advertisement


HARBETHS AND STANDS, do they make a difference

Tony L said:
The problem is, with perhaps the exception of a perfectly installed pair of ESL63s, everything is coloured, be it the port flub, hollowness & dynamic compression from slim floor-standers or that element of horn honk or cabinet resonance from Klipch, Tannoy etc. Good speakers all do some stuff well and some stuff wrongly. They all fall a very, very long way away from the 20Hz-20Khz flat-response highly efficient low-mass omnidirectional single-driver point-source that is the theoretical ideal. Ridiculously so in most cases. The fundamental truth is that all speakers are pretty crap. They all have obvious compromise. All one can do is chose a pair (or more) where the flaws don't irritate too much, and what irritates one person to the point of distraction is ignored by another.
Click to expand...

It's the way a room highlights or works with these compromises that makes the difference imo. No use nailing colours to particular designs without trying them.
 
Back to the original post.
Many years ago I did quite a bit of experimentation on this. Some of the sound we hear from a speaker comes from the cabinet. The cabinet radiation is influenced by where it is supported by the stand. 4 hard supports in the corner changes it little, blutac and/or small stand top plate changes it quite a bit.
Some of the sound (but not much) comes from transmitted vibration being radiated by the stand vibrating. This is considerably reduced by filling the stand with lead shot or a bolted stand with fastenings not overtightened (heavily tightening bolted junctions removes their damping capacity). I have not tried heavy/light or other fillings.
A great deal of the bass in room can be radiated by the floor, but depends on the floor construction and speaker mount. Spiked stands couple more vibration to the floor.

So yes, IME stands can make a big difference. Most "accurate" would be filled stands connected to speakers by blutac and mounted on sprung mounts like those sold by Townshend.
Thats not to say that all enthusiasts will prefer the sound of the most accurate :)
 
SteveS1 said:
It's the way a room highlights or works with these compromises that makes the difference imo. No use nailing colours to particular designs without trying them.
Click to expand...

How does one achieve a perfectly installed pair of Quad ELS-63,s ? .Being a Quad dealer at the time, apart from other interests, and knowing Peter Walker for many years I had one of the very first pairs of ELS-63;s , I did not find them realistic enough and virtually impossible to match up with a sub . I do not find any dynamic compression from slim floorstanders in my room. To say all speakers are pretty crap is absurd. These remarks should have been attached to Tony,s last post. I agree with Steve S1
 
Tony L said:
In fairness I'm not on about comparing them to transmission lines, which are just a slightly different type of out of time bass! My preference is for infinite baffles, (front) horn-loading or panels, which are a whole other thing entirely.

PS Speaker age has nothing to do with it, it's design concept I'm on about, e.g. I'm currently listening to the new Aphex Twin album through some speakers designed way back in 1963 that feature a folded-horn-loaded 15" bass driver. They start and stop in a way no little speaker in a long narrow ported box ever has done or will ever be able to. One can't mess with physics.
Click to expand...


Don't mention transmission lines to Mr Shaw, who thinks they all have a hole at 180Hz.

My PMC Fact8's didn't, a narrow floorstanding box, and they were pretty good all-rounders, but were replaced by Harbeth SHL5+ that are dramatically better and cost half the price, and are more stable on Something Solid stands than the PMCs.
 
F1eng said:
Back to the original post.
Many years ago I did quite a bit of experimentation on this. Some of the sound we hear from a speaker comes from the cabinet. The cabinet radiation is influenced by where it is supported by the stand. 4 hard supports in the corner changes it little, blutac and/or small stand top plate changes it quite a bit.
Some of the sound (but not much) comes from transmitted vibration being radiated by the stand vibrating. This is considerably reduced by filling the stand with lead shot or a bolted stand with fastenings not overtightened (heavily tightening bolted junctions removes their damping capacity). I have not tried heavy/light or other fillings.
A great deal of the bass in room can be radiated by the floor, but depends on the floor construction and speaker mount. Spiked stands couple more vibration to the floor.

So yes, IME stands can make a big difference. Most "accurate" would be filled stands connected to speakers by blutac and mounted on sprung mounts like those sold by Townshend.
Thats not to say that all enthusiasts will prefer the sound of the most accurate :)
Click to expand...

My LS3/5a stands appear to work well, but as I said the only other stands were inexpensive Studiospares ones. The '3/5a ones are open frame, lightweight and just have rubber feet top and bottom. I don't know if floor spikes would improve matters, but the floor is solid tiles anyway.
As it all sounds OK to me, why change ?
 
I had SHL5 on Skylans, before them I had a DIY open construction - no massive change in sound. This year I had M30 placed on Ikea wooden stools and they sounded fine, but worse comparing to SHL5. Now my M40.1 are on SoundFoundation, which are also open stands. I didn't compare them directly to Skylans, but open stands might be a bit better for Harbeths, considering they have resonating boxes so open stands allow sound coming from the bottom walls propagates more easily. Considering that Skylan now sells "spacers" (don't remember their name, though) placed between the top plate and speakers - it may support my theory. Nevertheless, I tend to agree with Mr Shaw in that Harbeths will sing irrespective of stands placed underneath.
 
Joe Hutch said:
And from the same link, here's what he actually says about stands (my emphasis added):

Harbeth speakers do not need exotic stands. You can use wooden stands or metal or plastic stands. We use them all through development and critical listening. Distrust rumours that 'Harbeth's only work with 'xyz stands'. It is entirely your free choice, what takes your fancy, fits in with your furnishings and budget. If all you have available to get you going is something as basic as the IKEA plant pot stands (even used during the design of the Compact 7ES3 - see picture) or house bricks or telephone directories. The key point is to raise the tweeter to about ear level. The Skylan stands are an excellent value-for-money choice that we have used at exhibitions ourselves. Filling stands is your choice.
Click to expand...

That's definitive, if nothing else. No doubt people will continue to use what they prefer. I would like to visit Harbeth, talk to Alan Shaw and see his theories demonstrated. Meanwhile I shall use the stands I have.
 
Again it seems we are discussing something which is not his actual view. This is quite a common occurrence on forums :rolleyes:

He's not saying stands 'make no difference', he's saying his 'speakers work well on a variety of stand types which is a completely different statement.
 
Robert said:
Again it seems we are discussing something which is not his actual view. This is quite a common occurrence on forums :rolleyes:

He's not saying stands 'make no difference', he's saying his 'speakers work well on a variety of stand types which is a completely different statement.
Click to expand...

Shaw has said repeatedly that stands must stable and of the correct height for a given speaker model. He believes height and (to a lesser degree) toe-in have an impact on sound quality. But he has also repeatedly said that no other aspect of stand design or construction has an impact on sound quality -- at least none that he can hear.

Hook
 
Robert said:
Again it seems we are discussing something which is not his actual view. This is quite a common occurrence on forums :rolleyes:

He's not saying stands 'make no difference', he's saying his 'speakers work well on a variety of stand types' which is a completely different statement.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification
 
If someone is looking for stands for a pair of Harbeth P3ESRs, you could do worse than a pair of Ikea 'Oddvar' stools at £7 each.
With Alan Shaw's blessing, what more could you want?
 
Surely they are far too wide and low for an LS3/5A size box, more a cheap stand for a Compact 7 I'd have thought.
 
Call me a cynic by all means, but I find myself not entirely surprised a loudspeaker manufacturer might suggest those parts of a system that aren't the loudspeaker might be compromised to budget. I can even remember the days when a certain turntable manufacturer suggested placing almost all of one's available budget into the turntable was the way to do things! ;-)
 
Tony L said:
Call me a cynic by all means, but I find myself not entirely surprised a loudspeaker manufacturer might suggest those parts of a system that aren't the loudspeaker might be compromised to budget. I can even remember the days when a certain turntable manufacturer suggested placing almost all of one's available budget into the turntable was the way to do things! ;-)
Click to expand...

That wasn't the people who made the SP 25 then ?!
 
claucnc,

commercial use of this website - and it very much appears that this is what you are doing - is reserved to trade members. If you want to join as a trade member, please send a personal message to Tony L, the site owner.

Until then, no more advertising please.

Markus - moderator
 
kevindoyle said:
Cynic.

:)

But he's not alone. One finds much the same with Roger Sanders, Earl Geddes, and Siegfried Linkwitz. I think the defining factor for me is that all of these people are consistent and apply this logic to their home listening systems. Alan uses old Quad electronics. Roger uses his own Magtech amplifiers. Earl uses some Pioneer integrated/receiver one can pick up for next to nothing. And Siegfried still uses ATI amplifiers, which are relatively inexpensive. All of these men have access to other components at industry accommodation pricing, yet they don't bother, which leads me to believe their stances are not mere marketing.

Electronics are "generally" not the sources of big issues. Stands definitely aren't. Transducers are.

I have a Rega, but those recent tests of the Linn vs Technics were not "day and night" enough that I'd sell the Technics if I had one. I'd upgrade the cartridge before dumping the money into a new table. Sorry, Ivor. Source first mostly applies to the recordings, as far as I'm concerned, not the equipment they're played on. Especially if it's digital in 2014.
Click to expand...

My recollection is that Alan Shaw has no romantic attachment to analogue sources, and does not believe much money at all has to spent on a digital source, whether it be a cheap CD player or laptop. He probably also has a point there. The sound is most likely to be influenced by mechanical that electronic elements, i.e. pickup and drivers.
 
Disbeliever said:
NONSENSE Have you auditioned the KEF R500 ? I have just played The Sheffield Lab Drum Record through the KEFs using the Goldmund JOB 225 amp No need for bigger speakers or amplifier in my 26ft X 12.5 ft room sound was simply sensational.
Click to expand...
The KEF's are that good you are selling them now:confused:
 
I found the Custom Design open frame stands to lift my M30.1 to exactly ear height, and they are also visually very pleasing with the 50/50 height ratio together with the speakers. And yes, I thought they were a sonic upgrade compared to the Atacama stands that were on loan (the Custom Designs took a few months to arrive).
 
Did anyone keep a link to claucnc's website, If so can you PM me a link, thanks.

I'm trying to source stands for my P3s.

Tony
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top