Increasing bass on the Lascala's

[gonzp]

I have heard that the Lascalas are lacking in the lower bass regions, when compared to the Cornwalls and the K-Horns. Can upgrading the crossover networks remedy this or is a sub the only way to achieve lower bass from the scalas. Thanks Patrick

[sfogg]

Patrick,

A crossover upgrade (if it allows adjusting the squawkers level) will increase the *apparent* bass of the LaScala by dialing back the mids to better match the bass level in the LaScala. The bass level of course doesn't change but it will sound a little more balanced compared to when the squawker was run hot.

If you want deep bass though get some good subwoofers.

Shawn

[Marvel]

Or you can do the bass mod for the cabinets, but that's more work.

Shawn, did you ever try the corner reflectors is your LS?

Marvel

[Daddy Dee]

Gonzp,

What Shawn has suggested about changing the crossover can be pretty easily done. On AA crossovers, the squawker is driven off the #4 tap on the autoformer. If you change that to the #3 tap, it will lower the squawker output by 3dbs. A pleasant change, IMO. It does however, only change the perceived bass relative to the HF.

When I was listening to LaScalas, I never got really happy with them until I added a sub. That combination was a winner to me and offered a world of improvement.

[sfogg]

Marvel,

"did you ever try the corner reflectors is your LS?"

Not yet. I have been so busy lately any free time has been spent enjoying the system instead of fussing with it.

When I do get around to giving it a whirl I'll post the results.

Shawn

[Erik Mandaville]

Patrick:

As a supplement to what has already been mentioned by Sfogg and Daddydee, attenuating the midhorn and/or tweeter will give an apparent increase in bass response, simply by virtue of the loudness of midrange and tweeter relative to that of the woofer -- which will be no louder than it was originally.

Variable L-pads have been used extensively for both midrange and tweeter attenuation for many years, and work very well. Having worked with both the stock Klipsch autoformers and many different variable L-pads (which work essentially like a volume control), I find the variable L-pad a far more flexible approach than the autoformer -- which in my opinion and experience has comparatively 'course' adjustment ability. A variable L-pad works just like a volume control, and can be finely tuned to individual preferences. Moreover, no other adjustments need be made in order to maintain a constant impedance for the amplifier. The reason for this will sound as boring as much techno-jargon can, but is the result of an inverse relationship between the series and parallel resistances of the L-pad. L-pads are NOT cheap fixes, and are an extremely effective way of managing the desired level of energy to the driver/s with which they are used.

In other words, just attenuating the midhorn will help bass response sound more prominent, although the tweeter output may or may not subsequently sound out of balance. However, there are many manufacturers who install adjustable L-pads on BOTH tweeter and midrange drivers -- which of course would provide an even greater amount of flexibility and driver matching according to individual tastes.

I think Dee and Shawn (as well as some other forum members) have the best solution to this, which is one I want to use in conjunction with our Klipschorns, La Scala, and other surround channels: A good subwoofer.

Good luck,

Erik

[Colin]

The LaScalla is a very good bookshelf speaker not for placement on the bookshelf, but for placing the bookshelves on it! Like a bookshelf speaker, it does not have a lot of output at the frequencies that require the most energy the first octave. It needs powerful solid-state support below 50Hz, in other words, a subwoofer.

[pauln]

I have read in this forum that the new LaScalas' AL-4 network is EQ'd for more bass. I think mine have just right bass driven with SET.

[sfogg]

"I have read in this forum that the new LaScalas' AL-4 network is EQ'd for more bass. "

It is certainly possible that the network could be doing some EQ but to do that passively in the crossover would basically mean the network would have to cut back everything but the bass range they want to 'boost. The efficiency would be lower and they couldn't do very much without really killing the efficiency of the bass. Even still this wouldn't be able to extend the Las much lower at all. To do any sort of real bass boost like this really needs to occur ahead of the amps... but in doing this of course requires a lot of available power. Every 3dB of bass boost doubles the power used in that range.

Klipsch may just be cutting back the squawkers level compared to the earlier networks to make the speaker better balanced top to bottom.

Shawn

[D-MAN]

You can't get something for nothing. And if the LS or BELLE could produce prodigious bass at their respective sizes then they would have taken over the world by now...

The problem is the low frequency cutoff of the LS or BELLE horn itself. In the LS/BELLE, it's a nominal 70Hz fc and that is FIXED by the expansion rate(s) (re: 2) and mouth size of the horn itself. The fall off below 60 Hz is steep and rapid.

Reflex porting the cabinet is the only viable way of producing more low frequencies out of the LS/BELLE.

Or get a pair of Khorns. That's why they exist!

DM

[DrWho]

As mentioned, there is a mod where you basically add a cabinet to the bottom of the lascala and put in some ports...it basically extends the response down to 35Hz without increasing distortion or anything else (in fact, it will actually lower the distortion). Crossover mods and all that are going to make the transition between the woofer and the midrange not as seamless and it's not going to extend the response either...it will just make the 50Hz notes louder compared to the rest of the frequencies...in other words you will still have the same steep cutoff below 50Hz, thus it will still be lacking in the lower bass regions.

The ported mod or an EQ is the only way to go (keeping in mind that an EQ will lower the maximum output of the speaker...so if you add 12dB of boost at say 30Hz, then subtract 12 from 121db (the rated max SPL) and you're down to 109dB peak, which really isn't that loud, especially for bass). Keep in mind that EQ increases the distortion in the speaker because it greatly increases cone movement (which in my opinion would destroy that horn loaded bass sound of the speaker).

Anyways, the ported mod is certainly going to extend the response of the speaker, but it's still no comparison to actually adding a good subwoofer or two. I would only recommend it if cost was an issue (building/finishing cabinets would be around $100-$200 depending on how picky you are about the looks versus easily spending $1000 on a sub).

[D-MAN]

One more thing for those brave of heart, and its also CHEAP!

Cut the throat opening slot WIDER to 6" vs. the nominal 3".

This increases efficiency slightly and will allow you to FORCE some bass through the horn below the horn cutoff.

Basically, this allows you to "power" past the low fc of the horn itself to a degree, in part due to the relatively short horn length and rapid expansion rate(s).

DM

[3dzapper]

"As mentioned, there is a mod where you basically add a cabinet to the bottom of the lascala and put in some ports...it basically extends the response down to 35Hz without increasing distortion or anything else (in fact, it will actually lower the distortion)."

Port noise?

"Crossover mods and all that are going to make the transition between the woofer and the midrange not as seamless and it's not going to extend the response either...it will just make the 50Hz notes louder compared to the rest of the frequencies"

Have you ever heard a properly built ALK crossover on a Lascala? The crossover is smoother, much smoother than even a re-capped Klipsch Type AA.

"...in other words you will still have the same steep cutoff below 50Hz, thus it will still be lacking in the lower bass regions.""

The lowest note on a bass guitar is 41Hz. There is not much information recorded in music, except maybe the fundamental of a kettle drum or 64' and 32' organ pedals (16-32HZ)which no commonly avaliable speaker can reproduce and if they do it is most likely the harmonics not the fundamental anyhow. To do that would require a kilowatt.

IMO the price performance ratio in amps is to buy the lower powered one at the price point (assuming it is not just a rip-off) If there were two one thousand dollar amps under consideration, one a 400 WPC Beast the other a 25WPC Weakling, chances are the Weakling has higher grade components and is biased further into class A. That makes more difference on a Lascala than a subwoofer for music. With 104DB speakers playing music in the home, we are much more concerned with the first 1/4 watt than all the rest combined. Again MHO.

Many love their Lascalas without a sub too, though for HT use, a sub would be nice to recreate the end of the Earth. Or if you are into pipe organ recitals.

Rick

[chuckears]

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

On 6/1/2005 4:14:00 PM 3dzapper wrote:

The lowest note on a bass guitar is 41Hz. There is not much information recorded in music, except maybe the fundamental of a kettle drum or 64' and 32' organ pedals (16-32HZ)which no commonly avaliable speaker can reproduce and if they do it is most likely the harmonics not the fundamental anyhow. To do that would require a kilowatt.

Rick

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

I am uncertain as to how this applies to the pursuit of faithful music reproduction; because, while it is true that the fundamentals below 30-40 Hz are few and far between, it is reproduction of the room resonances (sub-harmonics) that is crucial to re-creating the performance.

I was blown away by this when I introduced a subwoofer to my Fortes (no slouches in the bass department, them). I could almost see the room in which the recording was taking place; there was a distinct immediacy to the sound that the reproduction of even the below-20 Hz material (and it's there, no doubt about it!) makes possible.

If the front end of your audio chain is not allowing for these differences to be heard, then that would be something that might be due for an upgrade.

This is not to say that LaScala and Belle speakers sound bad, or incomplete, or that their owners have to have a subwoofer to enjoy them. But to say that there is nothing to be gained by reproducing the lowest possible information from better recordings is a mis-statement, and I have heard the difference very dramatically with my own choices.

One of my dream 2-channel configurations, if I were not allowed corners (thus allowing for the mighty K-Horn) would consist of a pair of LaScalas, each with its own SVS PB12-Ultra picking up the slack.

[DrWho]

Port noise is only an issue on poorly designed ports or on designs that can't have a sufficient mouth area (because the corresponding length would be bigger than the cabinet). If you don't wanna take my word for it then by all means just use a passive radiator (which accomplishes the same thing...just costs a ton more). The trick here is to keep the air velocity through the port below 20ms (a system dependant on XMax of the driver....and the K33 is by no means a high excursion driver, which makes it that much easier). At 20ms, the port noise is over 20dB quieter than the sound of the driver...20dB is the point where masking occurs (which means you won't hear it at all). At max output, we could easily keep the port velocity under 10ms.

"Have you ever heard a properly built ALK crossover on a Lascala? The crossover is smoother, much smoother than even a re-capped Klipsch Type AA. "

I was referring to crossover mods that drop the squaker and tweeter volumes to make the woofer relatively louder. The ALK and AA mods are only going to improve the midrange/transitions between drivers. Anyways, my point here is that looking at the woofer alone, with any crossover mod you still have the same woofer response and the fast dropoff below 50Hz. In other words, 50Hz and above is still going to be 16dB louder than 30Hz, there's no way around that without EQ or modifying the woofer system somehow. It seems like such a waste to convert the rear wave of the woofer into heat (thanks to the sealed cabinet behind it). (I think I might need to provide a pic to explain this better).

As far as the lowest note of music goes, it all depends on what you listen to. Most of the stuff that I personally enjoy has A LOT of material below 30Hz and I would simply not be able to enjoy it on a lascala or heresy without a subwoofer. I think a lot of people would be surprised how much subbass material exists in music...all it takes is connecting an RTA to the CD player output and you will quickly see what you're missing out on. And there is a lot more involved than merely the lowest fundamental note for the instruments (ie combination tones and acoustical cues from the recording environment).

[chuckears]

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

On 6/3/2005 4:12:08 AM DrWho wrote:

And there is a lot more involved than merely the lowest fundamental note for the instruments (ie combination tones and acoustical cues from the recording environment).

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

A.K.A. sub-harmonics, room cues, or basically what I described above

...and it's what helps to contribute to "bringing you to the performance", in essence, making it seem like you are right there.

Not many systems do this, but when it happens, and you appreciate it, it makes it all worthwhile.

[gonzp]

Thank you all for the reply's. I still would like to upgrade my crossover networks and, I will probibly get a subwoofer. I have looked at the networks from Al, Bob and Dean and I am wondering which would be the best fit for my application. I switch my Scalas out between 2 Scott 99D mono amps and an Almarro A318A 18watter, I listen to every type of music from opera to Zepplin, my room is quite large 30'x30'living and dining rooms speakers are placed along the long wall in the living room slightly toed in. I know that asking for a reccomndation on which network to purchase is a very broad question and you can only draw from your own personal experience. I am hoping to purchase a crossover network at the Klipsch Pilgrimage this year!!! In advance again, thank you for taking the time to educate a newbie like me.

Happy Listening, Patrick

[3dzapper]

Chuckears, Drwho, What frequency do you set the cut-off to the sub with your Lascalas?

With my Heresys, the sub is set at 60Hz and appears seamless. With the Khorns, the sub sounds contrived v the very fast horn loaded bass. When set to the 35Hz LF -3Db point of the Khorn, on accustic LPs the sub rarely fires. (Many if not most speakers are specified at the -10Db point of the bass. This is at the 28Hz point on the Khorn. I believe it is 35Hz for the LaScala but my recollection here may be off by a few Hz.)

In my small back work room, driven by a Scott 99C and an older Technics 5 disk CD player, my ALK equipped mono Lascala leaves me with no desire to add a sub.

Note, I don't listen to hip hop with it's drum machines and synthized bass. If I did I would want to add a sub too.

My listening tastes are mostly classic rock and accustic jazz with a smattering of classic country and bluegrass.

Looking at gonzp's profile: Age 43

Main Sysyem:Almarro A318A integrated tube amp;1984 Lascalas;Denon CD player;Music Hall MM5 TT;Scott 370 tube tuner.

I assume he is not a hip hop guy either.

I know about assume!

Rick

[sfogg]

Rick,

"What frequency do you set the cut-off to the sub with your Lascalas?"

I cross mine at 80hz to the subs. Both high and low pass are fourth order.

Shawn

[JohnA]

I use 80 Hz for my crossover, too. The La Scala is solid down to 60 Hz if it's pushed back into a corner. djk has a cabinet volume/port mod that will get it lower with a good amp and a filter. Otherwise, you're looking at subwoofers and powerful ones, too. I have my VMPS subs in both front corners and my system is 4 dB below 1000 Hz at 16 Hz.