Who's Rich Timbre? Never heard of the guy.
Best Loudspeakers for Rich Timbre?
I realise that the music industry seems to care less and less about timbre, see
https://youtu.be/oVME_l4IwII
But for me, without timbre music reproduction can be compared to food which lacks flavour or a modern movie with washed out colours. Occasionally interesting, but rarely engaging.
So my question is, what are your loudspeaker candidates if you are looking for a 'Technicolor' sound?
I know many use tube amps solely for this aim, but perhaps they are a subject deserving an entirely separate discussion.
https://youtu.be/oVME_l4IwII
But for me, without timbre music reproduction can be compared to food which lacks flavour or a modern movie with washed out colours. Occasionally interesting, but rarely engaging.
So my question is, what are your loudspeaker candidates if you are looking for a 'Technicolor' sound?
I know many use tube amps solely for this aim, but perhaps they are a subject deserving an entirely separate discussion.
279 responses Add your response
Speakers don't do math. Nor are they polymaths given the numbers of instruments, materials, musicians, tuning, styles, etc. etc. in existence.We could have stopped right there. 😄Yes it's fair to say that all speakers must either be adding or subtracting to timbre All the best, Nonoise |
@nonoise , I agree that valve amplifiers can add to our perception of harmonics/instrument timbres, but to keep it simple I wanted to concentrate on loudspeakers only. I hope you can agree that we've had plenty of good suggestions worth exploring if anyone is interested in this all too often neglected topic. All of the following suggestions are of potential interest to anyone looking for above average reproduction of timbre - Devore Fidelity 0/96 and 0/93 Sonus Faber +Franco Serblin's Ktema or Accordo Audio Note Daedalus Audio Tannoy DCs BBC Harbeth, Spendor, Graham Vienna Acoustics ProAc Legacy Audio Aeris / Focus SE and Joseph Audio speakers got a special mention too. |
cd318, Interesting list. The main problem I see is the subjectivity involved. If we surveyed everyone here we'd see a huge variety of speakers being used, and I doubt many people would say "My speakers don't do instrumental timbre well." In other words, that list could be expanded to the point it's not terribly useful. That's not to say that I think that it's just entirely subjective whether a system produces accurate timbre, or accurate sound in general. In principle, it seems to me, blind tests could be set up with, say, live vs reproduced sound and a large enough sample size of participants, and tests, over time could produce results showing some speakers produce sound closer to indistinguishable from live (and hence good timbre) than others. But as that isn't happening much at all, we are left to what measurements can tell us, and ultimately our own impressions. |
cd318, I wasn't implying that tube gear would help in getting rich timbre. I was agreeing that the whole chain of gear must be taken into consideration. You can swap out speakers until you run out of patience and won't get rich timbre if what is upstream of it is not up to par. If you can get as accurate as you can a set up, rich timbre should be one of the results. All the best, Nonoise |
cd318 I'm somewhat puzzled by the fact it seems no one (or no speaker manufacturer I'm currently aware of) is doing the live vs reproduced tests for their speakers. (With the exception of the occasional live musician brought in for some audio shows). John Dunlavy claimed this was fairly routine when testing the success or not of their speaker designs. |
@nonoise , I agree wholeheartedly that what comes before the loudspeaker matters. When it comes to vinyl sources. you have to get as good a turntable as you can. However when it comes to digital sources, amplifiers (SS) and cables, I'm firmly in the Peter Aczel camp. I also live in fear that I will eventuality just give up and end up listening to vinyl via a pretty tube amp and high efficiency speakers. By then no doubt fully convinced the entire industry took a wrong turn some 60 years ago and have been duping us all in the process ever since. |
@prof , I guess times are hard and margins are tight. Still there must be someone out there with the budget capable of organising this. A live piano recital behind a curtain would be a pretty stern test for any speaker. Or perhaps the pianist could just mime upon the switch to recorded sound, (presumably on tape). As long the hands were hidden from view, it wouldn't matter too much if the pianist was in vision or not. |
That is part of my problem with Magico and Wilson. They play sound okay but not music. That's with about 15 or more auditions of each of those two brands. Never heard a Harbeth I didn't like. I own Legacy Focus and Signature IIIs (originals). I like vonSchweikerts and Lumenwhites a lot. They have timbre and rhythm correct with adequate dynamics to make the sound lifelike to the recording. The Harbeth has some contraints in the frequency extremes and dynamics but is otherwise a very musical sounding speaker. I came up from owning large electrostats for over 20 years (Acoustat X, Acoustat 2&2 and ML Monolith IIIs). While I liked what they did right, my wife did not like what they didn't do-tight deep punchy bass and dynamics. Also, the speakers I like tend to be easy to drive, unlike the Magico and Wilsons. |
@fleschler Wow! I applaud your energy and resolve to have thoroughly investigated the sonic properties of 2 loudspeaker brands considered to be near the state of the art, Magico and Wilson. I must admit that I am less surprised about your reaction to Alon Wolf's creations. Could it be that in his determined pursuit of ultimate scientific truth that some of the natural warmth of music has been left behind? High tech material, but too much cold truth resulting in 'sound but not music'. As for Wilson, I am a little more surprised. Most reviews praise Wilson speakers with few reservations other than the price. In fact it was only the other day at a show that I heard great feedback on Wilson speakers from a fellow visitor. Some of the models might not be to everyone's taste visually but the Sabrina and Sasha seem to be easier on the eye. |
schubert, "Rich timbre" is not a description I personally would give the Totem line. I've always found they had a superficially attractive sound - those sparkly highs allied to a deeper coloured midrange, but their completely obvious contouring of the frequency response for that "Totem sound" is just too obvious and intrusive for me to enjoy over time. There's an obvious dip in the upper frequencies that gives it a recessed sound and but comes back out still in the presence region to give the impression of sparkly, sharp transients. But it results in a pinched sound to the upper mids. I think it's probably that dip around 5K in the crossover region that you see over and over in measurements of Totem speakers. |
It seems to me that Wilson speakers have for a while now entered a bit of a renaissance in terms of the feelings they engender in the high end community. It used to be that Wilson was everyone's favourite whipping boy - that paradigm of the "really expensive heavily constructed high end speaker" that had tons of hype, and which some reviewers lauded, but which many people loved to hate "way to clinical, way too bright, way to colored, etc." But these days Wilsons seem to get way more love, and words like "rich" and "realistic, natural" seem to accompany reviews and reports on many of their current models. And they seem back in favour even with reviewers who may have abandoned them once before. These are all observations from a distance, as I haven't spent much time (if any) listening to a Wilson speaker for many years. |
I admit that I have enjoyed some recordings on Wilson speakers, but generally the smaller speakers sounded better. I've heard big Wilson's from the start decades ago (abysmal) which sounded like 5 boxes of sound, incoherent music. The Sabrina, Alexa were the most recent ones I heard and they sounded good with massive tube power amps (VTLs). I prefer more efficient speakers. As to Magico, that's where I've heard truly bad sounds. Their Q1 playing Scheherazade sounded about the size of a boombox (not much bigger). I heard the S5 make a guitar sound like a ukelele. I've heard the Q5 sound dark and minimally dynamic with Jadis gear. Otherwise, the better Magico systems I've heard were meh, not musically interesting. The worst was bringing my wife to her first audio show. She walked out of every Magico system saying that they're uninteresting. She loved the Ultra 11 vonSchweikert. We both loved the Lumenwhite, the Stein audio, Volti and Marten speaker systems. She liked the Harbeth 40.2 a lot. So, these speakers were especially good at presenting a musical/warm sounding tone. Some people love Magicos and Wilsons. I've never heard the Magicos sound tonally interesting. Smaller Wilsons, better. |
I know. I've held off in buying $50-60K efficient speakers because I'm getting so much great sound/music from my Legacy Focus speakers using older high end equipment and recently acquired tweaks, When I upgrade, it will cost a lot to exceed my current sound. Buy used older Legacy's for great timbre plus their other attributes for a bargain that beginning audiophiles can afford. |
I recently went on the search for the perfect speaker, and the ability to capture the natural rich sound (timbre) of an acoustic instrument was one of my priorities. I home auditioned 15 speakers (review here: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/a-brief-review-of-15-high-end-speakers-on-home-demo-including... and found some well-loved brands lacking in this area. The two which really shone in the reproduction of a natural rich timbre were the Sonus Faber and the Boenicke. I ended up purchasing the Boenicke. Interestingly Sven Boenicke, the designer, records live concerts of small classical ensembles, and one of the aims of his designs is to have a speaker which reproduces that natural sound of the instrument which he tries to capture in the recording. I find with my Boenicke even the troublesome violin is rendered perfectly. I also heard the Joseph speakers in the Munich HiFi show. They were excellent too. Jazz was being played (isn’t it always at HiFi shows?!) from a reel to reel via an Alluxity amp. It sounded wonderful. |
@fleschler I have the Magico A3 in my system for over a month now. I listen to many speakers before I chose the A3. Some of the contenders were the Wilson Sabrina the Dynaudio Contour 60 and Confidence 2 and the Focal Sopra 2. I don’t like Harbeth they are too warm, with very bad resolution ( I am a musician, and do a lot of recording, I need to hear what was recorded, not added noise from the loudspeakers). Apparently like coloration and noise, all the speakers you mentioned are extremely colored. |
I've heard various Wilsons in stores, and their overall character always seemed to me to be summed up in the adjective: relentless. And not in a good way. I haven't heard the Sabrinas, and from everything I've read, it really seems as if these are voiced rather differently. BTW, I recently auditioned the 40.2's and was blown away by them (in a good way). They immediately vaulted to the top of my shortlist. |
@david_ten , I think the life of us audiophiles is like one long exercise in self-critique. Forums like this could almost be loosely termed as a self help group! Audiophiles do mainly tend to be men, but there are no barriers of age, race, occupation or income. Just a common pursuit of personal sonic ecstasy. Of course we can be an impressionable and sensitive lot. I intensely dislike my Hi-Fi being criticised, although I’m not as bad as I used to be. But you can also easily say the same for many car owners. I try to take the impressions of fellow enthusiasts far more seriously than any magazine reviewer because they generally seem to ring more truer, and feel more real world. I bet its almost impossible to be completely neutral as a paid reviewer because of all the industry politics and various vested interests. Designers and manufacturers probably feel hyper sensitive to any criticism. If I was in their shoes, I know that I would. All that time, effort and money invested. I am still slightly puzzled as to why Magico speakers don’t get a universal thumbs up, the way say for example DeVore do. Alon Wolf seems to be far too meticulous in his approach as to not have canvassed a wide range of opinion before unleashing his products. Speaking as someone who has never heard a pair I wonder whether it’s something to do with that aluminium cabinet or the graphene drivers? Still, enormous credit to Alon, and all the other designers out there trying to push the sonic barriers back further and further. |
| Post removed |
I am still slightly puzzled as to why Magico speakers don’t get a universal thumbs up, the way say for example DeVore do. Alon Wolf seems to be far too meticulous in his approach as to not have canvassed a wide range of opinion before unleashing his products. Speaking as someone who has never heard a pair I wonder whether it’s something to do with that aluminium cabinet or the graphene drivers? Very good point. I think people, me included, gotten used to heavy colored sound from speakers, once it is removed, it is very unfamiliar to us. It may take some time to understand, but once you get it, there is no return. All the talk about "feeling" etc, is absolutely rubbish. It is the intellect that does the work, people need to educate themselves about what it is they are listening to. If you are confronted, and willing to accept the fact that what you like is only 50% of the resolution (Harbeth speakers), you may start to "feel" different about it. |
Although my wife liked all the Harbeths she heard, I can appreciate their sound but would not own them. My old Legacy Focus have superior dynamic range, bass, highs coupled with a more neutral sound. The vonSchweikert and Lumenwhite speakers are even more neutral. The Magico speakers (I haven't heard the A3) are extremely neutral but that is not the problem when I've heard them which I mentioned previously. As for the WIlson's, the smaller ones sounded very nice and the newer models are their best sounding. Older Wilson's=worse sound, especially their Max speakers of 20 to 30 years ago. The other point I made was that I prefer efficient rather than inefficient speakers. jones4music points out that the Magicos and Wilsons sound best with huge monoblocks. That's not what I want to use to drive speakers. I have 125w. tube monoblocks. I've heard Wilsons with huge VTL and Magicos with huge Solution monoblocks. So what? I still didn't like the sound. Yes, maybe they are too neutral for me. The sound did not move me as much as a cheaper 40.2 Harbeth with it's highly colored and less resolving sound (I prefer the Volti horn speakers to Harbeths for nearly half the price). I'm glad you enjoy the Magico and Wilson speakers. They don't meet my requirements. |
mheinze wrote: ^^ File this under "Audiophiles say the darnedest things!" You may not like Harbeth speakers, but I suggest you not go from there to making silly comments like the above. You have your experience of course and have every right to decide which speakers sound best to you. But you are taking your opinion into making objective claims about resolution. You aren’t in a unique exalted position in deciding among speakers; many of us here have long experience playing instruments, lots of exposure to acoustic instruments and other "real" sounds (everyone knows what a real person sounds like), and many of us are just as interested in understanding the difference between real and reproduced sound. Harbeth speakers have been highly reviewed as having exceptionally accurate timbre for voices and instruments by reviewers well familiar with other high resolution systems. A great many audiophiles have agreed. I have previously owned the Harbeth Super HL5plus and recently completed a several-years-long audition of many top contender speakers (including Paradigm Persona, Audio Physic, Joseph Audio, Focal, Raidho, Revel, Magico A3, etc). The Harbeth speakers held up quite well and showed plenty of detail and resolution. As everyone knows, reproducing the human voice in a natural manner is one of the biggest challenges for any system, given how familiar we are with the sounds of real voices. Harbeth is renowned for the natural sounding reproduction of the human voice. And indeed, in my auditions where I specifically check this aspect out, between the Magico and the Harbeth speakers, voices tended to sound more realistic, natural and organically believable on the Harbeth speakers, to my ears. The ridiculous claims about Harbeth being low resolution speakers, or having "50%" resolution are unfounded opinion. Harbeth has been just as fanatical about developing their radial driver, in terms of reducing coloration, as pretty much any other manufacturer attempting realistic sound reproduction, which is why they have some renown in the audiophile world. And the measurements support the high level of performance, as can be seen in the Stereophile review: https://www.stereophile.com/content/harbeth-super-hl5plus-loudspeaker-measurements Atkinson’s comments in the measurements section: AD commented that "the Harbeth Super HL5plus sounded conspicuously, even startlingly, clear." It came as no surprise, therefore, to see that the Harbeth’s cumulative spectral-decay plot (fig.8) demonstrated a superbly clean decay throughout the midrange and treble. Harbeth’s RADIAL2 material does indeed result in a well-behaved woofer cone. So if I’m looking at evidence for a claim, I can see the great amount of praise Harbeth has garnered among reviewers and many audiophiles for sonic excellence and truth of timbre. I can note my own experience actually owning Harbeth speakers and being able to compare them to a broad range of speakers I’ve owned and audiotioned. And measurements support that they are a high resolution speaker via excellent engineering. Or...I can take the comment from a forum audiophile that Harbeths only give you "50% resolution." Hmm...I wonder which is more credible ;-) |
The tube cult is a relatively small club compared to the rest but has a strong presence here. That’s probably why you hear more in general here about products that are popular with tube gear. Where as Magico is nice and sounds very good but expensive and lots of competition so does not get as much universal accolades, even if perhaps they might be deserved. The build quality of Magico’s I have seen and heard is top notch. So is the sound but hey there are so many other top notch sounds I hear also often for much lower cost. BTW I have auditioned and know Magico’s sound very good with very good higher powered tube gear to match but few may afford or even want to have to deal with that kind of combo even if they can afford it. Big tube amps use lots of power, throw off a lot of heat, and are harder and more costly to maintain. High TCO. Not for everyone. Smaller tube amps with higher efficiency, easy to drive speakers (not nearly as many out there to choose from) is way more practical for many. So you hear a lot about the likes of Tekton and others. Of course full range high efficiency speakers tend to be bigger and bulkier than most so no panacea there either. |
@prof I suggest you watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2pvz6RDBCE It will explain to you some facts; they correlates perfectly with what mheinze is trying to say (Unfortunately, JA can not be trusted when it comes to UK made loudspeakers, read the comments on his ridicules conclusion, they are much more in line with reality). For someone who puts so much time in to this hobby (or at least writing about it), some education may go a long way; you should give it a try, your long posts will be much more interesting and relevant. |
sciencecop, You’ve got to be kidding. So in response to my post, you are giving a link to one speaker manufacturer’s claims for "why our design is better?????" As if that weren’t standard for pretty much every manufacturer/speaker designer to claim? That’s a classic bit of advertisement of the type that can be found by most speaker manufacturers. You have the Vandersteen cone pitted against some selected "unnamed" paper cone, and oh-my-gosh, can you believe it? Look how bad the selected-unnamed-cone compares to OUR cone? And, as if Vandersteen were the only speaker manufacturer that recognizes the desire for an evenly pistonic cone material???? Of course speaker manufacturers recognize the relevance, that’s why so many brag about the pistonic behaviour of their speaker drivers! Including Harbeth who make a big deal about precisely this engineering goal for their Radial driver. This idea is hardly a revelation. And why are you posting a comparison between a Vandersteen driver and an unnamed PAPER CONE driver, as if it made mheinze’s point, when the Harbeth speakers use a POLYPROPYLENE cone of their own polymer design, specifically engineered toward attaining lower coloration through highly pistonic behaviour???? And the Stereophile measurements indicate that the Harbeth Radial driver is indeed low in coloration. And you think all this "correlates perfectly" with the claims I’m objecting to like Harbeth speakers only producing "50% of the resolution?" Do you want to point us towards measurements showing Harbeth speakers are only giving "50%" of the resolution of the audio signal vs Magico?..or do you think promotional videos from one speaker company comparing their driver to unnamed paper drivers actually make this case? If so, you’ve got a wonky idea of evidence and argument. Nowhere am I claiming that Harbeth speakers are the best designs. I've been objecting to the over-board claims that they are "low resolution" and even sillier, only give "50%" of the resolution. Speaker design is about balancing compromises, and most speaker drivers/designs balance various compromises. The trick is how it all comes out in the mix, and the Harbeth design seems to have balanced these engineering problems quite well. For someone who puts so much time in to this hobby (or at least writing about it), some education may go a long way; you should give it a try, your long posts will be much more interesting and relevant. Oh, please. Should you post something of greater relevance, that actually undermines anything I’ve written, then I’ll heed your gracious advice. |
I was hoping that the very simple explanation of why a speaker cone should be pistonic will enlighten you (this has nothing to do with Vandersteen, he just happened to explain it well). These are all very basic concept of physics, but you have to embrace real science first, which I now understand you are not willing (or capable) of doing. BTW, "POLYPROPYLENE" cones are actually much worse, i.e less pistonic, then harden "PAPER CONE", which is what typically is used in today drivers. |
sciencecop, You are being evasive, not "educational" which suggests "education" isn’t your actual motivation in responding to my posts. Of course, nothing in what I’ve posted abandons "real science." That’s just a flip remark to try to make yourself feel superior without bothering to justify that claim. As I said, I’m well aware...like pretty much anyone who has followed high end audio...that speaker designers have long understood the benefits of pistonic behaviour in drivers. Simply repeating, even after I pointed that out, that you think you are "enlightening" me on this idea is simply ignoring my reply to continue subtle chest-puffing on your part. You’ve simply evaded the actual points I’ve raised. I have objected to mheinze’s over-board claims that Harbeth speakers are "low resolution" designs and only give "50%" resolution (talk about claims pulled out of one’s arse). Pretty much all drivers have compromises of one sort or another, which is why various types are used by manufacturers, and debated among the DIY speaker crowd. But we are talking about claims made against a SPECIFIC speaker company, Harbeth. Every speaker designer chooses a driver for the characteristics that are desirable for their goal, while minimizing the flaws. Harbeth claims to have spent many years and lots of money to minimize the flaws of a polypropylene driver, increasing stiffness and pistonic behaviour, while maintaining the desirable characteristics, all with the goal of a low coloration speaker design. Now, if YOU claim, along with mheinze that Harbeth has FAILED in that design goal, and that Harbeth speakers are in fact "low resolution" speakers or only produce "50%" resolution, then you need to show this, rather than post links to the performance of some other unnamed speaker manufacturer’s paper cone, as if THAT demonstrated your case. For my part, I’ve actually supplied links to actual 3rd party measurements of the Harbeth SuperHL5 plus, and despite your (unevidenced) claim about whatever bias Atkinson may have, he has supplied measurements in support of his remarks that indicate low coloration in the Radial driver in particular, and a balanced well designed speaker in general. But while we are waiting on you supplying actual evidence against this, how about some more 3rd party evidence in support of the excellence of the Harbeth speaker design. From this review: http://i.nextmedia.com.au/Assets/harbeth_super_hl5_plus_speakers_review_test_lores.pdf Listening impressions from the reviewer: First impressions are always important, whether it’s people, companies or loudspeak-ers, and my first impression of the Harbeth Super HL5plus was that its sound was amaz-ingly cohesive and stunningly real, very similar to what I hear from full-range designs (Lowther et al) but with none of the bass or treble limitations of full-range loudspeakers. It’s so stunningly real that although I will do so for the purpose of this review, it’s as if the bass, the midrange and the treble no longer exist as separate entities that need to be described as such, but you’re instead just listening to ‘music’—music that’s been freed from the normal transitions that must take place from a bass driver to a midrange driver to a tweeter. From the measurements section: Harbeth’s Super HL5plus proved to have an extremely smooth and superbly extended frequency response, characterised by a very slight spectral tilt that saw the bass/midrange region very slightly elevated compared to the output at higher frequencies. You can see the evidence of this in Graph 1, which shows the averaged frequency response using pink noise as a test stimulus. It’s important to first note the extension and linearity of the Harbeth Super HL5plus’s response, as measured by Newport Test Labs, because it extends from 45Hz to 40kHz ±3dB—EXTENSION AND LINEARITY THAT ARE, IN MY MEMORY, UNPRECEDENTED. So now I have presented links to two reviews of a speaker FROM THE ACTUAL SPEAKER COMPANY UNDER DEBATE where both listening impressions AND THE MEASUREMENTS indicate a low coloration, faithful presentation of the signal. So how about, instead of just trying to knock me down a notch, you actually address the points I’ve actually made. If YOU are claiming to have a scientific case against what I’ve written, show us how those Harbeth speakers in fact produce "low resolution/50% resolution," where the measurements seem to suggest excellent engineering. Support your claim that I have refused to embrace "real science." Show how my objections to mheinze’s remarks that Harbeth speakers only produce "50%" resolution, or are low resolution, are unreasonable. |
How about 47%, would that be better ;) If you are going to continue and quote the SP review, I would have to question your own ability to reason, but I will try one more time. Today, you can have a pistonic cone that will be well damped and will outperform anything Harbeth’s cone material is doing. There are no reasons to use a polypropylene cone anymore (maybe cost - but you can find much better drivers on a similar priced Focals etc). How about putting two tweeters (covering the same frq??!) one on top of the other? Look at the measurements, a complete mess above 12KHz, due to phase discrepancy between the tweeters, or breakup (even JA said something about that - forgetting that these measurements are "beyond reproach"). Did you see the parts quality of the XO? The cheap magnets on the drivers, and what about the enclosure, my god, it produces so much noise, it is like having another speaker within the speaker playing uncontrollable signals at all time. I am very sorry, it is clear that Allan Show didn’t leave his basement for 40 years. If this was any other product that objectively needed to perform, he would be out of business a long time ago. To look at something like that and have the nerves to say that it performs better then, just about anything I can think of, not to mention the Magicos, is a sad jock, which, sometimes, is what this hobby is :( |
sciencecop, How about 47%, would that be better ;) Sure. If you can actually support that claim. Which you haven’t. Today, you can have a pistonic cone that will be well damped and will outperform anything Harbeth’s cone material is doing. So you claim. Where are the measurements showing Harbeth’s specific driver design results in "low resolution?’" Agreed the tweeter crossover gets messy at 12K, but does THAT entail the overall design is "low resolution?" That’s the case you are supposed to be making, remember? Most of the measurements don’t support that claim and as Atkinson says right after noting the tweeter interference: "However, below the top octave, the HL5plus’s response is superbly even." It’s the radial driver that covers most of the audible spectrum, and it seems to perform very well...which you are studiously ignoring. You CLAIM that driver shouldn’t perform well, but we have MEASUREMENTS in support that it DOES work well and is low in coloration. And note that if you look at something like the Focal Sopra with the type of drivers you laud, it’s got a hashier spectral decay than the Harbeth speaker. Did you see the parts quality of the XO? The cheap magnets on the drivers, And the evidence this results in a speaker design that is "low resolution?" Strange how you keep making assertions that fall well short of actually supporting this claim. As to the lively cabinet, while Atkinson remarked that the resonant mode at 150Hz *may* be audible he said of the cabinet resonances: "This suggests that the idea of using a thin-walled cabinet to maximize the quality of a speaker’s midrange reproduction —proposed by, among others, Harbeth founder Dudley Harwood when he worked at the BBC in the early 1970s—does work as promised. " Once again, this debate has been over the claim that Harbeth speakers are "low resolution" and/or only give "50%" resolution. You have not supported those claims, only made some assertions you haven’t backed up. Where I have owned the speaker in question, compared them to other designs, and I’ve pointed to reviewer listening tests and measurements indicating the Harbeth has overall low coloration, ESPECIALLY within the range of it’s Radial driver which you attempt to denounce, and that the speaker has superb sonic qualities. Oh...and of course you have conveniently ignored the measurements and comments from the other review I posted, which suggest the high quality engineering of the Harbeth speaker. That, and comments like these: To look at something like that and have the nerves to say that it performs better then, just about anything I can think of, not to mention the Magicos, is a sad jock, ...show you do not debate these issues in good faith. That’s a strawman. I have not claimed that the Harbeths perform "better" than Magicos, either in measurements or overall sound quality. (I'd give some areas to Magico, some to Harbeth. As I said, to my ears vocals in particular sounded more "right" and believable on the Harbeths). I have merely been saying that claiming the Harbeth speakers are "low resolution" transducers, especially that they only produce "50%" of the resolution, are to say the least, exaggerated. You’ve done nothing to actually show the Harbeth design fits such a description. Snide remarks about the speaker designer don’t actually accomplish that, I’m afraid. |
| Post removed |
So if cheap parts, none pistonic jello cones, no coherent signal above 12K, a cabinet that produces noise that accounts for a significant portion of the overall output do not reduces resolution, what does? Would it helps if you look at the gross THD between 200Hz and 500Hz? Last I checked it was part of the midrange (https://www.soundstage.com/measurements/speakers/harbeth_30_domestic/). If it makes you feel better, I am willing to let go of the 50% mark; you seemed to be stuck on that. After all, I actually didn’t say that but hey, could be more, who knows, you want to define resolution now?? |
There are many philosophies or approaches to what one considers natural or perfect or even rich sound. Which ever components one uses to achieve that end goal. (cables, cartridge, ect.) as eternal as the quest might be are we ever satisfied? Isn't the search part of the fun? (tweeking, experimenting listening evaluating) |
sciencecop, So if cheap parts, No evidence from you the parts selection reduced resolution in the Harbeth speaker. none pistonic jello cones, Assertion, with no evidence, while there is evidence against your assertion. "Jello" cones would hardly provide the linearity and excellent spectral decay characteristics measured in Harbeth’s Radial Cone driver. This doesn’t help anyone take your claims seriously. no coherent signal above 12K, Atkinsons measurements show interference around there. But it’s not like the signal stops there. Plus: 1. Most of the audible spectrum is below that, and even if the speaker didn’t even produce sound above 12K (which it obviously does with a super tweeter), that does not entail it would be "low resolution" within it’s frequency range, which covers most of the musically relevant range. But more important: 2. You have been given more than one set of measurements for the Harbeth speaker. The measurements I linked to from the Newport Audio Labs show measurements quite inconvenient for your characterizations. Again, there are both the measurements to observe, with these comments from the tester: "It’s important to first note the extension and linearity of the Harbeth Super HL5plus’s response, as measured by Newport Test Labs, because it extends from 45Hz to 40kHz ±3dB—extension and linearity that are, in my memory, unprecedented. " This contradicts your claim the Harbeth SuperHL5 Plus has "no coherent signal above 12K. Would it helps if you look at the gross THD between 200Hz and 500Hz? Last I checked it was part of the midrange (https://www.soundstage.com/measurements/speakers/harbeth_30_domestic/). Yay! Measurements! Does that single measurement (of a different Harbeth speaker), that node, warrant the conclusion that the Harbeth design is "low resolution?" That would seem quite an incautious stretch for someone who is supposed to be waving the flag for a scientific approach to these things. We’d want to know the actual effects in terms of audibility in the overall audio signal produced by the speaker, while not dismissing other excellent areas of performance, before such a conclusion, right? You said you can find much better driver design from Focal at similar price, but Focal don’t seem above putting out expensive monitors that have similar distortion in that region, e.g. here: https://www.soundstage.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=902:nrc-measurements... So it isn’t good enough to simply point to any particular advantage or seeming disadvantage of single parts; it’s about how everything is implemented in the final design. And the final design of the Harbeth SuperHL5plus seems to be lauded quite highly in the comments and measurement sections in the reviews I’ve provided. If it makes you feel better, I am willing to let go of the 50% mark; you seemed to be stuck on that. After all, I actually didn’t say that No, but you entered the thread in support of mheinze’s comments. And you’ve tried to uphold the idea the Harbeth speakers deserve to be described as low resolution. (Mostly as a way to take jibes at me, quite obviously). I’ve never once said that no other speaker design, or drivers, are not capable of higher resolution than Harbeth. But that higher resolution exists, doesn’t entail Harbeth are "low resolution." I have ONLY objected that mheinze’s comments exaggerate, to a silly degree and to a point that mischaracterizes Harbeths, when he says things like "low resolution/only 50% resolution." Is it so hard to admit his comments go a bit far? If he wants to make the case some other speakers are even higher resolution than the Harbeths...sure...why not? But there’s no reason that has to come with a misleading level of characterization of the Harbeth design. I doubt we need to go beyond this point, so Cheerio! |
@prof Looks like you were on the debate team at school right? I have an allergic reaction to these circular debating techniques that lead nowhere since the debater has a very shallow understanding of the subject he was just asked to debate. It is too bad, you should have taken some science classes instead, this could have been a much more interesting discussion, and at the end, you could actually have better sound as well. |
The radial cone in Harbeth speakers is quite rigid or pistonic. Richard should not use a 4.5 inch cone at 5 KHz - it will beam severely. But the idea of pistonic is good provided the material is intrinsically damped. Watch the two videos on this page if you want to learn the difference between vacuum formed polypropylene and Harbeth injection molding. https://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/forum/the-science-of-audio/speaker-design/2215-real-world-drive-unit-and-crossover-issues/page2 Alan Shaw clearly has put a lot of effort into that mid range cone. It is superior to the large majority of designs. Like the ATC mid range - Harbeth have rightly acquired a reputation for excellent mid range quality. |
Yes aluminium and ceramic are nearly perfectly rigid and pistonic but they Rrriiiiinnnnnnggggg like a bell and are terrible materials for driver cones. The Rrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggg is what I hear from these designs. Terrible waterfall plots in most cases. Magnesium is better. CF is pretty good. What Richard uses will also be good - carbon fiber and balsa - both these materials will dissipate internal energy. The second video on the page I linked above shows that the Harbeth radial cone supports a 4.5 Kg weight - this is pretty good rigidity!! A good driver balances rigidity with intrinsic internal damping. The use of a large diameter voice coil can also make a huge difference instead of the typical 1 or 1 1/2 inch consumer audio woofer voice coil (which offers little support to the diaphragm and places a lot of stress at the apex of the cone) |
My original Legacy Focus speakers use cheap paper woofers (3 per speaker) and kevlar mid-ranges (2 per speaker). Legacy upgraded the cones and doubled the magnets in these speakers as Focus HD and SE. Neither of the two newer speakers sound as musical as my old fashion, cheap cone material speakers. How much better would my Focus speakers sound with Harbeth cone drivers? Apparently, a lot better. But to date, my Focus speakers are overall more enjoyable than Harbeth 40.2s I've heard four or five times (sounding very nice too). |
