Kef B110
 

On 20/12/2015 7:02 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 06:55:21 +1100, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 20/12/2015 4:06 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
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.

**Wrong. Given the fact that the characteristics of a (proper) anechoic
room are well known and that every listening room is different, then an
anechoic environment (or measurement systems which simulate such an
environment) are the only sane way to quantify a loudspeaker's performance.

You don't get it. A speaker's performance is what it does in a real
room, not an anechoic chamber. An anechoic chamber is a blinkered
snapshot along a single axis - all but irrelevant to actual
performance.



**Define 'a real room'.


--
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 Sun, 20 Dec 2015 06:55:21 +1100, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 20/12/2015 4:06 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
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.

**Wrong. Given the fact that the characteristics of a (proper) anechoic
room are well known and that every listening room is different, then an
anechoic environment (or measurement systems which simulate such an
environment) are the only sane way to quantify a loudspeaker's performance.

You don't get it. A speaker's performance is what it does in a real
room, not an anechoic chamber. An anechoic chamber is a blinkered
snapshot along a single axis - all but irrelevant to actual
performance.

d

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

Kef B110
 

On 20/12/2015 6:56 AM, RJH wrote:
On 19/12/2015 19:37, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 19/12/2015 9:29 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.

**I compared TWO Ford, mass produced cars of approximately similar
market segments. If you'd prefer, we could use the Fiesta, rather than
the Focus. The results would be very similar. The Fiesta would
comprehensively trump the Escort. In every way. If you'd rather, stick a
2015 Mercedes SL350 vs. a 1971 Mercedes SL450.

CAD and millions of Dollars in research has propelled speaker design far
beyond what the LS3/5a can manage.


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.

**I accept your delusions as your own. Like I said: You need to get out
more.


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


**Not necessarily. I have a client who owns a Mercedes SL450. He
stubbornly refuses to get rid of it. I suggested that a Toyota Corolla
would offer better performance, fuel economy, far superior safety,
better reliability, etc, etc. He keeps driving it for no other reason
than he can put the top down on a nice day. Me? I've driven both the
Corolla and the SL450. There is no comparison. The Mercedes is a POS.
And, for the record: I have driven a late model SL500. It was quite
nice. Certainly better than the Corolla.

The LS3/5a was quite decent several decades ago. Today, it is not even
in the race.


While I don't accept your 'objectivity' arguments (I've read some pretty
good reviews of the LS3/5a, although not heard them myself), I would
support the notion that sentimentality plays a part, countering in part
the 'if they were that bad I'd have replaced them' line of argument.



**Of course. I am not immune to owning and using items out of
sentimentality. I understand that well. I am simply calling out the
LS3/5a for what it actually is. It is a pleasant enough speaker to
listen to, but far from accurate, compared to what is produced today.
It's also WAY too expensive.

--
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 Sun, 20 Dec 2015 06:52:44 +1100, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 20/12/2015 6:42 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 06:27:16 +1100, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 20/12/2015 2:03 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
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.


**It is reasonable to assume that Stereophile use the same measurement
system (at any given time frame) for all their speakers. It is also
likely that the same people are used to perform those measurements.
Therefore, it is valid to draw comparisons between various speakers.
That said, I suggest you examine the ragged top end of the LS3/5a
response and explain how that effect can be caused by the measurement
system.

Sorry, but no it isn't. When you are in a normal room listening to a
speaker, what you hear is the sum of all the possible paths from
speaker to you, via the walls. The on-axis response is not quite
irrelevant, but almost.

**The ragged HF response of the LS3/5a cannot possibly be caused by room
effects. I suggest you study up on some physics.


An HF unit has a tweeter approximately an inch across. That is a
wavelength at 10kHz - above the offending frequency, The lateral
dispersion from a one-wavelength radiator is still wide - you need
several wavelengths to achieve decent directivity. Among other things
I design antennas for spacecraft, so I know exactly how this works.
The equations are identical

So yes, the room matters even up to 10kHz.


Speaker designers may use the on-axis response, but that is because it
is all they have. You want to know how a speaker performs? Stick it in
your listening room and live with it for a few weeks. If there is
something about it that you like, send it back because whatever it is
will start to annoy you after a while. Go for the speaker that has
absolutely no stand-out features.


**Without measurements, we are in the dark.

And we are without measurement, so yes we are in the dark. Don't
imagine for one moment that an on-axis anechoic "measurement" is
anything significant.

d

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

Kef B110
 

On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 07:01:23 +1100, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 20/12/2015 7:02 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 06:55:21 +1100, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 20/12/2015 4:06 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
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.

**Wrong. Given the fact that the characteristics of a (proper) anechoic
room are well known and that every listening room is different, then an
anechoic environment (or measurement systems which simulate such an
environment) are the only sane way to quantify a loudspeaker's performance.

You don't get it. A speaker's performance is what it does in a real
room, not an anechoic chamber. An anechoic chamber is a blinkered
snapshot along a single axis - all but irrelevant to actual
performance.



**Define 'a real room'.

The one you are sitting in. That is why you have to listen.

d

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

Kef B110
 

On 20/12/2015 7:07 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 07:01:23 +1100, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 20/12/2015 7:02 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 06:55:21 +1100, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 20/12/2015 4:06 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
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.

**Wrong. Given the fact that the characteristics of a (proper) anechoic
room are well known and that every listening room is different, then an
anechoic environment (or measurement systems which simulate such an
environment) are the only sane way to quantify a loudspeaker's performance.

You don't get it. A speaker's performance is what it does in a real
room, not an anechoic chamber. An anechoic chamber is a blinkered
snapshot along a single axis - all but irrelevant to actual
performance.



**Define 'a real room'.

The one you are sitting in. That is why you have to listen.

**I have several listening rooms. The best one has the fewest
reflections and the most damping. In fact, it is the one which most
closely approaches an anechoic environment.

You're being silly. An anechoic environment (or a measurement system
which simulates it) is utterly crucial for developing loudspeakers.

I will ask once mo What room effects cause the ragged HF response of
the LS3/5a?


--
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 20/12/2015 7:06 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 06:52:44 +1100, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 20/12/2015 6:42 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 06:27:16 +1100, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 20/12/2015 2:03 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
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.


**It is reasonable to assume that Stereophile use the same measurement
system (at any given time frame) for all their speakers. It is also
likely that the same people are used to perform those measurements.
Therefore, it is valid to draw comparisons between various speakers.
That said, I suggest you examine the ragged top end of the LS3/5a
response and explain how that effect can be caused by the measurement
system.

Sorry, but no it isn't. When you are in a normal room listening to a
speaker, what you hear is the sum of all the possible paths from
speaker to you, via the walls. The on-axis response is not quite
irrelevant, but almost.

**The ragged HF response of the LS3/5a cannot possibly be caused by room
effects. I suggest you study up on some physics.


An HF unit has a tweeter approximately an inch across. That is a
wavelength at 10kHz - above the offending frequency, The lateral
dispersion from a one-wavelength radiator is still wide - you need
several wavelengths to achieve decent directivity. Among other things
I design antennas for spacecraft, so I know exactly how this works.
The equations are identical

So yes, the room matters even up to 10kHz.

**The room does matter, but it cannot cause the measured effects. Those
effects can only be caused by local issues.



Speaker designers may use the on-axis response, but that is because it
is all they have. You want to know how a speaker performs? Stick it in
your listening room and live with it for a few weeks. If there is
something about it that you like, send it back because whatever it is
will start to annoy you after a while. Go for the speaker that has
absolutely no stand-out features.


**Without measurements, we are in the dark.

And we are without measurement, so yes we are in the dark.

**I provided measurements in a prior post.


Don't
imagine for one moment that an on-axis anechoic "measurement" is
anything significant.


**Not only is it significant, but it is vital.


--
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 Sun, 20 Dec 2015 07:08:24 +1100, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 20/12/2015 7:07 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 07:01:23 +1100, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 20/12/2015 7:02 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 06:55:21 +1100, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 20/12/2015 4:06 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
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.

**Wrong. Given the fact that the characteristics of a (proper) anechoic
room are well known and that every listening room is different, then an
anechoic environment (or measurement systems which simulate such an
environment) are the only sane way to quantify a loudspeaker's performance.

You don't get it. A speaker's performance is what it does in a real
room, not an anechoic chamber. An anechoic chamber is a blinkered
snapshot along a single axis - all but irrelevant to actual
performance.



**Define 'a real room'.

The one you are sitting in. That is why you have to listen.

**I have several listening rooms. The best one has the fewest
reflections and the most damping. In fact, it is the one which most
closely approaches an anechoic environment.

You're being silly. An anechoic environment (or a measurement system
which simulates it) is utterly crucial for developing loudspeakers.

I will ask once mo What room effects cause the ragged HF response of
the LS3/5a?

You listen to music in an almost anechoic room? Now I know you are
clueless.

As for your question - no answer because you have loaded it. Ask it
properly and you may get an answer, but probably not since you have
just revealed yourself to be a troll.

d

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

Kef B110
 

On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 07:10:44 +1100, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 20/12/2015 7:06 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 06:52:44 +1100, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 20/12/2015 6:42 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 06:27:16 +1100, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 20/12/2015 2:03 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
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.


**It is reasonable to assume that Stereophile use the same measurement
system (at any given time frame) for all their speakers. It is also
likely that the same people are used to perform those measurements.
Therefore, it is valid to draw comparisons between various speakers.
That said, I suggest you examine the ragged top end of the LS3/5a
response and explain how that effect can be caused by the measurement
system.

Sorry, but no it isn't. When you are in a normal room listening to a
speaker, what you hear is the sum of all the possible paths from
speaker to you, via the walls. The on-axis response is not quite
irrelevant, but almost.

**The ragged HF response of the LS3/5a cannot possibly be caused by room
effects. I suggest you study up on some physics.


An HF unit has a tweeter approximately an inch across. That is a
wavelength at 10kHz - above the offending frequency, The lateral
dispersion from a one-wavelength radiator is still wide - you need
several wavelengths to achieve decent directivity. Among other things
I design antennas for spacecraft, so I know exactly how this works.
The equations are identical

So yes, the room matters even up to 10kHz.

**The room does matter, but it cannot cause the measured effects. Those
effects can only be caused by local issues.



Speaker designers may use the on-axis response, but that is because it
is all they have. You want to know how a speaker performs? Stick it in
your listening room and live with it for a few weeks. If there is
something about it that you like, send it back because whatever it is
will start to annoy you after a while. Go for the speaker that has
absolutely no stand-out features.


**Without measurements, we are in the dark.

And we are without measurement, so yes we are in the dark.

**I provided measurements in a prior post.


Don't
imagine for one moment that an on-axis anechoic "measurement" is
anything significant.


**Not only is it significant, but it is vital.

Nope, you're done. Go away now

d

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

Kef B110
 

On 20/12/2015 7:13 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 07:08:24 +1100, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 20/12/2015 7:07 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 07:01:23 +1100, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 20/12/2015 7:02 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 06:55:21 +1100, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 20/12/2015 4:06 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
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.

**Wrong. Given the fact that the characteristics of a (proper) anechoic
room are well known and that every listening room is different, then an
anechoic environment (or measurement systems which simulate such an
environment) are the only sane way to quantify a loudspeaker's performance.

You don't get it. A speaker's performance is what it does in a real
room, not an anechoic chamber. An anechoic chamber is a blinkered
snapshot along a single axis - all but irrelevant to actual
performance.



**Define 'a real room'.

The one you are sitting in. That is why you have to listen.

**I have several listening rooms. The best one has the fewest
reflections and the most damping. In fact, it is the one which most
closely approaches an anechoic environment.

You're being silly. An anechoic environment (or a measurement system
which simulates it) is utterly crucial for developing loudspeakers.

I will ask once mo What room effects cause the ragged HF response of
the LS3/5a?

You listen to music in an almost anechoic room? Now I know you are
clueless.

**Read what I wrote, you ****ing moron. And if you wish to apologise for
your rudeness, I will treat you with less contempt.


As for your question - no answer because you have loaded it. Ask it
properly and you may get an answer, but probably not since you have
just revealed yourself to be a troll.

**My question is critical. That you carefully avoid answering it says it
all. The LS3/5a has some serious flaws, which are audible and
measurable. I merely highlighted one of those flaws, because the
measurements can be very easily duplicated by even modest equipment.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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