Kef B110
 

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.

--
*Vegetarians taste great*

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

Kef B110
 

On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 00:32:08 +0000 (GMT), "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.

Since the driver is pretty well transparent to sound, the baffle has
very nearly the same diffractive effect whether it is in front of or
behind the driver. I'm guessing that they went this way with the LS
3/5a for the sake of ruggedness.

d

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

Kef B110
 

On 12/12/2015 00:32, 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.

Maybe because it's intended to go on a shelf above the desk in an
outside-broadcast van
so moving the B110 back 3/4" keeps it in phase with the T27 at the
crossover frequency.

--
Eiron.

Kef B110
 

In article ,
Eiron wrote:
On 12/12/2015 00:32, 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.

Maybe because it's intended to go on a shelf above the desk in an
outside-broadcast van
so moving the B110 back 3/4" keeps it in phase with the T27 at the
crossover frequency.

Thing is the Kef blurb says mounting it behind the baffle introduces
unwanted colorations at the mid band.

Perhaps keeping the tweeter and bass unit as close as possible on axis
while retaining the best distance phase wise is just better?

--
*A closed mouth gathers no feet.

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

Kef B110
 

On 12/12/2015 12:06, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Eiron wrote:
On 12/12/2015 00:32, 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.

Maybe because it's intended to go on a shelf above the desk in an
outside-broadcast van
so moving the B110 back 3/4" keeps it in phase with the T27 at the
crossover frequency.

Thing is the Kef blurb says mounting it behind the baffle introduces
unwanted colorations at the mid band.

How about this then?

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1979-22.pdf

--
Eiron.

Kef B110
 

In article ,
Eiron wrote:
On 12/12/2015 12:06, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Eiron wrote:
On 12/12/2015 00:32, 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.

Maybe because it's intended to go on a shelf above the desk in an
outside-broadcast van
so moving the B110 back 3/4" keeps it in phase with the T27 at the
crossover frequency.

Thing is the Kef blurb says mounting it behind the baffle introduces
unwanted colorations at the mid band.

How about this then?

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1979-22.pdf

That's the 5/8. Interesting that the later units dispensed with the square
slot over the bass unit.

The other thing that's interesting about that article is that they say the
requirement was to not use a midrange because of the cost and complexity
of the crossover, which is very true, especially with its predecessor the
5/5 which was passive. But then they used an active design.

--
*How many roads must a man travel down before he admits he is lost?

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

Kef B110
 

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

Kef B110
 

On Saturday, 12 December 2015 00:33:03 UTC, 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.

--
*Vegetarians taste great*

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

It does introduce colouration doing it the LS3/5A way. It was a bad idea then and still is now. What isn't a dreadful idea, though is having a cabinet made of birch play- but have it all flush at
the front. ATB CT

Kef B110
 

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?

--
wife.

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

Kef B110
 

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? ;-)

**No. I just did a blind listen to a pair. As should anyone who thinks
the design is any good. I've since heard them many times under different
brand names. They are still ordinary sounding. There are many fine small
speakers which will easily beat the LS3/5A. Unless, of course, you
happen to like the horrible, far-from-accurate sound that they produce.


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?

**Look up "diffraction effects in loudspeakers". I'll betcha there's a
great deal of information out there.


--
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 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.

Kef B110
 

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.

Kef B110
 

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

Kef B110
 

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


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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

Kef B110
 

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

Kef B110
 

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.

Kef B110
 

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.

Kef B110
 

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.

Kef B110
 

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

Kef B110
 

On 14/12/2015 10:24 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.

**Hang on a sec. That is exactly the problem. On release, the LS3/5A was
probably an OK speaker. 30 years ago, the LS3/5A was easily eclipsed by
better designs. The LS3/5A should have been consigned to the dustbin
decades ago. The fans of the speakers really have no clue about an
accurate loudspeaker system. They cling to a sound which is highly
coloured and can no longer be regarded as 'high fidelity'.


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


**See if you can locate a pair of NEAR 10M-II speakers. American made,
very inexpensive and accurate. They're nudging 20 years old now and they
never fail to delight. I will likely be buried with mine. No longer made
though. There are others. Some of the old Celestions from the 1980s were
a vastly more sophisticated and accurate design than 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 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

Kef B110
 

In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Quite willing to accept there may be something better out there - given
the design is so old.

**Hang on a sec. That is exactly the problem. On release, the LS3/5A was
probably an OK speaker. 30 years ago, the LS3/5A was easily eclipsed by
better designs. The LS3/5A should have been consigned to the dustbin
decades ago. The fans of the speakers really have no clue about an
accurate loudspeaker system. They cling to a sound which is highly
coloured and can no longer be regarded as 'high fidelity'.


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


**See if you can locate a pair of NEAR 10M-II speakers. American made,
very inexpensive and accurate. They're nudging 20 years old now and they
never fail to delight. I will likely be buried with mine. No longer made
though. There are others. Some of the old Celestions from the 1980s were
a vastly more sophisticated and accurate design than the LS3/5A.

Be interesting to do some proper blind testing of speakers with you,
Trevor. Could be fun. ;-)

--
*Why is the word abbreviation so long?

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

Kef B110
 

In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
**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.

Are you really comparing things big enough to block out all the light into
a room with bookshelf speakers? ;-)

--
*Many hamsters only blink one eye at a time *

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

Kef B110
 

On 15/12/2015 11:37 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
**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.

Are you really comparing things big enough to block out all the light into
a room with bookshelf speakers? ;-)


**Where did you gain that idea from? That said, I would happily place my
NEAR 10M-IIs up against a pair of ESL63s. Yes, they are THAT good. I
should add that the ESL63s would beat them in a few areas.

--
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 15/12/2015 11:36 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Quite willing to accept there may be something better out there - given
the design is so old.

**Hang on a sec. That is exactly the problem. On release, the LS3/5A was
probably an OK speaker. 30 years ago, the LS3/5A was easily eclipsed by
better designs. The LS3/5A should have been consigned to the dustbin
decades ago. The fans of the speakers really have no clue about an
accurate loudspeaker system. They cling to a sound which is highly
coloured and can no longer be regarded as 'high fidelity'.


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


**See if you can locate a pair of NEAR 10M-II speakers. American made,
very inexpensive and accurate. They're nudging 20 years old now and they
never fail to delight. I will likely be buried with mine. No longer made
though. There are others. Some of the old Celestions from the 1980s were
a vastly more sophisticated and accurate design than the LS3/5A.

Be interesting to do some proper blind testing of speakers with you,
Trevor. Could be fun. ;-)


**Depends on your idea of fun. If you don't mind your deluded view of
the LS3/5A being shredded, then yes, it could be fun.

--
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:
Be interesting to do some proper blind testing of speakers with you,
Trevor. Could be fun. ;-)


**Depends on your idea of fun. If you don't mind your deluded view of
the LS3/5A being shredded, then yes, it could be fun.

I don't have a deluded view of any loudspeaker.

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.

To me, that would only fit a pair which was faulty.

--
*No word in the English language rhymes with month, orange, silver,purple

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

Kef B110
 

On 15/12/2015 10:42 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Be interesting to do some proper blind testing of speakers with you,
Trevor. Could be fun. ;-)


**Depends on your idea of fun. If you don't mind your deluded view of
the LS3/5A being shredded, then yes, it could be fun.

I don't have a deluded view of any loudspeaker.

**Then you need to compare the LS3/5A to almost any modern, decent,
small speaker (built within the last, say, 25 years). The faults in the
LS3/5A design will be instantly apparent.


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.

To me, that would only fit a pair which was faulty.


**You've never heard the old saying:

'No studio designer was ever sacked for specifying JBL monitors.'

Like I said befo The LS3/5A can be likened to 'The Emperor's New
Clothes'. They are just a very average speaker, with a range of problems
which could be (largely) solved. It's just that many people expect a
certain level of mediocrity, so the design doesn't change. Using an
automotive analogy, I prefer to drive a 2015 Ford Focus, rather than a
1953 Ford Prefect (my old man owned one). Clearly, your opinion differs
from mine.

--
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 15/12/2015 10:42 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Be interesting to do some proper blind testing of speakers with you,
Trevor. Could be fun. ;-)


**Depends on your idea of fun. If you don't mind your deluded view of
the LS3/5A being shredded, then yes, it could be fun.

I don't have a deluded view of any loudspeaker.

**Then you need to compare the LS3/5A to almost any modern, decent,
small speaker (built within the last, say, 25 years). The faults in the
LS3/5A design will be instantly apparent.


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.

So what built within the last 25 years should we be comparing them with
then?.


--
Tony Sayer

Kef B110
 

On 16/12/2015 6:51 AM, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Trevor Wilson trevor@SPA
MBLOCKrageaudio.com.au scribeth thus
On 15/12/2015 10:42 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Be interesting to do some proper blind testing of speakers with you,
Trevor. Could be fun. ;-)


**Depends on your idea of fun. If you don't mind your deluded view of
the LS3/5A being shredded, then yes, it could be fun.

I don't have a deluded view of any loudspeaker.

**Then you need to compare the LS3/5A to almost any modern, decent,
small speaker (built within the last, say, 25 years). The faults in the
LS3/5A design will be instantly apparent.


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.

**Then you need to get out (much) more.


So what built within the last 25 years should we be comparing them with
then?.

**The NEAR 10M-II comes to mind, but there are many others. Some of the
offerings from Celestion, KEF, B&W, Monitor Audio provide performance
that the LS3/5A cannot hope to achieve.


--
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 16/12/2015 6:51 AM, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Trevor Wilson trevor@SPA
MBLOCKrageaudio.com.au scribeth thus
On 15/12/2015 10:42 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Be interesting to do some proper blind testing of speakers with you,
Trevor. Could be fun. ;-)


**Depends on your idea of fun. If you don't mind your deluded view of
the LS3/5A being shredded, then yes, it could be fun.

I don't have a deluded view of any loudspeaker.

**Then you need to compare the LS3/5A to almost any modern, decent,
small speaker (built within the last, say, 25 years). The faults in the
LS3/5A design will be instantly apparent.


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.

**Then you need to get out (much) more.

I do Trevor, to a lot of concerts and recordings and the like:)



So what built within the last 25 years should we be comparing them with
then?.

**The NEAR 10M-II comes to mind, but there are many others. Some of the
offerings from Celestion, KEF, B&W, Monitor Audio provide performance
that the LS3/5A cannot hope to achieve.

Any same size models you'd like to specify in that list and the
differences?.




--
Tony Sayer

Kef B110
 

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.

--
*CAN AN ATHEIST GET INSURANCE AGAINST ACTS OF GOD?

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

Kef B110
 

In article , Trevor Wilson
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.

**Then you need to get out (much) more.

People might take your assertions about the LS3/5A more seriously if you
dealt with his actual question.

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 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.

--
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 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?


Arthur

--
real email arthur at bellacat dot com

Kef B110
 

Trevor Wilson wrote:




**You've never heard the old saying:

'No studio designer was ever sacked for specifying JBL monitors.'


** Funny you should bring that up.

I was thinking how many home hi-fi speakers JBL sold by associating them closely with their famous Studio Monitors. The very similar Century L100 and the 4310 monitor comes to mind.

http://www.audioheritage.org/html/profiles/jbl/l100.htm

Both speakers were outstanding examples of every fault is was possible to build into a three way design.

In the early 70s, I worked in a store where a pair of L100s was on permanent demo set up next to a pair of Kef Kit 3s, aka Kef Concertos. Every customer wanted to hear the famous JBLs and were then were invited to hear the Kefs on the same material. There was simply no comparison and the store sold a lot of KK3s, including a pair to me.

BTW:

I am aware the LS3/5A use the same B110 and T27 tweeter as the KK3.


..... Phil

Kef B110
 

On 17/12/2015 12:58 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:




**You've never heard the old saying:

'No studio designer was ever sacked for specifying JBL monitors.'


** Funny you should bring that up.

I was thinking how many home hi-fi speakers JBL sold by associating
them closely with their famous Studio Monitors. The very similar
Century L100 and the 4310 monitor comes to mind.

http://www.audioheritage.org/html/profiles/jbl/l100.htm

Both speakers were outstanding examples of every fault is was
possible to build into a three way design.

In the early 70s, I worked in a store where a pair of L100s was on
permanent demo set up next to a pair of Kef Kit 3s, aka Kef
Concertos. Every customer wanted to hear the famous JBLs and were
then were invited to hear the Kefs on the same material. There was
simply no comparison and the store sold a lot of KK3s, including a
pair to me.

BTW:

I am aware the LS3/5A use the same B110 and T27 tweeter as the KK3.



**And they were pretty decent drivers in the late 1960s/early 1970s.
Sadly, many of the proponents of the LS3/5A seem to be living in the
past. FWIW: I also owned a set of Concerto drivers (purchased from
Whatsisname White, from Kent Hi Fi) , but screwed them into a Bailey
transmission line and used the very excellent Radford crossovers. Good
that they were (for the early 1970s), I have moved on. As should the
LS3/5A devotees.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Kef B110
 

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...zpUKRRuACll.97



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Kef B110
 

Trevor Wilson wrote:


'No studio designer was ever sacked for specifying JBL monitors.'


** Funny you should bring that up.

I was thinking how many home hi-fi speakers JBL sold by associating
them closely with their famous Studio Monitors. The very similar
Century L100 and the 4310 monitor comes to mind.

http://www.audioheritage.org/html/profiles/jbl/l100.htm

Both speakers were outstanding examples of every fault is was
possible to build into a three way design.

In the early 70s, I worked in a store where a pair of L100s was on
permanent demo set up next to a pair of Kef Kit 3s, aka Kef
Concertos. Every customer wanted to hear the famous JBLs and were
then were invited to hear the Kefs on the same material. There was
simply no comparison and the store sold a lot of KK3s, including a
pair to me.

BTW:

I am aware the LS3/5A use the same B110 and T27 tweeter as the KK3.



**And they were pretty decent drivers in the late 1960s/early 1970s.
Sadly, many of the proponents of the LS3/5A seem to be living in the
past. FWIW: I also owned a set of Concerto drivers (purchased from
Whatsisname White, from Kent Hi Fi) , but screwed them into a Bailey
transmission line and used the very excellent Radford crossovers. Good
that they were (for the early 1970s), I have moved on. As should the
LS3/5A devotees.


** 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.

The DN12 x-over that came with KK3s and Concertos was very ordinary, using cheap electro caps and ferrite core inductors. So I made clones using all polyester caps and air core chokes from Aegis - the expensive, beehive shaped ones.

The clones made the KK3s sound so different ( brighter and much cleaner ) I had to double check them carefully for a possible error and found none.

The supplied cabinets were made from 18mm particle board and a bit resonant, so I glued lots of 6" square ceramic tiles inside to stiffen and add mass to the panels. Boy did that work a treat too. The end result compared favourably with the far more expensive Celestion 66s, when compared in a dealer's basement sound room.

In 1975 I acquired a pair of second hand ESL57s, soon realised the sound quality was in another league and sold the Kefs for a small profit.



..... Phil

Kef B110
 

On 17/12/2015 4:19 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:


'No studio designer was ever sacked for specifying JBL
monitors.'


** Funny you should bring that up.

I was thinking how many home hi-fi speakers JBL sold by
associating them closely with their famous Studio Monitors. The
very similar Century L100 and the 4310 monitor comes to mind.

http://www.audioheritage.org/html/profiles/jbl/l100.htm

Both speakers were outstanding examples of every fault is was
possible to build into a three way design.

In the early 70s, I worked in a store where a pair of L100s was
on permanent demo set up next to a pair of Kef Kit 3s, aka Kef
Concertos. Every customer wanted to hear the famous JBLs and
were then were invited to hear the Kefs on the same material.
There was simply no comparison and the store sold a lot of KK3s,
including a pair to me.

BTW:

I am aware the LS3/5A use the same B110 and T27 tweeter as the
KK3.



**And they were pretty decent drivers in the late 1960s/early
1970s. Sadly, many of the proponents of the LS3/5A seem to be
living in the past. FWIW: I also owned a set of Concerto drivers
(purchased from Whatsisname White, from Kent Hi Fi) , but screwed
them into a Bailey transmission line and used the very excellent
Radford crossovers. Good that they were (for the early 1970s), I
have moved on. As should the LS3/5A devotees.


** 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. Robert
Rose. I haven't heard his name in many years. Was he with EV for a time?


The DN12 x-over that came with KK3s and Concertos was very ordinary,
using cheap electro caps and ferrite core inductors. So I made
clones using all polyester caps and air core chokes from Aegis - the
expensive, beehive shaped ones.

The clones made the KK3s sound so different ( brighter and much
cleaner ) I had to double check them carefully for a possible error
and found none.

**Doesn't surprise me. The Radfords were MUCH more sophisticated than
the DN12s. Air cored inductors, some plastic caps and, most critically,
a parallel resonant notch filter to remove the nasty edge termination
problems with the early B110 drivers (just short out for later B110
variants).


The supplied cabinets were made from 18mm particle board and a bit
resonant, so I glued lots of 6" square ceramic tiles inside to
stiffen and add mass to the panels. Boy did that work a treat too.
The end result compared favourably with the far more expensive
Celestion 66s, when compared in a dealer's basement sound room.

**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™ 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™.
It seems I had discovered constrained layer construction. I used to run
them with my Marantz Model 500 (300+ Watts @ 8 Ohms). They survived the
ordeal, without any major problems, except for one B139. The wire
connecting to the voice coil failed. It appeared to be every so slightly
out of spec during manufacture. Fortunately, the B139 is probably the
easiest bass driver on the planet to repair.


In 1975 I acquired a pair of second hand ESL57s, soon realised the
sound quality was in another league and sold the Kefs for a small
profit.

**Well, yeah. No comparison.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Kef B110
 

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



..... Phil