On 14/04/2018 8:12 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
I just find it odd that a speaker you consider the finest for its size and
unsurpassed since didn't sell by the million making a fortune for its
maker.

**Hang on a sec. I said nothing of the kind. This is the second time in
this thread that you have made statements that you ascribe to me, that I
never said.

Let me be as clear as I can possibly be (pay close attention and do not
make silly assumptions):

The LS3/5a was, at it's inception, a decent enough speaker.

Then why didn't you say so at the start?

Let me quote your first post on the subject:-

****************

From: Trevor Wilson
Subject: Speaker unit to baffle.
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2018 01:35
Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio

**The LS3/5a is the most over-rated piece of junk ever to be foisted on
the audio industry. It's continued existence is adequate evidence that
most listeners believe what some reviewers say, rather than listening
for themselves.

Don't get me started on LS3/5a speakers. And don't tell me how the BBC
designed them. The idiot who designed them should be shot.

*****************

So I take it you're now retracting most of that?

**Your deflection is duly noted. How did you manage to figure this out,
from what I wrote?

"I just find it odd that a speaker you consider the finest for its size
and unsurpassed since didn't sell by the million making a fortune for
its maker."

To reiterate and amplify:

I NEVER stated what you claim I stated. Further: I have no idea how much
money the principals of the business made. They may well have made
zillions of Dollars.

So, please stop making claims for words I have never stated.





In 2018, it
is WAY, WAY behind many speakers in it's (stupidly high) price range. By
1993-ish, when I first heard the NEAR 10M, the NEAR 10M was a MUCH
better speaker, in every meaningful metric and far less expensive. That
was 25 years ago.

But apparently by its lack of popularity likely just your opinion.

**Nope. Building speakers is a tough business. The LS3/5a does not
survive on its intrinsic quality (which is ****-poor). It survives on
its perceived reputation. NEAR was a new company trying to break into a
tough business. Their products did quite well, but not brilliantly and,
when the company was purchased by a much larger company, the bean
counters decreed that the hi fi part of the business was a waste of
time, effort and money. Again: Much like the bean counters did to Apogee
Acoustics. Great product, brilliant reviews, but worth more as a
liquidated asset. Bloody bean counters. Come the revolution....


A small
high quality speaker is the holy grail for many. No matter where it's
made.

**Then you should listen to these:

http://www.brigadiers.audio/one-audio

They make everything else sound like 50 years ago.

If your budget can stretch, these are just sublime:

http://www.brigadiers.audio/ba-2

And yes, they utterly decimate my NEAR 10M-II speakers.

Either of these products is much closer to the Holy Grail of small
speakers than either the NEARs or the LS3/5a could ever hope to be.



I have heard a number of speakers that are significantly better than the
NEAR 10M (and 10M-II) since. I have not heard one that can best the NEAR
10M at what I would estimate its 2018 price to be (US$750.00).

Thing is, if you come out with outrageous comments about what was (and
still is) a well regarded speaker, why do you expect people to believe
your opinion on any?

**I don't give a ****. Unlike you, I have had the opportunity to listen
to a wide range of small (and large) speakers in the same room that I
had my LS3/5a speakers in. No comparison.



I will re-state: There are significantly better speakers available, in
the NEAR 10Ms size range.

Clear?

What me to re-state?

Or will you continue to make absurd statements that you ascribe to me?

Are you claiming you didn't make the statement I've quoted above?

**I am STATING that you made absurd, provably incorrect statements that
you ascribe to me.



Make no mistake: Come the revolution, the lawyers and accountants will
be the first ones lined up against the wall.




--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/04/2018 8:12 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:


Let me be as clear as I can possibly be (pay close attention and do
not make silly assumptions):

The LS3/5a was, at it's inception, a decent enough speaker.

Then why didn't you say so at the start?

Let me quote your first post on the subject:-

****************

From: Trevor Wilson
Subject: Speaker unit to baffle.
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2018 01:35
Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio

**The LS3/5a is the most over-rated piece of junk ever to be foisted on
the audio industry. It's continued existence is adequate evidence that
most listeners believe what some reviewers say, rather than listening
for themselves.

Don't get me started on LS3/5a speakers. And don't tell me how the BBC
designed them. The idiot who designed them should be shot.

*****************

So I take it you're now retracting most of that?

**Your deflection is duly noted. How did you manage to figure this out,
from what I wrote?

No wonder you dislike lawyers. You seem to want to be able to say one
thing in one post and the exact opposite in the next.

--
*If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

perjantai 13. huhtikuuta 2018 13.24.30 UTC+3 Dave Plowman (News) kirjoitti:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Iain
scribeth thus
torstai 12. huhtikuuta 2018 14.20.59 UTC+3 tony sayer kirjoitti:

They would not have used the 5A's for recording music in a studio the
5/8 was more the one for that. 5A was for OB vans and the like thats
what it was designed for!.


So there *was* a version for music (the 5/8) ?? That's very interesting.
Were the cabinet dimensions the same as the LS3/5a? Was it on sale to
the public? It would be very interesting to audition.

Lots of confusion there. Probably not understanding BBC numbering
convention.

It seems eminently straightforward.



Strange that Dave didn't mention it:-)

Why would I mention something which isn't true?

A thread was supplied, leading to
the LS3/5a's bigger brother, designed for music.
A very interesting loudspeaker, which no doubt you
would have brought to our attention had you known
about it:-)


Lockwood was a furniture maker.

Lockwood did not make furniture as such.
The company, founded in Harrow by Stanley Timms,
were joiners and cabinet makers for commercial
clients.


Who at one time supplied much of the
custom made woodwork for BBC studios - things like console frames.

Most commercial radio studios and TV facilities, plus commercial recording
studios, were Lockwood's clients. Tyne Tees had a complete facility fitted
out by Lockwood, who publicised the fact loudly at the APRS convention that
year.

And decided to
branch out into making their own speaker cabinet, fitted with Tannoy
drivers.

Not quite. Tannoy did not have a professional division at that time,
and several companies including the BBC had expressed an interest in having Lockwood build a cabinet for the Tannoy 15" gold. There was considerable
demand for a high power high quality monitor. This became the Lockwood Major, which was hugely successful not only in the UK but worldwide.

An pair of original (renovated) Lockwood Majors was demonstrated recently
at a convention in Birmingham. If they had been for sale, there was a
crowd of people, myself included, who would have bought them on spot. If all
goes well, Lockwood will resume production of this wonderful loudspeaker.


The LM earned a great reputation as a high power music recording
speaker in studios everywhere. It was commonly paired with the Crown
DC 300 amp. A formidable partnership!

Yes - high power being the prime attribute.

High quality at high power was the prime attribute, and in achieving this
end the Major and DC300 were a perfect combination.

Hence it never being used in a
GP studio. As it wasn't good at speech etc for drama use. Like all Tannoy
dual concentric drivers.

With the greatest respect, Dave, that is total nonsense.

In the era of the LS3/5a, Argo Records
was the UK's leading spoken-word record label (poetry, drama etc)
They recorded and mixed on Tannoy Lancasters.

The London theatre version of Pygmalion (retitled My Fair Lady when made
into a film) with Diana Rigg and a star studded London cast, was recorded by Argo, in Decca Studio III,and produced by the legendary Harley Usill.
I was the senior engineer on those sessions. The recording, made on Lockwood Majors, and mixed on Tannoy Lancasters received an A1*** review in the Gramophone, and was later voted drama recording of the year.

Soon after this, "The Butterfly Ball" narrated by Judy Dench and
Michael Horden received the same accolade. It was recorded in
Decca II (a pop music studio, eek !!!) using, yes you guessed
it, Lockwood speakers.

Ian,

Arnie, after nearly 20 years of discussion on this NG
you really should be able to spell my name correctly:-)



you seem incapable of realising all TV studios are general purpose.
Might be used for music of any type one day and drama or even current
affairs the next. So need monitoring that makes a fair fist of all types
of programme sound.

That applies to every studio.
"General purpose" has a ring of mediocrity to it.
Commercial studios use the term "versatile" or multi-purpose:-)

My favourite recording location at the moment is a deconsecrated Lutheran
church in the centre of Sweden, which can hold a full symphony orchestra
with double woodwind, harp, percussion and a 120 strong chorus with ease.
Due to clever design, the acoustic can be shut down with ease for intimate chamber ensembles, folk music, spoken word, solo acoustic guitar, harpsichord - whatever is required.

Iain