Ski Bum

Hola High- Welcome to the forum! I have an unforgiving room regarding placement; 13x16x9, only corners available, and not much room even there. So I have my forte ii's (footers removed) up on some ~10" steel stands, to decouple them from the floor a bit and raise the mid squaker above furniture/other obstructions, and shoved way back into the corners on the short wall with 45 degree toe in, Klipschorn style. The mid horns are right at ear level, with the speaker axis crossing about 4' in front of primary listening area. No subs. I was worried about overbearing, tubby bass being so far into the corners (the back corners of the cabs are only 6" away from the walls), but amazingly enough the bass is tight, dry, very solid to well below 40hz, and very cohesive w/ the rest of the sound. While I'm realizing more room gain, there is no bloat, just that fantastic, larger-than-life Klipsch Heritage thing in spades. Lots of people would probably disagree with the severe toe-in and extreme corner placement for the forte/forte ii's, but getting them off the floor does wonders (on the floor that deep in the corners does indeed result in pretty fat, bombastic bass). It works for me, very well, actually, particularly with the placement restrictions I have. Now the forte's seem anemic and shrill when not placed deep in corners, at least to my ears. It seems to me that the forte ii's demand corner placement to restore full frequency response. Plus, by fully utilizing room gain, I maximize the forte's already high sensitivity and get to use lower power amps. Listening to Garaj Majal right now, and the bass line is so life-like, unrestrained, and huge, I'm just lovin' it. I can practically see the strings vibrating. Yeah, baby, that's what it's all about!

Thanks Mark and everyone for sharing their opinions. I'm in the 'music' camp. Got a couple SETs, more than a few conventional ss amps. They seem to all function adequately for what I ask them to do, but the SET's do have that almost psychedelic purity thing going for them. Mine even play nice with some speakers with which they should never work (multiple driver, complex crossovers, power robbing zobel networks...but the pairing works fantastically well, go figure). Does anyone have experience with the old Quad 'current dumping' amps? Plenty of power, can push any load, unconventional but simple circuit with low part count, supposedly class A output. I've been curious about these for a while.

I have no idea what exchange rates are right now, but $2K offers a wide envelope of choices. I would give some ss class A a chance, and consider tube amps as well. Tubes and Klipsch is like chocolate and peanut butter.

You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that this 'hobby' isn't an addiction. The path you're on leads to LaScalas, Khorns, or even larger frankenstien MWM/402 combos. It's inevitable, just quit fighting it. Last speakers? Please![] Since you use a sub, I would probably lean toward the new Heresy over the old forte. Better cosmetic shape, all new bits, perhaps more flexibility regarding placement. They would keep you happy for some time.

Doubling power twice should give you +6db more headroom before your amp runs out of steam. That's enough of a difference to notice, especially if you presently are pushing the limits of your amp. Most tube amp designers have their own preferred recipe of the various compromises involved in amp circuit design, and their sonic preferences typically hold throughout their respective lines, but I've not heard any of that particular brand so can't say for sure. I must say, I envy your amplifier budget. I'm stuck w/ budget priced used Heritage and cheap DIY SET kits (which admittedly still sounds pretty freakin amazing).

That HK is rated at 25 w/ch, correct? How big is your room? Sounds like you could get a more powerful HK (or similar) and be set. I use a Yamaha RX-396, rated 50 w/, in a 13x16x8.5 room. It get's louder than I can personally stand, without any signs of strain. I actually find this to be a very copacetic combo. The Yamaha has that variable loudness control, which cuts frequencies right in the squawkers range, giving the ability to trim it slightly for an apparently deeper soundstage, to more heavily for that old-school west coast sound. It works really well with the forte ii's.

Check to see where the impedance selector on your receiver is set. In the Yamahas, the 'low' impedance position limits current from the supply rails, ostensibly to prevent overheating. Unfortunately, the demands that music and movies place on your receiver are quite different than those to determine UL thermal safety compliance. That's why you got the pat anser from the Yamaha rep. Pushing low impedance speakers with the selector in the 'high' position is against manufacturer recommendations, and may void the warranty. Here's what the Yamaha rep won't tell you, but it's true: the Yamaha's that have these impedance switches (except for their very top of the line) deliver more power before clipping, regardless of actual speaker load, when in the high setting. Compared to the signals used for UL testing, music and movie soundtracks are a relative walk in the park, and its highly unlikely that you would damage the amp by using the high impedance setting, regardless of actual speaker impedance. Also, with full juice from the supply rails available, the amp achieves higher output before clipping. So in the low setting, not only will the amp shut down prematurely, it poses higher risk to your speakers due to clipping occuring at a lower output. Think of it as something Yamaha put in to protect the amplifier, not your speakers. If you have your receiver on the 'low' setting, that may very well be the cause of the shutdown you experienced. Here is an interesting article on the topic. Look at the chart on the second page. Your exact receiver is among those tested, and it showed a 60% reduction in power output when in the low impedance setting (driving a 4 ohm load, 'high' impedance setting gives 224 watts, while the 'low' setting only gives 63 watts). That's a big difference, almost 6db more headroom in the high setting before the amp runs out of steam. http://www.audioholics.com/education/amplifier-technology/impedance-selector-switch-1

No, you're not barking up the wrong tree here. This is a refreshingly tube-friendly forum. Check this out: http://myhometheater.homestead.com/splcalculator.html I think that you'll be more than adequately powered with 90 watts. Given the high sensitivity of your speakers, you even have the option of exploring SET amps if you choose. It's been my experience that p/p tube amps sound more powerful than equivalent ss watts, but share many aspects of their sonic signatures. They play nice with most speakers, generally have high damping factors, and give that solidity in the lower registers. SETs, on the other hand, don't play nice with most speakers (but they generally do ok w/ Klipsch due to their high efficiency), have low damping factors (reactive to back emf; response influenced by the impedance response of particular speaker), and typically very low power output. In spite of these weaknesses, they lack any crossover distortion (since they operate in class A), and most use no nfb (which can cause smearing of subtle timing cues), giving a remarkably clear, transparent sound with fantastic imaging capabilities. Some of the forum members use ss for bass drivers and SETs for mids/highs in a bi-amp setup, to get the most from each approach while minimizing the compromizes. The tube path can be quite expensive, so use good judgement to keep the cash outlays to a dull roar.

Stanton Moore, 'All Kooked Out'. Walloping drum-centric funky N'awlins free jazz, with Skerik and Charlie Hunter as a bonus. All takes were one shot, no over-dubs or production gimmickry. From the same sessions that produced Garage a Trois 'Mysteryfunk', which also rocks yet is completely different. Not many speakers can do those drums properly, but for Klipsch it's a walk in the park.

A little tighter, a little more dry, just as deep, but more reliant on room reinforcement. The fortes beg for corners. However, it's everything above the bass which really separates these two.

I tend to agree re modification of Paul's designs, but us end users don't have to satisfy a market like he did, it's all about our hedonistic enjoyment. I appreciate the efforts of the modifiers, even if I've stuck to stock items up to now. It seems that a two-way Jub would need extensive eq'ing to get good upper freq response with that big ol' horn. I bet it is cohesive as all get out, though. Some day...

Lol, aint that the truth! Mine thinks the fortes are huge, but she accepted them without much fuss, so there's hope for us. I thought we were trying to break in Morey James slowly?

The horn in your example is being asked to cover too broad of a bandwidth. Above some frequency (determined by the particular dimensions of the horn) it no longer produces an even dispersion, beaming more narrowly than the horn dictates. At the other end, that horn may be too small to work for midrange, losing the coupling capacity of the horn because the frequencies it's asked to produce are too long for the horn's demensions, yeilding a recessed midrange. I suspect that was what I was hearing with the RF82, or perhaps just the quality of the direct radiator which produces most of the midrange, who knows for sure. The horn you refer to is a compomise of these parameters somewhere or another to meet a certain price point. If you get the chance, listen to the Heresys, fortes, cornwalls, or even some Palladiums where each driver is operating well within it's limits and exhibits uniform dispersion from top to bottom. One of the strengths of the forte midrange is that it is big enough to cover almost all of the midrange (600-6K), giving great cohesiveness to the sound. The two-way RF82s I auditioned have a crossover point of 2k or so, right in the region of our hearings highest sensitivity, and I don't think they handled the pass-off quite as smoothly as a result. The most notable difference was midrange presence and clarity, whatever the cause. The Heresy is not really much different than the forte in this regard. You're proposed Heresy w/ sub systems would make you very happy, it would absolutely rawk.

Some of the commercial speakers use the same tractrix midrange as the fortes (see the KI-362 for example). I'm not sure why it is not used in the current Heritage offerings. To me, it seems the Heresys and Cornwalls could benefit. That's part of the reason folks are making Cornscalas, as dtel thoughtfully mentioned. (Thanks, dtel, and sorry for flippin you shit about the bs button.) Heresy cabs may not be large enough to fit the larger horn, but the Cornwall certainly is. As far as bean counters go, if Klipsch were to revive the forte/chorus, they would directly compete w/ Cornwalls. It's too bad, as that line was about as good as it gets for full range performance that doesn't use up an inordinate amount of floor space. Perhaps someone from Klipsch will chip in. I think you raise an interesting question. I suspect the differences to be so subtle as to not warrant much attention.

Sorry but it's the other way around, at least with horns. Hold on, dtel, you're giving the 'bs' button to a newb, and implying that bigger speakers require less room and less attention to placement? I call 'bs' back at ya. First, James is considering forte ii or Heresys/subs, and maybe RF81s, not MCM Grands. Second, the controlled directivity of horns require different considerations, not less, than conventional direct radiators. While the mids and high freq bands will have much less room interaction than a direct radiator, Klipsch bass is typically highly dependent on room reinforcement which necessitates close proximity to room boundaries. Forte's exemplify this trait, and in my experience pretty much demand placement in corners (with lots of toe-in to minimize room interaction in the mids/highs). Heresys w/ paired subs avoids that constraint, allowing far greater placement flexibility. Even with the flexibility of a Heresy 2.1 or 2.2 system, I would encourage James to take advantage of the controlled directivity and experiment w/ corner placement of his Heresys. One way to make your walls disappear is to eliminate first reflections, which horns can do w/o room treatment with proper placement. And using the widest spacing possible with corner placement, the result is a HUGE, lifelike sonic image. It's kind of like cans for your whole listening room, without the 'in your head' effect. Just big and bad ***. At least until he decides he wants Khorns.

oops, double post.

James, it sounds like Heresys and a pair of subs is what you're headed for. It would be much more flexible and forgiving in placement, and you'll still get the Heritage goodness. These guys make some burly, Heresy capable, adjustable stands: http://www.soundanchors.com/ (Is that ok? I'm in no way affiliated with these guys, just trying to be helpful!)

Well, to me it seems that the three way Heritage speakers do a better job of having their individual drivers working well within their respective bandwidth and output ranges, where the two-ways demand a bit more from theirs. Take the forte ii as an example. The tweet covers 6K-20K, mid 600-6K, woofer ~50-600, passive <50. Each of the drivers is well within it's performance envolope, not required to go too high or too low. The RB81's tweet covers 1800-20K, and the woofer covers mid 40's-1800, which pushes them much closer to their respective operational capabilities. I'm not sure if this is the reason for what I hear, but forte ii's are just so effortless/transparent to the music. Also remember that the meat of the music is the midrange, which the fortes truly excel at. They just trounced RF82's when I had them side by side, so I can't imagine the RF81's faring much better, even with sub augmentation. And the above poster is correct, no sub required for music. Forte's dig surprisingly deep, and it is still tight and dry, even with corner loading, at least in my particular room.

No, you're getting off track here. The RB81's are fine speakers, but the Heresy and forte ii will both eclipse the RB81's; both have far more open, effortless, and natural midrange compared to the two-way RB81. If you can accomodate them, stick w/ Heritage speakers.

Hola Cfaille- Get 'em, and let us know what you think. I recently picked up some forte ii's. I have four different two channel systems to play with right now, in the 'good to quite good' mid-fi range, and going back and forth between them I am continally amazed at just how good the forte's really are. They currently reside in a tertiary system, all stuff I've either owned for years or purchased used: Sony x111es -> Yamaha RX396 -> forte ii. That system will hold it's own against others that cost thousands more, it almost seems unfair in some way. And when driven by my SETs, fuggetaboutit, it goes from IMAX impressive to 'reach out and touch them' realism. Get the forte's, you won't regret it.

http://community.klipsch.com/blogs/amy/archive/2010/08/31/the-ultimate-in-pc-speakers.aspx That's just the coolest pair of 'puter speakers I've ever seen. So Amy, when will those be available?

Hmm...I see all these references to benzos and opiates, but to me the best analogy is to psychedelics. Music is spiritual/magical/soulful/inspiring/transcendant/liberating. Benzos and opiates are great for analgesia and sedation, but their 'warm fuzzy glow' is pure junk; they are stupor drugs.

Saw some forte ii's on CL in Colorado Springs lateley...dude wants too much, but may be close enough to you to avoid shipping.

The Chorus have that glorious midrange handling the meat of the music, and to me that's the big difference between the reference series and the old three ways. I found my forte ii's less forgiving than some RF82's I was considering, while also being slightly more neutral/natural sounding. Regarding woofer size and transient response, I don't think it really matters what approach is used as long as the end result is low-distortion, dynamic bass. Both the Chorus and RF82/83 have that.

Keep in mind that I was referring to peak levels. My average listening level is much less than that. One zen on forte's allows average levels in high70's to low 80's, two bridged allowed average levels mid 80's. You'll only do slightly better than that with the zen integrated and chorus. Will that be enough for you? (Probably, but then again I think 90db is freakin loud.) Steve makes some sick sounding amps, but even with Chorus efficiency they'll only give you so much. I do have times when I want more. Very few times like that, but they do happen. When it does, I'll haul up one of the ss amps, blast away, and quickly realize once again why I got into SE amps in the first place. They just sound so much better. The spl calculator which someone posted a link to above is actually pretty close to the readings I'm gettting at home, amazingly enough, so you may want to check it out.