Speaker unit to baffle.
 

tiistai 10. huhtikuuta 2018 12.31.14 UTC+3 Trevor Wilson kirjoitti:
On 10/04/2018 10:01 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 10/04/2018 9:22 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Trevor Wilson wrote:
OK. Name a contemporary which was better. The BBC (then) didn't go
to the
bother of designing their own speakers if a commercial unit as good for
their purpose could be bought.

**My NEAR 10M-II speakers do everything better than the LS3/5a. The NEAR
10M was better too. The NEAR 10M appeared sometime around 1992.

20 years after the 3/5a, then?


**You'll note that I have already acknowledged that the LS3/5a was
(barely) acceptable when they were first released. TODAY, they are utter
****. And, as I stated, by 1992, the NEAR 10M (and a host of other
products) had comprehensively trounced them in every meaningful way.
Here's two metrics:

The LS3/5a is rated at 82dB/2.83VRMS/M and 80Hz ~ 20kHz +/-3dB. 1993
price - US$1,295.00/pair. 2015 price - $2,250.00.

My NEAR 10M is rated at 88dB/2.83VRMS/M and 48Hz ~ 20kHz +/-3dB. 1997
price - US$450.00.

**Oops. Typo. The NEAR was rated at +/-2dB. I still have mine and they
ain't going anywhere. An astonishing bargain.

Interesting review at:
http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/greg14.htm


Iain

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 10/04/2018 9:22 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
OK. Name a contemporary which was better. The BBC (then) didn't go to the
bother of designing their own speakers if a commercial unit as good for
their purpose could be bought.

**My NEAR 10M-II speakers do everything better than the LS3/5a. The NEAR
10M was better too. The NEAR 10M appeared sometime around 1992.

20 years after the 3/5a, then?


**You'll note that I have already acknowledged that the LS3/5a was
(barely) acceptable when they were first released.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me about a better (or as good)
contemporary product. Because if there was one, the BBC would not have
gone to the bother of making it.


TODAY, they are utter
****.

Interesting the way you think speakers have progressed. Is a Quad ESL 57
also crap becuase subsequent designs may be cheaper and louder?


And, as I stated, by 1992, the NEAR 10M (and a host of other
products) had comprehensively trounced them in every meaningful way.
Here's two metrics:

The LS3/5a is rated at 82dB/2.83VRMS/M and 80Hz ~ 20kHz +/-3dB. 1993
price - US$1,295.00/pair. 2015 price - $2,250.00.

My NEAR 10M is rated at 88dB/2.83VRMS/M and 48Hz ~ 20kHz +/-3dB. 1997
price - US$450.00.

Tell me, have you ever owned 3/5a?

The lack of max SPL is of zero interest for my use. They go more than
adequately loud for my purpose. As they are not in my main room. Nor is
the cost - as I'm not in the market for new ones.

--
*If you remember the '60s, you weren't really there

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

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Offhand I can't think of *any* speaker I'd say would work for *all*
kinds of music at *all* levels in *all* rooms for *all* tastes. So
people choose what suits them.

Quite. Only a fool would thing something like the 3/5a - or even Mr
Wilson's favourite NEAR - is going to be suitable for all uses. Even more
so in the pro domain.

In an off-list message regarding this thread, a chap who was recording
music at the TV Centre from the day it opened until he retired, tells
me that that they had a variety of speakers.

There was absolutely no-one who only did 'music' recording at TVC when I
worked there, Ian. All SS did a variety of things. Although most also had
specialist skills. And of course the BBC used a variety of speakers over
the years. Same as everywhere.

I'm rather curious who you are claiming recorded music at TVC from the day
it opened in 1960, as he would have been a SS then and long since retired.
TVC didn't have a dedicated music recording facility until very much
later. The first TV music recording facility was in Lime Grove. With
Lockwood speakers.


The LS3/5a was not used.

Of course not. I take it you don't know what it was designed by the BBC
for? A little basic research would educate you. It was never intended for
use in what most would consider a music recording studio. Surely that is
blindingly obvious? But then the TMS at one time used speakers not used
elsewhere in TV. A rather odd decision considering its output was music
for TV.

He also mentioned that this speaker was produced under licence from
the BBC by three manufacturers, and that one could differentiate
between the same speaker from different makers.

If he wasn't familiar with them, how would he know?

IIRC The brief was that you could swap individual units to make a stereo
pair and still get results that let you work OK. I'm not sure if anyone
makes speakers which are completely identical, one example for every
other.

Like many BBC designs it includes a method of altering things to take into
account production variations of the commercial drive units. One reason it
is so expensive to make.

--
*I dropped out of communism class because of lousy Marx.*

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

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

tiistai 10. huhtikuuta 2018 18.01.21 UTC+3 Dave Plowman (News) kirjoitti:
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Offhand I can't think of *any* speaker I'd say would work for *all*
kinds of music at *all* levels in *all* rooms for *all* tastes. So
people choose what suits them.

Quite. Only a fool would thing something like the 3/5a - or even Mr
Wilson's favourite NEAR - is going to be suitable for all uses. Even more
so in the pro domain.

Where has such a claim been made, and by whom?

I work in the "pro domain" as you call it, and use several different pairs
of speakers which are chosen, in consultation with the client, and the
producer for their particular project.

But recording teams that specialise in one type of music, seem to stick to
the same monitors.

In an off-list message regarding this thread, a chap who was recording
music at the TV Centre from the day it opened until he retired, tells
me that that they had a variety of speakers.

There was absolutely no-one who only did 'music' recording at TVC when I
worked there, Ian.

My name is spelt I-a-i-n. Only you and the incorrigible Arnie Kreuger
seem to be unable to spell it correctly.

This chap went to the BBC straight after Uni, and worked at White City until
his retirement. He has a degree in music.


The LS3/5a was not used.

Of course not. I take it you don't know what it was designed by the BBC
for?

Small OB vans. Spoken word, (as the brief clearly states)


A little basic research would educate you.

I went to the Maida Vale demo:-)


He also mentioned that this speaker was produced under licence from
the BBC by three manufacturers, and that one could differentiate
between the same speaker from different makers.

If he wasn't familiar with them, how would he know?

Where did I say he was not familiar with them? He said they were not used
for music.

IIRC The brief was that you could swap individual units to make a stereo
pair and still get results that let you work OK. I'm not sure if anyone
makes speakers which are completely identical, one example for every
other.

Even back then one could order matched pairs from Tannoy and also
Bowers and Wilkins, and probably from other manufacturers too.
There is nothing special about that.


Iain

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

tiistai 10. huhtikuuta 2018 17.06.49 UTC+3 Jim Lesurf kirjoitti:
In article , Iain
wrote:


One might infer from what Dave wrote that the LS3/5a was ubiquitous at
the BBC. It seems that this was by no means the case.

Maybe you have inferred something in error. :-)

Erm. No, not I :-) But others might be misled.

As has been said, the LS3/5a was aimed at some specific circumstances of
use and purposes. By a quirk of economic history the UK now tends to mean
many people live and listen in small rooms at home that lack the acoustic
we might desire for better bigger speakers. That an actually work in favour
of the LS3/5a.

Many other small speakers do it better at a more sensible price.
But speaker choice is a very personal thing, and not of us can
know what the other is hearing.

Similarly, some of us have become acclimatised to, and prefer, the kinds of
balance you get from R3 concerts. Which also tends to work in favour of the
LS3/5a and other old BBC designs.

Despite the fact that those concerts were not balanced on LS3/5a ?
The results of my own listening, albeit many years ago, was that
they had a thick mid-range and a decisive lack of LF. Just right
for spoken word:-)

More generally, I prefer QUAD ESLs.

Remind me one day to tell you the Leopold Stokowsky QUAD ESLs story :-)


Offhand I can't think of *any* speaker I'd say would work for *all* kinds
of music at *all* levels in *all* rooms for *all* tastes. So people choose
what suits them.

There is no "one size fits all" speaker. Many people have several pairs
of speakers, which they change to suit the music and their mood. That's
a good solution. Large Tannoys are pretty good allrounders, though.


IIRC The brief was that you could swap individual units to make a stereo
pair and still get results that let you work OK. I'm not sure if anyone
makes speakers which are completely identical, one example for every other.

But it seems that this was not the case with LS3/5a, particularly as there
were three different companies manufacturing them at different periods.


Iain

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

tiistai 10. huhtikuuta 2018 15.19.34 UTC+3 Dave Plowman (News) kirjoitti:


I'm still waiting for you to tell me about a better (or as good)
contemporary product. Because if there was one, the BBC would not have
gone to the bother of making it.

Erm. The BBC did not make it. They provided a spec and a prototype.
The speakers were built by three different commercial loudspeaker
makers.

EMI were also designing a speaker for similar use, around the
same time. It never went into production proper.
Some years later several pairs, teak cabinets with the
green enamel EMI badge were offered for sale in a second
hand audio components shop in Lisle Street.

I wish I had bought a pair. Just like the BTR4 - rare as hens' teeth:-)

Iain

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

On 10/04/2018 10:14 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 10/04/2018 9:22 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
OK. Name a contemporary which was better. The BBC (then) didn't go to the
bother of designing their own speakers if a commercial unit as good for
their purpose could be bought.

**My NEAR 10M-II speakers do everything better than the LS3/5a. The NEAR
10M was better too. The NEAR 10M appeared sometime around 1992.

20 years after the 3/5a, then?


**You'll note that I have already acknowledged that the LS3/5a was
(barely) acceptable when they were first released.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me about a better (or as good)
contemporary product. Because if there was one, the BBC would not have
gone to the bother of making it.

**You're asking me to recall what I heard 50 years ago. I confess that I
first heard the LS3/5a somewhere around 40 years ago. They were OK, but
they were not compellingly brilliant.



TODAY, they are utter
****.

Interesting the way you think speakers have progressed. Is a Quad ESL 57
also crap becuase subsequent designs may be cheaper and louder?

**Nope. The ESL57 was brilliant the day it was released and still
impresses today. A fabulous speaker.




And, as I stated, by 1992, the NEAR 10M (and a host of other
products) had comprehensively trounced them in every meaningful way.
Here's two metrics:

The LS3/5a is rated at 82dB/2.83VRMS/M and 80Hz ~ 20kHz +/-3dB. 1993
price - US$1,295.00/pair. 2015 price - $2,250.00.

My NEAR 10M is rated at 88dB/2.83VRMS/M and 48Hz ~ 20kHz +/-3dB. 1997
price - US$450.00.

Tell me, have you ever owned 3/5a?

**Yep. As I recall, sometime around 1980 ~ 1981.


The lack of max SPL is of zero interest for my use. They go more than
adequately loud for my purpose. As they are not in my main room. Nor is
the cost - as I'm not in the market for new ones.

**Good for you. Just don't go out and listen to the alternatives. You
will be shocked and profoundly astonished at what can be achieved today,
at far lower cost.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
**You'll note that I have already acknowledged that the LS3/5a was
(barely) acceptable when they were first released.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me about a better (or as good)
contemporary product. Because if there was one, the BBC would not have
gone to the bother of making it.

**You're asking me to recall what I heard 50 years ago. I confess that I
first heard the LS3/5a somewhere around 40 years ago. They were OK, but
they were not compellingly brilliant.

If you didn't know them when they were first made, where does all the
bull**** about the 'designers should have been shot' come from? Some form
of hindsight? That something might equal or better them years down the
line is simply progress. And you can't blame the designers for what some
'enthusiasts' are willing to pay for them today. And I'm not disagreeing
that they can sell for silly money.



TODAY, they are utter
****.

Interesting the way you think speakers have progressed. Is a Quad ESL 57
also crap becuase subsequent designs may be cheaper and louder?

**Nope. The ESL57 was brilliant the day it was released and still
impresses today. A fabulous speaker.

Apart from the lack of extreme LF? Poor maximum SPL? Dreadful DP? Then
there is the fact that they simply won't work as intended in some rooms.

Of course they can sound great when everything is going for them - but
then so can the 3/5a.




And, as I stated, by 1992, the NEAR 10M (and a host of other
products) had comprehensively trounced them in every meaningful way.
Here's two metrics:

The LS3/5a is rated at 82dB/2.83VRMS/M and 80Hz ~ 20kHz +/-3dB. 1993
price - US$1,295.00/pair. 2015 price - $2,250.00.

My NEAR 10M is rated at 88dB/2.83VRMS/M and 48Hz ~ 20kHz +/-3dB. 1997
price - US$450.00.

Tell me, have you ever owned 3/5a?

**Yep. As I recall, sometime around 1980 ~ 1981.


The lack of max SPL is of zero interest for my use. They go more than
adequately loud for my purpose. As they are not in my main room. Nor is
the cost - as I'm not in the market for new ones.

**Good for you. Just don't go out and listen to the alternatives. You
will be shocked and profoundly astonished at what can be achieved today,
at far lower cost.

Since I already have a couple of pairs, how does cost come into it?

--
*Home cooking. Where many a man thinks his wife is.

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

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

On 11/04/2018 9:27 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
**You'll note that I have already acknowledged that the LS3/5a was
(barely) acceptable when they were first released.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me about a better (or as good)
contemporary product. Because if there was one, the BBC would not have
gone to the bother of making it.

**You're asking me to recall what I heard 50 years ago. I confess that I
first heard the LS3/5a somewhere around 40 years ago. They were OK, but
they were not compellingly brilliant.

If you didn't know them when they were first made, where does all the
bull**** about the 'designers should have been shot' come from? Some form
of hindsight? That something might equal or better them years down the
line is simply progress. And you can't blame the designers for what some
'enthusiasts' are willing to pay for them today. And I'm not disagreeing
that they can sell for silly money.



TODAY, they are utter
****.

Interesting the way you think speakers have progressed. Is a Quad ESL 57
also crap becuase subsequent designs may be cheaper and louder?

**Nope. The ESL57 was brilliant the day it was released and still
impresses today. A fabulous speaker.

Apart from the lack of extreme LF? Poor maximum SPL? Dreadful DP? Then
there is the fact that they simply won't work as intended in some rooms.

**I already explained, VERY CAREFULLY, that I make appropriate
allowances for speakers, according to their specific characteristics.


Of course they can sound great when everything is going for them - but
then so can the 3/5a.

**Nope. Not in 2018. Not in 1993 and not in 1983.






And, as I stated, by 1992, the NEAR 10M (and a host of other
products) had comprehensively trounced them in every meaningful way.
Here's two metrics:

The LS3/5a is rated at 82dB/2.83VRMS/M and 80Hz ~ 20kHz +/-3dB. 1993
price - US$1,295.00/pair. 2015 price - $2,250.00.

My NEAR 10M is rated at 88dB/2.83VRMS/M and 48Hz ~ 20kHz +/-3dB. 1997
price - US$450.00.

Tell me, have you ever owned 3/5a?

**Yep. As I recall, sometime around 1980 ~ 1981.


The lack of max SPL is of zero interest for my use. They go more than
adequately loud for my purpose. As they are not in my main room. Nor is
the cost - as I'm not in the market for new ones.

**Good for you. Just don't go out and listen to the alternatives. You
will be shocked and profoundly astonished at what can be achieved today,
at far lower cost.

Since I already have a couple of pairs, how does cost come into it?

**Their present retail price is just insane, given their performance.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Apart from the lack of extreme LF? Poor maximum SPL? Dreadful DP? Then
there is the fact that they simply won't work as intended in some rooms.

**I already explained, VERY CAREFULLY, that I make appropriate
allowances for speakers, according to their specific characteristics.

Apart, rather obviously, with the 3/5a which you describe as junk. Whose
designers should be shot. Without being able to give an example of speaker
designed at the same time which was better.

As we would say in the UK, you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about
them. ;-)


Of course they can sound great when everything is going for them - but
then so can the 3/5a.

**Nope. Not in 2018. Not in 1993 and not in 1983.

You are simply wrong about that.

--
*You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers

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

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

On 11/04/2018 7:26 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Apart from the lack of extreme LF? Poor maximum SPL? Dreadful DP? Then
there is the fact that they simply won't work as intended in some rooms.

**I already explained, VERY CAREFULLY, that I make appropriate
allowances for speakers, according to their specific characteristics.

Apart, rather obviously, with the 3/5a which you describe as junk. Whose
designers should be shot. Without being able to give an example of speaker
designed at the same time which was better.

As we would say in the UK, you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about
them. ;-)

**I can only say that there are a large number of very stupid buyers and
a bunch of unscrupulous manufacturers and retailers, for the LS3/5a to
continue to survive well past it's use-by date.



Of course they can sound great when everything is going for them - but
then so can the 3/5a.

**Nope. Not in 2018. Not in 1993 and not in 1983.

You are simply wrong about that.


**Then you need to get out more. I showed you a speaker which
comprehensively outperforms the LS3/5a in every meaningful measure, at a
vastly lower price. It was released sometime around 1992-ish. And, as I
previously stated, I owned a pair back in 1980-ish. They didn't last
long. I replaced them with a pair of Infinty Infinitesimals. In all
fairness, I cannot state that the Infinitys were any cheaper. In fact, I
think they may have been a good deal more expensive. If that's the case,
then I don't regard it as a fair fight. The NEARs, OTOH, clobbered the
LS3/5as, at a significantly lower price.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 11/04/2018 7:26 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Apart from the lack of extreme LF? Poor maximum SPL? Dreadful DP?
Then there is the fact that they simply won't work as intended in
some rooms.

**I already explained, VERY CAREFULLY, that I make appropriate
allowances for speakers, according to their specific characteristics.

Apart, rather obviously, with the 3/5a which you describe as junk.
Whose designers should be shot. Without being able to give an example
of speaker designed at the same time which was better.

As we would say in the UK, you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about
them. ;-)

**I can only say that there are a large number of very stupid buyers and
a bunch of unscrupulous manufacturers and retailers, for the LS3/5a to
continue to survive well past it's use-by date.

I've no objection to you saying that as it is merely your opinion. But
your comments about the designers unforgivable. Unless backed up with
facts, which you've repeatedly failed to provide.



Of course they can sound great when everything is going for them - but
then so can the 3/5a.

**Nope. Not in 2018. Not in 1993 and not in 1983.

You are simply wrong about that.


**Then you need to get out more. I showed you a speaker which
comprehensively outperforms the LS3/5a in every meaningful measure, at a
vastly lower price. It was released sometime around 1992-ish. And, as I
previously stated, I owned a pair back in 1980-ish. They didn't last
long. I replaced them with a pair of Infinty Infinitesimals. In all
fairness, I cannot state that the Infinitys were any cheaper. In fact, I
think they may have been a good deal more expensive. If that's the case,
then I don't regard it as a fair fight. The NEARs, OTOH, clobbered the
LS3/5as, at a significantly lower price.

I'd guess in your quest for window rattling bass, you likely fooked the
3/5a. Why not just buy some bigger speakers?

--
*It's this dirty because I washed it with your wife's knickers*

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

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

In article , Trevor Wilson
wrote:

**I can only say that there are a large number of very stupid buyers and
a bunch of unscrupulous manufacturers and retailers, for the LS3/5a to
continue to survive well past it's use-by date.

You do seem to be rather going 'over the top' in your rhetoric. I guess I
must be "very stupid" as I still find the LS3/5a a design I can use quite
happily in appropriate circumstances. e.g. I have a pair in the room where
I'm writing this posting. Driven by an old but serviceable Armstrong 626.

They certainly aren't the best units every designed. But they do deliver
good results in situ for R3 and and R4 here. And despite having 'better'
systems elsewhere, I feel no need to change them. Seems odd for you to
dismiss that because I can't recall you ever visiting me to hear them *in
that system, with that source material, in that room*.

I'm assuming you aren't arguing that the room acoustic is irrelevant to
choice of speaker. And it is certainly my experience that the choice of
source material also matters. e.g. old EMI recordings of classical music
tend to sound very different to modern R3 via iplayer.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
**I can only say that there are a large number of very stupid buyers and
a bunch of unscrupulous manufacturers and retailers, for the LS3/5a to
continue to survive well past it's use-by date.

You do seem to be rather going 'over the top' in your rhetoric. I guess
I must be "very stupid" as I still find the LS3/5a a design I can use
quite happily in appropriate circumstances. e.g. I have a pair in the
room where I'm writing this posting. Driven by an old but serviceable
Armstrong 626.

They certainly aren't the best units every designed. But they do deliver
good results in situ for R3 and and R4 here. And despite having 'better'
systems elsewhere, I feel no need to change them. Seems odd for you to
dismiss that because I can't recall you ever visiting me to hear them *in
that system, with that source material, in that room*.

Quite. I have two pairs, in the kitchen and a bedroom. Where others might
just have a portable. And they continue to sound very good indeed.

The idea I should spend good money replacing them for something that goes
maybe half an octave lower is laughable. As they do a very good job of
what's asked of them here.

One pair were home assembled. Rumour was Chartwell ordered up all the bits
in anticipation of a large order from the BBC, which didn't come. They
recovered the outlay by selling them as kits to the likes of BBC staff.
And therefore didn't have to pay the royalties. Cabinets were fully built,
so just a case of soldering up the crossover and assembling. Doubt they'd
fetch much on Ebay without the magic Rogers badge. ;-)

--
*To err is human. To forgive is against company policy.

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

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2018-04-11, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Trevor Wilson
wrote:

**I can only say that there are a large number of very stupid buyers
and a bunch of unscrupulous manufacturers and retailers, for the
LS3/5a to continue to survive well past it's use-by date.

You do seem to be rather going 'over the top' in your rhetoric.

Trevor has long been killfiled here, and now so is this topic, since
there is much heat and little light.

Nice to have you add something relevant to the discussion.

--
*Pride is what we have. Vanity is what others have.

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

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

In article , Trevor Wilson trevor@SPA
MBLOCKrageaudio.com.au scribeth thus
On 11/04/2018 7:26 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Apart from the lack of extreme LF? Poor maximum SPL? Dreadful DP? Then
there is the fact that they simply won't work as intended in some rooms.

**I already explained, VERY CAREFULLY, that I make appropriate
allowances for speakers, according to their specific characteristics.

Apart, rather obviously, with the 3/5a which you describe as junk. Whose
designers should be shot. Without being able to give an example of speaker
designed at the same time which was better.

Don't think many loudspeaker manufacturers had an "on the tap" live
radio studio to help develop them;)..



As we would say in the UK, you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about
them. ;-)

**I can only say that there are a large number of very stupid buyers and
a bunch of unscrupulous manufacturers and retailers, for the LS3/5a to
continue to survive well past it's use-by date.



Of course they can sound great when everything is going for them - but
then so can the 3/5a.

**Nope. Not in 2018. Not in 1993 and not in 1983.

You are simply wrong about that.


**Then you need to get out more. I showed you a speaker which
comprehensively outperforms the LS3/5a in every meaningful measure, at a
vastly lower price. It was released sometime around 1992-ish. And, as I
previously stated, I owned a pair back in 1980-ish. They didn't last
long. I replaced them with a pair of Infinty Infinitesimals. In all
fairness, I cannot state that the Infinitys were any cheaper. In fact, I
think they may have been a good deal more expensive. If that's the case,
then I don't regard it as a fair fight. The NEARs, OTOH, clobbered the
LS3/5as, at a significantly lower price.



Please sir Trevor if that was the case why aren't they going on fleabay
for a decent wedge like the old despised 5A's?..

I can't find any anywhere unless you can direct me?.
--
Tony Sayer

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

In article , Huge
scribeth thus
On 2018-04-11, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Trevor Wilson
wrote:

**I can only say that there are a large number of very stupid buyers and
a bunch of unscrupulous manufacturers and retailers, for the LS3/5a to
continue to survive well past it's use-by date.

You do seem to be rather going 'over the top' in your rhetoric.

Trevor has long been killfiled here, and now so is this topic, since there
is much heat and little light.


Wonder if our Phil has anything to comment on the matter?..
--
Tony Sayer

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

More generally, I prefer QUAD ESLs.

Remind me one day to tell you the Leopold Stokowsky QUAD ESLs story :-)

Go on then;)...

--
Tony Sayer

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

On 12/04/2018 7:57 AM, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Trevor Wilson trevor@SPA
MBLOCKrageaudio.com.au scribeth thus
On 11/04/2018 7:26 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Apart from the lack of extreme LF? Poor maximum SPL? Dreadful DP? Then
there is the fact that they simply won't work as intended in some rooms.

**I already explained, VERY CAREFULLY, that I make appropriate
allowances for speakers, according to their specific characteristics.

Apart, rather obviously, with the 3/5a which you describe as junk. Whose
designers should be shot. Without being able to give an example of speaker
designed at the same time which was better.

Don't think many loudspeaker manufacturers had an "on the tap" live
radio studio to help develop them;)..



As we would say in the UK, you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about
them. ;-)

**I can only say that there are a large number of very stupid buyers and
a bunch of unscrupulous manufacturers and retailers, for the LS3/5a to
continue to survive well past it's use-by date.



Of course they can sound great when everything is going for them - but
then so can the 3/5a.

**Nope. Not in 2018. Not in 1993 and not in 1983.

You are simply wrong about that.


**Then you need to get out more. I showed you a speaker which
comprehensively outperforms the LS3/5a in every meaningful measure, at a
vastly lower price. It was released sometime around 1992-ish. And, as I
previously stated, I owned a pair back in 1980-ish. They didn't last
long. I replaced them with a pair of Infinty Infinitesimals. In all
fairness, I cannot state that the Infinitys were any cheaper. In fact, I
think they may have been a good deal more expensive. If that's the case,
then I don't regard it as a fair fight. The NEARs, OTOH, clobbered the
LS3/5as, at a significantly lower price.



Please sir Trevor if that was the case why aren't they going on fleabay
for a decent wedge like the old despised 5A's?..

**First off: I am an Australian and, thankfully, we have dispensed with
Royal honours.

Second off: NEAR speakers were not widely distributed and only for a
relatively short period. The company was purchased by a larger entity
whose bean counters looked at the numbers from the hi fi market and
promptly shut that side of the business down. In much the same way that
many companies have done before them (Apogee, et al). The other, far
more obvious reason is that the NEAR 10M is so damned good that no owner
wants to sell them. I expect that mine will not leave my side for the
foreseeable future.

[ASIDE] For one of my clients, I took a pair of NEAR 10M speakers and
removed the bits from the enclosure. I then commissioned a pair of cast
sand/resin enclosures, which, empty weighed in at around 22kg! I then
reassembled the boxes and installed the speakers into his listening
room. He still runs them, after more than 20 years. The client is in
shipping and has more money than God (if such a creature were to exist,
of course) and has the choice of any speaker.




I can't find any anywhere unless you can direct me?.

**Since they haven't been manufactured for some years, they will be hard
to locate.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Apart, rather obviously, with the 3/5a which you describe as junk.
Whose designers should be shot. Without being able to give an example
of speaker designed at the same time which was better.

Don't think many loudspeaker manufacturers had an "on the tap" live
radio studio to help develop them;)..

Interesting point. I've never worked in radio, and dunno if the designers
made use of any of the facilities there. Apart from getting high quality
recordings of whatever they wanted, of course. The departments who
designed these speakers were both based well away from the studio centres.
I don't remember any prototype speakers doing the rounds in TV.

But then, to the best of my knowledge, the 3/5a wasn't used at TC for
monitoring. More an OB speaker. It may have been in some small edit
facilities, but not something I know about.

Do have a little story about them at TC, though.

TC3 was modernised in the early 70s. Went from an elderly BBC type B desk
to a large Neve. And at the same time had an all singing and dancing BBC
designed talkback system installed. And instead of the usual poor
bandwidth mics and amps etc, was designed to full broadcast quality.
Talkback mics were AKG 451, and the talkback speakers in sound control
LS3/5a. For all of a couple of weeks. Why? The quality was simply too
good. Just as good if not better than speech being broadcast, which could
used the same mics. And rather better if personal mics were in use.

The 3/5a were changed for single cone RS PA quality speakers. With the
typical colouration of a small cheap speaker.

Some said we told you so. Waste of money having excellent quality
talkback. But degrading it at the last moment at the speaker meant you
didn't have the usual noise and distortion etc of a badly designed system.

--
*Kill one man and you're a murderer, kill a million youand 're a conqueror.

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

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Second off: NEAR speakers were not widely distributed and only for a
relatively short period. The company was purchased by a larger entity
whose bean counters looked at the numbers from the hi fi market and
promptly shut that side of the business down. In much the same way that
many companies have done before them (Apogee, et al). The other, far
more obvious reason is that the NEAR 10M is so damned good that no owner
wants to sell them. I expect that mine will not leave my side for the
foreseeable future.

Given a company in the UK like Falcon - pretty small - has gone to the
bother of having things like the B110 and so on re-manufactured, and can
do complete kits to make your own 3/5a, wonder why they've not bothered to
re-manufacture this wonderful (and inexpensive) speaker of yours? If it
really is that good, would be a winner.

--
*Succeed, in spite of management *

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

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

On 12/04/2018 9:29 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Second off: NEAR speakers were not widely distributed and only for a
relatively short period. The company was purchased by a larger entity
whose bean counters looked at the numbers from the hi fi market and
promptly shut that side of the business down. In much the same way that
many companies have done before them (Apogee, et al). The other, far
more obvious reason is that the NEAR 10M is so damned good that no owner
wants to sell them. I expect that mine will not leave my side for the
foreseeable future.

Given a company in the UK like Falcon - pretty small - has gone to the
bother of having things like the B110 and so on re-manufactured, and can
do complete kits to make your own 3/5a, wonder why they've not bothered to
re-manufacture this wonderful (and inexpensive) speaker of yours? If it
really is that good, would be a winner.


**The NEAR drivers are unique and are what makes the speakers so
brilliant. They are also subject to a number of patents (which may, or
may not have run out). The KEF B110 driver, by comparison, is a very
simple thing to duplicate. Here's one NEAR patent:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US5335287

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

On 12/04/2018 00:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Apart, rather obviously, with the 3/5a which you describe as junk.
Whose designers should be shot. Without being able to give an example
of speaker designed at the same time which was better.

Don't think many loudspeaker manufacturers had an "on the tap" live
radio studio to help develop them;)..

Interesting point. I've never worked in radio, and dunno if the designers
made use of any of the facilities there. Apart from getting high quality
recordings of whatever they wanted, of course. The departments who
designed these speakers were both based well away from the studio centres.
I don't remember any prototype speakers doing the rounds in TV.

But then, to the best of my knowledge, the 3/5a wasn't used at TC for
monitoring. More an OB speaker. It may have been in some small edit
facilities, but not something I know about.

Do have a little story about them at TC, though.

TC3 was modernised in the early 70s. Went from an elderly BBC type B desk
to a large Neve. And at the same time had an all singing and dancing BBC
designed talkback system installed. And instead of the usual poor
bandwidth mics and amps etc, was designed to full broadcast quality.
Talkback mics were AKG 451, and the talkback speakers in sound control
LS3/5a. For all of a couple of weeks. Why? The quality was simply too
good. Just as good if not better than speech being broadcast, which could
used the same mics. And rather better if personal mics were in use.

The 3/5a were changed for single cone RS PA quality speakers. With the
typical colouration of a small cheap speaker.

Some said we told you so. Waste of money having excellent quality
talkback. But degrading it at the last moment at the speaker meant you
didn't have the usual noise and distortion etc of a badly designed system.


Don't know whether it is true or not but I was told (by Dickie
Chamberlain) that the change of speaker was to make it easy to
distinguish between talkback and programme material.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 12/04/2018 00:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Apart, rather obviously, with the 3/5a which you describe as junk.
Whose designers should be shot. Without being able to give an example
of speaker designed at the same time which was better.

Don't think many loudspeaker manufacturers had an "on the tap" live
radio studio to help develop them;)..

Interesting point. I've never worked in radio, and dunno if the designers
made use of any of the facilities there. Apart from getting high quality
recordings of whatever they wanted, of course. The departments who
designed these speakers were both based well away from the studio centres.
I don't remember any prototype speakers doing the rounds in TV.

But then, to the best of my knowledge, the 3/5a wasn't used at TC for
monitoring. More an OB speaker. It may have been in some small edit
facilities, but not something I know about.

Do have a little story about them at TC, though.

TC3 was modernised in the early 70s. Went from an elderly BBC type B
desk to a large Neve. And at the same time had an all singing and
dancing BBC designed talkback system installed. And instead of the
usual poor bandwidth mics and amps etc, was designed to full broadcast
quality. Talkback mics were AKG 451, and the talkback speakers in
sound control LS3/5a. For all of a couple of weeks. Why? The quality
was simply too good. Just as good if not better than speech being
broadcast, which could used the same mics. And rather better if
personal mics were in use.

The 3/5a were changed for single cone RS PA quality speakers. With the
typical colouration of a small cheap speaker.

Some said we told you so. Waste of money having excellent quality
talkback. But degrading it at the last moment at the speaker meant you
didn't have the usual noise and distortion etc of a badly designed
system.


Don't know whether it is true or not but I was told (by Dickie
Chamberlain) that the change of speaker was to make it easy to
distinguish between talkback and programme material.

Exactly so. Perhaps I didn't explain it well. You'd normally expect speech
coming from the prog speaker to be the highest quality and talkback
obvious by being less so.

When TC3 was initially refurbished, the monitoring speakers were BBC LS
5/1, and the 3/5a reproduced the human voice (at realistic levels) rather
better than it. The ubiquitous LS 5/8 was still some way off.

Richard was a superb sound mixer. The way he copied the commercial sound
of a pop record in the early 'live' days of TOTP with virtually no time to
rehearse was truly magical. Do you remember his supercharged Morris
Minor? ;-)

--
*Can fat people go skinny-dipping?

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

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

In article ,
Bob Latham wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Given a company in the UK like Falcon - pretty small - has gone to the
bother of having things like the B110 and so on re-manufactured, and can
do complete kits to make your own 3/5a, wonder why they've not bothered
to re-manufacture this wonderful (and inexpensive) speaker of yours? If
it really is that good, would be a winner.

To be fair you have to consider that the B110 has been used in countless
designs over the year, far from just the LS3/5A. I could probably name at
least a dozen off the top of my head. Also, I'm pretty sure that at least
one of the people involved in Falcon was ex KEF.

All true.

But given Mr Wilson's insistence on how wonderful the NEAR was, it smacks
of some form of conspiracy to suppress it.

--
*The most common name in the world is Mohammed *

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

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Given a company in the UK like Falcon - pretty small - has gone to the
bother of having things like the B110 and so on re-manufactured, and
can do complete kits to make your own 3/5a, wonder why they've not
bothered to re-manufacture this wonderful (and inexpensive) speaker of
yours? If it really is that good, would be a winner.


**The NEAR drivers are unique and are what makes the speakers so
brilliant. They are also subject to a number of patents (which may, or
may not have run out). The KEF B110 driver, by comparison, is a very
simple thing to duplicate. Here's one NEAR patent:

So what? Unless you are trying to say something made 30 years ago can't be
reproduced today? Do they use unobtainium?

A patent for something no longer of commercial value is worthless too, BTW.

--
*The statement above is false

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

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

On 12/04/2018 11:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 12/04/2018 00:14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Apart, rather obviously, with the 3/5a which you describe as junk.
Whose designers should be shot. Without being able to give an example
of speaker designed at the same time which was better.

Don't think many loudspeaker manufacturers had an "on the tap" live
radio studio to help develop them;)..

Interesting point. I've never worked in radio, and dunno if the designers
made use of any of the facilities there. Apart from getting high quality
recordings of whatever they wanted, of course. The departments who
designed these speakers were both based well away from the studio centres.
I don't remember any prototype speakers doing the rounds in TV.

But then, to the best of my knowledge, the 3/5a wasn't used at TC for
monitoring. More an OB speaker. It may have been in some small edit
facilities, but not something I know about.

Do have a little story about them at TC, though.

TC3 was modernised in the early 70s. Went from an elderly BBC type B
desk to a large Neve. And at the same time had an all singing and
dancing BBC designed talkback system installed. And instead of the
usual poor bandwidth mics and amps etc, was designed to full broadcast
quality. Talkback mics were AKG 451, and the talkback speakers in
sound control LS3/5a. For all of a couple of weeks. Why? The quality
was simply too good. Just as good if not better than speech being
broadcast, which could used the same mics. And rather better if
personal mics were in use.

The 3/5a were changed for single cone RS PA quality speakers. With the
typical colouration of a small cheap speaker.

Some said we told you so. Waste of money having excellent quality
talkback. But degrading it at the last moment at the speaker meant you
didn't have the usual noise and distortion etc of a badly designed
system.


Don't know whether it is true or not but I was told (by Dickie
Chamberlain) that the change of speaker was to make it easy to
distinguish between talkback and programme material.

Exactly so. Perhaps I didn't explain it well. You'd normally expect speech
coming from the prog speaker to be the highest quality and talkback
obvious by being less so.

When TC3 was initially refurbished, the monitoring speakers were BBC LS
5/1, and the 3/5a reproduced the human voice (at realistic levels) rather
better than it. The ubiquitous LS 5/8 was still some way off.

Richard was a superb sound mixer. The way he copied the commercial sound
of a pop record in the early 'live' days of TOTP with virtually no time to
rehearse was truly magical. Do you remember his supercharged Morris
Minor? ;-)


Oh yes!

I have my own story about Dickie. I used to belong to an amateur drama
club and they were doing a play called Night Must Fall. The director
wanted to set it in the last year of the death penalty in UK (relevant
to the plot). There's a Paul Robson song in it that she wanted to sound
like the early 60s but there was no commercial version available so Bill
Whiston and I rejigged it for electric guitars and drums. Bill asked
Dickie if we could borrow the TMS after a TOTP session and he agreed.
We turned up with our kit, just the two of us, and Dickie said we'd need
a hand on the faders so he stayed on and balanced it for us!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

In article , Iain
scribeth thus
maanantai 9. huhtikuuta 2018 13.03.12 UTC+3 Bill Taylor kirjoitti:


I don't think you'll find many professionals using the LS3/5A. Even in
the BBC they were only used in certain specific circumstances and even
the BBC started using commercial powered speakers for the job that
they used to do many years ago.


One might infer from what Dave wrote that the LS3/5a was ubiquitous at the
BBC. It seems that this was by no means the case.

In an off-list message regarding this thread, a chap who was recording
music at the TV Centre from the day it opened until he retired, tells
me that that they had a variety of speakers. The LS3/5a was not used.
He also mentioned that this speaker was produced under licence from the
BBC by three manufacturers, and that one could differentiate between the
same speaker from different makers.

Iain




They would not have used the 5A's for recording music in a studio the
5/8 was more the one for that. 5A was for OB vans and the like thats
what it was designed for!.
--
Tony Sayer

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

Please sir Trevor if that was the case why aren't they going on fleabay
for a decent wedge like the old despised 5A's?..

**First off: I am an Australian and, thankfully, we have dispensed with
Royal honours.

Yess i had noticed;)

Second off: NEAR speakers were not widely distributed and only for a
relatively short period. The company was purchased by a larger entity
whose bean counters looked at the numbers from the hi fi market and
promptly shut that side of the business down. In much the same way that
many companies have done before them (Apogee, et al). The other, far
more obvious reason is that the NEAR 10M is so damned good that no owner
wants to sell them. I expect that mine will not leave my side for the
foreseeable future.


Well pity then that so very few were made..

[ASIDE] For one of my clients, I took a pair of NEAR 10M speakers and
removed the bits from the enclosure. I then commissioned a pair of cast
sand/resin enclosures, which, empty weighed in at around 22kg! I then
reassembled the boxes and installed the speakers into his listening
room. He still runs them, after more than 20 years. The client is in
shipping and has more money than God (if such a creature were to exist,
of course) and has the choice of any speaker.




I can't find any anywhere unless you can direct me?.

**Since they haven't been manufactured for some years, they will be hard
to locate.


Well none in the UK it seems..
--
Tony Sayer

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

tiistai 10. huhtikuuta 2018 17.06.49 UTC+3 Jim Lesurf kirjoitti:
By a quirk of economic history the UK now tends to mean
many people live and listen in small rooms at home that lack the acoustic
we might desire for better bigger speakers.

In the 1840's when the population of Gt Britain was 25 million, the Duke of
Wellington, whose address at the time was No.1 London, remarked that "our
country is somewhat overcrowded, and the traffic in London intolerable"

I wonder what he would think today:-) ?

Iain

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

torstai 12. huhtikuuta 2018 2.16.09 UTC+3 Dave Plowman (News) kirjoitti:

Interesting point. I've never worked in radio, and dunno if the designers
made use of any of the facilities there. Apart from getting high quality
recordings of whatever they wanted, of course. The departments who
designed these speakers were both based well away from the studio centres.
I don't remember any prototype speakers doing the rounds in TV.

By that time commercial radio was well established so there would
have been plenty of choice if a speaker manufacturer wanted to set
up trials in a radio facility.

Traditionally, loudspeaker manufacturers had close connections with
record companies and independent music studios, so there would have been
no shortage of top notch facilities with trained ears.

In addition, speakers manufacturers had close ties with academic
institutions. The Arthur Radford/Dr Arthur Bailey/
Surrey University/Decca Record Company think-tank is a good example.

Before the LS3/5a appeared, there was a speaker made by Bowers and Wilkins,
the DM2 IIRC, which was used widely in studios as a domestic reference
speaker, and also in smaller listening rooms and editing facilities. Many
expected that this would be chosen by the BBC. It might have been a better
option:-)

Iain

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

torstai 12. huhtikuuta 2018 14.20.59 UTC+3 tony sayer kirjoitti:

They would not have used the 5A's for recording music in a studio the
5/8 was more the one for that. 5A was for OB vans and the like thats
what it was designed for!.


So there *was* a version for music (the 5/8) ?? That's very interesting.
Were the cabinet dimensions the same as the LS3/5a? Was it on sale to
the public? It would be very interesting to audition.

Strange that Dave didn't mention it:-)

The Lockwood Major was designed as a music speaker *for* (but not *by*)
the BBC, who were not granted exclusive rights to its use.
The LM earned a great reputation as a high power music recording speaker
in studios everywhere. It was commonly paired with the Crown DC 300 amp. A formidable partnership!


Iain

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

In article , Iain
scribeth thus
torstai 12. huhtikuuta 2018 14.20.59 UTC+3 tony sayer kirjoitti:

They would not have used the 5A's for recording music in a studio the
5/8 was more the one for that. 5A was for OB vans and the like thats
what it was designed for!.


So there *was* a version for music (the 5/8) ?? That's very interesting.
Were the cabinet dimensions the same as the LS3/5a? Was it on sale to
the public? It would be very interesting to audition.

See below..


Strange that Dave didn't mention it:-)

The Lockwood Major was designed as a music speaker *for* (but not *by*)
the BBC, who were not granted exclusive rights to its use.
The LM earned a great reputation as a high power music recording speaker
in studios everywhere. It was commonly paired with the Crown DC 300 amp. A
formidable partnership!


Iain


Yes formidable old unit they were, used to have the 15 inch Golds here
many years ago now;!..

Interesting reading tho the second reference isn't intended for persons
of a fragile Aussie disposition;!..

https://www.markhennessy.co.uk/rogers/ls58.htm

http://www.g4dcv.co.uk/ls35a/ls35a.html
--
Tony Sayer

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Iain
scribeth thus
torstai 12. huhtikuuta 2018 14.20.59 UTC+3 tony sayer kirjoitti:

They would not have used the 5A's for recording music in a studio the
5/8 was more the one for that. 5A was for OB vans and the like thats
what it was designed for!.


So there *was* a version for music (the 5/8) ?? That's very interesting.
Were the cabinet dimensions the same as the LS3/5a? Was it on sale to
the public? It would be very interesting to audition.

Lots of confusion there. Probably not understanding BBC numbering
convention.

LS3/* is generally a speaker originally designed for OB etc use. LS5/*
generally for studio monitoring where size doesn't matter and the very
best performance needed. They also tended to come from two different BBC
departments. Design and Research.

See below..


Strange that Dave didn't mention it:-)

Why would I mention something which isn't true?


The Lockwood Major was designed as a music speaker *for* (but not *by*)
the BBC, who were not granted exclusive rights to its use.

Lockwood was a furniture maker. Who at one time supplied much of the
custom made woodwork for BBC studios - things like console frames. IIRC,
they also made the cabinets for the BBC LSU10 from the 50s. And decided to
branch out into making their own speaker cabinet, fitted with Tannoy
drivers. The LSU10 used a dual concentric Parmeko unit which was only good
to about 10 khz. Having been designed before FM radio. Fitting a Tannoy
unit and a more powerful amp was a common mod. But it was a massive
speaker, and Lockwood saw a market for somewhat smaller Tannoy based unit.


The LM earned a great reputation as a high power music recording
speaker in studios everywhere. It was commonly paired with the Crown
DC 300 amp. A formidable partnership!

Yes - high power being the prime attribute. Hence it never being used in a
GP studio. As it wasn't good at speech etc for drama use. Like all Tannoy
dual concentric drivers.

Ian, you seem incapable of realising all TV studios are general purpose.
Might be used for music of any type one day and drama or even current
affairs the next. So need monitoring that makes a fair fist of all types
of programme sound.


Iain


Yes formidable old unit they were, used to have the 15 inch Golds here
many years ago now;!..

Interesting reading tho the second reference isn't intended for persons
of a fragile Aussie disposition;!..

https://www.markhennessy.co.uk/rogers/ls58.htm

http://www.g4dcv.co.uk/ls35a/ls35a.html

--
*The problem with the world is that everyone is a few drinks behind *

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

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

torstai 12. huhtikuuta 2018 2.40.03 UTC+3 Trevor Wilson kirjoitti:

**The NEAR drivers are unique and are what makes the speakers so
brilliant. They are also subject to a number of patents (which may, or
may not have run out). The KEF B110 driver, by comparison, is a very
simple thing to duplicate. Here's one NEAR patent:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US5335287

NEAR still appear to be in business, and have found themselves an
interesting niche market in building speakers and amplifiers for
outdoor use, not festivals but gardens.

http://www.nearspeakers.com/

They seem to be part of the Bogen Group, which built very good mulitrack
tape heads back in the day.

Perhaps, as the speaker which Trevor recommends, is no longer in
production, this would be a good opportunity for some entrepreneur to
acquire the design and the tooling, and start to build this speaker again
on a license or royalty basis.

There is always room in this world for another good loudsspeaker:-)

Iain

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

perjantai 13. huhtikuuta 2018 2.22.30 UTC+3 tony sayer kirjoitti:
In article , Iain
scribeth thus
torstai 12. huhtikuuta 2018 14.20.59 UTC+3 tony sayer kirjoitti:

They would not have used the 5A's for recording music in a studio the
5/8 was more the one for that. 5A was for OB vans and the like thats
what it was designed for!.


So there *was* a version for music (the 5/8) ?? That's very interesting.
Were the cabinet dimensions the same as the LS3/5a? Was it on sale to
the public? It would be very interesting to audition.

See below..

Thanks. Most interesting. This article answered another question I
was going to ask you about Chinese copies, badged "Rodgers"(sic)

There is also, I am told a Chinese copy of the Coles 4038 ribbon mic, and
a colleague of mine has a quasi-PPM meter - a copy of the type built by Ernest Turner, Sifam etc, and used by the BBC. It looks to be the real McCoy, but however hard you drive it, it only goes up to 5 :-))

The Lockwood Major was designed as a music speaker *for* (but not *by*)
the BBC, .......

Yes formidable old unit they were, used to have the 15 inch Golds here
many years ago now;!..

A pal of mine in S.Africa has a pair of Lockwood Majors bought from new.
The cabinets have the original Lockwood coffin handles and casters. He jokes that they are otherwise maintenance-free, but one needs to change the sand ballast every 10 000 hrs!

Iain

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

On 12/04/2018 8:14 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bob Latham wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Given a company in the UK like Falcon - pretty small - has gone to the
bother of having things like the B110 and so on re-manufactured, and can
do complete kits to make your own 3/5a, wonder why they've not bothered
to re-manufacture this wonderful (and inexpensive) speaker of yours? If
it really is that good, would be a winner.

To be fair you have to consider that the B110 has been used in countless
designs over the year, far from just the LS3/5A. I could probably name at
least a dozen off the top of my head. Also, I'm pretty sure that at least
one of the people involved in Falcon was ex KEF.

All true.

But given Mr Wilson's insistence on how wonderful the NEAR was, it smacks
of some form of conspiracy to suppress it.


**Don't be silly. The (true) hi fi industry is a minuscule part of the
audio business, which makes it a minuscule part of a small part of the
world's economy. NEAR drivers are (slightly) more expensive to
manufacture than regular drivers and, presumably, the bean counters saw
these facts and ceased production. Nothing more sinister than what
accountants do every day of the week - suck the joy out of life.

Make no mistake: Come the revolution, the lawyers and accountants will
be the first ones lined up against the wall.

:-)

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 12/04/2018 8:14 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bob Latham wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Given a company in the UK like Falcon - pretty small - has gone to
the bother of having things like the B110 and so on re-manufactured,
and can do complete kits to make your own 3/5a, wonder why they've
not bothered to re-manufacture this wonderful (and inexpensive)
speaker of yours? If it really is that good, would be a winner.

To be fair you have to consider that the B110 has been used in
countless designs over the year, far from just the LS3/5A. I could
probably name at least a dozen off the top of my head. Also, I'm
pretty sure that at least one of the people involved in Falcon was ex
KEF.

All true.

But given Mr Wilson's insistence on how wonderful the NEAR was, it
smacks of some form of conspiracy to suppress it.


**Don't be silly. The (true) hi fi industry is a minuscule part of the
audio business, which makes it a minuscule part of a small part of the
world's economy. NEAR drivers are (slightly) more expensive to
manufacture than regular drivers and, presumably, the bean counters saw
these facts and ceased production. Nothing more sinister than what
accountants do every day of the week - suck the joy out of life.


I just find it odd that a speaker you consider the finest for its size and
unsurpassed since didn't sell by the million making a fortune for its
maker.

Make no mistake: Come the revolution, the lawyers and accountants will
be the first ones lined up against the wall.

:-)

--
*Go the extra mile. It makes your boss look like an incompetent slacker *

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

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

On 14/04/2018 9:15 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 12/04/2018 8:14 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bob Latham wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Given a company in the UK like Falcon - pretty small - has gone to
the bother of having things like the B110 and so on re-manufactured,
and can do complete kits to make your own 3/5a, wonder why they've
not bothered to re-manufacture this wonderful (and inexpensive)
speaker of yours? If it really is that good, would be a winner.

To be fair you have to consider that the B110 has been used in
countless designs over the year, far from just the LS3/5A. I could
probably name at least a dozen off the top of my head. Also, I'm
pretty sure that at least one of the people involved in Falcon was ex
KEF.

All true.

But given Mr Wilson's insistence on how wonderful the NEAR was, it
smacks of some form of conspiracy to suppress it.


**Don't be silly. The (true) hi fi industry is a minuscule part of the
audio business, which makes it a minuscule part of a small part of the
world's economy. NEAR drivers are (slightly) more expensive to
manufacture than regular drivers and, presumably, the bean counters saw
these facts and ceased production. Nothing more sinister than what
accountants do every day of the week - suck the joy out of life.


I just find it odd that a speaker you consider the finest for its size and
unsurpassed since didn't sell by the million making a fortune for its
maker.

**Hang on a sec. I said nothing of the kind. This is the second time in
this thread that you have made statements that you ascribe to me, that I
never said.

Let me be as clear as I can possibly be (pay close attention and do not
make silly assumptions):

The LS3/5a was, at it's inception, a decent enough speaker. In 2018, it
is WAY, WAY behind many speakers in it's (stupidly high) price range. By
1993-ish, when I first heard the NEAR 10M, the NEAR 10M was a MUCH
better speaker, in every meaningful metric and far less expensive. That
was 25 years ago.

I have heard a number of speakers that are significantly better than the
NEAR 10M (and 10M-II) since. I have not heard one that can best the NEAR
10M at what I would estimate its 2018 price to be (US$750.00).


I will re-state: There are significantly better speakers available, in
the NEAR 10Ms size range.

Clear?

What me to re-state?

Or will you continue to make absurd statements that you ascribe to me?


Make no mistake: Come the revolution, the lawyers and accountants will
be the first ones lined up against the wall.

:-)



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
I just find it odd that a speaker you consider the finest for its size and
unsurpassed since didn't sell by the million making a fortune for its
maker.

**Hang on a sec. I said nothing of the kind. This is the second time in
this thread that you have made statements that you ascribe to me, that I
never said.

Let me be as clear as I can possibly be (pay close attention and do not
make silly assumptions):

The LS3/5a was, at it's inception, a decent enough speaker.

Then why didn't you say so at the start?

Let me quote your first post on the subject:-

****************

From: Trevor Wilson
Subject: Speaker unit to baffle.
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2018 01:35
Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio

**The LS3/5a is the most over-rated piece of junk ever to be foisted on
the audio industry. It's continued existence is adequate evidence that
most listeners believe what some reviewers say, rather than listening
for themselves.

Don't get me started on LS3/5a speakers. And don't tell me how the BBC
designed them. The idiot who designed them should be shot.

*****************

So I take it you're now retracting most of that?




In 2018, it
is WAY, WAY behind many speakers in it's (stupidly high) price range. By
1993-ish, when I first heard the NEAR 10M, the NEAR 10M was a MUCH
better speaker, in every meaningful metric and far less expensive. That
was 25 years ago.

But apparently by its lack of popularity likely just your opinion. A small
high quality speaker is the holy grail for many. No matter where it's
made.

I have heard a number of speakers that are significantly better than the
NEAR 10M (and 10M-II) since. I have not heard one that can best the NEAR
10M at what I would estimate its 2018 price to be (US$750.00).

Thing is, if you come out with outrageous comments about what was (and
still is) a well regarded speaker, why do you expect people to believe
your opinion on any?


I will re-state: There are significantly better speakers available, in
the NEAR 10Ms size range.

Clear?

What me to re-state?

Or will you continue to make absurd statements that you ascribe to me?

Are you claiming you didn't make the statement I've quoted above?


Make no mistake: Come the revolution, the lawyers and accountants will
be the first ones lined up against the wall.


--
*Why don't sheep shrink when it rains?

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