Speaker Recommendations?

Forgot about the AudioGE Teddy Classic at under $2000 USD. @HiFi Guy has these now and previously owned the Forte IV and the Lintons.

www.tonepublications.com

The Audio GE Teddy Speakers

There are some fun speakers in the $1,000 - $2,000 range, and there are a lot more mistakes. But there are a few true classics, transcending time, offering sonic value that is out of what you think would be possible for this price. The Audio GE Teddy, at $1,888 a pair delivered, certainly has...
www.tonepublications.com www.tonepublications.com
 
Angsty said:
Forgot about the AudioGE Teddy Classic at under $2000 USD. @HiFi Guy has these now and previously owned the Forte IV and the Lintons.

www.tonepublications.com

The Audio GE Teddy Speakers

There are some fun speakers in the $1,000 - $2,000 range, and there are a lot more mistakes. But there are a few true classics, transcending time, offering sonic value that is out of what you think would be possible for this price. The Audio GE Teddy, at $1,888 a pair delivered, certainly has...
www.tonepublications.com www.tonepublications.com
Click to expand...
Grilles are optional and expensive- like $400 a pair.

My wife likes the look without, so saved money there.

I still love them and a speaker change is off the table. The only reason I sold the Fortes was because they didn’t get along with my tube amp. Like zero bass. But with solid state, they were awesome.
 
HiFi Guy said:
Grilles are optional and expensive- like $400 a pair.

My wife likes the look without, so saved money there.

I still love them and a speaker change is off the table. The only reason I sold the Fortes was because they didn’t get along with my tube amp. Like zero bass. But with solid state, they were awesome.
Click to expand...
weirdly, the IVs thump pretty hard with my KingKo, but my Forte IIs did feel thinner. Very pleased the speaker shuffle worked out for both of us. :)
 
HiFi Guy said:
Grilles are optional and expensive- like $400 a pair.

My wife likes the look without, so saved money there.

I still love them and a speaker change is off the table. The only reason I sold the Fortes was because they didn’t get along with my tube amp. Like zero bass. But with solid state, they were awesome.
Click to expand...
I bet if you bi amped those Fortes, you would have been in the sweet spot.

I am loving the SS Denon on LF and Rogue tubes for the mids and upper. It's bringing out the best on my JBLs.
 
HiFi Guy said:
Grilles are optional and expensive- like $400 a pair.

My wife likes the look without, so saved money there.

I still love them and a speaker change is off the table. The only reason I sold the Fortes was because they didn’t get along with my tube amp. Like zero bass. But with solid state, they were awesome.
Click to expand...
@HiFi Guy - I likely missed a reconfiguration of your system. Did you permanently replace your NAD amp with a tube amp?

Edit: Oh, I see now - Manley Stingray II.
 
Last edited:
Jbraswell said:
I bet if you bi amped those Fortes, you would have been in the sweet spot.

I am loving the SS Denon on LF and Rogue tubes for the mids and upper. It's bringing out the best on my JBLs.
Click to expand...
The EPDR of the Forte IV from Erin’s Audio Corner shows why the bass may have been missing.

Between 80-150 Hz, the Forte EPDR dips below 2 ohms and may not be a good impedance match for many tube amps. Even with a high speaker sensitivity, the amp would need a low output impedance/high damping factor to match well. Bi-amping to a ss amp for the woofer could solve it.

Edit: A back-of-envelope calc suggests that a damping factor over 400 would be preferred. The NAD C298 had a damping factor >800, whereas the Manley Stingray Il has a damping factor of 2.4. This is a good illustration why some of the older Mac tube amps used autoformers for impedance matching. End of geek bit.

Klipsch Forte IV Review

Klipsch Forte IV Review
www.erinsaudiocorner.com
 
Last edited:
Angsty said:
The EPDR of the Forte IV from Erin’s Audio Corner shows why the bass may have been missing.

Between 80-150 Hz, the Forte EPDR dips below 2 ohms and may not be a good impedance match for many tube amps. Even with a high speaker sensitivity, the amp would need a low output impedance/high damping factor to match well. Bi-amping to a ss amp for the woofer could solve it.

Edit: A back-of-envelope calc suggests that a damping factor over 400 would be preferred. The NAD C298 had a damping factor >800, whereas the Manley Stingray Il has a damping factor of 2.4. This is a good illustration why some of the older Mac tube amps used autoformers for impedance matching. End of geek bit.

Klipsch Forte IV Review

Klipsch Forte IV Review
www.erinsaudiocorner.com
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't understand all of that but will take your word for it.
I just know those big woofers need some juice and SS has the ticket.

The SS LF juice plus beautiful tube sound in the mids and highs gives you a great match.
Of course the crossover has to be pretty decent for it to work well.

A lot of folks get wrapped around gain matching amps to biamp. I did not pay much attention to it but it sounds fairly close to me.
Someone did the math for me and it was within 1 or 2db, if I recall.

The key is to have a preamp with 2 variable outputs so your volume is in sync.
 
Last edited:
With the Forte IV, anyone considering it should make sure the amplifier output impedance is 0.02 ohms or less. Even a 5 watt amp with a 99 dB sensitivity speaker will sound loud, but a higher output impedance amp can ruin low frequency response regardless of maximum power output.

I have not run numbers for the JBL, but I can easily believe it sounds better bi-amped the way you describe.
 
Last edited:
Angsty said:
With the Forte IV, anyone considering it should make sure the amplifier output impedance is 0.02 ohms or less. Even a 5 watt amp with a 99 dB sensitivity speaker will sound loud, but a higher output impedance amp can ruin low frequency response regardless of maximum power output.

I have not run numbers for the JBL, but I can easily believe it sounds better bi-amped the way you describe.
Click to expand...
I've been really interested in hearing feedback from someone running bi-amp in the Fortes but I can't find any info.


I tried to talk one guy into it. He has all the equipment along with a few different preamps but won't try it. 🤷‍♂️
 
Jbraswell said:
I've been really interested in hearing feedback from someone running bi-amp in the Fortes but I can't find any info.


I tried to talk one guy into it. He has all the equipment along with a few different preamps but won't try it. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
I believe what @HiFi Guy said about the bass slam using the NAD amp and I wouldn’t expect anything different in a bi-amp mode. The impedance above the HF crossover is high enough that I’d expect that a tube amp could work its magic unfettered. The midrange could be a muddle given EPDR is low-ish. All depends on the specific amp.

The comment Erin makes about Class D amps is intriguing, though. I have yet to dig into that. The C298 is Class D.

Edit: Oh, that was easy. Thanks, GenAI: “Class D amplifiers have a [inherently] low output impedance in the milliohm range”
 
Last edited:
Angsty said:
The EPDR of the Forte IV from Erin’s Audio Corner shows why the bass may have been missing.

Between 80-150 Hz, the Forte EPDR dips below 2 ohms and may not be a good impedance match for many tube amps. Even with a high speaker sensitivity, the amp would need a low output impedance/high damping factor to match well. Bi-amping to a ss amp for the woofer could solve it.

Edit: A back-of-envelope calc suggests that a damping factor over 400 would be preferred. The NAD C298 had a damping factor >800, whereas the Manley Stingray Il has a damping factor of 2.4. This is a good illustration why some of the older Mac tube amps used autoformers for impedance matching. End of geek bit.

Klipsch Forte IV Review

Klipsch Forte IV Review
www.erinsaudiocorner.com
Click to expand...
This is interesting and, as they are on the shortlist, is going to make me take a closer look at the Forte IV's to mate with the Decware 300B when its ready next year.. appreciate you bringing it up..
 
Slimwhit33 said:
This is interesting and, as they are on the shortlist, is going to make me take a closer look at the Forte IV's to mate with the Decware 300B when its ready next year.. appreciate you bringing it up..
Click to expand...
I’m also eyeing Forte IV for the Decware amp I hope to get next year.
 
Anyone have experience with Totem Acoustics speakers?

I have been looking at the Totem Bison Twin Towers from the reviews I’ve seen they seem like my kind of speaker.
 
Angsty said:
As for vintage, how about the Klipsch KG-4.2? @Hemotep has a pair. May be hard to find, though.

www.klipsch.com

KG 4.2 Floorstanding Speaker | Klipsch

Home Audio Products for Every Lifestyle, Application & Budget. Since 1946, no compromises in Legendary Sound. Free Shipping on All Online Orders in the US.
www.klipsch.com www.klipsch.com

Hemotep

Post in thread 'The 'I Did a Thing' Thread'

I did a thing this morning. Ran by an estate sale that had these Klipsch floor stand speakers at a really decent price. They sound fantastic, even in my small space. I actually think they sound better than my Realistics, which isn't at all surprising. But since I can't really crank the volume up where I live I'm most interested in speakers that sound good at low volumes. I'm only two tracks in on a record, but even my wife came in and said she actually can hear a difference in the quality on these, which she admitted she thought was bullshit before 😂 Either way, I'm lucky she was cool with...
  • Like
  • On Fire
  • Love
Click to expand...
I was just at a local Charlotte record store today that just put out a pair of KG4.2’s for sale. Look to be in pretty good condition, but the grill fabric will need to be replaced (cats). Owner is asking $350. The store is Premium Sound - DM me if you want more info.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top