2,349 UK pounds for a pair of LS3/5A
4,099 for a pair of LS5/9's
https://www.whathifi.com/news/musical-fidelity-unveils-two-new-loudspeakers-based-on-the-bbcs-original-designs
On Mon 15/05/2023 17:24, Andrew wrote:
2,349 UK pounds for a pair of LS3/5A
4,099 for a pair of LS5/9's
https://www.whathifi.com/news/musical-fidelity-unveils-two-new-loudspeakers-based-on-the-bbcs-original-designs
A pair of LS3/5A started on eBay last week at something like -u9.99. They went in the end for well in excess of -u1700!!!
On 15/05/2023 20:18, Woody wrote:
On Mon 15/05/2023 17:24, Andrew wrote:
2,349 UK pounds for a pair of LS3/5A
4,099 for a pair of LS5/9's
https://www.whathifi.com/news/musical-fidelity-unveils-two-new-loudspeakers-based-on-the-bbcs-original-designs
A pair of LS3/5A started on eBay last week at something like -u9.99.
They went in the end for well in excess of -u1700!!!
Mate from Uni made some (1985?) from Wilmslow Audio driver/crossover
kits. He was very good at woodwork so the cases were beautiful. They
sounded rather good especially when you consider how tiny the bass
driver is in them.
2,349 UK pounds for a pair of LS3/5A
4,099 for a pair of LS5/9's
https://www.whathifi.com/news/musical-fidelity-unveils-two-new-loudspeakers-based-on-the-bbcs-original-designs
2,349 UK pounds for a pair of LS3/5A
4,099 for a pair of LS5/9's
https://www.whathifi.com/news/musical-fidelity-unveils-two-new-loudspeakers-based-on-the-bbcs-original-designs
On Mon 15/05/2023 17:24, Andrew wrote:
2,349 UK pounds for a pair of LS3/5A
4,099 for a pair of LS5/9's
https://www.whathifi.com/news/musical-fidelity-unveils-two-new-loudspeakers-based-on-the-bbcs-original-designs
A pair of LS3/5A started on eBay last week at something like u9.99. They went in the end for well in excess of u1700!!!
Now what is so special then? They were never that price when new.
Is this a case of money for old rope if you can make something
look authentic?
**It has to be said:
The LS3/5A is the most over-rated speaker system ever released. They are just an average performer.
Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.
2,349 UK pounds for a pair of LS3/5A
In article <u3tmc7$33lh6$1@dont-email.me>,
Andrew <Andrew97d@btinternet.com> wrote:
2,349 UK pounds for a pair of LS3/5A
I'd better increase my home insurance ;-(
On 17/05/2023 15:15, charles wrote:
In article <u3tmc7$33lh6$1@dont-email.me>,
Andrew <Andrew97d@btinternet.com> wrote:
2,349 UK pounds for a pair of LS3/5A
I'd better increase my home insurance ;-(
And extra for your ladderax shelving too :-)
On 17 May 2023 at 13:01:21 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <email@here.invalid> wrote:
Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.
What's streaming or bluetooth got to do with the sound quality that the speaker will generate? You can use bluetooth or streaming to supply audio to a
tin box but it won't sound very good.
A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
Some sound OK,
In article <kckml8F2ve2U2@mid.individual.net>,
Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> wrote:
A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
To think that you've either got no interest in audio or are hearing
impaired.
In article <kckml8F2ve2U2@mid.individual.net>,
Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> wrote:
A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
To think that you've either got no interest in audio or are hearing
impaired.
Some sound OK,
Compared to what?
On 17/05/2023 13:27, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 May 2023 at 13:01:21 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <email@here.invalid> wrote:
Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.
What's streaming or bluetooth got to do with the sound quality that the
speaker will generate? You can use bluetooth or streaming to supply audio to a
tin box but it won't sound very good.
A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
On 17/05/2023 20:48, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <kckml8F2ve2U2@mid.individual.net>,
Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> wrote:
A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
To think that you've either got no interest in audio or are hearing
impaired.
Some sound OK,
Compared to what?
My hearing isn't that precise, but these do me and a lot of other people
just fine:
https://www.sonos.com/en-gb/shop/move
Please explain why these are more suited to someone who has no interest
in audio or is hearing impaired?
On 16/05/2023 23:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**It has to be said:
The LS3/5A is the most over-rated speaker system ever released. They
are just an average performer.
To be fair, by definition all hi-fi is overrated.
On 17 May 2023 at 20:02:00 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <email@here.invalid> wrote:
On 17/05/2023 13:27, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 May 2023 at 13:01:21 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <email@here.invalid> wrote:
Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.
What's streaming or bluetooth got to do with the sound quality that the
speaker will generate? You can use bluetooth or streaming to supply audio to a
tin box but it won't sound very good.
A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
A combination of decent speakers with a quality amp is going to be rare in such a device, which is why one might stick to separate speakers, separate amp.
Although I suppose it's possible someone might do a proper job, but not much change out of -u5k I wouldn't have thought.
On 17/05/2023 21:38, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 May 2023 at 20:02:00 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <email@here.invalid> wrote:Amplifiers are now at the point where they are more or less 'perfect'
On 17/05/2023 13:27, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 May 2023 at 13:01:21 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <email@here.invalid> wrote:
Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.
What's streaming or bluetooth got to do with the sound quality that the >>>> speaker will generate? You can use bluetooth or streaming to supply audio to a
tin box but it won't sound very good.
A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
A combination of decent speakers with a quality amp is going to be rare in >> such a device, which is why one might stick to separate speakers, separate >> amp.
Although I suppose it's possible someone might do a proper job, but not much >> change out of -u5k I wouldn't have thought.
On 18 May 2023 at 09:02:32 BST, "The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 17/05/2023 21:38, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 May 2023 at 20:02:00 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <email@here.invalid> wrote:Amplifiers are now at the point where they are more or less 'perfect'
On 17/05/2023 13:27, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 May 2023 at 13:01:21 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <email@here.invalid> wrote:
Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.
What's streaming or bluetooth got to do with the sound quality that the >>>>> speaker will generate? You can use bluetooth or streaming to supply audio to a
tin box but it won't sound very good.
A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
A combination of decent speakers with a quality amp is going to be rare in >>> such a device, which is why one might stick to separate speakers, separate >>> amp.
Although I suppose it's possible someone might do a proper job, but not much
change out of -u5k I wouldn't have thought.
There wasn't a lot wrong with the Quad 33/303 combo I bought in 1970. No optical or other digital input, of course. Especially when paired with the IMF
RSPM I bought in 1974. Not that I could tell, these days, of course, but I sure could then.
On 17/05/2023 21:38, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 May 2023 at 20:02:00 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <email@here.invalid>Amplifiers are now at the point where they are more or less 'perfect'
wrote:
On 17/05/2023 13:27, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 May 2023 at 13:01:21 BST, "Adrian Caspersz"
<email@here.invalid> wrote:
Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.
What's streaming or bluetooth got to do with the sound quality that the >>>> speaker will generate? You can use bluetooth or streaming to supply
audio to a
tin box but it won't sound very good.
A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
A combination of decent speakers with a quality amp is going to be
rare in
such a device, which is why one might stick to separate speakers,
separate
amp.
Although I suppose it's possible someone might do a proper job, but
not much
change out of -u5k I wouldn't have thought.
Loudspeakers never have been. They are all compromises of one sort or another.
Having said that modern materials make even cheap speakers sound as good
as the 'greats' from yesteryear.
On 18/05/2023 09:07, Tim Streater wrote:
On 18 May 2023 at 09:02:32 BST, "The Natural Philosopher"Quad 303 was relative junk actually.-a Had a lot of crossover distortion especially at HF. Many of its contemporaries were in fact better.
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 17/05/2023 21:38, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 May 2023 at 20:02:00 BST, "Adrian Caspersz"Amplifiers are now at the point where they are more or less 'perfect'
<email@here.invalid> wrote:
On 17/05/2023 13:27, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 May 2023 at 13:01:21 BST, "Adrian Caspersz"
<email@here.invalid> wrote:
Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.
What's streaming or bluetooth got to do with the sound quality
that the
speaker will generate? You can use bluetooth or streaming to
supply audio to a
tin box but it won't sound very good.
A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
A combination of decent speakers with a quality amp is going to be
rare in
such a device, which is why one might stick to separate speakers,
separate
amp.
Although I suppose it's possible someone might do a proper job, but
not much
change out of -u5k I wouldn't have thought.
There wasn't a lot wrong with the Quad 33/303 combo I bought in 1970. No
optical or other digital input, of course. Especially when paired with
the IMF
RSPM I bought in 1974. Not that I could tell, these days, of course,
but I
sure could then.
Things got better with the advent of audio power FETS and/or class AAB designs.
As transistor speeds went up the problems of maintaining high levels of feedback at high frequencies without instability, lessened.
Today even the class D's will beat a Quad 303
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <kckml8F2ve2U2@mid.individual.net>,
Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> wrote:
A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
To think that you've either got no interest in audio or are hearing impaired.
Who isnat at our age? ;-)
Compromise dear boy. No bass and precious little output power.
Having said that modern materials make even cheap speakers sound as
good as the 'greats' from yesteryear.
**You reckon? Find me a speaker that sounds as good (accurate) as a pair
of Quad ESL57s or ESL63s and I will take notice.
where you can stick your modern speakers. FWIW: Apart from my ESL63s, my moving coil speakers are now celebrating their 30th birthday.
On 17/05/2023 20:48, Bob Latham wrote:
Compared to what?
My hearing isn't that precise,
but these do me and a lot of other people just fine:
https://www.sonos.com/en-gb/shop/move
Please explain why these are more suited to someone who has no
interest in audio or is hearing impaired?
On Wed, 17 May 2023 10:16:48 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:
Now what is so special then? They were never that price when new.
Is this a case of money for old rope if you can make something
look authentic?
It's what's called a cult-following. Lots of stuff about these on
t'internet e.g. >https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/falcon-acoustics-bbc-ls35a/
the Wiki article is good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS3/5A
If you have a pair, sell them for the best money you can get. As you
get older your hearing won't be up to needing the best hifi anyway.
On 17 May 2023 at 20:02:00 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <email@here.invalid> wrote:
On 17/05/2023 13:27, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 May 2023 at 13:01:21 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <email@here.invalid> wrote:
Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.
What's streaming or bluetooth got to do with the sound quality that the
speaker will generate? You can use bluetooth or streaming to supply audio to a
tin box but it won't sound very good.
A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
A combination of decent speakers with a quality amp is going to be rare in >such a device, which is why one might stick to separate speakers, separate >amp.
Although I suppose it's possible someone might do a proper job, but not much >change out of -u5k I wouldn't have thought.
They're OK for background listening, compact and for many just fine.
However, they're mono not stereo unless you get two in the same room.
I've not heard of anyone doing that but I'm aware that you can. But
in honesty they don't get close to our mini system let alone the main
hi-fi for sound quality or detail or stereo image.
Sonos force software/firmware updates on their customers by shutting
down functionality of your devices until you update. Crucially, you
cannot re-index your music library or make changes to network
settings etc. all this is removed without warning several times per
year. My hi-fi streamer doesn't do that. It informs me of an upgrade
and lets me decide.
You may say big deal, so what. Well it all goes pair shaped if you
purchased something like an iPad to control the Sonos devices. When
you update Sonos it frequently also updates the control point
software on the iPad. Then Sonos insist that the iPad operating
system is the latest version. All fine unless your iPad is a few
years old and Apple provide no more updates. You are then stuffed.
(Just in case you're thinking of it I'll mention that I'm aware of
"sonopad" and its peculiarities.)
From having a fully working system one day to a crippled one the next
without warning or choice AND the only way out is buy a new control
device or a new iPad at -u500 or so. That's why I hate Sonos.
Having said that modern materials make even cheap speakers
sound as good as the 'greats' from yesteryear.
On 17/05/2023 20:48, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <kckml8F2ve2U2@mid.individual.net>,
-a-a-a Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> wrote:
A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
To think that you've either got no interest in audio or are hearing
impaired.
Some sound OK,
Compared to what?
My hearing isn't that precise, but these do me and a lot of other people just fine:
-a https://www.sonos.com/en-gb/shop/move
Please explain why these are more suited to someone who has no interest
in audio or is hearing impaired?
On 17 May 2023 at 21:22:21 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
On 17/05/2023 20:48, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <kckml8F2ve2U2@mid.individual.net>,
Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> wrote:
A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
To think that you've either got no interest in audio or are hearing
impaired.
Some sound OK,
Compared to what?
My hearing isn't that precise, but these do me and a lot of other people
just fine:
https://www.sonos.com/en-gb/shop/move
Please explain why these are more suited to someone who has no interest
in audio or is hearing impaired?
Going to be junk at that price. You'd be much better off with decent headphones.
On 17/05/2023 21:22, Fredxx wrote:
On 17/05/2023 20:48, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <kckml8F2ve2U2@mid.individual.net>, Adrian Caspersz
<email@here.invalid> wrote:
A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
To think that you've either got no interest in audio or are hearing
impaired.
Some sound OK,
Compared to what?
My hearing isn't that precise, but these do me and a lot of other
people just fine: https://www.sonos.com/en-gb/shop/move
Please explain why these are more suited to someone who has no interest
in audio or is hearing impaired?
Before lockdown I paid a visit to John Lewis and there was a Sonos rep in
the store.
I asked him how a single unit could reproduce a proper stereo image. His reply was that there were two speakers in it, a woofer and a tweeter.
On 18 May 2023 at 10:53:17 BST, "Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
From having a fully working system one day to a crippled one the next
without warning or choice AND the only way out is buy a new control
device or a new iPad at -u500 or so. That's why I hate Sonos.
A good reason for eschewing all this bollocks. Same with smart phones really.
On 17/05/2023 21:22, Fredxx wrote:
On 17/05/2023 20:48, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <kckml8F2ve2U2@mid.individual.net>,
Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> wrote:
A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
To think that you've either got no interest in audio or are hearing
impaired.
Some sound OK,
Compared to what?
My hearing isn't that precise, but these do me and a lot of other people
just fine:
https://www.sonos.com/en-gb/shop/move
Please explain why these are more suited to someone who has no interest
in audio or is hearing impaired?
Before lockdown I paid a visit to John Lewis and there was a
Sonos rep in the store.
I asked him how a single unit could reproduce a proper stereo
image. His reply was that there were two speakers in it, a woofer
and a tweeter.
Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
On 18 May 2023 at 10:53:17 BST, "Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
From having a fully working system one day to a crippled one the next
without warning or choice AND the only way out is buy a new control
device or a new iPad at -u500 or so. That's why I hate Sonos.
A good reason for eschewing all this bollocks. Same with smart phones really.
Ha! Gotta love luddites who havenrCOt a clue about smart phones.
Today I was out in the middle of nowhere listening to a bird (unseen)
singing itrCOs heart out.
Whipped out my phone and within seconds my phone
had identified the bird from its song and provided me with a picture.
Try doing that with a dumb phone.
Any who says that smart phones are bollocks might as well dismiss the internet, digital cameras, and all manner of mind bogglingly useful apps
that are well nigh indispensable these days.
On 18/05/2023 09:32, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Compromise dear boy. No bass and precious little output power.
Having said that modern materials make even cheap speakers sound as
good as the 'greats' from yesteryear.
**You reckon? Find me a speaker that sounds as good (accurate) as a
pair of Quad ESL57s or ESL63s and I will take notice.
Until then, you know
where you can stick your modern speakers. FWIW: Apart from my ESL63s,
my moving coil speakers are now celebrating their 30th birthday.
Mine are over 40 years old. Mostly.
On 18 May 2023 at 21:04:07 BST, "Tim+" <tim.downie@gmail.com> wrote:Neither is mine. It is however made much more convenient.
Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
On 18 May 2023 at 10:53:17 BST, "Bob Latham" >>> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
From having a fully working system one day to a crippled one the next
without warning or choice AND the only way out is buy a new control>>>> device or a new iPad at -u500 or so. That's why I hate Sonos.
A good reason for eschewing all this bollocks. Same with smart phones >>> really.
Ha! Gotta love luddites who havenrCOt a clue about smart phones.
Today I was out in the middle of nowhere listening to a bird (unseen)>> singing itrCOs heart out.
OTOH I know that your apostrophe is superfluous.
Whipped out my phone and within seconds my phone
had identified the bird from its song and provided me with a picture.>>
Try doing that with a dumb phone.
Any who says that smart phones are bollocks might as well dismiss the>> internet, digital cameras, and all manner of mind bogglingly useful apps
that are well nigh indispensable these days.
None of these have anything to do with smart phones.
My life is not controlled by apps.
Some of us were already using the Internet back in the 80s.But not wherever you happened to be when out and about.
On 17/05/2023 21:22, Fredxx wrote:
On 17/05/2023 20:48, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <kckml8F2ve2U2@mid.individual.net>,
Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> wrote:
A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
To think that you've either got no interest in audio or are hearing
impaired.
Some sound OK,
Compared to what?
My hearing isn't that precise, but these do me and a lot of other people
just fine:
https://www.sonos.com/en-gb/shop/move
Please explain why these are more suited to someone who has no interest
in audio or is hearing impaired?
Before lockdown I paid a visit to John Lewis and there was a
Sonos rep in the store.
I asked him how a single unit could reproduce a proper stereo
image. His reply was that there were two speakers in it, a woofer
and a tweeter.
On 18/05/2023 7:06 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/05/2023 09:32, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Compromise dear boy. No bass and precious little output power.
Having said that modern materials make even cheap speakers sound as
good as the 'greats' from yesteryear.
**You reckon? Find me a speaker that sounds as good (accurate) as a
pair of Quad ESL57s or ESL63s and I will take notice.
**Not quite true. Sure, the ESL57 cannot deliver significant SPLs, but
the sound quality, when used within their limits, is sublime. The ESL63
is entirely adequate for most listeners, most of the time. Bass is fabulously clean, which makes most listeners think they don't deliver
much bass. The Quad ESL63 exhibits a usefully flat response down to 30Hz.
Until then, you know
where you can stick your modern speakers. FWIW: Apart from my ESL63s,
my moving coil speakers are now celebrating their 30th birthday.
Mine are over 40 years old. Mostly.
**There you go.
Some of us were already using the Internet back in the 80s.
But not wherever you happened to be when out and about.
I was lucky enough to be present when Peter Walker and his wife did
a demonstration of the ESL63 at the Harrogate Hi-fi Show around
1980. Even in a ballroom(?) their ability to produce sound levels
and project sound was amazing.
I have lived in Harrogate since 1990 - about 5 years after the
hi-fi shows ceased!
In article <u478td$jurm$1@dont-email.me>,
Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
I was lucky enough to be present when Peter Walker and his wife did
a demonstration of the ESL63 at the Harrogate Hi-fi Show around
1980. Even in a ballroom(?) their ability to produce sound levels
and project sound was amazing.
I have lived in Harrogate since 1990 - about 5 years after the
hi-fi shows ceased!
Was that called the Festival of sound by any chance?
I went to a Hi-Fi show in Harrogate around that time but can't be
sure of the exact year. It's a long way from Stourbridge and my wife
and I had intended to stay overnight.
I'm sure Quad, Kef, SME were there but my most memorable thing from
the day was that there was a 'big band' playing in the theatre. It
was great but I remember thinking - my father keeps telling me my
music is loud and so was the music of his era.
We found we completed the show quicker than expected and went into
town were we found a branch of Comet. I purchased a new SME arm from
there, the one you can unplug the whole arm tube from the bearings.
We then decided to drive home without staying. The furthest I've ever
driven in a day.
On 15/05/2023 20:18, Woody wrote:
On Mon 15/05/2023 17:24, Andrew wrote:based-on-the-bbcs-original-designs
2,349 UK pounds for a pair of LS3/5A
4,099 for a pair of LS5/9's
https://www.whathifi.com/news/musical-fidelity-unveils-two-new-loudspeakers-
A pair of LS3/5A started on eBay last week at something like u9.99. They
went in the end for well in excess of u1700!!!
Mate from Uni made some (1985?) from Wilmslow Audio driver/crossover
kits. He was very good at woodwork so the cases were beautiful. They
sounded rather good especially when you consider how tiny the bass
driver is in them.
On 19 May 2023 at 02:10:32 BST, "ken" <klop@gmail.com> wrote:
Some of us were already using the Internet back in the 80s.
But not wherever you happened to be when out and about.
When I'm out and about, I want to enjoy the out and about. That's what
it's
for.
Having said that modern materials make even cheap speakers sound as
good as the 'greats' from yesteryear.
**You reckon? Find me a speaker that sounds as good (accurate) as a
pair of Quad ESL57s or ESL63s and I will take notice.
Compromise dear boy. No bass and precious little output power.
**Not quite true. Sure, the ESL57 cannot deliver significant SPLs,
the sound quality, when used within their limits, is sublime. The ESL63
is entirely adequate for most listeners, most of the time.
Bass is fabulously clean, which makes most listeners think they don't deliver
much bass.
Amplifiers are now at the point where they are more or less 'perfect'
Quad 303 was relative junk actually.
Had a lot of crossover distortion especially at HF.
Today even the class D's will beat a Quad 303
Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
On 18 May 2023 at 10:53:17 BST, "Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
From having a fully working system one day to a crippled one the next
without warning or choice AND the only way out is buy a new control
device or a new iPad at -u500 or so. That's why I hate Sonos.
A good reason for eschewing all this bollocks. Same with smart phones really.
Ha! Gotta love luddites who havenrCOt a clue about smart phones.
Today I was out in the middle of nowhere listening to a bird (unseen)
singing itrCOs heart out. Whipped out my phone and within seconds my phone had identified the bird from its song and provided me with a picture.
Try doing that with a dumb phone.
Any who says that smart phones are bollocks might as well dismiss the internet, digital cameras, and all manner of mind bogglingly useful apps
that are well nigh indispensable these days.
Yes, I *could* live without them, but I wouldnrCOt want to live such an impoverished life.
Tim
On 18/05/2023 21:04, Tim+ wrote:The best of the apps allow you to capture the sound and tell
Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:Try doing that where the mobile signal is rather poor though.
On 18 May 2023 at 10:53:17 BST, "Bob Latham" >>> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:Ha! Gotta love luddites who havenrCOt a clue about smart phones.
From having a fully working system one day to a crippled one the next >>>> without warning or choice AND the only way out is buy a new control>>>> device or a new iPad at -u500 or so. That's why I hate Sonos.
A good reason for eschewing all this bollocks. Same with smart phones >>> really.
Today I was out in the middle of nowhere listening to a bird (unseen)
singing itrCOs heart out. Whipped out my phone and within seconds my phone >> had identified the bird from its song and provided me with a picture.>> Try doing that with a dumb phone.
There are still plenty of not-spots and you also need to haveHardly rocket science to do either.
downloaded the app beforehand and know how to use it.
But nowhere near as convient with an unseen bird or even a seen one.Any who says that smart phones are bollocks might as well dismiss the>> internet, digital cameras, and all manner of mind bogglingly useful appsThere are such things as books, and plenty related to birds, insects
that are well nigh indispensable these days.
Yes, I *could* live without them, but I wouldnrCOt want to live such an
impoverished life.
and other stuff.
Before lockdown I paid a visit to John Lewis and there was a
Sonos rep in the store.
I asked him how a single unit could reproduce a proper stereo
image. His reply was that there were two speakers in it, a
woofer and a tweeter.
Unusual IME - I find the JL sales staff to be pretty knowledgeable.
On 18/05/2023 6:12 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/05/2023 09:07, Tim Streater wrote:
On 18 May 2023 at 09:02:32 BST, "The Natural Philosopher"Quad 303 was relative junk actually.-a Had a lot of crossover
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 17/05/2023 21:38, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 May 2023 at 20:02:00 BST, "Adrian Caspersz"Amplifiers are now at the point where they are more or less
<email@here.invalid> wrote:
On 17/05/2023 13:27, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 May 2023 at 13:01:21 BST, "Adrian Caspersz"
<email@here.invalid> wrote:
Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.
What's streaming or bluetooth got to do with the sound quality
that the speaker will generate? You can use bluetooth or
streaming to supply audio to a tin box but it won't sound very
good.
A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
A combination of decent speakers with a quality amp is going to
be rare in such a device, which is why one might stick to
separate speakers, separate amp.
Although I suppose it's possible someone might do a proper job,
but not much change out of u5k I wouldn't have thought.
'perfect'
There wasn't a lot wrong with the Quad 33/303 combo I bought in
1970. No optical or other digital input, of course. Especially when
paired with the IMF RSPM I bought in 1974. Not that I could tell,
these days, of course, but I sure could then.
distortion especially at HF. Many of its contemporaries were in fact
better.
**Agreed. The 33/303 were, at best, extremely primitive, poorly
performing products.
On 09:35 18 May 2023, Trevor Wilson said:
On 18/05/2023 6:12 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/05/2023 09:07, Tim Streater wrote:
On 18 May 2023 at 09:02:32 BST, "The Natural Philosopher"Quad 303 was relative junk actually.-C-a Had a lot of crossover
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 17/05/2023 21:38, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 May 2023 at 20:02:00 BST, "Adrian Caspersz"Amplifiers are now at the point where they are more or less
<email@here.invalid> wrote:
On 17/05/2023 13:27, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 May 2023 at 13:01:21 BST, "Adrian Caspersz"
<email@here.invalid> wrote:
Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.
What's streaming or bluetooth got to do with the sound quality >>>>>>>> that the speaker will generate? You can use bluetooth or
streaming to supply audio to a tin box but it won't sound very >>>>>>>> good.
A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
A combination of decent speakers with a quality amp is going to
be rare in such a device, which is why one might stick to
separate speakers, separate amp.
Although I suppose it's possible someone might do a proper job,
but not much change out of -u5k I wouldn't have thought.
'perfect'
There wasn't a lot wrong with the Quad 33/303 combo I bought in
1970. No optical or other digital input, of course. Especially when
paired with the IMF RSPM I bought in 1974. Not that I could tell,
these days, of course, but I sure could then.
distortion especially at HF. Many of its contemporaries were in fact
better.
**Agreed. The 33/303 were, at best, extremely primitive, poorly
performing products.
Reconditioned Quad 33/303s certainly go fo a pretty penny. This dealer
is asking -u700, although bargain hunters can probably find them for
half the price. I'm not sure I would pay that.
https://audiogold.co.uk/product/quad-33-303/
**Agreed. The 33/303 were, at best, extremely primitive, poorly
performing products.
Reconditioned Quad 33/303s certainly go fo a pretty penny. This dealer
is asking -u700, although bargain hunters can probably find them for
half the price. I'm not sure I would pay that.
https://audiogold.co.uk/product/quad-33-303/
Just because people want to pay big Bucks for them, doesn't mean they're good amps though.
Just because people want to pay big Bucks for them, doesn't mean
they're good amps though.
Reconditioned Quad 33/303s certainly go fo a pretty penny. This
dealer is asking u700, although bargain hunters can probably find
them for half the price. I'm not sure I would pay that.
https://audiogold.co.uk/product/quad-33-303/
On 22/05/2023 12:40 am, Pamela wrote:
On 09:35-a 18 May 2023, Trevor Wilson said:
On 18/05/2023 6:12 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/05/2023 09:07, Tim Streater wrote:
On 18 May 2023 at 09:02:32 BST, "The Natural Philosopher"Quad 303 was relative junk actually.-C-a Had a lot of crossover
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 17/05/2023 21:38, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 May 2023 at 20:02:00 BST, "Adrian Caspersz"Amplifiers are now at the point where they are more or less
<email@here.invalid> wrote:
On 17/05/2023 13:27, Tim Streater wrote:A combination of decent speakers with a quality amp is going to
On 17 May 2023 at 13:01:21 BST, "Adrian Caspersz"
<email@here.invalid> wrote:
Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.
What's streaming or bluetooth got to do with the sound quality >>>>>>>>> that the speaker will generate? You can use bluetooth or
streaming to supply audio to a tin box but it won't sound very >>>>>>>>> good.
A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi. >>>>>>>
be rare in such a device, which is why one might stick to
separate speakers, separate amp.
Although I suppose it's possible someone might do a proper job,
but not much change out of -u5k I wouldn't have thought.
'perfect'
There wasn't a lot wrong with the Quad 33/303 combo I bought in
1970. No optical or other digital input, of course. Especially when
paired with the IMF RSPM I bought in 1974. Not that I could tell,
these days, of course, but I sure could then.
distortion especially at HF. Many of its contemporaries were in fact
better.
**Agreed. The 33/303 were, at best, extremely primitive, poorly
performing products.
Reconditioned Quad 33/303s certainly go fo a pretty penny. This dealer
is asking -u700, although bargain hunters can probably find them for
half the price. I'm not sure I would pay that.
https://audiogold.co.uk/product/quad-33-303/
**Excellent. I have a couple of 33/303 units here, awaiting restoration. Should earn me a pretty penny.
Just because people want to pay big Bucks for them, doesn't mean they're good amps though.
On 21/05/2023 22:20, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 22/05/2023 12:40 am, Pamela wrote:Nope.-a Same with Marshall Valve amps
On 09:35-a 18 May 2023, Trevor Wilson said:
On 18/05/2023 6:12 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/05/2023 09:07, Tim Streater wrote:
On 18 May 2023 at 09:02:32 BST, "The Natural Philosopher"Quad 303 was relative junk actually.-C-a Had a lot of crossover
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 17/05/2023 21:38, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 May 2023 at 20:02:00 BST, "Adrian Caspersz"Amplifiers are now at the point where they are more or less
<email@here.invalid> wrote:
On 17/05/2023 13:27, Tim Streater wrote:A combination of decent speakers with a quality amp is going to >>>>>>>> be rare in such a device, which is why one might stick to
On 17 May 2023 at 13:01:21 BST, "Adrian Caspersz"
<email@here.invalid> wrote:
Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.
What's streaming or bluetooth got to do with the sound quality >>>>>>>>>> that the speaker will generate? You can use bluetooth or
streaming to supply audio to a tin box but it won't sound very >>>>>>>>>> good.
A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi. >>>>>>>>
separate speakers, separate amp.
Although I suppose it's possible someone might do a proper job, >>>>>>>> but not much change out of -u5k I wouldn't have thought.
'perfect'
There wasn't a lot wrong with the Quad 33/303 combo I bought in
1970. No optical or other digital input, of course. Especially when >>>>>> paired with the IMF RSPM I bought in 1974. Not that I could tell,
these days, of course, but I sure could then.
distortion especially at HF. Many of its contemporaries were in fact >>>>> better.
**Agreed. The 33/303 were, at best, extremely primitive, poorly
performing products.
Reconditioned Quad 33/303s certainly go fo a pretty penny. This dealer
is asking -u700, although bargain hunters can probably find them for
half the price. I'm not sure I would pay that.
https://audiogold.co.uk/product/quad-33-303/
**Excellent. I have a couple of 33/303 units here, awaiting
restoration. Should earn me a pretty penny.
Just because people want to pay big Bucks for them, doesn't mean
they're good amps though.
On 22/05/2023 9:13 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/05/2023 22:20, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 22/05/2023 12:40 am, Pamela wrote:Nope.-a Same with Marshall Valve amps
On 09:35-a 18 May 2023, Trevor Wilson said:
On 18/05/2023 6:12 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/05/2023 09:07, Tim Streater wrote:
On 18 May 2023 at 09:02:32 BST, "The Natural Philosopher"Quad 303 was relative junk actually.-C-a Had a lot of crossover
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 17/05/2023 21:38, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 May 2023 at 20:02:00 BST, "Adrian Caspersz"Amplifiers are now at the point where they are more or less
<email@here.invalid> wrote:
On 17/05/2023 13:27, Tim Streater wrote:A combination of decent speakers with a quality amp is going to >>>>>>>>> be rare in such a device, which is why one might stick to
On 17 May 2023 at 13:01:21 BST, "Adrian Caspersz"
<email@here.invalid> wrote:
Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.
What's streaming or bluetooth got to do with the sound quality >>>>>>>>>>> that the speaker will generate? You can use bluetooth or >>>>>>>>>>> streaming to supply audio to a tin box but it won't sound very >>>>>>>>>>> good.
A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi. >>>>>>>>>
separate speakers, separate amp.
Although I suppose it's possible someone might do a proper job, >>>>>>>>> but not much change out of -u5k I wouldn't have thought.
'perfect'
There wasn't a lot wrong with the Quad 33/303 combo I bought in
1970. No optical or other digital input, of course. Especially when >>>>>>> paired with the IMF RSPM I bought in 1974. Not that I could tell, >>>>>>> these days, of course, but I sure could then.
distortion especially at HF. Many of its contemporaries were in fact >>>>>> better.
**Agreed. The 33/303 were, at best, extremely primitive, poorly
performing products.
Reconditioned Quad 33/303s certainly go fo a pretty penny. This dealer >>>> is asking -u700, although bargain hunters can probably find them for
half the price. I'm not sure I would pay that.
https://audiogold.co.uk/product/quad-33-303/
**Excellent. I have a couple of 33/303 units here, awaiting
restoration. Should earn me a pretty penny.
Just because people want to pay big Bucks for them, doesn't mean
they're good amps though.
**I'm pretty certain Phil will chime in with his opinion on Marshall
valve amps. He experience with musical instrument amps is quite extensive.
On 22/05/2023 12:22, Trevor Wilson wrote:Valve amplifiers used to be favoured because of their distortion and
**I'm pretty certain Phil will chime in with his opinion onI have one, its relative crap, its worth about -u800. I have two sub
Marshall valve amps. He experience with musical instrument amps is
quite extensive.
-u100 Fender solid state amps that are in almost every way infinitely
better.
On Mon, 22 May 2023 12:38:39 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 22/05/2023 12:22, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**I'm pretty certain Phil will chime in with his opinion on
Marshall valve amps. He experience with musical instrument amps is
quite extensive.
I have one, its relative crap, its worth about -u800. I have two sub
-u100 Fender solid state amps that are in almost every way infinitely
better.
Valve amplifiers used to be favoured because of their distortion and
greater difficulty of destruction, didn't they?
Then later, valve hifi amplifiers came into vogue because they were stupendously expensive and fashionable.
On Mon 22/05/2023 14:19, Joe wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2023 12:38:39 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 22/05/2023 12:22, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**I'm pretty certain Phil will chime in with his opinion on
Marshall valve amps. He experience with musical instrument amps is
quite extensive.
I have one, its relative crap, its worth about -u800. I have two sub
-u100 Fender solid state amps that are in almost every way infinitely
better.
Valve amplifiers used to be favoured because of their distortion and
greater difficulty of destruction, didn't they?
Then later, valve hifi amplifiers came into vogue because they were
stupendously expensive and fashionable.
The main thing about valve amps is/was that their main distortion is
second harmonic to which the human ear does not object.
much above about 0.5% third harmonic sets your teeth on edge, north of
5% second harmonic is just not heard.
second harmonic than fundamental
high levels of 2nd and they don't sound too bad do they?
The main thing about valve amps is/was that their main distortion is
second harmonic to which the human ear does not object.
Woody wrote:
-----------------------
The main thing about valve amps is/was that their main distortion is
second harmonic to which the human ear does not object.
** A very old and tired myth.
Single ended valve amps produce mainly 2nd harmonic while push-pull output stages inherently cancel out the 2nd leaving mostly 3rd.
On Mon, 22 May 2023 12:38:39 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 22/05/2023 12:22, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**I'm pretty certain Phil will chime in with his opinion on
Marshall valve amps. He experience with musical instrument amps is
quite extensive.
I have one, its relative crap, its worth about -u800. I have two sub
-u100 Fender solid state amps that are in almost every way infinitely
better.
Valve amplifiers used to be favoured because of their distortion and
greater difficulty of destruction, didn't they?
Then later, valve hifi amplifiers came into vogue because they were stupendously expensive and fashionable.
On Mon 22/05/2023 14:19, Joe wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2023 12:38:39 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 22/05/2023 12:22, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**I'm pretty certain Phil will chime in with his opinion on
Marshall valve amps. He experience with musical instrument amps is
quite extensive.
I have one, its relative crap, its worth about -u800. I have two sub
-u100 Fender solid state amps that are in almost every way infinitely
better.
Valve amplifiers used to be favoured because of their distortion and
greater difficulty of destruction, didn't they?
Then later, valve hifi amplifiers came into vogue because they were
stupendously expensive and fashionable.
The main thing about valve amps is/was that their main distortion is
second harmonic
much above about 0.5% third harmonic sets your teeth on edge, north of
5% second harmonic is just not heard. Indeed a violin produces more
second harmonic than fundamental and speakers equally have relatively
high levels of 2nd and they don't sound too bad do they?
On 22/05/2023 15:53, Woody wrote:
On Mon 22/05/2023 14:19, Joe wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2023 12:38:39 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 22/05/2023 12:22, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**I'm pretty certain Phil will chime in with his opinion on
Marshall valve amps. He experience with musical instrument amps is
quite extensive.
I have one, its relative crap, its worth about -u800. I have two sub
-u100 Fender solid state amps that are in almost every way infinitely
better.
Valve amplifiers used to be favoured because of their distortion and
greater difficulty of destruction, didn't they?
Then later, valve hifi amplifiers came into vogue because they were
stupendously expensive and fashionable.
The main thing about valve amps is/was that their main distortion is
second harmonic
No, it isn't. Not where it counts on a symmetrical class B output stage.
For guitar work the 20W valve will, all other things being equal,
coupled to a suitable non linear response loudspeaker and cabinet, sound better than either, especially with negative feedback totally absent, Cf
the VOX-a AC30.
On 23/05/2023 12:53 am, Woody wrote:
On Mon 22/05/2023 14:19, Joe wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2023 12:38:39 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 22/05/2023 12:22, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**I'm pretty certain Phil will chime in with his opinion on
Marshall valve amps. He experience with musical instrument amps is
quite extensive.
I have one, its relative crap, its worth about -u800. I have two sub
-u100 Fender solid state amps that are in almost every way infinitely
better.
Valve amplifiers used to be favoured because of their distortion and
greater difficulty of destruction, didn't they?
Then later, valve hifi amplifiers came into vogue because they were
stupendously expensive and fashionable.
The main thing about valve amps is/was that their main distortion is
second harmonic to which the human ear does not object.
**SOME humans accept even order harmonics as OK. I and many others, do
not. Less distortion is always better.
-aIMSMC whilst
much above about 0.5% third harmonic sets your teeth on edge, north of
5% second harmonic is just not heard.
**Not so. It has been generally accepted that, under careful listening conditions, that humans can perceive around 0.1% THD.
-aIndeed a violin produces more
second harmonic than fundamental
**Most musical instruments produce large amounts of harmonics. That does
not suggest that adding extra harmonics is a good thing.
-aand speakers equally have relatively
high levels of 2nd and they don't sound too bad do they?
**Nope. High quality speakers typically exhibit low levels of
distortion. In fact, some speakers produce lower levels of distortion
than many valve amps.
https://www.quad-hifi.co.uk/esl-2912/
Distortion (100dB at 1m)-a-a-a Above 1000Hz 0.15%
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Above 100Hz 0.5%
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Above 50Hz 1.0%
https://www.bowerswilkins.com/en-us/product/loudspeakers/801-d4
Harmonic distortion
2nd and 3rd harmonics (90dB, 1m on axis)
<1% 30Hz - 20kHz
<0.3% 100Hz - 20kHz
On 22/05/2023 15:53, Woody wrote:
On Mon 22/05/2023 14:19, Joe wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2023 12:38:39 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 22/05/2023 12:22, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**I'm pretty certain Phil will chime in with his opinion on
Marshall valve amps. He experience with musical instrument amps is
quite extensive.
I have one, its relative crap, its worth about -u800. I have two sub
-u100 Fender solid state amps that are in almost every way infinitely
better.
Valve amplifiers used to be favoured because of their distortion and
greater difficulty of destruction, didn't they?
Then later, valve hifi amplifiers came into vogue because they were
stupendously expensive and fashionable.
The main thing about valve amps is/was that their main distortion is
second harmonic
No, it isn't. Not where it counts on a symmetrical class B output stage.
to which the human ear does not object. IMSMC whilst
much above about 0.5% third harmonic sets your teeth on edge, north of
5% second harmonic is just not heard. Indeed a violin produces more
second harmonic than fundamental and speakers equally have relatively
high levels of 2nd and they don't sound too bad do they?
Mostly crap. The reason valve amps sound better is that the overload
more gracefully so cloth eared hifi nuts get less high order ODD harmonics.
So 20W valve amplifier operating at 1% distortion will sound better than
a 20W tranny at 1% distortion.
But a 100W tranny operating at 20W will sound better than either.
In hi fi apps.
For guitar work the 20W valve will, all other things being equal,
coupled to a suitable non linear response loudspeaker and cabinet, sound better than either, especially with negative feedback totally absent, Cf
the VOX-a AC30.
On 22/05/2023 23:01, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 23/05/2023 12:53 am, Woody wrote:The problem with loudspeakers in not distortion - at low sound levels
On Mon 22/05/2023 14:19, Joe wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2023 12:38:39 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 22/05/2023 12:22, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**I'm pretty certain Phil will chime in with his opinion on
Marshall valve amps. He experience with musical instrument amps is >>>>>> quite extensive.
I have one, its relative crap, its worth about -u800. I have two sub >>>>> -u100 Fender solid state amps that are in almost every way infinitely >>>>> better.
Valve amplifiers used to be favoured because of their distortion and
greater difficulty of destruction, didn't they?
Then later, valve hifi amplifiers came into vogue because they were
stupendously expensive and fashionable.
The main thing about valve amps is/was that their main distortion is
second harmonic to which the human ear does not object.
**SOME humans accept even order harmonics as OK. I and many others, do
not. Less distortion is always better.
-a-aIMSMC whilst
much above about 0.5% third harmonic sets your teeth on edge, north
of 5% second harmonic is just not heard.
**Not so. It has been generally accepted that, under careful listening
conditions, that humans can perceive around 0.1% THD.
-a-aIndeed a violin produces more
second harmonic than fundamental
**Most musical instruments produce large amounts of harmonics. That
does not suggest that adding extra harmonics is a good thing.
-a-aand speakers equally have relatively
high levels of 2nd and they don't sound too bad do they?
**Nope. High quality speakers typically exhibit low levels of
distortion. In fact, some speakers produce lower levels of distortion
than many valve amps.
https://www.quad-hifi.co.uk/esl-2912/
Distortion (100dB at 1m)-a-a-a Above 1000Hz 0.15%
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Above 100Hz 0.5%
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Above 50Hz 1.0%
https://www.bowerswilkins.com/en-us/product/loudspeakers/801-d4
Harmonic distortion
2nd and 3rd harmonics (90dB, 1m on axis)
<1% 30Hz - 20kHz
<0.3% 100Hz - 20kHz
they are excellent
cones travel that distortion increases. It is *resonance*. In practice
you 'hear' the loudspeaker, not the music. This is perfect for electric guitars, as the loudspeaker is like the sound box of an acoustic guitar,
but is its non ideal for hi fi.
Hence the whole idea behind the KEF Bextrene cones. Stiff, and
inherently 'dead' . And the idea behind multi element speakers, so that
each speakers resonance was not where it was called to operate by the crossovers.
The big problem with early transistors were that they were not fast and could not handle high queisecentt power: that led to under biasing in
audio class B and crossover distortion which sounds horrible at low
signal levels.
The Quad 303 was an example.
A singled ended class A valve output will have even harmonics. But these
are rarely use as they are incredibly inefficient.
I personally will always be a fan of compressions drivers into loaded
horns, and some of the JBL style mid range and tweeter horns we used in disco and PA applications were way cleaner sounding than almost any HiFi setup except perhaps Quad ELS, but could still kick out 115dB on the
dance floor.
And at very high power - well above domestic listening levels -
distortion does become an issue as cones and diaphragms get pushed to
the limits of their travel - compression drivers operate at far higher pressures and lower movements and do not distort at very high power indeed.
**Somewhat crap. The reason why SOME valve amps are preferred over SOME
SS amps is due to their overload characteristics. There have been and
still several schemes that very effectively allow for 'soft' Voltage limiting (aka: clipping) in SS amps.
(snip)
In fact, I've measured a few high(ish) global NFB, push pull valve
amps that exhibit quite brutal clipping character.
On Sun, 21 May 2023 15:40:39 +0100, Pamela wrote:
Reconditioned Quad 33/303s certainly go fo a pretty penny. This
dealer is asking u700, although bargain hunters can probably find
them for half the price. I'm not sure I would pay that.
https://audiogold.co.uk/product/quad-33-303/
They have other interesting offers, like the Audiolab 8000A for 750
UKP. The refurb details are impressive.
On Wed, 17 May 2023 12:21:18 +0100, mechanic <mechanic@example.net>
wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2023 10:16:48 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:
Now what is so special then? They were never that price when new.
Is this a case of money for old rope if you can make something
look authentic?
It's what's called a cult-following. Lots of stuff about these on >>t'internet e.g. >>https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/falcon-acoustics-bbc-ls35a/
the Wiki article is good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS3/5A
If you have a pair, sell them for the best money you can get. As you
get older your hearing won't be up to needing the best hifi anyway.
They were never designed to be Hi Fi. They were monitor speakers and
designed to emphasize the kind of errors that sound engineers were
prone to. I would not use these as domestic speakers.
d
On 18/05/2023 09:07, Tim Streater wrote:
On 18 May 2023 at 09:02:32 BST, "The Natural Philosopher"to a
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 17/05/2023 21:38, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 May 2023 at 20:02:00 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <email@here.invalid> >wrote:
On 17/05/2023 13:27, Tim Streater wrote:
On 17 May 2023 at 13:01:21 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <email@here.invalid> >wrote:
Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.
What's streaming or bluetooth got to do with the sound quality that the >>>>>> speaker will generate? You can use bluetooth or streaming to supply audio
Quad 303 was relative junk actually. Had a lot of crossover distortion >especially at HF. Many of its contemporaries were in fact better.Amplifiers are now at the point where they are more or less 'perfect'tin box but it won't sound very good.
A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
A combination of decent speakers with a quality amp is going to be rare in >>>> such a device, which is why one might stick to separate speakers, separate >>>> amp.
Although I suppose it's possible someone might do a proper job, but not much
change out of u5k I wouldn't have thought.
There wasn't a lot wrong with the Quad 33/303 combo I bought in 1970. No
optical or other digital input, of course. Especially when paired with the IMF
RSPM I bought in 1974. Not that I could tell, these days, of course, but I >> sure could then.
Things got better with the advent of audio power FETS and/or class AAB >designs.
As transistor speeds went up the problems of maintaining high levels of >feedback at high frequencies without instability, lessened.
Today even the class D's will beat a Quad 303
On 17/05/2023 10:01 pm, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
On 16/05/2023 23:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**It has to be said:
The LS3/5A is the most over-rated speaker system ever released. They
are just an average performer.
To be fair, by definition all hi-fi is overrated.
**No, it is not.
There are many examples of nonsensically over-rated products available
in the hi fi biz. The LS3/5A is one of them. We all need loudspeakers to >listen to audio (unless you happen to use headphones, of course).
I've listened to the LS3/5A many times (different manufacturers). I hear
the same problems with all of them. They are, quite simply, highly >inaccurate speakers. IE: They are not high fidelity speakers.
In article <kcl208F484nU2@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 17/05/2023 10:01 pm, Adrian Caspersz wrote:Can you say where they are inaccurate bearing in mind their design limitations and the purpose for which they were designed?..
On 16/05/2023 23:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**It has to be said:
The LS3/5A is the most over-rated speaker system ever released. They
are just an average performer.
To be fair, by definition all hi-fi is overrated.
**No, it is not.
There are many examples of nonsensically over-rated products available
in the hi fi biz. The LS3/5A is one of them. We all need loudspeakers to
listen to audio (unless you happen to use headphones, of course).
I've listened to the LS3/5A many times (different manufacturers). I hear
the same problems with all of them. They are, quite simply, highly
inaccurate speakers. IE: They are not high fidelity speakers.
BTW Where old Phill A FUCKING GONE?,,
THE POMMY BARSTARDS HAVEN'T--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
HEAD FRON HIM THE OLD GIT A WHILE!
In article <kcl208F484nU2@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 17/05/2023 10:01 pm, Adrian Caspersz wrote:Can you say where they are inaccurate bearing in mind their design limitations and the purpose for which they were designed?..
On 16/05/2023 23:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**It has to be said:
The LS3/5A is the most over-rated speaker system ever released. They
are just an average performer.
To be fair, by definition all hi-fi is overrated.
**No, it is not.
There are many examples of nonsensically over-rated products available
in the hi fi biz. The LS3/5A is one of them. We all need loudspeakers to
listen to audio (unless you happen to use headphones, of course).
I've listened to the LS3/5A many times (different manufacturers). I hear
the same problems with all of them. They are, quite simply, highly
inaccurate speakers. IE: They are not high fidelity speakers.
** BTW Where old Phill A FUCKING GONE?,, THE POMMY BARSTARDS HAVEN'T
HEAD FRON HIM THE OLD GIT A WHILE!
We did some tests once with a single male (Human) speaker the one that
Peter W of QUAD used to and I think B&W s did the same, have a person speaking then stop and let the speakers carry on, their excellent at
male voice:)
On 25/05/2023 4:53 am, tony sayer wrote:
In article <kcl208F484nU2@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 17/05/2023 10:01 pm, Adrian Caspersz wrote:Can you say where they are inaccurate bearing in mind their design
On 16/05/2023 23:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**It has to be said:
The LS3/5A is the most over-rated speaker system ever released. They >>>>> are just an average performer.
To be fair, by definition all hi-fi is overrated.
**No, it is not.
There are many examples of nonsensically over-rated products available
in the hi fi biz. The LS3/5A is one of them. We all need loudspeakers to >>> listen to audio (unless you happen to use headphones, of course).
I've listened to the LS3/5A many times (different manufacturers). I hear >>> the same problems with all of them. They are, quite simply, highly
inaccurate speakers. IE: They are not high fidelity speakers.
limitations and the purpose for which they were designed?..
**Yes, I can.
** BTW Where old Phill A FUCKING GONE?,, THE POMMY BARSTARDS HAVEN'T
HEAD FRON HIM THE OLD GIT A WHILE!
**He is around. He has contributed to this thread.
In article <kd790fFoooU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 25/05/2023 4:53 am, tony sayer wrote:
In article <kcl208F484nU2@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 17/05/2023 10:01 pm, Adrian Caspersz wrote:Can you say where they are inaccurate bearing in mind their design
On 16/05/2023 23:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**It has to be said:
The LS3/5A is the most over-rated speaker system ever released. They >>>>>> are just an average performer.
To be fair, by definition all hi-fi is overrated.
**No, it is not.
There are many examples of nonsensically over-rated products available >>>> in the hi fi biz. The LS3/5A is one of them. We all need loudspeakers to >>>> listen to audio (unless you happen to use headphones, of course).
I've listened to the LS3/5A many times (different manufacturers). I hear >>>> the same problems with all of them. They are, quite simply, highly
inaccurate speakers. IE: They are not high fidelity speakers.
limitations and the purpose for which they were designed?..
**Yes, I can.
Well go on then!..
On 26/05/2023 6:03 am, tony sayer wrote:
In article <kd790fFoooU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 25/05/2023 4:53 am, tony sayer wrote:
In article <kcl208F484nU2@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 17/05/2023 10:01 pm, Adrian Caspersz wrote:Can you say where they are inaccurate bearing in mind their design
On 16/05/2023 23:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**It has to be said:
The LS3/5A is the most over-rated speaker system ever released. They >>>>>>> are just an average performer.
To be fair, by definition all hi-fi is overrated.
**No, it is not.
There are many examples of nonsensically over-rated products available >>>>> in the hi fi biz. The LS3/5A is one of them. We all need loudspeakers to >>>>> listen to audio (unless you happen to use headphones, of course).
I've listened to the LS3/5A many times (different manufacturers). I hear >>>>> the same problems with all of them. They are, quite simply, highly
inaccurate speakers. IE: They are not high fidelity speakers.
limitations and the purpose for which they were designed?..
**Yes, I can.
Well go on then!..
**I believe that I answered your question, precisely, succinctly and >economically.
The LS3/5A is being sold to people for domestic purposes. In that
situation, they sound like crap. Expensive crap.
In article <kda9gmFev7lU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 26/05/2023 6:03 am, tony sayer wrote:
In article <kd790fFoooU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 25/05/2023 4:53 am, tony sayer wrote:
In article <kcl208F484nU2@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 17/05/2023 10:01 pm, Adrian Caspersz wrote:Can you say where they are inaccurate bearing in mind their design
On 16/05/2023 23:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**It has to be said:
The LS3/5A is the most over-rated speaker system ever released. They >>>>>>>> are just an average performer.
To be fair, by definition all hi-fi is overrated.
**No, it is not.
There are many examples of nonsensically over-rated products available >>>>>> in the hi fi biz. The LS3/5A is one of them. We all need loudspeakers to >>>>>> listen to audio (unless you happen to use headphones, of course).
I've listened to the LS3/5A many times (different manufacturers). I hear >>>>>> the same problems with all of them. They are, quite simply, highly >>>>>> inaccurate speakers. IE: They are not high fidelity speakers.
limitations and the purpose for which they were designed?..
**Yes, I can.
Well go on then!..
**I believe that I answered your question, precisely, succinctly and
economically.
Yes, very economic precisely not answered!
Perhaps their not "tuneful" enough for you;?..
The LS3/5A is being sold to people for domestic purposes. In that
situation, they sound like crap. Expensive crap.
If you say so, who would argue with such logic;!
Can't say I know of anyone selling them in the UK apart from Stirling broadcast?..
On 31/05/2023 13:28, tony sayer wrote:
In article <kda9gmFev7lU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 26/05/2023 6:03 am, tony sayer wrote:
In article <kd790fFoooU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 25/05/2023 4:53 am, tony sayer wrote:
In article <kcl208F484nU2@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 17/05/2023 10:01 pm, Adrian Caspersz wrote:Can you say where they are inaccurate bearing in mind their design >>>>>> limitations and the purpose for which they were designed?..
On 16/05/2023 23:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**It has to be said:To be fair, by definition all hi-fi is overrated.
The LS3/5A is the most over-rated speaker system ever released. >>>>>>>>> They are just an average performer.
**No, it is not.
There are many examples of nonsensically over-rated products
available in the hi fi biz. The LS3/5A is one of them. We all need >>>>>>> loudspeakers to listen to audio (unless you happen to use
headphones, of course).
I've listened to the LS3/5A many times (different manufacturers). >>>>>>> I hear the same problems with all of them. They are, quite simply, >>>>>>> highly inaccurate speakers. IE: They are not high fidelity
speakers.
**Yes, I can.
Well go on then!..
**I believe that I answered your question, precisely, succinctly and
economically.
Yes, very economic precisely not answered!
Perhaps their not "tuneful" enough for you;?..
The LS3/5A is being sold to people for domestic purposes. In thatIf you say so, who would argue with such logic;!
situation, they sound like crap. Expensive crap.
Can't say I know of anyone selling them in the UK apart from Stirling
broadcast?..
Well Tony if you've got any empty cabs, Ive got the KEF drive units
In article <kda9gmFev7lU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 26/05/2023 6:03 am, tony sayer wrote:
In article <kd790fFoooU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 25/05/2023 4:53 am, tony sayer wrote:
In article <kcl208F484nU2@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 17/05/2023 10:01 pm, Adrian Caspersz wrote:Can you say where they are inaccurate bearing in mind their design
On 16/05/2023 23:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**It has to be said:
The LS3/5A is the most over-rated speaker system ever released. They >>>>>>>> are just an average performer.
To be fair, by definition all hi-fi is overrated.
**No, it is not.
There are many examples of nonsensically over-rated products available >>>>>> in the hi fi biz. The LS3/5A is one of them. We all need loudspeakers to >>>>>> listen to audio (unless you happen to use headphones, of course).
I've listened to the LS3/5A many times (different manufacturers). I hear >>>>>> the same problems with all of them. They are, quite simply, highly >>>>>> inaccurate speakers. IE: They are not high fidelity speakers.
limitations and the purpose for which they were designed?..
**Yes, I can.
Well go on then!..
**I believe that I answered your question, precisely, succinctly and
economically.
Yes, very economic precisely not answered!
Perhaps their not "tuneful" enough for you;?..
The LS3/5A is being sold to people for domestic purposes. In that
situation, they sound like crap. Expensive crap.
If you say so, who would argue with such logic;!
Can't say I know of anyone selling them in the UK apart from Stirling broadcast?..
Perhaps their not "tuneful" enough for you;?..
**Nope. Just horribly inaccurate. They sound OK, for a cheap speaker. Unfortunately, they're not cheap.
The LS3/5A is being sold to people for domestic purposes. In that
situation, they sound like crap. Expensive crap.
If you say so, who would argue with such logic;!
**No need to argue. Just listen to them. Compare them with a known,
accurate speaker. The problems are instantly audible.
On 31/05/2023 10:28 pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article <kda9gmFev7lU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 26/05/2023 6:03 am, tony sayer wrote:
In article <kd790fFoooU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 25/05/2023 4:53 am, tony sayer wrote:
In article <kcl208F484nU2@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 17/05/2023 10:01 pm, Adrian Caspersz wrote:Can you say where they are inaccurate bearing in mind their design >>>>>> limitations and the purpose for which they were designed?..
On 16/05/2023 23:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**It has to be said:
The LS3/5A is the most over-rated speaker system ever released. >>>>>>>>> They
are just an average performer.
To be fair, by definition all hi-fi is overrated.
**No, it is not.
There are many examples of nonsensically over-rated products
available
in the hi fi biz. The LS3/5A is one of them. We all need
loudspeakers to
listen to audio (unless you happen to use headphones, of course). >>>>>>>
I've listened to the LS3/5A many times (different manufacturers). >>>>>>> I hear
the same problems with all of them. They are, quite simply, highly >>>>>>> inaccurate speakers. IE: They are not high fidelity speakers.
**Yes, I can.
Well go on then!..
**I believe that I answered your question, precisely, succinctly and
economically.
Yes, very economic precisely not answered!
Perhaps their not "tuneful" enough for you;?..
**Nope. Just horribly inaccurate. They sound OK, for a cheap speaker. Unfortunately, they're not cheap.
The LS3/5A is being sold to people for domestic purposes. In that
situation, they sound like crap. Expensive crap.
If you say so, who would argue with such logic;!
**No need to argue. Just listen to them. Compare them with a known,
accurate speaker. The problems are instantly audible.
Can't say I know of anyone selling them in the UK apart from Stirling
broadcast?..
**OK.
On 31 May 2023 at 23:23:51 BST, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Perhaps their not "tuneful" enough for you;?..
**Nope. Just horribly inaccurate. They sound OK, for a cheap speaker.
Unfortunately, they're not cheap.
The LS3/5A is being sold to people for domestic purposes. In that
situation, they sound like crap. Expensive crap.
If you say so, who would argue with such logic;!
**No need to argue. Just listen to them. Compare them with a known,
accurate speaker. The problems are instantly audible.
'Accuracy' isn't necessarily a problem, and trying to achieve it - at least in
most domestic settings - is a fool's errand.
I'd suggest the main issue is how good they sound to you, in your listening environment.
Of course such a measure can easily become coloured by perception, marketing, reviews etc. But hey, if you enjoy the sound . . .
On 31 May 2023 at 23:23:51 BST, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Perhaps their not "tuneful" enough for you;?..
**Nope. Just horribly inaccurate. They sound OK, for a cheap speaker.
Unfortunately, they're not cheap.
The LS3/5A is being sold to people for domestic purposes. In that
situation, they sound like crap. Expensive crap.
If you say so, who would argue with such logic;!
**No need to argue. Just listen to them. Compare them with a known,
accurate speaker. The problems are instantly audible.
'Accuracy' isn't necessarily a problem, and trying to achieve it - at least in
most domestic settings - is a fool's errand.
I'd suggest the main issue is how good they sound to you, in your listening environment.
Of course such a measure can easily become coloured by perception, marketing, reviews etc. But hey, if you enjoy the sound . . .
On 31/05/2023 23:23, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 31/05/2023 10:28 pm, tony sayer wrote:That reminds me of when I was developing am audio amplifier for a German loudspeaker company, They sent their golden eared boy over to blind test
In article <kda9gmFev7lU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 26/05/2023 6:03 am, tony sayer wrote:
In article <kd790fFoooU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 25/05/2023 4:53 am, tony sayer wrote:
In article <kcl208F484nU2@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 17/05/2023 10:01 pm, Adrian Caspersz wrote:Can you say where they are inaccurate bearing in mind their design >>>>>>> limitations and the purpose for which they were designed?..
On 16/05/2023 23:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**It has to be said:
The LS3/5A is the most over-rated speaker system ever
released. They
are just an average performer.
To be fair, by definition all hi-fi is overrated.
**No, it is not.
There are many examples of nonsensically over-rated products
available
in the hi fi biz. The LS3/5A is one of them. We all need
loudspeakers to
listen to audio (unless you happen to use headphones, of course). >>>>>>>>
I've listened to the LS3/5A many times (different
manufacturers). I hear
the same problems with all of them. They are, quite simply, highly >>>>>>>> inaccurate speakers. IE: They are not high fidelity speakers.
**Yes, I can.
Well go on then!..
**I believe that I answered your question, precisely, succinctly and
economically.
Yes, very economic precisely not answered!
Perhaps their not "tuneful" enough for you;?..
**Nope. Just horribly inaccurate. They sound OK, for a cheap speaker.
Unfortunately, they're not cheap.
The LS3/5A is being sold to people for domestic purposes. In that
situation, they sound like crap. Expensive crap.
If you say so, who would argue with such logic;!
**No need to argue. Just listen to them. Compare them with a known,
accurate speaker. The problems are instantly audible.
two possibles.-a He unerringly picked the one with more crossover
distortion 'because it sounded like his Revox'. I tested that as well.
That too had high levels of low volume crossover distortion.
Just like the Quad 303.
People get used to a certain sound and think because they paid for it,
and its heavily advertised, it must be better.
-aKEF units to me are very neutral.-a I like that. I don't get tired of them.
Mine cost me less that -u100 when I bought the units and fitted them to
chip cabinets.
Can't say I know of anyone selling them in the UK apart from Stirling
broadcast?..
**OK.
On 1/06/2023 4:34 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/2023 23:23, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 31/05/2023 10:28 pm, tony sayer wrote:That reminds me of when I was developing am audio amplifier for a
In article <kda9gmFev7lU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 26/05/2023 6:03 am, tony sayer wrote:
In article <kd790fFoooU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 25/05/2023 4:53 am, tony sayer wrote:
In article <kcl208F484nU2@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 17/05/2023 10:01 pm, Adrian Caspersz wrote:Can you say where they are inaccurate bearing in mind their design >>>>>>>> limitations and the purpose for which they were designed?..
On 16/05/2023 23:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**It has to be said:
The LS3/5A is the most over-rated speaker system ever
released. They
are just an average performer.
To be fair, by definition all hi-fi is overrated.
**No, it is not.
There are many examples of nonsensically over-rated products >>>>>>>>> available
in the hi fi biz. The LS3/5A is one of them. We all need
loudspeakers to
listen to audio (unless you happen to use headphones, of course). >>>>>>>>>
I've listened to the LS3/5A many times (different
manufacturers). I hear
the same problems with all of them. They are, quite simply, highly >>>>>>>>> inaccurate speakers. IE: They are not high fidelity speakers. >>>>>>>>>
**Yes, I can.
Well go on then!..
**I believe that I answered your question, precisely, succinctly and >>>>> economically.
Yes, very economic precisely not answered!
Perhaps their not "tuneful" enough for you;?..
**Nope. Just horribly inaccurate. They sound OK, for a cheap speaker.
Unfortunately, they're not cheap.
The LS3/5A is being sold to people for domestic purposes. In that
situation, they sound like crap. Expensive crap.
If you say so, who would argue with such logic;!
**No need to argue. Just listen to them. Compare them with a known,
accurate speaker. The problems are instantly audible.
German loudspeaker company, They sent their golden eared boy over to
blind test two possibles.-a He unerringly picked the one with more
crossover distortion 'because it sounded like his Revox'. I tested
that as well. That too had high levels of low volume crossover
distortion.
Just like the Quad 303.
**I have a couple of Quad 303 amps here. I also possess some SOTA test equipment. I will check on your claims about the Quad 303. Please advise
of the levels and frequencies you tested the Quad 303 at to arrive at
the claims of crossover distortion. I assume it was in the region of
20mW and 20kHz or so. That has been my standard of uncovering crossover distortion.
People get used to a certain sound and think because they paid for it,
and its heavily advertised, it must be better.
-a-aKEF units to me are very neutral.-a I like that. I don't get tired of >> them.
Mine cost me less that -u100 when I bought the units and fitted them to
chip cabinets.
**As were mine. My Bailey T-lines (fitted with Radford crossovers) were fabulous speakers back in the day. Very accurate, as measured with some primitive test equipment.
On Thu 01/06/2023 21:13, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 1/06/2023 4:34 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/2023 23:23, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 31/05/2023 10:28 pm, tony sayer wrote:That reminds me of when I was developing am audio amplifier for a
In article <kda9gmFev7lU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 26/05/2023 6:03 am, tony sayer wrote:
In article <kd790fFoooU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 25/05/2023 4:53 am, tony sayer wrote:
In article <kcl208F484nU2@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson >>>>>>>>> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 17/05/2023 10:01 pm, Adrian Caspersz wrote:Can you say where they are inaccurate bearing in mind their design >>>>>>>>> limitations and the purpose for which they were designed?..
On 16/05/2023 23:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**It has to be said:
The LS3/5A is the most over-rated speaker system ever >>>>>>>>>>>> released. They
are just an average performer.
To be fair, by definition all hi-fi is overrated.
**No, it is not.
There are many examples of nonsensically over-rated products >>>>>>>>>> available
in the hi fi biz. The LS3/5A is one of them. We all need
loudspeakers to
listen to audio (unless you happen to use headphones, of course). >>>>>>>>>>
I've listened to the LS3/5A many times (different
manufacturers). I hear
the same problems with all of them. They are, quite simply, >>>>>>>>>> highly
inaccurate speakers. IE: They are not high fidelity speakers. >>>>>>>>>>
**Yes, I can.
Well go on then!..
**I believe that I answered your question, precisely, succinctly and >>>>>> economically.
Yes, very economic precisely not answered!
Perhaps their not "tuneful" enough for you;?..
**Nope. Just horribly inaccurate. They sound OK, for a cheap
speaker. Unfortunately, they're not cheap.
The LS3/5A is being sold to people for domestic purposes. In that
situation, they sound like crap. Expensive crap.
If you say so, who would argue with such logic;!
**No need to argue. Just listen to them. Compare them with a known,
accurate speaker. The problems are instantly audible.
German loudspeaker company, They sent their golden eared boy over to
blind test two possibles.-a He unerringly picked the one with more
crossover distortion 'because it sounded like his Revox'. I tested
that as well. That too had high levels of low volume crossover
distortion.
Just like the Quad 303.
**I have a couple of Quad 303 amps here. I also possess some SOTA test
equipment. I will check on your claims about the Quad 303. Please
advise of the levels and frequencies you tested the Quad 303 at to
arrive at the claims of crossover distortion. I assume it was in the
region of 20mW and 20kHz or so. That has been my standard of
uncovering crossover distortion.
People get used to a certain sound and think because they paid for
it, and its heavily advertised, it must be better.
-a-aKEF units to me are very neutral.-a I like that. I don't get tired
of them.
Mine cost me less that -u100 when I bought the units and fitted them
to chip cabinets.
**As were mine. My Bailey T-lines (fitted with Radford crossovers)
were fabulous speakers back in the day. Very accurate, as measured
with some primitive test equipment.
Good heavens, someone else with a pair of Bailey transmission lines!
only thing I did to mine was to add a pair of Coles ST4001 super
tweeters. They were built by a colleague who got married and moved into
a terraced house in a village outside Cambridge where he couldn't accommodate their size. He sold them to me for -u50 This would be late
70's) and bought himself a pair of Ram units about the same size as the BC1's. The only issue with the TLs was their inability to produce as
good a sound stage as a two driver speaker. In that respect a pair of
Denton IIs-a were much better.
I built a MOSFET power amp using Ambit (remember them?) modules with
Hitachi power devices and effectively dual mono.
but separate JLH designed regulated supplies feeding the amps. I still
have it but had to call a halt when it developed a bias fault. The best thing was it did 110W into 8R and 220W into 4R both channels driven. The response was within about 0.3dB from <10Hz to 240KHz, the worst phase
error was about 4deg at 8Hz (yes I had access to some pretty good test gear!) I fitted some filters to make it more realistic but it could
still shake windows at 20ft and only a couple of watts drive. Classical organ music was unbelievably real!
'Accuracy' isn't necessarily a problem, and trying to achieve it - at least in
most domestic settings - is a fool's errand.
**Absolute and complete nonsense. Insanity, in fact.
I'd suggest the main issue is how good they sound to you, in your listening >> environment.
**Then that is not necessarily high fidelity. It is something else
entirely. Accuracy is vital if a claim is made for a product to be high fidelity.
Of course such a measure can easily become coloured by perception, marketing,
reviews etc. But hey, if you enjoy the sound . . .
**Again: Not necessarily high fidelity. Something like a Quad ESL63,
suitably arranged in a room, IS capable of high fidelity reproduction.
The LS3/5A cannot achieve such a thing. Ever.
The LS3/5A may sound pleasant to an uneducated listener, but it is not
an accurate loudspeaker.
**Absolute and complete nonsense. Insanity, in fact.
Not if coming from an informed view. Informed preferably by live performances
and decent hifi systems.
Even if you have no reference,
Is hifi 'low distortion'? If so, it sounds OK as a start. I've never known what the term HiFi actually means.
Good heavens, someone else with a pair of Bailey transmission lines! The only thing I did to mine was to add a pair of Coles ST4001 super** You have reminded me of the ONE time had had any dealings with those beasties.
tweeters.
On 1/06/2023 4:34 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 31/05/2023 23:23, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 31/05/2023 10:28 pm, tony sayer wrote:That reminds me of when I was developing am audio amplifier for a
In article <kda9gmFev7lU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 26/05/2023 6:03 am, tony sayer wrote:
In article <kd790fFoooU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor
Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 25/05/2023 4:53 am, tony sayer wrote:
In article <kcl208F484nU2@mid.individual.net>, Trevor
Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 17/05/2023 10:01 pm, Adrian Caspersz wrote:Can you say where they are inaccurate bearing in mind
On 16/05/2023 23:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**It has to be said:
The LS3/5A is the most over-rated speaker system
ever released. They are just an average
performer.
To be fair, by definition all hi-fi is overrated.
**No, it is not.
There are many examples of nonsensically over-rated
products available in the hi fi biz. The LS3/5A is
one of them. We all need loudspeakers to listen to
audio (unless you happen to use headphones, of
course).
I've listened to the LS3/5A many times (different
manufacturers). I hear the same problems with all of
them. They are, quite simply, highly inaccurate
speakers. IE: They are not high fidelity speakers.
their design limitations and the purpose for which they
were designed?..
**Yes, I can.
Well go on then!..
**I believe that I answered your question, precisely,
succinctly and economically.
Yes, very economic precisely not answered!
Perhaps their not "tuneful" enough for you;?..
**Nope. Just horribly inaccurate. They sound OK, for a cheap
speaker. Unfortunately, they're not cheap.
The LS3/5A is being sold to people for domestic purposes. In
that situation, they sound like crap. Expensive crap.
If you say so, who would argue with such logic;!
**No need to argue. Just listen to them. Compare them with a
known, accurate speaker. The problems are instantly audible.
German loudspeaker company, They sent their golden eared boy over
to blind test two possibles. He unerringly picked the one with
more crossover distortion 'because it sounded like his Revox'. I
tested that as well. That too had high levels of low volume
crossover distortion.
Just like the Quad 303.
**I have a couple of Quad 303 amps here. I also possess some SOTA
test equipment. I will check on your claims about the Quad 303.
Please advise of the levels and frequencies you tested the Quad 303
at to arrive at the claims of crossover distortion. I assume it was
in the region of 20mW and 20kHz or so. That has been my standard of uncovering crossover distortion.
People get used to a certain sound and think because they paid for
it, and its heavily advertised, it must be better.
KEF units to me are very neutral. I like that. I don't get tired
of them. Mine cost me less that -u100 when I bought the units and
fitted them to chip cabinets.
**As were mine. My Bailey T-lines (fitted with Radford crossovers)
were fabulous speakers back in the day. Very accurate, as measured
with some primitive test equipment.
On 1 Jun 2023 at 21:08:45 BST, Trevor Wilson wrote:
'Accuracy' isn't necessarily a problem, and trying to achieve it - at least in
most domestic settings - is a fool's errand.
**Absolute and complete nonsense. Insanity, in fact.
Not if coming from an informed view. Informed preferably by live performances and decent hifi systems.
Even if you have no reference, I don't get too upset by people who buy by label (Bose etc.). It's their money. Internet buying and lack of demonstration
facilities has made making an informed choice more difficult I suppose. Hats off to Richer Sounds in this regard.
I'd suggest the main issue is how good they sound to you, in your listening >>> environment.
**Then that is not necessarily high fidelity. It is something else
entirely. Accuracy is vital if a claim is made for a product to be high
fidelity.
Is hifi 'low distortion'? If so, it sounds OK as a start. I've never known what the term HiFi actually means.
Of course such a measure can easily become coloured by perception, marketing,
reviews etc. But hey, if you enjoy the sound . . .
**Again: Not necessarily high fidelity. Something like a Quad ESL63,
suitably arranged in a room, IS capable of high fidelity reproduction.
The LS3/5A cannot achieve such a thing. Ever.
The LS3/5A may sound pleasant to an uneducated listener, but it is not
an accurate loudspeaker.
Personally, if you've taken the trouble to reach an informed opinion, I don't care.
Interesting you should say that as the early versions of the 303 did
have biasing problems that were corrected and improved in later versions
On 31/05/2023 10:28 pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article <kda9gmFev7lU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 26/05/2023 6:03 am, tony sayer wrote:
In article <kd790fFoooU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 25/05/2023 4:53 am, tony sayer wrote:
In article <kcl208F484nU2@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 17/05/2023 10:01 pm, Adrian Caspersz wrote:Can you say where they are inaccurate bearing in mind their design >>>>>> limitations and the purpose for which they were designed?..
On 16/05/2023 23:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**It has to be said:
The LS3/5A is the most over-rated speaker system ever released. They >>>>>>>>> are just an average performer.
To be fair, by definition all hi-fi is overrated.
**No, it is not.
There are many examples of nonsensically over-rated products available >>>>>>> in the hi fi biz. The LS3/5A is one of them. We all need loudspeakers to
listen to audio (unless you happen to use headphones, of course). >>>>>>>
I've listened to the LS3/5A many times (different manufacturers). I hear
the same problems with all of them. They are, quite simply, highly >>>>>>> inaccurate speakers. IE: They are not high fidelity speakers.
**Yes, I can.
Well go on then!..
**I believe that I answered your question, precisely, succinctly and
economically.
Yes, very economic precisely not answered!
Perhaps their not "tuneful" enough for you;?..
**Nope. Just horribly inaccurate. They sound OK, for a cheap speaker. >Unfortunately, they're not cheap.
The LS3/5A is being sold to people for domestic purposes. In that
situation, they sound like crap. Expensive crap.
If you say so, who would argue with such logic;!
**No need to argue. Just listen to them. Compare them with a known,
accurate speaker. The problems are instantly audible.
On 01/06/2023 06:44, RJH wrote:
On 31 May 2023 at 23:23:51 BST, Trevor Wilson wrote:There is frequency response, including resonance, and there is
Perhaps their not "tuneful" enough for you;?..
**Nope. Just horribly inaccurate. They sound OK, for a cheap speaker.
Unfortunately, they're not cheap.
The LS3/5A is being sold to people for domestic purposes. In that
situation, they sound like crap. Expensive crap.
If you say so, who would argue with such logic;!
**No need to argue. Just listen to them. Compare them with a known,
accurate speaker. The problems are instantly audible.
'Accuracy' isn't necessarily a problem, and trying to achieve it - at least in
most domestic settings - is a fool's errand.
distortion, which 'muddies' things up and makes instruments hard to pick
out in say an orchestra.
Frequency response is there at all sound levels but distorion tends to
be less at low volumes.
The lowest distortion I ever heard at decent power was from profession
horn drivers. one foot long aluminium cast mid range horn, JBL bullet
style tweeter.
Twin 15" bass units and IIRC a pair of 8" lower mid range units.
Ultimate disco speakers.
But you can get very good results out of a 3 ways system with a dome mid >range and tweeter. Distortion comes when you are pushing your small
upper frequency units too hard, because the are are only two units and
the crossover frequency is a compromise
Colouration is simply a fact of life, and in the end people just tune
most it out in a given environment. Unless there are very peaky
resonances like what you get with cardboard cones, or an undamped metal
dome etc.
I'd suggest the main issue is how good they sound to you, in your listening >> environment.
Of course such a measure can easily become coloured by perception, marketing,
reviews etc. But hey, if you enjoy the sound . . .
In the end that is in fact it. People are massively influenced by
marketing. They don't want to admit they paid u4000 for two pieces of
shit or that a home built pair at u150 is in fact 'better'. I spent
years designing and testing and listening to audio kit, and learnt how
to relate what the test equipment said to what I was hearing.
And I have related my conclusions., Today all amps sound alike, and are >essentially so near perfect as makes no difference. and a good CD beats >vinyl hands down, and is pretty much perfect also. Bad stuff happens in
the recording studio and in the loudspeakers, but recording studios that
are now 100% digital are pretty much free of the dreadful recording
quality that recording engineers with no technical background used to make.
So the weakest link in the chain is the loudspeakers. You simply pick
which flaw bothers you least and run with that.
tony sayer wrote:
----------
Interesting you should say that as the early versions of the 303 did
have biasing problems that were corrected and improved in later versions
** Quad made a small change to baising the 303 in the early 1970s, to make it
adjustable.
Previously a pair of silicon diodes set the ( output transistor) bias current >and compensated for internal temp changes inside the amp.
There was no need to compensate for temp rise of the output transistors due to
the use of output "triples" - a major innovation in the 303.
One transistor in a Vbe multiplier circuit replaced the two diodes so a trim pot
set the exact current needed with the same temp compensation characteristic as
two diodes.
There was no biasing problem with any 303s sold, the change made it simple to >get the setting right in production and after repairs.
.... Phil
In article <kdpvnnFrranU2@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 31/05/2023 10:28 pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article <kda9gmFev7lU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 26/05/2023 6:03 am, tony sayer wrote:
In article <kd790fFoooU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 25/05/2023 4:53 am, tony sayer wrote:
In article <kcl208F484nU2@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> scribeth thus
On 17/05/2023 10:01 pm, Adrian Caspersz wrote:Can you say where they are inaccurate bearing in mind their design >>>>>>> limitations and the purpose for which they were designed?..
On 16/05/2023 23:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**It has to be said:
The LS3/5A is the most over-rated speaker system ever released. They >>>>>>>>>> are just an average performer.
To be fair, by definition all hi-fi is overrated.
**No, it is not.
There are many examples of nonsensically over-rated products available >>>>>>>> in the hi fi biz. The LS3/5A is one of them. We all need loudspeakers to
listen to audio (unless you happen to use headphones, of course). >>>>>>>>
I've listened to the LS3/5A many times (different manufacturers). I hear
the same problems with all of them. They are, quite simply, highly >>>>>>>> inaccurate speakers. IE: They are not high fidelity speakers.
**Yes, I can.
Well go on then!..
**I believe that I answered your question, precisely, succinctly and
economically.
Yes, very economic precisely not answered!
Perhaps their not "tuneful" enough for you;?..
**Nope. Just horribly inaccurate. They sound OK, for a cheap speaker.
Unfortunately, they're not cheap.
The LS3/5A is being sold to people for domestic purposes. In that
situation, they sound like crap. Expensive crap.
If you say so, who would argue with such logic;!
**No need to argue. Just listen to them. Compare them with a known,
accurate speaker. The problems are instantly audible.
Well haven't dome that as such but more than the once I've been in a BBC
OB van next to both Ely Cathedral and Kings college chapel and the
audio sound field recreated in the vans was just like being in the
building! On quite a wide range of materiel small orchestral ensemble
large choir and Organ and solo singer and yep!, they didn't cause any
trouser flapping on organ pedals but the rest was stunningly good.
If thats inaccurate then its a bloody fine inaccuracy i like:)..
there is frequency response, including resonance, and there isSome venues seem to be better at that lack of*muddle* than others i
distortion, which 'muddies' things up and makes instruments hard to pick
out in say an orchestra.
reckon!.
Another debate for another day:!
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 02:09:07 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (20,373K bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,321 |