BBC LS3/5, LS5/8, LS5/9, LS5/12A monitors

[LS5/9]

Hi - I've just joined I use the superb (IMHO) Rogers LS5/9 that have been rewired with VDH cable. I've not heard a better standmount ever.

I think the Harbeth 30 is the modern equivilent, so I thought I'd join here!

My current system is

LP12/Ekos/Lingo/Linto/Lyra Clavis DC
Prima Luna Prologue 2 (changed KT88 to GE 7581/KT66 and Mullard pre valves
Linn Ikemi CD
Rogers LS5/9 on Target HJ 15/3 stands.

Cables are Nordost Red Dawn i/c and Townshend Isolda speaker cables.

I searched for threads about the 5/9 and found nothing.

[LS5/9]

Alan can you tell me (in laymans terms) what the sonic differences are between these two models.

What improvements can I expect if I change to the 30.

I remember speaking to you a couple of years ago (I used to work at Grahams) and I remember saying that you weren't that impressed with Rogers LS5/9 - why?

kind regards and keep up the great work

Tim

[A.S.]

Hello Tim: I should qualify my comments on the 5/9 first by explaining that we wave at least 10 pairs in stores from BBC trade-ins, and probably know this speaker better than anyone. There are doubtless happy users around the world who enjoy their 5/9's and I recall myself being very impressed listening to cello on the 5/9 at a trade show about 10 years ago.

However, based on our hands-on experience with this model:

1. The frequency response is not at all flat. There is a big recess running through the entire midband of at least 3db. This pulls the image backwards and robs it of presence. Not a problem on orchestral music as I have noted where the overall effect can and does sound nice and lush.

2. The HF response of the large tweeter keels over at about 14kHz. Not a problem in broadcast. As noted in the original BBC Design Report, the tweeter has some colouration issues but was the only high-powered unit available at the time (1970's).

3. All the familiar fogging problems of polypropylene as used in an 8" mass/mid driver. The RADIAL driver in the M30 is in a clompletely different league as far as transparency goes.

4. I have yet to meet a BBC user who speaks highly of the 5/9. The general feeling is that it was a compromise that just didn't quite work out.

5. Pair matching (based on our stock) is not impressive. We are not sure if this is due to ageing.

The overall presentation of the 5/9 in my opinion is described here in example 7.2B: http://www.harbeth.co.uk/designersno...r7-2/index.php

[LS5/9]

many thanks Alan - good luck.

I love my 5/9s but we only know what we've heard so I'm always willing to hear other speakers.

Working at Grahams I listened to Spendor/Shahinian/ B&W 805's/
etc and none of them sounded as good (I even took my speakers to work to a/b)

I really wanted new speakers, had the cash burning a hole but nothing I heard made me wanted to part with them.

I've not heard the 30's yet. Where is the best place around London/Kent to hear them?

Tim

[cosimo57]

Hi, I am from Italy. I have just purchased a used pair of LS5/12a (originally bought in 1998 I think) but I don't find anywhere at least the basic technical specifications, that is freq response, impedance curves, efficiency, crossover description, etc...

They are wonderful speakers: I have compared them with M30 and even if the mid range of M30 is even more perfect, the soundstage of LS is in my opinion more fascinating and closer to my previous Diapason Adamantes (one of the most famous italian speakers). Of course bass of M30 is much more extended.
I would like to obtain the best from my LS5/12 and so the tech specs can help a lot. For example I am thinking to add a subwoofer form TBI model Magellan that has been successfully coupled to LS3/5a.
Thanks for any help

[A.S.]

The original BBC-published leaflet has been added to the LS5/12A entry in Servicing & Spares .... here

http://www.harbeth.co.uk/sales/servi...ares/index.php

[adam_audio]

SORRY! This message was corrupted by me in error.

Could you please edit this back to your original comments which were, as I recall, that you had purchased LS5/9 to see what they are like .....

Alan Shaw

(when you edit please delete all of this and replace it with your original entry)

[adam_audio]

SORRY! This message was corrupted by me in error.

Could you please edit this back to your original comments which were, as I recall, that you had purchased LS5/9 to see what they are like .....

Alan Shaw

(when you edit please delete all of this and replace it with your original entry)

Alan,

I've decided to pass on purchasing the Rogers speakers. I think they're probably a waste of my time. Spending money on them and expecting them to be a Harbeth is an exercise in futility, I think. They are not a Harbeth. They are Rogers. They are obsolete and finding spares in the event of a disaster would be a pipe dream. Additionally, why question perfection? The Monitor 30 is available and in current production and it's the finest dynamic loudspeaker in the world(barring the Monitor 40...which I've not yet heard).

[audiolab]

Hi , new poster here.... one who bought one of the first pairs of the original HL1s from Dudley Harwood soon after they appeared :-) (sold many years ago now) :-)

there are some LS5/12s on eprey at the moment 260456917530, pretty pricey too.

I seem to remember these were the last in house monitors designed by research department before it was wound up?

Not really in the classic Harwood/Hughes mould but designed by Graham Whitehead with off the shelf dynaco units and licenced to Harbeth for volume manufacture?

I also seem to remember that the reviews were not really enthusiastic, although louder than previous mini-monitors the balance was not natural, too bright, upfront, fatiguing etc.
The LS5/9 was not as well recieved as the LS5/8 in the reviews I saw at the time and the LS5/12 less so again.

Certainly my memories of demos at the time were not exactly jaw dropping in terms of revelations. I actually preferred the original mini Spendor SA1 or Harbeth P3.

Playing devil's advocate would anyone agree with the theory that BBC research seemed to reach a peak during the era of Shorter/Harwood/Hughes and then started a slow decline?

regards to all,

[Gan CK]

Hi , new poster here.... one who bought one of the first pairs of the original HL1s from Dudley Harwood soon after they appeared :-) (sold many years ago now) :-)

there are some LS5/12s on eprey at the moment 260456917530, pretty pricey too.

I seem to remember these were the last in house monitors designed by research department before it was wound up?

Not really in the classic Harwood/Hughes mould but designed by Graham Whitehead with off the shelf dynaco units and licenced to Harbeth for volume manufacture?

I also seem to remember that the reviews were not really enthusiastic, although louder than previous mini-monitors the balance was not natural, too bright, upfront, fatiguing etc.
The LS5/9 was not as well recieved as the LS5/8 in the reviews I saw at the time and the LS5/12 less so again.

Certainly my memories of demos at the time were not exactly jaw dropping in terms of revelations. I actually preferred the original mini Spendor SA1 or Harbeth P3.

Playing devil's advocate would anyone agree with the theory that BBC research seemed to reach a peak during the era of Shorter/Harwood/Hughes and then started a slow decline?

regards to all,

Amongst the BBC developed monitors, LS3/5A, LS3/6, LS5/9 & LS5/8, only the LS-5/12 didn't do for me & i attribute that to the use of Dynaudio (not Dynaco) drivers on that model. They just didn't sound right to me in terms of tonality & timbre.

[keithwwk]

I 2nd Gan CK comments.
The dynaudio driver added too much it's cone sound to the music. To enjoy Harbeth super pure right and correct sound, Radial is the only one. Even the p3 sound much right.

[A.S.]

The LS5/12A was not actually designed by or connected with the BBC Research Department in any way, so it shares nothing with the classic BBC designs from the 1960s and from which today's Harbeths are directly descended.

As I recall it, the 5/12 was designed as a personal out-of-hours project by a BBC engineer in Equipment Department without management sanction. In fact, when Research Dept. became aware of what was going on they were not amused as senior management had decided some years previously, and after Harwood retired to found Harbeth, that 'there would be no more in-house BBC monitor development'. So, unsurprisingly, Research were not in a position to do anything other than stand back and watch, and certainly not to provide resources or staff to critique the design.

The designer told me that his concept was to 'clone the sound of the much bigger LS5/8, but in miniature'. I believe that he achieved this: certainly when I heard an A/B at Equipment Dept. of the LS5/12A v. LS5/8 I agreed that they sounded remarkably close in tone. Whether the LS5/8 was the reference to aim for I did wonder because as noted the P3, then a couple of years into production, seemed to offer a more open sound with better bass (sealed cabinet; 5/12 was vented and more difficult to place near walls) and at about half the price. Consumer domocracy decided which was better value.

When we agreed to take the licence we were not permitted to keep the reference speaker that they brought us: we had to say yes or no based on a short audition in our listening room. Some weeks later the approved master reference unit arrived (just one piece) and we set about really analysing the design. This is where the problems started. It was clear that as the core components had already been defined, that at best, any changes would have to be peripheral and the design was substantially reworked at my insistence into the LS5/12A. Had I - or Research Department - been privy to the design process we could possibly have steered the design in a different direction and, as with the previous true BBC monitors, designed core parts rather than bought them in. But as I've explained, Research dept. were not in the loop.

The 5/12A certainly has its fans: it seems to be popular with those fond of choral music. Whether the performance is the same now as when we made these in the early 1990s I'm not sure. We have no spare parts available.

[audiolab]

thanks for the replies and the detail explanations (and my typo on correct drive units!) ;-)

Somehow I never really thought that although the LS5/8 was undoubtedly a good monitor it never seemed to have a consistent "BBC magic" on lots of program which the previous generation bextrene speakers had. Whether it was the depth of stereo image or missing the sweetness of good HF1300s I don't know. And I liked the LS5/9 less still. I wonder if the subjective evaluation during design was less on that generation due to creeping cost cutting or something. Or they were just enamoured with the increased efficiency of polypropylene and thought it could do no wrong. Not that I'm saying that bextrene was perfect! :-)

Maybe the large voice coils had something to do with it? I have a theory that the main reason for example the BC1 is better in the midrange than the BC2 is the smaller voice coil gives a better response up to crossover freq and a more seamless match to the tweeter.

I find it surprising that research dept even sanctioned an official LS designation in the circumstances the LS5/12 appeared then?

[Pluto]

...The LS5/9 was not as well recieved as the LS5/8 in the reviews I saw at the time and the LS5/12 less so again.

You're not really comparing like with like here. Although the LS5 prefix implied "large monitor for studio use", it seems slightly odd that the 5/9 and 5/12 were not introduced under the LS3 equipment code - typically smaller boxes for outside broadcast use.

Perhaps some felt that the 5/9 & 5/12 were good enough for the most critical reference purposes, hence they were not 'exiled' into the somewhat infra dig. LS3 category. Just a theory, not definitive. However good they may have been considered at the time, there's no way that the 5/9 or 5/12 could deliver the level that was (sometimes) demanded of a pedigree studio reference unit, hence my statement that categorizing them as LS5 units was, in my view, an odd move.

One possible explanation is that the 5/9 was considered to be a worthy match to the 5/8, the de facto reference at that time. See RD 1983/10 for details. Nonetheless, smaller units were traditionally classified as LS3/?, hence my assertion that, in absolute sonic performance, it was unsurprising that the 5/9 and 5/12 were not perceived as being of the standard achieved by the 5/8.

How time marches on. Listen to a 5/8 now and compare it to a Harbeth M40. Fascinating, comparing today's reference standard with that of 20 years ago.

[A.S.]

To answer both previous comments about the naming conventions of LSX/yy.

As I mentioned in my initial response, BBC Research Department had no involvement at all with the LS5/12a. By the early 1990's when it made an appearance (I've explained why/how) there was only one career acoustics boffin at Research, and he had no remit, no authority and no interest in being reprimanded for becoming involved in yet more loudspeaker development. BBC senior management at directorate level had decreed 'no more BBC monitors' and that is precisely the rule Research Dept. followed.

When the LS5/12 (not LS5/12A) was presented to me (around about 1992??) the engineer concerned had in toe a besuited gentleman from BBC Corporate who, with an awareness of the royalty revenue stream the LS3/5A had generated for the BBC, believed he was sitting on a goldmine called LS5/12. It was clear to me at the time that even though the product has come into being in direct contradiction of BBC management policy it has the potential to generate income and the accountants eyes were spinning. It didn't matter how I tried to caution the commercial realities of a rather specific speaker with a rather specific sound that could only be used in rather specific circumstances, their need to milk this project was considerable. The engineer who, under different circumstances may well have been dismissed, was a hero. As for who determined the name, well that was simply a matter of picking the next number in sequence (5/10 an 5/11 had been used for some special variations of the existing 5/8, 5/9 models) so logically, the next number was 5/12. No need to seek approval for that; in fact, dare not seek approval -just get on with it!

What was really interesting for me as a study of consumer psychology was the outcome of our public demonstration. I remember it very well: the BBC pushed us to book a room at the (1993?) Penta hi-fi show and agreed to contribute 50% costs. We took the adjacent room. In our room we played various Harbeth models - probably the P3, HL5 and original HL Compact - and in our shared room, only the LS5/12A. Positioned in the corridor I could clearly overhear comments from those who intended to visit the 'BBC room' and then afterwards when they'd heard the 5/12A for themselves, albeit under far from ideal conditions. The pull of the BBC name was really impressive. It acted like a magnet. What was educational was the content of typical comments I overheard after the demonstration. I'll let you decide for yourselves what I did hear!

To cover the point about 5/8 (or 5/9) frequency balance etc.. Actually, I was at Research Dept. with an overseas visitor just two weeks ago. We did some filming in the archives (in HiDef) and this included a piece to camera by me going through a card index box which has been set aside for me containing hundreds of original frequency response pen-charts of 3/5a, 5/8, 5/9 etc. etc.. The box was divided into sections "Reference" and "Commercial". I have not looked at the footage yet - I cringe to think how bad an unrehearsed single take is - but it really was an eye-opener to be reminded of the overall shape of these curves and equally, how much they varied. The 3/5a frequency response curve stability - as I have been cautioning for many long years - were astonishingly variable and with a hitherto new feature for me: I've mentioned before the hideous narrow peak that many early 3/5as had at around 1.3kHz - but behold, as seen on these Reference curves, there could be an equally deep notch at the very same frequency! How everyone involved struggled to control the uncontrollable.

As for Fig. 10 & 11 in the BBC design report provided by Pluto, these are frequency response plots for the LS5/9 and LS5/8. Once these speakers were actually finalised and introduced as production items the frequency response curves don't match those in the internal report. One of the greatest mysteries about the LS5/8 and LS5/9 speakers which even Dudley Harwood couldn't explain, was why the prototype curves were so different from production. Harwood was adamant in an interview with me at his home (about 1995) that when he completed the initial design on the LS5/8 (before he retired to found Harbeth) that the curve was as published in the BBC report i.e. basically flat. He could only guess that the curve was reshaped in the light of listening experience in operational studios. But who authorised this - and why is it not documented? And what is the reference curve shape?

The video will eventually be made available here.

[audiolab]

personally I did not rate the 5/8 that much, and the reviews I saw seemed to agree. I seem to remember one of the old hi fi choices where they compared 50 or 60 speakers and it certainly did not rise to the top of the pile. It could go loud but lacked the magic mid range of the classic speakers. The 5/9 that followed was worse. And I believe the 5/12 was worse still. IMHO :-)

With Spendor and Kef taken over Harbeth now seem to be the only company continuing the classic BBC sound - or lack of "sound" (colouration) :-)

[A.S.]

Yes, but I think we must be clear about one thing. What did the BBC actually expect their monitors to actually do?

A hi-fi magazine may well have a different agenda or criterion for evaluating loudspeakers compared to the (then) BBC.That may sound contradictory or even illogical, but remember that the BBC users would have been listening in well-damped studios and rather close to their speakers, perhaps close enough to touch, what we'd call the 'near field'. A hi-fi listening panel would (probably) have set the speakers up in the 'far field' say, 10-12 feet away. This is a very different environment.

Having said that, there was definitely a significant and curious shift in the frequency response balance of BBC speakers in the 1980s away from 'flat'. In Shorter/Harwood/Hughes day, from about 1950 - 1980 the LSU10 - LS3/6 frequency responses measured flat and they sounded flat. Thereafter, post Shorter and Harwood's retirement, the LS5/8, 5/9 and 5/12 took a different direction. We've stuck to the original Harwood flat formulae: the 5/8, 5/9 and 5/12 disappeared.

[audiolab]

Hi,
yes I see what you mean about the differences in use/review. And the balance of the 5/8 and following models just did not seem neutral or even pleasant.

In mitigation the hi fi choice referred to was the old small paperback style book, still with the methodology of the Angus Mckenzie days, blind tests, master tapes and live/recorded comparisons etc.

If only today's reviews had as much time and money spent on them as opposed to just listening to a few cds... :-)

cheers,

[A.S.]

...And the balance of the 5/8 and following models just did not seem neutral or even pleasant ...In mitigation the hi fi choice referred to was the old small paperback style book, still with the methodology of the Angus Mckenzie days, blind tests, master tapes and live/recorded comparisons etc....

I think you are maybe confusing timescales. The days of Angus Mckenzie and those small "HiFi Choice Loudspeakers" surely pre-date the 5/8 by several years. If you have a HFC with a 5/8 in it, and especially if there is a frequency response curve, I'd very much like to read it. My collection of that magazine ceased in the late 80s.

I'm not defending the BBC's decision to take the 5/8 - 5/12's sonic balance off in a strange direction compared to the 'legacy' BBC sound which we at Harbeth still strongly believe in, but listening application just may be a factor. Or one of many. Loudspeaker evaluation has always been part science, part preference, part logic, part politics and part experience and all of those factors would be at play even in the engineering corridors of the BBC. I have wondered for many years about the odd change of direction post-Harwood. It could be that Harwood and before him Shorter right back to Kirke were held in such high professional and personal regard that they were benign dictators in their scientific kingdom. They demonstrated project after project that they were intellectual giants. Harwood was a man of very few words and this undoubtedly increased his respect. Once their iron grip had been released, a more 'democratic' regime replaced them. Engineers who were not career transducer designers maybe didn't have the authority, confidence or respect of their colleagues to dictate policy and lay down the law occupied Harwood's vacant chair. Harwood's generation, the 'old guard' had natural authority of the type society doesn't seem to value much now. In fact, there is a hostility to authority even when it is so often right.

I surprised a competitor recently in casual conversation who asked me how many listeners I canvassed before releasing a design to the market. "None" I replied. He was stunned and told me that he have various pet reviewers, friends, neighbours who he used as a review panel. I told him that was, in my opinion, unworkable and would lead to ten different and contradictory opinions leading him nowhere. I suspect that in the democratic environment of the BBC in the 80's too many opinions led to too many design compromises. But that's just my opinion. Nothing else seems to fit the facts which are, the prototype 5/8 that Harwood left behind when he retired from BBC Research Dept. in 1977 had, in common with his previous designs, a basically flat frequency response as shown in the BBC design Report. What went into production had a frequency response which was hugely boosted in the low-mid-upper bass, suppressed in the midrange and with a resulting thin, distant perspective onto the sound stage.

In the transcript of our meeting (in my files) and subsequent written correspondence well into Harwood's retirement, some fifteen years or so after his prototyping LS5/8 work, it was clear that my findings about the production 5/8 v. Harwood's prototype came as a complete shock to him. I remember the discussion well and how, in poor health, he was wheezing for breath as he contemplated my print-outs of frequency response. He was silent for a long time.

The legacy of all of this is perhaps not obvious, but it's extremely important. During the 80s and the introduction of the 5/8, 5/9 and later 5/12A, a generation of new, young BBC staff were working with monitors, microphones, mixing equipment which they - like you - found at odds with the sound they liked at home or were unreliable or difficult to use. In time, as in government and business generally, those staff would move upwards through the organisation to positions of power and authority. When the opportunity came to review equipment procurement policy they would naturally wish to stamp their authority on corporate policy with a sweep of the new broom. I suspect that had they inherited Harwood's classic designs, that wouldn't have happened.

[audiolab]

I think you are maybe confusing timescales. The days of Angus Mckenzie and those small "HiFi Choice Loudspeakers" surely pre-date the 5/8 by several years. If you have a HFC with a 5/8 in it, and especially if there is a frequency response curve, I'd very much like to read it. My collection of that magazine ceased in the early 80s.

Hi, and thank you for your detailed thoughts on the matter. It is a very logical explanation of the change in direction.

In the Shorter/Harwood BBC monographs and subsequent Wireless World articles it was always mentioned that feedback from producers was sought, and the live sound directly compared with the sound of prototypes in the studio and thus colourations identified to be investigated. I wonder if cost cutting limited this stage of the old process too as well as the internal politics aspect?

Interestingly the original HL1s I bought soon after they were launched did not review flat and seemed to have gone a little overboard with the famed BBC "presence dip". My latter ferrite BC1s seemed much flatter in comparison. But Dudley's quality control in the early days was pretty ropey, if it existed much :-) But those HL1s still gave more listening pleasure than the LS5/9 for example.

You are right about the hi-fi choice, they were written by Colloms by that stage, still in the small books with for example Tony Faulkner in the panel, but in the early years he still carried over most of the method of the great Angus, and had not gone as "subjective overboard" as later on, if you get my meaning. Later issues became less and less interesting compared to the great work in the original small format to the point where the A4 size was not even worth buying. If I can find them I'll see if I can scan the LS5/8 and 9 and email them.

cheers, and thanks for a very interesting discussion and insight.