Risks of Non-consecutive LS3/5a’s
- Thread starter CTank
- Start date
hifinutt
hifinutt
for some odd reason my eatons were delivered with non consecutive seriel numbers . we knew becuase they come with a packet of wax and that was missing . the dealer had them collected and a proper pair delivered from europe [ often wonder why they were made in scotland , shipped to europe and then delivered to me ]
sideshowbob
Champagne fascia aficionado
Pairs with consecutive serial numbers are rarer, therefore more valuable. I doubt sonics come into that calculation very much.
CTank
pfm Member
That’s interesting, I assumed they were all pairs, unless they’d been married up retrospectively.
Jon Honeyball
pfm Member
I can see no reason *at all* why consecutive number speakers should be better than those with a gap between the numbering. They will be built as single speakers, and paired up in the boxing stage.
now if they really are made as pairs, then they should be labelled /A and /B on the serial numbers, so they are genuinely a pair
you could argue that with ls3/5a, if they are correctly built to the bbc design, then they should all sound the same... controversial, i know, but...
(task for the weekend - measure my original Linn Kans using my Audio Precision AP517 (The NEW APx517B Acoustic Analyzer - Audio Precision) to see how close they are after many decades)
now if they really are made as pairs, then they should be labelled /A and /B on the serial numbers, so they are genuinely a pair
you could argue that with ls3/5a, if they are correctly built to the bbc design, then they should all sound the same... controversial, i know, but...
(task for the weekend - measure my original Linn Kans using my Audio Precision AP517 (The NEW APx517B Acoustic Analyzer - Audio Precision) to see how close they are after many decades)
Tony L
Administrator
There is a very good chance of spec imbalance due to time, especially if they are unrelated, i.e. have spent their considerable time in different environments. It worked when new, but sadly the vintage Kef drivers do drift. The reason my JR149s are fitted with a full set of new Falcon drivers is the original Kefs, whist fully “working” had drifted to the extent the speakers were tonally different to one another and were incapable of producing a strong central image (a real 149 strength). These were a consecutive pair and had been stored in their box, though there was some evidence of humidity.
The B110s is a modest quality driver from the 60s. It uses a relatively weak stamped steel frame rather than a cast frame with significant resonance issues in the passband. The plastic cone was intended to be more consistent than paper cones from that time ("paper" cones today are rather different) but being pretty much the first plastic cone it didn't have particularly well sorted properties with later plastics bringing significant improvements. One of the consequences of the poorish properties was the need to hand "dope" the cone to help reduce the strength of the cone resonances. This was one of the factors that lead to the driver ending up with a wide variation in it's properties after manufacture.
To address this the drivers would be often be measured and the ones that were close to spec passed on to the speaker manufacturers who would often measure themselves and hence be likely to reject poor ones whereas we DIYers tended to get the ones that were all over the place. If quality matters then paying for the ones that have been measured to be reasonably similar is worthwhile not only because you should get reasonably similar drivers but because if you don't you are likely to get the ones rejected after measurement.
Decent modern drivers using modern materials and modern manufacturing methods are of significantly higher quality. Of course this doesn't help if you want to preserve the classic status of particularly speakers but it may help with assessing what is worth paying for and what is not.
david ellwood
Kirabosi Kognoscente
Whether you have consecutive serials or not you’re at significant risk of ending up owning some ls3/5a.
Since I’ve had my Falcon LS3/5a I noticed how good the tonal balance and accuracy is between each Channel and imaging. I put this down to them being closely matched drivers.
Most other speakers I’ve had didn’t seem to be as good in this respect, I consider matched drivers essential now in any speaker.
Most other speakers I’ve had didn’t seem to be as good in this respect, I consider matched drivers essential now in any speaker.
ToTo Man
the band not the dog
This really ought to be a given in all speakers regardless of price IMO because it is fundamental to the creation of a symmetrical and consistent stereo image. To give a visual analogy, it's the equivalent to having a TV that has a different colour balance across the panel, it's distracting and spoils the viewing experience. Fortunately speakers these days tend to be matched to far closer tolerances than those of yesteryear. If my experience with mass-produced, entry-level models such as the Q Acoustics 3010 is a fair representation, then you should be able to buy two pairs of these speakers from different ends of the country and pair-swap them and find that they're matched to within +/- 0.5dB across their entire operating range. Perhaps the variances are wider for the more boutique, hand-crafted offerings, as they seem to be for high-end headphones.
david ellwood
Kirabosi Kognoscente
My speakers sound different because of the furnishings in my room. Driver matching is irrelevant unless you are going to ensure the listening space is completely symmetrical.
ToTo Man
the band not the dog
Each to their own but I'd take a matched anechoic response over an accidentally matched in-room response every time, at least that way you're starting off with a fighting chance of getting a symmetrical stereo image regardless of what room you use the speakers in...