m00n Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 While I love my cornwalls, before and after lots of mods, I would certainly not use the K601 horn if I was going to all the trouble of building them from scratch....i.e. wedge a K401 in there or better yet a Klapperhorn Well, I'm not building from scratch persay. These are some CW I boxes that were given to me by a fellow forum member. I'm converting them into CW II boxes. The K401 horn... What is that? The horn that makes the K57K unit? What is this Klapperhorn you speak of? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 The LS is no more a home speaker than a Black Angus is a Cocker Spaniel. The problem was PWK was idiotic enough to bring them home, and all his followers jumped on the bandwagon! [] Once again, young man, you don't know what you're talking about. If you can't do better than that, maybe you should "lurk" for a while until your knowledge and maturity catch up with your typing speed. Hey, Bud! Ya talkin' to me? [] Actually, I could care less whether he made the LS for PA use or not. Does it really matter? You must have missed the point that it seems many happily use them at home. That, I would think, does not make them ONLY good for PA. Speakers are much like cars. They may have been designed for one thing in mind, but people use them for all sorts of other things. How many people have 4-wheel-drive trucks that will never leave the pavement? How many people still wear cowboy boots, despite the fact that where they live, they will never see a Rattlesnake? How many people go to the ball game to watch the action on the stadium's big screen? I just don't get why people feel the need to "dis" the LS. And finally...... I bet my PA amp can kick your amp's a$$. [] [<)] [Y] (Just kidding). LOL, Old man! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richieb Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Much as I thought I had died and gone to heaven when I replaced my Fortes with '76 Cornwalls, my Belles have put the Corns in the back room with a lowly HK 430. For my ears Belles just do it for me. So clean, crisp with real, taunt bass, much more precise than the Corns. For example, pulled the Corns into the main system just a couple weekends ago, listed for one evening, a very short session the next morning and back they went. Even with new BEC "B" networks the Corns sound veiled and lacked the absolute precision of the fully horn loaded Belle sound. For my taste, Belles with BEC "A/AA" convertibles run on the "A" side are the cats meow. For what its worth, my significant other who loves (loved) the Corns agrees; the Corns won't ever be sold but we listen to Belles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 Hmmmm.. The belles certinally had aspects I liked, but I just needed more bottom end. Maybe they needed a crossover upgrade. I sold them to Audible Necter here on the forum. Not sure if he ever upgraded or got new crossover parts or not for them. So far, my cats meow is my RF7s with DeanG's RF7 crossover mod. Will see if these corns take over or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audible Nectar Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I did get the BEC upgrade for the Belles, and that did help, but I don't recall it affecting the bass as much as it did the treble. It was like removing a cover from the tweeters. The Belles are hell on your amplification and system - if it is right for the Belles, they really reward you. If not, well, they just won't impress. It seems to really matter with the Belle's fully horn loaded design more than the Corns. The spread from worst match to best match of the gear to the speaker is greater with the Belle - good electronic match, great sound, poor match, really unimpressive results. The Belles make you "pay" more in bad sound from bad gear choices, and reward you more for good choices. Same goes for recordings, room acoustics, and so forth. To me, it seems the Belle accentuates the good and bad in recordings and system even more than the non-horn loaded bass Heritage speakers. The fully horn loaded Heritage will reveal more of the good and bad in everything to do with the system. More to gain, more to lose......as one would expect of a "better" speaker. The bass of the Cornwall is more punchy, it seems very "at home" in the HT - but I find the bass of the horn loaded models to be more true, to the degree of depth that they can reach. The Corns at times do seem to accentuate the bass at times, where on the horn loaded bass versions, the bass sounds proper in a good system, and add nothing that isn't in the recording. The Corns work out really nice in the HT, but I prefer the Belles in 2 channel. That approach seems to work out well here, and it's nice to have the benefits of both speakers - they are all quite enjoyable[] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipschguy Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I have had tons of experience with Cornwalls and La Scalas in many different rooms. IMHO, the Cornwalls are almost unbeatable in a large room (much better than the La Scala). In a smallish room, the Cornwalls are kinda boomy and less satisfying. In a smaller room, the La Scala has a much more natural sound to the bass versus the Cornwalls. The small folded bass horn seems to be happy in a small room (and conversely, is thin in a big room). The bass reflex Cornwall is quite balanced, full and natural sounding in a big room, but booms in a small room. In a room 20'x30', Cornwalls. In a room 17'x15', La Scalas. Of course, if you got the corners, get Khorns and be done with it. I am a firm believer that the system must fit the room - a subject that gets little press around here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS Button Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Who made the cornscala round here? I know someone did. I have the K57K squawkers. I'm not above getting the LaScalla horns if they will mount on the existing drivers. Seems to me that the crossovers would stay the same... .Yes? JW Cullison made a pair of Cornscala's and a pair of DBB Cornscala's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunburnwilly Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Cornwalls have much better bass , Belles have a larger soundfield and presense . I like both but the Belles just sound more like live music to me .Hey quoting my own post , How lame is that ? Seriously both have their strong points , and the Belles are also WAY more upgradable than the Corns . Anyone dissagree with that ? As far as the bass subject , true I wish my Belles dug deeper . But after I get over my annual tax crunch time I will be getting either a Velodyne HGS 18 , or the DD 18 if I can get a DD18 under $2,500 that is . Bass problem solved in a big way . The Belles are a PA speaker . True they are a refined PA speaker , so what ? And as far as looks go , have any of you seen a Belle and a La Scala next to each other ? I have , and wow , what a differance a small design change provide . Allright , I'm done with my mini rant so in closing I'll leave you with this little thought . In '86 I purchased a pair of speakers with better bass response than anything Klipsch has ever produced for $600 a pair . Cerwin Vega [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colterphoto1 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Moon, K57 assembly is the K52 driver mounted to a K601 horn. That's the standard for CWII, also the K79 tweeter vs the older K77. The 400 or 401 series horn is the big boy from the LS or Khorn. It won't fit into a CW cabinet, hence JCullison's CornScala was born. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colterphoto1 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Oh one other thing. I have an original Klipsch brochure that shows a Cornwall in place as a center speaker between two Klipschorns. So according to PWK, you could use either CW or Belle in that position. I have 9 CW's and NO Belles, if that tells you anything. Just moved LS into the L/R mains position, but that was for sheer volume. If I could only have one pair of Klipsch, it would be CW. In fact they were my first pair. Maybe my ears just got used to them, but I think they are the smoothest response, best Klipsch value. (assuming you don't take them to ridiculously loud levels often- the mid horn is a tad harsh). Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggerIsBetter Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 What, the K401 horn does not "fit' in a cornwall. Sure it does, just depends on your definition of fit and whether your willing to "customize" a bit [] http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/660358/ShowPost.aspx The best part is the looks, the 601 horn just looks wrong in the big cornwall cabinets. And I would do it again..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m00n Posted February 22, 2006 Author Share Posted February 22, 2006 It won't fit into a CW cabinet, hence JCullison's CornScala was born.Yeah, I knew it wouldnt fit but I would like to see what he did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intotubes Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Oh one other thing. I have an original Klipsch brochure that shows a Cornwall in place as a center speaker between two Klipschorns. So according to PWK, you could use either CW or Belle in that position. I have 9 CW's and NO Belles, if that tells you anything. Just moved LS into the L/R mains position, but that was for sheer volume. If I could only have one pair of Klipsch, it would be CW. In fact they were my first pair. Maybe my ears just got used to them, but I think they are the smoothest response, best Klipsch value. (assuming you don't take them to ridiculously loud levels often- the mid horn is a tad harsh). Michael What qualifies for ridiculous? > 110db? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colterphoto1 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 that sounds about right. They just get harsh. Just my opinion. But since most of us rarely listen that loudly for any length of time, I consider it a pretty moot point. M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Harsh? Hey, Michael. Put in that Santana Moonflower and listen to the jam part of "Let the Children Play" at ear-bleeding levels. Be sure to connect up your Crown for the ultimate experience. I love the part when the guitar and keyboard play a matched lead at the same time. Very cool when very loud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksonbart Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Well one is named for a City in southwestern UK and the other is named after some chick. Other than that there are no differences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Hey, JB, your help is needed in Name that Tune. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seti Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Be carefull with those ears guys.....http://www.dangerousdecibels.org/hearingloss.cfm Decibel Exposure Time Guidelines Accepted standards for recommended permissible exposure time for continuous time weighted average noise, according to NIOSH and CDC, 2002. For every 3 dBs over 85dB, the permissible exposure time before possible damage can occur is cut in half. Continuous dB Permissible Exposure Time 85 db 8 hours 88 dB 4 hours 91 db 2 hours 94 db 1 hour 97 db 30 minutes 100 db 15 minutes 103 db 7.5 minutes 106 dB 3.75 min (< 4min) 109 dB 1.875 min (< 2min) 112 dB .9375 min (~1 min) 115 dB .46875 min (~30 sec) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiser SET say Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Seti, ear police[] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colterphoto1 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Not at Hope last year , he wasn't LOL I'm getting my Rat Shack meter calibrated, seems like it's reading way low, even with good battery check. Anyone else have this? Michael 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.