The weekly Associated Press Football Poll was just released. 1-Clemson 2-Alabama 3-Georgia 4-LSU 5-Ohio State 6-Oklahoma 7-Auburn 8-Wisconsin 9-Florida 10-Notre Dame. There are 5 SEC teams in the top 8. Other Big Ten teams in the top 25 are 11-Penn State, 14-Iowa, 20-Michigan. I am really surprised Michigan is ranked #20 after yesterday trailing Wisconsin 35-0 in the 3rd quarter. I really believe there are more than 19 teams that should be ranked ahead of the Wolverines. Hahahaha!
I wonder if U of ❌ is still negotiating that "Contact For Life" with Harbs??? 😎
The Macro Tech is doing a phenomenal job with the K402s. Open, super clear, precise imaging, freakish dynamics and utterly engaging.
When I swap it out for the Primaluna (which I had expected to be far better), I am immediately disappointed. It sounds like a toy by comparison. This is very interesting. I have had friends borrow the Primaluna who report that it is better in most ways to most of their gear.
The answer is though that I most certainly have not abandoned hi-fi amps for pro audio gear. The Crowns were cheap, nearby and made for a good starting point for me. Luck has meant the Macro has inadvertently become a staunch benchmark on the 402's.
As time and opportunity permits I will try different amps on them. No hurry, but I would like to get the noisy fans of the pro gear outside of my system. The Crowns take a solid hour to reach critical listening warmth too...
My friend has an F3 and another First Watt amp to try, and I think I might get to hear a SIT 3 and F7 also.... I am sure they will be phenomenal, but I will put money on them not having the palpable dynamics of the Crown. We will see! I am always happy to be proved wrong!
I was referring to the Heresy II in my post. That would be the K-76 tweeter and a K-53 mid yes? That's okay though because I'm assuming you'll say that's even more inferior to the K-107 anyway. So, let's just have a look at the Heresy III since that's what you're referring to. According to Klipsch, the Heresy III and Cornwall III each use the same K-107 tweeter and K-53 midrange, yes? So, from what I gather from all the reviews, it's pretty much an overwhelming vote that the Cornwall III, which uses the same tweeter and mid as a Heresy III is practically superior in just about every regard to the Forte III and yet the Heresy with the same high and mid driver as the Cornwall is somehow inferior to the Forte III. How does this make any sense? So, perhaps it's the design and size of the cabinet influencing these decisions or maybe too many individuals who conduct these reviews have placebo.
Personally, I think the newer Forte III sounds hallow and harsh compared to the older Heresy II and Forte II. I'm not in the camp that so many are led to believe that horns are harsh, so don't get me wrong. I absolutely love horn speakers. I run a Dynaco ST-70 Bob Latino tube amp with 36 watts a channel and a Decware SE84UFO 2 watt Zen with my Heresy II. I have a Dynaco PAS II and Aretha preamp. These all sound absolutely spectacular with the Heresy II! Beautiful and silky smooth with each amp, not harsh. There's something odd about these Forte III's so many rave about though and I'm a bit dubious if these are really improvements. I'm really not all that much into specs since they don't always tell the truth about how something sounds. IMO, that has a lot to do with the acoustics of your room, where the speakers are placed and from where the listener is sitting.
In my actual profession, people often think newer is better. I don't always subscribe to that camp like so many others do. I've seen countless cases where newer is often worse, not better. Kind of reminds me of movie sequels. Maybe I'm the only one that thinks the newer drivers on the Forte III are a bit on the bright side.