Forte vs. Forte 2

[crazytubepower]

This goes for all models, what is the differance between the one and two models, i.e. heresy 2, cornwall 2, forte 2 etc.

Thanks

James Eland

[boomac]

http://www.klipsch.com/

Click on product and then specs.

[WMcD]

The progressions from I (not used usually) to II were not the same in all cases.

The H and CW are what are now called Heritage. Cabinets were plywood and the horns in the mid and HF were metal.

The HII and CWII went to MDF and plastic horns. In some ways of thinking it was a sell out, cost engineering move. But that is a bit unfair.

The cost of materials, availability of parts from outside sources must have compelled it. There is little reason to think that the II did not perform as well, or better. Like in many businesses, it must have been a choice of doing it the old way and going out of business, or doing it the new way.

The Forte was much like the HII (mdf and plastic) with a bit bigger (?) cabinet. In my view, this was a breakthrough. Not just a cost engineered variant of the old line.

The new geometry brought it up to a floorstander. It added a 12 inch passive radiator which really helped the bass issue. It is a gem.

After a while, Klipsch engineers were examining the "Tractrix" midrange horn. It was so impressive that it was used in the Forte II. The passive radiator went up to 15 inches. I have these and love them.

There is therefore a line of what I call "neo-Heritage". The Chorus II, the Forte II and the Quartet (there was no QI or QII nomenclature). They are the baby bear, momma bear, and papa bear of a family. All have passive radiators, the "Tractrix" midrange, and similar tweeters.

For the record. There is some very early use of the "II" with the CW many decades ago. There was a very early CW version, then a sucessor called the II. That nomenclature was dropped. Then was used again.

Gil

Gil

[n2dablue]

Gil (or anyone else who may know)

I listened quite a bit to my folks' Forte 1 setup growing up, and for the last few years, been looking for a set of my own. I think I have found a seller for some 1's, but I cant help but wonder how different the 2's sound. Reason being because my fiance (next month my wife) has listened to the 1's and thinks the midrange is too forward. I have a feeling that this is the case because she is used to the sound from our KG4 setup, which is great, but a little lacking in the midrange detail, comparatively. My folks once listened to a set of Forte 2's and my dad, who struggled to put into words, said that compared to the 1's, the 2's were "not as live sounding" and "almost too refined". Can anyone who has had a chance to listen to both comment on this? Dad is a great musician, and has been around the block a few times, but I don't know how much weight his audio equipment opinions should carry...

Any opinions would be appriciated.

BTW, I listen to cd, SACD and DVD-A - just stereo, and the occasional movie. Currently using a Denon DRA-835 stereo receiver (early '90s good stuff) but plan to upgrade in a year or so to a tube setup - something like a Dynaco ST-70 with some sort of home brew tube preamp - likely to be loosely based on a Conrad-Johnson PV9 or 10 (brain fart).

Thanks all!

[heresy2guy]

Speaking of KG-4s...I've extensively A/B'd Heresy IIs and KG-4s (I have them hooked up to my HK430 right now in fact) and this is what I'm hearing:

Kg-4 has very deep bass which really fills out the sound. It also has crystal highs, which can border on being called sharp. But compared to the Heresy II there's no real midrange. So the KG-4 sounds great down low and up top but there's a HUGE hole in the center of the sound due to the fact, in my opinion, that the all-important midrange is being handled by cones instead of a horn. It makes the speaker sound unbalanced.

Heresy II has "weak" bass and when directly compared to the KG-4, it sounds practically non-existant. The highs are much smoother then on the KG-4 and not as "sharp" sounding. I guess you can call this "refined" or more "laid-back." The midrange is awesome sounding. THe seperation of vocals and instruments are immediately evident because of the midrange horn. But, like the KG-4, the Heresy II has a "hole" in its presentation - there's no bottom end. So again, it's a speaker that's unbalanced, like the KG-4s above.

The Heresy's midrange horn is what seals the deal for me, because most of what we enjoy with music takes place in what we'd call the midrange frequencies, and the Heresy II's midrange horn delivers the goods in a way that the KG-4s cones can't. It's not even close. The difference is immediately apparent.

However, the KG-4 allows you to really see how much bass you're lacking with the Heresy IIs. THe KG-4s, because of their increased bass, gives a "fuller" sound. But it also sounds more constricted, less-real...more like a speaker because of its lack of midrange.

The Heresy II gives a "leaner" sound due to a lack of bass, but because of the midrange horn, the sound is open and extremely spacious, and more like real, live music instead of a speaker.

One their own, individually, each speakers presents the listener with an audible "hole." Perhaps this is why people love the Cornwall and Khorn so much - because there's no real audible hole present. They're both able to cover a wide frequency spectrum exceptionally well.

The Reference series covers a wide spectrum too, but they're of a two-way design, and there's a vast difference in sound between the cones of a two-way speaker and the horns of a three-way. The horns just allow the sound to really pan out into the room. It sounds more "live," more RIGHT-there.

The two-way VS three-way argument is a debate for another post, and there's certainly been more then a few here on this forum. If I had a choice between two Klipsch speakers, say, a two-way and a three-way that both range from 32hz-20khz, I'd go with the three-way every time because of its midrange horn. THe Klipsch two-ways have the crossover points high enough so that the cones deliver almost all of the midrange sound and to me, the midrange sound is perhaps the most important in listening, so that's why I'd go with the three-way.

As for the Heresy II and the KG-4, they both sound lacking in something, when compared individually, side-by-side. But when I play them together, something wonderful happens - the sound suddenly becomes much, much, better. Even my wife said "Wow - what a tremendous difference. Keep them both on!" What happens is that the KG-4s fill the bottom whole in the Heresy IIs and the HEresy IIs fill the middle hole in the KG4s. THe resulting sound seems very "full" and "right." You now have great lows, mids, and highs.

I guess you could just as well buy a sub for the Heresy IIs and solve its problem. But what could you due for the KG-4s - buy 2 midrange horns and new crossovers??? Totally impractical. So, to me, the Heresy II can be "fixed" while the KG-4s cannot.

What this does, in my opinion, is to clearly illustrate why people love the Cornwall and Khorn so much - because they cover everything from bottom to top and they present the critical midrange with horns, which to many people on this forum, simply sound better then cones.

I'm not trying to pass myself off as a speaker expert, but in my experience, a cone simply cannot deliver the goods like a horn can. There's a very obvious difference in sound.

I've never compared K-horns to La Scalas side-by-side, but I wouold think that I would probably walk away with that feeling that my La Scalas are weak in the bottom end and "less-full" in overall sound. I could probably rectify this with a sub so all is not lost.

Still, why not just get a speaker that seemingly does it all? I guess that's really why people love the Khorn and the Cornwalls so much while intensely debating the "pros" and "cons" of all the others.

[WMcD]

At one time, I think, I posted the article from Audio magazine by three Klipsch engineers about the development of their form of tractrix. Now I can't find it on the board. Maybe someone has noted it and can tell us where I hid it. Smile.

In any event, it looks like they were so impressed they brought out the Forte II which uses it.

I've not had an opportunity to hear an FI recently. I do love my FII. The mid is not forward. There is something spooky about what it does do though. It might be directional characteristics.

I'm not going to wade into comparing the FII to the Heritage. However, if I had to buy a speaker for a friend or relative who needed the best, with some nod to size and price, the FII would be it.

Gil

[n2dablue]

Spooky? Hmmm, that doesn't sound very positive...What do you mean exactly?

Could / would anyone say that the difference in sound between the Forte 1 and 2 is significant, or are they more similar in character of sound?

[r.cherry]

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

On 4/25/2005 2:38:05 AM n2dablue wrote:

Spooky? Hmmm, that doesn't sound very positive...What do you mean exactly?

Could / would anyone say that the difference in sound between the Forte 1 and 2 is significant, or are they more similar in character of sound?

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

i have not a-b listened to them. i have read in this forum three different opinions

a) original forte's are better

b)two's are better

c)there is little if any difference

the only speaker the two share is the tweeter. i think they had to deepen the cabinet about .25 in. for the mid horn in the two.

[Cal Blacksmith]

Take the F1s and don't look back! I love my F1s, in my small room 12 x 13 they are everything I need. I can't count the number of times I have had to pick up peoples jaw from the floor after hearing them for the first time. I have never heard the F2s but many seem to like the 1s better. Then again, I would not walk away from either.