advertisement


Stirling Broadcast LS3/5a V3 Review.

Very balanced, EPear.
I'm not sure I have written a better review than you.
I wrote what I heard, in an honest way I hope.
I'd lived with 'ESRs for many years and really liked them, but the V3s were a real step forward.
Looking back, the previous LS3/5as were rather sideways moves.
Different, but not necessarily better.
 
ampedup said:
With the ls3/5a, I was always aware of its character: the bass hump, the brightness in the upper midband and the paucity of low bass, despite adoring its virtues: upper midband clarity, lack of grain and sophistication of timbral nuance.
Click to expand...

I agree.
I prefer JR149s, which don't have these characteristics. However they don't have quite the same "clarity" as the LS3s.
I heard Sterling V2s at home many years ago. In direct comparison to Spendor LS3.5As, they were more forward in the upper mids and even further away from a natural balance IMO.

In the last few years I have been using my own stereo bass extenders and have tried a variety of mini monitors. I use an electonic crossover to reduce the LF into the mini monitor and to provide very accurate phase alignment with the bass units. This tends to make any departure from neutrality more apparent (and removes some of the bass hump from LS3/5As - which adds to the unbalancing). Harbeth P3 ESRs have a fairly neutral tonal balance used this way, but I found them unsuitable due to an strange over-damped sound which made them sound rather mechanical.

I have also tried LS50s and Q Acoustics Concept 20s. I could not believe how bad the QAs were!
The LS50 could have been superb if they hadn't emulated (and overdone) the excessive mids of the LS3/5A!


So, I'm looking for a JR149 balance with a bit more resolution. Does it exist?
 
S-Man said:
So, I'm looking for a JR149 balance with a bit more resolution. Does it exist?
Click to expand...
It occurs to me that the "MAD 1920S" monitors might be close to what you are looking for. The balance is very even, the sound is open and lively without humps, or forwardness in the upper mids. Nothing over-damped about them and they have sufficient bass in a medium to small room. Resolution is excellent.
 
S-Man said:
I agree.
I prefer JR149s, which don't have these characteristics. However they don't have quite the same "clarity" as the LS3s.
I heard Sterling V2s at home many years ago. In direct comparison to Spendor LS3.5As, they were more forward in the upper mids and even further away from a natural balance IMO.

In the last few years I have been using my own stereo bass extenders and have tried a variety of mini monitors. I use an electonic crossover to reduce the LF into the mini monitor and to provide very accurate phase alignment with the bass units. This tends to make any departure from neutrality more apparent (and removes some of the bass hump from LS3/5As - which adds to the unbalancing). Harbeth P3 ESRs have a fairly neutral tonal balance used this way, but I found them unsuitable due to an strange over-damped sound which made them sound rather mechanical.

I have also tried LS50s and Q Acoustics Concept 20s. I could not believe how bad the QAs were!
The LS50 could have been superb if they hadn't emulated (and overdone) the excessive mids of the LS3/5A!


So, I'm looking for a JR149 balance with a bit more resolution. Does it exist?
Click to expand...

Very interesring S-Man. I have a Kef R101 which is also less "clear" and forward than most ls3/5, but I really like its evenness (or blandness)

What electronics do you use with the JR's? I was sure I was lacking reolution, but it turned out to be other components.

I only miss bass resolution (for now... if that resolves I'll be missing something else), can you say a few more words about your solution? Was the electronic X/O transparent enough? I was thinking of maybe trying a sub with a high pass X/O.
Omer.
 
omers said:
What electronics do you use with the JR's? I was sure I was lacking reolution, but it turned out to be other components.
Click to expand...

The JR149s are one of the clearest and most detailed speakers I have ever heard, just astonishingly open and revealing. My only criticism is very, very occasionally one gets just the tiniest hint of that Bextrene ‘quack’ or hardness, the thing that plagues Kans, Isobariks etc and the LS3/5A has a much more complex filter network to dial out. The 149s to my mind get the best out of the B110 as their compromise is remarkably uncoloured the majority of the time, but retains a lot of the punch and dynamics that more complex crossovers can sit on. They certainly show everything upstream very clearly indeed and I’d happily monitor with them.

One huge issue when discussing these old Kef driver-based speakers is they are 40 or so years old and do drift over time, apparently due to the glues used. Whilst I found a cosmetically stunning pair of 149s it was obvious from a quick listen that they were not performing correctly despite all four drivers “working” as in making sound and not distorting or rattling. They just didn’t behave as a pair at all, neither the tweeters or bass units. As such mine now have the matched Falcon T27 and B110 units from their LS3/5As along with fully rebuilt crossovers (just like for like, no mods), so they are now behaving as they should. It is certainly something to bear in mind.
 
omers said:
Very interesring S-Man. I have a Kef R101 which is also less "clear" and forward than most ls3/5, but I really like its evenness (or blandness)

What electronics do you use with the JR's? I was sure I was lacking reolution, but it turned out to be other components.

I only miss bass resolution (for now... if that resolves I'll be missing something else), can you say a few more words about your solution? Was the electronic X/O transparent enough? I was thinking of maybe trying a sub with a high pass X/O.
Omer.
Click to expand...

Electronics: RPi2B & IQaudio DAC+ with linear PS. Leach LowTIM or Mooly Mosfet Amp.
Bass system: Unique "motional feedback" stereo LF extenders. Flat to <<20Hz. 1st order rolloff results in exellent transient response.
Electronic crossover: OP275 based. "Assumes" 80Hz 2nd high pass speakers - which fits small sealed boxes very well.

I have tried lots of DIY variants and quite a few commercial alternatives to the above and although they may appear prosaic they are the most natural and "correct" sounding overall.

I have heard 4 pairs of JR149s. The best were 337alant's. They were excellent - even without the bass extenders.
I think the tweeter, although superb for its age, cannot reach the resolution and dynamics of the OW1 in my own speakers though.
 
I have never heard JR149s.
I’ve never come across anyone with a pair.

A friend, who used to work in Audio Retail ( a Hi-Fi shop ) spoke highly of the ‘149s,
but I never got to hear a pair in the shop.
He said they sold JRs and ‘3/5as in roughly equal amounts.
I do recall he said the Audiomaster LS3/5a was the most popular.
Of course, it may have been the lowest price LS3/5a available...
 
Hello here in the forum. This is my first post. I will introduce myself a little more another time. I have a SB LS3/5 V2 for 14 years and I listen to it every now and then with a lot of pleasure. Over the 14 years it became better and better, a sound of one piece, to say it briefly. I have large speakers that I listen to mainly, (Klipsch Jubilee and as a relatively „smaller“ speaker a 1993 Tannoy Canterbury 15). But I always come back to the little V2. Now I'm very interested in the V3...after all that is reported here and elsewhere. I have two questions about this topic. 1) I've seen photos of the new crossover, which is mounted on the rear panel. I was shocked at how big the components are. Especially the air coils. This may be an electrical advantage. But let's face it, is there hardly any "air" left for the cabinet volume? 2) If the values of the crossover are the same (which I could perhaps assume, because the V2 is very well tuned, perhaps in the V3 with additional parts (resistors?) to compensate the lower resistance of the „better“ parts, then I can also install these better components myself and place them on the rear panel?

But I also have to say that the price difference is just 242€ per piece. If you assume that you are not doing anything wrong (which can happen very quickly if you don't know the secret of the new crossover) then I would have to finance this money in components plus an incalculable number of my working hours. In this sense, the additional price is actually very fair. 1167€ (V3) to 925€ for the V2 in unit price.
 
When I bought my Rogers LS 3/5a in 1980 (for £150) one of the key selling points was the absolute consistency between different samples AND different manufacturers, so in theory, I could have used a Chartwell for my left speaker and a Audiomaster for the right. If we are now judging one LS3/5a as better than another, something, somewhere has gone horribly wrong. They were never designed to be 'perfect', but they were designed to be consistent.
 
JemHayward said:
When I bought my Rogers LS 3/5a in 1980 (for £150) one of the key selling points was the absolute consistency between different samples AND different manufacturers, so in theory, I could have used a Chartwell for my left speaker and a Audiomaster for the right. If we are now judging one LS3/5a as better than another, something, somewhere has gone horribly wrong. They were never designed to be 'perfect', but they were designed to be consistent.
Click to expand...

The Stirlings aren’t really LS3/5as though are they? So it’s a false name and a false problem.
 
There is a lot of literature about the LS3/5, and also about the differences. I have linked the 2019 article here, because it gives a nice short overview and good tips for setting up the LS3/5 in the room. It mentions that the BBC left it up to each licensee to design the crossover. So the differences - e.g. between a Chartwell and a Rogers (same era, 15 Ohm) were pre-programmed.

Just google: The LS3/5a A midrange to die for (Part 1 and 2)


If there were no differences, this famous test by Ken Kessler in 2001 would never have happened. Interestingly, with a reply by Derek Huges at the end of the writing, where he announced already air coils.

Just google Ken Kessler LS3/5 shoot out.

What does that tell us? That you are "allowed“ to become "better" within certain limits. That's why for me a Stirling Broadcast is also a "real" LS3/5.
 
Martyn Miles said:
Those articles you mentioned I googled, and very interesting they are, too.
Click to expand...
They are interesting, however, I don't quite understand his reasoning about room placement for the ls3/5a. He recommends the long wall for positioning, and he is quite specific about distance to the rear wall (around 1,2 – 1,5m), in order to trigger the 40 hz room mode. But if I understand correctly, wouldn't that mode trigger be specific to the room size and aspect ratio?

In my experience, having tried many, many long wall positions, the short wall placement wins hands down, in all parameters.
 
What I have tried from the recommendations of the report with good success is the small inward angle of 7 degrees with the LS3/5a. The result is a rich stage without overemphasis of any area and with good depth staggering for relaxed listening without disturbing overlays.
 
HeinzR said:
What I have tried from the recommendations of the report with good success is the small inward angle of 7 degrees with the LS3/5a. The result is a rich stage without overemphasis of any area and with good depth staggering for relaxed listening without disturbing overlays.
Click to expand...

How far apart are the speakers and how far are you from each speaker? I’m pretty much in an equilateral triangle about 1.6m away when I sit forward I think.
 
In the first test, the distance between the speakers was 2.30 metres and I sat about 1,90 metres away. I couldn't put it any other way because of other things in the room. Ideally, I would do it so that the speakers were a bit closer together lets say, two meters and I would keep the same distance to them. This brings us closer to the equilateral triangle. It's obvious how I make the distance from the listening position to the speakers depend on the treble reproduction to get a good balance.
 
They look overpriced. There were a couple of pairs of those on eBay last week for closer to £500. I suspect they're pretty good, but not for that price
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top