Speaker unit to baffle.
 

A mid range unit - say about 4" - in a suitable sealed box. Remind me of
the difference between mounting it on the rear of the baffle, front, or
recessed flush to it? I've seen all done on commercial designs.

--
*If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled?

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

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

Once upon a time on usenet Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
A mid range unit - say about 4" - in a suitable sealed box. Remind me
of the difference between mounting it on the rear of the baffle,
front, or recessed flush to it? I've seen all done on commercial
designs.

It's all about time alignment with the tweeter. My rule of thumb with my
previous home-made speakers is if it's a flattish cone I rear mount it but
if it's a deep cone I front mount it. I try to keep the respective
voicecoils of the tweeter and squawker as close as possible to the same
plane relative to the front baffle.

But there's not much science behind that, just experience and gut feelings.
Hopefully someone more knowledgeable will chime in.
--
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.
 

On 6/04/2018 8:25 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
A mid range unit - say about 4" - in a suitable sealed box. Remind me of
the difference between mounting it on the rear of the baffle, front, or
recessed flush to it? I've seen all done on commercial designs.


**Flush mount mitigates diffraction effects.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/04/2018 8:25 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
A mid range unit - say about 4" - in a suitable sealed box. Remind me of
the difference between mounting it on the rear of the baffle, front, or
recessed flush to it? I've seen all done on commercial designs.


**Flush mount mitigates diffraction effects.

How would diffraction manifest itself? Ie, the audible effect?

--
*WHERE DO FOREST RANGERS GO TO "GET AWAY FROM IT ALL?"

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

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

On Fri, 06 Apr 2018 10:44:43 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/04/2018 8:25 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
A mid range unit - say about 4" - in a suitable sealed box. Remind me of
the difference between mounting it on the rear of the baffle, front, or
recessed flush to it? I've seen all done on commercial designs.


**Flush mount mitigates diffraction effects.

How would diffraction manifest itself? Ie, the audible effect?

Tiny changes in frequency response, particularly off-axis if done
right. Symmetry is the enemy. You ideally want every diffracting
surface at a different distance from the cone centre. Off-centre in a
rectangular baffle is pretty good.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

On 6/04/2018 7:44 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/04/2018 8:25 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
A mid range unit - say about 4" - in a suitable sealed box. Remind me of
the difference between mounting it on the rear of the baffle, front, or
recessed flush to it? I've seen all done on commercial designs.


**Flush mount mitigates diffraction effects.

How would diffraction manifest itself? Ie, the audible effect?


**Usually, image quality. Diffraction effects seem to cause a rather
diffuse image. I believe John Dunlavy was the first to deal with the
problem:

https://patents.justia.com/patent/4167985

As a consequence, listening to many of Duntech's speakers resulted in a
surprisingly good ability to recreate the original space. Much like a
well set-up pair of Quad ESLs can manage.

John used absorbent felt, around the drivers on the baffle to achieve this.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/04/2018 7:44 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/04/2018 8:25 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
A mid range unit - say about 4" - in a suitable sealed box. Remind me of
the difference between mounting it on the rear of the baffle, front, or
recessed flush to it? I've seen all done on commercial designs.


**Flush mount mitigates diffraction effects.

How would diffraction manifest itself? Ie, the audible effect?


**Usually, image quality. Diffraction effects seem to cause a rather
diffuse image. I believe John Dunlavy was the first to deal with the
problem:

https://patents.justia.com/patent/4167985

As a consequence, listening to many of Duntech's speakers resulted in a
surprisingly good ability to recreate the original space. Much like a
well set-up pair of Quad ESLs can manage.

John used absorbent felt, around the drivers on the baffle to achieve
this.

The LS 3/5a has a rectangle of felt round the tweeter, but not the
bass/midrange.

--
*And don't start a sentence with a conjunction *

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

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

On 7/04/2018 8:02 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/04/2018 7:44 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/04/2018 8:25 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
A mid range unit - say about 4" - in a suitable sealed box. Remind me of
the difference between mounting it on the rear of the baffle, front, or
recessed flush to it? I've seen all done on commercial designs.


**Flush mount mitigates diffraction effects.

How would diffraction manifest itself? Ie, the audible effect?


**Usually, image quality. Diffraction effects seem to cause a rather
diffuse image. I believe John Dunlavy was the first to deal with the
problem:

https://patents.justia.com/patent/4167985

As a consequence, listening to many of Duntech's speakers resulted in a
surprisingly good ability to recreate the original space. Much like a
well set-up pair of Quad ESLs can manage.

John used absorbent felt, around the drivers on the baffle to achieve
this.

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.

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.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

In the days before near-field monitoring became popular, there was a company called Auratone which made small sound cubes that fitted nicely on each end of a recording desk.They were very popular. The first models had the speaker mounted behind the baffle, but later they became flush mounted - most likely for the reason that Don and Trevor mention.

Iain

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

Agreed.

Iain

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

sunnuntai 8. huhtikuuta 2018 3.38.39 UTC+3 Trevor Wilson kirjoitti:


**The LS3/5a is the most over-rated piece of junk ever to be foisted on
the audio industry.


Agreed.

Iain

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

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.

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.

--
*Frustration is trying to find your glasses without your glasses.

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

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

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.

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 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

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

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.

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

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

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

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

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

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.

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
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.

Quite. That some people hype it up into being something it isn't is hardly
the fault of the speaker or designers.

For near field monitoring for pro use (and domestic) it still takes some
beating. I get the impression many of its critics have never actually
lived with a pair. And base their views on a quick audition.

--
*Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.

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

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

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.

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
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."

It's very very different. Why the BBC went to the lengths of designing
their own.

You'll be telling us just how wonderful Bose are now. A nice modern design.

--
*Why don't sheep shrink when it rains?

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

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

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.

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

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 :-)

But seriously, it is interested to note that speakers designed *for*
the BBC sounded better than those designed *by* the BBC.

When I lived in the UK, I frequented many many studio. I can only recall one
outside the BBC that used the LS3/5a. That was Argo. Much of their catalogue was spoken word recordings (as they were called) The speakers were quickly replaced.

Iain

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

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

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

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!


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 19:02:12 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote:

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!

Thank you! :-)

--
Johnny B Good

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

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

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

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.

That is so for all speakers, as anyone who has visited Tannoy
B+W or Kef will testify. I was surprised on my first trip to Tovil.

And even when the prototype has been built, there are a very large
number of people involved at consultancy level, in listening and
evaluation. The best possible way to get feedback for a new audio
product is to lend it to a busy studio for a couple of weeks.

Iain

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

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!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Speaker unit to baffle.
 

On 9/04/2018 10:22 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
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."

It's very very different. Why the BBC went to the lengths of designing
their own.

You'll be telling us just how wonderful Bose are now. A nice modern design.


**Yeah, right. The Bose 901 was designed around a false premise.
EVERYTHING that followed from Bose was similarly flawed. Bose is a
marketing company (and a very good one), that just happens to make and
sell speakers and associated systems. They're crap.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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