advertisement


Getting to know LS3/5As

I suspect some of the LS3/5A secret is just how well that upper bass lift and very deliberately plonking them on the room node in a typical small room works.

I'm trying to visualise this, is the room node you're harnessing the front wall - rear wall axial, or the floor-ceiling axial? If the former then I'd expect closer front wall placement to result in stronger 40Hz output, if the latter then I'd expect closer placement to the floor (either speaker or listener height) to result in stronger 40Hz output.

In either case, isn't the 50Hz-80Hz area still lacking a bit compared to the JR149, or does the Falcon's 100Hz bump help to stave off the roll-off below 80Hz?
 
This fits precisely with my experience of 1986 Spendors. I’d heard that MDF was used in their construction, can’t remember whether it was battens, front baffle or both.

I intend to land a pair of 3/5a at some point and revisit them.
My initial reaction was largely negative (to put it mildly) and too many ears that I trust tell me I'm wrong.
 
I'm trying to visualise this, is the room node you're harnessing the front wall - rear wall axial, or the floor-ceiling axial? If the former then I'd expect closer front wall placement to result in stronger 40Hz output, if the latter then I'd expect closer placement to the floor (either speaker or listener height) to result in stronger 40Hz output.

In either case, isn't the 50Hz-80Hz area still lacking a bit compared to the JR149, or does the Falcon's 100Hz bump help to stave off the roll-off below 80Hz?

To my understanding in a typical UK living room size placement on the wide wall and about a metre or so from the back hits that node that typically causes havoc with aggressively ported small speakers and leads to all manner of awful honk/boom. It is normally a very bad thing, and I certainly found it in the front room when I owned MEG RL-904s! The LS3/5A community seem to have figured out that it can be used to advantage as it is so many db down at that (40-50Hz) frequency with that speaker, plus very tight and well behaved being an infinite baffle, so it just gains a little reinforcement from the node without bringing boom, and the upper bass bump (130Hz) stops them sounding thin or lean and needing wall proximity effect the way of say a Kan or JR149.

I’m new to this theory. I only read about it a couple of days ago, though my preliminary findings are that it might be bang on the money. Pulling them a good bit forward upstairs and moving the beanbag back a corresponding amount certainly got them to grow substantially in stature and seemed to flatten the bass out and send it deeper. Downstairs plonked in front of the Tannoys they sounded remarkably good. I was actually shocked by just how good. Good to the point you’d likely not know which speaker was playing unless I told you! In hindsight I suspect they were driving the same node that ensured the otherwise rather nice active MEGs just weren’t a match for the room (the Tannoys are ported so low and are so low-Q aperiodic loading they don’t seem to care about room position much and work fine in what to be honest is the only position I can house them).
 
This fits precisely with my experience of 1986 Spendors. I’d heard that MDF was used in their construction, can’t remember whether it was battens, front baffle or both.

I believe the cabinets were MDF, the battens being beech.
As for the baffles, I seem to recall they were ply.
Incidentally, Kef’s Limited Edition ( with gold plated labels ! ) had MDF cabinets.
Presumably both the Kef & Spendor cabinets met the BBC spec.
 
Presumably both the Kef & Spendor cabinets met the BBC spec.

I suspect by that time it was just a marketing exercise for the domestic hi-fi market, I very much doubt the BBC were still buying LS3/5As for monitor use at that point. The label means next to nothing now, pretty much anything of that size can buy a license!
 
Time to start rambling aimlessly about these little BBC monitors and I think it makes sense to do so on their own thread rather than cluttering up my ongoing JR149 thread. There will inevitably be some overlap and some comparisons to be made, but that will come later.

50762070426_08c411efc7_b.jpg


(pfm Record Shop system upstairs, hence ‘decor’!)

These are Falcons, so an accurate modern recreation of the original 15 Ohm LS3/5A. They are bog standard, i.e. do not have the new ‘gold label’ crossovers, so I am assuming they are just an LS3/5A. Nothing more, nothing less. There is a wonderful quote somewhere from the Eastern collector with a massive wall of the things saying being honest he can’t tell them apart as they all sound the same, which is what one would hope given it is a very precise spec. As such any content on this thread just assumes the Falcons are just an LS3/5A the same as any other 15 Ohm model. The stands are also by Falcon and I bought them as they are just more manageable and have a better sized top-plate than my Target R4s (which being honest I struggle to move let alone carry up/down stairs).

Anyway, I’m kind of shocked by the LS3/5As. They are seriously good speakers. I knew I liked them as I have done at shows etc, often feeling they were the best sound there, and I knew that the reason I liked them is they have that mid-band thing that is ‘right’ in the Quad ESL, and ‘wrong’ in so many other speakers regardless of size or price. What I wasn’t expecting is they actually sound pretty punchy too! They certainly don’t cower from a well recorded drum kit.

50705737581_6b5e3eb5f8_b.jpg


The bass is fascinating as that EQ bump actually works. They never end up sounding ‘small’ or ‘thin’, even in direct comparison with the Lockwoods. They have a little ‘warmth’ but none of the ‘flub’ or ‘hollowness’ of so many ported speakers (I do not like ports on small speakers). They are very easy to listen to across genres. The limitation is obviously there is a volume ceiling as there is with any mini-monitor, but in the nearfield at levels I like listening at they probably have enough range. They do seem to need a bit of volume to wake up, so I’m averaging around 80db on most stuff, which will certainly be putting the occasional peaks over 90db. That’s still within the scope of the Stereo 20 and obviously the 303 downstairs has no issue (and loves the 15 Ohm load).

I found some very interesting content on this Medialux blog theorising as to how the bass bump translates into a ‘win’ in the typically small rooms we have in the UK and I tried setting them up in exactly this way last night (i.e. not as pictured in the first pic on the thread, which is where the JR149s work) and it really works well. The theory being that you get them far enough from the back wall to negate the ‘bump’ but put them right on the 40Hz node present in the typical UK room and as the LS3/5A is so tight and well behaved down here, plus many db down, it uses it to its benefit. This certainly seems true; I was stunned by how well they did stuff like Donald Fagan’s Morph The Cat, the bass guitar deep, punchy and tight, the double bass and drums on Bill Evans Live At The Village Vanguard not diminished in stature at all. With the lights out there is no way in hell you would think a mini monitor was producing this soundscape. I guess this is also pretty much the position I had them in plonked in front of the Lockwoods on the R4s, where they actually worked remarkably well. I maybe need to rethink how I’m using the 149s in light of this and try a larger listening triangle.

When it comes to making any measurements and trying to form any conclusions between the three mini-monitors I have to hand things will obviously get a bit complex as they all have very different usage requirements, e.g. the JR149 does like some wall lift and sounds thin pulled right out into the room, and I suspect the Spendor S3/5R is somewhere in the middle ground between the two (though actually seems to work pretty much anywhere, they are currently on little tip-back Ikea stands either side of the TV and sound great!). As such there is likely no winner as they all have a slightly different installation context. I’m reluctant to make the classic reviewer/idiot mistake of measuring everything in the same place, but I’m not sure how useful comparisons of speakers in different locations are. What I would really like to measure is the time/phase domain as I’m pretty certain that is far more important to me as a listener than the odd bump or dip in a response curve. I tend to hear crossover points between drivers but not really care about the odd peak or trough as long as it isn’t a boom or honk.

I’m curious to see what any long-term LS3/5A users have to add. As with any speaker there is clearly an art to setting these things up and I’m certainly at the start of that learning curve.


I have been getting to know a pair of Falcon Acoustics Ls3/5a the Gold Badge version over the last six weeks. Been on my bucket list for a while having been impressed by them at shows. This is my first post about them and to give some context I also own Quad ESL57's and Proac SM100.

The Falcons are quite remarkable for their size very clear, image and time extremely well. Even though they don't go down that low there is enough there to satisfy in a near field listening scenario.

Initially, I listened to the Falcons for 4 weeks straight before comparing them with the Proac SM100. The Falcons have an ever so romantic/warm presentation and are very responsive and I would also say easy to live with. It's not just jazz and acoustic music they can rock out!

With the Proacs they are more extended the mid-range is similar (Falcons just edging it). The differences are in the overall presentation the Proacs clearer/cleaner and with some styles of music just more engaging.

For a second pair of ears, I use my 13-year-old son and neither of us can pick a clear winner - Proac SM100 vs Falcon Ls3/5a they both do amazing things! Time will tell but we will keep on listening as I cant' keep both!
 
In your second paragraph, you could replace 'Falcons' with 'Stirlings.'
I find your description matches mine for the V3s, except to my ears the Stirlings go subjectivity lower than the Falcons.
 
@Tony L , have you taken comparative FR response measurements of the JR149 and LS3/5A at your listening seat? I appreciate the two require different placements for comparable performance but I'm particularly interested to see the difference in response around the XO frequency. Would you say the Falcon is less forward / less coloured than the JRs through the midband? (IIRC you were going to tweak the JR's HF trimpot to try to match the Falcon's curve?)
 
@Tony L , have you taken comparative FR response measurements of the JR149 and LS3/5A at your listening seat? I appreciate the two require different placements for comparable performance but I'm particularly interested to see the difference in response around the XO frequency. Would you say the Falcon is less forward / less coloured than the JRs through the midband?

I’ve not done any measurements yet. Mainly down laziness, but partly down to not being able to figure out how to do it without compromise. For measurements to show any real difference between the speakers they really need to be done in one location. I do have a stand position where they both sound very good, though it arguably favours the 149 rather than the LS3/5A. I think I’ll probably use that position.

Tonally my perception is that the LS3/5A have a bit of a ‘saddle’ response with a little lift above and below the mid, the JR149 is more mid-forward, but likely digs a little deeper in the bass even if it is drier. I think I have the JR149 tweeter pulled back just a little compared to the LS3/5A, but that will obviously come out in the measurements. I set it for what I hear as the best possible crossover transition around 2-5kHz.

I don’t place anything like the weight on slight tonal differences many do and consider a db here and there as all but irrelevant and certainly vastly less significant than temporal colouration (boom, flub, honk, crossover phase issues etc), or for that matter dynamic/transient compression etc, so really I want to try and learn how to measure these aspects. What interests me the most about these two speakers is the crossover region, as they are both very, very good, so a really high-bar to start with, but there is something quite exceptional about the LS3/5A.
 
Has there ever been an active version of the LS3/5A ?
I have Linn Kan’s active with Naim Snaxo crossover and Naim amps ,it is so much better than the passive version.
 
Has there ever been an active version of the LS3/5A ?
I have Linn Kan’s active with Naim Snaxo crossover and Naim amps ,it is so much better than the passive version.

No, and I suspect you’d need a very complex active crossover to achieve what the LS3/5A does, certainly far more complex than a SNAXO. I get the impression the active crossover in the LS5/8 is far more than a simple low-pass on the bass and high-pass on the treble having phase alignment and various notches to remove cabinet issues.
 
No, and I suspect you’d need a very complex active crossover to achieve what the LS3/5A does, certainly far more complex than a SNAXO. I get the impression the active crossover in the LS5/8 is far more than a simple low-pass on the bass and high-pass on the treble having phase alignment and various
Thank you.Yes with all the components in the LS3/5A crossover it may be an even bigger advantage with a active crossover.
I will try to activate a pair of LS3/5A with the Naim Snaxo and see what happens.
 
I have got some Stirling LS3/5a V2's. Love them. Now they differ from 'proper' LS3/5a's because they use adapted modern drivers rather than the KEF drivers - hence the V2 moniker.

Can anyone advise how the sound differs from other regular old LS3/5a's or the modern replica Falcon's / Roger's ?

I suspect they have similarities and differences.
 
I suspect they have similarities and differences.

To my mind the name is just a marketing exercise. A very nice little speaker for sure, but it isn’t an LS3/5A, and it has no direct connection at all to the BBC research department. Tonally similar, but I’d be amazed if you could use a Stirling on one channel and a real LS3/5A on the other and they’d be pair matched, and that is what the BBC spec actually requires! Some folk seem to like them better, so I’m not criticising the speaker itself, only the marketing.
 
Ok, measurement fans, here it comes:

50845878336_cede58a0b2_o.jpg


This is the right speaker measured from my listening position about a metre and a half away roughly between the woofer and tweeter height. I did not move the mic and the speakers are in the same position which arguably slightly benefits the JR149.

One thing I notice is my JR149s definitely have a big spike at around 16kHz, as did the Falcon LS3/5As Stereophile measured, whereas my Falcon LS3/5As don’t seem to. I wonder if this means Falcon have improved their T27 over time (the pair in my 149s are very early ones)? To be honest it is above my ability to hear so not something that bothers me, but it is interesting nonetheless.

50845878256_3ee32ed2f8_o.jpg


JR149 Waterfall.

50845878286_91bf4eebfd_o.jpg


LS3/5A Waterfall.

I’ll let those more knowledgeable about these things pick the bones out of it, but to my eyes they look like two remarkably similar little speakers and I don’t see the differences I was expecting to. As ever I suspect I am measuring the room far more than the speaker in most respects.

PS I’d totally ignore any odd sub-40Hz stuff, I suspect that is the central heating, or maybe a car going by!
 
Ok, measurement fans, here it comes:

50845878336_cede58a0b2_o.jpg


This is the right speaker measured from my listening position about a metre and a half away roughly between the woofer and tweeter height. I did not move the mic and the speakers are in the same position which arguably slightly benefits the JR149.

One thing I notice is my JR149s definitely have a big spike at around 16kHz, as did the Falcon LS3/5As Stereophile measured, whereas my Falcon LS3/5As don’t seem to. I wonder if this means Falcon have improved their T27 over time (the pair in my 149s are very early ones)? To be honest it is above my ability to hear so not something that bothers me, but it is interesting nonetheless.

50845878256_3ee32ed2f8_o.jpg


JR149 Waterfall.

50845878286_91bf4eebfd_o.jpg


LS3/5A Waterfall.

I’ll let those more knowledgeable about these things pick the bones out of it, but to my eyes they look like two remarkably similar little speakers and I don’t see the differences I was expecting to. As ever I suspect I am measuring the room far more than the speaker in most respects.

PS I’d totally ignore any odd sub-40Hz stuff, I suspect that is the central heating, or maybe a car going by!

Interesting stuff. The LS3/5A does appear to be more saddled in the mids and tipped up in the top-end. I'd put money on the latter being an effect of the perforated brass grille glued onto the T27 dome as I noticed a similar effect when I put those grilles on my T27/B110-equipped IMF MCR2A's. We probably can't read too much into the differences in the midrange responses as 1.5m is still pretty close to being a nearfield measurement and I found that when I was measuring my JR149s at 1m, placing the mic at either tweeter, woofer, or in-between height had a significant effect on the response around the XO frequency. Bass response is interesting, I'd have expected the JRs to have the edge on the Falcons below 70Hz by a couple of dBs. It does look like they dig a bit deeper (I'm basing that on what I'm seeing at 50Hz), but it's too close to call from that graph.

EDIT - The JR's seemingly more jagged response above 8kHz could well in part be caused by diffraction off the under lip of the enclosure's end cap, - I'm not convinced the yellow foam above the tweeter fully prevents this.

PS - I assume the Falcons were measured with tygan grilles on?
 
50846031882_c362a26051_o.jpg


Here’s a ‘psychoacoustic’ smoothing which might make it easier to gauge the character traits. I suspect the big tonal difference is between 350Hz-1kHz. The crossover region around 3-4kHz is noticeably different too, and again I suspect there is more to be told there as that is the make/break of any multi-way speaker to my ears. This smoothing also highlights the LS3/5A’s bass bump at 110Hz or so.
 
Thank you.Yes with all the components in the LS3/5A crossover it may be an even bigger advantage with a active crossover.
I will try to activate a pair of LS3/5A with the Naim Snaxo and see what happens.
If you activate Ls3/5A's with a snaxo you will end up with a low power handling set of linn kans with a spitty treble. absolutely no point in doing that.
Rgds
Stuart
 
If you activate Ls3/5A's with a snaxo you will end up with a low power handling set of linn kans with a spitty treble. absolutely no point in doing that.
Rgds
Stuart
Okay,but why would it be low power handling,it´s the same version of the Kef B110 as in early Linn Kans.The treble and the bass I can adjust with the pots in the Snaxo.
Maybe I can ask Naim if they can tailor the Snaxo for the LS3/5A.
 


advertisement


Back
Top