Belle & LS midrange horn differences

[heresy2guy]

The Belle's midrange horn is much shallower in overall depth and much smaller in diameter at it's mouth then the La Scala's.

Even though the drivers (K55) are the same, the different horns must affect the sound being heard. To my knowledge, differences in horn depth, diameter, and overall shape (i.e. tractrix) will affect the sound from the driver.

Anybody heard a Belle and a La Scala side-by-side to bear this out?

-H2G

[WMcD]

My guess it that there will not be too much difference in sound. One has a nominal low freq of 400 Hz and the other 500 Hz. That is only a few notes on the musical scale.

On the other hand this can make an appreciable difference in size. As with the common use of the term "exponential growth" the required bulk increases rapidly.

Gil

[ricktate]

Well when i was looking to buy new in 1980 i listened to Belle and Scala side by side and i hate to say it but i didnt like the Belle on female voices the Scala sounded much better.But i actually wanted the Belles but when you compare price to sound the Scalas beat them not by much mind you.But Belles were made for beauty and they do that dont they nothing against them or anyone who likes them, just my view.Rick

[Tom Mobley]

I have a Belle and pair of LS, I really doubt I could tell them apart blindfolded. I thought I would be able to, but now I doubt it.

[heresy2guy]

Lots of people usually speak of the Belle and LS as interchangeable speakers, sound-wise. Granted I haven't heard them side-by-side, by logic would dictate a difference in sound due to the difference in horns as stated above. I recall Moon getting a pair of Belles and not being happy with them. Granted, in the pic I saw he had them so close together that I doubt any speaker that size would sound good, but I understand the rational behind it: a guy's only got some much real estate in his living room. But the bigger klipsches definitely need space to breath. There is such a thing as having too much heritage in too small a room, acoustically speaking. For example, I moved a pair of La Scalas into my guest bedroom as an experiment (about 11x10) and they sounded nothing like in my den (25x15) so to me, use the right speaker for the right space. Still, I wonder if Moon would have thought differently if he had La Scalas? Better yet, what if he had them (or his Belles) in a larger room and they were spaced at least 12-15 feet apart? I think he's looking to build some cornwalls as per his latest post. Corns have a pretty big footprint themselves...

[JohnA]

The sound difference between the two seems to be mostly in the bass horn. When we listened to the latest Belles and La Scalas in Indy a couple of years ago, the Belles sounded "thin" and the La Scalas sounded normal :-) actually "warm". Since I have La Scalas, it was normal to me. La Scalas have a small response hump around 200 Hz that makes them a bit warm. The Belle does not. Otherwise there is little difference.

[Q-Man]

I prefer the LaScala over the Belle. The Belle was another compromise in sound to make a better looking speaker.

The LaScala is a better match with the Klipschorn if your looking for a center channel.

[Rudy81]

I have owned both at the same time and done some listening tests. I too found the major differance to be in the bass section. The mid horns had very little differance I could hear. The bass on the La Scala was more emphatic and powerful. I eventually sold my Belles after I got a set of Khorns. One La Scala is now my center channel.