Klipsch La Scala 2018 or the Triangle Cello?

"Perhaps you haven't heard the current generation of Klipsch speakers. They do the imaging trickery and finesse better than older klipsch offerings. The new Cornwall IV is extremely hard to beat in it's price range."   Oz

I have not heard the new Heresy IV, Cornwall, or LaScala AL5. I have owned the RF-25, a pair of factory custom Heresy IIIs, and have spent some time with the last gen LaScalas. The Triangles and the Klipsch have completely difference sound characteristics. The Triangles being very electrostatic like with a deep sound stage and a very transparent presentation. The LaScalas are very dynamic and efficient but they trade frequency response for efficiency and have the problems of horn systems (resonaces, etc). I liked the LaScalas but I would grow tired of the sound very quickly. Perhaps you are not familiar with Triangle speakers, LOL.     

What will you be using for amplification?

For a short time I lived with my 35 watt Marantz 8B rockin' a room mates La Scala's decades ago and I currently use Triangle Comet's in my home theater.
Regardless of my fond history with horns any attempt at a meaningful memory based comparison on my part would be as far out as my UFO sighting two hours into some Blue Wedge.

Presentation preferences aside the Cello's are said to have a 2.5 ohm point.
My Comet's driven by my Elite receiver's 125 watt switching amps can be surprising even with broadcast sourced audio. Driven by the more powerful Carver Tube mono's was the no brainer to purchase five more for the HT.

I remember that UFO sighting like it was last night and I enjoy the Comet's. Astronomical kook?  

Perhaps you are not familiar with Triangle speakers, LOL.  

You are right, I am not. But that's not my point. Which is that the Cornwall IV, Forte III and AL5 Lascala have improved in many ways that make them a good choice for even non horn fans.

Oz

I would want a larger room with more distance from listener to speakers for the spread out drivers in a larger tower model like the Cello to integrate well in general.

La Scala’s are also not modest in size and like some room to breathe but the driver configuration is different.

I heard the new La Scalas at a show a couple years back in a modest sized room and have owned smaller Triangles in the past. The sound is very different. The La Scalas have that dynamic horn midrange that some will find thrilling ( I did for the 10 minutes or so I got to listen) and others more irritating perhaps over time. I would not expect that to be an issue having heard the Triangle sound but not those Triangles specifically.

Which would I choose? It would depend. I’ve always thought the LA Scalas to be way cool looking so I would probably look for a way to make that work if the size and difficulty in handling and setting up properly were not an issue for me. I am not a fan of large tower speakers in general. I do agree that the Triangle sound is very fast and clean.....more like electrostats in that regard than most comparable dynamic tower designs. I’d probably expect a fuller and more extended bass with the larger Triangles than what I heard with new La Scalas. Adding a sub or two might be a worthwhile consideration if needed.

I don’t think La Scalas in particular would ever be mistaken for Electrostats. At least not based on my limited audition.

Indeed, fairly different speakers, the La Scala II’s (AL5) and the Triangle Magellan Cello’s. In essence it’s a direct radiating design vs. a fully horn loaded ditto, and while the Cello’s sport a moderate, rated sensitivity of ~91dB’s and a horn-loaded tweeter (crossed at 2.8kHz, per specs), the main sonic character seems defined by its cloth surround terminated ~6.5" midrange and the directivity pattern afforded by said tweeter. I’ve listened to the bigger Concerto siblings a few times, and I find them to be a bit more lively and "crispy" sounding than a range of other direct radiating designs, with a commendable sense of height and "drama" to the overall presentation (no doubt also because they’re tall speakers) - albeit not particularly coherent to my ears. The midrange is their strongest trait IMO, but ultimately have always found them to lack a sense of substance or core.

The La Scala’s are ~104dB sensitivity fully horn speakers with an acoustically lower center - this is not insignificant. Overall I’d say they’re denser/meatier, more coherent, dynamic, effortless and vibrant sounding compared to the Cello’s. More present sounding as well. The soundstage ’feel’ (and this a key word being involved in their sound) is more (a)live, and with with a great sense of "snap" and lack of smear. To wring out the most of the La Scala’s I’d pair them with a quality tube amp - this way there is a lovely warm, easy, live vibrancy to the presentation that’s musically very simple and engaging. I’d recommend being seated fairly low in front of the La Scala’s so that one’s ears are level just between the two cabinet sections.

In terms of bass augmentation I suppose a direct radiating DBA (i.e.: multiple subs comprising at least 3 of them spread out) would do well in conjunction with the La Scala’s, but coming down to brass tacks I’d pair them with two (or more, if space permits) horn subs to really continue their coherency and dynamic capabilities into the depths. This is the dedicated approach and requires determination and flexibility in regards to space requirements, but will be well rewarded.

My preference should be obvious per the above, but indeed to each their own. These are two rather different sonic meals, so listening to both of them prior to any purchasing decision is mandatory.