Cornwall III

[Kriton]

Fresh back from Hope, and we learned a lot about the new CWIII!

First it sounds fantastic...we heard the Heresy III first, and it

sounded really good, bass was very respectable this time around.

The Corn was second, then the La Scala II...and frankly, of the three I

really like the Cornwall the best, but I know others disagreed with

me. The Cornwall III had fantastic bass and was as tight as it

could be, very clear and crisp in the mids and highs. They only

had one of each speaker in the listening room, so I can't say anything

about soundstage, but the open way these things sounded, I can only

assume the imaging would be unbelievable. The CWII's to me

sounded very up front and live, and the Scala were more laid back,

heavier bass, but just not as bright IMHO.

Now here is the interesting part, you will be seeing pictures of this

thing; according to Roy and the team, the Corn suffers from an inherent

standing wave problem, so they moved the woofer up at least two inches

toward the mid-horn from its present placement in the cabinet, in order

to solve this problem. This makes the CWIII look strange from

what we are used to seeing.

Also, the interior of the CWIII is lined with foam on the top both

sides, and the rear panel, the same acoustic foam that is in the RF-7;

when told that the CWII did not have any acoustic treatment inside the

cabinet, Roy was surprised...and stated that it should have had it (he

referred to the diaper in the CW I's - but was surprised the 2 didn't

have anything)...SO

there is the definitive answer from the man. When I asked him

whether putting the foam in the CW would change the cabinet

volume, he said

that it wouldn't change the volume due to the way the foam would deal

with the waves. He seemed to indicate that the foam would tighten

up the bass, and improve the overall characteristics of the

speaker. There are also **two** 2x4 braces just above the woofer

on the right and left , from the motorboard to the back panel which

would make the case alot more rigid.

Now the bad news...apparently, the CWIII is not coming out any time

soon. While it would make sense, and the price point would

fit perfectly between the Heresy III, and the La Scala II, the company

wants to make sure that the HIII and the LSII sell well with a new

marketing push (yes you heard it here). I will believe that when

I see it...I am afraid I went on at length about how Klipsch is really

losing out on Heritage sales because of the lack of any kind of

marketing. I think the folks were tired of hearing it from me,

but good grief, what are they thinking in Indy? When was the last ime any of you saw the heritage line in a showroom?

The CWIII sounded amazing, they really have spent the time and come out

with something very special here, IMHO. I am already saving my

pennies.

Picts will follow.

BB

[Deang]

In Indy, during the blind test between the RF-7 and CIII -- I picked the RF-7 in spite of the fact the CIII was being played at a higher volume level. I would love to read what I wrote now that I know what I was listening too.

Great post BTW -- thanks!

[colterphoto1]

As a Cornwall fan, I'd like to add to the comments of my esteemed colleague.

The new Cornwall III features a newly designed woofer, which is placed some 6 (yes SIX) inches higher than before. The reason, according to Roy Delgato, was standing waves inside the cabinet that were discovered by placing accelerometers inside the cabinet while testing. Baffle 'shelves' were tried both horizontally and at various angles inside the cabinet to lessen these waves, but it was modeling and testing proved that simply moving the woofer was the best solution. Bass port volume is a little smaller with a slightly shorter shelf than before.

The tweeter is the K107 TRACTRIX tweeter horn, which will allow the Cornwall (as well as Heresy III, which shares the tweeter) a much lower price point that the LS and Khorn. These last two sport the superior K77F tweeter, newly manufactured by a different company, but which carries a retail price of over $250 each due to new tooling necessary to manufacture it.

The squawker midrange is also shared, partly due to the fact that tooling for the K600 could not be located. It was economically infeasible to retool for the possibly small production run of CWIII. Add to that the fact that the new woof/mid xover is at 800 Hz, and you don't really need a 600 Hz horn, the 701 will do nicely. Yes it was tried with a tractrix mid/hi horn, but it just got too pricey. Looks like they're trying to keep the CWIII on the lower side of midway between Heresy and LS, IF it is to ever find a market.

Crossover is massive, with yellow caps instead of cans. Overall cabinet dimensions will remain the same. At current time, both Heresy III and refined LS (LSII?) are being manufactured and stockpiled. No evidence of CWIII was seen on the factory floor, only one test unit in the listening chamber.

We'll keep our fingers crossed. Save your nickels guys...

Oh and that little Heresy- it ROCKS!

Michael

[johnyholiday]

Foam!, i love foam!, let me at em[H], any mention of a Decorater, or

any other style options, on the CWIII, i just knew there was a nasty

standing wave in them CW's,[]

[Duke Spinner]

so's .. it a new Cornwall ...

but the goal is to use Cheap parts .....???

the JBL Studio series ... is gonna kill it , then .[:^)]

[crazytubepower]

Should be intresting to a/b a pair of cw II's to a pair of cw III's.

That is going to be the real test, so when they come out, i'll just

have to sleep with my local heritage dealer and then bring em home! haha

[colterphoto1]

Without misstepping my bounds, I think it's fair to say that there are a lot of decisions like this in a manufacturing process. Klipsch has often in the past used the same driver in multiple speakers, designing the Heresy and Cornwall boxes around the existing K33 woofer, making some drivers in house and farming some out. Finishes available on the Khorns were'nt available on the less expensive models, etc.

The use of the K107 gives a different, less beamy dispersion characteristic due to the tractrix design. It's still a very good driver of the most modern design techniques. It might even have a higher range than the old K77.

I think it is important to note that while more modern equivalents to the K77 and K400 could have been used on the redesigned LaScala, the change in sound would have been moderate. The major design of the LaScala was left untouched because that was a speaker that Paul Klipsch designed and voiced. It's possible that some of the Heritage design was left intact as tribute to him.

Michael

[crazytubepower]

I am just kinda shakey on leaving the k77 and k600 or what ever it is.

That is the way it was designed and so the only real way to tell is by

a/b. Michael, if they do indeed come out are you planing on buying a

pair, if so we as a forum would love to hear a review. I am sure they

won't be cheap, $3000 or somewhere in that realm.

[Deang]

I don't think the "goal" is to use "cheap" parts, but to get the best sound possible at a price most can deal with. Some "cheap" parts actually work quite good.

Above is the KPT-1201. The horn is the K-801. I suspect this is what they are using. I'm not familiar with a "K-107" tweeter. It's not likely they sourced a new driver for these projects -- so whatever it is, it's already being used in something.

"These last two sport the superior K77F tweeter, newly manufactured by a different company, but which carries a retail price of over $250 each due to new tooling necessary to manufacture it."

It's built in the Philippines. It's pretty much the same driver it always was. $250 each is called "markup".

"Crossover is massive, with yellow caps instead of cans."

The crossovers are "bigger" because they dropped the autotransformer (which increases the size of the parts), and are using steeper filters which increases the part count.

[colterphoto1]

The K107 is a tractrix design, horizontal and roughly the dimensions of the K79 used in the ChorusII. It does have the distinct tractrix shape to it.

Perhaps I misspoke when calling the K77F 'superior'. I meant that it relation to the K77 or K79, not in realtion to the K77M. It is essentially the same. The old vendor had been making the K77M for decades and had the machining and R&D paid for many times over. Asking a new company to step in and duplicate and tool up for a small production run has been very costly for Klipsch. Surely there is some markup in the spare parts department, but I recall buying essentialy a T35 tweeter for like $39 new from MCM electronics years ago. I would think it very possible that Klipsch had a very real cost increase switching vendors from the K77M to the K77F.

Dean is of course right on with his analysis of the crossover situation. Wish I'd taken a closeup of it, we could identify the slopes used in the new design (what would it be - the B4?)

Michael

[Deang]

Yeah, I'm sure whoever's doing the K-77 now had to incur some start up costs, no doubt about that.

Bob sent me a nice email yesterday and I think the deal with the K-600 is that they couldn't locate the mold. I suggest they look in the big box marked "Cornwall" that contains all the other stuff related to the Cornwall they can't find or remember!!! Damn, how do use "lose" this stuff?

Sure, "B4", why not? I'm sure the network is very similiar to what Delgado put in the rest of the Heritage speakers: Modern and more conventional higher order designs incorporating the addition of a bandpass on the midrange and using L-pads for attenuation. I'm sure the Cornwall III filter design is basically the same as the one for the Heresy III.

It's nice seeing Klipsch still working with those models -- a lot of people really like them.

[formica]

"These last two sport the superior K77F tweeter, newly manufactured by a different company, but which carries a retail price of over $250 each due to new tooling necessary to manufacture it."

It's built in the Philippines. It's pretty much the same driver it always was. $250 each is called "markup".

That's kinda what i was figuring as the K77( ,M, F, or whatever) isn't in the same performance range as most 250$ tweeters. At that price, might as well out source it from *cough* JBL *cough* []

[Deang]

Well, it does have the advantage of not having to sit on top of the speaker.

[jerohm]

The K107 is a tractrix design, horizontal and roughly the dimensions of the K79 used in the ChorusII. It does have the distinct tractrix shape to it.

To the best of my knowledge, the K76, K75, and K79 use identical plastic horn structures and diaphragms with the only difference the size of the magnets. Are you thinking that the K107 has the same horn mounting dimensions (i.e., a drop-in replacement??? )

[colterphoto1]

No, I just meant that visually, it looks somewhat similar in size to K79, versus the more square 60x40 tractrix found in Synergy and Reference models that someone posted earlier here.

I do not know if K107 is an exact size or xover match for installation, but might make a nice replacement in some instances where a K77 was blown beyond repair or someone wanted the Tractrix dispersion pattern.

Michael

[Kriton]

Mike! It was a treat meeting you, by the by, and thanks for

adding the specifics on the technical aspects fo the CWIII's - I was

obviously more interested in the differences between the II's and the

III's - did they raise the woofer that much? I thought is was

only 2-3 inches, but it makes sense now that I look at my own picts - I

know it just looked pretty funny...but sounded damn incredible.

Now don't get me wrong, the Heresy III's were impressive, and rocked -

but the depth and width of the Cornwall just blew them away.

I also didn't know they had re-engineered the woofer, but that too

would make sense. The bass response I thought was much tighter

and focused.

By the way, those of you who went to Indy last year, the CWIII that you

heard was NOT the present design of the CWIII, the woofer on the cab

you heard had not at that time been RAISED to get rid of the standing

wave problem...so this was really a different animal...at least that is

what I was told. I will get my picts up tonight.

Hey Mike, I didn't notice, but the CWIII is also biwireable, isn't it?

B

[colterphoto1]

Bruce- it was very cool to meet everyone. You and your wife were both very enjoyable company.

Sadly, I forgot to photograph or note the CWIII xover (which was sitting in the open on TOP of the cabinet for our test) or the jack plate for it. There was in the Eng. lab a CWII were they had experiemented with the raised woofer config, so I can get the exact measurement from Chris. I plan on using that modified CW design when I create my Vert CW for use as center channel.

Noted that their was a jack plate for the new LS similar to the Khorn AK4 mod, with dual 5-way posts for input, woofer, mid, and tweeter. This will make it easy to run tests and bi/tri amp or wire (?) as the user prefers.

More than a few people thought the HIII and CWIII were quite similar. I'm with you. I quite preferred the very full bass of the CWIII. I think the larger motor board helps project the bass forward.

Michael

[Kriton]

Interesting! Was that the general consensus on the H3, that it

sounded similar to the CW3...I couldn't disagree more...I thought the

CW3 was much wider and fuller in presence. The wife independently

agreed, it was a full step up, I thought. She thought the LSII's

were rather "harsh" as she put it, and preferred the CW's too...

I don't think harsh is how I would put it - I thought the LS in

comparison sounded, well ...muffled? is that a correct

term? No, maybe more laid back, smoother, not as in your face as

the CW - which is what I really like about my CWII's...hell the

quasi-jubilee's were more forward that the LS's, or am I just way off

base here once again? I thought the jubilee's and the CW3 made

the music sound more "live" - You could have reached out and slapped ol

James Taylor in that one set...but maybe I am partial, the room wasn't

favorable, etc...

Now as far as looks, the LS's were gorgeous...but I just think I would pay 5k plus for what I heard...

I would like to hear what other folks thought after letting it sit for a few days.

K (

[colterphoto1]

I agree with your analysis completely. I saw the CW3 as a giant step up from the H3, regardless of it's robust sound. I, too, felt that the LS, even with the improvments, sounded muffled or boxy in the upper regions of the LF section, although the Mid horn was as beautiful as ever. For my dollar, I'd take a CW over LS any day, unless it was for PA purposes.

I thought the Jubilee bass very tight and punchy, despite it being a folded horn. There was a great smoothness in the simplicity of either of the two-way designs presented to us. I thought the unit on the right with the smaller (510 or 501 horn) didn't lack anything that the much larger horn had. I think the only difference was dispersion, which would have been impossible to tell in the small room.

I asked Roy about the room itself, having noticed the occasional absorbtion panel and the few curved diffraction panels. He said they placed some room correction devices to make it sound like a TYPICAL listening room, not a studio or perfect acoustic space. I thought that was a good effort on their part. I found it to be an awesome listening experience.

I distinctly remember looking up at Tony Reed's face during the playback. He went from quiet to smiling. When the Jubilee came on he just beamed. I had tears in my eyes from the experience. When Roy cranked the volume on the Eagles Hotel California, I just felt it in my heart. It is amazing that music can become that emotionally involving, to quote Fini.

Michael

[Deang]

It's always interesting to me how different people not only have different taste in how they like their sound -- but how they tunnel into different parts of the sound when they listen. With me, it's cymbals, snare, and voice. If those aren't somewhat close I shutdown -- nothing else about the sound impresses me no matter how "good" it is.

These comments about the sound of the new Cornwall and Heresy are being watched very closely by Klipsch I'm sure. The new models may be "III's", but they really have nothing in common with the I's or II's except the size of the cabinets. It is very possible that these units might be the beginning of what constitutes the New Heritage Series. What you basically have here are implements from the Pro/Cinema Series dressed up in veneer. So, the questions everyone who heard these speakers should be asking are these: Did it sound "better"? Was the response smoother? Was there a loss is dynamics? Would I prefer what I heard to what I have? Improvement? Wash? Same but different? You know, those kinds of questions!

The Jubilee: In its present configuration, it's too obtrusive for most homes -- the HF horn is a monstrosity. What everyone really wants is a polymer resin composite version of The Jubilee Horn.