LaScala VS Belle

[cheric]

If one had a choice between these two pairs of legendary speakers, which would be the better choice (as they are so similar, technically)?.

 

[billybob]

Well yes and no. Would do a search of forum while you are waiting. A recent showdown topic.

Thanks!

[Peter P.]

Belles are largely forgotten, since they are no longer available. That is sad, since they perform better in the low end than LaScala's. If you are in the market for a pair of either, hold out for a pair of used Belles, but finding a pair, and in good condition, may be a reach or a long wait.

 

If price isn't an issue and you don't want the wait, go for the LaScala's. Their bad-*** unconventional look along with their other worldly muscular output can make one overlook the few Hz they give up in the low end to the Belles. The Belles and LaScala's share so much in the midrange and tweeter that their sound is surely similar and close to the Klipschorn, making a toss up as to most of their comparison performance. The 10 year warranty on the LaScala is another plus as is their choice of finish, which you aren't going to get if you seek used Belles.

[OO1]

 

very similar ---better midrange for the Lascala -500Hz horn for the Belle and 400Hz horn the Lascala

http://assets.klipsch.com/files/Heresy-II-La-Scala-Belle-Klipsch-brochure-and-specs.pdf

 

BELLE speakers represent the epitome in PWK's speaker styling , since the Speaker is dedicated to  , Mrs Eva Belle klipsch  ,  Paul Wilbur Klipsch's First Wife -

 

 

[Laurie]

Great read


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Marvel]

5 hours ago, Peter P. said:

That is sad, since they perform better in the low end than LaScala's.

 

Where do you get that information? Polars on the Belle bass bin won't be as good as the LS. The flat front means the bifucated wave front won't join back together as well as on the LS.

[Vince1966]

I can say the Belle’s do sound better in the low end than the La Scala’s I have tried, my friend brought over his La Scalas for some veneer work, we do paired them and he even thinks the low end is better in the Belle. But again, sound is subjective to the listener. 

[Peter P.]

9 hours ago, Marvel said:

 

Where do you get that information? Polars on the Belle bass bin won't be as good as the LS. The flat front means the bifucated wave front won't join back together as well as on the LS.

Because nobody listens to "polars" or "bifurcated wavefronts". 😋

[Marvel]

We

1 hour ago, Peter P. said:

Because nobody listens to "polars" or "bifurcated wavefronts". 😋

 

Actually, you do, even if you don't know what they are.

[Chris A]

19 hours ago, cheric said:

If one had a choice between these two pairs of legendary speakers, which would be the better choice (as they are so similar, technically)?

 

Klipsch discontinued the Belle in favor of the La Scala reportedly in the mid-1990s when the company was going through changes in their lineup.  The Belle was apparently only a special order loudspeaker costing much more from the factory than a La Scala, and was meant to be a style upgrade to a La Scala as a center channel between two Klipschorns (as a special order loudspeaker).  As such, there isn't a great deal of difference between the two except form factor and cost. They apparently used the same drivers (at least when the Belle was introduced in the 1970s).

 

Honestly, the Belle, being a flatter and wider loudspeaker seems to be more easily accommodated in many listening rooms.  I've found that the depth of the Belle being about 19 inches deep instead of about 24 inches deep of the La Scala (widths are ~30 inches vs. ~24 inches, respectively) is significantly easier to handle in my listening room. 

 

So from a listening perspective, what's the difference?  If you do something to EQ the SPL response to be much flatter around the 70-300 Hz band, each loudspeaker sounds pretty much the same (they both had to timbre match vis-à-vis Klipschorns on either side).  So it's really your choice assuming that you use something in either case to EQ their SPL response to be flatter after placement in-room, in both cases due to their undersized horn mouths from an acoustics theory standpoint.

 

The original La Scala doesn't require bass bin stiffeners, but their performance is slightly improved using in-horn bass bin stiffeners (DIY) to further stiffen the side walls of the bass bin. (The La Scala II uses thicker side walls instead.) The Belle doesn't need any bass bin stiffeners, and its shorter midrange horn and the space between the two bass bin mouths is not really an issue if crossing the midrange to the bass bin at the factory setting (~500 Hz).   You will likely pay more for a pair of good condition Belles than La Scala I's.

 

Chris

[cheric]

So much information - so little time to digest.😁

I will try to do some more reading on the subject. Thank you so much, to all of you for your inputs.

[MookieStl]

This subject has been kicked around many times. Bottom line is they are both great speakers and are head and shoulders above most speakers out there. I for some reason (don't know why so dont ask) have two pair of Belles and two pair of LaScalas. I would be hard pressed to notice any difference between the two design. Maybe on a chart or graph, it can be detected, but not by my ears. Once they started making the LS pretty (LSII>) there really was no need for the Belle.

You cant go wrong with either. Buy the one the appeals to you visually, cuz sonically, you probably cant tell them apart.

Just my two cents.

[Max2]

Owned Belles about 20 years ago and still own LS's.  Liked the looks of the Belles better, but the Belles had the smaller cast mid and they were really short which put the output really low at furniture level at my old house back then.  They were a bit beamy, but wish I still had them given they were Ribbon Mahogany, perfect condition and only $800 at the time.

[OO1]

18 minutes ago, Max2 said:

wish I still had them given they were Ribbon Mahogany, perfect condition and only $800 at the time.

800$ , plus the Belles were veneered and beautiful vs Lascalas were ,  rougher looking --- with raw birch or black -no question the Belles were the nicer pair of speakers

[avguytx]

3 hours ago, Chris A said:

The original La Scala doesn't require bass bin stiffeners, but their performance is slightly improved using in-horn bass bin stiffeners (DIY) to further stiffen the side walls of the bass bin. (The La Scala II uses thicker side walls instead.) The Belle doesn't need any bass bin stiffeners, and its shorter midrange horn and the space between the two bass bin mouths is not really an issue if crossing the midrange to the bass bin at the factory setting (~500 Hz).   You will likely pay more for a pair of good condition Belles than La Scala I's.

 

Chris

 

I've had it mentioned that the very large 160 - 200hz hump on my Belle clones (which sounds awful) is potentially due to the bass bin sides needing to be thicker.  I'm obviously not going to wrap another layer of Baltic Birch on them but could do those braces in the inside like the LS's have done.  I guess first I should add some clamps across the front to see if the hump is affected.  It's very pronounced, though, and makes them unlistenable for most things.  Maybe that's their inherent nature.

[richieb]

29 minutes ago, RandyH000 said:

800$ , plus the Belles were veneered and beautiful vs Lascalas were ,  rougher looking --- with raw birch or black -no question the Belles were the nicer pair of speakers

There was nothing “rough looking” in my bought new late 1970’s gloss walnut stained LS. They were actually quite gorgeous with that finish and so much wish I still owned them. So much the lookers, IMO they were hands down a better looking speaker than my ordinary oak veneered Belles. 

[OO1]

28 minutes ago, richieb said:

There was nothing “rough looking” in my bought new late 1970’s gloss walnut stained LS.

gloss walnut stained LS -  yes , these look better than LSI , Industrials--black

[Chris A]

1 hour ago, avguytx said:

I've had it mentioned that the very large 160 - 200hz hump on my Belle clones (which sounds awful) is potentially due to the bass bin sides needing to be thicker. 

No, it's really related to the dimensions of the horn itself.  Here's a figure from Beranek's Acoustics that illustrates the effect of a smaller horn with a finite-sized (too small) mouth that doesn't fully expand the emerging sound waves (the solid black line corresponds to SPL output from the horn mouths, and the Belle and La Scala bass bins are both exponential expansion horns):

 

 

More discussion on this effect here: https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/161404-a-k-402-based-full-range-multiple-entry-horn/page/30/&tab=comments#comment-2263347

 

This is why horn-loaded loudspeakers benefit from in-room measurement and EQ compensation. 

 

Chris

[Max2]

2 hours ago, RandyH000 said:

800$ , plus the Belles were veneered and beautiful vs Lascalas were ,  rougher looking --- with raw birch or black -no question the Belles were the nicer pair of speakers

Without doubt.  The Belles were like Mini K's.   Tell you what though, I would take a pair of these over them both.  Unicorns here and may be my favorite of all as far as looks go.

 

[Bubo]

1980s

I sampled the entire line, side by side in a showroom, over the course of several visits

 

I had already purchased Heresys months earlier.

 

I decided on the LaScalas because of flexibility in placement, height of the Mid Horn, and footprint.

 

The  bass on the KH was better, but not a show stopper.

 

The Belle sounded fine, I don't recall a big difference, the footprint pushed me to the LS.

 

On reflection, I believe the Belle uses a different mid horn than the LS and KH, and that was a factor.