-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Harbeth Super HL5+
- Thread starter Roy_L
- Start date
Thats your approach. Of course.
Did you heard that the SHL5+ has more inner damping material as the C7.
This results in more defined bass.
The specs do not tell the hole story.
I asked about experiences of other owners.
DSJR
Major Contributor
The 'sound' of the SHL5 and Croft 25/7 combination was nice.The 'sound' of the 5+ with 25/7 wasn't as pleasant to me, the sound becoming screechy with a bass that sounded like there was a 'carrot up the port-hole' (I can't decribe it any better, sorry). The Integrated Croft hard clips and doesn't have as much headroom as the 25 preamp and 7 power amp does (all sighted subjective of course, but to me repeatable and the 7 is loud enough in a moderately live room for domestic non head-banging use). There's a Cat Stevens CD or two which easily shows it up - when he sings out he either sings out or makes you wince if the amp can't do the dynamic swing... The Artera pre and power was a revelation, the Krell Vanguard hugely grin-inducing into 5+ and the Hegels just get on with it as my old vintage Crown amps do - no added character, just the music and recording differences...
Hope that helps?
Last edited:
DSJR
Major Contributor
The 7ES3 is so fat and bloated in the mid bass in our UK rooms, it's difficult to get meaningful results as the mid bass masks the midrange too much to my ears. Thankfully, it seems the C7-XD model has sorted this and it now sounds like a smaller 5+-XD which it certainly didn't seem to before - I maintain the 7-ES3 was the last of the old school (BeeBeeCee derived models = said with boom bass voice). Since the 7-ES3 was so popular, I suspect it is the timber framed style room builds which can absorb bass a bit which saved it. Alan has admitted on his forum that older Harbeths (like mine sadly) were balanced with lower tweeter levels than today and my SHL5 suffers a 3dB+ dip in the lower kHz region (the original M30 was an exception for the BBC and not originally for domestic use).
Bearing in mind how so many owners use their Harbeths, I'd say the tauter and more neutral balance of the new ones is a blessing from heaven frankly. I now regard the XD models (I kind of missed out on the 40th anniversary model revisions) as great passive monitors where my 30th anniversary SHL5's have a nice warm restrained old-fashioned sound with thunderous low bass in my room which increasingly doesn't work with my ears as they are now - I have a collection of sources and amps and it's most definitely not those - or the cables - and pulling them well out only partially fixes the bass to midrange balance
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 21219
Guest
That's why this site has an "ignore" function. Jim
DSJR
Major Contributor
SHL5+ changed main driver and internal damping slightly, and most importantly, the crossover too over the 5's as I have. I don't know what's been done in the XD version, but it's not hugely different (I haven't directly compared them but the subjective impression's largely similar). As I keep saying, I feel it's the 7-XD where the biggest differences have occured and now, the 30.2-XD has a touch more 'body' or 'fullness' in direct comparison (before, the 30.1 onwards models sounded lean compared to 7-ES3 I recall).
My vibe now is the XD models are more of a complete 'family' and you can buy on room size and available budget with absolutely NO surprises, something you haven't been able to do with a Spendor for example for forty years or so (I'm told that apparently, Spendor no longer make their own main drivers now).
DSJR
Major Contributor
In decades of experience here, if a speaker is correctly damped in the bass and 'accurate' elsewhere with no nasties in dispersion, it really does stand a better chance of working in a less sympathetic room.
I did ask a few times how boomy bass can be measured as it doesn't always show up in a plain response measurement. Not sure if I'm talking about 'group delay' as it's out of my comfort zone, but maybe distortion sweeps at bass frequencies can help here. A has been said a few times, if interested, one must look at the whole picture to get a clue and not just one particular measurement. Obviously, more and more here use DSP to equalise the bass but again, I'd try to get the speakers right and as well as possible positioned correctly first, so you don't have to mess around too much...
Yes, the C7ES-3 was the last speaker from the old school, kind of BBC.
I personally think that they have been so popular because at that time the people did like that more „warm“ sound. (and maybe today)
Nowadays all the HIFI gear tends to be more resolving, clearly, more dynamic. Also the customer ask for that.
Also Alan changed the design because he thought most Harbeth owner mostly hear classical music. A survey told a different story and so he rethink his design.
And of course, Harbeth, Alan as a salesman, follows the trend.
There is no BBC traditional sound at Harbeth any more!
I don’t think that this is all for good.
DSJR
Major Contributor
I'm honestly not sure where this warm-toned BBC 'sound' started. In the early 70's, the Spendor BC1 (the LS3/6 was finished after the BC1 and the Beeb hardly bought any, instead opting for hundreds of pairs of BC1's, Spendor paying them a fee for every pair sold I gather) had a mid bass 'honk' which was more the effect of tuning box resonances as low in frequency as possible to free off the mids. Little to no sign of a crossover dip in the BC1 either (axis with the Coles 'super tweeter' in this model). The larger three way LS5/5 was also pretty 'flat' for the time as well I gather. Rogers introduced the Studio 1 which seemed very 'full of itself' tonally, moreso than the previous Export based models and then of course the BBC developed the larger LS5/8 and smaller LS5/9 which were designed for their own purposes, not as monitors for others and these had a severe upper midrange response dip intended to aid sound balance engineers in a near-field setting I gather. Certainly, the LS5/9, from which the original smoother balanced Harbeth M30 was developed, found its way into many editing suites (where my Rogers pair came from), but neutral and 'flat' in balance they weren't and this, coupled with domestic derivatives, kind of became the BBC Sound internationally.
The following will need verification - I've known the Harbeth HL series since its inception and the 'loudness switch balance originals were to do with Dudley Harwood's spiritual leanings (I believe he was of the Plymouth Brethren unless I'm mistaken) [edit, as it appears music wasn't part of it but speech was]. This was quickly corrected and in fact the later Harwood HL models, especially the HL III, were pretty flat in balance, at least for the times. I missed the HL IV which used a new Audax made main driver, but here was the beginnings of a slightly gentler-balanced tweeter judging by the 'Choice response tests. Alan's acquisition of the company and the HL 5 launch shortly after basically continued this balance, the tweeter set 2dB or so below the upper mids and having a definite step down. The bass was also a little under-damped, but this 'warm natural sound of Harbeth' as promoted right up until the late noughties or so, sold a huge number of speakers in the far east for them and the Compact and its C7 derivatives did well too.
Got to say the P3 models, all of them, are in a different world to the scrappy old LS3/5A and if set in free space, can throw a far superior image between and behind them (I had a direct comparison at the factory and it's stayed in my mind for decades now).
I have to agree about many new speaker designs sounding a bit 'clinical' and precise but not necessarily products I could relax into over a drink or two. 'Monitors' by their nature magnify or ruthlessly reproduce flaws so the engineers can make educated choices on how the finished music mixes sound. The BBC have gone over to rather 'toppy' little active speakers for general noise-reproduction duties and it's my view that so many BBC broadcasts these days suffer excessive de-essing now (maybe my ears make it worse but so many current BBC broadcasts sound lispy - lithpy - where old programmes don't). There was a tale how TV sound engineers used to tweak the tiny sound monitors they used to get a broadcast sound they liked and of course this isn't done now..
The following will need verification - I've known the Harbeth HL series since its inception and the 'loudness switch balance originals were to do with Dudley Harwood's spiritual leanings (I believe he was of the Plymouth Brethren unless I'm mistaken) [edit, as it appears music wasn't part of it but speech was]. This was quickly corrected and in fact the later Harwood HL models, especially the HL III, were pretty flat in balance, at least for the times. I missed the HL IV which used a new Audax made main driver, but here was the beginnings of a slightly gentler-balanced tweeter judging by the 'Choice response tests. Alan's acquisition of the company and the HL 5 launch shortly after basically continued this balance, the tweeter set 2dB or so below the upper mids and having a definite step down. The bass was also a little under-damped, but this 'warm natural sound of Harbeth' as promoted right up until the late noughties or so, sold a huge number of speakers in the far east for them and the Compact and its C7 derivatives did well too.
Got to say the P3 models, all of them, are in a different world to the scrappy old LS3/5A and if set in free space, can throw a far superior image between and behind them (I had a direct comparison at the factory and it's stayed in my mind for decades now).
I have to agree about many new speaker designs sounding a bit 'clinical' and precise but not necessarily products I could relax into over a drink or two. 'Monitors' by their nature magnify or ruthlessly reproduce flaws so the engineers can make educated choices on how the finished music mixes sound. The BBC have gone over to rather 'toppy' little active speakers for general noise-reproduction duties and it's my view that so many BBC broadcasts these days suffer excessive de-essing now (maybe my ears make it worse but so many current BBC broadcasts sound lispy - lithpy - where old programmes don't). There was a tale how TV sound engineers used to tweak the tiny sound monitors they used to get a broadcast sound they liked and of course this isn't done now..
Last edited:
I think you might have this the wrong way round. As I understand it, the Brethren frown upon music as entertainment (particularly in forms that are perceived to encourage unholy behaviour – dancing, drinking, fornicating and the like) so Harwood had a preference for using simple speech to adjust the tone of his designs.
True or not, the fact remains that the vast majority of BBC output consists of little more than human speech, so an emphasis on this aspect of sound production and reproduction doesn't seem at all out of place.
DSJR
Major Contributor
That is my understanding, but comparative religion is not my strong suit.
Neither is music really, but I do like the dancing, drinking and fornication.
David, I think you may have this wrong. I once investigated a business in the late 1980s and it struck me as odd that the staff had manual ledgers and did everything on paper. Most people had computers in those days. So I assumed my client would put in systems and speed things up. It turned out the owners and many staff were Plymouth Brethren who believed electronic devices spread evil and were banned from the business. We only found out after my client had purchased the business and when they brought in computers the staff walked out. So I doubt Plymouth Brethren would be designing audio equipment.
Back in the day, working for the BBC was almost a divine calling… it had to be as the money was so poor at that time. Remember, audio equipment isn't used solely for sin…
Rupert Neve (1926-2021) was a devout Christian throughout his life and, arguably, nobody did more than he to transform the recording of sinful rock'n'roll into the art-form it became.
Last edited:
A little help please:Here are a few:
The chart at the bottom 12/5.7-26/2.1
I assume some sort of compatibility chart?
Is that peak V and I during testing?
Assuming peak is at 5.7 Ohm and
P = I V = I^2 Z = V^2 / Z = 25.2 W (VA?)
Assuming V and I are RMS, peak power ~ 50 W.
Can someone please translate the note(s) above, with and below the chart?
Thanks
I think you are misinterpreting the graph.The dispersion is a disgrace (SHL5+ graphs from Stereophile):
This graph plots how sound output changes relative to the smooth on-axis as you move off-axis of the speaker. It illustrates the horizontal dispersion of the speaker. What it shows is that although it's smooth on-axis, it is utterly dismal off-axis. I'm discounting the stuff above 10kHz, which is bad design but relatively inconsequential.
It shows the sound off-axis develops a dip at 2.5kHz, and then slopes upward to a peak centred at 5kHz. This is due to a mismatch in dispersion between the midbass and the tweeter. It means the direct sound and the reflected sound are likely to significantly differ.
This is known to have bad effects in-room - as Floyd Toole says:
I would not pay that much for a backwards cottage industry speaker that does not even attempt to match the dispersion of its drivers when it crosses them over. There is no excuse for any competent engineer because the research evidence has been out there for at least a decade, if not more. Not doing so is either wilful ignorance or just plain ignorance. Which doesn't reflect well on the engineer behind it, especially since this is not a speaker built to a budget. And even ignoring that it borders on ignorance to be unaware of the research evidence, it is a tremendously intuitive idea, no? Design a speaker to disperse smoothly throughout the range.
It show little deviation +/- 15 degrees.
At 10' that is +/- 2.6 feet. So with the speakers at 6' apart and a few degrees of toe in, it is excellent.
At 5 degrees it is flat, so at 10' 10 deg of toe in results in flat.
Calling people ignorant, in effect inept, is not how professionals respect each other.
Vuki
Senior Member
Translation: Works good with low powered amplifiers.
Recommended for tube amplifiers. Not for very unstable amps.
Recommended for tube amplifiers. Not for very unstable amps.
Balanced frequency response with some downward tilt and extending very deep down.
Low distortion and great reserves in bass. Plays well with amplifiers that are not very powerful. A tip for valve amplifiers. Only very unstable amplifiers are to be avoided.
Low distortion and great reserves in bass. Plays well with amplifiers that are not very powerful. A tip for valve amplifiers. Only very unstable amplifiers are to be avoided.
But you can't hear it, at those frequencies overwhelmed by the direct.
If the room has good properties, RT time, and good distance from walls, moot.
Similar threads
