glens

But he's got the Fortes tilted back... I'd guess some difference in the curve from a few hundred Hertz down, with the greatest change down low, not for the better. I wouldn't bother with the test unless I plain old had the time and a suitable riser that continued at least the cabinet dimensions all the way to the floor. If all I could provide was open space underneath, then I most certainly wouldn't bother. I'd sooner step outside and piss against a wrong wind.

Well I figured that, but in what way(s)? How about change for the worse? Got anything figured for that?

Do you recall your general impression of the Forte III vs. the new Heresy?

What do you anticipate will be the result of that?

Of the three, the Fortes really were the first of the current "latest incarnation" round. The latest two may include some magic learned in the mean time but are mostly just playing catch-up, I believe.

Looks like you're talking yourself into the Cornwalls. They'll be a little more 3D than that, obviously, and I'd think that pulled out into the room so much wouldn't be the way you'd want to use them. You expressed concern about neighbors behind that wall but it for all the world sure looks like masonry so that shouldn't be a problem. I still say you'd be entirely content with Forte IIIs.

I prefer the unconventional use of "V" for voltage in the scheme of using the word "CIVIL" to remember the relationship.

If you're placing the speakers on the floor, the latest Fortes are all but the same footprint as the Heresys. I'd go that route. I did. And highly recommend the consideration.

Call Cory at the number shown in https://www.paducahhometheater.com/. He's here on this forum as well, and as I did for a pair of Forte IIIs, he may well have killer price on "B" stock, either model you're considering, for you. I really can't determine why mine would've not been "A" stock, but I'm not complaining. He's highly responsive in every aspect of transaction. Extremely highly recommended!

I guess I don't know or at least remember knowing. What are these AAs in?

I have, as my first ever pair of Klipsch, the newest Fortes and am thoroughly satisfied they are the best money I've ever spent on stereo gear.

In large part having to do with getting rid of the pesky transformer, no doubt.

Yes, to you and your (and likely to me and my) aging ears. But younger folks will listen to you "gushing" about the sound of your setup and likely shrug their shoulders! Since the driver is nominally 16 ohms, the impedance of the stock corner frequency low-to-mid would be nominally 32 ohms. By placing that same 15 ohm resistor in series with the feed to the 13uF cap input, using the stock output tap to the driver, and moving the tweeter cap to receive its signal before that resistor you'd be decreasing the squawker output by more like 1.5 dB instead of the -3 you now have. I highly recommend trying that. It will cost nothing but some time. I've been told the tweeter cap is singular in value (not a result of being in series with the squawker cap causing a lower overall value to the tweeter). I'm yet unconvinced of that, but assuming it's true, making the connections as I've suggested would result in no change to the tweeter range/output.

Okay, so the driver has an impedance of 16 ohms, not 8, is what I'm gathering. I'm getting my noodle wrapped around this a little better. (No whiskey yet today!) Given: the "corner" frequency is defined as that at which the capacitor (alone, in this case) and the driver (in conjunction with the transformer, in this case) have exactly the same impedance each. By merely dropping to the next output tap, the impedance of the load becomes double, in this case. Doing nothing more would result in halving both the output of the driver and the corner frequency. By doubling up the load on the new output tap you're restoring the corner frequency. Because you're using pure resistance to do so you're merely throwing away as heat half the power in the midrange circuit, which overall power level remains the same as before any changes. This whole concept of transformers in crossovers is new and alien to me, and I'd somehow gotten the notion (and I know better!) that the resistor in parallel with the driver would further reduce driver output. I apologize for that. The option "2" above would achieve the same results (lowering driver output while maintaining the balance between transformer+driver / capacitor impedances), yet allow for much finer granularity in driver output changes. 3 dB is a lot of change per step!

I, too, still have my copy from back then. As I recall you can readily see the individual grooves from a great distance.

It's easily reversible as well. The tap wire was soldered originally. I unsoldered it and crimped a female spade connector on it so now I can return it to a stock AA configuration without even removing it from the speaker. I doubt I ever will though but someone in the future might like that option. So what value resistor did you use and were exactly is it connected? I've been mulling this over and there are too many unknowns at the moment. You said "across the squawker" earlier, so does that mean across the same (new) taps? Dropping a tap will double the impedance, so to restore that would require halving the impedance at the new tap to maintain filter position and profile. You've lost half the signal at the new tap, and it'll be another half across the new resistor which would need to be the same value as the driver, so one -3dB tap nets you -6dB out the driver. That's really substantial. If you used a 32 ohm resistor across the "whole" transformer (the primary) I'm thinking that would be the same as 8 ohms along with the driver at the -6 tap. Assuming it's an 8 ohm driver anyway. Either way would be correct for maintaining the crossover point, and would be -6dB from the starting point. Any other value resistor (for whichever connection scheme) will most likely cause a change in the squawker response profile (as shown in the following quote) and somewhere between -3 and -6 dB output. In order to merely decrease the level of the squawker by 3dB (a substantial change!) you really need to do one of three specific things: - drop one tap and double up on the input cap [edit: that would be two in series, perhaps a can of worms for the tweeter as suggested next, too] - leave the cap and tap alone and install a 16 ohm resistor in series with the input side of the cap (and shift the tweeter input cap ahead of the resistor, but that may be another small can of worms itself) - leave everything else alone and install two resistors in an L-pad configuration between the crossover and driver. I'd be happy to do the math to find the values needed (but likely not exactly available) Personally I feel option two is the best, and that I'd start substantially smaller than 16 ohms because -3 dB is a lot! I've not done current research on crossovers with a swamping resistor and readily-changeable taps, but have to think that the reactive components are sized appropriately with/for that consideration, and that the components you have are not correct for such usage.

A related question is "how would you go about obtaining one?" I'm under the impression the answer to your question relates to improved pattern control throughout the range.

An extremely good rationale. I agree with the caveat that it's better in the room with all the associated equipment for and to the particular individual's tastes. Usually limited only to that situation.

Off by 1 x 10^2!

I feel the caution primarily pertains to ported or otherwise open-enough boxes where excessive unloaded excursion could result. Might also pertain to passive radiators. The warning is valid, if perhaps too-simply worded.

They wouldn't readily tighten any more? Or are you saying you've already done the loosen-wiggle-re-tighten process? The latter is, of course, what should be done at this time, and is usually a workable shortcut for disassembly-cleaning-reassembly. Just because the connections are still "tight" doesn't mean there's no corrosion inside (which can actually make them sticky so they feel tight). That process should be undertaken prior to spending any other money or undertaking any other endeavors.

Maybe it is both and they were made for each other. Swap speakers side to side as a test.

It won't void the warranty.

Cross them to a point in front of your position yet?

Back in the late '70s, as a highschooler, I had my eye on a Technics integrated amp rated at 60 Watts per channel. It was at the local hifi shop. One day the salesman opened my eyes and ears to "specs." He rigged everything up to switch between only that amp and an HK model rated at 40. (I'm pretty sure it was something like the 430 receiver without a tuner.) The HK could readily play louder and cleaner. By a more-than-fair margin. I got my dad to kick in the extra bucks and got me the HK...