K-33 vs K-43 SPL chart for LaScala

[jason str]

Claude peaked my interest on the K-43 woofer use in the LaScala and i looked but cant seem to find any information here though i know i have seen it around.

The new forum is playing tricks with some information it seems.

Anybody have information on a SPL chart for this.

Does the K-43 get rid or reduce the bass hump the LaScala has ?

Also is there a direct replacement using a new Eminence driver or anyone have the K-43 theil parameters ?

[djk]

Gray is K33, black is K43.

K43 vented mod, no EQ. I use an EV Interface A EQ that adds 6dB of boost centered at 35hz. With the EQ they measure good down to 30hz or so in most rooms.

Edited December 19, 2013 by djk

[jason str]

Thank's djk, there does not seen to be much difference according to the graph though im sure to the ear it would make a bigger difference.

More input would be appreciated if anybody has any.

[ClaudeJ1]

Thank's djk, there does not seen to be much difference according to the graph though im sure to the ear it would make a bigger difference.

More input would be appreciated if anybody has any.

What djk shows is a hornresp simulation, not a measurement. Real measurements are good too, but listening is believeing.

What Roy Delgado said about the K-43 woofer is that it has a higher BL product which tips the response towards the mid range instead of the bass. I lived with LaScalas for decades as center as well as main channels. When I tried K-43's I was Amazed at the greater MIDRANGE detail I would hear....guitars, saxes, female vocals, etc. It does, however "thin out" the bass substantially, but if you build another THT, you won't miss it, I promise.

IndyKlipschFan's home theater is all commercial split LaScalas with K-43's in the bottoms and it's one of the best I've ever heard (outside of my setup, of course, LOL).

And NO, nothing tames the LaScala/FH-1 peak except a PEQ. Sorry.

Edited December 19, 2013 by ClaudeJ1

[jason str]

Thank's djk, there does not seen to be much difference according to the graph though im sure to the ear it would make a bigger difference.

More input would be appreciated if anybody has any.

What djk shows is a hornresp simulation, not a measurement. Real measurements are good too, but listening is believeing.

What Roy Delgado said about the K-43 woofer is that it has a higher BL product which tips the response towards the mid range instead of the bass. I lived with LaScalas for decades as center as well as main channels. When I tried K-43's I was Amazed at the greater MIDRANGE detail I would hear....guitars, saxes, female vocals, etc. It does, however "thin out" the bass substantially, but if you build another THT, you won't miss it, I promise.

IndyKlipschFan's home theater is all commercial split LaScalas with K-43's in the bottoms and it's one of the best I've ever heard (outside of my setup, of course, LOL).

And NO, nothing tames the LaScala/FH-1 peak except a PEQ. Sorry.

Sounds good, i will put these on my list of things to get.

I would like to get an EQ to adjust some minor frequency peaks but worried about adding unwanted noise to my system.

[djk]

"I was Amazed at the greater MIDRANGE detail I would hear...."

The cone is a lot harder texture and doesn't damp out the detail like the heavier, softer K33 cone. The Qts is a lot lower too, suggesting the motor is too powerful (less bass).

[Frzninvt]

^{I want to try a K-43 in my center channel La Scala to improve its midrange performance. I have read though the one you want is the steel stamped frame version since the cast version will not fit without hacking up the inside of the doghouse. I think I will keep my eye out for one in good shape.}