advertisement


The BBC LS3/6

Martyn Miles said:
Arkless, your ’the BC1 mid range magic’ is what it’s all about for me.

The higher power handing, max SPL and bass tightness of the BC2 don’t really concern me, but
I appreciate it might concern others.

Sitting listening to my BC1s as I write this, it really is ( almost ) magic how good things sound.
The Spendors are my long-term reference speakers and I’ll never let them go...
Click to expand...

I cannot stress strongly enough that whilst this is the BC1's best point the BC2 and SP1 are close to it in mid range quality. The 3 models are more alike than different and sound more "ESL like" than the majority of box type speakers.
 
Martyn Miles said:
Arkless, your ’the BC1 mid range magic’ is what it’s all about for me.

The higher power handing, max SPL and bass tightness of the BC2 don’t really concern me, but
I appreciate it might concern others.

Sitting listening to my BC1s as I write this, it really is ( almost ) magic how good things sound.
The Spendors are my long-term reference speakers and I’ll never let them go...
Click to expand...

I agree with the you, I have BC1, BC2 and LS3/6 (modified by fitting Export Monitor bass units).

DSCF9577 (2) by A60man, on Flickr
 
mandryka said:
Was the Quad ESL(57? 63?) a sort of BBC benchmark which manufacturers tried to achieve with box speakers?
Click to expand...

Can't really answer this, but I stood my Chartwell LS3/5a's on top of my ESL63's and was amazed how similar they sounded, especially when one considers the size difference.
 
mandryka said:
Which amp has brought out the best in your BC1s? I ask because I'm very aware of the difference the amp makes with my SP1s -- like all speakers I suppose.
Click to expand...

I'll chip in (and probably annoy Martyn here.. non intended:)) in pointing out that he IIRC uses amps with them which I consider incapable of bringing out the very best in them... I've mentioned several times "you would be shocked how much better still your BC1's could be if you get something better than that Quad 303" only to be told stuff like "the BBC used 303's with BC1's so it's more than good enough for me or you Jez"... You can lead a horse to water...
 
Radfordman said:
Can't really answer this, but I stood my Chartwell LS3/5a's on top of my ESL63's and was amazed how similar they sounded, especially when one considers the size difference.
Click to expand...

But the 63 is designed to project the sound image behind the speaker, if set up properly.
 
deebster said:
Did you open it up to find out what was making the screeching sound? :D
Click to expand...

Well, actually I bought the crossovers (one HF section missing) on ebay more than 12 years ago. The seller also had empty cabinets free if I would collect them, which I did.

Over the years I collected the Celestion HF1300's and HF2000's and constructed the missing HF crossover. Good LS3/6 bass units were, and are almost impossible to find, so I used Dalesford ones. The one shown in the pic worked fine, but I found out that the Export Monitor used a Dalesford with a larger magnet. These I changed to, got slight improvement to bass firmness.
 
Arkless Electronics said:
I'll chip in (and probably annoy Martyn here.. non intended:)) in pointing out that he IIRC uses amps with them which I consider incapable of bringing out the very best in them... I've mentioned several times "you would be shocked how much better still your BC1's could be if you get something better than that Quad 303" only to be told stuff like "the BBC used 303's with BC1's so it's more than good enough for me or you Jez"... You can lead a horse to water...
Click to expand...

I have what I believe what Jez rates very highly as an amp, a Radford STA25 III, and I'll admit it might be better than a 303 (of which I have four), but it's not by much. I think I might be caught out in an AB comparison. However, a 405-2 controls the bass of BC1, BC2 and LS3/6 better, however, I not sure that it's mid/ top end is as good.
 
mandryka said:
Which amp has brought out the best in your BC1s? I ask because I'm very aware of the difference the amp makes with my SP1s -- like all speakers I suppose.
Click to expand...

I am using my BC1s with a recently modded & serviced Audiolab 8000A.
They’ve never sounded so good.
( I’m aware ‘Arkless’ generally disapproves of my amplifiers. See his post #26 )

I used a Meridian and an Arcam previously with the BC1s, then bought the 8000A.
Arkless thought I used a Quad 34/303 with the Spendors, but the Quad was used with Harbeth and Stirling speakers.
I did try it briefly with the BC1s, but it doesn’t have the facilities of the Audiolab.
I’m using an Arcam Delta 60 at the moment with my little Stirlings, but have yet to try it with the BC1s.
 
Radfordman said:
I have what I believe what Jez rates very highly as an amp, a Radford STA25 III, and I'll admit it might be better than a 303 (of which I have four), but it's not by much. I think I might be caught out in an AB comparison. However, a 405-2 controls the bass of BC1, BC2 and LS3/6 better, however, I not sure that it's mid/ top end is as good.
Click to expand...

I found the STA25III and BC2s a superb combination. Krell KSA50 and a MF Nu-Vista 300 also gave remarkable results and were able to put any "pipe and slippers" jibes against Spendors well out the way!

I have had the opportunity in the past to compare BC1, BC2 and SP1 over a weekend and with 303 (2 examples), Exposure 4 Dual Regulated (me modified) and Leak St20 (very extensively me modified!) and the 303's were nowhere near as good as the other amps. Don't get me wrong here, they turned in what seemed a perfectly respectable performance... until they were switched out for one of the other power amps. They then sounded rather flat, shut in and lack lustre in comparison.

The best was the very modded Leak St20.

The next weekend I returned with the Quads which I had extensively modified by then (quite differently to any of the on line mods etc for 303's and even included my own new regulated supply to replace the Quad one and which regulated the + rail rather than the - one as Quad originally did it). I converted the SP1's to be bi-wireable and the idea was the pair of Quads would be used to bi-amp them.

They were vastly improved and now every bit a match for the Exposure 4 DR in slam, dynamics, bass control and extension etc (all the things you wouldn't expect to hear about a 303 they now very much were! Little beasties in fact which could now do maybe 80WPC into 4R rather than dropping to 25!). Also significantly more open than before but not quite as open or as good in the treble as the Exposure. Not much in it though. The Leak still won overall.

To keep the 303 fans happy though I will say that all my experience with bog stock 303's has been with ones which had years of use and had not been re-capped etc.

All of these BBC derived speakers are very revealing and IME show up very obvious differences between amps, even though they are a pretty easy load. There has been times when I've gone from one amp to another with my BC2's and thought "you wouldn't think these were even the same speaker if unsighted!".
 
The difference between a working but tired 303 and a well serviced one can be quite large. Back in the mid 70's I bought a second hand 303 that looked in very good condition. Did not really like the sound of it. It sat on the shelf unused for some time. Eventually, I serviced it and was surprised at the transformation.
 
I'm trying a pair of supertweeters with mine at the moment. Haven't decided what to think yet.

They sounded sweet and involving with the Alto, which is being serviced right now.

The Krell made them sound very good, maybe better than the ESL and Krell - different room of course. And in the end, so did the Radford- but the Radford sounds so right with the JR149s I don't want to change it.
 
Radfordman said:
The difference between a working but tired 303 and a well serviced on can be quite large. Back in the mid 70's I bought a second hand 303 that looked in very good condition. Did not really like the sound of it. It sat on the shelf unused for some time. Eventually, I serviced it and was surprised at the transformation.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and well serviced is key IMO, i.e. not botched, as so many are these days. A few months ago I had the opportunity to stick a Radford STA 15 up against my 303 and I went into it with the mindset that I’d go and buy one if I really preferred it. As it was I found them more different rather than better/worse, the Radford having a really nice liquid mid, the 303 a little more grunt/slam (which is not something one tends to say about a 303 very often!). As you suggest, far closer than most would think. A very good full Mullard valve-set in the Radford too. Don’t get me wrong, I really liked it, it is clearly a fabulous amp, but in no way did I think it killed my 303 when driving my Lockwood monitors. I’d have liked to compare it to the S20 in the 149 system too, but there wasn’t time.
 
This site contains affiliate links for which pink fish media may be compensated.
Tony L said:
Agreed, and well serviced is key IMO, i.e. not botched, as so many are these days. A few months ago I had the opportunity to stick a Radford STA 15 up against my 303 and I went into it with the mindset that I’d go and buy one if I really preferred it. As it was I found them more different rather than better/worse, the Radford having a really nice liquid mid, the 303 a little more grunt/slam (which is not something one tends to say about a 303 very often!). As you suggest, far closer than most would think. A very good full Mullard valve-set in the Radford too. Don’t get me wrong, I really liked it, it is clearly a fabulous amp, but in no way did I think it killed my 303 when driving my Lockwood monitors. I’d have liked to compare it to the S20 in the 149 system too, but there wasn’t time.
Click to expand...

Yours is a Quad serviced one isn’t it? Or did you modify it in some way?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top