[[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/standloud...1/index12.html .

On balance, I slightly preferred the similarly sized
Harbeth HL-P3ES2:
http://www.stereophile.com/standloud...th/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/standloud...th/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/standloud...th/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/standloud...th/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/standloud...th/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/standloud...rbeth/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/standloud...rbeth/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.