chuckears

Mine were $1180 in 1988 - I think the Mrs. was aghast at paying that much, but not as much as when I bought my Italian road bike a few years ago

SMH and LMAO

I’m not sure how listening to recorded sounds from speakers playing through my iPhone is going to be at all helpful.

If they were in Oiled Walnut… it’s still $4K - $5K too much. True, you won’t find anything new/modern for under $5K that will sound better, but I’m also pretty sure they’re out-of-warranty.

So many good songs on Wildflowers - my favorite album by TP - Crawling Back to You is among my favorites, which also includes the title track, It’s Good to Be King, and Don’t Fade On Me.

Two albums I always go with are Tom Petty's "Wildflowers" and Mary Chapin-Carpenter's "Between Here and Gone". They both have a wide variety of material, very well-recorded and with a nice range of instruments. Peter Gabriel's "So" has been mentioned already in this thread - it's the third selection. Whether it's from a classical-era composer or a film soundtrack, I ALWAYS use classical instruments - the best Klipsch speakers, set up properly and fed by good sources through quality pre- and power amps, will make instruments on good recordings sound like they're in the room with you (or, better yet, transport you to the studio or venue).

I've used this track for years, as well... the opening notes, the vocals, all are superbly recorded. Two other tracks from the album are also reference-quality: "Mercy Street" and "In Your Eyes", with the former being one I always start with for my own ears.

Very quiet on my end... I have a dedicated line for all of the gear - which feeds into a Furman SS-6B Pro. Most of the sources are plugged into two Richard Gray's Power Company RGPC 400 Power Stations,which are plugged into the Furman. I've had power outages and one catastrophic break of the weather head that goes into the house - the main was pinched, and sent a surge that fried the motherboard on my PC and knocked out power to the house for days - with zero damage to any of my A/V gear.

The Rev A means that the unit was sent to the Steve McCormack at SMc Audio to be re-built; depending upon the year that was undertaken - and there is usually documentation of it if not external, then inside the chassis - you should be good to go for some time. I have a stock DNA-1 from the mid-90's that still sounds wonderful.

There is a “bottom octave” in a lot of recordings that the Chorus - and even the Forte, which somehow digs a little deeper than its bigger brother - cannot physically reproduce. It pops up in some surprising pieces, too. Peter Gabriel’s “That Voice Again” has a low note repeated often in the verses that you only get the upper harmonics from if you are sub-less. Mary Chapin-Carpenter’s “Grand Central Station” has a sustained bass note near the beginning then again near the end that you need a sub to get the full kick from. Sarah McLachlan has notes throughout her album “Surfacing” that a Forte or Chorus, even pushed by a high headroom powerhouse amp, simply does not reproduce. These are only three albums I listen to frequently, and I’m sure there are dozens, hundreds, probably thousands of recordings with material below the low-upper 30’s Hz range of the two speakers I’ve mentioned. I don't listen to a lot of pipe organ music, but there is a LOT of material in the lowest registers that, once again, most "full-range" speakers on their own simply cannot reproduce. Don't even get me started on Electronic music... there's some crazy low stuff packed into a lot of those recordings. I was listening to one just this evening, recommended by someone on another forum - "Point" by Yello, that is available in Dolby Atmos on Apple Music, and it was very sub-bass heavy. Also, there are room resonances in good, live recordings that sound more visceral and real when a sub - or preferably, subs - are properly set up to complement even these great speakers.

That’s a very good price for a Rev. A DNA-1 - I’ve had two of the Deluxe models, but the “A” is on a whole other level. Crown amps are pro-series - widely used for performance purposes or as subwoofer amps for passive subs. I connected one I had (for the latter purpose) to my Fortes to try it out, and I remember being unimpressed with the SQ.

There are a couple of Klipsch groups on FB - the Vintage Klipsch is a good place for a wide range of posts about older models, and it is a more open forum for discussion about mods,etc. I understand why a company would want to narrow the focus to restoring and maintaining, rather than modifying their product beyond their original specs and intentions. They pay for this space, and others setting up shop here to sell their own version of Klipsch is understandably problematic.

McCormack DNA-series, you can only find them used. The “Deluxe” versions are preferable. I’ve used the .5, the 1’s, and the HT3. The DNA-1 Deluxe - 185 wpc - is all the power you would need, unless your room is cavernous. From what I’ve read Parasound a 23+ would be an excellent choice also, though I’ve not heard the Chorus with one; I’ve heard Parasound and K-Horns together, and it was ephemeral.

Oh, golly - every amp I've owned has sounded different - through Fortes, and more recently with Chorus IIs. My current 2-channel is a McCormack DNA-1 Deluxe, and it sounds different from another of the same model, but a different unit, that I had in the late-90's and early 2000's. The worst I've had were a Harman Kardon HT receiver (boy, was THAT a mistake) and a Rotel 5 channel. One would think that with 200 wpc, it would produce some prodigious sound through the sensitive Fortes, but music was dead; I could never imagine I was hearing real instruments and voices through it like I can with other amps (even my old Carver 120 wpc amp sounded better than the Rotel). Different ears, different opinions...

I've had a pair of Forte I's since 1988; every time I've gone out listening to newer stuff, it has made me love and appreciate the Fortes more. The only exception was a pair of 60th Anniversary Klipschorns I heard years ago, which were the most live-sounding experience I've had in an audio showroom. Since expanding to include surround, I've had the bug on occasion to obtain a center channel with more impact than my Academy, which matches the timbre of the Fortes better than any other center-specific speaker I've tried. My foray into listening the Reference line has always ended with disappointment - the immediacy of the sound from the Forte is lacking in the RF7, at least in the audio rooms I've auditioned them. Martin-Logans have come close, but not quite with the same impact. I recently moved the Fortes to Front Wide duty after obtaining a pair of Chorus IIs - those would definitely be more speaker than the OP is prepared to handle. The soundstage, however... enormous, and my 17'x17' cathedral-ceiling living room with open corners into other rooms and a hallway is almost too small to open them up for all that they are capable.

“Properly” - absolutely. When I was running 2.1 channel-only, I had the crossover set at 40 Hz, with the Fortes receiving full-range. The sub was set up to only fill in that bottom octave that the Fortes are incapable of reproducing. I had it dialed in so well that good recordings were not only live-sounding, but also brought you into the studio or performance space.

I ran my (first series) Fortes close to the back wall for years, and in two different houses; I had tried them pulled away from the wall a handful of times, and never thought the results were as good. The past year and a half I had them as my mains, I decided to give the pull-away another shot, and they sounded a lot better to me - imaging and bass response were excellent. I think that the most likely reason was that I had a different synergy of pre- and power amps, the former having a room response kit (ARC Genesis) that applies equalization to the output of all channels plus subs, resulting in a clearer and flatter response. When I put the Fortes aside for Front Wide duty, and put a recently-acquired pair of Chorus II in their place, I followed the same formula - the center of the passives the same distance from the rear wall as their circumference (15" with the Ch-IIs) - with similar excellent results. Never be too stubborn to experiment with placement. Oh, and for those claiming that their Fortes do not require subs... there is a bottom octave they cannot physically reproduce; there are room resonances and actual musical notes within that octave that your speakers are not reproducing. I heard sounds from recordings - after putting one, then two for balance, subs into the mix, that reached down below 20Hz - that I never heard before. You might be getting the upper harmonics or resonances from them, but a good sub properly integrated will bring a more live sound from your entire system, even with recordings that do not have musical content that goes below 30 Hz.

Did you have to pay any for the extra "e"?

Budget? YMMV, but there it's no contest between receiver and processor+amps. I ran an HK receiver when I first added surround, and got rid of it within a year. Went Anthem processor plus separate amp - the latter of which changed from Rotel back to the McCormacks I had previously - and I can listen to music and watch surround content with a smile on my face. It costs, though... the AVM70 is around $3800 (or more), and I have all used amps, the total MSRP when they were first sold would have been north of 5K.

I wasn't aware that Yamaha still uses the "Natural Sound" designation for some of their components; I remember this from the mid-1980's, when I was looking at the first real gear to purchase after becoming a DINK. I came very close to purchasing the NS-10 bookshelf speakers, until the Boston Acoustics A60's entered my world. I bought my Fortes four years later, and have never let go of them :-).

All of that bare wire coming out of the autoformer and going directly into the PCB bugs me; with the compact spacing, it has a lot of stuff it has to be bent around to avoid touching other metal parts - a mounting screw, the stupid iron core of the large inductor it sits perpendicular to, the actual frame of the autoformer itself... I wonder why the leads going to the board aren't covered with heat-shrink, or if it would be a worthwhile endeavor when re-working these?

Not quite as clean a job as the man Dean Wescott, but my thanks to him for all the tips and investigative work. It would sure be nice if the company could source some radials to take the place of the two originals on this board, but it is what it is...

Did it. Have some skill if you wish to attempt it all on your onesie... I took my time and had the usual frustrations with little silly things. The autoformer loves to be in the way every time you turn the board over - I didn't really wish to de-solder either it or the hook-up to the terminal cup. I've only performed it on one speaker thus far, and can't claim to hear a difference - not nearly as much as when I Crites-ed my Fortes several years ago. I chose to go factory with this re-cap, since I wasn't familiar with the Chorus II "sound" (that, and the $500-plus cost of the Crites boards is currently a little off-putting). A before-and-after comparison of frequency sweeps using ARC Genesis doesn't show much change either... my guess is that the original caps were still within spec. I at least have the satisfaction of knowing it's doable, and that these caps should be good for quite a while. Not sure it was worth taking up most of a morning of a day off, but now I know.

This is what JEM - the Klipsch-authorized replacement cap company - is providing in the replacement kits. I don’t know if it’s because the same-spec radial is no longer available, but that would be my guess.

Dean, how critical was it to remove that 20ohm resistor by the two vertical caps? Was it just for the convenience of a little more space to work in, or do you need to free up the space to physically put the new caps in place?