smuttynose Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 How do they rate compared to Cornwalls? How about Khorns? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 IMO inferior to both CWs and Khorns because of their weak bass and midrange-skewed tonal balance. LSs have a much more of a "sound" than either CWs or Khorns. My opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klewless Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 T, True but they sure sound good with a proper sub. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psg Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Yeah, but he don't like anything... I've had La Scala's for nearly 25 years and love 'em. They do benefit from a sub. I set the speakers to "large" and the sub to "LFE+L/R" crossed over at 60 Hz. Really opens up the sound. As for the mid-range, well it's the same as the khorn so go figure... I posted last week in the 2-channel section about disappearing La Scala's when placed on the long wall, mimicking khorns. They sound great. When I eventually get khorns, I'll let you know how they really compare! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.4knee Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 I have had my La Scala's for 21 years and I definitely prefer them to Cornwalls. TB just hates La Scalas. The La Scala is 2/3+ a Klipschorn save for the bass response does not go as low. Anyone who says they dont have bass is deaf. What you will have to reconcile is whether or not you prefer the sound of a horn loaded bass or a deeper ported direct radiator. Both Cornwall and La Scala are excellent speakers but to me the Cornwalls just sound like big Heresys, to others they are like the next coming of PWK himself. The key to both is quality amplification, proper placement, and quality source material and components. The obvious answer to your question is the Klipschorn mother load and the other two are individual preferential steps down. If you ask Piranha he will swear by his Cornwalls, I am just the opposite. So while you will get varied opinions the real answer to your query is all three are fantastic loudspeakers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richieb Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 As they say, to each his own. Have both Cornwalls and Belles, which are very similar in design to LS. For me, it is Belles hands down, no contest. Much cleaner, crisper and plenty of accurate, tight and real sounding bass. Never bloated. I still believe the bass has much to do with front end equipment. Thin sounding bass could be the result of less than adequate and marginal amplification being fed by marginal source material, i.e. CD player or TT. Just my .02. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwc Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Depends on your setup and your preference. I have my scalas hooked to a beast of a MAC amp. Sounds awesome. However, lacks much low end. Would not be happy w/o a sub. The Corns are like Party speakers. The will thump you. The mid will not compare to La Scala. jc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colterphoto1 Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Consider that the LS depends on the woofer for frequencies up to the 400 Hz cutoff of the mid horn. That's great and very efficient to have the folded horn for the very low frequencies, but in my listening, lots of MID BASS (100-400 Hz, two full octaves) sounds muddled or funky on a LaScala. Compare to the purity of the Cornwall's front loaded 15" bass reflex design, which delivers a tighter, snappier bass punch (the famous Cornwall SLAM factor). I personally enjoy the snap of the beater of the kick drum (not the thud, the 'click'), and melodic electric bass playing to be much more linear on the Cornwalls. Also cellos and various Jazz instruments sound more true to life. It seems that for two cabinet designs using the same woofer, there is considerable musicality lost in the LaScala in exchange for the 104 db/watt efficiency. I much prefer the less efficient 98 db/watt Cornwall which has tighter mid bass transients. Just my opinion. There is a tradeoff the other direction with the mid horns, and the LaScala is the clear winner there, but that is in the region of 400-600 Hz or so, not even a full octave, whereas the difference in bass is over a couple of very critical octaves, at least for my listening tastes. Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Lascalas are the best sounding speaker for versatile placemet Klipsch makes IMHO (well except there size and WAF). You just have to have the right placement and gear attached. Do they reach sub sonic levels heck no! But the bass they do produce is superior in definition and punch to any other speaker that I have heard to date and yes I mean klipsch horns also. Take a Khorn out of the corner and what will you have? In the corner the bass surrounds you better with a Khorn but it is no where near as defined and punchy. If your room is not huge then your limited with a Khorn in respect to how well it will sound stage. Now the Cornwall is very versatile and sounds very good but I think the mid range is much better on a Lascala then a Cornwall. I will have to disagree that the basson the lascala is muddled sound anywhere from 45 hz on up at least in my setup. If you have to have sub sonic bass add a Sub as mentioned by others but IMHO for 95% of the music its just not needed. Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piranha Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 ---------------- On 5/10/2005 9:21:07 PM J.4knee wrote: If you ask Piranha he will swear by his Cornwalls, I am just the opposite. So while you will get varied opinions the real answer to your query is all three are fantastic loudspeakers. ---------------- I have both La Scala and Cornwalls. And Jim is right. With my current system, I definitely prefer the overall sound that I get from my CW's. They have better and lower bass response to me. The trade off being less definintion in the midrange. I can live with that. I get totally overwhelmed with the highs and mids from the La Scala's. Yeah, I am sure that a good sub would be the answer, but that's another $1000 minimum. But you never know, after I go to Indy and hear Trey's setup at the mixer I may just go out and buy the THX Ultra system and pull my LS's back into my 2-Channel? I guess only time will tell? Maybe the reason I like CW's is because I am partially deaf as a few hear have mentioned? As most around here will tell you, it's all just a matter of opinion. Everyone likes what they like. To each his own. Live and let live. Enjoy what you own and don't try to force what you "think" is the best on others. Amen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 The deficiencies of the various bass horns are very easy to clean up with a RTA and Equalizer -- oh yes indeedy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 ---------------- On 5/10/2005 9:21:07 PM J.4knee wrote: If you ask Piranha he will swear by his Cornwalls, I am just the opposite. So while you will get varied opinions the real answer to your query is all three are fantastic loudspeakers. ---------------- Yea but the week before that he was swearing by his lascalas! It all just depends on how many times he has bent his Elbow Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piranha Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 ---------------- On 5/10/2005 10:32:51 PM NOSValves wrote: ---------------- On 5/10/2005 9:21:07 PM J.4knee wrote: If you ask Piranha he will swear by his Cornwalls, I am just the opposite. So while you will get varied opinions the real answer to your query is all three are fantastic loudspeakers. ---------------- Yea but the week before that he was swearing by his lascalas! It all just depends on how many times he has bent his Elbow Craig ---------------- It was the night before, not a week. Get your facts straight guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 "Thin sounding bass could be the result of less than adequate and marginal amplification being fed by marginal source material, i.e. CD player or TT." Or simply the physical result of a small basshorn. There's only so much a small horn can do regardless of amp, CD player and such. If you like the quality of the bass the LS does manage to make fine but don't kid yourself it's going deep, it ain't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 "The deficiencies of the various bass horns are very easy to clean up with a RTA and Equalizer -- oh yes indeedy" Dean----Yes indeed, one can extend the bass with EQ, Edgar does so with his Seismic basshorn. But note that below the horn's cutoff frequency it's no longer acting as a horn but simply as a direct-radiator in a small sealed box. Thus the advantages of horn-loading are lost in that range; more power will be needed of course, and the EQ will force long excursions below cutoff and so distortion will rise. However these concerns may be more theoretical than practical which leads around to the disquieting though inescapable thought that IF a basshorn EQed below horn cutoff can sound great (and they can) do we really need a basshorn in the first place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triceratops Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 As Craig points out, the importance of the midrange to your listening tastes really seems to have a huge influence on which of these two speakers you prefer. I was doing some A-B tests with Cornwalls and LaScalas a couple of weeks ago, by switching back and forth using the same amp and source, while adjusting the volume to help compensate for the efficiency difference. It was not a sophisticated test, and was not a blind test for me (it was for my friend). Even so, at times I forgot which speaker we were listening to--had to look at the amp! After a few hours of dorking around we reached the same conclusion as a lot of other folks who have never had a chance to make a side-by-side comparison. We loved the low bass depth of the Cornwall for kick-*** rock and loved the midrange detail of the LaScala for jazz vocals. Both are really fine speakers. My friend said he would be very happy with Cornwalls--if only he had never heard the LaScalas--so he's stuck on LaScalas for now. I really like the signature of the Cornwalls myself, but I'm hoping to do a better comparison when I get my listening room set up (a year and counting and still not done). As they always say, YMMV. Best in horns, triceratops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LonestarBlues Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 I own 2 pair of Cornwalls-1977 with Deang Auricap crossovers, 1983 Cornwalls & 1989 Industrial La Scalas in unfinished birch. Both the Cornwall & La Scala are great sounding speakers in my opinion. They both make this South Texas Bubba go hubba hubba when I listen to either the Cornwalls or La Scalas. Both speakers will git- r-done sonically for me. The Cornwalls have more bass slam. The La Scalas bass is not lacking to my ears and I like the sonics of the horn loaded woofer. The La Scalas have the advantage in the midrange over the Cornwalls. It all boils down to subjective personal preferences in sonics. I like them both-me mucho gusto Klipsch Heritage speakers. Regards, Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colterphoto1 Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 I really enjoyed the last two posts. These guys currently own and have spent time listening to both speakers and clearly pointed out the benefits of each. Time I dragged my Ind LS into the LR and did the test myself. Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myhamish Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Ditto to the above. I've got both in the same room - different amps though. The Cornwalls are used for rock and the LaScalas are used for vocals. Different speakers - different characteristics - a matter of preference. Hamish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodger Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 For some reason the mid '70s LaScalas were better with bass. IMHO. But after having owned two pair, I needed room, thus they were sold and Cornwall IIs took their place. Bass is better but the trade is in mids. Just for clarification, the LaScala seems to have a long throw. In a small room or up close the sound is not ehat most buy stereo speakers for. The bass they have can ruffle your shirt. The Cornwall II has more kick inside or in a small room. The mid does not seem to be as clear as the LaScala. It would be interesting to hear Bob's CornScala or what Dean could do with Corhwall IIs via their crossover. Win Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.