• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Cornwall III - buy or not?

joecoulson said:
IV’s crush the III’s
Click to expand...
Midrange and vocals alone separate the two speakers I’ve owed the 3s with the same gear I own the iv . Vocals and midrange to my ears are better with the iv . I like the iv better in the bass department also more pronounced slam .
 
Last edited:
PeerlessK said:
Midrange and vocals alone separate the two speakers I’ve owed the 3s with the same gear I own the iv . Vocals and midrange to my ears are better with the iv . I like the iv better in the bass department also more pronounced slam .
Click to expand...
Absolutely true
 
mkane said:
Cornwalls are great for about 3 hours.
Click to expand...

Meaning what? I'm going to guess you're saying they sound great for 3 hours then become fatiguing. ..Well, that's true of any lifelike speaker. After all, REAL music - after three hours! - will begin to fatigue the listeners hearing.

Remember, aside from the occasional thunderbolt humans evolved hearing nothing louder than a babbling brook, waves crashing on rocks, wind whistling through the trees, etc... So it shouldn't surprise people that our ears will object to music - even chamber music - played at 90 db for hours on end.

People who cite "listening fatigue" as a sign that a system is sub-par are overlooking the fact that any system that is accurate will - by definition - begin to fatigue after a while.
 
^^ exactly as you said, midrange fatigue, and I tried to come to grips with Cornwall II's, twice. Threw tons of money at them. Different amplification, speaker mods, you name it. These are accurate and non-fatiguing.

DSC_0003 (2).JPG
 
well, I've had my series I's for...3 years? Not fatigued in the least. And I have auditioned lots of other v. good speakers and the Cornwalls have always come out on top. In fact I find them LESS fatiguing than other speakers. They have an ease about them that I find comforting.
 
eiraved said:
Agree, then become awesome after the 3 hour mark. :D
Click to expand...

I think someone wanting a pair of the Cornwall 3 could easily live with them . There are differences between the two speakers 3s and iv . For me it’s the midrange control the iv represents and voicing . Vocals sound better with the iv because the iv is such a well balanced speaker after four generations of the speaker. To point someone in the direction away from a pair of the 3s however that I wouldn’t do . The 3s are fine sounding and if that’s all you had to pick from one could easily live with them without regret purchasing them.
 
joecoulson said:
Looks like I’m not alone in my assessment of the III’s vs. IV’s

“These are so much improved over the III’s it’s not even close.”
Click to expand...

He seems like a nice dude, but a credible audio reviewer? Nah... IMHO, this statement is absolutely disqualifying.

"After 150 hours the sound got worse. Flatter, as if the bass dropped off. I ran them in music room #2 for weeks and then when I brought them back to my main system they sounded totally different again. After 400 hours they are simply incredible, some of the best speakers I have ever heard."

So the speaker changed from "worse" to "simply incredible" between hours 151-399? Sheesh....

Break-in, beyond a few minutes to hours, is a myth. ..Read the Q&A on the website of Bob Crites, notable Klipsch expert and designer/mfg of replacement crossovers and drivers. He emphatically debunks the break-in myth.

Also, how can he possibly claim it's one of the top 20 speakers in the world until he has heard every speaker in the world? ..Not to mention hearing them in the same environment. ..To say it's the best he has heard, fine... But claiming it's the best everyone else has heard is kinda ridiculous.

I get it. He likes his new speakers. ..But reread his review of the CW3. ..He made many of the same glowing, exaggerated, and unsubstantiated claims about them.
 
Last edited:
ODS123 said:
He seems like a nice dude, but a credible audio reviewer? Nah... IMHO, this statement is absolutely disqualifying.

"After 150 hours the sound got worse. Flatter, as if the bass dropped off. I ran them in music room #2 for weeks and then when I brought them back to my main system they sounded totally different again. After 400 hours they are simply incredible, some of the best speakers I have ever heard."

So the speaker changed from "worse" to "simply incredible" between hours 151-399? Sheesh....

Break-in, beyond a few minutes to hours, is a myth. ..Read the Q&A on the website of Bob Crites, notable Klipsch expert and designer/mfg of replacement crossovers and drivers. He emphatically debunks the break-in myth.

Also, how can he possibly claim it's one of the top 20 speakers in the world until he has heard every speaker in the world? ..Not to mention hearing them in the same environment. ..To say it's the best he has heard, fine... But claiming it's the best everyone else has heard is kinda ridiculous.

I get it. He likes his new speakers. ..But reread his review of the CW3. ..He made many of the same glowing, exaggerated, and unsubstantiated claims about them.
Click to expand...
I read the review also on the iv . I based my decision on listening to the iv . Listen to both the 3s and iv if you can . If not the 3s are a Cornwall unmistakably by sound . No review is a result of someone using your ears to listen
 
I'm sure the IVs are better. If you have money to burn, buy the IV's new. If you want a better sound per dollar, buy a good set of used IIIs. I have a set of Heresy IVs sitting as my back channels to a set of Cornwall IIIs as the front channel. They sound identical to my ears, with the exception being bass, because, even though they ported the Heresy, it still has lesser bass than its bigger siblings (as it should). If I were buying speakers new now, I might buy Cornwall IVs, or wait till the price lowers some over the years.

I have heard no spontaneous-orgasm inducing improvement in my speakers after some round integral number of hours. They sounded good out of the box; they sound good now. I will stand by my estimate of 10-20% improvement, probably more like 10%.
 
Kodaline said:
I'm sure the IVs are better. If you have money to burn, buy the IV's new. If you want a better sound per dollar, buy a good set of used IIIs. I have a set of Heresy IVs sitting as my back channels to a set of Cornwall IIIs as the front channel. They sound identical to my ears, with the exception being bass, because, even though they ported the Heresy, it still has lesser bass than its bigger siblings (as it should). If I were buying speakers new now, I might buy Cornwall IVs, or wait till the price lowers some over the years.

I have heard no spontaneous-orgasm inducing improvement in my speakers after some round integral number of hours. They sounded good out of the box; they sound good now. I will stand by my estimate of 10-20% improvement, probably more like 10%.
Click to expand...
Well said. I feel the same about my CWII. They were the right price at the right time and fit my amps perfectly. Same with my H1’s. Someday I may sell all 6 sets of my speakers and all my amps/receivers and get a set of IV’s. Until then, I’m very happy and content.
 
Respectfully, the description in this thread of IVs being so vastly superior to IIIs is just not credible-sounding, on its face. Respectfully. Were we to believe it, we would have to believe a legendary Cornwall was first marketed in 1959 to rave reviews (in an era of bit, efficient speakers which still sell for thousands $ (Altec, etc.). It underwent various tweaks but the basic design never changed. Each version has been considered an improvement, but not a quantum difference.

And now, I am to believe that after more than 50 years of production, research and incremental improvements, Klipsch finally discovered a way to use that same basic design (15" paper woofer, 1.5" midrange diaphragm and 1.0" tweeter) to make a speaker so superior to all previous iterations as to make them seem like childs' toys. On its face, this seems implausible. It's like saying Chevrolet just made an engine that produces 1000 hp and gets 100mpg.

Respectfully I truly respect every post in this thread, and I think its okay for me to post my perspective as well.

Disclaimer: My main speakers are Cornwall IIIs. And in many instances, with my eyes closed, I can tell how much spittle is in the singer's mouth and the angle between the mouth and the microphone. I honestly have a hard time believing that any speaker can achieve much more accuracy, detail and clarity than these Cornwalls. And here is another data point: These things are so detailed that when I drive them with a VERY good PP tube amp, they sound like the music is coming through an inch of fabric. Connect them to my SET amp and the veil lifts. There is nothing between the singer's mouth and my ears. A speaker with more clarity is theoretically possible I suppose, but I just have no idea how that might sound. With the Cornwalls, it sounds like the singer is singing right to my face.
 
The car analogy is out of scale, but I would say video is a good place to compare:
1080p HD looks great still. But when you play a source compatible 4K HDR movie/show on a new monitor, the difference is stark.
But if all you ever looked at was 1080p, you’d still be very happy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom