Cornwall 4 vs Lascala AL-5

[mikebse2a3]

5 hours ago, Flevoman said:

@mikebse2a3 That's what I call a listening room.
Very impressive...
And with the speakers placed so far apart, are all the instruments and vocals still sharply defined in their proper positions?

 

@Flevoman The speakers are spaced about 13ft/3.96m center to center (ie: tweeters) and the listener location is approximately 9ft/2.74m from the plane of the speakers (ie: tweeter).

 

IMHO on good recordings both Vocals and Instruments are realistically focused and the sense of locations in the sound stage are very natural in width and depth with a pretty holographic feeling on some of the best recordings. On some recordings I do feel like the piano for example might feel magnified some while others are fine but if I place the speakers closer together at the next best (SBIR) speaker location spread (@ approximately 11ft/3.35m) then I feel like on some recordings the piano is a little to small so my preference is for a natural or slightly larger than life piano for example. Image/Soundstage Depth on some of my recordings can feel like it goes back nearly 20ft/6m and my room width is nearly 20ft and Image/Soundstage can often fill that space when appropriate yet if I play a mono recording it is very tight and focused in the center between the loudspeakers. The speakers truly  appear to be silent while the music is playing all around them on good recordings.

 

I enjoy this setup so much that I recently mapped my room/setup so that has I experiment with different setups, loudspeakers and room acoustic arrangements I wanted to absolutely and easily be able to recreate this setup relatively easily. 🙂

 

miketn

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[KT88]

There is a German rock band from the 1970s, the guys are still together today and recorded a new album in the Covid era. The band is called Kraan. They were even known in the States in the late 70s. The bass player played a Rickenbaker bass with a plectrum back then. The sound was incredibly dry, powerful and unique. When I think back to live concerts from that time, today LaScala can reproduce that fire and those super fast attacks.

Here is a live recording from 1974. This is pure LaScala music, also because it does not go so deep in the frequencies, but fully trumps in the LaScala spectrum.

 

 

And why I like still like them a lot 50 years later, here is how they sound today.If you like rock with some rockjazz and fusion elements. LaScala music😀

 

 

 

[KT88]

11 minutes ago, mikebse2a3 said:

 

@Flevoman The speakers are spaced about 13ft/3.96m center to center (ie: tweeters) and the listener location is approximately 9ft/2.74m from the plane of the speakers (ie: tweeter).

 

IMHO on good recordings both Vocals and Instruments are realistically focused and the sense of locations in the sound stage are very natural in width and depth with a pretty holographic feeling on some of the best recordings. On some recordings I do feel like the piano for example might feel magnified some while others are fine but if I place the speakers closer together at the next best (SBIR) speaker location spread (@ approximately 11ft/3.35m) then I feel like on some recordings the piano is a little to small so my preference is for a natural or slightly larger than life piano for example. Image/Soundstage Depth on some of my recordings can feel like it goes back nearly 20ft/6m and my room width is nearly 20ft and Image/Soundstage can often fill that space when appropriate yet if I play a mono recording it is very tight and focused in the center between the loudspeakers. The speakers truly  appear to be silent while the music is playing all around them on good recordings.

 

I enjoy this setup so much that I recently mapped my room/setup so that has I experiment with different setups, loudspeakers and room acoustic arrangements I wanted to absolutely and easily be able to recreate this setup relatively easily. 🙂

 

miketn

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mike, next time when I'm in the States I'll bring you some good German beer as a ticket so I can experience your set up for an hour and with a coffee, if you'll allow it.🙂

 

[mikebse2a3]

4 minutes ago, KT88 said:

Mike, next time when I'm in the States I'll bring you some good German beer as a ticket so I can experience your set up for an hour and with a coffee, if you'll allow it.🙂

 

 

You will always be welcome at my place Heinz.. 👍🙂

[Chief bonehead]

On 6/14/2023 at 6:43 PM, mikebse2a3 said:

 

@Flevoman The speakers are spaced about 13ft/3.96m center to center (ie: tweeters) and the listener location is approximately 9ft/2.74m from the plane of the speakers (ie: tweeter).

 

IMHO on good recordings both Vocals and Instruments are realistically focused and the sense of locations in the sound stage are very natural in width and depth with a pretty holographic feeling on some of the best recordings. On some recordings I do feel like the piano for example might feel magnified some while others are fine but if I place the speakers closer together at the next best (SBIR) speaker location spread (@ approximately 11ft/3.35m) then I feel like on some recordings the piano is a little to small so my preference is for a natural or slightly larger than life piano for example. Image/Soundstage Depth on some of my recordings can feel like it goes back nearly 20ft/6m and my room width is nearly 20ft and Image/Soundstage can often fill that space when appropriate yet if I play a mono recording it is very tight and focused in the center between the loudspeakers. The speakers truly  appear to be silent while the music is playing all around them on good recordings.

 

I enjoy this setup so much that I recently mapped my room/setup so that has I experiment with different setups, loudspeakers and room acoustic arrangements I wanted to absolutely and easily be able to recreate this setup relatively easily. 🙂

 

miketn

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One of those is off by a half an inch……

[mikebse2a3]

43 minutes ago, Chief bonehead said:

One of those is off by a half an inch……

 

That was before I leveled them 😄

[KT88]

On 6/15/2023 at 1:43 AM, mikebse2a3 said:

 

@Flevoman The speakers are spaced about 13ft/3.96m center to center (ie: tweeters) and the listener location is approximately 9ft/2.74m from the plane of the speakers (ie: tweeter).

 

IMHO on good recordings both Vocals and Instruments are realistically focused and the sense of locations in the sound stage are very natural in width and depth with a pretty holographic feeling on some of the best recordings. On some recordings I do feel like the piano for example might feel magnified some while others are fine but if I place the speakers closer together at the next best (SBIR) speaker location spread (@ approximately 11ft/3.35m) then I feel like on some recordings the piano is a little to small so my preference is for a natural or slightly larger than life piano for example. Image/Soundstage Depth on some of my recordings can feel like it goes back nearly 20ft/6m and my room width is nearly 20ft and Image/Soundstage can often fill that space when appropriate yet if I play a mono recording it is very tight and focused in the center between the loudspeakers. The speakers truly  appear to be silent while the music is playing all around them on good recordings.

 

I enjoy this setup so much that I recently mapped my room/setup so that has I experiment with different setups, loudspeakers and room acoustic arrangements I wanted to absolutely and easily be able to recreate this setup relatively easily. 🙂

 

miketn

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To be clear, Mike, these SBIR points are not general? It is not a standard distance of the speakers, but it is related to your specific room and its dimensions?

[henry4841]

On 6/15/2023 at 8:42 PM, mikebse2a3 said:

 

That was before I leveled them 😄

What I call a serious audiophile. 

[mikebse2a3]

2 hours ago, KT88 said:

To be clear, Mike, these SBIR points are not general? It is not a standard distance of the speakers, but it is related to your specific room and its dimensions?

 

Heinz,   

 

SBIR (Speaker Boundary Interference Response) as well as LBIR (Listener Boundary Interference Response) are a situation created by the physical distance of the Speaker (SBIR) or Listener (LBIR) to all room boundaries (ie: Walls,Ceiling,Floor) and can be calculated/correlated to certain Frequency Wavelengths. Basically the Reflections create audibly constructive (SPL Peaks) and destructive (SPL Dips/Nulls) that are experienced by the listeners. In the (~20Hz to ~300Hz region) the effect is at its strongest in typical home listening rooms. While this is experienced in practically all home listening rooms there are methods available to minimize the interference as well as to use it in beneficial ways when dealing with the rooms unique acoustical standing waves/room modes issues we all have.

 

I believe it helps to think of early boundary reflections especially as imaginary loudspeakers that in reality act as real loudspeakers that are generally a somewhat distorted version of the loudspeaker that generates them. They have Frequency, Timing and SPL distortions that when audibly combined with the Loudspeakers Direct Response at the listener will make or break the reproduction from the system as experienced by the listener. It’s the Listening Room Sound being imposed on top of the Loudspeakers Sound. If we imagine that we had created the Perfect Loudspeaker and then as we place it in the room (ie: with it’s Boundaries and Acoustical Properties) the room’s reflections/sound will be imposed upon and color the loudspeaker sound the listener will experience and for most typical home listening rooms the Sound Reproduction the listener experiences from (~20Hz - 300Hz region) is so heavily dominated by the Room that even the “Perfect Loudspeaker” cannot overcome it but we can minimize the effects...!!!

 

miketn

 

 

[KT88]

8 hours ago, mikebse2a3 said:

 

Heinz,   

 

SBIR (Speaker Boundary Interference Response) as well as LBIR (Listener Boundary Interference Response) are a situation created by the physical distance of the Speaker (SBIR) or Listener (LBIR) to all room boundaries (ie: Walls,Ceiling,Floor) and can be calculated/correlated to certain Frequency Wavelengths. Basically the Reflections create audibly constructive (SPL Peaks) and destructive (SPL Dips/Nulls) that are experienced by the listeners. In the (~20Hz to ~300Hz region) the effect is at its strongest in typical home listening rooms. While this is experienced in practically all home listening rooms there are methods available to minimize the interference as well as to use it in beneficial ways when dealing with the rooms unique acoustical standing waves/room modes issues we all have.

 

I believe it helps to think of early boundary reflections especially as imaginary loudspeakers that in reality act as real loudspeakers that are generally a somewhat distorted version of the loudspeaker that generates them. They have Frequency, Timing and SPL distortions that when audibly combined with the Loudspeakers Direct Response at the listener will make or break the reproduction from the system as experienced by the listener. It’s the Listening Room Sound being imposed on top of the Loudspeakers Sound. If we imagine that we had created the Perfect Loudspeaker and then as we place it in the room (ie: with it’s Boundaries and Acoustical Properties) the room’s reflections/sound will be imposed upon and color the loudspeaker sound the listener will experience and for most typical home listening rooms the Sound Reproduction the listener experiences from (~20Hz - 300Hz region) is so heavily dominated by the Room that even the “Perfect Loudspeaker” cannot overcome it but we can minimize the effects...!!!

 

miketn

 

 

Thanks for the very vivid explanation, Mike. It makes a lot of sense to see a speaker always as a vibration exciter, which organizes desired and undesired interactions with a room. Especially if you imagine that early reflections can't really be "fought" with e.g. an eaualizer or delay. As you say, it's the shadow ghosts of the loudspeaker that you have to deal with so that they don't become evil ghosts. An example where one must find a constructive solution by means of an arrangement with the room and we cannot fight against physical principles.

 

Did you determine the optimal points of the distance of the speakers to each other and to the listener in your room experimentally, e.g. by moving the speaker and the listening position or with a calculation formula into which you enter all data of the room and whose answer shows the optimal points?

[mikebse2a3]

9 hours ago, KT88 said:

Did you determine the optimal points of the distance of the speakers to each other and to the listener in your room experimentally, e.g. by moving the speaker and the listening position or with a calculation formula into which you enter all data of the room and whose answer shows the optimal points?

 

Heinz, ….. I use empirical methods relying on listening experiences combined with some test recordings that have proved extremely helpful. Whether it’s placing loudspeakers/listener or acoustical treatments the complexity ultimately requires listening to verify the results..!!!

 

Heinz….. I haven’t found any measurements programs or calculation program/formulas that can be trusted to give you the optimal points when setting up a system in a room. While they can be helpful tools in some ways they can also easily send you in the wrong directions if you don’t understand their limitations and because they simply don’t take into account all the combined factors involved in optimizing the Loudspeaker/Room/Listener integration.

 

miketn

 

 

 

[sixspeed]

The finish on those LaScala's is gorgeous.

 

Enjoy them in good health!

[Deang]

We need an intervention for Mike. I’ll drive. 

[babadono]

On 6/15/2023 at 5:58 PM, Chief bonehead said:

One of those is off by a half an inch……

don't tilt your head..the imaging will be shot

[Flevoman]

On 6/14/2023 at 6:41 PM, Flevoman said:

Moving the CW4 is really too much hassle. I could throw a thick rug over it if that's advisable. But I can't and don't want to drag them back and forth.

 

By now, I know myself well enough to know that I need time to adjust to any change in my system. Only later do I realize that I will come to appreciate the adjustment. Unfortunately, it seems I have a difficult musical brain 🙄. Knowing this, I don't want to say too much about my first impression, as there's a good chance it will be completely different in two weeks.

However.... 😌, with that in mind, if I can tentatively provide an initial reaction based on how I currently experience the LaScala, I prefer the CW4 for now. I hope it's due to my combination of components, still finding the right positions, etc... but I find the sound quite dark, which is contradictory to say because it does sound dynamically and detailed. However, I have this urge to pull a kind of cover off the speakers to make it sound light and open again.

The placement of vocals and instruments is currently less precise compared to the CW4. This will probably improve with some shifting and experimenting, as it took a while for everything to fall into place with the CW4.

I miss the bass less than I expected, but on some songs that I know well on the CW4, I find the LaScala sounding somewhat weak. I sincerely hope I can get it right because I can hear that the LaScala has a lot of potential.

On TIDAL, I've come across a few songs that sounded incredibly tight and dynamic. The CW4 could never achieve that.

 

Now, six months later, I would like to share my final findings regarding my initial question about the differences between the CW4 and the AL-5. I'm doing this mainly for those who, like me back then, can find very little information about user experiences when facing this choice.

After months of listening to the AL-5, I decided to reconnect the CW4. My brother wanted to take them over, so I had one last weekend with my old love, giving me a final chance to see if I still feel the same as when I switched from CW4 to AL-5. Initially, I had some issues with the LaScala AL-5 and seriously questioned whether I wanted to keep it or if the CW4 sounded better. Now, after months of adjusting placement, getting used to it, and trying various amplifiers, I've finally got the sound to a point where I'm almost entirely satisfied with the AL-5. I truly enjoy music for hours every day. Nevertheless, the AL-5 is still a challenging speaker to make it sound entirely satisfying.

 

Anyway, the CW4 has been playing all weekend, allowing me to compare CW4 vs. AL-5 again. The first thing I noticed was a fuller and deeper bass. The bass also sounded warmer than the LaScala. Even though the LaScala's supposedly less prominent bass was a major point of criticism, I personally prefer its bass. I'd rather sacrifice a bit of depth for a punchier, drier, and more realistic sound. What quickly caught my attention was the midrange. It was noticeably smaller, with voices seeming to have less body. From a song I know well on the LaScala, where the piano is prominent, it sounded noticeably smaller and more in the background on the CW4. The dynamics are there, and it sounds good, but I miss the body and presence of the piano in the song. Another example is the kick drum. On the LaScala, it has impactful fullness—you hear a real thud. On the CW4, you hear the kick, it sounds dynamic, but lacks body, losing some of its strength and impact. It blends more into the song, while on the LaScala, a kick drum can be really present. However, the CW4 does sound a bit fresher. Perhaps it's due to the slightly smaller midrange, giving more space to the highs. But with the CW4, the emphasis is more on the low and high frequencies, while with the LaScala, it's more around the midrange (which is my preference). With the LaScala, I sometimes feel like I can almost look into the singer's throat. I don't get that feeling with the CW4. I think the CW4 sounds more like a modern speaker, and the AL-5 has a bit more of a vintage feel. Even though the CW4 sounds really good, I've been missing something all weekend... just that touch of dynamics, the satisfying thud or strike, a bit less body in the vocals, sax, or piano... I feel slightly less connected to the music. The LaScala opens the door just a bit wider.

 

Even though I can understand why some might prefer the CW4 (it might also depend on your music taste), I'm quite happy with the LaScala. Even if it's not perfect, I have a certain distortion/resonance on certain frequencies in some songs, which I'm still trying to figure out if it's due to placement, acoustics, the speaker, or a combination of everything. Still, the LaScala does something incredibly well—the live experience, the connection, the dynamics... I get pulled into the music.

In the end, the CW4 is now with my brother, who, like me back then, is very happy with it. But my preference now definitely goes to the LaScala. It's interesting what I've learned with this switch from LaScala to CW4, how significant the influence of familiarity is. When I had listened to the CW4 for a year and then heard the AL-5 for the first time in my living room, I had a hard time with the slightly less fresh sound. I found the LaScala somewhat darker, which was a reason for me to prefer the CW4 (despite the positive aspects I could clearly hear with the AL-5). Now, after listening to the AL-5 for six months, having refreshed the sound with a different amplifier, I find the CW4 to be quite sharp at times in the highs and sounding thin in the midrange. I listened to the CW4 for three days, but my old love for the CW4 has disappeared. I was completely happy again when I could reconnect the AL-5 and immediately heard what I missed with the CW4 and what makes the LaScala such a delightful speaker. Even though the CW4 has a bit more sparkle, a fuller and deeper bass, I find the AL-5 much more pleasant and grander. It's a learning moment for me—apparently, I need a bit more time with these changes to give a coherent judgment.

[Flevoman]

.

[Flevoman]

On 7/7/2023 at 3:42 PM, Stephen Buck said:

There IS no proper position.  Recording engineers don’t place those instruments in 2 channel.  That’s just an artifact of rooms and speaker design.  If you get used to the saxophone of a particular recording at +6,+3 X,Y axis where 0,0 is dead center from listening position, just know that no recording engineer expects that.  They know that lots of speakers image differently and they test recordings on a variety, using hardware and software.  No artist “intended” it to be at +6,+3.  Just saying for clarity.  Enjoy the art of reproduction!  Artists love to hear their songs on different systems, none being right or wrong. 

I only saw your responses today, and I found this one particularly interesting; I wasn't aware of this. I had thought that the technicians during assembly actually determined where approximately the instruments or vocals would be placed. So, if I understand you correctly, the positioning, like having vocals nicely in the center, bass on one side, percussion on the other, etc., has nothing to do with the final production of the song but more with the combination of your audio setup and the room?

[Tom80112]

On 12/29/2023 at 4:37 AM, Flevoman said:

Now, six months later, I would like to share my final findings regarding my initial question about the differences between the CW4 and the AL-5. 

 

 

What fantastic summary Flevoman.     I have 3 questions if you could give your advise..

 

a.  What was the make/model of the initial tube amp you were using that wasn't the best match for the AL-5?

b.  What was the make/model of the of the tube amp that allowed you to really connect with the AL-5?

c.  My room is 4M wide and 9.5M deep.  It's a flat with Kitchen/Dining/Living room all part of a long open room.

     From my sitting position to the front wall is 3.45M so the AL-5's depth + distance from the wall would subtract

     from 3.45M.   I am guessing that leaves 2.4M to 2.6M listening distance depending on how far away from the

     front wall the AL-5 needs to be.  Would AL-5 work in this sized room or would CW4 be a better match for the

     room size ?  

  

Thanks for sharing your insights for the AL-5 vs CW4.  At the start of the post it seemed like the CW4 had the win. 

[Flevoman]

On 1/2/2024 at 6:33 AM, Tom80112 said:

 

What fantastic summary Flevoman.     I have 3 questions if you could give your advise..

 

a.  What was the make/model of the initial tube amp you were using that wasn't the best match for the AL-5?

b.  What was the make/model of the of the tube amp that allowed you to really connect with the AL-5?

c.  My room is 4M wide and 9.5M deep.  It's a flat with Kitchen/Dining/Living room all part of a long open room.

     From my sitting position to the front wall is 3.45M so the AL-5's depth + distance from the wall would subtract

     from 3.45M.   I am guessing that leaves 2.4M to 2.6M listening distance depending on how far away from the

     front wall the AL-5 needs to be.  Would AL-5 work in this sized room or would CW4 be a better match for the

     room size ?  

  

Thanks for sharing your insights for the AL-5 vs CW4.  At the start of the post it seemed like the CW4 had the win. 

Sorry, I just noticed your questions. I probably overlooked the notification 🙄

But to answer your questions:
- Due to some acoustic issues causing a thickening around 100Hz-150Hz, the amp that is less warm in character works best for me. In my setup, I find my Melody 2A3 PP or my 45 SET to sound the most pleasing.
- See the above answer.
- Answering this question is quite challenging. I think no one can predict the acoustics of your living room. The CW4 could sound a bit boomy due to my acoustics, and the AL-5 has a kind of thickening around the 150Hz area for me. If I had to make a choice, I expect the AL-5 to pose fewer problems, but perhaps other members can provide a better answer than I can.

[Shakeydeal]

@Stephen Buck

 

You can only imagine how good those AL5s will sound once you get some good gear in front of them.