2,349 UK pounds for a pair of LS3/5A
4,099 for a pair of LS5/9's

https://www.whathifi.com/news/musical-fidelity-unveils-two-new-loudspeakers-based-on-the-bbcs-original-designs

On Mon 15/05/2023 17:24, Andrew wrote:
> 2,349 UK pounds for a pair of LS3/5A
> 4,099 for a pair of LS5/9's
>
> https://www.whathifi.com/news/musical-fidelity-unveils-two-new-loudspeakers-based-on-the-bbcs-original-designs

A pair of LS3/5A started on eBay last week at something like £9.99. They
went in the end for well in excess of £1700!!!

On 15/05/2023 20:18, Woody wrote:
> On Mon 15/05/2023 17:24, Andrew wrote:
>> 2,349 UK pounds for a pair of LS3/5A
>> 4,099 for a pair of LS5/9's
>>
>> https://www.whathifi.com/news/musical-fidelity-unveils-two-new-loudspeakers-based-on-the-bbcs-original-designs
>>
>
>
> A pair of LS3/5A started on eBay last week at something like £9.99. They
> went in the end for well in excess of £1700!!!

Mate from Uni made some (1985?) from Wilmslow Audio driver/crossover
kits. He was very good at woodwork so the cases were beautiful. They
sounded rather good especially when you consider how tiny the bass
driver is in them.

On Mon, 15 May 2023 20:23:27 +0100
mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> wrote:

> On 15/05/2023 20:18, Woody wrote:
> > On Mon 15/05/2023 17:24, Andrew wrote:
> >> 2,349 UK pounds for a pair of LS3/5A
> >> 4,099 for a pair of LS5/9's
> >>
> >> https://www.whathifi.com/news/musical-fidelity-unveils-two-new-loudspeakers-based-on-the-bbcs-original-designs
> >>
> >
> >
> > A pair of LS3/5A started on eBay last week at something like £9.99.
> > They went in the end for well in excess of £1700!!!
>
> Mate from Uni made some (1985?) from Wilmslow Audio driver/crossover
> kits. He was very good at woodwork so the cases were beautiful. They
> sounded rather good especially when you consider how tiny the bass
> driver is in them.
>
>

https://www.falconacoustics.co.uk/bbc-ls3-5a/ls3-5a-parts.html

--
Joe

On 15/05/2023 17:24, Andrew wrote:
> 2,349 UK pounds for a pair of LS3/5A
> 4,099 for a pair of LS5/9's
>
> https://www.whathifi.com/news/musical-fidelity-unveils-two-new-loudspeakers-based-on-the-bbcs-original-designs

Birch Plywood has become very expensive lately ....

These are near field monitors, not sure they would enjoy the wick wound
up with anything dynamically exiting?

However, if someone has built a critical listening room, and still has
the golden ears of a twenty something recording engineer....

--
Adrian C

On 16/05/2023 2:24 am, Andrew wrote:
> 2,349 UK pounds for a pair of LS3/5A
> 4,099 for a pair of LS5/9's
>
> https://www.whathifi.com/news/musical-fidelity-unveils-two-new-loudspeakers-based-on-the-bbcs-original-designs

**It has to be said:

The LS3/5A is the most over-rated speaker system ever released. They are
just an average performer.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

Now what is so special then? They were never that price when new.
Is this a case of money for old rope if you can make something look
authentic?
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Woody" <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:u3u0hn$34r0e$1@dont-email.me...
> On Mon 15/05/2023 17:24, Andrew wrote:
>> 2,349 UK pounds for a pair of LS3/5A
>> 4,099 for a pair of LS5/9's
>>
>> https://www.whathifi.com/news/musical-fidelity-unveils-two-new-loudspeakers-based-on-the-bbcs-original-designs
>
>
> A pair of LS3/5A started on eBay last week at something like �9.99. They
> went in the end for well in excess of �1700!!!

On Wed, 17 May 2023 10:16:48 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

> Now what is so special then? They were never that price when new.
> Is this a case of money for old rope if you can make something
> look authentic?

It's what's called a cult-following. Lots of stuff about these on
t'internet e.g.
https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/falcon-acoustics-bbc-ls35a/
the Wiki article is good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS3/5A

If you have a pair, sell them for the best money you can get. As you
get older your hearing won't be up to needing the best hifi anyway.

On 16/05/2023 23:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:

> **It has to be said:
>
> The LS3/5A is the most over-rated speaker system ever released. They are
> just an average performer.
>

To be fair, by definition all hi-fi is overrated.

"High"

I propose a new class,

"Ample Fidelity"

Stuff that does what it says on the tin.

Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.

No need for collections, components, stack systems, midi systems, music
centres, radiograms etc. Folks used to dedicate a room, space, that mess
of wires in a corner now replaced by a pot plant.

And they can enjoy the efforts of songwriters, singers and musicians and
not the marketing whims of the dancing circus capitalists pretending ye
need this and that for the "ultimate".

Yeah, I enjoy messing with audio electronics technicals and it's
nostalgia - but for today like a load of other pastimes from the last
century, just recognise it's going nowhere as a future business.

--
Adrian C

On 17 May 2023 at 13:01:21 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <email@here.invalid> wrote:

> Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.

What's streaming or bluetooth got to do with the sound quality that the
speaker will generate? You can use bluetooth or streaming to supply audio to a
tin box but it won't sound very good.

--
All of science is either physics or stamp-collecting.

Ernest Rutherford

In article <u3tmc7$33lh6$1@dont-email.me>,
Andrew <Andrew97d@btinternet.com> wrote:
> 2,349 UK pounds for a pair of LS3/5A

I'd better increase my home insurance ;-(

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 17/05/2023 15:15, charles wrote:
> In article <u3tmc7$33lh6$1@dont-email.me>,
> Andrew <Andrew97d@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> 2,349 UK pounds for a pair of LS3/5A
>
>
> I'd better increase my home insurance ;-(
>

And extra for your ladderax shelving too :-)

In article <u42pq2$3t91d$2@dont-email.me>,
Andrew <Andrew97d@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 17/05/2023 15:15, charles wrote:
> > In article <u3tmc7$33lh6$1@dont-email.me>,
> > Andrew <Andrew97d@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> 2,349 UK pounds for a pair of LS3/5A
> >
> >
> > I'd better increase my home insurance ;-(
> >

> And extra for your ladderax shelving too :-)

don't think I ever bought any

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 17/05/2023 13:27, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 17 May 2023 at 13:01:21 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <email@here.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.
>
> What's streaming or bluetooth got to do with the sound quality that the
> speaker will generate? You can use bluetooth or streaming to supply audio to a
> tin box but it won't sound very good.
>

A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.

Some sound OK, Some sound like "who cares?"

You stream to it from a mobile phone.

Job done.

--
Adrian C

In article <kckml8F2ve2U2@mid.individual.net>,
Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> wrote:

> A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.

To think that you've either got no interest in audio or are hearing
impaired.

> Some sound OK,

Compared to what?

Bob.

Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <kckml8F2ve2U2@mid.individual.net>,
> Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> wrote:
>
>> A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
>
> To think that you've either got no interest in audio or are hearing
> impaired.

Who isn’t at our age? ;-)

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On 17/05/2023 20:48, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <kckml8F2ve2U2@mid.individual.net>,
> Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> wrote:
>
>> A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
>
> To think that you've either got no interest in audio or are hearing
> impaired.
>
>> Some sound OK,
>
> Compared to what?

My hearing isn't that precise, but these do me and a lot of other people
just fine:
https://www.sonos.com/en-gb/shop/move

Please explain why these are more suited to someone who has no interest
in audio or is hearing impaired?

On 17 May 2023 at 20:02:00 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <email@here.invalid> wrote:

> On 17/05/2023 13:27, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 17 May 2023 at 13:01:21 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <email@here.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.
>>
>> What's streaming or bluetooth got to do with the sound quality that the
>> speaker will generate? You can use bluetooth or streaming to supply audio to a
>> tin box but it won't sound very good.
>>
>
> A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.

A combination of decent speakers with a quality amp is going to be rare in
such a device, which is why one might stick to separate speakers, separate
amp.

Although I suppose it's possible someone might do a proper job, but not much
change out of £5k I wouldn't have thought.

--
“It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since ... it is futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into, we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a power-directed system of thought.”

Sir Roger Scruton

On 17 May 2023 at 21:22:21 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:

> On 17/05/2023 20:48, Bob Latham wrote:
>> In article <kckml8F2ve2U2@mid.individual.net>,
>> Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
>>
>> To think that you've either got no interest in audio or are hearing
>> impaired.
>>
>>> Some sound OK,
>>
>> Compared to what?
>
> My hearing isn't that precise, but these do me and a lot of other people
> just fine:
> https://www.sonos.com/en-gb/shop/move
>
> Please explain why these are more suited to someone who has no interest
> in audio or is hearing impaired?

Going to be junk at that price. You'd be much better off with decent
headphones.

--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in someone else's pocket.

On 17/05/2023 10:01 pm, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
> On 16/05/2023 23:39, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> **It has to be said:
>>
>> The LS3/5A is the most over-rated speaker system ever released. They
>> are just an average performer.
>>
>
> To be fair, by definition all hi-fi is overrated.

**No, it is not.

There are many examples of nonsensically over-rated products available
in the hi fi biz. The LS3/5A is one of them. We all need loudspeakers to
listen to audio (unless you happen to use headphones, of course).

I've listened to the LS3/5A many times (different manufacturers). I hear
the same problems with all of them. They are, quite simply, highly
inaccurate speakers. IE: They are not high fidelity speakers.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 17/05/2023 21:38, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 17 May 2023 at 20:02:00 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <email@here.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 17/05/2023 13:27, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> On 17 May 2023 at 13:01:21 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <email@here.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.
>>>
>>> What's streaming or bluetooth got to do with the sound quality that the
>>> speaker will generate? You can use bluetooth or streaming to supply audio to a
>>> tin box but it won't sound very good.
>>>
>>
>> A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
>
> A combination of decent speakers with a quality amp is going to be rare in
> such a device, which is why one might stick to separate speakers, separate
> amp.
>
> Although I suppose it's possible someone might do a proper job, but not much
> change out of £5k I wouldn't have thought.
>
Amplifiers are now at the point where they are more or less 'perfect'

Loudspeakers never have been. They are all compromises of one sort or
another.

Having said that modern materials make even cheap speakers sound as good
as the 'greats' from yesteryear.

--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

On 18 May 2023 at 09:02:32 BST, "The Natural Philosopher"
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 17/05/2023 21:38, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 17 May 2023 at 20:02:00 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <email@here.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/05/2023 13:27, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> On 17 May 2023 at 13:01:21 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <email@here.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.
>>>>
>>>> What's streaming or bluetooth got to do with the sound quality that the
>>>> speaker will generate? You can use bluetooth or streaming to supply audio to a
>>>> tin box but it won't sound very good.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
>>
>> A combination of decent speakers with a quality amp is going to be rare in
>> such a device, which is why one might stick to separate speakers, separate
>> amp.
>>
>> Although I suppose it's possible someone might do a proper job, but not much
>> change out of £5k I wouldn't have thought.
>>
> Amplifiers are now at the point where they are more or less 'perfect'

There wasn't a lot wrong with the Quad 33/303 combo I bought in 1970. No
optical or other digital input, of course. Especially when paired with the IMF
RSPM I bought in 1974. Not that I could tell, these days, of course, but I
sure could then.

--
"A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then quietly strangled." - Sir Barnett Cocks (1907-1989)

On 18/05/2023 09:07, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 18 May 2023 at 09:02:32 BST, "The Natural Philosopher"
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 17/05/2023 21:38, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> On 17 May 2023 at 20:02:00 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <email@here.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 17/05/2023 13:27, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>> On 17 May 2023 at 13:01:21 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <email@here.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's streaming or bluetooth got to do with the sound quality that the
>>>>> speaker will generate? You can use bluetooth or streaming to supply audio to a
>>>>> tin box but it won't sound very good.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
>>>
>>> A combination of decent speakers with a quality amp is going to be rare in
>>> such a device, which is why one might stick to separate speakers, separate
>>> amp.
>>>
>>> Although I suppose it's possible someone might do a proper job, but not much
>>> change out of £5k I wouldn't have thought.
>>>
>> Amplifiers are now at the point where they are more or less 'perfect'
>
> There wasn't a lot wrong with the Quad 33/303 combo I bought in 1970. No
> optical or other digital input, of course. Especially when paired with the IMF
> RSPM I bought in 1974. Not that I could tell, these days, of course, but I
> sure could then.
>
Quad 303 was relative junk actually. Had a lot of crossover distortion
especially at HF. Many of its contemporaries were in fact better.

Things got better with the advent of audio power FETS and/or class AAB
designs.
As transistor speeds went up the problems of maintaining high levels of
feedback at high frequencies without instability, lessened.

Today even the class D's will beat a Quad 303

--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

On 18/05/2023 6:02 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 17/05/2023 21:38, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 17 May 2023 at 20:02:00 BST, "Adrian Caspersz" <email@here.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/05/2023 13:27, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> On 17 May 2023 at 13:01:21 BST, "Adrian Caspersz"
>>>> <email@here.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.
>>>>
>>>> What's streaming or bluetooth got to do with the sound quality that the
>>>> speaker will generate? You can use bluetooth or streaming to supply
>>>> audio to a
>>>> tin box but it won't sound very good.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
>>
>> A combination of decent speakers with a quality amp is going to be
>> rare in
>> such a device, which is why one might stick to separate speakers,
>> separate
>> amp.
>>
>> Although I suppose it's possible someone might do a proper job, but
>> not much
>> change out of £5k I wouldn't have thought.
>>
> Amplifiers are now at the point where they are more or less 'perfect'

**True enough. I use an amplifier that is now 40 years old. Obviously,
the usual things have been attended to, but it comfortably outperforms
some expensive modern amps.

>
> Loudspeakers never have been. They are all compromises of one sort or
> another.

**Also true enough.

>
> Having said that modern materials make even cheap speakers sound as good
> as the 'greats' from yesteryear.

**You reckon? Find me a speaker that sounds as good (accurate) as a pair
of Quad ESL57s or ESL63s and I will take notice. Until then, you know
where you can stick your modern speakers. FWIW: Apart from my ESL63s, my
moving coil speakers are now celebrating their 30th birthday. The NEAR
10M. Wonderful speakers. The technology used is based on stuff developed
by Bozak way back in the dark ages. Oh yeah, they eat LS3/5As for
breakfast. Largely because, unlike the LS3/5A, they are accurate. Not
quite as accurate as the ESL63 though.

The LS3/5A was faulty when it was designed and it is just as faulty today.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 18/05/2023 6:12 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 18/05/2023 09:07, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 18 May 2023 at 09:02:32 BST, "The Natural Philosopher"
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/05/2023 21:38, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> On 17 May 2023 at 20:02:00 BST, "Adrian Caspersz"
>>>> <email@here.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 17/05/2023 13:27, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>>> On 17 May 2023 at 13:01:21 BST, "Adrian Caspersz"
>>>>>> <email@here.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bluetooth speakers mainly. Streaming.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's streaming or bluetooth got to do with the sound quality
>>>>>> that the
>>>>>> speaker will generate? You can use bluetooth or streaming to
>>>>>> supply audio to a
>>>>>> tin box but it won't sound very good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A bluetooth speaker is a popular current replacement for a Hifi.
>>>>
>>>> A combination of decent speakers with a quality amp is going to be
>>>> rare in
>>>> such a device, which is why one might stick to separate speakers,
>>>> separate
>>>> amp.
>>>>
>>>> Although I suppose it's possible someone might do a proper job, but
>>>> not much
>>>> change out of £5k I wouldn't have thought.
>>>>
>>> Amplifiers are now at the point where they are more or less 'perfect'
>>
>> There wasn't a lot wrong with the Quad 33/303 combo I bought in 1970. No
>> optical or other digital input, of course. Especially when paired with
>> the IMF
>> RSPM I bought in 1974. Not that I could tell, these days, of course,
>> but I
>> sure could then.
>>
> Quad 303 was relative junk actually.  Had a lot of crossover distortion
> especially at HF. Many of its contemporaries were in fact better.

**Agreed. The 33/303 were, at best, extremely primitive, poorly
performing products.

>
> Things got better with the advent of audio power FETS and/or class AAB
> designs.

**Power FETs (V-FETs) were great. MOSFETs are horrible things.

> As transistor speeds went up the problems of maintaining high levels of
> feedback at high frequencies without instability, lessened.

**Correct.

>
>
> Today even the class D's will beat a Quad 303

**Today, Class D will beat most amps, given a reasonable load impedance.
ESLs, not so much. Class D has a way to go in that area.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com