Chorus II's to La Scalas, upgrade or lateral move?

[rockhound]

I'm on the hunt for a pair as we speak!

[Sancho Panza]

About $3-$500 high, but if you can talk him down & take a Beach vacation:

[DrWho]

Lascalas have no bass, and use exponential horns which sound more squonky than the Tractrix used in the Chorus II. With a potent subwoofer in the mix it becomes a closer comparison, but I personally would stick with the Chorus II.

 

Unfortunately the Chorus II has the MF/HF section voiced a bit hot to keep a higher sensitivity rating, so it doesn't sound as nice as it could.

 

I personally have removed the MF/HF unit from my Chorus and went with a single more constant directivity horn to cover that frequency range. This also meant I could easily fix the voicing of the speaker. But if you're going to go through that much work, then you might also consider swapping the MF/HF unit from the lascala to a K510 or K402. There is definitely some benefit to horn loading the midbass region and that approach should probably sound better than the modified Chorus II.....assuming of course you still have potent subwoofage for the bottom octaves.

 

Btw, what kind of music do you listen to?

[DrWho]

What you are really saying is that bass distortion is ok in that genre of music.

 

I disagree, or maybe to make my point more clear....the lascala has horrible distortion at 40Hz, and is much worse than a Chorus II at those frequencies.

 

Certain genres of music require different frequency bandwidths. If your system doesn't replicate the frequencies important to the music, then the speaker isn't satisfying its first and most important function. The lascala horn stops loading at ~100Hz. Below that it is a sealed driver in a small box. The 50Hz claims are misleading and ignore the importance of voicing / frequency response of the system.

 

What you should be noting is that certain genres of music require wider bandwidths from the system. Jazz is probably one of the narrowest bandwidth genres you could pick. Rock simply requires lower frequency extension in order for the instruments to be heard as intended.

 

All that to say - you could always EQ the lascala to match the frequency response of the Chorus II....and what you're going to find at the lower frequencies is that the Chorus II has lower distortion. This is because the K33 is not a very linear driver, and you're not getting any horn benefit. On the other hand, the K48 is a much more linear driver intended to be used for higher excursions. Ironically, the K48 excursion will be less because it's a vented system - and that distortion is super low until driving to insane levels.

 

Anyways, my point is that just because it's not hornloaded doesn't mean it's higher distortion.

 

And just to be clear, I'm talking about IMD's here....not just THD.

[Marvel]

I'm on the hunt for a pair as we speak!

Are you going to be able to get the prototype LS IIs? That would be cool...

 

Bruce

[Marvel]

Unfortunately the Chorus II has the MF/HF section voiced a bit hot

I think the LaScala has the mids too hot as well.

[tromprof]

 

What you are really saying is that bass distortion is ok in that genre of music.

 

I disagree, or maybe to make my point more clear....the lascala has horrible distortion at 40Hz, and is much worse than a Chorus II at those frequencies.

 

Certain genres of music require different frequency bandwidths. If your system doesn't replicate the frequencies important to the music, then the speaker isn't satisfying its first and most important function. The lascala horn stops loading at ~100Hz. Below that it is a sealed driver in a small box. The 50Hz claims are misleading and ignore the importance of voicing / frequency response of the system.

 

What you should be noting is that certain genres of music require wider bandwidths from the system. Jazz is probably one of the narrowest bandwidth genres you could pick. Rock simply requires lower frequency extension in order for the instruments to be heard as intended.

 

All that to say - you could always EQ the lascala to match the frequency response of the Chorus II....and what you're going to find at the lower frequencies is that the Chorus II has lower distortion. This is because the K33 is not a very linear driver, and you're not getting any horn benefit. On the other hand, the K48 is a much more linear driver intended to be used for higher excursions. Ironically, the K48 excursion will be less because it's a vented system - and that distortion is super low until driving to insane levels.

 

Anyways, my point is that just because it's not hornloaded doesn't mean it's higher distortion.

 

And just to be clear, I'm talking about IMD's here....not just THD.

 

 

The La Scala is not doing much at 40HZ so how audible is that distortion anyway? I don't recall my La Scalas sounding distorted on lower stuff, but it has been a while since I had them in my living room. They seemed to completely run out of bass around 50 HZ, the drop off was rather abrupt.

The La Scala is far from a perfect speaker, there are a lot of compromises built into the design, the biggest being the bass horn is too short. Ideally you pair a La Scala with a good horn sub and then you really do get superior bass compared with any direct radiator. I built a tuba table to pair with mine. I'm not trashing the Chorus, I have owned a pair and it is a fine speaker, but one you get used to very clean horn bass it is hard to go back. 

Edited April 22, 2015 by tromprof

[rockhound]

 

I'm on the hunt for a pair as we speak!

Are you going to be able to get the prototype LS IIs? That would be cool...

 

Bruce

 

I'm going to try, I work offshore on a oil platform so I will not get to see them until May 6th or after.

[Deang]

The LaScalas need to be near corners to lift up the lower end response - PK designed all of his speakers that way. With just walls behind them, they are too bright. The Heresy gets similar complaints - again, designed to be sat on the floor and pushed back.

Still too bright? There is a simple network modification that can rebalance the speaker. This basically involves just taking the midrange down 3dB. It makes a bigger difference than you might think. I've lost count of how many "dialed down" networks I've built/modified.

[jimjimbo]

There is a simple network modification that can rebalance the speaker. This basically involves just taking the midrange down 3dB.

 

Mr. Cranky....would you mind sharing what this simple fix might be for those of us dangerous enough with a soldering iron to give it a whirl?  Thanks! 

[DrWho]

"The La Scala is not doing much at 40HZ so how audible is that distortion anyway?"

The assumption is that you're EQ'ing the system to be flat over the passband required by the music. In other words, it is not an option to not reproduce the full spectrum of the source material.

Adding a sub to the lascala is absolutely a necessity for 'most' genres of music. And when done right will sound awesome. Then the difference comes down to tractrix versus exponential for the squawkers...versus woofer distortions. I personally place more emphasis on the midrange performance.

Edited April 25, 2015 by DrWho

[DrWho]

Btw, the shape of the lascala does not allow for proper corner loading. The spaces surrounding the cabinet and distance to the walls and corners create boundary cancellations. You'd need to build walls around the lascala or soffit mount it to achieve that benefit.

[Deang]

Bs

[Deang]

Jim, start with an Type A or Type AA. The Type AA is probably best, given the propensity for live level listening around here.

There are two ways to do this, and either way, you need a couple of parts.

1) Change the 13uF capacitor to 6.8uF

2) Move the connection for the squawker from Tap 4 to Tap 3.

Or

1) Put a 15 ohm resistor in parallel with the K-55 (on the barrier strip).

2) Move the connection for the squawker from Tap 4 to Tap 3.

Both methods provide essentially the same end result as far as midrange output goes - but do not sound identical.

There is a third way, which is my personal and preferred way of dealing with it -- I just use lossy paper in oil capacitors with the stock build. Sounds different yet again. The output drops just enough, and the sound takes on a character that's the complete antithesis of that produced using metallized caps. It's more than most are willing to pay out, which has always astonished me - considering what people around here spend on gear.

[Deang]

Mike, you are so anal retentive. Did you know tha you can be right and still be wrong.

[jjptkd]

I've heard all of the Heritage line and I still claim that dollar for dollar, pound for pound the Chorus II is the best out of the bunch. This is not to say that its the "best" ever made, just that when you consider the sound quality, frequency response, size, shape & weight, availability and cost of replacement parts & upgrades and the cost to get yourself into a pair, I really don't think anything else comes close.

[DrWho]

Mike, you are so anal retentive. Did you know tha you can be right and still be wrong.

Anal retentive, or attention to detail? I'm usually wrong more than I'm right....which is why I rely on measurements. The real world is far more interesting than rules of thumb.

Yes I know, arrogant thing to say. But what if I'm just a guy trying to help and tired of rehashing the same old BS over and over?

[Deang]

Do the lower registers of the LaScala (or any loudspeaker for that matter) move up when placed into a corner? Yes, and Klipsch even factors this into the frequency response specifications of all of their loudspeakers. Are there some boundary cancellations, sure - but certainly no worse than you get with any other less than ideal placement. You can easily get 40hz when placed in a corner. Pull them out and/or move them in - and you lose almost 10dB!

Edited April 25, 2015 by Crankysoldermeister

[Skelt]

In reference to reducing the La Scala's squaker output by 3dB

 

 

 

Jim, start with an Type A or Type AA. The Type AA is probably best, given the propensity for live level listening around here.

There are two ways to do this, and either way, you need a couple of parts.

1) Change the 13uF capacitor to 6.8uF
2) Move the connection for the squawker from Tap 4 to Tap 3.

Or

1) Put a 15 ohm resistor in parallel with the K-55 (on the barrier strip).
2) Move the connection for the squawker from Tap 4 to Tap 3.

Both methods provide essentially the same end result as far as midrange output goes - but do not sound identical.

There is a third way, which is my personal and preferred way of dealing with it -- I just use lossy paper in oil capacitors with the stock build. Sounds different yet again. The output drops just enough, and the sound takes on a character that's the complete antithesis of that produced using metallized caps. It's more than most are willing to pay out, which has always astonished me - considering what people around here spend on gear.

 

 

In the first method is the tweeter crossover point altered by changing the 13uF cap to a smaller value?

 

 

[Deang]

When you move to the next lowest Tap (in this case from 4 to 3), the reflected impedance doubles, so you need cut the value of the primary capacitor in half to keep the crossove point the same.

400hz crossover point at 32 ohms = 13uF. Down a tap is 64 ohms = 6.5 ohms (6.8 is close enough and much easier to find).

Edited April 26, 2015 by Crankysoldermeister