Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Kef B110
271 views
Skip to first unread message
Dave Plowman (News)
Dec 11, 2015, 7:33:03 PM12/11/15
to
Was looking at some info today on the KEF B110, and the KEF blurb says it
should be front mounted on the baffle, recessed so the chassis is flush
with the front of the baffle. Yet on perhaps its most famous application,
the LS 3/5a, it's mounted to the back of the baffle.
--
*Vegetarians taste great*
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Don Pearce
Dec 12, 2015, 2:44:39 AM12/12/15
to
On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 00:32:08 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Was looking at some info today on the KEF B110, and the KEF blurb says it
>should be front mounted on the baffle, recessed so the chassis is flush
>with the front of the baffle. Yet on perhaps its most famous application,
>the LS 3/5a, it's mounted to the back of the baffle.
Since the driver is pretty well transparent to sound, the baffle has
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Was looking at some info today on the KEF B110, and the KEF blurb says it
>should be front mounted on the baffle, recessed so the chassis is flush
>with the front of the baffle. Yet on perhaps its most famous application,
>the LS 3/5a, it's mounted to the back of the baffle.
very nearly the same diffractive effect whether it is in front of or
behind the driver. I'm guessing that they went this way with the LS
3/5a for the sake of ruggedness.
d
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Eiron
Dec 12, 2015, 4:22:17 AM12/12/15
to
On 12/12/2015 00:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> Was looking at some info today on the KEF B110, and the KEF blurb says it
> should be front mounted on the baffle, recessed so the chassis is flush
> with the front of the baffle. Yet on perhaps its most famous application,
> the LS 3/5a, it's mounted to the back of the baffle.
Maybe because it's intended to go on a shelf above the desk in an
> Was looking at some info today on the KEF B110, and the KEF blurb says it
> should be front mounted on the baffle, recessed so the chassis is flush
> with the front of the baffle. Yet on perhaps its most famous application,
> the LS 3/5a, it's mounted to the back of the baffle.
outside-broadcast van
so moving the B110 back 3/4" keeps it in phase with the T27 at the
crossover frequency.
--
Eiron.
Dave Plowman (News)
Dec 12, 2015, 7:06:35 AM12/12/15
to
In article <dd27a7...@mid.individual.net>,
Thing is the Kef blurb says mounting it behind the baffle introduces
unwanted colorations at the mid band.
Perhaps keeping the tweeter and bass unit as close as possible on axis
while retaining the best distance phase wise is just better?
--
*A closed mouth gathers no feet.
unwanted colorations at the mid band.
Perhaps keeping the tweeter and bass unit as close as possible on axis
while retaining the best distance phase wise is just better?
--
*A closed mouth gathers no feet.
Eiron
Dec 12, 2015, 12:19:21 PM12/12/15
to
On 12/12/2015 12:06, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <dd27a7...@mid.individual.net>,
> Eiron <Evelyn....@live.com> wrote:
>> On 12/12/2015 00:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> Was looking at some info today on the KEF B110, and the KEF blurb says
>>> it should be front mounted on the baffle, recessed so the chassis is
>>> flush with the front of the baffle. Yet on perhaps its most famous
>>> application, the LS 3/5a, it's mounted to the back of the baffle.
>
>> Maybe because it's intended to go on a shelf above the desk in an
>> outside-broadcast van
>> so moving the B110 back 3/4" keeps it in phase with the T27 at the
>> crossover frequency.
>
> Thing is the Kef blurb says mounting it behind the baffle introduces
> unwanted colorations at the mid band.
How about this then?
> In article <dd27a7...@mid.individual.net>,
> Eiron <Evelyn....@live.com> wrote:
>> On 12/12/2015 00:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> Was looking at some info today on the KEF B110, and the KEF blurb says
>>> it should be front mounted on the baffle, recessed so the chassis is
>>> flush with the front of the baffle. Yet on perhaps its most famous
>>> application, the LS 3/5a, it's mounted to the back of the baffle.
>
>> Maybe because it's intended to go on a shelf above the desk in an
>> outside-broadcast van
>> so moving the B110 back 3/4" keeps it in phase with the T27 at the
>> crossover frequency.
>
> Thing is the Kef blurb says mounting it behind the baffle introduces
> unwanted colorations at the mid band.
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1979-22.pdf
--
Eiron.
Dave Plowman (News)
Dec 12, 2015, 12:43:37 PM12/12/15
to
In article <dd338n...@mid.individual.net>,
That's the 5/8. Interesting that the later units dispensed with the square
slot over the bass unit.
The other thing that's interesting about that article is that they say the
requirement was to not use a midrange because of the cost and complexity
of the crossover, which is very true, especially with its predecessor the
5/5 which was passive. But then they used an active design.
--
*How many roads must a man travel down before he admits he is lost?
slot over the bass unit.
The other thing that's interesting about that article is that they say the
requirement was to not use a midrange because of the cost and complexity
of the crossover, which is very true, especially with its predecessor the
5/5 which was passive. But then they used an active design.
--
*How many roads must a man travel down before he admits he is lost?
Trevor Wilson
Dec 12, 2015, 2:36:41 PM12/12/15
to
On 12/12/2015 11:32 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> Was looking at some info today on the KEF B110, and the KEF blurb says it
> should be front mounted on the baffle, recessed so the chassis is flush
> with the front of the baffle. Yet on perhaps its most famous application,
> the LS 3/5a, it's mounted to the back of the baffle.
>
**I'll let you into a dirty little secret:
> Was looking at some info today on the KEF B110, and the KEF blurb says it
> should be front mounted on the baffle, recessed so the chassis is flush
> with the front of the baffle. Yet on perhaps its most famous application,
> the LS 3/5a, it's mounted to the back of the baffle.
>
The LS3/5A is/was the most over-rated speaker of all time. Muddy, poor
imaging and just plain average.
There, I said it. The emperor has no clothes.
Forget the LS3/5A and mount the B110 the way KEF advises.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
ct.wa...@googlemail.com
Dec 12, 2015, 7:27:09 PM12/12/15
to
the front. ATB CT
Dave Plowman (News)
Dec 12, 2015, 7:27:44 PM12/12/15
to
In article <dd3ba7...@mid.individual.net>,
> There, I said it. The emperor has no clothes.
Did one fall of the shelf and smite you? ;-)
> Forget the LS3/5A and mount the B110 the way KEF advises.
I was wondering if anyone had experimented and could give chapter and
verse on the effect?
--
wife.
Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> On 12/12/2015 11:32 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > Was looking at some info today on the KEF B110, and the KEF blurb says it
> > should be front mounted on the baffle, recessed so the chassis is flush
> > with the front of the baffle. Yet on perhaps its most famous application,
> > the LS 3/5a, it's mounted to the back of the baffle.
> >
> **I'll let you into a dirty little secret:
> The LS3/5A is/was the most over-rated speaker of all time. Muddy, poor
> imaging and just plain average.
Right.
> On 12/12/2015 11:32 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > Was looking at some info today on the KEF B110, and the KEF blurb says it
> > should be front mounted on the baffle, recessed so the chassis is flush
> > with the front of the baffle. Yet on perhaps its most famous application,
> > the LS 3/5a, it's mounted to the back of the baffle.
> >
> **I'll let you into a dirty little secret:
> The LS3/5A is/was the most over-rated speaker of all time. Muddy, poor
> imaging and just plain average.
> There, I said it. The emperor has no clothes.
> Forget the LS3/5A and mount the B110 the way KEF advises.
verse on the effect?
--
wife.
Trevor Wilson
Dec 12, 2015, 8:00:38 PM12/12/15
to
On 13/12/2015 11:27 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <dd3ba7...@mid.individual.net>,
> Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> On 12/12/2015 11:32 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> Was looking at some info today on the KEF B110, and the KEF blurb says it
>>> should be front mounted on the baffle, recessed so the chassis is flush
>>> with the front of the baffle. Yet on perhaps its most famous application,
>>> the LS 3/5a, it's mounted to the back of the baffle.
>>>
>
>> **I'll let you into a dirty little secret:
>
>> The LS3/5A is/was the most over-rated speaker of all time. Muddy, poor
>> imaging and just plain average.
>
> Right.
>
>> There, I said it. The emperor has no clothes.
>
> Did one fall of the shelf and smite you? ;-)
**No. I just did a blind listen to a pair. As should anyone who thinks
> In article <dd3ba7...@mid.individual.net>,
> Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> On 12/12/2015 11:32 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> Was looking at some info today on the KEF B110, and the KEF blurb says it
>>> should be front mounted on the baffle, recessed so the chassis is flush
>>> with the front of the baffle. Yet on perhaps its most famous application,
>>> the LS 3/5a, it's mounted to the back of the baffle.
>>>
>
>> **I'll let you into a dirty little secret:
>
>> The LS3/5A is/was the most over-rated speaker of all time. Muddy, poor
>> imaging and just plain average.
>
> Right.
>
>> There, I said it. The emperor has no clothes.
>
> Did one fall of the shelf and smite you? ;-)
the design is any good. I've since heard them many times under different
brand names. They are still ordinary sounding. There are many fine small
speakers which will easily beat the LS3/5A. Unless, of course, you
happen to like the horrible, far-from-accurate sound that they produce.
>
>> Forget the LS3/5A and mount the B110 the way KEF advises.
>
> I was wondering if anyone had experimented and could give chapter and
> verse on the effect?
great deal of information out there.
Eiron
Dec 13, 2015, 3:47:54 AM12/13/15
to
On 12/12/2015 19:34, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 12/12/2015 11:32 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> Was looking at some info today on the KEF B110, and the KEF blurb says it
>> should be front mounted on the baffle, recessed so the chassis is flush
>> with the front of the baffle. Yet on perhaps its most famous application,
>> the LS 3/5a, it's mounted to the back of the baffle.
>>
>
> **I'll let you into a dirty little secret:
>
> The LS3/5A is/was the most over-rated speaker of all time. Muddy, poor
> imaging and just plain average.
Here's another secret: your secret never was a secret.
> On 12/12/2015 11:32 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> Was looking at some info today on the KEF B110, and the KEF blurb says it
>> should be front mounted on the baffle, recessed so the chassis is flush
>> with the front of the baffle. Yet on perhaps its most famous application,
>> the LS 3/5a, it's mounted to the back of the baffle.
>>
>
> **I'll let you into a dirty little secret:
>
> The LS3/5A is/was the most over-rated speaker of all time. Muddy, poor
> imaging and just plain average.
If Stuart was still here he would tell us that the image from
a bextrene cone collapses at low levels.
The main thing about the LS3/5a was the quality control.
They all sounded the same, if equally mediocre.
--
Eiron.
Dave Plowman (News)
Dec 13, 2015, 5:32:16 AM12/13/15
to
In article <dd4plp...@mid.individual.net>,
they don't all sound the same? ;-)
For broadcasting use consistency of the monitor speakers is important. And
that's what they were designed for.
--
*Who is this General Failure chap anyway - and why is he reading my HD? *
Eiron <Evelyn....@live.com> wrote:
> > The LS3/5A is/was the most over-rated speaker of all time. Muddy, poor
> > imaging and just plain average.
> Here's another secret: your secret never was a secret.
> If Stuart was still here he would tell us that the image from
> a bextrene cone collapses at low levels.
> The main thing about the LS3/5a was the quality control.
> They all sounded the same, if equally mediocre.
Right - so you're saying there are better similar speakers around - but
> > The LS3/5A is/was the most over-rated speaker of all time. Muddy, poor
> > imaging and just plain average.
> Here's another secret: your secret never was a secret.
> If Stuart was still here he would tell us that the image from
> a bextrene cone collapses at low levels.
> The main thing about the LS3/5a was the quality control.
> They all sounded the same, if equally mediocre.
they don't all sound the same? ;-)
For broadcasting use consistency of the monitor speakers is important. And
that's what they were designed for.
--
*Who is this General Failure chap anyway - and why is he reading my HD? *
Trevor Wilson
Dec 13, 2015, 5:04:09 PM12/13/15
to
Jim Lesurf
Dec 14, 2015, 3:59:37 AM12/14/15
to
In article <553149f...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
equivalent'. But I tend to prefer the 'BBC' sound, and use them with an amp
that has ye olde tone controls.
And given the space, etc, prefer ESLs. :-)
Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <dd4plp...@mid.individual.net>, Eiron
> <Evelyn....@live.com> wrote:
> > > The LS3/5A is/was the most over-rated speaker of all time. Muddy,
> > > poor imaging and just plain average.
> > Here's another secret: your secret never was a secret.
> > If Stuart was still here he would tell us that the image from a
> > bextrene cone collapses at low levels.
> > The main thing about the LS3/5a was the quality control. They all
> > sounded the same, if equally mediocre.
> Right - so you're saying there are better similar speakers around - but
> they don't all sound the same? ;-)
> For broadcasting use consistency of the monitor speakers is important.
> And that's what they were designed for.
FWIW I quite like both the LS3/5A and the current Stirling 'near
> In article <dd4plp...@mid.individual.net>, Eiron
> <Evelyn....@live.com> wrote:
> > > The LS3/5A is/was the most over-rated speaker of all time. Muddy,
> > > poor imaging and just plain average.
> > Here's another secret: your secret never was a secret.
> > If Stuart was still here he would tell us that the image from a
> > bextrene cone collapses at low levels.
> > The main thing about the LS3/5a was the quality control. They all
> > sounded the same, if equally mediocre.
> Right - so you're saying there are better similar speakers around - but
> they don't all sound the same? ;-)
> For broadcasting use consistency of the monitor speakers is important.
> And that's what they were designed for.
equivalent'. But I tend to prefer the 'BBC' sound, and use them with an amp
that has ye olde tone controls.
And given the space, etc, prefer ESLs. :-)
Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Michael Kellett
Dec 14, 2015, 4:07:42 AM12/14/15
to
Trevor Wilson:
I'll come out of the closet too - I always thought they sounded grim !!
MK
MK
Eiron
Dec 14, 2015, 5:23:15 AM12/14/15
to
On 13/12/2015 10:31, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <dd4plp...@mid.individual.net>,
> Eiron <Evelyn....@live.com> wrote:
>>> The LS3/5A is/was the most over-rated speaker of all time. Muddy, poor
>>> imaging and just plain average.
>
>> Here's another secret: your secret never was a secret.
>
>> If Stuart was still here he would tell us that the image from
>> a bextrene cone collapses at low levels.
>
>> The main thing about the LS3/5a was the quality control.
>> They all sounded the same, if equally mediocre.
>
> Right - so you're saying there are better similar speakers around - but
> they don't all sound the same? ;-)
>
> For broadcasting use consistency of the monitor speakers is important. And
> that's what they were designed for.
You can take two LS3/5a speakers from different manufacturers
> In article <dd4plp...@mid.individual.net>,
> Eiron <Evelyn....@live.com> wrote:
>>> The LS3/5A is/was the most over-rated speaker of all time. Muddy, poor
>>> imaging and just plain average.
>
>> Here's another secret: your secret never was a secret.
>
>> If Stuart was still here he would tell us that the image from
>> a bextrene cone collapses at low levels.
>
>> The main thing about the LS3/5a was the quality control.
>> They all sounded the same, if equally mediocre.
>
> Right - so you're saying there are better similar speakers around - but
> they don't all sound the same? ;-)
>
> For broadcasting use consistency of the monitor speakers is important. And
> that's what they were designed for.
and different years and still make a matched stereo pair.
And you could make a similar bookshelf speaker without the BBC Dip,
with more extended bass etc. Better but different.
--
Eiron.
Dave Plowman (News)
Dec 14, 2015, 6:27:19 AM12/14/15
to
In article <MycY6DeJfzj...@invalid.com>,
the design is so old.
But grim? Perhaps you'd tell us what you consider good? ;-)
--
*This message has been ROT-13 encrypted twice for extra security *
Michael Kellett <nos...@invalid.com> wrote:
> I'll come out of the closet too - I always thought they sounded grim !!
Quite willing to accept there may be something better out there - given
> I'll come out of the closet too - I always thought they sounded grim !!
the design is so old.
But grim? Perhaps you'd tell us what you consider good? ;-)
--
*This message has been ROT-13 encrypted twice for extra security *
Dave Plowman (News)
Dec 14, 2015, 6:37:23 AM12/14/15
to
In article <dd7jkf...@mid.individual.net>,
suites. The sort of progs I dubbed were drama so speech based. And you'd
not believe the differences in the monitoring. Fine when you know it and
are used to it - but a PITA for the odd day or too. So I used to carry a
pair of 3/5a around as a reference. ;-)
Most were too bright. Very impressive, I'm sure, for a client on a quick
visit, but definitely not what you want for drama destined for TV.
--
*The man who fell into an upholstery machine is fully recovered*
Eiron <Evelyn....@live.com> wrote:
> > For broadcasting use consistency of the monitor speakers is important.
> > And that's what they were designed for.
> You can take two LS3/5a speakers from different manufacturers
> and different years and still make a matched stereo pair.
> And you could make a similar bookshelf speaker without the BBC Dip,
> with more extended bass etc. Better but different.
When I went freelance as a sound engineer I worked in a variety of dubbing
> > For broadcasting use consistency of the monitor speakers is important.
> > And that's what they were designed for.
> You can take two LS3/5a speakers from different manufacturers
> and different years and still make a matched stereo pair.
> And you could make a similar bookshelf speaker without the BBC Dip,
> with more extended bass etc. Better but different.
suites. The sort of progs I dubbed were drama so speech based. And you'd
not believe the differences in the monitoring. Fine when you know it and
are used to it - but a PITA for the odd day or too. So I used to carry a
pair of 3/5a around as a reference. ;-)
Most were too bright. Very impressive, I'm sure, for a client on a quick
visit, but definitely not what you want for drama destined for TV.
--
*The man who fell into an upholstery machine is fully recovered*
tony sayer
Dec 14, 2015, 9:02:20 AM12/14/15
to
In article <55316f5...@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<no...@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
However around a couple of years ago I was involved in a small outside
broadcast from Ely Cathedral for a local community station and we had
just a simple crossed pair, Neumann's they were, friend of mine managed
to cadge them from someone plus a couple of spot mics.
Small choir organ accompaniment and narrates with male and female voices
and some solo parts
We were using my LS3/5A's and what was surprising was the audio out
there and in the small room we using for monitoring sounded just a
scaled down version of the real thing.
Yes It did sound boring and had a lack of sparkle and all that but it
was a bloody accurate representation of what was going on in the main
cathedral:)
And before anyone sounds off they didn't reproduce the pedal notes all
that well as those speakers were designed for small mobile control vans
and the like they the BBC designed bigger ones for bigger places and
Peter Walker designed the most accurate ones of all:)
I'll think I'll hang onto mine for the foreseeable future and when
people start giving them away on e-bay as there so rubbish then I'll get
another pair!
--
Tony Sayer
<no...@audiomisc.co.uk> scribeth thus
>In article <553149f...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
><da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <dd4plp...@mid.individual.net>, Eiron
>> <Evelyn....@live.com> wrote:
>> > > The LS3/5A is/was the most over-rated speaker of all time. Muddy,
>> > > poor imaging and just plain average.
>
>> > Here's another secret: your secret never was a secret.
>
>> > If Stuart was still here he would tell us that the image from a
>> > bextrene cone collapses at low levels.
>
>> > The main thing about the LS3/5a was the quality control. They all
>> > sounded the same, if equally mediocre.
>
>> Right - so you're saying there are better similar speakers around - but
>> they don't all sound the same? ;-)
>
>> For broadcasting use consistency of the monitor speakers is important.
>> And that's what they were designed for.
>
>FWIW I quite like both the LS3/5A and the current Stirling 'near
>equivalent'. But I tend to prefer the 'BBC' sound, and use them with an amp
>that has ye olde tone controls.
>
>And given the space, etc, prefer ESLs. :-)
>
>Jim
>
Me too:)
><da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <dd4plp...@mid.individual.net>, Eiron
>> <Evelyn....@live.com> wrote:
>> > > The LS3/5A is/was the most over-rated speaker of all time. Muddy,
>> > > poor imaging and just plain average.
>
>> > Here's another secret: your secret never was a secret.
>
>> > If Stuart was still here he would tell us that the image from a
>> > bextrene cone collapses at low levels.
>
>> > The main thing about the LS3/5a was the quality control. They all
>> > sounded the same, if equally mediocre.
>
>> Right - so you're saying there are better similar speakers around - but
>> they don't all sound the same? ;-)
>
>> For broadcasting use consistency of the monitor speakers is important.
>> And that's what they were designed for.
>
>FWIW I quite like both the LS3/5A and the current Stirling 'near
>equivalent'. But I tend to prefer the 'BBC' sound, and use them with an amp
>that has ye olde tone controls.
>
>And given the space, etc, prefer ESLs. :-)
>
>Jim
>
However around a couple of years ago I was involved in a small outside
broadcast from Ely Cathedral for a local community station and we had
just a simple crossed pair, Neumann's they were, friend of mine managed
to cadge them from someone plus a couple of spot mics.
Small choir organ accompaniment and narrates with male and female voices
and some solo parts
We were using my LS3/5A's and what was surprising was the audio out
there and in the small room we using for monitoring sounded just a
scaled down version of the real thing.
Yes It did sound boring and had a lack of sparkle and all that but it
was a bloody accurate representation of what was going on in the main
cathedral:)
And before anyone sounds off they didn't reproduce the pedal notes all
that well as those speakers were designed for small mobile control vans
and the like they the BBC designed bigger ones for bigger places and
Peter Walker designed the most accurate ones of all:)
I'll think I'll hang onto mine for the foreseeable future and when
people start giving them away on e-bay as there so rubbish then I'll get
another pair!
--
Tony Sayer
Trevor Wilson
Dec 14, 2015, 2:51:11 PM12/14/15
to
On 14/12/2015 10:24 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <MycY6DeJfzj...@invalid.com>,
> Michael Kellett <nos...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> I'll come out of the closet too - I always thought they sounded grim !!
>
> Quite willing to accept there may be something better out there - given
> the design is so old.
**Hang on a sec. That is exactly the problem. On release, the LS3/5A was
> In article <MycY6DeJfzj...@invalid.com>,
> Michael Kellett <nos...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> I'll come out of the closet too - I always thought they sounded grim !!
>
> Quite willing to accept there may be something better out there - given
> the design is so old.
probably an OK speaker. 30 years ago, the LS3/5A was easily eclipsed by
better designs. The LS3/5A should have been consigned to the dustbin
decades ago. The fans of the speakers really have no clue about an
accurate loudspeaker system. They cling to a sound which is highly
coloured and can no longer be regarded as 'high fidelity'.
>
> But grim? Perhaps you'd tell us what you consider good? ;-)
>
very inexpensive and accurate. They're nudging 20 years old now and they
never fail to delight. I will likely be buried with mine. No longer made
though. There are others. Some of the old Celestions from the 1980s were
a vastly more sophisticated and accurate design than the LS3/5A.
Trevor Wilson
Dec 14, 2015, 2:53:25 PM12/14/15
to
On 14/12/2015 4:19 AM, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <553149f...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
> <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <dd4plp...@mid.individual.net>, Eiron
>> <Evelyn....@live.com> wrote:
>>>> The LS3/5A is/was the most over-rated speaker of all time. Muddy,
>>>> poor imaging and just plain average.
>
>>> Here's another secret: your secret never was a secret.
>
>>> If Stuart was still here he would tell us that the image from a
>>> bextrene cone collapses at low levels.
>
>>> The main thing about the LS3/5a was the quality control. They all
>>> sounded the same, if equally mediocre.
>
>> Right - so you're saying there are better similar speakers around - but
>> they don't all sound the same? ;-)
>
>> For broadcasting use consistency of the monitor speakers is important.
>> And that's what they were designed for.
>
> FWIW I quite like both the LS3/5A and the current Stirling 'near
> equivalent'. But I tend to prefer the 'BBC' sound, and use them with an amp
> that has ye olde tone controls.
**This is where you and I differ in our preferences. I have no used tone
> In article <553149f...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
> <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <dd4plp...@mid.individual.net>, Eiron
>> <Evelyn....@live.com> wrote:
>>>> The LS3/5A is/was the most over-rated speaker of all time. Muddy,
>>>> poor imaging and just plain average.
>
>>> Here's another secret: your secret never was a secret.
>
>>> If Stuart was still here he would tell us that the image from a
>>> bextrene cone collapses at low levels.
>
>>> The main thing about the LS3/5a was the quality control. They all
>>> sounded the same, if equally mediocre.
>
>> Right - so you're saying there are better similar speakers around - but
>> they don't all sound the same? ;-)
>
>> For broadcasting use consistency of the monitor speakers is important.
>> And that's what they were designed for.
>
> FWIW I quite like both the LS3/5A and the current Stirling 'near
> equivalent'. But I tend to prefer the 'BBC' sound, and use them with an amp
> that has ye olde tone controls.
controls in almost 40 years and regard the LS3/5A as nothing more than a
doorstop.
>
> And given the space, etc, prefer ESLs. :-)
pair of ESL63s is something I can live with. Easily.
Dave Plowman (News)
Dec 14, 2015, 7:37:53 PM12/14/15
to
In article <dd8l1j...@mid.individual.net>,
a room with bookshelf speakers? ;-)
--
*Many hamsters only blink one eye at a time *
Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> **And here is where it gets weird. A pair of stacked ESL57s or a nice
> pair of ESL63s is something I can live with. Easily.
Are you really comparing things big enough to block out all the light into
> **And here is where it gets weird. A pair of stacked ESL57s or a nice
> pair of ESL63s is something I can live with. Easily.
a room with bookshelf speakers? ;-)
--
*Many hamsters only blink one eye at a time *
Dave Plowman (News)
Dec 14, 2015, 7:37:53 PM12/14/15
to
In article <dd8ktd...@mid.individual.net>,
Trevor. Could be fun. ;-)
--
*Why is the word abbreviation so long?
Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > Quite willing to accept there may be something better out there - given
> > the design is so old.
> **Hang on a sec. That is exactly the problem. On release, the LS3/5A was
> probably an OK speaker. 30 years ago, the LS3/5A was easily eclipsed by
> better designs. The LS3/5A should have been consigned to the dustbin
> decades ago. The fans of the speakers really have no clue about an
> accurate loudspeaker system. They cling to a sound which is highly
> coloured and can no longer be regarded as 'high fidelity'.
> >
> > But grim? Perhaps you'd tell us what you consider good? ;-)
> >
> **See if you can locate a pair of NEAR 10M-II speakers. American made,
> very inexpensive and accurate. They're nudging 20 years old now and they
> never fail to delight. I will likely be buried with mine. No longer made
> though. There are others. Some of the old Celestions from the 1980s were
> a vastly more sophisticated and accurate design than the LS3/5A.
Be interesting to do some proper blind testing of speakers with you,
> > Quite willing to accept there may be something better out there - given
> > the design is so old.
> **Hang on a sec. That is exactly the problem. On release, the LS3/5A was
> probably an OK speaker. 30 years ago, the LS3/5A was easily eclipsed by
> better designs. The LS3/5A should have been consigned to the dustbin
> decades ago. The fans of the speakers really have no clue about an
> accurate loudspeaker system. They cling to a sound which is highly
> coloured and can no longer be regarded as 'high fidelity'.
> >
> > But grim? Perhaps you'd tell us what you consider good? ;-)
> >
> **See if you can locate a pair of NEAR 10M-II speakers. American made,
> very inexpensive and accurate. They're nudging 20 years old now and they
> never fail to delight. I will likely be buried with mine. No longer made
> though. There are others. Some of the old Celestions from the 1980s were
> a vastly more sophisticated and accurate design than the LS3/5A.
Trevor. Could be fun. ;-)
--
*Why is the word abbreviation so long?
Trevor Wilson
Dec 14, 2015, 9:50:15 PM12/14/15
to
On 15/12/2015 11:37 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <dd8l1j...@mid.individual.net>,
> Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> **And here is where it gets weird. A pair of stacked ESL57s or a nice
>> pair of ESL63s is something I can live with. Easily.
>
> Are you really comparing things big enough to block out all the light into
> a room with bookshelf speakers? ;-)
>
**Where did you gain that idea from? That said, I would happily place my
> In article <dd8l1j...@mid.individual.net>,
> Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> **And here is where it gets weird. A pair of stacked ESL57s or a nice
>> pair of ESL63s is something I can live with. Easily.
>
> Are you really comparing things big enough to block out all the light into
> a room with bookshelf speakers? ;-)
>
NEAR 10M-IIs up against a pair of ESL63s. Yes, they are THAT good. I
should add that the ESL63s would beat them in a few areas.
Trevor Wilson
Dec 14, 2015, 9:51:14 PM12/14/15
to
the LS3/5A being shredded, then yes, it could be fun.
Dave Plowman (News)
Dec 15, 2015, 6:44:29 AM12/15/15
to
In article <dd9dh0...@mid.individual.net>,
But am always suspicious of those who positively hate one which is well
regarded using a description like "Muddy, poor imaging and just plain
average." when that is simply rubbish.
To me, that would only fit a pair which was faulty.
--
*No word in the English language rhymes with month, orange, silver,purple
Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > Be interesting to do some proper blind testing of speakers with you,
> > Trevor. Could be fun. ;-)
> >
> **Depends on your idea of fun. If you don't mind your deluded view of
> the LS3/5A being shredded, then yes, it could be fun.
I don't have a deluded view of any loudspeaker.
> > Be interesting to do some proper blind testing of speakers with you,
> > Trevor. Could be fun. ;-)
> >
> **Depends on your idea of fun. If you don't mind your deluded view of
> the LS3/5A being shredded, then yes, it could be fun.
But am always suspicious of those who positively hate one which is well
regarded using a description like "Muddy, poor imaging and just plain
average." when that is simply rubbish.
To me, that would only fit a pair which was faulty.
--
*No word in the English language rhymes with month, orange, silver,purple
Trevor Wilson
Dec 15, 2015, 2:44:53 PM12/15/15
to
On 15/12/2015 10:42 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <dd9dh0...@mid.individual.net>,
> Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>> Be interesting to do some proper blind testing of speakers with you,
>>> Trevor. Could be fun. ;-)
>>>
>
>> **Depends on your idea of fun. If you don't mind your deluded view of
>> the LS3/5A being shredded, then yes, it could be fun.
>
> I don't have a deluded view of any loudspeaker.
**Then you need to compare the LS3/5A to almost any modern, decent,
> In article <dd9dh0...@mid.individual.net>,
> Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>> Be interesting to do some proper blind testing of speakers with you,
>>> Trevor. Could be fun. ;-)
>>>
>
>> **Depends on your idea of fun. If you don't mind your deluded view of
>> the LS3/5A being shredded, then yes, it could be fun.
>
> I don't have a deluded view of any loudspeaker.
small speaker (built within the last, say, 25 years). The faults in the
LS3/5A design will be instantly apparent.
>
> But am always suspicious of those who positively hate one which is well
> regarded using a description like "Muddy, poor imaging and just plain
> average." when that is simply rubbish.
>
> To me, that would only fit a pair which was faulty.
>
'No studio designer was ever sacked for specifying JBL monitors.'
Like I said before: The LS3/5A can be likened to 'The Emperor's New
Clothes'. They are just a very average speaker, with a range of problems
which could be (largely) solved. It's just that many people expect a
certain level of mediocrity, so the design doesn't change. Using an
automotive analogy, I prefer to drive a 2015 Ford Focus, rather than a
1953 Ford Prefect (my old man owned one). Clearly, your opinion differs
from mine.
tony sayer
Dec 15, 2015, 2:54:03 PM12/15/15
to
In article <ddb8tj...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPA
MBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
anything but muddy or have poor imaging.
So what built within the last 25 years should we be comparing them with
then?.
--
Tony Sayer
MBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
>On 15/12/2015 10:42 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> In article <dd9dh0...@mid.individual.net>,
>> Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Be interesting to do some proper blind testing of speakers with you,
>>>> Trevor. Could be fun. ;-)
>>>>
>>
>>> **Depends on your idea of fun. If you don't mind your deluded view of
>>> the LS3/5A being shredded, then yes, it could be fun.
>>
>> I don't have a deluded view of any loudspeaker.
>
>**Then you need to compare the LS3/5A to almost any modern, decent,
>small speaker (built within the last, say, 25 years). The faults in the
>LS3/5A design will be instantly apparent.
>
>>
>> But am always suspicious of those who positively hate one which is well
>> regarded using a description like "Muddy, poor imaging and just plain
>> average." when that is simply rubbish.
>>
Can you be more specific please as the pair i have in front of me are
>> In article <dd9dh0...@mid.individual.net>,
>> Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Be interesting to do some proper blind testing of speakers with you,
>>>> Trevor. Could be fun. ;-)
>>>>
>>
>>> **Depends on your idea of fun. If you don't mind your deluded view of
>>> the LS3/5A being shredded, then yes, it could be fun.
>>
>> I don't have a deluded view of any loudspeaker.
>
>**Then you need to compare the LS3/5A to almost any modern, decent,
>small speaker (built within the last, say, 25 years). The faults in the
>LS3/5A design will be instantly apparent.
>
>>
>> But am always suspicious of those who positively hate one which is well
>> regarded using a description like "Muddy, poor imaging and just plain
>> average." when that is simply rubbish.
>>
anything but muddy or have poor imaging.
So what built within the last 25 years should we be comparing them with
then?.
--
Tony Sayer
Trevor Wilson
Dec 15, 2015, 3:23:50 PM12/15/15
to
>
> So what built within the last 25 years should we be comparing them with
> then?.
offerings from Celestion, KEF, B&W, Monitor Audio provide performance
that the LS3/5A cannot hope to achieve.
tony sayer
Dec 15, 2015, 5:44:09 PM12/15/15
to
In article <ddbb6k...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPA
>
>>
>> So what built within the last 25 years should we be comparing them with
>> then?.
>
>**The NEAR 10M-II comes to mind, but there are many others. Some of the
>offerings from Celestion, KEF, B&W, Monitor Audio provide performance
>that the LS3/5A cannot hope to achieve.
Any same size models you'd like to specify in that list and the
differences?.
>
>
--
Tony Sayer
MBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
>On 16/12/2015 6:51 AM, tony sayer wrote:
>> In article <ddb8tj...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPA
>> MBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
>>> On 15/12/2015 10:42 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>>> In article <dd9dh0...@mid.individual.net>,
>>>> Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> Be interesting to do some proper blind testing of speakers with you,
>>>>>> Trevor. Could be fun. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> **Depends on your idea of fun. If you don't mind your deluded view of
>>>>> the LS3/5A being shredded, then yes, it could be fun.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have a deluded view of any loudspeaker.
>>>
>>> **Then you need to compare the LS3/5A to almost any modern, decent,
>>> small speaker (built within the last, say, 25 years). The faults in the
>>> LS3/5A design will be instantly apparent.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But am always suspicious of those who positively hate one which is well
>>>> regarded using a description like "Muddy, poor imaging and just plain
>>>> average." when that is simply rubbish.
>>>>
>>
>> Can you be more specific please as the pair i have in front of me are
>> anything but muddy or have poor imaging.
>
>**Then you need to get out (much) more.
I do Trevor, to a lot of concerts and recordings and the like:)
>On 16/12/2015 6:51 AM, tony sayer wrote:
>> In article <ddb8tj...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPA
>> MBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
>>> On 15/12/2015 10:42 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>>> In article <dd9dh0...@mid.individual.net>,
>>>> Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> Be interesting to do some proper blind testing of speakers with you,
>>>>>> Trevor. Could be fun. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> **Depends on your idea of fun. If you don't mind your deluded view of
>>>>> the LS3/5A being shredded, then yes, it could be fun.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have a deluded view of any loudspeaker.
>>>
>>> **Then you need to compare the LS3/5A to almost any modern, decent,
>>> small speaker (built within the last, say, 25 years). The faults in the
>>> LS3/5A design will be instantly apparent.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But am always suspicious of those who positively hate one which is well
>>>> regarded using a description like "Muddy, poor imaging and just plain
>>>> average." when that is simply rubbish.
>>>>
>>
>> Can you be more specific please as the pair i have in front of me are
>> anything but muddy or have poor imaging.
>
>**Then you need to get out (much) more.
>
>>
>> So what built within the last 25 years should we be comparing them with
>> then?.
>
>**The NEAR 10M-II comes to mind, but there are many others. Some of the
>offerings from Celestion, KEF, B&W, Monitor Audio provide performance
>that the LS3/5A cannot hope to achieve.
differences?.
>
>
--
Tony Sayer
Dave Plowman (News)
Dec 15, 2015, 7:47:26 PM12/15/15
to
In article <q4f5wkC0...@bancom.co.uk>,
but imaging ain't. And neither is colouration.
If Trevor genuinely found a pair of 3/5a to have poor imaging, they were
faulty.
--
*CAN AN ATHEIST GET INSURANCE AGAINST ACTS OF GOD?
tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> >> But am always suspicious of those who positively hate one which is well
> >> regarded using a description like "Muddy, poor imaging and just plain
> >> average." when that is simply rubbish.
> >>
> Can you be more specific please as the pair i have in front of me are
> anything but muddy or have poor imaging.
Things like the voicing of a speaker are always down to personal choice,
> >> But am always suspicious of those who positively hate one which is well
> >> regarded using a description like "Muddy, poor imaging and just plain
> >> average." when that is simply rubbish.
> >>
> Can you be more specific please as the pair i have in front of me are
> anything but muddy or have poor imaging.
but imaging ain't. And neither is colouration.
If Trevor genuinely found a pair of 3/5a to have poor imaging, they were
faulty.
--
*CAN AN ATHEIST GET INSURANCE AGAINST ACTS OF GOD?
Jim Lesurf
Dec 16, 2015, 8:12:44 AM12/16/15
to
In article <ddbb6k...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
dealt with his actual question.
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> >>> But am always suspicious of those who positively hate one which is
> >>> well regarded using a description like "Muddy, poor imaging and
> >>> just plain average." when that is simply rubbish.
> >>>
> >
> > Can you be more specific please as the pair i have in front of me are
> > anything but muddy or have poor imaging.
> **Then you need to get out (much) more.
People might take your assertions about the LS3/5A more seriously if you
> >>> But am always suspicious of those who positively hate one which is
> >>> well regarded using a description like "Muddy, poor imaging and
> >>> just plain average." when that is simply rubbish.
> >>>
> >
> > Can you be more specific please as the pair i have in front of me are
> > anything but muddy or have poor imaging.
> **Then you need to get out (much) more.
dealt with his actual question.
Trevor Wilson
Dec 16, 2015, 8:14:22 PM12/16/15
to
On 16/12/2015 11:42 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <q4f5wkC0...@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> But am always suspicious of those who positively hate one which is well
>>>> regarded using a description like "Muddy, poor imaging and just plain
>>>> average." when that is simply rubbish.
>>>>
>
>> Can you be more specific please as the pair i have in front of me are
>> anything but muddy or have poor imaging.
>
> Things like the voicing of a speaker are always down to personal choice,
> but imaging ain't. And neither is colouration.
>
> If Trevor genuinely found a pair of 3/5a to have poor imaging, they were
> faulty.
>
**I didn't find _a_ pair of LS3/5a speakers with poor imaging. I found
> In article <q4f5wkC0...@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> But am always suspicious of those who positively hate one which is well
>>>> regarded using a description like "Muddy, poor imaging and just plain
>>>> average." when that is simply rubbish.
>>>>
>
>> Can you be more specific please as the pair i have in front of me are
>> anything but muddy or have poor imaging.
>
> Things like the voicing of a speaker are always down to personal choice,
> but imaging ain't. And neither is colouration.
>
> If Trevor genuinely found a pair of 3/5a to have poor imaging, they were
> faulty.
>
EVERY pair of LS3/5a speakers to possess poor imaging.
Arthur Quinn
Dec 16, 2015, 8:30:58 PM12/16/15
to
On 2015-12-17 01:11:46 +0000, Trevor Wilson said:
> On 16/12/2015 11:42 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> In article <q4f5wkC0...@bancom.co.uk>,
>> tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> But am always suspicious of those who positively hate one which is well
>>>>> regarded using a description like "Muddy, poor imaging and just plain
>>>>> average." when that is simply rubbish.
>>>>>
>>
>>> Can you be more specific please as the pair i have in front of me are
>>> anything but muddy or have poor imaging.
>>
>> Things like the voicing of a speaker are always down to personal choice,
>> but imaging ain't. And neither is colouration.
>>
>> If Trevor genuinely found a pair of 3/5a to have poor imaging, they were
>> faulty.
>>
>
> **I didn't find _a_ pair of LS3/5a speakers with poor imaging. I found
> EVERY pair of LS3/5a speakers to possess poor imaging.
What did the poor imaging sound like, e.g. narrow sound field,
> On 16/12/2015 11:42 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> In article <q4f5wkC0...@bancom.co.uk>,
>> tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> But am always suspicious of those who positively hate one which is well
>>>>> regarded using a description like "Muddy, poor imaging and just plain
>>>>> average." when that is simply rubbish.
>>>>>
>>
>>> Can you be more specific please as the pair i have in front of me are
>>> anything but muddy or have poor imaging.
>>
>> Things like the voicing of a speaker are always down to personal choice,
>> but imaging ain't. And neither is colouration.
>>
>> If Trevor genuinely found a pair of 3/5a to have poor imaging, they were
>> faulty.
>>
>
> **I didn't find _a_ pair of LS3/5a speakers with poor imaging. I found
> EVERY pair of LS3/5a speakers to possess poor imaging.
instruments moving their positions, piano bass and treble swapping
over, or what?
Arthur
--
real email arthur at bellacat dot com
Phil Allison
Dec 16, 2015, 8:58:54 PM12/16/15
to
Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>
>>
> **You've never heard the old saying:
>
> 'No studio designer was ever sacked for specifying JBL monitors.'
** Funny you should bring that up.
>
>
>>
> **You've never heard the old saying:
>
> 'No studio designer was ever sacked for specifying JBL monitors.'
I was thinking how many home hi-fi speakers JBL sold by associating them closely with their famous Studio Monitors. The very similar Century L100 and the 4310 monitor comes to mind.
http://www.audioheritage.org/html/profiles/jbl/l100.htm
Both speakers were outstanding examples of every fault is was possible to build into a three way design.
In the early 70s, I worked in a store where a pair of L100s was on permanent demo set up next to a pair of Kef Kit 3s, aka Kef Concertos. Every customer wanted to hear the famous JBLs and were then were invited to hear the Kefs on the same material. There was simply no comparison and the store sold a lot of KK3s, including a pair to me.
BTW:
I am aware the LS3/5A use the same B110 and T27 tweeter as the KK3.
.... Phil
Trevor Wilson
Dec 16, 2015, 10:21:00 PM12/16/15
to
Sadly, many of the proponents of the LS3/5A seem to be living in the
past. FWIW: I also owned a set of Concerto drivers (purchased from
Whatsisname White, from Kent Hi Fi) , but screwed them into a Bailey
transmission line and used the very excellent Radford crossovers. Good
that they were (for the early 1970s), I have moved on. As should the
LS3/5A devotees.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
Dec 16, 2015, 10:22:43 PM12/16/15
to
is ragged, due to the diffraction problems associated with the crappy
enclosure design.
http://www.stereophile.com/content/falcon-acoustics-ls35a-loudspeaker-measurements#LKbB7zpUKRRuACll.97
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Phil Allison
Dec 17, 2015, 12:19:36 AM12/17/15
to
Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> >>
> >> 'No studio designer was ever sacked for specifying JBL monitors.'
> >
> >
> > ** Funny you should bring that up.
> >
> > I was thinking how many home hi-fi speakers JBL sold by associating
> > them closely with their famous Studio Monitors. The very similar
> > Century L100 and the 4310 monitor comes to mind.
> >
> > http://www.audioheritage.org/html/profiles/jbl/l100.htm
> >
> > Both speakers were outstanding examples of every fault is was
> > possible to build into a three way design.
> >
> > In the early 70s, I worked in a store where a pair of L100s was on
> > permanent demo set up next to a pair of Kef Kit 3s, aka Kef
> > Concertos. Every customer wanted to hear the famous JBLs and were
> > then were invited to hear the Kefs on the same material. There was
> > simply no comparison and the store sold a lot of KK3s, including a
> > pair to me.
> >
> > BTW:
> >
> > I am aware the LS3/5A use the same B110 and T27 tweeter as the KK3.
> >
> >
>
> **And they were pretty decent drivers in the late 1960s/early 1970s.
> Sadly, many of the proponents of the LS3/5A seem to be living in the
> past. FWIW: I also owned a set of Concerto drivers (purchased from
> Whatsisname White, from Kent Hi Fi) , but screwed them into a Bailey
> transmission line and used the very excellent Radford crossovers. Good
> that they were (for the early 1970s), I have moved on. As should the
> LS3/5A devotees.
>
>
** That would be Michael White, who later formed "Sound on Stage" with his pal Robert Rose. Hard to say which of them was the more self opinionated or out of touch with reality.
>
> >>
> >> 'No studio designer was ever sacked for specifying JBL monitors.'
> >
> >
> > ** Funny you should bring that up.
> >
> > I was thinking how many home hi-fi speakers JBL sold by associating
> > them closely with their famous Studio Monitors. The very similar
> > Century L100 and the 4310 monitor comes to mind.
> >
> > http://www.audioheritage.org/html/profiles/jbl/l100.htm
> >
> > Both speakers were outstanding examples of every fault is was
> > possible to build into a three way design.
> >
> > In the early 70s, I worked in a store where a pair of L100s was on
> > permanent demo set up next to a pair of Kef Kit 3s, aka Kef
> > Concertos. Every customer wanted to hear the famous JBLs and were
> > then were invited to hear the Kefs on the same material. There was
> > simply no comparison and the store sold a lot of KK3s, including a
> > pair to me.
> >
> > BTW:
> >
> > I am aware the LS3/5A use the same B110 and T27 tweeter as the KK3.
> >
> >
>
> **And they were pretty decent drivers in the late 1960s/early 1970s.
> Sadly, many of the proponents of the LS3/5A seem to be living in the
> past. FWIW: I also owned a set of Concerto drivers (purchased from
> Whatsisname White, from Kent Hi Fi) , but screwed them into a Bailey
> transmission line and used the very excellent Radford crossovers. Good
> that they were (for the early 1970s), I have moved on. As should the
> LS3/5A devotees.
>
>
The DN12 x-over that came with KK3s and Concertos was very ordinary, using cheap electro caps and ferrite core inductors. So I made clones using all polyester caps and air core chokes from Aegis - the expensive, beehive shaped ones.
The clones made the KK3s sound so different ( brighter and much cleaner ) I had to double check them carefully for a possible error and found none.
The supplied cabinets were made from 18mm particle board and a bit resonant, so I glued lots of 6" square ceramic tiles inside to stiffen and add mass to the panels. Boy did that work a treat too. The end result compared favourably with the far more expensive Celestion 66s, when compared in a dealer's basement sound room.
In 1975 I acquired a pair of second hand ESL57s, soon realised the sound quality was in another league and sold the Kefs for a small profit.
.... Phil
Trevor Wilson
Dec 17, 2015, 1:39:52 AM12/17/15
to
certainly the guy to buy stuff off, when visiting Kent Hi Fi. Robert
Rose. I haven't heard his name in many years. Was he with EV for a time?
>
> The DN12 x-over that came with KK3s and Concertos was very ordinary,
> using cheap electro caps and ferrite core inductors. So I made
> clones using all polyester caps and air core chokes from Aegis - the
> expensive, beehive shaped ones.
>
> The clones made the KK3s sound so different ( brighter and much
> cleaner ) I had to double check them carefully for a possible error
> and found none.
the DN12s. Air cored inductors, some plastic caps and, most critically,
a parallel resonant notch filter to remove the nasty edge termination
problems with the early B110 drivers (just short out for later B110
variants).
>
> The supplied cabinets were made from 18mm particle board and a bit
> resonant, so I glued lots of 6" square ceramic tiles inside to
> stiffen and add mass to the panels. Boy did that work a treat too.
> The end result compared favourably with the far more expensive
> Celestion 66s, when compared in a dealer's basement sound room.
I used them for about a year in raw chipboard form. They sounded great.
When it came time to tart them up, I decided that white Laminex™ would
look nice. Who'd a thunk that they would take a huge leap forward in
sound quality? Not me, but they sounded a lot better with the Laminex™.
It seems I had discovered constrained layer construction. I used to run
them with my Marantz Model 500 (300+ Watts @ 8 Ohms). They survived the
ordeal, without any major problems, except for one B139. The wire
connecting to the voice coil failed. It appeared to be every so slightly
out of spec during manufacture. Fortunately, the B139 is probably the
easiest bass driver on the planet to repair.
>
> In 1975 I acquired a pair of second hand ESL57s, soon realised the
> sound quality was in another league and sold the Kefs for a small
> profit.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Phil Allison
Dec 17, 2015, 2:40:24 AM12/17/15
to
Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>
> > ** That would be Michael White, who later formed "Sound on Stage"
> > with his pal Robert Rose. Hard to say which of them was the more self
> > opinionated or out of touch with reality.
>
> **Michael seemed to have a bit of a God complex back then. He was
> certainly the guy to buy stuff off, when visiting Kent Hi Fi.
** That's where I first heard the phrase "Junk But Loud !"
>
>
> > ** That would be Michael White, who later formed "Sound on Stage"
> > with his pal Robert Rose. Hard to say which of them was the more self
> > opinionated or out of touch with reality.
>
> **Michael seemed to have a bit of a God complex back then. He was
> certainly the guy to buy stuff off, when visiting Kent Hi Fi.
A young Asian sale said to me it while pointing at some of L100s - then got told off by boss Peter Dertz.
>
>
> **The box is certainly critical. Me and my old man built my T-lines and
> I used them for about a year in raw chipboard form. They sounded great.
> look nice. Who'd a thunk that they would take a huge leap forward in
> sound quality? Not me, but they sounded a lot better with the Laminex(tm).
> It seems I had discovered constrained layer construction.
>
** Must have wound up looking like a pair of Sonabs.
>
http://www.samlaren.org/radioapparater/sonab12.jpg
.... Phil
Trevor Wilson
Dec 17, 2015, 4:55:36 AM12/17/15
to
of the Concertos. Big buggers. With the internal bracing, they weren't
lightweights either. Mind you: I installed a clients B&W 802D awhile
back. Fuck me, they feel like they are hewn from a solid lump of
hardwood. 70-odd kilos each. Last time I do that job. Too bloody heavy
for me.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
tony sayer
Dec 17, 2015, 4:55:51 AM12/17/15
to
In article <ddeo41...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPA
MBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
And I quote.....
If I had the original pair today, I'd put them closer to the wall
(maybe 12-15 inches) and EQ down the bass hump, which would lessen my
anxiety about over-driving them. Once you hit that sweet spot with these
little speakers, they'd be almost like the theoretical point-source,
having a terrific soundstage.
The LS3/5a has always been an exceptionally amp-friendly speaker, not
because it makes mediocre amps sound good, but for quite the opposite
reason: The LS3/5a excels at letting you hear exactly what your amp
really sounds like."
That midrange! Lady singers never sounded so sweet in your living room.
That definition! Acoustic guitars were transparently rendered – one
could readily hear fingers, picks, nylon, and wound steel. We readily
learned microphone techniques – and soon had disdain for mediocre and
indifferent production.
Several years later I was lent a fellow student’s uncle’s Bryston 3B and
Audio Research SP-3 for only a few hours of alchemical magic with my
BBC’s. Rickie Lee Jones was playing when my roommate walked in. He was
stunned, stopped dead in his tracks and listened. With astonishment he
said “it sounds like she’s in the room!” (thus independent, unsolicited
confirmation of electronic wizardry).
Reichert is right – big speakers mostly get in their own way – few of
them make that kind of holographic magic.
Humm;?......
--
Tony Sayer
MBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
If I had the original pair today, I'd put them closer to the wall
(maybe 12-15 inches) and EQ down the bass hump, which would lessen my
anxiety about over-driving them. Once you hit that sweet spot with these
little speakers, they'd be almost like the theoretical point-source,
having a terrific soundstage.
The LS3/5a has always been an exceptionally amp-friendly speaker, not
because it makes mediocre amps sound good, but for quite the opposite
reason: The LS3/5a excels at letting you hear exactly what your amp
really sounds like."
That midrange! Lady singers never sounded so sweet in your living room.
That definition! Acoustic guitars were transparently rendered – one
could readily hear fingers, picks, nylon, and wound steel. We readily
learned microphone techniques – and soon had disdain for mediocre and
indifferent production.
Several years later I was lent a fellow student’s uncle’s Bryston 3B and
Audio Research SP-3 for only a few hours of alchemical magic with my
BBC’s. Rickie Lee Jones was playing when my roommate walked in. He was
stunned, stopped dead in his tracks and listened. With astonishment he
said “it sounds like she’s in the room!” (thus independent, unsolicited
confirmation of electronic wizardry).
Reichert is right – big speakers mostly get in their own way – few of
them make that kind of holographic magic.
Humm;?......
--
Tony Sayer
Dave Plowman (News)
Dec 17, 2015, 6:02:30 AM12/17/15
to
In article <ddegjc...@mid.individual.net>,
--
*Errors have been made. Others will be blamed.
Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > If Trevor genuinely found a pair of 3/5a to have poor imaging, they
> > were faulty.
> >
> **I didn't find _a_ pair of LS3/5a speakers with poor imaging. I found
> EVERY pair of LS3/5a speakers to possess poor imaging.
OK. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even when it's nonsense. ;-)
> > If Trevor genuinely found a pair of 3/5a to have poor imaging, they
> > were faulty.
> >
> **I didn't find _a_ pair of LS3/5a speakers with poor imaging. I found
> EVERY pair of LS3/5a speakers to possess poor imaging.
--
*Errors have been made. Others will be blamed.
Jim Lesurf
Dec 17, 2015, 8:25:50 AM12/17/15
to
In article <55335bd...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <ddegjc...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > > If Trevor genuinely found a pair of 3/5a to have poor imaging, they
> > > were faulty.
> > >
> > **I didn't find _a_ pair of LS3/5a speakers with poor imaging. I found
> > EVERY pair of LS3/5a speakers to possess poor imaging.
> OK. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even when it's nonsense. ;-)
*That's* what qualifies them to become a magazine reviewer. ;->
> In article <ddegjc...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > > If Trevor genuinely found a pair of 3/5a to have poor imaging, they
> > > were faulty.
> > >
> > **I didn't find _a_ pair of LS3/5a speakers with poor imaging. I found
> > EVERY pair of LS3/5a speakers to possess poor imaging.
> OK. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even when it's nonsense. ;-)
Trevor Wilson
Dec 17, 2015, 3:27:17 PM12/17/15
to
The waffle and bullshit promulgated by their reviewers is irrelevant. I
suggest you examine the serious problems that can be seen in the
frequency response plot.
tony sayer
Dec 17, 2015, 4:54:58 PM12/17/15
to
In article <ddgk52...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPA
Be that as it may but what is so different with regard to their user
comments and yours?.
>
>
--
Tony Sayer
comments and yours?.
>
>
--
Tony Sayer
Trevor Wilson
Dec 17, 2015, 6:13:00 PM12/17/15
to
often unknowable) are irrelevant. Figures don't lie. The measurements of
the LS3/5A are very unimpressive.
tony sayer
Dec 18, 2015, 9:41:06 AM12/18/15
to
In article <ddgtrp...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPA
It wasn't the comments of the reviewers, it was the comments of users!
--
Tony Sayer
--
Tony Sayer
Trevor Wilson
Dec 18, 2015, 4:26:20 PM12/18/15
to
On 19/12/2015 1:31 AM, tony sayer wrote:
>>
>> **And again, the comments from reviewers (whose motives are unknown
>> and often unknowable) are irrelevant. Figures don't lie. The
>> measurements of the LS3/5A are very unimpressive.
>>
>>
>
> It wasn't the comments of the reviewers, it was the comments of
> users!
>
driver systems say. They are examples of delusional thinking.
Look at the measurements and tell me how wonderful the LS3/5a is.
Measurements, unlike humans, do not lie and are not clouded by delusions
and imagining that the old days were better. Those humans can be
reviewers or owners.
For my part, I accept that my opinion is no more, or less valid than any
other listener. HOWEVER, I don't have anything to gain or lose by
placing my opinions on the sound of the LS3/5a on record. I don't sell
them and I don't sell a competing product. That said, the measurements
don't lie. The LS3/5a is over-priced and under-performing. When it was
released (I first heard a pair back in the late 1970s), it was actually
a rather decent sounding little speaker. Technology and speaker
development has moved on. The LS3/5a has not (for the most part). I've
listened to the LS3/5a rather more recently (about 5 years ago),
compared to my reference small speakers (NEAR 10M-II) and the result was
as expected: The LS3/5a is far from accurate.
Trevor Wilson
Dec 18, 2015, 4:29:40 PM12/18/15
to
On 19/12/2015 4:49 AM, Huge wrote:
> On 2015-12-18, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [66 lines snipped]
>
>
**If I understand you correctly, your entire contribution to this thread
relates to grammatical errors and complaints about too many lines of
text. Is that about it?
Do you have a life?
> On 2015-12-18, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [66 lines snipped]
>
>> It wasn't the comments of the reviewers, it was the comments of users!
>
> Do you think you could see your way clear to snipping your responses?
>> It wasn't the comments of the reviewers, it was the comments of users!
>
>
>
**If I understand you correctly, your entire contribution to this thread
relates to grammatical errors and complaints about too many lines of
text. Is that about it?
Do you have a life?
Dave Plowman (News)
Dec 18, 2015, 7:23:23 PM12/18/15
to
In article <ddjbvr...@mid.individual.net>,
Good imaging comes about from having speakers which are well matched and
as near a point source as possible.
And a speaker which sounded good in the 70s will still sound good today.
> Technology and speaker
> development has moved on. The LS3/5a has not (for the most part).
Of course not. It's a BBC design. Any 'moving on' would make it something
else.
is still no such thing as a perfect speaker.
The only point I'd agree with you is 3/5s being overpriced. But that's
irrelevant here as I've had my two pairs for years.
--
*Just give me chocolate and nobody gets hurt
Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> For my part, I accept that my opinion is no more, or less valid than any
> other listener. HOWEVER, I don't have anything to gain or lose by
> placing my opinions on the sound of the LS3/5a on record. I don't sell
> them and I don't sell a competing product. That said, the measurements
> don't lie. The LS3/5a is over-priced and under-performing. When it was
> released (I first heard a pair back in the late 1970s), it was actually
> a rather decent sounding little speaker.
Right. Yet in the interim the imaging has somehow become poor?
> For my part, I accept that my opinion is no more, or less valid than any
> other listener. HOWEVER, I don't have anything to gain or lose by
> placing my opinions on the sound of the LS3/5a on record. I don't sell
> them and I don't sell a competing product. That said, the measurements
> don't lie. The LS3/5a is over-priced and under-performing. When it was
> released (I first heard a pair back in the late 1970s), it was actually
> a rather decent sounding little speaker.
Good imaging comes about from having speakers which are well matched and
as near a point source as possible.
And a speaker which sounded good in the 70s will still sound good today.
> Technology and speaker
> development has moved on. The LS3/5a has not (for the most part).
else.
> I've
> listened to the LS3/5a rather more recently (about 5 years ago),
> compared to my reference small speakers (NEAR 10M-II) and the result was
> as expected: The LS3/5a is far from accurate.
Your reference speakers will be far from accurate too in some ways. There
> listened to the LS3/5a rather more recently (about 5 years ago),
> compared to my reference small speakers (NEAR 10M-II) and the result was
> as expected: The LS3/5a is far from accurate.
is still no such thing as a perfect speaker.
The only point I'd agree with you is 3/5s being overpriced. But that's
irrelevant here as I've had my two pairs for years.
--
*Just give me chocolate and nobody gets hurt
Trevor Wilson
Dec 18, 2015, 7:41:49 PM12/18/15
to
On 19/12/2015 11:22 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <ddjbvr...@mid.individual.net>,
> Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> For my part, I accept that my opinion is no more, or less valid than any
>> other listener. HOWEVER, I don't have anything to gain or lose by
>> placing my opinions on the sound of the LS3/5a on record. I don't sell
>> them and I don't sell a competing product. That said, the measurements
>> don't lie. The LS3/5a is over-priced and under-performing. When it was
>> released (I first heard a pair back in the late 1970s), it was actually
>> a rather decent sounding little speaker.
>
> Right. Yet in the interim the imaging has somehow become poor?
**I am sorely tempted to insert some expletives at this point.
> In article <ddjbvr...@mid.individual.net>,
> Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> For my part, I accept that my opinion is no more, or less valid than any
>> other listener. HOWEVER, I don't have anything to gain or lose by
>> placing my opinions on the sound of the LS3/5a on record. I don't sell
>> them and I don't sell a competing product. That said, the measurements
>> don't lie. The LS3/5a is over-priced and under-performing. When it was
>> released (I first heard a pair back in the late 1970s), it was actually
>> a rather decent sounding little speaker.
>
> Right. Yet in the interim the imaging has somehow become poor?
Read my fucking words!
The LS3/5a was an good little speaker in the late 1970s. There are MUCH
better products available today.
>
> Good imaging comes about from having speakers which are well matched and
> as near a point source as possible.
(and the reason for this thread): Diffraction effects. Quality modern
speakers pay attention to this.
>
> And a speaker which sounded good in the 70s will still sound good today.
little car, but performance, handling, fuel economy, comfort, safety(!)
and reliability pale beside a 2015 Ford Focus. I would estimate (though
I have not crunched the numbers) that the Escort was more expensive too.
Same deal with the LS3/5a. It WAS a good little speaker, compared to the
competition, back in the 1970s. Compared to the competition today, it is
sadly lacking.
>
>
>> Technology and speaker
>> development has moved on. The LS3/5a has not (for the most part).
>
> Of course not. It's a BBC design. Any 'moving on' would make it something
> else.
>> I've
>> listened to the LS3/5a rather more recently (about 5 years ago),
>> compared to my reference small speakers (NEAR 10M-II) and the result was
>> as expected: The LS3/5a is far from accurate.
>
> Your reference speakers will be far from accurate too in some ways. There
> is still no such thing as a perfect speaker.
course it is not perfect.
>
> The only point I'd agree with you is 3/5s being overpriced. But that's
> irrelevant here as I've had my two pairs for years.
>
Dave Plowman (News)
Dec 19, 2015, 5:29:52 AM12/19/15
to
In article <ddjneb...@mid.individual.net>,
basis for this. And of course many billions have been spent developing
cars in that time - to the point where there is little to compare.
> Same deal with the LS3/5a. It WAS a good little speaker, compared to the
> competition, back in the 1970s. Compared to the competition today, it is
> sadly lacking.
So you keep saying. I don't believe you.
If there were obvious faults with the 3/5a like colouration or poor
imaging I'd have long since replaced them.
--
*Why is the word abbreviation so long?
Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > And a speaker which sounded good in the 70s will still sound good today.
> **That is a perfectly insane claim. I loved my 1973 Ford Escort. Great
> little car, but performance, handling, fuel economy, comfort, safety(!)
> and reliability pale beside a 2015 Ford Focus. I would estimate (though
> I have not crunched the numbers) that the Escort was more expensive too.
Interesting you choose a cheap and nasty mass produced small car as your
> > And a speaker which sounded good in the 70s will still sound good today.
> **That is a perfectly insane claim. I loved my 1973 Ford Escort. Great
> little car, but performance, handling, fuel economy, comfort, safety(!)
> and reliability pale beside a 2015 Ford Focus. I would estimate (though
> I have not crunched the numbers) that the Escort was more expensive too.
basis for this. And of course many billions have been spent developing
cars in that time - to the point where there is little to compare.
> Same deal with the LS3/5a. It WAS a good little speaker, compared to the
> competition, back in the 1970s. Compared to the competition today, it is
> sadly lacking.
If there were obvious faults with the 3/5a like colouration or poor
imaging I'd have long since replaced them.
--
*Why is the word abbreviation so long?
Jim Lesurf
Dec 19, 2015, 5:42:29 AM12/19/15
to
In article <ddjbvr...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
mistakes in the process, leading to misleading impressions. You only have
to read the webpages I put up recently to see serious examples of this.
Classic case, for example, of how a "measurement" was done and presented in
a way that was mis-appropriate. It isn't a "lie", but misleads anyway.
And trying to "measure" loudspeakers and interpret/explain the results in a
*meaningful* way is considerably more difficult than for something like an
amplifier. e.g. Simply looking at a frequency response plot done
anechoic/pulsed won't always tell you what it sounds like. Particularly
given how the results will vary with the room acoustic, etc.
> The LS3/5a is far from accurate.
Fair comment on most speakers as a sweeping generalisation. But doesn't
stop some examples from suiting many people given their circumstances and
preferences. OTOH the QUAD ESLs tend to be "accurate", but won't suit some
people for various reasons.
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> Measurements, unlike humans, do not lie and are not clouded by delusions
> and imagining that the old days were better. Those humans can be
> reviewers or owners.
Alas, measurements are made and interpreted by humans, who do make
> Measurements, unlike humans, do not lie and are not clouded by delusions
> and imagining that the old days were better. Those humans can be
> reviewers or owners.
mistakes in the process, leading to misleading impressions. You only have
to read the webpages I put up recently to see serious examples of this.
Classic case, for example, of how a "measurement" was done and presented in
a way that was mis-appropriate. It isn't a "lie", but misleads anyway.
And trying to "measure" loudspeakers and interpret/explain the results in a
*meaningful* way is considerably more difficult than for something like an
amplifier. e.g. Simply looking at a frequency response plot done
anechoic/pulsed won't always tell you what it sounds like. Particularly
given how the results will vary with the room acoustic, etc.
> The LS3/5a is far from accurate.
stop some examples from suiting many people given their circumstances and
preferences. OTOH the QUAD ESLs tend to be "accurate", but won't suit some
people for various reasons.
Dave Plowman (News)
Dec 19, 2015, 7:58:11 AM12/19/15
to
In article <55345fa...@audiomisc.co.uk>,
their measurements. A proper one costs a great deal of money.
--
*Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it *
Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> And trying to "measure" loudspeakers and interpret/explain the results
> in a *meaningful* way is considerably more difficult than for something
> like an amplifier. e.g. Simply looking at a frequency response plot done
> anechoic/pulsed won't always tell you what it sounds like. Particularly
> given how the results will vary with the room acoustic, etc.
I'd wonder just how good an anechoic room these reviewers have for doing
> And trying to "measure" loudspeakers and interpret/explain the results
> in a *meaningful* way is considerably more difficult than for something
> like an amplifier. e.g. Simply looking at a frequency response plot done
> anechoic/pulsed won't always tell you what it sounds like. Particularly
> given how the results will vary with the room acoustic, etc.
their measurements. A proper one costs a great deal of money.
--
*Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it *
Jim Lesurf
Dec 19, 2015, 9:51:12 AM12/19/15
to
In article <55346e5...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
high bands. Gated to cut off before room echoes. Then use a close field mic
for LF.
Problem is, of course, the room matters, and they rarely try to measure or
integrate the results of the off-axis output.
It raises one of the "reviewability" questions in Jim Moir's terms. The
measurements tell you how well the results appear given the method of
measurement. So can be used as an 'excuse' by a reviewer to justify their
subjective impressions. But in reality the measured results may not tell
you much about what you'd get in your own room when listening to music.
Speaker + room effects are *far* more complicated and case-variable than
mere amplifier behaviour. One reason I avoided ever doing any speaker
design!
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <55345fa...@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > And trying to "measure" loudspeakers and interpret/explain the results
> > in a *meaningful* way is considerably more difficult than for
> > something like an amplifier. e.g. Simply looking at a frequency
> > response plot done anechoic/pulsed won't always tell you what it
> > sounds like. Particularly given how the results will vary with the
> > room acoustic, etc.
> I'd wonder just how good an anechoic room these reviewers have for doing
> their measurements. A proper one costs a great deal of money.
So far as I can tell, they tend to use time-windowed pulses for the mid and
> In article <55345fa...@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > And trying to "measure" loudspeakers and interpret/explain the results
> > in a *meaningful* way is considerably more difficult than for
> > something like an amplifier. e.g. Simply looking at a frequency
> > response plot done anechoic/pulsed won't always tell you what it
> > sounds like. Particularly given how the results will vary with the
> > room acoustic, etc.
> I'd wonder just how good an anechoic room these reviewers have for doing
> their measurements. A proper one costs a great deal of money.
high bands. Gated to cut off before room echoes. Then use a close field mic
for LF.
Problem is, of course, the room matters, and they rarely try to measure or
integrate the results of the off-axis output.
It raises one of the "reviewability" questions in Jim Moir's terms. The
measurements tell you how well the results appear given the method of
measurement. So can be used as an 'excuse' by a reviewer to justify their
subjective impressions. But in reality the measured results may not tell
you much about what you'd get in your own room when listening to music.
Speaker + room effects are *far* more complicated and case-variable than
mere amplifier behaviour. One reason I avoided ever doing any speaker
design!
Don Pearce
Dec 19, 2015, 10:03:37 AM12/19/15
to
On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 08:23:39 +1100, Trevor Wilson
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>Measurements, unlike humans, do not lie and are not clouded by delusions
>and imagining that the old days were better. Those humans can be
>reviewers or owners.
Really? You tell me what response you want to see from a speaker, and
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>Measurements, unlike humans, do not lie and are not clouded by delusions
>and imagining that the old days were better. Those humans can be
>reviewers or owners.
I'll guarantee I can find somewhere to put the microphone that will
get you close.
In some fields measurement is pretty objective, but speakers? Not even
close.
d
Don Pearce
Dec 19, 2015, 10:06:32 AM12/19/15
to
system (room, plus furnishing, plus speaker, plus room next door -
plus you - and of course anyone else who happens to be around. All you
have to do to convince yourself of the pointlessness of trying to
consider the speaker alone is measure an impulse response, move the
microphone a couple of inches and measure again. If you can tell the
measurement was made in the same room, you cheated and looked over the
tester's shoulder.
d
Jim Lesurf
Dec 19, 2015, 11:48:02 AM12/19/15
to
In article <567671dd....@news.eternal-september.org>, Don Pearce
FWIW I used to have access to a (small) anechoic room when I still worked
at Uni. It was very useful for making controlled measurements for research
purposes. But the percieved sound from a speaker was nothing like what you
heard in any normal domestic room. And having someone in the chamber
affected measurements, so we had to leave and close the door.
Gated pulses would have a similar effect when testing, if used to exclude
reflections. With the added difficulty of also modifying LF behaviour.
at Uni. It was very useful for making controlled measurements for research
purposes. But the percieved sound from a speaker was nothing like what you
heard in any normal domestic room. And having someone in the chamber
affected measurements, so we had to leave and close the door.
Gated pulses would have a similar effect when testing, if used to exclude
reflections. With the added difficulty of also modifying LF behaviour.
Don Pearce
Dec 19, 2015, 12:06:45 PM12/19/15
to
On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 16:47:27 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
essentially irrelevant - unconnected with what a speaker in a room
does. Sure it makes for consistency, but that really isn't good
enough.
<no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <567671dd....@news.eternal-september.org>, Don Pearce
><sp...@spam.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 14:49:51 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
>> <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >Speaker + room effects are *far* more complicated and case-variable
>> >than mere amplifier behaviour. One reason I avoided ever doing any
>> >speaker design!
>> >
>> >Jim
>
>> This is so. You don't listen to a speaker - ever. You listen to a system
>> (room, plus furnishing, plus speaker, plus room next door - plus you -
>> and of course anyone else who happens to be around. All you have to do
>> to convince yourself of the pointlessness of trying to consider the
>> speaker alone is measure an impulse response, move the microphone a
>> couple of inches and measure again. If you can tell the measurement was
>> made in the same room, you cheated and looked over the tester's shoulder.
>
>FWIW I used to have access to a (small) anechoic room when I still worked
>at Uni. It was very useful for making controlled measurements for research
>purposes. But the percieved sound from a speaker was nothing like what you
>heard in any normal domestic room. And having someone in the chamber
>affected measurements, so we had to leave and close the door.
>
>Gated pulses would have a similar effect when testing, if used to exclude
>reflections. With the added difficulty of also modifying LF behaviour.
>
>Jim
The problem with anechoic chambers is that what you measure is
>In article <567671dd....@news.eternal-september.org>, Don Pearce
><sp...@spam.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 14:49:51 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
>> <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >Speaker + room effects are *far* more complicated and case-variable
>> >than mere amplifier behaviour. One reason I avoided ever doing any
>> >speaker design!
>> >
>> >Jim
>
>> This is so. You don't listen to a speaker - ever. You listen to a system
>> (room, plus furnishing, plus speaker, plus room next door - plus you -
>> and of course anyone else who happens to be around. All you have to do
>> to convince yourself of the pointlessness of trying to consider the
>> speaker alone is measure an impulse response, move the microphone a
>> couple of inches and measure again. If you can tell the measurement was
>> made in the same room, you cheated and looked over the tester's shoulder.
>
>FWIW I used to have access to a (small) anechoic room when I still worked
>at Uni. It was very useful for making controlled measurements for research
>purposes. But the percieved sound from a speaker was nothing like what you
>heard in any normal domestic room. And having someone in the chamber
>affected measurements, so we had to leave and close the door.
>
>Gated pulses would have a similar effect when testing, if used to exclude
>reflections. With the added difficulty of also modifying LF behaviour.
>
>Jim
essentially irrelevant - unconnected with what a speaker in a room
does. Sure it makes for consistency, but that really isn't good
enough.
Eiron
Dec 19, 2015, 12:43:01 PM12/19/15
to
On 19/12/2015 12:57, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <55345fa...@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>> And trying to "measure" loudspeakers and interpret/explain the results
>> in a *meaningful* way is considerably more difficult than for something
>> like an amplifier. e.g. Simply looking at a frequency response plot done
>> anechoic/pulsed won't always tell you what it sounds like. Particularly
>> given how the results will vary with the room acoustic, etc.
>
> I'd wonder just how good an anechoic room these reviewers have for doing
> their measurements. A proper one costs a great deal of money.
I was wondering how these reviewers detect a slight harshness
> In article <55345fa...@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>> And trying to "measure" loudspeakers and interpret/explain the results
>> in a *meaningful* way is considerably more difficult than for something
>> like an amplifier. e.g. Simply looking at a frequency response plot done
>> anechoic/pulsed won't always tell you what it sounds like. Particularly
>> given how the results will vary with the room acoustic, etc.
>
> I'd wonder just how good an anechoic room these reviewers have for doing
> their measurements. A proper one costs a great deal of money.
in a 250w amplifier at near clipping levels. I would have thought
their ears and speakers would have been slightly harsh at those levels.
--
Eiron.
Trevor Wilson
Dec 19, 2015, 2:24:05 PM12/19/15
to
* The sensitivity of the speakers.
* The damping of the room.
* The distance the listener was from the speakers.
Under some circumstances, 250 Watts may not be nearly adequate.
Trevor Wilson
Dec 19, 2015, 2:27:29 PM12/19/15
to
On 19/12/2015 9:17 PM, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <ddjbvr...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Measurements, unlike humans, do not lie and are not clouded by delusions
>> and imagining that the old days were better. Those humans can be
>> reviewers or owners.
>
> Alas, measurements are made and interpreted by humans, who do make
> mistakes in the process, leading to misleading impressions. You only have
> to read the webpages I put up recently to see serious examples of this.
>
> Classic case, for example, of how a "measurement" was done and presented in
> a way that was mis-appropriate. It isn't a "lie", but misleads anyway.
>
> And trying to "measure" loudspeakers and interpret/explain the results in a
> *meaningful* way is considerably more difficult than for something like an
> amplifier. e.g. Simply looking at a frequency response plot done
> anechoic/pulsed won't always tell you what it sounds like. Particularly
> given how the results will vary with the room acoustic, etc.
**Quite so. However, I chose Stereophile for the reason that many
> In article <ddjbvr...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Measurements, unlike humans, do not lie and are not clouded by delusions
>> and imagining that the old days were better. Those humans can be
>> reviewers or owners.
>
> Alas, measurements are made and interpreted by humans, who do make
> mistakes in the process, leading to misleading impressions. You only have
> to read the webpages I put up recently to see serious examples of this.
>
> Classic case, for example, of how a "measurement" was done and presented in
> a way that was mis-appropriate. It isn't a "lie", but misleads anyway.
>
> And trying to "measure" loudspeakers and interpret/explain the results in a
> *meaningful* way is considerably more difficult than for something like an
> amplifier. e.g. Simply looking at a frequency response plot done
> anechoic/pulsed won't always tell you what it sounds like. Particularly
> given how the results will vary with the room acoustic, etc.
measurements are performed, by very experienced people and, presumably,
under the same conditions each time. Thus, valid comparisons may be drawn.
>
>> The LS3/5a is far from accurate.
>
> Fair comment on most speakers as a sweeping generalisation. But doesn't
> stop some examples from suiting many people given their circumstances and
> preferences. OTOH the QUAD ESLs tend to be "accurate", but won't suit some
> people for various reasons.
>
do with preference. I do not, for one millisecond, doubt that many
listeners prefer the sound of the LS3/5a. I don't. I prefer a speaker
which exhibits a closer approach to accurate sound.
Trevor Wilson
Dec 19, 2015, 2:29:57 PM12/19/15
to
On 20/12/2015 2:03 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 08:23:39 +1100, Trevor Wilson
> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Measurements, unlike humans, do not lie and are not clouded by delusions
>> and imagining that the old days were better. Those humans can be
>> reviewers or owners.
>
> Really? You tell me what response you want to see from a speaker, and
> I'll guarantee I can find somewhere to put the microphone that will
> get you close.
>
> In some fields measurement is pretty objective, but speakers? Not even
> close.
>
**It is reasonable to assume that Stereophile use the same measurement
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 08:23:39 +1100, Trevor Wilson
> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Measurements, unlike humans, do not lie and are not clouded by delusions
>> and imagining that the old days were better. Those humans can be
>> reviewers or owners.
>
> Really? You tell me what response you want to see from a speaker, and
> I'll guarantee I can find somewhere to put the microphone that will
> get you close.
>
> In some fields measurement is pretty objective, but speakers? Not even
> close.
>
system (at any given time frame) for all their speakers. It is also
likely that the same people are used to perform those measurements.
Therefore, it is valid to draw comparisons between various speakers.
That said, I suggest you examine the ragged top end of the LS3/5a
response and explain how that effect can be caused by the measurement
system.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
Dec 19, 2015, 2:40:31 PM12/19/15
to
On 19/12/2015 9:29 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <ddjneb...@mid.individual.net>,
> Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>> And a speaker which sounded good in the 70s will still sound good today.
>
>> **That is a perfectly insane claim. I loved my 1973 Ford Escort. Great
>> little car, but performance, handling, fuel economy, comfort, safety(!)
>> and reliability pale beside a 2015 Ford Focus. I would estimate (though
>> I have not crunched the numbers) that the Escort was more expensive too.
>
> Interesting you choose a cheap and nasty mass produced small car as your
> basis for this. And of course many billions have been spent developing
> cars in that time - to the point where there is little to compare.
**I compared TWO Ford, mass produced cars of approximately similar
> In article <ddjneb...@mid.individual.net>,
> Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>> And a speaker which sounded good in the 70s will still sound good today.
>
>> **That is a perfectly insane claim. I loved my 1973 Ford Escort. Great
>> little car, but performance, handling, fuel economy, comfort, safety(!)
>> and reliability pale beside a 2015 Ford Focus. I would estimate (though
>> I have not crunched the numbers) that the Escort was more expensive too.
>
> Interesting you choose a cheap and nasty mass produced small car as your
> basis for this. And of course many billions have been spent developing
> cars in that time - to the point where there is little to compare.
market segments. If you'd prefer, we could use the Fiesta, rather than
the Focus. The results would be very similar. The Fiesta would
comprehensively trump the Escort. In every way. If you'd rather, stick a
2015 Mercedes SL350 vs. a 1971 Mercedes SL450.
CAD and millions of Dollars in research has propelled speaker design far
beyond what the LS3/5a can manage.
>
>> Same deal with the LS3/5a. It WAS a good little speaker, compared to the
>> competition, back in the 1970s. Compared to the competition today, it is
>> sadly lacking.
>
> So you keep saying. I don't believe you.
more.
>
> If there were obvious faults with the 3/5a like colouration or poor
> imaging I'd have long since replaced them.
>
**Not necessarily. I have a client who owns a Mercedes SL450. He
> imaging I'd have long since replaced them.
>
stubbornly refuses to get rid of it. I suggested that a Toyota Corolla
would offer better performance, fuel economy, far superior safety,
better reliability, etc, etc. He keeps driving it for no other reason
than he can put the top down on a nice day. Me? I've driven both the
Corolla and the SL450. There is no comparison. The Mercedes is a POS.
And, for the record: I have driven a late model SL500. It was quite
nice. Certainly better than the Corolla.
The LS3/5a was quite decent several decades ago. Today, it is not even
in the race.
Trevor Wilson
Dec 19, 2015, 2:42:39 PM12/19/15
to
On 19/12/2015 11:57 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <55345fa...@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>> And trying to "measure" loudspeakers and interpret/explain the results
>> in a *meaningful* way is considerably more difficult than for something
>> like an amplifier. e.g. Simply looking at a frequency response plot done
>> anechoic/pulsed won't always tell you what it sounds like. Particularly
>> given how the results will vary with the room acoustic, etc.
>
> I'd wonder just how good an anechoic room these reviewers have for doing
> their measurements. A proper one costs a great deal of money.
>
**Anechoic environments are useful, but not strictly necessary for
> In article <55345fa...@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>> And trying to "measure" loudspeakers and interpret/explain the results
>> in a *meaningful* way is considerably more difficult than for something
>> like an amplifier. e.g. Simply looking at a frequency response plot done
>> anechoic/pulsed won't always tell you what it sounds like. Particularly
>> given how the results will vary with the room acoustic, etc.
>
> I'd wonder just how good an anechoic room these reviewers have for doing
> their measurements. A proper one costs a great deal of money.
>
modern measurement systems. Particularly so in the HF area, where time
window measurements can easily be arranged to ignore reflections. And,
if you examine the HF response of the LS3/5a, you will note some very
serious problems.
Don Pearce
Dec 19, 2015, 2:42:45 PM12/19/15
to
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 06:27:16 +1100, Trevor Wilson
speaker, what you hear is the sum of all the possible paths from
speaker to you, via the walls. The on-axis response is not quite
irrelevant, but almost.
Speaker designers may use the on-axis response, but that is because it
is all they have. You want to know how a speaker performs? Stick it in
your listening room and live with it for a few weeks. If there is
something about it that you like, send it back because whatever it is
will start to annoy you after a while. Go for the speaker that has
absolutely no stand-out features.
d
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>On 20/12/2015 2:03 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 08:23:39 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Measurements, unlike humans, do not lie and are not clouded by delusions
>>> and imagining that the old days were better. Those humans can be
>>> reviewers or owners.
>>
>> Really? You tell me what response you want to see from a speaker, and
>> I'll guarantee I can find somewhere to put the microphone that will
>> get you close.
>>
>> In some fields measurement is pretty objective, but speakers? Not even
>> close.
>>
>
>**It is reasonable to assume that Stereophile use the same measurement
>system (at any given time frame) for all their speakers. It is also
>likely that the same people are used to perform those measurements.
>Therefore, it is valid to draw comparisons between various speakers.
>That said, I suggest you examine the ragged top end of the LS3/5a
>response and explain how that effect can be caused by the measurement
>system.
Sorry, but no it isn't. When you are in a normal room listening to a
>On 20/12/2015 2:03 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 08:23:39 +1100, Trevor Wilson
>> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Measurements, unlike humans, do not lie and are not clouded by delusions
>>> and imagining that the old days were better. Those humans can be
>>> reviewers or owners.
>>
>> Really? You tell me what response you want to see from a speaker, and
>> I'll guarantee I can find somewhere to put the microphone that will
>> get you close.
>>
>> In some fields measurement is pretty objective, but speakers? Not even
>> close.
>>
>
>**It is reasonable to assume that Stereophile use the same measurement
>system (at any given time frame) for all their speakers. It is also
>likely that the same people are used to perform those measurements.
>Therefore, it is valid to draw comparisons between various speakers.
>That said, I suggest you examine the ragged top end of the LS3/5a
>response and explain how that effect can be caused by the measurement
>system.
speaker, what you hear is the sum of all the possible paths from
speaker to you, via the walls. The on-axis response is not quite
irrelevant, but almost.
Speaker designers may use the on-axis response, but that is because it
is all they have. You want to know how a speaker performs? Stick it in
your listening room and live with it for a few weeks. If there is
something about it that you like, send it back because whatever it is
will start to annoy you after a while. Go for the speaker that has
absolutely no stand-out features.
d
Trevor Wilson
Dec 19, 2015, 2:55:25 PM12/19/15
to
effects. I suggest you study up on some physics.
>
> Speaker designers may use the on-axis response, but that is because it
> is all they have. You want to know how a speaker performs? Stick it in
> your listening room and live with it for a few weeks. If there is
> something about it that you like, send it back because whatever it is
> will start to annoy you after a while. Go for the speaker that has
> absolutely no stand-out features.
>
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
RJH
Dec 19, 2015, 2:56:37 PM12/19/15
to
good reviews of the LS3/5a, although not heard them myself), I would
support the notion that sentimentality plays a part, countering in part
the 'if they were that bad I'd have replaced them' line of argument.
--
Cheers, Rob
Trevor Wilson
Dec 19, 2015, 2:58:02 PM12/19/15
to
room are well known and that every listening room is different, then an
anechoic environment (or measurement systems which simulate such an
environment) are the only sane way to quantify a loudspeaker's performance.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Don Pearce
Dec 19, 2015, 3:02:21 PM12/19/15
to
room, not an anechoic chamber. An anechoic chamber is a blinkered
snapshot along a single axis - all but irrelevant to actual
performance.
d
Trevor Wilson
Dec 19, 2015, 3:04:04 PM12/19/15
to
Don Pearce
Dec 19, 2015, 3:06:38 PM12/19/15
to
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 06:52:44 +1100, Trevor Wilson
An HF unit has a tweeter approximately an inch across. That is a
wavelength at 10kHz - above the offending frequency, The lateral
dispersion from a one-wavelength radiator is still wide - you need
several wavelengths to achieve decent directivity. Among other things
I design antennas for spacecraft, so I know exactly how this works.
The equations are identical
So yes, the room matters even up to 10kHz.
>>
>> Speaker designers may use the on-axis response, but that is because it
>> is all they have. You want to know how a speaker performs? Stick it in
>> your listening room and live with it for a few weeks. If there is
>> something about it that you like, send it back because whatever it is
>> will start to annoy you after a while. Go for the speaker that has
>> absolutely no stand-out features.
>>
>
>**Without measurements, we are in the dark.
And we are without measurement, so yes we are in the dark. Don't
imagine for one moment that an on-axis anechoic "measurement" is
anything significant.
d
wavelength at 10kHz - above the offending frequency, The lateral
dispersion from a one-wavelength radiator is still wide - you need
several wavelengths to achieve decent directivity. Among other things
I design antennas for spacecraft, so I know exactly how this works.
The equations are identical
So yes, the room matters even up to 10kHz.
>>
>> Speaker designers may use the on-axis response, but that is because it
>> is all they have. You want to know how a speaker performs? Stick it in
>> your listening room and live with it for a few weeks. If there is
>> something about it that you like, send it back because whatever it is
>> will start to annoy you after a while. Go for the speaker that has
>> absolutely no stand-out features.
>>
>
>**Without measurements, we are in the dark.
imagine for one moment that an on-axis anechoic "measurement" is
anything significant.
d
Don Pearce
Dec 19, 2015, 3:07:15 PM12/19/15
to
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 07:01:23 +1100, Trevor Wilson
The one you are sitting in. That is why you have to listen.
d
d
Trevor Wilson
Dec 19, 2015, 3:08:01 PM12/19/15
to
sentimentality. I understand that well. I am simply calling out the
LS3/5a for what it actually is. It is a pleasant enough speaker to
listen to, but far from accurate, compared to what is produced today.
It's also WAY too expensive.
Trevor Wilson
Dec 19, 2015, 3:11:05 PM12/19/15
to
reflections and the most damping. In fact, it is the one which most
closely approaches an anechoic environment.
You're being silly. An anechoic environment (or a measurement system
which simulates it) is utterly crucial for developing loudspeakers.
I will ask once more: What room effects cause the ragged HF response of
the LS3/5a?
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
Dec 19, 2015, 3:13:24 PM12/19/15
to
effects can only be caused by local issues.
>
>>>
>>> Speaker designers may use the on-axis response, but that is because it
>>> is all they have. You want to know how a speaker performs? Stick it in
>>> your listening room and live with it for a few weeks. If there is
>>> something about it that you like, send it back because whatever it is
>>> will start to annoy you after a while. Go for the speaker that has
>>> absolutely no stand-out features.
>>>
>>
>> **Without measurements, we are in the dark.
>
> And we are without measurement, so yes we are in the dark.
Don't
> imagine for one moment that an on-axis anechoic "measurement" is
> anything significant.
>
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Don Pearce
Dec 19, 2015, 3:13:54 PM12/19/15
to
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 07:08:24 +1100, Trevor Wilson
You listen to music in an almost anechoic room? Now I know you are
clueless.
As for your question - no answer because you have loaded it. Ask it
properly and you may get an answer, but probably not since you have
just revealed yourself to be a troll.
d
clueless.
As for your question - no answer because you have loaded it. Ask it
properly and you may get an answer, but probably not since you have
just revealed yourself to be a troll.
d
Don Pearce
Dec 19, 2015, 3:14:54 PM12/19/15
to
On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 07:10:44 +1100, Trevor Wilson
Nope, you're done. Go away now
d
d
Trevor Wilson
Dec 19, 2015, 3:22:39 PM12/19/15
to
your rudeness, I will treat you with less contempt.
>
> As for your question - no answer because you have loaded it. Ask it
> properly and you may get an answer, but probably not since you have
> just revealed yourself to be a troll.
all. The LS3/5a has some serious flaws, which are audible and
measurable. I merely highlighted one of those flaws, because the
measurements can be very easily duplicated by even modest equipment.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Phil Allison
Dec 19, 2015, 7:26:36 PM12/19/15
to
Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>
>
> **I have several listening rooms. The best one has the fewest
> reflections and the most damping. In fact, it is the one which most
> closely approaches an anechoic environment.
>
** If you want to hear what your speakers and the recording really sound like, - then a non reverberant listening room is essential.
>
>
>
> **I have several listening rooms. The best one has the fewest
> reflections and the most damping. In fact, it is the one which most
> closely approaches an anechoic environment.
>
Listening via high quality ( ie electrostatic) headphones eliminates room effects and provides a level of sound quality few loudspeakers can approach - and then only if used in a non reverberant room.
By non reverberant, I mean a heavily damped room with no hard reflective surfaces. It should also be very quiet.
.... Phil
Trevor Wilson
Dec 19, 2015, 11:16:55 PM12/19/15
to
comments I am seeing in this thread, by people (I assume) should know
better.
Jim Lesurf
Dec 20, 2015, 4:54:57 AM12/20/15
to
In article <ddlphj...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
reviews often trot out. i.e. looking for some measurement which you feel
'justifies' your reaction. post hoc.
How many domestic listening rooms *don't* have a "ragged top end" I wonder?
And how well does a nominal on axis measurement really show the behaviour
of a *small* speaker? Particularly used off-axis in a small room?
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> **It is reasonable to assume that Stereophile use the same measurement
> system (at any given time frame) for all their speakers. It is also
> likely that the same people are used to perform those measurements.
> Therefore, it is valid to draw comparisons between various speakers.
> That said, I suggest you examine the ragged top end of the LS3/5a
> response and explain how that effect can be caused by the measurement
> system.
I'm afraid that seems to me to be an example of the same thinking that
> **It is reasonable to assume that Stereophile use the same measurement
> system (at any given time frame) for all their speakers. It is also
> likely that the same people are used to perform those measurements.
> Therefore, it is valid to draw comparisons between various speakers.
> That said, I suggest you examine the ragged top end of the LS3/5a
> response and explain how that effect can be caused by the measurement
> system.
reviews often trot out. i.e. looking for some measurement which you feel
'justifies' your reaction. post hoc.
How many domestic listening rooms *don't* have a "ragged top end" I wonder?
And how well does a nominal on axis measurement really show the behaviour
of a *small* speaker? Particularly used off-axis in a small room?
Jim Lesurf
Dec 20, 2015, 4:54:57 AM12/20/15
to
In article <ddlp6i...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
that their 'reference' amp was far less powerful. So when "comparing
amplifiers" they:
A) By using their reference amp they would have had no idea how the
speakers were affected when driven to +250W levels.
B) To find out they would be playing the music that much louder than
possible with their reference amp. So not comparing like with like in terms
of their hearing.
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > I was wondering how these reviewers detect a slight harshness in a
> > 250w amplifier at near clipping levels. I would have thought their
> > ears and speakers would have been slightly harsh at those levels.
> >
> **That would depend on:
> * The sensitivity of the speakers. * The damping of the room. * The
> distance the listener was from the speakers.
> Under some circumstances, 250 Watts may not be nearly adequate.
The problem in the case I referred to on my recent 'Armstrong' pages was
> > I was wondering how these reviewers detect a slight harshness in a
> > 250w amplifier at near clipping levels. I would have thought their
> > ears and speakers would have been slightly harsh at those levels.
> >
> **That would depend on:
> * The sensitivity of the speakers. * The damping of the room. * The
> distance the listener was from the speakers.
> Under some circumstances, 250 Watts may not be nearly adequate.
that their 'reference' amp was far less powerful. So when "comparing
amplifiers" they:
A) By using their reference amp they would have had no idea how the
speakers were affected when driven to +250W levels.
B) To find out they would be playing the music that much louder than
possible with their reference amp. So not comparing like with like in terms
of their hearing.
Jim Lesurf
Dec 20, 2015, 4:54:57 AM12/20/15
to
In article <ddlpd0...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
Instead of "Thus" I might have said that "There is a reasonably chance
that". But TBH experience has taught me to take a lot of what I read in
reviews as being questionable or unreliable.
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > And trying to "measure" loudspeakers and interpret/explain the results
> > in a *meaningful* way is considerably more difficult than for
> > something like an amplifier. e.g. Simply looking at a frequency
> > response plot done anechoic/pulsed won't always tell you what it
> > sounds like. Particularly given how the results will vary with the
> > room acoustic, etc.
> **Quite so. However, I chose Stereophile for the reason that many
> measurements are performed, by very experienced people and, presumably,
> under the same conditions each time. Thus, valid comparisons may be
> drawn.
I was with you until the last statement. :-)
> > And trying to "measure" loudspeakers and interpret/explain the results
> > in a *meaningful* way is considerably more difficult than for
> > something like an amplifier. e.g. Simply looking at a frequency
> > response plot done anechoic/pulsed won't always tell you what it
> > sounds like. Particularly given how the results will vary with the
> > room acoustic, etc.
> **Quite so. However, I chose Stereophile for the reason that many
> measurements are performed, by very experienced people and, presumably,
> under the same conditions each time. Thus, valid comparisons may be
> drawn.
Instead of "Thus" I might have said that "There is a reasonably chance
that". But TBH experience has taught me to take a lot of what I read in
reviews as being questionable or unreliable.
Jim Lesurf
Dec 20, 2015, 4:54:58 AM12/20/15
to
In article <ddlpd0...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
loud organ music or reggae. They would be unlikely to suit their purposes.
I can only say that having over many years based my preferences on
comparing Radio 3 with being at the venues (and often performances)
broadcast, I regard both the ESLs and the LS3/5As as very suitable for
giving a good representation. But this does depend on ensuring they are
used in an appropriate way. e.g. the LS3/5As strike me as best used in
small rooms, etc. But then, that's what they are designed for IIUC.
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > Fair comment on most speakers as a sweeping generalisation. But
> > doesn't stop some examples from suiting many people given their
> > circumstances and preferences. OTOH the QUAD ESLs tend to be
> > "accurate", but won't suit some people for various reasons.
> >
> **Suitability has zero to do with anything. Accuracy may have nothing to
> do with preference. I do not, for one millisecond, doubt that many
> listeners prefer the sound of the LS3/5a. I don't. I prefer a speaker
> which exhibits a closer approach to accurate sound.
I would not recommend either LS3/5As or QUAD ESLs to someone devoted to
> > Fair comment on most speakers as a sweeping generalisation. But
> > doesn't stop some examples from suiting many people given their
> > circumstances and preferences. OTOH the QUAD ESLs tend to be
> > "accurate", but won't suit some people for various reasons.
> >
> **Suitability has zero to do with anything. Accuracy may have nothing to
> do with preference. I do not, for one millisecond, doubt that many
> listeners prefer the sound of the LS3/5a. I don't. I prefer a speaker
> which exhibits a closer approach to accurate sound.
loud organ music or reggae. They would be unlikely to suit their purposes.
I can only say that having over many years based my preferences on
comparing Radio 3 with being at the venues (and often performances)
broadcast, I regard both the ESLs and the LS3/5As as very suitable for
giving a good representation. But this does depend on ensuring they are
used in an appropriate way. e.g. the LS3/5As strike me as best used in
small rooms, etc. But then, that's what they are designed for IIUC.
Jim Lesurf
Dec 20, 2015, 4:54:58 AM12/20/15
to
In article <ddlr68...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
would help them a great deal. Alas, to make it so would require something
more than you state.
To start you'd have to do the measurements around the entire theta/phi
sphere. Then do them at different distances to assess near field effects.
Then you'd have to find a way to assess the effects of reflections on the
speaker itself as that may alter its coupling to its surroundings.
Then you'd have to work out how to apply that to a range of listening rooma
acoustics and listening positions, etc. In the process finding that the
results depend on these so much that the whole process is a bit of a
nightmare and you end up using judgement.
Much as I am very keen on basing our understanding on *appropriate*
measurement and analysis I am also very aware that in the end speakers are
made and sold for people to put them into all kinds of rooms to listen to
all kinds of music and enjoy the results. Afraid there are too many
variables out of the developers control/awarness to make this as simple as
your sweeping description.
Anechoic measurements are very handy, and methods like gated pulses, etc,
can also be handy. So make good sense. But they won't be enough in
themselves. Measurements can just as easily mislead as reveal. Depends on
the measurements *and* the judgement of the people making them and
interpreting the results.
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > The problem with anechoic chambers is that what you measure is
> > essentially irrelevant - unconnected with what a speaker in a room
> > does. Sure it makes for consistency, but that really isn't good enough.
> **Wrong. Given the fact that the characteristics of a (proper) anechoic
> room are well known and that every listening room is different, then an
> anechoic environment (or measurement systems which simulate such an
> environment) are the only sane way to quantify a loudspeaker's
> performance.
I'm sure many speaker designers would *love* that belief to be correct! It
> > The problem with anechoic chambers is that what you measure is
> > essentially irrelevant - unconnected with what a speaker in a room
> > does. Sure it makes for consistency, but that really isn't good enough.
> **Wrong. Given the fact that the characteristics of a (proper) anechoic
> room are well known and that every listening room is different, then an
> anechoic environment (or measurement systems which simulate such an
> environment) are the only sane way to quantify a loudspeaker's
> performance.
would help them a great deal. Alas, to make it so would require something
more than you state.
To start you'd have to do the measurements around the entire theta/phi
sphere. Then do them at different distances to assess near field effects.
Then you'd have to find a way to assess the effects of reflections on the
speaker itself as that may alter its coupling to its surroundings.
Then you'd have to work out how to apply that to a range of listening rooma
acoustics and listening positions, etc. In the process finding that the
results depend on these so much that the whole process is a bit of a
nightmare and you end up using judgement.
Much as I am very keen on basing our understanding on *appropriate*
measurement and analysis I am also very aware that in the end speakers are
made and sold for people to put them into all kinds of rooms to listen to
all kinds of music and enjoy the results. Afraid there are too many
variables out of the developers control/awarness to make this as simple as
your sweeping description.
Anechoic measurements are very handy, and methods like gated pulses, etc,
can also be handy. So make good sense. But they won't be enough in
themselves. Measurements can just as easily mislead as reveal. Depends on
the measurements *and* the judgement of the people making them and
interpreting the results.
Jim Lesurf
Dec 20, 2015, 4:54:59 AM12/20/15
to
In article <ddmodl...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
It is one thing to ensure the room is reasonably non-reflective. That's why
I even do things like hang rugs from some walls and have draped curtains,
etc. But having listened in both I wouldn't confuse this for a genuine
anechoic room. The audible difference is quite dramatic. I really wouldn't
want to have to sit in an anechoic chamber to listen to music for
enjoyment. And if I did, I suspect I would not like the same speakers as I
use now quite happily.
TBH I doubt any real loudspeaker makers *only* carry out measurements in
anechoic chambers and take no interest in what they sound like in domestic
environments. I'd guess it would be suicide for them to try it.
The reality is that domestic loudspeakers are bought by people who use them
in ordinary rooms. Which of course, may be of a different size, shape, and
constuction from one place to another. It occurs to me that your listening
rooms may be very different to mine.
I dislike the Linn isobaraks, etc. To me they sound awful. But it doesn't
bother me that some other people really like them - provided they have had
a fair an unbiassed chance to try alternatives and relate this to their
preferences in music, etc. They - like I - choose speakers for the purpose
of enjoying the results.
I don't doubt there are 'better' speakers than the LS3.5A. But they work
fine for me since my primary use for them is to listen to BBC radio 3/4 in
a small room. i.e. pretty much what they were designed for. YMMV.
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> **Just like an anechoic chamber. I am stunned at some of the idiotic
> comments I am seeing in this thread, by people (I assume) should know
> better.
Possibly beause some of use listen in real rooms that aren't anechoic. :-)
> **Just like an anechoic chamber. I am stunned at some of the idiotic
> comments I am seeing in this thread, by people (I assume) should know
> better.
It is one thing to ensure the room is reasonably non-reflective. That's why
I even do things like hang rugs from some walls and have draped curtains,
etc. But having listened in both I wouldn't confuse this for a genuine
anechoic room. The audible difference is quite dramatic. I really wouldn't
want to have to sit in an anechoic chamber to listen to music for
enjoyment. And if I did, I suspect I would not like the same speakers as I
use now quite happily.
TBH I doubt any real loudspeaker makers *only* carry out measurements in
anechoic chambers and take no interest in what they sound like in domestic
environments. I'd guess it would be suicide for them to try it.
The reality is that domestic loudspeakers are bought by people who use them
in ordinary rooms. Which of course, may be of a different size, shape, and
constuction from one place to another. It occurs to me that your listening
rooms may be very different to mine.
I dislike the Linn isobaraks, etc. To me they sound awful. But it doesn't
bother me that some other people really like them - provided they have had
a fair an unbiassed chance to try alternatives and relate this to their
preferences in music, etc. They - like I - choose speakers for the purpose
of enjoying the results.
I don't doubt there are 'better' speakers than the LS3.5A. But they work
fine for me since my primary use for them is to listen to BBC radio 3/4 in
a small room. i.e. pretty much what they were designed for. YMMV.
Jim Lesurf
Dec 20, 2015, 4:55:00 AM12/20/15
to
In article <ddlrun...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
never done an in-room measurements where the room acoustic didn't add a
"ragged" HF response. Thats what echoes do when you measure with time
periods much longer than the round trip times.
Human hearing tends to process these out as we 'learn' the room's
behaviour.
if you wish to avoid them, then listening in the open air may help you. :-)
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> I will ask once more: What room effects cause the ragged HF response of
> the LS3/5a?
i must admit to being puzzled by your apparent horror about this. I've
> I will ask once more: What room effects cause the ragged HF response of
> the LS3/5a?
never done an in-room measurements where the room acoustic didn't add a
"ragged" HF response. Thats what echoes do when you measure with time
periods much longer than the round trip times.
Human hearing tends to process these out as we 'learn' the room's
behaviour.
if you wish to avoid them, then listening in the open air may help you. :-)
Dave Plowman (News)
Dec 20, 2015, 6:14:28 AM12/20/15
to
In article <5534dd8...@audiomisc.co.uk>,
response over the years to note the differences.
Personally, I'll believe the original BBC one out of them all - having
seen the room and equipment used for that testing.
--
*And the cardiologist' s diet: - If it tastes good spit it out.
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <ddlphj...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > **It is reasonable to assume that Stereophile use the same measurement
> > system (at any given time frame) for all their speakers. It is also
> > likely that the same people are used to perform those measurements.
> > Therefore, it is valid to draw comparisons between various speakers.
> > That said, I suggest you examine the ragged top end of the LS3/5a
> > response and explain how that effect can be caused by the measurement
> > system.
> I'm afraid that seems to me to be an example of the same thinking that
> reviews often trot out. i.e. looking for some measurement which you feel
> 'justifies' your reaction. post hoc.
> How many domestic listening rooms *don't* have a "ragged top end" I
> wonder?
> And how well does a nominal on axis measurement really show the behaviour
> of a *small* speaker? Particularly used off-axis in a small room?
You only have to look at the various plots that have been made of the
> In article <ddlphj...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > **It is reasonable to assume that Stereophile use the same measurement
> > system (at any given time frame) for all their speakers. It is also
> > likely that the same people are used to perform those measurements.
> > Therefore, it is valid to draw comparisons between various speakers.
> > That said, I suggest you examine the ragged top end of the LS3/5a
> > response and explain how that effect can be caused by the measurement
> > system.
> I'm afraid that seems to me to be an example of the same thinking that
> reviews often trot out. i.e. looking for some measurement which you feel
> 'justifies' your reaction. post hoc.
> How many domestic listening rooms *don't* have a "ragged top end" I
> wonder?
> And how well does a nominal on axis measurement really show the behaviour
> of a *small* speaker? Particularly used off-axis in a small room?
response over the years to note the differences.
Personally, I'll believe the original BBC one out of them all - having
seen the room and equipment used for that testing.
--
*And the cardiologist' s diet: - If it tastes good spit it out.
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
tony sayer
Dec 20, 2015, 1:26:51 PM12/20/15
to
In article <ddiv8q...@mid.individual.net>, Huge
<Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> scribeth thus
>On 2015-12-18, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[66 lines snipped]
>
>> It wasn't the comments of the reviewers, it was the comments of users!
>
>Do you think you could see your way clear to snipping your responses?
>
>
Yes Mr huge boss mann!. Got those 63's yet;?....
--
Tony Sayer
<Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> scribeth thus
>On 2015-12-18, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[66 lines snipped]
>
>> It wasn't the comments of the reviewers, it was the comments of users!
>
>Do you think you could see your way clear to snipping your responses?
>
>
Yes Mr huge boss mann!. Got those 63's yet;?....
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
Dec 20, 2015, 2:06:53 PM12/20/15
to
>compared to my reference small speakers (NEAR 10M-II) and the result was
>as expected: The LS3/5a is far from accurate.
My reference is live recorded sound.
I've had a few people over time say that some recordings are rather weak
and flat boring and have no life to them but they are an accurate
representation of what when on in front of the microphones.
Some people just like a different "sound"
Course we could now get into a decent debate re Schoeps Neumann
Sennheiser Bruel & Kjaer etc.....
>
>
>
--
Tony Sayer
Trevor Wilson
Dec 20, 2015, 3:54:08 PM12/20/15
to
On 20/12/2015 8:41 PM, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <ddmodl...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> **Just like an anechoic chamber. I am stunned at some of the idiotic
>> comments I am seeing in this thread, by people (I assume) should know
>> better.
>
> Possibly beause some of use listen in real rooms that aren't anechoic. :-)
**None of us listen in an anechoic room.
> In article <ddmodl...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>> **Just like an anechoic chamber. I am stunned at some of the idiotic
>> comments I am seeing in this thread, by people (I assume) should know
>> better.
>
> Possibly beause some of use listen in real rooms that aren't anechoic. :-)
>
> It is one thing to ensure the room is reasonably non-reflective. That's why
> I even do things like hang rugs from some walls and have draped curtains,
> etc. But having listened in both I wouldn't confuse this for a genuine
> anechoic room. The audible difference is quite dramatic. I really wouldn't
> want to have to sit in an anechoic chamber to listen to music for
> enjoyment. And if I did, I suspect I would not like the same speakers as I
> use now quite happily.
http://www.nal.gov.au/
They have (or had) the largest anechoic chamber in Australia. I was
fortunate in being able to listen to a sound system in their largest
chamber many years ago. It was scarily realistic. With no reflections to
interfere with the sound, the image was incredible. It was also MUCH
easier to detect small changes in the equipment (including speakers)
Every other room I've listened in has been inferior. Since that time, I
have striven to damp reflections in my own room/s and those of clients
where possible and where appropriate.
>
> TBH I doubt any real loudspeaker makers *only* carry out measurements in
> anechoic chambers and take no interest in what they sound like in domestic
> environments. I'd guess it would be suicide for them to try it.
conditions and/or using measurement system which allow the system to
ignore reflections. I've been using such a system for more than 20
years. It ain't new. It's also not perfect. Bass measurements are
particularly difficult. I recall testing some subwoofers way back in the
backyard (lawn), using PZM techniques, at 4:00AM to minimise extraneous
noise. Nonetheless, it is VITAL for manufacturers to either measure or
(nowadays) accurately model their products for ideal conditions. After
which, the speakers may be tailored for specific applications. My point
is that EVERY room is different. A baseline measurement is very important.
>
> The reality is that domestic loudspeakers are bought by people who use them
> in ordinary rooms. Which of course, may be of a different size, shape, and
> constuction from one place to another. It occurs to me that your listening
> rooms may be very different to mine.
>
> I dislike the Linn isobaraks, etc. To me they sound awful. But it doesn't
> bother me that some other people really like them - provided they have had
> a fair an unbiassed chance to try alternatives and relate this to their
> preferences in music, etc. They - like I - choose speakers for the purpose
> of enjoying the results.
to the very fine products presently available. I have.
>
> I don't doubt there are 'better' speakers than the LS3.5A. But they work
> fine for me since my primary use for them is to listen to BBC radio 3/4 in
> a small room. i.e. pretty much what they were designed for. YMMV.
Trevor Wilson
Dec 20, 2015, 4:11:30 PM12/20/15
to
On 20/12/2015 8:22 PM, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <ddlr68...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>> The problem with anechoic chambers is that what you measure is
>>> essentially irrelevant - unconnected with what a speaker in a room
>>> does. Sure it makes for consistency, but that really isn't good enough.
>
>> **Wrong. Given the fact that the characteristics of a (proper) anechoic
>> room are well known and that every listening room is different, then an
>> anechoic environment (or measurement systems which simulate such an
>> environment) are the only sane way to quantify a loudspeaker's
>> performance.
>
> I'm sure many speaker designers would *love* that belief to be correct! It
> would help them a great deal. Alas, to make it so would require something
> more than you state.
>
> To start you'd have to do the measurements around the entire theta/phi
> sphere. Then do them at different distances to assess near field effects.
> Then you'd have to find a way to assess the effects of reflections on the
> speaker itself as that may alter its coupling to its surroundings.
>
> Then you'd have to work out how to apply that to a range of listening rooma
> acoustics and listening positions, etc. In the process finding that the
> results depend on these so much that the whole process is a bit of a
> nightmare and you end up using judgement.
**Well, yes, you are correct. Defining and measuring speakers is very
> In article <ddlr68...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>> The problem with anechoic chambers is that what you measure is
>>> essentially irrelevant - unconnected with what a speaker in a room
>>> does. Sure it makes for consistency, but that really isn't good enough.
>
>> **Wrong. Given the fact that the characteristics of a (proper) anechoic
>> room are well known and that every listening room is different, then an
>> anechoic environment (or measurement systems which simulate such an
>> environment) are the only sane way to quantify a loudspeaker's
>> performance.
>
> I'm sure many speaker designers would *love* that belief to be correct! It
> would help them a great deal. Alas, to make it so would require something
> more than you state.
>
> To start you'd have to do the measurements around the entire theta/phi
> sphere. Then do them at different distances to assess near field effects.
> Then you'd have to find a way to assess the effects of reflections on the
> speaker itself as that may alter its coupling to its surroundings.
>
> Then you'd have to work out how to apply that to a range of listening rooma
> acoustics and listening positions, etc. In the process finding that the
> results depend on these so much that the whole process is a bit of a
> nightmare and you end up using judgement.
challenging. I always have a little chuckle when I see speaker
measurements (even those in Stereophile), because the limitations are
huge. Many years ago, I had a copy of the specifications supplied by
Duntech for their Crown Prince model. It ran to more than 20 A4 pages.
Chock full of graphs, plots and specifications. And even that is not
enough to quantify the sound of a loudspeaker. It was a very good start.
John Dunlavy was an exceptionally talented speaker designer, who used
both an anechoic room and state of the art measurement equipment to
quantify the performance of his products. The important thing to note is
that all the tests were performed under anechoic, or simulated anechoic
conditions. The Crown Prince (and the bigger brother, the Sovereign)
stand up today is stunning sounding speakers. Even more than 25 years
after they were released. And no, I am not trying to compare the
Duntechs to the LS3/5a (that would be silly, as the Sovereign is one of
the few speakers on the planet which can provide a decent reproduction
of a full orchestral piece), but to indicate the process.
>
> Much as I am very keen on basing our understanding on *appropriate*
> measurement and analysis I am also very aware that in the end speakers are
> made and sold for people to put them into all kinds of rooms to listen to
> all kinds of music and enjoy the results. Afraid there are too many
> variables out of the developers control/awarness to make this as simple as
> your sweeping description.
massive variety of rooms.
>
> Anechoic measurements are very handy, and methods like gated pulses, etc,
> can also be handy. So make good sense. But they won't be enough in
> themselves. Measurements can just as easily mislead as reveal. Depends on
> the measurements *and* the judgement of the people making them and
> interpreting the results.
different products is suspect.
Trevor Wilson
Dec 20, 2015, 4:13:08 PM12/20/15
to
On 20/12/2015 8:03 PM, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <ddlpd0...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>> And trying to "measure" loudspeakers and interpret/explain the results
>>> in a *meaningful* way is considerably more difficult than for
>>> something like an amplifier. e.g. Simply looking at a frequency
>>> response plot done anechoic/pulsed won't always tell you what it
>>> sounds like. Particularly given how the results will vary with the
>>> room acoustic, etc.
>
>> **Quite so. However, I chose Stereophile for the reason that many
>> measurements are performed, by very experienced people and, presumably,
>> under the same conditions each time. Thus, valid comparisons may be
>> drawn.
>
> I was with you until the last statement. :-)
>
> Instead of "Thus" I might have said that "There is a reasonably chance
> that".
**I accept your correction.
> In article <ddlpd0...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>> And trying to "measure" loudspeakers and interpret/explain the results
>>> in a *meaningful* way is considerably more difficult than for
>>> something like an amplifier. e.g. Simply looking at a frequency
>>> response plot done anechoic/pulsed won't always tell you what it
>>> sounds like. Particularly given how the results will vary with the
>>> room acoustic, etc.
>
>> **Quite so. However, I chose Stereophile for the reason that many
>> measurements are performed, by very experienced people and, presumably,
>> under the same conditions each time. Thus, valid comparisons may be
>> drawn.
>
> I was with you until the last statement. :-)
>
> Instead of "Thus" I might have said that "There is a reasonably chance
> that".
But TBH experience has taught me to take a lot of what I read in
> reviews as being questionable or unreliable.
useful (provided the obvious attention is paid to proper procedure).
Jim Lesurf
Dec 21, 2015, 4:39:11 AM12/21/15
to
In article <ddojv1...@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
anyone being able to easily tell if they were obtained in a appropiate
manner. This can lead to 'conclusions' being inferred which are
inappropriate. The advantage measurements give us here is that anyone else
can try to do the 'same' measurement to see if they agree about the results
and assess the proceedure. There are snags, though...
e.g. On the final 'Armstrong History' page one example was the reviewer's
use of 0.1% THD to 'define' what was meant by "overload point" without
actually specifying this was the basis in the review.
In some circumstances that is a reasonable and appropriate basis. e.g. for
a line level amp which has a fair bit of feedback, or similar. i.e. cases
where the THD stays low as you increase the signal level, only to suddenly
start rising rapidly as you reach clipping. In such cases you'd get much
the same result for "overload point" if you'd chosen, say, 0.2% or 0.5%.
However it was done in this case to a small signal amp with *no* feedback.
And one for use in circumstances where the source (moving coil cart) would
be producing vastly more distortion. The amp would also handle signal
levels ten time higher than this "overload point" - again with far lower
distortion than the intended sources.
In such circumstances, the specified "overload point" value was highly
misleading - but the review didn't say how it had been 'determined' or
'measured'. So readers couldn't tell if they didn't already know the
internal details of the amplifier, etc.
Fortunately, the reviewer :
a) revealed the basis in a 'postscript' when challenged.
b) proceeded to make other statements which shot himself in the foot
anyway.
But in many cases such a value in a magazine may appear *without* readers
knowing the protocol used. e.g. In an earlier review discussed on another
page which gave wildly misleading values for "half power bandwidth".
Against all that, listening tests can also be very useful *if* the right
protocols are adopted, we're told what they were, and we don't end up with
the usual, "trust me, I'm an expert" basis the magazines present all too
often.
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> But TBH experience has taught me to take a lot of what I read in
> > reviews as being questionable or unreliable.
> **Of course. Humans are extremely unreliable. Measurements are far more
> useful (provided the obvious attention is paid to proper procedure).
Yes. Unfortunately, all to often measured values are presented without
> But TBH experience has taught me to take a lot of what I read in
> > reviews as being questionable or unreliable.
> **Of course. Humans are extremely unreliable. Measurements are far more
> useful (provided the obvious attention is paid to proper procedure).
anyone being able to easily tell if they were obtained in a appropiate
manner. This can lead to 'conclusions' being inferred which are
inappropriate. The advantage measurements give us here is that anyone else
can try to do the 'same' measurement to see if they agree about the results
and assess the proceedure. There are snags, though...
e.g. On the final 'Armstrong History' page one example was the reviewer's
use of 0.1% THD to 'define' what was meant by "overload point" without
actually specifying this was the basis in the review.
In some circumstances that is a reasonable and appropriate basis. e.g. for
a line level amp which has a fair bit of feedback, or similar. i.e. cases
where the THD stays low as you increase the signal level, only to suddenly
start rising rapidly as you reach clipping. In such cases you'd get much
the same result for "overload point" if you'd chosen, say, 0.2% or 0.5%.
However it was done in this case to a small signal amp with *no* feedback.
And one for use in circumstances where the source (moving coil cart) would
be producing vastly more distortion. The amp would also handle signal
levels ten time higher than this "overload point" - again with far lower
distortion than the intended sources.
In such circumstances, the specified "overload point" value was highly
misleading - but the review didn't say how it had been 'determined' or
'measured'. So readers couldn't tell if they didn't already know the
internal details of the amplifier, etc.
Fortunately, the reviewer :
a) revealed the basis in a 'postscript' when challenged.
b) proceeded to make other statements which shot himself in the foot
anyway.
But in many cases such a value in a magazine may appear *without* readers
knowing the protocol used. e.g. In an earlier review discussed on another
page which gave wildly misleading values for "half power bandwidth".
Against all that, listening tests can also be very useful *if* the right
protocols are adopted, we're told what they were, and we don't end up with
the usual, "trust me, I'm an expert" basis the magazines present all too
often.
Phil Allison
Dec 21, 2015, 6:03:15 AM12/21/15
to
Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>
> The reality is that domestic loudspeakers are bought by people who use them
> in ordinary rooms. Which of course, may be of a different size, shape, and
> constuction from one place to another.
** Sad to say most hi-fi systems are used in rooms that are very far from ideal for the purpose - with polished timber floors, large glass windows, smooth walls and ceilings. The sort of rooms you see depicted in glossy advertising photos of hi-fi installations.
>
>
> The reality is that domestic loudspeakers are bought by people who use them
> in ordinary rooms. Which of course, may be of a different size, shape, and
> constuction from one place to another.
>
> I dislike the Linn isobaraks, etc. To me they sound awful.
>
The Linn Sondek turntable was a common sight here in Australia, but other Linn items were few and far between - so I have never seen or heard an Isobarik.
Having an extra mid diver and tweeter mounted on top like that reminds me of Sonab, also popular in Australia, but for all the wrong reasons.
.... Phil
tony sayer
Dec 21, 2015, 1:27:51 PM12/21/15
to
In article <ddoi0g...@mid.individual.net>, Huge
<Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> scribeth thus
>Bought a new house to put them in, first.
>
>
Decent sized living room that the right sort we hope?....
--
Tony Sayer
<Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> scribeth thus
>
>
Decent sized living room that the right sort we hope?....
--
Tony Sayer
Don Pearce
Dec 21, 2015, 2:45:23 PM12/21/15
to
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:21:41 +0000, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk>
d
wrote:
>In article <ddoi0g...@mid.individual.net>, Huge
><Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> scribeth thus
>>On 2015-12-20, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In article <ddiv8q...@mid.individual.net>, Huge
>>><Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> scribeth thus
>>>>On 2015-12-18, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[66 lines snipped]
>>>>
>>>>> It wasn't the comments of the reviewers, it was the comments of users!
>>>>
>>>>Do you think you could see your way clear to snipping your responses?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes Mr huge boss mann!. Got those 63's yet;?....
>>
>>Bought a new house to put them in, first.
>>
>>
>Decent sized living room that the right sort we hope?....
And make it anechoic as the weird Australian likes? OK, maybe not.
>In article <ddoi0g...@mid.individual.net>, Huge
><Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> scribeth thus
>>On 2015-12-20, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In article <ddiv8q...@mid.individual.net>, Huge
>>><Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> scribeth thus
>>>>On 2015-12-18, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[66 lines snipped]
>>>>
>>>>> It wasn't the comments of the reviewers, it was the comments of users!
>>>>
>>>>Do you think you could see your way clear to snipping your responses?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes Mr huge boss mann!. Got those 63's yet;?....
>>
>>Bought a new house to put them in, first.
>>
>>
>Decent sized living room that the right sort we hope?....
d
Brian Gaff
Apr 28, 2016, 4:41:52 AM4/28/16
to
Actually, this is one reason why top posting is actually easier to deal
with.
Brian
--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:39v4+KF1...@bancom.co.uk...
with.
Brian
--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:39v4+KF1...@bancom.co.uk...
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages