Once upon a time on usenet Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 13/12/2015 11:27 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 12/12/2015 11:32 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Was looking at some info today on the KEF B110, and the KEF blurb
says it should be front mounted on the baffle, recessed so the
chassis is flush with the front of the baffle. Yet on perhaps its
most famous application, the LS 3/5a, it's mounted to the back of
the baffle.

**I'll let you into a dirty little secret:

The LS3/5A is/was the most over-rated speaker of all time. Muddy,
poor imaging and just plain average.

Right.

There, I said it. The emperor has no clothes.

Did one fall of the shelf and smite you? ;-)

Forget the LS3/5A and mount the B110 the way KEF advises.

I was wondering if anyone had experimented and could give chapter and
verse on the effect?


** http://www.linkwitzlab.com/diffraction.htm
http://www.bodziosoftware.com.au/article5.pdf
http://www.salksound.com/wp/?p=160

Yeah late reply but thanks Trevor - I'm excercising my brain attempting to
come to grips with designing cabinets which minimise baffle step difraction
and those pages help.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

On 12/12/2015 19:34, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 12/12/2015 11:32 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Was looking at some info today on the KEF B110, and the KEF blurb says it
should be front mounted on the baffle, recessed so the chassis is flush
with the front of the baffle. Yet on perhaps its most famous application,
the LS 3/5a, it's mounted to the back of the baffle.


**I'll let you into a dirty little secret:

The LS3/5A is/was the most over-rated speaker of all time. Muddy, poor
imaging and just plain average.

Here's another secret: your secret never was a secret.

If Stuart was still here he would tell us that the image from
a bextrene cone collapses at low levels.

The main thing about the LS3/5a was the quality control.
They all sounded the same, if equally mediocre.

--
Eiron.

In article ,
Eiron wrote:
The LS3/5A is/was the most over-rated speaker of all time. Muddy, poor
imaging and just plain average.

Here's another secret: your secret never was a secret.

If Stuart was still here he would tell us that the image from
a bextrene cone collapses at low levels.

The main thing about the LS3/5a was the quality control.
They all sounded the same, if equally mediocre.

Right - so you're saying there are better similar speakers around - but
they don't all sound the same? ;-)

For broadcasting use consistency of the monitor speakers is important. And
that's what they were designed for.

--
*Who is this General Failure chap anyway - and why is he reading my HD? *

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

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Eiron
wrote:
The LS3/5A is/was the most over-rated speaker of all time. Muddy,
poor imaging and just plain average.

Here's another secret: your secret never was a secret.

If Stuart was still here he would tell us that the image from a
bextrene cone collapses at low levels.

The main thing about the LS3/5a was the quality control. They all
sounded the same, if equally mediocre.

Right - so you're saying there are better similar speakers around - but
they don't all sound the same? ;-)

For broadcasting use consistency of the monitor speakers is important.
And that's what they were designed for.

FWIW I quite like both the LS3/5A and the current Stirling 'near
equivalent'. But I tend to prefer the 'BBC' sound, and use them with an amp
that has ye olde tone controls.

And given the space, etc, prefer ESLs. :-)

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

In article , Jim Lesurf
scribeth thus
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Eiron
wrote:
The LS3/5A is/was the most over-rated speaker of all time. Muddy,
poor imaging and just plain average.

Here's another secret: your secret never was a secret.

If Stuart was still here he would tell us that the image from a
bextrene cone collapses at low levels.

The main thing about the LS3/5a was the quality control. They all
sounded the same, if equally mediocre.

Right - so you're saying there are better similar speakers around - but
they don't all sound the same? ;-)

For broadcasting use consistency of the monitor speakers is important.
And that's what they were designed for.

FWIW I quite like both the LS3/5A and the current Stirling 'near
equivalent'. But I tend to prefer the 'BBC' sound, and use them with an amp
that has ye olde tone controls.

And given the space, etc, prefer ESLs. :-)

Jim


Me too

However around a couple of years ago I was involved in a small outside
broadcast from Ely Cathedral for a local community station and we had
just a simple crossed pair, Neumann's they were, friend of mine managed
to cadge them from someone plus a couple of spot mics.

Small choir organ accompaniment and narrates with male and female voices
and some solo parts

We were using my LS3/5A's and what was surprising was the audio out
there and in the small room we using for monitoring sounded just a
scaled down version of the real thing.

Yes It did sound boring and had a lack of sparkle and all that but it
was a bloody accurate representation of what was going on in the main
cathedral

And before anyone sounds off they didn't reproduce the pedal notes all
that well as those speakers were designed for small mobile control vans
and the like they the BBC designed bigger ones for bigger places and
Peter Walker designed the most accurate ones of all

I'll think I'll hang onto mine for the foreseeable future and when
people start giving them away on e-bay as there so rubbish then I'll get
another pair!
--
Tony Sayer

On 14/12/2015 4:19 AM, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Eiron
wrote:
The LS3/5A is/was the most over-rated speaker of all time. Muddy,
poor imaging and just plain average.

Here's another secret: your secret never was a secret.

If Stuart was still here he would tell us that the image from a
bextrene cone collapses at low levels.

The main thing about the LS3/5a was the quality control. They all
sounded the same, if equally mediocre.

Right - so you're saying there are better similar speakers around - but
they don't all sound the same? ;-)

For broadcasting use consistency of the monitor speakers is important.
And that's what they were designed for.

FWIW I quite like both the LS3/5A and the current Stirling 'near
equivalent'. But I tend to prefer the 'BBC' sound, and use them with an amp
that has ye olde tone controls.

**This is where you and I differ in our preferences. I have no used tone
controls in almost 40 years and regard the LS3/5A as nothing more than a
doorstop.


And given the space, etc, prefer ESLs. :-)

**And here is where it gets weird. A pair of stacked ESL57s or a nice
pair of ESL63s is something I can live with. Easily.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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

On 13/12/2015 10:31, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Eiron wrote:
The LS3/5A is/was the most over-rated speaker of all time. Muddy, poor
imaging and just plain average.

Here's another secret: your secret never was a secret.

If Stuart was still here he would tell us that the image from
a bextrene cone collapses at low levels.

The main thing about the LS3/5a was the quality control.
They all sounded the same, if equally mediocre.

Right - so you're saying there are better similar speakers around - but
they don't all sound the same? ;-)

For broadcasting use consistency of the monitor speakers is important. And
that's what they were designed for.

You can take two LS3/5a speakers from different manufacturers
and different years and still make a matched stereo pair.

And you could make a similar bookshelf speaker without the BBC Dip,
with more extended bass etc. Better but different.

--
Eiron.

In article ,
Eiron wrote:
For broadcasting use consistency of the monitor speakers is important.
And that's what they were designed for.

You can take two LS3/5a speakers from different manufacturers
and different years and still make a matched stereo pair.

And you could make a similar bookshelf speaker without the BBC Dip,
with more extended bass etc. Better but different.

When I went freelance as a sound engineer I worked in a variety of dubbing
suites. The sort of progs I dubbed were drama so speech based. And you'd
not believe the differences in the monitoring. Fine when you know it and
are used to it - but a PITA for the odd day or too. So I used to carry a
pair of 3/5a around as a reference. ;-)

Most were too bright. Very impressive, I'm sure, for a client on a quick
visit, but definitely not what you want for drama destined for TV.

--
*The man who fell into an upholstery machine is fully recovered*

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

Trevor Wilson:
On 12/12/2015 11:32 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Was looking at some info today on the KEF B110, and the KEF blurb
says it
should be front mounted on the baffle, recessed so the chassis is
flush
with the front of the baffle. Yet on perhaps its most famous
application,
the LS 3/5a, it's mounted to the back of the baffle.


**I'll let you into a dirty little secret:

The LS3/5A is/was the most over-rated speaker of all time. Muddy, poor

imaging and just plain average.

There, I said it. The emperor has no clothes.

Forget the LS3/5A and mount the B110 the way KEF advises.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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

I'll come out of the closet too - I always thought they sounded grim !!

MK

In article ,
Michael Kellett wrote:
I'll come out of the closet too - I always thought they sounded grim !!

Quite willing to accept there may be something better out there - given
the design is so old.

But grim? Perhaps you'd tell us what you consider good? ;-)

--
*This message has been ROT-13 encrypted twice for extra security *

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