Number 9

Has anyone read about (seen and heard would be even better) the new JBL top-of-the-line K2 loudspeaker? They use a battery in the crossover network to supposedly provide some type of constant current flow through the caps when the speaker is not in use. This makes me think that obviously something is going on, but what it is, I don't know.I doubt they would do this as a "marketing gimmic".

My take....whatever goes around, comes around. Back in the mid-1970s, Klipsch was still very highly esteemed by the "audiophile" community. So was McIntosh. Then what happened? A bunch of new audio vendors came around in the late '70s with some very expensive toys, and they, along with the willing press at the time, re-defined what "high-end" was all about. The Mark Levinsons, the Krells. Klipsch and McIntosh were brended as part of the "old establishment" and that label has kind of stuck till up until the recent few years. With the advent of the Internet and a freer flow of information, I see today a backlash against wome of the baloney this whole "high-end" crapola espoused. People are now re-discovering again you don't need to 2nd Mortgage your home to have good sound. That tone controls are actually good for you. That tubes sound nice and vinyl can be awesome. People are waking up. The Klipsch (and McIntosh) may not be respected by the "high-end" establishment, but slowly they are waking up. Witness all the recent rave reviews of McIntosh gear in Stereophile and Absolute Sound.

The reps of Terry at McIntosh Audio and the folks at Audio Classics are well known. Paul Grzybek at Bizzy Bee knows his Macs too. I came across the website of Arts Restoration a couple of years ago, and it seemed at one point the web site had died, but obviously it is back in service - spiffed up too! I don't know anything about them, by they obviously are going a step beyond what McIntosh Audio or Audio Classics offer. At best, with Audio Classics, you can get replacement glass (if available - they do it in batches). But a total re-build and re-chrome to boot is something of a higher order IMO. Given the continuing appreciation of vintage tube gear, may be the way to go if you find something in so-so condition at a good price.

I run mine with 100W. Sounds good to me, though I don't think I've raised the volume knob past the 10 o'clock position ever.

I have no clue what the part number are, but this is what I swapped in each speaker... Two 2uF caps in the Tweeter (200VDC) One 1.5uF cap in the midrange These were sourced directly from Audience-AV, who are the makers of Auricaps. Auricaps can be found in many places on the 'Net, but not necessarily the exact values I needed, which is why I sourced from Audience directly. I used DH Labs speaker hook-up wire and inserted a 40 Ohm 10W wire-wound Mills resistor in place of the stock resistor and wires. This was sourced from Welborne Labs. Again, finding an exact (not 39 or 42 Ohm) resistor value was the issue and Welborne had it. If you are so brave, you can also try to swap the 110uF cap used for the woofer (I did not). Solen carries a nice cap in this value. Swapping out the autoformer and inductors was not attempted based on some earlier discussions I had with Dean. I used Wondersolder because that is what I happened to have in my soldering kit.

Jjr >> How would a Nice SS tuner sound compared to the Tube 202 FM? I am biased because I have what I consider one of the best tube tuners out there, the McIntosh MR-67. It was serviced by Paul Grzybek of Bizzy Bee Audio in Chicago, which you may well know, is the king of Fisher restoration. He is extremely busy lately ... I listen to FM a lot, and only on a few stations, but it is still way worth it in my opinion. The sound, just glorious. Deep bass, the sound just flows into the room. Beautiful tonality. I had tried various solid-state tuners, some with good reps, but none really did it for me like the MR-67 now does. Vacuum Tube Valley had a tube tuner shootout back in '96 I believe (I have the issue somewhere in my garage). The 200 was considered very nice, but they actually preferred the 100. In the end, a tube tuner can sound very good ONLY IF it is serviced properly. A good realignement. Caps swapped. Their key weakness is they are slightly shy of the top sensitivity of the best solid-state designs, and overall not very selective. A good antenna nulifies these two aspects. I would say go for it and have it upgraded, and you will never look back and second-guess if you can do better. On fmtunerinfo.com there is a brief rundown of tube tuners if you find the link on the sidebar. Also check out the Yahoo tuner discussion forum ... even though some people own "uber" tuners like Sansui TU-X1s, many also hold an MR-67 because they sound so "sweet".

This "don't touch anything" mentality with 40+ year old amps boggles my mind!! I say ...of course NO ... don't change the circuit design because... you will kill the resale value. It won't be a Mac anymore.These were well-designed. Nothing much to be really tweaked. But ...swapping out parts ...such as old caps, well, that's another matter entirely. Audio gear is meant to be listend to, not to be looked at under a glass case. Caps engineering in the late '50s and early '60s estimated a useful life of 10-12 years. Its amazing that some have lasted till 40. If tested, I'm sure many, many of the caps come nowhere near tolerance/spec. That's the real issue. Replace the caps, and even check out many of the resistors as NOSValves suggests. I'm not convinced "raw" Mac gear has a better resale value that ones where they have been serviced by someone qualified, who has essentially serviced the caps and power-supply. In fact, I perceive the opposite, being worth more. If I were buying another Mac amp (I use all Mac gear now), if its raw, I factor in what it is going to cost me to service it ...knowing full well that it may be a Pandora's box with what is wrong with it ...why pay a premium for such a privledge. Ron Cleveland of McIntosh on the AudioKharma forum has always recommended upgrading the caps ...

Have not looked lately, but prices can be highly variable. I've seen some sell for as high as $500 or go for as low as $200 depending on condition (serviced lately, by whom or not). Given the tuner is approximately 40 years old, you can surely bet that it needs to have quite a few of its caps changed, probably a couple of tubes too, selenium rectifier, a realignment would be in order ... basically its old ... but tube tuners sure can sound sweet. Because tube tuners are finicky they need to be serviced by someone who really knows what they are doing. You can check out the fmtunerinfo.com site for a list of qualified technicians. Many techs claim they can do an alignment but be wary, they need to have the right equipment. BTW ...that's a nice preamp you've got there. Have you seen this? http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=14974&item=5711111723&rd=1

I've seen some go as high as $600. The middle of summer is not the best time to sell though. If you can hold off till Novemeber ...

OOOOPPSS!! I had some time late this afternoon to look over my handiwork. I'm glad I did ... because I found a mistake. I had wired the tweeter out of phase! Not hard to do if you are familiar with the Forte. The tweeter + and - terminals are not easy to see/well marked. So now, I do find there is a tiny bit more of a difference. The Auricaped version seems clearer ... the best analogy I can provide ... is Windex. Removes some of the grime ... because on horns and piano, the sound is more immediate. So yes, the improvement is somewhat more audible than before. Certainly better ... but ...I still feel that it is not a night-and-day difference. Not as much as I was expecting. All in all, I spent perhaps $70 ... for a serious listener like myself ... worth it. But don't expect a HUGE change. Maybe one day with PIOs.

Sorry for the late comments ... I've been away. Certainly I cannot compare "imaging". What I can compare is tonality. I have a mono switch and a balance control on my McIntosh amp. I think I have pretty good hearing. I've done my listening with the speakers rather close to each other, but not in the exact same spot. I've listened in mono for extened periods switching from one to the other. I've listened closely to the mids and highs primarily because that's where the caps were changed (I did not swap out the 110uf in the woofer circuit). If I had done something obviously wrong ... I think I would have heard the degradation immediately. But I did not. I would say however, it did cross my mind in about the first couple of minutes... the modded Forte sounded "shut-in". But that did not last long ...and within a few minutes or so, things changed, and they have stayed pretty much the same till now. So not hours, days or weeks, but a couple minutes at most. I presently hear a little bit more smoothness ... less silibance with the modded Forte. But ... it is not a night and day difference. IMO anyway. I'm in no hurry, and will likely wait a few weeks before touching the other to see if the sounds does indeed change over time.

Hmmm ...well, I've learnt something. Maybe if I had tried more exotic caps, the differences would be more self-evident.

I swapped in Auricaps in my Forte II, but only on one speaker. I also changed the wiring, and put some rope caulk on the squawker. I conditioned the caps at 56V. I also swapped in one Mills resistor. Anyways, with approx. 3 hours of break-in so far, in side-to-side comparision with my stock Forte, I have to say, the differences are very, very subtle. I was expecting to hear much more of a change (for the better, of course). How much break-in time should I allow?

Having opened mine up, I can confirm the cabinets are definetly, and only 1/2" thick MDF and not 3/4". However... there is addtional cross-bracing in all of the corners, with 1/2" lenghts ... so maybe the holes were actually strategically placed to take advantage of the additional thickness provided by the cross-braces. If so, quite smart.

Well good for you ...but I think you were lucky. Knowing me, I would probably have drilled right on through knowing my luck.

>> Then why are they being listed as "Classic Heritage" on the Klipsch product page? Classic ... is the marketing term Klipsch uses for "discontinued". I agree 100% with an earlier comment ... room size has a lot to do with it and not price. The Forte's are just the perfect size for my listening room in my life at this time. When I owned Cornwalls, my listening room was significantly larger and Forte's would not have worked for me then. I just can't seem to understand how some people try to squeeze a 2 Khorns and a Belle into a 15 x 15 room and expect good sound. The Chorus II is a small fridge ...not everyone can accomodate a speaker that size, and the RF-7 is almost the same size (Taller, but narrower).

The MDF is, by my estimation, only 1/2" on my Forte. To secure spikes using the original drill holes intended for the base, will likely require you to go right through that. I would advise against it ... it would not be easilty reversible. There is essentially nothing at the bottom of the Forte, not even insulation. The layer of foam is actually at the top. You would have to drill pretty darn far to reach the passive radiator, let alone the woofer. Nevertheless, if you ever remove the spikes, you will have 4 holes going straight through. I would suggest instead, investing in a low speaker platform with spikes. Ideally, the Forte should be up higher, where the tops would be in the 40" range to provide a good dispersion when sitting. Sound Anchors makes a low platform base that is about 4" - 4.5: high with spikes.

I owned Cornwalls for many years and now have Forte IIs. The size of the room very much comes into play. I moved into a home with a considerably smaller living room (now 19' x 16'), and the Forte IIs are just the right size IMO. The Cornwalls (and even the Chorus) would have been just too large. I personally don't feel I'm missing out on much by going with the Forte's ...

Most people acknowledge that the crossovers for the Forte and Chorus were well designed. Once you get a hold of the Forte I schematic, where you are likely to see the most improvement is swapping out caps for better quality ones in the mid and tweeter.

Here is the schematic. I'm right in the middle of making the changes myself. Getting the xover out is not that difficult. The issue is the size of the board. PIOs, Hovlands, Thetas are all pretty big caps, and trying to fit them on the board is near impossible without some bridging effort. I'm swapping out the caps for the mids and tweeter only with Auricaps. They will fit snugly. Seems like the best bang for the buck to me. I'm also swapping out the one 40 Ohm resistor with a Mills wirewound. Solen carries inductors with the same values as you would need, but they will also be much, much bigger than the stock ones, and fitting them on the board will be near impossible. The autoformer also can be swapped out with one made by an outfit in Texas. Overall, from what I've read, it seems that swapping out the caps is the most balanced thing to do. I am going to do one speaker at a time, so I can do an A/B compare. forte22.pdf

Sorry for resurecting this topic ... but curious ... Has anyone tried these Jupiter Condenser caps made out of Beeswax? A lot of claims being made that they sound even better than PIO.

Also, the II uses a 15" passive radiator vs. a 12" in the I. Theoretically, this should result in a little deeper bass response. After owning Cornwalls many years ago, I just got a pair of Forte IIs and I really like them. They provide a "big" sound which you don't tend to find often with other brands. I've only heard the RF-5s in a showroom, thus very hard to compare the differences. Take a look at some of Forte tweaks that have been documented here. They may be worthile. I am in the midst of doing some of these myself, and will likely report back in a few weeks. Neither of the Fortes are shielded, that may be an issue in a HT setup. There is also the Chorus, but it is considerably larger. For average-sized rooms, the Forte seems to about right size to me. I definetly plan to do something in decoupling mine ...I have raised hardwood floors and they do make the room "vibrate" much more than my previous speakers.

>> The output impedance won't be 0 ohms, but will be low as to drive headphones. Normally they would be between 8 and 600 ohms. Well ... you are saying two different things. Yes, headphone amp outputs are designed to DRIVE headphone impedances that can run from 32 Ohms (Grados) to 600 Ohms (some Beyers, AKG and Sennheisers). However, the output impedance of the amp itself should be near 0 Ohms. There are some exceptions such as tube amps, or opamps where a resistor has been specifically put in the path to raise the impdedance. But it is generally acknowledged that a properly designed headphone output impedance should be close to zero to provide the best damping giving the length of most headphone cable runs. Check out headwize.com and some posts made by Peter Millett and David Berning on headphone amp designs from a few years ago.

Interesting question. By my understanding, if the mid and tweet produced a backwave, open cell foam can provide rear damping at those frequencies. However, as you know, in the Forte, the mid and tweet are horns, so it can't be for that. As for the bass, the open cell foam has little damping effect at lower frequencies (by my understanding). So I'm not sure what was the desired objective with the original foam in the enclosures. I've read all kinds of stuff, from lining the cabinets with Asphalt tile to lead. These would certainly help in making the cabinet "deader" in regards to parasitic resonances.

The mW output of headphone jacks varies considerably. Anywheres from 150mw to as high as 1 Watt. So it will likely be too high of an output. Also, unless you have a dedicated headphone amplifier, the quality is not going to be as great as going from the RCA jacks, because you not only have an extra processing layer, but a less than stellar one. Most headphone jacks are powered by cheap op-amps. You will also have impedance mismatch issues. Again, if driven by opamps, the impedance output is likely to be around 0 Ohms.