On 8/04/2018 11:47 PM, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , 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. Many many times. Most prefer the evidence of
their own ears. That's not to say they ain't over hyped by some. Same as
every single bit of sound equipment ever made.

FWIW I find the LS3/5a works OK for the kind of purpose I think it was
designed to deal with. Items like voice and classical music at low repro
levels in a confined space. It has obvious limitations in terms of bass
and signal levels, but seems voiced to give an indication of what you'd
get from bigger better speakers in a larger room with a decent acoustic.

I doubt it would suit those into rock music, etc. 8-]

I don't doubt there are alternative small speakers which can give better
results. But the advantage of a BBC spec is that it is a 'known quantity'.
Again, part of the reason for its existence.


**And therein lies the problem. Despite it's long, long list of flaws,
professionals stick with a horrible loudspeaker, despite the clear and
obvious advantages of the alternatives. It's not too different to the
situation in the US, a couple of decades ago. It was said: "No engineer
who designed a recording studio was fired for specifying JBL speakers."

This, despite the fact that there were and are, many other alternatives
that offer far superior performance at similar cost.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 19:47:24 +1000, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 8/04/2018 11:47 PM, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , 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. Many many times. Most prefer the evidence of
their own ears. That's not to say they ain't over hyped by some. Same as
every single bit of sound equipment ever made.

FWIW I find the LS3/5a works OK for the kind of purpose I think it was
designed to deal with. Items like voice and classical music at low repro
levels in a confined space. It has obvious limitations in terms of bass
and signal levels, but seems voiced to give an indication of what you'd
get from bigger better speakers in a larger room with a decent acoustic.

I doubt it would suit those into rock music, etc. 8-]

I don't doubt there are alternative small speakers which can give better
results. But the advantage of a BBC spec is that it is a 'known quantity'.
Again, part of the reason for its existence.


**And therein lies the problem. Despite it's long, long list of flaws,
professionals stick with a horrible loudspeaker, despite the clear and
obvious advantages of the alternatives. It's not too different to the
situation in the US, a couple of decades ago. It was said: "No engineer
who designed a recording studio was fired for specifying JBL speakers."

This, despite the fact that there were and are, many other alternatives
that offer far superior performance at similar cost.

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.

It seems to have maintained a cult status with a small group of
audiophiles who keep it alive.

In article ,
Bill Taylor wrote:
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

Of couse. Where size was all important. They are also far less room and
position sensitive than some other designs.

and even
the BBC started using commercial powered speakers for the job that
they used to do many years ago.

The BBC do very little themselves these days. Many things that would have
use something like the 3/5a are farmed out - and there is no control over
what is used for monitoring there. And of course it should be possible to
make something as good for less money these days.

It seems to have maintained a cult status with a small group of
audiophiles who keep it alive.

Just because something has gained cult status doesn't necessarily make it
as bad as Mr Wilson suggests.

--
*Filthy stinking rich -- well, two out of three ain't bad

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

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

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

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

More generally, I prefer QUAD ESLs.

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

Go on then...

--
Tony Sayer

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