Deang Posted February 18, 2003 Author Share Posted February 18, 2003 If one knows a lens creates a resonance peak at say 3 Khz, one could then create a bandpass circuit in the crossover to compensate for it. Is this true, or am I confused again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Bey Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 I guess it might be possible to overdamp a horn but not easy. I don't think adding damping to a conventional speaker is equivalent to damping a horn. I removed the dynamat from my horns after Kelly mentioned overdamping and fussed and fretted for weeks if not months. I didn't like the results. So I started by just damping the tweeter. Not much change, pro or con, doing that. Then the squawker. Added just a 1" strip of caulk along the sides for a total of four strips. Not much change there either. Then I completely covered the squawker with rope caulk, every possible inch, and several layers back by the throat. Much better. More air, not less, if you are concerned about ambience. More detail, not less. I suppose if you cast your speakers in cement or something, you might overdamp them. But I don't think people should think they will easily make their horns sound worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Well, this just goes to show the best thing to do is TRY it. If there is any tweak I would encourage over another it's one that's EASY to reverse. And ye olde caulk is extremely easy to reverse, especially if going with the caulk over the dynamat. So give it a try. There are a few others that feel the way I do about the dampening, but many more that dampen the bejesus out of their horns. So go for it and experiment. kh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artto Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 mobile (homeless)....get over it.....there's a reason the Cornwall went out of production years ago.............Klipsch now can, & has, better performance (ie:LOWER DISTORTION) at a better price range. Contrary to your belief, & your promotional-like (aka: "authority figure") advice......Cornwalls, in fact have several orders of magnitude greater distortion than Khorn, LaScalla or Belle. Quit trying to convince everyone that your "opinon" of the Klipsch Cornwall" (was that THEE 1978 version?)is the end all to end all. Its NOT the best speaker in the world. & the Klipschorn can out-do it anyday. GET OVER IT. You obviously have some kind of inferiority complex over something u cannot afford, or cannot afford to accomomdate properly, or "whatever". And U of all people mention "room acoustics"? Give Me A Break! Get rid of that refrigerator next your right side Cornwall & then....."maybe", u can start to mention "room acoustics".......quit sticking your nose where it doesn't belong kelly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike stehr Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 My stereo is better than yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnalOg Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 OH' OH' , here we go again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 I got two emails asking me how much I DO actually damp my speakers. Truthfully? I have ZERO dampening on my Cornwall midrange horns. I actually dont really find it needs it in my system and prefer it with nothing, this with the various tube setups I have. So contrary to many in here, I have the original crossovers as well as no rope caulk or dynamat. Perhaps in a different space I might change my mind, or even different amplification/sources. But for now, it's stock as far as dampening goes. I really dont get a lot of ringing/glare unless the recordings are terrible. With the good material, I have found bone stock to be just fine. kh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 I could go out this afternoon and drop $25,000 on speakers and I don't think I'd LOVE them the way I do my Cornwalls. When I bought them I was making fifteen grand a year in the 1970's and they were a pretty major expense for me. Even though I make roughly twenty times that amount now, I love them just as much and can't imagine ever getting rid of them. I have owned La Scalas and Belles and never found them to my liking. Never owned Klipshorns--so you've got me there. I beat the Cornwall drum every bit as loudy as Kelly--do you hate me too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnysal Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 well dean if you decide you really can't stand those shouty, ringy, darn vintage speakers anymore....sell them to me! lol! as my grandmother used to say..."I should have such problems"!!! enjoy, caulk'em up and see what you get, as kelly pointed out you can always back of the caulking if you don't like the result. tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowooo Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Allon, keep your financial attributes to yourself, all you did was depress me.....lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted February 18, 2003 Share Posted February 18, 2003 Sorry--I was only trying to refute the notion that anyone who prefers Cornwalls must not be able to afford "better." I struggled for many years and only in the last 8-10 have I been afforded a significant amount of "disposable" income. I still buy used rather than new--years of habit die hard! Even if that now means a $300 deep-groove Blue Note as opposed to a new CD!!! Anyway, I was really offended by the tone of the post that I responded to. I for one think Mr. Mobile is one of the REAL assets to this board and I welcome his highly opinionated comments--at least he has something to say on a VERY regular basis. I think it's fine to present a reasoned argument AGAINST his statements, but name-calling is just nasty and idiotic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 My caulk is damper than yours. fini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clipped and Shorn Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 We all have to come to grips with the dreaded "I own it, therefore it is good" syndrome. We all suffer from it. The key word here is ALL. -c&s Kochel Horns (just another example of what is available under 25K that my vintage Cornwalls got beat.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted February 19, 2003 Author Share Posted February 19, 2003 I originally said: "The Cornwalls are a wonderful sounding speaker... up until about 9 o'clock position on the volume knob, I have a set of speakers that give me everything I could possibly want in a speaker. They are crisp, tight, airy, and smooth. There are times I am listening, where the sound is so similiar to the RF-7's it's spooky. Excellent in every way." What else could I possibly have said that would have been a stronger endorsement? The battle I am fighting over here is simply related to the higher SPL's, which is really no problem at all considering their general use and placement. This "problem" is probably due to a combination of things: Room acoustics, I'm too close to the buggers, and I'm sure resonances emitting from the squawker lens are playing a role as well. My Marantz DV-7010, though good for the money, is probably not the best source machine for them either. I bought them to fulfill a very specific role in my listening -- and they are doing this fine. I will say that Andy was correct when he said the Heresies were a more "forgiving" speaker. I spent yesterday finishing the RF-7's and my dads JBL's. I took a break in the middle of all this and tore down one of the Cornwalls. I soldered in some new silver/copper wire and removed the squawker. I bought a can of "Road Kill" from Parts Express (located here in Dayton, Ohio), and prepped the lens. Tonight, I'm going to my dad's to install the new crossover boards and repaired woofers -- when I get home I'm going finish wiring the Cornwall's crossover board. Tomorrow I'll start on the other Cornwall. By Monday I'll have both lenses ready for installation. Tuesday I'm going rewire the Scott in triode. At that point -- I will re-evaluate the situation with the higher SPL's. I'm expecting significant improvement. I'm not buying the non-sense regarding higher distortion levels as compared to the K-horn. This simply doesn't wash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale W Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 FINI: My caulk is bigger than yours. lol Dean : I owed a pair of corns back in the early 80's and found them lacking the db level i use to enjoy. ( hard rock) so i switched to k-horns. Now i wish i never sold them as the voicing was almost perfect for the db level and music i enjoy today. I find them less bright than k-horns at lower listening levels. All in all they are great speakers and have their own place. ( which is a good thing) Kelly: With your musical tastes and love of SET amps i can see your affection for the corn's. Problem lye's with different tastes and listening habits , Seems to me the second one opens his mouth on this board and say's they perfer one product over another the fur starts to fly. No one is right or wrong but these personal attacks on personalities is shear crap if you ask me. After all you bring to this board i do wish some members here would show a tiny bit of respect and take your comments with a grain of salt instead of firing back with insults . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnalOg Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Dean, Just curious, I don't believe you mentioned what type of amplification you are useing with the Cornwall's. I find wth the Scott the fix for more dbl's seems to be irrevelent due to the full body of sound, there for the neccesity to move more air takes a back seat. Grant it I've never heard Cornwall's, but just wondering if this may be a factor. Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobLikesTubes Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 I'm gonna have to agree with this post based on preliminary listening I've done with a pair of Cornwalls purchased from mmiles through this formum. At lower volumes (haven't measured db levels) the Cornwalls are trully magical. The imaging is beautiful, and the soundstage is bigger than a Montana sky. As the volume goes up, things go a bit astray. The highs/mids definitely become very bright , the bass compressed, and the over-all sound is harsh. Now, I've been running a pair of Decware ZenSE84C-Selects bridged mono-block. Combined, they may be pushing about 7watts/channel. Tonight, I'm going to try the Cornwalls with just one of the amps in stereo to see if there is much of a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted February 19, 2003 Author Share Posted February 19, 2003 So, how do your RF-7's stack up against the venerable Cornwalls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbflash Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Dean, What wire did you decide on to re-wire the Cornwalls? I was leaning towards DH silverlabs, but have been holding off. I am going to add Cardis Binding post's this week (I ordered them late last week). I got fed up this weekend and decided to chunk my HT room and move my 2 channel system into that room. If it sounds good I will be selling all my HT stuff. I haven't watch a DVD in months. Danny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted February 19, 2003 Author Share Posted February 19, 2003 Bummer. DVD's are fun. I used the wire from Northcreek. Nothing overly fancy. 14 gauge silver over copper with teflon sheathing at .45 cents a foot. Seems to be a difference between silver plated over copper, which uses a chemical process to bind the silver -- and silver clad, where the silver is pressed or rolled on. However, the guys at Northcreek swear by this stuff -- so I figure why not give it a try. I can always yank it. Besides, 45 cents a foot is hard to beat. I think Home Depot sells some similiar stuff. I think it's called 'Carole', or something like that. I don't think it has the teflon sheathing though. I don't know how DH labs gets the silver on the copper. I wouldn't pay what they are asking however unless it's clad. Also, you can almost get real five 9 silver in bulk for not much more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.