advertisement


Graham Audio LS5/9

That sound like a system
The system was the same for each pair of speakers:
LFD NSCE II amp
Rega ISIS cd player
Tellurium Q Black


The electronics you list are anything but bright, that said l own the Tellurium Q Black speakers cables and l can knock up three different systems and l have had very mixed results with the TQ Black speaker cable- one sounding very bright, another sounding meh and and another sounding utterly superb- incredibly smooth.... all in my system of course.:)
 
Are they any different from a Graham fanboy? :D
Well I have never experienced Graham fanboys on these forums, only appreciation for the bbc school of design and the different manufacturers of them.
It is not possible to hear so big a difference between bbc design as is implied here, either something was wrong with the speakers or this is a troll post.
 
Well I have never experienced Graham fanboys on these forums, only appreciation for the bbc school of design and the different manufacturers of them.
It is not possible to hear so big a difference between bbc design as is implied here, either something was wrong with the speakers or this is a troll post.
hi
I had Graham ls5/9, along the Harbeth shl5plus for 6 months, in the same room.

They both sounded very similar. BUT
Ill quote some of my previous comments, i did notice subjectively and objectiely (via measurements), some slight deviation of neutrality in the graham.
"the treble seemed just slightly too pronunced.. compared to shl5plus, I also thought the ls59 was slightly less involving but more raw and dynamic. both are excellent and I could live with both though"


However, in reality, both the Harbeth and the Graham sounded very similar generally.
I would describe the Harbeth shl5plus as a relatively bright speaker. and I think the graham is even brighter. Its not far fetch to describe the Graham ls59 as slightly- bright.

Edit: hmm, looking at ls59 measurements, i dont see any treble elevation (maybe +1db?), only a dip at 4khz. that dip is weird imo in a 6000$ speaker honestly. https://pinkfishmedia.net/forum/threads/graham-audio-ls5-9.227865/#post-3669441
 
hi
I had Graham ls5/9, along the Harbeth shl5plus for 6 months, in the same room.

They both sounded very similar. BUT
Ill quote some of my previous comments, i did notice subjectively and objectiely (via measurements), some slight deviation of neutrality in the graham.
"the treble seemed just slightly too pronunced.. compared to shl5plus, I also thought the ls59 was slightly less involving but more raw and dynamic. both are excellent and I could live with both though"


However, in reality, both the Harbeth and the Graham sounded very similar generally.
I would describe the Harbeth shl5plus as a relatively bright speaker. and I think the graham is even brighter. Its not far fetch to describe the Graham ls59 as slightly- bright.

Edit: hmm, looking at ls59 measurements, i dont see any treble elevation (maybe +1db?), only a dip at 4khz. that dip is weird imo in a 6000$ speaker honestly. https://pinkfishmedia.net/forum/threads/graham-audio-ls5-9.227865/#post-3669441
On the harbeths what were your ancillary components and amplification? I have the shl5+ and don’t find them bright in the slightest but I think that is potentially as they are just true to the signal and the super tweeter aids in giving real definition to the high frequencies. From the stereophile interpretation of the measurements I don’t recall them highlighting any pronounced lift in the high frequencies. To note I am using exposure amplification (including MM phono stage/card) which is very neutral and smooth with vocals, accompanied with rega sources (dac r & P6 exact).
 
On the harbeths what were your ancillary components and amplification? I have the shl5+ and don’t find them bright in the slightest but I think that is potentially as they are just true to the signal and the super tweeter aids in giving real definition to the high frequencies. From the stereophile interpretation of the measurements I don’t recall them highlighting any pronounced lift in the high frequencies. To note I am using exposure amplification (including MM phono stage/card) which is very neutral and smooth with vocals, accompanied with rega sources (dac r & P6 exact).
I have a decent array of amps:
ifi retro stereo 50
Sony ta 707es
LM3875 chip amps
Allo TPA

and many digital and analog source.

I think the SHL5plus are indeed neutral! but due to the lack of real bass, I find the tonal balance more shifted to the mid treble, therefore leaning to slight brightness. Not a deal breaker imo at all. The deal breaker is in the dynamics however, but this is another subject and matter of taste at this point!
 
I have a decent array of amps:
ifi retro stereo 50
Sony ta 707es
LM3875 chip amps
Allo TPA

and many digital and analog source.

I think the SHL5plus are indeed neutral! but due to the lack of real bass, I find the tonal balance more shifted to the mid treble, therefore leaning to slight brightness. Not a deal breaker imo at all. The deal breaker is in the dynamics however, but this is another subject and matter of taste at this point!
Tbh I do find them reasonably dynamic not the best for their size but decent enough for me anyway. Certainly the larger atc’s for example are more dynamic but in my opinion not as good at low volumes. Like every speaker though you generally trade one benefit for another in my view.
 
Tbh I do find them reasonably dynamic not the best for their size but decent enough for me anyway. Certainly the larger atc’s for example are more dynamic but in my opinion not as good at low volumes. Like every speaker though you generally trade one benefit for another in my view.
im very sensitive to lack of bass. Many seem happy with a 8" making bass but I was never truly satisfied.

Even 12" woofers speakers ive had lack in bass compared to those using a 15".

Its not about the extension either because the shl5plus extend down to 30hz. Its the lack of relative energy (compared to a 15") in the 60hz to 160hz that is missing.

Try to seek a audition of Tannoy Canterbury vs Harbeth SHL5plus. The big cab and 15" driver will run circle in the bass department. It will make apparent how relatively thin sounding the SHL5plus is.
its all relative, the SHL5 next to KEF ls50 will make the LS50 sound extremely thin.
 
But you can't have everything, a 15" will never be as fast as smaller chassis.

What you actually mean is it will roll-off at a lower frequency. Which is generally true.

"Fast" bass is a subjective term. The perception of "fast" bass comes from the correct time alignment of the bass fundamental with the upper harmonics (or some speakers just don't bother with the fundamental e.g. Tinn Kans).

A correctly implemented 15" bass driver can sound fast. This usually needs a 3-way speaker.
Ported 2-ways often sound slow, even though the drive unit can handle higher frequencies.
 
But you can't have everything, a 15" will never be as fast as smaller chassis.

"
What is "faster"? Can we define it as a technical quantity?

My definition of "fast" is BL (in N per A) divided by moving mass.

Say moving mass of 215g and a BL of 21.8N/A means 21.8 Kg/ms^2 / 0.215kG = 101ms^2 per Ampere.

So 1A will produce a momenung of 101ms^2 per Ampere in the voice coil.

Let's compare to a "High End" 5.25" Woofer. It has 5.7N/A and 13g. It indeed has 438ms^2 per Ampere. So 1 Ampere will accelerate the cone 4.3 times as much as the 18" Cone.

BUT, for a given SPL, the 5.25" woofer with 95 sqcm cone area has to move nearly 14 times as far compared the 18" with 1320 sqcm cone area.

So for a required 14 times increase in moved distance, we will have only a 4.3 times increase on acceleration.

So if take acceleration times cone area (in sqm) are we get a "speed factor".

101 * 0.132 = 13.332
438 * 0.0095 = 4.161

Conclusion, relative to the required movement the "slow" 18" Woofer can accelerate 3.2 times as fast.
"
Try to seek Tannoy Canterbury, Geithain RL901K, JBL Everest line to hear what a proper hi-efficiency 15" woofer sound like.
 
The original LS5/8 and LS5/9 had response dips in the upper mid/lower treble, and it looks like Derek Hughes has chosen to replicate this in the new ones rather than go for maximum flatness through that region.
 
The original LS5/8 and LS5/9 had response dips in the upper mid/lower treble, and it looks like Derek Hughes has chosen to replicate this in the new ones rather than go for maximum flatness through that region.

Sounds good, nearly all speakers seem to me to accentuate something in the hi-hat region, including (though not as badly as some) my Harbeth 30.1.

If there’s a bit of a dip in that region in the recent Graham models I’ll have to try to get round to an audition eventually.
 
"Try to seek Tannoy Canterbury, Geithain RL901K, JBL Everest line to hear what a proper hi-efficiency 15" woofer sound like.
I have owned a pair of Altec Lansing Superduplex 604 E, a pair of Klipsch CWIII and a pair of 3 way DIY LSV-Achenbach Trinity with a PHL B38-5011 so I know how a efficient 15" woofer sounds like. Still I perceive them as not as fast/nimble in the mid-upper bass a good 8" or now the tiny 4" of my Graham Chartwell LS3/5A. Sure, we don't need to compare scale, power handling, punch but there is something about the smaller chassis that the bigger ones aren't doing, at least to my ears.
 
I have owned a pair of Altec Lansing Superduplex 604 E, a pair of Klipsch CWIII and a pair of 3 way DIY LSV-Achenbach Trinity with a PHL B38-5011 so I know how a efficient 15" woofer sounds like. Still I perceive them as not as fast/nimble in the mid-upper bass a good 8" or now the tiny 4" of my Graham Chartwell LS3/5A. Sure, we don't need to compare scale, power handling, punch but there is something about the smaller chassis that the bigger ones aren't doing, at least to my ears.
thx for your answer!

kinda confusing to me your opinion cause in one hand, a common experience is that hi-efficiency makes low efficiency speaker sound slow. for you it seems the oppoiste. i found the shl5plus not a particularly fast speaker even compared to its similar peers. the magic of the harbeth is in the mid. in that sense, the graham seemed faster then the shl5.

the tragic situation is their is not a single 3-way 15" hi- eff design under 20k. sad situation
 
Klipsch Cornwall IV $6598/pair
I should have added, that id qualify as high-end.
but im sure there are exceptions. I remember a few years back a thread about 12" woofer based speakers...

The accuhorn 15" was nice and under 10k as well.
 
Don't get me wrong, to me the SHL5+ isn't fast too. But a bigger speaker like the Graham LS5/8 or Harbeth M40._ will be even slower because of its relatively heavy cone.

All these ported speakers will sound "slow" at the bottom end. The relative amount depends on the group delay at LF. It's down to box and port tuning more than the mass of the cone (and motor force).

My experiments align with this:
https://www.kvalsvoll.com/blog/2019/08/20/audibility-of-group-delay-at-low-frequencies/?id=asr
 
All these ported speakers will sound "slow" at the bottom end. The relative amount depends on the group delay at LF. It's down to box and port tuning more than the mass of the cone (and motor force).

My experiments align with this:
https://www.kvalsvoll.com/blog/2019/08/20/audibility-of-group-delay-at-low-frequencies/?id=asr
That's an interesting article. I have collected professional papers and other material on the audibility of group delay. It seems humans are not very sensitive above bass frequencies but work at bass frequencies is not common.

However, I see that a rule of thumb that covers most bass frequency results is to keep the group delay (GD) at frequency (f) to below one cycle - i.e. GD < 1/f - for it likely to be not intrusive.

The "20 ms" test above exceeds this threshold over 40 Hz to 80 Hz and is heard on an ABX test but not as well as the "100 ms" test. The comments on how easy it was to hear both of these tests are instructive and may support this rule of thumb at least broadly.

It would be fascinating to see what might happen if this test were repeated at smaller group delays.
 


advertisement


Back
Top