Holy Church of the UK 8" 2-way BBC Monitor Thread...Harbeth, Spendor, Stirling, Rogers etc

Thanks mate, I've owned the BC-1s for, hmm, must well over 30 years now. I don't listen at ear-shattering levels, I think that would be insulting to the designers original intent. I only recently gave away the original stands to a work colleague, they would have been far too low in my current room, hence the custom stands made from marine-grade ply.

 

You can see some of that in the Stereophile measurements vs the LS3/6. The Harbeth has less of a bass bump and starts to roll off at about 80Hz. I assume the Stirling matches traditional BBC standards, given Derek Hughes' history. The method Atkinson uses tends to exaggerate upper bass response relative to what is actually heard in a room - I have also seen the SHL5+ described as a bit "lean" in bass.

And now Shaw is offering an "Anniversary" model with a tweak to the supertweeter, fancier caps in the crossover, upgraded wiring and jewelry-class binding posts. For an extra $900US over the base model price. Makes the plain old SHL5 seem like more of a bargain.

 

Crestwood23,

I sent you an email (private conversation). I have a pair of Spendor SP100 speakers that you may be interested in.

 

Well, I invested in some 'proper' stands for my SHL5's, admittedly done so wholly for aesthetic reasons (custom Atacama's). I had been using some Ikea Oddvar stools which, for €10 a piece, served their purpose very well. I wasn't expecting much if any change in presentation. To be honest, I haven't previously ascribed to such beliefs or invested much thought in same.

And yet there is a significant change in presentation. Bass is now fuller. Perhaps even a tad bloated. Soundstage is better, though this may be down to main tweeters being perhaps an inch or so lower and now directly ear level. I've turned off my sub. I'd always been curious about the anecdotal reports of the SHL5's fuller, sometimes troublesome bass. I wanted more. Perhaps the wooden stands were dissipating energy?

 

I don't think any of the Harbeth speakers sound like the old BBC monitor speakers. The Harbeth's have a more modern sound (leaner in the midbass and a little bit of extra sizzle in the upper midrange/lower treble). I like Harbeths, but, this is a different sound from at least the old BBC speakers.

 

After a recent, lengthy home audition with the Stirling LS3/6, I found their bass is very sensitive to the forward room boundary. I realize it's not the same speaker but similar enough that I wouldn't be surprised if the SHL5+ reacts the same way. If you haven't already, you might experiment with large changes in speaker to forward wall placement. I had to have the LS3/6 about 5' from the forward wall to achieve optimal bass balance. Unfortunately, that made the tweeter/midrange balance much too bright in my room. The type of stands used with these Brit speakers has a big effect on the sound, even the coupling material. My Sound Anchor stands use small Sorbothane pucks. I experimented with cork pads and found they were detrimental.

 

The Original Poster said that the BBC-School speakers reminded him of Quad ESL-57's and remarkably I would say that is true. I say "remarkably" because the technologies involved are so different (electrostatic vs moving coil/box) but based on sonic evidence only, the speakers do sound remarkably similar. They all share a seamlessness, a musical cohesion, a sense of hiding behind recordings rather than calling attention to themselves, a fundamental rightness and musicality....

In that sense, I perceive the Harbeths (each and every one of them) as giving this same type of BBC-School sonic presentation. They don't sound more "modern" to my ear in the same way as some of the "modern" sounding Spendor tower speakers (Spendor S line, Spendor D line) do for instance. To me, the Harbeths are just the latest iteration of a long line of BBC-School speakers.

 

I haven't seen this thread before, but the title is great.

 

I found this utterly fascinating link (courtesy of Mark Hennessy) detailing all the various types of BBC-Monitors in use at the BBC:

Mark's Pages › Loudspeakers - The BBC collection

There were many, many more models (some with very narrow or specific applications) than the now famous ones (LS 3/5, LS 3/6, LS 5/9, LS 5/8) that have gone into commercial (and home) use outside the BBC.

 

I know Dynaco a25 do not fall here, but does it share the characteristics with British monitor?

 

No. Not even close, actually.

The Dynaco A25 was famous in its day for being very good at its vanishingly low retail price point. It was true, but that did not make it a great speaker. The very low price just made it a surprisingly good speaker for a very small amount of money.

With its budget woofer and budget tweeter, and bigger box, it was a nothing special. But its clever crossover, so carefully and simply designed for the drivers, was what put the speaker ahead of all its budget-priced competitors at the time.

Compared to almost any 8” BBC monitor then or now, the A25 sounds severely range-limited, muffled, and unrealistic - in other words, a budget speaker.

 

What was the difference between the Rogers LS6 and LS6a?

 

I have Harbeth Monitor 30s and also the smaller Spendor S3/5s.
I sold price no object high end audio designs in Manhattan.
Then I went to a little shop in New Jersey and paid full retail for these.
Which is INSANE if you stop to think about it.
I could pay cost (less than HALF retail) for the latest and greatest designs in my shop OR I could pay full retail for an "old fashioned British" brand I didn't happen to carry.
Oh well.
I always hated the edgy sound of what I sold in my own shop (some of which cost more than a top of the line Mercedes I might add---even with a discount).
Meanwhile I have used these boring looking old fashioned British designs in three different houses now and managed to integrate them in odd shape rooms that drove other speakers nuts.
Each time I found a spot where the results were a revelation.
As a matter of fact my new found "opera expert" buddy lectured me that no speaker ever designed could sound just like a live opera performance with "real" singers---because he had heard so much real music that he truly believed real sound out of a "box" was just a pipe dream. A "unicorn" that didn't exist in reality.
So I invited him to bring an armload of music over to my house and try it through my British boxes.
His jaw dropped.
He jumped up out of his seat.
"There are PEOPLE singing in your fireplace!" he squealed.
'That is IMPOSSIBLE---it sounds so REAL!"
Yeah.
I know.
I'm a big fanboy but in my case I have a reason to be a convert.
These boxes are amazing when set up properly and run with a good feed.
And I smile every time I think how much I paid for them and how little that matters once you find "your" speaker for life.
My shopping days are over.

 

Your hearing must be similar to mine. I must say that after a decade of trying many many different speakers, it is somewhat of a relief to hear how faultless my M30 are. I guess I was longing for a speaker that just lets you hear the music/recording. Many modern speakers are overly detail focused, which can sound very nice at first, but just becomes an irritation over time.

 

The "a" model had a metal dome tweeter that was a lot more clinical sounding than the standard model with the fabric dome tweeter. I think the standard models are more popular (on the resale market) for that reason.

 

I wish to make sense out of the naming convention of the Spendor SP line of speakers: SP X/Y RZ

Like, what do all these (and the whole lot of the rest) mean:

SP1/2
SP1/2R2
SP2/3

 

It seems to be a version of the old British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) speaker naming convention, from which the current Spendor designs evolved over many years. That would mean:

SP= Spendor

1/2 R2 = type of design/model number, revision number of the design.

 

I had guessed that Spendor's SP meant "Speaker," and KEF and Rogers used LS to mean "Loudspeaker." But who knows?

What does the slash indicate? Why do the SP3/1 and SP3/5 start with "3/" and why is there no SP3/2 or SP3/4?

Interesting that Spendor's largest speakers have the lowest model numbers and vice versa (SP1/2 vs. SP3/5).

 

I like your guess better than mine.

 

I attached a link earlier in the thread that explains the BBC naming conventions. The Spendor models evolved from the BBC spec models. SP does mean "Spendor." LS means "Loudspeaker."

Here it is again:
Mark's Pages › Loudspeakers - The BBC collection

 

COOL!

 

I second or third that. Once I got my M30.1 I stopped looking for speakers. If I ever get the urge to start looking all I do is to put on Jennifer Warnes album The Well and all desire to change disappears

 

Spendor's first speaker was the BC-1. About a decade later they introduced the SP-1, which was a similar design with the same 2 cu ft enclosure but with a higher-power woofer with a different cone material. They existed alongside for a few years before the SP-1 supplanted the BC-1. There was also an SP-2, which had the same woofer in a smaller box. The SP-1 was replaced by the SP1/2 and the SP-2 by the SP2/2. So the first number denotes the model number, and the /n indicates the revision level.

 

I like a number of British box speakers--Audio Note, Harbeth, Spendor and ProAc. Of these, it seems that ProAc is somewhat overlooked, but, to me, they are pretty good bargains at their price points. The tall floorstanders, like the D48R are of course very good, but, I find their stand-mounted box speakers to be surprising for what they deliver in a small package.

 

Owned the following:

Spendor S1
Harbeth Compact 7
Harbeth Compact 7 es2
Harbeth Compact 7 es3
Harbeth Super HL5 Plus

Bit of a Harbethian...