[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Have you looked at what went into the construction of a genuine one
made to BBC spec before complaining it was overpriced? If it was
overpriced when new, that could also be said of many quality makes.
But they do fetch silly sums these days.

I know it had a complex, expensive crossover.

To be //meaningfully// overpriced, there would have had to have been
something less-expensive with better sound. Frankly, I'd rather listen
to Advents.

They were around then?

The BBC designed it more or less regardless of cost for use as a high
quality monitor where space was extremely limited. Like perhaps a small
vehicle used for outside broadcasts.

If your priority is thundering bass/high levels it's not going to cut the
mustard. But that wasn't what it was designed to do.

--
*DOES THE LITTLE MERMAID WEAR AN ALGEBRA?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:

To be //meaningfully// overpriced, there would have had
to have been something less-expensive with better sound.
Frankly, I'd rather listen to Advents.

They were around then?

The Advents came out around 1970. If you have a working pair, try playing a
really good digital recording on them. You might be surprised.


If your priority is thundering bass/high levels it's not going to
cut the mustard. But that wasn't what it was designed to do.

Which is about half my argument.

[Trevor]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
OK so you should have said they were fine for YOU for "all types of
music" and there would be no argument. End of story.

Unlike you I only claim to speak for myself. Perhaps you find that hard to
understand.

Funny how people say that after making unqualified statements like "good
speakers are suitable for ALL types of music"
What is the point of such a statement if it represents nothing other than
your personal opinion of both speakers and music? At least we can now accept
it was nothing more than a waste of both our time, since I never claimed you
were not entitled to an opinion regardless of any factual reality for anyone
else.

Trevor.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 15:25:05 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
OK so you should have said they were fine for YOU for "all types of
music" and there would be no argument. End of story.

Unlike you I only claim to speak for myself. Perhaps you find that hard to
understand.

Funny how people say that after making unqualified statements like "good
speakers are suitable for ALL types of music"
What is the point of such a statement if it represents nothing other than
your personal opinion of both speakers and music? At least we can now accept
it was nothing more than a waste of both our time, since I never claimed you
were not entitled to an opinion regardless of any factual reality for anyone
else.

Trevor.

Whereas your opinions are, of course, those of everybody. What a
ridiculous view you have. So Dave should stick to stating your
opinions, yes?

d

[Trevor]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Have you looked at what went into the construction of a genuine one
made to BBC spec before complaining it was overpriced? If it was
overpriced when new, that could also be said of many quality makes.
But they do fetch silly sums these days.

I know it had a complex, expensive crossover.

To be //meaningfully// overpriced, there would have had to have been
something less-expensive with better sound. Frankly, I'd rather listen
to Advents.

They were around then?

Yep. Basically a cheaper version of AR IMO. And I wasn't an AR fan anyway.

The BBC designed it more or less regardless of cost for use as a high
quality monitor where space was extremely limited. Like perhaps a small
vehicle used for outside broadcasts.

Right. For which they were fine. You don't want boomy bass in a small OB van
anyway.


If your priority is thundering bass/high levels it's not going to cut the
mustard. But that wasn't what it was designed to do.

That's my point, same with the ESL57's. They are OK within their
limitations. (which is enough for some people of course) To pretend
otherwise is simply silly.

Trevor.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

It's easy to theorize, but have you ever done any long-term subjective
evaluation of audio equipment? I have. What can you tell us, based on your
own experiences?

Just that I am from, or of, the ABX school of short term comparisons. This
is strictly a difference test, but if you can't tell any difference between
two components under quick switching, level matched blind conditions, there
is no point in going further. If you can hear a difference, then press on
McDuff! Find out why, etc.

I'm not going to get into a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of
subjective evaluation. But I can tell you that I was never influenced by
price.

Well, the only way to KNOW that is to do it blind. Like, if JA gave you an
expensive amp to write about, you would feel some pressure to "hear" some
superiority about it or they might accuse you of cloth ears. Not possible?

But tell me just one thing - do you have good days and bad days in your
listening sessions? Like, sometimes you get bored with it all and just shut
it off and turn on the news. Some days you are just so enthralled you keep
putting on more and more discs.

Only human I suppose. We aren't always enthralled by every live band we sit
in front of, either.

Gary

[geoff]

On 4/06/2014 11:57 p.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Trevor" wrote in message ...

A decent loudspeaker will be good with all types of sound.

That rules out the 57's then! But frankly I don't agree, the 57's,
like the LS3/5A's are quite good for *some* music, but certainly
NOT others (like pipe organ and hard rock music for a start!!!).

I have never, ever understood why people went crazy over the LS3/5a. I
consider it absolutely unsuitable for //all// types of music. It might
be a fine near-field monitor (which is what was designed as), but for
reproducing sound in a living room, forget it. It was and overpriced and
under-performing product.


Did anybody ever suggest it was suitable for reproducing sound in a
living room, apart maybe for near field listening ?

geoff

[geoff]

On 5/06/2014 12:12 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Trevor" wrote in message ...

A decent loudspeaker will be good with all types of sound.

That rules out the 57's then! But frankly I don't agree, the 57's,
like the LS3/5A's are quite good for *some* music, but certainly
NOT others (like pipe organ and hard rock music for a start!!!).

I have never, ever understood why people went crazy over the LS3/5a. I
consider it absolutely unsuitable for //all// types of music. It might be a
fine near-field monitor (which is what was designed as), but for reproducing
sound in a living room, forget it. It was and overpriced and under-performing
product.

People went crazy over it because it was the first speaker they'd heard
which could convincingly reproduce a voice. Yes, it was severely bandlimited
but it had astonishingly low distortion by the standards of the day.

I mixed on a pair for field monitors, having moved up from the AR 4-X, and
I sure did like them for mixing work. But they had absolutely no bottom end.
--scott



I have pair about 1m from my head right now ; home-built, and damped
with 1/8" lead sheet (!). They sound glorious at low-to-moderate
volumes, apart from the lack of bass. A sub compensates for that.

geoff

[geoff]

On 5/06/2014 12:41 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

People went crazy over [the LS3/5a] because it was the first speaker
they'd heard which could convincingly reproduce a voice. Yes, it was
severely bandlimited but it had astonishingly low distortion by the
standards of the day.

Natural-sounding voices? Low distortion? No one ever pointed out those
things to me.

That is exact what they were designed for. But hell - what would bthe
BBC know about that sort of thing anyway, or KEF, or Rogers, or Harbeth ....

I remember how they sounded at moderately high volume levels -- as if
Something Terrible Was About To Happen.

Yes ....



They made a mini-monitor (the T3) using the same KEF drivers as the
LS3/5a. It knocked the pants off the LS3/5a -- with one "minor" problem
-- it sounded a bit "boxy", which is not uncommon for small speakers. I
don't know if they ever fixed it.

So what was so radically different - the original (L-C crossover version
at least) being so comprehensive ?

geoff

[geoff]

On 4/06/2014 8:35 p.m., Luxey wrote:
I just discussed some of this in the Measurement Microphones thread. This

all points out some of the reasons for the fantastic observations in the

high end audio press.

I remember reading, there was some study in Russia, showing the hearing loss
problems were the cause for the vast majority of reported ghost encounters.

So if you see someone in chains, with his own decapitated head under his own arm,
chances are you should visit otologist, or simply move to geriatrics.



Inanimate objects like chains (and presumably clothes) have ghosts too
then ;-)

geoff

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Trevor wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Have you looked at what went into the construction of a genuine one
made to BBC spec before complaining it was overpriced? If it was
overpriced when new, that could also be said of many quality makes.
But they do fetch silly sums these days.

I know it had a complex, expensive crossover.

To be //meaningfully// overpriced, there would have had to have been
something less-expensive with better sound. Frankly, I'd rather listen
to Advents.

They were around then?

Yep. Basically a cheaper version of AR IMO. And I wasn't an AR fan anyway.

The BBC designed it more or less regardless of cost for use as a high
quality monitor where space was extremely limited. Like perhaps a small
vehicle used for outside broadcasts.

Right. For which they were fine. You don't want boomy bass in a small OB
van anyway.

I never want 'boomy bass' anywhere. But thanks for confirming what your
priorities are in a speaker.

If your priority is thundering bass/high levels it's not going to cut
the mustard. But that wasn't what it was designed to do.

That's my point, same with the ESL57's. They are OK within their
limitations. (which is enough for some people of course) To pretend
otherwise is simply silly.

You know of any speaker which doesn't have limitations? Perhaps you'd be
good enough to inform me of the make and model.

--
*Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Scott Dorsey]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

That's my point, same with the ESL57's. They are OK within their
limitations. (which is enough for some people of course) To pretend
otherwise is simply silly.

You know of any speaker which doesn't have limitations? Perhaps you'd be
good enough to inform me of the make and model.

Tip O'Neill.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

But I can tell you that I was never influenced by price.

Well, the only way to KNOW that is to do it blind. Like, if JA gave
you an expensive amp to write about, you would feel some pressure
to "hear" some superiority about it or they might accuse you of cloth
ears. Not possible?

Not possible. When I was visiting Gordon many years ago, a new (and
long-forgotten) Sony amp showed up. It retailed for around $1800, and neither
of us liked it. "Got anything else, Gordon?" He pointed to a $350 amp from a
New Jersey company. I hooked it up to a pair of RS-4.5s (which I owned at the
time), and was mightily impressed.

If I have any bias, it's in the direction of less-expensive products. A high
price point has never been a guarantee of quality. I own Parasound A21
amplifiers, which have been around at least a decade, apparently unchanged.
The original opinion of these Curl-designed amps (which retailed for $2000)
was that they were good amps -- not "good for a $2000 amp". The current price
is $2500, and the opinion is that it's one of the best solid-state amps,
period. Such opinions do not come from people who are strongly impressed by
price.

Ignoring for a moment Peter Aczel's qualities as a human being... Did you ever
see "The Audio Critic"'s review of phono preamps, back in the '70s? The
magazine's opinion was that the phono section of the Advent receiver was
better than all but one or two much-more-expensive dedicated preamps -- and
the differences were subtle. I never thought I'd have anything nice to say
about Peter Aczel, but he apparently is not impressed by price.


But tell me just one thing - do you have good days and bad days in your
listening sessions? Like, sometimes you get bored with it all and just shut
it off and turn on the news. Some days you are just so enthralled you keep
putting on more and more discs.

Oh, yes, but it's more like morning and afternoon. I'm good for maybe an hour
or two hours of critical listening in the morning -- and then I have to quit.

[William Sommerwerck]

"geoff" wrote in message
...

Did anybody ever suggest [the LS3/5a] was suitable for reproducing
sound in a living room, apart maybe for near field listening?

The dealers who started selling it for that purpose certainly did.

[William Sommerwerck]

"geoff" wrote in message
...

[Transduction] made a mini-monitor (the T3) using the same KEF
drivers as the LS3/5a. It knocked the pants off the LS3/5a -- with
one "minor" problem -- it sounded a bit "boxy", which is not
uncommon for small speakers. I don't know if they ever fixed it.

So what was so radically different -- the original (L-C crossover
version at least) being so comprehensive?

I assume the T3's crossover was less-complex. But I never saw it.

The T3 was two or three times the volume of the LS3/5a, which I assume gave it
an advantage in terms of bass extension and output. The latter was
unbelievable. We had them connected to a huge Audio Research solid-state amp
that could pump out at least 200W/ch (and I think it was 400). You could turn
the system all the way up to 11, and the T3 sailed through it without falling
to pieces (literally or subjectively).

The LS3/5a used three iron-core inductors, one of which was an
autotransformer. These might explain why the speaker seemed to suffer
"distress" as the volume was raised. Note the claim in the following that the
autotransformer was eliminated after 1987.

http://www.g4dcv.co.uk/ls35a/repair.html

Another reason I don't like the LS3/5a is that the B110 has a Bextrene cone.
Bextrene drivers have a "dark" quality that can be (perhaps too facilely)
ascribed to their high mass. If Bud Fried were alive, he's agree.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

That's my point, same with the ESL57's. They are OK within their
limitations. (which is enough for some people of course) To pretend
otherwise is simply silly.

You know of any speaker which doesn't have limitations? Perhaps you'd be
good enough to inform me of the make and model.

Tip O'Neill.
--scott

Very good - once I'd looked him up. ;-)

--
*Why is the word abbreviation so long? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[geoff]

On 6/06/2014 12:29 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

That's my point, same with the ESL57's. They are OK within their
limitations. (which is enough for some people of course) To pretend
otherwise is simply silly.

You know of any speaker which doesn't have limitations? Perhaps you'd be
good enough to inform me of the make and model.

Tip O'Neill.
--scott



He can jump tall buildings ?

geoff

[geoff]

On 6/06/2014 2:52 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:


The T3 was two or three times the volume of the LS3/5a, which I assume
gave it an advantage in terms of bass extension and output.

Hardly comparing like-for-like then...


The LS3/5a used three iron-core inductors, one of which was an
autotransformer. These might explain why the speaker seemed to suffer
"distress" as the volume was raised. Note the claim in the following
that the autotransformer was eliminated after 1987.

http://www.g4dcv.co.uk/ls35a/repair.html

I think that was more an economic or ease-of-manfacturing compromise.

Another reason I don't like the LS3/5a is that the B110 has a Bextrene
cone. Bextrene drivers have a "dark" quality that can be (perhaps too
facilely) ascribed to their high mass. If Bud Fried were alive, he's agree.

Fried alive - nasty way to go ....

They should have done a Yammy then, and had painted the cones white !
;-)

geoff

[William Sommerwerck]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
On 6/06/2014 2:52 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:

The T3 was two or three times the volume of the LS3/5a, which I assume
gave it an advantage in terms of bass extension and output.

Hardly comparing like-for-like then...

True, but why limit your product when it didn't need to be so tiny? They used
the same drivers, so the comparison is broadly reasonable.


The LS3/5a used three iron-core inductors, one of which was an
autotransformer. These might explain why the speaker seemed
to suffer "distress" as the volume was raised. Note the claim in
the following that the autotransformer was eliminated after 1987.
http://www.g4dcv.co.uk/ls35a/repair.html

I think that was more an economic or ease-of-manfacturing compromise.

It wasn't a compromise. According to the article, the B110 was now
more-consistent from sample to sample, and the crossover-point adjustment the
autotransformer implemented was no longer needed.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
The T3 was two or three times the volume of the LS3/5a, which I assume
gave it an advantage in terms of bass extension and output.

Hardly comparing like-for-like then...

True, but why limit your product when it didn't need to be so tiny? They
used the same drivers, so the comparison is broadly reasonable.

Product? It's a speaker designed by the BBC for a specific purpose. You
can use the same drivers and put them in any size box you want - but it's
then not an LS3/5a.
Those makers who subsequently made it for retail sales had to conform to
the exact spec - and pay a fee to the BBC - to allow them to call it an
LS3/5a.

--
*All generalizations are false.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:

The T3 was two or three times the volume of the LS3/5a, which I
assume gave it an advantage in terms of bass extension and output.

Hardly comparing like-for-like then...

True, but why limit your product when it didn't need to be so tiny? They
used the same drivers, so the comparison is broadly reasonable.

Product? It's a speaker designed by the BBC for a specific purpose. You
can use the same drivers and put them in any size box you want -- but it's
then not an LS3/5a.

Transduction's had a specific purpose, too -- to show that a speaker of
"comparable" size using the same drivers could be "better". What would have
been the point of duplicating the LS3/5a?

They made a speaker called the T5 using the same midrange and woofer as the
recently introduced KEF 105 (remember that speaker?) that cost 1/3 as much and
could stand direct comparison. (I wish I'd bought a pair.)

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Product? It's a speaker designed by the BBC for a specific purpose. You
can use the same drivers and put them in any size box you want -- but it's
then not an LS3/5a.

Transduction's had a specific purpose, too -- to show that a speaker of
"comparable" size using the same drivers could be "better". What would have
been the point of duplicating the LS3/5a?

The whole purpose of the LS3/5a was as a standardized studio monitor, so
it would sound the same in the TV studio or the recording studio or the
OB truck. The reason why you duplicate it (and it requires hitting some very
precise specifications to do so) is to have a speaker that sounds like an
LS3/5a so that your monitoring rig sounds just like the others, so people
know what to expect when they sit down at the console.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Product? It's a speaker designed by the BBC for a specific purpose. You
can use the same drivers and put them in any size box you want -- but it's
then not an LS3/5a.

Transduction's had a specific purpose, too -- to show that a speaker of
"comparable" size using the same drivers could be "better". What would have
been the point of duplicating the LS3/5a?

The whole purpose of the LS3/5a was as a standardized studio monitor, so
it would sound the same in the TV studio or the recording studio or the
OB truck. The reason why you duplicate it (and it requires hitting some
very
precise specifications to do so) is to have a speaker that sounds like an
LS3/5a so that your monitoring rig sounds just like the others, so people
know what to expect when they sit down at the console.

Exactly. But Transduction was making a consumer product -- something the
LS3/5a never should have been sold as.

I have several pairs of the KLH Audio 900B mini-speaker. It has he same
problem as the T3 -- it's audibly boxy unless you jam a big wad o' FibreFill
down its throat. But it's a pretty good speaker (especially when you consider
I got them for $15 a pair, due to a mistake). I wonder how it would
compare/contrast with the LS3/5a.

[geoff]

On 6/06/2014 11:53 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:

The T3 was two or three times the volume of the LS3/5a, which I
assume gave it an advantage in terms of bass extension and output.

Hardly comparing like-for-like then...

True, but why limit your product when it didn't need to be so tiny? They
used the same drivers, so the comparison is broadly reasonable.

Product? It's a speaker designed by the BBC for a specific purpose. You
can use the same drivers and put them in any size box you want -- but
it's
then not an LS3/5a.

Transduction's had a specific purpose, too -- to show that a speaker of
"comparable" size using the same drivers could be "better". What would
have been the point of duplicating the LS3/5a?

They made a speaker called the T5 using the same midrange and woofer as
the recently introduced KEF 105 (remember that speaker?) that cost 1/3
as much and could stand direct comparison. (I wish I'd bought a pair.)


I had a pair of 105s, first with the 2 x 8" (R105.4), and traded those
for the 12" woofer version R105-Series2. Now my main lounge speakers
are R107, with bass reasonably flat down to 18Hz.

.....plus my ESL-63s, Tannoy DMT-12, and LS3-5As, some other mongrels
custom made for somebody at Abbey Road, B&W DM7s. I'm sure there are a
few more I've forgotten, - oh yeah Yammy NS-20 , + ....


geoff

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Product? It's a speaker designed by the BBC for a specific purpose.
You can use the same drivers and put them in any size box you want --
but it's then not an LS3/5a.

Transduction's had a specific purpose, too -- to show that a speaker of
"comparable" size using the same drivers could be "better". What would
have been the point of duplicating the LS3/5a?

The whole purpose of the LS3/5a was as a standardized studio monitor, so
it would sound the same in the TV studio or the recording studio or the
OB truck. The reason why you duplicate it (and it requires hitting some
very precise specifications to do so) is to have a speaker that sounds
like an LS3/5a so that your monitoring rig sounds just like the others,
so people know what to expect when they sit down at the console. --scott

Quite. Also designed to be repaired if needed - hence the auto
transformers to cope with different sensitivity of drivers, etc. A maker
can use selective assembly and supply domestic speakers as matched pairs.

--
*ATHEISM IS A NON-PROPHET ORGANIZATION.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Exactly. But Transduction was making a consumer product -- something the
LS3/5a never should have been sold as.

Rubbish. If the retailer was making extravagant claims for them take it up
with him.

The LS3/5a makes an excellent domestic speaker where space is tight - it's
also very tolerant of room position, unlike many.

Not everyone can - or wants to - have window rattling levels at home.

--
*A journey of a thousand sites begins with a single click *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Exactly. But Transduction was making a consumer product --
something the LS3/5a never should have been sold as.

Rubbish. If the retailer was making extravagant claims for them
take it up with him.

Simply making the LS3/5a available for sale as a domestic product is an
extravagant claim.


The LS3/5a makes an excellent domestic speaker where space is tight...

Yeah. If you live in a closet.

It was never intended to be a consumer product (as far as I know). Anything
other than using them as computer speakers on your desk top is, well...
perverse.

Its popularity is due to the fact it was used as a professional monitor
speakers. "Oooh... I'll get a pair for my living room."

[John Williamson]

On 06/06/2014 13:55, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
The LS3/5a makes an excellent domestic speaker where space is tight...

Yeah. If you live in a closet.

The average living room in the UK is about 10 or 11 feet square and
about 8 foot 6 inches high.

Sound on Sound regularly feature fixes for home recording studios less
than 10 feet by 15 feet.

The LS3/5a is a British design for British rooms, I'd suggest. Bigger
rooms need bigger speakers.

It was never intended to be a consumer product (as far as I know).
Anything other than using them as computer speakers on your desk top is,
well... perverse.

Originally, it was supposed to be a monitor for BBC mobile use, and
sound as consistent as possible in many different places when used as a
near field monitor. I live in a area less than 10 feet square, and a
pair may well end up being the best speakers to use for monitoring there.

Its popularity is due to the fact it was used as a professional monitor
speakers. "Oooh... I'll get a pair for my living room."

Yerss... The problem being that accurate speakers rarely sound good in
the home setting. Most people prefer a less edgy sound.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Exactly. But Transduction was making a consumer product --
something the LS3/5a never should have been sold as.

Rubbish. If the retailer was making extravagant claims for them
take it up with him.

Simply making the LS3/5a available for sale as a domestic product is an
extravagant claim.

Take it up with your dealer then. And all those who bought them and
continue to buy them.

The LS3/5a makes an excellent domestic speaker where space is tight...

Yeah. If you live in a closet.

I take it you've come out of yours?

It was never intended to be a consumer product (as far as I know).
Anything other than using them as computer speakers on your desk top
is, well... perverse.

They are indeed fine for high quality monitoring at a workstation. Even
although they were designed long before such things.

Its popularity is due to the fact it was used as a professional monitor
speakers. "Oooh... I'll get a pair for my living room."

I doubt many would pay out that sort of money for a small speaker if they
didn't know exactly what they were buying.

Luckily your opinion on this matters little. They continue to be well
regarded around the world - no mean feat for something designed so long
ago.

--
*I brake for no apparent reason.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[geoff]

On 7/06/2014 12:55 a.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Exactly. But Transduction was making a consumer product --
something the LS3/5a never should have been sold as.

Rubbish. If the retailer was making extravagant claims for them
take it up with him.

Simply making the LS3/5a available for sale as a domestic product is an
extravagant claim.


The LS3/5a makes an excellent domestic speaker where space is tight...

Yeah. If you live in a closet.

It was never intended to be a consumer product (as far as I know).
Anything other than using them as computer speakers on your desk top is,
well... perverse.

Its popularity is due to the fact it was used as a professional monitor
speakers. "Oooh... I'll get a pair for my living room."


They are absolutely fine for use in a small room, even without a sub.

If anybody purchased a 6" speaker for use in a large living room, then
they deserve the costs in reconing over-excurted(?) woofers and burned
tweeters.

geoff

[geoff]

On 7/06/2014 10:52 a.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Exactly. But Transduction was making a consumer product --
something the LS3/5a never should have been sold as.

Rubbish. If the retailer was making extravagant claims for them
take it up with him.

Simply making the LS3/5a available for sale as a domestic product is an
extravagant claim.

Take it up with your dealer then. And all those who bought them and
continue to buy them.

IIRC sounds like he WAS the dealer !


geoff

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
geoff wrote:
On 7/06/2014 10:52 a.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:

Exactly. But Transduction was making a consumer product --
something the LS3/5a never should have been sold as.

Rubbish. If the retailer was making extravagant claims for them
take it up with him.

Simply making the LS3/5a available for sale as a domestic product is an
extravagant claim.

Take it up with your dealer then. And all those who bought them and
continue to buy them.

IIRC sounds like he WAS the dealer !


There has to be some reason for his hate of them. I know quite a few who
bought them - and all were delighted with them. But to spend that sort of
money on a small speaker you'd likely know what you were buying before
doing so.

--
*Of course I'm against sin; I'm against anything that I'm too old to enjoy.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...

Luckily your opinion on this matters little. They continue to be well-
regarded around the world -- no mean feat for something designed
so long ago.

Apropos of which, JA made the following remarks, which seem reasonable...

"Why is it that almost all speakers from the 1960s and 1970s sound as dated,
particularly regarding severe coloration and poor stereo imaging, as you'd
expect, whereas the LS3/5a remains a competitive design? Perhaps it was the
fact that the LS3/5a was intended to be a monitor (though many professional
monitors are even more colored than good domestic designs). Perhaps it was the
BBC's unique assembly of speaker-engineering talent in the early 1970s, which
I don't think has been matched since. Perhaps it was the fact that the design
was thoroughly and unusually worked out. (A BBC white paper by Harwood,
Whatton, and Mills, "The Design of the Miniature Monitoring Loudspeaker Type
LS3/5a," report RD 1976-29, is available at the BBC's website.) Perhaps it was
serendipity."

Perhaps my problem is that, like most Americans, I have the room for large
speakers. If I were British, I might be more-tolerant of tiny speakers that
don't take a lot of space in my "closet". This raises two questions, though...

Japanese apartments tend to be small . Was the LS3/5a popular over there?

Given the success of the LS3/5a as a consumer product... Why didn't the BBC
design a larger "consumer" version that kept the character of the original?
The only advantage (that I can see) of such a small speaker is diffraction
control.

It would be interesting to run listening tests of the LS3/5a against the DQ-10
and Advent.

[Chuck[_10_]]

On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 07:37:06 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

But I can tell you that I was never influenced by price.

Well, the only way to KNOW that is to do it blind. Like, if JA gave
you an expensive amp to write about, you would feel some pressure
to "hear" some superiority about it or they might accuse you of cloth
ears. Not possible?

Not possible. When I was visiting Gordon many years ago, a new (and
long-forgotten) Sony amp showed up. It retailed for around $1800, and neither
of us liked it. "Got anything else, Gordon?" He pointed to a $350 amp from a
New Jersey company. I hooked it up to a pair of RS-4.5s (which I owned at the
time), and was mightily impressed.

If I have any bias, it's in the direction of less-expensive products. A high
price point has never been a guarantee of quality. I own Parasound A21
amplifiers, which have been around at least a decade, apparently unchanged.
The original opinion of these Curl-designed amps (which retailed for $2000)
was that they were good amps -- not "good for a $2000 amp". The current price
is $2500, and the opinion is that it's one of the best solid-state amps,
period. Such opinions do not come from people who are strongly impressed by
price.

Ignoring for a moment Peter Aczel's qualities as a human being... Did you ever
see "The Audio Critic"'s review of phono preamps, back in the '70s? The
magazine's opinion was that the phono section of the Advent receiver was
better than all but one or two much-more-expensive dedicated preamps -- and
the differences were subtle. I never thought I'd have anything nice to say
about Peter Aczel, but he apparently is not impressed by price.


But tell me just one thing - do you have good days and bad days in your
listening sessions? Like, sometimes you get bored with it all and just shut
it off and turn on the news. Some days you are just so enthralled you keep
putting on more and more discs.

Oh, yes, but it's more like morning and afternoon. I'm good for maybe an hour
or two hours of critical listening in the morning -- and then I have to quit.


Was the New Jersey amp an Adcom?

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Trevor]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
I have pair about 1m from my head right now ; home-built, and damped with
1/8" lead sheet (!). They sound glorious at low-to-moderate volumes,
apart from the lack of bass. A sub compensates for that.

Yes but it's tiresome people claiming a speaker is suitable for everything
while ignoring that is only the case when used with a sub. A bit like saying
a sub is a great speaker, as long as it's used with good sattelites! In
that case Whise made one of the great speakers IMO, the 319A :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
You know of any speaker which doesn't have limitations? Perhaps you'd be
good enough to inform me of the make and model.

Nope, which is why I disagreed with the assertion that good speakers are
great for All Types of Music in the first place!

Trevor.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Trevor wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...
I have pair about 1m from my head right now ; home-built, and damped
with 1/8" lead sheet (!). They sound glorious at low-to-moderate
volumes, apart from the lack of bass. A sub compensates for that.

Yes but it's tiresome people claiming a speaker is suitable for
everything while ignoring that is only the case when used with a sub. A
bit like saying a sub is a great speaker, as long as it's used with
good sattelites! In that case Whise made one of the great speakers
IMO, the 319A :-)

Not many people have 'a' speaker. They generally have two. But there is no
directional information at very low frequencies, so it can make a deal of
sense to use a single speaker for this, allowing smaller main speakers.
If, of course, you do listen to the sort of music which makes use of that
last octave or so. A great deal - perhaps most - doesn't.

Large speakers which can reproduce the entire audio band at high levels
introduce their own problems - due to their size.

--
*Why is it that most nudists are people you don't want to see naked?*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Trevor wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
You know of any speaker which doesn't have limitations? Perhaps you'd
be good enough to inform me of the make and model.

Nope, which is why I disagreed with the assertion that good speakers are
great for All Types of Music in the first place!

So I assume you change your speakers according to the type of music you
listen to?

And I'd far rather listen to rock music on a speaker which makes a good
fist of a string quartet than the other way round.

--
*A bartender is just a pharmacist with a limited inventory.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[[email protected]]

Here's a simple experiment that shows how the brain adapts to EQ. Prepare 2 pink noise tracks, one unprocessed and one with a 10 db boost at 2khz. Listen to the unprocessed version for 5 seconds, switch to the processed version for another 5 seconds, and then switch back to the original. You won't believe that the last track is the same as the first, it sounds like a giant hole was carved out at 2khz.

I've always thought that the fundamental problem with reproducing sound over speakers is the fact that a single spatial radiation pattern is applied to all instruments equally.

Bob

[William Sommerwerck]

You know of any speaker which doesn't have limitations? Perhaps
you'd be good enough to inform me of the make and model.

? Nope, which is why I disagreed with the assertion that good
speakers are great for All Types of Music in the first place!

So I assume you change your speakers according to the type
of music you listen to?

And I'd far rather listen to rock music on a speaker which makes
a good fist [???] of a string quartet than the other way round.

"Diese keine faust!"

Doesn't it come down to what we expect from reproduced sound? Do we expect the
speaker to "get out of the way"? Or do we want it to be a "participant" in the
experience?

I have large, very-low-coloration speakers (which handle low bass quite well,
by the way). Most people react immediately to their detail and clarity. But I
suspect those who don't listen primarily to acoustic music would find them
ultimately unsatisfying.