Klipschorn vs La Scala

[s3steve]

Are the Klipschorn's really that much better then the La Scala's?

A couple of thousand or more better?

The hardware looks the same, the Klipschorn does have a lower bass response.

I assume its the larger volume of the Khorn cabinet?

Lets hear from a few of the guys who have heard both and tell me why I should spend the extra coin on the Klipschorn's or save a few bucks and buy the La Scala's.

Not trying to stir the pot just looking for opions on a possiable purchase.

[Schu]

couple thousand?

where are you shopping?

[s3steve]

Where should I be looking??

[Axz Hout]

x

[ChuckAb3]

I grew up with both speakers and both are excellent. Given the choice, I'd choose the K-Horn without hesitation. The reason? Sound stage and bass response. Lots of folks spend a lot of time and money trying to find just the right sub to fill in what's missing on the La Scala's low end. If I had the corners, I'd have K-Horns.

[jason str]

Klipschorn has lower bass response but LaScala will have cleaner midbass that's more realistic, its a tradeoff.

I prefer LaScala with a horn loaded subwoofer to get the best of both worlds.

[001]

i have heard the la scalas & while they do sound "good" i felt everything that some k-horn owners mention about "harsh" or "edgy" mids is exagerated in the la scallas because ther low end just isnt there, you have to turn up the volume so much to get decent bass output that the mids just get too exagerated. keep in mind that is for louder than "average" listening, at normmal low to mid volumes its probably not as bad.

i have also heard many k-horns & as of recently own a set myself, at first i complained about the harshness in the mids too, but have since learned to drop the extreme volume levels a bit & to attenuate the bass somewhat to compensate, afterall, to me, the main thing i like in my music is the impact of the lower end, so to get that at higher volume levels i need to turn up the bass a bit. my adcom pre-amp makes that easier than most since their bass knob only affects the very low 20hz region & the loudness button cuts off at 100hz of boost. unlike most other companies that are well into the mid bass for tone controls.

so, my suggestion is a k-horn hands down. the la scallas just didnt do it for me... i'm sure with an added sub they would be ok but they just cant compare to the lower end of the k-horns that are sealed in proper corners. also the prices of the new speakers a couple grand difference between the 2, but unless you have more $$$ than you know what to do with, i suggest looking on the used market, k-horns can be had for $2000-$2500 all the time if you are patient, sometimes less & often a bit more, depending on condition etc. save the hassle of adding a sub to la scallas & search for some nice k-horns. check ebay, CL & even on the forum here, i know there is one member considering selling a pair of k-horns right now.

good luck on your search.

Edited March 5, 2014 by klipschfancf4

[Don Richard]

Khorns are really good if you have the room with two good corners to put them in.

Khorns have deeper low frequency response.

Lascalas have the advantage that they don't need corners.

There is less of a time alignment issue between the woofer and midrange with the Lascalas.

Lascalas with the right subwoofer are a potent combination and will usually outperform Khorns if set up properly, i.e. biamped.

Lascalas are cheaper.

[Marvel]

There is less of a time alignment issue between the woofer and midrange with the Lascalas.

More of an issue with the time alignment between the mid and tweeter that the woofer and mid.

Bruce

[Axz Hout]

c

[moray james]

Are the Klipschorn's really that much better then the La Scala's?

I assume its the larger volume of the Khorn cabinet?

Its not the volume of the cabinet but the length of the horn and the area of the mouth that makes for the greater bass extension of the Khorm. If you have the corners or you are willing to build a set of "false corners" then Khorns would be a good option. If you just plain want something smaller and less demanding of room placement you might also consider a pair of CF3 or CF4. Best regards Moray James.

[Chris A]

Klipschorn has lower bass response but La Scala will have cleaner midbass that's more realistic, its a tradeoff.

I prefer La Scala with a horn loaded subwoofer to get the best of both worlds.

This is actually an interesting observation - and the majority reason why PWK decided to "refresh" the design of the Khorn bass bin with help of Roy Delgado. The result was the Klipsch Jubilee bass bin, and Roy went on to design the excellent K-402 mf/hf horn. The results speak for themselves. PWK designated the new creation the "Jubilee" in order to recognize this performance improvement difference, a significant improvement greater than just a "product-improved Khorn II".

Note that the La Scala and the Khorn basically have identical midranges and tweeters, and really not much difference in passive crossover networks. The Khorn and the La Scala will improve their imaging performance dramatically if you remove the tweeters from inside their cabinets and place in a small baffle on top of the speaker, thus facilitating the tweeter to move toward the back of the cabinet to time align the driver/horn with the midrange horn below it. This isn't a trivial increase in performance but it is a simple and inexpensive mod that is easily reversible.

The time delay on the bass bin of Khorn (about 4.4 ms relative to the midrange horn/driver) is actually quite large, and correcting this delay using a digital active crossover to delay the midrange/tweeter section by this amount will eliminate many problems that others here seem to attribute to other factors. YMMV.

The La Scala bass bin time delay is roughly half that of the Khorn's bass bin, due entirely to the shorter path length of the La Scala bass bin. The Khorn bass bin reproduces an additional octave below that which the La Scala can reproduce - and it does this very, very cleanly, unlike direct-radiating subwoofers. The time delay in the La Scala bass bin should also be corrected, but it isn't as noticeable as the time misalignment of the Khorn bass bin.

Note that for the price of a good horn-loaded subwoofer and driving electronics and network to split the LF band from the La Scala bass bin channels, you could easily own a digital active crossover of high quality with a pair of Khorns to not only do delay correction but also do much better in-room EQ to tame the room modes and also the lumps in performance response of the Khorn bass bin.

If you don't own two good room corners, then the La Scalas are typically used, except that you can also use false corners with Khorns to place them almost anywhere also (which are cheap and relatively easy to fabricate - Klipsch has the instructions on how to build them). Note that Khorns in false corners are not nearly as small as La Scalas, however. Your choice - pick your poison.

YMMV. If anything in the above discussion isn't clear, please let me know.

Chris

Edited March 6, 2014 by Chris A

[001]

YMMV. If anything in the above discussion isn't clear, please let me know.

Chris

what does YMMV mean? i love how people use all these abbreviations today, the majority of people have no clue what they mean.

[Chris A]

what does YMMV mean? i love how people use all these abbreviations today, the majority of people have no clue what they mean.

"Your mileage may vary" - a euphemism used to indicate that others can and will disagree based on their particular experiences at home in their particular abodes.

Like other forums, we have some excitable folks that take issue with almost anything that is said that can be measured and heard regarding loudspeakers and sound reproduction systems in general... I try to reduce reactionary effects of saying the things mentioned above, in advance. We have trolls, too.

Chris

[Frzninvt]

YMMV = Your Mileage May Very

I have owned them all Klipschorn's, Belle's and La Scala's. I originally had Belle's and upgraded to Klipschorn's and the improvement in overall bass response was easily noticeable. They imaged incredibly to the point in two-channel you would swear my La Scala center was playing. However, after having them awhile the bass response seemed to be a little tubby/boomy at some frequencies and not as articulate/accurate as the Belle's was. I had decent corners and had them about 18' apart. I applied pipe insulation to the tailboards and sealing edges in an effort to improve the seal to the walls. It helped but did not cure it. Updated the old wiring and caps in the AK-2 and turned it into an AK-3 which is preferred over the AK-2 the anomaly was still there.

I had an opportunity to swap for a pair of La Scala's and cash towards my Klipschorn's so I did it. I went through the La Scala's (new wiring, spade lugs, caps, coils, etc.) I also have twin Velodyne HGS-15's I find this combination more satisfying. The comments above do not mention what type of gear was used in the development of their opinion. If you are using an AV receiver and a DVD player to play your CD's as your sources there should be no surprise that they sound harsh and edgy! You system is only as good as its weakest link. The La Scala actually takes up more floor space than the Klipschorn so that is a minus for me. My ears perceive the bass response to be quicker more responsive, if you are listening to a double kick drum at more than moderated levels they seemed to stumble over the notes where the La Scala played them without issue.

Either is a great speaker and will serve you for years. Listen to both if you can and derive your own opinion since we all hear and interpret things differently.

YMMV - :-)

[tromprof]

I own both, but never tried them side by side until last year when I got a wild hair and dragged a pair of La Scalas to the basement where the K-horns live. My thought was since I was using a big horn sub (Cimema F-20) that maybe I could use the La Scalas down there and bring the K-horns upstairs again. Hooked them up and was immediately disappointed. Even though all the drivers, horns, and crossovers were the same there was a big loss in presence. Hard to put into words, but the huge soundstage just vanished. My wife didn't mince words, she told to put the K-horns back and stop wasting time. I did put the La Scalas to good use however as L-R surround speakers and they have never made the trip back up the stairs. La Scalas are great speakers, but the K-horn for me is worth some extra $ (but you don't need to spend anywhere near 2 thousand more to get a pair).

[Don Richard]

There is less of a time alignment issue between the woofer and midrange with the Lascalas.

More of an issue with the time alignment between the mid and tweeter that the woofer and mid.

Bruce

How so? The mids and tweeters are the same distance apart with the Khorn or Lascala. The Khorn woofer is about 4 msec. behind the mid driver but the Lascala woofer is only about 1 msec. behind the mid.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Don Richard

[Max2]

I have listened to my '92 Indy LaScala's for around 10-12 years and I have listened to my '89 K-horns for around 5-6 weeks, so my observations are pretty fresh. I used to run a SVS sub to fill with the LaScalas when they were my front mains. Since then, the LS's have been moved to my rears and the sub retired to HT duty. I have a 20' foot wall and both sets were and are in the corners. My couch sits pretty low, so the LS's had a more direct, in your face sound due to the horns closer to ear level. My listening distance is 12 feet for both. The K's have a much more airy sound and seem to bring a little more "magic" that wasn't there before. The sound is different, no doubt, but I still wouldn't discount the LS's due to my preference of the K's. I read here all the time people matching subs to the K's, but I really haven't missed any lows when just listening to the K's minus the sub. I have had the exact opposite experience with the K's and being happy that I don't need to introduce the sub no matter what MY listening content is. Don't get me wrong, some of the newer modern recordings have a lot of lower bass from Moogs and other keyboards, but I don't miss out on it as the sub rarely is heard set at 40hz and set at a very low level at that. I ran the sub around 60-80hz with the LS's from time to time. No way I would give up either speaker, but the K's are more refined by my ears. I was caught off guard because I too figured same drivers, different bass box and thought the sound would be close with just more lower bass extension. I was wrong. The K's have lived up to the hype IMO.

[Dr Morbius]

Btw,…….(but you don't need to spend anywhere near 2 thousand more to get a pair)……that's used, of course. New I believe are anywhere from $7,500 to $9,000 (which is list price).

[Quiet_Hollow]

Although the driver complement is roughly the same between the two, their intended applications are completely different.

In my book, there's nothing to compare. I would not expect the two to sound the same unless very careful consideration is given to the application.

The La Scala cannot tuck firmly into the corner of a room (and subsequently become one with it) like the K-Horn can, and conversely, a K-horn cannot be shuffled out into the the middle of any random space like the La Scala can.

In either application, one or the other suffers a hefty performance penalty.

I'd go out on a limb and say an "arguably more comparable" speaker to the La Scala (in application) would be more along the lines of the TSCM....but that would be really throwing it out there.