glens

That's at a sufficient input level and with all the innards working as they should. Your equipment usage/hookups really aren't very clearly stated. If what you're saying is that using the Yamaha's very own tuner section, with good-enough reception, is unable to drive the speakers to a usable level then either speakers are faulty or the receiver is either faulty or not being used / set up properly. I had to look up both speaker models and the receiver. At that price point the 100 Watts per channel has to be a rating derived quite generously, but it should still work fine enough. The M-Audio speakers have their own amplifier so you'll only be able to check the amplifier function of the receiver with them by hooking up that left channel speaker (the one that doesn't have the amplifier/low-level inputs) one side at a time to the receiver's speaker outputs. Thus driving that one "regular" speaker "normally", in which case it will be all the same as one of the Klipsches. Do that. If that "slave" M-Audio speaker works and the Klipsches don't, the problem isn't the amplifier (or the way it's being used).

The plugs are evidently to accommodate regulations in parts of the world where mains power outlets are similarly configured. Probably cheaper to buy/stock just one part for worldwide distribution, even if it adds a penny to the cost. Don't bother saving them after you've popped them out.

I wonder what wire is feeding the wall outlet... bet it's no larger than 12 AWG hopefully solid copper but maybe not. Do you know when it was installed if not original to the building?

There will still be the potential across the component, and possibly even a minute amount of current flow through it, but it's influence will be so negligible that it's not worth the effort to remove it entirely. I'd be surprised if even Mr. Medwin could detect its presence!

Did you feel it was worth the effort?

And by "gone off" doesn't mean the capacitance has changed. Likely that value will still measure well-enough using a DMM so equipped to measure. Rather, there develops over time an increased overall effective resistance, which most DMMs will not portray. It's like having a resistor in series with the driver as well, so the output will be reduced across the board.

Gain structures of the various components would be my guess.

Well, here you go!

Watched "My Cousin Vinny" recently?

Well, I can only speak about his ears, which, thanks to his video comparing the Forte III to his RF-7II (which he preferred), it cemented my decision for the Fortes. Thank you! I couldn't be happier with my choice. I've listened enough to stuff throughout my years to know that the louder of the two in comparison usually sounds "better" at the time, and since the RFs are a little louder with the same input, and I guessed he didn't volume-match them correctly in his video, and I didn't care for the tonal balance of the RFs in that video, in comparison, I made the correct choice, and feel he didn't...

Emphasis mine in the quote. Try reversing the connections, seriously!

I still think reversing the taps to ranges would be a better match. The woofer drops pretty low in places and the mid goes pretty high, in impedances. I made up a couple extra runs for my Forte IIIs as a bi-wire experiment for a thread here a while back. I think maybe there was a difference, perhaps, but if so not enough to warrant the expense. I left them in place only because I'm too lazy to undo it. I may revisit a comparison at some point if I think of it when I have the time. Trouble is that even as quickly as it can be done, the swap is not instantaneous and it requires getting up, walking across the room, all to be reversed before resuming, and that really makes it impossible to authoritatively say one way or the other is better. I know it's extremely close if different at all. But that's not using different taps on a transformer...

No, I just live with it. I very rarely "critically" listen anyway. It's usually just ambience. This whole mangled-music-by-design isn't really all that new. For me the first disappointment was Ted Nugent's new release "Cat Scratch Fever" on LP. Perhaps the pinnacle for me so far is the recently acquired out of the $5 bin at Wal-Mart CD of the 40th anniversary issue of the Ramones. It tops out at 0dB continually and never gets much lower than -7, if that!

Can't make a silk purse...

10-4 on that. I was, as a JBL snob, historically unimpressed with Klipsch. A little more than a year ago now I found myself with an impossible room and got it in my craw that better-controlled directivity would be beneficial. I haven't a clue just how it happened but ordered a pair of the Forte III without hearing Klipsch (to my knowledge) since the later '70s. Best entertainment money I've ever spent is all I can say. But there's a downside, and that is that crappy source material is nearly intolerable...

Funny you say that as I had bought a pair of L19s as my first commercially-produced speakers while in high school. A couple years later I bought pair of 4301Bs and had both together for a while. They indeed have the same drivers between them but the "pro" version had a full crossover whereas the "home" version had the woofer running full-range, with a several-decibel hump at ~2kHz before it petered out upwards. They both sounded great singly, but side-by-side comparison clearly revealed the anomaly of the L version. I relegated the Ls to back seat of the car duty for throwing Frisbee in the park, etc. and they were eventually stolen from there. I faithfully and lovingly used the 4301s until the foam woofer surrounds disintegrated sometime in the late '80s. Still have them in storage in the factory boxes for a rainy day...

I got a pair of "B" stock current model from Cory before the price hike. I have no idea what the cost may be at this time, but I may have finally figured out why they were so marked. In the right light (brighter than normal for their current venue), there could possibly be considered a discrepancy between the "sheen" of the edge banding between the vertical and horizontal surfaces of the forward-facing cabinet edges. Maybe.... But that's really looking for something! Even so, the cost is going to be more than double of what's under consideration here. I'm sure the saying "A bird in the hand..." is likely true here, especially if the "hand" is thirty minutes or less from home. I'm not a fan of haggling because when (if) I put a price on something I consider it fair for all involved, and am somewhat offended by counter-offers. I'm sure I'm naive in projecting that sentiment to all others, though I yet do it in most instances. In this case 650 would be a fair offer, but I'd personally make no less. I especially dislike the notion that if giving "cash money" it would be worth less. I was expecting that anyway; I ain't takin' no checks!

I've read a few of these self-testimonials. Candidly, I'm usually not very impressed by the breath of musical tastes by these "engineers" ... I'm pretty sure you'd meant breadth of tastes! Now I'm going to have to go back through all of your posts and re-evaluate them. Hahaha!

'Riding season' is still a bit in the future. I'd given (still will) a 'heads up' closer to the window of opportunity. Mainly want to make sure all the caustic winter road treatment gets fully rinsed away first.

I haven't performed any dissection. On my F-iii it appears as though the in-frame magnet merely clings to the screw head protruding from the baffle. But in this case the magnets only have to hold the grille snug to the baffle. The grille is otherwise held in place at its perimeter by the cabinet edges. If you need to support the grille laterally / vertically as well, you may need magnet-to-magnet. But I'm not sure how you'd reliably get them apart again other than by sliding the grille off. I'd think you'd need something other that adhesive to mount the magnets, too.

This is now clear. Well, I think I could be friends with both of you, though obviously not at the same place and time!

Well, driving 4 or 5 hours one way to "save" a couple hundred bucks would be a wash in my book, so if they're just down the road from you, they're what you want, and you consider the price fair, then quit posting and go get 'em!

Actually, they were generally heavier pressings with fuller sound than those made here for here. Go figure. I, too, am casually on a mission to locate more early CDs to rip to flac. I still have 30 or 40 more-favorite LPs, some of which have never been subsequently released on CD, but have not had a working turntable since about '85. Fully agreed.

Well, not quite "pristine"... I'd say if he's intent on getting 750 for them, let him get it from someone else, some day, maybe.

That was nicely put and I fully understand all that. My unstated point was not "hey, that drum set doesn't sound to me like my drum set while I'm playing it," rather that much "popular" music seems to have been mixed to sound good on speakers with bloated bass, dull highs, and little-to-no dynamic capability. I've picked up several "remastered" versions of '80s CD releases [edit: which I already had] (largely of pre-CD original works) (and mostly for the additional tracks) and without fail the sonic results may be cleaner from some technical aspects but the dynamics and more "natural" tonal balance are all but obliterated. Back in the '70's I favored the "cut corner" import LPs over the "American" issues not only because they were nominally half the price, but they flat out "sounded" better. Especially the Zeppelin stuff from the UK. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't rightly know just what it is the engineers are largely doing these days, but it isn't making the end results sound good. If they were doing whatever it is they're doing behind the board(s) at a big live show I'm confident they'd be escorted outside the venue in a hot minute. If not by their bosses, at least by the "customers." What's so difficult about using decent playback equipment and making it sound halfway decent? This isn't just about this week's paycheck, it's something that will likely be set in stone for all posterity.