Klipsch Heresy IV or Revel f226be

Two very different speakers.    I own Forte IV and have owned Revel M106 .  I recently listened to a Rega P3 through the Revel 226 and thought it was a little tipped up on the top end.   

The problem with the Revel in my opinion is support.   Waited  months for them to send out a replacement grill under warranty and it was only a grill, not a driver ....   

I then bought Heresy III after the Revel, my daughter cranked it up and took out a midrange driver.   Klipsch sent a driver to my dealer a few days later and I installed it.    More and more companies are selling stuff without a gameplan for support , Revel told my dealer they had to open a new pair for a grill.   Not very reassuring if I needed a driver down the road. 

I have heard both, owned the 228be and currently use horns (JBL 4367). Really the revel is on another level. The 226be with a good pair of subs (highpassed) could be a final speaker. It has no real flaw but lacks exotic cabinet material and deep bass under 60hz. I would not enjoy them without subs

the forte also lacks some deep bass (under 40hz) and really needs rear wall enforcement to get that kick. With a close wall placement it would be ok. The mids and highs are not near as refined as the revels. The hash kind of worn on my ears. the sound stage shifts with frequency in width and I felt the box was noisy. But if you are new to horns they might sound existing/different and interesting.

if you want a more refined horn speaker a few (not all!) of the JBLs might do the trick. The JBL 4349 used is about $4000ish and would split the difference. The JBL 3800 is also on sale now in brown and grey ($2500 pair) which is a crazy deal. Worth looking at too.

I personally am not interested in box speakers after owning good horns but the Klispch are not refined enough IMO. Horns just get the dynamics more correct and sound less reproduced to me  

@james633 , on another bookshelf thread, someone recently recommended the Revel 226 over the 126 the OP had mentioned, because the 226 was not a whole lot more $ and the footprint/floor space is arguably practically the sam.

I am constantly second guessing what I have done and what i should have done, so I started looking into the 226, and whoooaaaa--they are down to 4k a pair depending upon whose selling them.  The 126s that I bought were 3k a pair, and for the physical similar size of the 226 to the 126 on stands, I think I would have spent another 1k and got the 226s.

Then I started reading the specs and although the 226 is listed as 90 (someone on a site said 88) for sensitivity and the 126 is rated at 86, I noted that Erin's Corner was saying that the impedance would dip as low as into the 3s and might not be suitable for certain AV receivers (which isn't what I am using anyway) but is that lower impedance coming from the two woofers per speaker?

Well, you're dealing with two totally different animals here; box/cone vs horns.  However, I would most definitely run with the Revel f226be speakers (with a pair of  quality subs), which would be totally killer.  Although I've owned and enjoyed horn, electrostatic, and ribbon speakers down through the years, ultimately, I always returned to standard box dynamic speaker, which I will retain for the duration.  Happy listening.    

Immathewj,

yes having 2 drivers wired in parallel will cut the impedance of those drivers in half. So if they are 8 ohms each the result will be 4 ohm. Then there are added changes with the crossover. But the multiple drivers will generally increase efficiency. 
 

I have not heard the 126be but based on the measurements the 226be is an all around better speakers. Hard to say how that translates to real world enjoyment. I would not worry about it as there are then again better speakers than the 226be too… a slippery slope lol.