Your Side by Side Experience With Best Vintage vs Newer Expensive Hi Tech Speakers

@steve59 The couple of main differences between the early Lascala and the series II, are : ( 1 ) went from 3/4 inch birch ply to 1 inch birch ply and MDF, in the cabinet design. The dog houses ( woofer sections ) were resonant in the originals. The series II are now two boxes, dog houses is one, and mid horn / tweeter horn in upper. The combined weight of the speaker is now 175 lbs, versus 123 lbs for the original. ( 2 ) The crossovers have changed a little, with the woofer crossing over at a lower frequency to the mid horn. The crossovers are now using newer, higher grade, closer tolerance components, giving them the ability of passive biamping / biwiring, and to extract an extra db of effieciency, from 104, to 105 ( according to the specs Klipsch publishes. The crossover in the series II is based on the " AL3 " crossover, as there were a few various crossovers during the original productions. Also need to mention, that at some point Klipsch changed from metal mid horns to a ( and I hate to use the term, a plastic type horn ), to reduce ringing, in the originals. The series II, can be gotten in several different finishes, and although sometimes special ordered, some retailers stock a few finishes. The originals were available in, I believe, 3 ( Walnut Oak, Oak Oak, and raw birch ). Klipsch also had the " pro " version, with handles built into the upper portion of the cabinets, sealed the back of the mid / tweeter / crossover section, fused the tweeter, as well as the entire speaker, used a higher power handling woofer and added 5 way binding posts, with the original non pro versions having screw terminal barrier strips for hook up. I am sure I am leaving some things out. The original Lascala, was produced actually as a PA speaker for a well known politician for his campaigning. They were also produced with a specific price point. The original Lascala had some inherent weaknesses, which became noticeable as people were buying them for their homes, and using early,higher power solid state amps ( as the tube amp users did not hear these issues, ime ). So is there still a family resemblance between the old and the new ?. I think so. Is the series II worth the extra price difference ? Well, that depends. I could purchase a pair of originals, and do so much to them, that they might be indistinguishable from the new ones, or, even better. So sorry for my long rant, but I guess you can see I am a " Klipsch guy " ( specifically the Heritage Line ). I do feel the new Lascala is price competitive with other speakers, as, imo, they do more of what " I want ". They could use some additional bass augmentation, by adding a pair of extremely fast subwoofers. The Lascala is my favorite Heritage, as it is the most versatile. Enjoy ! MrD.

I meant to say Walnut oil and Oak oil. Also, the crossovers have always been housed in the mid / tweeter section. That's all. Thank you. Enjoy ! MrD.

My buddy upgraded from the lascalas to the klipsch corner horns and the differences were quite audible and educational back in the day.

I agree, and if I were able to build a special room specifically to accommodate the Khorns ( room corners become part of the doghouse ), and then get rid of some of the other room corner " problems ", I would own a pair. Some of the best systems I have heard were with this exact situation. Enjoy ! MrD 

I think there are at least two different topics here and both are interesting:

1. Tuning systems and rooms: The two sides never seem to converge on this one, and I suggest it's due to the fact that audiophiles do not all have the same objective. I'm not sure why we have such a hard time admitting this as a basic assumption. Some audiophiles love this pursuit in order to enjoy the technological pursuit of "accurate" reproduction of what is on a recording... hearing every detail both additive and subtractive from the musical experience, because that's what the engineer laid down. To them, tweaking and tuning to make mediocre recordings sound musical is antithetical to why they are in this hobby in the first place. The second type -- and yes there are undoubtedly more than two, but to oversimplify -- are those who want to fool their brains into thinking a live musical event is playing out in their listening room, so they can experience at least a part of the emotional experience of what the musician played/intended. When a Type 2 like Michael (or me) starts talking about making adjustments to make a higher percentage of recordings fool our brains, it necessarily will never make sense to Type 1, unless/until that Type 1 person might experience it for themselves, and maybe if they are at heart a music lover, they might just shift their overall objective.

In the meantime, we should could avoid a lot of argument by being clear about our objective going in, and only if the objectives align is it worth the ink to argue about the means to achieve it. But even if we are ships passing in the night, there is some entertainment value trying to convince one another our objective is the more worthy! It's been fueling audio forums for decades.

2. Vintage equipment vs modern: I would respectfully suggest we restage this question along the lines of my #1 above. I don't think it's so much about old vs new, and it is about designers who design for Type 1's vs those that design for Type 2's. My short response to the original question is in line with Michael Green's, in that speakers of old seemed to be more about musicality, as driven by the ears of the designers, whereas today's speakers, while some are indeed designed around musicality and a designer's great ears like the old days, are the result of several forces I've noticed:  a) Reviewers, somewhere along the line ... and maybe it coincided with the digital revolution ... started assigning badges of honor to attributes like "neutrality" and "accuracy" which, in an epic twist of fate, have no objective meaning whatsoever. I observe these terms have come to connote sparkling, airy highs and a thin midrange, uncolored by any chestiness, richness or humanity. IMHO the whole neutrality juggernaut has fueled a generation of products and listeners who unfortunately are missing out on the miracle of our hobby... that a system can truly trip the wires in our brains that create the illusion of real music. "Neutral" systems are amazing technological reproducers of sound and cause one to instantly say "Wow that's a great system." Musical systems cause one to instantly tap their foot and say "Wow Miles Davis is great." So audio companies face a customer base in which 80% of them want neutral hifi. What is a business that wants to stay in business to do? Many (not all) lean toward hifi.

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, there is no need to create false,  judgmental distinctions between tuning a room, tuning with an equalizer, tuning with a cable, and tuning by choosing a component like a DAC or power amplifier. Every choice we make tunes our systems. Our entire hobby is about tuning!

I don't understand what Michael Green is getting at with his "codes" references, but I do wholeheartedly agree that anything that can be done to a room or stereo system to improve the probability that our little reptile brains will be fooled into thinking they are listening to live music is a very, very good thing. But then again I am a Type 2!