Harbeth speakers

[ThoFi]

As for engineering innovations: Harbeth have actually acquired a Klippel some time ago, apart from their existing and quite extensive measurement gear. And as was said, they have expanded their R&D staff. Right now Alan Shaw is experimenting with class D amplification, and I would not be surprised to see an active speaker sometime in the future (but who knows?).

Active Harbeth Class D amplified would be very interesting.
And it would only cost 100-200 more because amp power these days is very cheap und an amp easy to design as AS says.
I am looking forward to new innovations from Harbeth.

 

[Willem]

But am sure not the big and expensive NFS but just the usual driver laser based testing device which nowadays almost every serious driver manufacturer has, right?

From what I remember it was actually the expensive NFS (hence my post) but I cannot find his post. Not too long ago Alan Shaw also posted about his B&K gear and collection of calibrated microphones. At the R&D dept apart from Alan Shaw himself they have a postgraduate engineer and now also Terry Miles. Make of it what you want, of course.

 

[thewas]

From what I remember it was actually the expensive NFS (hence my post) but I cannot find his post. Not too long ago Alan Shaw also posted about his B&K gear and collection of calibrated microphones. At the R&D dept apart from Alan Shaw himself they have a postgraduate engineer and now also Terry Miles. Make of it what you want, of course.

Would be great if you can post it here in the future in case you find it and hope the new gear and people will lead also to a measurable progress in their products which they or third parties will show with pride.

 

[ThoFi]

Harbeth is one of my favorite speaker brands.

Even so, I owned the Harbeth SuperHL5plus for a while (which sounded the most evenly balanced and neutral to my ears among the line), and sold it.

It did the things I love from Harbeth, beautiful with instrumental tone/timbre, and capturing a natural sense of vocals. But in shoot outs with my bigger Thiel 3.7s (which I was seeing if I could replace), I found the Thiels did much of what the Harbeth did but "better." By "better" I mean the Thiels also sounded fundamentally "right" with instrumental timbre/tone, but also sounded more clean, focused, precise and realistic. In comparison the Harbeth speakers had what I might call a "thickness" or "texture"...just barely there...that sort of connected all the sound, as if it was occurring between the instruments as well. This "thickness/texture" seemed to just clear up on the Thiels, giving the cleaner more precise sense of instruments performing in an acoustic space.

My hunch is that I was hearing the difference between the thin-walled design of the Harbeth vs the more "modern" approach of the Thiels which attempt to heavily brace to remove any box signature. So perhaps it was hearing just enough of those Harbeth walls "singing along" with the sound causing that slight texture connecting the sound. But I don't really know.

In any case, as much as I like the Thiels (and my other speakers) for most music, I still felt the Harbeths produced vocals with a more natural, human sound than the Thiels. Sometimes I miss that aspect of the Harbeths. I'd like them more as a second-system speaker.

I experienced the same „thickness/texture“ at the Harbeth. Also missing some airiness, instrument separations, soundstage…

 

[tuga]

From what I remember it was actually the expensive NFS (hence my post) but I cannot find his post. Not too long ago Alan Shaw also posted about his B&K gear and collection of calibrated microphones. At the R&D dept apart from Alan Shaw himself they have a postgraduate engineer and now also Terry Miles. Make of it what you want, of course.

In a topic about bass measurements, Alan Shaw wrote the following about non-anechoic measurements:

All measurement systems, including the Klippel one that do not make use of a real, physical anechoic chamber have to mathematically manipulate two frequency response measurements: one made very close to the woofer (say, 5mm away from the dust cap - almost touching) and another made, say 1m away (the standard anechoic distance from speaker to mic).

All these twin-measurement approached rely on combining these two very different measurements into one wideband 20Hz - 20/40kHz conventional anechoic frequency response measurement. The maths is simple - too simple - and in the many published papers it relies on finding a single frequency where the two curves can be cut and past together, typically around 200-300Hz. But as we'll see, that is a gross simplification of a much more complex issue.

In my long experience with this matter, the outcome for the cut and paste can be whatever you want it to be according to the frequency you chose to make the junction between the measurements. If you have a wideband anechoic-chamber measurement of the same speaker (at 1m) you can literally printout and slide your two DIY measurement curves up and down in level and frequency until you have picked a transition frequency which visually matches the overall real anechoic curve. But if you didn't have that anechoic curve as a guide, should you give ten speaker engineers the near field and the far field measurements and asked them to cut and paste them into a wideband measurement, you'd get ten very different takes on at what frequency and what level to join them together. It's a fuzzy solution to a hard acoustic problem.

And that is a nonsense.

Then he quotes this >25 year old old B&K paper and another one by D'Appolito.
He seems to be confusing the Klippel with something else...

Are you sure he bought a Klippel NFS?

 

[tuga]

I have found the post where Shaw describes his recent loudspeaker testing equipment purchase:

Now that production department has squeezed out more flow efficiency to keep up with orders, the amount of time given for ATE test has to be factored in. Furthermore, now that we are at a headcount of 15 people, there is significant movement of staff in the premises, which creates small but inescapable environmental noise.

Consequently, more time is lost in having to make repeat measurements so that doors closing and power tools in operation, passing vehicles, conversation etc. do not pollute the precious acoustic measurement of your speakers.

I've been looking into the modern alternatives, and there are really three viable choices: SoundCheck, NTi and Prism. The best option (and most expensive) seems to be the Swiss made NTi system at about $12000/set. Ultimately we will need three.

Here is a link to the NTi system, a purpose-built hardware/software solution, not a PC add-on.

 

[tuga]

It looks more like a production-line testing equipment than a development stage one. (it helps check consistency/quality)

 

[DSJR]

I experienced the same „thickness/texture“ at the Harbeth. Also missing some airiness, instrument separations, soundstage…

When was this ThoFi and which models? The only time I've heard this has been on C7-ES3's despite being well clear of room boundaries. The 7-XD is a totally different 'sounding' animal.

Older models with the lower kHz dip on and off axis (not all the BBC's fault either as the original HL's once sorted didn't have this I recall) and a slightly underdamped bass will either push the image back a bit or sound heavy and dull depending on the room. No lack of 'air' on my SHL5's, but the tonal balance dominates and it takes me twenty minutes to acclimatise. In a different room, they're much more immediately inviting.

Willem should confirm, but Klippel was mentioned as regards suitable cheap amps that the system recommends to use on the NFS system, the vibe being that if the amp is transparent and linear enough for detailed speaker testing like this, it should be more than good enough for music. I believe he bought a Samson model as published on the list (I believe its around Behringer A800 price).

I doubt Harbeth owners play stuff like this though, let alone at any volume - I wonder how modern JBL's would cope?

 

[tuga]

When was this ThoFi and which models? The only time I've heard this has been on C7-ES3's despite being well clear of room boundaries. The 7-XD is a totally different 'sounding' animal.

Older models with the lower kHz dip on and off axis (not all the BBC's fault either as the original HL's once sorted didn't have this I recall) and a slightly underdamped bass will either push the image back a bit or sound heavy and dull depending on the room. No lack of 'air' on my SHL5's, but the tonal balance dominates and it takes me twenty minutes to acclimatise. In a different room, they're much more immediately inviting.

The original HL had really poor axial frequency response, when compared f.e. to that of the BC1:

... HL

... BC1

 

[DSJR]

Do you have the 'Choice review after Dudley supplied a second pair which fixed it (I can first hand confirm they were subjectively fixed as we sold these right from the beginning)? I'll try to scan it but lots going on currently and I can't spare much time.

Note the BC1 doesn't have the lower kHz dip, the 4.5kHz dip being an axis anomaly, the rresponse tracking better over this frequency if yoiu sit level with the Coles top tweeter so you can 'just' see the top of the box when listening - in that one respect, the 9" trolley stands were helpful, even if they did 'fruit up' the bass honk a little more...

 

[tuga]

Do you have the 'Choice review after Dudley supplied a second pair which fixed it (I can first hand confirm they were subjectively fixed as we sold these right from the beginning)? I'll try to scan it but lots going on currently and I can't spare much time.

Note the BC1 doesn't have the lower kHz dip, the 4.5kHz dip being an axis anomaly, the rresponse tracking better over this frequency if yoiu sit level with the Coles top tweeter so you can 'just' see the top of the box when listening - in that one respect, the 9" trolley stands were helpful, even if they did 'fruit up' the bass honk a little more...

I think that these measurements belong to the "fixed" pair:

 

[Willem]

It looks more like a production-line testing equipment than a development stage one. (it helps check consistency/quality)

But he also mentioned bying some Klippel stuff that he said was very expensive and something only few speaker manufacturers have. So I assume he was speaking of the NFS.

 

[ThoFi]

When was this ThoFi and which models? The only time I've heard this has been on C7-ES3's despite being well clear of room boundaries. The 7-XD is a totally different 'sounding' animal.

Older models with the lower kHz dip on and off axis (not all the BBC's fault either as the original HL's once sorted didn't have this I recall) and a slightly underdamped bass will either push the image back a bit or sound heavy and dull depending on the room. No lack of 'air' on my SHL5's, but the tonal balance dominates and it takes me twenty minutes to acclimatise. In a different room, they're much more immediately inviting.

Willem should conform, but Klippel was mentioned as regards suitable cheap amps that the system recommends to use on the NFS system, the vibe being that if the amp is transparent and linear enough for detailed speaker testing like this, it should be more than good enough for music. I believe he bought a Samson model as published on the list (I believe its around Behringer A800 price).

I doubt Harbeth owners play stuff like this though, let alone at any volume - I wonder how modern JBL's would cope?

I heard it at all my Harbeth. The worst is the C7-ES3

 

[Willem]

Thomas do you also hear voices in the midle of the night? I mean, you keep posting uncontrolled subjective observations, or shall I say opinions.

 

[DSJR]

I think that these measurements belong to the "fixed" pair:

Here's the complete scan - Apologies for it's suspect quality but I don't have much time -

the sucked out HL's weren't bad sounding at all (a bit 'loudness switch') and the revised spec came in in the second batch or so. The HL III followed soon after and the design seemed stable from then on. Below the HL III which came shortly after. Dudley's back story as regards music (or not) has been catalogued and as a one man band, I'm not surprised the HL models took a few months to stabilise... I maintain his theroretical knowledge was up there with the greats, the difference being that he was a quiet shy man who kept in the background and definitely NOT an 'industry personality!' The reduced tweeter level was an Alan Shaw thing really, at ;east until a very few years ago.

 

[tuga]

I maintain his theroretical knowledge was up there with the greats

I never questioned his expertise, but the original HL was a poor design. He authored many BBC RD white papers and published a number of significant pieces in Wireless World:

BBC Research Department loudspeaker development

A small selection of old papers by the BBC Research Department. A Survey of Performance Criteria and Design Considerations for High-Quality Monitoring Loudspeakers D.E.L. Shorter - January 1959 Loudspeakers used for monitoring purposes in broadcasting and recording studios are designed to...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[DSJR]

Only defence I can give is - newly retired and a one man band, possibly working without much in the way of facilities, working in a 'double size garage' on the western end of Nova Road in Croydon (it's a bit bigger than that, but you'll get my point if you Google Street View it - the building's still there). Look at Jason's tales on the start-up of Schiit, just as bad...

 

[ThoFi]

Is the neutral sound of the Harbeth and the neutrality of the other audio gear the best way to go?

This is what I experienced.
My neutral set up was
Linn Akurate DSM streamer (good measurement) a Hypex Class D power amp (good m.) and Harbeth SHL5 40An. (flat FR?)
The sound was extremely detailed, fast, clinically, thickness/ texture… But too much for my ears. I needed to turn off the music after 1h.
I did start listen less with my system.
(I tried different position of speaker, listening position, absorber…)

My not neutral set up is
Linn Akurate DSM, a integrated tube amp and the Harbeth.
Now I enjoy my music again.

If neutrality of the electronics is a must have and is easy to achieve then, in my situation, the Harbeth speaker design has flaws?

 

[Phorize]

Is the neutral sound of the Harbeth and the neutrality of the other audio gear the best way to go?

This is what I experienced.
My neutral set up was
Linn Akurate DSM streamer (good measurement) a Hypex Class D power amp (good m.) and Harbeth SHL5 40An. (flat FR?)
The sound was extremely detailed, fast, clinically, thickness/ texture… But too much for my ears. I needed to turn off the music after 1h.
I did start listen less with my system.
(I tried different position of speaker, listening position, absorber…)

My not neutral set up is
Linn Akurate DSM, a integrated tube amp and the Harbeth.
Now I enjoy my music again.

If neutrality of the electronics is a must have and is easy to achieve then, in my situation, the Harbeth speaker design has flaws?

Out of interest what was the amplifier and the programme material/listening situation (loudness/listening distance etc)? To be really audible the change would need to be down to something like audible harmonic distortion, clipping etc. If you don’t like neutral you don’t like neutral, nothing wrong in that. I’m speculating though that unless the change was massive between the two amps that the wider context was more influential, meaning that this is more about how one feels (cognitively) than what one is hearing.

 

[TLEDDY]

My main system:

Sony CD/SACD
Technics SL1000 table with cartridge of the month - MM
MacBook Pro
Benchmark DAC3 & 2 AHB2 bridged
Benchmark cabling throughout
Lyngdorf Room Perfect
Harbeth 40.2
various subs

The Lyngfdorf solved room issues - I like it