE MY VARY. I know the rep at the dealer has reconed Cornwalls and he opted to buy the Sonus Faber Grand Pianos because he liked the imaging and sound (esp. highs) better than his Cornwalls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts