Kef B110
 

In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
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.

Right. Yet in the interim the imaging has somehow become poor?

Good imaging comes about from having speakers which are well matched and
as near a point source as possible.

And a speaker which sounded good in the 70s will still sound good today.


Technology and speaker
development has moved on. The LS3/5a has not (for the most part).

Of course not. It's a BBC design. Any 'moving on' would make it something
else.
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.

Your reference speakers will be far from accurate too in some ways. There
is still no such thing as a perfect speaker.

The only point I'd agree with you is 3/5s being overpriced. But that's
irrelevant here as I've had my two pairs for years.

--
*Just give me chocolate and nobody gets hurt

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

Kef B110
 

On 19/12/2015 11:22 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
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.

Right. Yet in the interim the imaging has somehow become poor?

**I am sorely tempted to insert some expletives at this point.

Read my ****ing words!

The LS3/5a was an good little speaker in the late 1970s. There are MUCH
better products available today.


Good imaging comes about from having speakers which are well matched and
as near a point source as possible.

**AND with much attention being paid to crossovers, and MOST importantly
(and the reason for this thread): Diffraction effects. Quality modern
speakers pay attention to this.


And a speaker which sounded good in the 70s will still sound good today.

**That is a perfectly insane claim. I loved my 1973 Ford Escort. Great
little car, but performance, handling, fuel economy, comfort, safety(!)
and reliability pale beside a 2015 Ford Focus. I would estimate (though
I have not crunched the numbers) that the Escort was more expensive too.

Same deal with the LS3/5a. It WAS a good little speaker, compared to the
competition, back in the 1970s. Compared to the competition today, it is
sadly lacking.



Technology and speaker
development has moved on. The LS3/5a has not (for the most part).

Of course not. It's a BBC design. Any 'moving on' would make it something
else.

**And that is it's problem.


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.

Your reference speakers will be far from accurate too in some ways. There
is still no such thing as a perfect speaker.

**In EVERY SINGLE way, the NEAR 10M-II is superior to the LS3/5a. Of
course it is not perfect.


The only point I'd agree with you is 3/5s being overpriced. But that's
irrelevant here as I've had my two pairs for years.


**Lucky you. You need to get out more.

--
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
wrote:

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.

Alas, measurements are made and interpreted by humans, who do make
mistakes in the process, leading to misleading impressions. You only have
to read the webpages I put up recently to see serious examples of this.

Classic case, for example, of how a "measurement" was done and presented in
a way that was mis-appropriate. It isn't a "lie", but misleads anyway.

And trying to "measure" loudspeakers and interpret/explain the results in a
*meaningful* way is considerably more difficult than for something like an
amplifier. e.g. Simply looking at a frequency response plot done
anechoic/pulsed won't always tell you what it sounds like. Particularly
given how the results will vary with the room acoustic, etc.

The LS3/5a is far from accurate.

Fair comment on most speakers as a sweeping generalisation. But doesn't
stop some examples from suiting many people given their circumstances and
preferences. OTOH the QUAD ESLs tend to be "accurate", but won't suit some
people for various reasons.

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
 

In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
And a speaker which sounded good in the 70s will still sound good today.

**That is a perfectly insane claim. I loved my 1973 Ford Escort. Great
little car, but performance, handling, fuel economy, comfort, safety(!)
and reliability pale beside a 2015 Ford Focus. I would estimate (though
I have not crunched the numbers) that the Escort was more expensive too.

Interesting you choose a cheap and nasty mass produced small car as your
basis for this. And of course many billions have been spent developing
cars in that time - to the point where there is little to compare.

Same deal with the LS3/5a. It WAS a good little speaker, compared to the
competition, back in the 1970s. Compared to the competition today, it is
sadly lacking.

So you keep saying. I don't believe you.

If there were obvious faults with the 3/5a like colouration or poor
imaging I'd have long since replaced them.

--
*Why is the word abbreviation so long?

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

Kef B110
 

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
And trying to "measure" loudspeakers and interpret/explain the results
in a *meaningful* way is considerably more difficult than for something
like an amplifier. e.g. Simply looking at a frequency response plot done
anechoic/pulsed won't always tell you what it sounds like. Particularly
given how the results will vary with the room acoustic, etc.

I'd wonder just how good an anechoic room these reviewers have for doing
their measurements. A proper one costs a great deal of money.

--
*Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it *

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

Kef B110
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
And trying to "measure" loudspeakers and interpret/explain the results
in a *meaningful* way is considerably more difficult than for
something like an amplifier. e.g. Simply looking at a frequency
response plot done anechoic/pulsed won't always tell you what it
sounds like. Particularly given how the results will vary with the
room acoustic, etc.

I'd wonder just how good an anechoic room these reviewers have for doing
their measurements. A proper one costs a great deal of money.

So far as I can tell, they tend to use time-windowed pulses for the mid and
high bands. Gated to cut off before room echoes. Then use a close field mic
for LF.

Problem is, of course, the room matters, and they rarely try to measure or
integrate the results of the off-axis output.

It raises one of the "reviewability" questions in Jim Moir's terms. The
measurements tell you how well the results appear given the method of
measurement. So can be used as an 'excuse' by a reviewer to justify their
subjective impressions. But in reality the measured results may not tell
you much about what you'd get in your own room when listening to music.

Speaker + room effects are *far* more complicated and case-variable than
mere amplifier behaviour. One reason I avoided ever doing any speaker
design!

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 Sat, 19 Dec 2015 08:23:39 +1100, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

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.

Really? You tell me what response you want to see from a speaker, and
I'll guarantee I can find somewhere to put the microphone that will
get you close.

In some fields measurement is pretty objective, but speakers? Not even
close.

d

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

Kef B110
 

On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 14:49:51 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
And trying to "measure" loudspeakers and interpret/explain the results
in a *meaningful* way is considerably more difficult than for
something like an amplifier. e.g. Simply looking at a frequency
response plot done anechoic/pulsed won't always tell you what it
sounds like. Particularly given how the results will vary with the
room acoustic, etc.

I'd wonder just how good an anechoic room these reviewers have for doing
their measurements. A proper one costs a great deal of money.

So far as I can tell, they tend to use time-windowed pulses for the mid and
high bands. Gated to cut off before room echoes. Then use a close field mic
for LF.

Problem is, of course, the room matters, and they rarely try to measure or
integrate the results of the off-axis output.

It raises one of the "reviewability" questions in Jim Moir's terms. The
measurements tell you how well the results appear given the method of
measurement. So can be used as an 'excuse' by a reviewer to justify their
subjective impressions. But in reality the measured results may not tell
you much about what you'd get in your own room when listening to music.

Speaker + room effects are *far* more complicated and case-variable than
mere amplifier behaviour. One reason I avoided ever doing any speaker
design!

Jim

This is so. You don't listen to a speaker - ever. You listen to a
system (room, plus furnishing, plus speaker, plus room next door -
plus you - and of course anyone else who happens to be around. All you
have to do to convince yourself of the pointlessness of trying to
consider the speaker alone is measure an impulse response, move the
microphone a couple of inches and measure again. If you can tell the
measurement was made in the same room, you cheated and looked over the
tester's shoulder.

d

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

Kef B110
 

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 14:49:51 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

Speaker + room effects are *far* more complicated and case-variable
than mere amplifier behaviour. One reason I avoided ever doing any
speaker design!

Jim

This is so. You don't listen to a speaker - ever. You listen to a system
(room, plus furnishing, plus speaker, plus room next door - plus you -
and of course anyone else who happens to be around. All you have to do
to convince yourself of the pointlessness of trying to consider the
speaker alone is measure an impulse response, move the microphone a
couple of inches and measure again. If you can tell the measurement was
made in the same room, you cheated and looked over the tester's shoulder.

FWIW I used to have access to a (small) anechoic room when I still worked
at Uni. It was very useful for making controlled measurements for research
purposes. But the percieved sound from a speaker was nothing like what you
heard in any normal domestic room. And having someone in the chamber
affected measurements, so we had to leave and close the door.

Gated pulses would have a similar effect when testing, if used to exclude
reflections. With the added difficulty of also modifying LF behaviour.

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 Sat, 19 Dec 2015 16:47:27 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 14:49:51 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

Speaker + room effects are *far* more complicated and case-variable
than mere amplifier behaviour. One reason I avoided ever doing any
speaker design!

Jim

This is so. You don't listen to a speaker - ever. You listen to a system
(room, plus furnishing, plus speaker, plus room next door - plus you -
and of course anyone else who happens to be around. All you have to do
to convince yourself of the pointlessness of trying to consider the
speaker alone is measure an impulse response, move the microphone a
couple of inches and measure again. If you can tell the measurement was
made in the same room, you cheated and looked over the tester's shoulder.

FWIW I used to have access to a (small) anechoic room when I still worked
at Uni. It was very useful for making controlled measurements for research
purposes. But the percieved sound from a speaker was nothing like what you
heard in any normal domestic room. And having someone in the chamber
affected measurements, so we had to leave and close the door.

Gated pulses would have a similar effect when testing, if used to exclude
reflections. With the added difficulty of also modifying LF behaviour.

Jim

The problem with anechoic chambers is that what you measure is
essentially irrelevant - unconnected with what a speaker in a room
does. Sure it makes for consistency, but that really isn't good
enough.

d

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