advertisement


Harbeth SHl5 vs SHL5 Plus

R

ryder

pfm Member
Okay gents. I have just received the SHL5 Plus and am currently listening to the speakers in my system. My good dealer took my old SHL5s and we figured out that they had been in my system for 7 years (I didn't know I had them that long). My dealer was shocked that the speakers are still in immaculate condition after all these years, not even a hairline scratch is visible on the wood cabinet. I explained that I do take good care of my stuff.

Now, on to the SHL5 Plus. The wood grain and lines on my older SHL5s look nicer than the SHL5 Plus. On top of that, the wood grain with the new SHL5 Plus isn't quite an identical match between the left and right speaker. My old SHL5s show an exact match in the wood grain between the left and right speakers. This anomaly in the (unmatched) wood grain between the left and right speakers may be an indication that the quality control had gone down a bit throughout the years. Or perhaps business with Harbeth is so good that they are having a tough time to keep up with production, placing less emphasis on getting the wood grain matched between the speakers.

Sound quality. It's early days with the speakers having less than 2 hours on them. From the first few notes with familiar music, the differences are certainly appreciable if not significant. I find the SHL5 Plus to be an overall more balanced speaker than the older SHL5s. The Plus is leaner and cleaner in the midrange without the organic bloom of the older SHL5s which made the (old SHL5s) sound thick. This may sound contradictory. Although the Plus is a leaner sounding speaker, it is smoother than the SHL5s. The Plus doesn't show a certain metallic hardness in the treble and is more coherent and integrated between the drivers, ie. more integrated between the bass, midrange and treble.

There is only one problem with some of my rock CDs. Coldplay now sound a bit too bright and I have to turn the volume down.

I can understand that some folks will like the older SHL5s for their midrange warmth and lushness. I have to give that to the SHL5s. It is a mixed feeling to part ways with the SHL5 after living with the speaker for so long, and I will need some time to warm up to the new sound of the Plus. I will slowly but surely get to know the Plus better with time. As far as things are going at the moment, it is looking very positive.

In short, early listening impressions show the SHL5 Plus to be leaner, more open, coherent and better integrated than the older SHL5s. The Plus does not exhibit the excessive thickness in the mids / upper bass of the older SHL5s. Those who prefer a more romantic, warm and lush presentation will find the older SHL5s to be more appealing than the Plus.
 
I have SHL5s, so will be interested to find out how you get along. I originally had Compact 7 mk1s, and it was a hard decision making the change. On some music the 7s had a delicious warmth about them which the SHL5s lacked in direct comparison. But overall the SHL5s had greater clarity and a sense of spaciousness, especially on more complex music, and overall I think are the better speaker. My main criticism of the SHL5s is a pronounced boom in the lower mid bass - the balance of some music is spoilt by a clear peak on one particular bass note. The room may well play a part in this, but I have heard that comment before from others. Did you find the same with the SHL5s, and are the SHL5+s better in that respect?
 
By the way, I (finally) listened to the M30.1. It certainly sounded very nice with vocals. After we switched to some piano and guitar, somehow these instruments sound muted and dull on the 30.1. I guess these studio monitors are not for me. The live sounding SHL5s and C7s suit my taste better.
 
ryder said:
By the way, I (finally) listened to the M30.1. It certainly sounded very nice with vocals. After we switched to some piano and guitar, somehow these instruments sound muted and dull on the 30.1. I guess these studio monitors are not for me. The live sounding SHL5s and C7s suit my taste better.
Click to expand...

Exactly my impressions.

Last night I listened to my brother-in-law's SHL5s with his new (2nd hand) NAP300, and they were transformed.

M
 
I have previously placed the SHL5s in a dedicated room and now in a very large living room in almost clear space. I have to admit that the pronounced boom in the lower mid bass of the SHL5s may be just an inherent thing with the speakers.

Prior to getting the SHL5 Plus in my system, I have compared the SHL5 and SHL5 Plus at the dealers. The very prominent lower mid bass boom was prevalent in the old SHL5. The SHL5 Plus did not show this excessive mid bass.
 
Maxbertola said:
Exactly my impressions.

Last night I listened to my brother-in-law's SHL5s with his new (2nd hand) NAP300, and they were transformed.

M
Click to expand...

The SHL5s must sound great with the NAP300 as they sounded great on the 250 DR.

The old SHL5s are still special in their own ways. In some ways I think I appreciate that some folks prefer the sound of the SHL5s over the new Plus. If one does not have issues with the slight boom in the lower mid bass of the SHL5, I would suggest that he sticks the speaker. The SHL5 is certainly a classic. The Plus does not have the lushness of the older SHL5s and does not sound as romantic.
 
I find the 5Plus only have bass issues when close to corners.

My room has a 45Hz mode and this is very tricky, because I find that speakers like the M30.1, which roll off quite steeply below 50Hz, lack force. So I need speakres that go lower, which will almost inevitably excite the 45Hz mode. I can hear this with the 5Plus on certain notes of the double bass, but it's not too obtrusive in general.

I still lament the lack of good medium sized speakers for medium sized rooms. The C7s are a perfect size in that respect, but not as good a speaker as the 5Plus in many ways.
 
Hello.
I owned the SHL5 first, then the SHL5+ and now the HL Compact 7.
For me in my room, the SHL5 sounded warm and a bit boomy and imprecise at the bass.
The SHL5+ was much tighter, but also brighter in the hights and much thiner in the mids.
Without a valve amp I couldn't listen long to them because of listeningfatigue.
The HL Compact 7 is best of both world, not fatiguing, warm mids, clear hights and a tighter bass then the SHL5 but not too tight like the SHL5+.
 
I'm listening to the SHL5+ while typing this. I agree that the lower mid bass of the SHL5 is "imprecise", because there is too much of it. The bass of the SHL5+ sounds more taut, controlled and defined because there is less of this mid-bass boom. The excessive / imprecise lower mid-bass mostly contributes to the warm and lush presentation of the SHL5.

A good amp will control the bass of the SHL5s producing a more controlled and taut bass. I know this as switching from the Naim NAP 200 to the 250 DR improved on the bass quality of the SHL5s. An NAP 300 will likely bring more to the table. Nevertheless, the *inherent* fat sounding bass of the SHL5 is something owners would have to live with.

I can agree with the rest of your impressions on the SHL5+ and C7ES3. The C7ES3 is very well balanced and sounds a bit warmer than the SHL5+ which certainly sounds thinner and brighter in comparison. I believe the SHL5+ is currently the leanest and brightest speaker in the Harbeth line of speakers. Having said that, I still find them manageable with regards to listening fatigue. The SHL5+ is a more precise sounding speaker than the SHL5s as it is more analytical and detailed (the SHL5s are warmer and rounder).

I can hear more details in the background with the SHL5+. The details sound clearer and more prominent with the SHL5+. The SHL5+ appear to be more resolving and detailed than the SHL5.
 
I have SHL5+. I find they can go very close to the ear wall, but they do benefit from at least 1m from the side walls.

The speakers are fine with low powered amps, I initially had a 35w valve amp. The bass was woolly. I now have 260w Quad monoblocks and it is tight as a nut. So rock with a low powered amp is not going to be that great, but most of other music will be just fine.

The only change from SHL5 to SHL5+ was the crossover. Nothing else. Alan Shaw was so pleased with the outcome he took the same approach and updated the M40.1 to the M40.2.

As the mid/low bass is so room-dependent, it is difficult to make sensible comments unless the room has been tested. In my room I have no peaks, but a slight dropout that can be fixed by moving the listening position forward 18".
 
I've spent a lot of time moving the speakers (SHL5s) around into different positions, and they are now well away from both corners and rear wall. The boom is lessened, but still obvious. I have been wondering about trying some room-correction software to address the bass-boom (e.g. miniDSP solution) - probably a lot cheaper than changing speakers again. Anyone tried that with SHL5s?
 
Try Dirac's free trial , not suggesting you purchase but it is easy to use and will not only tell you what the room is doing but how it will sound 'corrected'.
Keith
 
SHL5 is inherently a thick and bloomy sounding speaker. Do what you may it still remains what it is. Trying too hard will only take things downhill in a different direction.
 
sls4321 said:
The only change from SHL5 to SHL5+ was the crossover. Nothing els
Click to expand...

Sorry but this is not true, the damping of the cabinet has changed, the crossover and the Midbassdriver is made of Radial 2.

BTW: Every room, also yours has got peaks, that is just physic no position of the speaker can change it only reduce it or shift it.
 
Pani said:
SHL5 is inherently a thick and bloomy sounding speaker. Do what you may it still remains what it is. Trying too hard will only take things downhill in a different direction.
Click to expand...

Thick & bloomy a bit unfair I think. Harbeths all have exceptional midrange clarity and presence, but the SHL5 does have a bit of a hump in the response in the lower mid-bass, possibly exacerbated by the room, so worth seeing what the effects of some judicious equalisation might be.
 
Cellofan said:
Sorry but this is not true, the damping of the cabinet has changed, the crossover and the Midbassdriver is made of Radial 2.
Click to expand...

Radial 2 is not relly a different material; it is only the surround that is changed a little, so a very subtle change indeed. I've not read anything about a change in cabinet damping, so you'll need to clarify your source on that one.
 
Elephantears said:
Radial 2 is not relly a different material; it is only the surround that is changed a little, so a very subtle change indeed. I've not read anything about a change in cabinet damping, so you'll need to clarify your source on that one.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what was altered inside the cabinet but foam/damping material was added at the front port of the SHL5+. If you look inside the front port of the speaker, you will see a damping surround. I'm not sure if it is fixed permanently to the front port but it surely doesn't feel like it is removable. Perhaps the slight reduction in air flow area with the reduced port size has played a part in the tightening of the bass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top