That's useful. Long-term experience is usually more reliable than short-term ones. Thanks.
Harbeth and Graham and Focal, oh my . . .
- Thread starter plimpington2
- Start date
That's useful. Long-term experience is usually more reliable than short-term ones. Thanks.
Elephantears
Trunkated Aesthete
Robert E. Greene did a fascinating review of the Graham LS5/9 with some very useful comparisons with Harbeth, specifically the M30.1, which chime with my listening:
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/graham-ls59-loudspeaker/
I'll paste the relavant comparative paragraphs below:
'...as one might expect, among the BBC-oriented group, which if not a cult in any negative sense is surely a dedicated bunch with shared interests, there is a difference of view on the question of such small differences as exist among the various BBC heritage speakers. In particular, the Harbeth speakers, themselves outstanding examples of the survival of BBC ideas, tend to have a bit of extra energy in the 400 to 800Hz region, even the ones that are officially monitors, like the M30.1s and M40.1s. (The original M40s are an exception, being flat in this region.) You can see this for example on the (all but infallible) NRC measurements of the Harbeth M30, published on soundstage.com.
Enthusiasts of Harbeth have expressed dismay at any sign of midrange recession. This kind of controversy over things that seem small to the outside world is what happens when one gets really interested in some specialized matter. (Ask people who really care about pitch or temperament of scales!) Personally, I am somewhere in the middle—I liked to push up the 400 to 800Hz octave of the LS5/9 very slightly and push down 1.25kHz a bit. But on the Harbeth M30.1, I liked to pull down the 400 to 800Hz region. I am not at all fond of midrange projection. Recession of the mids can be a problem too, but the effect with the LS5/9s is small and mostly just moves the image back a bit.
I also reduced the 4-to-8kHz octave of the LS5/9 slightly. With these small adjustments, the LS5/9 could be brought into what I perceived as an almost completely neutral tonal balance. On its own, it is already fairly flat and neutral sounding, but as John Dunlavy used to remark, once you are flat within a dB or two, getting even flatter and more neutral becomes of really great interest.'
This appears to contradict what Ayya claimed above about the presence region on the LS5/9. I don't know the speaker well enough to enter that discussion. However the comparison with the M30.1 seems correct. I certainly found the M30.1 tended to project the mid-range, which I like, but just a tiny bit too much. The M30.1 is the one that would have the most recessed presence region of all the speakers under discussion; I'm pretty sure of that; and that might account for the OPs preference for the Grahams.
I've done quite a few comparisons of similar sized BBC monitors; another interesting one was Spendor Sp2/3r2 vs Harbeth C7 ES2, because they emphasized quite different parts of the mid-range, and they had quite different port behaviour. For me, these medium sized BBC monitors are the interesting battle ground, since I've decided LS3/6 is too big a box for my room. However none of the currently available ones quite get it right for me. I'm with REG on the LS5/9 vs M30.1; both are good but both miss the ideal in slightly different ways. I tend towards the C7 but it is less refined, has some issues around the presence region, and probably would benefit from a better soft dome tweeter. The Spendor SP2/3r2 has a lower mid-range emphasis, which is satisfying on some material, muddy on others, and the bass extension is too reliant on an oversized port. I've not heard the Stirling model.
http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/graham-ls59-loudspeaker/
I'll paste the relavant comparative paragraphs below:
'...as one might expect, among the BBC-oriented group, which if not a cult in any negative sense is surely a dedicated bunch with shared interests, there is a difference of view on the question of such small differences as exist among the various BBC heritage speakers. In particular, the Harbeth speakers, themselves outstanding examples of the survival of BBC ideas, tend to have a bit of extra energy in the 400 to 800Hz region, even the ones that are officially monitors, like the M30.1s and M40.1s. (The original M40s are an exception, being flat in this region.) You can see this for example on the (all but infallible) NRC measurements of the Harbeth M30, published on soundstage.com.
Enthusiasts of Harbeth have expressed dismay at any sign of midrange recession. This kind of controversy over things that seem small to the outside world is what happens when one gets really interested in some specialized matter. (Ask people who really care about pitch or temperament of scales!) Personally, I am somewhere in the middle—I liked to push up the 400 to 800Hz octave of the LS5/9 very slightly and push down 1.25kHz a bit. But on the Harbeth M30.1, I liked to pull down the 400 to 800Hz region. I am not at all fond of midrange projection. Recession of the mids can be a problem too, but the effect with the LS5/9s is small and mostly just moves the image back a bit.
I also reduced the 4-to-8kHz octave of the LS5/9 slightly. With these small adjustments, the LS5/9 could be brought into what I perceived as an almost completely neutral tonal balance. On its own, it is already fairly flat and neutral sounding, but as John Dunlavy used to remark, once you are flat within a dB or two, getting even flatter and more neutral becomes of really great interest.'
This appears to contradict what Ayya claimed above about the presence region on the LS5/9. I don't know the speaker well enough to enter that discussion. However the comparison with the M30.1 seems correct. I certainly found the M30.1 tended to project the mid-range, which I like, but just a tiny bit too much. The M30.1 is the one that would have the most recessed presence region of all the speakers under discussion; I'm pretty sure of that; and that might account for the OPs preference for the Grahams.
I've done quite a few comparisons of similar sized BBC monitors; another interesting one was Spendor Sp2/3r2 vs Harbeth C7 ES2, because they emphasized quite different parts of the mid-range, and they had quite different port behaviour. For me, these medium sized BBC monitors are the interesting battle ground, since I've decided LS3/6 is too big a box for my room. However none of the currently available ones quite get it right for me. I'm with REG on the LS5/9 vs M30.1; both are good but both miss the ideal in slightly different ways. I tend towards the C7 but it is less refined, has some issues around the presence region, and probably would benefit from a better soft dome tweeter. The Spendor SP2/3r2 has a lower mid-range emphasis, which is satisfying on some material, muddy on others, and the bass extension is too reliant on an oversized port. I've not heard the Stirling model.
Rockmeister
pfm Member
I agree about the Harbeth 7's which are to me, Harbeths least successful box since they simply just a little disjointed I thought and use clarity without integration if that makes sense. Everything is there but I didn't much enjoy hearing it.
Comparisons to the older sHL5 are ok, but the Plus is an entirely different speaker, which takes all the positives of the 7, adds enough extra bass and warmth to bring back the enjoyment and then multiplies the whole lot by some. After about 50 albums I've only found 2 which didn't please, both because of top end harshness, and like elephant, wondered about the metal dome tweeter. A quick check on the Shure headphones revealed that I was just hearing the recording's shortcomings exactly as they exist.
Some argue that a decent HiFi should make everything sound good, but I can't agree. Now that I have a system that really works well, I just have to accept that some recordings are horrible.
BTW, it's the bass that has changed the most. After about 3 and a half minutes into Billy Cobhams 'Spectrum' (Vinyl only...the CD for some reason uses a different master) the drums fade down to a few cymbol notes and then kick in with an almighty WHUMP BANG that preludes 5 minutes of driving bass and drum jazz. Brilliant. On the previous s5 there was more of a whm bing..but now ! Anyway, suffice to say that given a few watts Harbeths now officially can rock.
Comparisons to the older sHL5 are ok, but the Plus is an entirely different speaker, which takes all the positives of the 7, adds enough extra bass and warmth to bring back the enjoyment and then multiplies the whole lot by some. After about 50 albums I've only found 2 which didn't please, both because of top end harshness, and like elephant, wondered about the metal dome tweeter. A quick check on the Shure headphones revealed that I was just hearing the recording's shortcomings exactly as they exist.
Some argue that a decent HiFi should make everything sound good, but I can't agree. Now that I have a system that really works well, I just have to accept that some recordings are horrible.
BTW, it's the bass that has changed the most. After about 3 and a half minutes into Billy Cobhams 'Spectrum' (Vinyl only...the CD for some reason uses a different master) the drums fade down to a few cymbol notes and then kick in with an almighty WHUMP BANG that preludes 5 minutes of driving bass and drum jazz. Brilliant. On the previous s5 there was more of a whm bing..but now ! Anyway, suffice to say that given a few watts Harbeths now officially can rock.
Elephantears
Trunkated Aesthete
No, that's not my point of view. They are actually my favourites in some ways. However they are flawed in diffent ways to the others. People have tended to exagerate these flaws since the M30.1 came out, which became flavour of the month, but just had a different type of flaw.
Ayya Khema
pfm Member
ive contacted graham and even themselves talk about a dip around 1.7khz to 2.8khz. my measurements confirms that and ive showed my measurements to them and they confirmed its normal
REG desire to lower the 4khz also makes sense to make the whole region from 1.5khz to 6khz flat basically therefore making the built in dip of the ls5/9 more uniform.
Elephantears
Trunkated Aesthete
What concerns me is that he finds 400 to 800 Hz slightly recessed. I suspect this is why the LS5/9s didn't quite seduce me on two or three occasions I've heard them. When Walrus was still open I heard them next to the Stirling LS3/6 and preferred the latter. The LS5/9s just seemed a bit too light for me, but I'd like to give them another chance and would love to hear them at home.
Ayya Khema
pfm Member
my measurements of the graham show that the 400hz to 800hz is perfectly flat with the rest of the FR
It's actually not always fine even if you are on axis, because you hear both direct and reflected sound, so depending on the room, there will be a dip in the power response where the 8 falls away off axis.
tuga
Legal Alien
That is correct, although in my experience it can actually sound better balanced in the smaller british rooms where you get strong side-wall reflections, particularly if you use a short-wall setup.
This is the horizontal response of my previous speakers (3-way, 3 waveguided 5¼" woofers) and of the current pair (2-way (+supertweeter), 8" woofer crossed at 3kHz) which relaxes off-axis in the presence region:
PSB Imagine T2, lateral response family at 50", normalized to response on tweeter axis,
from back to front: differences in response 90–5° off axis, reference response, differences in response 5–90° off axis.
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/psb-imagine-t2-tower-loudspeaker-measurements
Stirling BBC LS3/6, lateral response family at 50" without grille, normalized to response on lower tweeter axis,
from back to front: differences in response 90–5° off axis, reference response, differences in response 5–90° off axis.
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/stirling-broadcast-bbc-ls36-loudspeaker-measurements
tuga
Legal Alien
The (2-way, 8" woofer crossed at ~2.2kHz) also shows the same increase in directivity at the top of the woofer's passband:
Audio Note AN-E Lexus Signature, lateral response family at 50", normalized to response on tweeter axis,
from back to front: differences in response 90–5° off axis, reference response, differences in response 5–90° off axis.
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/audio-note-e-lexus-signature-loudspeaker-measurements
Audio Note AN-E Lexus Signature, lateral response family at 50", normalized to response on tweeter axis,
from back to front: differences in response 90–5° off axis, reference response, differences in response 5–90° off axis.
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/audio-note-e-lexus-signature-loudspeaker-measurements
Elephantears
Trunkated Aesthete
Some of your measurements seem to be quite flattering. Perhaps you can explain what equipment you are using, the room and method; presumably very near field.
Martyn Miles
pfm Member
Interesting that sometimes you prefer the Graham to the Harbeth and then the other way around at other times.
I had a similar situation with my Harbeth P3-ESRs and Falcon LS3/5as. In the end it was the ‘ESRs I could live with
long term and the ‘3/5as went to a happy owner.
I had a pair of very directive TAD horn/hybrids once and it does come in handy to have narrow directivity allowing you to place the speaker nearer the side wall. I also used to have a MLSSA system years ago when I had my first speaker company, so I'm familliar with it. However,
my subjective listening tells me that it is better to keep a reasonable off axis response that doesn't change too much, and certainly doesn't change suddenly.
So you have an 8 which narrows up around 1.8k or wherever, but then you have a tweeter coming in with really wide directivity anyway. So the woofer beams and the tweeter doesn't...
I just finished up a design, an 8 inch 3 way using a mid dome crossed at 800 Hz. I'm using a new 8 inch "ceramic" cones and I'm going to release it as a commerical speaker. The woofer sounds terrible somwhere over 1.8k, but wonderful up to that point (stiff driver).
So what 8 inch woofer are you using that sounds nice around 2-3k ?
my subjective listening tells me that it is better to keep a reasonable off axis response that doesn't change too much, and certainly doesn't change suddenly.
So you have an 8 which narrows up around 1.8k or wherever, but then you have a tweeter coming in with really wide directivity anyway. So the woofer beams and the tweeter doesn't...
I just finished up a design, an 8 inch 3 way using a mid dome crossed at 800 Hz. I'm using a new 8 inch "ceramic" cones and I'm going to release it as a commerical speaker. The woofer sounds terrible somwhere over 1.8k, but wonderful up to that point (stiff driver).
So what 8 inch woofer are you using that sounds nice around 2-3k ?
tuga
Legal Alien
Using a waveguide with the tweeter would make the off-axis transition less pronounced, maybe even a wide baffle.
Ayya Khema
pfm Member
its not interesting, its a pain
I wish i could be more certain of my choice but the fact is boh are amazing and i could live with both.
the graham are slightly more dynamic and faster and i seem to hear a more coherent bass to mid transition. the graham are brighter and the tweeter is less forgiving. id say the graham have more depht in the soundstage. the harbeth are more organic but slightly slower and less dynamic, the midrange is smoother and they have more bass. i prefer the treble of the harbeth. as a whole i feel the harbeth are even more coherent.
its a really tough decision honestly :s
Ayya Khema
pfm Member
speaker desing its all tradeoffs
ever heard of voxativ, lowther ect, i myself like widebanders
i personally find a 8 inch can sound great up to 3 khz
tuga
Legal Alien
Single driver speakers have many shortcomings — e.g. reduced bandwidth, either little bass or little treble, extreme beaming at the top end of the spectrum, up-tilting frequency response from top to bottom, uncontrolled cone break-up resonances, intermodulation distortion, limited dynamic abilities when small cones are used, etc. — making it a topology with very low performance potential.
Ayya Khema
pfm Member
well, i was addressing how high a 8 inch driver can go. anyways most serious implementation of widebanders is highpassing them around 200/300hz (which eliminate some of the shortcomings youve explained) and place them in a FAST or nowadays open baffle with 15 inchers doing the bass duty.
so yes, a 8 inch can sound good up to 10khz. yes its not ideal in the BBC school to bring a 8 inch up to 3khz, but its a compromise that imo makes a lot of sense in many ways (no crossover up until 3khz, decent bass due to using a 8 incher, relatively big image and dynamics).
Yank
Bulbous Also Tapered
...and high frequency distortion.