Jump to content

La Scala AL crossover


Masca72
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone, I'm new to the community, I own two pairs of Klipsch, The 1982 LSBR La Scala's in the living room driven by Revox B250-S and a pair of KG2 first series (air suspension) in the small studio driven by Bryston 2B-LP Pro-SAE 2100L.  The subject of the topic is the original AL crossover.  My La Scala's bought in 2016 have the stock AL crossover and Bob Crites' AL-3 crossover, which I have always connected.  The Bob Crites AL-3 is certainly very good it provides absolute precision and neatness, however intrigued by the negative reviews on the genuine AL I connected it and to my surprise at the moment I prefer it, the big speaker sounds freer and has a more evident character, more dynamic, a sound that I would stay on the sofa all day listening.  This is my impression, the AL crossover works great!  Greetings to everyone, from Italy.

Edited by Masca72
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum!

 

I'm interested in your perspective.

 

I recently acquired a pair of 1988 La Scalas. They came with AL networks. Because I needed to take the speakers apart to refurbish the cabinets, I figured that, while I was at it, I might as well replace the >30 year old caps. When I looked into the cost, it turned out that buying new caps was more than half the cost of brand new networks from Crites. 

 

Not having had experience with La Scalas, I looked to others --- and this forum --- for guidance. The consensus was overwhelming that AA networks were an excellent choice and superior to the AL networks. Consequently, I purchased a pair of new AA networks from Crites.

 

I'm not a particularly discerning listener and I didn't listen to the AL networks for long but I didn't notice much difference from the change in networks. I still have the ALs and plan to swap them in and out to see what differences I can discern. Your experience will make my testing more interesting.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the AL crossover, my speakers came with them and I listened to them for decades before changing to the AA's. The Al has notch filters on all 3 drivers to flatten the frequency response. The reason for many more capacitors and inductors. The ones usually knocking the Al for years were those that sold crossovers for a living. The AL-3's is supposedly a very good crossover. I would stick with it and be happy knowing you have a good crossover. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, henry4841 said:

The ones usually knocking the Al for years were those that sold crossovers for a living.

I believe it was more people looking for something to put in their LS instead of the AL, strictly because they didn't like them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dave MacKay said:

Welcome to the forum!

 

I'm interested in your perspective.

 

I recently acquired a pair of 1988 La Scalas. They came with AL networks. Because I needed to take the speakers apart to refurbish the cabinets, I figured that, while I was at it, I might as well replace the >30 year old caps. When I looked into the cost, it turned out that buying new caps was more than half the cost of brand new networks from Crites. 

 

Not having had experience with La Scalas, I looked to others --- and this forum --- for guidance. The consensus was overwhelming that AA networks were an excellent choice and superior to the AL networks. Consequently, I purchased a pair of new AA networks from Crites.

 

I'm not a particularly discerning listener and I didn't listen to the AL networks for long but I didn't notice much difference from the change in networks. I still have the ALs and plan to swap them in and out to see what differences I can discern. Your experience will make my testing more interesting.

Dave, I think you made a good choice with AA, Bob Crites' AL-3 is as I said very sharp, however the speaker becomes very much like a studio monitor, if I had wanted studio monitors I would not have bought La Scala's. AL to my ears sounds more euphonic, perhaps more nasal and more colorful but creates more ambiance, more space and the timbre takes on a more "authentic" and particular character, at the moment I prefer it. These ALs the previous owner had measured and still respond perfectly, the capacitors do not necessarily need to be replaced, I think paper capacitors are long-lasting. Also let us know how are your impressions and differences between AA and AL ...

Edited by Masca72
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Marvel said:

I believe it was more people looking for something to put in their LS instead of the AL, strictly because they didn't like them.

And what was it about them they did not like? I believe it was more what was said here from sellers that made their decision to try another type. I've heard Crites say the autotransformer was no good and should be replaced. H'm, Klipsch engineers used an autotransformer they knew to be bad? Not much about transformer to go bad except catastrophic failure. If Klipsch engineers used a good autotransformer, which is what I believe, basically the only difference from other crossovers is the notch filters to flatten the frequency response. Anyone that can read a schematic sees the notch filters, which some believe is a positive thing, the reason Klipsch engineers added them. Bob Crites trashed the AL and this being a Klipsch forum members picked up the call for it being bad as well. All that being said I am in the camp of less is better and prefer an A or AA crossover for them being less parts and less phase shift. 

 

Like I said I was perfectly happy with my 'crappy' Al crossovers for decades and never found anything to complain about. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never had a problem with mine but then they were what I had and listened to like I said for decades. Some engineer just went notch filter crazy at the time the AL was introduced but then flat frequency response was all the craze back then. 

 

I think it foolish to think the engineers at Klipsch ever made what you would call a bad crossover, especially during the days when PWK was in charge. Anyone that says different are saying they know more then audio engineers at Klipsch. There are some on forums that say different but then some on forums claim to hear a difference on the color of zip ties. We had one of them not so long ago. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never told anyone they were bad. I've never said the Klipsch engineering staff didn't know what they were doing. I'm not much into flooby dust either.

 

43 minutes ago, henry4841 said:

but then flat frequency response was all the craze back then. 

 

You mean it's not now?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, henry4841 said:

The ones usually knocking the Al for years were those that sold crossovers for a living.


Dennis (DJK) was the first to talk about its issues - and only after people started showing up here complaining about them.  Some of this was going on before Bob was even selling networks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 1996 LaScala speakers came with the Klipsch AL3 crossovers, I like how they sound. I tried the Crites A/4500 crossovers with the Crites CT-120 tweeters and it seemed like the upper midrange through the high frequency was just too much. Put back in the Klipsch AL3 crossovers and kept the Crites CT-120 tweeters installed, I like the sound of the Klipsch AL3 crossovers better than the Crites A/4500 crossovers. Also the Klipsch AL3 crossovers attenuate the Crites CT-120 tweeters just about perfectly for my system.

 

I guess what I am saying is that if you like the way your LaScala speakers sound then I would not change anything, unless you want a simpler crossover design(like henry4841).

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, rjw1678 said:

I miei diffusori LaScala del 1996 sono stati forniti con i crossover Klipsch AL3, mi piace come suonano.

maybe even the 1996 drivers are not exactly the same as in 1982, mine have the horn in cast aluminum, square magnets on the woofer and on the tweeter ... With AL-3 the mids are more present and the speaker plays "everything out ", while with AL the stage seems even further back and the rebuild is more holographic ... Why haven't I connected before? Perhaps the best thing to do is to leave these speakers as they were born, each serial number with its own crossover ... It doesn't take much to get away from the original design ..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Masca72 said:

maybe even the 1996 drivers are not exactly the same as in 1982, mine have the horn in cast aluminum, square magnets on the woofer and on the tweeter ... With AL-3 the mids are more present and the speaker plays "everything out ", while with AL the stage seems even further back and the rebuild is more holographic ... Why haven't I connected before? Perhaps the best thing to do is to leave these speakers as they were born, each serial number with its own crossover ... It doesn't take much to get away from the original design ..

My 1996's came with the K77M tweeters(square magnet), K55M midrange with the composite horn, and the K33E woofer with round magnet. I noticed with Crites crossovers the midrange seemed a more present & "everything out", while my Klipsch AL3 crossovers are like your Klipsch AL crossovers sound stage. So I decided to go back to the crossovers that my speakers were born with, which to me make my speakers sound much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to get things in the wrong order. I knew at some point La Scalas would enter my life so I bought A/4500 crossovers and CT-120 tweeters when I had the opportunity, before I even owned a pair of the speakers to put them in.

 

First pair of LS to cross my doorstep had the AL-3 in them and they sounded so good to me I never even tried the A/4500s and CT-120s in them for the two years I owned them. 

 

Second pair had AL crossovers and I was surprised to find that I had no objections to the sound. At all. After everything I had read I still couldn’t take issue with them, lol.

 

But I did try out the A/4500s and CT-120s in them, just to know what I may be missing. They are two different sounds. And I was impressed with the A/4500 combo. Still wonder if putting a couple 100uf capacitors across the woofer section would make it even better...

 

The CT-120 tweeters made a huge impact with either/any crossover. Almost non-negotiable. I now have Dave A’s SMAHL lenses and DE-120 tweeters in a pair of LSI Splits with a Crites AB-2 crossover (AL-3 minus the tweeter protection). I know I could just as easily enjoy the A/4500s for different reasons.

 

Tried AA crossovers too, always sounded like the highs were “missing” compared to the others. Tried them in two different pairs and each time immediately ran up to the speakers and put my ear to the tweeters to see if they were working. Thought I had fouled something up, but no, they just didn’t sparkle like I was used to. Maybe at 90+ db, but that is not happy territory in a living room with La Scalas.

 

I think the AL knocks the midrange down 6db, the AL-3 down 4db, so there would be perceptual differences there.

 

If the AL sounds good to you, that is all that matters. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...