I'm very happy at the moment with my system, but getting a slight itch for an upgrade. So many options and directions I could go, but the one I'm pondering at the moment is moving from my Harbeth C7ES-3 speakers to Wilson Sabrinas. (The Sabrina X is now out, which may bring the Sabrina down to my budget... maybe.)
My room is approx. 10'6" x 15'6" with the speakers along the short wall and my listening chair is about 2/3 back from said wall. The C7s plus their stands are just about the right size for this room, and the Sabrinas on their floor spikes are similar in "overall" size, though obviously the speakers themselves are bigger.
Current amp is a Pass Labs XA30.5 which doubles down at 4Ohms (plus lots of headroom) and comes just within Wilson's "recommended" amplifier power. The room is on the smaller side, and I don't listen loud; I've never "wanted" for more power with the C7s. (Though every once in a while I wonder what a pair of XA60.5s would sound like in here, but that's an entirely different thread.)
I have C7-ES. I thought about upgrading to Wilson Watt Puppy which was (and still is) my dream speakers. I ended up choosing Gershman Grand Avant Garde. As I grow older, being able to move speakers around by myself was a concern, and Wilson was too heavy for me. Now C7-ES and Gershman sit side by side. There is no comparison. Gershman is every bit better, except Gershman needs more power. C7-ES is just fine to drive with 40W amp, but Gershman needs 100W or more. C7-ES is nice when I listen to a less volume. Gershman shines when you listen to loud. I still miss Wilson. I might try to have one before too late though.
The few times I've listened to Vandersteens, they struck me as having a rather "forward" presentation. By this I'm not referring to tonal balance, which was fine, but rather to where the plane of the sound stage started, which was well in front of the plane of the drivers. Tastes will differ, but I prefer a more "distanced" presentation, where the front of the sound stage coincides with the front plane of the speakers or even starts a little behind them. The Harbeths are 100% satisfactory in this regard.
At a dealer last year I auditioned Harbeth 30.1s versus a Wilson system set up in the next room. Don’t recall the particulars of the Wilson gear but the entire system cost over $1,000,000, while the Harbeth system was around $15,000. For me, I much preferred the Harbeths, which had a much more natural sound especially with voices. The Wilsons sounded thin.
Also loved this @photomax:
I find the Wilson’s to resemble a mix of school lunchroom garbage can and Transformers robot
I moved from Harbeth HL Monitors MkIII to Wilson W/P 2/1 about 20 years ago. Completely different kettle of fish. No regrets....I've since moved on of course. It's all part of the journey!
so Jaylat says above that a $15,000 system sounded better than a $1,000,000 Wilson Audio system. No, we should generally not equate sound with dollars spent, but maybe for good measure, Jaylat should have his ears professionally examined.
although i will say that modern wilsons are smoother and easier to mate with ancillaries than older ones with the metal tweeters... those could exhibit much stridency and hardness/harshness with minimal provovation
Old thread. If anyone prefers the sound of the Harbeth and desires to have a slightly more transparent, open and detailed sound, the Graham is a good choice. Basically a sound with slightly improved clarity and detail which can make a significant difference to the listening experience. My comment is based on the comparison between the equivalent Graham models to the older Harbeth pre XD models such as P3ESR, C7ES3, M30.1 / 30.2, SHL5+ and M40.1 or 40.2.
I've listened to the Wilson Sasha mk1 about 11 years ago. Sound is rather good.
Just saw this very interesting thread. I know it’s old but may still be relevant to others. There seem to be a lot of "Wilson haters" on here so I thought I would chip in as I think my experience is relevant. I owned "BBC monitor" style speakers for decades from the likes of Rogers, Spendor, KEF, B&W, et al. They are all wonderful with what my grandmother would have called a "nice tone". However, some years back I had the opportunity to audition Wilson Sabrinas. And I was sold. Wilson does not have a "nice tone" as such. They just sound, to my ears, like attending the live event! I know it’s personal. But even given the ridiculous expense, I have subsequently upgraded to the Sasha DAW and now have a pair of Alexia V on order. Harbeth and Wilson are chalk and cheese. Both are excellent at what they do. Both have a distinguished heritage. But ultimately it’s down to personal preference and budget. Would love to learn what the OP did?
all excellent, well established, successful speakers are doing something very right
it just depends if their flavor of ’right’ matches your tastes and requirements
furthermore, ’live’ music comes in vastly different flavors too. .. mid hall at boston symphony vs grandstand at coldplay concert vs third row at village vanguard jazz show... substantially different sounding ’live performances’
I owned "BBC monitor" style speakers for decades from the likes of Rogers, Spendor, KEF, B&W, et al. They are all wonderful with what my grandmother would have called a "nice tone".
Yes, but it's that 'tone' that is so incredibly appealing and addictive to so many of us.
Is it not fair to ask why can't we, after all these years of development, have the best of both?
For me that's the point. A live event (of whatever sort - it's live!) does not have a "tone" as such. It is what it is. A musical instrument has a "tone". But that's just it. A loudspeaker is not a musical instrument. It is a medium through which a musical instrument is transduced. Nothing is perfect of course, but my Wilson speakers get me closer to the live sound (warts and all) than anything else I have owned and that is what I am looking for.
I like a wide range of speaker brands. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses. None are really bad and I'd be happy to live with any of the top brands at their various price points. I've just ordered a new pair of Wilsons as I love their ability to image three dimensionally. Do they sound like live music .....no but then no speaker or recording does.
There is nothing wrong with Wilsons other than the price and a few questionable building practice's. I personally prefer Magicos because they are most definitely better made. The sound is remarkable similar between the two. For value you can not beat Harbeth P3s on stands with subwoofers. The subwoofers with proper digital bass management turn the little guys into monsters, every bit as potent as Sabrinas if not more. The limiting factor in most speakers is the power handling of the tweeter.. There is only so much you can get out of a 1" cup or dome. In a room the size of the OPs small monitors on stands make sense. These little monitors are so attractive because the small cabinets are so small and stiff they do not resonate. The enclosure disappears. The problem for them is the little woofers have to work very hard to make bass distorting everything else they carry. Subwoofers and crossovers with steep curves solve that problem turning David into goliath. I think the P3 is Harbeths best speaker. The Falcon is also popular but I have not heard them.
All these speakers are point source which means their acoustic power drops off at the cube of the distance and they are relatively omnidirectional causing more room interaction. I prefer line source dipoles because their power drops off at the square of the distance and their directionality is controlled in all directions limiting room interaction. They produce a larger soundstage which is more realistic.
@jjss49, You may have missed my point. Even the largest Wilson has one little tweeter, no different than a Harbeth P3. Once you turn it's little woofer into a midrange driver by removing the bass the speaker will go just as loud as the largest Wilson as long as you add two 15" subwoofers with digital bass management crossing over at 125 Hz 8th order. The Only differences are price and enclosure materials. Once you get down to a very small enclosure it is much easier to make it non resonant. We noticed the possibilities right away with the Rogers LS3 5A back in the late 70s. The problem for us back then was our crossover choices were extremely limited and they were all analog. It was very difficult to keep the sub out of the midrange so we had to crossover lower down. The output levels were still limited.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
