Cornwall III

[rockbobmel]

I almost bought a used pair of Cornwalls. One thing that really turned me off was their big flat face. I would have tried to redesign the speaker with a narrower front and made up for it with depth & hight.

[jwc]

Well, I certainly didn't believe a Cornscala will hit the production line. But I would agree with your conclusion.

The big question is...Why it is so good? I assume the network plays a big part. O/W it isn't much different than the CW2.

[Seadog]

I dig the sound that emanates from that "big flat face"[]

[ssh]

I guess it's all in the hearer's ears, because to me, the new LaS blew away the Corn III. No contest, not even in the same company. The 2 way with the LF bass bin & 402 was, to my ears, another cut above. If I could do it for what Roy quoted, I'd do it next week- Did you read this Roy?"

Next week?

SSH

[Daddy Dee]

SSH,

You're meaning the Jubilee two way? They did sound fabulous.

[colterphoto1]

To address some points.

That Big Flat Face in the CW motorboard might just be one of the reasons it projects sound forward so much. With narrower speakers, as in tower designs, doesn't some of the sound try to 'wrap around' the cabinet and not get projected forward?

This is a new woofer, woofer placement, port volume and crossover. I don't know what they've done, but the transitions seem very smooth and the upper reaches of the woofer just sound tremendous. I can't wait to hear the electric bass of Chris Squire of Yes on them!

I don't know exactly which mid driver is behind that 701 horn. Maybe the Atlas PD5VH (K55?) or ??? The crossover had a lot of elements in it for a three way cabinet, so perhaps there are some 12 db slopes in there as well.

Michael

[STL]

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?

Sounds like a pretty lame excuse to

me. Would it really be that hard/costly to make a new mold (using

a K-600 lens)?

[LarryC]

I remain concerned about this, too. The difference between 600 and 800 Hz (the old and new crossover points) is a musical interval of a fourth, almost half an octave, and intuitively I feel that's a significant difference in a horn that reaches down to upper instrument fundamentals and midrange and upper bass overtones. Although I know many opinions were very favorable, I wouldn't want to see a perception come about in some quarters that older Cornwalls have advantages over newer ones, or that the sonic difference in the treble is too small between the C/W and Heresy. Especially compared with what I felt was a large leap in treble openness and clarity from either to the LaScala.

[DrWho]

To address some points.

That Big

Flat Face in the CW motorboard might just be one of the reasons it

projects sound forward so much. With narrower speakers, as in tower

designs, doesn't some of the sound try to 'wrap around' the cabinet and

not get projected forward?

This is a new woofer, woofer

placement, port volume and crossover. I don't know what they've done,

but the transitions seem very smooth and the upper reaches of the

woofer just sound tremendous. I can't wait to hear the electric bass of

Chris Squire of Yes on them!

I don't know exactly which mid

driver is behind that 701 horn. Maybe the Atlas PD5VH (K55?) or ??? The

crossover had a lot of elements in it for a three way cabinet, so

perhaps there are some 12 db slopes in there as well.

What you're referring to actually has a name: "baffle gain" - and it is

an integral part to the designing of flush mounted monitors in the

studio (flush mounting could be modelled as a baffle that extends for

"infinity" in all directions, hence the name infinite baffle - IB

subwoofers) [] Attached is a pic that shows the impact of the

frequency response when a speaker is flushmounted. Usually a counter-EQ

is implemented to bring the response back to flat, which accomplishes a

design that digs a bit lower and has even less conemovement (6dB

corresponds to 1/4 the excursion!) As the baffle gets smaller (like

closer to the size of a speaker's motorboard), I believe it follows the

same curve, but starts to drop off at frequencies where 1/4 the

wavelength is larger than the width/height of the cabinet (or is it

1/2? I forget). Note the the response gets affected all the way up to

1kHz! (about 1dB)

Anyways, it is a well documented phenomenon and I too believe that is

one of the reasons for the cornwall's signature sound...though that

large baffle connected to the motorboard makes me wonder how much the

big face is being vibrated and making its own sound - I bet this might

be the source for the ever so slight congestionin the lower mids. In

the studio, great lengths are taken to keep the motorboard as uncoupled

from the "infinite baffle" (the wall) so as to minimize sympathetic

vibrations. I bet the standing wave problem they found and fixed had a

lot to do with the large front face vibrations.

[DrWho]

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?

Sounds like a pretty lame excuse to

me. Would it really be that hard/costly to make a new mold (using

a K-600 lens)?

I believe it could cost as much as $10,000 - though I'm very bad at

remembering numbers...I do know that it's on the order thousands

though. Klipsch is a company and they would have to sell quite a few

just to break even - or they could go with something they already have

and keep a much larget profit margin (while making the other speakers

using the same mold seem even cheaper to build too).

Klipsch never intended for the new heritage to be the best speakers in

the world - that's what the soon to come Klipsch Premiere speakers are

supposed to be!

[STL]

I believe it could cost as much as $10,000 - though

I'm very bad at

remembering numbers...I do know that it's on the order thousands

though. Klipsch is a company and they would have to sell quite a few

just to break even - or they could go with something they already have

and keep a much larget profit margin (while making the other speakers

using the same mold seem even cheaper to build too).

I do not

doubt you were told that, but I have to say "hogwash" on that figure.

[Frzninvt]

The mold, die or stamp for the newer K-700 horn cost $15K back in 1977 so it is entirely possible that the cost would be greater to replace the K-600 mold or die.

[capo72]

I am a Tool & Die maker. I used to work for a mold building company, and givin my experience I can tell you that a mold to make that horn out of plastic would be in the area of $50K if it's built here in America. A Chinese mold would be cheaper, but lack the quality of American made. It would be a very difficult mold to produce with the compound curves involved. If the horn were to be die cast it would be even more expensive on account of the tighter tolerances required. Even temporary tooling for a low production run would be in the $25-30K range. Has anyone priced steel lately? Material alone would cost probably 10 times what it did 30 years ago.

Jeremy

[Daddy Dee]

Thanks for your take on that Jeremy. I'd been wondering about the

costs. What you have shared is more in line with what the Klipsch folk

were telling the forum gathering in Hope.

One thing, the tooling wasn't at the Klipsch factory. it was lost by the horn manufacturer.

[TBrennan]

Well there you go.

[STL]

Well that shows I don't know squat about making a mold!

What I would like explained is why it would cost so incredibly

much. Especially if you have a metal K-600 or plastic K-601 from

which to make the mold. I guess I just do not see exactly what is

so hard and/or labor intensive about it.

[capo72]

Well that shows I don't know squat about making a mold! What I would like explained is why it would cost so incredibly much. Especially if you have a metal K-600 or plastic K-601 from which to make the mold. I guess I just do not see exactly what is so hard and/or labor intensive about it.

Are you thinking of casting new horns from a cast mold of the original part? An injection mold means squirting liquid plastic into a cavity the is machined from expensive tool steel. A mold for a horn would require lots of moving parts, called slides, that need to move out of the way, as the mold is opened, in order to remove the part. Think of the horn itself as airspace surrounded by steel. Hard to explain without seeing it. I will attach a picture of a simple mold core and cavity. It is a highly skilled profession (5 year apprenticeship in the U.S.) we make decent money for that skill, so the labor rate is high in the U.S. Also, steel prices have a huge impact on the final cost. Steel is in high demand these days due to demand issues forced by the rapidly increasing Gross Domestic Product of China. Basically they need more steel, so we all pay more for it. I hope I am making sense here.

[Marvel]

I am afraid I understand all too well how hard it is. A co-worker

(electrician) casts parts out of urethane, to replace parts he can no

longer buy. For even the simplest parts he has hinged pieces and slides.

I have been trying to work out a driver adapter to go from a one inch

driver to the back of a Smith horn. I've finally figured out how I can

do it, but it will be multiple pieces I bolt together and not one piece.

If I didn't visualize a lot in 3D I would been way crazy by now (hush... no one knows).

Bruce

[STL]

capo72,

Thanks for the info. I guess I was thinking you could take a

existing hon lens -- in pristine shape of course -- with the interior

filled in (or just plugged to seal it off) and use that to make a mold

of the exterior. That mold would have to be cut in half (to get

the horn out) so now you have a two piece mold that only gets you the

exterior. Now use another existing horn and just fill in the

interior and modify the two piece mold to accept it. Now you

basically have a three piece mold to make a horn lens. Okay, now you can tell me where I'm wrong...

[DrWho]

wow, for once I quoted a number on the low end of the spectrum! Perhaps

the $10,000 quote I heard includes the reduction in price that would be

gained by having some existing parts to model after.

Keep in mind that compression drivers have to be extremely precise,

otherwise you get a really crappy response real fast. I can't remember

the exact number but Mark from Klipsch was saying that all the HF horns

had to be exact down to something like 0.3mm in order to sound the

same...It would be rather hard to get that kind of precision trying to

mold an existing horn.