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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.