ampedup
Lost in audio
I can't see it any other way. Derek Hughes by building the V2 to spec, made a new ls3/5a. Very carefully, in my opinion.
Stirling ls3/5a V2 vs Harbeth P3ESR
- Thread starter sideshowbob
- Start date
I can't see it any other way. Derek Hughes by building the V2 to spec, made a new ls3/5a. Very carefully, in my opinion.
Tony L
Administrator
I’m sure he made a truly wonderful little speaker, though I’m sorry, you will never convince me it is an LS3/5A! It may be far better for all I know, I’m certainly not intending any disrespect at all, I bet I’d love them. I just view the LS3/5A badge on anything but a totally original spec speaker to be a marketing exercise.
As far as I’m aware the LS3/5A isn’t even a current BBC spec anyway, they moved over to active Dynaudios etc decades ago, so really they are just selling licensing without any intent to use any of the modern equivalents. The term has IMHO now been devalued into a marketing approach to sell really nice and reassuringly expensive little speakers to audiophiles! Falcon can get away with it as theirs are actually LS3/5As right down to the last screw and resistor. You could swap every part in/out of a 1970s original pair and obtain the same result.
As far as I’m aware the LS3/5A isn’t even a current BBC spec anyway, they moved over to active Dynaudios etc decades ago, so really they are just selling licensing without any intent to use any of the modern equivalents. The term has IMHO now been devalued into a marketing approach to sell really nice and reassuringly expensive little speakers to audiophiles! Falcon can get away with it as theirs are actually LS3/5As right down to the last screw and resistor. You could swap every part in/out of a 1970s original pair and obtain the same result.
Martyn Miles
pfm Member
As I said earlier, Tony, you’re entitled to your opinion.
I’ve no problem with that, but I’ll stick with what I’ve written.
I’ve no problem with that, but I’ll stick with what I’ve written.
Said mate here
. This is such a tricky call, describing the differences beteen speakers that by no means a mile apart. I'll certainly stand by the neutral, detailed, proportion comments regarding the Falcons, but will re-visit the term 'embellished'. I agree with Nagraboy, in hindsight, it does seem a negative term. I think what I was trying to convey in very simple terms that the Falcons were more the reference point for 'natural' whilst the Harbs were that bit richer. I find it best to use simple terms in comparison to convey a simple conclusive idea of what I'm thinking. Both ae indeed wonderful.It was an absolute treat to hear the two side by side though, all indeed these little boxes are one of my favourite Hi Fi topics. And sorry OP, this deviates from your thread though I hope it's of some interest. Obviously would love to hear the Stirlings some day.
Really interesting all this re-modelling, I owned a pair of the P3 Annies for 3 months whilst keeping my 'regular'. In the end the Annies went, I preferred the old uns !
Fatmarley
"It appears my intelligence circuits have melted"
As Tony says, it has to use the original drivers, crossover and enclosure size / volume etc. Anything else is not an LS3/5a.
I'd also add, that if it measures differently, something has changed, and it's not an LS3/5a.
herb
brain's right hemisphere
Perhaps Far Eastern philosophers would be appropriate, they think differently about 'being' and 'existence'.
Nagraboy
Ausculta fili
I love all this arguing over shoeboxes - it’s partly why I recently bought a pair of the Falcons
As for definitions and meeting ‘specs’ etc, the question is: is an LS3/5a a particular ‘sound character’ where the designer/builder must create a mimic of the original in frequency response etc etc, or is it a set of specific component parts which the builder must use in order to produce the genuine article. The former could probably be achieved without the latter (just ask Doug Stirling), but not vice versa - so I’ll go with the latter. Of course, this doesn’t mean the former can’t sound ‘as good’.
As for definitions and meeting ‘specs’ etc, the question is: is an LS3/5a a particular ‘sound character’ where the designer/builder must create a mimic of the original in frequency response etc etc, or is it a set of specific component parts which the builder must use in order to produce the genuine article. The former could probably be achieved without the latter (just ask Doug Stirling), but not vice versa - so I’ll go with the latter. Of course, this doesn’t mean the former can’t sound ‘as good’.
Martyn Miles
pfm Member
You’re getting me all mixed up with your talk of specs., sound character and component parts.
I can only quote what someone whose ears I trust told me.
Some time ago he listened to a late pair of Rogers LS3/5as and a pair of Stirling V2s.
Not an A/B test, but a more prolonged listen.
He told me, after a while, he couldn’t tell the difference between the two speakers.
Make of that what you will...
I can only quote what someone whose ears I trust told me.
Some time ago he listened to a late pair of Rogers LS3/5as and a pair of Stirling V2s.
Not an A/B test, but a more prolonged listen.
He told me, after a while, he couldn’t tell the difference between the two speakers.
Make of that what you will...
sideshowbob
Champagne fascia aficionado
BUNDLE!!!
I love a good nerd row. Excellent stuff.
I'm finding this a useful thread. I think I'm pretty fixed on the Stirling route now, the question is whether I can stretch to the V3 or have to slum it with the V2. @lilolee have you got a pair of LS3/5as needing a good home? In the olden days you always had everything stashed away somewhere.
I love a good nerd row. Excellent stuff.
I'm finding this a useful thread. I think I'm pretty fixed on the Stirling route now, the question is whether I can stretch to the V3 or have to slum it with the V2. @lilolee have you got a pair of LS3/5as needing a good home? In the olden days you always had everything stashed away somewhere.
ampedup
Lost in audio
This nerd is listening to Led Zeppelin Remastered on my Quad IIs driving Stirling V3s. I never thought I would be able to say this of such venerable designs: They rock hard!
ampedup
Lost in audio
Well, I have been surprised at the outcome with this combination. They are dynamic, extended, clear and tubey, not at all the same as good modern ss amps, and yet, they yield a really fine quality of sound. I chose vintage models over the new re-issues only for nostalgia reasons. Mine have been completely rebuilt. The only mod was to replace the Jones plug arrangement with a single rca socket and to tag the output transformer at 8 ohms..
Martyn Miles
pfm Member
There’s one aspect of this debate about what is a ‘real’ LS3/5a that hasn’t been aired.
Doug Stirling told me that the quality of the drive units is much more consistent.
Whereas the B110 had to be carefully selected, the modern Monacor and Seas units
are on spec.
Makes for much easier selection and build.
Doug Stirling told me that the quality of the drive units is much more consistent.
Whereas the B110 had to be carefully selected, the modern Monacor and Seas units
are on spec.
Makes for much easier selection and build.
In the early days of the LS3/5a Yahoo Forum they did a poll to see what amplifiers people were using.
Since it was the early days, I assume that people hadn't been subjected to much external 'advice'.
I was surprised to see that a significant majority of people were using Quad II amps.....as was I at the time. (No mention was made of which impedance)
In recent years I have become more aware of ageing of loudspeakers as well as electronics. A significant consideration. It has been said that the Quad amp and the LS3/5a age in opposite directions so balance out their deteriorations.
Harbeth and Stirling have both commented on old BBC loudspeakers being well out of spec (for the cynics...'they would wouldn't they')
Since it was the early days, I assume that people hadn't been subjected to much external 'advice'.
I was surprised to see that a significant majority of people were using Quad II amps.....as was I at the time. (No mention was made of which impedance)
In recent years I have become more aware of ageing of loudspeakers as well as electronics. A significant consideration. It has been said that the Quad amp and the LS3/5a age in opposite directions so balance out their deteriorations.
Harbeth and Stirling have both commented on old BBC loudspeakers being well out of spec (for the cynics...'they would wouldn't they')
Nagraboy
Ausculta fili
I think I watched a lecture by Jerry Bloomfield saying that the B110 drivers used for the original LS3/5a speakers were right at the end of the manufacturing spec, making them difficult to produce.
Tony L
Administrator
I’m certain this is one key reason for the LS3/5A’s enduring popularity. Whilst inefficient it is a very easy to drive 15 Ohm load with no dips below 8 Ohms and valve amps love it. Most modern mini-monitors are lower impedance and a more reactive load, so really dictate solid-state power and lots of it. A really good ten Watt valve amp such as a Leak Stereo 20 can work with LS3/5As very well, but would run out of steam into many modern small speakers.
Yes, LS3/5a was designed at the end of the valve era.
For a long time I have been of opinion that mixing amps and speakers from different eras doesn't really work. The designer of the amp and the designer of the speakers had expectations of what would be connected. I came to this conclusion whilst trying to match modern speakers to old (Quad II) valve amps.
As you state, only the Falcon is a true recreation. The other versions might be expecting to be hooked up to a different type of amplifier.