Not the LS3/5A but the LS5/5X!

[Lars Risbo]

yeah, a very efficient solution but a hard sell. Thanks for the kef P60 tip. I was not aware of that despite being old enough.

 

[Matt_Holland]

@Matt_Holland, you and @Lars Risbo are edging towards reinventing the KEF P60 and K300 of the mid/late 1980s
. You probably don't remember it (sadly, I do) but the P60 was a smallish, passive closed-box two-way intended primarily for nearfield monitoring (although it wasn't called that back then) and the K300 was its accompanying power amp and (analogue) EQ unit. The P60 needed EQ because its passive crossover did just the driver integration. KEF realised that managing a driver's rising response and the baffle step with passive EQ just burns through midrange sensitivity (and is expensive). So they used the crossover just to knit the drivers together then used active EQ before the power amp to correct the system response.

This is effectively what you're proposing Matt with your LS3/5X DSP EQ suggestion and in theory the suggestion is a good one. Only snag is, the way most potential customers think (and the way hi-fi retail works) isn't really compatible with such complexity. I guess I could do an optional driver integration only crossover and publish some EQ coefficients (which, ironically, is pretty much how I've been working on voicing), but I think in terms of likely sales, that would constitute a niche product within an already very small niche. We can do it for your pair though Matt

Thanks for the history lesson, Phil. I wasn’t aware of that KEF product even know I thought I knew their back catalogue quite well.

Ok, so how about a compromise. Go for minimal response shaping in the passive network, but optimise directivity. That way it should naturally benefit from wall/shelf mounting. It might even naturally have a bat-wing shaped response giving it a bit of “zing” which some people like. That would be a good enough “out of the box”.

Then you also provide the suggested response linearisation settings which finesse the sound. If you don’t make too much of a big deal about these in your hifi targeted marketing you won’t put off the audiophiles. But anyone in the know, wanting a quality nearfield monitor, can have their cake and eat it.

 

[Salt]

A 3/5A Revival would/(should) not be intended to rival recent speaker's design like Ascilab, Purify and others, not?

 

[Matt_Holland]

A 3/5A Revival would/(should) not be intended to rival recent speaker's design like Ascilab, Purify and others, not?

Well at least in directivity control I think it should. Then it can have whatever stock frequency response the designer wants knowing it can be EQ’d to taste

 

[Salt]

Well at least in directivity control I think it should. Then it can have whatever stock frequency response the designer wants knowing it can be EQ’d to taste

Agreed .

 

[Philberish]

yeah, a very efficient solution but a hard sell. Thanks for the kef P60 tip. I was not aware of that despite being old enough.

They didn't make many Lars. Maybe a couple of hundred pairs I think. It was about the same time that KEF had the KM1 main monitor and I think they imagined a whole new pro monitoring business sector opening up for them. Wasn't to be though 'cause the money ran out. I've seen a pair of P60s come up on eBay once or twice and I seem to remember Pete Thomas (PMC) has a pair in his "museum", but they are rare.

 

[Philberish]

A 3/5A Revival would/(should) not be intended to rival recent speaker's design like Ascilab, Purify and others, not?

No, not really, and at the moment there's no guarantee that the project will ever become a commercial reality beyond maybe a few pairs. I see the LS3/5X as an interesting design exercise that a few people might want to indulge in. I was wondering the other day about doing a similar thing with the Yamaha NS10, but that way probably lies madness.....

 

[Philberish]

Thanks for the history lesson, Phil. I wasn’t aware of that KEF product even know I thought I knew their back catalogue quite well.

Ok, so how about a compromise. Go for minimal response shaping in the passive network, but optimise directivity. That way it should naturally benefit from wall/shelf mounting. It might even naturally have a bat-wing shaped response giving it a bit of “zing” which some people like. That would be a good enough “out of the box”.

Then you also provide the suggested response linearisation settings which finesse the sound. If you don’t make too much of a big deal about these in your hifi targeted marketing you won’t put off the audiophiles. But anyone in the know, wanting a quality nearfield monitor, can have their cake and eat it.

That's not a bad idea Matt. I'll have a think.