So how good is the LS3/5a?

[Sherwood]

That's an interesting story, Geoff. But the notion of a student with LS3/5as startles me! You are right, they were not the crazy money then that they are now (thanks, Japan!), but still very much a quality speaker.

Did you ever got your ESL57s?
IB

I can understand how you might think this but is says more about how society has changed than how the hifi industry has changed. Obviously, there were no student fees in 1997, and living in London there was no shortage of employment opportunities. Yes, £150 was a lot of money at that time but I earned enough after working every hour possible to buy a good hifi and plenty of vinyl too! Although I did well academically it was not due to keeping out of the bar or the 24 hour snooker halls!

I never did buy any ESL57s but have had a variety of Magneplanars which deliver much of what I liked about the Quads as well as better bass slam.

Geoff

[Pharos]

The aura around the LS 3/5 is IMO due to contextual shifts.

It was developed at the time from a modelling experiment, and its promise led to a final product which was used in OB work because the other monitors were all too large for an OB van.

Its primary use was for speech, which it is very good at, but it has several flaws, a peak around 1k, and Kef's units were not produced to consistent standards so that over time examples did not meet spec.

It gained a high status because of what it did for its size, and this has extended over the world from the pioneering work done by the BBC in its heyday when they did good R&D.

I borrowed a pair form a friend a couple of years ago, and they were good, but not for loud music with a broad bandwidth.

The far east is very much in love with all the 60s and 70s British stuff.

[Barry]

Yes, one only needs to read the BBC Research Department's report BBC RD 1976/29 "The design of the miniature monitoring loudspeaker type LS3/5A", to understand that the speaker was, to quote the introduction of the report, designed to be a compact monitor speaker for use in the confined space of OB vans - that is, intended to be used in the near-field.

There is a need to monitor sound programme quality in circumstances where space is at a premium and where headphones are not considered satisfactory. Such circumstances include the production-control section of a television mobile control-room, where the producer responsible for the overall production of the programme needs to monitor the the output of the sound mixer but at levels lower than those used for mixing. Thus a small monitoring loudspeaker is required and, as no adequate commercial device was available, one was designed by the BBC Research Department. The design is based on an experimental loudspeaker developed during preliminary work on acoustic scaling described elsewhere in which a small loudspeaker was needed to cover the frequency range 400Hz to about 20kHz. When the characteristics of the loudspeaker were measured it was found that, despite the small size cabinet, the axial response/frequency characteristic was substantially uniform down to 100Hz and that excellent sound quality was obtained with programme input. Subsequently, a number of loudspeakers to this design, known as LS3/5, were made, and used in in television control rooms where they gave very satisfactory service. When a further batch of loudspeakers was required it was found that the manufacturers of the low- and high-frequency units had made significant modifications and a re-design was therefore necessary. This was carried out in conjunction with BBC Designs Department and this report describes this later design, known as the LS3/5A. The Loudspeaker is now in production both by the BBC Equipment Department and also by three commercial licencees.

[walpurgis]

Within its capabilities, I have heard the LS3/5a sounding really remarkably good (but never when used in my system). I can understand the appeal though, because there really is no other speaker that does things quite the same way.

[Light Dependant Resistor]

The JR149 is similar, but has qualities of its own too.
Each are very easy to live with.and reproduce music well.

[Infinitely Baffled]

The JR149 is similar, but has qualities of its own too.
Each are very easy to live with.and reproduce music well.

Yes, that's the message that's coming through. Predominantly, anyway.

Not surprising,of course, since their enormous fanbase can't be an accident. I'm just at a loss to know why I found my example so underwhelming. Maybe it was one of those "time and place" things (wrong example, playing the wrong music downstream of the wrong amp, wrong physical environment, and with a grumpy git like me listening). Ah well! We live and learn (though often not much).
IB

[Haselsh1]

Back in 1997 I used a pair of Rogers rosewood LS3/5a's with a Musical Fidelity A100 amp and I adored the sound. The stereo imaging was almost the best I have ever heard but that unbelievably tizzy upper mid was their downfall and the reason I moved them on. They were single wired and cost 350 quid brand new.

[Pharos]

One thing that I have recently been made aware of is that as we listen to our system, we become conditioned to it as a reference.

I am still 'learning' my ADAMs after four months, and still being surprised at what they do on occasions, this I'm sure will happen until I 'know' them fully.

It could be IB that your own previous speakers differed in some 'vital-to-you' aspect, and which contrasted, because each may have been at the other end of the spectrum in that particular respect.

[Sherwood]

Yes, that's the message that's coming through. Predominantly, anyway.

Not surprising,of course, since their enormous fanbase can't be an accident. I'm just at a loss to know why I found my example so underwhelming. Maybe it was one of those "time and place" things (wrong example, playing the wrong music downstream of the wrong amp, wrong physical environment, and with a grumpy git like me listening). Ah well! We live and learn (though often not much).
IB

Whilst it is true that the LS3/5a is not a difficult speaker load in terms of impedance characteristics, I have found that it takes a particular type of amp to get the best out of it. When I bought mine I initially drove them with the well regarded Rogers A75 II integrated amplifier. They sounded good, but not as good as when driven by high quality valve amplification, namely an Art Audio Quintet power amp set for 16 ohm speakers. Over the years, I have heard them improve with better amplification and recently tried them with a pair of 300w class A/D hybrid monoblocks. I think the greater power helps to stop the cones from overextending on loud dynamic passages and producing that scary chuffing noise. Although they were designed for use in small OB vans, I have found that they only really start to perform when given plenty of space (at least 3ft from rear and side walls and preferable more).

If buying my first speaker today I would be looking at a single driver full range unit or a well matched two driver unit with minimal crossover circuitry.

Geoff

[Infinitely Baffled]

It could be IB that your own previous speakers differed in some 'vital-to-you' aspect, and which contrasted, because each may have been at the other end of the spectrum in that particular respect.

Yes, Dennis. I suspect this is exactly it. Over the years I think I have probably developed a liking for a fairly fast, lean and forward sound (Lowther and Quad ESLs) in other words pretty much the opposite of what I now take to be the "BBC" sound. Curiously (and happily for me) my current loudspeakers, which are Audio Note AN-Js, seem to do the lot - everything from light and airy to creamy and luscious. I guess this is what I now (rightly or wrongly) take to be a "well-balanced" presentation.

IB