So how good is the LS3/5a?

[Infinitely Baffled]

Ok, everybody, get your prejudices out and dust them off! Here is what I suspect is one of the all-time favourite chestnuts/discussion points/spite-inducing debates in our little world of hi-fi.

First, a confession: I have only heard LS3/5as once. It was about 30 years ago in a high-end hi-fi dealer in Cambridge Circus, London. I was in there to listen to (and subsequently buy) an Arcam CD player, but the salesman used the little monitors to demo it to me. After the inevitable "wow, they sound so big - but they are so little" moment, I ceased paying attention to them. It was not what I was there for after all. But the memory that stayed with me was a favourable one.

Fast forward 30 years and I know more about hi-fi than I did then. At least enough to be aware of the almost "holy" status these speakers have. That there are folks who revere them so deeply they will have nothing else. The prices asked for them, too, suggest unbounded respect (or should that be unbounded avarice?)
I still haven't heard them again, though, until ...

I am currently amusing myself by faffing around putting together a decent monaural radio-playing system for my garage/workshop, which is quite big. I have a Troughline mono tuner hooked up to a nice mono Dynatron valve amp, that Jez rebuilt for me. So I have been experimenting with odd and inexpensive speaker arrangements to see what would work to finish the system off. So far I have tried a home-made OB confection using a Goodmans full-range driver, Mordaunt Short Festival 2, Kef K2 Celeste and Rogers JR 149. It's my experiments with this last one that have prompted this thread. I was trying it out (just the one, of course) at the same time as my homebrew OB Goodmans job. Maybe that didn't help. The Goodmans was simply glorious - a bit shallow in the bass, maybe, but detailed, clear, rounded and musical. Just lovely. Switch to the JR149s, and what a shock! It was as if I had hit the secret "mufflebox" button on the amp. It was just as if someone was speaking to me from deep inside a box. Yes, the tones were rich and euphonious, there was a good even coverage of frequencies from bottom to top, but it was "heavy" sounding, and congested, as though the sound was having a struggle to escape and reach me. I was very surprised, knowing how adored these speakers are. Now, I know a JR149 is not an LS3/5a, but from everything I have read there is at least a strong family resemblance. So is this really what the famed BBC small monitor sounds like? Like someone "on the other side" is trying to make contact? Of course, you can't discount the possibility that my example was duff, but certainly, against the other odds and sods I tried, The Rogers would be my last choice.

For the sake of finishing this story off, I can say that the best sound undoubtedly came from the Goodmans OB (but it is huge and ugly), the little Festivals acquitted themselves extremely well - they are very likeable little speakers that I will have to find a use for somewhere. For 80 squid, a real bargain! The Kef Celestes were very interesting indeed. Not much bigger than an LS3/5a and immensely heavy for their size, they contain one of Kef's early "racetrack" shaped woofers and a tiny metal-dome tweeter. They are fabulously energetic and very solid in the bass - lots to like - but the tweeters just have too much "sting" to make them a comfortable listen. Very nice, though, I don't really want to part with them (certainly given the £1-17/6d I would get for them). I feel there is a very fine speaker in there somewhere trying to get out - if only I knew how to liberate it.

OK, chums, have at it! Have I got it wrong about LS3/5as or not?
IB

[Arkless Electronics]

I use Mordaunt-Short festival 2's in my workshop as well! Powered by a big Tandberg receiver.
The last time I heard JR149's I also found them awful but I've also heard them sound great in other settings and systems.... Not much help there was I...

[Cycleallday]

Used as designed they provide a sound I love.

They are near field speakers and not room speakers so put them on either side of your computer/office desk with a nice amplifier and I doubt you would ever want to change. I use the new Falcon speakers - built from a kit when they first produced the new drivers at the end of 2015. Now they only sell the final built (licensed) items mainly supplied via dealers for incredible prices. For an amp I use Meridian 500 series.

In a small room I use a pair of Spendor S3's which are their take on the LS3/5's. They will fill a room with sound and are another speaker I will never part with.

Just remember these are small speakers which provide superb mid band and nice clear treble but will never give earth shattering bass - what they do produce fits beautifully close up and when located near a rear wall.

Mel

[Infinitely Baffled]

In a small room I use a pair of Spendor S3's which are their take on the LS3/5's. They will fill a room with sound and are another speaker I will never part with.

Mel

That would be the S3/5, would it? That's a loudspeaker I have heard very good things about.

I have never owned a speaker from the classic British BBC lineage (unless you count the solitary, slightly scruffy JR149), and it makes me curious. I have owned and used examples of several of the other classic British loudspeaker families, Lowther, Quad, Leak, Tannoy and enjoyed them all in their own way. But given the prices asked for anything with BBC associations - and given the experience related in this thread - that's one group I may opt to miss out on.
IB

[Martyn Miles]

Used as designed they provide a sound I love.

They are near field speakers and not room speakers so put them on either side of your computer/office desk with a nice amplifier and I doubt you would ever want to change. I use the new Falcon speakers - built from a kit when they first produced the new drivers at the end of 2015. Now they only sell the final built (licensed) items mainly supplied via dealers for incredible prices. For an amp I use Meridian 500 series.

In a small room I use a pair of Spendor S3's which are their take on the LS3/5's. They will fill a room with sound and are another speaker I will never part with.

Just remember these are small speakers which provide superb mid band and nice clear treble but will never give earth shattering bass - what they do produce fits beautifully close up and when located near a rear wall.

Mel

I built up a pair of Falcon Acoustics LS3/5as from the kit that used to be available.
They are with a friend and he loves them.
He has a pair of Spendor 11 ohm '3/5as and prefers the Falcons.
LS3/5as are excellent, and I have had a few..
Now I use Harbeth P3-ESRs and prefer them, but the '3/5a still give me that musical
satisfaction.
I am a 'BBC sound' fan, as I also use Spendor BC1s.

[Wakefield Turntables]

JR149's when accompanied with a decent amp that give them enough welly sound just the same, if not better in some respects to the extremely over priced LS3/5A. I have a very early with a serial number below 2500 which means they have the XO PCB without a fuse and slight modifications of the type II XO. Some '149 fans claim that the type ones are better than type two's, some claim that the refurbishment kit for the '149 from Falcon Accoustics improves things. I've tried a type 1/type 2, and a Falcon modded XO. I prefer the type 1 and would say that it sounds closest to the LS3/5A. I hope this helps.

[danilo]

Amazed by the continuing love for Ls35's .
Back in the Day (early 70's) A few were brought into the Canadian Broadcasting Corp for evalution... cleverly enough.. for those who would be using them.
Pretty well universal reaction was: Thanks but No Thanks.
Things simply weren't very good.. period.

CBC bought 3000 pairs of 12" monitor golds instead.
Developed a box and crossover for them.. sent it to California to a respected Audio firm for
independent evaluations. Public employee and clearly insecure Engineers needed reassurance.. as a guess.
Whereupon that firm patented it as their own design.
Big seller too.. maybe even still?

[ReggieB]

OK - so not a pure LS3/5a, but I loved my Spendor S3/5R² (http://www.spendoraudio.com/HTML/S35R2_main.html) from the very first note I heard from them. The music is so natural and sweet. I have a REL subwoofer too - when I need some bass umpf - but most of the time I leave it off. I really don't think I could have bought a set of new speakers for the price of the Spendors, that would sound anywhere near as good.

For those wanting to hear the first notes - It was the intro to Hollow Talk by the Choir of Young Believers (Hollow Talk by Choir of Young Believers). This music being used as the theme music for the scandi thriller - The Bridge.

[Sherwood]

I think the answer is pretty good for a speaker getting on for a pension. I have owned a pair of Rogers LS3/5a speakers for close to 40 years. At the time they were (just) affordable at £150 and suited my living arrangements (university student in small room). I bought then because they sounded closest to my aspirational speaker of the time: Quad ESL57s. Unfortunately I could neither afford nor accommodate the Quads, so the LS3/5a was a good second best.

I still have my Rogers pair which are in excellent condition and with no obvious signs of aging. However, I do not play them much anymore and would not choose to buy a new pair of the design at the current asking price. Technology has moved on and there are better ways of spending £1300 today. In the Roger's defence, it takes something like a Kef LS50 to better it at £800. If the current price of the LS3/5a were around £650 I could see it being a viable contender in today's market, though my preferences have changed and it would not be my choice today, even at that price.

Geoff

[Infinitely Baffled]

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

[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

[Infinitely Baffled]

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

At the risk of corrupting my own thread with drift, this is a fascinating subject in itself. My guess is that our systems are as they are largely as a result of gradual evolution over time, rather than fundamental transformation at intervals. Obviously, given that we all have an interest in the equipment as well as the music, it's natural that we keep our eyes and ears open regarding other equipment and other ways of reproducing music. It's also natural that we want to try something new from time to time, even if just out of curiosity. But I suspect that we make changes to our systems in a relatively conservative and linear fashion. We probably remain wedded to fundamental aspects of our set-ups, partly because it reflects how we see ourselves, audio-wise ("I prefer valves", I always like a D/D turntable", "electrostatics all the way" and so on), but also because there is often a significant financial investment embedded in our systems, and swapping something major out could involve losing a sizeable chunk of money in second-hand sales value. So we proceed crab-wise.

But it is interesting to ponder what we would each do if we were told we had a clean sheet of paper and we didn't have to start from where we are now.
IB

[Barry]

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

Not sure if the BBC thought the Quad ESLs (the 57s) were opposite to the "BBC sound". The BBC used Quad 57s to monitor the quality of their broadcasts on the World Service.

[Pharos]

I would go a little further IB, and touch on a subject discussed elsewhere; ontological security.

The 'self' we form is always an approximation in a tide of information and social norms; these influence substantially our values.

With our Hi-Fi journey we 'take a stand' at some point, and spend some money, and we look questioningly at out peers with their different choices. There is always the internally felt 'threat' that theirs is better than ours, and that we have made a mistake.

As the years progress we do actually have 'breakthrough learning epiphanys' and this can produce a revolutionary change to what we adopt as our new system. It takes real confidence to undo all that accumulated and embedded work and finalisation, and to fully grasp the change.

I agree that there is a relatively linear change over time, but that is I think, mostly refining a basic configuration.

Then we get an insight, and wonder, and ponder, and analyse, and then ask, do I jump or not? If we do it has IME given a great deal of upset and worry to the situation. What, if after all those months of working on the speakers, which were very good already, and I have improved considerably, if I have made a mistake by selling them? I'll never get them back. Oh that new sound, I've never heard that before, is it an artefact/error, or a new revelation of truth?

This is not an easy thing to be involved in for the above reasons.

[Pharos]

"Note sure if the BBC thought the Quad ESLs (the 57s) were opposite to the "BBC sound". The BBC used Quad 57s to monitor the quality of their broadcasts on the World Service. "

When, I didn't see them at Bush. (LS10, LS 5/5, LS 3/4, then BC1)

[Barry]

"Not sure if the BBC thought the Quad ESLs (the 57s) were opposite to the "BBC sound". The BBC used Quad 57s to monitor the quality of their broadcasts on the World Service. "

When, I didn't see them at Bush. (LS10, LS 5/5, LS 3/4, then BC1)

Probably before your time. The following is an advertisment by Quad in 1967 showing the 'Listening and Demonstration Room of the BBC Transcription Service' (might have been mistaken re. the World Service):

http://i780.photobucket.com/albums/yy88/barrydhunt/IMG_0001-3.jpg

[Martyn Miles]

The LS3/5as have always divided opinion.
I like them, but know their limitations.
I've owned various makes and have to say that the Falcon Acoustics kit I built
were the best sounding.
The price of used ones is ridiculous, mainly due to Far East collectors who don't buy them to listen
to.
At about £450/£500 they would be a good buy.
New, at over £2000 I would not ever consider them.
Unfortunately I don't see old used ones ever dropping in price.
Having said all that, they are unique and superb on voice.

[Infinitely Baffled]

I would go a little further IB, and touch on a subject discussed elsewhere; ontological security.

The 'self' we form is always an approximation in a tide of information and social norms; these influence substantially our values.

With our Hi-Fi journey we 'take a stand' at some point, and spend some money, and we look questioningly at out peers with their different choices. There is always the internally felt 'threat' that theirs is better than ours, and that we have made a mistake.

As the years progress we do actually have 'breakthrough learning epiphanys' and this can produce a revolutionary change to what we adopt as our new system. It takes real confidence to undo all that accumulated and embedded work and finalisation, and to fully grasp the change.

I agree that there is a relatively linear change over time, but that is I think, mostly refining a basic configuration.

Then we get an insight, and wonder, and ponder, and analyse, and then ask, do I jump or not? If we do it has IME given a great deal of upset and worry to the situation. What, if after all those months of working on the speakers, which were very good already, and I have improved considerably, if I have made a mistake by selling them? I'll never get them back. Oh that new sound, I've never heard that before, is it an artefact/error, or a new revelation of truth?

This is not an easy thing to be involved in for the above reasons.

That's an interesting and ... er ... insightful post!
IB

[farflungstar]

That's an interesting and ... er ... insightful post!
IB
+1