Cornwalls vs LaScala's

[BLUESMAN]

Hi Guys. What are the differences between these 2 speaker systems? How do they compare sonically? Just curious.

[Daddy Dee]

The La Scala was developed for use as a PA speaker for one of Winthrop Rockefeller's campaigns for govenor of Arkansas in the early 1960's. It uses a simplified folded horn, relative to the Khorn, and has notably less bass range than the Khorn. However, it does have the advantage of retaining the Khorn midhorn the K400 (or K401 in newer models)

The Cornwall uses the same 15 in bass driver, but is not horn loaded as the La Scala. The Cornwall cab is ported and does a very fine job of reproducing bass.

You will find folks posting on this forum swearing by one or the other of these speakers. In my experience with LaScala, a sub was needed to make it sound right.

[seti]

----------------

On 11/11/2004 2:15:17 PM Daddy Dee wrote:

The La Scala was developed for use as a PA speaker for one of Winthrop Rockefeller's campaigns for govenor of Arkansas in the early 1960's.

----------------

I did not know that very strange. I had heard from a local musician that he liked playing at Winrock farms in the good ole days because their stage sound system was all heritage klipsch.

I wonder what inspired the Belle's.

seti

[CaptnBob]

PWK wanted a speaker which could be used as a center channel, combining the speed and low distortion of horn loaded bass with a livingroom friendly design. He basically took a LaScala, made it wider and shallower, designed a striking cabinet to house it, and named it after his first wife, Belle.

[dodger]

Both are excellent speakers.

However, as Daddy Dee noted, the LaScala seems to produce less bass.

A sub is a big help.

Also size can be an issue. The LaScalas are deeper - front to back than the Cornwalls

In owning both at different points, I find the mid of the LaScala a little harsh (many pre-amps and amplifiers were tried as was positioning for the LaScalas) while the Cornwall IIs are what I have, seem a little more in line.

For blues, if you can afford the sub and your room is not small, I would go with the LaScalas.

If you don't crank the db level, you could do well with Original Heresys and a sub. I have Cornwall IIs connected to 1 Receiver at this point and Heresys with a sub connected to another.

The Heresys are sitting atop the Cornwall IIs and both can use the same program source. I find myself using the Heresy set up more often than the Cornwall IIs.

dodger

[greg928gts]

The La Scala's have all kinds of bass, especially if you get them into the corners of the room. I think what people are meaning to say is that the frequency response of the bass doesn't extend down quite as low as the Cornwall.

The La Scala bass is punchy and powerful, while the Cornwall bass is deep and solid.

The La Scala has a much larger and more open sounding midrange that does tend to overcome the bass output a little, but you get that wonderful midrange clarity, even at high volumes. The Cornwall can get a little edgey in the midrange at higher volumes.

The La Scala is considerably more efficient than the Cornwall. It's noticeable. If you are going to experiment with SET tube amps, the La Scala's will offer a much better sound overall.

I love both of these speaker systems. I recommend you buy a pair of each!

Greg

[NOSValves]

----------------

On 11/11/2004 8:52:40 PM greg928s4 wrote:

The La Scala's have all kinds of bass, especially if you get them into the corners of the room. I think what people are meaning to say is that the frequency response of the bass doesn't extend down quite as low as the Cornwall.

The La Scala bass is punchy and powerful, while the Cornwall bass is deep and solid.

The La Scala has a much larger and more open sounding midrange that does tend to overcome the bass output a little, but you get that wonderful midrange clarity, even at high volumes. The Cornwall can get a little edgey in the midrange at higher volumes.

The La Scala is considerably more efficient than the Cornwall. It's noticeable. If you are going to experiment with SET tube amps, the La Scala's will offer a much better sound overall.

I love both of these speaker systems. I recommend you buy a pair of each!

Greg

----------------

I could not in no way have written it better Lascala's can have incredible bass if setup correctly. After all 95% of music never goes below 45 Hz anyway.

[KCM]

I currently own both, and I feel this statement by Pirhana the other day sums it up perfectly:

"Mind you that this is only MHO, but I prefer the bass of the Cornwall to that of the La Scala. The midrange of the La Scala blows the Cornwall away. Absolutely no comparison there. They are two completely different speakers. Both have their strengths and weaknesses."

[Klipschfoot]

Noting your member name is "BLUESMAN," if your ideal is tight bass line with strong vocals, you may want to consider Lascalas with a strong sub, assuming that you want strong live-sounding performance. The Cornwall may be a little more contemplative than what you are looking for. The Lascala is, from what I have read, more of a PA speaker and to your liking.

Footnote: I have only heard the Cornwall and Khorn (thanks again, gary). I own another brand of horns and love my two-ways with sub when needed.

[TBrennan]

I've owned both LSs and CWs and prefer the CWs. The LSs have a bass-shy sound but the CWs sound robust and fullbodied. The bass-shy tonal balance of the LSs gives me earwire; a sensation as though a wire was being twisted in my ears. I now find LSs to be quite obnoxious speakers though I did enjoy the ones I owned back in the 1970s; they did get VERY loud afterall.

[BLUESMAN]

Earwire-Yikes! I'm still evaluating the LS's even though they are a bit too big for my digs. I'd like to capture the sound in a smaller more manageable package.

[garymd]

----------------

On 11/11/2004 10:47:39 PM TBrennan wrote:

I've owned both LSs and CWs and prefer the CWs. The LSs have a bass-shy sound but the CWs sound robust and fullbodied. The bass-shy tonal balance of the LSs gives me earwire; a sensation as though a wire was being twisted in my ears. I now find LSs to be quite obnoxious speakers though I did enjoy the ones I owned back in the 1970s; they did get VERY loud afterall.

----------------

If the lascalas are earbleeders, then wouldn't khorns be also since they share the same tweeter/squaker? Will the additional bass of the khorns offset that horrible midrange screech of the lascalas. The upper end of my khorns are actaully much smoother than that of my corns. Considerably less harsh (although I don't think either are actually harsh). Am I wrong?

[psg]

----------------

On 11/12/2004 9:42:42 AM garymd wrote:

----------------

On 11/11/2004 10:47:39 PM TBrennan wrote:

I've owned both LSs and CWs and prefer the CWs. The LSs have a bass-shy sound but the CWs sound robust and fullbodied. The bass-shy tonal balance of the LSs gives me earwire; a sensation as though a wire was being twisted in my ears. I now find LSs to be quite obnoxious speakers though I did enjoy the ones I owned back in the 1970s; they did get VERY loud afterall.

----------------

If the lascalas are earbleeders, then wouldn't khorns be also since they share the same tweeter/squaker? Will the additional bass of the khorns offset that horrible midrange screech of the lascalas

. The upper end of my khorns are actaully much smoother than that of my corns. Considerably less harsh (although I don't think either are actually harsh). Am I wrong?

----------------

I wondered the same thing! Same crossover too!

[Myhamish]

Hi again, Ditto to all the above as I have both as well. If size is a big factor, you can imagine Cornwalls having the same height and width but about half the depth. Placement of either Cornwalls or LaScalas in a corner compared to along a flat wall makes a significant difference. This is apparent in the hugeness factor as well as the sound quality. Large speakers seem to melt away in corners. A little creative disguise helps too.

Along a flat wall, I bring each in from the end wall at half the distance between the two speakers to give the horns room to radiate without any early reflection.

In the corners, the horns naturally radiate without any early reflections.

Some people like Heresy speakers and some people like RF7's for critical listening. These have smaller footprints. Like anything else, there's whole sets of pros and cons for each. Good luck. Hamish

[BLUESMAN]

Thanks, great info guys. If this isn't the most fun you can have going broke, I don't know what is.

[Colin]

First, let me preference my remarks by noting my experience, so you know the exact location upon which I place my comments.

Second, some of my comments I got from other helpful posters here on the forum, so if the words look familiar, maybe I have posted them before or I am aping some other gorilla.

That being said, I have heard the Chorus IIs, Cornwalls Is, LaScalas and AK-2 Khorns on the same equipment and the same music selections in the same living room in the last few years.

In general however, bigger is better with Paul Klipsch's big old horns. (Thank goodness, there isnt a Khorn II, with even larger mid-range and bass drivers, or many of us would have to get that one.) Although the tone and depth of the bass response changes with progression up the Heritage line, four things remain constant:

- the frequency response in a variety of rooms becomes wider and/or flatter

- the already realistic sounding mid-range gets smoother and easier to listen to

- the greater dynamics improve quickness, attack and realism

- the increased efficiency reveals more defects of the recording and the front-end components big ole horns are as revealing as a courtesans peignoir

While classic Klipsch corner Khorn has two horns and a large horn-loaded woofer bin, making the huge triangular beast incredibly sensitive to input with a 30-Hz depth most low price full range loudspeakers cannot reach. The LaScala has the same horns as the Khorn, but a smaller, simpler bass bin, which also gives it awesome efficiency, but the bass depth of a bookshelf speaker.

The main difference between the LaScala and the Cornwall, is that the LaScala has a bass horn, while the Cornwall uses a large vented direct 15 radiator for bass. This means that the LaScala sounds a little more dynamic in the bass area, and has a little bit tighter (or leaner if you prefer), and arguably more accurate bass, but the Cornwall goes deeper and with more mid-bass punch. Many tweaking audiophiles prefer the sound of the LaScala bass slightly over the Cornwall.

Most importantly to my ears however, LaScala has a larger mid-range horn, which really opens up the sound. While the bass was slightly less punchy than the Cornwalls, the smooth openness, clarity and larger image of the mid-range more than made up for it. The larger mid-range horn of the LaScalas makes a noticeable - and for many, it will be a big - difference in the mid-range presentation. If you like the Klipsch sound of musical realism, this was more of it. The brief audition of the LaScala in my home immediately sold me on the classic Klipsch corner Khorns.

My own measurements with my super-sensitive walnut-oiled Cornwall 1s, with their B2 crossovers, show a mid-bass bump from 63 to 125HZ (sometimes a good thing). With another severe bump again at 5-kHz (some due to room reflections). The flattest range on my Cornwalls, in a 14 by 17 room, was from 500 to 4-kHz and within a respectable 4-dB. The Cornwalls also extend down to 31.5Hz and up to 10-kHz.

"The LaScala," poster Ray Garrison says, "is plus/minus 5dB from 100Hz to 10kHz. (The similar Belle has a fairly smooth curve, but it has a smoothly falling output from 150Hz to 6 kHz, totaling a drop of almost 10dB from bass to treble.)"

"In a properly designed bass reflex enclosure (like the Cornwalls), the box keeps pressure on the woofer at very low frequencies to prevent the woofer from "moving back and forth", thus greatly reducing inter-modulation distortion. Consequently, the Cornwalls have very good woofer control/reinforcement below 25Hz; the bass fades away quickly. This makes them particularly well suited to vinyl playback; turntable rumble is not problematic for Cornwalls like it is for many sealed enclosures; turntable rumble makes many acoustic suspension woofers look like they are going to jump out of the box."

Yet MaxG said The LaScala's do not (in my opinion - have I said that enough already?) need a sub but lose a little because of it. That being said they are the best of the 3 (Heresy, Forte, Heresy with sub) taken in isolation.

Tom Brennan said, "the biggest problem with CWs, and the Heritages in general, is the narrow directivity, in certain situations this lends a "fierceness" to the sound on axis." I certainly fought with this on the Cornwalls, never really noticed it on the LaScala's visit to my abode and do not experience this directional fierceness on the Khorns.

However, John Warren said, the LaScala as a folded bass horn is inadequate. the mouth is tiny. the folding is classic PA, highly compromised. worse than that, the thing is sensitive as hell above about 80Hz so to couple it to a subwoofer creates too many problems. What you really are listening to is a mid-range dominant loudspeaker system that, at moderately high volume levels produces prodigious amounts of 2cd order harmonic distortionthe LaScala has established a prominent place in audio, unfortunately it is in the ceiling-to-wall corners of your local disco, sports bar or train station.

Some really excellent comments and observations. IF it was me, I would be running to grab the LaScalas, even if I had to make the room for them. The difference between the mid-range horn on the LaScalas and the Cornwalls is only a few issues. It is some very hard to define or measure improvements in clarity, tone and soundscape. Once I heard Mike Lindsays new babies on my equipment in my living room however, I knew that there was something better. I have been afraid to visit Q-man, even though he lives nearby, for fear that he too has something better. Once I heard the LaScalas, I had to have them or something like them. I am now convinced that the bigger the mid-range horn, all other things being equal, the better the clarity, separation and imaging.

The incredible sensitivity of the LaScala means is they do not need awesome power, but they do need really good power at low levels. Almost all normal listening will be done with less than one watt. Their sensitivity reveals all front-end flaws. Because of their ultra-low power requirements and reveling nature, big old horns are very favorably matched to flea powered tube equipment. It is a classic combination dating back decades.

[psg]

Great post Colin! I disagree with you about combining a sub with the La Scala's, but aside from that...

[triode]

----------------

On 11/11/2004 10:47:39 PM TBrennan wrote:

I've owned both LSs and CWs and prefer the CWs. The LSs have a bass-shy sound but the CWs sound robust and fullbodied. The bass-shy tonal balance of the LSs gives me earwire; a sensation as though a wire was being twisted in my ears. I now find LSs to be quite obnoxious speakers though I did enjoy the ones I owned back in the 1970s; they did get VERY loud afterall.

----------------

Must disagree with you on this one. If you are getting earwire the problem is your amplification. Like Colin said you only need 1 watt, but it's got to be good. I have listened to La Scalas with an excellent pair of 2A3 SET amps and they sounded beautiful!

They are very accurate speakers and were reproducing the Distortion that your amps were feeding them. And God forbid, if they were Solid State, I would not have been able to stay in the room.

[formica]

I think you really have to hear both... as they are quite different.

I had the opportunity of "upgrading" my Cornwalls to LaScalas and have some $ left over, but I honestly preferred the Cornwalls.

I'd agree with John Warren's quote "What you really are listening to is a mid-range dominant loudspeaker system"... as the very efficient midrange coupled with weaker bass horn make that midrange jump out at you.

The Cornwalls have a weaker midrange coupled to a stronger bass unit and therefore sounded more balanced... even though it probably doesn't offer the "clarity" of the LaScala.

Music choice is important here... as 90% of my music has significant content down to 25Hz.

Rob

[formica]

double post... opps...