Klipsch Heresy IV or Revel f226be

@james633 , not that it’s applicable to this discussion, but from comparing the specs, I was thinking that MAYBE the Revel 126 is a 226 with only one low range bass driver (instead of two as in the 226) and no 51/4 " midrange driver like the 226 has. Going from what Erinscorner was saying about the 226, I was THINKING that the 126 might actually be the easier load to drive. (However Revel is recommending 50 to 150 wpc for both speakers.)

However I frequently am mistaken about my over simplified assumptions.

What I would say though for almost sure, is that at 4k the 226 is marked almost hald off and looks like a terrific bargain. I really wish that they would have been listing them for that last spring when I gave 3k for my 126s.

KLIPSCH! It depends, depends on your room, your amp, type of music you listen to, and the sound you are seeking, etc. I’ve never heard the Revel, but I have a pair of Klipsch Forte IIIs and Focal Aria 926 in my main rig.  Based on what I’ve read about the Revel, my guess is they’d have a similar sound signature of my Focals based on their similar builds.

i run both with a 20 wpc 300b 845 tube amp in a wide room with 12 foot ceiling streaming Qobuz through an IRIS DDC and Pontus II DAC. Pretty resolving system. I bounce back and forth between the two speakers depending on mood, music, and even time of day.  Listen to jazz, folk, Americana, country, pop, rock, some classical. I love the way both set of speakers sound, different but both excellent. 

I always return to the Klipsch as “reference” for what I like, HUGH soundstage, deep, wide, tall, very dynamic, superb vocal midrange presentation. Not forgiving of poor recordings however. The Focals are warmer, yes warmer with more mid and lower bass, smaller more narrow soundstage, more “intimate” sound presentation, more forgiving of poor recordings.  

But when I want big sound, lifelike presentation, even at low volume, it’s always the Klipsch! Just my preference. 
 

Trivema,

yes the revels are similar to focal. Generally the revels are a little softer in the highs maybe a touch less detailed in the upper bass but very similar. The 226be is a total steal next to something like the Sopra at 3 times the price. I would argue the sound quality is within 5%. 
 

I don’t disagree with your Klipsch assessment either. They just lack a bit of refinement. If you ever get a chance try the higher end JBLs. I think they will keep all the things you like about your Klipsch but add refinement. There are some good deals from time to time. 

Immathewj,

Both revels need a real amp to play well. All revels need power. The big difference for me is the 226be has a dedicated mid. It is not just a smaller bass driver but a designed midrange. It has a lighter surround and the driver has very little travel with steep crossovers above and below it. It just makes for a very fleshed out detailed mid. Those advantage probably mostly show up when played loud. My experience with revel is they play very loud. I always gave up before they did. 

Hmmm, @james633 , I guess that could be part of the reason that I am finding the 126s more interesting with my amp switched to the ultralinear mode (versus triode).  And what you typed just makes me wish even more that the 226s would have been marked down at the time I bought the 126s.  However, I am in a small room and the thing that mostly sold me on the 126s was that all the reviews i read said they play well in small rooms, and that does seem to be the case with mine.

It's always interesting reading your posts--you have a lot of knowledge.