Why heritage over RF?

[WhoozYoDaddy]

How come all you guys prefer a speaker like say.. The Forte II's over the refrence line?

I'm very curious, before I go and buy Forte II's. Can I get better for the money? What other companies speakers are clear and powerful like Klipsch?

Thanks for all your help guys, I really appreciate it.

[Speedball]

I have wondered the same thing myself. The local dealer where I live has never carried or made mention of the Heritage line. Maybe they are the upper end - super duper models. From what I have read here they may be a bit more expensive. Gee, maybe I have been missing out on something all these years.

.........Pat

[WhoozYoDaddy]

Nooo. Thats not true. Im getting a pair of Forte II's for around $700. A lot of people prefer them to RF-5 and 7.

[lynnm]

I had KLF30's before buying Khorns.

The KLFs were great but I prefer the Khorns overall.

For lack of a better description I would say that while the KLF seemed ( if anything ) to have more slam and certainly imaged better.........The Khorns sound more open and natural.

This is not a knock on the KLFs. Both are very good but overall the Khorns sound more real to me.I suspect that the defining difference for me is that the Khorns present a more transparent sound.........as Krimney at www.audiokarma.org said after hearing them at my place......"They sound effortless.....No subwoofer needed"

I have had very little opportunity to listen to the RF7 but my sense is that they are a tad tighter in the bass than the KLF but overall had a somewhat drier sound....ie. they did not seem to have the dymanics of the KLF. That said my impression was based on a very brief side by side comparison of the KLF30 and the RF7.

In any event one would not go far wrong by purchasing any high end Klipsch speaker.

[WhoozYoDaddy]

How do you think the Fortes would do aginst KLF's?

[Strabo]

Personally, I prefer the midrange clarity of the Forte over the KLF's. A friend of mine experimented with his KLF-20's by stacking Heresy II on top of them and was amazed at the added midrange clarity. I thought the added Heresy made the KLF sound more like the Forte.

Back to your original question, people rate the Heritage line better based on bang for the buck. $700 used Forte's versus $2,000 RF-7's? Or, $700 used Forte vs $1,200 used RF-7's? I'll take the Forte's in either case.

[hwatkins]

Hello and welcome Daddy -

Many folks like myself seem to hear the difference between three ways (which is a general rule of thumb for the Heritage line) and the new reference 2 ways. What you will hear those that like it say is clarity, dynamics and voicing. Those that do not particularly care for it will speak to bright and harsh.

I think the heritage three ways provide a coloration that is very similar to the sound produced at live (ampified) performances - that includes orchestras. There are many of us that like this. Also, remember - these are all generalizations - there is no hard and fast rule. Just last night I was relaxing with a beer and Lyle Lovitt after a steamy St. Louis evening of garage workshopping and was completely taken in by the music and again remembered why I like my bottom feeding Heresy.

Remember - with a choice between two goods you won't go wrong....

[artto]

----------------

On 7/15/2004 8:18:33 AM hwatkins wrote:

Those that do not particularly care for it will speak to bright and harsh.

I think the heritage three ways provide a coloration that is very similar to the sound produced at live (ampified) performances - that includes orchestras.

----------------

Sorry, I'll have to take exception with that. The reason being, and this is probably the most overlooked aspect for the above subject interpretations, is associated equipment, and even more importantly, room acoustics. The Heritage line are basically from a different era. That era had different recording medium and different equipment, most notably 'vaccuum tube' electronics. Even the domestic environments that used to be built were quite different from what you find today. Rooms were more 'boxy' and closed off from one another, higher ceilings, different furniture style/materials, etc, which all affect the acoustic properties of the room.

I don't think there is a single person in this world who would characterize my system as "bright and harsh", or that is produces a "coloration that is very similar to the sound produced at live (amplified) performances". The sound is simply "there". The system (which in my case includes "the room"), simply reproduces what is given to it. The Chicago Symphony Orchestra sounds like the Chicago Symphony Orchestra (unamplified).

[jdm56]

New Klipsch Reference speakers have a distinct sonic signature, regardless of model, it seems to me. And the same is true of the Heritage speakers. And a lot of these differences an be traced to the fact that heritage speakers are more "horny" than Reference speakers, generally being either fully horn-loaded or at least going down to 600-700 hz, where most Reference speakers only are are horn-loaded down to about 2000hz. My experience with the Reference line is limited, but my impressions, relative to heritage, are consistent. Reference sound is smoother, more "hi-fi", I guess, while the heritage sound is more forward (horn mids) and live sounding.

Strictly speaking, Forte's are not heritage speakers, but their sound is more comparable to heritage than reference, I believe. Which is best? A matter of opinion and preference.

[Daddy Dee]

Henry and Artto have made interesting points. Kind of a situation of expert witnesses with different takes on a fact.

Listening preferences are quite subjective, and if there is any chance of listening to both Heritage and RF you will be confirming your preference and have less chance for buyers remorse. It could take a while listening while relaxed to find out what you like. Considering your investment, it's worth it. I think listening in a store is a stressfull.

In terms of my own preference for Heritage, Henry said it pretty well. Wouldn't have much to add to that. The different era point Artto makes is also quite true. Heritage was designed with vacuum tube amplifiers and while some SS equipment works well with Heritage, you will be rewarded by choosing some particular ss units, if you prefer.

One thing that is drastically different is where to find RF and Heritage in the market. Most folks have a chance to hear RF in brick and mortar stores and Heritage is a rare find in those places. It is my impression that there is more buying and selling of Heritage on Ebay and Audiogon than what ships out of Hope, AR. That can make it more complicated to compare apples to apples in prices, because NEW Heritage gear is quite expensive. New price to price, most folks might conclude that RF is more bang for the buck.

One of the attractive things about used Heritage, is that by shopping carefully, there are some bargains to be had, and the buyer is likely to get their investment back if they decide to resell. There is some security in that thought.

One thing I wonder, is if there are generational preferences that can be observed. Like, vintage people likeing vintage gear? Don't know about that, but possible. Listening habits and music preferences more likely.

[dodger]

Hello:

Welcome to the Forum, Daddy.

The previous three (3) posts made all arguments perfectly.

Actual comparison, acoustics, room design and yes, us vintage people tend to the Heritage Line.

The three (3) way point is also good as some owning two (2) way have a sub that is set for HT which to a number of people above forty five (45) seems a little too much for music.

The medium being fed into the speakers also makes a difference.

However, as also noted you will not go wrong with either and it does come down to taste.

Good Luck, may you build the system of your dreams.

dodger

[Thoriated_Tiger]

I have a pair of the original Fortes. As has been said, it's the midrange. There's a liquidity, a smoothness, a naturalness that I just can't find in the RF-series, nor any cone-midrange speaker, for that matter.

Some may call it coloration, all I know is -- to me, music sounds *so* much more natural on a midrange horn!

Playing oh, I dunno -- Mozart piano concerto #26, gardiner with English Chamber Soloists on Arkiv gets very, very very real. No colorations that I can think of. Just utterly smooth, detailed, honest sound, from the very bottom to the very top. Electrifying.

It's the midrange horn.

[Daddy Dee]

Hopefully AK-4 will be around to chime in on this thread. He was a card carrying RF7 freak and then got a pair of Khorns and became a true believer. He would have some interesting observations.

I wish I had the words to describe the difference in the RF7 and Khorn sound. The Khorn sound is easy enough to describe, but to have a meaningful contrast I just don't think I can articulate that.

Anyway, one of the forum members brought a pair of RF-7's to my house for a gathering and we set them up and listened off and on for an afternoon alternating with Khorns. Not working really hard enough as a head to head shootout, just enjoying the tunes. The RF7's are impressive indeed.

One thing that is intersting, with some shopping and waiting, you can get a pair of nice used Khorns in the same range or less than RF7's. I drove 150 miles to pick my '73 Khorns for $1303. Good shape, too.

[Tony Reed]

PWK always said, "We live in the midrange". Maybe the current 2-ways seem to lack that philosophy... I don't know.

Tony

[WhoozYoDaddy]

But the Forte II uses a Tractix horn...Does this mean it still uses a midrange horn?

[WhoozYoDaddy]

But the Forte II uses a Tractix horn...Does this mean it still uses a midrange horn?

Sorry double post

[J.4knee]

Forte II uses an exponential HF horn and a tractix Mid horn. So yes it has separate high and mid horns. I own both Reference and Heritage speakers. I prefer the Heritage stuff because as most have indicated it just sounds more effortless and natural. To me the Reference sound excellent but their mid and high end possesses a thinner sound. My opinion is a subjective one but I feel the Heritage is fuller. I also agree the Reference seems to have been designed with HT in mind and Heritage with music in mind. I do however believe Heritage do better at both. There are a large number of Reference owners who will offer a very contrasting opinion to this because it is a personal preference. Arto nailed it when he said your room has to be part of your system I have moved my system into a different room and the sound is quite a bit different. Once I get my speaker acquisition completed I will start sound conditioning my room.

[D-MAN]

I'm not sure about the horn on the RF7 but the Heritage line uses phenolic diaphragms in its mid and upper horns.

Newer horns tend to use a titanium diaphragm.

The lightness of the metal diaphragm lends it a "metalic" or "tizzy" quality to the sound (IMO). Due to the lightness and less inertia, they can reproduce higher frequencies than the heavier phenolic variety. I would suspect this is the case (but again I'm blowing some smoke here) with the newer Klipsch line...

As for 2 way being "better" than the traditional 3 way, I have some opinions there, too. First, there is going to be less bass than "most" of the Heritage line. This is simply due to the available cone area for the woofer. And 2 small woofers don't add up to a horn loaded bugger woofer (with the Heritage bass horns). In the case of the RF7's the cones are smaller and must move farther, always resulting in less efficiency and higher modulation distortion.

There is something to be said for the "vintage" guys preferring vintage gear. But I've owned some "new" stuff and went back to the 1970's for my "dream" system. Guess that dates me a bit!

Two ways have the benefit of one less crossover overlap or "notch" than the 3 way, but to do it smoothly requires a higher quality of drivers than in the traditional 3-way setup, as each driver now has to cover an extended range.

In the cheaper class of speakers, I personally don't find the quality of drivers required to be of a high enough caliber to compete with a well-designed 3 way, but that is perhaps a matter of taste alone.

The tendency of newer speakers to be in the columnar (tall and skinny) format is not particularily good except for placment as a piece of furniture as they exhibit the smallest footprint. Acoustically, there are reasons that would normally preclude the cabinet from being that shape as it not only propogates strangely into the environment, it causes standing and modal sound waves internally in the cabinet itself due to the proportions used.

So there are alot of considerations to be concerned with, and the bottom line should be "go and listen to the different designs" and get the ones you like best. Nobody really has the right answer to this, only opinions.

DM

[Fish]

----------------

On 7/14/2004 11:07:47 PM WhoozYoDaddy wrote:

How come all you guys prefer a speaker like say.. The Forte II's over the refrence line?

So,what am I? chopped liver Its not a matter of all you guys,just lots of guys/gals.The 7's with a few hundred good clean watts makes for a very good speaker.Sure they run with a few watts but power really makes em'shine.Add the rsw15 adjusted properly and they wow anyone thats ever heard mine.If I ever left 7's it would only be for Khorns.

[WhoozYoDaddy]

----------------

On 7/15/2004 12:54:34 PM Fish wrote:

If I ever left 7's it would only be for Khorns.

----------------

Well im sure a lot of people with Fortes wouldent give them up. Period. heh, Maybe for some Khorns or if they were moving into a bigger room, Chorus's, but thats about it.