Speaker unit to baffle.
 

On 9/04/2018 8:18 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Given the 3/5a was designed some 50 years ago it would be quite
surprising if others hadn't caught up.

**THAT, is precisely my point! 50 years ago, the LS3/5a was a decent
enough small speaker (and by "decent", I mean, OK, but far from
outstanding).

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.



In 2018, it is a piece of ****. It should have been
consigned to the dustbin of history years ago.

I'm afraid that just shows you are hyping things in exactly the same way
as some of its fans.

There has been no magical improvment in speaker design that makes the sort
of difference you're implying.

**Actually, CAD has made huge inroads into the speaker design process.
Material technologies have further improved speakers. The LS3/5a
pre-dated CAD.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

On 10/04/2018 6:05 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:


**Actually, CAD has made huge inroads into the speaker design process.
Material technologies have further improved speakers. The LS3/5a
pre-dated CAD.

**I should state that the LS3/5a pre-dated CAD that small companies
could afford. Modern speaker CAD products appeared sometime around 1988.
Prior to that time, a company required a large and expensive computer to
run speaker CAD on.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

In article , Trevor Wilson trevor@SPA
MBLOCKrageaudio.com.au scribeth thus
On 10/04/2018 6:05 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:


**Actually, CAD has made huge inroads into the speaker design process.
Material technologies have further improved speakers. The LS3/5a
pre-dated CAD.

**I should state that the LS3/5a pre-dated CAD that small companies
could afford. Modern speaker CAD products appeared sometime around 1988.
Prior to that time, a company required a large and expensive computer to
run speaker CAD on.



Yes the old LS3/5A are repeatable. I one heard a very early Rogers one
and another make can't remember who's it was now apart from 11 ohm
impedance the imaging was excellent. OK so they don't do real bass then
don't go loud but for OB vans their intended use they were fine.

Course that design is some, what, 50 ish years old now and as mentioned
BBC born and bred they nowadays don't do that much of that anymore but
they used to design and make a lot of gear years ago radio and TV.

I once worked for Pye TVT, Neve and Audix it was well known sell to the
BBC and you could sell to anyone any broadcaster even the Germans where
engineering is still a highly regarded profession;).

So what else is wrong then and who are considered better candidates for
that job and why Trevor?..

--
Tony Sayer

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

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?

--
*WHAT IF THERE WERE NO HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS?

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

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

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. 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.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

Once upon a time on usenet Iain wrote:
maanantai 9. huhtikuuta 2018 1.19.24 UTC+3 Dave Plowman (News)
kirjoitti:
Trevor wrote:
The goal
of a high fidelity system is to recreate, as closely as possible,
the original musical event.

Dave replied
Ah - right. What sort of music would that be?

Me:
Surely a loudspeaker is designed to reproduce sound (music, speech,
birdsongs, or even a jack-hammer) with the closest possible fidelity.

Then why is it called a loud 'speaker'? I'm pretty sure they were originally
designed to reproduce voice. Anything else is gravy.
--
Shaun.

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

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

maanantai 9. huhtikuuta 2018 22.51.46 UTC+3 Graeme Wall kirjoitti:
On 09/04/2018 19:54, Iain wrote:
maanantai 9. huhtikuuta 2018 21.02.13 UTC+3 Graeme Wall kirjoitti:
On 09/04/2018 18:09, Iain wrote:
sunnuntai 8. huhtikuuta 2018 15.13.12 UTC+3 Dave Plowman (News) kirjoitti:

No BBC speaker was designed by just one person. Always a team.

A camel is said to be a horse designed by a team :-)


cough committee!

Please Graham allow a little poetic licence :-)

Iain


:-) Even if you can't spell!

Sincere apologies. I shall don sackcloth and ashes for 15 days:-)

Iain

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

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

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

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. :-)

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.

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.

More generally, I prefer QUAD ESLs.

But I would not prefer either ESLs or LS3/5as if, say, my taste was for
loud heavy rock music and I had a much larger listening room.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 

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.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au