Speaker shootout; B&W CDM2 v. Rogers LS3/5A

Very experimental weekend at the Swiss Tones this weekend!

I've owned a pair of LS3/5As from new (1981) and they occupy a bookshelf downstairs with No.2 system. Then I had the opportunity to acquire a pair of B&W CDM2s. I found them in a German shop just across the border, demo models that the shop was trying to dispose of for a song. So, I bought them, thinking that they'd beat the pants off the LS3/5As, since they're newer and ported (rear) and therefore theoretically better in the LS3/5As' current bookshelf location (Lee tells me that the LS3/5A should be one-third the way into the room, which simply is not possible for me).

I got the opportunity to try them out against each other this weekend - and to cut a long story short, the Rogers won easily. The CDM2s were certainly more "bassy", but the amazing clarity of the Rogers' midrange carried the day for me. My listening is predominantly classical (just in case you hadn't noticed), but even on more popular stuff, the amazing little Rogers still prevailed. Had it just been the CDM2s v. the LS3/5As, I might have thought differently (although I doubt it), but with the subwoofer filling in the missing bass it was no contest. So, one very nice pair of CDM2s surplus to requirements (I'll keep them of course for other uses), but the LS3/5As remain kings of the No.2 system.

 

I'm not supprised at all. The Ls3/5a made by many of the builders was/is an excellent speaker. I would imagine that a modern version would go down a storm!

 

Tones, and there was me thinking you couldn't hear differnces , also doesn't surprise me the result at all, and the rogers are proberbly far more natural too? WM

 

Now, now, Big Namesake, I know I fail miserably in the tweak appreciation department, but I'm not deaf (yet!?).

But, yes indeed, they are more natural. They really are a remarkable achievement.

 

I bought a pair of Rogers LS3/5A in about 1974 which I kept for about 12 years until I gave them to my son as I upgraded to a Trio midi system

 

Weren't the LS3/5As originally designed as a near field studio monitor? The BBC had a design brief for a speaker with as natural a sound as possible from voice recordings.

Looks like they got it right. Nice to read that a classic designed on the back of a fag packet can still cut it in the modern world. So much for your Kevlar, composites and CADCAM modeling then

Tones, have you tried the B&W's bi-wired at all?

 

are the ls3/5as the speakers on which the Harbeth HLP3s are based?

 

Re: Re: Speaker shootout; B&W CDM2 v. Rogers LS3/5A

No, I didn't, but I might do, next time I'm in an experimental mood!

 

Ha, they really cut the mustard for you, did they, Ian?

 

Lee's your man here. I know the concepts are similar and that Harbeth was at one time a licensed manufacturer of the LS3/5A, but that's about as far as it goes.

 

And they're still in production, Zanash - see

http://www.ls35a.com/

 

harbeth and spendor continue the bbc tradition, they are derivatives, spendor still use bextrene in some speakers...

as to bbc voicing...I think I heard that the frequency response is slightly tailored in that the midrange is slightly reduced....can anyone shed light on what a bbc speaker curve or voicing is....