Harbeth Super HL5+

[Frank Dernie]

Our hearing sense (ear + brain) is so perfect in understanding speech in conditions ranging from perfect to extremely difficult that it is rather difficult to use as a measure of speaker sound quality.

I don't agree at all.
Speech in a normal room is the sound with which humans are most familiar.
Using what one may think a voice sounds like in an echo chamber would not be a sensible way to judge a speaker but the naturalness of a normal voice is better than anything else I have ever heard suggested for judging a speaker's naturalness.
After all if you, say, had a favourite recording which you had used for years to test speakers which was unbeknown to you a poor recording from a FR pov then you may have been choosing similar but wrong speaker voicing for years, just because of it.
IMO

 

[LTig]

I don't agree at all.
Speech in a normal room is the sound with which humans are most familiar[..]

After all if you, say, had a favourite recording which you had used for years to test speakers which was unbeknown to you a poor recording from a FR pov then you may have been choosing similar but wrong speaker voicing for years, just because of it.
IMO

The same would be true for a similar poor recording of speech.

 

[Frank Dernie]

The same would be true for a similar poor recording of speech.

Of course, that is why one doesn't use one.
BBC radio 3 and 4 are the best bet IME.

 

[Frank Dernie]

These things are relative anyway.
If all you want is something that sounds great to you on the sort of music you usually listen to you don't necessarily need a natural sound, or measurements for that matter.
How many people know what the natural sound of an electronic synthesiser is? A few more will know what the natural sound of an acoustic guitar or violin actually is to judge a recording but pretty well everybody can tell when a human voice sounds natural and to a quite discerning level..

 

[LTig]

Of course, that is why one doesn't use one.
BBC radio 3 and 4 are the best bet IME.

Suzanne Vega "Tom's Diner":

I once played it to a friend and she said when she closes her eyes she would truly believe Suzanne singing live in front of her.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Suzanne Vega "Tom's Diner":

I once played it to a friend and she said when she closes her eyes she would truly believe Suzanne singing live in front of her.

I like this track and I understand, perhaps because people are so sensitive to small shortcomings in voice reproduction, it has been a key recording for testing MP3 algorithms.
I have a lot of Suzanne Vega recordings.
Mind you, even as Youtube sound goes that version is DIRE The AGC is laughable

 

[richard12511]

I like this track and I understand, perhaps because people are so sensitive to small shortcomings in voice reproduction, it has been a key recording for testing MP3 algorithms.
I have a lot of Suzanne Vega recordings.
Mind you, even as Youtube sound goes that version is DIRE The AGC is laughable

AGC?

 

[Frank Dernie]

AGC?

Automatic gain control.
It is a shit way of setting recording level automatically, some are more shit than others.
Pumping up and down and also giving marked balance shifts as it does so.

 

[MattHooper]

How many people know what the natural sound of an electronic synthesiser is? A few more will know what the natural sound of an acoustic guitar or violin actually is to judge a recording but pretty well everybody can tell when a human voice sounds natural and to a quite discerning level..

It's understandable that a lot of people have felt that electronic instruments aren't a good barometer for judging the accuracy or sound quality of a speaker - having purportedly no constant 'real world acoustic reference' like a voice or sax or whatever. All electronic instruments are simply reproduced by other transducers, so how can they have a reliable "sound" on which to judge?

And yet, as someone who has played keyboards/synth (and drums, bass, guitar, sax) for a long there really is a richer, more nuanced sound when playing keyboards (or bass) over headphones, or through even any half decent monitor. And I've experienced how those sounds become much more homogonized and two-dimensional once squeezed in to a recording and through a hi-fi. Most electronic instruments through hi-fi have that reduction in timbral richness. But I find the occaisional playback system seems of such high quality I get more of the richness dug out from the recording, closer to what it sounds like before being recorded.

 

[richard12511]

I agree that human voice is by far the most important instrument for judging speakers, as it's the instrument we're most in tune with, and the instrument with which we're most sensitive to slight distortions. Where I get confused is when I see that this is often used to justify speakers that measure poorly.

It's true that the male human voice has quite a large range. Everything from this to this. Typically though, the best speaker for reproducing human voice is going to be the speaker that is most neutral through the that range. Sure, because mix engineers do get it wrong often, some songs will be vocal forward, and on such songs a vocal range suppressed speaker will be better. Likewise, some songs will be mixed vocal range recessed, and on those songs, speakers with peaking in that range will sound best. On average, though, the "wisdom of the crowd" will take over, and just like Francis Galton observed the with the ox experiment, the mix engineers will converge on a neutral response. The best speaker "on average" will be the speaker that is most neutral through the vocal range, as it's the closest to what the mix engineers "on average" thought sounded best. The Harbeth speaker measured here(which is known for it's vocal clarity) has an on/off axis response that is decreasing throughout the vocal range. Because of this, human voices will have their lower tones and harmonics elevated above the higher tones and harmonics. This means that on average, they won't produce human speech as faithfully as (for example) a Genelec 8351b. Of course, I'm speaking "on average", and some recordings will undoubtedly sound more natural with a bass slanted response.

In summary, I agree that human voice is the most important "instrument". But, in my experience, the speakers that are best at reproducing all instruments also tend to be best at producing the human voice instrument. @Frank Dernie brought up a good point, though. If you've got a particular subset of music that you listen to that tends to be mixed in a particular manner, you want a speaker that is most accurate for that subset of music. I'm a fairly young guy, so much of the albums I listen to are albums I'm hearing for the first time. I want a speaker that sounds best "on average", but older and more experienced listeners may have more specific needs.

PS: The Harbeth measured here is an old model, so I'm not going to judge an entire brand based on that one review. I'm actually a member of the Harbeth forums, and I'm a huge fan of the brand. I love Alan's honesty when it comes to audio snake oil in the electronics sector. He's an "objectophile"(?) who often laments on all these amp/dac designers claiming their DACs are "more true to the source". I also love the aesthetics of Harbeth speakers, which is odd, as I generally don't like the vintage look. I plan to own an M40 at some point. I heard it at a conference and was very impressed, and for some weird reason, I love the look.

 

[regtas43]

Which bit is not correct?

In BBC equipment code-speak the prefix LS3 is a speaker originally designed for outside broadcast use. The prefix LS5 is a studio loudspeaker as referred to at the end of the document. The Designs Department internal publicity document you cite is about the LS3/6 which was the progenitor of the Spendor BC1. We were speaking earlier of the LS3/5, a very different and far smaller unit. This document refers to the fact that the LS3/6 is for use in situations where high sound levels are not required. The LS3/5 is even more limited in that respect. It should be noted that there are many cases of LS3 units being used in studios and LS5 units at OBs but the general principle is that LS5 are typically larger boxes with more complex amplification requirements (often bi-amped with active crossovers) whereas LS3 boxes are usually smaller with internal, passive crossovers.

So I ask you again, what part of my #150 do you allege is not correct?

This is not correct about the LS3/6 being the progenitor of the BC1. The situation is really the other way around. The BC1 was developed first (by Spencer Hughes) and then the BBC took it up and made their version of it , which was called the LS3/6. Maybe no one is much worried about this all the decades later, but just to get the history straight.... Robert E. Greene (you can read about this here https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/stirling-broadcast-ls36 and here http://www.cicable.de/pdf/ bc1story.pdf

 

[Pluto]

You may or may not be correct; but as you observe, decades later it hardly matters. But I would be highly inclined to check your sources carefully. Any material published by or through Stirling Broadcast should be treated with scepticism as certain revisionist history may well suit their commercial objectives.

Back in the day, the award of a BBC license meant that the product in question was considered suitable for use within the Corporation – for example the LS5/8 which, with the exception of a few internally made prototypes, was manufactured entirely by Rogers and, in its heyday, there were many hundreds of them in use. These days, I'm afraid, the grant of a license is a very different business with the flow of cash heading the opposite way. Back then, the license was the official approval for departments to spend money outside the Corporation on product XY6/Z. Now, it means that the maker of XY6/Z pays for the use of that design and the BBC receives a royalty on each unit sold. There is absolutely no system by which the BBC checks (or even can check) on the true conformance to the specification, but neither does it really care as long as the cash comes in.

 

[Leo Tos]

Damn it looks like I got blocked on HUG! And I just asked where you can see the official measurements of the frequency response of the Harbeth SHL5, made in an anechoic chamber or in an open area with the speakers rising up from the ground. There is so much talk about these measurements on the forum, but there are no graphs themselves. Again deception and marketing ... Sad, friends.

 

[Soniclife]

Damn it looks like I got blocked on HUG! And I just asked where you can see the official measurements of the frequency response of the Harbeth SHL5, made in an anechoic chamber or in an open area with the speakers rising up from the ground. There is so much talk about these measurements on the forum, but there are no graphs themselves. Again deception and marketing ... Sad, friends.

Sounds like you fell foul of the cult of Alan, he makes a lot of sense most of the time, but he does not tolerate being questioned, and expects cult member devotion.

 

[ThoFi]

Sounds like you fell foul of the cult of Alan, he makes a lot of sense most of the time, but he does not tolerate being questioned, and expects cult member devotion.

Many of my comments has also been blocked at HUG.
It is not allowed to raise critical questions!
Thats not good.
HUG is about to praise Harbeth, be “scientific„ to like lots of power, to like Quad, dislike tubes…
Disappointing because so you do not get the full picture.

 

[ThoFi]

I own the SHL5+ 40An.
Compared to my C7ES-3 they are extended in low and high frequencies, the bass is tighter.
I struggle with the HF.
They can be too forward (especially comp to C7) totally different, no Harbeth „house sound“. (Harbeth tends to the neutral sound, the flat frequencies response)
Also for me the sweet spot is very tight.
What could be the issue?

 

[witwald]

I own the SHL5+ 40An.
Compared to my C7ES-3 they are extended in low and high frequencies, the bass is tighter. I struggle with the HF. They can be too forward (especially comp to C7) totally different, ... Also for me the sweet spot is very tight. What could be the issue?

Apologies for all the following questions. What is your listening room like? Is it minimalist with lots of hard sound reflect surfaces, or does it have many soft furnishings in it? Are the loudspeakers toed in towards the listening position? Is there a wall directly behind the listening position? What are your room dimensions and where are the speakers located in the room relative to the room boundaries? What amplification do you use, particularly for the power output stage? What is your music source (e.g. LP, CD, streaming)? Are the SHL5plus 40Ann in exactly the same position as are/were the C7ES-3?

 

[ThoFi]

Apologies for all the following questions. What is your listening room like? Is it minimalist with lots of hard sound reflect surfaces, or does it have many soft furnishings in it? Are the loudspeakers toed in towards the listening position? Is there a wall directly behind the listening position? What are your room dimensions and where are the speakers located in the room relative to the room boundaries? What amplification do you use, particularly for the power output stage? What is your music source (e.g. LP, CD, streaming)? Are the SHL5plus 40Ann in exactly the same position as are/were the C7ES-3?

Room is app. 6x4m. Rugs, curtains, soft couch, diffusors at the back wall.
Positioning same as C7, same streamer, amp.
Different amps 50W-tube, 100W Hybrid, 50WSS, 150W class D Hypex.
Source streaming from NAS (flacs), Tidal.
Toe-in as recommended, also tried different angles…

 

[witwald]

Thanks for the extra info. Can you provide a diagram showing the locations of the speakers in the room as well as the listening position. Some idea of the curtain locations would be helpful as well. Please include measured locations.

 

[ThoFi]

Speakers 2m apart, 0.5 off the wall behind. 3m distance to the listening pos.
what issues do you have in mind?
please share a list.
thanks

I read some older posts.
I guess it could be the off-axis performance.
to me it makes sense