advertisement


Harbeth M40.2 vs Graham Audio LS5/8

It fascinates me that Graham have really go hold of the ‘BBC sound’ for their range of speakers and found
a ready market.
Alan Shaw goes on ( and on...) about his Radial drive units being infinitely superior to polypropylene, but
Graham Audio ( and Derek Hughes ) have made a success of using poly.

There was a fascinating video of Derek Hughes describing the recreation of the LS5/9. In it he dropped a comment that new exotic cone materials used by certain manufacturers was B.S. (I paraphrase). I'm not surprised that Derek didn't stay at Harbeth for long !
There is a new video of Derek here
http://www.grahamaudio.co.uk/technology/video/
It is rare to hear from him, but always fascinating. I consider him one of the very few great loudspeaker designers. We are lucky to still have him.
He drops the comment here again about cone material.
I have not been impressed with Harbeth speakers, I have always been impressed by Derek's creations. I have spent my life listening to Quad ESL and BBC-type speakers. Derek always gets it right.

Also interesting to hear him comment on all of the old LS5/9 being out of specification - so not much point in Harbeth quoting their current performance. PVC surrounds deteriorated very quickly.
 
You’re correct, Derek is one of the true greats in loudspeaker design.
I had some dealings with him re. one of my many LS3/5a repairs and he couldn’t have been
more helpful.
 
In the earlier video of Derek, he stated that it isn't the cone material, it is all about the crossover.
And Derek is one of the last ones really understanding how to design passive crossovers.

I'm intrigued that Shaw finds LS5/9 in '88 and '07 measuring similar. Not with deteriorating surrounds.
 
In the earlier video of Derek, he stated that it isn't the cone material, it is all about the crossover.
And Derek is one of the last ones really understanding how to design passive crossovers.

Did he really, really say that?
Because different cone materials have different behaviours, thus different own sound as well as ability to reproduce low-level detail.
You've probably misunderstood what he meant...
 
Did he really, really say that?
Because different cone materials have different behaviours, thus different own sound as well as ability to reproduce low-level detail.
You've probably misunderstood what he meant...

I wondered about Jowcol’s comment...
 
The tweeter in the Graham 5/9 is quite bigger than is normal today, but that it sounds rough is not something that I am hearing, there are better tweeters out there, but if I look at the overall sound of the speaker then I for one find it fantastic.
 
The tweeter in the Graham 5/9 is quite bigger than is normal today, but that it sounds rough is not something that I am hearing, there are better tweeters out there, but if I look at the overall sound of the speaker then I for one find it fantastic.

It is the very definition of smooth. It is a great choice for anyone who finds their existing speakers edgy or bright sounding.
 
Totally agree, it’s a speaker for people that have long listening sessions without any fatigue, also the midrange is reference quality and that is for me the most important bit to get right.
 
In all these 92 comments one cannot find a few that matches the real topic of the thread.
Is there maybe anyone could compare both sonically and not just in theory? Maybe just any comments on the 5/8? And maybe comments on the combination of a Graham LS5/8 with classic Farlow Exposure gear (IV DR, etc)?
I think for any theory discussions and for the 5/9 there are enough other threads...
 
I have no idea how well (or not) the LS5/8s work with Farlowe era Exposure kit, but they work very well with Brady era Exposure kit.
 
I remember regularly seeing actual ex BBC LS5/8's with the built in Quad 405 etc for about £450 in the mid 90's ish....
Seemed a bit pricey... at the time... They had handles on the side, were rather battered aesthetically and had prominent signs glued/stapled to them saying they must be used with caution as they could produce harmful to hearing sound levels.
 
I remember regularly seeing actual ex BBC LS5/8's with the built in Quad 405 etc for about £450 in the mid 90's ish....
Seemed a bit pricey... at the time... They had handles on the side, were rather battered aesthetically and had prominent signs glued/stapled to them saying they must be used with caution as they could produce harmful to hearing sound levels.


Just look at the prices now!!
 
What is interesting is that a version of the LS5/8 has been released with a front slot which appeared during the prototyping stage of the original LS5/8
Also a re-imagining of the LS5/1 has also been released.
 
@tuga: The LS5/8 is now a offered with a slotted front plate too.;)
195420404_1649322695260509_1020262703014117645_n.jpg
 


advertisement


Back
Top