In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 10/04/2018 9:22 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
OK. Name a contemporary which was better. The BBC (then) didn't go to the
bother of designing their own speakers if a commercial unit as good for
their purpose could be bought.

**My NEAR 10M-II speakers do everything better than the LS3/5a. The NEAR
10M was better too. The NEAR 10M appeared sometime around 1992.

20 years after the 3/5a, then?


**You'll note that I have already acknowledged that the LS3/5a was
(barely) acceptable when they were first released.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me about a better (or as good)
contemporary product. Because if there was one, the BBC would not have
gone to the bother of making it.


TODAY, they are utter
****.

Interesting the way you think speakers have progressed. Is a Quad ESL 57
also crap becuase subsequent designs may be cheaper and louder?


And, as I stated, by 1992, the NEAR 10M (and a host of other
products) had comprehensively trounced them in every meaningful way.
Here's two metrics:

The LS3/5a is rated at 82dB/2.83VRMS/M and 80Hz ~ 20kHz +/-3dB. 1993
price - US$1,295.00/pair. 2015 price - $2,250.00.

My NEAR 10M is rated at 88dB/2.83VRMS/M and 48Hz ~ 20kHz +/-3dB. 1997
price - US$450.00.

Tell me, have you ever owned 3/5a?

The lack of max SPL is of zero interest for my use. They go more than
adequately loud for my purpose. As they are not in my main room. Nor is
the cost - as I'm not in the market for new ones.

--
*If you remember the '60s, you weren't really there

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