What are the MAIN DIFFERENCES between LA SCALA and BELLE Speakers from someone who has owned BOTH.

[edzu1234]

What are the MAIN DIFFERENCES between LA SCALA and BELLE Speakers from someone who has owned BOTH.

Listening and Sound differences.    Thank you in advance for your input!

[richieb]

LaScala uses the identical horn components as the KHorn. The Belle mid-horn is much shorter than the LS as the cabinet is not as deep but wider. And the Belle is Much more difficult to maneuver than the LS. It’s difficult to equate sound sound differences as it’s been way too many years that I owned both. But for me if you want a cosmetically beautiful speaker than it’s the Belle. Sonically I’d go for the LS. And I love looking at the doghouse in the LS bass bin — 

[USNRET]

This will be different than most opinions but in the same room and same equipment with stock xovers I found the Belles to be more mellow in the high frequencies so I preferred the Belles.

[MookieStl]

I have two pair of each and love them all equally.

As Richie said, the physical differences are the K400 mid horn is longer than the K500 in the Belle. The Belle is not as deep but is wider. The Belle is prettier. The LS is a work horse. I have Belles in my living room and basement. I do not think the LS have been in the house. I use them in a warehouse and outdoors. They shine in that application. 

l would be hard pressed to notice any difference in sound at normal listening levels. I think the LS are better when you want to piss off the neighbors.

I would not pick one over the other, just use them for different purposes. The Belles aren't that much harder to move around except that you have to be more careful cuz they are purdy.

The new LS II and newer have combined the best of both worlds as they have the larger horn but are now made to look nice.

[J M O N]

As noted above, the Belle has a shorter horn.  One other difference of significance is that due to the nature of the structure of each cabinet, the Belle should resonate slightly less at higher volumes.  This is due to the side panels of the Belle bass horn having a smaller (un-braced) area than the La Scala.  Regardless, both speakers are fantastic and there are going to be much, much more similarities than differences.

 

Although I've never heard them, the La Scala IIs are likely an improvement over both -- La Scala-sized mid horn, Belle-type looks, and much thicker panels to reduce cabinet resonances even further.

[garyrc]

• As everyone is saying, the  La Scala midrange horn is longer.  This may, or may not, produce lower distortion.
• As @USNRET said, the Bells do sound a little mellower in the high(er) frequencies.  I noticed that back in the '80s, and mentioned it to a very well informed person at Pro Audio in Oakland (my favorite at the time).  He said, "Yea, he [PWK] toned them down."  If this is true, I surmise there might have been a change in EQ in the balancing network.  Someone like @Chief bonehead (chief engineer Roy Delgado) or @jimhunter (historian) would know.  Check back here to see if they have responded.  If there is a real difference in response, I'd bet the midrange (450 to either 6Khz or 4.5KHz, depending on the vintage) has been turned down a bit on the Belle, rather than the tweeter level being changed.  Unlike several others, I have never found the tweeter (K77 series, in Belle, La Scala, older Klipschorns, Cornwalls, Heresies) to be at all too bright, even when I had very young ears.  The midrange horn I found a little too far forward in the La Scala I.  I never heard both in the same room, so there is that to consider. 

[OO1]

1 hour ago, edzu1234 said:

What are the MAIN DIFFERENCES between LA SCALA and BELLE Speakers from someone who has owned BOTH.

Listening and Sound differences.    Thank you in advance for your input!

 the  LS   K400 is the better horn versus the K500 --the Belle lacks the mids sound extension of the Lascala and that's about it   -   - the LS  is boxy  for Men ,  the Belle is the most  luxurious cabinet for the Wife -

[edzu1234]

Thanks to all for their input!     I have a pair of recapped La Scala's and was worried that I was missing something having them and not the Belles.  Having all your testimony, It seems that taking the monetary plunge to purchase the Belles does not seemed justified.  Therefore, I have decided to keep the La Scala's and swap out the tweeters to the B&C DE120Driver.

[Panelhead]

  You might consider a new tweeter horn to go with DE-120.  

[ClaudeJ1]

On 4/21/2021 at 8:00 PM, MookieStl said:

I have two pair of each and love them all equally.

As Richie said, the physical differences are the K400 mid horn is longer than the K500 in the Belle. The Belle is not as deep but is wider. The Belle is prettier. The LS is a work horse. I have Belles in my living room and basement. I do not think the LS have been in the house. I use them in a warehouse and outdoors. They shine in that application. 

l would be hard pressed to notice any difference in sound at normal listening levels. I think the LS are better when you want to piss off the neighbors.

I would not pick one over the other, just use them for different purposes. The Belles aren't that much harder to move around except that you have to be more careful cuz they are purdy.

The new LS II and newer have combined the best of both worlds as they have the larger horn but are now made to look nice.

If I may add to the responses here by quoting PWK himself (August of 1985), who designed BOTH of those classics: "When I designed the K-500 horn to fit the Belle, I realized that the K-400 was a lot longer than it needed to be." Klipsch has used the K-55 and it's variants for years because it represented good performance for the money. PWK's success can be partially attributed to his economy of design and production, which, as opposed to JBL's more expensive overkill approach (like their version of a corner horn). In other words, he never wasted money where it didn't make "a dime's worth of difference" in SOUND! You might say he had sound practices as an Engineer, aye? Pun intended.

[Gnote]

I've had LaScala's, LSI's ,LSI Splits, and Belles.  I ever so slightly preferred the sound of Belles but I still have 3 types of LaScala's and the Belles are long gone. Even though I preferred the Belles the sound is so close that I could not justify the cost difference .

 

[Marvel]

 

IIRC, djk said you could cut about two inches off a K-400, with no ill effects.

 

It wouldn't be hard to check the expansion for the first few inches of the throat on one.

[John Warren]

The Belle is just better looking.

[tigerwoodKhorns]

On 4/21/2021 at 7:24 PM, edzu1234 said:

Thanks to all for their input!     I have a pair of recapped La Scala's and was worried that I was missing something having them and not the Belles.  Having all your testimony, It seems that taking the monetary plunge to purchase the Belles does not seemed justified.  Therefore, I have decided to keep the La Scala's and swap out the tweeters to the B&C DE120Driver.

You can also swap in a tractrix horn with a lower cutoff frequency into the Belles.  It is way shorter.  I think that ALK used thsi setup with Beyma tweeters.

 

Belles are pretty, but so are the new La Scalas.  Grills seem to really help the looks. 

[jimjimbo]

On 4/21/2021 at 8:00 PM, USNRET said:

I found the Belles to be more mellow in the high frequencies

And this is exactly why I sold my Belles and have had La Scalas ever since.

[Schu]

you can find a fastrac or Volti lens for the belle... 2" throat.

 

[avguytx]

3 hours ago, jimjimbo said:

And this is exactly why I sold my Belles and have had La Scalas ever since.

 

Sometimes I feel the same way. Any of the LS's I've owned through the years seemed to be more dynamic in comparison and I've always wondered why. Just because of the K400? Who knows.  

 

Maybe I should have built LS 2's. Lol

[ClaudeJ1]

On 4/24/2021 at 9:42 AM, Gnote said:

I've had LaScala's, LSI's ,LSI Splits, and Belles.  I ever so slightly preferred the sound of Belles but I still have 3 types of LaScala's and the Belles are long gone. Even though I preferred the Belles the sound is so close that I could not justify the cost difference .

 

The Belles, named for his first wife,  (French word for beautiful) proved that PWK could design a "pretty" speaker to match the Khorns as a CENTER channel, which was it's ultimate purpose in his mind. Designed to be used flat against the wall, with the least amount of protrusion in the room, it was simply a wider, shallower horn than the LaScala. He was a huge proponent of the 2PH3 method of sound reproduction, by practicing what he preached in his own home with a Derived Mono channel Walnut Oiled Belle centered between 2 Khorns. After a visit to the home of Valerie Klipsch in 2007, he had added a pair of Rosewood Khorns to the mix, which, I presume, was his way of experimenting with 5 Channel sound before he passed, but I can't be sure since I never asked Valerie that question (there were 20 of us there at that time).

[ClaudeJ1]

14 hours ago, avguytx said:

 

Sometimes I feel the same way. Any of the LS's I've owned through the years seemed to be more dynamic in comparison and I've always wondered why. Just because of the K400? Who knows.  

 

Maybe I should have built LS 2's. Lol

The depth of the K-400 horn effectively made the LaScala the most Phase Coherent All Horn Loaded speaker made by Klipsch. I had 2 pairs of Khorns over a 30 year period and several LaScalas. If I were to purchase any Heritage speaker today, it would be LaScalas to put on top of a pair of THTLP's as subwoofers to match. 4 Horns per channel creating wideband stereo with micro details and dynamic impact, which sadly is missing from modern recordings. Try DVD versions of the original Klipsch Tapes from the 1950's if you want to know what PWK's idea of music was all about. I had the privilege of hearing several of his favorite demo recordings at his home when I was still a "kid" (31). One pair of Omni Microphones is all it took, but everything had to be in the right place  and time.