Kef B110
 

On 17/12/2015 6:40 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:



** That would be Michael White, who later formed "Sound on Stage"
with his pal Robert Rose. Hard to say which of them was the more self
opinionated or out of touch with reality.

**Michael seemed to have a bit of a God complex back then. He was
certainly the guy to buy stuff off, when visiting Kent Hi Fi.


** That's where I first heard the phrase "Junk But Loud !"

A young Asian sale said to me it while pointing at some of L100s - then got told off by boss Peter Dertz.




**The box is certainly critical. Me and my old man built my T-lines and
I used them for about a year in raw chipboard form. They sounded great.
When it came time to tart them up, I decided that white Laminex(tm) would
look nice. Who'd a thunk that they would take a huge leap forward in
sound quality? Not me, but they sounded a lot better with the Laminex(tm).
It seems I had discovered constrained layer construction.



** Must have wound up looking like a pair of Sonabs.

http://www.samlaren.org/radioapparater/sonab12.jpg


**Well, 4 cubic feet Sonabs. The T-lines were roughly 3 times the size
of the Concertos. Big buggers. With the internal bracing, they weren't
lightweights either. Mind you: I installed a clients B&W 802D awhile
back. **** me, they feel like they are hewn from a solid lump of
hardwood. 70-odd kilos each. Last time I do that job. Too bloody heavy
for me.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Kef B110
 

In article , Trevor Wilson trevor@SPA
MBLOCKrageaudio.com.au scribeth thus
On 17/12/2015 12:30 PM, Arthur Quinn wrote:
On 2015-12-17 01:11:46 +0000, Trevor Wilson said:

On 16/12/2015 11:42 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
But am always suspicious of those who positively hate one which is
well
regarded using a description like "Muddy, poor imaging and just
plain
average." when that is simply rubbish.


Can you be more specific please as the pair i have in front of me are
anything but muddy or have poor imaging.

Things like the voicing of a speaker are always down to personal choice,
but imaging ain't. And neither is colouration.

If Trevor genuinely found a pair of 3/5a to have poor imaging, they were
faulty.


**I didn't find _a_ pair of LS3/5a speakers with poor imaging. I found
EVERY pair of LS3/5a speakers to possess poor imaging.

What did the poor imaging sound like, e.g. narrow sound field,
instruments moving their positions, piano bass and treble swapping over,
or what?

**Specifically, the image is vague. More specifically, the HF response
is ragged, due to the diffraction problems associated with the crappy
enclosure design.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/f...ker-measuremen
ts#LKbB7zpUKRRuACll.97




And I quote.....



If I had the original pair today, I'd put them closer to the wall
(maybe 12-15 inches) and EQ down the bass hump, which would lessen my
anxiety about over-driving them. Once you hit that sweet spot with these
little speakers, they'd be almost like the theoretical point-source,
having a terrific soundstage.


The LS3/5a has always been an exceptionally amp-friendly speaker, not
because it makes mediocre amps sound good, but for quite the opposite
reason: The LS3/5a excels at letting you hear exactly what your amp
really sounds like."


That midrange! Lady singers never sounded so sweet in your living room.
That definition! Acoustic guitars were transparently rendered – one
could readily hear fingers, picks, nylon, and wound steel. We readily
learned microphone techniques – and soon had disdain for mediocre and
indifferent production.

Several years later I was lent a fellow student’s uncle’s Bryston 3B and
Audio Research SP-3 for only a few hours of alchemical magic with my
BBC’s. Rickie Lee Jones was playing when my roommate walked in. He was
stunned, stopped dead in his tracks and listened. With astonishment he
said “it sounds like she’s in the room!� (thus independent, unsolicited
confirmation of electronic wizardry).

Reichert is right – big speakers mostly get in their own way – few of
them make that kind of holographic magic.


Humm;?......
--
Tony Sayer

Kef B110
 

In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
If Trevor genuinely found a pair of 3/5a to have poor imaging, they
were faulty.


**I didn't find _a_ pair of LS3/5a speakers with poor imaging. I found
EVERY pair of LS3/5a speakers to possess poor imaging.

OK. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even when it's nonsense. ;-)

--
*Errors have been made. Others will be blamed.

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

Kef B110
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Trevor Wilson
wrote:
If Trevor genuinely found a pair of 3/5a to have poor imaging, they
were faulty.


**I didn't find _a_ pair of LS3/5a speakers with poor imaging. I found
EVERY pair of LS3/5a speakers to possess poor imaging.

OK. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even when it's nonsense. ;-)

*That's* what qualifies them to become a magazine reviewer. ;-

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Kef B110
 

On 17/12/2015 8:53 PM, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Trevor Wilson trevor@SPA
MBLOCKrageaudio.com.au scribeth thus
On 17/12/2015 12:30 PM, Arthur Quinn wrote:
On 2015-12-17 01:11:46 +0000, Trevor Wilson said:

On 16/12/2015 11:42 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
But am always suspicious of those who positively hate one which is
well
regarded using a description like "Muddy, poor imaging and just
plain
average." when that is simply rubbish.


Can you be more specific please as the pair i have in front of me are
anything but muddy or have poor imaging.

Things like the voicing of a speaker are always down to personal choice,
but imaging ain't. And neither is colouration.

If Trevor genuinely found a pair of 3/5a to have poor imaging, they were
faulty.


**I didn't find _a_ pair of LS3/5a speakers with poor imaging. I found
EVERY pair of LS3/5a speakers to possess poor imaging.

What did the poor imaging sound like, e.g. narrow sound field,
instruments moving their positions, piano bass and treble swapping over,
or what?

**Specifically, the image is vague. More specifically, the HF response
is ragged, due to the diffraction problems associated with the crappy
enclosure design.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/f...ker-measuremen
ts#LKbB7zpUKRRuACll.97




And I quote.....


**I cited stereophile, because they supply pretty decent measurements.
The waffle and bull**** promulgated by their reviewers is irrelevant. I
suggest you examine the serious problems that can be seen in the
frequency response plot.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Kef B110
 

In article , Trevor Wilson trevor@SPA
MBLOCKrageaudio.com.au scribeth thus
On 17/12/2015 8:53 PM, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Trevor Wilson trevor@SPA
MBLOCKrageaudio.com.au scribeth thus
On 17/12/2015 12:30 PM, Arthur Quinn wrote:
On 2015-12-17 01:11:46 +0000, Trevor Wilson said:

On 16/12/2015 11:42 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
But am always suspicious of those who positively hate one which is
well
regarded using a description like "Muddy, poor imaging and just
plain
average." when that is simply rubbish.


Can you be more specific please as the pair i have in front of me are
anything but muddy or have poor imaging.

Things like the voicing of a speaker are always down to personal choice,
but imaging ain't. And neither is colouration.

If Trevor genuinely found a pair of 3/5a to have poor imaging, they were
faulty.


**I didn't find _a_ pair of LS3/5a speakers with poor imaging. I found
EVERY pair of LS3/5a speakers to possess poor imaging.

What did the poor imaging sound like, e.g. narrow sound field,
instruments moving their positions, piano bass and treble swapping over,
or what?

**Specifically, the image is vague. More specifically, the HF response
is ragged, due to the diffraction problems associated with the crappy
enclosure design.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/f...a-loudspeaker-
measuremen
ts#LKbB7zpUKRRuACll.97




And I quote.....


**I cited stereophile, because they supply pretty decent measurements.
The waffle and bull**** promulgated by their reviewers is irrelevant. I
suggest you examine the serious problems that can be seen in the
frequency response plot.


Be that as it may but what is so different with regard to their user
comments and yours?.





--
Tony Sayer

Kef B110
 

On 18/12/2015 8:54 AM, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Trevor Wilson trevor@SPA
MBLOCKrageaudio.com.au scribeth thus
On 17/12/2015 8:53 PM, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Trevor Wilson trevor@SPA
MBLOCKrageaudio.com.au scribeth thus
On 17/12/2015 12:30 PM, Arthur Quinn wrote:
On 2015-12-17 01:11:46 +0000, Trevor Wilson said:

On 16/12/2015 11:42 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
But am always suspicious of those who positively hate one which is
well
regarded using a description like "Muddy, poor imaging and just
plain
average." when that is simply rubbish.


Can you be more specific please as the pair i have in front of me are
anything but muddy or have poor imaging.

Things like the voicing of a speaker are always down to personal choice,
but imaging ain't. And neither is colouration.

If Trevor genuinely found a pair of 3/5a to have poor imaging, they were
faulty.


**I didn't find _a_ pair of LS3/5a speakers with poor imaging. I found
EVERY pair of LS3/5a speakers to possess poor imaging.

What did the poor imaging sound like, e.g. narrow sound field,
instruments moving their positions, piano bass and treble swapping over,
or what?

**Specifically, the image is vague. More specifically, the HF response
is ragged, due to the diffraction problems associated with the crappy
enclosure design.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/f...a-loudspeaker-
measuremen
ts#LKbB7zpUKRRuACll.97




And I quote.....


**I cited stereophile, because they supply pretty decent measurements.
The waffle and bull**** promulgated by their reviewers is irrelevant. I
suggest you examine the serious problems that can be seen in the
frequency response plot.


Be that as it may but what is so different with regard to their user
comments and yours?.

**And again, the comments from reviewers (whose motives are unknown and
often unknowable) are irrelevant. Figures don't lie. The measurements of
the LS3/5A are very unimpressive.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Kef B110
 

In article , Trevor Wilson trevor@SPA
MBLOCKrageaudio.com.au scribeth thus
On 18/12/2015 8:54 AM, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Trevor Wilson trevor@SPA
MBLOCKrageaudio.com.au scribeth thus
On 17/12/2015 8:53 PM, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Trevor Wilson trevor@SPA
MBLOCKrageaudio.com.au scribeth thus
On 17/12/2015 12:30 PM, Arthur Quinn wrote:
On 2015-12-17 01:11:46 +0000, Trevor Wilson said:

On 16/12/2015 11:42 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
But am always suspicious of those who positively hate one which is
well
regarded using a description like "Muddy, poor imaging and just
plain
average." when that is simply rubbish.


Can you be more specific please as the pair i have in front of me are
anything but muddy or have poor imaging.

Things like the voicing of a speaker are always down to personal choice,
but imaging ain't. And neither is colouration.

If Trevor genuinely found a pair of 3/5a to have poor imaging, they were
faulty.


**I didn't find _a_ pair of LS3/5a speakers with poor imaging. I found
EVERY pair of LS3/5a speakers to possess poor imaging.

What did the poor imaging sound like, e.g. narrow sound field,
instruments moving their positions, piano bass and treble swapping over,
or what?

**Specifically, the image is vague. More specifically, the HF response
is ragged, due to the diffraction problems associated with the crappy
enclosure design.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/f...a-loudspeaker-
measuremen
ts#LKbB7zpUKRRuACll.97




And I quote.....


**I cited stereophile, because they supply pretty decent measurements.
The waffle and bull**** promulgated by their reviewers is irrelevant. I
suggest you examine the serious problems that can be seen in the
frequency response plot.


Be that as it may but what is so different with regard to their user
comments and yours?.

**And again, the comments from reviewers (whose motives are unknown and
often unknowable) are irrelevant. Figures don't lie. The measurements of
the LS3/5A are very unimpressive.



It wasn't the comments of the reviewers, it was the comments of users!

--
Tony Sayer

Kef B110
 

On 19/12/2015 1:31 AM, tony sayer wrote:


**And again, the comments from reviewers (whose motives are unknown
and often unknowable) are irrelevant. Figures don't lie. The
measurements of the LS3/5A are very unimpressive.



It wasn't the comments of the reviewers, it was the comments of
users!


**Irrelevant. Look at what owners of those hideous SET amps and single
driver systems say. They are examples of delusional thinking.

Look at the measurements and tell me how wonderful the LS3/5a is.

Measurements, unlike humans, do not lie and are not clouded by delusions
and imagining that the old days were better. Those humans can be
reviewers or owners.

For my part, I accept that my opinion is no more, or less valid than any
other listener. HOWEVER, I don't have anything to gain or lose by
placing my opinions on the sound of the LS3/5a on record. I don't sell
them and I don't sell a competing product. That said, the measurements
don't lie. The LS3/5a is over-priced and under-performing. When it was
released (I first heard a pair back in the late 1970s), it was actually
a rather decent sounding little speaker. Technology and speaker
development has moved on. The LS3/5a has not (for the most part). I've
listened to the LS3/5a rather more recently (about 5 years ago),
compared to my reference small speakers (NEAR 10M-II) and the result was
as expected: The LS3/5a is far from accurate.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Kef B110
 

On 19/12/2015 4:49 AM, Huge wrote:
On 2015-12-18, tony sayer wrote:

[66 lines snipped]

It wasn't the comments of the reviewers, it was the comments of users!

Do you think you could see your way clear to snipping your responses?



**If I understand you correctly, your entire contribution to this thread
relates to grammatical errors and complaints about too many lines of
text. Is that about it?

Do you have a life?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus