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

[charles]

don't think I ever bought any

[Adrian Caspersz]

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

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

You stream to it from a mobile phone.

Job done.

[Bob Latham]

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

Compared to what?

Bob.

[Tim+]

Who isn’t at our age? ;-)

Tim

[Fredxx]

My hearing isn't that precise, but these do me and a lot of other people just fine:

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

[Tim Streater]

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

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

[Tim Streater]

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

[Animal]

Russ Andrews has entered the chat

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

[Trevor Wilson]

**No, it is not.

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

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

[The Natural Philosopher]

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

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

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

[Tim Streater]

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.

[The Natural Philosopher]

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

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

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

[Trevor Wilson]

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

**Also true enough.

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

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

[Trevor Wilson]

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

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

**Correct.

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

[The Natural Philosopher]

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

Until then, you know

Mine are over 40 years old. Mostly.

[Bob Latham]

[Snip]

Same here.

I'm sure that's true.

Oh. You would have to pick Sonos !! :-).

I don't have your speakers but I do have two Play5s in the house.

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.

The mini system is a Denon RCD-N9 and a pair pair of Q acoustic speakers. Sorry but it's better than Play 5s.

I'm not criticising when I say if you were "into" hifi you would know that. As you're not into it, nothing I say will convince you only listening to a modern hifi system might but I wouldn't recommend that. You're happy with what you have, stick with it.

Forgive the rant but you mentioned Sonos....

The reason I smiled at you picking Sonos is I admit because they are a pet hate of mine. Not because of their sound quality but mainly because of their forced firmware upgrade policy. For that reason alone I wouldn't recommend them to anyone.

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 it's peculiarities.)

From having a gully working system one day to a crippled one the next without warning or choice AND the only way out is buy a new control device or a new iPad at £500 or so. That's why I hate Sonos.

I also wouldn't choose them because they use SMB connections to a NAS and not UPnP from a server which means each device has it's own index and not the common one on the server. Finally because they will not play hi-res audio and most other streaming devices do these days.

Bob.

[John Walliker]

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

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

[Don Pearce]

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

d

[Don Pearce]

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

d

[Tim Streater]

Quite.

[snip]

My separates never do this to me.

pear-shaped

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