You can buy a brand new Swiss watch costing thousands of pounds which will be no more and quite possibly less accurate than a digital watch from the far East and costing a few tens of pounds - I spent eight years working for a major UK Jeweller 
You can buy a pair of late(ish) second-hand Kef T27s and Kef B110s for less than a hundred pounds.
A pair of BBC LS3/5As will cost you hundreds of pounds on the Bay.
Falcon Acoustics are now manufacturing brand new T27s (£144 a pair) and B110s (also £144 a pair) and will sell you a pair of assembled replica LS3/5As with the 15 Ohm FL6/23 crossover for £1,200! A full cabinet kit without speakers but with a crossover will set you back £311.
According to the BBC White Paper (RD1976/29), the LS3/5A cabinet measures 31 cms high by 19 cms wide by 16 cms deep and has a free volume of a little under five litres.
Aside from the obvious requirement that the speaker should accurately reproduce sound, two key BBC design requirements for the LS3/5A were that:
In a document dated July 1985 describing the construction of a replica LS3/5A, Falcon Acoustics recommended that the depth of the cabinet could usefully be increased from 16 cms to 23cms for a more extended bass.
My question is whether one can build a better sounding small speaker based on the Kef T27 and B110 and if so, what would be its characteristics? I would appreciate it if the discussion could concentrate on just these two drivers and start from the original BBC LS3/5A design. I am interested in hearing views based on the dimensions (e.g. making the cabinet twice as deep -or- twice as deep but triangular), cabinet materials (e.g. braced 25 mm MDF rather than 12 mm birch ply) and (passive) crossover design.
You can buy a pair of late(ish) second-hand Kef T27s and Kef B110s for less than a hundred pounds.
A pair of BBC LS3/5As will cost you hundreds of pounds on the Bay.
Falcon Acoustics are now manufacturing brand new T27s (£144 a pair) and B110s (also £144 a pair) and will sell you a pair of assembled replica LS3/5As with the 15 Ohm FL6/23 crossover for £1,200! A full cabinet kit without speakers but with a crossover will set you back £311.
According to the BBC White Paper (RD1976/29), the LS3/5A cabinet measures 31 cms high by 19 cms wide by 16 cms deep and has a free volume of a little under five litres.
Aside from the obvious requirement that the speaker should accurately reproduce sound, two key BBC design requirements for the LS3/5A were that:
- it should be as small as possible consistent with an adequate axial response / frequency characteristic in order to allow use in environments where monitoring on headphones was not satisfactory and yet there wasn't sufficient room for a 'Grade I' monitor - e.g. Outside Broadcast vans.
- examples of it should be 100% consistent and interchangeable.
In a document dated July 1985 describing the construction of a replica LS3/5A, Falcon Acoustics recommended that the depth of the cabinet could usefully be increased from 16 cms to 23cms for a more extended bass.
My question is whether one can build a better sounding small speaker based on the Kef T27 and B110 and if so, what would be its characteristics? I would appreciate it if the discussion could concentrate on just these two drivers and start from the original BBC LS3/5A design. I am interested in hearing views based on the dimensions (e.g. making the cabinet twice as deep -or- twice as deep but triangular), cabinet materials (e.g. braced 25 mm MDF rather than 12 mm birch ply) and (passive) crossover design.
Without wanting to immerse myself into the middle of a heated argument, let's see some facts:
Anyone ever experienced the sound of (any derivative) of the LS3/5-s must admit that they deliver some kind of magic, that was typical with many of the british audio products of the 70's and 80's, like the Spendor BC1, Celestion SL6 series, Linn turntables, Naim and Quad amps etc.
Perhaps the most persistently returning piece of that era is the LS3/5, seeing dozens of copies, rebuilds, upgrades with more or less success. Its design principles were simple, possibly the smallest box with accurate vocal and instrumental reproduction, good sense of presence in the recording environment (they were designed as on-site monitoring speakers), but the execution of the idea was rather elaborate:
non-optimal box volume, with elevated upper bass region to compensate the lack of low bass, deliberately "voiced" crossover to correct the driver's (rather uneven) response and many other factors.
In its age it was an excellent product - not many other similarly sized speakers could match its abilities- but then, almost 40 years passed, and while speaker technology has advanced only 10 feet compared to the miles of other areas in electronic design, by today's standards and available drivers, it is a seriously outdated product, posessing mostly nostalgical and "cultic" values.
Again, I am not trying to discourage, or talk anyone out of building an "upgraded" LS 3/5, but for the same money today you can build a much better speaker. The surface treated Bextrene cone of the B 110 is well known for its excellent internal damping, but also fot its "slowness", while the T27 is a simple plastic (Melinex- a derivative of Mylar) dome tweeter. The main trick here (as almost always) is the XO design, which involved a lot of individual listening and tweaking tests, and that's why the end result is still catching a lot of attention in the audiophile community.
But then again, take a similar (altough significantly more costly) example of a recent 2-way 5" woofer 3/4" dome model -like the Sonus Faber Signum- (that I'am listening right now), and you will understand all my caveats. It sits right next to my venerable Rogers LS3/5-s, and.... well really it is no real "race" between the two speakers, the Fabers just simply eat them for breakfast, in all areas.
I am prepared to take all hail coming from LS 3/5 aficionados, but then, do yourself a favour, and get (borrow, steal, build) a decently made similarly sized box with drivers available today (Scan-Speak, SB Acoustics, Vifa), and you will see what I am trying to tell you......
Anyone ever experienced the sound of (any derivative) of the LS3/5-s must admit that they deliver some kind of magic, that was typical with many of the british audio products of the 70's and 80's, like the Spendor BC1, Celestion SL6 series, Linn turntables, Naim and Quad amps etc.
Perhaps the most persistently returning piece of that era is the LS3/5, seeing dozens of copies, rebuilds, upgrades with more or less success. Its design principles were simple, possibly the smallest box with accurate vocal and instrumental reproduction, good sense of presence in the recording environment (they were designed as on-site monitoring speakers), but the execution of the idea was rather elaborate:
non-optimal box volume, with elevated upper bass region to compensate the lack of low bass, deliberately "voiced" crossover to correct the driver's (rather uneven) response and many other factors.
In its age it was an excellent product - not many other similarly sized speakers could match its abilities- but then, almost 40 years passed, and while speaker technology has advanced only 10 feet compared to the miles of other areas in electronic design, by today's standards and available drivers, it is a seriously outdated product, posessing mostly nostalgical and "cultic" values.
Again, I am not trying to discourage, or talk anyone out of building an "upgraded" LS 3/5, but for the same money today you can build a much better speaker. The surface treated Bextrene cone of the B 110 is well known for its excellent internal damping, but also fot its "slowness", while the T27 is a simple plastic (Melinex- a derivative of Mylar) dome tweeter. The main trick here (as almost always) is the XO design, which involved a lot of individual listening and tweaking tests, and that's why the end result is still catching a lot of attention in the audiophile community.
But then again, take a similar (altough significantly more costly) example of a recent 2-way 5" woofer 3/4" dome model -like the Sonus Faber Signum- (that I'am listening right now), and you will understand all my caveats. It sits right next to my venerable Rogers LS3/5-s, and.... well really it is no real "race" between the two speakers, the Fabers just simply eat them for breakfast, in all areas.
I am prepared to take all hail coming from LS 3/5 aficionados, but then, do yourself a favour, and get (borrow, steal, build) a decently made similarly sized box with drivers available today (Scan-Speak, SB Acoustics, Vifa), and you will see what I am trying to tell you......
According to replacement B110's TS parameters Falcon Acoustics
provides, I believe there is room to improve the performance over
Sterling's LS3/5 speaker
BBC LS3/5a loudspeaker Stirling Measurements | Stereophile.com
in the sense of having more bass extension(reflex loading) and voicing
the speaker for flatter midrange FR. It remains unknown which version
would sound better, the original or DIY version. I would bet on DIY.
Don't fall into the trap of assuming that a thicker cabinet would be an improvement. Read the BBC published paper by Harwood where he shows that thinner walls with heavier damping (a greater damping to mass ratio) is the only way to reduce cabinet resonances.
I think you could do better than the LS3/5a today, but primarily if you used better current drivers. The B110 SP1003 was good but not especially consistent. The T27 is not a very good tweeter. I thought the first several units I measured were defective. There are plenty of tweeters with higher sensitivity, smoother response, greater extension and lower distortion near resonance.
More cabinet volume would help and attention to cabinet diffraction would improve system response smoothness, especially if a grille isn't required.
David S.
I think you could do better than the LS3/5a today, but primarily if you used better current drivers. The B110 SP1003 was good but not especially consistent. The T27 is not a very good tweeter. I thought the first several units I measured were defective. There are plenty of tweeters with higher sensitivity, smoother response, greater extension and lower distortion near resonance.
More cabinet volume would help and attention to cabinet diffraction would improve system response smoothness, especially if a grille isn't required.
David S.
I was under the impression that thick and thin wall cabs solve the inherent resonance problems in different ways but with hopefully similar results.
Thin walls with heavy damping deal with the resonant frequency by lowering it to below audible levels. Very much like correctly matching tone arm mass with cartridge compliance when it comes to turntables.
Thick-walled stiff cabs on the other hand raise the resonances to frequencies which are easier to kill by whatever other means.
Could be wrong, it's been many years since I read the BBC papers.
I seem to remember settling for the thick&stiff approach as it seemed easier to implement. Basically you can just completely over-engineer one of those, always erring well on the safe side while the thin-wall approach requires careful tuning and thus a lot of prototyping to work as intended.
Of course once you've got it right they are a lot cheaper to produce in numbers.
We beat this to death on several threads a year or so ago. I really recommend the Harwood paper as it makes a clear and compelling case.
Cabinet resonance Q is the key factor. Damping is the only cure for a high Q resonance. Making the cabinet stiffer or the walls heavier will only assure that any damping applied will be less effective. Q is only lowered if the ratio of damping mass to wall mass is increased (thin walls and lots of damping). If panel resonance Q is reduced then tuning of resonances isn't needed (they are damped).
Raising the resonances will inherently make it more difficult to treat them.
I had a pair of LS5/1a years ago. They had thin plywood walls and heavy felt pads adhered to the walls. They really had a different sound when your rapped on them: Subdued and non-resonant.
The BBC knew what they were doing.
Cabinet resonance Q is the key factor. Damping is the only cure for a high Q resonance. Making the cabinet stiffer or the walls heavier will only assure that any damping applied will be less effective. Q is only lowered if the ratio of damping mass to wall mass is increased (thin walls and lots of damping). If panel resonance Q is reduced then tuning of resonances isn't needed (they are damped).
Raising the resonances will inherently make it more difficult to treat them.
I had a pair of LS5/1a years ago. They had thin plywood walls and heavy felt pads adhered to the walls. They really had a different sound when your rapped on them: Subdued and non-resonant.
The BBC knew what they were doing.
Seems that you search some as a 'clone'. Perhaps as this?:
http://www.china-hifi-audio.com/en/...-speakers-hifi-audio-loudspeakers-pair-p-1077
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue47/jungson.htm
http://www.china-hifi-audio.com/en/...-speakers-hifi-audio-loudspeakers-pair-p-1077
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue47/jungson.htm
Last edited:
Hi,
One things for certain, you can't use the LS3/5A x/o
with most of the versions of the B110, and the
simpler KEF x/o's work best with various versions.
An updated LS3/5A homage :
Continuum, Pr
rgds, sreten.
One things for certain, you can't use the LS3/5A x/o
with most of the versions of the B110, and the
simpler KEF x/o's work best with various versions.
An updated LS3/5A homage :
Continuum, Pr
rgds, sreten.
But also make them less likely to get excited -- less energy available to do it.
dave
+1
When i was selling them brand new i had a love/hate relationship with the LS3/5A. It does some things quite well. Other things it is sadly lacking.
I recently had a pair of LS3/5A for some time. They did not compare to a number of the millSize boxes (essentially same size as LS3/5A) with a range of single full range drivers.
dave
I'm not sure why you continue to repeat that when it is clearly not true. A resonance of a certain Q has a constant percentage bandwidth wherever it is located. Energy of music through the midrange is flat. Resonances with any practical cabinet can never be raised above midrange frequencies. Tests by Harwood and Sowter show resonant peaks of undamped cabinets with similar heights, no matter what frequency ( in fact a cabinet is essentially transparent at the frequency of resonance).
Harwood showed the threshold of audibilty of resonances was flat through the upper midrange and rose for the lower mids. I.e. it would be better if cabinet resonances were pushed down rather than up.
I know the (original) B110 (the bass unit).... Did a project with it over 20 years ago. Nice, polite but life-less.. had to do a lot of modifications on the unit to make it perform. Afterwards moved on to the (more expensive) Dynaudio 7" Xl woofers... they DID perform and still do.
The B110 is a speaker design from over a generation ago and it's problems and short comings showed from the start. For the money (144 pounds) you can buy a much better unit.... same applies to the T27 ..
The B110 is a speaker design from over a generation ago and it's problems and short comings showed from the start. For the money (144 pounds) you can buy a much better unit.... same applies to the T27 ..
I would think it would be much like touching a violin string at some anti-node points, those lower frequency resonances would be suppressed. As to damping effects, where is the damping element?
Stiffness is not damping.
Sorry for taking this off topic. If people want to debate cabinet theory we should reopen the numerous threads on the subject.
David
Eliminating box wall resonances is one of the toughest subjects in speaker design. The main problem is that you must correspond to contradictory requirements, such as low mass (to reduce mass-related ringing), and high rigidity (suppressing the basic resonances of the panels). If you dig further, non parallel walls with divider braces are also beneficial eliminating unavoidable standing waves.
So far only a few methods and materials are sufficient to fulfill both requirements, and unfortunately they are rather costly...
One was the Aerolam (employed in the Celestion SL 600 and its derivatives), which is an aluminium-honeycomb sandwich structure developed primarily for aerospace applications (very difficult to work with), the other is the "infinite rigidity" concept used in Magico-s solid aluminium machined boxes (extremely expensive).
All other attempts -like crossbracing, sandwiching thin walls and bitumenous layers- can only increase, or spread the resonance frequencies over a lower amplitude but wider range spectrum, but they still will be there....
As in the case of so many decisions in speaker design, the choice is yours: which evil would you rather live with.....
So far only a few methods and materials are sufficient to fulfill both requirements, and unfortunately they are rather costly...
One was the Aerolam (employed in the Celestion SL 600 and its derivatives), which is an aluminium-honeycomb sandwich structure developed primarily for aerospace applications (very difficult to work with), the other is the "infinite rigidity" concept used in Magico-s solid aluminium machined boxes (extremely expensive).
All other attempts -like crossbracing, sandwiching thin walls and bitumenous layers- can only increase, or spread the resonance frequencies over a lower amplitude but wider range spectrum, but they still will be there....
As in the case of so many decisions in speaker design, the choice is yours: which evil would you rather live with.....
In case anyone is interested in reading what speaker dave recommended:
Factors in the design of loudspeaker cabinets. - Publications - BBC R&D
Factors in the design of loudspeaker cabinets. - Publications - BBC R&D
The power dissipated by the damping material is the product of the damping force and the velocity in the direction of the force. The damping force is proportional to velocity (to a fair extent). Raising the resonant frequency would seem to result in the damping material dissipating more power unless I have missed something?
I have played with the B110 at some length, it is not an easy driver to design with at all. The crossover in the LS3/5a had a surprising noth filter built in, and on measuring the B110, I found out why.
Without significant treatment in the crossover, there are major flaws in the response of this driver. These days you have a plethora of alternative choices, which will be a lot easier to design with.
I did eventually end up with a speaker and crossover I was happy with, and I note it was as (if not more) complex than the BBC one. I kind of wonder if part of the fame of the LS3/5A was simply because it had the "BBC badge", which in that era would have been a massive marketing issue.
Getting a crossover right for this driver is not a "simple" hobbyist job, you need to be willing to do some serious work designing unusual elements into the circuit.
I would not go down this path again, but if you want a good challenging driver to play with, then this would be a great choice!!! It might be easier to do the job with your left hand only!
Without significant treatment in the crossover, there are major flaws in the response of this driver. These days you have a plethora of alternative choices, which will be a lot easier to design with.
I did eventually end up with a speaker and crossover I was happy with, and I note it was as (if not more) complex than the BBC one. I kind of wonder if part of the fame of the LS3/5A was simply because it had the "BBC badge", which in that era would have been a massive marketing issue.
Getting a crossover right for this driver is not a "simple" hobbyist job, you need to be willing to do some serious work designing unusual elements into the circuit.
I would not go down this path again, but if you want a good challenging driver to play with, then this would be a great choice!!! It might be easier to do the job with your left hand only!