Malcolm

1985 and1983 respectively.

My guess is since you are still using a K55 driver for the squawker, a Heresy will be a better match in the midrange where the ear is most sensitive, for the reasons mentioned before. But I suspect the tweeter in the Forte might be a better match for the tweeter though if your high frequency hearing is good. I think you are going to have to try both if you can and see what works best for you. FWIW you are hardly trying to match to either a Klipschorn or a LaScala...

Now you tell us. All bets are off. What do you have for tweeters and squawker drivers?

One would expect them to sound very much the same. But that is irrelevant to OP who is trying to match the timbre of speakers with K77 tweeter and K55 squawker driver (unless the Khorns are really old). Neither a Heresy II nor a Forte II would be optimal. A Heresy is a better match hands down because Heresy uses the same tweeter and squawker driver (with the exception of the last couple years) while the Forte has different tweeter and squawker driver. FWIW I replaced two Heresys I was using as surrounds in a HT system because they were late models ones with the K53 squawker driver and I found the difference in timbre between them the others which had K55s annoying when sounds panned around the room. But like I said above, some folks might not notice a difference.

IMHO Heresy would be a better choice than Forte. Heresy has the same tweeter and squawker driver as the rest of your stuff. Forte doesn't. Some folks wouldn't notice the difference in timbre. I would. Maybe you would.

Shouldn't be a problem if they have enough material to bite into. Putting them through the cleats should be adequate. As with anything, you have to use them properly But eye bolts with fender washers are an excellent alternative. My favorite way of mounting speakers on a wall, though, is with a French cleat

Put a couple of screw eyes in them, run steel cable between them, and hang like a picture. Put three of four screw eyes in the top and hang from ceiling with cables. Use a french cleat. Lots of ways...

There is none because the demand is so limited the price would have to be high for it to be worthwhile for a manufacturer.

Replacing the old paper in oil capacitors is a no-brainer. They probably have significantly increased ESR. I used Solen metalized polypropylene. The price is right and IMHO they perform as well as much more expensive "audiophile" brands. Others here would argue otherwise.

Don't know if the modification is an upgrade... There may be a difference in sensitivity between the alnico K-22-E used with the Type C Network and the ferrite K-22-E used with the Type E network. The difference between the two networks is a change from 1uF to 2uF for the capacitor feeding the autotransformer, and a change in the transformer taps used for the squawker and tweeter.

Never used copper veneer, but I have worked with thin copper sheet in other applications. Copper can be sanded, filed and polished to whatever finish you want. Yes, you will have sharp edges where they come together. A fine file properly applied will fix that in short order. Wrapping copper veneer around a cabinet should be no more problematic that doing so with paper backed veneer.

Dust caps are easy and very inexpensive to replace.

Picky, picky...

Well, it is certainly not the way an intercept is flown...or chase for that matter...

Well, I have Heresys with ElectroVoice, CTS and Eminence woofers as part of the same system, and I cannot tell the difference even though the measured TS parameters varied quite a bit. I think it is just a function of the sealed enclosure. Seems to be very insensitive to variations in parameters unlike some other designs.

If you look close, the EIA code on the woofer appears to be 678344, which would indicate the K22 woofer was manufactured until at least late in 1983. Don't know how long a batch of woofers lasted Klipsch. But it looks like these Heresys are from late 1983 or early 1984. I would replace the electrolytic on principle, but the metalized film caps should be just fine. But replacing the latter won't hurt and is inexpensive and easy to do. FWIW when I replaced the electrolytic on my 83s I couldn't hear a difference. Never seen this happen. But the fix won't cost a cent an is easy to do. I have seen cones with really soft surrounds and spiders sag noticeably, though. But never in the woofers in a Heresy. If it yielded a significant improvement, I would think that Klipsch would have already done it. Anyway, again, it won't hurt and is inexpensive and easy to do. You can get what you need to do it at your local home improvement store. BLMay, You got a steal. IIWY I would just kick back and enjoy them. Later, if you like, you might want to investigate some mods, including the ones suggested already.

They look just fine and resistance checks out. They have a butyl rubber surround that doesn't deteriorate the way some other surrounds do.

Check the listing again. He went out and got a new $3 meter that reads right. Yeah, but the funny thing is they all seem to sound the same until they reach their mechanical limits.

So, the speakers should read 5.8 ohms plus or minus a bit. Do you supposed the guy just doesn't know how to use a meter? 34 doesn't make sense.

Plug the parameters into your favorite simulation software and you should get sensitivity. IIRC the W1200R, later rebranded W1208R, has a bigger magnet than the K22, so all other things being equal, it should be more sensitive. Don't know off hand how the other factors that affect sensitivity compare. Yeah, I saw that 34... Typically, 8 ohm speakers have a DC resistance around 6 ohms, plus or minus a few tenths. However, it is possible to have lower resistance depending on how the voice coil is wound. A notable example of that is the EV15WK, a 16 ohm speaker with a 3.2 ohm DC resistance, So, 3.4 might be OK for the W1200R. What do the TS parameters say?

Should work just fine. It was designed for a sealed cabinet. May be a difference in sensitivity.

Sure. I power a subwoofer I built with a Marantz monobloc.

W-1000-5000, or something similar, was used in earliest Heresys. There was no level matching between woofer and the hotter squawker and tweeter. And they squawker crossover was 1000Hz, not 700Hz. IIRC there was a Type 4 of some sort, maybe circa 1964. By 1966, Type C network was in use and provided level matching via autotransformer. Crossover to squawker at 700Hz. It was still in use in 1972, Type D appeared with the 8 ohm woofers and was quickly replaced by the Type E when Klipsch figured out that changing the phase of one of the components made the speaker sound better. Not sure exactly when either appeared anymore. Didn't they just start calling them Heresys instead of H700s around that time?

Nope. Mechanical crossover frequency to the whizzer is well above the electronic crossover frequency to the squawker. The whizzer doesn't do a thing. Sensitivty (efficiency) is similar. When sound pans from one side to other through center, it is seamless.

Only difference is the woofer. IRC 1966 should have an Electrovoice SP12B for the woofer, 1972 should have a CTS woofer. Otherwise, same squawker, tweeter and Type C network. One could argue that the EV woofer is better than the CTS woofer, but I am sure that PWK would have told you that there isn't a dimes worth of difference. I have 1966 Heresys for left and right front, and a 1972 Heresy for a center and I cannot tell the difference.