• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Rogers LS3/5A speakers

smollett5

smollett5

Well-Known Member
I have had the opportunity to listen to these in my home office for about a month now. My system includes a McIntosh MC225 (all NOS tubes), a C11, an MR67, an MA6200, an Arcam CD 72T, a Fisher FM-1000, 500-C, 800-T and TFM-300.

I also have an Adcom GFS-6 Spealer Selector and, consequently, I can switch easily between the LS3/5As, my KEF Corellis and Tannoy Mercury S speakers. Adjustments with the volume control compensate for the slight differences in efficiency.

Based upon a month of listening, I can find precious little to distinguish these three speakers, all of which sound neutral, realistic, and coherent. In fact, I could easily make the argument that the Corellis (which use the same tweeter as the Rogers) sound superior because they produce slightly better and deeper bass. The same goes for the Tannoys's sound qualities.

This leads me to ask why the Rogers speakers - admittedly excellent but not, to my ears, superior to the two other pair - command so high a multiple of the price of the others. A good used pair of Rogers LS3/5As can fetch $2,000 to $2,500 on eBay or Audiogon, while the Corellis bring around $300 and the even more scarce Mercury S speakers will go from $40 to $325. I had hoped that my extended and attentive listening to all three would reveal the secret of the Rogers' pricing, but I can only scratch my head and wonder. As I noted, once equalized for efficiency, I doubt if 99 listeners out of 100 could distinguish between these three speakers.

Any thoughts?
 
Register to hide this ad
I think part of it is that you are paying for a piece of hifi history. The LS3/5A is so legendary because the BBC designed and used it, and it is so well made and easy to place. In Japan it seems to be the perfect speaker for a vintage hifi fan, because Japanese homes usually have very limited space, and I think the Japanese started the whole craze about the LS3/5A. I find my Kef Chorale, Reference 101 and Calinda speakers have some of the very qualities that the LS3/5A are famous for, but there's no great aura surrounding these speakers, so you can get them fairly cheaply (OK, the 101's are a bit more expensive, but not very). Still, I can see why a design classic might be sought after and worth a lot of money, even if it's not really that much better than some of today's offerings. I'd sure like a pair!
 
I'm wondering how far away you were doing your listening comparisons. I suggest trying the test again, but with all three set up as the LS3/5a was intended for use: As an extreme near-field monitor. Perhaps no more than 6 feet back at the most, as they were designed for mobile studios housed in vans.

The Reference 101 has a flatter crossover design, and a much more dense cabinet. The can fill up a bigger room (but not a BIG room) a lot better than the LS3/5a design can. I much prefer the sound of mine sans grilles.

One suggestion though, and it has been my experience that vintage KEF speakers do require some mechanical/cabinet maintenance, and I'm sure the Rogers will not differ much from this. The suggestion is a simple test to see if the cabinet is still properly sealed. GENTLY press inward on the woofer near, but not on, the dustcap, preferably using even pressure all the way around. There should be a strong resistance to your pressing inward, and it should move out quite slowly. If it goes in easily, and pops back out quickly, it is time to re-seal the drivers in the cabinet (yes, the tweeter as well). If you hear something akin to an old man wheezing, it is DEFINITELY time to re-seal the cabinet!:D
 
Not to worry - six feet from all three sets of speakers, which have been checked and properly maintained. All screws properly torqued.
I still think the Corellis come out slightly ahead, as do the Tannoys.
In any event, other than the provenance of Rogers/BBC ancestry, I cannot understand a price multiple of eight.
 
Bit late for this reply, but I have LS3/5a, KEF Corellis, Cadenza, Concerto and many other speakers. The LS3/5a has tightly controlled spec, but there are favourite makers and vintages. Some of the Rogers did not come out that well in the LS3/5a shootout.

http://www.g4dcv.co.uk/shootout.html

The 15 Ohm Chartwells LS3/5a that I have did come out well. Now if I compare these with the Corellis (a very good amplifier is needed here, I use a Radford STA25, I have done speaker comparisons using lesser (though expensive and respected) amps and been mislead, I notice a similarity of sound, with the Corellis going down a bit lower.

However, in longer term listening, the midrange of the Corelli can be heard to be coloured, top end not as sweet.

The Corellis induce some listening fatigue, not so with the Chartwell LS3/5a.

Then we have the size, even if the sound of the Corelli was as good as the LS3/5a the 5a is much smaller. Ideal for people who want a good sound in a very small package. That may be one of the reasons why a lot end up in Hong Kong and Japan and why they are so keen to buy them at high prices.

I forgot to mention that I have JR149 as well, similar sound to the LS3/5a, slightly better bass, but unfortunately the all important midrange fails to have the quality of the LS3/5a.
 
Last edited:
I find it hard to believe that the Tannoy Mercury is the sonic equal of the LS3/5A. I don't think I have heard a better, more balanced sound from a small speaker, save perhaps my JR 149's, which had the identical components in a different(cylindrical) enclosure. It takes extended listening to really appreciate just how good they are. They certainly don't have the dynamic range of more recent designs, nor the efficiency. But with the right ancillary components and the right music, the imaging and sound is hard to surpass.
 
Well, I have listened to the Rogers speakers for two months now, driven by a pristine McIntosh MC225 and a C11. Maybe I have tin ears, but the Corellis have better bass and the Tannoys sound just as good, with greater efficiency. I can understand the attraction of the Rogers if you live in a dorm room or Japanese apartment (and have lots of money), but they simply do not better the other two.

I have a hunch that scarcity value, the elimination of Rogers as a manufacturer, and a few other factors account for the fantastic premium these speakers extract from the market. Not many people may want to hear this explanation. Of course, I do not mean to say the Rogers do not sound fine - they do. I merely draw attention to the notion that one can obtain equivalent sound for a mere fraction of the price - if one disregards name, reputation, and market hype.
 
My buddy owns the LS3/5A's. I owned the JR's. Both had a fantastic sound stage and superb imaging. Mine had a bit better bass because of the slightly larger enclosure.

I don't have a tin ear. I played the violin for years. Try that with a tin ear. My tonal pitch recognition was tested equal to that of a symphony conductor, not once, but twice. Not boasting, just fact. To my ears, the Tannoys are simply not as refined. The KEF's I have not heard, although I am a big fan of most KEF speakers. The LS and the JR's were not cheap to begin with. Mine were about $600/pr in the '70's. I think the LS were even more. It would be interesting to compare the complex crossovers of the LS and the JR with those of the Tannoys. Complex engineering costs big time.
 
Dont get me wrong, I love my 15 Ohm Chartwell LS3/5a, but that complex crossover is there not only to divide the frequencies, but to compensate for inherent problems in the drive units. Having such a complex crossover in a speaker is not in itself a bonus. It adds its own problems. However, the end result with the LS3/5a is good.

If that type of speaker was designed today, drive units with less inherent problems are available, therefore a simpler crossover could be used and the result should be better.

But as someone said:

" Speaker technology has made great advances in the last 30 years, shame that the sound of them hasn't"




sealy said:
It would be interesting to compare the complex crossovers of the LS and the JR with those of the Tannoys. Complex engineering costs big time.
Click to expand...
 
I believe the Rogers speakers are 15 ohms, while the other 2 are probably
8 ohms. For a true unbiased comparison, each should be powered by its
proper impedance, and the level should be matched to .1dB. Then make
your comparisons. If all are run from an 8 ohm tap, the 8 ohm speakers will
sound louder and according to Fletcher and Munson, louder will always sound
better.
 
brassteacher said:
i'm wondering how far away you were doing your listening comparisons. I suggest trying the test again, but with all three set up as the ls3/5a was intended for use: As an extreme near-field monitor. Perhaps no more than 6 feet back at the most, as they were designed for mobile studios housed in vans.
Click to expand...

yes!
 
What sets the rogers LS3/5A speakers apart is their great musical communication skills......something to die for in my believe. So i dont compare to other speakers in terms like...less bass, less detailed....nonsense in this case for me.
 
Pretty much so (with the level matching) except that a really really awful speaker will still sound inferior, even if it is louder.

A low impedance speaker, is not necessarily louder than a higher impedance speaker for a given amplifier setting though.

For instance, a vintage 15 Ohm Tannoy dual concentric on an amplifier at a set output, will be louder (much) than say an 8 Ohm KEF Corelli.

I believe that the so called 15 Ohm LS3/5a and the later so called 11 Ohm LS3/5a will have the same output when compared on the same amplifier and setting. The reason for this is that the BBC needed complete interchangeability between loudspeaker systems of the same type. If one box failed and another was taken out of the stores, it would still be in spec with the original good one and all other LS3/5as whether 11 or 15 Ohm and regardless of manufacturer (eg. Rogers, Chartwell, Spendor, Harbeth, Goodmans, Audiomaster). Before the LS3/5a was the LS3/5, basically the same speaker (earlier versions of the same drive units), but the later version had to be a different number (hence the A) as there were very slight differences in the performance.

PS. I notice smollett5 is using a tube amp you mention taps, I am assuming using a solid state amp with no transformers on the output.

A good tube amp should go very nicely with the LS3/5a



philcib said:
I believe the Rogers speakers are 15 ohms, while the other 2 are probably
8 ohms. For a true unbiased comparison, each should be powered by its
proper impedance, and the level should be matched to .1dB. Then make
your comparisons. If all are run from an 8 ohm tap, the 8 ohm speakers will
sound louder and according to Fletcher and Munson, louder will always sound
better.
Click to expand...
 
Without starting a flame war, I'd suggest that possibly th source material may be a limiting factor. I've tried to use CDs for comparing components with varying success. FM is even less capable as it is not a repeatable source. They will do okay for discovering general sonic charactoristics of a system and to some degree things like coloration but comparing different units above a certain level, you need better source material. Records with a very good cartridge and arm and reel to reel, preferably HS 1/2 track masters. You also have to factor in the price per performance improvement factor. At some point fo an individual to hear better results the costs start to increase dramatically. You may spend $1,000 to hit say a 90% level of satisfaction and to get to 95% the cost may be $2,500 and to get to 97% the cost may be $8,000. Lastly, a MC225 is a fine power amp as well as the C11 is a fine preamp but, the C11 is not a great preamp for revealing information. It is excelent as a listener long term with no fatique and delivering an very satisfying performance reproducton but it is just not up to a level that can be used for revealing the nuances in a high end shootout. Please, befoe becoming offended or striking back remember my main system for some 40 years has been McIntosh. You may have found the point where there is a limitation with one of your upstream components that is impeding the comparison. Another thought, have you tried the Rogers on a different impedence tap? The impedence spec is a nominal specification and not an absolute. Looking at the curves of many speakers the nominal impedence must be a marketing joke though I do not think it is the case with the Rogers.
 
This is why I mentioned "So called 15 Ohm LS3/5a" "So Called 11 Ohm LS3/5a" the impedance of these still varies a lot over the freq range. I have not looked at the curves for years though.

Yes, source quality is a problem. In the UK, I am finding that FM sound quality is getting worse, even from the BBC.

I drive my tube Radford STA25 power amplifier direct from a good PC sound card and that seems to be pretty good (certainly a repeatable quality). I do not now use a pre amp (well most of the time).
 
Nope, My Rogers LS2s have a Rogers labelled 5" KEF bass/ mid with the same chassis as the KEF B110 in the LS3/5a, but a Polypropylene cone instead of the LS3/5as Bextrene cone.

And the tweeter is a soft dome Vifa in the LS2, not the KEF T27 as in LS3/5a.

In my view, the LS2 is not in the same league as the LS3/5a, makes more noise for less input, but mid sounds coloured in comparison to LS3/5a.

LS2 may be more suited to pop/ rock, still not a bad speaker. Don't think Rogers actually made a bad speaker.

Here is a pic of the LS2, one can see that the bass unit cone is not the black of the standard B110, also that tweeter is not the KEF T27.

http://jpggif.kir.jp/p-s05u/s0468u.jpg

botrytis said:
LS3/5A's are known for midrange not bass. ALso they do not like being overdriven. I have heard them on some nice push-pull tube amps which sound beautiful. They really were designed as nearfield monitors.

I would more compare the others to the Rogers LS2's. The LS2's are the same drivers with a different crossover (which is uber complex in the LS3/5A's) in a bgger box. They come off as more dynamic and have more bass (and the box is ported vs. sealed for the LS3/5A's)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom