Anyone build a bigger la scala with/for the 15pr400

Alright — let’s calculate the new horn mouth area, throat area, and cutoff frequency when scaling up the La Scala by 20%.

📐 1. Assumptions about the original La Scala​

  • Horn path length ≈ 2.6 m (102″)
  • Mouth area ≈ 0.4 m² (4.3 ft² ≈ 24″×24″)
  • Throat area ≈ 0.02 m² (about 3 in²)
  • Cutoff frequency ≈ 104 Hz (theoretical)
    (This is derived from the mouth area.)
We scale everything by a factor of:
Code:
s = 1.20

📐 2. New horn path length​

Already calculated:
Code:
2.6 \, m \times 1.20 = 3.12 \, m

📐 3. New mouth area​

Area scales with the square of the linear scale:
Code:
A_\text{new} = A_\text{original} \times s^2
So:
Code:
0.4 \, m² \times (1.20)^2 ≈ 0.4 \times 1.44 ≈ 0.576 m²
0.576 m² ≈ 6.2 ft²
That’s about 30″ × 30″.

📐 4. New throat area​

Similarly:
Code:
0.02 \, m² \times (1.20)^2 ≈ 0.0288 m²
0.0288 m² ≈ 44.7 cm² ≈ 6.9 in²

📐 5. New cutoff frequency​

Horn cutoff frequency depends inversely on the mouth size.
The approximate formula is:
Code:
f_c ≈ \frac{c}{2\pi} \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{A_\text{mouth}}}
where (speed of sound).
If you scale the mouth area by , the cutoff scales as:
Code:
f_{c,\text{new}} = \frac{f_c}{s}
So:
Code:
104 Hz / 1.20 ≈ 87 Hz

📋 Final Results:​

ParameterOriginalScaled ×1.2
Horn path length2.6 m (102″)3.12 m (122.4″)
Mouth area0.4 m²0.576 m² (6.2 ft²)
Throat area0.02 m²0.0288 m²
Cutoff frequency~104 Hz~87 Hz

✅ After scaling up the La Scala by 20%, you get:
  • ~22″ longer path
  • ~44% larger mouth and throat areas
  • ~17 Hz lower cutoff frequency (~87 Hz instead of ~104 Hz)
If you’d like, I can also help you draft a table of new dimensions (height, width, depth) or even draw a scaled plan. Let me know!
ChatGPT...
 
Screenshot_20250704-235222.png
 
How in all the world do you come to a horn path length of 2.6m in a La Scala ?
It is much less than half of that actually.
If this were correct the following would happen:
2.6m combined with your throat and mouth area would give a horn-constant based cutoff frequency of 31 Hz for the original and 27 Hz for the enlarged one. Since the throat area would be much too small for that the frequency response would be very irrgular.

But since your path lengts are way off this will not happen that way.

Regards

Charles
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bas Horneman
I think it's basically already been done...31 Hz F3 (eighth space loading):

Final.gif


model.jpg


JUBLFRAW copy.jpg
(anechoic response - full space)

Be careful of the dimensions at the back of the bin--near the 180 turn (point "C" in the AES paper). This seems to be the place where errors in DIY drawings were made in the past.

You can make this bass bin single-height (12" woofer) or double height (two 12" woofers)--like my bass bins. I recommend the flat "shelf-type" stiffeners instead of the original "struts" used on the first bass bins (like the ones I own). The shelf stiffeners locate the other pieces (like a jig) much better and significantly decrease assembly time.

Chris
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: Bas Horneman
I've never been in the same room as a pair of La Scalas but I have some experience of short horns with ported back chambers (i.e feeding the landfill with ugly one note bass-wonders made of unpainted chipboard). Somewhere around the fourth iteration I had learned enough to build a pair that actually sounds good.
The latest pair is wedged to get as far into the corners as possible, without corner loading they sound lite transistor radios. The bass reflex part also has an unusually high tuning frequency to maximize its efficiency in order to get a smooth transition between horn loading and BR loading.
Together with a little crossover voodoo I managed to get a reasonably flat response down to 55Hz or so.
 
I understand you don't wish to use the KPT-KHJ-LF bass bin design--for your own reasons, but...

I believe that I posted a link to a thread where a Ciare HW321 was identified as a replacement woofer. That's why I posted that link. There are apparently other woofers available that can be used, too.

The KPT-KHJ-LF bass bin (the one in the AES article posted above) was specifically designed to avoid having to use a 15" woofer (using two 12" woofers instead) in order to keep the two side-by-side mouths closer together in order to avoid lobing at frequencies above 200 Hz. That was a design objective for that bass bin. The older Klipschorn bass bin with its 15" woofer has a wider central doghouse, resulting in lobing issues and a lower effective high pass frequency than the present bass bin design.

Using bass reflex ports increases the phase growth at lower frequencies. Recommend the KPT-KHJ-LF design approach instead.

JMTC.

Chris