La scalla II Xovers

[SilverSport]

I wasn't trying to cause trouble either...I was trying to point out that the LaScala IIs are a new design and I don't think ALK has done an upgrade of that xover unless it is in fact the same as the AK-4 that Al hates...but you got an poinion from someone (DeanG) who wasn't a big fan of the AK-4s and who has been "licensed" to build ALKs...I thought I was helping and didn't mean to contribute to any confusion...

Bill

[jcmusic]

Ok Dean thanks for you imput I appreciate it.

Jay

[jcmusic]

Hey Bill no problem!!! I am just on a fact finding mission for a friend.

Jay

[LarryC]

OK guys so am I to understand that basiclly you are all saying that the xovers in the LS II's are as good if not better than the ALK's sound wise? So that if he changed them out there wouldn't be an improvment in sound?

I didn't actually say either one -- I said I hadn't compared them, and so I didn't say there'd be no improvement with Al's xovers. Dean's comment is important because he's done the comparisons.

What I did try to say was that the La Scala II sounds very, very good, as long as you don't expect the bottom octave, and I question whether it's worth changing the xovers.

[Guest " "]

Well according to ALK the design was flawed to start with, and his redesign was a noticeable improvement in my k-horns.

Jay

AL posted an analisys of the AK/AL-4 impedeance curves. Al has a lot of experience in microwave duplexers and often recommends speaker crossovers be duplexed as well. Most speaker xovers have voltage derived circuts that run in parallel. In a duplexer setup, the band pass (mid section) would be split into two circuts. The high pass section of the mid section would be duplexed with the woofer section. The low pass section of the mid circut would be duplexed with the tweeter section. I would not label this lack of duplexing a flaw, just not aligned to a duplexer model.

[Guest " "]

" I think he doesn't like the fact that he must use a sub with his speakers."

changing the crossoves won't change that...the LaScala cabs rolloff below 50hz pretty quickly.

[mark1101]

One HUGE difference between Klipsch factory networks and anyone else's is that Klipsch has EQ in the network. It is a true balancing network, not just a filter. ALK networks have no EQ and are filters only, plus have constant impedance which Klipsch does not.

That is why you see the rough response of the Klipsch AL-4 networks on Al's site. That's exactly how they are supposed to look so that the sound coming out the horn is approximately flat. They are not supposed to look smooth like the response of Al's networks. This was the Klipsch design intention

If you remove an AL-4 and connect an ALK it stands to reason that are going to hear a big difference in sound.

[Coytee]

He is just always in search of a better sound if possible

He should listen to a K402 or perhaps a K510 on top of his bass bin and try it as a 2-way speaker.

I own 3 LaScalas, Al K's "ES" networks for them and have heard the Jubescala although I've never played around with it at home (why when I have the larger bass bins?)

The JubeScala will probably impress him as sounding better. Note, I said nothing about LOOKING better but that wasn't part of the given criteria. Point being, it is possible to get better sound, IMHO.

[Y]

[Coytee]

Knowing he won't try a JubeScala, could he simply move to active crossover? Then he could bi/tri amp and incorporate some time delay.

[Islander]

If it will fit his budget, JubScalas will give him better sound. With the La Scala II 2-piece cabinet, he could use just the bass bins, and of course they'll look better than these LS-BB cabinets:

[Islander]

That is why you see the rough response of the Klipsch AL-4 networks on Al's site. That's exactly how they are supposed to look so that the sound coming out the horn is approximately flat. They are not supposed to look smooth like the response of Al's networks. This was the Klipsch design intention

From the Wikipedia entry on "Audio Crossovers":

The satisfactory output of the complete system comprised of the audio crossover and the loudspeaker drivers in their
enclosure(s) must be regarded as the design goal. Such a goal is often achieved using non-ideal, asymmetric crossover filter characteristics.

[jcmusic]

OK guys so am I to understand that basiclly you are all saying that the xovers in the LS II's are as good if not better than the ALK's sound wise? So that if he changed them out there wouldn't be an improvment in sound?

I didn't actually say either one -- I said I hadn't compared them, and so I didn't say there'd be no improvement with Al's xovers. Dean's comment is important because he's done the comparisons.

What I did try to say was that the La Scala II sounds very, very good, as long as you don't expect the bottom octave, and I question whether it's worth changing the xovers.

Larry I didn't say that you said anything, it was just a generalization.

Jay

[jcmusic]

Well according to ALK the design was flawed to start with, and his redesign was a noticeable improvement in my k-horns.

Jay

AL posted an analisys of the AK/AL-4 impedeance curves. Al has a lot of experience in microwave duplexers and often recommends speaker crossovers be duplexed as well. Most speaker xovers have voltage derived circuts that run in parallel. In a duplexer setup, the band pass (mid section) would be split into two circuts. The high pass section of the mid section would be duplexed with the woofer section. The low pass section of the mid circut would be duplexed with the tweeter section. I would not label this lack of duplexing a flaw, just not aligned to a duplexer model.

Fritz I never said anything about the AK/AL-4 networks, because I know nothibg about them hence the thread. I don't even know what type xovers he has in his speakers. I was compairing the AL's Universal's to the AA's. That is where I have some expirence.

Jay

[jcmusic]

If you remove an AL-4 and connect an ALK it stands to reason that are going to hear a big difference in sound.

Does that mean better or just different?

Jay

[jcmusic]

He is just always in search of a better sound if possible

He should listen to a K402 or perhaps a K510 on top of his bass bin and try it as a 2-way speaker.

I own 3 LaScalas, Al K's "ES" networks for them and have heard the Jubescala although I've never played around with it at home (why when I have the larger bass bins?)

The JubeScala will probably impress him as sounding better. Note, I said nothing about LOOKING better but that wasn't part of the given criteria. Point being, it is possible to get better sound, IMHO.

Let me claifiy that he also must live with them, so looks are important to him as he has told me. So none of these others that you are talking about are a possiblity.

Jay

[jcmusic]

If it will fit his budget, JubScalas will give him better sound. With the La Scala II 2-piece cabinet, he could use just the bass bins, and of course they'll look better than these LS-BB cabinets:

He has enough budget for me, you, and a few others. This is not about money, he likes the looks of the LS II's that's why he got them.

Jay

[Guest " "]

"If you remove an AL-4 and connect an ALK it stands to reason that are going to hear a big difference in sound."

"Does that mean better or just different?"

Better is subjective. The AL-4 is a gentle sloping xover in the woofer section, steeper sloping in the mid section, and even more so in the tweeter section.

ALK has the universal xovers which are very gentle sloping.

ALK has another line of gentle sloping xovers which can be customizedfor different cut off frequencies.

ALK has another line of extreme slope xovers which have very high roll offs.

It's really a matter of personal preference.

[Coytee]

He has enough budget for me, you, and a few others. This is not about money, he likes the looks of the LS II's that's why he got them

Being one who likes to have his cake and eat it too, then how about this...

Since he's got some deep pockets, what if he either:

1. Had Klipsch make him a custom tophat for his LaScalas and install a K510 inside it. He would keep his current one so if he ever wanted to sell or something, he'd have his original setup AND he'd have a Klipsch made top for it (presuming of course, that they'd do it....which is probably in doubt)

2. Have a woodmaker create the tophat that Klipsch probably wouldn't and insert the K510 inside of it.

By doing the above and trying active (I don't know if Roy has a passive design for the JubeScala), he will get an improvement in sound, lose a driver, lose a crossover point, gain time alignment and still maintain his asthetic requirements, as well as NOT cutting up his original tops.

Point being... (speaking only for myself), if there is something I WANT to get done, I will try what ever it takes to get to my goal and not let a simple challange get in the way. Especially, if the expense of it is not an issue to my pocketbook, as seems to be the case here.

If he's got the pockets, then that is the premo way to do it in my opinion.

In my book, doing much of anything else is simply adding different spices to the same steak. Although it might be a good steak, the different spices do not change it from a ribeye to a filet.

Changing out the top horns to the 510 might make the change to a filet.

[LarryC]

Larry I didn't say that you said anything, it was just a generalization.

Oops, I hope you didn't take that as an angry response from me -- just trying to emphasize to avoid confusion about what I said.

[mark1101]

My opinion is this after spending thousands on networks. I do not like the design of a passive network with the EQ inside of it. It adds far too many components taking away from the openess of the sound. This is usually because the quality of the components are compromised and because the evolution of network designs has tilted toward steep slopes which creates more and more components in the filters. I would rather have a simpler network (a pure filter like an ALK) so I can optimize the quality of the components myself and then use an equalizer (graphic or parametric) to finish the job and apply the EQ. This allows me to take the room into account. It is simply not practical for a speaker company to rely on the end user to make FR corrections for their products. So they do what is necessary to send out the best sounding product and make it easy on the end user. But it is not necessarily the best way when cost is no longer a factor. Look at how many people say they prefer the A or AA. These were the early simple Klipsch networks with little or no EQ and have the most open sound.