Graham Audio LS5/5: considered impressions after three months of ownership (Part One)

My LS5/5s replaced Spendor SP100s, which I have owned since 1996. My SP100s were of the ‘Derek Hughes’ era, manufactured in late 1994 (they were used by Spendor at UK hifi shows, after which I acquired them). I had desired them since reading Martin Colloms’ outstanding review of the original S100 in HFNRR in 1989. During the 1980’s, I already had owned (chronologically) Spendor Preludes (a lower cost derivation of the SA2); the SP2; the BC1; and the SP1.

The SP1 never really ‘moved’ me, despite their undoubted accuracy, always sounding rather ‘box-bound’; the SP2s offered a ‘mini’ version of all that the SP100 did well and were livelier and I considered them to be more agile than the SP1s on rock & jazz material; the BC1s carried their almost magical qualities, especially in the midrange, but also offering a wonderfully natural and dynamic impression of ‘orchestral bass’, within the limitations of the design.

When I unboxed my SP100s, back in 1996, I immediately heard that same ‘Bextrene’ lower end of the BC1, accurately describing orchestral textures. The midrange exceeded that of the SP2s in precision, detail & clarity. The only deficit was a loss of a hint of the ‘humanity’ of the BC1s...yet this was soon forgotten amid the alternative dynamic strengths of the SP100.

Twenty-six years on: this period included the acquisition of the ‘correct’ Spendor OEM ‘open’ metal stands for the SP100; the ‘upgrading’ of various source components (including the addition of a CD player); and, in 2005, the move to the optimal amplification I have found for the SP100s with the Musical Fidelity kW500 integrated.(A previous MF A1000 had many virtues but lacked the drive, transparency and headroom of the kW500)

These changes progressively ameliorated a minor tendency to fullness/’cloudiness’ in the upper end of the 12” woofer, which I recall both REG & Martin Colloms observed in their original reviews.

Part of my ‘loudspeaker history’ includes a dalliance with horns (the Lecson HL1, a 1970’s design from what was to become the ‘Meridian’ team), which offered great dynamic impact and immediacy but lacked the overall charm, imaging and accuracy that the succeeding BC1s possessed in my system.

My 26 year relationship with the SP100s was briefly punctuated by a six month sojourn with a pair of Audiostatic DCIs. I had been disappointed when hearing the QUAD 63: in contrast, the Audiostatic possessed a quite remarkable transparency, which was probably its finest feature.

I enjoyed the Audiostatics for their openness and vivacity...until I began to notice the weakness of the left hand of the piano keyboard, and an absence of the ‘woodiness’ of acoustic instruments such as ‘cello and double bass...and a more general increasing awareness of a lack of ‘body’ below 300Hz.
(Perhaps the addition of a pair of modest subwoofers might have remedied this deficit?)

However, a return to the (temporarily sidelined) SP100s immediately renewed my affection for the ‘BBC balance’: gone was the ultimate in transparency but body, timbral accuracy and weight returned.

I enjoy a ‘distant’ perspective in my listening: as if in ‘the Gods’ in the Huddersfield Town Hall, listening to Messiah! (In my youth, I could only ever afford the tickets in the Gods, so became accustomed to this perspective). The BBC used to record classical concerts at the Town Hall, which has fine acoustics, and during my secondary school years I was able to get tickets...(while my schoolmates sought David Bowie, Genesis & Led Zeppelin concert tickets!)

My Graham LS5/5s were acquired about 12 weeks ago: I now feel able to describe them with a degree of confidence...
The LS 5/5s possess all of the strengths of the SP100s, together with the essence of the charming presence of the BC1. This represents a considerable accolade, in my experience, by blending aspects of two of my most favoured loudspeakers.
Their dimensions almost exactly match those of the SP100.
I have the dedicated ‘Broadcast’ oak stands, manufactured by Paul Westlake (of Westlake Audio) specifically for the LS5/5 (he has models for other BBC designs)

Amplification remains Musical Fidelity kW500 integrated (with 6 metre pairs of TriVista copper cable).
Sources include a Meridian 204 tuner, which sounds particularly remarkable on BBC Radio 3 broadcasts via the LS5/5; Audio Synthesis Transcend CD transport & Metrum Amethyst R2R Dac (with upgraded Transient 3 processing chips); Musical Fidelity M1 turntable with SME M2-9 and Ortofon Kontrapunkt A: Cyrus Signature Phono stage.

My SP100s were supplemented by a pair of original ported REL Storms (as favoured by REG to blend with BBC designs) and Townshend Supertweeters (connected out of phase with the loudspeakers, but in phase with the tweeters). These elements subtly enhanced the SP100s, but I am coming to consider the LS5/5s are complete without the addition of the supertweeter on most classical recordings, while the bass supplementation offered by the RELs blends as perfectly as I have ever experienced in my listening room.
Interconnects are solid core silver; digital connection is the late Chris Sommovigo’s original ‘Tron’ digital interconnect.

Before purchase, I had been concerned that the bass ‘roll-off’ of the LS5/5 lacked the room compensation of the SP100 (and SP2) designs: however, the lower frequencies provided by the LS5/5 in my room appear to be perfectly judged. There is certainly no ‘room boom’ here, as has sometimes been described by some owners of large three-way BBC-derived designs, nor any sense that the loudspeakers ‘overpower’ a modestly-sized English listening room: 12 feet wide by 20 feet long, with arch opening into a room 12 feet by 15 feet; speakers on the short wall, slight toe-in, positioned exactly as were the previous SP100s (images available on request)

My brother commented that the slight ‘cloudy’ overhang in the upper mid-bass that had persisted in the Spendors (and which I had come to consider to be part of their ‘character’) is absent in the LS5/5 and for a few hours one could even be deceived by the habituation of acoustic memory that the LS5/5s were unduly ‘thin’, yet one soon realised that they were merely devoid of that accustomed colouration.

Performance at low volume, an area in which the Spendors particularly excelled, is further enhanced, with a remarkably well-preserved dynamic envelope and equally well-preserved ‘top to bottom’ frequency balance (thus, apparently delightfully defying the Fletcher-Munson curve!)

The LS5/5s never produce ‘background music’, even when turned down to traditional low-level listening levels. They remain utterly engaging at all amplitudes.

I note that the original BBC paper from 1967, https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1967-57.pdf

Harwood described comparison between the LS5/1, and two versions of the LS5/5 prototype, one possessing a six-inch mid (as in the SP100) and one with an eight-inch mid (as in the official LS5/5, which allowed a lower crossover at 400Hz) and that the ‘eight-inch mid’ design was preferred over the ‘six-inch’: Derek Hughes undoubtedly had sound reason for selecting a six-inch mid when he designed the S100/SP100 in the late 1980’s.

My brother visited to hear the LS5/5s: he has Avantgarde DUO Omega horns driven by a pair of EAR 509 valve monoblocks: but after hearing the LS5/5 considered them to capture ‘the essence of the musical performance’. In particular, he thought that the LS5/5 offered a satisfying ‘soundstage’ even when the listener was offset from the ideal listening position: perhaps this indicates the advantage offered by the frontal ‘slots’ of the LS5/5 design?

He also observed, having recently acquired a pair of Stax electrostatic headphones for monitoring purposes, how much the LS5/5 captured a similar experience of being able to hear exactly how a recording was assembled: yet he commented that the LS5/5’s remarkable openness and detail were very much a ‘musical’ rather than an ‘analytical’ experience. Notwithstanding this, there remains the ability to use the LS5/5 as an analytic tool, should the occasion demand. (I note that the BBC retained the LS5/5 for the calibration of microphones for many years after they were withdrawn for monitoring duties?)

[conclusion to follow, owing to word count limits on the forum]

(Part Two)

I should acknowledge that I purchased the LS5/5 without audition, having full confidence that Derek Hughes would be unlikely to fail in any BBC design. Although my main concern in buying the LS5/5s ‘blind’ (or should that be ‘deaf’?) had been the lack of 'room compensation' in the bass alignment, in the event this has proven to be an unnecessary concern in my listening room. The bass accurately reproduces the texture of the 'swelling' bass of a large orchestra: on jazz, the bass is agile, rhythmic and expressive, while capturing the 'woodiness' of the double bass versus the dryer electronic sound of a 'Fender' bass.

In summary, these are the finest loudspeakers I have heard in my current listening room. They surpass the SP100 to a degree which I find is worthwhile but which in no way diminishes the excellence of the original ‘Hughes era’ SP100, with which I am certain I could happily have lived for a further 26 years had the LS5/5 not been thankfully resurrected by Paul Graham’s considerable investment and by Derek Hughes’ equally considerable technical prowess.


The LS5/5 possesses an almost ‘electrostatic’ quality of openness & precision, which is quite remarkable, even at low volume. They have a degree of timbral accuracy which is both beguiling and outstandingly redolent of the natural, living and breathing tone of acoustic instruments and voices. I am reminded of Martin Colloms' definitive 1989 review of the Spendor S100 in HFNRR, in which he described it as having no significant weaknesses and that any compromises made in the design were 'entirely musical'. He described the S100 as possessing many of the finer qualities of the best loudspeakers with which he was familiar (and with which he made active comparison, supported by a listening panel) yet with a unique balance of virtues that those other 'references' lacked. This eloquent prose would equally summarise my own conclusions about the current Graham LS5/5.


In closing, I must thank my wife, Jill, for her support & considerable indulgence in travelling with me from the north-west of England down into deepest Devon to assist me in collecting my LS5/5s, and for enduring the subsequent brief visit to the Graham factory in Newton Abbott.


My apologies if I have wittered on rather too effusively here.

Equally, if there are aspects that I have failed to elucidate fully, then I shall be happy to expand upon my impressions if it is valuable.


Stephen.

Hello Ken,
As you may know, the LS5/5 was designed for use in BBC monitoring studios where the technician would often move back & forth across the mixing desk, usually on a chair on castors. The 'speaker was designed to retain the 'balance' despite this physical movement of the listener.
The unique 'slotted' baffle arrangement of the speaker allows a wider (about 60 degrees) spread of balanced 'stereo image' to be achieved (even if, commercially, it does not look particularly attractive!)

My brother (who now uses Avantgarde Duos, having owned Spendor S100s for many years) has commented on his recent visits that he can now quite happily sit 'off-centre' in a chair adjacent to mine and enjoy a 'complete' and satisfying stereo presentation, which he says he could not achieve so successfully with my previous Spendor SP100s when in the same seating position.

Consequently, I would advise that the 'listening angle' might be less critical with the LS5/5 than with other loudspeakers..?
...I have settled at an 'isosceles triangle' listening distance of about 14 feet (from a perpendicular dropped between the
'speakers), with the 'speakers themselves being just under 8 feet apart (centre to centre of baffles).
My room is 12 feet wide.
(This almost precisely mimics the position in which I had the Spendor SP100s in my room for the previous 26 years...
...when I originally set them up in position to replace the Spendors the LS5/5s just immediately sounded 'correct'.)

I have sufficient 'toe-in' that I can just see the inner surface of each 'speaker cabinet from my listening position.
I prefer to listen to the LS5/5s with the 'speaker grilles in place (whereas the balance was always more 'lively' and attractive on the SP100s with the grilles off)

I am most happy to discuss further with you matters of adjustment if this is helpful.
I should add that 2 years on from my original appraisal that I remain entirely content with the Graham LS5/5s, which seem to have the capacity to bring a satisfying presentation from every source (LP, CD, FM radio, and even TV broadcasts).

With good wishes,
Stephen.

Hello Ken,
You are correct that the classic Blumlein 'enveloping' equilateral triangle for listening has never quite suited me, nor felt entirely comfortable.
UK living rooms are of modest size and I have never enjoyed the luxury of a dedicated 'listening room'.
The Isosceles triangle approach has better accommodated the other domestic functions of our living room.
But even when at (experimental) liberty to arrange things entirely as I wished, the more 'distant' listening approach has always satisfied me best.
As you will read in my two part account of the LS5/5s, my youthful experiences of hearing orchestral music in the remarkable acoustic of my local Huddersfield Town Hall, (where many live BBC recordings were made) were determined by the economic necessity of my occupying the 'cheap seats' in the 'Gods' (the second upper circle?)...where the 'distant' perspective became my accustomed balance.
Yet, my brother, who prefers Rock & Jazz, attends many live performances, and enjoys the 'intensity' of the experience...
...whereas I prefer Classical music and acoustic Jazz, where the illusion of recreation of the original venue seems to me to demand a sense of 'distance' from the performers, perhaps offering me a welcome sense of 'serenity' in my musical listening experience?
Interestingly, my brother (who owns the Avantgarde DUO horns and who is more attuned to an 'up front' audio presentation), and I both recently realised this also applied to our visual experience: he prefers a large, close-up TV screen, while I prefer a distant view of a more modestly sized screen (when I once went to an IMAX screening in Bradford, I emerged feeling 'travel-sick!).
So, I conclude that these matters are often those of taste and preference?
Perhaps there is no definitive 'right' and no 'wrong'..?

Regarding room size, I would say that your room is likely to be entirely adequate in dimension (although I do not know your ceiling height), since the LS5/5s are remarkably well-judged in their bass alignment.
(BBC monitoring studios were not of huge dimensions, although they were well-damped, acoustically)

I have a solid (concrete slab) floor, which I prioritised in selecting my property in 1987, and masonry walls as is traditional in UK house construction.
I use wooden stands ('Broadcast' oak stands, as described in my original essay) which are 'spiked' to the concrete through the carpet/underlay. (Also important for the safety of my young Grandchildren!).

I have never experienced any hint of 'boominess' with the LS5/5s, although (in buying thr LS5/5s 'unheard') I had originally feared this possibility since my previous SP100 had a room-compensated bass response from 45Hz downward.
In reality, the LS5/5 bass alignment offer as natural a 'swell' of 'cellos and double basses as ever I have heard in my living room. Organ music is also well-delivered, even at the low amplitude listening which is frequently my preference.
(I do supplement the lowest half octave with my pair of early REL Storms, which I have retained from my previous Spendor SP100 arrangement: I set these at a 32Hz 'roll-off' and a very low amplitude. I prefer this more flexible/adjustable option to the alternative of buying the floorstanding version of the LS5/5 to provide the additional bass extension).

In order to try to be of further assistance, may I ask:
Which stands do you use?
What height are they?
How do you terminate the stands on your wooden floor?
What is the interface between your 'speakers and the stands?

It might also be useful for me to understand your other system components...?
The LS5/5 era BBC speakers were developed to be driven by solid state amplification.
However, notwithstanding this, many people report very satisfying results with valve amplification...
....but this might conceivably be a particular influence upon bass performance/character?
(My brother used EAR 509 mkII monoblocks with his Spendor SP100s for many years, with great success)
My brother lives in a second storey flat/apartment, and speaks highly of the Max Townshend speaker 'bases' as a means of eliminating resonances from the floor.
He also had good results with mounting the speakers & stands spiked onto large paving stones, set upon the carpet/underlay of his living room.

Finally, I would say thet the 'toe-in' I have chosen is probably generally judged to be of a very modest degree, compared with that of the classically described 'Blumlein' arrangement.
Perhaps I have failed to describe accurately my own preferred arrangement?

I am very happy to discuss further, in the hope that it might help to optimise your enjoyment of your own LS5/5s.

With good wishes,
Stephen.

Hello Ken,
I am glad that the toe-in adjustment was helpful for you.
I think when you get his 'right' it also creates a sense of depth to the image.
Very small adjustments may improve things further.

I have never found that having any of my BBC speakers 'crossing over' in front of me was preferable to a gentle toe-in...
...where the loudspeakers 'cross over' behind me.
I have also found this alignment superior to a parallel 'straight ahead' placement or with the 'speakers aimed directly at my listening position.
I have used this principle when setting up BBC-style 'speakers for friends and it seems to have worked well.

I did not take to 'near field' listening, where an equilateral 'Blumlein'-type arrangenment is often advocated, and which has the theoretical advantage of reducing indirect 'room reflections'.

My brother used Max Townshend's compliant speaker platforms with his Spendor S100s in his first floor flat (apartment) which had a wooden floor. He reported these to be very effective. I note thatt there are now new redesigns of these platforms using similar principles.
Previously, he had used concrete paving slabs under his speaker stands, with speakers spiked to the slab, and the slabon top of the room's carpet. He felt these to be helpful, and a very inexpensive experiment. We subsequently covered the slabs with black wood grain 'Fablon' (sticky-backed plastic, as Valerie Singleton used to call it!) which improved the cosmetics.

I have never seen any detailed measurements for the Graham LS5/5, but John Atkinson's 1992 measurements of the Spendor SP100 (which Derek Hughes' called his 'son of LS5/5' design) in Stereophile measured the most accurate listening axis to be 'at the tweeter or just below':

Here is what he said:
"These curves suggest that the higher up you listen, the more you will perceive a suckout in the crossover region between the tweeter and midrange unit, which will lend the S100's balance a somewhat threadbare quality. The most neutral treble balance will be obtained with the listener level with the tweeter or just below it, which means that to obtain a typical 36" height for the listener's ears from the ground, reasonably high stands, 18" or so, will be required."

It occurs to me that whatever 'slabs' or other devices you decide to use under your stands could give you a further 2 to 4 inches of listening height, bringing the tweeter (currently 34 inches) up to a similar height as your ears (39 inches) in your current listening chair?

Therefore, your current listening height of 39 inches is perhaps marginally high?
This might account for your impression of a too 'clinical sound', as a result of the 'suck out' Atkinson illustrates in his measurements?

(Assuming that applying our extrapolations of SP100 measurements to the similar LS5/5 is valid?)

I would suggest that you might wish to experiment by adjusting the stand spikes to give a few degrees of front elevation: the trignometry of a 10 foot listening distance means that the slight rearward tilt to give the speaker's output an 'upward beam' and thus simulating an ideal listening height is unlikely to be noticeable to others and should not render the 'speakers in any way unstable.

The 200 Watt output of your solid state Mark Levinson integrated amp seems well judged for the LS5/5 which are a nominal 8 ohm load and have an efficiencyof 88dB/Watt. The 200 Watts should be sufficient to ensure that there is no curtailment of dynamic expression on orchestral crescendos or fast transients.

With good wishes,
Stephen.

gryphongryph said:

@Viggen How small a room can the ls5/5 accommodate?

I have the Graham Audio ls5/9 in a room which is the dreaded square 4.20x4.20 with height of 2.30 all metric, as I listen quite near field it works nicely.

The plan is to move them up to my living room again and pair them with two Rel’s, living room is 8x7x2.40 meters and the sound of the 5/9 was good an quite open, but lacked a bit oomph so to speak, therefore thinking about the Rel’s.
When I noticed that Graham had released the 5/5 I got really excited until I noticed the price, which unfortunately is a bit too steep for me.

Click to expand...

Hello Gryphongryph,
You have a very spacious living room!
I can understand that the LS5/9 might sound insufficiently 'room-filling' in such a space.
Paired REL subs might assist, depending upon your preferred listening amplitude.
I listen at very modest levels, something which the LS5/5s do very well (as I described in my original appraisal essay).

However, if you are accustomed to nearfield listening then one can often 'remove the room from the equation' to some degree because any side-wall reflections arrive too late to be psychacoustically 'muddled' with the directly-arriving soundwaves.

Personally, I have found that listening to large three-way 'speakers at near field can cause the sound to lack integration. perhaps because the threee drive units blend less well at close proximity? The smaller 2-way BBC-derived designs seem to coalesce better, perhaps because the entire low & mid-range up to 3kHz is being dealt with by a single driver.
You will have this advantage with your existing LS5/9s?

Perhaps we should be sure how we each define 'near-field' listening?
I am thinking of a Blumlein-style equilateral triangle listening at a maximum of 8 feet.
Eight to 15 feet I would say is 'mid-field'...
...with a movement towards an isosceles triangle with a degree of 'toe-in', crossing behind the listener
...and beyond this is 'far-field', where I would still choose to maintain a small degree of 'toe-in'.

I think that for your larger room, a greater sense of 'scale' will be offered by the larger LS5/5, but as you accurately observe, they are expensive (...I think that they are worth every penny, as you have probably deduced!).
I have seen a few pairs appearing on the 'used' market, which might be an option for you?

Personally, I would choose the stand mount LS5/5 over the floorstanding LS5/5f derivative, and use some of the cost saved to buy good stands plus a second-hand pair of early RELs to supplement the bottom half octave: this gives more independence of 'adjustability' both for bass alignment within the room and also for optimising speaker height/toe-in for best balance and imaging.
(I have not heard the LS5/5f, but have had experience with the Spendor SP100 and its floor-standing variant the SP9/1).
If you are in the U.S., then the relatively affordable Audiokinesis 'Swarm' multi-subwoofer system might be worth considering.
In UK, used RELs from their early ported designs are often to be found at quite modest prices: models like the REL Storm have a reputation for blending successfully with BBC 'speakers (just remember to avoid 'high level' connection if you have a bridged amplifier design, where the negative terminal on the amp must never be 'grounded'. I use low level connection from the pre-amp outputs on my MF kW500 for my RELs).
I can discuss the history of the REL models in further detail, if this is helpful.

I hope these observations are of value to you.
Do let me know if I can advise further.
With good wishes,
Stephen.

Hello Ken,
I was inaccurate in my quoting of John Atkinson's findings on listening height for the SP100 a few minutes ago.
'Tweeter or just below' is correct
I have now corrected my earlier post and added some further explanation.
(Not 'tweeter or just above', as I erroneously stated earlier)
With my apologies,
Stephen.