Kala KA ASAC C

mikelz777

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
3,224
Reaction score
2,900
Location
MN metro suburbs
I've been looking around at the Kala KA ASAC C and in looking at various pictures I noticed a difference in what seems to be the same model. Some of them have the conventional fret markings but some of them are lacking a fret marker at the 3rd fret and don't have a marker until the 5th fret. One has a marker at the 15th fret and the other doesn't. Why is there a difference? Is one a cheaper version of the other? Is it a mistake?

xkala_concert_acacia_asac_c-.jpg.jpg.pagespeed.ic.ZRXaBEXu_6.jpgKAASACC-large.jpg
 
I think it's a mistake. I use to have this ukulele. Very nice but Aquila's kill the tone. Needs worth browns to wake up a bit. It's a quiet ukulele imo. Still have fond memories of it but considering its price I'd opt for something else.
 
I think it's a mistake. I use to have this ukulele. Very nice but Aquila's kill the tone. Needs worth browns to wake up a bit. It's a quiet ukulele imo. Still have fond memories of it but considering its price I'd opt for something else.

I don't like Aquila's so that's understandable. I know a lot of people like them but I think they sound kind of dull and muddy. I don't understand why Aquila's seem to have been adopted as an "industry standard" on many new ukes. I like Oasis and Martin strings.

I was trying out various ukes in a store one day and I kept coming back to this uke. (I was playing a tenor but would want a concert.) This model does it for me in several ways. I really like the look, everything about it works for me. I also really like the look and feel of the satin finish. The sound is what kept bringing me back to play this uke. I thought it sounded warm and woody. As far as it being quiet, I wasn't really listening for that but playing it, it wasn't something that came to my mind as an impression but it's hard to say. I was playing it in an open store with a bunch of people walking by so I didn't want to draw a bunch of attention to myself.

I'd be curious to hear what you would opt for instead at a lower or similar price point. (Not Mainland or Ohana which I think are the same uke because I already have one of those.)
 
I don't like Aquila's so that's understandable. I know a lot of people like them but I think they sound kind of dull and muddy. I don't understand why Aquila's seem to have been adopted as an "industry standard" on many new ukes. I like Oasis and Martin strings.

Because they do not sound "dull and muddy on most ukes, especially cheaper ones that require them to compensate for poor construction or materials....at least to the extent that they can. Like any other set of strings, they do not bring out the best in all ukes. I couldn't get them off my old Cordoba solid topped tenor fast enough because it made it sound too bright and brash.
 
I don't like Aquila's so that's understandable. I know a lot of people like them but I think they sound kind of dull and muddy. I don't understand why Aquila's seem to have been adopted as an "industry standard" on many new ukes.

I think partly because of volume, and partly because of timing. Cheap ukes, like the dolphin came with no name crappy nylon. If you replace them with aquila's they sound better, and louder. Volume can be a common problem with cheap laminate ukes. Also, I think alot of that was before flourocarbons became more mainstream.

So, if you got a cheap uke during the early boom, and people said, put aquila's on it, and it'll sound better, and you did it, it sounded better and louder. Then people started looking for aquila's installed on the shelf, so manufacturer's put them on, and got the paper tag that said so.

Aquila's aren't bad. And cheap ukes, the difference isn't so much between aquilas and flourocarbons. But I think on better ukes that difference is more apparent.
 
I've had Aquilas on my Lanikai (cheap) and on my Ohana (not cheap) and I didn't like the sound or feel of them on either uke. In both cases, I was disappointed in the sound thinking it was a problem with the uke since Aquilas were so highly touted that the problem shouldn't be with the strings. When I put some Martins on my Lanikai, it sounded like an entirely different uke! In both cases, Martins and Oasis strings brought each uke alive over their sound with Aquilas. I suppose this is like anything else, YMMV.

Back to the Kala KA ASAC C, I wonder if the good people at Kala would have an answer. I'll have to shoot them an email.
 
Kala does build (import) some very nice ukes. There comes a price point though, when in the upper numbers, other ukes can be a better choice. Aquila strings, as I understand, are more highly available than other quality strings. Cocobolo Ukuleles, for example, being in Nicaragua, do not have ready access to other strings. Most of my ukes did not sound good with all Aquilas on them, however, my cocobolo sounds fine with the Lavas.
Just as I'm glad there is Kala, and there are other ukes, I'm glad that there is Aquila, and there are other strings.
 
I don't like Aquila's so that's understandable. I know a lot of people like them but I think they sound kind of dull and muddy. I don't understand why Aquila's seem to have been adopted as an "industry standard" on many new ukes. I like Oasis and Martin strings.

I was trying out various ukes in a store one day and I kept coming back to this uke. (I was playing a tenor but would want a concert.) This model does it for me in several ways. I really like the look, everything about it works for me. I also really like the look and feel of the satin finish. The sound is what kept bringing me back to play this uke. I thought it sounded warm and woody. As far as it being quiet, I wasn't really listening for that but playing it, it wasn't something that came to my mind as an impression but it's hard to say. I was playing it in an open store with a bunch of people walking by so I didn't want to draw a bunch of attention to myself.

I'd be curious to hear what you would opt for instead at a lower or similar price point. (Not Mainland or Ohana which I think are the same uke because I already have one of those.)

I do have fond memories of this uke but since i've owned it i wouldn't buy it back at the price point. If i found a good deal? Sure as the worth browns woke it up. I think Acacia on this one is not so good i would opt for actual Koa every time if not maghogany. I would maybe try the mahogany version of this uke or maybe the Kanile'a islander solid mahogany. Many options at this price point.

Just to contradict myself and expand on my memories of it. I was looking after my parents cat when i had it, my parents live in the same town. Just popping over to let it in/out/check food etc when they went on holiday. The cat passed a couple of years ago but... When i went over i took this uke, it was at the time the most expensive i had bought. I really enjoyed sitting with the back door open and the cat purring around me as i played. Its a stunning looking uke and with the worths fitted and since you have others it could be a nice addition. I just wouldn't recommend it as the only one as for the price there are better options. All subjective i guess.
 
I posed my original question to Kala customer service and got the following response:

"The difference could be the spec, some of the older models are a little different than the newer models. I would ask the dealer before you purchase if they can tell you if it is older or newer spec, and go with the newer one."
 
Top Bottom