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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

More generally, I prefer QUAD ESLs.

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

Go on then...

--
Tony Sayer

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

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.