Vintage Klipsch Parts

[bomckenzie]

Hi

I am looking to purchase a pair of LaScalas or Belles for use as mains monitors in a recording studio. They will be replacing a pair of JBLs that have had the tweeters go too many times, though they are wonderful speakers.

After having fits finding replacement parts on my JBLs and a pair of Dalquist before that, I am very concerned with the older gear as to whether there are replacement drivers.

So, those of you who proudly (and rightly so) own a pair of Belles or LaScalas, have you ever blown an element and if you did, how hard was it to replace?

And Klipsch-folks, are the drivers used in the Belles and the LaScalas still available anywhere besides the used market?

Thanks

[colterphoto1]

NOT good speakers for critical mix-down imho, really- don't do this. You could use Cornwall if you really want the 'big box sound'.

RB-5 is a good choice and small enough for near field.

[seti]

There was a studio in Little Rock years ago that had Belles as studio monitors. Can't remember the name though.

[Marvel]

And Klipsch-folks, are the drivers used in the Belles and the LaScalas still available anywhere besides the used market?

Yes, you can get all the drivers brand new, but not necessarily form Klipsch.

You can get the K-33 woofer from Klipsch, or an equiv. replacement from Bob Crites. He also has a cast frame version.

The K-55 mid you can get new or used, and the diaphragms are readily available.

THe K-77 tweeter diaphragms are available, but a replacement tweeter from Bob really does a nicer job. It it his CT125, an Eminence driver on a horn that is a drop in replacement for the Klipsch. Much smoother and better high end, although YMMV

Bob is on here, or can be reached at http://www.bandksound.com/

He has crossover upgrades and replacements, too.

What JBLs do you have?

Bruce

[bomckenzie]

So maybe the Belles are not good for Studio mains?

I have a pair of KRK V8s for near fields. I need something where people 8 or more feet back can hear a fair representation of the music.

Is the imaging good or bad? I have read mixed reviews.

I haven't heard a set of Belles since in college when I wanted a pair so badly it hurt, but I could not afford them. I have always liked the sound of the big Klipsch, but have never really had the space for the corner horn. The Belle has a more pleasent look than the La Scala.

My biggest concern in any vintage gear is the availability of replacement parts. I have had fits with certain vintage synthesizers. Ditto for some vintage guitar amps. And my JBL LSR 32s - the drivers went out of produciton for those some time ago. I used to own some Dalquist DQ20s, and those - when the drivers went, never found replacements. Of course that was before the internet took off and searching for parts became dramatically easier.

Whether the Belles turn out to be the right decision or not for this application, it is comforting to know that there is a strong aftermarket of crossover

[Arkytype]

You might be thinking of ARCA--they had a pair of birch Cornwalls in the studio I designed around 1981. There were a pair of Heresys in the main studio for playback. They were driven by a Crown D150 amplifier.

Lee

[bomckenzie]

Arkytype

If you have desinged a studio in the past, perhaps you might understand what I am looking for. I have a project studio (couple hundred k in it). I have near fields for critical listening and removing the room artifacts, but they are horrible at more than about 3' away.

I want a speaker that has a very wide dynamic range, good imaging and a flat response, but that has a broad sweet spot (knowing that this will cause the loss of some of the imaging capabilities).

I have seen pro studios with Corner Horns (whatever they are called) installed. I do not have the capability of putting in corner horns. However, I can work something the size of a Belle or a La Scala in. Conversely, I could go for a B&W 800 series, though the company is very proud of those speakers right now.

I have had JBL 3 ways in - 12" woofer - pretty flat response.... that were great for extended listening periods and great as studio mains. They are not a substitute for near-fields for critical mixing though.

Any advice will be greatly appreciated.

[Arkytype]

I have near fields for critical listening and removing the room artifacts, but they are horrible at more than about 3' away.

That statement indicates your control room has some potential acoustic problems. If the "near field" monitors sound bad at 3 feet, I'm not sure any full-size monitor will sound different.

If you aren't controlling early reflections and using low frequency trapping, you will probably be disappointed with a speaker that has a very wide dynamic range, good imaging and a flat response, but that has a broad sweet spot.

Mixdown monitor loudspeaker choice these days is a highly subjective one. In the "old days" the studio version of the Altec Lansing Voice of the Theater was the loudspeaker of choice. Why? Not because it was particularly accurate, but because it played loud and there weren't that many commercial choices out there that would fit in a control room. In the 1980s, JBL became the defacto standard. Klipsch has never enjoyed any appreciable foray into the recording studio market for reasons that we don't need to go into here.

The Cornwalls installed in the Little Rock studio sounded really good. They were separated about 20 feet and toed in slightly to cross at the engineers mix position. They were mounted upside down and the tweeters were slightly above ear level. Depending upon what you are recording, a pair of Cornwalls with upgraded crossover network caps may be all the loudspeaker you need. La Scalas and Belles are heavy and have big footprints.

La Scalas vs. Belles: If I already owned the Belles, I'd upgrade them with Al Klappenberger's Trachorn, a Beyma tweeter and extreme slope networks. For vocals, the trachorn easily outperforms the La Scala's K-400 or the Belle's K-700? mid horn. If you are recording a lot of synthesized music with extended bass, you'll need a subwoofer. Otherwise, you'll overcompensate below 50 Hz with bass EQ.

Lee

[bomckenzie]

I admit that the studio does not have the best accoustics. We close mic everything. As I said, it is a project studio. We do some commercial work for others but we also do commercial background music and the likes where it is just me and another player or two.

I always thought the purpose of using near field monitors was to put them vs the mix engineer in an equalateral triangle with the near fields well off the back wall, so that the sound the mixer heard was the direct sound. As such, small bass drivers (look at the Yamaha NS10 - defacto industry standard for years) did not obscure the mix at close ranges, but did a terrible job of projecting a full frequency spectrum at more distant positions.

At least that is the theory I have used when chosing the V8s for my near-field work. Close to clinical flatness over a relatively broad band but not very convincing when the distance from the speakers is much more than the distance that they are separated from each other.

IU will look at the Cornwalls. I just always loved the Belles when I couldnt afford them and they werent around when I could. Dang you time and money!

[Arkytype]

From Sound on Sound magazine:

	The Nearfield Monitor — A Brief History
	The term 'nearfield monitor' was an invention of the early '80s. It just about predates the explosive rise of the home and project studio and was originally the term applied to auxiliary monitors that sat on the meterbridge in large commercial studios, and were supposed to reflect the sound of typical home audio or TV speakers. One speaker originally defined the breed: the Auratone 5C. The Auratone was, and is, little more than a five-inch 'full-range' driver screwed into a small cube-shaped enclosure. It had little pretence to audio accuracy or wide bandwidth, and was simply intended to provide a reference for the likely sound of recordings when reproduced on an AM radio, or via a TV. So the Auratone was not really a 'nearfield' in the sense that we understand the term now, but it did set a precedent for auxiliary monitors, and prepared the ground for the second nearfield icon — the Yamaha NS10M. The early '80s also saw the rise of freelance 'celebrity' engineers, and I suspect it was one or two of these, carrying a few items of favoured gear from studio to studio, that first introduced the NS10M to the world. As studios began to realise that equipping with favoured gear helped to attract the celebrities, NS10Ms began to pop up everywhere, taking up a position on the meterbridge next to the Auratones. The role of the NS10M, however, was not to mimic the low-fi performance of a TV speaker, but to offer a level of performance and sound that reflected that of a domestic hi-fi. In fact, I believe the Yamaha was derived from a domestic hi-fi product — which, in the context of the question asked at the start of this article, is perhaps significant. But the NS10M had something more going for it. Probably by accident, it displayed a pretty characterful tonal balance and this perhaps helped it become the nearfield benchmark, as material mixed on NS10Ms sounded 'wrong' on anything else. The balance of the NS10Ms also resulted in many a discussion about the exact brand of tissue paper that should be draped over the tweeter in order to dull the balance a little. So despite becoming the industry-standard nearfield monitor, the NS10 has always provoked derogatory mutterings about its sound and tonal balance. What's more, the niche it opened up was soon crowded by countless competitors. We now live in different times. The huge studios, if not quite heading the way of the dinosaurs (there'll always be a role for recording spaces the size of tennis courts, and mixers that could do with a Burger King at the halfway point), have long been under threat from small-scale recording spaces and control rooms. And being very much smaller than of old, the typical control room now has little space for vast main monitors. These days, the nearfield has had a promotion. More often than not, it's now out on its own, the top dog.

The Little Rock studio used a pair of the Auratones perched on the meter bridge of the MCI console. The idea was that if the commercial or song sounded good on these, the program material would sound good on the typical car speaker. I don't think the term "near field" was in the parlance of the recording engineer back then.

For a couple of hundred bucks you could invest in a pair of AKG, Sennheiser, Grado or Sony headphones that will put most loudspeakers to shame.

If you'd like some advice on acoustic treatment of your project studio, send me a PM. While I'm usually up to my arse in alligators project-wise, I'll try to steer you to a better-sounding studio.

Lee

[bomckenzie]

Those little Auratones are great for checking out a mix to see how it will sound on a boom box or a factory car stereo. They are not accurate.

I have about 8 sets of cans in my studio and at times have had Staxx even for trying to get the sound right. I am a firm believer in mixing on real speakers - first with the near-fields to get to the 90% point, then onto something more representative of what the user will lsiten on.

I do appreciate the advice.

I am begining to feel like the Belles, no matter how much I would love to have a pair, are perhaps wrong for what I want to do. FWIW, Abbey Road is using B&W 800 series as the studio mains.

[Trey Cannon]

And Klipsch-folks, are the drivers used in the Belles and the LaScalas still available anywhere besides the used market?

Yes, you can get all the drivers brand new, but not necessarily form Klipsch.

You can get the K-33 woofer from Klipsch, or an equiv. replacement from Bob Crites. He also has a cast frame version.

The K-55 mid you can get new or used, and the diaphragms are readily available.

THe K-77 tweeter diaphragms are available, but a replacement tweeter from Bob really does a nicer job. It it his CT125, an Eminence driver on a horn that is a drop in replacement for the Klipsch. Much smoother and better high end, although YMMV

Bob is on here, or can be reached at http://www.bandksound.com/

He has crossover upgrades and replacements, too.

What JBLs do you have?

Bruce

All the parts for current and most past product can be ordered from Klipsch.In some cases old parts can be replaced with new ones. If you want that big speaker sound, then the La Scala II will work well. I suggest using a sub for everything below 50Hz. I agree with Colter, the RB-5 is a nice NFM.None of the parts that Mr. Crites sales, are supported by Klipsch.

[Johnlw7]

I have both Belles and Cornwalls.And have listened to everything in the world with both of them.The CW's dig lower but the bass is not as tight as the Belles.The Belles are clearly the winner hands down with imaging,not far behind my Khorns.Placement is critical feed them good clean power and they will work fine for momitors.

[Marvel]

None of the parts that Mr. Crites sales, are supported by Klipsch.

Should I consider my self properly spanked? Of course they aren't, but one may find them to be a better value..

The LSII would be awesome! I think I will pull out my ADAT and try a mix on the LS I have, and then burn a cd and try in some different systems. (ADAT has very low hours and is for sale, btw) A pair of Heresy IIIs might fit the bill quite nicely. They sound great, are well balanced and could more easily be placed in a smaller control room. Still sound wonderful when back away from them.

Bruce

[longdrive03]

ARCA in Little Rock used to have a set of Cornwalls as they main studio speakers years ago. don't know what they have now.

[tigerwoodKhorns]

I am begining to feel like the Belles, no matter how much I would love to have a pair, are perhaps wrong for what I want to do. FWIW, Abbey Road is using B&W 800 series as the studio mains.

They also use the very affordable Matrix series in their smaller studios. A pair of Matrix 805's will run about $600.