robertMAXWELL

Oh no! I just looked...you're stated age is 50! Guess it's too late --- you're right where you belong! ROFL

OOPS! I'm sorry! The above post was Josh's attempt at humor I guess... Good God man! What are you - 20 going on 60?! Leave this place at once before any serious damage is done! LOL ROFL

SORRY ABOUT THE CAPS LOCK. I've A/B'd my Heresys and Heresy IIs side by side also and the Heresys are much brighter and in-your-face. Can I say that they're louder (i.e. more efficient)? I don't think so. I say instead that their tonal qualities are different and that's what accounts for the difference in sound. My Heresys do NOT drown out my Heresy IIs to the point where, as you stated HDBRbuilder, they make the Heresy IIs hard to hear, i.e. making them obviously more efficient. My Heresys sound brighter and edgier then my Heresy IIs but not louder. If the Heresys can drown out the Heresy IIs in a side-by-side comaprison using the same amplifier, then the Heresys must be significantly more efficient then the Heresy IIs, which, according to published Klipsch literature, they are not. In fact, factory-published specifications put the Heresy IIs at 1db MORE sensitive then the Heresys. Now, I might be wrong here, but can you actually HEAR a 1db difference in sensitivity? I don't think so, but I'm not an engineer so I can't say for certain. But if you CAN, if you can hear a 1db difference in sensitivity, then the Heresy IIs OUGHT to be audibly LOUDER then the Heresys and this would run contradictory to HDBRbuilder's statements. If, on the other hand, the Heresys are indeed capable of making it so that you cannot hear the Heresy IIs at the same time (which is what HDBRbuilder said in his above post) then I submit that the Heresys must have a *substantial* improvement in sensitivity over the Heresy IIs, which, according to corporate specifications that span from 1979 to this day, in 2004, they simply do not. Nor does my own personal experience bear this out. But say that HDBRbuilder's correct and the Heresys are THAT much MORE efficent then the Heresy IIs that they can overpower them in a side-by-side comparison then what does that say about Klipsch then? What does that say about a company wherein, according to HDBRbuilder, a Klipsch engineer attested to him personally about a speaker being less sensitive then the one it replaced while published company figures that I have going back 25 years say the exact opposite by constantly rating the Heresy at 96db while ones going back at least a decade rate the Heresy IIs at 97db? So if he's right, why has Klipsch been printing product specification sheets with erroneous information that has been handed out to tens of thousands of potential customers for a quarter of a century? I must then ask whether anybody is awake at Klipsch or have they all been in a Nyquil-induced stupor/haze for 25 years? If what he says is true about the obviously decreased sensitivity in the Heresy II, why then would Klipsch publish figures ("facts" mind you!) that say the opposite? If what the engineer supposedly told him has merit, then why can't I hear it for myself when I compare my speakers and why hasn't anybody told Klipsch executives that they've been publishing data saying the Heresy II is 1db more efficient but in actuality, its at least 3db LESS efficient? (I'm playing fast with my guestimates here people...I'm figuring on at least a 3db decrease in sensitivity for the Heresy II based on HDBRbuilder's stated observations in volume but I could be wrong here so grant me some latitude) All I'm saying is that it just doesn't jibe. Doesn't jibe with long-published company facts. Doesn't jibe with my own personal experiences. I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything here; I'm not trying to make any friends or brown-nose veteran, established people on this forum just because I'm a new poster (much to the dismay of Audio Flynn I'm sure---sorry buddy but you'll have to find somebody else willin' to sniff your farts 'cause I'm not). All I'm doing is reading somebody's post and raising my hand and saying "Hey, this doesn't sound Kosher to me. It goes against my experiences and it goes against published company facts." Just because some people might have worked in a production shop doing the manual labor necessary to construct an engineer's brainchild doesn't make him an engineer. That's like saying a line-worker who puts the panels on a BMW is an authority on a BMW engine...or transmission....or, worse yet, the whole darn car. Now, I know that robots do that kind of work for BMW, so save your weak arguments...I'm just trying to make a point here. I guess people on this board hold HDBRbuilder in high esteem but hey, he (apparently) was just a cabinet maker at the Klipsch factory. He wasn't an engineer tasked with designing crossovers or drivers or horns or anything like that. He simply assembled and finished what was given to him. Like I said before, being an auto-assembler doesn't make one an auto-authority. Now if HDBRbuilder was a product, design, or research engineer than I'll eat my words and make my apology now. But, from what I can gather, he just made the cabinets and perhaps screwed the drivers into place. I didn't know such a position could elevate somebody to such high a high perch on this board as to have him wave his hand at Klipsch-published data not only to dismiss it just as easily, but offer what he sees as fact *directly* contrary to it.....and get away with it without anybody here questioning it! Perhaps you're all audiophiles and have thus been brainwashed (lol) into accepting such actions and notions without hesitation (kind of like the ol' "Leave the tone controls FLAT! Don't you DARE move them! Audiophiles DON'T!") but I for one am not and do not. Rats! Guess I'll never be an audiophile... Shucks...guess I'll have to give up on that one then (lol). I'll give up on this here particular topic too. Hell, might as well give up on the forum as well! LOL What a bunch of humorless, know-it-all old men! Bye, bye! LOL

"Seadog---And they worked well for me as main speakers when I turned up the bass tone control a little (a definate "audiophile" no-no; better to listen to bad sound than use tone controls is the orthodox dogma). They're very good speakers. But flawed, as are all speakers." ------------------------------------------------------ TONAL CONTROLS ARE THERE FOR A REASON. NOT USING THEM OR KEEPING THEM AT WHAT'S KNOWN AS "FLAT" OR NEUTRAL SETTINGS JUST BECAUSE IT'S THE "AUDIOPHILE" THING TO DO IS BULLSH_T. I'VE NEVER ONCE HAD A FRIEND OR FAMILY MEMBER LISTEN TO MY SYSTEM AND DECREE THAT IT SOUNDS BETTER WITH THE TONAL CONTROLS FLAT. NOT ONCE. PERHAPS PEOPLE LEAVE THEM FLAT BECAUSE THEY THINK IT'S THE REAL AUDIOPHILE WAY OF DOING THINGS AND IF THEY WANT TO PRENTEND TO BE AN AUDIOPHILE THEN THEY MUST LEAVE THEM FLAT? IF SO, THEN IT SOUNDS INSANE TO ME. FURTHERMORE, IF ONE WAS TO DO THINGS PER THE SO-CALLED AUDIOPHILE BIBLE, THEN THEY WOULDN'T EVEN ADMIT TO OWNING KLIPSCH SPEAKERS BECAUSE THEY'RE LAUGHED-AT AND SCOFFED BY THE SO-CALLED AUDIOPHILES. GETTING BACK TO THE TONAL CONTROLS, I HONESTLY THINK CERTAIN PEOPLE MAKE THEMSELVES BELIEVE THE SOUND IS BETTER WHEN SET TO FLAT BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN FED THAT LINE OF BALONEY SINCE THEY WERE TEENAGERS BY SEEMINGLY SELF-PROFESSED AUDIOPHILES IN THEIR 30S, 40S, 50S, WHATEVER...YOU GET THE POINT. I'M NO AUDIOPHILE, BUT I'M NO DOPE EITHER. I'VE OWNED SEVERAL BRANDS OF KLIPSCH SPEAKERS DOWN THROUGH THE YEARS. I'VE HAD MANY, MANY "NORMAL" (READ: NON-AUDIOPHILE) PEOPLE VISIT ME AND LISTEN TO THEM ON VARIOUS AMPS AND RECEIVERS (GRANTED ALL SS) AND I'VE NEVER HAD ANYBODY TELL ME THEY LIKED THE SOUND WHEN "FLAT." I DID HAVE ONE FRIEND WHO, UNLIKE MYSELF, TRIED TO PLAY THE ALL-KNOWING AUDIOPHILE ROLE AND HE HAD HIS CORNWALLS SET TO FLAT WITH AN OLD MCINTOSH SS AMP AND HE ALWAYS MADE A BIG TA-DO OVER HIS SYSTEM AND ALWAYS TRIED TO GET PEOPLE INTO HIS ROOM TO HEAR IT. LET ME SAY THIS: THERE WERE MORE THEN JUST A FEW PEOPLE WHO CAME OUT OF THERE ADMITTING TO ME THAT THEY HAD NO IDEA WHAT ALL HIS FUSSING WAS ABOUT. IN FACT, I HAD SOME SAY THEY LIKED MY HERESYS WITH MY H/K SS RECEIVER BETTER THEN HIS MCINTOSH AND CORNWALLS, AS CRAZY AS IT MIGHT SOUND. PERSONALLY, I ALWAYS CHALKED IT UP TO THE TONAL SETTINGS. I WAS NEVER AFRAID TO CRANK UP THE BASS AND TREBLE SETTINGS AND WOULD ALSO USE THE LOUDNESS (OR CONTOUR SETTING AS IT WAS CALLED ON MY OLD H/K) AT VOLUME LEVELS BELOW 11 O'CLOCK. OF COURSE, IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE RECORDINGS, SINCE SOME SOUND INFINTELY BETTER THEN OTHERS, BUT THE POINT I'M MAKING IS, YOU HAVE TO TAILOR THE SOUND TO YOUR EQUIPMENT, ROOM, RECORDINGS, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, YOUR TASTES. MOST PEOPLE THOUGHT THAT THE CORNWALL/MCINTOSH COMBO WITH FLAT SETTINGS DIDN'T SOUND ALL THAT GREAT BUT THOUGHT THAT MY HERESY AND H/K SYSTEM WITH THE COUNTOR ENGAGED AND INCREASED BASS AND TREBLE SETTINGS SOUNDED AWESOME. I DID AND STILL DO AGREE. DOES THAT MEAN THAT ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE, INCLUDING MYSELF, WERE (AND STILL ARE) WRONG AND THAT MY ONE "AUDIOPHILE" FRIEND WAS RIGHT? I KNOW IT'S A SUBJECTIVE AREA BUT I'M TRYING TO ILLUSTRATE A POINT THAT I'VE ALWAYS FELT THAT MY PAL WAS DUPED INTO THAT WAY OF THINKING, IN ESSENCE, ALLOWING HIMSELF TO BE BRAINWASHED BY THOSE CLAIMING TO BE "IN-THE-KNOW." AS FOR HDBRBUILDER'S POSTING ABOUT THE INSANITY THAT IS THE HERESY PRODUCTION LINEAGE I CAN ONLY SAY THAT WHATEVER THE CASE MAY TRULY BE, IT'S A FAIRLY WELL-KNOWN FACT THAT THE 70S HERESYS ARE THE MOST COVETED AND THAT THE MODEL WENT DOWN HILL AROUND 1983 OR SO AT OR AROUND THE INTRODUCTION OF THE HERESY II. IN MY OPINION, THE NEW MIDRANGE DRIVER FOR THE HERESY 1.5 AND FINALLY, THE HERESY II IS *NOT* AN IMPROVED DRIVER AT ALL, SINCE I PREFER THE SOUND OF THE ORIGINAL K-55s THAT WERE USED ON THE HERESYS, CORNWALLS, SCALAS, BELLES, AND KHORNS, NOR CAN THE CURRENT K76 TWEETER COMPARE TO THE K77s THAT WERE USED ON THE AFOREMENTIONED SPEAKERS. SO, TO ME, THE HERESY II AND IT'S "IMPROVED" DRIVERS OFFER NO IMPROVEMENT AT ALL THEREBY NEGATING THE VERY CONCEPT OF THAT PARTICULAR MODEL BEING AN IMPROVED VERSION OF IT'S PREDECESSOR. HMMM...WHAT ELSE? OKAY. I DO NOT AGREE WITH HDBRBUILDER THAT THE HERESY II IS LESS SENSITIVE THEN THE ORIGINAL HERESY. I HAVE SALES LITERATURE FROM THE LATE 70S WITH THE HERESY SPECS EQUALLING WHAT IS NOW LISTED ON THE KLIPSCH WEBSITE INSOFAR AS FREQ RESPONSE AND SENSITVITY ARE CONCERNED. THE 1970S HERESY IS LISTED AT 96DB 1 WATT 1 METER. COMPARE THIS TO THE LITERATURE THATS POSTED BY KLIPSCH FOR THE HERESY II MODEL WHICH ACKNOWLEDGES A SENSITIVITY OF 97DB 1 WATT 1 METER. SO THE HERESY II IS, IN FACT, MORE SENSITIVE THEN THE HERESY, WHICH GOES AGAINST WHAT HDBRBUILDER SAID. WHOM SHOULD I BELIEVE, HDBRBUILDER OR KLIPSCH? HMMMMM....I'LL TAKE KLIPSCH ON THAT ONE. AS FOR ANYBODY CONSIDERING A HERESY PURCHASE, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT A 70S VINTAGE HERESY MODEL IS THE WAY TO GO, AND SHOULD BE CHOSEN, BASED ON MY MY EXPERIENCE AND PREFENCE OVER THE HERESY 1.5 AND HERESY II MODELS.

1979 Heresys 1989 Heresy IIs 1987 Fortes 1981 Cornwalls

PS: PWK was correct in saying the Heresys (not the Heresy IIs mind you) were 2/3s of a Khorn - they shared the same midrange and tweeter drivers but with different lenses on the midrange. Consequently, the Heresys also shared the same mid/tweet drivers as the original Cornwalls (not to be confused with the Cornwall IIs), the La Scals, and of course, the Belle Klipsch. Heresy production is confusing at best, with there being a Heresy 1.5, which is an off-the-record term used to describe models that were produced between the Heresy and Heresy II, which were Frankenstein-type creations that used some parts of the Heresy and some of the Heresy II. Most common was the Heresy II cabinet and midrange with Heresy tweeter and woofer. I can only guess that Klipsch was using up the last of their parts and/or certain parts not being ready yet. REgardless, it didn't stop their production and many of these hybrid speakers were produced between 1983-1985 I believe. Whether you like the Heresy I or II is a personal choice but I would advise somebody to stay away from the aforementioned hybrids that were made in that 1 to 2 year stretch.

I own both Heresys and Heresy IIs. They sound different to me. Heresys seem brighter, even though they don't go to 20khz like the Heresy IIs. The Heresys have slightly better bass, but the woofer doesn't have much room for travel. The Heresy II woofer on the other hand does a far better job at delivering the bass at really high volumes in my opinion. All the drivers in the Heresy and Heresy II models are completely different as are the horns, which are metal in the Heresy and plastic in the Heresy II. Also, I noticed people commenting on the Heresy II cabinets. Yes, they are shaped differently but they are in fact plywood, they are NOT "mdf" like the Klipsch website states. I've refinished both my cabinets before and they are both plywood. The late 80s to mid 90s Klipsch floor-standing products (Forte, Chorus, KG4s, Quartets) were mdf but the Heresy IIs were and still are plywood, just like the La Scals, Belles, and Khorns were and still are. Anybody who owns a pair of Heresy IIs can attest to this. I can only imagine that those commenting on how the Heresy IIs are mdf are relying on the Klipsch website stats and do not personally own the speaker. In short, there are definite differences in sound between both models to my ears and the cabinets are both definitely plywood to my eyes, although their designs are different, with the Heresys being thicker and blunter and hence weighing more then the Heresy IIs. I'm sure the metal horns added a bit to their weight as well. I like the sound of my Heresys better then my Heresy IIs. The Heresy IIs tend to sound more refined and subtle (if such a thing can be said of a Klipsch speaker) while the Heresys are more vulgar, with a sharpness on both the mid and tweeter squawkers that can cut glass. Since I'm a dirty, vulgar SOB by nature, it's easy to tell why I rate my Heresys as I do.