advertisement


Graham Audio LS5/9

So if a person is interested in a topic the person looks into the thread, if there is constant offtopic, it is annoying to search for an ontopic post again in between the whole offtopic post. Why not use the PM function or start a new thread in cases of taking a discussing longer offtopic.

If it isn't a problem to write offopic, we don't need threads, not even forums like music, audio, classic, d.i.y., phono, offtopic, reference.
 
You are seeing black and white. There's a reason it's not in the AUP, what you miss is it's not Wikipedia and not intended to be. If someone in the future reads the thread, then he can skip the off topic parts, these are not "reference" threads, there's a "reference" section for just that. Rather, they somewhat reflect a live discussion.
As it is these endless reminders are closer to thread crapping than any other diversion.
 
If the mods feel motivated to reply on the topic of OT, I will happily follow their recommendations.
 
S-Man said:
...The time domain performance is more important than frequency domain IME/O.
Click to expand...

Surely it's more nuanced than this and depends how bad the problems are in each domain? Would you be satisfied with perfect time alignment if it meant accepting a huge SBIR null from 60Hz-80Hz, for example?
 
I think the ear/brain is sensitive to (relative) timing information at LF and less able to judge amplitude errors at LF.

However, I don't know for sure because my LF units have measured flat frequency response down to >>20Hz and I can only change the corner frequency (currently set at -3dB at 10 Hz with a first order rolloff). I suppose I could add EQ to make things deliberately bad o_O
My opinions are extrapolated from my listening tests with various LF rolloff points between 10 and 70 Hz. Lower sounds tighter in all cases, even though I initially thought rolling off above my main room of 35Hz would be beneficial. Even when there is no musical content below 30 or 40 Hz, I still hear an improvement going down to 10Hz compared to 20 Hz. The only thing that's changing is the group delay (at audio frequencies).

I'm open to other explanations.
 
S-Man said:
I've never heard the 150s. The 50s have unsatisfactory bass IME, which is a shame because the mid and treble is excellent.
The reason is that the bass sounds blurred to me.
I am not a fan of multiple subs, when I tried Toole's recommendations on siting subs I was not happy with the results. The time domain performance is more important than frequency domain IME/O.



Is it unreasonable to discuss side issues after the main topic has run its course?
Click to expand...
i agree, a 9" woofer cannot reproduce bass.
I think the 150 however would .
I also tried the multiple subs route. it does help when you have mains lacking in extension, but i personally never had seemless transition. a pair of 15'' woofer solved all my "issues''
 
Ayya Khema said:
i found the shl5 slightly smoother while being just as detailed. the graham I think was a bit more neutral in the midrange, more raw, less rounded attack. the ls59 treble was also to my ears to prominent, and the shl5+ was just more engaging and "musical" for whatever thats worth, id take shl5+ over ls59. I also find the shl5+ slightly too bright though. maybe im very treble sensitive,
Click to expand...

Old post but since I'm investigating the Graham LS5/9, I m resurrecting this thread. I guess everyone hears differently as to my ears and in my system, the Harbeth SHL5+ still sound slightly warm and rolled off in the treble to me. If the LS5/9 sound brighter, less rounded at the top and more raw with better attack and detail, they would be a better fit for me. The SHL5+ may sound smoother, warmer or more musical but I always felt that they are imposing a sound of their own as everything sounds a bit more pleasant. In other words it's a consistent sound you are getting as the signature Harbeth sound masks some of the anomalies in poor recordings. On the other hand, other speakers may reveal bad recordings to be bad, good recordings to be good etc. A more accurate sound reproduction.


RossB said:
As between Graham and Harbeth, having owned Harbeth P3ESR, M30.1s and M30.2s in the last few years, as well as the Graham LS5/9, LS3/5 and LS6, it is ridiculous to say that the Harbeths are in any way better than the Grahams. Both are very good, but I prefer the Graham LS3/5s and LS6s to any of the Harbeths, and only marginally preferred the 30.2s to the LS5/9s, although the latter are in many ways the better speaker. The Harbeths manage to impose their character despite the amplifier and source used, while the Grahams are more transparent to the source and upstream components.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my thoughts too as what I've written above after more than a decade of ownership experience with SHL5 and now SHL5+.

Ayya Khema said:
i found the shl5+ too bright, fatiguing. not sure why cause the p3esr were less fatiguing for me
Click to expand...

To me the SHL5+ is not bright as they sound a tad warm or rounded in the treble. They sound slightly forward but not bright.

I think there are two aspects of brightness when people describe the sound to be bright. First is a treble that has excessive energy or extension. This may be contributed by a recessed midrange and/or bass which caused an overall lean and thin sound. This sort of presentation causes the treble to stick out more thus causing discomfort to the ears.

The second type of brightness can be a harsh treble where the notes distort, break up or exhibit a crackling sound. For example, piano shows smearing or a crackling distorted sound when it is supposed to sound smooth. This can be caused by other components in the system such as amp, source or cables though.
 
That is an impression I have made too. Harbeth has a house sound as many other brands have too but I have the feeling that there is a kind of sameness which they add to every song. My Graham LS 3/5a differentiates much more. Even songs from the same album can sound very different while the Harbeth has always a kind of relaxed and slightly more warm sound signature on every track. Sure, every Harbeth speaker sounds different but they all add something to the music to my ears.
 
I personally heard the Grahams twice, with Leben Audio CS600 and with Luxman tube gear, and both times I had an impression of extreme soundstaging but somehow forensic balance..
My opinion only.
 
Maxbertola said:
I personally heard the Grahams twice, with Leben Audio CS600 and with Luxman tube gear, and both times I had an impression of extreme soundstaging but somehow forensic balance..
My opinion only.
Click to expand...

What is your reference?
In other words, "extreme soundstaging but somehow forensic balance" compared to what?
 
Compared to nothing, I don't have a reference. Every system in every room is different. I wasn't reporting about an absolute experience but just about the couple of times I heard a pair of Grahams. It was even in two different towns, but the impression was very similar in both cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top