Thank you, will there be a copy available at the Heathrow show at the end of the month?

Just recently picked up a pair of Rogers LS3/6 and the chap selling offered me a set of cables for nothing.
Said they were purchased in the late 70s and I think these are probably the Monitor Audio litz cables referred to earlier in the thread with lots of very fine insulated green and copper coloured strands.
Some google searching seems to confirm this, and a pair recently sold on eBay for £400!
I won't be using them but they do look pretty:

---

Rob

The identical version on eBay is sold as Polk Cobra, so that is probably what you had.
Looks like MA might have been importing it into the uk.

---

Rob

Don't worry Martin, I've no intention of putting this stuff anywhere near an amplifier.

The LS3/6 however are quite stunning - closest thing I've heard to a 'box' ESL57.
I'm surprised that I like the sound as I'm not a fan of LS3/5a, however these really put some meat onto the bones and sound absolutely stunning.
Need to sort some stands soon as I've got them on low stools for the moment.
These certainly make a nice alternative to the ESL when I need to entertain more than one pair of ears!

Perhaps we can have a dedicated BBC legacy thread. Quite timely given the sad news that the BBC Research Department at Kingswood Warren is no more.

---

Rob

I believe that it was the 3/6 that I heard at the Chicago CES one year and liked so well I ordered a couple of pair. For whatever reason they never showed up, probably due to a change in importers. The hotel rooms were not a good environment and this is one of the few instances where something really impressed me.

After checking the web it was the Export Monitors I saw. If the 3/6s were even better they must have been exceptional. I see on the HIFIWIGWAM forum that a pair of Export Monitors sold in Dec. for 130 pounds.

The drivers were the original cast frame with part Richard Allan parts and that gold BBC label on the magnet

I still have a pair of drivers

I had to re glue the pvc surrounds as the special surround plasticiser , another secret of the recipe , degraded the original bond between cone and surround.

MartinC

Back to cables

I would like to see some feedback on the Cable RFI piece I penned for the current issue

what are your findings , experiences of system combinations, mains filters and cable variability?

MartinC

Hope you have it now !



No sign here of these cable differences going away.


We have begun a dialogue with the research group including HI Fi Plus
Russ Andrews, Nordost and Vertex AQ to better exchange ideas experiences and tests on cables .

Anecdotal material welcomed on this forum .


MartinC

Yes, have it now! Thanks.

I have strong issues with the latest round of Nordost commissioned cable / tweak measurements in that there is no clear explanation of what was measured and the equipment and settings used to gather those measurements and no followable overall methodology. As far as the information is given to roughly describe what they're doing, if I'm interpreting their information correct, I don't believe that the methodology is even valid.

However, I'm fully behind good scientific measurement of cables, with fully described methodology to make the experiment repeatable by 3rd parties.

As you know my background is digital imaging and digital cinema cameras, and there are some parallels (and differences) to digital audio. I often use a difference test to tell how well a codec is working, or if two ways of doing the same image processing are functionally equivalent. However, with my testing, it's all digital. At no point do I transform a digital image to a visual image via a display and use a camera to capture it to analyze it's difference to the original data.

However, with my understanding (and I'd like that understanding to be clarified) is that in their testing, they're doing exactly what I don't do - compare original audio data with a digitized version of the analogue output. If my understanding is correct, then I don't see how that is valid as the audio data should be different to the analogue waveform, not least by virtue of the reconstruction filter.

That's not my understanding of their literature, so if you can get some clarification on what they're up to, that'd be appreciated.

I know wikipedia is not perfect, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodology - so yes, we need their methods, but a more complete understanding of their methodology would by necessity include their methods, and give us a greater insight into their studies - why they chose those particular methods and the rationale behind them.