bsacco Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 I recently dragged my CW II's over to my friend's house to compare side by side. THe amp used was a Yamaha RX-V1. What we noticed was that the Chorus 1's had a laid back mid-range vs. the cornwall II's aggressive mid-range sound. THe summary was that the Chorus 1's were far more enjoyable to listen to because the CW II's were so aggresive in the 1-2k area that it was annoying. I was wondering if other forum users have found the same results with these two speakers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j-malotky Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 I have never heard the newer CW2's, but I have owned Cornwalls and the Chorus 1 at the same time. I found the overall flat responce curve of the Chorus 1 to be VERY enjoyable and prefered that sound over the CWs IMO. JM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougdrake Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 Neener, neener, neener.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3dzapper Posted October 9, 2003 Share Posted October 9, 2003 It probably has more to do with the Yami. I have an RX-V1 and it is harsh on the KHorns too with music. I had much better luck using the Yami pre and a Nikko Alpha power amp for the horns. The Yami is just brutally unforgiving IMHO. Great HT reciever though. Rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsacco Posted October 11, 2003 Author Share Posted October 11, 2003 Yes, I suppose that's why so many forum users match Tube amps with the CW's. Looks like I'm going to sell the CW's and look for Chourus 1's.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garymd Posted October 11, 2003 Share Posted October 11, 2003 Cornwalls need good amplification like any other heritage model. Probably an unfair comparison. I've heard both but not together. I would guess the same results would have occured with other heritage models, especially the higher efficiency khorns, lascalas or belles, none of which are forgiving with SS amplification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j-malotky Posted October 11, 2003 Share Posted October 11, 2003 ---------------- On 10/11/2003 7:32:06 PM garymd wrote: Cornwalls need good amplification like any other heritage model. Probably an unfair comparison. I've heard both but not together. I would guess the same results would have occured with other heritage models, especially the higher efficiency khorns, lascalas or belles, none of which are forgiving with SS amplification. ---------------- VERY VERY TRUE!!! Although, I personally would change SS amps to any low quality audio components including some tube amps and most receivers. Any Heritage especialy large Heritage are so efficient that they will show ANY flaw in your audio chain with the same clerity and detail Heritage gives to the smallest audio detail in the recording. You can drive them with good SS amps, I use SS McIntosh amps and preamps for example. Last summer I had a chance to listen to Andy's (HDBR) HK 430 receiver and was amazed at the sound that little old receiver was capable of. This is why IMO Heritage gets a bum wrap from the audio community stating they are too bright etc. I found most people who state this have there components to blame, not the Heritage speakers. A Chorus will not be more tollerant to low end electronics compared to a Cornwall. Both will sound just as bad. JM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsacco Posted October 15, 2003 Author Share Posted October 15, 2003 Personally, I would not clarify a Yamaha RX-V1 as a "low-end" SS amp. Furthermore, both speakers tested did not sound bad. I stated that the Chorus sounded "good" and the Cornwall didn't. THe premise of my statement was based on a speaker shootout between both speakers using the SAME SS amp. You are stating that both "sound bad" and you weren't even the person doing the test! How upside down is that! Yes, perhaps a tube amp would sound better...but that was not my point of the test. I thought the Chorus sounded great with the Yamaha and is an excellent HT choice. THough, I would not pair the Cornwall with the Yamaha under any circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avman Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 i also would consider the yammy receiver used to be one of the best ss receivers you can use, so i would NOT blame the yammy. what i have found w/my recent aquisition of '85 heresey 2's and '82 cornwalls is that you have to have a FLEXABLE receiver that allows for some detailed eq'ing of the lows,mids,and highs. for me, this capability allows one,if appropriate, to make the mids 'recede' in relationship to the highs and lows. as an example,in my ht room, my Sony STRDA777ES allows for +/- 10dB adjustment for bass,mid,and treble, AND allows for the frequency for each to be selected,ie:bass@125Hz,mids @1500Hz,highs@7kHz... this allows for some real customization of the sound,with,imo,GREAT results. avman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q-Man Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 It's not the Yamaha receiver in that comparison. Don't these speakers have about the same efficiency? If so, I believe that you simply prefer one driver and horn combination over another. I've been using a Yamaha receiver for the last two or three years for all my experimenting that I've been doing with different drivers, horns, networks, and speakers. I have a room set up just for such fooling around. This way I can leave everything set up and come back to it any time I wish. When I decide that I like a mod then it gets moved into my main listening room that has better amps and source equipment. This so called better equipment doesn't make me like or dislike the mod any more or less. If you like a particular driver, or speaker when listening to it on some piece of crap equipment, your just going to like it even more on better equipment. Read what the Two Channel Boys are always talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzannucci Posted October 19, 2003 Share Posted October 19, 2003 Since the mid and tweeter drivers are the same in the two speakers, I guess that shows you how much of a difference the crossover and horn combination makes (tract. vs. expo). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 ---------------- On 10/19/2003 6:43:31 AM pzannucci wrote: Since the mid and tweeter drivers are the same in the two speakers, I guess that shows you how much of a difference the crossover and horn combination makes (tract. vs. expo). ---------------- Since he was comparing a Chorus 1 and Cornwall 2, what he heard was only a difference in the crossover. Both those speakers use the exact same tweeter and squawker horn combinations (all exponential). It's the Chorus 2 that uses the Tractix horns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2K Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 ---------------- On 10/15/2003 4:20:10 AM bsacco wrote: Personally, I would not clarify a Yamaha RX-V1 as a "low-end" SS amp. Furthermore, both speakers tested did not sound bad. I stated that the Chorus sounded "good" and the Cornwall didn't. THe premise of my statement was based on a speaker shootout between both speakers using the SAME SS amp. You are stating that both "sound bad" and you weren't even the person doing the test! How upside down is that! Yes, perhaps a tube amp would sound better...but that was not my point of the test. I thought the Chorus sounded great with the Yamaha and is an excellent HT choice. THough, I would not pair the Cornwall with the Yamaha under any circumstances. ---------------- Too many Cornwall owners here to get off easy with that review bsacco. I have Chorus II's and they are even scweeeter with a cheap tube amp. Hope you enjoy yours (when you get them). Keith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.4knee Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 I was once an anti Yamaha critic myself. IMHO the "Natural Sound" stuff they produced in the 80's and into the 90's was not a very good match with the Heritage Klipsch. I found the high end to be very shrill and nearly sheared my eardrums when it was turned up. With that being said I am now a proponent of the Yamaha Heritage pairing. I find the high end of their new stuff is much smoother now than it used to be. I use a RX V3300 with my La Scalas and I really enjoy this receiver. I do hope to one day foray back into the world of separates but untill then I am very pleased with this receiver. Why you prefer the Chorus 1 to the CW 1 is for your ears to decide probably a crossover issue but I agree with a lot of others that Yamaha is not the reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chops Posted April 25, 2004 Share Posted April 25, 2004 I'm using a Yamaha RX-V740 for my system. However, it's only being used as a pre-amp for my main channels, which goes to an AudioControl RitcherScale x-over, then to my 2004 Mk II, all connected with MagWire Naked ICs. Before the Yamaha, I had a Harmon/Kardon AVR-55 reciever. That one sounded good, but the RX-V740 sounds much better. Apparently, Yamaha "trickles down" the technology from their hi-end recievers into their lower priced ones like mine. So basically, they are all pretty much the same as the RX-Z series but stripped down and less beefie power supplies. I'm only using the front and rear center channel amps, and the two rear surround channel amps on mine, so I'm not too concerned about the amplifier section that much. It sounds good durring movies and very, very good while playing SACDs, but I mainly listen to good old regular 2-channel stereo recordings! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donziman Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 funny I tested just the oppsite cw1's choursII the cw much brighter highs choursII better lows sound great to gether Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipschguy Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 I've owned both Cornwalls and Chorus I's. To my ears there is no comparison. The Cornwalls just sound better. Deeper bass, clearer midrange, mellower (more natural) highs, and just sound like a bigger speaker in general. The Chorus does have a little tighter bass, but it rolls off much sooner than the Cornwalls. The Cornwalls have a deep punch that I never could squeeze out my Choruses. The Cornwalls also have noticably better projection in the midrange - which gives that "Klipsch Heritage sound" I like so much. The Chorus has smoother frequency response than the Cornwalls, but to my ears it sounds much more like a conventional direct radiator speaker - which some of you may prefer. I don't. I liked my Choruses and they sound great, but they they never really gave me that wide grin that the Cornwalls ALWAYS, ALWAYS do. The Choruses are now in the possession of a family member, who for the above mentioned reasons now also owns Cornwalls - he has both, but we all like the Cornwalls best. Just my HONEST opinion. To each his own. If you prefer one speaker over another, then get the ones that sound good to your own ears - they're the ones that need to be happy. Just my 2 cents. Klipschguy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted May 31, 2004 Share Posted May 31, 2004 Been some time now since Mike Lindsay hauled his new Chorus IIs over to my house to compare them to my super-sensitive walnut-oiled Cornwall 1s, with B2 crossovers. He graduated to LaScalas and I moved up, way up, to classic Klipsch corner Khorns. At the time, I remember thinking the Chorus shared far more similarities with the Corns than major differences. Since my Corns had a prodigious mid-bass and upper-end bounce, I would NOT be surprised if this problem was solved in the newer, slimmer Chorus models. I do remember that the more attractive looking Chorus were a few hundred dollars less than what Cornwalls sell for (about the same as now). I thought this lower price made Chorus models cheap to the market = undervalued for their capabilities. 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.