advertisement


Harbeth C7es and bass

Arcam 9 is nice amp with the right speaker (like some KEF QXX) but I suspect it really can't drive your speakers like they are suppose to. I've tried it with similar speakers but the sound was flat and boring until I changed the amp.
 
I'm really unconvinced about amp changes making that much difference, At least wait two weeks before making rash decisions, play them a LOT and see....?
 
Rockmeister said:
I'm really unconvinced about amp changes making that much difference, At least wait two weeks before making rash decisions, play them a LOT and see....?
Click to expand...

I went from C7ES3 to C7ES3 (35thAnniversary) 2 years ago
Same everything > just replaced the old C7's on the same spot

Did cost a little week before I recognized my sound again with more warmth and specially 3D :confused:

So yes, you must have a little patience :D
 
Robby said:
The main thing I have found with them is that if the bass is there they will produce it without it overpowering the midrange which I have found other speakers not to do..
Click to expand...

I noticed this with my little ProAcs, I think it's to do with years of listening to overly ported speakers and their unrealstic attempts at reproducing bass.

If it's well mixed and present then it's there. I'm not really sure how it works to be honest.

I'd love to hear some of the bigger harbeths.
 
I'd certainly like to hear the latest incarnation of the 5. When I auditioned mine against 7's my thinking was that the 7 had a more 'modern' digital type sound (a comparison no longer valid I think, since digital has become quite analogue in sound if that makes sense). The immeadiate difference was bass warmth...that is an added presence in the lower octaves mising in the 7. Long aquaintance now suggests that it's a very good compromise, and in the right room' can be brilliant, but if the new 5's are a tad cleaner 'down there' I might be tempted one day. I think the monitors might also be well worth an audition.
 
I'm really starting to like these, but so far I am still missing some bass. Ian Eastone is kindly going to lend me his Quad 405 so that I can test the electronics mismatch hypothesis, and I will certainly investigate room measurement when I get the time.

But I am also thinking...sub? Is this Harbeth heresy?
 
Seanm said:
I'm really starting to like these, but so far I am still missing some bass. Ian Eastone is kindly going to lend me his Quad 405 so that I can test the electronics mismatch hypothesis, and I will certainly investigate room measurement when I get the time.

But I am also thinking...sub? Is this Harbeth heresy?
Click to expand...

If you have the time, patience and money I am sure that you can get a sub to integrate well with the Harbeths. I know a few others have.

I tried with my 30.1's and gave up trying.

DSP was the way to go but to be honest I couldn't be bothered with the faff.
 
For me there's a whiff of the emperor's new clothes about Harbeth - expensive, fussy and bass light, it's the opposite of what most people want.
 
thedanfan said:
For me there's a whiff of the emperor's new clothes about Harbeth - expensive, fussy and bass light, it's the opposite of what most people want.
Click to expand...
Thats about everything that Harbeths aren't!
hahahahahaah.
Expensive? You aving a giraffe right?
FUSSY????? About what exactly? Erm, nothing at all. Ah, ok then.
and bass light? Thy have exactly as much bass extension as any similar driven cabinet, volume for volume.

So no then.
 
My P3's aren't bass light, for a small speaker far from it. If there's not much bass in the recording they don't create what isn't there. Very dynamic speaker and never fatiguing.
 
People don't seem to grasp basic speaker engineering principles. The amount of bass produced is down to a fw basic design principles (I'm no engineer, but I thought this was quite basic stuff).
Cabinet volume.
Driver size.
Transmission lines, ports etc.
It's much too complex to simplify in a few sentences, but some limitations are evident historically.
The bottom line simply is, if you want huge amounts of deep deep bass, then you need something very very BIG. Ends. :)
 
Rockmeister said:
Thats about everything that Harbeths aren't!
hahahahahaah.
Expensive? You aving a giraffe right?
FUSSY????? About what exactly? Erm, nothing at all. Ah, ok then.
and bass light? Thy have exactly as much bass extension as any similar driven cabinet, volume for volume.

So no then.
Click to expand...

No, come on, they ARE expensive
 
Assuming nothing has changed and the Harbs are properly run-In, It looks like they produce less bass than the previous Linn Keilidhs.

Are the Linn Keilidhs known for being a bit bass heavy? Or Is It the Harbs that are bass light?

If adjusting their position doesn't help, I'd take them back (can you take them back or are they secondhand?) rather than mess about with amps or trying to live with them and get some speakers that are more suitable.

You can get small speakers that produce loads of bass and large ones that sound thin, It all In the T/S parameters of the drivers and the tuning. Make the port shorter and you will get a bass boost but where the bass boost will be Is a mystery without measurements. Too much stuffing can also lower the bass level.
Some manufacturers put the driver in a big box and tune low for bass extension but at the expense of punch or thump.
 
jobseeker...+In perspective they are not really, but yes, anything over 250 for music is a lot, esp if you're on a pension like lots of us. My take on it, was that, when auditioning loudspeaks from £2000 - £5000 (for my final ever retirement present system), these were the best I heard, and also, the cheapest ( I paid 2350 back then). Lots of big, famous speakers came and went from my place. But that's just me. My mate swears his Celestions are better, and they cost him £47, so....:)
 
Fatmarley it's a mystery to me. The C7s are producing enough bass on the right recordings. The Keilidhs seemed to dig more bass out of bass-light recordings. Nothing's wrong with the Harbeths, in fact I really like them. My guess is that they are somehow more honest and that the Keilidhs - that the Keilidhs are tuned in some way to make the most of weak low frequencies. Anyway I'm finding it all very interesting.
 
If you get get hold of the FR of both loudspeakers ,measured for-field or anechoically you could discover if that is the case,
Keith
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top