Klipschguy Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Who, I'm with Def Leper on this one. I have both Heresy I and Cornwall I speakers, both in perfect working order. The voicing of the Heresy and the Cornwall are COMPLETELY different. The Heresy has bright, brassy, sibilant highs and thin in the bass compared to the relatively mellow highs, midrange foward, big bass sound of the Cornwalls. I have run both with solid state and with tubes and got similar results (I rebuilt a Fisher 500c and it really is sweet). Also my Heresys use the smaller K700 horn and my Cornwalls use the larger K600. My Heresys sound pretty good with some music, and have good resolution, but they in no way sound ANYTHING like my Cornwalls - even with a sub. Not even close. I love my Cornwalls. The Heresys are better than many, but just "alright" overall. Just my honest, FIRST HAND experience. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 http://dallas.craigslist.org/ele/337670179.html To whom it may concern... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Didn't some of the early Heresy I's have a woofer that was 6dB down relative to the squawker? Corner positioning would be absolutely paramount in such a situation. It's certainly going to be a dramatic change compared to the huge 6dB rise around 70Hz in the Cornwall....so when comparing against each other that's a good 12dB swing. But comparing against real live music you've got only got a 6dB swing from each speaker. It wasn't until the III series that the Heresy was voiced as a standalone speaker...but there's nothing stopping you from doing that to any of the older models... Anyways, in the right rooms the Heresy speakers sound really good (with 6dB gain from the corner) - and after a while the bass boom of the cornwall starts to grow a bit old. It's much easier to crossover to a subwoofer with the Heresy (less phase and amplitude crap going on), but I've found that stereo subwoofage is absolutely vital to any serious system. So perhaps I should clarify that a bit more when mention adding 'a subwoofer'. Even if the sub system is effectively mono, it helps to balance out the sound (which then makes the Heresy sound as big as the cornwall). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Mandaville Posted May 24, 2007 Author Share Posted May 24, 2007 "in the right rooms the Heresy speakers sound really good" I agree with that, athough some people don't care for the Heresies. I have two pair myself, and think they are excellent. "after a while the bass boom of the cornwall starts to grow a bit old." Maybe for you; I've known other Cornwall owners who never said that." Erik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipschguy Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 In a small room the Cornwall boom can be problematic as room nodes start getting excited. In a large room the bass from the Cornwalls is just right (you have to say "just right" slowly to get my drift). I use a sub with my Cornwalls to fill in below 40Hz. The overall system sounds powerful to say the least. VERY well balanced. You are right about Heresy speakers - they benefit from corner placement. The Heresys sound good and they have served me well, but they don't have that magic of the Cornwalls where you can't believe how good they sound - especially after you haven't listened to them in a while. I have had mine for 15 years and I still smile every time I listen. How is that for long term satisfaction? My Cornwalls have sounded good enough to bring tears to my eyes on numerous occasions (yes, I am as tough as the next guy too). Emotional impact is difficult for a speaker to give me unless it is excellent. Could 901s do it? I dunno. I had some series IVs and I never recall being overly moved emotionally. It would be an interesting experiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 I wonder what the difference is between the IV and the VI? I spoke to a Bose rep and he said it was massive - but he would wouldn't he. Then I spoke to a guy that specializes in repairing the model III and IV and he said it was minimal - but he would wouldn't he. As ever - unless you actually hear the damn things you just never know. What's funny in all of this is that the appeal of the 901's I heard was at an emotional level and yet here is Klipschguy saying the complete opposite - different strokes I suppose - but just imagine it we could bottle that emotional element. Last night I got to listen to a pair of Avantgarde Duo's properly setup and playing like the devil. Deffinitely the best implementation of Duo's I have yet heard, but, no emotion - for me. It was the only aspect of the playback I could fault - but I think probably the most important perhaps... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Mandaville Posted May 25, 2007 Author Share Posted May 25, 2007 Max: The Avantgardes really do have a strong reputation among the various horn speaker species. I've never heard them myself; only read numersous reviews. I think 'emotion' is, as you implied, the very essence of works of art of any kind, not just music. The painter Mark Rothko suggested that if people look at his work with the objective of critically analyzing color relationships rather than simply allowing themselves to be drawn into the work on an emotional level -- they completely missed the point. This surely doesn't mean that art is not capable of being broken down into different elements that can be looked and individually. However, the most comprehensive experience, in my mind, is when it's appreciated as a whole on a level that engages the viewer or listener on an emotional level. Erik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Def Leper Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 You do realize that the Heresy squawker and tweeter are identical to the squawker and tweeter in your cornwall? The only difference is going to be in the low frequency response, and relative position of the speakers in the room. Cross both speakers over at 80Hz to a potent subwoofer and you're probably not going to be able to tell a difference (if anything, the heresy will probably sound better....). Huh? You've got different Cornwalls or Heresy's than I have. The tweeters might be the same but the midrange horn is certainly different, as is the crossover, LF driver and cabinet, of course. They may use the same midrange driver (I'm not going to open them up to look) but you're not going to get the same sound with different horns. Somebody mentioned a tube amp. I do have a Scott integrated amp that Craig rebuilt and has also retuned, and I hear no real differences with the Heresy other than the normal coloration that you get with a tubes. Don't get me wrong, as speakers go, Heresy's are good speakers and a great value-- after all, aren't they by far the biggest sellers of all the Heritage line? They just don't wow me like the rest of the heritage line. (Except the Belle's-- I admit I've never heard a set play.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boom3 Posted May 25, 2007 Share Posted May 25, 2007 Jeezy peezy luweezy...a thread that will not die... Can I put something here, if we haven't gone too far afield...? There is a profound difference between a speaker used to produce music (as in a guitar amp) and a speaker to RE-produce music. Speakers used to produce music (or amps, or anything else in the chain) are not selected for "fidelity", they are selected for the overall sound. Like Jack Sondamier, engineer for Peavey once told me, "Guitar amps are never, never, never flat". OK, here's my 901 story...many moons ago there was a small bar that had 4 901s (vintage unknown, but probably IIIs). It also had a large subwoofer, make unknown, and a JBL mid/tweet horn array hanging over the bar. The 901s were part of a system that produced-not reproduced-music. In that application and space, and not a little alcohol, they sounded very good indeed. I think if one's purpose is to produce music, not re-produce it with any great degree of fidelity, then a properly set-up system with 901s can sound pretty good, especially in a small space where overwhelming volume is not needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 You do realize that the Heresy squawker and tweeter are identical to the squawker and tweeter in your cornwall? The only difference is going to be in the low frequency response, and relative position of the speakers in the room. Cross both speakers over at 80Hz to a potent subwoofer and you're probably not going to be able to tell a difference (if anything, the heresy will probably sound better....). Huh? You've got different Cornwalls or Heresy's than I have. The tweeters might be the same but the midrange horn is certainly different, as is the crossover, LF driver and cabinet, of course. They may use the same midrange driver (I'm not going to open them up to look) but you're not going to get the same sound with different horns. Somebody mentioned a tube amp. I do have a Scott integrated amp that Craig rebuilt and has also retuned, and I hear no real differences with the Heresy other than the normal coloration that you get with a tubes. Don't get me wrong, as speakers go, Heresy's are good speakers and a great value-- after all, aren't they by far the biggest sellers of all the Heritage line? They just don't wow me like the rest of the heritage line. (Except the Belle's-- I admit I've never heard a set play.) Sorry...it's the newest Heresy and Cornwall share the same exact squawker and tweeter. I didn't do a good job of it the first time around, but I was just trying to mention that your experiences aren't always the case. But I'm not really disagreeing either because no way in the world would I take a Heresy over a Cornwall...even if in some weird instances I might be able to pull out better performance from a Heresy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest " " Posted May 26, 2007 Share Posted May 26, 2007 with all the intrest (16 pages of posts) maybe someone should bring some 901's to the pilgrimage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 I think the Bose Pilgrimage would be more appropriate for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Spinner Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 All I know on the 901 subject, Mark ... can simply be demonstrated by playing a Piano recording, with a heavy Bass line ... Gargle, Gargle, Gargle 'Nuff said ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 So when someone comes in and measures the frequency intermodulation distortion, it is suddenly invalid? I think the problem stems from the fact that the naysayers don't know what particular distortions sound like - In fact, I know they don't. Because if they knew what frequency intermodulation distortion sounded like, a lightbulb would click in their head and they'd go "oh, that's the gargle I'm hearing!" Instead, we get arguments about how the world can be considered flat to not only justify, but to encourage the lack of trained hearing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Mandaville Posted May 27, 2007 Author Share Posted May 27, 2007 "It's funny how this argument goes 'round and 'round and rarely touches on the heart of the issue." "Fidelity" shall be determined HOW? Or, by whom?" That's precisely the point I was trying to make. I think the reason this keeps going around and around has to do with factors unrelated to the actual topic. Erik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Spinner Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 can simply be demonstrated by playing a Piano recording, with a heavy Bass line ... Gargle, Gargle, Gargle ------------- Duke--- Right! That's a "subjective" analysis. It has nothing to do with measuring. Nothing at all wrong with that analysis. That's my point - - you are judging "fidelity" on your own subjective scale just like WE ALL DO! Noooooooo, Mark .... I am saying the FIM distortion is So Bad .. it's readily apparent [+o(] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Spinner Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 no test equipment needed to measure That .... hell, it's sooooo bad, it's prolly off the scale [:|] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Spinner Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 OK .. who's gotta copy of the AES paper on FIM ..?? that'll tell us at what obscene level ..it becomes readily apparent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt1stcav Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 I dunno, I'm no expert...but everyone's ears hear differently. What sounds good to one may sound horrible to another, and that's all well and good. That's why there are so many different types of loudspeakers out there in different forms and styles. You can argue about their design or function or how they go about reproducing recorded sound (frankly, I could care less that they equalize their drivers or why they don't publish specifications), but in the end it's all about the music and what sounds pleasing to one's ears. And the Bose 901s (like the Klipschorns) continue to thrive, are still manufactured and sold after all these years where others have failed, and continue to put smiles on the faces of their owners. That's all that really matters to most consumers...they probably don't give a hoot about IM distortion; they just like the way their choice in loudspeakers sound with their favorite music. Who are we, or anyone else for that matter, to pass judgement on them for their choice? Because we theoretically know better? If you were to let them audition any Klipsch model alongside their 901s and they chose instead the Klipsch as the better sounding loudspeaker, that's all well and good and you'd stand there proud of your accomplishment. But if they still preferred the sonics of their 901s over the Klipsch, then they deserve to be bashed for their lack of trained hearing and be ridiculed and scorned for not knowing any better? According to you because you say so? I have auditioned 901s years ago and they're fine sounding to my ears if set up properly in a room...they just haven't wowed me over like the Cornwalls (and my latest RB-75s) have, which is why I do not own a pair of 901s. But I'm not gonna go around bashing them and their owners at every avenue I cross just because I don't care for their sound or how Bose conducts their R&D or their business practices! I have way more better things to do with my time than that, like sitting back in my chair and listening to my favorite classical pipe organ recordings on my Chinese-made 300B SET amp driving my Reference Series horn speakers (choices I've made in the equipment and music "I" like, not choices recommended to me by others who claim to know what I should like instead solely because it's what they think is best). Remember, opinions are like a**holes...everyone's got one, and they ususally stink! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Spinner Posted May 27, 2007 Share Posted May 27, 2007 Ok .. Dope rom Hope volume 2, #7 Per PWK .." excursion of more than .21" produces FIM that is extremely irritating" any doubt on the excursion of them little drivers ..?? think a fifth of an inch might be exceeded all the time ..?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts