bi-amping la scala II's

[jdm56]

First off, no, I don't have la scala II's. Used to, but not now. It's a long story...

But when I DID have them, I thought the bass was shelved down too much below the mids below about 200Hz. The x/o is 400 or so, so biamping the woofer and jacking up the level could get you too much in the 200-400Hz octave. So...I'm just wondering if bi-amping is the answer. Maybe dual subs with a relatively high x/o (about 150Hz) would be better. I crossed mine to a pair of Velo subs at 100Hz and got good results. I would like to have tried a higher x/o, but was limited by the subs built-in x/o. I know some you must be bi-amping your la scala's, so fess up! What's workin for ya?

[Chris A]

jdm,

I'd try a couple of PEQs at about 85 Hz (+2 dB, Q=4) and 90 Hz (+3 dB, Q=3), then an attenuating PEQ at about 150 Hz (-7 dB, Q=8). I'd also recommend trying the xover at about 400-450 Hz - 24 dB/octave Butterworth or LR.

If you are going to add subs, I'd try crossing them at a lower freq, possibly 80 Hz.

Note that a few people here are have made an upgrade by adding a Klipsch K-510 or K-402 horn and K-69A compression driver to create the "JubScala", a two-way unit with probably the best bang for buck you can make on any Klipsch speaker. "Wrinkles" and "Islander" on this forum can tell you all about it.

Roy Delgado --"bodcaw boy"-- is the person (and only person) to seek out to acquire those upgrade parts - don't ask a dealer about this. If you're interested, send me a PM and I'll forward his email address back to you, since Roy doesn't visit this forum much anymore. I believe that he is busy designing new Klipsch products in Hope, AR.

Chris

[Islander]

You could try bi-amping La Scalas with the existing drivers, but you'd be playing it by ear and maybe not getting it at all right. Since you'd be getting a second amp and an active crossover to bi-amp, it would make sense to go the rest of the way and do the JubScala conversion, since the added cost at that point would be the small K510/K-69A tweeters at $1500/pair or the large K402/K-69A tweeters at $2000/pair. Those are approximate prices.

With the JubScalas, you have a tried and tested combination with lab-tested crossover settings produced by Roy Delgado, who designed the 510 horn and probably the 402 horn as well. Those settings smooth out the speakers' response in a way that's hard to duplicate for anyone who's not a professional speaker designer with all the tools and test facilities, plus the Dx38 processor/crossover allows for time alignment of the drivers.

The sound is a big advance over a stock LS and probably over nearly any "home-built" LS upgrades.

[wsu99999]

LaScala's are so efficient that I would think Bi-amping wouldn't help much. They are already not using what you have pushing it (probably). I could be wrong, but at 104db/1watt, 100 watts should be overkill for all 3 drivers.

Lascalas in general lack in the bass dept. Personally, for me, I think they have plenty of bass (although, I know there is a lot I'm not hearing w/o sub). A good, quality sub should make you happy. Look into something DIY. You can get much more performance for less buck.

[jdm56]

True, they don't need bi-amping for the added power...but the opportunity to equalize the speaker is there...The La Scala's bass is shelved down, similar to the Heresy, and bi-amping could get you a better balanced speaker.

Kinda seems to me a $6000 pair of speakers shouldn't require fixing, though.[^o)]

[Islander]

Kinda seems to me a $6000 pair of speakers shouldn't require fixing, though.

They aren't broken. They may not have lots of really low bass, but they have many strengths that other speakers don't have to the same degree, like clarity, soundstaging, dynamics and big sound, even some more expensive speakers.

It's easy to add a sub to fill in the low end, and that gives you a really potent team of speakers. It's not so easy to give other speakers what La Scalas already have.

You also mentioned: "I crossed mine to a pair of Velo subs at 100Hz and got good results. I would like to have tried a higher x/o, but was limited by the subs built-in x/o."

I'm crossing mine over at 150Hz and it gives a smooth and accurate sound. If you'd tried different subs, you might have been even more impressed with your speakers.

[Coytee]

Showing my ignorance here (again)!

To do it 'right', wouldn't you really need to tri-amp the LaScalas if using their current drivers?

If you biamped them, then you would still be fiddling about with the passive in the upper section, no?

I know with the money you spent on the LaScalas, turning them into JubeScalas is probably not high on your list.

Here's a thread of the most recent convert (who also had LS II's)

http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/t/122111.aspx?PageIndex=1

[DrWho]

You don't need to bi-amp to use EQ....

I also wouldn't
recommend goosing up the volume on the LF because it's gonna make
things sound muddy. Also, the newer Lascala II needs way less EQ than
the original Lascala.

The loading provided by the horn also craps
out around 90Hz, so below that you've basically just got a K33 in a
sealed box. If you want more low-end, then the best thing to do would
be to add a subwoofer...and since horns have crazy style dynamics,
you're gonna need some serious subwoofage to keep up (even if you
listen at moderate SPL's).

I don't think I would crossover higher
than 80Hz though unless I was going with stereo subs....but I think a
high fidelity 2-channel system should have stereo subwoofage anyway.

For
me, the biggest advantage to an active xover is the ability to add
time-alignment (an achilles heal of horns), and then you can get way
steeper crossover slopes without the non-linearities a passive xover
usually introduces. You don't need an active xover to do EQ, but once
you're running actives then it essentially becomes another free lunch.

Another
benefit to bi-amping is that it directly couples each driver to its own
amplifier....if you believe wires make a difference, then all the
science points to having your own amplifier for each driver...all of
the currents are completely decoupled, and your damping improves
because you don't have lossy components between the driver and
amplifier. More damping means less ringing and a flatter frequency
response.

The real cats meow would be an active xover that was
also a preamp with digital inputs....and then your signal path doesn't
bounce from digital to analog to digital and back to analog
again....it'd just be just the one digital to analog conversion.

Apparently nobody here is hardcore enough to dive into the deqx products. []

[jwc]

I biamped my la scala II's when I had them. I did not do it for the purpose of EQ though. I wanted to try out SS on the bass bins and tubes on the top end.

Worked just fine. I had an active XO in front of the tube amp that went to the HF (used passive portion of tweet and mid). Then I had a SS amp into the LF input w/o active XO.

jc

[jdm56]

Kinda seems to me a $6000 pair of speakers shouldn't require fixing, though.

They aren't broken. They may not have lots of really low bass, but they have many strengths that other speakers don't have to the same degree, like clarity, soundstaging, dynamics and big sound, even some more expensive speakers.

It's easy to add a sub to fill in the low end, and that gives you a really potent team of speakers. It's not so easy to give other speakers what La Scalas already have.

You also mentioned: "I crossed mine to a pair of Velo subs at 100Hz and got good results. I would like to have tried a higher x/o, but was limited by the subs built-in x/o."

I'm crossing mine over at 150Hz and it gives a smooth and accurate sound. If you'd tried different subs, you might have been even more impressed with your speakers.

I'm very familiar with the LS2's strengths and weaknesses after living with them for 9 months. And I agree with your assessment, other than I would say they not only have no deep bass (below 50Hz), they are also shelved down below 200Hz or so. So even the mid and upper bass is balanced a bit on the thin side. At least, this was my experience...could have been something about my particular set-up, though. So what I'm really raising the question about is whether or not the LS2 could be a better balanced speaker...and for the average owner, passive bi-amping is the easiest way of accomplishing it, providing the amps for either the bass or the mid/hi horns has level controls so the relative level can be controlled. And you have to wonder whether a different x/o could even do better! If Klipsch was willing to sacrifice a little mid-range sensitivity, they could have produced a speaker essentially flat down to the bass horns lower limit. It might not be a better speaker, but I'd be interested in hearing it!

I

[Chris A]

jdm,

Note that the PEQs that I suggested above are not just derived from in-room response...you might try if you know someone with a pair and a good parametric EQ.

Chris

[Blvdre]

Your description of the sound makes me think you're experiencing problems due to your room/ environment. What is your listening room like?

[ClaudeJ1]

then an attenuating PEQ at about 150 Hz (-7 dB, Q=8)

All LaScalas and also the Peavey SP1/FH1 of similar W bin design have that 150 Hz. peak to tame. This is the single BEST thing you can do to a LaScala bin IMHO. The peak is actually a little higher than 7 db out of the bin in a real room, but -7db PEQ is a good start.

[jdm56]

Your description of the sound makes me think you're experiencing problems due to your room/ environment. What is your listening room like?

It's actually a very good, medium-sized room; about 9x15x22, with a corner that opens to two halls; one of the best-sounding rooms I've had. But admittedly, it is a little small for La Scala-sized sound, especially if you factor in a pair of La Scala caliber subs. I'm getting superb results in this room now using a pair of Energy RC50's with the same two Velodyne subs I used with the LS2's (DLS4000R's). Measured response is essentially flat down to 25Hz. But of course, as always, I miss the klipsch slam, clarity and ease. Like Islander said, the LS2 has qualities most other speakers can't approach, while the LS2 weaknesses can be addressed. It just takes money...and floor space![]

When I had the LS2's, I was pleasantly surprised at their three-dimensionality, at least for horns. That was set up along the short wall, out 2-3 feet from the corners. Later, I tried putting the 'Scalas in the corners to improve the mid to upper bass, which it did, but I lost the 3D quality. Suddenly, the speakers were all too obvious as sound sources. I hate when that happens.[]

Anyway, long story short, I got in a money pinch and sold them. I looked for a bargain and picked up the Energys, but when finances are on the upswing again, the siren call of klipsch heritage may beckon...so I want to have a plan if or when; a plan for addressing my few performance concerns: essentially, "Where's the bass?"

[Blvdre]

That's not too small of room, should be fine. I was thinking more along the lines ofroom treatments/furnishings. I had my LaScalas in the living room: hardwood floors, area rug, two couches, chair, and they always sounded bright and imbalanced in that room. Moved them to the basement: wall-to-wall carpeting, drop ceiling, and furniture. 100% better, they sound just right. My Vandersteen 2CE's sound fine in a live room, but not the LaScalas

[DrWho]

So what I'm really raising the question about is whether or not the LS2 could be a better balanced speaker...and for the average owner, passive bi-amping is the easiest way of accomplishing it, providing the amps for either the bass or the mid/hi horns has level controls so the relative level can be controlled. And you have to wonder whether a different x/o could even do better! If Klipsch was willing to sacrifice a little mid-range sensitivity, they could have produced a speaker essentially flat down to the bass horns lower limit. It might not be a better speaker, but I'd be interested in hearing it!

I think the xover on the LS2 was very well implemented....very seamless transition to the squawker.

The bass response of the Lascala is like a -6dB or so bass shelf. Flat from the 400Hz crossover down to 100Hz (except for the big peak at 150H) and then like 6dB down from 90 to 50Hz. Boosting the bass bin by 6dB so that the deepest lows of the LF matched the MF/HF section is going to result in a very muddy sound beacuse the entire region from 100 to 400Hz is now gonna be 6dB too hot (and then like 13dB too hot at 150Hz).

I find that taming the 150Hz spike actually yields the perception of deeper bass extension, but you still can't get around the fact that it is a small horn.

If you didn't want to go with a subwoofer, then I think the ported bass mod for the lascala would be the next best approach. If that's too much work, then I would recommend a bass shelf filter to bring up the low end....however, the K-33 in a sealed cabinet (which is what it essentially is below 90Hz) isn't a super great performer, so it's probably not going to sound as nice as a cornwall or khorn.

[colterphoto1]

Very well said Doc. that falloff starting at 90 is one reason that I run my LS as SMALL in HT mode with crossover at 90 Hz to my THX subs.

That being said, I find them good full-range performers on the 70's rock that represents most of my listening. Good strong attack on drums, enough bass to get by, nice open mids and highs. I think that some of us may be tilting the spectrum into too-bass-heavy mode after spending too much time with HT subs. Most recordings just don't have that much information below say 40 Hz even if the instruments are played in their deepest ranges. The really interesting 'meat' of the music is in that 100-400 Hz range, which the LaScala excels at. Combine that to the larger K400 horn and they're a great music reproducer imho.

[Islander]

you still can't get around the fact that it is a small horn.

Of course it's a small horn. PWK designed the La Scala to be the "portable" fully horn-loaded speaker. I wonder how big the LS would be if it had no size constraints? Would it makes sense to add an extra flare section to the front of the bass bin, making the horn longer and wider, if you wanted the "ultimate La Scala", whatever size it turned out to be?

Of course there's the Jubilee, but I mean an LS with an extended bass horn. Would 2 feet longer with appropriate width be enough, or are there other limitations in the conical horn design that would make it not a worthwhile experiment? If the horn extension was removable with metal clasps or latches, it could still be a portable speaker, only 2-piece.

[Islander]

I think that some of us may be tilting the spectrum into too-bass-heavy mode after spending too much time with HT subs. Most recordings just don't have that much information below say 40 Hz even if the instruments are played in their deepest ranges.

I'm not so sure about that. There seems to be a lot more low bass information today, not just in music, but in advertisements and even radio and TV show intros, that would be inaudible without a sub.

My system is fairly flat down to 25Hz, which is okay, because I don't seem to be able to hear a 20Hz note. Most of the room-shaking movie stuff seems to be in the 30-50Hz range, so a sub that goes down to 15Hz may be nice, but I don't think most listeners will find that part of its range coming into play very often, especially with music. Isn't the 5-string bass guitar (30Hz) the lowest-pitched instrument in regular use, other than occasional synthesizer or organ notes?

As for the Big/Small speaker settings, I've tried it both ways and find there's noticeably more bass, and natural-sounding bass, with the two La Scala bass bins assisting the sub, even if they're carrying less of the load than the sub.

[colterphoto1]

I was speaking more of traditional musical instruments, not TV sound, soundtracks or synth bass.

I also think that a lot of US are using more than an appropriate amount of sub and conditioning ourselves into hearing LF-heavy tracks because of it.