Underground Jubilee vs Lascala AL5

[Flevoman]

For those who enjoy reading this and for those who might face this choice one day and are searching for information (which I couldn’t find myself), here’s my personal comparison between the Underground Jubilee and the La Scala AL5.

In another post, I already shared my first impressions when switching from the UJ to the AL5, and I’ll copy-paste that here. Below that, I’ve added my impressions of switching back from the AL5 to the UJ.

 

Setup:

DIY streamer/DDDac

DSpeaker Anti-Mode 2.0

Aiyima A07 MAX (for the bass bins)

45 SET (for the K402)

Yamaha SP2060 DSP

UJ + TAD

 

Please keep in mind that I always need a bit more time to notice differences.

My first impression when hearing the AL5 play again was a smaller sound and a lower soundstage and of course less bass. 
However, tonally, I found the AL5 very similar to the UJ. It was slightly less refined but not a huge difference.
Only after listening to more tracks could I better distinguish the differences, and they turned out to be more significant and noticeable than my initial impression when I first heard the AL5 again.
In terms of performance, the UJ is better in every aspect.
The music feels richer, with more micro-detail, fuller, and the highs seem to extend further and are more detailed.The UJ sound a bit more open compared to the AL5. 
There's more energy in the music, more impact with drums, piano etc. Especially during drum solos, which I’m quite familiar with on the UJ, the AL5 sounded great, but the UJ still delivered them a notch better—more dynamic and more realistic. Female vocals sound even more magical on the UJ than on the AL5. Naturally, the sound on the UJ is also larger. The UJ delivers more slam—a kind of slam you feel more in your body than you actually hear.

 

 

Now that I’ve reconnected the UJ after a week, I oddly enough hear the differences between the AL5 and the UJ better than the other way around, when I switched from the UJ to the AL5.

The first thing I noticed was, of course, that the sound was grander. It also sounded more open, as if yet another layer had been removed from the speaker. Naturally, the bass sounded fuller. It even took a moment to readjust to the "more bass" after a week of listening to the La Scala.

After listening to more tracks, what stood out the most was how much better, for instance, vocals sounded. More open, magical, and realistic. The drums also stood out as a noticeable difference. There’s nothing wrong with how a drum sounds on the La Scala, but the UJ has just a bit more body, presents it with greater dynamics, and makes the fine detail of the vibrating drumhead more audible. The kick/impact is also more present, making the whole sound very realistic on the UJ.
The same applies to, for example, the piano. It has more energy, more body, and the strike of the strings sounds more dynamic and richer in tone and detail. Again, there’s nothing wrong with how it sounds on the La Scala, but with the UJ, it’s clearly more realistic, grander, and more impressive.

 

I must honestly admit that during the week I listened to the AL5, I already began missing the UJ. Now it sounds like I’m badmouthing the AL5, which is absolutely not my intention. Before I owned the UJ, I was very content with how the AL5 sounded... until I heard the UJ. Then going back to the AL5, it feels a bit dull, maybe even. A bit less lively, less dynamic, less open, less detailed—just a little less overall.
Does the UJ really outshine the AL5 in every aspect?
Yes and no.
When comparing each point individually, the UJ does perform better. But the AL5 has something the UJ doesn’t: a somewhat smaller soundstage.
And that does have its charm. At certain moments, it can sound very pleasant—more intimate. For example, a big band can sound grand and impressive, but sometimes you just prefer a single singer strumming her guitar. 

What the AL5 does slightly better ( in my setup) is delivering a bit more of a 3D experience with some tracks. It’s as if you could almost touch the saxophone, so to speak.
In terms of positioning and live presence, both do well, though the UJ gives more of a live feel. But the impression that the singer is really standing in front of you, that holographic quality, the AL5 ( in my setup) can sometimes do just a tad better with certain tracks.
Maybe the smaller soundstage works to its advantage here?
Maybe it’s my acoustics?

 

In any case, the AL5 is truly an amazing speaker, but the UJ does everything just a bit better/more pleasantly.

[diamonddelts]

I prefer 3 way UJ the best. LaScalas sound great as well. But they have a smaller sound signature. The Heritage Lascalas do sound a bit more refined than their older predecessors. The Heritage Jubilee should have been a 3 way in my opinion. The Axi 2050 could use a tweeter taking over in the upper HF. 

 

Phase plug is a nice addition design wise. But for the price I believe a better mid driver plus tweeter combo would be best. For a two way at almost $40,000 I would expect a higher end driver than the 2050. Something similar to what JBL offers in their higher end 2 way speakers.

[KT88]

I can't judge the maximum 3D space that is possible with the UJ. For me, there are two types of spatiality. One type is that the speakers include the listening room. The LaScalas, for example, achieve this quite well, not to say very fantastically, at least for me. The speakers are positioned conventionally, not quite in the corners and only slightly angled. It's a great sound in the listening room with some 360 degree effects, e.g. the guitar on CSN in the song “Just a song before I go”. This guitar is completely detached from the speakers, it floats in the room in a very crazy 3D way. The guitar rotates through the room with its flanging affect. That's super cool. I don't care if it's “right” or if someone complains that it might just be an artifact due to wrong phases or whatever. It's the way the LaScala play to their absolute strength.

 

„Just a song before I go“

 

https://open.qobuz.com/track/7104417

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's different with the UJs (in my ears at home). There is not this effect of virtual detachment and a kind of spatiality that protrudes left and right or front and back beyond the UJ. This is entirely subjective and only describes how it is for me. I could imagine that my room would have to be bigger to create such effects. I don't know. In other words, I have never experienced the UJ in such a way that the sound would detach itself from the speaker in terms of beyond the edges which does not mean they give no 3D feel, they do but without so much interaction with the room.

But...and this is hard for me to describe now...at least because English is not my first language. The above in no way means that the UJs sound flat, two-dimensional, without a sense of space and boring (as you really know it from bad speakers). 

 

No, it is quite different and it is very special. It's like listening into the recording as if I were on the holodeck of the Enterprise. I don't want to go into the other strengths of the UJ at this point, which are in a league of their own, e.g. the physicality of the jazz and rock instruments or the classical orchestra, this 1:1 reproduction of the “real” events on a 1:1 scale, the ease of the high resolution and the excellent timing, which is what makes the groove so lively. This is worth a separate article.

 

I would like to stay with the example of the different spatial impressions. As I said in the description of the LaScala above, the UJ sound does not detach itself so much from the edges of the K402. But within the arc created by the left and right speakers, it's a very spatial experience in a different way, with a lot of separation from front to back and left to right. If the LaScala is indeed an artifact caused by phase shifts or room reflections, there are no such artifacts with the UJ. (My personal assumption is that the old exponential horns of the LaScala radiate part of the sound around the front surface to the sides. The room walls reflect the sound. In this way it is possible that the room is integrated, even if it is the result of an inadequacy of the exponential horns, it still contributes to the sense of space. Mind you, probably not “real” exact information from the recording, but a sense of space, which I nevertheless like regarding some kind of music.

 

In this sense, the UJ adds nothing to the information of the recording. The UJ reproduces the recording very accurately and there are no additive “sound clouds”. There is no pseudo-space. There are no “sound residues” that are deflected sideways around due to the more modern tractrix horn design.

I had to learn to hear and appreciate this first. It is clearer, more precise, very musical but perhaps also a touch more sober to listen to, without the “sound effect”. (Even though I also love this “sound effect” of the LaScala in some situations as I said before). In addition with the UJ there is an incredibly tangible reproduction of the center that no other speaker I know can do. A center with the full strength of the physical impression. Below is a sound example from an old recording with Antonio Carlos Jobim at the piano. The piano comes exactly from the center. Antonio plays only single notes, very few and sparingly, impressively, subtly and with an inimitable sense of timing. if you play the piano, try to play (together with Antonio) how he sets the accents of the single notes.

And as I described above, the timing of the UJ makes it possible to experience Jobim's timing...to the point of goose bumps.

Or when S. Richter plays Rachmaninov's Piano Concerto No. 2, simply amazing, this authenticity.

 

By the way, I have found that the type of position/connection between the bass and the K402 is very important. Roy talked about the UJ being a point source. This is because the dispersion characteristics between the bass and the K402 are almost identical in the transfer range of approx. 500 Hz. For example, I experimented with angling the K402 downwards because it is positioned so high visually. In addition, the TAD beams a little in the treble and you want to prevent the treble from radiating over the ears. But...if the K402 is angled, then for me personally the impression of the point source is impaired, the magic is lost. It's better if the K402 radiates straight without angling, then it's really like a point source, like my big Tannoys. You can hear the timing equally well everywhere in the room. 

But you have to listen to the K402 for a whole week, now aligned straight, if you previously listened to the K402 angled, before you can really experience and enjoy the sense of the point source. This is the key to the special kind of spatiality that is so characteristic of the UJ.

 

 

Amor em Paz (once I loved).

 

https://open.qobuz.com/track/73940716

 

 

 

 

I have a little dessert here. It's easy listening, Mike Levine. The song is called “Twilight”. This is about sound, not about it being the most artistically valuable recording. It's phenomenal with the UJ. I'm talking about the drums in particular. If you don't annoy anyone, listen to it loud on your UJ. The drums are so well recorded, they're behind the other musicians at the back of the stage. There were moments when I was scared because it sounds so real, so tangible, those are the strengths of the UJ.

 

https://open.qobuz.com/track/83413679

 

 

[Schu]

there is no replacement for displacement... Scale.

the only thing that keeps me for switching back to an AL again, Klipsch BEST speaker in my humble O, is Scale.

[babadono]

I am curious do any of you have a "pan" control on your rigs? Put some left signal into the right and vice versa. Fixes mixes that are spread too wide. After all we are only hearing what some recording engineer thought we should hear.

[Schu]

On the fly independent channel gain...

 

 

Normally I just set it and forget it after the image in centered.

[babadono]

Yes that would be a balance control to my way of thinking and also very important. Panning is different.

[Schu]

Ah yes... Crossfeed.

 

My astell&kern dap has that feature. I don't have anything like that for my room system. I am not sure I would use it meself as I openly clock my speakers to create an even wider Soundstage.

[Flevoman]

6 hours ago, babadono said:

Yes that would be a balance control to my way of thinking and also very important. Panning is different.

 

Can you please explain what a "pan" controle is? 

[Flevoman]

13 hours ago, Schu said:

there is no replacement for displacement... Scale.

the only thing that keeps me for switching back to an AL again, Klipsch BEST speaker in my humble O, is Scale.

 

Sorry, I forgot what your setup is exactly.
But do I understand from your response that you also own the UJ but see the Al as the best speaker?
If so, I’m curious and would love to hear your opinion on this.

[Schu]

I opinionated it already... the AL is Klipsch best residential speaker.

[Schu]

10 hours ago, Flevoman said:

 

Can you please explain what a "pan" controle is? 

Crossfeed...

[KT88]

I have crossfeed control with my Mojo2 which I use as my DAC for the stereo system. But until now I never tried crossfeed and put it off as it is more intended to be a headphone tool.

BTW very interesting what crossfeed can do on the production side, in the link is a sound video.

 

https://www.production-expert.com/production-expert-1/understanding-the-crossfeed-control-in-cinematic-rooms

 

A pan control I thought is a control in a sound mixer with which one can place a source/signal somewhere in the spectrum between left, center and right. Pan control, I thought, could not logically be used on a finished product/mix/recording at home

[Flevoman]

On 12/2/2024 at 2:51 PM, KT88 said:

But...if the K402 is angled, then for me personally the impression of the point source is impaired, the magic is lost. It's better if the K402 radiates straight without angling, then it's really like a point source, like my big Tannoys. You can hear the timing equally well everywhere in the room. 

But you have to listen to the K402 for a whole week, now aligned straight, if you previously listened to the K402 angled, before you can really experience and enjoy the sense of the point source

I understand the hint, Heinz. 😉
I will listen to the horns horizontally once again, but this time for a longer period instead of a brief impression.

I just don’t quite understand what point source exactly means.
Do you mean a very precise placement of instruments/vocals by this, perhaps?

 

I can find information about pan controle via Google. There, I read the explanation that this technique is used during recording to give the singer/instrument a position where it seems to be located. Nicely in the center, or slightly off-center. But I know nothing about the possibility of applying this yourself as a user in your setup.

[babadono]

13 hours ago, Flevoman said:

 

Can you please explain what a "pan" controle is? 

"Pan" is short for panorama. And yes it is normally used in multi track mixing to place a given track its place in the sound image from left to right. But I have found it useful to bring a too widely mixed stereo image back towards the center. Taken to the extreme a mono signal is possible. It comes in really handy on some older Beatles recordings where they tried to make stereo mixes from a 2(maybe 4?) track master with pretty much all the instruments in one channel and the voices on the other. There are other more modern recordings that with my setup the mix is too wide also.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panning_(audio)

[babadono]

Audio's Circle of Confusion

 

Audio’s “Circle of Confusion” is a term coined by Floyd Toole [1] that describes the confusion that exists within the audio recording and reproduction chain due to the lack of a standardized, calibrated monitoring environment. Today, the circle of confusion remains the single largest obstacle in advancing the quality of audio recording and reproduction.

 

 

The circle of confusion is graphically illustrated in Figure 1. Music recordings are made with (1) microphones that are selected, processed, and mixed by (2) listening through professional loudspeakers, which are designed by (3) listening to recordings, which are (1) made with microphones that are selected, processed, and mixed by (2) listening through professional monitors...... you get the idea. Both the creation of the art (the recording) and its reproduction (the loudspeakers and room) are trapped in an interdependent circular relationship where the quality of one is dependent on the quality of the other. Since the playback chain and room through which recordings are monitored are not standardized, the quality of recordings remains highly variable.

[KT88]

20 hours ago, Flevoman said:

I understand the hint, Heinz. 😉
I will listen to the horns horizontally once again, but this time for a longer period instead of a brief impression.

I just don’t quite understand what point source exactly means.
Do you mean a very precise placement of instruments/vocals by this, perhaps?

Below in the link is a good description about the benefit of a point source speaker design. I do not want to make advertising for the products. It is only just a good description. So you would avoid delay between drivers e.g. mounted on a baffle side by side or in a vertical line. Therefore you have not to deal with phase irritations and time irritations. Point source delivers the best possible attack, timing and groove. Without any coloration which is caused by comb filtering of normal speaker designs. Of course such drivers like Fyne Audio have to deal with other challenges/issues (so is a „round“ radiation really so good or isn’t it better like the K402 which radiates 90 degrees horizontally and 60 degrees vertically, where I would say, yes the K402 behaves better in a listening room) but anyway.

 

The UJ, Roy more often states this, are „behaving“ like a single point source speaker because a) they are time aligned and b) the radiation pattern of the K402 and the bass unit is almost identical in the region of the xover. I can clearly here it because I also have such old Tannoys (same as in the pic below) which are single point source as well and mechanically 100% time aligned The sound is in some aspects very related to that of the UJ if the K402 is more or less straight and only very little angled if any.

 

https://www.fyneaudio.com/fyne-blog/why-use-a-point-source-isoflare-driver/

 

 

[Flevoman]

@KT88 Thank you for your explanation, Heinz, and for the link.
It was an interesting explanation to read and it also clarified for me what is meant by single source.
However, if I understand the explanation from the link correctly, the UJ can never be a single source. As I understand it, the strength of a single source lies in the fact that both the tweeter and the woofer are integrated into one component, causing the entire signal to be emitted from one central point.
With my layman's knowledge, I would sooner say that the UJ functions similar to a normal speaker that consists of different drivers. But then again, who am I to contradict Roy's words? I just can't quite see the logic of why the UJ can be considered a single source.

 

By the way, the horns have been horizontal again for a few days now. I'm going to listen to them this way for a few more days 😊

[Schu]

is an 'orchestra' or a 'band' a single source?

[82 Cornwalls]

1 hour ago, Flevoman said:

With my layman's knowledge, I would sooner say that the UJ functions similar to a normal speaker that consists of different drivers. But then again, who am I to contradict Roy's words? I just can't quite see the logic of why the UJ can be considered a single source.

 

 

On 12/4/2024 at 8:50 AM, KT88 said:

The UJ, Roy more often states this, are "behaving“ like a single point source speaker because a) they are time aligned and b) the radiation pattern of the K402 and the bass unit is almost identical in the region of the xover.

 

 

 

"Behaving" like, did not say they are.