Cornwall III vs. RF-7/83 low-end frequency response curves?

[Heideana]

Does anyone know if the CWIIIs response curve is flatter in the low-end compared to the RF-7 or 83s? I think Im asking the question correctly? After living with the CWIIIs for a week I realized that I can tell a real difference between triode and ultralinear modes, while the difference is way more subtle on my RF-7s.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

On the CWIIIs, the triode mode low end seems to have a real defined difference between bass drum and bass guitar and ultralinear sounds bigger and less defined, like listening to something further away. Both modes seem to have much better defined bottom ends compared to the RF-7s which made me wonder if the CWIIIs low-end response curve is flatter or dont start dropping decibels as rapidly as they approach their rated low frequency response?

The CWIII cabs also seem to more solid/massive and books accidentally left on their tops dont fall off at higher volumes, unlike the RF-7s.

Thanks<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Hopkins

[jpm]

dunno. i went with lascala's cause they offer a bigger table top for books

hehehe

[Fish]

I'd say the Corns just have a better bottom end under most conditions,thats a pretty good size speaker(old school style).Its likely that its a combination of things from cab to crossovers to less placement issues.From what I recall of my brothers Corns from back in the day the 35 watt Pioneer would make em' sing.I'd say that same amp on the 7s would not be as impressive.

One thing I have noticed on 7s is they like power,the more the better for bottom end.With every step up in power they do improve down low.I had a 500 watt per ch amp(pro)hooked up for a test,while I didnt like the amp the bass was improved.