Flevoman

I suddenly remembered that I still have an old preamp lying in the attic from my first audio period about 20 years ago, a Peraux. I connected it to see what it does, and yes, I hear a difference. But do I like it? Not really I think. Without the preamp, the sound has more sharp edges, sounding even more pure and unfiltered, which can give some songs a bit of a raw edge. This might be less pleasant for some songs, but others can sound very pure, detailed, and realistic. In a way, it's a delightful experience that I haven't heard on the La Scala before. It seems like with the preamp, everything sounds a bit friendlier, but the magic is somewhat lost. It just sounds good now. Without the preamp, some songs are a bit too shrill or have sharp edges, but others can sound fantastic. Perhaps this preamp is not a good match, I don't know, but I took it out again and am listening without it, and this feels better. The music has just a fraction more dynamic, bit more raw, as if it carries a bit more information.

It has more than enough dynamic. So if this is how you can test if it is a good match than I think the match is fine. Do I like it?.. Ehmm.. Yeah, I think so 😏. I'm still trying to figure out whether the songs don't sound quite right due to the amp or the song's production. Thanks for sharing your experience. A passive preamp is essentially just a volume control in the audio signal, and nothing else happens to the audio signal, right? Thanks for the link; I'm not familiar with this preamp, but they seem very reasonably priced. Thanks for your perspective. I understand what you mean, and I've had a similar feeling with the 300B amp. I have two different 300B SETs, and both sound good, but to me, there's a bit too much warmth over the music. That's why I find the 2A3 and now the 45 tube more pleasing. They have a somewhat similar character to the 300B but cleaner in sound, with the 45 being the most neutral/clean in my opinion. Perhaps a tube preamp could be a good match because of this.. By the way, I still enjoy listening to the 300B occasionally; it's a very nice amp 😉. I will create a post about my impressions about this amp. I always enjoy reading others' experiences, and maybe others would find it interesting to read about my impressions as well. Thank you 😊 I can unfortunately not find much information about this amplifier, except that it also comes from America. Well, making cars might not be your strong suit, but apparently, you're doing something very well when it comes to audio 😉 But can you tell me what level this amp is? Is it a good beginner's amp, or is it considered a more serious amplifier?

It was more a reaction to what you have said here. About the certain point.

I have various amplifiers, including a 300B SET, 2A3 PP, and this 45 SET. The 2A3 PP was my favorite so far. The 300B has more oompf, but, to my taste, it adds too much warmth to the music. I prefer a slightly cleaner sound without sacrificing musicality or the live experience. Describing the 45 SET is a bit challenging, I just have it 😄. Surprisingly, the 2A3 PP performs best in terms of soundstage (which I didn't expect). But first impression , the 45 SET seems to capture the most detail. It has a bit more sparkle, occasionally sounding a bit sharp. It's quite dynamic and very musical; some songs can come across as transparent and very real. And this is something I really love. I've ordered different preamp tubes, which are on their way (uncertain of the age of the current ones). This might alter the sound. As for the power tubes, I'm in good shape with nearly new Emission Labs 45B. It's a Welborne DRD45 In real life the wood is more dark

Well, it's a 45 SET with 1.5W only, so my volume controle of the cambridge is around the 65%..

Okay, so it depends on various values. Is this a matter of trial and error, or can you find these values somewhere to determine if it's a good match? The reason I'm asking this is because the person who also built my 300B SET is trying to convince me to use a separate tube preamplifier. According to him, this should provide a noticeably improved sound. While he's a trustworthy person and we have a good relationship, spending €2500 without knowing the outcome feels like a significant gamble. The market for used preamplifiers is vast, making it challenging to know where to start or which one would be the best to try. I'm currently seeking more information on what a preamplifier can do for the sound and whether it's indeed a likely upgrade compared to my built-in preamplifier.

Allright, thank you 👍🏻 (patience... Be patience... Be..........)

Any update (if there is any) about these subs will be apriciate

I managed to get hold of two 45 SET 2x monoblocks today. I'm happy with it because I was curious about how a 45 SET would sound. However, all the amplifiers I've had so far have always been integrated amplifiers. It's the first time I own two monoblocks. Currently, I still use the preamp section of my streamer (Cambridge CXN V2) to control the volume. And here comes my question. If I only need a volume controller, can I just continue using this Cambridge Streamer? Or does a separate high-quality preamp make the sound better, and is it advisable to get a preamp for this reason?

May I make a suggestion? And I don't want to play devil's advocate here, but what @OO1 is saying does make sense to some extent. My example of Cris Isaac for showing the resonance/thickening, however you want to call it, wasn't wisely chosen. Indeed, there was a noticeable thickening in that case, but in this example, it is indeed related to the recording itself. I could clearly hear this in the CW4 as well. However, some songs that also exhibit this thickening on the AL-5 sounded fine on the CW4, with no sign of thickening. The LaScala clearly (for me) has audible thickening/resonances in certain songs. I lack any form of expertise, but someone who tried to help me with what I occasionally hear in my sound gave the following response. If this is indeed correct, then @OO1 is right in a way. The bump around 150Hz isn't resonating from the walls but due to the horn's properties. This would mean that @OO1 is correct in stating that the walls don't cause problematic resonance. But what many others are claiming here could also be true – that there is indeed a thickening around 150Hz, but it is caused by the properties of a horn. " It’s in the bass cabinet/horn and I doubt reinforcing the cabinet walls would be a complete solution since I believe the “emphasis” is a combination of cabinet resonance and also the finite horn parameters of length and mouth size causing reflections/resonances. The design engineers try to minimize as much as possible these reflections/resonances but they are an inevitable part of real world horns we use."

I only saw your responses today, and I found this one particularly interesting; I wasn't aware of this. I had thought that the technicians during assembly actually determined where approximately the instruments or vocals would be placed. So, if I understand you correctly, the positioning, like having vocals nicely in the center, bass on one side, percussion on the other, etc., has nothing to do with the final production of the song but more with the combination of your audio setup and the room?

.

Now, six months later, I would like to share my final findings regarding my initial question about the differences between the CW4 and the AL-5. I'm doing this mainly for those who, like me back then, can find very little information about user experiences when facing this choice. After months of listening to the AL-5, I decided to reconnect the CW4. My brother wanted to take them over, so I had one last weekend with my old love, giving me a final chance to see if I still feel the same as when I switched from CW4 to AL-5. Initially, I had some issues with the LaScala AL-5 and seriously questioned whether I wanted to keep it or if the CW4 sounded better. Now, after months of adjusting placement, getting used to it, and trying various amplifiers, I've finally got the sound to a point where I'm almost entirely satisfied with the AL-5. I truly enjoy music for hours every day. Nevertheless, the AL-5 is still a challenging speaker to make it sound entirely satisfying. Anyway, the CW4 has been playing all weekend, allowing me to compare CW4 vs. AL-5 again. The first thing I noticed was a fuller and deeper bass. The bass also sounded warmer than the LaScala. Even though the LaScala's supposedly less prominent bass was a major point of criticism, I personally prefer its bass. I'd rather sacrifice a bit of depth for a punchier, drier, and more realistic sound. What quickly caught my attention was the midrange. It was noticeably smaller, with voices seeming to have less body. From a song I know well on the LaScala, where the piano is prominent, it sounded noticeably smaller and more in the background on the CW4. The dynamics are there, and it sounds good, but I miss the body and presence of the piano in the song. Another example is the kick drum. On the LaScala, it has impactful fullness—you hear a real thud. On the CW4, you hear the kick, it sounds dynamic, but lacks body, losing some of its strength and impact. It blends more into the song, while on the LaScala, a kick drum can be really present. However, the CW4 does sound a bit fresher. Perhaps it's due to the slightly smaller midrange, giving more space to the highs. But with the CW4, the emphasis is more on the low and high frequencies, while with the LaScala, it's more around the midrange (which is my preference). With the LaScala, I sometimes feel like I can almost look into the singer's throat. I don't get that feeling with the CW4. I think the CW4 sounds more like a modern speaker, and the AL-5 has a bit more of a vintage feel. Even though the CW4 sounds really good, I've been missing something all weekend... just that touch of dynamics, the satisfying thud or strike, a bit less body in the vocals, sax, or piano... I feel slightly less connected to the music. The LaScala opens the door just a bit wider. Even though I can understand why some might prefer the CW4 (it might also depend on your music taste), I'm quite happy with the LaScala. Even if it's not perfect, I have a certain distortion/resonance on certain frequencies in some songs, which I'm still trying to figure out if it's due to placement, acoustics, the speaker, or a combination of everything. Still, the LaScala does something incredibly well—the live experience, the connection, the dynamics... I get pulled into the music. In the end, the CW4 is now with my brother, who, like me back then, is very happy with it. But my preference now definitely goes to the LaScala. It's interesting what I've learned with this switch from LaScala to CW4, how significant the influence of familiarity is. When I had listened to the CW4 for a year and then heard the AL-5 for the first time in my living room, I had a hard time with the slightly less fresh sound. I found the LaScala somewhat darker, which was a reason for me to prefer the CW4 (despite the positive aspects I could clearly hear with the AL-5). Now, after listening to the AL-5 for six months, having refreshed the sound with a different amplifier, I find the CW4 to be quite sharp at times in the highs and sounding thin in the midrange. I listened to the CW4 for three days, but my old love for the CW4 has disappeared. I was completely happy again when I could reconnect the AL-5 and immediately heard what I missed with the CW4 and what makes the LaScala such a delightful speaker. Even though the CW4 has a bit more sparkle, a fuller and deeper bass, I find the AL-5 much more pleasant and grander. It's a learning moment for me—apparently, I need a bit more time with these changes to give a coherent judgment.

To whom is your statement actually addressed?

Perhaps your question is a bit too open-ended. Are you expecting everyone to post an extensive list of tubes along with an explanation of how they sound? Or do you mean which tube sounds most pleasant in their system and why?

I've owned the R300 myself, paired with the Cornwall 4 at the time. While I find the 300B SET to be a nice match with the CW4, I personally wouldn't go for the R300. I did follow the internet hype back then, but every other 300B SET I compared with the R300 actually sounded better. My advice is to go for some better 300B SET.

@delta88343Certainly, I'm interested in a sub, but it has to be the right one, definitely not a cheap beginner's sub. This summer (likely), Klipsch is releasing a horn sub line, and I'm very interested in that. By the way, I have the AL-5. Over the weekend, I had the chance to listen to my old CW4 again for a few days, but wow, it's delightful to have the LaScala connected again (the CW4 is now with my brother). It's amusing that after a weekend with the CW4, I appreciate the LaScala even more. The difference between these two speakers is actually much larger than I initially thought, in favor of the LaScala.

I last noticed a difference between two amps this morning when I switched from my Melody 2A3 PP to my 300B SET. Asking what was better, nothing was better or worse; it's just a completely different sound. It's more about finding the right match with your speakers and sound preferences rather than determining if it sounds better. The 300B sounds fuller, enhances the mid-range more, and has a warmer tone. Since the CW4 tends to lean more towards the high end and has a smaller mid-range compared to my LaScala, I find the 300B to be a better match. With the LaScala, I prefer the Melody 2A3 PP.

Shall I make that A/B comparison differently for you? 😉 After months of listening to the AL-5, I decided to reconnect the CW4. They'll be heading to my brother next Wednesday, so this was the last chance to see if I still perceive the same as when I switched from CW4 to AL-5. Back then, like you, I had some issues with the LaScala and seriously questioned whether I wanted to keep it or if the CW4 sounded better. Now, after months of adjusting placement, getting used to it, and trying various amplifiers, I've finally got the sound to a point where I'm almost entirely satisfied with the AL-5. I truly enjoy music for hours every day. Nevertheless, I find the AL-5 to be a challenging speaker to make it sound entirely satisfying. Anyway, the CW4 has been playing all day, allowing me to compare CW4 vs. AL-5 again. The first thing I noticed was a fuller and deeper bass. The bass also sounded warmer than the LaScala. Even though this is often considered a major criticism of the LaScala, I personally prefer its bass. I'd rather sacrifice a bit of depth for a more pleasant sound. What quickly caught my attention was the midrange. It was noticeably smaller, with voices seeming to have less body. From a song I know well on the LaScala, where the piano is prominent, it sounded noticeably smaller and more in the background on the CW4. The dynamics are there, and it sounds good, but I miss the body and presence of the piano in the song. Another example is the kick drum. On the LaScala, it has impactful fullness—you hear a real thud. On the CW4, you hear the kick, it sounds dynamic, but lacks body, losing some of its strength and impact. It blends more into the song, while on the LaScala, a kick drum can be really present. However, the CW4 does sound a bit fresher. Perhaps it's due to the slightly smaller midrange, giving more space to the highs. But with the CW4, the emphasis is more on the low and high frequencies,(Slightly exaggerated, because the CW4 sounds fine and well-balanced.) while with the LaScala, it's more around the midrange (which is my preference). With the LaScala, I sometimes feel like I can almost look into the singer's throat. I don't get that feeling with the CW4. I think the CW4 sounds more like a modern speaker, and the AL-5 has a bit more of a vintage feel. Although the CW4 sounds really good, I've been missing something all day... I have slightly less connection with the music. The LaScala opens the door just a bit wider. Even though I can understand why some might prefer the CW4 (it might also depend on your music taste), I'm quite happy with the LaScala. Even if it's not perfect, it does something incredibly well—the live experience, the connection, the dynamics.

Cable denier, but still I have warm feelings for you ❤️🥰 Cheers everybody 🥂

OK, I'm a bit confused now... So what is better, a high or a low damping factor?

@Khornukopia yes, I have tried different amps. All tubes by the way. And the warmer the tubeamp sound the more I can hear it. @mikebse2a3 thank you again Mike 👍🏻.. Unfortentaly I don't know anything about damping factor or what it does. But I will try the 4 Ohm tab just to see if this makes any difference. @Marvel If this is true, the more resolving they are, the more apparent it is, how come nobody else recognise directly what I am hearing on my system? Just trying to understand things.

@mikebse2a3 Thanks again for the help Mike. I recognize what you're saying, and exactly this is what bothers me. The recording sounds dynamic with air and space between the vocals and instruments. However, in the part where the piano goes deep (e.g., at 1:50 and 1:58), it sounds like it's strugling and thickening. Tonally, it most resembles something woody that briefly vibrates, causing distortion. This effect undermines the experience that the La Scala gives me with this track, the effortless reproduction of the music. This effect is less pronounced than in Chris's track. Still, what I hear in this track, less intense but quite noticeable, I experience fairly regularly in other tracks too. However, apparently, this effect is less strong for you than for me (at least, that's the impression I'm getting). I'm starting to think it's not the speakers themselves but more a combination of recording, speakers, and my acoustics. Can you perhaps check if this is at the same Hertz as with Chris? Just curious...

Same for this song. When the piano goes down (1:50 and 1:58 for example) I hear the resonance. The song is overal in balance, and at these moments the piano sounds thick with some resonance. The air in the music is gone, it sounds a bit fat/thick.

Thank you so much for the effort you've put into this, @mikebse2a3. This really gives me some insight. When I listen to your audio file, I can clearly hear the thickening. It might not be as pronounced as on the La Scala, but this could be due to the recording and playback through my earphones. I recorded a piece of music with my phone and listened through earphones to compare with your recording, and they sound quite similar through the earphones. It's not conclusive yet; it might still sound a bit more pronounced on my end. However, I'm starting to think that what I sometimes hear as a resonance is likely present in the song itself, enhancing the La Scala and possibly amplified a bit more in my acoustic environment, making it unpleasant for me. I'll mention it here when I come across another track. Could you please test it again on your La Scala to see if you can hear it too?