LS3/5a

[[email protected]]

Now that we are a snot-free forum, I'd like to throw out the first
audio discussion. I've been listening to these Stirling Broadcast
LS3/5as for a few weeks now, and I'm digging them. I'm amazed at how
smooth and full they sound, despite being about the size of a shoebox
(kids' shoes, even). Sure, I'm powering them with a conrad-johnson
ET250s amp and both a Nagra PL-L and McIntosh C2300 preamps. But man,
am I surprised by the sound. I've heard LS3/5as in the past, and they
never sounded anything like this.

Any other LS3/5a fans here? Critics?

Boon

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
...
> Now that we are a snot-free forum, I'd like to throw out the first
> audio discussion. I've been listening to these Stirling Broadcast
> LS3/5as for a few weeks now, and I'm digging them. I'm amazed at how
> smooth and full they sound, despite being about the size of a shoebox
> (kids' shoes, even). Sure, I'm powering them with a conrad-johnson
> ET250s amp and both a Nagra PL-L and McIntosh C2300 preamps. But man,
> am I surprised by the sound. I've heard LS3/5as in the past, and they
> never sounded anything like this.
>
> Any other LS3/5a fans here? Critics?
>
> Boon

I think they might be just the thing for vinyl, but not for CD.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> > Any other LS3/5a fans here? Critics?

> I think they might be just the thing for vinyl, but not for CD.

I should resent that, but I don't.

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> Now that we are a snot-free forum, I'd like to throw out the first
> audio discussion. I've been listening to these Stirling Broadcast
> LS3/5as for a few weeks now, and I'm digging them. I'm amazed at how
> smooth and full they sound, despite being about the size of a shoebox
> (kids' shoes, even). Sure, I'm powering them with a conrad-johnson
> ET250s amp and both a Nagra PL-L and McIntosh C2300 preamps. But man,
> am I surprised by the sound. I've heard LS3/5as in the past, and they
> never sounded anything like this.
>
> Any other LS3/5a fans here? Critics?

**Over-rated and under-performing. There are MUCH better (more accurate)
products available. My own favourite is the late, lamented NEAR 10M-II. A
stunning performer, easily capable of embarrassing the more expensive NEAR
products and pretty much anything remotely close to it's original retail
price. I still use mine. I've never owned a pair of speakers for as long as
I've owned my NEARs.

Trevor Wilson

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> >,
> wrote:
>
>> Now that we are a snot-free forum, I'd like to throw out the first
>> audio discussion. I've been listening to these Stirling Broadcast
>> LS3/5as for a few weeks now, and I'm digging them. I'm amazed at how
>> smooth and full they sound, despite being about the size of a shoebox
>> (kids' shoes, even). Sure, I'm powering them with a conrad-johnson
>> ET250s amp and both a Nagra PL-L and McIntosh C2300 preamps. But man,
>> am I surprised by the sound. I've heard LS3/5as in the past, and they
>> never sounded anything like this.
>>
>> Any other LS3/5a fans here? Critics?
>
> I mentioned them a few weeks back when some dude wanted high-quality
> small speakers. I lost interest when it turned out they were for a
> kitchen.
>
> I have an idea the LS35a has 16 ohm resistance. Is this true? If so, how
> do ordinary amps hold up?

**They may have been 16 Ohms once, but I suspect they're 8 Ohms now. In any
case, a 16 Ohm load is hardly a problem for virtually any amplifier. Just
halve the rated power into 8 Ohms.

Trevor Wilson

[-=Spudley=-[_2_]]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article
>> >,
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Now that we are a snot-free forum, I'd like to throw out the first
>>> audio discussion. I've been listening to these Stirling Broadcast
>>> LS3/5as for a few weeks now, and I'm digging them. I'm amazed at
>>> how smooth and full they sound, despite being about the size of a
>>> shoebox (kids' shoes, even). Sure, I'm powering them with a
>>> conrad-johnson ET250s amp and both a Nagra PL-L and McIntosh C2300
>>> preamps. But man, am I surprised by the sound. I've heard LS3/5as
>>> in the past, and they never sounded anything like this.
>>>
>>> Any other LS3/5a fans here? Critics?
>>
>> I mentioned them a few weeks back when some dude wanted high-quality
>> small speakers. I lost interest when it turned out they were for a
>> kitchen.
>>
>> I have an idea the LS35a has 16 ohm resistance. Is this true? If so,
>> how do ordinary amps hold up?
>
> **They may have been 16 Ohms once, but I suspect they're 8 Ohms now.
> In any case, a 16 Ohm load is hardly a problem for virtually any
> amplifier. Just halve the rated power into 8 Ohms.
>

Anything over ear pearcing pain is a waste of energy anyway. :-)

> Trevor Wilson

[[email protected]]

On Feb 14, 8:56�pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> wrote:
> > Now that we are a snot-free forum, I'd like to throw out the first
> > audio discussion. �I've been listening to these Stirling Broadcast
> > LS3/5as for a few weeks now, and I'm digging them. �I'm amazed at how
> > smooth and full they sound, despite being about the size of a shoebox
> > (kids' shoes, even). �Sure, I'm powering them with a conrad-johnson
> > ET250s amp and both a Nagra PL-L and McIntosh C2300 preamps. �But man,
> > am I surprised by the sound. �I've heard LS3/5as in the past, and they
> > never sounded anything like this.
>
> > Any other LS3/5a fans here? �Critics?
>
> I mentioned them a few weeks back when some dude wanted high-quality
> small speakers. I lost interest when it turned out they were for a
> kitchen.
>
> I have an idea the LS35a has 16 ohm resistance. Is this true? If so, how
> do ordinary amps hold up?
>
> Stephen

These are 11-ohm. I've run them with the Clayton Audio Stereo 40,
which is 50 wpc of pure Class A, and the conrad-johnson ET250s, which
is 250 wpc. The Stirlings definitely like the extra power.

Boon

[[email protected]]

On Feb 14, 10:51�pm, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Now that we are a snot-free forum, I'd like to throw out the first
> > audio discussion. �I've been listening to these Stirling Broadcast
> > LS3/5as for a few weeks now, and I'm digging them. �I'm amazed at how
> > smooth and full they sound, despite being about the size of a shoebox
> > (kids' shoes, even). �Sure, I'm powering them with a conrad-johnson
> > ET250s amp and both a Nagra PL-L and McIntosh C2300 preamps. �But man,
> > am I surprised by the sound. �I've heard LS3/5as in the past, and they
> > never sounded anything like this.
>
> > Any other LS3/5a fans here? �Critics?
>
> **Over-rated and under-performing. There are MUCH better (more accurate)
> products available. My own favourite is the late, lamented NEAR 10M-II. A
> stunning performer, easily capable of embarrassing the more expensive NEAR
> products and pretty much anything remotely close to it's original retail
> price. I still use mine. I've never owned a pair of speakers for as long as
> I've owned my NEARs.
>
> Trevor Wilson

I like the NEARs as well, always have. Great match with Exposure
electronics. I remember choosing my Spendor S20s over LS3/5as back in
the early '90s. Back then, LS3/5as were $750 a pair. These Stirlings
are $1850 a pair. Still, I think this version is the best LS3/5as
I've heard.

Boon

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Feb 14, 9:05 pm, wrote:
> Any other LS3/5a fans here? Critics?

I reviewed the Stirlng LS3/5a a year ago. You can
find the reprint of that review starting at
http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/361/index12.html .

On balance, I slightly preferred the similarly sized
Harbeth HL-P3ES2:
http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1293harbeth/index5.html .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message


> Now that we are a snot-free forum,

Yeah, sure.

> I'd like to throw out
> the first audio discussion. I've been listening to these
> Stirling Broadcast LS3/5as for a few weeks now, and I'm
> digging them. I'm amazed at how smooth and full they
> sound, despite being about the size of a shoebox (kids'
> shoes, even). Sure, I'm powering them with a
> conrad-johnson ET250s amp and both a Nagra PL-L and
> McIntosh C2300 preamps. But man, am I surprised by the
> sound. I've heard LS3/5as in the past, and they never
> sounded anything like this.
>
> Any other LS3/5a fans here? Critics?

Been there, done that.

I first heard of LS3/5a speakers back in the late 60s. There were a spate of
minispeaker clones, some made by other British manufacturers. I heard a lot
of the clones.

Eventually, I heard a pair of the origionals. Bright, smooth, well-balanced
given that they had no real bass. No directional control because of the tiny
size, so they need a fairly dead room or be listened to very close. Probably
the origional prototype of the near-field monitor genre of speakers.

Very impressive for the day (long ago) and the size (very tiny). However,
that was then and this is now. Most of the time, people have the space it
takes to use a larger speaker. If you can, then do it and reap the benefits
of having some decent bass.

The loudspeaker state of the art has advanced considerably since the LS3/5a
was representative of the SOTA.

Probably equalled or surpassed by the NHT Super zero and many other modern
mini-monitors.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message

> In article
> ,


> I have an idea the LS35a has 16 ohm resistance.

> Is this true?

My recollection is that they have been made in several different impdeances
including 16 and 11 ohms.

>If so, how do ordinary amps hold up?

High impedance loads are easier to drive than low impedance loads because
they draw less current. Of course it takes more voltage to deliver a given
amount of power to them. The speaker is relatively inefficient for a number
of reasons, including the fact that it uses a passive crossover that
attenuates the midrange in order to pump up the bass.

More to the point - how do the speakers hold up if you try to play them
loud. The answer is not that well. We've learned a ton about building small
drivers with improved dynamic range in the past 50 or so years.

http://www.ls35a.com/

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message


> I think they might be just the thing for vinyl, but not
> for CD.

Actually, LS3/5a speakers can do a pretty good job of reproducing the
objectionable noise and distortion that is an inherent part of the LP
format. You'd have to be pretty deaf to miss it.

[Jenn]

On Feb 15, 4:08*am, John Atkinson > wrote:
> On Feb 14, 9:05 pm, wrote:
>
> > Any other LS3/5a fans here? *Critics?
>
> I reviewed the Stirlng LS3/5a a year ago. You can
> find the reprint of that review starting athttp://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/361/index12.html.
>
> On balance, I slightly preferred the similarly sized
> Harbeth HL-P3ES2:http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1293harbeth/index5.html.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

I heard the LS3/5a speakers back in the very late 70s or maybe 1980,
back when around the L.A. area there were several high-end
establishments that ran out of people's homes by appointment. Other
than the Quads, they were probably the first high-end speakers that I
heard. I was amazed at the clarity and imaging, but of course, there
was no real bass. I remember that this person had some slightly
larger Mordaunt Short speakers that I liked better. I almost bought a
pair of those, but ended up getting the DCM Timewindows instead as
part of my first non-mass market system (with the NAD 3020 and a
little Micro-Seiki TT.)

[[email protected]]

On Feb 15, 4:08�am, John Atkinson > wrote:
> On Feb 14, 9:05 pm, wrote:
>
> > Any other LS3/5a fans here? �Critics?
>
> I reviewed the Stirlng LS3/5a a year ago. You can
> find the reprint of that review starting athttp://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/361/index12.html.
>
> On balance, I slightly preferred the similarly sized
> Harbeth HL-P3ES2:http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1293harbeth/index5.html.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

I'd have to agree. I really like the entire line.

Strangely enough, I just had a pair of vintage Celestion SL600s in for
a few days. I really, really enjoyed the SL600s at first, but after a
few days they started to sound a bit cloudy. When I put the Stirlings
back in, it was like a breath of fresh air. Less bass, but more
detail.

Boon

[[email protected]]

On Feb 15, 9:20�am, Jenn > wrote:
> On Feb 15, 4:08�am, John Atkinson > wrote:
>
> > On Feb 14, 9:05 pm, wrote:
>
> > > Any other LS3/5a fans here? �Critics?
>
> > I reviewed the Stirlng LS3/5a a year ago. You can
> > find the reprint of that review starting athttp://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/361/index12.html.
>
> > On balance, I slightly preferred the similarly sized
> > Harbeth HL-P3ES2:http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1293harbeth/index5.html.
>
> > John Atkinson
> > Editor, Stereophile
>
> I heard the LS3/5a speakers back in the very late 70s or maybe 1980,
> back when around the L.A. area there were several high-end
> establishments that ran out of people's homes by appointment. �Other
> than the Quads, they were probably the first high-end speakers that I
> heard. �I was amazed at the clarity and imaging, but of course, there
> was no real bass. �I remember that this person had some slightly
> larger Mordaunt Short speakers that I liked better. �I almost bought a
> pair of those, but ended up getting the DCM Timewindows instead as
> part of my first non-mass market system (with the NAD 3020 and a
> little Micro-Seiki TT.)

That's funny...I almost bought a pair of DCM Timewindows, but would up
purchasing a pair of Snell Type Js instead. This was around 1982. I
thought the Snells were every bit as good as the DCMs, but a couple of
hundred dollars less.

Boon

[[email protected]]

On Feb 14, 8:11�pm, "Robert Morein" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Now that we are a snot-free forum, I'd like to throw out the first
> > audio discussion. �I've been listening to these Stirling Broadcast
> > LS3/5as for a few weeks now, and I'm digging them. �I'm amazed at how
> > smooth and full they sound, despite being about the size of a shoebox
> > (kids' shoes, even). �Sure, I'm powering them with a conrad-johnson
> > ET250s amp and both a Nagra PL-L and McIntosh C2300 preamps. �But man,
> > am I surprised by the sound. �I've heard LS3/5as in the past, and they
> > never sounded anything like this.
>
> > Any other LS3/5a fans here? �Critics?
>
> > Boon
>
> I think they might be just the thing for vinyl, but not for CD.

Why?

Boon

[[email protected]]

On Feb 14, 7:09�pm, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
> On Feb 14, 8:05 pm, wrote:
>
> > Now that we are a snot-free forum, I'd like to throw out the first
> > audio discussion. �I've been listening to these Stirling Broadcast
> > LS3/5as for a few weeks now, and I'm digging them. �I'm amazed at how
> > smooth and full they sound, despite being about the size of a shoebox
> > (kids' shoes, even). �Sure, I'm powering them with a conrad-johnson
> > ET250s amp and both a Nagra PL-L and McIntosh C2300 preamps. �But man,
> > am I surprised by the sound. �I've heard LS3/5as in the past, and they
> > never sounded anything like this.
>
> > Any other LS3/5a fans here? �Critics?
>
> > Boon
>
> �They're okay, nothing particularly special. And since the BBC is no
> longer waving the wand I wonder how LS3/5a-ish the new ones really
> are.
>
> The purpose of them was for the BBC to have consistency from facility
> to facility.

Well, Stirling is calling these the V2s since they're using new
drivers. Then again, they're trying to come as close to the very
first LS3/5as as possible.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message

> On Feb 14, 8:11?pm, "Robert Morein" >
> wrote:

>> I think they might be just the thing for vinyl, but not
>> for CD.
>
> Why?

Too accurate.

[George M. Middius]

Soundhaspriority said:

> >> I think they might be just the thing for vinyl, but not for CD.
> >
> > I should resent that, but I don't.

> I think that both vinyl and the LS3/5a are highly subjective choices that
> just happen to compliment each other.

Really? Let's see how that might go on Valentine's day...

"Why hello there, you beautiful speakers. Love your tweeters!"

"I just love a big shiny record. Want to come over and heat up
my terminals?"


I have to admit I hadn't thought of that angle on matching speakers with
media. Nice job, Morein.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 15, 12:33�pm, Fran�ois Yves Le Gal > wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:05:51 -0800 (PST), wrote:
> >Any other LS3/5a fans here? �Critics?
>
> The current Stirling version has very little in common with vintage LS3/5a's
> when it comes to dynamic behavior. They may measure the same and be built to
> Auntie's specs but they sound very differently. Not a bad speaker, far from
> it,, but as far to the real thing than, say, a Fender '57 Strat vintage
> reissue can be to a real '57.
>
> I've used a lot of LS3/5a as near field monitors for the last 30 years or
> so. They have two outstanding attributes : the midrange is right - something
> very few speakers can attain - and imaging can be outstanding - as with most
> small/narrow box monitors.
>
> On the minus side they've got too many defects to bother listing them. Power
> handling is very poor, bass is flabby at best (even with their dedicated AB1
> bass extender - a bandpass B110 moving less air than a farting gnat), detail
> level is below other vintage monitors (Altec/JBL/Tannoy/Cabasse/...,), etc..
>
> But the wonderful mids are quite unbeatable, that's why I still use a pair
> of late '90 Stirling LS + AB (manufactured using Swisstone-sourced
> components for the Beeb before Stirling had an official license, and hence
> branded Rogers - just a little lie) in my office, driven by a Rogers E40a
> (an Audio Note PPP 6L6 amp) and various sources, mainly a DAW playing
> masters.
>
> I've tried to change this setup a number of times, going modern with active
> NFM's fitted with digital inputs, eq., filtering, you name it - last rig was
> based on Genelec AIR 6's. Most were really good but none came close to the
> Rogers.
>
> So the jury is still out...

Have you tried them in nearfield listening? I'm finding that is their
true strength.

Boon

[[email protected]]

On Feb 15, 12:20�pm, "Soundhaspriority" > wrote:
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in messagenews:de4ar35tcifidkdeuh0n3fu2ugv9a7v2tg@4ax .com...
>
> > Robert Morein said:
>
> >> > Any other LS3/5a fans here? �Critics?
>
> >> I think they might be just the thing for vinyl, but not for CD.
>
> > I should resent that, but I don't.
>
> I think that both vinyl and the LS3/5a are highly subjective choices that
> just happen to compliment each other. I admit to a neurotic fascination with
> the "being there" experience. The LS3/5a didn't fulfill this.
>
> I read very little in the way of eloquent defense of the CD, but I am
> definitely in love with it, and I regret very much bashing and anticipatory
> announcements of demise. It spurred new advances in amplifiers and speakers,
> which the LS3/5a predates.

I'm using them for both CDs and LPs with equal success. Remember,
these are modern version (V2) of the classic LS3/5a, with different
drivers.

Boon

[[email protected]]

On Feb 15, 12:37�pm, "Soundhaspriority" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Feb 14, 8:11?pm, "Robert Morein" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > Now that we are a snot-free forum, I'd like to throw out the first
> > > audio discussion. ?I've been listening to these Stirling Broadcast
> > > LS3/5as for a few weeks now, and I'm digging them. ?I'm amazed at how
> > > smooth and full they sound, despite being about the size of a shoebox
> > > (kids' shoes, even). ?Sure, I'm powering them with a conrad-johnson
> > > ET250s amp and both a Nagra PL-L and McIntosh C2300 preamps. ?But man,
> > > am I surprised by the sound. ?I've heard LS3/5as in the past, and they
> > > never sounded anything like this.
>
> > > Any other LS3/5a fans here? ?Critics?
>
> > > Boon
>
> > I think they might be just the thing for vinyl, but not for CD.
>
> Why?
>
> Boon
>
> My listening experience is with the Rodgers. �The ones I heard were more
> intentionally nonflat than other speakers. They have a significant low bass
> hump. They were warm but not detailed, comfortable, but not accurate. The
> original LS3/5a was designed as a tool for a pleasing mix.
>
> If the Stirlings don't sound like this, �they really are the LS3/5a in name
> only, and I cannot challenge your remarks. But consider this. The majority
> of small speakers employ shaping of the response curve to psychoacoustic
> purpose. Reduction in the treble, the presence notch in the upper midrange,
> hump in the upper bass, are manipulations that conceal the deficiencies of
> small speakers. People respond differently to these manipulations. While one
> person may find subjective heaven, another may, unfortunately, "hear into"
> the manipulations, and not find the consensual illusion
>
> It would be interesting to have your report six months from now, to see
> whether you continue enjoy them as much as you do now. �I have found long
> term happiness with a number of floor standing speakers, but happiness with
> bookshelfs is, for me, more fleeting.

I won't have them in 6 months...they'll go back to the distributor.
I've had them for a month already. Early next week I'll be getting a
pair of Devore Gibbon 9s in for review, and I'll be able to hold onto
those for a few months. I spent almost a year with the Gibbon Super
8s, and fell in love with them.

Boon

[[email protected]]

On Feb 15, 2:15�pm, Fran�ois Yves Le Gal > wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:09:03 -0800 (PST), wrote:
> >Have you tried them in nearfield listening?
>
> I've been using them nearfield in my office for the last 10 years or so...

It's an obvious question, since that was their intended use, but it's
amazing how nice they sound when you get right up on 'em. The lack of
bass seems to be less noticeable. The overall balance of the speaker
seems a lot more seamless.

Boon

[[email protected]]

On Feb 15, 3:34�pm, "Soundhaspriority" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Feb 15, 12:37?pm, "Soundhaspriority" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > On Feb 14, 8:11?pm, "Robert Morein" > wrote:
>
> > > > wrote in message
>
> > ....
>
> > > > Now that we are a snot-free forum, I'd like to throw out the first
> > > > audio discussion. ?I've been listening to these Stirling Broadcast
> > > > LS3/5as for a few weeks now, and I'm digging them. ?I'm amazed at how
> > > > smooth and full they sound, despite being about the size of a shoebox
> > > > (kids' shoes, even). ?Sure, I'm powering them with a conrad-johnson
> > > > ET250s amp and both a Nagra PL-L and McIntosh C2300 preamps. ?But man,
> > > > am I surprised by the sound. ?I've heard LS3/5as in the past, and they
> > > > never sounded anything like this.
>
> > > > Any other LS3/5a fans here? ?Critics?
>
> > > > Boon
>
> > > I think they might be just the thing for vinyl, but not for CD.
>
> > Why?
>
> > Boon
>
> > My listening experience is with the Rodgers. ?The ones I heard were more
> > intentionally nonflat than other speakers. They have a significant low
> > bass
> > hump. They were warm but not detailed, comfortable, but not accurate. The
> > original LS3/5a was designed as a tool for a pleasing mix.
>
> > If the Stirlings don't sound like this, ?they really are the LS3/5a in
> > name
> > only, and I cannot challenge your remarks. But consider this. The majority
> > of small speakers employ shaping of the response curve to psychoacoustic
> > purpose. Reduction in the treble, the presence notch in the upper
> > midrange,
> > hump in the upper bass, are manipulations that conceal the deficiencies of
> > small speakers. People respond differently to these manipulations. While
> > one
> > person may find subjective heaven, another may, unfortunately, "hear into"
> > the manipulations, and not find the consensual illusion
>
> > It would be interesting to have your report six months from now, to see
> > whether you continue enjoy them as much as you do now. ?I have found long
> > term happiness with a number of floor standing speakers, but happiness
> > with
> > bookshelfs is, for me, more fleeting.
>
> I won't have them in 6 months...they'll go back to the distributor.
> I've had them for a month already. �Early next week I'll be getting a
> pair of Devore Gibbon 9s in for review, and I'll be able to hold onto
> those for a few months. �I spent almost a year with the Gibbon Super
> 8s, and fell in love with them.
>
> Boon
>
> Who do you write for? I'd like to steal your gig :)

www.tonepublications.com

Boon

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 15, 12:44Â*pm, wrote:
> On Feb 15, 9:20�am, Jenn > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 4:08�am, John Atkinson > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 14, 9:05 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > Any other LS3/5a fans here? �Critics?
>
> > > I reviewed the Stirlng LS3/5a a year ago. You can
> > > find the reprint of that review starting athttp://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/361/index12.html.
>
> > > On balance, I slightly preferred the similarly sized
> > > Harbeth HL-P3ES2:http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1293harbeth/index5.html.
>
> > > John Atkinson
> > > Editor, Stereophile
>
> > I heard the LS3/5a speakers back in the very late 70s or maybe 1980,
> > back when around the L.A. area there were several high-end
> > establishments that ran out of people's homes by appointment. �Other
> > than the Quads, they were probably the first high-end speakers that I
> > heard. �I was amazed at the clarity and imaging, but of course, there
> > was no real bass. �I remember that this person had some slightly
> > larger Mordaunt Short speakers that I liked better. �I almost bought a
> > pair of those, but ended up getting the DCM Timewindows instead as
> > part of my first non-mass market system (with the NAD 3020 and a
> > little Micro-Seiki TT.)
>
> That's funny...I almost bought a pair of DCM Timewindows, but would up
> purchasing a pair of Snell Type Js instead. This was around 1982. Â*I
> thought the Snells were every bit as good as the DCMs, but a couple of
> hundred dollars less.

There's a blast from the past. I remember hearing a friend's system
using Time Windows matched with a pair of Randy Hooker subs powered by
Threshold electronics about that time frame. He also had some pyramid-
shaped tweeters on top of the DCMs, but I don't recall who made them.
As I recall he also had a Micro Seiki turntable. It sounded great.

[George M. Middius]

Soundhaspriority said:

> Bueno! I'll be reading. It's interesting to see the writings of someone who
> one interacts informally. So far, I have had this dual view only with JA.

I'd like to point out, without foregoing any gratuitous gratuitousness,
that nobody has prevented you from reading the valuable information on
Arnii Krooger's fabulous website (www.pcaB****.com).

[Jenn]

In article
>,
wrote:

> On Feb 15, 9:20?am, Jenn > wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 4:08?am, John Atkinson > wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 14, 9:05 pm, wrote:
> >
> > > > Any other LS3/5a fans here? ?Critics?
> >
> > > I reviewed the Stirlng LS3/5a a year ago. You can
> > > find the reprint of that review starting
> > > athttp://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/361/index12.html.
> >
> > > On balance, I slightly preferred the similarly sized
> > > Harbeth
> > > HL-P3ES2:http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1293harbeth/index5.h
> > > tml.
> >
> > > John Atkinson
> > > Editor, Stereophile
> >
> > I heard the LS3/5a speakers back in the very late 70s or maybe 1980,
> > back when around the L.A. area there were several high-end
> > establishments that ran out of people's homes by appointment. ?Other
> > than the Quads, they were probably the first high-end speakers that I
> > heard. ?I was amazed at the clarity and imaging, but of course, there
> > was no real bass. ?I remember that this person had some slightly
> > larger Mordaunt Short speakers that I liked better. ?I almost bought a
> > pair of those, but ended up getting the DCM Timewindows instead as
> > part of my first non-mass market system (with the NAD 3020 and a
> > little Micro-Seiki TT.)
>
> That's funny...I almost bought a pair of DCM Timewindows, but would up
> purchasing a pair of Snell Type Js instead. This was around 1982. I
> thought the Snells were every bit as good as the DCMs, but a couple of
> hundred dollars less.
>
> Boon

I remember looking for the Snell, but couldn't find a dealer at the time.

Looking to hear the TIme Windows (after discovering The Audio Critic and
reading their love of them) led me to a very interesting fellow named
Randy Cooley who owned/owns Optimal Enchantment in Santa Monica. I
think that it was called something else at the time. He was a hippie
type of guy, super friendly. I listened for hours and the Time Windows
seemed like magic to me at the time. Later I also bought an Oracle
TT/Alphason arm/Dynavector cartridge from him. He was a neat guy and
very helpful. Years and years later, I saw and talked to him at the
Stereophile show in LA (two years ago?). We chatted and chatted like old
times. He introduced me to Richard Vandersteen, and I liked him as well.

[td]

On Feb 15, 10:13Â*pm, Soundhaspriority > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 3:34�pm, "Soundhaspriority" > wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
>
> >>> > wrote in message
>
> ....
> >>> On Feb 14, 8:11?pm, "Robert Morein" > wrote:
>
> >>>> > wrote in message
>
> ....
>
> >>> If the Stirlings don't sound like this, ?they really are the LS3/5a in
> >>> name
> >>> only, and I cannot challenge your remarks. But consider this. The majority
> >>> of small speakers employ shaping of the response curve to psychoacoustic
> >>> purpose. Reduction in the treble, the presence notch in the upper
> >>> midrange,
> >>> hump in the upper bass, are manipulations that conceal the deficiencies of
> >>> small speakers. People respond differently to these manipulations. While
> >>> one
> >>> person may find subjective heaven, another may, unfortunately, "hear into"
> >>> the manipulations, and not find the consensual illusion
>
> >>> It would be interesting to have your report six months from now, to see
> >>> whether you continue enjoy them as much as you do now. ?I have found long
> >>> term happiness with a number of floor standing speakers, but happiness
> >>> with
> >>> bookshelfs is, for me, more fleeting.
>
> >> I won't have them in 6 months...they'll go back to the distributor.
> >> I've had them for a month already. �Early next week I'll be getting a
> >> pair of Devore Gibbon 9s in for review, and I'll be able to hold onto
> >> those for a few months. �I spent almost a year with the Gibbon Super
> >> 8s, and fell in love with them.
>
> >> Boon
>
> >> Who do you write for? I'd like to steal your gig :)
>
> >www.tonepublications.com
>
> Given my history, "gig" and "Morein" are mutually exclusive concepts.
>
> Really, I just want someone to give me **** like you. Â*Too bad they don't do
> it for people with no skills and nothing to offer.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Morein(310) 237-6511

How delightful!

Now we have Tepper's buddy invading this forum. Another Los Angelino
loony, it would appear.
TD

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message


> That's funny...I almost bought a pair of DCM Timewindows,

The founder of DCM and designer of the Time Windows is a member of SMWTMS.
Interesting guy. Interesting story about how Circuit City put an end to
them.

[William Sommerwerck]

I'm probably the only audiophile who doesn't care for the LS3/5a.

It was originally designed as a near-field monitor speaker. It was never
intended for home use.

It has a lot of problems, of which limited bass extension is one. The
mid/bass driver (I forget the KEF model number) was made of bextrene, which
is rather dense, which does nothing for clarity or transparency. And when
you turn the volume up, it sounds as if Something Terrible Is About To
Happen.

I used to know the folks at Transduction, Ltd, who did the handled the
importation of IMF Electronics products. (If you guys are reading this,
please get in touch. I still miss you.) They designed a slightly larger
system using the same drivers that could handle huge amounts of power and
play at very high levels without strain. Its only problem was a bit of
midrange "boxiness". (They had a small floor speaker that cost about half
the price of the KEF 105, and was overall a better speaker.)

Small speakers have a number of real advantages, of which reduced
diffraction and greater ease of postioning are two. The cabinetry, which can
be a huge percentage of the price of a high-quality speaker, costs less. But
a "serious" system that uses small speakers without a properly designed
woofer from the same manufacturer is not what I would consider a true
audiophile product.

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 05:40:06 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>I'm probably the only audiophile who doesn't care for the LS3/5a.
>
>It was originally designed as a near-field monitor speaker. It was never
>intended for home use.
>
>It has a lot of problems, of which limited bass extension is one. The
>mid/bass driver (I forget the KEF model number) was made of bextrene, which
>is rather dense, which does nothing for clarity or transparency. And when
>you turn the volume up, it sounds as if Something Terrible Is About To
>Happen.
>
>I used to know the folks at Transduction, Ltd, who did the handled the
>importation of IMF Electronics products. (If you guys are reading this,
>please get in touch. I still miss you.) They designed a slightly larger
>system using the same drivers that could handle huge amounts of power and
>play at very high levels without strain. Its only problem was a bit of
>midrange "boxiness". (They had a small floor speaker that cost about half
>the price of the KEF 105, and was overall a better speaker.)
>
>Small speakers have a number of real advantages, of which reduced
>diffraction and greater ease of postioning are two. The cabinetry, which can
>be a huge percentage of the price of a high-quality speaker, costs less. But
>a "serious" system that uses small speakers without a properly designed
>woofer from the same manufacturer is not what I would consider a true
>audiophile product.
>

Wouldn't you appreciate a speaker manufacturer who simply faced up to
the fact that subwoofers now exist, and are really very good? That
means they could forget attempts at bass extension and concentrate on
getting the upper bass right. That in turn would make integration of
the sub into the overall response vastly easier.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce > wrote:
>Wouldn't you appreciate a speaker manufacturer who simply faced up to
>the fact that subwoofers now exist, and are really very good? That
>means they could forget attempts at bass extension and concentrate on
>getting the upper bass right. That in turn would make integration of
>the sub into the overall response vastly easier.

The problem is that the low end corner on the LS3/5a is so high that
it would be a "woofer" and not really a "subwoofer" with the crossover
point being so high that you'd lose bass imaging and have trouble even
getting phase coherency.

I diasagree with Mr. Sommerwerck, though. The LS 3/5a has just gorgeous
midrange and it is marvelous to work on... it does a very good job of
producing a convincing imitation of the human voice. This is a difficult
job for any speaker to do, and it's what the LS 3/5a was designed for.

It was never designed for use at high levels, and it was never designed
as a full-range speaker. But it's a great little monitor for mixing,
especially if you're mixing dialogue. I wouldn't want one in my home,
but it's not _for_ that.
--scott

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

[Don Pearce]

On 16 Feb 2008 09:32:55 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Don Pearce > wrote:
>>Wouldn't you appreciate a speaker manufacturer who simply faced up to
>>the fact that subwoofers now exist, and are really very good? That
>>means they could forget attempts at bass extension and concentrate on
>>getting the upper bass right. That in turn would make integration of
>>the sub into the overall response vastly easier.
>
>The problem is that the low end corner on the LS3/5a is so high that
>it would be a "woofer" and not really a "subwoofer" with the crossover
>point being so high that you'd lose bass imaging and have trouble even
>getting phase coherency.
>
Yebbut that is a very old design. I was thinking of modern small box
designs that while they may go down to 50-60Hz are clearly struggling.
They compromise power handling by the sheer excursions expected from
the cone.

>I diasagree with Mr. Sommerwerck, though. The LS 3/5a has just gorgeous
>midrange and it is marvelous to work on... it does a very good job of
>producing a convincing imitation of the human voice. This is a difficult
>job for any speaker to do, and it's what the LS 3/5a was designed for.
>
>It was never designed for use at high levels, and it was never designed
>as a full-range speaker. But it's a great little monitor for mixing,
>especially if you're mixing dialogue. I wouldn't want one in my home,
>but it's not _for_ that.
>--scott

It was a full-range speaker in that there was no sub for it. It is
just that full range for broadcasts of the day wasn't expected to go
very low; no home had a system capable of dealing with that. It was
designed for a control room in a truck, and for that it worked very
well.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 05:40:06 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
> > wrote:

>> Small speakers have a number of real advantages, of which reduced
>> diffraction and greater ease of postioning are two. The cabinetry, which
can
>> be a huge percentage of the price of a high-quality speaker, costs less.
But
>> a "serious" system that uses small speakers without a properly designed
>> woofer from the same manufacturer is not what I would consider a true
>> audiophile product.

> Wouldn't you appreciate a speaker manufacturer who simply faced up to
> the fact that subwoofers now exist, and are really very good? That
> means they could forget attempts at bass extension and concentrate on
> getting the upper bass right. That in turn would make integration of
> the sub into the overall response vastly easier.

Good point.

Part of the problem is that speaker designers insist on efficiency and bass
extension above good transient response, and have switched back from
acoustic-suspension (2nd-order) designs to ported (4th-order) designs. This
does not help the quality of the mid-bass, nor does it make it easy to get a
good transition from the woofer to the satellite.

The "correct" way to design a woofer -- particularly if it's going to be
used with a matching subwoofer -- is an overdamped 1st-order design.
Overdamping gives superior transient response, _more_ output in the octaves
below the corner frequency, and permits phase-coherent mating with a
subwoofer having a simple 2nd-order low-pass rolloff.

By the way, the term "sub-woofer" is universally misused.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...

> I diasagree with Mr. Sommerwerck, though. The LS 3/5a has just gorgeous
> midrange and it is marvelous to work on... it does a very good job of
> producing a convincing imitation of the human voice. This is a difficult
> job for any speaker to do, and it's what the LS 3/5a was designed for.

You're agreeing with me. The LS 3/5a is a _monitor_ speaker.


> It was never designed for use at high levels, and it was never designed
> as a full-range speaker. But it's a great little monitor for mixing,
> especially if you're mixing dialogue. I wouldn't want one in my home,
> but it's not _for_ that.

That was exactly my point.

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce > wrote:
>
>It was a full-range speaker in that there was no sub for it. It is
>just that full range for broadcasts of the day wasn't expected to go
>very low; no home had a system capable of dealing with that. It was
>designed for a control room in a truck, and for that it worked very
>well.

If you can't hear the fundamental on the lowest note on Jaco Pastorius'
bass, it's not a full-range speaker. If you can't hear his bass at ALL,
it's a "restricted LF" speaker.

If the tympani on Dorati's recording of Petrouchka bottom the drivers out
at well below normal listening level, it's not a full-range speaker, not
even a little bit.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Are we now going to have to endure shrieks and imprecations when Lessout says
something about it?

--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
War is Peace. ** Freedom is Slavery. ** It's all Napster's fault!

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Sorry, Bill, I spoke too soon.

Evidently, as the changed subject line says, this Lessout character is in
full control of the audiophool groups. He posts, they shriek in response.
He is in total control of those groups, which in my point of view really
isn't anything to be proud of, but there you go.

They might as well just crown him as their king and be done with it.

--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
War is Peace. ** Freedom is Slavery. ** It's all Napster's fault!

[[email protected]]

On Feb 15, 11:45�pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 9:20?am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > On Feb 15, 4:08?am, John Atkinson > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 14, 9:05 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > Any other LS3/5a fans here? ?Critics?
>
> > > > I reviewed the Stirlng LS3/5a a year ago. You can
> > > > find the reprint of that review starting
> > > > athttp://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/361/index12.html.
>
> > > > On balance, I slightly preferred the similarly sized
> > > > Harbeth
> > > > HL-P3ES2:http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1293harbeth/index5.h
> > > > tml.
>
> > > > John Atkinson
> > > > Editor, Stereophile
>
> > > I heard the LS3/5a speakers back in the very late 70s or maybe 1980,
> > > back when around the L.A. area there were several high-end
> > > establishments that ran out of people's homes by appointment. ?Other
> > > than the Quads, they were probably the first high-end speakers that I
> > > heard. ?I was amazed at the clarity and imaging, but of course, there
> > > was no real bass. ?I remember that this person had some slightly
> > > larger Mordaunt Short speakers that I liked better. ?I almost bought a
> > > pair of those, but ended up getting the DCM Timewindows instead as
> > > part of my first non-mass market system (with the NAD 3020 and a
> > > little Micro-Seiki TT.)
>
> > That's funny...I almost bought a pair of DCM Timewindows, but would up
> > purchasing a pair of Snell Type Js instead. This was around 1982. �I
> > thought the Snells were every bit as good as the DCMs, but a couple of
> > hundred dollars less.
>
> > Boon
>
> I remember looking for the Snell, but couldn't find a dealer at the time.
>
> Looking to hear the TIme Windows (after discovering The Audio Critic and
> reading their love of them) led me to a very interesting fellow named
> Randy Cooley who owned/owns Optimal Enchantment in Santa Monica. �I
> think that it was called something else at the time. �He was a hippie
> type of guy, super friendly. �I listened for hours and the Time Windows
> seemed like magic to me at the time. �Later I also bought an Oracle
> TT/Alphason arm/Dynavector cartridge from him. �He was a neat guy and
> very helpful. �Years and years later, I saw and talked to him at the
> Stereophile show in LA (two years ago?). We chatted and chatted like old
> times. �He introduced me to Richard Vandersteen, and I liked him as well.

I had a bad experience with Randy a number of years ago. He was using
a turntable on top of a really high stand (over five feet tall!), and
I walked up to see what it was. He actually told me not to breathe on
the turntable. I turned around and walked out. To be fair, others
have told me that he's a great guy. But he blew it with me.

I heard the DCMs at Havens and Hardesty in OC when I was still a
teen. The audio salesman who demonstrated them was actually blind.
Nice guy, too. We listened to the DCMs for a while, and I wanted
them. At $747, they were a bit too pricey (I had $500 to spend). I
looked over and saw the Snells and asked about them. The salesman
said something to the effect, "Oh...I think you're really going to
like these." I did. They were $550 a pair. I told the guy I only had
$500. He said "Sold!" He even threw in the stands and the wire.

I enjoyed those for many years. I finally blew out the tweeters one
day and gave them to my older brother. He had them fixed and is still
using them. I always thought the Js were the forgotten Snells. I
remember feeling frustrated because Stereophile reviewed every single
Snell except for the Js. I had just started reading Stereophile and
wanted validation, I think.

Funny thing is they're still being made, in a way. The Audio Note AN/
J is basically the same design. The prices range from about $2500 to
$19,000 a pair. That's a long way from $500.

Boon

[Clyde Slick]

On 16 Feb, 14:08, wrote:

. *I had just started reading Stereophile and
> wanted validation, I think.
>


uh oh` - no trolling Arnie, folks.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 16, 2:45*pm, Bret Ludwig > wrote:

> *I know what needs to be done.

Are you going to exterminate them?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 16, 4:24*pm, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
> On Feb 16, 3:10 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Feb 16, 2:45 pm, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
>
> > > *I know what needs to be done.
>
> > Are you going to exterminate them?
>
> *****ter, you are not really that stupid, are you?

Name-calling will not turn me into a neo-Nazi, Bratzi. In fact, no
matter how hard you try nothing will. ;-)

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 05:40:06 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>It has a lot of problems, of which limited bass extension is one. The
>mid/bass driver (I forget the KEF model number) was made of bextrene, which
>is rather dense, which does nothing for clarity or transparency. And when
>you turn the volume up, it sounds as if Something Terrible Is About To
>Happen.

B110.

>I used to know the folks at Transduction, Ltd, who did the handled the
>importation of IMF Electronics products. (If you guys are reading this,
>please get in touch. I still miss you.)

IMF used the B110 as a midrange which increased its effective power
handling and, in their biggest versions, gave it a more generous and
separate enclosure. (I built a similar arrangement.)

Kal

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message

> I'm probably the only audiophile who doesn't care for the
> LS3/5a.

In this day and age, most US audiophiles have probably never heard of them.

> It was originally designed as a near-field monitor
> speaker. It was never intended for home use.

Agreed.

> It has a lot of problems, of which limited bass extension
> is one. The mid/bass driver (I forget the KEF model
> number)

B110

> was made of bextrene, which is rather dense,
> which does nothing for clarity or transparency.

Never seemed to hurt the general perception of any of any number of speakers
that used it as a midrange.

> And when you turn the volume up, it sounds as if Something
> Terrible Is About To Happen.

That's what happens when you try to use a midrange driver as a woofer. The
source of the problem you've noted is lack of XMax. From what I can read,
KEF did eventually upgrade this driver to the point where its Xmax was up to
modern standards for a driver this small.

> I used to know the folks at Transduction, Ltd, who did
> the handled the importation of IMF Electronics products.
> (If you guys are reading this, please get in touch. I
> still miss you.) They designed a slightly larger system
> using the same drivers that could handle huge amounts of
> power and play at very high levels without strain.

They probably used modern variants of the B110 and T27.

>Its only problem was a bit of midrange "boxiness". (They had
> a small floor speaker that cost about half the price of
> the KEF 105, and was overall a better speaker.)

Midrange boxiness - that might be the historic peak around 1 KHz that could
be made to go away by tuning the crossover a bit.

> Small speakers have a number of real advantages, of which
> reduced diffraction and greater ease of postioning are two.

Making a speaker small doesn't reduce diffraction, but it does change the
transition frequency. As far as positioning goes, that can mean many things.
In my view, very small speakers are hard to position because they lack
directionality, That makes them engage the room more, which in turn makes
them hard to position. An alternative view would be that because small
speakers lack directional control, you don't have to aim them carefully to
get sound where ever you are in the room.

>The cabinetry, which can be a huge percentage of the
> price of a high-quality speaker, costs less.

Agreed.

> But a "serious" system that uses small speakers without a
> properly designed woofer from the same manufacturer is
> not what I would consider a true audiophile product.

Agreed. You're echoing your origional quite agreeable claim that the LS3/5a
was never designed for general home use. However, it could be a pretty fair
match with a really small room.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
> message

>> was made of bextrene, which is rather dense,
>> which does nothing for clarity or transparency.

> Never seemed to hurt the general perception of any of any
> number of speakers that used it as a midrange.

There are better plastics. Not to mention Kevlar.


>> And when you turn the volume up, it sounds as if Something
>> Terrible Is About To Happen.

> That's what happens when you try to use a midrange driver as a woofer.

Not necessarily. Transduction Ltd used the same driver in a slightly larger
enclosure, and it did not have that problem.

I remember giving a demo with a huge Audio Research solid-state amplifier
(about 350W/ch), and during a peak in which the amp's power meters nearly
pegged, * the T2 had no problems.

* It's not clear what the power meters on solid-state Audio Research amps
actually measure. But one can assume that a near peak in this case must have
represented perhaps 100W, at least for a second or two.


>> Small speakers have a number of real advantages, of which
>> reduced diffraction and greater ease of postioning are two.

> Making a speaker small doesn't reduce diffraction, but it does change
> the transition frequency. As far as positioning goes, that can mean
> many things. In my view, very small speakers are hard to position
> because they lack directionality, That makes them engage the room
> more, which in turn makes them hard to position. An alternative view
> would be that because small speakers lack directional control, you
> don't have to aim them carefully to get sound where ever you are in
> the room.

I'm thinking more in terms of positioning the speaker with respect to the
walls, the listener, and (to some extent) the floor. Small speakers have an
advantage here.

We could get into a long argument here, but it's my view that speakers tend
to have broad dispersion, simply because -- ignoring the theoretical "ideal
point source" -- it's easier to get broad dispersion than controlled
dispersion.


> Agreed. You're echoing your original quite agreeable claim that
> the LS3/5a was never designed for general home use. However,
> it could be a pretty fair match with a really small room.

Which -- coming back to the original point -- is what it was designed for.

[Jenn]

In article
>,
wrote:

> On Feb 15, 11:45?pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > wrote:
> > > On Feb 15, 9:20?am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > On Feb 15, 4:08?am, John Atkinson > wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Feb 14, 9:05 pm, wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Any other LS3/5a fans here? ?Critics?
> >
> > > > > I reviewed the Stirlng LS3/5a a year ago. You can
> > > > > find the reprint of that review starting
> > > > > athttp://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/361/index12.html.
> >
> > > > > On balance, I slightly preferred the similarly sized
> > > > > Harbeth
> > > > > HL-P3ES2:http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1293harbeth/inde
> > > > > x5.h
> > > > > tml.
> >
> > > > > John Atkinson
> > > > > Editor, Stereophile
> >
> > > > I heard the LS3/5a speakers back in the very late 70s or maybe 1980,
> > > > back when around the L.A. area there were several high-end
> > > > establishments that ran out of people's homes by appointment. ?Other
> > > > than the Quads, they were probably the first high-end speakers that I
> > > > heard. ?I was amazed at the clarity and imaging, but of course, there
> > > > was no real bass. ?I remember that this person had some slightly
> > > > larger Mordaunt Short speakers that I liked better. ?I almost bought a
> > > > pair of those, but ended up getting the DCM Timewindows instead as
> > > > part of my first non-mass market system (with the NAD 3020 and a
> > > > little Micro-Seiki TT.)
> >
> > > That's funny...I almost bought a pair of DCM Timewindows, but would up
> > > purchasing a pair of Snell Type Js instead. This was around 1982. ?I
> > > thought the Snells were every bit as good as the DCMs, but a couple of
> > > hundred dollars less.
> >
> > > Boon
> >
> > I remember looking for the Snell, but couldn't find a dealer at the time.
> >
> > Looking to hear the TIme Windows (after discovering The Audio Critic and
> > reading their love of them) led me to a very interesting fellow named
> > Randy Cooley who owned/owns Optimal Enchantment in Santa Monica. ?I
> > think that it was called something else at the time. ?He was a hippie
> > type of guy, super friendly. ?I listened for hours and the Time Windows
> > seemed like magic to me at the time. ?Later I also bought an Oracle
> > TT/Alphason arm/Dynavector cartridge from him. ?He was a neat guy and
> > very helpful. ?Years and years later, I saw and talked to him at the
> > Stereophile show in LA (two years ago?). We chatted and chatted like old
> > times. ?He introduced me to Richard Vandersteen, and I liked him as well.
>
> I had a bad experience with Randy a number of years ago. He was using
> a turntable on top of a really high stand (over five feet tall!), and
> I walked up to see what it was. He actually told me not to breathe on
> the turntable. I turned around and walked out. To be fair, others
> have told me that he's a great guy. But he blew it with me.
>
> I heard the DCMs at Havens and Hardesty in OC when I was still a
> teen. The audio salesman who demonstrated them was actually blind.
> Nice guy, too.

Do you mean Audio Today on Beach Blvd in Westminster? THey sold Time
Windows and had a nice blind guy there, and I don't remember H&H selling
Time Windows, nor do I remember a blind guy there ;-) Both stores are
much missed.

> We listened to the DCMs for a while, and I wanted
> them. At $747, they were a bit too pricey (I had $500 to spend). I
> looked over and saw the Snells and asked about them. The salesman
> said something to the effect, "Oh...I think you're really going to
> like these." I did. They were $550 a pair. I told the guy I only had
> $500. He said "Sold!" He even threw in the stands and the wire.
>
> I enjoyed those for many years. I finally blew out the tweeters one
> day and gave them to my older brother. He had them fixed and is still
> using them. I always thought the Js were the forgotten Snells. I
> remember feeling frustrated because Stereophile reviewed every single
> Snell except for the Js. I had just started reading Stereophile and
> wanted validation, I think.
>
> Funny thing is they're still being made, in a way. The Audio Note AN/
> J is basically the same design. The prices range from about $2500 to
> $19,000 a pair. That's a long way from $500.
>
> Boon

Good story, thanks.

[Geoff]

Bret Ludwig wrote:

> It's a small speaker designed for a purpose which is not related to
> audiophile use at all. There are much better bookshelf speakers for
> much less money. The BBC specification had to do with repeatability in
> a given environment .

I find mine extremely useful in a small room at close proximity, and have
nicely aligned drivers, sitting up on the shelf above my workstation. I
don't even find the lack of bass a problem for my use, and if there is a
bass problem it is easy to *see* it (with grilles off). Mid and high
clarity, without exaggerated sections.

geoff

[[email protected]]

On Feb 16, 6:22�pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 11:45?pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Feb 15, 9:20?am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 15, 4:08?am, John Atkinson > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 14, 9:05 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Any other LS3/5a fans here? ?Critics?
>
> > > > > > I reviewed the Stirlng LS3/5a a year ago. You can
> > > > > > find the reprint of that review starting
> > > > > > athttp://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/361/index12.html.
>
> > > > > > On balance, I slightly preferred the similarly sized
> > > > > > Harbeth
> > > > > > HL-P3ES2:http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1293harbeth/inde
> > > > > > x5.h
> > > > > > tml.
>
> > > > > > John Atkinson
> > > > > > Editor, Stereophile
>
> > > > > I heard the LS3/5a speakers back in the very late 70s or maybe 1980,
> > > > > back when around the L.A. area there were several high-end
> > > > > establishments that ran out of people's homes by appointment. ?Other
> > > > > than the Quads, they were probably the first high-end speakers that I
> > > > > heard. ?I was amazed at the clarity and imaging, but of course, there
> > > > > was no real bass. ?I remember that this person had some slightly
> > > > > larger Mordaunt Short speakers that I liked better. ?I almost bought a
> > > > > pair of those, but ended up getting the DCM Timewindows instead as
> > > > > part of my first non-mass market system (with the NAD 3020 and a
> > > > > little Micro-Seiki TT.)
>
> > > > That's funny...I almost bought a pair of DCM Timewindows, but would up
> > > > purchasing a pair of Snell Type Js instead. This was around 1982. ?I
> > > > thought the Snells were every bit as good as the DCMs, but a couple of
> > > > hundred dollars less.
>
> > > > Boon
>
> > > I remember looking for the Snell, but couldn't find a dealer at the time.
>
> > > Looking to hear the TIme Windows (after discovering The Audio Critic and
> > > reading their love of them) led me to a very interesting fellow named
> > > Randy Cooley who owned/owns Optimal Enchantment in Santa Monica. ?I
> > > think that it was called something else at the time. ?He was a hippie
> > > type of guy, super friendly. ?I listened for hours and the Time Windows
> > > seemed like magic to me at the time. ?Later I also bought an Oracle
> > > TT/Alphason arm/Dynavector cartridge from him. ?He was a neat guy and
> > > very helpful. ?Years and years later, I saw and talked to him at the
> > > Stereophile show in LA (two years ago?). We chatted and chatted like old
> > > times. ?He introduced me to Richard Vandersteen, and I liked him as well.
>
> > I had a bad experience with Randy a number of years ago. �He was using
> > a turntable on top of a really high stand (over five feet tall!), and
> > I walked up to see what it was. �He actually told me not to breathe on
> > the turntable. �I turned around and walked out. �To be fair, others
> > have told me that he's a great guy. �But he blew it with me.
>
> > I heard the DCMs at Havens and Hardesty in OC when I was still a
> > teen. �The audio salesman who demonstrated them was actually blind.
> > Nice guy, too.
>
> Do you mean Audio Today on Beach Blvd in Westminster? �THey sold Time
> Windows and had a nice blind guy there, and I don't remember H&H selling
> Time Windows, nor do I remember a blind guy there �;-) �Both stores are
> much missed.

Wow! You're right...it was Audio Today! I used to get the two mixed
up because they were so close together. I did buy speaker cable from
Havens and Hardesty a few months later...Kimber 4TC. The Snell Js
were bi-wireable, and I wanted to experiment.

Boon

[Bob Lombard]

Geoff wrote:
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
>> It's a small speaker designed for a purpose which is not related to
>> audiophile use at all. There are much better bookshelf speakers for
>> much less money. The BBC specification had to do with repeatability in
>> a given environment .
>
> I find mine extremely useful in a small room at close proximity, and have
> nicely aligned drivers, sitting up on the shelf above my workstation. I
> don't even find the lack of bass a problem for my use, and if there is a
> bass problem it is easy to *see* it (with grilles off). Mid and high
> clarity, without exaggerated sections.
>
> geoff
>
>
You folks all seem to be describing a near field monitor. As such, is
the LS3/5a more useful than the M-Audio BX5b?

bl

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote
>> in
>> message

>>> was made of bextrene, which is rather dense,
>>> which does nothing for clarity or transparency.

>> Never seemed to hurt the general perception of any of any
>> number of speakers that used it as a midrange.

> There are better plastics. Not to mention Kevlar.

It's not cool, but it still gets the job done - paper!

>>> And when you turn the volume up, it sounds as if
>> Something Terrible Is About To Happen.
>
>> That's what happens when you try to use a midrange
>> driver as a woofer.

> Not necessarily. Transduction Ltd used the same driver in
> a slightly larger enclosure, and it did not have that
> problem.

It may not have been the identically same bass driver. KEF made a lot of
changes to the B110 over the years. The later ones are said to have 6 mm
Xmax, which is OK for a woofer of that size.

> I remember giving a demo with a huge Audio Research
> solid-state amplifier (about 350W/ch), and during a peak
> in which the amp's power meters nearly pegged, * the T2
> had no problems.

On rap music? ;-)

> * It's not clear what the power meters on solid-state
> Audio Research amps actually measure. But one can assume
> that a near peak in this case must have represented
> perhaps 100W, at least for a second or two.

You mean actual analog meters? Those are for impressing visiting firemen. I
used to think that LEDs were good, but then I started looking at wave forms
with my DAW.

>>> Small speakers have a number of real advantages, of
>>> which reduced diffraction and greater ease of
>>> postioning are two.

>> Making a speaker small doesn't reduce diffraction, but
>> it does change the transition frequency. As far as
>> positioning goes, that can mean many things. In my view,
>> very small speakers are hard to position because they
>> lack directionality, That makes them engage the room
>> more, which in turn makes them hard to position. An
>> alternative view would be that because small speakers
>> lack directional control, you don't have to aim them
>> carefully to get sound where ever you are in the room.

> I'm thinking more in terms of positioning the speaker
> with respect to the walls, the listener, and (to some
> extent) the floor. Small speakers have an advantage here.

Depends what you call an advantage. For the most part, I favor making the
performance of the speaker as independent of the room as possible. That
means directionality control, and that disfavors small diaphragms.

> We could get into a long argument here, but it's my view
> that speakers tend to have broad dispersion, simply
> because -- ignoring the theoretical "ideal point source"

Agreed, let's ignore that old fable.

> -- it's easier to get broad dispersion than controlled dispersion.

I agree with where you are headed, but I'd say it differently. It's easy to
get indiscriminate dispersion, because after all, its well, indiscriminate.

I have some friends like Earl Geddes

http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Cum%20laude.pdf

and another less well known who strongly favor waveguide speakers - horns to
the unwashed. The actual sound of their systems is the best testimony to
the validity of their technology.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
> message
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote
>>> in message

>> There are better plastics. Not to mention Kevlar.

> It's not cool, but it still gets the job done - paper!

Doped paper, perhaps.

We could argue this ad nauseum, but one of the desirable properties of any
cone material is "deadness". Electrostatic and planar-magnetic drivers
largely sidestep this problem.


>> I remember giving a demo with a huge Audio Research
>> solid-state amplifier (about 350W/ch), and during a peak
>> in which the amp's power meters nearly pegged, * the T2
>> had no problems.

> On rap music? ;-)

No, actually, the 1812.


>> It's not clear what the power meters on solid-state Audio
>> Research amps actually measure. But one can assume
>> that a near peak in this case must have represented
>> perhaps 100W, at least for a second or two.

> You mean actual analog meters? Those are for impressing
> visiting firemen. I used to think that LEDs were good, but then
> I started looking at wave forms with my DAW.

ARC was never interested in gimmickry, so I often wondered what the purpose
of the output (I was about to write power-output, then removed "power")
meters was. They weren't calibrated. I can only guess they were to warn the
users of possible overdrive.

I agree that, if you're going to have some indication of output level, LEDs
are better than analog meters, but they still leave a lot to be desired, as
(basically) they show nothing more than (maybe) peak clipping. It would be
nice to know how much current is being drawn. Or even better, phase angle.

Crown did some good work in this area. They had a system that dynamically
reduced the amplifier's gain as the output transistors approached their safe
operating area. (They had a way of measuring the safe operating area of
output devices without destroying them. Each amp had a matched set.)

They also had a circuit called the Input-Output Compartor, stuck in the
feedback loop, that showed when the input and output voltages differed in
magnitude more than 0.1% or something like that. I might add that the IOC on
the K-1 amps I had never came on, but the amplifier still sounded awful.


>> I'm thinking more in terms of positioning the speaker
>> with respect to the walls, the listener, and (to some
>> extent) the floor. Small speakers have an advantage here.

> Depends what you call an advantage. For the most part, I favor
> making the performance of the speaker as independent of the room
> as possible. That means directionality control, and that disfavors
> small diaphragms.

The problem is that, although controlled directivity is highly desirable,
it's extremely difficult to do, precisely because a uniformly directional
driver has to be much larger than the wavelengths it reproduces, and such
drivers wouldn't be good reproducers of those wavelengths. Small diaphragms
permit broad dispersion over a wide frequency range, and are thus more
"practical".

Bud Fried experimented with controlled dispersion in his larger IMF
speakers, but eventually abandoned it.

Arny, you tend to reject planar speakers, but one of the advantages of a
long "ribbon" driver is that it works _with_ the floor and ceiling
reflections to reduce room interactions. Lateral problems can be handled
with a bit of acoustical panelling.


>> We could get into a long argument here, but it's my view
>> that speakers tend to have broad dispersion, simply
>> because -- ignoring the theoretical "ideal point source"

> Agreed, let's ignore that old fable.

>> -- it's easier to get broad dispersion than controlled dispersion.

> I agree with where you are headed, but I'd say it differently. It's easy
to
> get indiscriminate dispersion, because after all, its well,
indiscriminate.

Describing a driver's dispersion as "indiscriminate" strikes me as an
example of the pathetic fallacy.


> I have some friends like Earl Geddes
> http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Cum%20laude.pdf
> and another less well known who strongly favor waveguide speakers - horns
> to the unwashed. The actual sound of their systems is the best testimony
> to the validity of their technology.

I haven't heard the current crop of horn speakers. Klipsch made some pretty
atrocious products, which have biased my view of horns for many years.
(Klipsch was, in at least one way, a loony. He seemed to think that, as horn
loading was the best way to design a driver, that any horn driver was ipso
facto a good driver.)

I'm going to ask Mr. Geddes some tough theoretical questions and see what he
says.

[William Sommerwerck]

> I have some friends like Earl Geddes
> http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Cum%20laude.pdf
> and another less well known who strongly favor waveguide speakers
> -- horns to the unwashed. The actual sound of their systems is the
> best testimony to the validity of their technology.

I've browsed this article, and will return later to give it a careful
reading. But I already see one fundamental fallacy -- that room acoustics
_always_ swamp the sound of the speaker itself. That is, what we hear is
always the sound of the room, and never the sound of the speaker. Therefore,
any speaker that works correctly with the room will necessarily be an
accurate reproducer.

I need to read more. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

[Scott Dorsey]

Bob Lombard > wrote:
>Geoff wrote:
>> Bret Ludwig wrote:
>>
>>> It's a small speaker designed for a purpose which is not related to
>>> audiophile use at all. There are much better bookshelf speakers for
>>> much less money. The BBC specification had to do with repeatability in
>>> a given environment .
>>
>> I find mine extremely useful in a small room at close proximity, and have
>> nicely aligned drivers, sitting up on the shelf above my workstation. I
>> don't even find the lack of bass a problem for my use, and if there is a
>> bass problem it is easy to *see* it (with grilles off). Mid and high
>> clarity, without exaggerated sections.
>
>You folks all seem to be describing a near field monitor. As such, is
>the LS3/5a more useful than the M-Audio BX5b?

The midrange is phenomenally more accurate than the M-Audio boxes. The
LS 3/5a was designed as a near-field monitor and it does a great job in
that application.
--scott

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

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:33:16 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>Not necessarily. Transduction Ltd used the same driver in a slightly larger
>enclosure, and it did not have that problem.I

I don't think so. IMF, prior to being operated by
Transduction, Ltd., used KEF/Celestion drivers
such as the B110 that was in the LS3/5a. Later,
Transduction sourced their drivers from ELAC.
They looked similar and, amazingly, performed
similarly.

In addition, there were many concurrent variants
of the LS3/5a from different manufacturers and
not all of them used the same KEF drivers. AFAIK,
BBC specified the size/configuration/performance
but not the actual composition. As long as it
conformed as tested, it could bear the LS3/5a
label.

Kal

[William Sommerwerck]

"Kalman Rubinson" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:33:16 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
> > wrote:


>> Not necessarily. Transduction Ltd used the same driver in
>> a slightly larger enclosure, and it did not have that problem.

> I don't think so. IMF, prior to being operated by
> Transduction, Ltd., used KEF/Celestion drivers
> such as the B110 that was in the LS3/5a. Later,
> Transduction sourced their drivers from ELAC.
> They looked similar and, amazingly, performed
> similarly.

At the time I knew Transduction -- 1978 through 1980 -- they used KEF
drivers.


> In addition, there were many concurrent variants
> of the LS3/5a from different manufacturers and
> not all of them used the same KEF drivers. AFAIK,
> BBC specified the size/configuration/performance
> but not the actual composition. As long as it
> conformed as tested, it could bear the LS3/5a
> label.

This is possible. We sold LS3/5as (I don't remember the brand), and they
were pretty bad at playing at high levels. This isn't surprising, as they
were never intended to.

[Norman M. Schwartz]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> You mean actual analog meters? Those are for impressing visiting firemen.
> I used to think that LEDs were good, but then I started looking at wave
> forms with my DAW.
>

I believe in some (all ?) instances LEDs require correct 'calibration'. I
have an amp in which, "out of the blue", one of the 2 channel's LEDs flashed
way too prematurely. It got fixed when the amp received some other repairs.
I'm with the "visiting firemen" because at times looking at the analog
meters I become informed of a problem before I actually notice it. "What did
you say?"

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote
>> in
>> message
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "William Sommerwerck" >
>>>> wrote
>>>> in message
>>>>
>
>>> There are better plastics. Not to mention Kevlar.
>
>> It's not cool, but it still gets the job done - paper!
>
> Doped paper, perhaps.
>
> We could argue this ad nauseum, but one of the desirable
> properties of any cone material is "deadness".
> Electrostatic and planar-magnetic drivers largely
> sidestep this problem.

They do but they don't. The materials the diaphragms are made out of is
fairly resonant, but the diaphragms are usually so thin that it doesn't
matter.

On the topic of paper, anybody who wants to can comment on the resonant
properties of a dried pile of paper mache. ;-)

>>> I remember giving a demo with a huge Audio Research
>>> solid-state amplifier (about 350W/ch), and during a peak
>>> in which the amp's power meters nearly pegged, * the T2
>>> had no problems.
>
>> On rap music? ;-)
>
> No, actually, the 1812.

Rap music can take speakers to places that no commercial recording ever took
the 1812.

>>> It's not clear what the power meters on solid-state
>>> Audio Research amps actually measure. But one can assume
>>> that a near peak in this case must have represented
>>> perhaps 100W, at least for a second or two.

>> You mean actual analog meters? Those are for impressing
>> visiting firemen. I used to think that LEDs were good,
>> but then
>> I started looking at wave forms with my DAW.

> ARC was never interested in gimmickry, so I often
> wondered what the purpose of the output (I was about to
> write power-output, then removed "power") meters was.
> They weren't calibrated. I can only guess they were to
> warn the users of possible overdrive.

Or, they looked kewl. ;-)

> I agree that, if you're going to have some indication of
> output level, LEDs are better than analog meters, but
> they still leave a lot to be desired, as (basically) they
> show nothing more than (maybe) peak clipping. It would be
> nice to know how much current is being drawn. Or even
> better, phase angle.

Now that SS amps easily capable of driving 2 ohm loads are common, the whole
reactive speaker load issue has largely become moot. Yes, a 2 ohm load line
passes through zero current and voltage at the same time, but the other
places it goes will give heartaches to amps that don't do well with reactive
loads.

> Crown did some good work in this area. They had a system
> that dynamically reduced the amplifier's gain as the
> output transistors approached their safe operating area.

Actually, that's what classic SOA limiters do.

> (They had a way of measuring the safe operating area of
> output devices without destroying them. Each amp had a
> matched set.)

Matched set not needed.

> They also had a circuit called the Input-Output
> Compartor, stuck in the feedback loop, that showed when
> the input and output voltages differed in magnitude more
> than 0.1% or something like that. I might add that the
> IOC on the K-1 amps I had never came on, but the
> amplifier still sounded awful.

It must have been broken. The opposite is true of some modern amps. Their
clip lights come on and the amp still has like 0.02% THD @ 20 KHz. The
trigger circuit is just that hyper-sensitive.

>>> I'm thinking more in terms of positioning the speaker
>>> with respect to the walls, the listener, and (to some
>>> extent) the floor. Small speakers have an advantage
>>> here.

>> Depends what you call an advantage. For the most part, I
>> favor
>> making the performance of the speaker as independent of
>> the room
>> as possible. That means directionality control, and that
>> disfavors
>> small diaphragms.

> The problem is that, although controlled directivity is
> highly desirable, it's extremely difficult to do,


Controlled directivety with direct radiators can be approximated by using
more drivers each covering a narrower frequency range, such as was done in
the NHT 3.3 .

> precisely because a uniformly directional driver has to
> be much larger than the wavelengths it reproduces, and
> such drivers wouldn't be good reproducers of those
> wavelengths.

If you get say 90 degree controlled directivity, its pretty much good
enough. That does not require a driver that is "much larger" than the
wavelength it reproduces.


> Small diaphragms permit broad dispersion
> over a wide frequency range, and are thus more
> "practical".

Dispersion of > 90 degrees is problematical in many candidate listening
rooms.

> Bud Fried experimented with controlled dispersion in his
> larger IMF speakers, but eventually abandoned it.

The "do it right approach" involves waveguide speakers, known as "horns" to
the great unwashed.

> Arny, you tend to reject planar speakers,

??????????????

> but one of the
> advantages of a long "ribbon" driver is that it works
> _with_ the floor and ceiling reflections to reduce room
> interactions.

It's not the ribbon, its the effective length of the diaphragm. People have
built line arrays and carefully controlled the phase of the drive to each
driver, with some pretty amazing results. This approach is costly, even by
high end audio standards, so not many high end speaker manufacturers have
tried it.

>Lateral problems can be handled with a bit
> of acoustical panelling.

Actually, it takes quite a few square feet of that in a typical midwest
listening room.

>>> We could get into a long argument here, but it's my view
>>> that speakers tend to have broad dispersion, simply
>>> because -- ignoring the theoretical "ideal point source"
>
>> Agreed, let's ignore that old fable.

>>> -- it's easier to get broad dispersion than controlled
>>> dispersion.

>> I agree with where you are headed, but I'd say it
>> differently. It's easy to get indiscriminate dispersion,
>> because after all, its well, indiscriminate.

> Describing a driver's dispersion as "indiscriminate"
> strikes me as an example of the pathetic fallacy.


Call it what you will, but in the real world it makes a lot of trouble.

>> I have some friends like Earl Geddes
>> http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Cum%20laude.pdf
>> and another less well known who strongly favor waveguide
>> speakers - horns to the unwashed. The actual sound of
>> their systems is the best testimony to the validity of
>> their technology.

> I haven't heard the current crop of horn speakers.

You are missing a blessing.

> Klipsch made some pretty atrocious products, which have
> biased my view of horns for many years. (Klipsch was, in
> at least one way, a loony. He seemed to think that, as
> horn loading was the best way to design a driver, that
> any horn driver was ipso facto a good driver.)

The SOTA of drivers with waveguides has proceeded many helpful miles since
Paul's heyday.

> I'm going to ask Mr. Geddes some tough theoretical
> questions and see what he says.

I believe that the general take in Detroit that if you can come up with a
sensible tough theoretical question, Earl's the guy to see.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message
>> I have some friends like Earl Geddes
>> http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Cum%20laude.pdf
>> and another less well known who strongly favor waveguide
>> speakers -- horns to the unwashed. The actual sound of
>> their systems is the best testimony to the validity of
>> their technology.
>
> I've browsed this article, and will return later to give
> it a careful reading. But I already see one fundamental
> fallacy -- that room acoustics _always_ swamp the sound
> of the speaker itself.

No fallacy.

>That is, what we hear is always
> the sound of the room, and never the sound of the
> speaker.

Excluded middle, anybody?

> Therefore, any speaker that works correctly with
> the room will necessarily be an accurate reproducer.

No.

But, any good speaker that works well with the room it is in is miles ahead
of the common alternative.

> I need to read more. Thanks for bringing this to my
> attention.

Enjoy.

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 08:33:03 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>"Kalman Rubinson" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 17:33:16 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
>> > wrote:
>
>
>>> Not necessarily. Transduction Ltd used the same driver in
>>> a slightly larger enclosure, and it did not have that problem.
>
>> I don't think so. IMF, prior to being operated by
>> Transduction, Ltd., used KEF/Celestion drivers
>> such as the B110 that was in the LS3/5a. Later,
>> Transduction sourced their drivers from ELAC.
>> They looked similar and, amazingly, performed
>> similarly.
>
>At the time I knew Transduction -- 1978 through 1980 -- they used KEF
>drivers.

That may have been the transition from the old IMF production under
John Wright to the later ones that used the ELAC drivers. I do not
recall the dates for the transfer.

Kal

[Jenn]

In article
>,
wrote:

> On Feb 16, 6:22?pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > wrote:
> > > On Feb 15, 11:45?pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 15, 9:20?am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 15, 4:08?am, John Atkinson >
> > > > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > On Feb 14, 9:05 pm, wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > Any other LS3/5a fans here? ?Critics?
> >
> > > > > > > I reviewed the Stirlng LS3/5a a year ago. You can
> > > > > > > find the reprint of that review starting
> > > > > > > athttp://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/361/index12.html.
> >
> > > > > > > On balance, I slightly preferred the similarly sized
> > > > > > > Harbeth
> > > > > > > HL-P3ES2:http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1293harbeth/
> > > > > > > inde
> > > > > > > x5.h
> > > > > > > tml.
> >
> > > > > > > John Atkinson
> > > > > > > Editor, Stereophile
> >
> > > > > > I heard the LS3/5a speakers back in the very late 70s or maybe
> > > > > > 1980,
> > > > > > back when around the L.A. area there were several high-end
> > > > > > establishments that ran out of people's homes by appointment.
> > > > > > ?Other
> > > > > > than the Quads, they were probably the first high-end speakers that
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > heard. ?I was amazed at the clarity and imaging, but of course,
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > was no real bass. ?I remember that this person had some slightly
> > > > > > larger Mordaunt Short speakers that I liked better. ?I almost
> > > > > > bought a
> > > > > > pair of those, but ended up getting the DCM Timewindows instead as
> > > > > > part of my first non-mass market system (with the NAD 3020 and a
> > > > > > little Micro-Seiki TT.)
> >
> > > > > That's funny...I almost bought a pair of DCM Timewindows, but would
> > > > > up
> > > > > purchasing a pair of Snell Type Js instead. This was around 1982. ?I
> > > > > thought the Snells were every bit as good as the DCMs, but a couple
> > > > > of
> > > > > hundred dollars less.
> >
> > > > > Boon
> >
> > > > I remember looking for the Snell, but couldn't find a dealer at the
> > > > time.
> >
> > > > Looking to hear the TIme Windows (after discovering The Audio Critic
> > > > and
> > > > reading their love of them) led me to a very interesting fellow named
> > > > Randy Cooley who owned/owns Optimal Enchantment in Santa Monica. ?I
> > > > think that it was called something else at the time. ?He was a hippie
> > > > type of guy, super friendly. ?I listened for hours and the Time Windows
> > > > seemed like magic to me at the time. ?Later I also bought an Oracle
> > > > TT/Alphason arm/Dynavector cartridge from him. ?He was a neat guy and
> > > > very helpful. ?Years and years later, I saw and talked to him at the
> > > > Stereophile show in LA (two years ago?). We chatted and chatted like
> > > > old
> > > > times. ?He introduced me to Richard Vandersteen, and I liked him as
> > > > well.
> >
> > > I had a bad experience with Randy a number of years ago. ?He was using
> > > a turntable on top of a really high stand (over five feet tall!), and
> > > I walked up to see what it was. ?He actually told me not to breathe on
> > > the turntable. ?I turned around and walked out. ?To be fair, others
> > > have told me that he's a great guy. ?But he blew it with me.
> >
> > > I heard the DCMs at Havens and Hardesty in OC when I was still a
> > > teen. ?The audio salesman who demonstrated them was actually blind.
> > > Nice guy, too.
> >
> > Do you mean Audio Today on Beach Blvd in Westminster? ?THey sold Time
> > Windows and had a nice blind guy there, and I don't remember H&H selling
> > Time Windows, nor do I remember a blind guy there ?;-) ?Both stores are
> > much missed.
>
> Wow! You're right...it was Audio Today! I used to get the two mixed
> up because they were so close together. I did buy speaker cable from
> Havens and Hardesty a few months later...Kimber 4TC. The Snell Js
> were bi-wireable, and I wanted to experiment.
>
> Boon

I like H&H a lot. You probably know Dick's site:
http://www.audioperfectionist.com/index.html

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
> message

>>> I have some friends like Earl Geddes
>>> http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Cum%20laude.pdf
>>> and another less well known who strongly favor waveguide
>>> speakers -- horns to the unwashed. The actual sound
>>> of their systems is the best testimony to the validity
>>> of their technology.

>> I've browsed this article, and will return later to give
>> it a careful reading. But I already see one fundamental
>> fallacy -- that room acoustics _always_ swamp the sound
>> of the speaker itself.

> No fallacy.

>> That is, what we hear is always the sound of the room,
>> and never the sound of the speaker.

> Excluded middle, anybody?

>> Therefore, any speaker that works correctly with
>> the room will necessarily be an accurate reproducer.

> No.

But this is what Dr. Geddes' article implies. He says his Summa Cum Laude
system (a _bad_ name for a speaker -- it lends itself to vulgar jokes) is
perhaps the best speaker in the world. But he gives no justification for
this, other than the claim of "correct" room interaction (most of which
makes sense to me, and I don't disagree with -- the section on room
reflections fits with what I think I understand about such things, and is
worth studying), and the overall flatness and smoothness of the speaker's
measured response.

But he never says anything about the system's drivers. His is basically an
enhanced/extended Klipsch point of view -- if you get the dispersion right,
the speaker must necessarily "sound good". Though one would expect a speaker
with the measured response of the Summa Cum Laude to be at least
pleasant-sounding (I'd be flabbergasted if it _weren't_), it doesn't
automatically follow.

The reason I'm so emphatic on this point is that most (if not all) the
people in this group have never heard a plasma speaker. I have. When I
worked at Barclay Recording & Electronics, Dr. Alan Hill twisted our arms to
carry the Plasmatronics -- which, 30 years ago, cost a startling $8000/pair.
Dr. Barclay was an avid live recordist, and we played his master Nagra tapes
through the Plasmatronics. To quote Herb the K (in another context) --
"Everything else is gaslight." It is the only speaker I have ever heard that
actually sounds REAL -- as if you're actually hearing live sound. *

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes... The Plasmatronics used French bextrene
mids and woofers that weren't within light-years of the performance of the
ionic driver (which worked from 700Hz up). And the discontinuity was
audible.

But -- the difference in sound quality was plainly -- grossly -- audible in
a room full of other loudspeakers, none of which (including the
Plasmatronics) had been designed to work "with" (or independently of) a
room. If Dr. Geddes had a chance to hear the Plasmatronics, his view of the
relative importance of the "absolute" quality of a speaker versus the way
that quality is degraded by room acoustics might find itself being adjusted
a bit. Quite a bit.

Simply put, the absolute (and relative) quality of speaker systems _is_
audible in rooms with "decent" acoustics. This isn't to say that further
improving the room acoustics towards some ideal, or paying more attention to
some of the points that Dr. Geddes raises, wouldn't further improve the
sound. But listeners don't prefer planar speakers simply because they
interact "differently" with the room. Dr. Geddes really needs to address
this point of the quality of the drivers in the Summa Cum Laude. What are
they, and why were they selected? Inquiring minds want to know.

Dr. Geddes also makes a statement that brings into question his listening
ability and judgement. **

"CD [constant-directivity] is a well know[n] design criteria [sic] for large
venue systems, but it is almost nonexistent in home high-fidelity
loudspeaker systems. There are two reasons for this; pistons and size.
Piston sources can never be CD and CD simply cannot be done in a small area.
It takes space and area to control sound radiation and there is simply no
way around this fact. Hence, for sound systems in small rooms, bigger really
is better. Somehow it just seems obvious that the larger speakers of the
past sounded better than the multitude of mini-cubes and tower speakers of
today. Small speakers do have their place, but not as sources for critical
listening in a well designed room. Virtually all small speakers are
omni-directional. It’s easy and inexpensive, but completely wrong for a
small room."

I assume the kind of "larger speakers" that are so obviously better sounding
are of the Bozak ilk. These had (by modern standards) large drivers with
poor dispersion, and sometimes included vertical arrays of mids and/or
tweeters. Such speakers have a wonderful "in-your-face" quality -- you crank
up the volume and you are submerged in the sound. Great fun.

But when you listen critically to such speakers, with good program material,
it's obvious that the modern speakers Dr. Geddes is so quick to decry are
more-accurate reproducers. They simply sound more like the signal that's fed
into them. They can also be insufferably insipid-sounding, but that's,
perhaps, another issue. (They needn't be. B&Ws are both accurate and
non-insipid.)

Perhaps I'm being unkind in saying so, but Dr. Geddes doesn't seem to be
very interested in the absolute fidelity of his speakers. He does seem to be
the sort of designer who fixates on one thing, and thinks if he gets it
right, he's gotten everything right.

His paper conveniently overlooks the gorilla in the room -- LEDE. LEDE
reduces or suppresses early reflections, while allowing the listening area
to be filled with long-delay reflected sounds. Why is altering the speaker
to fit the room necessarily better than the opposite? Dr. Geddes doesn't
discuss the relative merits and demerits of his system and LEDE, nor are
there any comparative listening tests.

Though I appreciate the paper's conversational style, it isn't particularly
well-written and suffers from typos and other problems.

> But, any good speaker that works well with the room
> it is in is miles ahead of the common alternative.

Dr. Geddes' point of view seems to be that a speaker that doesn't work well
with the room is, by definition, _not_ a good speaker. I have no argument
with Dr. Geddes' technology -- it seems to achieve the desired ends, and
they are, in and of themselves, good ends.

I am simply saying that the kind of directional playback he advocates is
_not_ more important -- or even _as_ important -- as the basic fidelity of
the system itself. Nor is it a guarantee of accurate sound reproduction.

* I was speaking with Dr. Barclay the other day, and the Plasmatronics came
up. His opinion was the same as mine, and had not changed in 30 years.

** Even if he _is_ a bad listener, that doesn't invalidate the design of the
Summa Cum Laude.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote
>> in message
>>
>
>>>> I have some friends like Earl Geddes
>>>> http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Cum%20laude.pdf
>>>> and another less well known who strongly favor
>>>> waveguide speakers -- horns to the unwashed. The
>>>> actual sound
>>>> of their systems is the best testimony to the validity
>>>> of their technology.
>
>>> I've browsed this article, and will return later to give
>>> it a careful reading. But I already see one fundamental
>>> fallacy -- that room acoustics _always_ swamp the sound
>>> of the speaker itself.
>
>> No fallacy.
>
>>> That is, what we hear is always the sound of the room,
>>> and never the sound of the speaker.
>
>> Excluded middle, anybody?
>
>>> Therefore, any speaker that works correctly with
>>> the room will necessarily be an accurate reproducer.
>
>> No.

> But this is what Dr. Geddes' article implies.

Implies would be a good choice of words - it suggests that one could read
the article and obtain other meanings. ;-)

> He says his
> Summa Cum Laude system (a _bad_ name for a speaker -- it
> lends itself to vulgar jokes) is perhaps the best speaker
> in the world.

He's never said that in my presence, or the presence of other signficant
people in Detroit. ;-)

> But he gives no justification for this,
> other than the claim of "correct" room interaction (most
> of which makes sense to me, and I don't disagree with --
> the section on room reflections fits with what I think I
> understand about such things, and is worth studying), and
> the overall flatness and smoothness of the speaker's
> measured response.

In my view, his speaker system has considerable merit because it does have
an intelligently-designed radiation pattern. Geddes probably has an
exceptionally good handle on what a good radiation pattern is, and how to
design waveguides to obtain it.

> But he never says anything about the system's drivers.

The unique technology is the waveguide that he puts in front of the
compression driver. Everthing else is pretty much off-the-shelf.

> His is basically an enhanced/extended Klipsch point of
> view -- if you get the dispersion right, the speaker must
> necessarily "sound good".

I would say that Earl believes that if you get the radiation pattern and
power response right, and low nonlinear disstortion and good efficiency and
power handling, you've got a lot of goodness. BTW, getting the radiation and
power response right implies getting the on-axis response right.

> Though one would expect a
> speaker with the measured response of the Summa Cum Laude
> to be at least pleasant-sounding (I'd be flabbergasted if
> it _weren't_), it doesn't automatically follow.

They are. And, they are tolerant of differences in rooms. In his home, he
has a pair in a sparsely-furnished room with a hardwood floor and plaster
walls. He has 3 more (LCR) in a room with very carefully-designed acoustics.

> The reason I'm so emphatic on this point is that most (if
> not all) the people in this group have never heard a
> plasma speaker. I have.

I have to. I heard a pair at Dr. Hy Kichalsky's house. Hy was the founder of
The Audiophile Society (of Westchester County).

> When I worked at Barclay
> Recording & Electronics, Dr. Alan Hill twisted our arms
> to carry the Plasmatronics -- which, 30 years ago, cost a
> startling $8000/pair. Dr. Barclay was an avid live
> recordist, and we played his master Nagra tapes through
> the Plasmatronics. To quote Herb the K (in another
> context) -- "Everything else is gaslight." It is the only
> speaker I have ever heard that actually sounds REAL -- as
> if you're actually hearing live sound. *

Hy's Plasmatronics sounded very good, too.

> Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes... The Plasmatronics
> used French bextrene mids and woofers that weren't within
> light-years of the performance of the ionic driver (which
> worked from 700Hz up). And the discontinuity was audible.

They were very complex, esoteric tweeters aside.

> But -- the difference in sound quality was plainly --
> grossly -- audible in a room full of other loudspeakers,
> none of which (including the Plasmatronics) had been
> designed to work "with" (or independently of) a room.

That's impressive, but in the larger context I don't and can't know exactly
what it means.

> If Dr. Geddes had a chance to hear the Plasmatronics, his
> view of the relative importance of the "absolute" quality
> of a speaker versus the way that quality is degraded by
> room acoustics might find itself being adjusted a bit.
> Quite a bit.

Or not. To me a relevant experiment involved moving a variety of better
speakers around to a number of listening rooms, and of course listening to
them in each room. The group conclusion was that the speakers tended to
sound more like the rooms they were in than any unique identity that the
speakers had.

Of course, different speakers, different rooms, perhaps different
conclusions. But the result involved enough different rooms and speakers
that it was very convincing.

> Simply put, the absolute (and relative) quality of
> speaker systems _is_ audible in rooms with "decent"
> acoustics.

I don't think you can fix a miserable room with a good speaker. I do think
there are some rooms that are so miserable that no general-purpose speaker
can sound good in them. I know that in most rooms, most speakers sound
different and some are preferable than others. I know that if you change the
room a lot, or pick a different room, your favorite speaker of the same lot
may be a different speaker. And, I know that certain speakers that are
inherently highly tailorable can sound amazingly good in really bad rooms.


> This isn't to say that further improving the
> room acoustics towards some ideal, or paying more
> attention to some of the points that Dr. Geddes raises,
> wouldn't further improve the sound.

Agreed.

> But listeners don't
> prefer planar speakers simply because they interact
> "differently" with the room.

I don't see planar speakers as panaceas, and I don't see preference for
planar speakers or a certain planar speaker as being some sort of audio IQ
test. OTOH, the right Magnapans, the right room, and the right music can be
quite a treat.

> Dr. Geddes really needs to
> address this point of the quality of the drivers in the
> Summa Cum Laude. What are they, and why were they
> selected? Inquiring minds want to know.

The drivers themselves are not exceptional. They are good drivers and they
are competiviely priced for what they are. Geddes favorite kind of magic
would be the design of the waveguide (horn) for the upper-range driver.

> Dr. Geddes also makes a statement that brings into
> question his listening ability and judgement. **

> "CD [constant-directivity] is a well know[n] design
> criteria [sic] for large venue systems, but it is almost
> nonexistent in home high-fidelity loudspeaker systems.

Agreed.

> There are two reasons for this; pistons and size. Piston
> sources can never be CD and CD simply cannot be done in a
> small area.

Wide range CD speakers are necessarily large.

> It takes space and area to control sound
> radiation and there is simply no way around this fact.

Right, and if you are in a really small room, you probably want to go down
the near field or even headphones road. Ironically, Geddes did a lot of his
early development of his ideas and technology for a certain large automotive
manufacturer. His ideas were not always ideally applicable to that context.

> Hence, for sound systems in small rooms, bigger really is
> better. Somehow it just seems obvious that the larger
> speakers of the past sounded better than the multitude of
> mini-cubes and tower speakers of today.

I think someone is taking a swipe a Bose, which is not a bad thing to me.
;-)

> Small speakers do
> have their place, but not as sources for critical
> listening in a well designed room. Virtually all small
> speakers are omni-directional. It’s easy and inexpensive,
> but completely wrong for a small room."

Again, that is particularly true if the small room is rather reverberant.

BTW, any reader of this post should note that the quote from Geddes ends
right here.

> I assume the kind of "larger speakers" that are so
> obviously better sounding are of the Bozak ilk.

I don't think so. I think arl might be thinking of something like Altec
A-4s, or some of the large JBL Pro systems designed for monitoring.

> These had
> (by modern standards) large drivers with poor dispersion,
> and sometimes included vertical arrays of mids and/or
> tweeters. Such speakers have a wonderful "in-your-face"
> quality -- you crank up the volume and you are submerged
> in the sound. Great fun.

Well, the vertical array of tweeters does sound like the bigger Bozaks, but
that's you talking William, not Earl.

> But when you listen critically to such speakers, with
> good program material, it's obvious that the modern
> speakers Dr. Geddes is so quick to decry are
> more-accurate reproducers.

But that's a comparison to the large speakers of your choice William, not
Earl's.


> Perhaps I'm being unkind in saying so, but Dr. Geddes
> doesn't seem to be very interested in the absolute
> fidelity of his speakers. He does seem to be the sort of
> designer who fixates on one thing, and thinks if he gets
> it right, he's gotten everything right.

That would be your perception William, not the Earl Geddes I know.

> His paper conveniently overlooks the gorilla in the room
> -- LEDE. LEDE reduces or suppresses early reflections,
> while allowing the listening area to be filled with
> long-delay reflected sounds.

LEDE is yet another idea that is good in some circumstances, but LEDE is not
a panacea. I know what Earl's preferred design for a listening room is, and
no way is it LEDE.

Controlled directivity is also a good idea, but it has more generality. I
comes closer to be a panacea, given that the best solution always involves a
room with the best possible acoustics for reproduction of music and spoken
word.

> Why is altering the speaker
> to fit the room necessarily better than the opposite?

I don't think that Earl is making that dicotomy.

> Dr.> Geddes doesn't discuss the relative merits and demerits
> of his system and LEDE, nor are there any comparative
> listening tests.

He can't touch every base in a relatively short paper.

> Though I appreciate the paper's conversational style, it
> isn't particularly well-written and suffers from typos
> and other problems.

Earl's a classic engineer in this regard. Brilliant prose is not that
valuable to him.

>> But, any good speaker that works well with the room
>> it is in is miles ahead of the common alternative.

> Dr. Geddes' point of view seems to be that a speaker that
> doesn't work well with the room is, by definition, _not_
> a good speaker.

How can that be wrong?

> I have no argument with Dr. Geddes'
> technology -- it seems to achieve the desired ends, and
> they are, in and of themselves, good ends.

Agreed.

> I am simply saying that the kind of directional playback
> he advocates is _not_ more important -- or even _as_
> important -- as the basic fidelity of the system itself.

I think you've added an omission that is not really there. Earl thinks that
the basic fidelity of the system is based on the things I listed before,
headed up by power response and directionality.

> Nor is it a guarantee of accurate sound reproduction.

There are no guarantees. ;-)

[William Sommerwerck]

>> But -- the difference in sound quality was plainly --
>> grossly -- audible in a room full of other loudspeakers,
>> none of which (including the Plasmatronics) had been
>> designed to work "with" (or independently of) a room.

> That's impressive, but in the larger context I don't and
> can't know exactly what it means.

What I intended it to mean was that the difference was plainly audible,
despite the less-than-ideal listening conditions..


> Or not. To me a relevant experiment involved moving a variety
> of better speakers around to a number of listening rooms, and
> of course listening to them in each room. The group conclusion
> was that the speakers tended to sound more like the rooms they
> were in than any unique identity that the speakers had.

That hasn't been my experience, but I've never done such and experiment, and
I've often treated the rooms I've lived in. There is no question that a bad
room will swamp the subtleties of any particular design.


>> Simply put, the absolute (and relative) quality of speaker
>> systems _is_ audible in rooms with "decent" acoustics.

> I don't think you can fix a miserable room with a good speaker.

Of course not. That isn't the point. My point was that in a "decent" room,
significant speaker differences _are_ audible.


> I do think there are some rooms that are so miserable that
> no general-purpose speaker can sound good in them.

I've heard rooms so bad that I wonder whether Dr. Geddes' design would work.
(Untreated basements come to mind.) You still have to dampen the room some.


>> But listeners don't prefer planar speakers simply because
>> they interact "differently" with the room.

> I don't see planar speakers as panaceas, and I don't see preference
> for planar speakers or a certain planar speaker as being some sort
> of audio IQ test. OTOH, the right Magnepans, the right room, and the
> right music can be quite a treat.

JGH used to claim that dipole speakers were _more_ sensitive to room
placement, and this made them easier to get "sounding right" -- if you spent
the time adjusting them. I don't know if that's generally true.

The original Maggies could be spectacular in their rounded-off way, but as
they got more accurate, they became less pleasing (to me). And they're not
true planar speakers, anyway. (Honesty compels me to admit that one of the
reasons -- though hardly the principal one -- I don't care for Maggies is
that I don't like the way they're marketed or sold, nor do I care for the
religious beliefs of the people manufacturing them.)


>> Dr. Geddes really needs to address this point of the quality
>> of the drivers in the Summa Cum Laude. What are they, and
>> why were they selected? Inquiring minds want to know.

> The drivers themselves are not exceptional. They are good drivers and they
> are competiviely priced for what they are. Geddes favorite kind of magic
> would be the design of the waveguide (horn) for the upper-range driver.


>> Dr. Geddes also makes a statement that brings into
>> question his listening ability and judgement. **

>> "Hence, for sound systems in small rooms, bigger really is
>> better. Somehow it just seems obvious that the larger
>> speakers of the past sounded better than the multitude of
>> mini-cubes and tower speakers of today.
>
> I think someone is taking a swipe a Bose, which is not a
> bad thing to me. ;-)

No argument, but he wasn't. JGH -- the only reviewer who saw through the
901s, and attacked accordingly -- was remarking to me the other day just how
spectacularly spacious they could sound when mounted near the ceiling.

Bose has popularized the "mini-cube" more than anyone else. I've never heard
them, and am not sure I want to.


>> "Small speakers do have their place, but not as sources for
>> critical listening in a well designed room. Virtually all small
>> speakers are omni-directional. It’s easy and inexpensive,
>> but completely wrong for a small room."

> Again, that is particularly true if the small room is rather reverberant.

I wouldn't disagree, but this raises the issue of whether you should damp
the room acoustics.


>> But when you listen critically to such speakers, with
>> good program material, it's obvious that the modern
>> speakers Dr. Geddes is so quick to decry are
>> more-accurate reproducers.

> But that's a comparison to the large speakers of your
> choice William, not Earl's.

No offense, but he should have named names. Are the JBLs, et al, still
considered highly accurate speakers? I don't think so.


>> His paper conveniently overlooks the gorilla in the room
>> -- LEDE. LEDE reduces or suppresses early reflections,
>> while allowing the listening area to be filled with
>> long-delay reflected sounds.

> LEDE is yet another idea that is good in some circumstances,
> but LEDE is not a panacea. I know what Earl's preferred design
> for a listening room is, and no way is it LEDE.

I didn't claim it was a panacea. I said that it was an approach that
attempts to do the same things Dr. Geddes' approach does (suppress early
reflections, surround the listener with long delays, etc). It therefore
needs to be discussed.


>> Why is altering the speaker to fit the room
>> necessarily better than the opposite?

> I don't think that Earl is making that dicotomy.

I got the impression he was. Regardless, LEDE forces consideration of that
dichotomy.


>> Dr. Geddes doesn't discuss the relative merits and demerits
>> of his system and LEDE, nor are there any comparative
>> listening tests.

> He can't touch every base in a relatively short paper.

Then he should write a longer one! <grin>


>>> But, any good speaker that works well with the room
>>> it is in is miles ahead of the common alternative.

>> Dr. Geddes' point of view seems to be that a speaker that
>> doesn't work well with the room is, by definition, _not_
>> a good speaker.

> How can that be wrong?

Because there are many excellent -- ie, accurate -- speakers that aren't
designed to work _with_ the room. In order to get good sound, you have to
treat the room, set up the speakers carefully, etc.


>> I am simply saying that the kind of directional playback
>> he advocates is _not_ more important -- or even _as_
>> important -- as the basic fidelity of the system itself.

> I think you've added an omission that is not really there. Earl thinks
> that the basic fidelity of the system is based on the things I listed
> before, headed up by power response and directionality.

He doesn't discuss it in the paper. And I find this critical, as he is
claiming the Summa Cum Laude is "perhaps" the world's best speaker.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 17, 10:17�pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> wrote:
> > On Feb 16, 6:22?pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Feb 15, 11:45?pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > >,
>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 15, 9:20?am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Feb 15, 4:08?am, John Atkinson >
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Feb 14, 9:05 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Any other LS3/5a fans here? ?Critics?
>
> > > > > > > > I reviewed the Stirlng LS3/5a a year ago. You can
> > > > > > > > find the reprint of that review starting
> > > > > > > > athttp://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/361/index12.html.
>
> > > > > > > > On balance, I slightly preferred the similarly sized
> > > > > > > > Harbeth
> > > > > > > > HL-P3ES2:http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1293harbeth/
> > > > > > > > inde
> > > > > > > > x5.h
> > > > > > > > tml.
>
> > > > > > > > John Atkinson
> > > > > > > > Editor, Stereophile
>
> > > > > > > I heard the LS3/5a speakers back in the very late 70s or maybe
> > > > > > > 1980,
> > > > > > > back when around the L.A. area there were several high-end
> > > > > > > establishments that ran out of people's homes by appointment.
> > > > > > > ?Other
> > > > > > > than the Quads, they were probably the first high-end speakers that
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > heard. ?I was amazed at the clarity and imaging, but of course,
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > was no real bass. ?I remember that this person had some slightly
> > > > > > > larger Mordaunt Short speakers that I liked better. ?I almost
> > > > > > > bought a
> > > > > > > pair of those, but ended up getting the DCM Timewindows instead as
> > > > > > > part of my first non-mass market system (with the NAD 3020 and a
> > > > > > > little Micro-Seiki TT.)
>
> > > > > > That's funny...I almost bought a pair of DCM Timewindows, but would
> > > > > > up
> > > > > > purchasing a pair of Snell Type Js instead. This was around 1982.. ?I
> > > > > > thought the Snells were every bit as good as the DCMs, but a couple
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > hundred dollars less.
>
> > > > > > Boon
>
> > > > > I remember looking for the Snell, but couldn't find a dealer at the
> > > > > time.
>
> > > > > Looking to hear the TIme Windows (after discovering The Audio Critic
> > > > > and
> > > > > reading their love of them) led me to a very interesting fellow named
> > > > > Randy Cooley who owned/owns Optimal Enchantment in Santa Monica. ?I
> > > > > think that it was called something else at the time. ?He was a hippie
> > > > > type of guy, super friendly. ?I listened for hours and the Time Windows
> > > > > seemed like magic to me at the time. ?Later I also bought an Oracle
> > > > > TT/Alphason arm/Dynavector cartridge from him. ?He was a neat guy and
> > > > > very helpful. ?Years and years later, I saw and talked to him at the
> > > > > Stereophile show in LA (two years ago?). We chatted and chatted like
> > > > > old
> > > > > times. ?He introduced me to Richard Vandersteen, and I liked him as
> > > > > well.
>
> > > > I had a bad experience with Randy a number of years ago. ?He was using
> > > > a turntable on top of a really high stand (over five feet tall!), and
> > > > I walked up to see what it was. ?He actually told me not to breathe on
> > > > the turntable. ?I turned around and walked out. ?To be fair, others
> > > > have told me that he's a great guy. ?But he blew it with me.
>
> > > > I heard the DCMs at Havens and Hardesty in OC when I was still a
> > > > teen. ?The audio salesman who demonstrated them was actually blind.
> > > > Nice guy, too.
>
> > > Do you mean Audio Today on Beach Blvd in Westminster? ?THey sold Time
> > > Windows and had a nice blind guy there, and I don't remember H&H selling
> > > Time Windows, nor do I remember a blind guy there ?;-) ?Both stores are
> > > much missed.
>
> > Wow! �You're right...it was Audio Today! �I used to get the two mixed
> > up because they were so close together. �I did buy speaker cable from
> > Havens and Hardesty a few months later...Kimber 4TC. �The Snell Js
> > were bi-wireable, and I wanted to experiment.
>
> > Boon
>
> I like H&H a lot. �You probably know Dick's site: �http://www.audioperfectionist.com/index.html-

Actually, I didn't! Thanks for the link!

Boon

[Andre Jute]

I'm damned if I am going to read this long thread which can only be
circular, starting at where the LS3/5A is a nearfield monitor as
William says, and perforce ending with nothing more being expected
from a nearfield monitor than what it is intended to provide, which is
*not* high levels of headbanging bass.

But I do want to make the point that the LS3/5A was for a long time a
cheap alternative for classical and especially early and chamber music
lovers, and even more particularly for lovers of the human voice, who
could not afford horns from Lowther or electrostats from Mr Walker.

The LS3/5A should be honoured for that and not measured against
perverse standards retrospectively applied. Any old idiot can be snide
with 20-20 hindsight -- but ask him to design a better speaker for the
same money which isn't the size of my Impresario
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/KISS%20195%20The%20Impresario.jpg
and watch him fall flat on his face.

Now let us honour famous speakers and true.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

On Feb 16, 1:40*pm, "William Sommerwerck" >
wrote:
> I'm probably the only audiophile who doesn't care for the LS3/5a.
>
> It was originally designed as a near-field monitor speaker. It was never
> intended for home use.
>
> It has a lot of problems, of which limited bass extension is one. The
> mid/bass driver (I forget the KEF model number) was made of bextrene, which
> is rather dense, which does nothing for clarity or transparency. And when
> you turn the volume up, it sounds as if Something Terrible Is About To
> Happen.
>
> I used to know the folks at Transduction, Ltd, who did the handled the
> importation of IMF Electronics products. (If you guys are reading this,
> please get in touch. I still miss you.) They designed a slightly larger
> system using the same drivers that could handle huge amounts of power and
> play at very high levels without strain. Its only problem was a bit of
> midrange "boxiness". (They had a small floor speaker that cost about half
> the price of the KEF 105, and was overall a better speaker.)
>
> Small speakers have a number of real advantages, of which reduced
> diffraction and greater ease of postioning are two. The cabinetry, which can
> be a huge percentage of the price of a high-quality speaker, costs less. But
> a "serious" system that uses small speakers without a properly designed
> woofer from the same manufacturer is not what I would consider a true
> audiophile product.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
...

> The LS3/5A should be honoured for that and not measured
> against perverse standards retrospectively applied.

There's nothing perverse about pointing out that the LS3/5a wasn't a very
good "living room" speaker 30 years ago, which should have been obvious to
any critical listener. (I realize I'm implicitly criticizing JGH, who's a
good friend, but I have to say it.) I didn't like them then, and said so.

And, as I pointed out, Transduction showed that you could make a much better
speaker with the same drivers, if you were willing to use a slightly larger
cabinet.