Talk:LS3/5A/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jamesx12345 (talk · contribs) 20:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll take this one on, having seen it languish far too long. James^x12345 20:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• • Note: my responses indented:
• "as opposed to the "LS5" loudspeaker, intended for studio monitoring" - does "studio monitoring" here mean an indoors studio?
  • yes, proper studio environment
• "using headphones is unsatisfactory" - is there a straightforward reason for this?
  • none was cited, but then listening through speakers and through headphones isn't the same experience at all.
• "There were no commercial constraints." - does that mean that they didn't design it to be sold, and so there was no emphasis on "features"?
  • Yes. It was primarily for own use, and the Beeb, being the Beeb, didn't care about cost required to achieve the necessary quality. £100k is quite a large sum of money to be spent on development in the early seventies
• "built using the" - mention that these are drive units.
  • added.
• "had initiated tendering" - odd use of past tense - relative to what?
  • The follow-on is that the spec had to be changed in mid process. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in this part of the review. James^x12345 19:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Its internal walls are heavily damped, only specific speaker..." - already mentioned.
• "The name was..." - it isn't immediately clear that the name is Rogers.
• "Spendor's production amounted..." - the other produces could be introduced better.
• "and became easier to drive" - redundant to decrease in resistance.
• "matched by computer." - not very precise. "matched to each other by computer testing" or something is a bit clearer.
• The Legacy section is a bit odd. The source mentions the LS3 a few times, but I don't really see the connection
• Will this come to anything?
• Note 1 is a bit confusing. A note on what the year means (first manufactured?) would help.

• Just pinging Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) you to let you know there are still a few things to be done. James^x12345 13:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Jamesx12345:I have now tried to clarify the points raised. Further comments welcome. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Looks fine now. Thanks, James^x12345 21:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)