Should be easy to measure if so? Are there any such measurements available showing say bass response, THD, phase, Impulse response as new vs after 100h? Or is it for some reason not measurable and only our ears can detect the change? I mean if one hear a big change with the ears it should be in the range of at least 3dB which is easy to capture my measurements.
What's the difference between the normal SHL5+ and the 40th anniversary edition? I'm thinking the latter simply offers alternative wood veneers, but the website isn't crystal clear. Thanks
Let's not. Same as cables, tube v ss, vinyl v digital, etal., no one will convince anyone one way or the other.
Higher quality internal wiring, higher specification polypropylene caps in the crossover, and WBT binding posts.
Why bother? There's only ONE person arguing. Now he wants measurements. As if that would alter his thinking, puh-leeez-
as mentioned about the wiring, binding posts and caps but the voicing is also different. the frequency response is less rich and more monitor like taking out some midbass warmth. in my listening to the anniversary models they seemed less transparent but it could have been the room and supporting system.
That may be true for the SHL5+ and C7ES, but I'm not sure it applies to the 30.2 and 40.2 series. I think I remember reading that both the SHL5+ and C7-series are Alan Shaw's personal vision of what he wants to listen to in a speaker, but would acknowledges that there is a very strong base of customers that prefer the 40.2 and 30.2 presentation (which is a skosh on the warmish side of neutral).
Has anyone heard solid state Mcintosh amps (amps or integrated) with Harbeth's? Was thinking about getting one and wondering how that pairing might be - Looking at all the iterations of Mcintosh amps over the years, I have no idea of all the subtle variations of the different models over the years (302, 352, 402, 452, etc)
Info regarding speaker break in for your perusal. How and Why to Break in your New Speakers | Klipsch How To Run In Speakers Speaker Break-in | Eminence Speaker http://www.gr-research.com/burnin.htm Pro Advice What is Conditioning (break‐in)?
I heard the 30.2s being driven by a Luxman class A amplifier and thought the sound was too rolled off- but it could easily have been the recording and lower end cartridge. Also the Vinnie Rossie solid state amps did an excellent job with the SHl5+, 40.1, 40.2, P3ESR anniversary and SHL5+ anniversary. Having auditioned the newer Mac amps (the MA 7200 sounded amazing from top to bottom) I would have no doubt that this would be a successful pairing with any Harbeths, especially mine!
I have C7es-3’s. I’ve had 3 McIntosh amps in the past driving them. 2 vintage models: MC240 (tube) and MC2105 (solid state). And one modern solid state integrated, their entry level model (6300?). The 2105 was a muddy mess with a congested sound and a real lack of treble performance. The 6300 was boring. Kind of 2-dimensional, no refinement, no bloom, a little edgy at times. Just really uninvolving to me. The 240 was easily the best of the 3. Fantastic mids. A generally balanced sound, although definitely rolled off at both frequency extremes. I’ve since heard them with a Pass Labs Class A amp and my current Line Magnetic SET amp and now have a much better idea of C7’s capabilities. None of the McIntosh products were scratching the surface of what is possible.
Right. Same with audiophiles promoting that cables (any of them) are not making any listenable difference.
So explain why differences your ear easily can detect are not measurable. I’d like to understand that. Is it a seventh sense?
Alan Shaw has made a lot of dubious claims over the years, like saying that higher end amps don’t sound better through his speakers. He claimed years ago that a $400 home theatre receiver was all that was needed with his 40.1 speakers (Harbeth forum). Of course he disproves his own silly theory when he shows up at a HiFi show with very high end amps as part of his demo system. I really like his speakers and he has designed some that I would have enjoyed long term, but after reading enough nonsense from him on his online forums, I stopped listening to anything he had to say. I would be happy to spend years and years with 30.2s, but I wouldn’t listen to him.
How do you know that it isn’t measurable? Is Alan Shaw your only source or have you contacted many other speaker manufacturers? If you make a claim like that then surely you can back it up with lots of data from manufacturers? I have heard it too many times myself to think that it’s not true. I personally found the hemp drivers on my AN speakers to require the most time to settle down. But if you don’t want to believe it’s that’s fine worth me. Your claim doesn’t change my experience.
I am a physicist. The question is: what are you going to measure, and is that a representative quantity for what you are trying to investigate? The measured quantity may or may not be relevant to how our hearing and music enjoyment works, which is still only partly understood. As an example, in the 1960s manufacturers measured the total harmonic distortion (THD) as a measure for amplifier performance (as in, if amp A has lower THD than amp B, amp A is the better amp. Only later it turned out that different order harmonics are affecting our sonic perception quite differently, and it would be incorrect to conclude, solely on the basis of the THD rating, that amp A is objectively the better amp.
In Allan's defense he may be just referring to his own speakers. A surpriding number of manufacturers don't listen or try out competing speakers. I remember Sanders Sound where he claimed you need 1kw to get good dynaamics. Four rooms down the hall was a vastly more dynamic systen using an 18 watt SET. So one wonders if he bothered to spend 15 minutes checking out the competition. @Don Parkhurst I remember Peter Qvortrup saying that there was no break in for his speakers that used rubber surrounds and in general speakers using metal tweeters. I think break in discussions are dependent on materials. A person's shoes break in over time or brake pads. A car door maybe not. So a stiff driver like Kevlar woofers or polypropylene with rubber surrounds probabaly no break in. Paper woofers, foam surrounds...likely.
It's a question, not a statement. If one can say that burn in make the speaker bass response increase which would mean by some dB it can be measured. Are there any such measurements and if not, why not? If one claim burn in make the sound more defined then impulse response can measure this. If not, how come? What in burn in is it people hear that cannot be measured? I fint that trivial to understand. Yes I'm a bit bored about people claiming a lot of stuff but without lack of facts. There are people getting well by sugar pills to because their mind thinks it's medicals. Placebo. Harman have made big studies on the effect of placebo showing that people that see the hardware thinks it sounds much better than those that don't etc. As a physicist you of course know all this and that makes me wonder why you side step facts since all science is built on facts otherwise it is not the truth. This should not be trivial to measure in 2019 if our ears easily detect such a difference which to me mainly is related to frequency response when described like "the treble suddenly opened up and is more pronounces" The bass was initially very tamed but is not much bigger" etc etc. No one question what is happening in your mind. Take a few minutes to talk with someone educated in psychoacoustic and you'll learn a lot. I have a team of 50 of them that I talk to daily doing audio related measures all day. Everything we hear can be measured and if it's on a level which it cannot then the everage joe for sure cannot detect that difference by ear.
I don't pretend to have answers, I only ask questions. And I do think (as you do) that part of the perceived break in is psychological (the brain getting accustomed to new speakers). But it is possible that the speaker behaviour undergoes some changes as well over time. Now the question is still: which quantities are you going to measure and how are you going to measure them? The design of an experiment is critical to understanding its outcome. From your thoughts, I think you are only thinking about measuring loudness response as a function of time and/or frequency. What about investigating if change occurs in phase relations, the harmonic distortions of the speaker, or its spatial characteristics like dispersion? Perhaps other quantities that we have not identified as relevant yet. Bridging the gap between electrical properties, acoustics and human perception of sound reproduction, seems very complex to me, and not at all a trivial matter.
