KT88

Thank you for your eloquent reply. In the spirit of this forum, where competent contributions are highly valued.

I would also run DSpeaker again now to get the right balance between treble and bass..

No stereo can reproduce the live experience of a band or an orchestra. But at least you can say that every instrument or sound generator, every piano string is a single source. At least wind instruments etc. So no comb filtering, phase shift, delay etc. No, an orchestra as a whole is not a single source, but a single source speaker is the best way to reproduce an orchestra or a band as it played live if recorded properly. At least it excludes additional artifacts. That's why Roy prefers the 2-way UJ at least for listening distance in a living room.

What Marvel said, turn the BT off on your phone.

Below in the link is a good description about the benefit of a point source speaker design. I do not want to make advertising for the products. It is only just a good description. So you would avoid delay between drivers e.g. mounted on a baffle side by side or in a vertical line. Therefore you have not to deal with phase irritations and time irritations. Point source delivers the best possible attack, timing and groove. Without any coloration which is caused by comb filtering of normal speaker designs. Of course such drivers like Fyne Audio have to deal with other challenges/issues (so is a „round“ radiation really so good or isn’t it better like the K402 which radiates 90 degrees horizontally and 60 degrees vertically, where I would say, yes the K402 behaves better in a listening room) but anyway. The UJ, Roy more often states this, are „behaving“ like a single point source speaker because a) they are time aligned and b) the radiation pattern of the K402 and the bass unit is almost identical in the region of the xover. I can clearly here it because I also have such old Tannoys (same as in the pic below) which are single point source as well and mechanically 100% time aligned The sound is in some aspects very related to that of the UJ if the K402 is more or less straight and only very little angled if any. https://www.fyneaudio.com/fyne-blog/why-use-a-point-source-isoflare-driver/

I have crossfeed control with my Mojo2 which I use as my DAC for the stereo system. But until now I never tried crossfeed and put it off as it is more intended to be a headphone tool. BTW very interesting what crossfeed can do on the production side, in the link is a sound video. https://www.production-expert.com/production-expert-1/understanding-the-crossfeed-control-in-cinematic-rooms A pan control I thought is a control in a sound mixer with which one can place a source/signal somewhere in the spectrum between left, center and right. Pan control, I thought, could not logically be used on a finished product/mix/recording at home

I can't judge the maximum 3D space that is possible with the UJ. For me, there are two types of spatiality. One type is that the speakers include the listening room. The LaScalas, for example, achieve this quite well, not to say very fantastically, at least for me. The speakers are positioned conventionally, not quite in the corners and only slightly angled. It's a great sound in the listening room with some 360 degree effects, e.g. the guitar on CSN in the song “Just a song before I go”. This guitar is completely detached from the speakers, it floats in the room in a very crazy 3D way. The guitar rotates through the room with its flanging affect. That's super cool. I don't care if it's “right” or if someone complains that it might just be an artifact due to wrong phases or whatever. It's the way the LaScala play to their absolute strength. „Just a song before I go“ https://open.qobuz.com/track/7104417 It's different with the UJs (in my ears at home). There is not this effect of virtual detachment and a kind of spatiality that protrudes left and right or front and back beyond the UJ. This is entirely subjective and only describes how it is for me. I could imagine that my room would have to be bigger to create such effects. I don't know. In other words, I have never experienced the UJ in such a way that the sound would detach itself from the speaker in terms of beyond the edges which does not mean they give no 3D feel, they do but without so much interaction with the room. But...and this is hard for me to describe now...at least because English is not my first language. The above in no way means that the UJs sound flat, two-dimensional, without a sense of space and boring (as you really know it from bad speakers). No, it is quite different and it is very special. It's like listening into the recording as if I were on the holodeck of the Enterprise. I don't want to go into the other strengths of the UJ at this point, which are in a league of their own, e.g. the physicality of the jazz and rock instruments or the classical orchestra, this 1:1 reproduction of the “real” events on a 1:1 scale, the ease of the high resolution and the excellent timing, which is what makes the groove so lively. This is worth a separate article. I would like to stay with the example of the different spatial impressions. As I said in the description of the LaScala above, the UJ sound does not detach itself so much from the edges of the K402. But within the arc created by the left and right speakers, it's a very spatial experience in a different way, with a lot of separation from front to back and left to right. If the LaScala is indeed an artifact caused by phase shifts or room reflections, there are no such artifacts with the UJ. (My personal assumption is that the old exponential horns of the LaScala radiate part of the sound around the front surface to the sides. The room walls reflect the sound. In this way it is possible that the room is integrated, even if it is the result of an inadequacy of the exponential horns, it still contributes to the sense of space. Mind you, probably not “real” exact information from the recording, but a sense of space, which I nevertheless like regarding some kind of music. In this sense, the UJ adds nothing to the information of the recording. The UJ reproduces the recording very accurately and there are no additive “sound clouds”. There is no pseudo-space. There are no “sound residues” that are deflected sideways around due to the more modern tractrix horn design. I had to learn to hear and appreciate this first. It is clearer, more precise, very musical but perhaps also a touch more sober to listen to, without the “sound effect”. (Even though I also love this “sound effect” of the LaScala in some situations as I said before). In addition with the UJ there is an incredibly tangible reproduction of the center that no other speaker I know can do. A center with the full strength of the physical impression. Below is a sound example from an old recording with Antonio Carlos Jobim at the piano. The piano comes exactly from the center. Antonio plays only single notes, very few and sparingly, impressively, subtly and with an inimitable sense of timing. if you play the piano, try to play (together with Antonio) how he sets the accents of the single notes. And as I described above, the timing of the UJ makes it possible to experience Jobim's timing...to the point of goose bumps. Or when S. Richter plays Rachmaninov's Piano Concerto No. 2, simply amazing, this authenticity. By the way, I have found that the type of position/connection between the bass and the K402 is very important. Roy talked about the UJ being a point source. This is because the dispersion characteristics between the bass and the K402 are almost identical in the transfer range of approx. 500 Hz. For example, I experimented with angling the K402 downwards because it is positioned so high visually. In addition, the TAD beams a little in the treble and you want to prevent the treble from radiating over the ears. But...if the K402 is angled, then for me personally the impression of the point source is impaired, the magic is lost. It's better if the K402 radiates straight without angling, then it's really like a point source, like my big Tannoys. You can hear the timing equally well everywhere in the room. But you have to listen to the K402 for a whole week, now aligned straight, if you previously listened to the K402 angled, before you can really experience and enjoy the sense of the point source. This is the key to the special kind of spatiality that is so characteristic of the UJ. Amor em Paz (once I loved). https://open.qobuz.com/track/73940716 I have a little dessert here. It's easy listening, Mike Levine. The song is called “Twilight”. This is about sound, not about it being the most artistically valuable recording. It's phenomenal with the UJ. I'm talking about the drums in particular. If you don't annoy anyone, listen to it loud on your UJ. The drums are so well recorded, they're behind the other musicians at the back of the stage. There were moments when I was scared because it sounds so real, so tangible, those are the strengths of the UJ. https://open.qobuz.com/track/83413679

I don't have AL5s but an old LaScala where I can't separate anything mechanically. But my 2 cents. Others who have an AL5 may have more valuable contributions. Two things come to mind. Firstly, I would say that a greater distance caused by decoupling is not necessarily a benefit. In my experience, it's always good when the individual sections, mids and bass, are close together so that the overall sound doesn't fall apart whereby, on the other hand, the decoupling elements do not create such a large distance. But on the other hand, it could be that the passive Xover and its parts vibrate less due to the decoupling and that the sound could become clearer as a result.

I know my old LS very well. I wish I could listen to an AL5 for four weeks. My first impression of your AL5 was very good and colorful emotionally. I've never heard a horn like your AL5 that didn't sound like a “horn” in any register.

That's a very nice and very comprehensible description, Melvin. I would very much agree with it overall and my listening experience is very similar. Your examples such as drums and vocals are also vividly described and well chosen.

if you take into account the presumed price of the upgrade kit for the AL6, then you have ended up destroying one of two possible LaScalas. I also think that it will always retain its value, and there will always be people who, regardless of the sound, simply don't like all this additional fiddling with active and two amplifiers. I think you made the right decision, @Flevoman. And it's not set in stone for all eternity.

The “problem” is that the woofer hardly has to work in a bass horn as far as its excursion is concerned. I don't want to encourage you to like loud listening. It's just a mechanical process of break-in that is accelerated by louder music (if you don't disturb anyone). You don't even have to be in the same room. I don't mean volumes that break the windows, but just room-filling volumes for an hour or so every day. Then, after a few more weeks, your AL5s start to shine and they sound very differentiated even very quietly.

@murali-reddy I have a C22CE from the late 90s together with an MC275 Mk4 from 2002. on my 1977 LaScala it can sound very fine and subtle, but if I want it and the music suits it, I can create naked raw scary acoustic violence with these amps. very dry, fast and explosive even in the bass also as you say not too deep but anyway. Maybe the LaScala aren't properly broken in yet if you've been listening to them for 300 hours but quietly? I restored 51 year old Khorns this summer. They now have brand new all original K33E Klipsch/Eminence woofers..like in your new AL5. Believe me, it took a few weeks, say two months, before they sounded completely resolved, clear, authoritative and well defined. I also only hear the lowest octave really energetic and deep after this break-in period. Give your AL5 some time and occasionally play louder music so that the bass can settle in properly. BTW I guess you checked all wiring, also the AL5 internals for correct phase?

I don't believe that, Mark. You won't be able to upgrade every LaScala to AL6 level. At least in my old LS the doghouse is completely glued and to upgrade to the AL6 not only the squaker and tweeter have to be replaced but also the woofer with a completely different 12 inch woofer and the slot for the compression is also completely different. If I have to replace the whole woofer alignement, squaker, tweeter and xover, plus parts of the dog house, plus purchasing a new active DSP, then there's not much left of an AL5. I would leave an AL5 and if you want you can buy an AL6 directly. Unless Klipsch is very charitable and sells the upgrade for a mildly symbolic price.

Your K402 is still pointing down a bit🙂or again after you tried it with straight alignment. I can't give a financial-strategic answer to the AL5 question. Only an emotional answer. I would keep the AL5 if I were you, at least until everything has settled down and the new AL6 has been released. Why? Because there might be more people like me. Personally, I would like to have a fully analog speaker in a fully analog chain (except for digital sources besides vinyl). From my point of view, the AL6 is not an evolutionary development but a completely different animal. Certainly the AL6 will do a lot of things much better than the AL5. But does it still touch my heart? I loved your AL5 from the very first note, its tone, the color of its middle. I found it a bit weak on bass and lacking in spaciousness, but I imagined how it would have sounded in my room with my amps. You have very good amps, but I have a different philosophy when it comes to amps (more power etc). I would still keep your AL5, at least for a while, unless the money is very urgent. But I'm very subjective, I love my 51 year old Khorns, with all their strengths and weaknesses. A description as a comparison between Khorn, Jubilee (from memory) and 1977 LaScala will follow soon as well.