|
Speaker Asylum General speaker questions for audio and home theater. |
|
|
|
Speaker Asylum General speaker questions for audio and home theater. |
|
In Reply to: Re: spendor s3/5 posted by Bob Neill on June 26, 2000 at 11:12:44:
Because I got the port business wrong, I'm going to go ahead and post the TAS review here for you as penance - lifted it off the QS&D webstite so it can't be too illegal..
Issue 119Spendor S-3/5 Mini-Monitor
The LS3/5a was not the first subcompact loudspeaker, but it was the first to gain widespread
acceptance among audiophiles. If I'm getting the history right, this happened almost by accident.
The LS3/5a was designed by the BBC to monitor broadcasts in small control-rooms where
console mounting and proximity to walls would mitigate the obvious limitations in dynamic
range and bass response (a 3db upper-bass boost in the crossover circuit helped extend the
apparent response to about 70Hz). It was the first true mini-monitor and was intended only for
professional applications, not at all for domestic use.1
Yet word of its performance leaked out to the audiophile community. When a review by J.
Gordon Holt in Stereophile brought it to the attention of American audiophiles over a quarter
century ago, the mini-monitor craze may fairly be said to have begun.2 Over its usable range the
LS3/5a was one of the most musically accurate loudspeakers ever made, with a magical
midrange. The small enclosure contributed to what was at the time unprecedented openness from
a box-type loudspeaker. In the three-plus decades of its manufacture the LS3/5a acquired the
deserved status of classic; some critics still regard it as a reference standard.
But thirty some years is a long time. Good as the LS3/5a was, driver technology and
materials had long superseded the KEF T27 tweeter and B110 bass/midrange that formed the
nucleus of the design. KEF itself had engineered superior drivers. As demand dropped, prices
rose until at one point a pair of 3/5as cost $1200 domestically - perhaps not outrageous in view
of their performance, but enough to give pause to more than a few audiophiles who recalled the
$550/pair introductory price. This past year KEF ceased manufacturing the drivers altogether
(save a small number for replacement of damaged ones), the BBC cancelled the license, a
classic passed out of production. (Sighs, short and frequent, were exhaled.)
Spendor, a licensed manufacturer of the LS3/5a, recently introduced a replacement,
designated the S-3/5.3 The driver complement consists of a 4.5-inch bass/midrange cone of
Spendors own design and a 19mm Vifa tweeter. The sealed cabinet (finished on all surfaces) is
6.5x7x12 inches, and should be stand mounted with the tweeter more or less at ear level. I
auditioned them on a pair of superb 24-inch Sound Anchor stands about five feet from the back
wall, three or so from the side walls, with an eight-foot center to center spread, the stereo plane
some ten feet from the listening area.4 It took less than a minute to recognize the S-3/5 as every
inch a Spendor, in the tradition of the BC-1 and BC-3, the SP-1 and the great SP-1/2, and easily
a worthy successor to the LS3/5a. The first item up was the Litton/Dallas Symphony CD of
Korngolds Sinfonietta [Dorian DOR-90216], which showcases some of the most accurate string
sonorities ever recorded. The higher strings were as expected, sweet and lovely, yet also
brilliant, as real strings are, right in the time-honored Spendor tradition of the highest possible
timbral accuracy. What I was unprepared for was the ripe, golden sound of the cellos that
emerged from these tiny boxes. This is one mini-monitor that is neither lean nor thin in the
warmth region; the 3/5a wasn't either, except that Spendor here manages the trick without
recourse to the crossover boost that made the 3/5a the very devil to mate with subwoofers (of
which more later).
The midrange is the principal glory of this speaker. One recording I find especially useful for
evaluating midrange coloration is Frank Sinatra Sings for Only the Lonely [Capitol
72434-94756-2-5, remastered]. Recorded in 1958 these sessions find Sinatras voice in a
relatively short-lived phase of its development. Gone are the last vestiges of its youthful bloom
(still audible to a small degree only three or four years earlier on In the Wee Small Hours of
the Morning [Capitol 72434-94755-2-6]), transformed into a subtly but distinctly darker
instrument, yet not so throaty as it would become by the time of the 1965 September of My
Years [Reprise 9 46946-2]. The constriction in the upper range has also begun to set in, but only
just. Few speakers in my experience manage accurately to reproduce the special character of his
voice during this period, including some highly regarded ones (Magneplanars make an unholy
mess of it, all head tone, no body, while the appallingly colored Avantgarde Trios give him a
bad cold). Too much emphasis in the lower midrange and upper bass and the voice is advanced
closer to the early Reprise years; an upper-midrange emphasis lightens it back in the direction
of In the Wee Small Hours. These little Spendors get it so right as to invite comparison with
Quad 63s.
The overall tonal balance is brighter than the LS3/5a both because that speaker never had an
especially extended top end and because the 3/5's Vifa tweeter sails on out pretty smoothly,
revealing all sorts of subtle ambient clues and acoustic signatures of recording venues without
calling attention to itself as such. The S-3/5 also has the famous BBC dip, shallower than that of
the LS3/5a, if memory serves, and a bit higher up (2-4K), which means that subjectively it is a
little more forward or a little less recessed, depending on your point of view (mine is toward
the latter). The bass, as I've said, is not lean or lacking in warmth, but neither could the overall
balance be described as full, being somewhat deficient in midbass solidity and missing of
course deepbass foundation.
Like most well-designed small boxes, the S-3/5 exhibits few diffraction effects or noxious
resonances, which translates into precision imaging inside a stable soundstage. The pair spread
a thrillingly layered massed-chorus across the back of the stage in Colin Davis' magnificent
recording of the Berlioz Te Deum [Philips 416 660-2, made in the days when he was still an
exciting conductor], fronted by the full orchestra with augmented brass and percussion, the
various sections of the ensemble so precisely located you could point to them. As with most
subcompact speakers, however, the soundstage is somewhat miniaturized, a miniaturization that
can also extend to the instruments in the orchestra, which is one characteristic of small speakers
that can annoy those who prefer their reproduced sound lifesize as well as lifelike. Switching
back to the Quads widens the window, deepens the stage, and restores a truer sense of scale to
the performers.
This impression of miniaturization may require a bit more talk (it really requires an essay of
its own). HP tells me he is quite sensitive to it, and I know what he means, although I find the
effect to be fairly instrument specific. With large instruments, like solo pianos, it is easiest to
hear. However, on most solo voices - say, Sinatra or Ella Fitzgerald - I really don't notice it,
though when they are backed by an ensemble, it becomes more evident as regards the
instruments (keeping in mind that the singers are usually miked far more closely than the
ensemble surrounding them, which contributes to the effect). On more intimate material, the
scaling-down is much less noticeable, if at all. My wife Danielle, whose favorite instrument is
the cello, has been listening lately to Yo-Yo Mas new recording of the Bach cello suites (Sony
S2K 63203). The S-3/5 transported Ma to our living room with almost tactile presence and
immediacy, and with a transparency that is not humiliated by the Quads. The same is true of
Jacintha's Here's to Ben [Groove Note GRV2001-2]: singing "Danny Boy" she is simply there,
in the room, right in front of you.
At a nominal 8 ohms, the S-3/5 is an altogether easier load to drive than the LS3/5a (never
one of its assets), but the sensitivity is still a low 84dB. Most of my listening was done with the
Sunfire Signature or integrated amplifiers by Anthem, NAD, and Celeste of 80 watts per channel
or more.5 It is a testimony to this speakers almost insolent robustness that it evinced no signs of
distress throughout the testing, which included some pretty high-powered material (e.g.,
Benjamin Zander's new Mahler Ninth, reviewed elsewhere in this issue). Don't let this scare
you off, however; these little guys are very equipment friendly. I know someone who is
blissfully driving them with NAD'S least expensive integrated (25 watts a side) fed by a
Technics turntable and a Pioneer DV-414 used as a CD player.
When I called the S-3/5 every inch a Spendor, I intended the highest compliment, but there is
a hidden reservation: being a mini-monitor, it has considerably fewer inches than other
Spenders. In my room I could play it nearly as loud as I could stand, but it is still not for
headbangers. Vocalists, the less demanding instrumentalists (e.g., violinists and guitars as
opposed to pianos and double basses), small ensembles, chamber and light orchestras - these it
can handle in stride. Its -3dB lower-limit is fractionally shy of the bottom note of the cello,
which means that with typical room reinforcement it will handle the instrument well enough but
which also means that it is not quite adequate for full orchestral material. When the organ enters
in the Sinfonia antartica [Naxos 8.550737] the S-3/5s let you know it's there, but it doesn't
really lift the orchestra, as it should. At this point I hooked up the REL Storm subwoofer, which
I reported on so enthusiastically last issue. It would be unfair to Spender's accomplishment to
say the REL transformed the S-3/5; let me just observe that when the deep stuff came along the
REL almost let me forget I was listening to satellites with a volume of 0.3 cubic feet each.
All of which begs a serious consumer question. The S-3/5/REL combination retails for
$2500, the price per pair of Spenders full-range SP-1/2 monitor, which I esteem one of the most
accurate loudspeakers available at any price. Which should you buy: David and Goliath or
Joshua at Jericho?
Perhaps better to ask first, is the S-3/5 a viable speaker on its own? Used within its
limitations, yes, absolutely. But I would not choose a mini-monitor for my main speakers unless
my room were very, very small.6 As my priorities assign a larger budget to sound-reproducing
equipment than most people's do, the SP-1/2 v/ould be my personal choice. Why? Well, even
though by itself its bottom-octave response is handily surpassed by the S-3/5/REL combination,
the SP-1/2 is simply a more authoritative reproducer in every other parameter of reproduction.
All else being equal, a full-size, full-range monitor will always be superior to one of
limited-range. It plays louder without strain, has greater resolution, is more transparent, throws
a more lifelike image, is that much warmer and fuller, has lower distortion per given output,
etc.. And with all that, I would still eventually use a subwoofer with the SP-1/2, as I do with my
Quad 63s.
But if I had just $900 to spend for a pair of speakers, the S-3/5 would unquestionably be on
my very short list. In the crucial midrange it is one of the most musically truthful speakers you
can buy. The ultimate accolade from a reviewer comes when he announces he has bought the
review samples. I have bought these, but my reasons may not be relevant to most prospective
purchasers.7 Perhaps a more telling testimonial comes from a seriously music-loving, though
non-audiophile, friend who stopped by one evening while my wife and I were listening to the
S-3/5s. This man was not in the market for new speakers. Yet after spending the better part of an
evening sampling a wide variety of music from Sinatra to Yo-Yo Ma to Jacintha to Mahler to
Vaughan Williams to Miles Davis, he suddenly announced that he was going to buy these
speakers which he did the very next day. So if you elect to audition a pair, perhaps it would be
wise to leave checkbook and credit cards at home. They really are that good.PAUL SEYDOR
DISTRIBUTOR INFORMATION
Q, S & D
33 McWhirt Loop, #108
Fredricksburg, Virginia 22406
800-659-5711
qsandd@aol.com
Price:$895/pairSPECIFICATIONS
Drivers: 19mm fabric dome, 130 mm filled Homopolymer cone
Nominal impedance: 8 ohms
Power Handling: 70 watts
Sensitivity: 84dB
Input connections: 4mm Gold Terminals with bi-wiring option
Crossover: 4.5kHz
Frequency response: 70Hz-20kHz +/-2dB
Pair matching: within 1 dB
Finishes: light cherry, walnut, black ash
Special Finishes: burr walnut, birdseye maple and rosewood available at $995/pair
Size: 6.5x7x12 inches
Stands: Custom Single-Post Monitor Stands
Sound Anchors
(available at Q, S & D)Finish: Black metal, welded one-piece construction,
internally damped
Height: 24 inches (others heights and top plates available on request)
Price: $269/pair
1 HP enjoins us to be exact about using the word "monitor" to refer only to speakers, regardless of size,
created specifically for professional monitoring applications. Among his reasons is the prevalence of the word
in marketing to give a cache to otherwise undeserving products. In this I concur, with the proviso that no value
judgment should necessarily be inferred from our use of the term. As with domestic speakers, monitors come
good, bad, and mediocre, their quality as such having nothing to do with their designation.
2 Rogers, the first licensed manufacturer, introduced the LS3/5a to the domestic market; later the
BBC-licensed other manufacturers were - Spendor, Chartwell, Harbeth, Monitor Audio - provided they strictly
observed the design specifications.
3 Spendor was not the first; in 1990 Harbeth brought out the HL-P3, a superlative subcompact that in several
ways eclipsed the LS3/5a.
4 I tried them in other rooms too; as with most small speakers, keep them a least a couple feet from the walls
and they're otherwise not difficult to place with good or better results.
5 Bi-wiring is an option I did not explore as I still have mixed to negative feelings about its putative
advantages, nor did I have two sets of identical speaker cables.
6 I did set them up in a tiny spare bedroom - 13.5x9.5 feet - where they made wonderful music. Using an NAD
317 integrated with tone controls of excellent characteristics, I was able to bring up the bass to a degree that, in
combination with the room reinforcement, established a remarkably strong and solid foundation to the
presentation. The small dimensions of the room and the proximity of the listening position to the speakers
(about five feet) made for satisfying levels with much less effort from the small drivers.
7 I have a use for them in their original professional application, namely as close-in monitors installed on my
Avid film-editing console. Moreover, as I consider them to be a current reference-standard for subcompact
monitors, I want a pair on hand for comparison. Truth is, I just love the sound of them.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: spendor s3/5 - Bob Neill 11:18:31 06/26/00 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
