This is good thank you. Considering the LS3/5A cabinet is only 5 litres not a lot to choose from. I think all those recommend over 5 litres.
This looks good as well, will translate later and read.
Looking at this though the 135TC is recommended for a 10L closed cabinet, however Jerry at Falcon said it was the one to use. He should know though, he makes LS3/5A as his main job. But I may look at something else for my other pair Im making.
SPH-135TC HiFi bass-midrange speaker, 2 x 60WMAX, 2 x 8Ω - cheap at LTT
I'm still undecided which way to go for the crossover designs yet. Active is appealing more and more to me all the time. Trouble it is a considerable more amount of money to get set up that way.
Not many of us can design a high quality analogue type passive crossover easily to match the best out there. Faffing digitally is easily within most peoples capability. As for overall end results its hard to say one is better than the other, one costs more but is easier, the other costs less but is difficult to master like the best have.
SPH-135TC HiFi bass-midrange speaker, 2 x 60WMAX, 2 x 8Ω - cheap at LTT
I'm still undecided which way to go for the crossover designs yet. Active is appealing more and more to me all the time. Trouble it is a considerable more amount of money to get set up that way.
Not many of us can design a high quality analogue type passive crossover easily to match the best out there. Faffing digitally is easily within most peoples capability. As for overall end results its hard to say one is better than the other, one costs more but is easier, the other costs less but is difficult to master like the best have.
Last edited:
Yes you can use the App yourself and plug in your requirements eg. 5L, Fb 55Hz:
SpeakerBoxLite. Subwoofer box calculator, Sub box calculator
Not sure where that 10 litre figure comes from. Using the manufacturer's specs 8.7 litres gives a Qtc of .707
And with small boxes one often goes for a higher Qtc up to 1.0 for a more subjectively balanced sound. The Ls3/5a itself has a pronounced upper bass lift centred around 130Hz, even though it was designed as a monitor
With the 135tc a 5 litre box will give a Qtc of .86, with fb of 82Hz and a f3 of 70Hz.
I would not disregard the advice of Falcon. This is their specialised area.
As above the LS3/5A was a broadcast monitor, and as such it did not have a 0.7 maximally flat design. A Qbox of 1 is near the mark.
People remark that the B110 was coloured, and it may have been, though the colouration was dealt with well, considering the tech of the time. Mostly the faults are benign, the worst if which being the high Q bass response, which comes out as some chestiness, at elevated volumes, and the bass compression effects that come with that scenario.
I have lived and grown up with the Goodmans LS3/5A since birth and throughout much of my first 20 years of life, and I have heard 'other's iterations of the BBC contract design.
My late father had access to some of the drivers, working on car audio, at the same time as Goodman's acquired the licence to the BBC contract.
FWIW his version of the LS3/5A used the Goodmans B110 and aluminium dome based on the same pressing die/form as the T27.
Most importantly, they were housed in roughly double the volume of the LS3/5A
People remark that the B110 was coloured, and it may have been, though the colouration was dealt with well, considering the tech of the time. Mostly the faults are benign, the worst if which being the high Q bass response, which comes out as some chestiness, at elevated volumes, and the bass compression effects that come with that scenario.
I have lived and grown up with the Goodmans LS3/5A since birth and throughout much of my first 20 years of life, and I have heard 'other's iterations of the BBC contract design.
My late father had access to some of the drivers, working on car audio, at the same time as Goodman's acquired the licence to the BBC contract.
FWIW his version of the LS3/5A used the Goodmans B110 and aluminium dome based on the same pressing die/form as the T27.
Most importantly, they were housed in roughly double the volume of the LS3/5A
There are so many threads on making or copying an LS3/5A. We have so many modern DIY designs that are measurably superior. Yet people always go back to this and look for hard to find or unobtanium driver units.
Are they really that good or is this a case of nostalgia?
Funny thing with nostalgia - it may disappoint you when you hear it again once you have heard state of the art designs that come from so many talented designers on DIYA and elsewhere.
Are they really that good or is this a case of nostalgia?
Funny thing with nostalgia - it may disappoint you when you hear it again once you have heard state of the art designs that come from so many talented designers on DIYA and elsewhere.
It was a very well designed loudspeaker, for the purpose as a monitor for very small locations, like the back of a van, or within the BBC studios, used nearfield.
Certainly, its light years better than say....Yamaha NS-10, and far more neutral.
Just dont try and fill 200sqft with sound!
Relieved of bass duties, of at near field say 1-1.5m they sound immense. (Nothing to do with nostalgia here, they do sound great, still, just not at ear splitting levels, and of course, better still with a sub to take care of the real bass)
Certainly, its light years better than say....Yamaha NS-10, and far more neutral.
Just dont try and fill 200sqft with sound!
Relieved of bass duties, of at near field say 1-1.5m they sound immense. (Nothing to do with nostalgia here, they do sound great, still, just not at ear splitting levels, and of course, better still with a sub to take care of the real bass)
Yes it is that good. I've listened to most things and even some large statement flagship stuff but there is still a realism, and organicness to the midrange on an LS3/5A that just hasn't been surpassed. Of course limiting factors mean its not going to do everything but what it does well make its a speaker thats never really been bettered IMO.
I think great sounding 1m to 1.5m near field monitors at moderate SPL without much bass is provided by many many studio monitors not costing $4k/pair.
Realism and organic can also be had with neutral wide band drivers or a WAW/FAST setup.
I’m sure they do sound good, but looking at how complex the crossover is, you have to wonder how good the drivers were to start with.
Realism and organic can also be had with neutral wide band drivers or a WAW/FAST setup.
I’m sure they do sound good, but looking at how complex the crossover is, you have to wonder how good the drivers were to start with.
Nice as Fullrange/widerange drivers can be, neutral is not a word I would associate with the majority, or indeed any of the few I have lived with.
Certainly none of them achieve less than +/-1dB throughout the range. (Complex XO but that is why it is there)
Sure they can be bettered (not sure where you get £4k from...a pair can be had for £500), but it ain't going to be a pair of KRK/Adam monitors that do it!
Certainly none of them achieve less than +/-1dB throughout the range. (Complex XO but that is why it is there)
Sure they can be bettered (not sure where you get £4k from...a pair can be had for £500), but it ain't going to be a pair of KRK/Adam monitors that do it!
They may measure better but do they sound better. I've had plenty of components that do not measure as well as others but are more enjoyable (AKSA amps spring to mind).
I don't buy the FAST comment as played with them over 15 years ago and they have their place. Most do not have good filter design as they just bang a filtered woofer in with a FR driver. I know yours are different to this approach but they have never done it for me.
Nothing wrong with a complex xo to achieve a target and it is only one aspect of the design. Even ordinary drivers can sound great in the right design. I've never heard a LS3/5A but I don't like a speaker to be criticised without actually hearing it. I did have a Yamaha NS-10M back in the 70's and even though not universally loved, they achieved their design goals to allow a mix to sound good on ordinary speakers.
I thought Jeff Bagby did a similar speaker to the LS3/5A..... Continuum II IIRC.
Last edited:
Nice as Fullrange/widerange drivers can be, neutral is not a word I would associate with the majority, or indeed any of the few I have lived with.
Certainly none of them achieve less than +/-1dB throughout the range. (Complex XO but that is why it is there)
Sure they can be bettered (not sure where you get £4k from...a pair can be had for £500), but it ain't going to be a pair of KRK/Adam monitors that do it!
Well, here is an example when one searches eBay:
Matched Pair of Spendor LS3/5A Studio Monitor Speakers (Excellent Condition) | eBay
The ScanSpeak 10F/8424 is probably one of the most neutral driver/midrange anywhere. I’m not talking about Lowther and other high dollar, high sensitivity types.
I get it that there are lots of fans here of the LS3/5A, but never meant to compare to KRK’s here.
I know, its just mindless spending! But they do still sound very good
But certainly not worth the sum of their components. £5000 I've seen some old ones sell for, but its collector value I get that, but its still mindless.
Well, here is an example when one searches eBay:
Matched Pair of Spendor LS3/5A Studio Monitor Speakers (Excellent Condition) | eBay
The ScanSpeak 10F/8424 is probably one of the most neutral driver/midrange anywhere. I’m not talking about Lowther and other high dollar, high sensitivity types.
I get it that there are lots of fans here of the LS3/5A, but never meant to compare to KRK’s here.
Bah! Spendors though, and Harbeth, are all pretty modern versions.
But point taken, not a cheap as they once were.
Comparison to Prosonus and Adams, Genelex even, which are raved about is maybe more valid.
That being said, the biggest shortfall of the BBCs is that they were not actively filtered and amplified.
Haha well I've seen pairs regularly up for £500, ratty they may be, but as long as the sound making part work, I wouldn't care if they were painted in black emulsion paint.
When I was studying sound recording Btec we had NS 10s, and they weren't AWFUL. Just too forward, leading to mixed sounding a bit 'scooped' on flat reference speakers.
But the use of NS 10, LS3/5A, Tannoys, have been what shaped UK, US, east coast, west coast sound.
I believe Tannoys have their warts too, although I have never heard a pair.
But I'd love to know what monitors were used for such classic albums as DSOTM. Whatever they were, whether it's the fact they mastered for vinyl, many albums of that era sound light years ahead of anything since CD took over.
Sorry for the off topic.
From the little I know, when I looked at replicating the design, the falcon audio kits using the Monacor SPH135(ad)? Was the nearest you would get, with modern drivers.
My fondness for original stems from my early years experience of so called acoustic suspension drivers, which are well extinct these days. Limits and all, there is just something about closed box acoustic suspension "sound" that just seems natural to my ear.
Didn't Wilmslow audio also provide a kit?
Anyways, I never pursued a LS3/5A clone build, just because I wasnt confident It could equal the originals, and there are many small monitor designs around, many that go louder, have better diffraction control, produce deeper bass.
It was the clearness, sweetness, of the midrange that hooked me.
The type of sweetness that makes your hair stand on end, it just feels 'right', even when it's someone else's music and it's not really your 'thing'.
It's probably distortion and I'll probably never know the answer!
So at the end, I actually agree with many here.
Buy the real deal, or dont if:
You dont think its value.
You cant justify spending the money.
And if any of those are true, then just get the best directivity matched, similarly sized, bookshelf design and build that has the best, smoothest midrange.
From the little I know, when I looked at replicating the design, the falcon audio kits using the Monacor SPH135(ad)? Was the nearest you would get, with modern drivers.
My fondness for original stems from my early years experience of so called acoustic suspension drivers, which are well extinct these days. Limits and all, there is just something about closed box acoustic suspension "sound" that just seems natural to my ear.
Didn't Wilmslow audio also provide a kit?
Anyways, I never pursued a LS3/5A clone build, just because I wasnt confident It could equal the originals, and there are many small monitor designs around, many that go louder, have better diffraction control, produce deeper bass.
It was the clearness, sweetness, of the midrange that hooked me.
The type of sweetness that makes your hair stand on end, it just feels 'right', even when it's someone else's music and it's not really your 'thing'.
It's probably distortion
and I'll probably never know the answer!So at the end, I actually agree with many here.
Buy the real deal, or dont if:
You dont think its value.
You cant justify spending the money.
And if any of those are true, then just get the best directivity matched, similarly sized, bookshelf design and build that has the best, smoothest midrange.
Last edited:
Over 30 years ago, when Wilmslow Audio was still located in the Cheshire town of Wilmslow, I had the privilege of being given free run of their loudspeaker comparator room - just me, a room full of speakers and a huge switch panel - no salesperson to distract me from my auditions!
Of all the kit speakers assembled in that demonstration room, the sound that impressed me most was that of Wilmslow Audio's LS3/5A clones.
I regret to this day not setting off home with a pair of those kits in my boot!
As I mentioned earlier, Wilmslow have introduced an updated version of the original kit. Obviously, the drivers will be quite different from those of 30 plus years ago!
WA LS3 Bookshelf Loudspeaker