On 8/04/2018 10:13 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
The LS 3/5a has a rectangle of felt round the tweeter, but not the
bass/midrange.


**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.

You've said this before.

**Have I? Cite.


Many many times. Most prefer the evidence of
their own ears.

**I am well aware of the delusions practiced by many listeners. The goal
of a high fidelity system is to recreate, as closely as possible, the
original musical event. The LS3/5a is incapable of performing this.
Other small speakers can do the job far more convincingly.


That's not to say they ain't over hyped by some. Same as
every single bit of sound equipment ever made.

**Nope. Many products lack hype and are allowed to disappear into
obscurity, if they are found to be lacking. For some odd reason, the
LS3/5a continues to be manufactured.


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.

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

**Line 'em all up against the wall.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
You've said this before.

**Have I? Cite.

I don't keep posts to this group. Are you saying quite categorically you
haven't said similar before?


Many many times. Most prefer the evidence of
their own ears.

**I am well aware of the delusions practiced by many listeners.

Not 'listeners'. The 3/5s was made for pro use. And very highly regarded
by them. For the job it was intended to do.


The goal
of a high fidelity system is to recreate, as closely as possible, the
original musical event.

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


The LS3/5a is incapable of performing this.

Yes - it's not very good at reproducing a 32ft stop.

Other small speakers can do the job far more convincingly.

Given the 3/5a was designed some 50 years ago it would be quite surprising
if others hadn't caught up.

But you might also remember a large amount of the BBC output is speech.
And there are plenty rated 'music' speakers that sound dreadful on that.

--
*(over a sketch of the titanic) "The boat sank - get over it

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

On 9/04/2018 8:19 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
You've said this before.

**Have I? Cite.

I don't keep posts to this group. Are you saying quite categorically you
haven't said similar before?

**In this group? I doubt it.



Many many times. Most prefer the evidence of
their own ears.

**I am well aware of the delusions practiced by many listeners.

Not 'listeners'.

**I hate to burst your bubble, but that is precisely what ALL
loudspeakers are for. They are expressly designed for humans to listen
to sound through. Therefore, a human that listens to (say) music through
a pair (or more) of speakers, is, by definition, a listener.


The 3/5s was made for pro use. And very highly regarded
by them. For the job it was intended to do.

**I have as much regard for "pros" as I do for amateurs. Pros are just
as prone to delusion as amateurs.



The goal
of a high fidelity system is to recreate, as closely as possible, the
original musical event.

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

**That would be musical music.



The LS3/5a is incapable of performing this.

Yes - it's not very good at reproducing a 32ft stop.

**I make allowances for speakers, depending on what they are designed to
do.


Other small speakers can do the job far more convincingly.

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



But you might also remember a large amount of the BBC output is speech.
And there are plenty rated 'music' speakers that sound dreadful on that.

**Name them.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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.


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.

--
*Confession is good for the soul, but bad for your career.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

maanantai 9. huhtikuuta 2018 1.19.24 UTC+3 Dave Plowman (News) kirjoitti:

The 3/5s was made for pro use.

:-) That's an interesting assertion. Made for pro use, but not used
by pros outside the BBC.

In contrast the Tannoy Lancaster was made for domestic use
(as Tannoy had no professional division back then) yet it
was adopted as a reference monitor by countless studios,
and cutting/mastering facilities.

And very highly regarded
by them. For the job it was intended to do.

The first time I head the LS3/5a was when the BBC invited recording
professionals from UK record companies and independent studios to
come to listen to their newly equipped OB vans, three of which were
parked outside their Maida Vale studios.

One of the group in front of ours was an engineer from Trident Studios.
As he came out from the van he remarked drily, "The king has a new suit
of clothes"

At the demo I attended we listened to a 15 ips non Dolby tape of Richard
Burton reading Dylan Thomas' "Under Milk Wood" played from a Studer B62.
It sounded very good indeed. After some ten or fifteen minutes, someone
asked "Can we listen to some music?" We were told that that LS3/5a was specifically designed for OB use to record speech. After some
minutes a tape of Ralph Vaughan Williams was brought in. The Cor Anglais
was so "rich" that is could have easily been mistaken for a bassoon. No
wonder Richard Burton sounded so good:-)

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.

Trevor:
The LS3/5a is incapable of performing this.

Me:
Correct!

Dave:
It's not very good at reproducing a 32ft stop.

Me:
It is not good at all at reproducing music.


Other small speakers can do the job far more convincingly.

Given the 3/5a was designed some 50 years ago it would be quite surprising
if others hadn't caught up.

Caught up. That infers that at some point the L3/5a was leading the field,
which is incorrect. It may have been good for OB drama, but not suited
for music (the purpose for which most people would use it)

There a a number of speakers designed *for* and not *by* the BBC back then
that still sound excellent. Both the Kef K1 and the Lockwood Major are very good examples.

Interestingly just a couple of weeks after the BBC car park demo,
Marquee Studios had put together a small OB vehicle which they
demonstrated. It was actually a converted "gown van" on a Bedford
chassis, with a small Neve desk and Tannoy LRM speakers. '
It probably cost a tenth of what the BBC had spent at the taxpayers expense, but sounded very good indeed.

Iain