Harbeth Super HL5+

[tuga]

That's well known, he he publicises the fact.

The driver material is critical. The patent clearly states the limitations of standard materials like paper and aluminium. He hired some research polymer scientists to come up with a better material.

It is totally normal in the UK to get a government grant to do such research, that's been going on for decades, and you also get research tax credits. You would get similar grants in Europe, Australia, etc.

The material they came up with is very rigid and light, will not deform, but has to be injection moulded, which is much more expensive than vacuforming or pressing, as is the case with many other driver materials.

This material is unique to Harbeth. They don't sell their drivers like Focal, and you can't get it from the likes of SEAS etc.

You spend too much time at the HUG. Alan Shaw is quite the salesman.

 

[balletboy]

They substitute buyer's testimonies for actual scientific measurements.


Any more, and I'm going to think that you're shilling. Should I list all the fallacious "arguments"?
1) Harbeth is a company whose goal is to sell. They might be engineers, but the primary goal is still to sell, and if making bad speakers sells, they'll do it (not that they make bad speakers on purpose).
2) You can be an engineer and not up-to-date with the technology of your own field. An "engineer" that doesn't use computer modelisation and extensive measurements is simply obsolete, these days, in almost any field. And I say that as a computer scientist surrounded by "engineers" that know nothing outside of what's needed to keep their job (and not excel at it).
3) The founder is not the entire company. The BBC isn't a sacred cow and research has evolved (way) further than the LS3/5. Reminds me of a discussion I had here about a laughable paper the BBC put out where it tried to prove that HEVC was good by using PSNR (not PSNR-HVS) as a metric; which is a joke for anyone with any knowledge in the image field. Note that the BBC is in an HEVC patent pool.
Appeal to authority has no place here, anyway.


Two can play the game of listing names: go tell that to Genelec, Neumann or Revel. Or simply bring one hard evidence that known measurements don't paint the entire picture, as far as the ear goes.


Speakers don't care about content. Voice is just a band limited signal like others, which can be reproduced easily.


Designers which are also sellers. Designers that need to act as storytellers to sell, which are not all designers. Show me hard evidence about these claims, anyway (that "most speaker designers" say so, and that voice is something special).


If we go by Edison, the perfect speaker was invented way before the BBC appeared. Of course, now we know this isn't true. Same for the BBC designs.


Once again, you prove that you don't belong in here. If you said "we lack crucial metrics", you'd be almost right, because distorsion metrics, for example, aren't very accurate (though I think that THD+IMD is quite good already). But by implying that there's stuff we will never be able to measure, you outed yourself as nothing more than a classic audiophile, happily wallowing in ignorance and telling us ghost stories.

Reading Toole's book (and here I agree with @tuga, read, don't become a follower) should be mandatory before posting here.

1) Barely even worth replying. You will find that most businesses that make good products find they sell and bad products don't, and you can't do it for 43 years without being found out.
2) They do use computer modernisation and extensive measurements. They also test all their designs at the NPL (National Physical Laboratory).
https://www.npl.co.uk/our-work/
3) In the UK the BBC is a sacred cow and still does a huge amount of research. https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects
One of it's current projects is spatial audio.

The BBC also bought in drivers. The LS3/5a used a KEF B110 driver. The stiffness was provided by a polymer called Bexdrene, that is uneven and degrades over time. As noted above, Harbeth invented their own driver polymer because it's the single most important component of a speaker and nothing commercially available was good enough. So-called BBC speakers from Spendor, Chartwell, Harbeth etc. are in reality modern derivatives, but with the same configuration and thin wall design.

The BBC designed a monitors for their broadcasting needs and licensed them commercially. They have been selling for almost 50 years, and no other speaker has been copied more, from Linn Kan's to KEF LS50.

With regard to speech being the acid test, that has been said to my face by the chief engineers of PMC and Dynaudio, as well as Harbeth.

We will have to differ on the last point. I suspect all competent loudspeaker manufacturers voice their designs, measure then and, in Harbeth's case, manufacture and test them with modern test equipment to extreme tolerances. If the rule of this forum is that to judge a product by anything other than it's measurements on the premise that everything can be measured, otherwise you are a "classic audiophile, happily wallowing in ignorance and telling us ghost stories", then I will wear that badge with honour.

I joined this forum yesterday and it has been an eye-opening experience that such a narrow-minded mindset has an almost cult-like status. If that is the rule, close my account now - seriously - but it has been an interesting discussion.

The irony is that Harbeth is the antithesis of audiophile. A few years ago Alan Shaw used an Asus DAC that he bought in a supermarket for £99 at a major audio show because he measured it better than a £10,000 DAC a company had loaned him for some free publicity.

 

[balletboy]

You spend too much time at the HUG. Alan Shaw is quite the salesman.

Most of the activity on the HUG is with people thinking of buying and wanting to know what model to get and why, or people who have bought and want advice. That's why it's called the User Group. It's basically by users for users. I hadn't been there fore a couple of years, until recently as there is a new model out.

It has also built up a large archive of technical material, provided over about 20 years.

Ironically, a few years ago a main Harbeth European dealer was hounded off, probably because he kept on insisting on the merits of various (expensive) valve amplifiers that were below Harbeth specification. Valve amplifiers are generally not much good with Harbeth, especially as a Quad 909 for £500 is more than adequate.

 

[Thomas savage]

It's the Harman way or the highway, that's a bit unfortunate imo

There's decades of solid research behind Harbeth , personally iv never liked them ( or any plain box with drivers stuck in them ) but I bet a pair would of out lived my JBL's.

This preference table taken as gospel here is nonsense imo sure it's a good guide but it's a one size fits all solution to a issue that's more nuanced.

I also think shoving the harmon research down everyone's throats till they gag is not the way forward either . The BBC research is valid and well supported.

Having said all that I'm not a fan of the ' there's stuff we can't measure' arguement. Sure you might want to listen find the speakers for you but that dose not mean there's some unmeasurable mystery going on.

All in all some of you need to learn to agree to disagree. These intense confrontational back and forth battles don't help anyone .

 

[balletboy]

You spend too much time at the HUG. Alan Shaw is quite the salesman.

From what I heard he got fed up spending so much time running the company, he brought in people to do that and does R&D 80% of the time. He never struck me as much of a salesman.

I heard Harbeth M30 accidentally 10 years ago when I went round to someone to pick up something I'd bought on eBay. I overstayed my welcome. Dissatisfied with my speakers 5 years later, I went to a dealer and heard the SHL5. No selling was involved. They sell themselves. I've bought two more pairs from the dealer. He tells me only about 2 in a 100 of his customers ever go on an audio forum. That tells me that most Harbeth customers have no interest in measurements and are not audiophiles, they just like music that sounds good.

 

[direstraitsfan98]

I owned harbeth 30.2. I think they sounded hell of a lot better then KEF LS50's. The prices are absurd when you look at the competition, though, and it's a fact, jack, that they don't measure very well. But it's true that there's a bit of Harbeth magic going on, that makes them very easy to listen to and never turn off. Then again, any good speaker design will sound like that.

Also there is a funny design flaw of the Harbeth 30.2 that I will showcase if anyone is interested in seeing.

If you play music with loud bass, the logo rattles against the cabinet and makes a huge racket.

 

[balletboy]

It's the Harman way or the highway, that's a bit unfortunate imo

There's decades of solid research behind Harbeth , personally iv never liked them ( or any plain box with drivers stuck in them ) but I bet a pair would of out lived my JBL's.

This preference table taken as gospel here is nonsense imo sure it's a good guide but it's a one size fits all solution to a issue that's more nuanced.

I also think shoving the harmon research down everyone's throats till they gag is not the way forward either . The BBC research is valid and well supported.

Having said all that I'm not a fan of the ' there's stuff we can't measure' arguement. Sure you might want to listen find the speakers for you but that dose not mean there's some unmeasurable mystery going on.

All in all some of you need to learn to agree to disagree. These intense confrontational back and forth battles don't help anyone .

I've heard the PMC BB5se a few times and the sound can be visceral. It gives you goosebumps. Peter Thomas had some totally uncompressed drum solo recordings that would break most other speakers. After 10 minutes I was exhausted. It also happens to be the consumer version of one of the world's most successful studio monitors. It could be considered state-of-the-art, and not even expensive for high-end. It's the complete opposite of Harbeth. At the end of the day it all boils down to taste, just like music. I'm sure they all measure well, but they are chalk and cheese and both will have their admirers.

In an ideal world I would have three audio systems, based on Quad ESL speakers for classical, Harbeth for jazz and vocals and PMC for rock ... and I wouldn't look at the measurements. The BBC have used all of them as broadcast monitors.

 

[Thomas savage]

From what I heard he got fed up spending so much time running the company, he brought in people to do that and does R&D 80% of the time. He never struck me as much of a salesman.

I heard Harbeth M30 accidentally 10 years ago when I went round to someone to pick up something I'd bought on eBay. I overstayed my welcome. Dissatisfied with my speakers 5 years later, I went to a dealer and heard the SHL5. No selling was involved. They sell themselves. I've bought two more pairs from the dealer. He tells me only about 2 in a 100 of his customers ever go on an audio forum. That tells me that most Harbeth customers have no interest in measurements and are not audiophiles, they just like music that sounds good.

I'm pleased you like your harbeth's , more and more audiophiles are signing up to forums . Still I'd agree probably more don't than do and certainly few have the interest in the kind of measurements data we provide.

That's slowly changing, understanding the data can be prohibitive and as we've seen attempts to make it simple like the SINAD or preference charts have their issues .

This is another of those brands that holds a place is some people's hearts too and that can cause problems when the data gets published.

 

[Thomas savage]

I've heard the PMC BB5se a few times and the sound can be visceral. It gives you goosebumps. Peter Thomas had some totally uncompressed drum solo recordings that would break most other speakers. After 10 minutes I was exhausted. It also happens to be the consumer version of one of the world's most successful studio monitors. It could be considered state-of-the-art, and not even expensive for high-end. It's the complete opposite of Harbeth. At the end of the day it all boils down to taste, just like music. I'm sure they all measure well, but they are chalk and cheese and both will have their admirers.

In an ideal world I would have three audio systems, based on Quad ESL speakers for classical, Harbeth for jazz and vocals and PMC for rock ... and I wouldn't look at the measurements.

Well for me a speaker should be able to reproduce all genres of music and not be prejudicial to any of them .

Some prefer colourations, different colourations for different genres , that's my idea of hell lol

 

[q3cpma]

2) They do use computer modernisation and extensive measurements. They also test all their designs at the NPL (National Physical Laboratory).
https://www.npl.co.uk/our-work/

Then where can we find those measurements? Neumann or Genelec makes them available for every potential buyer. I mean, a lot of the arguments they give (cone material, for example) just sound like conning without measurements; a bit like cable arguments, actually.
For all that we know, they could just be pulling stuff like this out of their as- hat. When I see https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/harbeth-monitor-30-speaker-review.11108, I don't believe for one moment that they used computer modelisation to make yet another passive diffraction-happy box without a waveguide, or can you tell me where you see it?

As noted above, Harbeth invented their own driver polymer because it's the single most important component of a speaker and nothing commercially available was good enough.

This is an audiophile myth I bought for a long time too. You can see a lot of driver measurements proving that doped paper or polypropylene easily match more exotic materials. For example, a Genelec engineer said on this forum that they use paper and PP for all their drivers. The new Purifi driver (https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/purifi-ptt6-5w04-01a-6-5-midwoofer.9684/), which is arguable state-of-the-art, is using "simple" paper (which is never simple, actually, cf https://audioxpress.com/article/speaker-cones-fabrication-materials-and-performance).
But nevermind that, if you have any data proving that we need more than paper/PP, I'm taking; and I don't mean "full-range" drivers or drivers playing outside of their comfort zone due to a badly designed crossover, where material do count (basically, don't use metal).

If the rule of this forum is that to judge a product by anything other than it's measurements on the premise that everything can be measured, otherwise you are a "classic audiophile, happily wallowing in ignorance and telling us ghost stories", then I will wear that badge with honour.

That's not a rule, but the part where you imply that there's something magical we can't measure will bring you this kind of response.

I joined this forum yesterday and it has been an eye-opening experience that such a narrow-minded mindset has an almost cult-like status. If that is the rule, close my account now - seriously - but it has been an interesting discussion.

People who are right are also considered narrow-minded by some.

The irony is that Harbeth is the antithesis of audiophile. A few years ago Alan Shaw used an Asus DAC that he bought in a supermarket for £99 at a major audio show because he measured it better than a £10,000 DAC a company had loaned him for some free publicity.

They still sell designs at ludicrous prices based on stories and without giving measurements of their products. I wouldn't mind the stories if they gave the measurements, actually.


Honestly, while I'm a "bit" harsh (I come from parts of the Internet where the average skin is very thick), I do think you're honest. But in all the posts you made, I don't see any data. At all. Just Harbeth(tm) kool-aid drinking followed by regurgitation.
The lesson is that we let the data talk, here. Subjective impressions aren't bad per se, but not when they're alone.

 

[balletboy]

Well for me a speaker should be able to reproduce all genres of music and not be prejudicial to any of them .

Some prefer colourations, different colourations for different genres , that's my idea of hell lol

I think it goes beyond that. Quad electrostatic speakers are tonally perfect and have a transparency and imaging that is unmatched. The problem is they can't do real bass, they break relatively easily (or at least the 57 and 63 do) and they are very large. Harbeth do a lot of things well, but are a bit polite. They really excel at vocals. I've liked various Wilson, including the new Sasha Daw, but a little bright for my taste. Possible fatigue lurking? If there is a speaker that does everything perfectly I'd love to hear it because I think there has to be some compromise. If there is such a speaker, I suspect three systems would still be cheaper.

Has Amir ever measured Quad ESL's? Can his meters identify their peerless acoustic qualities?

 

[LTig]

Well for me a speaker should be able to reproduce all genres of music and not be prejudicial to any of them .

Yep.

Some prefer colourations, different colourations for different genres , that's my idea of hell lol

I think the preference for different kind of speakers are multifold:

• the perfect speaker (transparent at 120 dB SPL) does not exist yet,
• or it is out of financal reach,
• or it is too big for domestic living rooms,
• or we see a result of the circle of confusion: different kinds of music are mastered with different kind of speakers.

 

[balletboy]

Then where can we find those measurements? Neumann or Genelec makes them available for every potential buyer. I mean, a lot of the arguments they give (cone material, for example) just sound like conning without measurements; a bit like cable arguments, actually.
For all that we know, they could just be pulling stuff like this out of their as- hat. When I see https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/harbeth-monitor-30-speaker-review.11108, I don't believe for one moment that they used computer modelisation to make yet another passive diffraction-happy box without a waveguide, or can you tell me where you see it?


This is an audiophile myth I bought for a long time too. You can see a lot of driver measurements proving that doped paper or polypropylene are simply match more exotic materials. For example, a Genelec engineer said on this forum that they use paper and PP for all their drivers. The new Purifi driver (https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/purifi-ptt6-5w04-01a-6-5-midwoofer.9684/), which is arguable state-of-the-art, is using "simple" paper (which is never simple, actually, cf https://audioxpress.com/article/speaker-cones-fabrication-materials-and-performance).
But nevermind that, if you have any date proving that we need more than paper/PP, I'm taking; and I don't mean "full-range" drivers or drivers playing outside of their comfort zone due to a badly designed crossover, where material do count (basically, don't use metal).


That's not a rule, but the part where you imply that there's something magical we can't measure will bring you this kind of response.


People who are right are also considered narrow-minded by some.


They still sell designs at ludicrous prices based on stories and without giving measurements of their products. I wouldn't mind the stories if they gave the measurements, actually.


Honestly, while I'm a "bit" harsh (I come from parts of the Internet where the average skin is very thick), I do think you're honest. But in all the posts you made, I don't see any data. At all. Just Harbeth(tm) kool-aid drinking followed by regurgitation.
The lesson is that we let the data talk, here. Subjective impressions aren't bad per se, but not when they're alone.

I'm sure Alan Shaw posted the measurements of the new XD speakers on HUG. He posts them regularly.

There were a load of measurements of the come material in the patent you posted up, with comparison data for other materials.

There was a lovely video somewhere in which Alan Shaw demonstrated the rigidity of the Radial cone. The test equipment was a large metal weight. He put took some standard paper and vacuformed cones and put the weight on top. They were soon a crumpled mess. The Radial cone did not flinch.

 

[Thomas savage]

I think it goes beyond that. Quad electrostatic speakers are tonally perfect and have a transparency and imaging that is unmatched. The problem is they can't do real bass, they break relatively easily (or at least the 57 and 63 do) and they are very large. Harbeth do a lot of things well, but are a bit polite. They really excel at vocals. I've liked various Wilson, including the new Sasha Daw, but a little bright for my taste. Possible fatigue lurking? If there is a speaker that does everything perfectly I'd love to hear it because I think there has to be some compromise. If there is such a speaker, I suspect three systems would still be cheaper.

Has Amir ever measured Quad ESL's? Can his meters identify their peerless acoustic qualities?

These are your opinions, value judgements yet you present them as fact.

This is where you will come unstuck here. It's not really what this forum is for , I know that might seem strange but there's plenty of places out there where one can have a purely subjective opinion battle .

It's just not here .

 

[balletboy]

These are your opinions, value judgements yet you present them as fact.

This is where you will come unstuck here.

Accepted. It is well known that Quad ESL were designed with classical music uppermost in Peter Walker's mind. They are favoured by classical musicians.

I probably listen to more music live than recorded, and most of it classical, and I don't need an oscilloscope to tell me what Quad ESL can do with well recorded chamber music. I'm all for measuring some things, but when it comes to that we will have to disagree.

 

[q3cpma]

I'm sure Alan Shaw posted the measurements of the new XD speakers on HUG. He posts them regularly.

I mean data available to the buyer. If I go to harbeth.co.uk and choose a speaker page, I don't see anything.

There were a load of measurements of the come material in the patent you posted up, with comparison data for other materials.

The patent I found has nothing of worth. Not even Thiele/Small parameters, and certainly not audio measurements in a sample enclosure. And if you read the patent, the "problems" found with other materials lie in unproper use.

There was a lovely video somewhere in which Alan Shaw demonstrated the rigidity of the Radial cone. The test equipment was a large metal weight. He put took some standard paper and vacuformed cones and put the weight on top. They were soon a crumpled mess. The Radial cone did not flinch.

Your ear doesn't hear that. This is the same as cable peddlers giving measurements to explain that their cable is better at 100 kHz, for example.

Anyway, as I said, most good (measurements AND user appreciation wise) studio monitor brands like Neumann, Genelec or JBL use these plebeian materials with no problems, as do driver makers like Seas or Scanspeaker. Speaks volumes to me.
And you can't really ignore the Purifi thing, as it's really miles ahead of everything else (the same size).

I'm sorry, but that's a bad case of fanboyism.

 

[Erik]

Quad electrostatic speakers are tonally perfect and have a transparency and imaging that is unmatched

 

[balletboy]

I mean data available to the buyer. If I go to harbeth.co.uk and choose a speaker page, I don't see anything.


The patent I found has nothing of worth. Not even Thiele/Small parameters, and certainly not audio measurements in a sample enclosure. And if you read the patent, the "problems" found with other materials lie in unproper use.


Your ear doesn't hear that. This is the same as cable peddlers giving measurements to explain that their cable is better at 100 kHz, for example.

Anyway, as I said, most good (measurements AND user appreciation wise) studio monitor brands like Neumann, Genelec or JBL use these plebeian materials with no problems, as do driver makers like Seas or Scanspeaker. Speaks volumes to me.
And you can't really ignore the Purifi thing, as it's really miles ahead of everything else (the same size).

I'm sorry, but that's a bad case of fanboyism.

From what I've seen, no doubt a lot less than you because I've actually bought major components without looking at the manufacturer's website at all, including my Harbeth speakers, is that pro audio websites publish lots of data and consumer audio websites don't.

Why might that be? How about the possibility that the vast majority of consumers don't care and don't know what Thiele/Small parameters are (and that includes me) and if they do happen to look at the website would just like some basic useful information and some nice pictures.

Does the make them audiophile idiots who do not have the right to exist because they haven't checked every measurement down to the designer's inside leg measurement?

No, it makes them normal people who like music who want to buy a pair of speakers, or a integrated amplifier, or whatever. That's the vast majority of customers, so I'm led to believe by several dealers, and I know plenty of people like that.

So if consumer audio companies filled their websites with technical measurements for the benefit of you and other people on ASR, it would likely put off a lot of the other 99.99% of the audio buying public and cost them both business and money.

I doubt you would believe the test data anyway, unless it's been done by Amir, on the premise that anything put on a consumer website is marketing lies to deceive the ignorant buying public.

Websites are designed by designers who know what sells. Technical stuff sells to technical professionals. Consumer companies need a USP to sell to consumers. That's how it is and always will be.

I recall an advertising executive telling me years ago that there was an inviolate rule that advertising billboard posters must NEVER have more than 10 words. Otherwise it will be universally ignored. What was Labour's election slogan? I have no idea, can't remember. The Tories? "Get Brexit Done". That was genius. Three words that won an election and destroyed Revolutionary Socialism.

So if you want measurements for a consumer product, ask the manufacturer on their forum or direct.

 

[balletboy]

On the subject of marketing, I got banned from the Devialet review before the website started to be discussed, in terms that it lures in gullible audiophiles with false performance data and outright lies.

What influenced me? I was fed up with a room full of boxes and my son's girlfriend's father had this really neat little device that he said was really good and did everything imaginable. I went to his audio dealer, listened to a couple of different units through my speakers (which they sell) and bought it. It took an hour. In fact he had the model Amir blew up, which he has now upgraded to the current version.

I wanted to agree that their website is truly awful, but I can't say I ever paid much attention to it, but their claims do sound too good to be true.

The last product I bought was an Innuos server and I bought it because I had a list of technical questions and I phoned their UK office and spoke to their technical support manager and got a lot of clear and understandable answers.

 

[balletboy]

View attachment 58868

View attachment 58867

View attachment 58866

So what? I said ESL 63 are very much for classical and OK for jazz, but don't rock. These results are for "all musical selections", so for some selections they would be poor.