Bottom line at the top
If you have but $5,000 to spend on a pair of speakers--or, looked at the other way, if you can somehow manage to stretch your new-speaker budget to $5k--and you generally favor a Harbeth/Spendor type of tonal balance, then I think that for now these Stirling Broadcast LS3/6 speakers are IT!
I don't mean to take anything away from the excellence of my Gradient Revolution + SW-T-based system or my Harbeth Monitor 40.1s. But that Gradient speaker system costs $20,000 and the speakers MUST be bi-amplified, usually adding to the cost if you don't happen to have another two channels of spare amplification hanging around gathering dust. That puts it out of reach for many, even many of those here.
And the Harbeths, while they only require two channels of amplification, themselves cost $13,000 or more and are about to be replaced by the yet-more-costly Monitor 40.2. In addition, the M40.1 boxes are BIG, much larger looking than the Stirling boxes and taking a considerably larger footprint. Futher, the Harbeth midbass can overload a lot of rooms, so either careful room matching or electronic equalization may be required.
Many more can afford these, place them with less domestic tranquility problems, and there should not be any bass overload problems in any reasonable listening room.
The Stirlings arrived in perfect condition, at least partially due to the very sturdy boxes they come in. Stirling uses very thick, dense cardboard and even sturdier 1/4" masonite boards to line the inside of the box and that makes the conatainers fairly puncture and dent resistant, it seems. Other than the box and masonite boards, the only packing materials are the poly bag for the speaker and four strofoam corners to keep all sides of the speaker at least a couple of inches away from the box walls; very efficient use of packing materials.
I also bought the Something Solid stands for these. Without the included/optional spikes, they raise the bottom of the speakers about 15.75" off the floor. They are black metal and ring when tapped. Not what I usually think best in speaker stands, but I figured I'd give them a try since these are what are commonly used with Spendors of this same size (like the SP1/2s) and are what Stirling recommends for these. The Something Solid stands proved to be the best stands I had in house for these speakers.
My initial and continuing reaction: Oh, my, these are wonderful!!! REG's review in The Absolute Sound seems right on. To the extent that the Stereophile review is contrary, ignore it; they are just wrong. For one thing, the bass hump-up is a measurment artifact of the way JA measures speaker bass. If the bass doesn't measure that bumped up with his method, the bass in room from the listening position will sound too thin, at least to me and most others who appreciate natural, concert hall tonal balance.
I could stop right there. Read REG's review at http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/stirling-broadcast-ls36/. Read it carefully. I do not disagree with anything he says, except the treble excess. The treble sounds really fine to me. But REG commented later in his forum that later production fixed a problem with the tweeter's specifications, making the treble flatter, so we don't disagree about that, either. I'll just add some personal thoughts and comparisons.
Versus the Spendor SP1/2
The natural point of comparison is the Spendor SP1/2. I definitely agree with the direction of differences REG noted in his review.
I prefer my Stirling LS3/6 to the Spendor SP1/2 samples I owned for awhile. However, I could certainly understand other listeners disagreeing, especially if they never listen above moderate levels and listen primarily to classical music.
Already owning a pair of Stirling LS3/6 speakers, I bought a pair of used Spendor SP1/2 speakers, kept them for a year or two, and later sold them.
First, on the very positive side, I agree that the SP1/2s have at least as good an overall tonal balance as any speaker I've ever heard. The balance is more pleasingly natural on much music, especially classical, than even that of the Stirling. The Spendors are a bit warmer-yet sounding and a bit smoother/more rolled off up top, qualities which suit many commercial recordings--especially classical ones--yet better. The midrange of both speakers was similar, with the Stirlings seeming a bit more immediate/insistent.
However, for me there were aspects of my SP1/2s that were annoying in comparison to the Stirlings.
First, the Stirling bass stays at full level almost an octave lower, down to 40 Hz or so, while the SP1/2s roll off starting around 80 Hz.
Also, the bass the Spendor has is a bit flabby/drummy, at least in the three rooms I tried it in. I never had any such impression about the bass of the Stirlings used in the same rooms in similar positions. Perhaps this bass quality could have been EQed away; I did not try because of the next problem.
My Spendor SP1/2 samples could not play at levels above what I consider quite moderate on a lot of material without a sense of strain starting to creep in. The strain got progressively worse as the level increased until they sounded a bit nasty. If you never listen to anything above 80 dB peaks, the SP1/2 would be just fine, and you would never know anything was amiss. But that's not me. Perhaps my SP1/2s were defective in some way, but both speakers of the pair sounded and measured similarly.
While the Stirlings have a bit less beautifully natural balance, they are still among the best balanced speakers I've heard. The Stirlings will play much louder and always sounds lower in distortion and often yet clearer than the SP1/2s. The Stirlings also have that special sense of dynamic kick that my SP1/2s definitely did not. To me, the Stirlings are the better reproducer, but, as I said, other listeners could well prefer the Spendors for their yet-better-in-my-view overall frequency balance.
Versus the Acoustic Research AR-303a
Compared to the AR-303as which I used for quite awhile in this same living room system where I first had the Stirlings, the Stirlings seem superior in every way except bass extension, bass power, and bass clarity (where the ARs hold definite sway over just about anything of equivalent size) and in terms of SPL, where the two seem about equal. In all other ways, the Stirlings are superior, especially in terms of lacking the bit of high frequency excess and aggression the 303as have (which is lacking in my earlier vintage AR speakers from the 1960s/1970s). The Stirlings also did not excite slap echo which was audible in this room from a few locations with the ARs, perhaps because of the Stirlings' more controlled high frequency dispersion. The ARs are of the "room filler" school, after all, and I had them set up pointing straight ahead (to tame the highs a bit), not toed in, so the ARs naturally elicited more reflections from the painted drywall room walls.
Versus the Harbeth SLH5+
Okay, I don't own the SLH5+ speakers yet. I may never own them. But they are worth investigating further, even though they are priced somewhat higher than the Stirlings at about $6,700.
The SLH5+ is the latest iteration of this size BBC-influenced box speaker and is Harbeth's latest take on this genre. It is thus an more recently released speaker than the Stirling. Like the Stirling and Spendor, it uses an 8" woofer operating over a wide range--up to 3 kHz--before the lower of the two tweeters takes over.
My fairly lengthy audition of them at Axpona 2015 in Chicago leads me to believe that these new Harbeths are very "beautiful" sounding speakers with truly exceptional clarity and openness. The top tweeter is wonderfully integrated, may may be a bit down in subjective level, but that is not a problem at all for most recordings. The bass certainly is not as full or deep sounding as that from the Stirling, but is tighter and more agile. The sound is not nearly as full in the bass or lower mids as either the Stirling or the Harbeth M40.1.
I have a feeling that those who think that the traditional Harbeth house sound is a bit to warm and bassy, will love the SLH5+. From comments made by the designer himself, Alan Shaw, on the Harbeth Users Group, this seems to be the direction he is taking his new models, the SLH5+ and M40.2: more open, yet more beautiful sounding on a wider range of recordings and in a wider range of rooms. Call it a more "modern" sound voiced in response to input/marketing research from Harbeth owners, dealers, and auditioners.
Versus the Harbeth Monitor 40.1
The M40/40.1s are the seemingly logical next step up (and the top step) in a BBC-heritage speaker. Here are my thoughts about how the M40.1 compares to the Stirling:
If your room is as bass friendly to the M40/40.1s as REG's is, those big Harbeth speakers WILL give you deeper bass. And even if your room (like my basement concrete bunker room) doesn't support the low bass that well, the big Harbeths WILL give you a grander sense of scale and more "authority." And those qualities ARE important, especially on large-scale orchestral/choral music. When speakers play the big stuff with this type of grandeur, other speakers will tend to sound at least a bit "small" or "toy-like" by comparison, even if balanced to be rather full sounding as the Stirlings certainly are.
BUT:
· The Stirlings are really about equal to the big Harbeths in terms of clarity and have enough scale and bass to do justice to orchestras.
· For flat-to-20-Hz bass extension at live music levels you will need one or more subwoofers with both the Harbeths and Stirlings in most rooms.
· The Stirlings seemingly are very fuss free. You probably will not "need" EQ. I hear NOTHING significantly amiss response-wise. I cannot emphasize this enough. In this way, they are like my vintage ARs: the more I listen, the more I hear the "rightness" of the balance. Not that Stirlings sound like vintage ARs. Somehow the Stirlings manage to bring up the top two octaves and add tons of clarity and dynamic punch without creating an iota of aggressiveness or backing off too much on the presence range.
· Out of the sweet spot, the Stirlings sound at least as good if not better than the M40.1s. Listened to from way off axis, the Harbeths can sound odd. My vintage AR-3as sound way more natural listened to casually. This is especially true of rooms-away casual listening, where the Stirlings are, well, sterling. From rooms away, the Stirlings distract me with their excellent sound, as if trying to draw me back, and sound very much like live music is going on in the room where they are playing. Part of this is the dynamic punch/bounce/ebb/flow/lilt which is just as evident from far away.
· On audiophile-approved closely miked female vocals (if those matter to you at all), the Stirlings provide a reach-out-and-touch-it intimacy second to none, right up there with the best I've heard. What does matter to most here is that the Harbeths really have nothing on the Stirlings in terms of vocal reproduction generally, and that is one of the big Harbeth's strongest suits.
· If you like soul-stirring playback levels on some material, the Stirlings will play as loud comfortably on big stuff as the M40/40.1s, considerably louder than the SP1/2s.
· Unlike the M40/40.1, the Stirlings have a moment-to-moment dynamic punch, bounce, ebb and flow, and lilt that no Harbeth I've heard has. This, combined with the Stirlings' overall frequency balance, makes them equally satisfying with jazz, pop, and rock, in addition to classical music. The big Harbeths are at their very considerable best with classical music.
· To a degree I've never before experienced with any other speaker, the more I listen to the Stirlings, the more they continually sound "right" in new, exciting, and satisfying ways. Whatever limitations they have (e.g., bottom bass, grand scale, "authority") become less and less, not more and more, important as time goes on.
· And look at the price difference. You could outfit a surround system with the Stirlings for the price of a pair of M40.1s!
Other Comments
One thing REG's review did not address is the proper listening height for these. With the speakers on the 15.75" tall Something Solid stands, things sound just right when my ears are about 36" above the floor. As with prior BBC-derived speakers of this size and design, that means that your ears should be even with the lower, larger tweeter.
The dynamic punch REG notes is very real, both in terms of actual punch and in terms of accenting the rhythms, ebbs and flows, and lilt of music. These are unrestrained in a quite fun way without being aggressive in the slightest. Those whose musical diet includes a lot of music that relies on jumpin' rhythms and percussion may find this quality to be the trump card separating the listening experience from what you get with other fine speakers like the Harbeths. But even with classical music, this dynamic punch is intoxicating. No, the Stirlings don't "do dynamics" the way Klipschorns do. But then they don't subjectively pump up the dynamics by adding brightness, aggression, grunge, grit, or brittleness either.
The rosewood finish: Some folks have said online that they don't care for it, saying it's too dark. Well, yes it's dark, but actually is lighter than the rosewood finish on my AR-303as. I find the overall look of the grain, luster of the finish, and more reddish color to be superior to how the ARs look. I would say that this rosewood is fully comparable in looks to the Legacy Audio Whispers which I had in rosewood. No, the Stirling rosewood is not up to the standard of the Cello Strads I had in rosewood, but then few speakers are finished as nicely as the Cellos were in terms of rich deep luster and interesting wood grain. I think the Stirlings look very nice in rosewood, in other words. Many people seem to want a lighter finish and the cherry finish is $500 less and IS much lighter, at least to start. Natural cherry gets considerably darker and redder with months and years of exposure to sunlight, however.
Even if you prefer the bit-smoother-on-high-strings, bit warmer version of reality conveyed by the Spendor SP1/2s, those speakers are long out of production and the originals rarely appear on the used market these days. So, for most folks, the SP1/2 is made of unobtainium, while the Stirling is easily available new and VERY reasonably priced for what you get.
Great speakers indeed, and not just great for the money!
If you have but $5,000 to spend on a pair of speakers--or, looked at the other way, if you can somehow manage to stretch your new-speaker budget to $5k--and you generally favor a Harbeth/Spendor type of tonal balance, then I think that for now these Stirling Broadcast LS3/6 speakers are IT!
I don't mean to take anything away from the excellence of my Gradient Revolution + SW-T-based system or my Harbeth Monitor 40.1s. But that Gradient speaker system costs $20,000 and the speakers MUST be bi-amplified, usually adding to the cost if you don't happen to have another two channels of spare amplification hanging around gathering dust. That puts it out of reach for many, even many of those here.
And the Harbeths, while they only require two channels of amplification, themselves cost $13,000 or more and are about to be replaced by the yet-more-costly Monitor 40.2. In addition, the M40.1 boxes are BIG, much larger looking than the Stirling boxes and taking a considerably larger footprint. Futher, the Harbeth midbass can overload a lot of rooms, so either careful room matching or electronic equalization may be required.
Many more can afford these, place them with less domestic tranquility problems, and there should not be any bass overload problems in any reasonable listening room.
The Stirlings arrived in perfect condition, at least partially due to the very sturdy boxes they come in. Stirling uses very thick, dense cardboard and even sturdier 1/4" masonite boards to line the inside of the box and that makes the conatainers fairly puncture and dent resistant, it seems. Other than the box and masonite boards, the only packing materials are the poly bag for the speaker and four strofoam corners to keep all sides of the speaker at least a couple of inches away from the box walls; very efficient use of packing materials.
I also bought the Something Solid stands for these. Without the included/optional spikes, they raise the bottom of the speakers about 15.75" off the floor. They are black metal and ring when tapped. Not what I usually think best in speaker stands, but I figured I'd give them a try since these are what are commonly used with Spendors of this same size (like the SP1/2s) and are what Stirling recommends for these. The Something Solid stands proved to be the best stands I had in house for these speakers.
My initial and continuing reaction: Oh, my, these are wonderful!!! REG's review in The Absolute Sound seems right on. To the extent that the Stereophile review is contrary, ignore it; they are just wrong. For one thing, the bass hump-up is a measurment artifact of the way JA measures speaker bass. If the bass doesn't measure that bumped up with his method, the bass in room from the listening position will sound too thin, at least to me and most others who appreciate natural, concert hall tonal balance.
I could stop right there. Read REG's review at http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/stirling-broadcast-ls36/. Read it carefully. I do not disagree with anything he says, except the treble excess. The treble sounds really fine to me. But REG commented later in his forum that later production fixed a problem with the tweeter's specifications, making the treble flatter, so we don't disagree about that, either. I'll just add some personal thoughts and comparisons.
Versus the Spendor SP1/2
The natural point of comparison is the Spendor SP1/2. I definitely agree with the direction of differences REG noted in his review.
I prefer my Stirling LS3/6 to the Spendor SP1/2 samples I owned for awhile. However, I could certainly understand other listeners disagreeing, especially if they never listen above moderate levels and listen primarily to classical music.
Already owning a pair of Stirling LS3/6 speakers, I bought a pair of used Spendor SP1/2 speakers, kept them for a year or two, and later sold them.
First, on the very positive side, I agree that the SP1/2s have at least as good an overall tonal balance as any speaker I've ever heard. The balance is more pleasingly natural on much music, especially classical, than even that of the Stirling. The Spendors are a bit warmer-yet sounding and a bit smoother/more rolled off up top, qualities which suit many commercial recordings--especially classical ones--yet better. The midrange of both speakers was similar, with the Stirlings seeming a bit more immediate/insistent.
However, for me there were aspects of my SP1/2s that were annoying in comparison to the Stirlings.
First, the Stirling bass stays at full level almost an octave lower, down to 40 Hz or so, while the SP1/2s roll off starting around 80 Hz.
Also, the bass the Spendor has is a bit flabby/drummy, at least in the three rooms I tried it in. I never had any such impression about the bass of the Stirlings used in the same rooms in similar positions. Perhaps this bass quality could have been EQed away; I did not try because of the next problem.
My Spendor SP1/2 samples could not play at levels above what I consider quite moderate on a lot of material without a sense of strain starting to creep in. The strain got progressively worse as the level increased until they sounded a bit nasty. If you never listen to anything above 80 dB peaks, the SP1/2 would be just fine, and you would never know anything was amiss. But that's not me. Perhaps my SP1/2s were defective in some way, but both speakers of the pair sounded and measured similarly.
While the Stirlings have a bit less beautifully natural balance, they are still among the best balanced speakers I've heard. The Stirlings will play much louder and always sounds lower in distortion and often yet clearer than the SP1/2s. The Stirlings also have that special sense of dynamic kick that my SP1/2s definitely did not. To me, the Stirlings are the better reproducer, but, as I said, other listeners could well prefer the Spendors for their yet-better-in-my-view overall frequency balance.
Versus the Acoustic Research AR-303a
Compared to the AR-303as which I used for quite awhile in this same living room system where I first had the Stirlings, the Stirlings seem superior in every way except bass extension, bass power, and bass clarity (where the ARs hold definite sway over just about anything of equivalent size) and in terms of SPL, where the two seem about equal. In all other ways, the Stirlings are superior, especially in terms of lacking the bit of high frequency excess and aggression the 303as have (which is lacking in my earlier vintage AR speakers from the 1960s/1970s). The Stirlings also did not excite slap echo which was audible in this room from a few locations with the ARs, perhaps because of the Stirlings' more controlled high frequency dispersion. The ARs are of the "room filler" school, after all, and I had them set up pointing straight ahead (to tame the highs a bit), not toed in, so the ARs naturally elicited more reflections from the painted drywall room walls.
Versus the Harbeth SLH5+
Okay, I don't own the SLH5+ speakers yet. I may never own them. But they are worth investigating further, even though they are priced somewhat higher than the Stirlings at about $6,700.
The SLH5+ is the latest iteration of this size BBC-influenced box speaker and is Harbeth's latest take on this genre. It is thus an more recently released speaker than the Stirling. Like the Stirling and Spendor, it uses an 8" woofer operating over a wide range--up to 3 kHz--before the lower of the two tweeters takes over.
My fairly lengthy audition of them at Axpona 2015 in Chicago leads me to believe that these new Harbeths are very "beautiful" sounding speakers with truly exceptional clarity and openness. The top tweeter is wonderfully integrated, may may be a bit down in subjective level, but that is not a problem at all for most recordings. The bass certainly is not as full or deep sounding as that from the Stirling, but is tighter and more agile. The sound is not nearly as full in the bass or lower mids as either the Stirling or the Harbeth M40.1.
I have a feeling that those who think that the traditional Harbeth house sound is a bit to warm and bassy, will love the SLH5+. From comments made by the designer himself, Alan Shaw, on the Harbeth Users Group, this seems to be the direction he is taking his new models, the SLH5+ and M40.2: more open, yet more beautiful sounding on a wider range of recordings and in a wider range of rooms. Call it a more "modern" sound voiced in response to input/marketing research from Harbeth owners, dealers, and auditioners.
Versus the Harbeth Monitor 40.1
The M40/40.1s are the seemingly logical next step up (and the top step) in a BBC-heritage speaker. Here are my thoughts about how the M40.1 compares to the Stirling:
If your room is as bass friendly to the M40/40.1s as REG's is, those big Harbeth speakers WILL give you deeper bass. And even if your room (like my basement concrete bunker room) doesn't support the low bass that well, the big Harbeths WILL give you a grander sense of scale and more "authority." And those qualities ARE important, especially on large-scale orchestral/choral music. When speakers play the big stuff with this type of grandeur, other speakers will tend to sound at least a bit "small" or "toy-like" by comparison, even if balanced to be rather full sounding as the Stirlings certainly are.
BUT:
· The Stirlings are really about equal to the big Harbeths in terms of clarity and have enough scale and bass to do justice to orchestras.
· For flat-to-20-Hz bass extension at live music levels you will need one or more subwoofers with both the Harbeths and Stirlings in most rooms.
· The Stirlings seemingly are very fuss free. You probably will not "need" EQ. I hear NOTHING significantly amiss response-wise. I cannot emphasize this enough. In this way, they are like my vintage ARs: the more I listen, the more I hear the "rightness" of the balance. Not that Stirlings sound like vintage ARs. Somehow the Stirlings manage to bring up the top two octaves and add tons of clarity and dynamic punch without creating an iota of aggressiveness or backing off too much on the presence range.
· Out of the sweet spot, the Stirlings sound at least as good if not better than the M40.1s. Listened to from way off axis, the Harbeths can sound odd. My vintage AR-3as sound way more natural listened to casually. This is especially true of rooms-away casual listening, where the Stirlings are, well, sterling. From rooms away, the Stirlings distract me with their excellent sound, as if trying to draw me back, and sound very much like live music is going on in the room where they are playing. Part of this is the dynamic punch/bounce/ebb/flow/lilt which is just as evident from far away.
· On audiophile-approved closely miked female vocals (if those matter to you at all), the Stirlings provide a reach-out-and-touch-it intimacy second to none, right up there with the best I've heard. What does matter to most here is that the Harbeths really have nothing on the Stirlings in terms of vocal reproduction generally, and that is one of the big Harbeth's strongest suits.
· If you like soul-stirring playback levels on some material, the Stirlings will play as loud comfortably on big stuff as the M40/40.1s, considerably louder than the SP1/2s.
· Unlike the M40/40.1, the Stirlings have a moment-to-moment dynamic punch, bounce, ebb and flow, and lilt that no Harbeth I've heard has. This, combined with the Stirlings' overall frequency balance, makes them equally satisfying with jazz, pop, and rock, in addition to classical music. The big Harbeths are at their very considerable best with classical music.
· To a degree I've never before experienced with any other speaker, the more I listen to the Stirlings, the more they continually sound "right" in new, exciting, and satisfying ways. Whatever limitations they have (e.g., bottom bass, grand scale, "authority") become less and less, not more and more, important as time goes on.
· And look at the price difference. You could outfit a surround system with the Stirlings for the price of a pair of M40.1s!
Other Comments
One thing REG's review did not address is the proper listening height for these. With the speakers on the 15.75" tall Something Solid stands, things sound just right when my ears are about 36" above the floor. As with prior BBC-derived speakers of this size and design, that means that your ears should be even with the lower, larger tweeter.
The dynamic punch REG notes is very real, both in terms of actual punch and in terms of accenting the rhythms, ebbs and flows, and lilt of music. These are unrestrained in a quite fun way without being aggressive in the slightest. Those whose musical diet includes a lot of music that relies on jumpin' rhythms and percussion may find this quality to be the trump card separating the listening experience from what you get with other fine speakers like the Harbeths. But even with classical music, this dynamic punch is intoxicating. No, the Stirlings don't "do dynamics" the way Klipschorns do. But then they don't subjectively pump up the dynamics by adding brightness, aggression, grunge, grit, or brittleness either.
The rosewood finish: Some folks have said online that they don't care for it, saying it's too dark. Well, yes it's dark, but actually is lighter than the rosewood finish on my AR-303as. I find the overall look of the grain, luster of the finish, and more reddish color to be superior to how the ARs look. I would say that this rosewood is fully comparable in looks to the Legacy Audio Whispers which I had in rosewood. No, the Stirling rosewood is not up to the standard of the Cello Strads I had in rosewood, but then few speakers are finished as nicely as the Cellos were in terms of rich deep luster and interesting wood grain. I think the Stirlings look very nice in rosewood, in other words. Many people seem to want a lighter finish and the cherry finish is $500 less and IS much lighter, at least to start. Natural cherry gets considerably darker and redder with months and years of exposure to sunlight, however.
Even if you prefer the bit-smoother-on-high-strings, bit warmer version of reality conveyed by the Spendor SP1/2s, those speakers are long out of production and the originals rarely appear on the used market these days. So, for most folks, the SP1/2 is made of unobtainium, while the Stirling is easily available new and VERY reasonably priced for what you get.
Great speakers indeed, and not just great for the money!