Harbeth speakers

[Koeitje]

Ha!

I spent all too much of my life on the AVS forums and this reminds me of some of the bizzare debates that went on there.

For instance when Blu Rays came on the scene there were constantly on demo at Best Buys etc. People would often complain that "Blu Ray was too sharp and clear, it makes movies look weird." It turned out that was because Blu Rays were inevitably demoed with TVs that had motion blur reduction settings cranked up - the ones that use frame interpolation to add missing frames, which resulted in the "soap opera" effect, where it made 24fps movies look filmed on video (which was traditionally a higher frame rate, hence clearer motion).

Anyway, quite a number of times someone would say "Blu Rays motion is too clear and unblurred. That's not real life. In real life the way our eye works, moving things are blurred."

It as fascinating that they did not notice the incoherence of this claim. (Obviously they were misunderstanding the nature of how our eyes see motion - if in real life our eyes saw moving objects as blurry, the person in question could never have seen the "too clean" motion shown on the TV set).

Completely off topic, but the way the eye interacts with sample-and-hold-displays just makes video a pain to get right.

 

[tuga]

These, I guess, in-room measurements show hugh deviation from flat FR.
Because of that I do not understand the target of speakers flat FR.

Have a look at the directivity characteristics.

 

[ThoFi]

Pardon me, but if the eye has limitations, how does it perceive that which goes beyond those limitations? Same for the ear; how can our ears hear something beyond their abilities?

Microscopes have shown for many, many years that there are things that the eyes cannot see. Microphones have shown that there are sounds all around us everyday that we cannot hear.

Just because our eyes don't see those things nor our ears hear those things doesn't mean that they're not there. It also doesn't mean that we don't live quite comfortably in a world that is filled with all the things we can't see and can't hear. Just the opposite; we can, and very competently and very comfortably.

You said, "I think ....."
Is it not possible that your opinions bias and control your perceptions? Jim Taylor

The limitation is the brain. Too much information (ear, eyes) isn't healthy.
I think technics/engineers overdo certain things. (Yes, I think in my humble opinion)

 

[ThoFi]

Have a look at the directivity characteristics.

sorry I didn’t understand again.
Could you explain for me?

 

[ahofer]

sorry I didn’t understand again.
Could you explain for me?

He's referring to directivity measurements. For Harbeth, they do not resemble the Harman-researched ideal. Sound dispersion is uneven through parts of the frequency range, i.e. it is highly directional in some frequencies and broad-firing in others.

Harbeth Super HL5+

Hello, I'm considering the purchase of a pair of SHL5+. A second hand pair came up, and as a bit of a sucker of the old vintage look, I'm kinda tempted. However, It's very important to me to know whether a piece of equipment I paid good money for, justifies it from an objective point of view...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[richard12511]

Completely off topic, but the way the eye interacts with sample-and-hold-displays just makes video a pain to get right.

It's honestly crazy just how much more perfect cameras see compared to how our eyes see in real life. I've seen visual shorts that try to more closely approximate they way we see in real life, and it highlights just how bad our real vision is. It's like only the very center is HD, and everything outside of that tiny circle is 140p . Something weird with regards to movement, too, though I don't really remember what it was.

 

[MattHooper]

It's honestly crazy just how much more perfect cameras see compared to how our eyes see in real life. I've seen visual shorts that try to more closely approximate they way we see in real life, and it highlights just how bad our real vision is. It's like only the very center is HD, and everything outside of that tiny circle is 140p . Something weird with regards to movement, too, though I don't really remember what it was.

That's one thing that blows me away about the subjective audiophiles who eschew measurements because "our ear/brain is so much more sensitive...maybe science will catch up but not yet." I have to remind them how loony that is: the reason we MAKE measuring instruments is due to the limitations of our senses in the first place. Instruments extend the sensitivity and reliability of perceiving phenomena. When's the last time these people saw X-rays in the air, or spied things 10 billion light years away (e.g. Hubble), or heard ultrasonic sound, or detected gamma rays, and are they using a CO2 detector? Etc.

The mind bottles!

 

[ThoFi]

…what does it tells us about perfection/imperfection of audio gear?

 

[Ken Tajalli]

.................... I have to remind them how loony that is: the reason we MAKE measuring instruments is due to the limitations of our senses in the first place. Instruments extend the sensitivity and reliability of perceiving phenomena. When's the last time these people saw X-rays in the air, or spied things 10 billion light years away (e.g. Hubble), or heard ultrasonic sound, or detected gamma rays, and are they using a CO2 detector? Etc.

Well there is a counter-argument there!
Those Loonies may argue that, why are Audio visual industry constantly researching to better their equipments?
After all we are pretty deaf and blind anyway! and we have had amps with vanishingly small distortions and DAC's accurate to 24dB and 192kHz bandwidth (loony isn't it, we barely hear to 12kHz).
Why does ASR exist, and why does Amir keep reviewing more and more lab. grade equipments, to find those SINADS stretching waaaay into inaudibility?
Doesn't make sense, does it?
UNLESS, your original assumptions about our incapibility to hear, see and process them is wrong.
My 2 pence.

 

[muad]

Well there is a counter-argument there!
Those Loonies may argue that, why are Audio visual industry constantly researching to better their equipments?
After all we are pretty deaf and blind anyway! and we have had amps with vanishingly small distortions and DAC's accurate to 24dB and 192kHz bandwidth (loony isn't it, we barely hear to 12kHz).
Why does ASR exist, and why does Amir keep reviewing more and more lab. grade equipments, to find those SINADS stretching waaaay into inaudibility?
Doesn't make sense, does it?
UNLESS, your original assumptions about our incapibility to hear, see and process them is wrong.
My 2 pence.

The 24bits allows for digital attenuation without losing bits. The 192khz isn't the same khz as analogue "khz". But yeah, most of these specs are largely useless.

Psychological satisfaction is why we keep chasing better specs, shinier cars or any imperceptible improvements in anything we do. But then again we're never really satisfied...

 

[Ken Tajalli]

studio recording (to my knowledge ) is DXD which has a bandwidth of 178 kHz, OK , not 192 but almost.

 

[muad]

studio recording (to my knowledge ) is DXD which has a bandwidth of 178 kHz, OK , not 192 but almost.

It's not bandwidth, it's a sample rate.

 

[q3cpma]

Why does ASR exist, and why does Amir keep reviewing more and more lab. grade equipments, to find those SINADS stretching waaaay into inaudibility?

Because the point isn't to say "look, we've got -140 dB of THD+N!" but "look, another $100 transparent product" or "look, this $5000 amplifier is seriously lacking in engineering rigor". And because speakers/headphones still exist and they're still an open question.

tl;dr only fools get excited about the nth DAC with < 120 dB THD+N, unless it happens to be significantly cheaper than before. The goal is validation of less measured brands/products.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

Because the point isn't to say "look, we've got -140 dB of THD+N!" but "look, another $100 transparent product" or "look, this $5000 amplifier is seriously lacking in engineering rigor". And because speakers/headphones still exist and they're still an open question.

tl;dr only fools get excited about the nth DAC with < 120 dB THD+N, unless it happens to be significantly cheaper than before. The goal is validation of less measured brands/products.

AAh, don't cheapen ASR.
Ofcourse there are exceptional $100 devices, just as there are $5000 snake-oil devices.
There are also THIS Benchmark power amplifier.
It measures as good as Amir's AP measuring equipment can measure, well beyond what our deaf ears can ever hope to distinguish, and at $3000! Amir couldn't hide his enthsiasm (deservedly), and strongly recommended it at the price.
What is puzzling is that, there are $200 amps (as you know) transparent beyond audibility, so why didn't Amir say:
" Well you know, Benchmark is good, but there are $200 amps, and frankly Humans can't tell the difference anyway, save your money, don't buy this lab. grade amp, as good as it maybe".
He never argues against futility of better and better spec.s.
I believe it's because, the Benchmark amp will have audible differences compared to a fantastic $1000 amp with ever diminishing (on paper) spec.
My argument is, we can hear and process better than what some engineers think, perhaps not in a confusing quick A/B switcharoo, but given time, we mostly go for the better equipment.
There is also Chord Qtest ! And Amir is not fond of Rob Watts the designer, yet just a simple DAC costing $2000 gets a thumbs up, but in reality, no graph can prepare you for its Sound in a top tier setup.
Don't knock us off so cheaply.

 

[fcracer]

Why does ASR exist, and why does Amir keep reviewing more and more lab. grade equipments, to find those SINADS stretching waaaay into inaudibility?

I think Amir’s site exists for all the products that don’t produce SINAD beyond our hearing. This website is providing a driving force for improving the home audio industry and holding manufacturers accountable to meet their specifications.

It’s great when we see another 120db SINAD DAC, but I get way more excited when I see Amir review a $2000 amp and it ends up having a SINAD of only 75db. This educates and informs us of which manufacturers are taking advantage of us.

 

[sergeauckland]

These, I guess, in-room measurements show hugh deviation from flat FR.
Because of that I do not understand the target of speakers flat FR.

A reasonably benign room, i.e. one that's pleasant to be in for normal domestic and social purposes will nevertheless have a frequency response that's nowhere near flat. It will nevertheless be a pleasant room in spite of that. Using a loudspeaker with a flat response in that room means it will excite the room in the same way as other everyday sounds, and therefore will sound natural in that room. A loudspeaker with a non-flat response will overlay that on the room's response and therefore sound less natural than one that's flat.

That's why a loudspeaker with a flat anechoic response is to be preferred, and is a reason why, unless the room is very poor, I think room correction is the wrong way, and if it is very poor, then improving the room is a better solution than screwing up the loudspeaker's response in an attempt to get the in-room response reasonable.

S.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

but I get way more excited when I see Amir review a $2000 amp and it ends up having a SINAD of only 75db. This educates and informs us of which manufacturers are taking advantage of us.

You mean something like this:

Audio Research 100.2 Power Amplifier Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Audio Research Corporation (ARC) 100.2 stereo power amplifier. It is on kind loan from a member. The 100.2 came out in year 1998 at a cost of US $2,995. It was later raised to US $3,495. If I remember correctly, the owner told me this the...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[fcracer]

You mean something like this:

Audio Research 100.2 Power Amplifier Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Audio Research Corporation (ARC) 100.2 stereo power amplifier. It is on kind loan from a member. The 100.2 came out in year 1998 at a cost of US $2,995. It was later raised to US $3,495. If I remember correctly, the owner told me this the...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I’ll give this one a pass given it’s age, but I get really excited when I see a headless panther on a 2021 high end product that doesn’t deliver anything close to its specs. There’s a multichannel amplifier reviewed a few days ago that meets this requirement.

 

[JaccoW]

As I've written in the Welcome New Members to ASR, introduce yourself here-thread, I really liked the Harbeth Compact 7es-3 with the Rega Elex-R stereo amplifier when I still had them. Look at my stop-gap thread to see what the room looks like.

They had a fullness and clarity that I really liked, with some more instrumental recordings sending shivers down my spine. I listened to the Harbeth SHL5 Plus at a hifi store with the same amp and liked their extra bass and slight lift in clarity. It's good to hear the XD version of the 7's sound like a mini SHL5 but I will find a place to listen to them in time. It takes time to rebuild a setup like that. I'm not an audiophile but I do like good sound and gear. And since I'm only/already 34 and still have most of my hearing this is a long-term purchase.

Reposting the old setup:

Speakers ended up further away from the wall and on a set of adhesive Soundcare Spike 2

 

[RickSanchez]

He [Amir] never argues against futility of better and better spec.s.

You may want to spend more time on ASR before making a claim like that. Amir regularly references various thresholds of human hearing / audibility in his reviews as well as general audio articles. Like in his JDS Atom review:

"Distortion is incredibly low at -130 dB (15 dB better than threshold of hearing)."

He regularly lauds manufacturers who produce devices with better and better specs because of their engineering excellence. But he does not promote the notion that better and better measurements -- beyond established thresholds of audibility, like those listed here for DACs & amps -- are worth it for consumers to chase to achieve better sound.