KT88

Such dining and listening rooms are a great idea! I am convinced that there will soon be something like this in our country. It is a new trend that somehow reminds of the clubs of the 19th century in the UK...if today it is also possible without membership and entrance examination. But it reflects the desire for a kind of half private and half public feel-good oasis in a mixture of protected zone and luxurious environment. Maybe I should open such a place as a soon retired...Then I can hear my Jubilees always further and can share my joy.

I made different experiences.

It is interesting how really all target groups are addressed with specific devices. Certainly, many customers will have a lot of fun with this idea from Mcintosh. But if I may, I would like to illuminate it from another side. I would like to say before that I am a big fan of Mcintosh amplifiers. I have been using an MC2102 for 20 years and an MC275Mk4 with C22CE for 18 years. So far so good. What are the positive features of this MC901. The most important reason from my point of view is that with the MC901 many people are offered a safe! solution who pursue the idea to fire the tweeters (mids and highs) with tubes. Because what happens very often: People connect a tube amplifier with the tweeter part of a loudspeaker over its crossover area. So one half of the biamping. But they don't know that this way they can destroy a tube amp very quickly. The reason is that the tube amp gets the full signal from the pre amp (assuming that most people don't split the signal in the frequency part before amplification but also send the bass to the Xover part of the tweeter). A tube amp is doomed to die if the basses don't find a taker. The result is that there is sparking in the output ßtransformer and subsequently its end. BTW transistor amplifiers don't care what charge they see. Conversely, for a tube amp a short circuit at the output is relatively indifferent but a transistor amp dies in a short circuit at least if it has no fuses. These are the main differences between current gain in a transistor amp and voltage gain in a tube amp. From this point of view, the MC 901 protects people from doing stupid things. Now I come to the criticism side of my post. How naive must someone be that he sends 300 watts from 8 pieces of KT88 to his tweeter (or midrange and tweeter). Even with very poor efficiency of the tweeters, this is complete nonsense. We know that the power requirement of high frequencies is not even 10% of a loudspeaker. Let's talk about the quality of the sound. Why do I prefer the MC275 to the MC2102: The MC275 has exactly one KT88 on the positive and negative half-wave per channel. The sound depends significantly on the equality of these two tubes. But even if they are not quite equal, the result is still very good. But when multiple tubes are connected in parallel, complexities can arise. And the tubes must be even more equal. I know and I am sure that the Mcintosh people know what they are doing. But what a hassle to connect 2x4 KT88 for a single tweeter or midrange channel. That is to be honest "over the top". Driving parallel power tubes is always a challenge. The demand of current is so huge when tubes are in parallel. That's why the MC2000 had transistors as drivers and there it was also the MC2102 with „only“ two parallel KT88. The MC901 has four parallel KT88s for each half wave. What an effort for the power tube drivers. And how dependent is the sound on as exactly the same KT88 as possible, which only exists in theory. Once again...8 KT88 per. Channel for a maximum demand of 20 or 30 watts, with horns 2 or 3 watts. The idea of the MC901 is good. but why not with an EL84 for each half wave, or an EL34 or a KT66? To go a step further, they could go OTL in the tweeter section. I never heard it but in theory this ist the best when we make use of parallel tube settings. On the other hand OTs are „the“ core value of the Mcintosh brand. So I can understand that they make use of an OT and it is a plus point that it uses less windings if the current flow is so huge due to the parallel circuit of four power tubes. But it must not be KT88. The power of the bass section is ok, after all. Plus the reasoning in the Mcintosh advertising about alleged problems of tubes in the bass range is to be honest a bit far-fetched. Now comes another point. Who buys such an amplifier and uses it for a loudspeaker in biamping operation wants to achieve a single goal in my opinion. This user wants to remain analog under all circumstances over the entire chain. Otherwise it would be a very stupid solution. But...how does this frequency splitting or the filters in the MC 901 work? I hope it does not work via the way of digitization. Because then the completely analog chain is an illusion. And then a DSP before the amps and a connection to the drivers without passive xover would be the really better alternative. Don't get me wrong, I don't envy anyone this exuberant amplifier. But is it a smart solution? I personally suspect that a smaller power amp for the tweeters might sound much nicer in this case. Ok, I don't know what the engineers have in their bag of tricks and maybe I'm completely wrong. Anyway I also know that I would buy completely different things with this money. The MC901 costs the same in stereo as the new Heritage Jubilee. What do you think I would spend my money on...? A true speaker or a marketing invention?

I am more than thrilled with my remagnetized K77 Alnico that I installed an hr ago. Honestly, I am shocked in a positive way. Now the Lascala sound as I have it in emotional memory from my teeny time in the 70s. More of that in its own thread. I believe that a tweeter has a greater psychoacoustic effect on the overall speaker experience down to the bass, which sounds drier and fuller. But what I want to contribute to this thread, I will definitely soon have my K55V remagnetized....after this pleasing result with the K77. New diaphragms I have since May in the K55V. But now I am convinced that the newly strengthened magnetic force will also contribute something. Only then can one really make comparisons. It is not fair to compare a 44 year old driver with a new one. Of course, I don't know if the K55V weakened or not. It was the case with the K77.

Keep the Thorens, this kind of quality you cannot get from modern TTs in it‘s price range. Some even prefer it against an LP12. I never had a Thorens but a good buddy has his since decades. Still singing today. Much better than my old Dual. I bought an Oracle Delphi Mk5 18 years ago used and therefore I don‘t need to change something for the rest of my life. https://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_reviews.php?make=Thorens&model=TD160

So did you hear a difference in sound?

I really hear a very emotional difference between Alnico and M. Especially with strings and classical music it is striking. One should not forget that it was not a voluntary step to switch to ferrite. At that time, Alnico had suddenly gone through the roof in price, so almost all companies had switched to ferrite. Look at what two different Tannoys from the Prestige series cost today when we see a ferrite versus an Alnico of the same size. They have both on offer. Compare the price of a Ferrite to the price of an Alnico...both are 10" drivers. Turnberry vs Kensington. https://upscaleaudio.com/collections/tannoy Don't even know how well off we are to have these Atlas drivers for such relatively small money. And I would never trade my K77 for K77M in the long run.

I have never heard that the JA design driver is a dual phase plug…It is not claimed in the advertising on Michael Crites website but I may be wrong and regardless of dual vs. single pp the result in sound counts.

Randy, thanks for reply, it is centered, I know because it is too narrow on both sides, horizontally even if slightly more at the top but in a way that the screw hole positions are very ok. Yesterday my original Alnico round magnet K77 returned from empowering the magnet. Of course the shop had to remove the lens with the coil to work just with the magnet itself and they know what they do with great reputation in this country, specialized on vintage gear. They reached 1.5 dB which does not sound so much but it could make a difference also re the higher frep. response. I will tell later on what I hear. So I thought to widen the opening gently before I swap them and dismount the K77M which did an interims job. I know it’s all about fun in this thread and possible increases in subtleties. I'm not going to transform a 44 year old speaker into the 21st century, and that's not the point here. But if grinding optimizes something I might actually hear...why not. Especially the motor board for the T35 should be precisely worked because originally the T35 was intended as a diffraction horn and the motorboard is an indispensable part of its construction on which it was recommended to be mounted from behind. Even if in the Lascala we have the horizontal arrangement of the T35, which spreads a little less horinzontally than the original vertical arrangement of the T35. But we had this topic horiz. vs. vert. sufficiently discussed here in the forum half a year ago. I am only interested in a proper geometry of the aperture for the lens. I love it when something historic reads like the brand new innovation. It is somehow the point where science met marketing. See the link to this vintage T35 brochure. http://www.cieri.net/Documenti/Istruzioni/Electrovoice - Tweeter T35, T35B, T350.pdf Nice short read BTW concerning the lively history of the T35 tweeter. https://audioxpress.com/article/remembering-the-electro-voice-t35-super-tweeter

You can't see it so well on the photo. The cutout in the wood of my 1977 Lascala is noticeably smaller than the mouth of the horn. With the finger you can feel a clear edge. Is it ok (because the edge disturbs much higher frequencies than in the audible range) or would it be an improvement if I file and adjust the cutout in the wood gently?

Let's wait for Randy's answer. I used this one, from Michael Crites, very good quality.

From about 1983 to 2001 (round about) it was an Electrovoice ferrite driver. Before that and since 2001 it is more or less the same Atlas Alnico driver. Others may correct me.

I have old K55V without dual phase plug from 1977 with brand new original Atlas diaphragms from Crites. I am very satisfied but still I will have them remagnetized in the near future for the peace of mind. I would love to compare them with the new A-55-G or G2. Well, regardless all the possible improvements of the A-55-G, I must say that I am an Alnico fan. I know that these are two different aspects. On the one hand innovation of the diaphragm and the phase plug, on the other hand the material of the magnet. But I would have liked to see the new A-55-G driver also be an Alnico. I remember darkly that not everyone liked the A-55-G because its opening diameter at the horn connection is different from the Atlas driver?

Domenic, another thought. I wrote it the other day in another thread for jcn3. Between the K55V midrange driver and the horn is a rubber flat ring. You can see it when you unscrew the driver. It should be porous and hardened by now. But it is an important seal for the sound pressure from the driver to get into the throat of the horn. This can be a source of harsh sound. Michael Crites sells these rubber rings for small money. Also the diaphragms of the K55V should be changed after 40 years. In my case this was very successful. You can also get them at Crites. But I must also say that the AA crossover sounds very good at small to medium loud levels. If you listen very very loud the speaker can sound a bit metallic despite all the restorations. But how often do you listen that loud? The photo shows an original rubber ring of my 1977 Lascala in red. It had already crumbled into two parts during disassembly. The black ring was a temporary solution I had cut myself before the new rings arrived from Michael Crites.

The other components of the xover have virtually no wear. On the contrary, sometimes old coils and autoformers sound better than new ones. And also for coils applies that the original values of the ESR with spare parts may or may not be achieved. That's why I would leave these parts as they are. The capacitors should be replaced after the long time, because probably the oil has leaked out of the tin cans by now. However, with new replacements you are on the safe side. I usually tend to go for smart and effective economical solutions. That's why I would order polyester caps from Mouser for a handful of dollars. These are the types that Klipsch recommends and also installs themselves in the latest Heritage speakers. You have to see photos of e.g. Heresy 4 or CW 4 crossovers that you can find on the net. They are these yellow capacitors. They are not the "best" available today but they are the best fit for the horn speakers...especially from the time of your vintage speakers. But there is an issue. If you want to do it right you need the right values of capacitance. The AA crossover has three capacitors which are unfortunately not standard values. You can't get them at Mouser or other dealers like Parts Express, that I know of. Of course you can try to find these capacitance values there. You need 1x13 mF and 2x2 mF per xover. There is one dealer that offers these values for polyester types. JEM. https://jemperformanceaudio.com/ I didn't do it because the shipping and customs costs to Germany is totally absurd. But within the USA you can get the correct values in total for both crossovers for under 100 dollars. You might think, oh that's expensive for stupid polyester caps (or they're also called Mylar). But one should not forget that JEM has to have these special values specially made by some manufacturer. I took 2x2.2 mF (to test these types in principle) and 2x6.8 mF in parallel instead of 1x13. Unfortunately I change the ESR by the parallel connection but as a first compromise it is ok. 1x13 mF is however better because also the tweeter capacitors 2x2 mF are connected in series behind the 1x13 mF and thus depend on its properties. I personally would not use polypropylene caps. Because what could sound "clearer" and "cleaner" in modern normal Hifiboxes without horns can make your horns sound harsh and shrill. I have tried it. If you can solder...it's not witchcraft...or, everyone knows a buddy who can solder and it's really not a requirement because everything is big and simple...like in a WW2 submarine:).

Also try the MC75 for the whole CW not only for bi amping (bass or high range?) My MC275 works fine with my old Lascalas.

jcn3, my humble 2 cents. First of all you have acquired fantastically preserved speakers. Congratulations. Everyone has their own personal opinion. My advice is that you leave the Heresy as they are. At least for the first time of listening. Let your ears get used to them. About the yellow capacitors. Usually there were motor run capacitors at the time of production. Most likely the oil leaked out of the sheet metal cases at some point and they were replaced. Your yellow capacitors are most likely polyester types. That is exactly what Klipsch uses today on new Heritage Speakers. It is what you would get if you bought matching Klipsch caps today, from JEM for example. They (the smaller values like 2 mF) are flat even when they are new. Don't be fooled into buying supposedly "better" capacitors. Roy Delgado, Klipsch's chief engineer for the Heritage Series recommends your polyester types. These caps keep your crossover electrically balanced. There are more modern types of caps but they don't necessarily harmonize with your horns and their drivers. Better" can be worse. I admire your bass speakers. It looks like they have Alnico magnets. Protect and keep them like a treasure. If you wanted to change anything at all about the Heresy 1 then I would advise you to do it only in the direction of originality. In my opinion, please do not change speaker drivers. Your Heresy 1 is special because all three speakers have Alnico magnets. There are weak points compared to modern tweeters. But there are also strengths that modern tweeters can't match.The K77s can sound a bit metallic in some recordings. But they have soul. The music flows straight to your heart. And they have a wavefront that matches the rest of the speaker seamlessly. For example, impulses from an acoustic guitar or a singer's voice appear "of a piece" along with the other drivers. I want to share what I did with my 1977 Lascala. A similar case. The tweeters and midrange drivers are the same as in your Heresy 1. After trying modern polypropylene caps I went back to polyester ruefully. OK there will be other good and especially electrically fitting caps but then mostly eccentrically expensive new paper in oil types. It depends on the ESR and that is with polyester types comparable with the old original tin cans. Because those were also polyester types. After trying a more modern tweeter I am remorsefully returned to the original Klipsch K77 Alnico. The same tweeter you have with the round magnet. It has magical properties. I currently have 1981 K77M ferrite tweeters installed. But only as an interim solution because my original K77 are being restored. They finally come back next week after three months. Why did I have them restored: I wanted the restorer to put in new diaphragms just for peace of mind. He tried it on one of the two tweeters. The result was no difference. So I keep the original diaphragms. The most important point of the restoration is another one. As much as I value Alnico magnets, they have a weak point. Over the decades they can lose magnetic power. This means that the tweeter will become quieter, but more importantly, it will no longer play higher frequencies as the magnetic force weakens. Some old Alnico K77s just reach 12,000 Hz, which is a bit too low. In my case the difference to the newly magnetized power was not too big. But still 1.5 dB the restorer told me yesterday. That already means a loss of treble. You can hardly hear the difference of 1.5 dB. But in relation to the rest of the other drivers in a system you can hear it exactly. That's why I can't wait until the K77s finally return at the end of the week. The interim K77Ms were less musical (for me personally). The whole speaker seems flatter and more two-dimensional. In my case, it was a little different with the midrange driver. I had read various articles about it here in this forum. Its diaphragm hardens (or becomes too soft?). Whatever the effect is that it sounds thinner than 44 years ago. I had ordered new diaphragms from Michael Crites and it was significantly worth replacing them. The K55V sound much silkier and more relaxed. They have more authority in the lower frequency ranges. BTW their magnets I would like to have magnetized as well. But because I have no replacement for them I have to live a few weeks without the Lascala. Its the next project. An important point! The K55V driver is screwed to the horn of your Heresy1. Between the throat of the horn and the driver is a rubber ring that perfectly seals the pressure. This rubber ring is very important for the sound of the midrange horn. But after 46 years it will be totally porous and hardened. This was also the case with me. Michael Crites sells new rubber rings. Why do Alnico magnets lose power? By heat or by hard mechanical impacts or by strong magnets which are in direct proximity, e.g. if one stores the Alnicos in wrong neighborhood of other magnets. But there is another reason...unfortunately...and that is simply that they are played. The magnetic field that is evoked in the voice coil to drive the diaphragm unfortunately weakens the permanent Alnico magnet. This is the case with 46 year old speakers if they have always been played (which is otherwise a good thing.). I heard a story when JBL had big problems with Alnicos. They had sold drivers for guitar amps and Fender Rhodes in the 70s. These became quieter and quieter with the loud use. What does the musician do? He compensates by turning the amp louder. In the end, the voice coils were burned. OK we do not operate our Klipsch speakers so loud just because of their great efficiency. If you know a shop that can remagnetize Alnicos, have it done. Not everyone can do it. Here is the description of my restorer, just use google translator. https://www.lautsprecher-manufaktur.de/index.php/werkstatt/reconing-sp-1327173451 If you like your Heresy1 the way they are, don't do anything for now. Actually, my message is, only do something if you have to, to restore the originality. And do not go astray. One is just in such a forum like this (which is a really good forum!) here quickly tempted to change something just to change it.

I'm a little sad on the one hand that I couldn't travel to the US to attend the Jubilee class due to Covid19 but on the other hand, the reports and shared experiences are worth a lot. I'm glad to hear that the new Heritage Jubilee speaker is exceeding expectations. And I am firmly convinced that this is exactly how I would have experienced it. About the photo...it's poignant in a way. The builder after all the work and development with his baby. Here fits the saying "A picture is worth a thousand words".

The review of the seller re the KH is worth a read, especially because he was almost not familiar with the Klipsch Heritage sound after 40 years of his Hifi hobby and also because he is independent of any third party interest in what he writes. https://www.audioresurgence.com/2021/08/klipsch-klipschorn-speaker-review.html

Thanks for all the fantastic descriptions of the fantastic speaker. I am very curious to hear the listening impressions that will report mikebse2a3, a man who is one of the pioneers of the owners of the underground Jubilee and who will contribute very valuable comparisons. I wonder if the additional phaseplug is exactly matched to the Celestion driver or if I could also benefit from it with my TAD 4002 using the K402 horn, for example.

It is the way I mostly use my 1977 Lascalas, not too loud and with a passive AA xover. I like it and going active/DSP is in my view not only a step ahead. There may be downsides as well e.g. less „soul“ than passive. At least I like like my Jubes passive very much even if I cannot make use of delay compensation etc which I also have used.

Hi Area 51. First of all, a clear yes to all your questions. Only your question regarding the model R8…I don‘t know this very amp but why not if it is a push-pull. A the end you must see what you like. There may also be some nice solid state amps but in my view the sound differences between different solid state amps might be greater than re tube amps, so whether you like the sound or not. In other words it could become even more difficult to purchase a solid state amp without listening to it before. Here is a link to the guitar from Bloomfield that Gibson copied in 2009, in the article it is simply called the "59 Standard" or "the Sunburst". http://www.mikebloomfieldamericanmusic.com/bloomweb07/mbguitars2.htm BTW VOS just means "vintage original specification" e.g. that they used old nitro lacquer and other stuff from back then for the Bloomfield Lespaul copy. VOS was the more down-to-earth version. Besides, a more expensive version was offered, it was called "aged". I admit, it is borderline to buy a guitar that became famous through another musician. But "aged" means even more that it has a fake history. Let it be a non „aged“ one which grows old (or even older) with me. I didn't know the LP "A long time coming", very cool stuff, thanks for the hint.

Hello geo. Katie back here😎. To start with the most important of your questions, I don't know any Chinese brands and their differences. But I also have no prejudice against Chi-fi. My post before was more on principle. Lower costs vs. higher costs and rather unknown brand vs. highly recognized brand in relation to investment on the one hand and resale value on the other. That was one point of my thoughts. By that I don't mean at all that a low cost unknown brand can't deliver good quality. A tube amp is not rocket science. The most important element will be the quality of the OTs. Everything else like coupling capacitors can also be updated in the long run...if the circuit is good. And since Chinese are best at one thing namely copying, I am not worried about them copying good circuitry. Here in Germany, tube Chi-fi is not yet so present as far as I know, but in the USA it seems to be a strong category of its own with a relevant market share. This is of course confidence-building if you are not alone with your decision and it gives a certain security in the purchase decision. The other point that is important to me is the choice of amplifier circuit, regardless of the brand and its cost. Basically, to simplify, SET vs. push-pull and weak vs. strong (starting at about 20 watts p.c.). The camp SET is mostly ecstatic about holographic sounds and colors and transparency. The camp push-pull with more power likes the stability of the sound image and a more authoritative stable reproduction. I favor the push-pull camp (whether triode, pentode, with or without feedback). In my experience, the characteristics of push-pull also apply to very efficient speakers. SET, of course, benefits from efficient speakers with "easy" impedance. To clear up a possible misunderstanding, just like you, I have a wide range of different music that I love (BTW by chance I play a Michael Bloomfield Gibson Lespaul copy VOS). I don't like string quartet and folk any better than big band, or loud blues rock with horns and hard drums and bass. My point was this: when I used to listen to SET tube amps then my taste in music was influenced by the amp! Suddenly it was less rock, blues, funk, big symphony etc. because the SET tubes can sound very strained to me on heavy sound material. That's when I started listening to more and more small ensembles and acoustic music. With push-pull e.g. MC275 or Quad II mono blocks I have this serenity like a V8 engine with great torque. It is not tiring and I like to listen to any music without my taste being censored and filtered by the type of amp. Over the years I am satisfied with it even if I may not hear the very last detail. But that's just me. My recommendation, regardless of brand and price range, is to listen to a weak or SET and compare it to a push-pull...whether Katie or Eeyell 😀 or EL84 (although those EL84 can be a bit weak if they also sound good). Just not simply believe that SET is better in everything and you only calculate the sound pressure based on the efficiency of the speaker. This can work but you can also be disappointed if the punch is missing that you might (also) want to have.

dbenway I like the way you frame the "problem" of search. You have a very reasonable approach in my view that I can relate to. I understand the situation very well that it is problematic not to be able to hear and test the amplifiers. So you have to rely on the opinions, impressions and experiences of others. Or you have to rely on reviews or some Youtube videos. All this is not satisfactory. Now it's been a while since you posted. Maybe you bought an amplifier in the meantime? If not, then I would add my 2 cents. First of all, congratulations on the purchase of your Cornwall 4. I haven't heard them in person yet but I've known Klipsch for 45 years and I have a 1977 Lascala and a 2008 Jubilee with TAD drivers. It seems that for the past year I have been enjoying my old Lascala again. I love passive analog and I have to say that I don't appreciate all the hassle of DSP etc so much. So you end up with a modern clean sound but the old passive Lascala move the soul, at least mine. The Cornwalls are good classic allrounders with more deep bass than my Lascala. But I think that despite their high sensitivity, they could very much benefit from an amp that has some current delivery capability and exerts control over the bass driver. Certainly a small 10 watt amp works quite well because the Cornwall's bass driver has a hard suspension, but in a bass horn the driver is simply even better damped by the principle. I personally also have 300B SET Audion Silvernight, the first series purchased in 1995. This is a great holographic benefit but after a while of amazement and enjoyment comes the disillusionment that the amplifier affects what I like to hear. In short more string quartet and folk and less funk and rock. I also have a Leak Stereo 20 which could be a fantastic alternative to your shortlist. I don't know where you live, you mentioned that "here" the price of the Cornwall 4 is X dollars, so you don't live in the US? I ask because, for example, a Leak Stereo 20 or original Quad II monoblocks (which I also have) are more common (and perhaps cheaper) in Europe than in the US. The Quad IIs are fantastic all-rounders that literally work with any speaker if it's not too inefficient. It has "only" 15 watts but an impressive current delivery capability because it was originally designed for electrostatic ESL57. A sound that does not tire. I can say similar things about my MC275 MK4 which I have been listening to for 18 years with great pleasure on Lascala and other speakers. To your shortlist I would like to note that it is very reasonable how you proceed. And as I said with the handicap of not being able to hear anything personally before buying. There were times when there were physical Hifi stores and where you could experience everything before buying or where you could borrow equipment over the weekend. Since you also think economically and reasonably I would like to add one aspect. I think of my purchases also in the resale value. It would be a shame if in 5 years no one knows any Chi-fi brand that you are targeting. But...even if a Luxman amp costs double, imagine that you will always get 50% to 70% back (sometimes even more than the original price (minus inflation) if it has become a cult device) and with the Chi-fi amp I would not even be sure if it is 35%? So in summary, a brand can be worth as much as the performance. Of course, if you know you want to keep your amp for a very long time, then the purchase price may be more important than the value retention. I must say that I have sometimes learned to listen to my gut feeling. And I heard between the lines of your posts what your gut feeling might be. I think you have a weak point for the Luxman. Then do it. And why not get it well used from a reputable seller? Then you're on the other side of the table and you can save money significantly. New tubes are not the big financial issue if you are not in the NOS frenzy. I am very happy with my standard JJ. I think it is a wonderful amp. I borrowed a Luxman tube amp from a buddy 30 years ago for half a year and I was absolutely thrilled. It was an MQ68C. The Luxman you linked looks just incredibly good. Very purist classy and simple in a good way, almost a "Bauhaus" amp design. It matters when you surround yourself with things for many years. Just like your Cornwall 4 look super cool and timeless. They are a statement for "true" music and not "Hifi" from small boxes without body and energy (which is also important when listening quietly). Another aspect had struck me. You got through the break-in phase of your Cornwall 4 without buying an amp too soon. You like your Rega better than at the beginning.

I don't know the negotiated price but I wouldn't blow the deal because of cosmetic issues. I have 1977 LaScalas for 22 years and I love them, I know many speakers over many years and I can compare. Your 1978 LaScala are not offered on every corner, even in your beautiful country. I would take it and then cosmetically rework it. As others say a few photos are very helpful. Maybe you can reconsider your decision. Maybe you like the original look of the birch plywood, much nicer than bad and non-original veneer. Removing the veneer could be done by a carpenter, he can just sand it off. Are the areas of the dog house also veneered? This means some manual work but the result is worth it.