LS3/5a

[postjack]

As some of you may know, I am fascinated by older audio designs that have stood the test of time. I was reading about a new production Rogers LS3/5a in a recent Hi-Fi News, and this drove me to the internet to do more research. It definitely sounds like a speaker I am interested in hearing.

So who here has heard an LS3/5a in any of its versions? Impressions?

[morphsci]

Well I haven't heard one but there is a follow-up review of the Gini Systems LS3/5a in the December Stereophile by John Marks and John Atkinson. There are links and references to information on other incarnations of the LS3/5a's in John Marks Fifth Element column.

[Dusty Chalk]

I love LS3/5a, and fully intend to voice a speaker I am going to make after it. My fantasy is to be able to get that same midrange magic with more extension in both frequency extremes and more dynamic range by using multiple drivers.

Of course, I've only heard a true LS3/5a once, but it was enough to convince me that it was what I thought it was -- what I owned was Spendor's 8 ohm version, the S3/5a, an earlier version of the S3/5 that they're selling now. It was quite special, and made Absolute Sounds' Golden Ear awards several years back (2000-ish).

But I have to admit -- I miss my Spendors a lot less, what with the Quad 12L's. They're definitely in the same family of sound.

[aerius]

I've heard the version made by Stirling Broadcast, though I don't recall if it was the V1 using the original LS3/5A drivers or the V2 which uses modern drivers modified to sound like the original.

In anycase, I didn't like it that much overall, yes the midrange is remarkably smooth & clear but there's just too many limitations. It's very inefficient, the dynamics are limited, there ain't much bass, and it can't play loud. If you start to push it, and especially if the music has decent bass, the whole thing goes quacky, literally. Honest to god, it quacks like a duck.

If I was going to put up with the limited dynamics & volume I'd much rather get a set of Quad ESL-57's and get way more midrange detail & clarity.

[earmuff]

I had a pair I bought at a local Goodwill thrift store. I paid $30 and they were in remarkable shape. They were the Rogers 16 ohm version. I couldnt make myself love them. Lifeless, with very little dynamic drive. I sold them for a bit of a profit, restored some Sonabs, and bought a nice pair of Magneplanar MG-IIIA's. I'll have to admit to being a planar nut.

bb

[Smeggy]

The LS3/5a was very nice but I decided to go with the JR 149 which was Jim Rogers souped up 3/5a, same drivers, better cabinet and crossover. Rogers was one of the original licensees as you know and he worked hard to improve on the original. I loved those speakers.

I don't know which variant would cost more these days, both are still highly desirable.

check it out...

http://www.jr149.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/JR149%20History-3.htm

Edited January 2, 2009 by Smeggy

[swt61]

Does this mean you've found a JR 149, or you're in search of one?

I never knew of this variant. The cabinet design sounds very intriguing.

[Torpedo]

A friend of mine owns a pair of JR 149. They have an annoying system to connect the wires in the bottom, having to remove the base, which makes swapping cables or speakers in the system more laborious.

I've listened to them with different amps, from a 25wpc tube integrated to a beefy vintage SS Luxman. They sound good whatever you throw at them, their midrange is captivating. They lack some of the resolution and maybe airiness of more modern LS3/5 implementations, but keep that tight and right timbre-wise midbass texture of good closed speakers.

Considering their age and size they're amazing speakers, but if you want them to sound aloud in a mid sized room, you need quite some power to drive them.

I've been seeing units for sale from time to time at the Audiophile Candy's free ads site in the UK.

[Smeggy]

Does this mean you've found a JR 149, or you're in search of one?

I never knew of this variant. The cabinet design sounds very intriguing.

No, I bought a set years ago in the late 70s when they were new. I was looking for some really nice compact speakers and they were just perfect. Lovely design and beautifully smooth. I only had one set of speaker wires anyway so the base fitting wasn't a problem. It was hooked up to a nice Sansui amp and TT.

More stylin than the 3/5 and better bass but keeps that same overall quality Beeb sound.

I later upgraded to the Tangent TM3 (long defunct) then the Celestion SL6. They alll shared that same smooth mid/high. Creamy, buttery goodness.

[Torpedo]

So you still keep them? Smart move

[Smeggy]

I wish

They were all lovely little speakers but the were all gone by the mid 80s when I got some Naim speakers, which I then gave to a friend in the mid 90s when I moved to the US. Now I have some big ole Vandersteens hooked up to the TV.

[Torpedo]

What a pity you sold them. Check that site I posted above if you're looking for another pair, from time to time some JR149 arise. I check the site for my friend who eventually would buy a back up pair.

[kirkwall]

I've owned several LS3/5a speakers (Rogers, Spendor, Stirling V2) and one variant in the Spendor-built Quad 77-10ls, which is the only one I've kept. They're definitely a design with compromises, but they do disappear in the right room and system and can do wonderful things with small-scale and acoustic music. I wish I'd kept the Rogers I had -- traded them for a pair of Mission speakers and regretted it for years. I use the 10ls as office speakers now and they're very good within their limits -- beautiful mids and highs.

best,

k

[Duggeh]

Do you partner them with the 77 amp?

The Quad 77 range with the carbon finish (not the nextel filth) are some of the best looking bits of gear ever made imo.

[kirkwall]

Do you partner them with the 77 amp?

The Quad 77 range with the carbon finish (not the nextel filth) are some of the best looking bits of gear ever made imo.

They are lovely bits of kit -- I loved the dark-blue cast casing and the carbon finish somehow managed to look un-crap in person. I donated my 77 CDP and integrated to a hard-up friend when I moved up to the 99/909. I bought it from HiFi Corner in Edinburgh and picked up the later-model biwire 77-10ls in yew finish on closeout when Quad was bringing out the 99 series. It really was a beautiful system, though the remote was a bit cumbersome -- volume/function wheel like a lorry's and that dim, floaty screen, like playing Coleco baseball.

The 10ls are, I think, basically S3/5s with odd Quad feet -- I suspect they didn't sell many due to their being the first dynamic (and therefore Devil-spawned) Quads, but they sound very good within their limits and will play a little louder than to-spec LS3/5As, IIRC. I'm sure I saw a set on A'gon not too long ago. If I were in the market for that sound I'd buy the S3/5as for those lush Spendor mids and the gorgeous cabinetry and if I loved them maybe hunt for a pair of the vintage Rogers.

There's a great site for LS3/5 enthusiasts: The Unofficial LS3/5a Support Site

(apologies if link doesn't work or if you've been there already...)

best,

k

[swt61]

I later upgraded to the Tangent TM3 (long defunct) then the Celestion SL6. They alll shared that same smooth mid/high. Creamy, buttery goodness.

The Celestion SL7 have been on my hit list for decades. Those honeycomb cabinets are killer. I've seen a few show up in good shape, but the timing has always been bad.

[Smeggy]

Yeah, they're pretty sweet. They were getting out of my price range though. At the time I think they were about 1,200 UK pounds.