ESSrand, I just wrote a long response that could seem, by its length, to be too hard on Harbeth. They are nice, just a bit forgiving is all, and that can get old....music is more stimulating than they portray. That's one of the better faults to have for sure, but the amount you are spending can get something pretty "easy" sounding yet more musically insightful.
Two important descriptors for me are "low distortion" (which precludes ringing tweeters, grainy midranges, 2 all too common faults of "hi-rez" speakers) and "musically insightful". The latter forgiving requires more information, more subtle detail, more instrumental (or vocal) detail than "glossed over" speakers deliver. |
As someone who has owned both Harbeths and Coincident speakers, I think a potential buyer has to realize that a speaker designer ususally has absolutely no idea of the room the speaker will be placed in and therefore is faced with tough decisions. Because of the size of my room, I am forced to listen from about 8 feet away, which I really consider pretty nearfield. A speaker like Harbeth works wonderfully in such a situation, while a more "detailed" speaker might tear your head off. I disagree with Kiddman that the Harbeth sound can get old, but that's a matter of taste and use. My friends had the SHL5s in a large room and they didn't work at all. In a boomy room, a brighter speaker with tighter bass might work far better, while Harbeths could become too diffused and soft.
So the upshot is - all this information dispensed may be correct under certain circumstances, depending on the room or whatever. But ultimately, you have to become secure enough in your own taste to make an informed decision without regard for what others think.
IMO, you need to buy something very good and listen to it for a few years until you develop a point of reference. You've listened to every record you own ten times and you know what everything sounds like. Then, you can listen to other speakers and have a solid foundation upon which to determine whether you prefer them to what you have. But it takes time, experimentation and money. But I guarantee you that everyone here who has a system they really love has gone through this process. Good luck. |
Nearfield is REALLY close, I would call 8 feet or further a relatively normal position. I can listen to my current system from 18 feet away to 4 feet away with pinpoint imaging at the 4 foot position, realism like you are up against the stage. The proper design speaker, with great coherency, can do this and I own several that will, including some pretty gigantic speakers that will play 125db. This 4 foot position is possible with the speakers 12 feet apart center to center. The key is a very coherent signal from upstream components, as well as really well designed speakers. Toe in will have to be adjusted for close distances.
As for Harbeths wearing off, I should qualify this statement: Anyone attending regular concerts and wanting a very true rendition of the instruments at home can find the sound getting old after a while. The true bite of a trumpet, the tougher complex harmonics of a muted trumpet, saxes from sop to baritone, the differentiation of different cymbals and high hat, sizzle of the high hat, these sounds are rounded by Harbeths and they are certainly not alone in that regard. It's a stylized sound. It can be very pleasant. It's what I call a little impressionistic. Nothing wrong with impressionism, but don't tell me a Money Water Lilly drawing is an exact reproduction of the look of water lillies....and the Harbeths are a bit impressionistic.
With many brands and models of associated equipment that are a bit harsh or rough, this "bridging over" of transients is a plus. Unfortunately, such band-aid mixing and matching true detail suffers at each piece of equipment in the chain. With the best, most neutral sources and equipment, it's not needed (the softness), and it will just cover over true musical detail. |
"Anyone attending regular concerts and wanting a very true rendition of the instruments at home can find the sound getting old after a while."
I think this gets to the crux of the issue at hand. From my personal viewpoint there are two kinds of listeners', those that REALLY are searching for a presentation that mimics real music in the space it was played, in other words maximizing what is on the recording and then there are those that settle for a sound based on their musical tastes and preferences. If one has eclectic tastes and listens to ALL types of music including large scale, the upper frequency and bass range as well as the midrange MUST be reproduced accurately to convey the performance, any coloration in any of these areas will eventually be realized to the critical listener and ultimately lead to fatigue and diminished pleasure over time. Why do so many keep changing gear as frequently as they do I keep wondering?
Kidmann your point of listening to live music as a benchmark in what to listen for in an audio system can not be overemphasized. I am sometimes astounded by some of the systems I have listened to from VERY experienced, seasoned audiophiles and it has nothing to do with achieving the absolute sound, too each his own and I guess this is the bottom line. It is why it is SO difficult to recommend anything without having a real sense of what a particular listener wants to achieve.
Furthermore your point concerning "impressionistic" really drove home to me the difference between artistic representation of music versus realism, indeed it comes down to what do you prefer, art vs. reality? |
Music is art. All art is impressionistic. Even the highest quality, highest resolution photography is not perfect. There are many other perspectives of teh same thing possible that the photo does not show. |
Music is indeed art, but the reproduction of it is an entirely different issue, regardless of whether or not it is "perfectly" reproduced. The issue is what is the goal, to attempt to reproduce the recording as accurately as possible or to create a distorted view of reality based on personal taste without concern for the former. |
Thank you for a considered, quality response, Tubegroover.
For me, the art was in the instrument design and evolution, the music writer, and the player. I want to feel and understand that combination of art and great human achievement as fully as possible....without distorting or changing it. I cannot, for instance, understand someone who would take a photograph of a Van Gogh and then photoshopping it, changing the texture, and darkening / lightening some sections of the work. Neither can I understand the same thing done to genius level performances of genius level music. I demand no less, and my customers deserve no less. Any change is distortion. |
"Anyone attending regular concerts and wanting a very true rendition of the instruments at home can find the sound getting old after a while."
That quote of mine refers to the sound coming from a coloured transducer, in this case, the pleasant but coloured Harbeth. |
Mapman, photography with a current $500 camera is a LOT better than nearly all high end systems.
I think you are mixing metaphors....mixing apples and oranges....the performance and orginal compositions/scores/melodies is the art in audio. Do we really want to change and sully that art? I certainly don't. And I've never seen a colored up version strike the hearts of listeners than a very literal version. Consistently, I see listeners get far more pleasure from very literal recovery from the record, as opposed to colored up versions. |
"Mapman, photography with a current $500 camera is a LOT better than nearly all high end systems."
The fact that a relatively inexpensive camera these days can take such good pictures is just one reason why I often wonder how much beef there really is in high end audio.
And lets not even get started on the quality of HD TV.
IS it really so much harder and more expensive to reproduce sound well? Gotta wonder....
But there is a lot that goes into "good sound", that's for sure. Both objective and subjective. See the "$10000 power conditioner thread" for more fascinating banter on this topic. |
Oh Mapman, you are goading me now with that type of crazy subject!
It really is harder to get good sound than good still images. The still images are static: no transients! Easy! And judging it is easy....it's static!
Movies are just series of stills....the static gets repeated every so often.
Not so simple with the ear, whose bandwidth is high, that is extremely time sensitive (so phase distortion shows greatly), and which no single transducer can effectively satisfy.
Consider this: the ear/brain system is 10 octaves wide!!!!
They eye is less than one octave wide in its frequency spectrum! Ouch, that ear is hard to satisfy.
As for "beef" in high end audio, there is little beef. Lots of guys saying they are from Bell Labs (tall tale from that guy), NASA (almost all of those but one that I know are false), NSA scientist (bogus).....so you are right, lots of experimenting, only a few that have real scientific / physics / engineering chops. The job is harder, the market smaller.
A lot of substance and good points from several folks in this thread, far more than in most.
|
Kidd,
Not aware of the concept of an octave being applied to light/eyes, so not sure how to digest the comparison to sound/ears, but I'll buy the timing considerations being more difficult part as mattering when it comes to playback of recorded music. |
Hi,
Am octave is just a doubling of frequency. The ear can pick up a span of TEN of those doublings! The eye: only a bit less than one doubling. Color perception is a frequency based phenomenon, just as sound is frequency based. Eyes pick up an electromagnetic wave, ears pick up a mechanical wave. But look how much wider the range of our perception is with sound! |
I will add that the sensitivity of our ears and in particular the range of intensities that they are capable of detecting (i.e. their dynamic range) is much more impressive than their ability to detect 10 octaves. The dynamic range of the human ear is 130 - 140 dB. If we consider that one dollar represent the intensity of the softest sound that our ears can detect, that the very loud intensities that represent the threshold of pain for our ears are on the order of ten thousand BILLIONs dollars. I am not sure whether we (i.e. humans) are actually able to manufactures microphone with such a wide dynamic range.
With movies and pictures the situation is much simpler. We have cameras that are significantly better than our eyes, plus the quality of a picture is not affected by interaction with ones room. |
Though the perception of a picture can be affected by interaction with ones room. |
Thanks to everybody for your help and suggestions.
My latest update is that I bought a pair of Coincident Dragons (used) . Amazing is the word, my Vienna Acousitcs Haydns sound almost (85-90%) as good as the Devore Orangutans (O/93) driven by Nagra that I heard at the dealer.
While I am recovering from the financial damage, am going to the RMAF to hear all the possible speakers. |
Essrand,
Congratulations on your Coincident Dragon mono blocks! I believe that they'll keep you very happy and enhance your system for much long term enjoyment.
Charles, |
