Ski Bum

How big is your room? Forte II are a really nice balance of deep extension (deepest of the bunch), size, and reasonable sensitivity, and with the requisite power will do club-like levels in small to medium sized rooms. For larger rooms and high spl, you would probably want to step up to something bigger, and without going into genuine Heritage models that means the Chorus II. For something a bit more versatile that can still do "LOTS of bass and volume," how about Heresies and big, capable subs?

...and you just have to account for the undamped response by different eq than you otherwise would, right? Seems merely like different ways to skin a cat, if the ultimate goal includes the freq response, impulse response, over all system Q for the preferred bass response/character, low overall distortion, and the other stuff that really matters. I think I need to slink back into the shadows, munch some popcorn, and think about it some more. I have no problem believing that a well calibrated, fully active rig sounds better than a slightly less well calibrated, fully active rig, just not sold on the transconductance approach as being fully responsible for the claimed audible improvements.

The amps you're wondering about seem to work well with over-damped drivers, which the one's in your MEH are, if I'm not mistaken. And this is for a fully active rig, no? How passive networks fit into the equation I'm not sure (I suppose that's partly why you asked in the first place, if anyone has tried). But it seems that if your (presumably passive) MEH are designed with the intent to use a high source impedance, whatever specifics that entails, that it would work provided it was driven with such an amp, as would designing to the more prevailing engineering standards would on the other side of the coin. I dunno, I'm just a dabbling diy-er with more imagination than wisdom from hands on experience.

I'm in full agreement with your methods and approach to this, Maynard, but when it comes to tubes, there is a bit more wiggle room. SE types can be pushed up to 5-10% thd before becoming objectionable, pp probably a bit less than that but considerably more than solid state, and any sort of amp that exhibits the extended, odd order clipping should never never be pushed hard enough to clip. You could conceivably get away with listening to your RF-15's louder (and still never shred your ears...unclipped copious power via high sensitivity/high output speakers in a domestic environment is downright dangerous to your hearing).

There is no risk to your speakers from trying the different taps, so don't be afraid to give the 4 and 16 ohm a try. They optimize power into a specific load, but your speaker's impedance is anything but a specific, constant load. With the actual load your CW's present to the amp, which is all over the map, you may find one particular combo superior to the others, and you'll never know unless you try. Usually, the impedance load across the woofer's band dictates the optimal output tap to choose. Yeah, I always wanted to try a big power transmitter tube SET. Color me jealous over here.

Your hypothesis is true if one is indeed using his amp as some from of compressor. It's not true if the amp has the power to accurately reproduce the input, including transient peaks, which takes far more power than most realize. This applies to all amps by the way, tube or ss. I suspect that most of us who prefer SET do so because of performance at the other end of the envelope, way down low, where things such as the utter absence of crossover distortion and no requirements for nfb come into play. Dollars to donuts that any of our flea watt wonders are clipping the crap off transients, in spite of our use of high sensitivity speakers at what most of us would consider moderate listening levels.

Interesting beast. Between the different taps and adjustable feedback, you'll probably have quite a bit of variance in sonic signatures to choose from with that thing. I kind of dig the Eddie Munster science fair project looks on the outside, and the attention to detail and organization under the hood is top notch. I still think you had a ground loop with all the other gear hooked up. Whatever the case, kudos on eliminating the hum.

I think it makes a bit more sense to attribute the differences in output to the sensitivity of the speakers, rather than their max output ratings, which are just the point where some specific, measurable amount of thermal compression occurs. Not many of us flog our speakers that hard, and if we do, it's time to step up to some Cinema speakers. So, the respective sensitivities of the fortes and chorus are ~95 db/w and ~98 db/w (based on the limiting factor of each, the sensitivity of the woofs). With twice as much power into the fortes, making up that 3db difference, and they should play approximately the same spl level. They'll dig slightly deeper, too. This doesn't account for changes such as the modding the mids to lower their level, at frequencies where our ears are extremely sensitive (small changes are quite audible), or bass extension, where our ears are far less sensitive. That F-M curve aspect is involved in all of this, but it seems to me that it's more relevant to proper equalization given the normal listening level (if you listen at quiet levels most of the time, you may want a bit of F-M type eq to preserve a natural sounding tonal balance; if you tend to blast it regularly, you won't need the additional bass boost for a natural tonal balance).

Horns will reveal more detail typically, approaching that of electrostatics. With no apparent WAF restrictions, I think you should cobble together some K-402 based multiple entry horns. That would kick RF-7II's butt.

Those Emo amps do sport high gain, but I don't think that's to blame. High gain would result in the amplification of the noise floor (hiss), where it seems you're experiencing a ground loop issue (60/120 hz hum).

That is a power amp with one input and volume control only. You could pair it with a pre-amp that has the desired features, but that kit, as it is, lacks most of what you want. Building a full featured integrated amp, with tone controls and dedicated phono input, is a bit much for a first-time project. It's a bit much for any project, IMO, unless you're truly dedicated (being paid).

Dali speakers may make more sense for you than Klipsch. I still think you could play with equalization or tone controls, and also positioning of the Klipsch, so that you're not directly on-axis with the tweets for example, to see if you can salvage some enjoyment out of them. But speakers make the biggest difference of any part of an audio system, and there is nothing wrong with preferring one over another.

That's a frequency response issue, not an amplification or power issue. Onkyo, CA, and Yamaha amps all conform to the same engineering standards: all sport linear response, low output impedance, and low distortion. If your shop happened to have three lemons on hand at the same time, from three different manufacturers, that all exhibited the same anomaly (what are the chances of that?), and was actually considering selling them, you really need to find a more reputable place to buy your gear.

Don't blame the amps for the quality of the source material. Did it ever occur to you to use the tone controls?

Well, that just depends. Tubes done right, or at least conforming to prevailing engineering norms, are remarkably indistinguishable from solid state power. Bob Cordell used to do these sort of comparisons at trade shows like RMAF. When level matched and unclipped, nobody could reliably pick tubes from ss! Of course, such tube amps are costly. And what's the point if it costs an arm and a leg and sounds the same? I think that's why many of us like the more "hair shirt" designs like SET, because they indeed do sound different, not to mention simpler, easier to build, and far less expensive.

You can use a transformer to change the overall impedance presented, similar to how they are used with certain electrostatic or panel speakers that were otherwise notable amp-busters. In those cases, the transformer was to raise the speaker's impedance, but the same principle applies if you're trying to lower it. It's impossible to say if the bass issue is impedance related. Chances are it's a speaker or speaker/room coupling issue. Further assessment is called for before implementing solutions, me thinks.

Measurements do matter, regardless if you're looking for a linear, transparent amp or one with more of an audible impact on the reproduction. The problem is that audiophiles refuse to acknowledge that these flea watt single ended amps are as much processors as amps, and Harley is just compounding the situation by romanticizing the amps with technical naivete and bad logic. It seems more in service of consumerism than borne out of a love of music or genuine curiosity about the devices that reproduce it. The DIY realm is refreshingly devoid of the flowery prose that Harley spews. I wonder why? My issue is with blind consumerism, not amps that don't conform to prevailing engineering norms. I love to ride that compression of low power, singled ended tube amps.

Maybe I'm a reductionist stick in the mud, but it seems to me that the peculiar SE sound, which I happen to really like, has been plausibly explained, without appeal to novel measurement metrics.

I would have an easier time if the poll were asking to choose which one to eliminate, which would be easy. My listening tastes are ABC: anything but country. If forced to choose just one, blues, and if I could quibble, I would include it's bastard step child rock into the blues category.

The answer to your first question is long, but there are many posts (including wdecho's just above) that describe the differences (and apparent similarities in short, casual comparisons) between types. Read up, or better yet, get ears on. An audible picture says a thousand words. As for loudness, I wouldn't worry too much. You have a more powerful, presumably linear amp as a backup, which is good. It's nice to have a reference, and it's nice to go loud on occasion. But in a small room like yours, you won't need much to get pretty loud. Also consider that the lower the power of the amp you go with, the more likely it's acting as an ear-friendly compressor, and will thus sound a bit louder than you would expect.

You would need a processor between your pre and amplifier that could perform bass management duties, for example miniDSP.

I like the placement...should help with imaging/soundstage, particularly near-field, with the space behind and to the sides of the speakers. But for bass, you would need to move them closer to room boundaries. I don't think that's what you want to do given the effort you've put in with their current locations. As to your question, bass is one of the toughest audio nuts to crack. The room is large, and your mains have ripping dynamic range, so the ideal solution would be rather capable subwoofage, preferably an array of subs, and a front end with proper bass management capabilities. Is adding subs an option for you?

Unlike alcohol, cannabis doesn't inspire extreme Dunning-Kruger level self-assessments of the ability to drive. With the one party rule we're entering, I doubt it will ever be rescheduled, but you never know. After Trump and the R's, the big winner of the election was pot.

O boy, based on your last post, it would also behoove you to learn about the fundamentals of sound and sound reproduction before spending any money on anything. It will inform your decisions better than an anonymous group Polish audio nuts (or even us Klipsch nuts) ever will. Toole's book would be a good place to start.

Maybe you will ultimately decide to change speakers, but it behooves you to use the tools at your disposal to optimize the performance of the ones you own first. Replacing speakers is much more expensive. Also, your concerns regarding sonic degradation from using the eq in your avr are unfounded. If it results in "nothing missing" as you put it, which I assume is the goal, just use it and get on with rocking out to music.