Harbeth Audio M40.1, cumulative spectral-decay plot
Hi,
Its hard to say you wouldn't be able to hear the box behaviour,
especially comparing them to a pair of planars with no box.
The fairer comparison is versus a big box speaker of the same size.
The claim is the rapid clearing of resonances as you head into
the midrange is preferable (not perfect) pyschoacoustically.
I think the technique hits a sweet spot around
1 to 2 cuft feet with thin walls well damped.
Not sure about the bigger or smaller boxes.
One thing I can say about the Spendor Preludes I had, the
apparent "speaker sound/nature" changed more with various
recordings than any other speaker I've had.
e.g. bass seems a bit slow / weak on this recording, but no, on
another recording it sounds fine with suppleness and depth.
I'm not saying the Preludes were perfect, far from it, but they
did give an insightful "tinted" view of the recordings nature.
And sounded damn good on stuff like the Eagles / Byrds.
rgds, sreten.
Last edited:
Well yes, of course - and that's what made it all the clearer. You certainly can hear the box. Probably true of most other box speakers, too.
Only if you want to compare box to box. For me a box with claimed little to no talk should be compared to no box at all. Coming from a demo of another box would not provide as much contrast. The contrast was particularly hard on the Harbeth, (as it would be on any other box) but that's the point. It was easy to hear the coloration and its flavor was distinct - wood. Not bad as colorations go, just distinctly woody and warm.
better keep them seperated
music instruments and related gear is designed for making music
audio is designed to 'reproduce' music, and for making money
Yes but my view is that there will always be compromises in a design. The only ones that dont have the boxy/colorations from a box are dipoles/electrotats. However, they come with their own compromises.
Seeing as how it will never be perfect and how there will always be compromises, it is better to tune the enclosure as if it was an instrument itself.
I hope that makes sense. I typed it quickly as I am heading out the door...
Given that the best speakers are maybe 10% of the way to where we could get, picking a set of compromises that connects someone to the music emotionally is the art in speaker design.
Some of the "boxiest" speakers i've heard were OB. And some of the least boxy, boxes.
dave
Hi,
"What are you telling DIYers?"
Think and analyse. Look at whats out there. If you think something
should be like "this rule" but not much out there follows "this rule",
then likely "this rule" is a simplistic myth and doesn't matter much.
Other more pertinent issues may completely override "this rule".
Don't bind your design choices to things that don't really matter.
rgds, sreten.
Oh, wow. That is interesting! I have only heard electro stats from Martin Logan and liked their sound but hated the small sweet spot. I have not heard an OB speaker but I know that they do best in a rectangular room several feet from the wall and I dont even look at those as my room cannot accommodate such a implementation. My listening room is 10ft cube and our family room/entertainment room is a odd shape that is open to the rest of the house.
The best speakers in boxes I have heard are one of the more expensive Wilson speakers. I think it was the Alexandria but not sure. I was a azed at their transparency as I couldn't even tell which speakers were on in the demo room. And had a large sweet spot.
I can also say that may taste in speakers leans more toward warm sounding with big soundstage than having something extremely articulate.
For a mobile studio that need monitors for mainly voice range then lossy cabinets with a clean midrange a good thing (the problem in the bass is then a minor issue). I was at a hifi show and the two rooms that I came back to to just enjoy the music was Harbeth and Voxativ. To claim that one solution is much better than the others is making it to simple. A good implementation of a "inferior" solution is better than bad implementation of the "best" principle.
This is a perfect example for a big problem in HiFi: detecting an error (coloration) in the sound of a device (box) which reminds of something (wood, paper), and making probably false assumptions where this error comes from.
Please have a look at the measurements from Stereophile: Harbeth M40.1 loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com
I don't know if this is the speaker you've heard but I bet that all of those Harbeth speakers are comparable.
The CSD of the back panel's vibrations looks awful, sure. But above 250 Hz there is no problem. BBC research indicates that these low resonances are less audible than resonances higher in frequency. But without a measurement at the listening position this CSD gives only a peek on the behaviour of the panels, so we cannot tell if these low resonances are below the audibility threshold found by the BBC.
If you scroll down a little you can see the frequency response of that speaker. Although I doubt the high bass peak (I'm sure that's an artifact by the nearfield measurement), you can clearly see a broad peak at 1 kHz. This peak is also visible in the measurements taken in JA's and AD's listening room (two pages further). This peak gives a coloration for sure.
And below, in the lateral polar plot, there is a broad dip above 1 kHz. This dip must be there, as the midrange is 200 mm unit. Again, here's a source of coloration, too.
Summary: there are two definitive sources of coloration (peak and dip), and one possible source of coloration (panel vibration). From this data it is not possible to assume that the "wood and paper sound" is from the panel vibrations. More likely it is from the peak at 1 kHz, and this can be tested by equalizing this peak.
Maybe from that data it isn't possible to assume - but all you have to do is stand in front of one and you'll hear it. Simple. All of us know what paper and wood sound like. The Harbeths had that sound added to everything that played thru them.
When I heard the big Harbeth I did not know about their construction, now I do. That's why I said that I now assume the colorations I heard come from the construction technique. I build my own speakers and crossovers and I ran concert sound for years - I know what a 1Khz peak or a 2-3KHz dip sounds like. Not like wood, not like paper.
Sorry Baseballbat, it's easy to point at graphs and measurements and say this or that about them - but standing in front of the speakers and actually hearing them is quite another thing. Wood, paper - unmistakable. We are all very familiar with those two materials and the are easy to recognize. It's a warm pleasant sound.
I'll go throw away my ears now, as they truly are ridiculous appendages, never to be trusted.
That's right. You can never trust your ears, never trust your mind. If you have a certain perception, don't judge based solely on that perception, but get more data and try to judge based on that.
This is called science, you know.
If I have to give up trusting my ears to tell me "That's a saxophone, that's a violin, that's a dog barking, that's a human voice, that's an airplane overhead", I might as well just ignore my senses. What's the point?
But let's back up. I claim that I heard distinct coloration on the Harbeth. Did I, or did I imagine it? If I really did, why did it sound like wood and paper to me? Was it because I saw paper cones and a wood box and simply assumed that the FR irregularities of the speaker were the sound of wood and paper? (Mostly wood, BTW). I can say that I was surprised at the strong coloration, did not expect it. Looking at Stereophile's measurements of the speaker I can't say that I've ever related those peaks and dips to a sound of a certain material, ever.
Stepping further back, what allows us to identify the sound of a certain material? What makes wood sound like wood, metal like metal, glass like glass, plastic like plastic? I don't know, but most of us can identify those materials by sound. Is it the decay? The harmonics? A combination of those things and some others?
So your claim is that the coloration of the Harbeth is simply frequency response, it could be EQed out. I claim that the coloration I heard had the distinct signature of two materials and is not necessarily FR related. Is it terribly hard to believe that the wooden box imparts a sound of wood? Especially since we know that the wall do vibrate.
I think this is important when we want to follow a technique used by a manufacturer of speakers. We know some of the theory of the Harbeth lossy cabinet (the subject of this thread), but what does it really sound like?
But let's back up. I claim that I heard distinct coloration on the Harbeth. Did I, or did I imagine it? If I really did, why did it sound like wood and paper to me? Was it because I saw paper cones and a wood box and simply assumed that the FR irregularities of the speaker were the sound of wood and paper? (Mostly wood, BTW). I can say that I was surprised at the strong coloration, did not expect it. Looking at Stereophile's measurements of the speaker I can't say that I've ever related those peaks and dips to a sound of a certain material, ever.
Stepping further back, what allows us to identify the sound of a certain material? What makes wood sound like wood, metal like metal, glass like glass, plastic like plastic? I don't know, but most of us can identify those materials by sound. Is it the decay? The harmonics? A combination of those things and some others?
So your claim is that the coloration of the Harbeth is simply frequency response, it could be EQed out. I claim that the coloration I heard had the distinct signature of two materials and is not necessarily FR related. Is it terribly hard to believe that the wooden box imparts a sound of wood? Especially since we know that the wall do vibrate.
I think this is important when we want to follow a technique used by a manufacturer of speakers. We know some of the theory of the Harbeth lossy cabinet (the subject of this thread), but what does it really sound like?
sounds like it wasn't designed for loud SPL
just teasing, though openminded, you expected to hear what you heard, yes ?
No, I did not.
I had just been told (by someone I trust) that the Harbeth is about as far as the conventional commercial box speaker can be pushed. I did not expect any coloration at all, thus was all the more surprised. I'd never heard a Harbeth. It is a great speaker, but with a distinct sound of its own.
I had just been told (by someone I trust) that the Harbeth is about as far as the conventional commercial box speaker can be pushed. I did not expect any coloration at all, thus was all the more surprised. I'd never heard a Harbeth. It is a great speaker, but with a distinct sound of its own.
Yes, you did. No problem so far.
No, my claim is that the deduction from "sounds like wood" and the construction of the speaker to "must be the box" is not valid, unless you have not made sure that no other effect/fault of the speaker was the cause. I showed you 2 possible causes, and these must be eliminated first.
Yes, because it is damped by bitumen (or something similar).
Which nearly every speaker made of wood does.
There's a report available from the BBC by Harwood where he backed his claims (lossy cabinet panels) with measured and empirical data. He shows that the BBC approach (thin cabinet walls with bituminous damping) is superior to the more obvious approach (thick walls). However, it is still possible that the panel vibration of that particular Harbeth was audible, because the manufacturer wanted to save money and reduced the amount of damping. Or the damping was loose. But, again, eliminate all other effects, then make your conclusion.
hmm, reminds me
the bigger sized Bratsch 'violin' is said to often be plagued by a 'wolftone' problem
its a ressonating one node sound caused by its size and measures
I guess you might call that sound 'boxy'
some wood instruments sound of wood, some dont
so I guess it doesnt have to sound of wood just because its made from it
I would say its not the wood sounding of wood
its more the wood ressonating the way wood ressonates
now that was weird
the bigger sized Bratsch 'violin' is said to often be plagued by a 'wolftone' problem
its a ressonating one node sound caused by its size and measures
I guess you might call that sound 'boxy'
some wood instruments sound of wood, some dont
so I guess it doesnt have to sound of wood just because its made from it
I would say its not the wood sounding of wood
its more the wood ressonating the way wood ressonates
now that was weird