SoundArtist ("BBC") LS3/5A Speaker Review

[Galliardist]

My second thought: I would donate it to some institution, like a seniors residence, maybe? It works, after all, and the design may be to their liking.

Now, you show some respect to your elders!

 

[respice finem]

Now, you show some respect to your elders!

Practically, and ecologically: this thing will probably be better than the plastic cr@p I usually see in such places.
And at a certain age, you only hear so much... None of my elders had to end up there yet, thankfully...

Horses for courses.

 

[MattHooper]

There are so many variations over the years with different versions, clones, tolerances and ageing that people who think get THE LS3/5 sound can get quite different "intepretations" of it.
The measurements of Stereophile in the past had also shown that:

BBC LS3/5a loudspeaker 1989 Measurements

Sidebar 2: 1989 Measurements I estimated the voltage sensitivity (using 1/3-octave pink noise centered on 1kHz) and measured the change of impedance with frequency, while the nearfield low-frequency response of each speaker was assessed with a sinewave sweep to get an idea of the true bass...

www.stereophile.com

BBC LS3/5a loudspeaker Stirling Measurements

Sidebar: Stirling Measurements

www.stereophile.com

Falcon Acoustics LS3/5a loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements

www.stereophile.com

Falcon "Gold Badge" LS3/5a loudspeaker Measurements

Measurements, from May 2021 (Vol.44 No.5)

www.stereophile.com

Gini Systems "LS3/5a" loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 2: Measurements

www.stereophile.com

BBC LS3/5a loudspeaker Harbeth Measurements

Sidebar 2: Harbeth Measurements The LS3/5a's impedance magnitude and phase are shown in fig.1. Dropping to 6 ohms only in the top treble octave, it shouldn't give the partnering amplifier any hernias. The sealed box is tuned to 76Hz, the impedance reaching 31.2 ohms at that frequency. There is a...

www.stereophile.com

Yup. As opposed to the punishing minimum impedance of 1.7 ohm for this knock-off, as JA says of the Spendor version: "The impedance drops below 8 ohms only below 40Hz and in the lower midrange, and stays above 10 ohms for much of the audioband." and that despite the low sensitivity "..its plot of impedance magnitude and electrical phase against frequency (fig.1) indicates that it is a kind load for the partnering amplifier to drive."

My tube amps seem to have no issues driving the Spendor S3/5s (or, at least, none that I find detrimental).

 

[CapMan]

It’s really sad that a design in which a great deal of care was invested for its intended purpose of OB monitoring has been bastardised and exploited to this point.

 

[restorer-john]

1.7 ohm oh boy - is that the lowest ever measured???

is that at 80-150hz?

It won't be a problem for well designed amplifiers, even at high output levels. But expect some AVRs to throw in the towel. But it's unlikely a speaker of that size will be driven loud and long enough to cause a decent amplifier to a) get too hot or b) trip the OC protect. 1.7R is still a long way from a short.

 

[Short38]

Please stick a fork in this speaker. It was of a time. That time has passed.

 

[ROOSKIE]

why is the directivity so good when everything else is a car crash? I don't understand how that can be?

They seem to have randomly assembled a speaker from whatever parts that were lying around, so is it just by sheer chance?

Directivity is a measure of how well the energy of on and off axis match.
If they match well then when you apply PEQ/EQ you get a smooth & even increase or decrease at the affected frequency.
So if there is a 3db dip on axis and there is also a relative 3db dip off axis at the same frequency, and you bump that frequecy up 3db the whole thing is now smooth.

If the on and off axis don't track that is not the case.
You may be adding say 3db to get flat on axis but what if off axis it was already 'flat' there or even had a slight peak. Then adding 3 db for on axis would yeild a big peak off axis.

In 2023/2024 with PEQ I'd much rather have great directivity and uneven frequency response since it can be corrected 'correctly'. VS so-so directivity and less frequency response deviation. Ideally both are covered though applying PEQ based on anechoic/Klipple measurements can easily correct frequency response when the on and off have similar energy deviations(but can not and will not correct directivity errors)

This might seem complex but it really is simple. Read Toole's book or some of the many articles available in the hobby sphere.
Audioholics covers some of this well.

Understanding Loudspeaker Review Measurements Part I

Audioholics’ speaker reviews often contain detailed measurement graphs. In this article, we explain frequency response and the set of curves known as the 'Spin-O-Rama' to help you pick better product.

www.audioholics.com

Understanding Loudspeaker Review Measurements Part II

The waterfall plots and polar maps often seen in Audioholics' speaker reviews are colorful and visually interesting, but what can they really tell us about a loudspeaker's performance?

www.audioholics.com

There are other speakers with this quality. In fact all in @ least in part of the frequency response spectrum. That is why in each review when you see the post made by one of the DSP folks there are often major benefits in the predicted response, score and rating. There are also zones that can not be corrected due to poor directivity(phase issues/comb filtering/various edge diffraction/unusual driver behaviors/certain types of crossover compromises, ect)

 

[Galliardist]

Please stick a fork in this speaker. It was of a time. That time has passed.

Er, this one's a modern monstrosity, even if it is dressed in Grandpa's morning suit.

 

[Mnyb]

why is the directivity so good when everything else is a car crash? I don't understand how that can be?

They seem to have randomly assembled a speaker from whatever parts that were lying around, so is it just by sheer chance?

Maybe the small size of the involved midbass driver ? And some pure luck regarding the shape of the baffle and crossover piont

 

[Mnyb]

If the drivers works properly? Measure their impedance separately and a separate measurement of thier fr response. Then it could be a DIY project to design a crossover circuit for them .

Or maybe the scammers that build these sourced leftover car audio drivers that could explain the impedance

 

[Mart68]

Directivity is a measure of how well the energy of on and off axis match.
If they match well then when you apply PEQ/EQ you get a smooth & even increase or decrease at the affected frequency.
So if there is a 3db dip on axis and there is also a relative 3db dip off axis at the same frequency, and you bump that frequecy up 3db the whole thing is now smooth.

If the on and off axis don't track that is not the case.
You may be adding say 3db to get flat on axis but what if off axis it was already 'flat' there or even had a slight peak. Then adding 3 db for on axis would yeild a big peak off axis.

In 2023/2024 with PEQ I'd much rather have great directivity and uneven frequency response since it can be corrected 'correctly'. VS so-so directivity and less frequency response deviation. Ideally both are covered though applying PEQ based on anechoic/Klipple measurements can easily correct frequency response when the on and off have similar energy deviations(but can not and will not correct directivity errors)

This might seem complex but it really is simple. Read Toole's book or some of the many articles available in the hobby sphere.
Audioholics covers some of this well.

Understanding Loudspeaker Review Measurements Part I

Audioholics’ speaker reviews often contain detailed measurement graphs. In this article, we explain frequency response and the set of curves known as the 'Spin-O-Rama' to help you pick better product.

www.audioholics.com

Understanding Loudspeaker Review Measurements Part II

The waterfall plots and polar maps often seen in Audioholics' speaker reviews are colorful and visually interesting, but what can they really tell us about a loudspeaker's performance?

www.audioholics.com

There are other speakers with this quality. In fact all in @ least in part of the frequency response spectrum. That is why in each review when you see the post made by one of the DSP folks there are often major benefits in the predicted response, score and rating. There are also zones that can not be corrected due to poor directivity(phase issues/comb filtering/various edge diffraction/unusual driver behaviors/certain types of crossover compromises, ect)

Thanks but I understand what directivity is and have read Toole. I was just wondering how they could get that so right whilst getting everything else so wrong.

 

[firedog]

These style speakers have a rep for a certain sound. Don't people buy these style b/c they like the sound - the sound that even on the originals and the licensed ones - isn't anything near flat or accurate? And I think that was intended at the BBC.

Most people don't look at measurements - they simply think something "sounds good" - even if it is highly inaccurate.
If you show them it's not accurate, they won't care.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS3/5A:

Signature sound[edit]​

Similar to sealed-box speakers of similar size, the 3/5A has little or no low bass, but the design reinforced its lower register by a boost at around 160 Hz, giving the subjective impression that the speaker is more bass-rich.[7][10][15] It has a gently rising frequency response above 5kHz,[14] leading reviewers to notice the sound being a little bright at the treble registers, or that the speakers "reproduce the high-end roughness of solid-state amplifiers mercilessly" thus suggested partnering with valve amplification would be advantageous.[16][17][18] A slight nasal quality in the midrange has also been noted in the earlier versions.[3][10][18] The accuracy and stability of its stereo imaging and its clean midrange reproduction are also appreciated qualities.[10][17] J. Gordon Holt suggests that the quality was "comparable to that from Quad Electrostatics, at far lower cost and with added bonuses of slightly smoother high end, better stereo imaging, a broader listening area".[18] John Atkinson suggests in Stereophile that the LS3/5A is ideally suited to the reproduction of program having a limited dynamic-range requirement, for example chamber music;[16] he said that the LS3/5A "has never boogied and never will; it's just too polite ever to cut the mustard on rock, or even straightahead jazz"

https://www.stereophile.com/content/praise-classic-bbc-ls35a:

"Yes, there's a touch of nasality in the upper midrange, the treble is less smooth than, say, the Paradigm or Dynaudio, and the upper bass is less well defined than audiophiles now expect from even inexpensive speakers. But when it comes to accuracy and stability of stereo imaging and sheer purity of midrange reproduction, the tiny BBC-designed speaker is still a contender."

BBC LS3/5a loudspeaker

These diminutive little sleepers have been available in the US for quite some time but have attracted little attention because (1) they have never really been promoted and (2) they are just too small to look as if they could be worth $430 a pair.

www.stereophile.com

the above includes links to several measurements of some of the more well known variants.

 

[TheBatsEar]

Thanks but I understand what directivity is and have read Toole.

Do any of us truly understand directivity or Toole?

I was just wondering how they could get that so right whilst getting everything else so wrong.

Could it be random?
Or does the enclosure shape the directivity so much, the drivers don't have a large influence?

 

[Mart68]

Do any of us truly understand directivity or Toole?


Could it be random?
Or does the enclosure shape the directivity so much, the drivers don't have a large influence?

i understand what directivity is but that's not the same as understanding it

As for understanding Toole's book I'm reminded of the old joke:

'Dear Charles Atlas - I have finished your course. Please send me my muscles.'

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Given this is only visually a LS3/5A, perhaps @amirm should change the title to "fake LS3/5A" or "LS3/5A lookalike" because 1) it is not an LS3/5A in anything other than shape, and 2) some of the contributors to this thread are not reading it properly and commenting as if this is representative of the original BBC 70s speaker or the "licensed" modern replicas.

 

[Mart68]

Given this is only visually a LS3/5A, perhaps @amirm should change the title to "fake LS3/5A" or "LS3/5A lookalike" because 1) it is not an LS3/5A in anything other than shape, and 2) some of the contributors to this thread are not reading it properly and commenting as if this is representative of the original BBC 70s speaker or the "licensed" modern replicas.

I agree. Showing up fake tat for what it is, is not 'Myth-busting.'

 

[mhardy6647]

My guess is that there's essentially nothing of the LS3/5a spec. "cloned" in this little "horrortone" box -- not unlike the parade of amplifier, preamplifier, and HP amp "clones" sold on Amazon, eBAY, and Aliexpress that bear absolutely no resemblance to the circuitry of which they're ostestensibly clones.

Given this is only visually a LS3/5A, perhaps @amirm should change the title to "fake LS3/5A" or "LS3/5A lookalike" because 1) it is not an LS3/5A in anything other than shape, and 2) some of the contributors to this thread are not reading it properly and commenting as if this is representative of the original BBC 70s speaker or the "licensed" modern replicas.

Yup. Beat me to it!

 

[mhardy6647]

Cheap, though. Relatively speaking.

I guess that cheap junk beats expensive junk all to heck.
I guess.

 

[mhardy6647]

I always thought the point of this speaker that it was known to be shit, but if your mix created on superior speakers sounded good on this too, you were golden to release to the masses as the majority have something akin to this.

No, you're thinking of these

and/or these

The one & only true Horrortone.

 

[BadAudioAdvice]

Given this is only visually a LS3/5A, perhaps @amirm should change the title to "fake LS3/5A" or "LS3/5A lookalike" because 1) it is not an LS3/5A in anything other than shape, and 2) some of the contributors to this thread are not reading it properly and commenting as if this is representative of the original BBC 70s speaker or the "licensed" modern replicas.

These SoundArtist LS3/5a have had quite a number of reviews (mostly/nearly all positive), and in all the reviews they've been positioned as a budget LS3/5a. And in many of the reviews they have been compared to the other, more expensive, modern replicas.

Please don't read this as me defending the speakers - they are junk. I sent them to Amir because I was so disappointed with them, and wanted some objective measures to either validate my hunch, and hopefully steer other people away from these speakers.

That said, I'm not sure if they should be called fake. Because most subjective reviewers find them relatively similar to other LS3/5a models.