Which Rogers 3/5 A is the best ever made

Hi Davetc,
But what should I take the bi-wire option or not ?
Are the AB woofers really cooherent intergrated with the speakers or is it better to not use the AB subwoofer, please advise ?

Rademaker, Charlie, the Compact 7 (with Radial technology material introduced in 1995 and improved a little bit last year) is NOT an LS3/5a equivalent or replacement. It's about 8 times the size, I think.

Harbeth made an LS3/5a replacement in the same shoebox size. It was the Hl-P3 and was (arguably) better than any 3/5a in a couple of respects. I have a pair, and I think they play just a little louder, are not nasal like the 3/5a, have a clearer less colored midrange and more tuneful bass. But they were replaced in 1996 or so by the HL-P3ES, same size but somewhat different I understand, which Harbeth now markets as the 3/5a for the next century (millenium?). Spendor sells something called the S3/5 I think that Ive heard is also better than the 3/5a in some respects.

But, I dont think any of these comments are responsive to the original question. Which 3/5a is better? The early Rogers are classics and now command high resale prices as they have quite a following. If you believe the December 1993 review of the P3, new Harbeth 3/5a and comparison to a ca 1978 Rogers, there may be something to be said for the later model Harbeth. StoneAudio in the UK may have a few left of the last production run.

There are about 50,000 LS3/5a afficionados out there. One of them should endeavor to answer Rademaker's question.

Well, I can't answer your question, but I did own Rogers Ls3/5a's that were purchased new in late 1978 or early 1979. I don't know what the ohm rating was but they only had a single pair of banana connections on the back. I regret ever selling them in 1985 and would love to have another pair today for the spare room, but proper setup would be hard to pull off. The bass was a little humpy and ragged and the highs were not nearly as good as the Reynauds that I have now, BUT it was the overall sound that I liked and I just ended up listening to the music and forgetting about the system when I had them. They sounded bad in large rooms, needed to be far from the front wall and mounted very high up to sound best. I had them on three cement blocks stacked end to end which would be about 45"+ off the floor. They didn't sound good with SS and even my Mac 30's couldn't push them very well in the room (which had very high ceilings). I ended up running them with Stereo 70's as mono blocks and later added two homebrew subwoofers with tube crossovers which were run by the Mac 30's (never tried the Roger's subwoofers). They needed all of this (not the subs though) to sound their best. The room was a good one (approx. 10' x 15') with slap plaster walls that curved into the ceiling, wood floors and a large wool rug, so I can't imagine that it was the room that was fussy. I also asked the same question as you a year ago when I was hot for another pair and was told that the early models were the best and that the Rogers JR-149's (the round tube shaped version) were even better. I had tried to purchase the JR-149's in the early 80's but was never able to locate a pair.

A little correction the correct name for these speakers are BBC LS3/5a,Rogers was just one of the manufacturer.A few years back Rogers did remake these speakers which were the limited edition version, these speakers used better components for the crossover and have a beutiful finnish and I think only 50 pairs were made .Harbeth also came up with a Memorial Edition and so did KEF.

Rogers made the original higher ohm version, which is the highlighted model in question. The speakers were licensed by the BBC, but I do not beleive that 'BBC" was part of their namesake, at least they were not advertised with it in the name in the late 70's nor was is used on the paper labels on my speakers. The designation was LS3/5a and of course Rogers, the manufacturer. Just a little further correction.