Music Fidelity to make copies of BBC LS3/5A speakers

[Andrew]

2,349 UK pounds for a pair of LS3/5A
4,099 for a pair of LS5/9's

https://www.whathifi.com/news/musical-fidelity-unveils-two-new-loudspeakers-based-on-the-bbcs-original-designs

[Woody]

A pair of LS3/5A started on eBay last week at something like £9.99. They
went in the end for well in excess of £1700!!!

[mm0fmf]

Mate from Uni made some (1985?) from Wilmslow Audio driver/crossover
kits. He was very good at woodwork so the cases were beautiful. They
sounded rather good especially when you consider how tiny the bass
driver is in them.

[Joe]

https://www.falconacoustics.co.uk/bbc-ls3-5a/ls3-5a-parts.html

--
Joe

[John Walliker]

Mine are the original d-i-y kit sold to BBC staff. I once measured the frequency
response outdoors and it was almost ruler flat. However, they do benefit from
a subwoofer with an active crossover at about 80Hz.

John

[mm0fmf]

Sweet Baby Jesus, how the price of T27 and B110s have gone up. There
again it was the early 1980s when I was last looking.

[Adrian Caspersz]

On 15/05/2023 17:24, Andrew wrote:

Birch Plywood has become very expensive lately ....

These are near field monitors, not sure they would enjoy the wick wound
up with anything dynamically exiting?

However, if someone has built a critical listening room, and still has
the golden ears of a twenty something recording engineer....

--
Adrian C

[Animal]

That's steep for what they are. If you're building, get some ribbon tweeters, they make moving coils sound crude. And some are surprisingly cheap.

[John Walliker]

I don't think there is anything crude about the sound of the LS3/5As, although
if I had the space I would like Quad electrostatics which are the only speakers
I have ever measured that can reproduce a square-wave reasonably accurately.
There are some subtle details. The birch ply was chosen for its damping factor.
It is lined with adhesive bitumen sheet. The whole internal volume is filled with
polyethylene foam. The back of the tweeter is braced to the back panel to reduce
panel resonance. The felt on the front panel is to damp a sideways resonance
between the forward projections of the side walls. The pressed perforated metal
dome over the tweeter provides mechanical protection but is mainly there to
act as a phase shifter to make a smoother crossover. The crossover is made
from polycarbonate capacitors and I think mu-metal cored inductors. ( I think
later models used cheaper components here.)
John

[Trevor Wilson]

**It has to be said:

The LS3/5A is the most over-rated speaker system ever released. They are
just an average performer.

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

[Animal]

All good stuff, but not a patch on electrostatics or ribbons. Comparitively crude, not absolutely crude.

[John Walliker]

The LS3/5A was designed as a monitor for use in outside broadcast vans and
similarly small spaces at moderate sound levels. For its intended use cases
I think the result is very impressive, especially for something designed in around 1970.
Other BBC monitors of that vintage had internal amplifiers for each drive unit with active
crossovers. Such an arrangement has a lot of advantages.
If there is more space available then something with more extended low frequency
output will probably be a better choice. Electrostatic speakers have their own
tradeoffs. Nothing is perfect in every respect.

John

[Brian Gaff]

Now what is so special then? They were never that price when new.
Is this a case of money for old rope if you can make something look
authentic?
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Woody" <harro...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:u3u0hn$34r0e$1...@dont-email.me...

[Clive Arthur]

On 16/05/2023 17:48, mm0fmf wrote:

<snipped>
>
> I remembered they liked a beefy amp driving them. They were very
> relaxing listening to them. Far too much hifi sounds blob on for the
> first few albums but becomes tiring. They didn't.

Yes, they were deliberately very inefficient at mid and high frequencies
so as to compensate for the natural inefficiency of the bass in a box
that size. Great for smaller rooms, but not for organ music. I still
have mine, purchased around 1975 with a BBC staff discount.

--
Cheers
Clive

[mechanic]

On Wed, 17 May 2023 10:16:48 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

> Now what is so special then? They were never that price when new.
> Is this a case of money for old rope if you can make something
> look authentic?

It's what's called a cult-following. Lots of stuff about these on
t'internet e.g.
https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/falcon-acoustics-bbc-ls35a/
the Wiki article is good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS3/5A

If you have a pair, sell them for the best money you can get. As you
get older your hearing won't be up to needing the best hifi anyway.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Having spent many years listening to loudspeakers, I liked the Kef units
for fairly low self resonances - colouration

TBH when it comes to absolute clarity I prefer high power horns for the
mid and upper, and as big a box with twin 15" in it as can be mustered
for the bass.
The KEFS are pleasant speakers that wont irritate you after a while as
they don't have their own 'sound' ..

You wont ever get a huge bass response out of the 8" units no matter how
big the box.

But that aside, one of my more liked speakers


--
It is the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffee-house
for the voice of the kingdom.

Jonathan Swift

[Adrian Caspersz]

On 16/05/2023 23:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:

> **It has to be said:
>
> The LS3/5A is the most over-rated speaker system ever released. They are
> just an average performer.
>

To be fair, by definition all hi-fi is overrated.

"High"

I propose a new class,

"Ample Fidelity"

Stuff that does what it says on the tin.

Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.

No need for collections, components, stack systems, midi systems, music
centres, radiograms etc. Folks used to dedicate a room, space, that mess
of wires in a corner now replaced by a pot plant.

And they can enjoy the efforts of songwriters, singers and musicians and
not the marketing whims of the dancing circus capitalists pretending ye
need this and that for the "ultimate".

Yeah, I enjoy messing with audio electronics technicals and it's
nostalgia - but for today like a load of other pastimes from the last
century, just recognise it's going nowhere as a future business.

--
Adrian C

[Tim Streater]

On 17 May 2023 at 13:01:21 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <em...@here.invalid> wrote:

> Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.

What's streaming or bluetooth got to do with the sound quality that the
speaker will generate? You can use bluetooth or streaming to supply audio to a
tin box but it won't sound very good.

--
All of science is either physics or stamp-collecting.

Ernest Rutherford

[charles]

In article <u3tmc7$33lh6$1...@dont-email.me>,

Andrew <Andr...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> 2,349 UK pounds for a pair of LS3/5A

I'd better increase my home insurance ;-(

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

[Andrew]

On 17/05/2023 15:15, charles wrote:
> In article <u3tmc7$33lh6$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Andrew <Andr...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> 2,349 UK pounds for a pair of LS3/5A
>
>
> I'd better increase my home insurance ;-(
>

And extra for your ladderax shelving too :-)

[charles]

In article <u42pq2$3t91d$2...@dont-email.me>,

don't think I ever bought any

[Adrian Caspersz]

On 17/05/2023 13:27, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 17 May 2023 at 13:01:21 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <em...@here.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.
>
> What's streaming or bluetooth got to do with the sound quality that the
> speaker will generate? You can use bluetooth or streaming to supply audio to a
> tin box but it won't sound very good.
>

A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.

Some sound OK, Some sound like "who cares?"

You stream to it from a mobile phone.

Job done.

--
Adrian C

[Tim+]

Bob Latham <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <kckml8...@mid.individual.net>,

> Adrian Caspersz <em...@here.invalid> wrote:
>
>> A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
>

> To think that you've either got no interest in audio or are hearing
> impaired.

Who isn’t at our age? ;-)

Tim


--
Please don't feed the trolls

[Fredxx]

On 17/05/2023 20:48, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <kckml8...@mid.individual.net>,
> Adrian Caspersz <em...@here.invalid> wrote:
>

>> A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
>

> To think that you've either got no interest in audio or are hearing
> impaired.
>

>> Some sound OK,
>
> Compared to what?

My hearing isn't that precise, but these do me and a lot of other people
just fine:
https://www.sonos.com/en-gb/shop/move

Please explain why these are more suited to someone who has no interest
in audio or is hearing impaired?

[Tim Streater]

On 17 May 2023 at 20:02:00 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <em...@here.invalid> wrote:

> On 17/05/2023 13:27, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 17 May 2023 at 13:01:21 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <em...@here.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.
>>
>> What's streaming or bluetooth got to do with the sound quality that the
>> speaker will generate? You can use bluetooth or streaming to supply audio to a
>> tin box but it won't sound very good.
>>
>
> A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.

A combination of decent speakers with a quality amp is going to be rare in
such a device, which is why one might stick to separate speakers, separate
amp.

Although I suppose it's possible someone might do a proper job, but not much
change out of £5k I wouldn't have thought.

--
“It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since ... it is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into, we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a power-directed system of thought.”

Sir Roger Scruton

[Tim Streater]

Going to be junk at that price. You'd be much better off with decent
headphones.

--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in someone else's pocket.

[Animal]

Russ Andrews has entered the chat

There's masses of ample-fi out there, aka hi-fi but not very hi.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 17/05/2023 10:01 pm, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
> On 16/05/2023 23:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> **It has to be said:
>>
>> The LS3/5A is the most over-rated speaker system ever released. They
>> are just an average performer.
>>
>
> To be fair, by definition all hi-fi is overrated.

**No, it is not.

There are many examples of nonsensically over-rated products available
in the hi fi biz. The LS3/5A is one of them. We all need loudspeakers to
listen to audio (unless you happen to use headphones, of course).

I've listened to the LS3/5A many times (different manufacturers). I hear
the same problems with all of them. They are, quite simply, highly
inaccurate speakers. IE: They are not high fidelity speakers.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 17/05/2023 21:38, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 17 May 2023 at 20:02:00 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <em...@here.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 17/05/2023 13:27, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> On 17 May 2023 at 13:01:21 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <em...@here.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.
>>>
>>> What's streaming or bluetooth got to do with the sound quality that the
>>> speaker will generate? You can use bluetooth or streaming to supply audio to a
>>> tin box but it won't sound very good.
>>>
>>
>> A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
>
> A combination of decent speakers with a quality amp is going to be rare in
> such a device, which is why one might stick to separate speakers, separate
> amp.
>
> Although I suppose it's possible someone might do a proper job, but not much
> change out of £5k I wouldn't have thought.
>

Amplifiers are now at the point where they are more or less 'perfect'

Loudspeakers never have been. They are all compromises of one sort or
another.

Having said that modern materials make even cheap speakers sound as good
as the 'greats' from yesteryear.


--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

[Tim Streater]

On 18 May 2023 at 09:02:32 BST, "The Natural Philosopher"

<t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 17/05/2023 21:38, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 17 May 2023 at 20:02:00 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <em...@here.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/05/2023 13:27, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> On 17 May 2023 at 13:01:21 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <em...@here.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.
>>>>
>>>> What's streaming or bluetooth got to do with the sound quality that the
>>>> speaker will generate? You can use bluetooth or streaming to supply audio to a
>>>> tin box but it won't sound very good.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
>>
>> A combination of decent speakers with a quality amp is going to be rare in
>> such a device, which is why one might stick to separate speakers, separate
>> amp.
>>
>> Although I suppose it's possible someone might do a proper job, but not much
>> change out of £5k I wouldn't have thought.
>>
> Amplifiers are now at the point where they are more or less 'perfect'

There wasn't a lot wrong with the Quad 33/303 combo I bought in 1970. No
optical or other digital input, of course. Especially when paired with the IMF
RSPM I bought in 1974. Not that I could tell, these days, of course, but I
sure could then.

--
"A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then quietly strangled." - Sir Barnett Cocks (1907-1989)

[The Natural Philosopher]

Quad 303 was relative junk actually. Had a lot of crossover distortion
especially at HF. Many of its contemporaries were in fact better.

Things got better with the advent of audio power FETS and/or class AAB
designs.
As transistor speeds went up the problems of maintaining high levels of
feedback at high frequencies without instability, lessened.


Today even the class D's will beat a Quad 303


--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

[Trevor Wilson]

On 18/05/2023 6:02 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 17/05/2023 21:38, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 17 May 2023 at 20:02:00 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <em...@here.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/05/2023 13:27, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> On 17 May 2023 at 13:01:21 BST, "Adrian Caspersz"
>>>> <em...@here.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.
>>>>
>>>> What's streaming or bluetooth got to do with the sound quality that the
>>>> speaker will generate? You can use bluetooth or streaming to supply
>>>> audio to a
>>>> tin box but it won't sound very good.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
>>
>> A combination of decent speakers with a quality amp is going to be
>> rare in
>> such a device, which is why one might stick to separate speakers,
>> separate
>> amp.
>>
>> Although I suppose it's possible someone might do a proper job, but
>> not much
>> change out of £5k I wouldn't have thought.
>>
> Amplifiers are now at the point where they are more or less 'perfect'

**True enough. I use an amplifier that is now 40 years old. Obviously,
the usual things have been attended to, but it comfortably outperforms
some expensive modern amps.

>
> Loudspeakers never have been. They are all compromises of one sort or
> another.

**Also true enough.

>
> Having said that modern materials make even cheap speakers sound as good
> as the 'greats' from yesteryear.

**You reckon? Find me a speaker that sounds as good (accurate) as a pair
of Quad ESL57s or ESL63s and I will take notice. Until then, you know
where you can stick your modern speakers. FWIW: Apart from my ESL63s, my
moving coil speakers are now celebrating their 30th birthday. The NEAR
10M. Wonderful speakers. The technology used is based on stuff developed
by Bozak way back in the dark ages. Oh yeah, they eat LS3/5As for
breakfast. Largely because, unlike the LS3/5A, they are accurate. Not
quite as accurate as the ESL63 though.

The LS3/5A was faulty when it was designed and it is just as faulty today.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Agreed. The 33/303 were, at best, extremely primitive, poorly
performing products.

>
> Things got better with the advent of audio power FETS and/or class AAB
> designs.

**Power FETs (V-FETs) were great. MOSFETs are horrible things.

> As transistor speeds went up the problems of maintaining high levels of
> feedback at high frequencies without instability, lessened.

**Correct.

>
>
> Today even the class D's will beat a Quad 303

**Today, Class D will beat most amps, given a reasonable load impedance.
ESLs, not so much. Class D has a way to go in that area.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 18/05/2023 09:32, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>>
>> Having said that modern materials make even cheap speakers sound as
>> good as the 'greats' from yesteryear.
>
> **You reckon? Find me a speaker that sounds as good (accurate) as a pair
> of Quad ESL57s or ESL63s and I will take notice.

Compromise dear boy. No bass and precious little output power.

Until then, you know
> where you can stick your modern speakers. FWIW: Apart from my ESL63s, my
> moving coil speakers are now celebrating their 30th birthday.

Mine are over 40 years old. Mostly.

--
“It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of
intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on

intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is

[John Walliker]

The Quad 405 was pretty good. The distortion products are below the noise floor,
so they should be completely inaudible.

As for the inaccuracy of the LS3/5As - I would be interested to know what it is
about them that you find inaccurate and what alternatives you prefer in a similar
size case. Mine (DIY kits for BBC staff) may be a little different to the commercial
ones as they were made in 1974 before some of the cost reductions took place.
Those were interesting times, with tensions and rivalry between Research Dept.
and Designs Dept.
John

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 17 May 2023 12:21:18 +0100, mechanic <mech...@example.net>
wrote:

They were never designed to be Hi Fi. They were monitor speakers and
designed to emphasize the kind of errors that sound engineers were
prone to. I would not use these as domestic speakers.

d

[Don Pearce]

On 17 May 2023 20:38:02 GMT, Tim Streater <t...@streater.me.uk> wrote:

>On 17 May 2023 at 20:02:00 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <em...@here.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 17/05/2023 13:27, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> On 17 May 2023 at 13:01:21 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <em...@here.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.
>>>
>>> What's streaming or bluetooth got to do with the sound quality that the
>>> speaker will generate? You can use bluetooth or streaming to supply audio to a
>>> tin box but it won't sound very good.
>>>
>>
>> A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
>
>A combination of decent speakers with a quality amp is going to be rare in
>such a device, which is why one might stick to separate speakers, separate
>amp.
>
>Although I suppose it's possible someone might do a proper job, but not much
>change out of £5k I wouldn't have thought.

I have a bluetooth dongle that plugs into my Hi Fi (speakers by Sonus
Faber and Adire). It sounds very nice.

d

[Tim Streater]

On 18 May 2023 at 10:53:17 BST, "Bob Latham" <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> They're OK for background listening, compact and for many just fine.
> However, they're mono not stereo unless you get two in the same room.
> I've not heard of anyone doing that but I'm aware that you can. But
> in honesty they don't get close to our mini system let alone the main
> hi-fi for sound quality or detail or stereo image.

Quite.

[snip]

> Sonos force software/firmware updates on their customers by shutting
> down functionality of your devices until you update. Crucially, you
> cannot re-index your music library or make changes to network
> settings etc. all this is removed without warning several times per
> year. My hi-fi streamer doesn't do that. It informs me of an upgrade
> and lets me decide.

My separates never do this to me.

> You may say big deal, so what. Well it all goes pair shaped if you

pear-shaped

> purchased something like an iPad to control the Sonos devices. When
> you update Sonos it frequently also updates the control point
> software on the iPad. Then Sonos insist that the iPad operating
> system is the latest version. All fine unless your iPad is a few
> years old and Apple provide no more updates. You are then stuffed.
>
> (Just in case you're thinking of it I'll mention that I'm aware of
> "sonopad" and its peculiarities.)
>
> From having a fully working system one day to a crippled one the next
> without warning or choice AND the only way out is buy a new control
> device or a new iPad at £500 or so. That's why I hate Sonos.

A good reason for eschewing all this bollocks. Same with smart phones really.

--
"... you must remember that if you're trying to propagate a creed of poverty, gentleness and tolerance, you need a very rich, powerful, authoritarian organisation to do it." - Vice-Pope Eric

[#Paul]

The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Having said that modern materials make even cheap speakers
> sound as good as the 'greats' from yesteryear.

Although I might consider it perfectly plausible that modern materials
*can* allow one to make cheap speakers sound comparable to the 'greats'
of yesteryear; I have bought several inexpensive cd/radio/speaker audio
appliances which would, I believe, demonstrate to just about anyone
that your claim is not true.

#Paul

[Andrew]

On 17/05/2023 21:39, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 17 May 2023 at 21:22:21 BST, "Fredxx" <fre...@spam.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 17/05/2023 20:48, Bob Latham wrote:
>>> In article <kckml8...@mid.individual.net>,
>>> Adrian Caspersz <em...@here.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
>>>
>>> To think that you've either got no interest in audio or are hearing
>>> impaired.
>>>
>>>> Some sound OK,
>>>
>>> Compared to what?
>>
>> My hearing isn't that precise, but these do me and a lot of other people
>> just fine:
>> https://www.sonos.com/en-gb/shop/move
>>
>> Please explain why these are more suited to someone who has no interest
>> in audio or is hearing impaired?
>
> Going to be junk at that price. You'd be much better off with decent
> headphones.
>

+1

[Andrew]

Before lockdown I paid a visit to John Lewis and there was a
Sonos rep in the store.

I asked him how a single unit could reproduce a proper stereo
image. His reply was that there were two speakers in it, a woofer
and a tweeter.

[charles]

In article <u45pca$bbo1$1...@dont-email.me>, Andrew <Andr...@btinternet.com>
wrote:

Similar reasoning to the people with a stereo record player who thought it
was equipped with speakers to feed two separate rooms,

[Tim+]

Tim Streater <t...@streater.me.uk> wrote:
> On 18 May 2023 at 10:53:17 BST, "Bob Latham" <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

>> From having a fully working system one day to a crippled one the next
>> without warning or choice AND the only way out is buy a new control
>> device or a new iPad at £500 or so. That's why I hate Sonos.
>
> A good reason for eschewing all this bollocks. Same with smart phones really.
>

Ha! Gotta love luddites who haven’t a clue about smart phones.

Today I was out in the middle of nowhere listening to a bird (unseen)
singing it’s heart out. Whipped out my phone and within seconds my phone
had identified the bird from its song and provided me with a picture.

Try doing that with a dumb phone.

Any who says that smart phones are bollocks might as well dismiss the
internet, digital cameras, and all manner of mind bogglingly useful apps
that are well nigh indispensable these days.

Yes, I *could* live without them, but I wouldn’t want to live such an
impoverished life.

[Tim Streater]

You don't expect a rep who knows how many beans make five for £399.

--
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc

[Tim Streater]

On 18 May 2023 at 21:04:07 BST, "Tim+" <tim.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Tim Streater <t...@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>> On 18 May 2023 at 10:53:17 BST, "Bob Latham" <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> From having a fully working system one day to a crippled one the next
>>> without warning or choice AND the only way out is buy a new control
>>> device or a new iPad at £500 or so. That's why I hate Sonos.
>>
>> A good reason for eschewing all this bollocks. Same with smart phones really.
>>
>
> Ha! Gotta love luddites who haven’t a clue about smart phones.
>
> Today I was out in the middle of nowhere listening to a bird (unseen)
> singing it’s heart out.

OTOH I know that your apostrophe is superfluous.

> Whipped out my phone and within seconds my phone
> had identified the bird from its song and provided me with a picture.
>
> Try doing that with a dumb phone.
>
> Any who says that smart phones are bollocks might as well dismiss the
> internet, digital cameras, and all manner of mind bogglingly useful apps
> that are well nigh indispensable these days.

None of these have anything to do with smart phones.

My life is not controlled by apps.

Some of us were already using the Internet back in the 80s.

--
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another computer, another word processor, or another network.

-- Tim Berners-Lee

[Trevor Wilson]

On 18/05/2023 7:06 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 18/05/2023 09:32, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Having said that modern materials make even cheap speakers sound as
>>> good as the 'greats' from yesteryear.
>>
>> **You reckon? Find me a speaker that sounds as good (accurate) as a
>> pair of Quad ESL57s or ESL63s and I will take notice.
> Compromise dear boy. No bass and precious little output power.

**Not quite true. Sure, the ESL57 cannot deliver significant SPLs, but
the sound quality, when used within their limits, is sublime. The ESL63
is entirely adequate for most listeners, most of the time. Bass is
fabulously clean, which makes most listeners think they don't deliver
much bass. The Quad ESL63 exhibits a usefully flat response down to 30Hz.

>
> Until then, you know
>> where you can stick your modern speakers. FWIW: Apart from my ESL63s,
>> my moving coil speakers are now celebrating their 30th birthday.
>
> Mine are over 40 years old. Mostly.

**There you go.

[ken]

On Fri, 19 May 2023 07:12:35 +1000, Tim Streater <t...@streater.me.uk>

wrote:

> On 18 May 2023 at 21:04:07 BST, "Tim+" <tim.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Tim Streater <t...@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>>> On 18 May 2023 at 10:53:17 BST, "Bob Latham"
>>> <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> From having a fully working system one day to a crippled one the next
>>>> without warning or choice AND the only way out is buy a new control
>>>> device or a new iPad at £500 or so. That's why I hate Sonos.
>>>
>>> A good reason for eschewing all this bollocks. Same with smart phones
>>> really.
>>>
>>
>> Ha! Gotta love luddites who haven’t a clue about smart phones.
>>
>> Today I was out in the middle of nowhere listening to a bird (unseen)
>> singing it’s heart out.
>
> OTOH I know that your apostrophe is superfluous.
>
>> Whipped out my phone and within seconds my phone
>> had identified the bird from its song and provided me with a picture.
>>
>> Try doing that with a dumb phone.
>>
>> Any who says that smart phones are bollocks might as well dismiss the
>> internet, digital cameras, and all manner of mind bogglingly useful apps
>> that are well nigh indispensable these days.
>
> None of these have anything to do with smart phones.
>
> My life is not controlled by apps.

Neither is mine. It is however made much more convenient.

> Some of us were already using the Internet back in the 80s.

But not wherever you happened to be when out and about.

[RJH]

On 18 May 2023 at 19:04:58 BST, Andrew wrote:

> On 17/05/2023 21:22, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 17/05/2023 20:48, Bob Latham wrote:
>>> In article <kckml8...@mid.individual.net>,
>>> Adrian Caspersz <em...@here.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
>>>
>>> To think that you've either got no interest in audio or are hearing
>>> impaired.
>>>
>>>> Some sound OK,
>>>
>>> Compared to what?
>>
>> My hearing isn't that precise, but these do me and a lot of other people
>> just fine:
>> https://www.sonos.com/en-gb/shop/move
>>
>> Please explain why these are more suited to someone who has no interest
>> in audio or is hearing impaired?
>>

I've a Sonos One and an Ikea table lamp with a Sonos speaker built in. Both
are good for what they are, and give decent easy to access sound. Although it
helps that I've got an Alexa account and Spotify.

While I still appreciate my 'proper' hifi I use smart speakers more often
nowadays. Not sure why - just seem to get me to what I want to listen to at a
quality I find perfectly good.

>
> Before lockdown I paid a visit to John Lewis and there was a
> Sonos rep in the store.
>
> I asked him how a single unit could reproduce a proper stereo
> image. His reply was that there were two speakers in it, a woofer
> and a tweeter.

Unusual IME - I find the JL sales staff to be pretty knowledgeable.
--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

[Animal]

On Thursday, 18 May 2023 at 23:38:01 UTC+1, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 18/05/2023 7:06 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> > On 18/05/2023 09:32, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Having said that modern materials make even cheap speakers sound as
> >>> good as the 'greats' from yesteryear.
> >>
> >> **You reckon? Find me a speaker that sounds as good (accurate) as a
> >> pair of Quad ESL57s or ESL63s and I will take notice.
> > Compromise dear boy. No bass and precious little output power.
> **Not quite true. Sure, the ESL57 cannot deliver significant SPLs, but
> the sound quality, when used within their limits, is sublime. The ESL63
> is entirely adequate for most listeners, most of the time. Bass is
> fabulously clean, which makes most listeners think they don't deliver
> much bass. The Quad ESL63 exhibits a usefully flat response down to 30Hz.

The 57s are underrated IMO. They're not going to give you a rock concert & they have placement issues but they're excellent. Moving paper speakers all have resonant bass, electrostatics don't.

[Woody]

I was lucky enough to be present when Peter Walker and his wife did a
demonstration of the ESL63 at the Harrogate Hi-fi Show around 1980. Even
in a ballroom(?) their ability to produce sound levels and project sound
was amazing.

I have lived in Harrogate since 1990 - about 5 years after the hi-fi
shows ceased!

[Tim Streater]

On 19 May 2023 at 02:10:32 BST, "ken" <kl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Some of us were already using the Internet back in the 80s.
>
> But not wherever you happened to be when out and about.

When I'm out and about, I want to enjoy the out and about. That's what it's
for.

--
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."

James Nicoll, rasfw

[Woody]

On Fri 19/05/2023 09:11, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <u478td$jurm$1...@dont-email.me>,

> Woody <harro...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> I was lucky enough to be present when Peter Walker and his wife did
>> a demonstration of the ESL63 at the Harrogate Hi-fi Show around
>> 1980. Even in a ballroom(?) their ability to produce sound levels
>> and project sound was amazing.
>
>> I have lived in Harrogate since 1990 - about 5 years after the
>> hi-fi shows ceased!
>

> Was that called the Festival of sound by any chance?
>
> I went to a Hi-Fi show in Harrogate around that time but can't be
> sure of the exact year. It's a long way from Stourbridge and my wife
> and I had intended to stay overnight.
>
> I'm sure Quad, Kef, SME were there but my most memorable thing from
> the day was that there was a 'big band' playing in the theatre. It
> was great but I remember thinking - my father keeps telling me my
> music is loud and so was the music of his era.
>
> We found we completed the show quicker than expected and went into
> town were we found a branch of Comet. I purchased a new SME arm from
> there, the one you can unplug the whole arm tube from the bearings.
>
> We then decided to drive home without staying. The furthest I've ever
> driven in a day.
>

Can't remember what the show was called but it was spread across several
hotels. I do remember that Quad were at the Majestic.
Per the big band - I remember walking along a corridor on the top floor
at the Old Swan Hotel (remember, Agatha Christie disappearance etc?) and
could here a band playing which sounded like Grimethorpe Colliery Band
to my ears. I walked into the Ballroom and wow, what a sound - coming
from a pair of the largest sized Philips Motional Feedback speakers!!

[Eusebius]

At the time the BBC engineers were very ingenious in creating the LS3/5A. It is a fundamentally good piece of engineering and creative thinking, which is why it still exists in many clones. All good.

But many new technologies have come along since then. A new favourite in high end speakers is aluminium, as regularly used by Piega, Magico, Wilson Benesch and others, with odd examples in the ranges of a few others. Added to that is now carbon fibre, as in Wilson Benesch who use a hybrid alu/CF enclosure.

I'm in the process of making aluminium speaker cabinets out of commonly available 150x150mm aluminium box section, which can be any height you want for stand mount or floor standing. It can be reinforced with added aluminium sheets to create more thickness e.g. on the front panel. The 2 things you nave to deal with are...
1. How to cut large holes for driver units if you DIY. Hole saws in larger sizes have too much friction, and you probably need a jigsaw.
2. How to damp the panels. I've just posted another thread about this with some details from Piega - please respond!

[tony sayer]

In article <u3u0rh$34s68$1...@dont-email.me>, mm0fmf <no...@invalid.com>
scribeth thus
>On 15/05/2023 20:18, Woody wrote:
>> On Mon 15/05/2023 17:24, Andrew wrote:
>>> 2,349 UK pounds for a pair of LS3/5A
>>> 4,099 for a pair of LS5/9's
>>>
>>> https://www.whathifi.com/news/musical-fidelity-unveils-two-new-loudspeakers-
>based-on-the-bbcs-original-designs
>>>
>>
>>
>> A pair of LS3/5A started on eBay last week at something like £9.99. They
>> went in the end for well in excess of £1700!!!
>
>Mate from Uni made some (1985?) from Wilmslow Audio driver/crossover
>kits. He was very good at woodwork so the cases were beautiful. They
>sounded rather good especially when you consider how tiny the bass
>driver is in them.
>
>

I almost had a production line going here many years ago, don't know
where most of them are nowadays, but we did make some variants like a
sound bar for a TV it was very good that one!.

Only ones here these days are kosher Rogers ones!...
--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

[ken]

On Fri, 19 May 2023 17:50:16 +1000, Tim Streater <t...@streater.me.uk>
wrote:

> On 19 May 2023 at 02:10:32 BST, "ken" <kl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Some of us were already using the Internet back in the 80s.
>>
>> But not wherever you happened to be when out and about.
>
> When I'm out and about, I want to enjoy the out and about. That's what
> it's
> for.

And it can be more conveniently enjoyed when you can look
something up using your smartphone when you show up at
something you plan to enjoy and find that is currently closed,
access isnt currently available etc.

And not all out and abouts are about enjoyment, they can be
for work, access to something you need, or even a medical
appointment with significant time twiddling your thumbs
waiting to be seen etc. Handy to be able read an ebook on
your phone instead of just staring into space etc.

[Andrew]

On 18/05/2023 21:04, Tim+ wrote:
> Tim Streater <t...@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>> On 18 May 2023 at 10:53:17 BST, "Bob Latham" <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> From having a fully working system one day to a crippled one the next
>>> without warning or choice AND the only way out is buy a new control
>>> device or a new iPad at £500 or so. That's why I hate Sonos.
>>
>> A good reason for eschewing all this bollocks. Same with smart phones really.
>>
>
> Ha! Gotta love luddites who haven’t a clue about smart phones.
>
> Today I was out in the middle of nowhere listening to a bird (unseen)
> singing it’s heart out. Whipped out my phone and within seconds my phone
> had identified the bird from its song and provided me with a picture.
>
> Try doing that with a dumb phone.
>

Try doing that where the mobile signal is rather poor though.

There are still plenty of not-spots and you also need to have
downloaded the app beforehand and know how to use it.

> Any who says that smart phones are bollocks might as well dismiss the
> internet, digital cameras, and all manner of mind bogglingly useful apps
> that are well nigh indispensable these days.
>
> Yes, I *could* live without them, but I wouldn’t want to live such an
> impoverished life.
>
> Tim
>

There are such things as books, and plenty related to birds, insects
and other stuff.

[Rod Speed]

On Sat, 20 May 2023 22:20:37 +1000, Andrew <Andr...@btinternet.com>
wrote:

> On 18/05/2023 21:04, Tim+ wrote:
>> Tim Streater <t...@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>>> On 18 May 2023 at 10:53:17 BST, "Bob Latham"
>>> <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> From having a fully working system one day to a crippled one the next
>>>> without warning or choice AND the only way out is buy a new control
>>>> device or a new iPad at £500 or so. That's why I hate Sonos.
>>>
>>> A good reason for eschewing all this bollocks. Same with smart phones
>>> really.
>>>
>> Ha! Gotta love luddites who haven’t a clue about smart phones.
>> Today I was out in the middle of nowhere listening to a bird (unseen)
>> singing it’s heart out. Whipped out my phone and within seconds my phone
>> had identified the bird from its song and provided me with a picture.
>> Try doing that with a dumb phone.

> Try doing that where the mobile signal is rather poor though.

The best of the apps allow you to capture the sound and tell
you which bird it is when you are back in mobils signal range.

> There are still plenty of not-spots and you also need to have
> downloaded the app beforehand and know how to use it.

Hardly rocket science to do either.

>> Any who says that smart phones are bollocks might as well dismiss the
>> internet, digital cameras, and all manner of mind bogglingly useful apps
>> that are well nigh indispensable these days.
>> Yes, I *could* live without them, but I wouldn’t want to live such an
>> impoverished life.

> There are such things as books, and plenty related to birds, insects
> and other stuff.

But nowhere near as convient with an unseen bird or even a seen one.

[Peeler]

On Sun, 21 May 2023 04:21:29 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
MrTu...@down.the.farm about senile Rodent Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID: <ps10v9$uo2$1...@gioia.aioe.org>

[mechanic]

On Fri, 19 May 2023 06:53:01 -0000 (UTC), RJH wrote:

>> Before lockdown I paid a visit to John Lewis and there was a
>> Sonos rep in the store.
>>
>> I asked him how a single unit could reproduce a proper stereo
>> image. His reply was that there were two speakers in it, a
>> woofer and a tweeter.
>
> Unusual IME - I find the JL sales staff to be pretty knowledgeable.

That was the Sonus rep, not a John Lewis salesperson.

Also hard to see where any tones less that 500Hz or so, come from.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 22/05/2023 12:40 am, Pamela wrote:
> On 09:35 18 May 2023, Trevor Wilson said:
>> On 18/05/2023 6:12 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 18/05/2023 09:07, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> On 18 May 2023 at 09:02:32 BST, "The Natural Philosopher"
>>>> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>>>>> On 17/05/2023 21:38, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>>> On 17 May 2023 at 20:02:00 BST, "Adrian Caspersz"
>>>>>> <em...@here.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17/05/2023 13:27, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17 May 2023 at 13:01:21 BST, "Adrian Caspersz"
>>>>>>>> <em...@here.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What's streaming or bluetooth got to do with the sound quality
>>>>>>>> that the speaker will generate? You can use bluetooth or
>>>>>>>> streaming to supply audio to a tin box but it won't sound very
>>>>>>>> good.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> A combination of decent speakers with a quality amp is going to
>>>>>> be rare in such a device, which is why one might stick to
>>>>>> separate speakers, separate amp.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Although I suppose it's possible someone might do a proper job,
>>>>>> but not much change out of £5k I wouldn't have thought.
>>>>>>

>>>>> Amplifiers are now at the point where they are more or less
>>>>> 'perfect'
>>>>
>>>> There wasn't a lot wrong with the Quad 33/303 combo I bought in
>>>> 1970. No optical or other digital input, of course. Especially when
>>>> paired with the IMF RSPM I bought in 1974. Not that I could tell,
>>>> these days, of course, but I sure could then.
>>>>

>>> Quad 303 was relative junk actually.Ā  Had a lot of crossover

>>> distortion especially at HF. Many of its contemporaries were in fact
>>> better.
>>
>> **Agreed. The 33/303 were, at best, extremely primitive, poorly
>> performing products.
>

> Reconditioned Quad 33/303s certainly go fo a pretty penny. This dealer
> is asking £700, although bargain hunters can probably find them for
> half the price. I'm not sure I would pay that.
>
> https://audiogold.co.uk/product/quad-33-303/
>

**Excellent. I have a couple of 33/303 units here, awaiting restoration.
Should earn me a pretty penny.

Just because people want to pay big Bucks for them, doesn't mean they're
good amps though.

[Animal]

+1. The II was excellent, the 22 tolerable. Their followup the 303 was a big fail. They should never have released it imho.

[Joe]

On Mon, 22 May 2023 07:20:46 +1000
Trevor Wilson <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:


>
> Just because people want to pay big Bucks for them, doesn't mean
> they're good amps though.
>

Quite robust, though. One university student union used them as disco
amps in the early 70s, fitted with jacks instead of DINs.

--
Joe

[mechanic]

On Sun, 21 May 2023 15:40:39 +0100, Pamela wrote:

> Reconditioned Quad 33/303s certainly go fo a pretty penny. This
> dealer is asking £700, although bargain hunters can probably find
> them for half the price. I'm not sure I would pay that.
>
> https://audiogold.co.uk/product/quad-33-303/

They have other interesting offers, like the Audiolab 8000A for 750
UKP. The refurb details are impressive.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Nope. Same with Marshall Valve amps

--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
..I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

[Trevor Wilson]

**I'm pretty certain Phil will chime in with his opinion on Marshall
valve amps. He experience with musical instrument amps is quite extensive.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I have one, its relative crap, its worth about £800. I have two sub £100
Fender solid state amps that are in almost every way infinitely better.
--
"Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and
higher education positively fortifies it."

- Stephen Vizinczey

[Joe]

Valve amplifiers used to be favoured because of their distortion and
greater difficulty of destruction, didn't they?

Then later, valve hifi amplifiers came into vogue because they were
stupendously expensive and fashionable.

--
Joe

[Woody]

The main thing about valve amps is/was that their main distortion is
second harmonic to which the human ear does not object. IMSMC whilst
much above about 0.5% third harmonic sets your teeth on edge, north of
5% second harmonic is just not heard. Indeed a violin produces more
second harmonic than fundamental and speakers equally have relatively
high levels of 2nd and they don't sound too bad do they?

[Animal]

Another difference is hf distortion. Specs are at 1kHz, tranny amps rise a lot by 20kHz, decent valve amps not as much.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 23/05/2023 12:53 am, Woody wrote:
> On Mon 22/05/2023 14:19, Joe wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 May 2023 12:38:39 +0100
>> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/05/2023 12:22, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> **I'm pretty certain Phil will chime in with his opinion on
>>>> Marshall valve amps. He experience with musical instrument amps is
>>>> quite extensive.
>>
>>> I have one, its relative crap, its worth about £800. I have two sub
>>> £100 Fender solid state amps that are in almost every way infinitely
>>> better.
>>
>> Valve amplifiers used to be favoured because of their distortion and
>> greater difficulty of destruction, didn't they?
>>
>> Then later, valve hifi amplifiers came into vogue because they were
>> stupendously expensive and fashionable.
>>
>
> The main thing about valve amps is/was that their main distortion is
> second harmonic to which the human ear does not object.

**SOME humans accept even order harmonics as OK. I and many others, do
not. Less distortion is always better.

IMSMC whilst
> much above about 0.5% third harmonic sets your teeth on edge, north of
> 5% second harmonic is just not heard.

**Not so. It has been generally accepted that, under careful listening
conditions, that humans can perceive around 0.1% THD.

Indeed a violin produces more
> second harmonic than fundamental

**Most musical instruments produce large amounts of harmonics. That does
not suggest that adding extra harmonics is a good thing.

and speakers equally have relatively
> high levels of 2nd and they don't sound too bad do they?

**Nope. High quality speakers typically exhibit low levels of
distortion. In fact, some speakers produce lower levels of distortion
than many valve amps.

https://www.quad-hifi.co.uk/esl-2912/

Distortion (100dB at 1m) Above 1000Hz 0.15%
Above 100Hz 0.5%
Above 50Hz 1.0%

https://www.bowerswilkins.com/en-us/product/loudspeakers/801-d4

Harmonic distortion
2nd and 3rd harmonics (90dB, 1m on axis)
<1% 30Hz - 20kHz
<0.3% 100Hz - 20kHz

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 22/05/2023 14:19, Joe wrote:

The big problem with early transistors were that they were not fast and
could not handle high queisecentt power: that led to under biasing in
audio class B and crossover distortion which sounds horrible at low
signal levels. Especially at higher audio frequencies. The Quad 303 was
an example,. It tested out ok at moderate power at 1Khz, but look at
5hkz and a few hundred mW and it was awful.
Once faster FETS came along and faster transistors this all became a
thing of the past. A bog standard class D chip today will outperform a
Quad 303 or a valve amp any day. For hifi and indeed for guitar *until
you overdrive it*.

Then the valves inherent low feedback/soft clip is a bit more melodious
than a hard clipping tranny amp, but modern guitar amps actually do
signal shaping before clipping anyway, to simulate valve overload. My
'all digital' Fender can produce almost any sound you ask of it.

--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 22/05/2023 15:53, Woody wrote:
> On Mon 22/05/2023 14:19, Joe wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 May 2023 12:38:39 +0100
>> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/05/2023 12:22, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> **I'm pretty certain Phil will chime in with his opinion on
>>>> Marshall valve amps. He experience with musical instrument amps is
>>>> quite extensive.
>>
>>> I have one, its relative crap, its worth about £800. I have two sub
>>> £100 Fender solid state amps that are in almost every way infinitely
>>> better.
>>
>> Valve amplifiers used to be favoured because of their distortion and
>> greater difficulty of destruction, didn't they?
>>
>> Then later, valve hifi amplifiers came into vogue because they were
>> stupendously expensive and fashionable.
>>
>
> The main thing about valve amps is/was that their main distortion is
> second harmonic

No, it isn't. Not where it counts on a symmetrical class B output stage.

to which the human ear does not object. IMSMC whilst
> much above about 0.5% third harmonic sets your teeth on edge, north of
> 5% second harmonic is just not heard. Indeed a violin produces more
> second harmonic than fundamental and speakers equally have relatively
> high levels of 2nd and they don't sound too bad do they?

Mostly crap. The reason valve amps sound better is that the overload
more gracefully so cloth eared hifi nuts get less high order ODD harmonics.

So 20W valve amplifier operating at 1% distortion will sound better than
a 20W tranny at 1% distortion.

But a 100W tranny operating at 20W will sound better than either.
In hi fi apps.

For guitar work the 20W valve will, all other things being equal,
coupled to a suitable non linear response loudspeaker and cabinet, sound
better than either, especially with negative feedback totally absent, Cf
the VOX AC30.

--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

[Fredxx]

On 23/05/2023 15:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 22/05/2023 15:53, Woody wrote:
>> On Mon 22/05/2023 14:19, Joe wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 May 2023 12:38:39 +0100
>>> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 22/05/2023 12:22, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> **I'm pretty certain Phil will chime in with his opinion on
>>>>> Marshall valve amps. He experience with musical instrument amps is
>>>>> quite extensive.
>>>
>>>> I have one, its relative crap, its worth about £800. I have two sub
>>>> £100 Fender solid state amps that are in almost every way infinitely
>>>> better.
>>>
>>> Valve amplifiers used to be favoured because of their distortion and
>>> greater difficulty of destruction, didn't they?
>>>
>>> Then later, valve hifi amplifiers came into vogue because they were
>>> stupendously expensive and fashionable.
>>>
>>
>> The main thing about valve amps is/was that their main distortion is
>> second harmonic
>
> No, it isn't. Not where it counts on a symmetrical class B output stage.

Agreed, a typical push-pull valve stage into a transformer will have odd
harmonics.

A singled ended class A valve output will have even harmonics. But these
are rarely use as they are incredibly inefficient.

<snip>

> For guitar work the 20W valve will, all other things being equal,
> coupled to a suitable non linear response loudspeaker and cabinet, sound
> better than either, especially with negative feedback totally absent, Cf
> the VOX  AC30.

Guitar amplifiers are all about distortion and harmonics!

[The Natural Philosopher]

The problem with loudspeakers in not distortion - at low sound levels
they are excellent - its only when they are pushed to the limits of the
cones travel that distortion increases. It is *resonance*. In practice
you 'hear' the loudspeaker, not the music. This is perfect for electric
guitars, as the loudspeaker is like the sound box of an acoustic guitar,
but is its non ideal for hi fi.
Hence the whole idea behind the KEF Bextrene cones. Stiff, and
inherently 'dead' . And the idea behind multi element speakers, so that
each speakers resonance was not where it was called to operate by the
crossovers.

The adage 'Carbon fibre destroyed the point of Bextrene' has an element
of truth., A good soft spider roll surround CF coned bass/mid range car
speaker is actually better than a KEF unit and can be had for a few
quid. Or Kevlar honeycomb.
Tweeters haven't changed much and plastic or metal domes are almost
universal with maybe silk cloth domes for mid ranges.
I personally will always be a fan of compressions drivers into loaded
horns, and some of the JBL style mid range and tweeter horns we used in
disco and PA applications were way cleaner sounding than almost any HiFi
setup except perhaps Quad ELS, but could still kick out 115dB on the
dance floor.
And at very high power - well above domestic listening levels -
distortion does become an issue as cones and diaphragms get pushed to
the limits of their travel - compression drivers operate at far higher
pressures and lower movements and do not distort at very high power indeed.

But for domestic use a good selection of 3 ways bass/mid/tweeter is very
adequate.,

--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 24/05/2023 12:37 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 22/05/2023 15:53, Woody wrote:
>> On Mon 22/05/2023 14:19, Joe wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 May 2023 12:38:39 +0100
>>> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 22/05/2023 12:22, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> **I'm pretty certain Phil will chime in with his opinion on
>>>>> Marshall valve amps. He experience with musical instrument amps is
>>>>> quite extensive.
>>>
>>>> I have one, its relative crap, its worth about £800. I have two sub
>>>> £100 Fender solid state amps that are in almost every way infinitely
>>>> better.
>>>
>>> Valve amplifiers used to be favoured because of their distortion and
>>> greater difficulty of destruction, didn't they?
>>>
>>> Then later, valve hifi amplifiers came into vogue because they were
>>> stupendously expensive and fashionable.
>>>
>>
>> The main thing about valve amps is/was that their main distortion is
>> second harmonic
>
> No, it isn't. Not where it counts on a symmetrical class B output stage.

**Correct.

>
> to which the human ear does not object. IMSMC whilst
>> much above about 0.5% third harmonic sets your teeth on edge, north of
>> 5% second harmonic is just not heard. Indeed a violin produces more
>> second harmonic than fundamental and speakers equally have relatively
>> high levels of 2nd and they don't sound too bad do they?
>
> Mostly crap. The reason valve amps sound better is that the overload
> more gracefully so cloth eared hifi nuts get less high order ODD harmonics.

**Somewhat crap. The reason why SOME valve amps are preferred over SOME
SS amps is due to their overload characteristics. There have been and
still several schemes that very effectively allow for 'soft' Voltage
limiting (aka: clipping) in SS amps. Some schemes include:

* A limiting circuit placed outside the feedback loop. (NAD et al)
* A system which ensures that output devices are never allowed to
saturate, combined with zero global NFB. (ME et al)
* Some pro amps I've seen use a PTC element outside the feedback loop.
* Digital systems also can be used.

In fact, I've measured a few high(ish) global NFB, push pull valve
amps that exhibit quite brutal clipping character.

>
> So 20W valve amplifier operating at 1% distortion will sound better than
> a 20W tranny at 1% distortion.

**Again: That is a pretty broad claim, which is not necessarily true.

>
> But a 100W tranny operating at 20W will sound better than either.
> In hi fi apps.
>
> For guitar work the 20W valve will, all other things being equal,
> coupled to a suitable non linear response loudspeaker and cabinet, sound
> better than either, especially with negative feedback totally absent, Cf
> the VOX  AC30.
>

**Again: That is a pretty broad claim, which is not necessarily true.

[Trevor Wilson]

**That's correct. And it is (non-linear) distortion that we are
discussing. Modern, high quality speakers can exhibit lower levels of

distortion than many valve amps.

- its only when they are pushed to the limits of the
> cones travel that distortion increases. It is *resonance*. In practice
> you 'hear' the loudspeaker, not the music. This is perfect for electric
> guitars, as the loudspeaker is like the sound box of an acoustic guitar,
> but is its non ideal for hi fi.

**Not relevant to the discussion. High quality speakers are built to
address the issues surrounding enclosure problems.

> Hence the whole idea behind the KEF Bextrene cones. Stiff, and
> inherently 'dead' . And the idea behind multi element speakers, so that
> each speakers resonance was not where it was called to operate by the
> crossovers.

**Of course. And irrelevant to the discussion.

[liang sek]

On Tuesday, 16 May 2023 at 00:25:57 UTC+8, Andrew wrote:
> 2,349 UK pounds for a pair of LS3/5A
> 4,099 for a pair of LS5/9's
>
> https://www.whathifi.com/news/musical-fidelity-unveils-two-new-loudspeakers-based-on-the-bbcs-original-designs

OEMed by BestVox!

Do not pay the ridiculous premium for a rebadge!

[tony sayer]

In article <c00738ca-0ac4-4232...@googlegroups.com>,
John Walliker <jrwal...@gmail.com> scribeth thus
>On Tuesday, 16 May 2023 at 01:09:33 UTC+1, Animal wrote:

>> On Monday, 15 May 2023 at 17:25:57 UTC+1, Andrew wrote:
>> > 2,349 UK pounds for a pair of LS3/5A
>> > 4,099 for a pair of LS5/9's
>> >
>> > https://www.whathifi.com/news/musical-fidelity-unveils-two-new-loudspeakers-
>based-on-the-bbcs-original-designs

>> That's steep for what they are. If you're building, get some ribbon tweeters,
>they make moving coils sound crude. And some are surprisingly cheap.
>
>I don't think there is anything crude about the sound of the LS3/5As, although
>if I had the space I would like Quad electrostatics which are the only speakers
>I have ever measured that can reproduce a square-wave reasonably accurately.
>There are some subtle details. The birch ply was chosen for its damping factor.
>It is lined with adhesive bitumen sheet. The whole internal volume is filled
>with
>polyethylene foam. The back of the tweeter is braced to the back panel to
>reduce
>panel resonance. The felt on the front panel is to damp a sideways resonance
>between the forward projections of the side walls. The pressed perforated metal
>dome over the tweeter provides mechanical protection but is mainly there to
>act as a phase shifter to make a smoother crossover. The crossover is made
>from polycarbonate capacitors and I think mu-metal cored inductors. ( I think
>later models used cheaper components here.)
>John

Yes i remember once taking my ESL63's back to QUAD at St Peters road and
Peter Walker demo'ed a square wave on a B&K measurement microphone and
very impressive that was too!..

[tony sayer]

In article <613fc12b-4f69-4ab3...@googlegroups.com>,

John Walliker <jrwal...@gmail.com> scribeth thus

>On Wednesday, 17 May 2023 at 00:51:35 UTC+1, Animal wrote:

>> All good stuff, but not a patch on electrostatics or ribbons. Comparitively
>crude, not absolutely crude.
>
>The LS3/5A was designed as a monitor for use in outside broadcast vans and
>similarly small spaces at moderate sound levels. For its intended use cases
>I think the result is very impressive, especially for something designed in
>around 1970.
>Other BBC monitors of that vintage had internal amplifiers for each drive unit
>with active
>crossovers. Such an arrangement has a lot of advantages.
>If there is more space available then something with more extended low frequency
>output will probably be a better choice. Electrostatic speakers have their own
>tradeoffs.

Bloody right they do panels and panels that come ungluded etc!

>Nothing is perfect in every respect.
>
>John

They were the LS8/A and the LS59/A IIRC

Google the LS8 very good article on that by and EX BBC bloke:)..

Here we go!..

https://www.markhennessy.co.uk/rogers/ls58.htm

Also Graham audio have a new one pout passive X over retails around 7000
quid or thereabouts!

https://www.grahamaudio.co.uk/products/ls58/

[tony sayer]

In article <utede4r...@example1357.net>, mechanic
<mech...@example.net> scribeth thus

A Blinking good unit but way overpriced thats more then what they
originally cost!...

[tony sayer]

In article <752251cb-4fe9-4415...@googlegroups.com>,
Animal <tabb...@gmail.com> scribeth thus
>On Thursday, 18 May 2023 at 23:38:01 UTC+1, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 18/05/2023 7:06 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> > On 18/05/2023 09:32, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Having said that modern materials make even cheap speakers sound as
>> >>> good as the 'greats' from yesteryear.
>> >>
>> >> **You reckon? Find me a speaker that sounds as good (accurate) as a
>> >> pair of Quad ESL57s or ESL63s and I will take notice.
>> > Compromise dear boy. No bass and precious little output power.
>> **Not quite true. Sure, the ESL57 cannot deliver significant SPLs, but
>> the sound quality, when used within their limits, is sublime. The ESL63
>> is entirely adequate for most listeners, most of the time. Bass is
>> fabulously clean, which makes most listeners think they don't deliver
>> much bass. The Quad ESL63 exhibits a usefully flat response down to 30Hz.
>
>The 57s are underrated IMO. They're not going to give you a rock concert & they
>have placement issues but they're excellent. Moving paper speakers all have
>resonant bass, electrostatics don't.

Ever heard a stacked pair?, of 57's that is?..

[tony sayer]

In article <64660768....@news.eternal-september.org>, Don Pearce
<sp...@spam.com> scribeth thus
>On Wed, 17 May 2023 12:21:18 +0100, mechanic <mech...@example.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 17 May 2023 10:16:48 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:
>>
>>> Now what is so special then? They were never that price when new.
>>> Is this a case of money for old rope if you can make something
>>> look authentic?
>>
>>It's what's called a cult-following. Lots of stuff about these on
>>t'internet e.g.
>>https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/falcon-acoustics-bbc-ls35a/
>>the Wiki article is good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS3/5A
>>
>>If you have a pair, sell them for the best money you can get. As you
>>get older your hearing won't be up to needing the best hifi anyway.
>
>They were never designed to be Hi Fi. They were monitor speakers and
>designed to emphasize the kind of errors that sound engineers were
>prone to. I would not use these as domestic speakers.
>
>d


They weren't designed to emphasise anything, they were intended to be as
accurate as possible in the situations they were to be used in such as
mobile outside broadcast vans, TV and Radio.

In studios the LS8/A was more the thing but their bloody big, you
wouldn't have room to fart with them in an OB van!

They are and have been a very good unit when used within their
limitations like most all speakers.

We did some tests once with a single male (Human) speaker the one that
Peter W of QUAD used to and I think B&W s did the same, have a person
speaking then stop and let the speakers carry on, their excellent at
male voice:)


FWIW never had a female around at the time women never seem to be
interested in that sort of thing;(..

[tony sayer]

In article <u44mln$7a66$2...@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher
<t...@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus

>On 18/05/2023 09:07, Tim Streater wrote:

>> On 18 May 2023 at 09:02:32 BST, "The Natural Philosopher"

>> <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/05/2023 21:38, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> On 17 May 2023 at 20:02:00 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <em...@here.invalid>
>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 17/05/2023 13:27, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>>> On 17 May 2023 at 13:01:21 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <em...@here.invalid>
>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's streaming or bluetooth got to do with the sound quality that the
>>>>>> speaker will generate? You can use bluetooth or streaming to supply audio
>to a
>>>>>> tin box but it won't sound very good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
>>>>
>>>> A combination of decent speakers with a quality amp is going to be rare in
>>>> such a device, which is why one might stick to separate speakers, separate
>>>> amp.
>>>>
>>>> Although I suppose it's possible someone might do a proper job, but not much
>>>> change out of £5k I wouldn't have thought.
>>>>
>>> Amplifiers are now at the point where they are more or less 'perfect'
>>
>> There wasn't a lot wrong with the Quad 33/303 combo I bought in 1970. No
>> optical or other digital input, of course. Especially when paired with the IMF
>> RSPM I bought in 1974. Not that I could tell, these days, of course, but I
>> sure could then.
>>

>Quad 303 was relative junk actually. Had a lot of crossover distortion

>especially at HF. Many of its contemporaries were in fact better.

Interesting you should say that as the early versions of the 303 did
have biasing problems that were corrected and improved in later versions
>
>Things got better with the advent of audio power FETS and/or class AAB
>designs.

Well expect they did after all the 303 started in what *1967?.

>As transistor speeds went up the problems of maintaining high levels of
>feedback at high frequencies without instability, lessened.
>
>
>Today even the class D's will beat a Quad 303

I expect they may well do that!
>
>
* There is a 303 Dinosaurus that sits under this bench that powers the
computer speakers, it was manufactured in 1967 new caps some other small
changes and I expect it'd last another 50 years if needed;)..

[tony sayer]

In article <kcl208...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
>On 17/05/2023 10:01 pm, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
>> On 16/05/2023 23:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> **It has to be said:
>>>
>>> The LS3/5A is the most over-rated speaker system ever released. They
>>> are just an average performer.
>>>
>>
>> To be fair, by definition all hi-fi is overrated.
>
>**No, it is not.
>
>There are many examples of nonsensically over-rated products available
>in the hi fi biz. The LS3/5A is one of them. We all need loudspeakers to
>listen to audio (unless you happen to use headphones, of course).
>
>I've listened to the LS3/5A many times (different manufacturers). I hear
>the same problems with all of them. They are, quite simply, highly
>inaccurate speakers. IE: They are not high fidelity speakers.
>
>
Can you say where they are inaccurate bearing in mind their design
limitations and the purpose for which they were designed?..

** BTW Where old Phill A FUCKING GONE?,, THE POMMY BARSTARDS HAVEN'T
HEAD FRON HIM THE OLD GIT A WHILE!

[tony sayer]

>The Quad 405 was pretty good. The distortion products are below the noise
>floor,
>so they should be completely inaudible.

Keith Snook has done a lot of work on the 405 as per his site here..

https://keith-snook.info/quad-405-2002.html




>
>As for the inaccuracy of the LS3/5As - I would be interested to know what it is
>about them that you find inaccurate and what alternatives you prefer in a
>similar
>size case. Mine (DIY kits for BBC staff) may be a little different to the
>commercial
>ones as they were made in 1974 before some of the cost reductions took place.
>Those were interesting times, with tensions and rivalry between Research Dept.
>and Designs Dept.
>John

[Rod Speed]

On Thu, 25 May 2023 04:53:56 +1000, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <kcl208...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
>> On 17/05/2023 10:01 pm, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
>>> On 16/05/2023 23:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> **It has to be said:
>>>>
>>>> The LS3/5A is the most over-rated speaker system ever released. They
>>>> are just an average performer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> To be fair, by definition all hi-fi is overrated.
>>
>> **No, it is not.
>>
>> There are many examples of nonsensically over-rated products available
>> in the hi fi biz. The LS3/5A is one of them. We all need loudspeakers to
>> listen to audio (unless you happen to use headphones, of course).
>>
>> I've listened to the LS3/5A many times (different manufacturers). I hear
>> the same problems with all of them. They are, quite simply, highly
>> inaccurate speakers. IE: They are not high fidelity speakers.
>>
>>
> Can you say where they are inaccurate bearing in mind their design
> limitations and the purpose for which they were designed?..

> BTW Where old Phill A FUCKING GONE?,,

He hardly ever posts anymore. He did just last week in aus.aviation

[Trevor Wilson]

On 25/05/2023 4:53 am, tony sayer wrote:
> In article <kcl208...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
>> On 17/05/2023 10:01 pm, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
>>> On 16/05/2023 23:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> **It has to be said:
>>>>
>>>> The LS3/5A is the most over-rated speaker system ever released. They
>>>> are just an average performer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> To be fair, by definition all hi-fi is overrated.
>>
>> **No, it is not.
>>
>> There are many examples of nonsensically over-rated products available
>> in the hi fi biz. The LS3/5A is one of them. We all need loudspeakers to
>> listen to audio (unless you happen to use headphones, of course).
>>
>> I've listened to the LS3/5A many times (different manufacturers). I hear
>> the same problems with all of them. They are, quite simply, highly
>> inaccurate speakers. IE: They are not high fidelity speakers.
>>
>>
> Can you say where they are inaccurate bearing in mind their design
> limitations and the purpose for which they were designed?..

**Yes, I can.

>
> ** BTW Where old Phill A FUCKING GONE?,, THE POMMY BARSTARDS HAVEN'T
> HEAD FRON HIM THE OLD GIT A WHILE!

**He is around. He has contributed to this thread.

[Peeler]

On Thu, 25 May 2023 05:35:47 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
Xeno to senile Rodent:
"You're a sad old man Rod, truly sad."
MID: <id04c3...@mid.individual.net>

[Animal]

Not many people have. High end moving paper beats 57s for bass, but they're still exceptionally good speakers

[tony sayer]

In article <kd790f...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson

<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
>On 25/05/2023 4:53 am, tony sayer wrote:
>> In article <kcl208...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
>> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
>>> On 17/05/2023 10:01 pm, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
>>>> On 16/05/2023 23:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> **It has to be said:
>>>>>
>>>>> The LS3/5A is the most over-rated speaker system ever released. They
>>>>> are just an average performer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To be fair, by definition all hi-fi is overrated.
>>>
>>> **No, it is not.
>>>
>>> There are many examples of nonsensically over-rated products available
>>> in the hi fi biz. The LS3/5A is one of them. We all need loudspeakers to
>>> listen to audio (unless you happen to use headphones, of course).
>>>
>>> I've listened to the LS3/5A many times (different manufacturers). I hear
>>> the same problems with all of them. They are, quite simply, highly
>>> inaccurate speakers. IE: They are not high fidelity speakers.
>>>
>>>
>> Can you say where they are inaccurate bearing in mind their design
>> limitations and the purpose for which they were designed?..
>
>**Yes, I can.

Well go on then!..

>
>>
>> ** BTW Where old Phill A FUCKING GONE?,, THE POMMY BARSTARDS HAVEN'T
>> HEAD FRON HIM THE OLD GIT A WHILE!
>
>**He is around. He has contributed to this thread.
>

Yes so i noticed!..

[Trevor Wilson]

On 26/05/2023 6:03 am, tony sayer wrote:
> In article <kd790f...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
>> On 25/05/2023 4:53 am, tony sayer wrote:
>>> In article <kcl208...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
>>> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
>>>> On 17/05/2023 10:01 pm, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
>>>>> On 16/05/2023 23:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> **It has to be said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The LS3/5A is the most over-rated speaker system ever released. They
>>>>>> are just an average performer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To be fair, by definition all hi-fi is overrated.
>>>>
>>>> **No, it is not.
>>>>
>>>> There are many examples of nonsensically over-rated products available
>>>> in the hi fi biz. The LS3/5A is one of them. We all need loudspeakers to
>>>> listen to audio (unless you happen to use headphones, of course).
>>>>
>>>> I've listened to the LS3/5A many times (different manufacturers). I hear
>>>> the same problems with all of them. They are, quite simply, highly
>>>> inaccurate speakers. IE: They are not high fidelity speakers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Can you say where they are inaccurate bearing in mind their design
>>> limitations and the purpose for which they were designed?..
>>
>> **Yes, I can.
>
> Well go on then!..

**I believe that I answered your question, precisely, succinctly and
economically.

The LS3/5A is being sold to people for domestic purposes. In that
situation, they sound like crap. Expensive crap.

[tony sayer]

In article <kda9gm...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson

Yes, very economic precisely not answered!

Perhaps their not "tuneful" enough for you;?..

>The LS3/5A is being sold to people for domestic purposes. In that
>situation, they sound like crap. Expensive crap.
>
>

If you say so, who would argue with such logic;!

Can't say I know of anyone selling them in the UK apart from Stirling
broadcast?..

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well Tony if you've got any empty cabs, Ive got the KEF drive units


--
"First, find out who are the people you can not criticise. They are your
oppressors."
- George Orwell

[inri]

I have complete set KEFs, but operating in a living room they are wasted.
They sound ok in an anechoic chamber.

[John Walliker]

Have you actually listened to them in an anechoic chamber?

John

[Trevor Wilson]

**Nope. Just horribly inaccurate. They sound OK, for a cheap speaker.
Unfortunately, they're not cheap.

>
>
>> The LS3/5A is being sold to people for domestic purposes. In that
>> situation, they sound like crap. Expensive crap.
>>
>>
>
> If you say so, who would argue with such logic;!

**No need to argue. Just listen to them. Compare them with a known,
accurate speaker. The problems are instantly audible.

>
> Can't say I know of anyone selling them in the UK apart from Stirling
> broadcast?..

**OK.

[RJH]

On 31 May 2023 at 23:23:51 BST, Trevor Wilson wrote:

>> Perhaps their not "tuneful" enough for you;?..
>
> **Nope. Just horribly inaccurate. They sound OK, for a cheap speaker.
> Unfortunately, they're not cheap.
>
>>
>>
>>> The LS3/5A is being sold to people for domestic purposes. In that
>>> situation, they sound like crap. Expensive crap.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If you say so, who would argue with such logic;!
>
> **No need to argue. Just listen to them. Compare them with a known,
> accurate speaker. The problems are instantly audible.

'Accuracy' isn't necessarily a problem, and trying to achieve it - at least in
most domestic settings - is a fool's errand.

I'd suggest the main issue is how good they sound to you, in your listening
environment.

Of course such a measure can easily become coloured by perception, marketing,
reviews etc. But hey, if you enjoy the sound . . .

--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

[The Natural Philosopher]

That reminds me of when I was developing am audio amplifier for a German
loudspeaker company, They sent their golden eared boy over to blind test
two possibles. He unerringly picked the one with more crossover
distortion 'because it sounded like his Revox'. I tested that as well.
That too had high levels of low volume crossover distortion.

Just like the Quad 303.

People get used to a certain sound and think because they paid for it,
and its heavily advertised, it must be better.

KEF units to me are very neutral. I like that. I don't get tired of them.
Mine cost me less that £100 when I bought the units and fitted them to
chip cabinets.

>>
>> Can't say I know of anyone selling them in the UK apart from Stirling
>> broadcast?..
>
> **OK.
>
>

--

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

Frédéric Bastiat

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 01/06/2023 06:44, RJH wrote:
> On 31 May 2023 at 23:23:51 BST, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps their not "tuneful" enough for you;?..
>>
>> **Nope. Just horribly inaccurate. They sound OK, for a cheap speaker.
>> Unfortunately, they're not cheap.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The LS3/5A is being sold to people for domestic purposes. In that
>>>> situation, they sound like crap. Expensive crap.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you say so, who would argue with such logic;!
>>
>> **No need to argue. Just listen to them. Compare them with a known,
>> accurate speaker. The problems are instantly audible.
>
> 'Accuracy' isn't necessarily a problem, and trying to achieve it - at least in
> most domestic settings - is a fool's errand.
>

There is frequency response, including resonance, and there is
distortion, which 'muddies' things up and makes instruments hard to pick
out in say an orchestra.

Frequency response is there at all sound levels but distorion tends to
be less at low volumes.
The lowest distortion I ever heard at decent power was from profession
horn drivers. one foot long aluminium cast mid range horn, JBL bullet
style tweeter.
Twin 15" bass units and IIRC a pair of 8" lower mid range units.
Ultimate disco speakers.

But you can get very good results out of a 3 ways system with a dome mid
range and tweeter. Distortion comes when you are pushing your small
upper frequency units too hard, because the are are only two units and
the crossover frequency is a compromise

Colouration is simply a fact of life, and in the end people just tune
most it out in a given environment. Unless there are very peaky
resonances like what you get with cardboard cones, or an undamped metal
dome etc.

> I'd suggest the main issue is how good they sound to you, in your listening
> environment.
>
> Of course such a measure can easily become coloured by perception, marketing,
> reviews etc. But hey, if you enjoy the sound . . .
>

In the end that is in fact it. People are massively influenced by
marketing. They don't want to admit they paid £4000 for two pieces of
shit or that a home built pair at £150 is in fact 'better'. I spent
years designing and testing and listening to audio kit, and learnt how
to relate what the test equipment said to what I was hearing.

And I have related my conclusions., Today all amps sound alike, and are
essentially so near perfect as makes no difference. and a good CD beats
vinyl hands down, and is pretty much perfect also. Bad stuff happens in
the recording studio and in the loudspeakers, but recording studios that
are now 100% digital are pretty much free of the dreadful recording
quality that recording engineers with no technical background used to make.

So the weakest link in the chain is the loudspeakers. You simply pick
which flaw bothers you least and run with that.



--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 1/06/2023 3:44 pm, RJH wrote:
> On 31 May 2023 at 23:23:51 BST, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps their not "tuneful" enough for you;?..
>>
>> **Nope. Just horribly inaccurate. They sound OK, for a cheap speaker.
>> Unfortunately, they're not cheap.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The LS3/5A is being sold to people for domestic purposes. In that
>>>> situation, they sound like crap. Expensive crap.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you say so, who would argue with such logic;!
>>
>> **No need to argue. Just listen to them. Compare them with a known,
>> accurate speaker. The problems are instantly audible.
>
> 'Accuracy' isn't necessarily a problem, and trying to achieve it - at least in
> most domestic settings - is a fool's errand.

**Absolute and complete nonsense. Insanity, in fact.

>
> I'd suggest the main issue is how good they sound to you, in your listening
> environment.

**Then that is not necessarily high fidelity. It is something else
entirely. Accuracy is vital if a claim is made for a product to be high
fidelity.

>
> Of course such a measure can easily become coloured by perception, marketing,
> reviews etc. But hey, if you enjoy the sound . . .

**Again: Not necessarily high fidelity. Something like a Quad ESL63,
suitably arranged in a room, IS capable of high fidelity reproduction.
The LS3/5A cannot achieve such a thing. Ever.

The LS3/5A may sound pleasant to an uneducated listener, but it is not
an accurate loudspeaker.