BBC inspired loudspeakers - discussion

Richard Dunn said:
Nope, I am saying that complication puts blockage / constipation in the system. Quite simply *anything* in the signal path cocks it up, so put in the minimal to do the job. The differences are musical in nature not hi-fi, both are needed to a degree but unless you can find the musical experience amoungst the image and all the other hi-fi guff in my terms you are wasting your time. Now it is this ellusive music thing that is causing most of the problems between the objectivists and subjectivists, as the music thing cannot be spec-ed it is there or it isn't. I have my own ideas that I have linked to articles and interviews many times on this forum and others, and normally it fires of the ad hominem and the dissers.
Click to expand...

Thanks, clear now.

It is also worth remembering that the BBC wanted these monitors for a specific purpose: monitoring in broadcast studios (ie. not recording studios). That brings with it specific requirements which may, or may not, square with what suits a given user at home.

For some insight into what happened when some at the BBC wanted 'loud' this article about Pete Thomas of PMC is interesting (though incomplete):http://www.pmc-speakers.com/docs/pete_thomas.pdf?phpMyAdmin=8LyaWL,hfPE6kx2yLP2Xe5AoLQc

Also, had forgotten but I also enjoyed some Rogers LS7ts for a while, so I guess it must be a style of speaker I like.
 
yeah that's right Coda.

Uniformity is what the BBC wanted, consistancy, uniformity, and of course performance aswell.

I've been in a few bbc vans, bbc radio stations, and it's mostly low tech, mostly unimpressive gear. . but engineers of 30 years experience like a familiar sound to quickly aclimatise to.



'' the bbc use them '' isn't necessarily a brilliant advert for the educated hifi buyer, but it does the trick for most people.

besides all that... I really like the ls3/5a and jr149, which are the only 2 of that lot I've really lived with.
 
RobHolt said:
Larger speakers such as the 3/6 and variants seem to allow the thin-wall ideas developed by the BBC to work better than is the case with the smaller models such as the 3/5. Makes sense if you think about - the idea of thin-wall is to push panel resonances down away from the midband and damp them. You can't really do that with a very small speaker cabinet unless using very thin panels, so something like the 3/5 will always be inherently 'rigid'.
Click to expand...

I asked on the Harbeth site if the advantages of thin wall construction diminished as the size of the cabinet reduced. They would not engage with the question.

I guess I guessed right, Rob.

It means they could probably make a cheaper P3.
 
Labarum said:
I asked on the Harbeth site if the advantages of thin wall construction diminished as the size of the cabinet reduced. They would not engage with the question.

I guess I guessed right, Rob.

It means they could probably make a cheaper P3.
Click to expand...

But that would be 'commercially sensitive' information wouldn't it?

;)
 
Coda II said:
But that would be 'commercially sensitive' information wouldn't it?

;)
Click to expand...

About as commercially sensitive as saying, which they do, that they fit four binding posts to permit bi-wiring, but they don't believe it makes any difference."
 
I'm not sure they do really other than in basic balance.

Their speakers tend to have what is known as 'the BBC dip' or saddle response which is a slight depression around the presence band. The term is misused though, as the only BBC speaker I've seen to have this dip are the little LS3/5 models. The larger monitors are all pretty flat, with a little lift at the very top.

So I suppose the ProAc speakers compare in terms of balance and tonality but are quite different in terms of design.
 
flatpopely said:
I was at the ITV studios a while ago and heard the 10 o'clock news go out live.

Some Rogers and Quads were doing a superb job!
Click to expand...


Very interesting. Which Rogers monitors were they? Were the Quad amps 405s?

The exp you had in the studio must have been very exciting. And I take it the vocals sounded nice on the Rogers.
 
Vocals on a BBC type classic Rogers or Quad ESL can be startlingly real.
The best I've heard at any price.
 
People on forums and in the press say all sorts about 405s - mostly bad or lukewarm.
The users invariably have a very different view.

Vocals with my 405/2 into ESLs is well ..... orgasmically good at times :)

IIRC you have a pair running as mono amps?
 
RobHolt said:
People on forums and in the press say all sorts about 405s - mostly bad or lukewarm.
The users invariably have a very different view.

Vocals with my 405/2 into ESLs is well ..... orgasmically good at times :)

IIRC you have a pair running as mono amps?
Click to expand...




I use to have bridged Quad 405s into 200w. I now have a Quad 405-2 that has had Net Audio upgrades done to it.

I just basically like the Quad 405 for it's midrange and vocals. Sometimes the 405 reminds me of a Valve because it's warmth and midrange (Sometimes tooooo warm) Another amp in my list is NVA, i would like to hear an NVA amp/pre combo one day.

One day I would love to try a pair of Harbeth speakers with my Quad.
 
Yesterday I was in "Digital Village" listening to some active nearfied monitors. For the price they are excellent, but they are not the sort of box that would be acceptable in the lounge of a 60 year old couple. I would certainly consider them for a second system. Yes, they are very clear and detailed, but I have hear such clarity from passive speakers.

In the chatter with a very knowledgeable young man I mentioned Harbeth. He did not know of the firm. He Googled. Ah, British, he said. Interesting. I pointed out the domestic and studio models and the BBC tradition. I said it was an option for me as I had a spare Quad amp lying about.

He then told me that one of their store managers was an ex BBC engineer and, at home, used Rogers and Quad: he would have nothing else.

Very telling.

And Rob, I wish, O how I wish I could accommodate some Quad Electrostatics.
 
Labarum said:
Yesterday I was in "Digital Village" listening to some active nearfied monitors. For the price they are excellent, but they are not the sort of box that would be acceptable in the lounge of a 60 year old couple. I would certainly consider them for a second system. Yes, they are very clear and detailed, but I have hear such clarity from passive speakers.

In the chatter with a very knowledgeable young man I mentioned Harbeth. He did not know of the firm. He Googled. Ah, British, he said. Interesting. I pointed out the domestic and studio models and the BBC tradition. I said it was an option for me as I had a spare Quad amp lying about.

He then told me that one of their store managers was an ex BBC engineer and, at home, used Rogers and Quad: he would have nothing else.

Very telling.

And Rob, I wish, O how I wish I could accommodate some Quad Electrostatics.
Click to expand...

Nice little story:)

I've always read good things about people using Quad amps with Harbeth/Rogers speakers.

Do these type of speakers have good synergy with Quad amps?
 
Labarum said:
Yesterday I was in "Digital Village" listening to some active nearfied monitors. For the price they are excellent, but they are not the sort of box that would be acceptable in the lounge of a 60 year old couple [... deleted ...]
Click to expand...

I'm over 60 and have no problem with the looks of anything I see on their website.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top