Differences in Bass Bins--La Scala vs. Belle

[Hardhead]

Other than the differences in external deminsions, what are the differences in the bass bins--the "doghouses"--of the La Scala and the Belle Klipsch? Is one bass bin able to play higher or lower notes than the other? Does one bass bin sound better than the other? I see that the efficiency is the same for both. It seems that much or even all of the La Scala's sonic appeal, if any, over the Belle is that the frequencies above 400Hz come from the La Scala's midrange as opposed to those above 500Hz for the Belle.

My ulterior motive in asking this question is that, if the bass bins are essentially the "same" sonically up to 400Hz then putting Al Klappenberger's Tractrix 400 horn into a Belle would, in effect, turn it into a gorgeous La Scala. Am I correct?

[D-MAN]

Technically speaking, not much difference between them - the LS has a raw columnar corner of about 6" length that does not feature any expansion; the Belle does not have this, it expands consistantly. Both however do have blunt 90 degree corners which definitely effect the passage of soundwaves and cause some colorations.

The issue between the two is "can the columnar portions of the LS color the sound"? It is well known in horns that non-expanding column pathways do not alter the phase of the soundwave(s) passing through them.

So they theoretically SHOULD sound exactly alike. In theory.

The actual planar dimensions are different in that I personally think that the Belle would be more structurally sound without the particular need for bracing in that it presents less planar area for vibration, in particular on the sides of the horn mouth(s). This also is only my opinion.

DM

[Tom Mobley]

I have built 2 LS and 1 Belle, they have the same drivers and ALK crossovers. I really doubt I could tell them apart in any sort of blind test. I was surprised by this considering the relative physical sizes of the K-400 and the K-500. The bass horns are really very much alike, the Belle is a shallower, wider version of the LS. I don't think there's a dimes worth of difference. It is true that the LS has a short section of non-expanding area in the horn, but I can't hear that at all. Anybody who wants to drop by and listen is welcome. Better bring your golden ears.

[Hardhead]

Thanks for the replies, gentlemen. Sounds as if whoever did that would be getting the best of both worlds.

[ricktate]

Well before i bought my scals new in 1980 i listened to belles and Scalas and i think the scalas have better voice sound and they were cheaper to.Rick

[1BigBore]

Does anyone have a sketch or drawing of the Belle internal layout? I would love to see how they are made.

1BB

[D-MAN]

There was a whole bunch of threads on the Belle with plans, etc.

maybe a year back in this section...

DM

[1BigBore]

THANKS!

I looked and found some very good information.

Thanks again.

1BB

[jim-analog]

Greetings,

Have any of you measured the LS bottom section for frequency response? I'm contenplating a project mating the LS bottom to an Altec 604G (duplex type) in its own cabinet to reduce the l/f required of the Altec. My LS are in storage and I won't be able to measure for some time. I was considering a cross over point around 100Hz or so. Thanks!

Regards, Jim

[D-MAN]

The bass horn (LS and presumably the Belle) is calculated by PWK to have a LF cutoff of 70Hz, and is regarded as "usable" down to 60Hz.

The throat section is 60Hz and the mouth section has a 125Hz expansion rate, the combination resulting in 70Hz overall fc (per PWK in the La Scala AES preprint, 1965).

DM

[WMcD]

You can look at my 3/18/05 post in Technical Questions. Attached there is PWK's AES pre-print on the LS. As far as I know there has been nothing of substance published about the Belle. Only sales flyers which lump it with the LS.

Gil