Chorus II vs La Scala II

[bradleyc]

Has anybody heard Chorus II and La Scala II speakers? I would really appreciate some help to understand what some of the differences in sound are between these two models, please let me know what you think. Soon, my plan is to use a set of these speakers with Mac ss gear. Most of the time will be crankin rocknroll at medium volume levels.

[Daddy Dee]

BradleyC,

Welcome to the forum. These speakers have some significant differences between them. One is that LaScalla II will be five times (or more) the price of Chorus II.

The Chorus II is a capable Heritage like three way with a direct radiating bass driver. I believe the II model has a nice tractrix mid horn. The should is very good.

The LaScala II (as the original LaScala) is a fully horn loaded three way speaker. The horn loaded woofer has less distortion than the direct radiator woofer, even though the woofer itself is quite similar. The horn loaded bass in LaScala does not have the bass extension of a Chorus, but this is due to the dimensions of the LaScala bass horn.

One of the original LaScala's would be comparable in price to Chorus II, usually costing more, but there is overlap in the range.

My preference for the two would be LaScala.

[Video Guy]

Why wouldn't the La Scala horn loading produce lower base? Can you elaborate on your statement from above post?

"The horn loaded bass in LaScala does not have the bass extension of a
Chorus, but this is due to the dimensions of the LaScala bass horn."

[Guest " "]

Video Guy

The LaScala bass bin used a hi pass horn which currently indicates a spec of 53hz +-4db.

The Chorus has a response of 45hz +-3db

TheChorus II has a response of 39hz +-4db

While I could not tell you exactly how large the LaScala bass bin would have to be to reach below the 39 to 45hz of the chorus, it would need to be a larger cabinet than the present size of the LaScala.

If you were to lay out the cut pieces of the LaScala, it would suggest that the size was derived based on how large a cab could be made using 1.5 sheets of plywood rather than an optimal size to harness what the k-33 was capable of delivering. The size of all the early Heritage models seem to be driven by plywood cut size. Lay out the cut pattern for Heresy's, LaScala's, Cornwalls and you will see what I mean.

[Islander]

To get really low bass with a horn-loaded speaker, the horn needs to be really big. The La Scala was designed to be portable, assuming you have roadies available, so it's not that big. A horn that can go down to 30 Hz looks like this:

[Islander]

It's much simpler to just add a subwoofer to a sensible sized pair of speakers. The 30 Hz horns work, but they're huge. Here's a picture of a pair of them, with a door to give a sense of scale:

[Islander]

If you were to lay out the cut pieces of the LaScala, it would suggest that the size was derived based on how large a cab could be made using 1.5 sheets of plywood rather than an optimal size to harness what the k-33 was capable of delivering. The size of all the early Heritage models seem to be driven by plywood cut size. Lay out the cut pattern for Heresy's, LaScala's, Cornwalls and you will see what I mean.

When you put it that way, Fritz, I wonder how a Scala would sound if it was made using 2 sheets of plywood, for example if the speaker was the same width but was deeper, with a taller bass bin? The horn opening doesn't need to be square. If a La Scala was a foot taller, it would still be shorter than a Khorn.

I still respect how manufacturing efficiency was an integral part of the design. It makes the speakers closer to affordable and keeps the business on a more solid footing, two good things.

[BEC]

This must be the one sheet of plywood version of the LaScala.

[Guest " "]

Islander

Couple of thoughts

My understanding is that either a bigger exit size or a bigger mouth can lower the response of range of the horn. This comes up often when folks talk about 1 inch vs 2 inch horn formats. So an option could be to increase the mouth size. Easily done if you increase the width of the LaScala a few inches and use a K-49-KP 18 inch woofer. You could increase the mouth size while also increasing the exit size. Don't know how many more HZ this would get you below the 53hz the cab is currently rated for. I put an 18 inch woofer in a pair of Khorn cabs made 15% over size, sealed the back like the 60's, and used them for a party for 3000 folks that covered a foot ball field. So enlarging the mouth size is a serious consideration.

Sub woofers are interesting. Small space, large extension. Usally smaller cone area than a normal woofer. But sound pressures are both louder and at a lower frequency. Only trade off is usally a lower operating ceiling on the frequency response.

[Guest " "]

BEC

If you can get a partner for that runt of yours while the exchange rate continue's to nose dive you probally could make a killing on ebay.

[BEC]

It is not mine. It is in the museum at the factory in Hope.

[Islander]

Good one, Bob! Was the runt a production model or a one-off? One of those might make a nice center channel match for a pair of La Scalas. I wonder if Klipsch ever considered that?

[BEC]

I don't know if more than this one were made. I would love to hear one of these as a center channel between Khorns, Lascalas or Belles.

Bob Crites

[Marvel]

I think for a center it would be interesting to hear Erik Forker's scaled down LS, using a 10 inch driver. He put an Edgar design 300Hz tractrix on top.

[bradleyc]

Thanks for your input, if the LS2's don't sound significantly better I probably won't go that route. It's really hard to decide without an audition, and for another month I can get the LS2's built for $4K. Also looking at a Mac C46-pre and MC252-amp, but can't audition those either. Since there are no longer any Mac dealers in my state, found 17% off retail with no sales tax from another state. I would be willing to give up some low bass for cleaner, smoother, more detailed highs/mids/lows, and a bigger sound stage, with much better imaging. The LS2's would really have to sound superior to Chorus II with rock N roll, and I'm not yet sure that they will.

[Guest " "]

bradleyc

What state are you in.

" The LS2's would really have to sound superior to Chorus II with rock N roll, and I'm not yet sure that they will. "

I think this is a subjective area.

[bradleyc]

state of Iowa

[colterphoto1]

"I would be willing to give up some low bass for cleaner, smoother, more
detailed highs/mids/lows, and a bigger sound stage, with much better
imaging. "

Based on this new criteria, I'd bet the LSII would best a ChII

Where's Doc in all this? He's heard them both- GRASSHOPPER!

[DrWho]

I saw this thread, but didn't have time to comment until now - though I don't have much time now either.

The tractrix mids of the Chorus II are going to be smoother, but sometimes it sounds a bit pinched because the directivity is very narrow, which also means a very small sweet spot. If you only care about a single sweet spot then you're not going to notice. You absolutely need an amp with good damping so that it "ignores" the crazy impedance response. I can see someone describing the Chorus as harsh when using low damping amps because it causes a rise in the frequency response around 6kHz (which makes you want to rip your ears off). The Lascala II has a wider sweet spot, but exponential horns - so relatively things sound more hollow (like cupping your hands).

The Chorus II is ruler flat to 40Hz and the passive radiator avoids a lot of power compression often associated with ports. It's also a low Q system so it doesn't ring - basically it sounds like a sealed system that digs lower. The full hornloading of the lascala, however, is still more dynamic. Some tom and snare hits are going to be more full bodied. However, the Lascala is starting to roll off around 90Hz because the horn isn't large enough. The Chorus II is going to have more output from 90Hz and below.

In the rock I listen to, that last octave is extremely important since it contains most of the bass guitar and drum fundamentals - I just gotta have that bottom groove foundation or I can't get into the music. In a straight up 2-channel system, I would choose Chorus II over the Lascala II. If you want even more bass then you might consider the Cornwall (which has some bass boost built in). If there are subwoofers involved, then I would absolutely go with the Lascala II. Though if you were considering shelling out for new Lascala II's, then you might also consider the Jubilee...which digs almost as low as the Chorus II, but has more dynamics than the Lascala and even better mids than the Chorus II. I don't think I would recommend the Khorn for rock unless you go with one of the newest models.

[Guest " "]

"In the rock I listen to, that last
octave is extremely important since it contains most of the bass guitar
and drum fundamentals - I just gotta have that bottom groove foundation
or I can't get into the music. In a straight up 2-channel system, I
would choose Chorus II over the Lascala II. If you want even more bass
then you might consider the Cornwall (which has some bass boost built
in). If there are subwoofers involved, then I would absolutely go with
the Lascala II. Though if you were considering shelling out for new
Lascala II's, then you might also consider the Jubilee...which digs
almost as low as the Chorus II, but has more dynamics than the Lascala
and even better mids than the Chorus II. I don't think I would
recommend the Khorn for rock unless you go with one of the newest
models. "

Wow, DrWho

This is the first paragraph I have ever read that you wrote that I can actually understand. Either I'm starting to understand techno-speak, or you changed your stlye of writing. Well said on all points.