Borresen X3 vs Harbeth 40.2 -- my impressions

Having said that, it will good if you can take your own advice. Maybe buy a Harbeth 40.2/3 and live with it for some time? Who knows you might reach a different conclusion too :)

I get why my suggestion comes off as hypocritical considering I too have not compared these speakers back-to-back in the same system. However, I am confident enough in my auditory memory of the 40.2s that I am certain it would be a waste of my time, because I’ve yet to encounter any variant of Harbeth that approaches the resolution of speakers like the X3s, whether we’re talking upper bass, midrange, or treble. To my ears they are simply in different performance classes. If we were debating the performance of the Graham LS5/8s VS the 40.2s, then I would be far less confident in my assessment. That would be a comparison in which the speakers are too similar to declare a victor without a side-by-side.

For perhaps a more relatable analogy, the gap between these two speakers, to my ears, is similar to that between a Monitor Audio Platinum and MA Silver series, or Revel Salon vs Revel Concerta. Of course, the Harbeth 40.2 outperforms those brands’ budget speaker lines, I only mentioned them because many listeners have encountered them and I’m trying to better illustrate my perception of the performance gap.

Please bear in mind, I am not one who finds there are equal tradeoffs between speakers like Rockports/Perlistens/Borresens/Joseph Audios and the “warmer” vintage-inspired brands like Harbeth/Graham/Stirling/Spendor. I know many listeners consider the latter to have a less fatiguing, more musical presentation, but to my ears the former, more modern designs are actually less offensive over extended listening, in addition to being unquestionably higher in resolution and detail—both macro and micro. Honestly, I cannot fathom how one could audition these different speaker approaches and conclude the BBC derivatives keep up in terms of resolution and refinement, unless by “refinement” they are actually referring to treble roll-off. Again though, I wonder if some of this merely comes down to hearing acuity, as statistically, someone in their 60s will have a lower hearing threshold by approximately 5dB from around 2kHz on up vs the average person my age. I’m not saying that’s definitely what’s at play here with your assessment, only pondering what other factors possibly account for our big difference in opinion.

Anyhow, it’s certainly not my intent to denigrate BBC-type speakers, I still own a pair of Stirling Broadcasts with upgraded drivers and don’t plan on selling them anytime soon. But even with the upgraded drivers, the Stirlings are to my X3s what a Wharfedale Diamond would be to a Harbeth.

YMMV….I suppose.
 

Being an owner of the X3s and having had several lengthy auditions with the Harbeth 40.2s in what is a better sorted room than my own (giving the Harbeths a field advantage) I have to vehemently disagree with your assessment, especially with regard to midrange performance, transparency and refinement.

Based on your alleged conclusion, it was obvious you hadn’t conducted this comparison in the same room or system. The Borresen midrange is in an entirely different league from that achieved by any Harbeth, same goes for the degree of transparency the Borresens achieve. Harbeth’s Radial cone performs about equal to a $100 off-shelf Seas Prestige woofer. The midrange of the Borresens is more in line with that of Seas Excel Graphene—entirely different performance levels, and it’s not remotely difficult to discern.

It’s all good if you subjectively prefer the Harbeth sound, however, to claim they are the more transparent and refined speaker is akin to claiming a Volkswagen Golf GTI is faster than a Porsche 911 Turbo. The gulf between these two speakers really is that large.

Despite the size difference in woofers, the X3s can also play louder than any Harbeth before crying uncle, and can do so with less power demand. Bear in mind that the Borresens are really equipped with what any other manufacturer would claim are 6 inch woofers, not 4.5 inch. Borresen is just one of the very few manufacturers who are honest about their cone surface area, which is probably to their disadvantage.

It’s interesting that no one has bashed Boressen speakers, or their owners (other than my deleted post which had zero to do with the speaker or owners choice of speaker).

Yet the converse is not true. Why?

Harbeth fans have a long history of bashing any detractors, or anyone who confers even the remotest criticism. You can find that behavior on nearly any lengthy Harbeth thread. IME, Harbeth fans tend to be as dogmatic and vitriolic as those of Audio Note, perhaps more so if we exclude AN’s principal unpaid advertiser.

However, I must say the OP has been far more cordial than what I typically encounter from Harbeth owners. Perhaps he understands that someone simply stating a diametric opinion is not the same as “bashing.”

From where I sit, the most logical explanation for the dogmatism is that magazine reviewers, YouTube reviewers, and Harbeth’s vast dealership network convinced many that Harbeth is the pinnacle of speaker technology and performance. Prior to owning a Harbeth, I too was beginning to sympathize with that belief, and subsequently when a Harbeth was one of only four truly renowned speakers I had owned. After all, how could all those glowing reviews exist if it were not true, even if it’s a mostly presumptive conclusion on the part of the readers? It’s a very similar phenomenon with the Audio Note brand. If you were to merely judge the brand by the fandom and magazine show reports, you’d be forgiven for concluding the brand is the only path toward musical bliss. The reality is much different in my experience, and that of all my audiophile friends.

All that isn’t to say you can’t enjoy your Harbeths. They are indeed better than many options out there, but if you go and audition some Borresens or other aforementioned brands, you might be surprised, that is if you’re honest with yourself.

In some ways, the choice between the Harbeths and the Borresens could be attributed to the consumers budget. The majority of the Borresen line is priced far in excess of the Harbeths. What I hear when we go up in price with the Borresens is a more accurate to source presentation, a more resolving presentation and a generally more refined sound. With the Harbeths, once you get to the 40.3’s, you do get more bottom end extension, slightly better integration between the drivers, but a very similar family sound to the rest of the line.
Personally, once I am dipping into the upper end Borresen line, I now have to consider a number of similarly priced competitors, most of whom do not have their cabinets sourced by another supplier.

I haven’t experienced the upper level Borresens, but it’s hard for me to comprehend them being worth the asking prices for all but the most flush buyers, considering the performance capability of the X series. The X series tweeter for example, already competes with the flagship units I’ve heard in other brands, with even greater refinement than the RAAL and Be tweeters I’ve experienced at home. The entire bandwidth of the X3s outclasses that of my Tyler Acoustics Taylo Refs, which are fitted with $1680 worth of Seas Excel drivers (amazing value monitors if you can find them on the used market BTW). Which until owning the X3s, were the most resolving and refined speakers I’ve owned among nearly 40 pairs.

I’m not one to buy into audio-press hyperbole after all these years. Usually I conclude the hype is unwarranted once I’ve experienced the product for myself. The X3s have turned out to be one of only a handful of exceptions within the last 15 years.

In fact, the day I bought the X3s, I was at the dealer for the sole intent of demoing Perlisten speakers. I didn’t even know he was a Borresen dealer prior to arriving there, and had little knowledge of the brand or its reputation. Despite expecting otherwise, the similarly priced Perlistens sounded an opaque mess compared to the X3s. And though the Perlistens are THX Dominus certified, they sounded far more strained at high playback levels. These two speakers were nearly the same in price but were not close in performance. Pick any audiophile adjective, the X3s were simply better to my ears, and reminiscent of the last time I auditioned the Rockport Atria IIs. To my ears the X3s are like like a beer-budget Rockport, the latter of which are one of best I’ve heard regardless of price.

Regarding the Borresen cabinets, I believe only the X series are sourced from outside Denmark. The X cabinets still look and feel more commensurate with $20K/pair speakers than they do competitors’ $11K speakers. They are not quite as audibly inert as some $20K speakers but are far less noisy than Perlisten’s R series. If I had to nitpick, the only gripe I have with the cabinet quality is a mild amount of orange-peel effect in the paint. It’s not as bad as you’ll find on most modern cars, but it is noticeable when up close, and with the right angle and lighting. It’s not as flawless a piano finish as you get from Yamaha’s NS line. Other than that, I feel the cabinet quality is incredible considering the price and performance of the speakers.

Years ago, like 40 of them, a friend referred to a pair of standpoint speakers that I had at the time as "screaming bricks". Eli (bless his ears) is gone now, as are those speakers. But that was exactly what came to mind when I heard the X3's at Capital Audiofest. 

This would be an entirely believable anecdote if we were discussing Golden Ear’s Triton series or some Focals. But considering the X3s are the least fatiguing speakers I’ve owned, including among them Spendors, Harbeth and Stirling Broadcast, this post is difficult to take seriously. 
 
Even if they were paired with the unworthy Axxess Forte amp, I still can’t imagine them eliciting such a response, especially considering the numerous listeners who reported they sounded exceptional at that show. 

At the THE show this year, I asked the rep and distributor in the Borresen room as to the source of their cabinets, as I was under the same impression that you have, that being only the X series is not made in Denmark. I was told that all of their cabinets are sourced overseas, not just the X series.

Thanks for the clarification.

In my opinion the cabinets are exceptionally well constructed for the price point. At least, they feel and look much more premium than similarly priced speakers from the likes of Focal or B&W. The only similarly priced speakers I’ve owned that had nicer finished cabinets are the Audio Physic Avantis, primarily because they were flanked in glass-encased veneer. Those cabinets were far more resonant during playback however, and had a total mass less than half that of the X3s. 

definitely in agreement about OP’s opinion of the Forte all in one

Count me as another.

Even though my initial audition of the X3s was with the Forte amp and I enjoyed the sound, I could tell the amp was holding them back. There was just enough of that typical class D character coming through. Fortunately over the years I’ve developed a pretty good ability to parse out the likely culprit of a sonic wart, and could hear the potential of the X3s despite the Forte handicapping them.

I think Borresen might be better served by conducting demos of the X3s with their Aavik amps. I suspect they are probably trying to convey a sense of economy by using the Forte to build a complete system for <$20K.

There are a lot of bulls here running at red flags, my goodness. The disrespect for the OP’s positioning and obvious even handedness seems only to occur in forums in this culture. I thought this was a genuinely interesting thread started. I listened to the Borreson’s in Singapore not long ago. Their inherent narrow box design creates a unique sound and sound stage from small speaker units versus Harbeth a big box design. I appreciate the OP’s willingness to share his experience. I’m not in the market for either, but enjoy reading others experiences. It’s sad though that these threads can quickly degenerate in tone and create offence, and defensiveness. Again, thanks for sharing OP.

It seems to me this thread has mostly progressed with a cordial tone (much in thanks to the OP’s cool head). Other than a couple post-and-ghost responses, I don’t believe anyone here is purposefully bashing a brand or product. Though I understand why some would read it that way. Earlier in the thread I likened the 40.2s to a Volkswagen GTI. That was probably a poor choice of analogy because many here probably own and drive nicer vehicles. But I did not intend that as in insult. Rather, I thought it a fitting analogy because the GTI is an excellent all-rounder by any standard. It does everything at least pretty well and has no notable weaknesses. Perhaps its greatest strength is in its even balance of attributes, thus, I thought the analogy a befitting complement to the sound of the 40.2s. In fact I was recently considering a purchase of one of these vehicles, that’s how much I admire them. One can spend the same money and do a lot worse, and I feel similarly about the 40.2s. 

Regardless, for the record, I like the Harbeth 40.2s. It is in fact my favorite Harbeth speaker by a wide margin. I probably should’ve led with that statement, and I apologize to the OP if my posts came off as brash and offensive. Admittedly, tact in these discussions is not my strong suit. I do appreciate @arafiq ’s effort in auditioning the Borresens and sharing his impressions. Hopefully he will share more if/when he acquires a pair of X3s. 

Changing subjects, is your user name a reference to your profession? (If you don’t mind me asking)

It is indeed a reference to my prior career as a rotorcraft mechanic. I spent the first 16 years of my adult life maintaining a variety of rotorcraft including Robinsons, Bells and Sikorskys. These days I work in research/development of composite materials for aviation, though we test/evaluate materials for other industries as well.

Fortunately, working in aviation taught me early the importance of hearing protection.

I will say, my lab experience does make me somewhat apprehensive of owning speakers that employ composite-sandwich cones, in terms of longevity. But the only diaphragms I’ve yet heard that match them in sound are electrostatics, and of course those have their own drawbacks and concerns for reliability. I suppose for me the gamble is worth the tradeoff.

I think when speakers reach a certain level of quality/price, you can’t really say one is “better”. What one listener might see as a negative, another might feel it’s a positive. At a certain level the quality of sound becomes very personal and subjective, much more so than say differences between 2 good SS amps. 

I somewhat agree with this. Even the highest performance speakers are considerably more flawed than a good SS amp by all objective measures. It’s why I’m of the opinion that many audiophiles have been misguided in allocating their system budgets. 
 

Currently I am using a relatively modest Yamaha A-S2100 integrated with my X3s. They have terrific synergy. The X3s seem to be revealing that the 2100 is actually the better amplification package than my Benchmark/Parasound separates. With any lesser speakers, it was mostly a tossup between the two amps. I suspect I could possibly even go up another level in speaker performance before I max out the 2100’s potential. That is if the next speakers are as efficient as the X3s.

I have no plans of upgrading speakers for the foreseeable future, but I’ve made that statement before. 😂  Past speaker upgrades always resulted in tradeoffs though, whereas the X3s meet or exceed every one that came before them. Even the intangible “musicality” factor is a step up with the X3s. 

Well all of the Ls3/5 designs are technically "knock offs".  But, the point is that if the Chinese can copy it and make it even better at 1/3 the cost, the value proposition for Harbeth is not good, and as consumers we shouldn't support companies that fail to invest in R&D, innovation, and charge for an outdated, simplistic design - that's tantamount to a wood shoe box with some varnish.  Not hating on the design, I personally like it, just don't rip me off, give me some value,  and if you're not willing to do that , then maybe they do deserve to be put out of business by the Chinese or whoever is doing at a fair price. 

I don’t doubt the Galion speakers are good considering the man behind them, but I don’t see how an LS3/5 sized speaker is relevant to this discussion.

 

 

@helomech Very cool, and glad you protected your hearing.

I got to ride a few times a Sikorsky between Victoria and Vancouver. Very nice way to travel in that part of the world.

I imagine there’s some great scenery on that route. Was that in an S-76? At the risk of another car analogy , those are the Cadillac of rotor transport—very comfortable. That’s awesome you got to enjoy that experience. Those who’ve only flown in fixed-wings don’t realize what they’re missing.

Sources are obvious . are you denying that Harbeths line up is composed mostly of LS3/5 based shoebox designs ? Name one innovation or design feature Harbeth implemented in the last 30 years that is materially different than the shoebox speaker design.

🤔 There is this age-old saying among engineers that goes something like, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” I think that principle rings true to a large degree with the BBC-heritage designs. The research conducted by the BBC labs decades ago is still relevant today even though it wouldn’t be considered “cutting edge.”

And trust me, I would be one of the last to claim Harbeths represent great value at their current retail prices, but I would say the same about Sonus Faber based on subjective sound quality. When it comes to tweeters at least, it’s my experience that the Seas Excel unit employed in the M40s and M30s sounds significantly superior to that in SF’s Olympica line. I also think the M40’s bass is more articulate despite the thin-wall design.

Forgive me if you already know this, but one of the primary reasons BBC designs employ thin walls and screw-attached panels is to lower the cabinet resonance frequencies so that they do not interfere with the all-important midrange. It’s a common misconception that it’s purely done for economy. The research the BBC conducted on cabinet construction is as valid today as it was 50 years ago. Yeah they are not employing expensive or “space age” materials, but sometimes an inexpensive material does the job as well or even better than costlier alternatives. It really depends on the individual application and goals of the designer. Some would argue that SF’s use of paper cone drivers is equally “antiquated.”

Though I have moved on from BBC derivatives for my own preferences, I still consider them better than many alternatives, especially at their used prices. They might indeed have greater margins built into their pricing, but at the end of the day, what does that really matter if they are the listener’s subjective preference among many? There does come a point where we should give up the otherwise endless experimenting and just enjoy our systems and the music. It’s one thing if someone has only experienced a couple alternatives before becoming a staunch devotee, but it seems pretty evident that doesn’t apply to @arafiq .

 

Living with and working with a speaker long term in your room and system is the best way to evaluate them. In order to get there requires a leap of faith based on what you hear at auditions, audio shows, etc that they have potential to make you happy.

After several experiences with each of the subject speakers, neither made me want to bite.

If I had to pick it would be the Harbeths by a good margin.

To me your second paragraph is good evidence in support of your first sentence. That’s because I suspect you’d be very surprised by how the Borresens compare to the Spendors or your previous SHL5s if you were to commit the same amount of time and effort in maximizing their performance in your own room.

I think a lot of you have really misunderstood bbc speakers.

Derek Hughes has said on numerous occasions that it is all about the crossover, that is where you design the sound of the speakers, off course the cabinets are important but that was taken care of 50 years ago, today you have better drivers and better components to use in the crossover implementation, so he has been able to improve the old bbc design, I am lucky enough to have the Graham Audio LS 5/9 speakers, in my room they are so good and real sounding, I like them better than the Harbeth 30.1 that I have heard in a demo.

I think many here would be surprised by what a well-setup pair of original Spendor SP100s (a Hughes design) can do relative to many modern options. There’s good reason it’s still a resident favorite at stores like Acoustic Sounds. 

@helomech you make fair points, but my point is slightly nuanced and different. Sure, a ls3/5 is a wonderful speaker, I’ve purchased it myself. Now, I’ve never denied that the sound quality can be great, what my issue is the price and value proposition is nothing more than a cash grab. All of the parts you’ve mentioned are not expensive, nor are they difficult to manufacture. Whether you think Harbeth has a better sounding tweeter or bass is highly subjective, not subject to proof, and overlooks the importance of system pairing. I have made the Olympicas sound far better than any ls3/5 by virtue of the right amplification, DAC, and source , and you should know in some environments there will be an inherent advantage of using a floor stander vs a book shelf.

I’m confused as to why you are continuing to mention the LS3/5a in a thread discussing speakers many times their size and price. Is the P3ESR the only Harbeth with which you have substantial experience (presumably)? I ask because the M40.2s are a very different animal. The 40s cost a lot more than the entry-level Harbeths (P3ESR and C7ES3) but IME they also sound superior in every regard. It’s really apples to oranges. I mean no offense to owners/lovers of the P3, but to my ears, relative to the M40.2, it’s very much a “mid-fi” speaker. I would say the same for some of the other LS3/5 variants.

@fishagedone 

Certainly the designs are not wholly unrelated. But the larger one has a significantly better tweeter, is a 3-way design, and is bass-reflex.
 

The woofer in the P3ESR is handling both bass and midrange duties, and is operating in a sealed enclosure. In terms of subjective performance the only thing they mostly have in common is a similar midrange tonality. Otherwise, the definition and dynamics of the M40.2s is on a completely different level. 

That’s the thing, I didn’t hear enough good (with the Borresens) and two fatal flaws such that I did not have confidence they would work for me.

That’s unfortunate. They are fairly placement sensitive relative to many others though.
For me they are the closest I’ve heard to a “perfect” speaker for anywhere near their price.

i would be greatly interested in a detailed review and thread on shf if you will.  

That can’t happen because Steve banned me SHF for daring to question the value of his precious Audio Note. 

The biggest problem of Harbeths is lack of speed and dynamics. Michael Børresen has always aimed for leading edge accuracy and imaging. Plus the unfortunate midbass hump, probably because he designs small speakers for very large rooms.

I agree they have a mid-bass hump. The hump helps offset the bass null I otherwise get with most speakers.

I have seen a few comments now about the X3 having a bass peak. I wonder if they are all tuned like this.

The X3s do have an inherent bass peak, but it certainly doesn’t sound anything like 7dB. My estimate is it might be as high as 2dB. This actually helps them to sound more linear and dynamic when playing at normal levels. My previous floorstanders (BMR Towers) are some of the most linear-measuring speakers on the market at any price, however, in practice, the X3s actually sound more linear and balanced in my room. My suspicion is the X3s are voiced to compensate for the natural dips/peaks of our ears (aka Equal Loudness Contour). This isn’t to say they do that in the same way some other brands do. They sound more balanced than the newer B&W lines for example. 

In terms of on-axis linearity, I doubt the X3s are close to as flat as the BMRs, but it’s quite apparent to my ears that the X3s are considerably lower in distortion. The X3s are over twice the price of the BMR Towers though (and I still prefer the BMRs to all Harbeths I’ve heard), so in terms of absolute value, the BMRs are still incredible. 

I was increasingly gravitating toward great measuring speakers prior to acquiring the Borresens, but the X3s have upended that whole paradigm for me. As I stated earlier, I visited the dealer expecting that I would probably leave with a pair of Perlisten towers, or at minimum, realize the Perlistens weren’t any better than my BMR Towers. Instead, I ended up buying the X3s, which was an easy decision after hearing the Perlisten R towers. That said, I was also able to conclude that the BMR Towers perform better than the Perlistens. In recent weeks I have begun to suspect that driver distortion levels matter far more than on-axis linearity when it comes to subjective sound quality. 

Good to know I was not the only one who was perturbed by the mid bass bump. I suspect the issues I heard with X3 has more to do with how they've been voiced as opposed to an inherent weakness in the overall design. Nonetheless, it still provides SQ that punches above the asking price. I hope Michael Borressen will tweak the design in v2 of this model to get rid of the midbass bump.

My hypothesis is that the midbass bump is what allows the X3s to sound so dynamic and linear at conversational levels, it compensates for the Munson loudness curve. The bump does necessitate giving them plenty of space—about 3’ minimum from the front baffles to the wall behind them. When I first setup the X3s there was a considerable mode being excited when the aforementioned spacing was closer to 2.5 feet. An additional 6” was all it took to tame the mode completely from a subjective standpoint. Despite having zero doubt the X3s would produce a hump in anechoic measurements, they still manage to produce the most subjectively balanced bass I’ve ever achieved in a system, regardless of playback level. In fact, when I had the WiiM Ultra streamer here to test, I ran its room correction DSP and was surprised that it suggested considerable levels of bass boost between 40 and 120Hz, no reductions at any frequency. The system sounded much better without the DSP, no matter how many times I allowed the WiiM to attempt correction. 

I was a stalwart believer that all good speakers should produce a mostly linear output, but my experience with the X3s has completely upended that concept for me. My hunch is the X3s would produce rather mediocre measurements by the Floyd Toole metrics, which is why I am beginning to doubt whether said metrics really do indicate much of what we can expect subjectively. My departed Revels measured better, no doubt, but the X3s absolutely wipe the floor with them subjectively.  

Did ANYONE hear any imaging issues with the Borresens?  Anything strange?  I heard something quite definitive during every audition (3X).  

No imaging issues in my room with my system. They are arguably the best imaging speakers I’ve owned, perhaps only slightly bested by coaxials in terms of center image outline and depth. They are definitely the best with regard to instrument outlines at the left/right of the soundstage. Though I must note that the same pair produced a more “wall of sound” presentation (relative to my setup) at the dealer where they were spaced further apart by a couple feet. In that setup they made vocals sound larger than life. I didn’t let that deter me, however, because I’ve experienced similar presentations with many speakers at other dealers. I figured it was only a matter of the dealer failing to dial in the best toe angle or the room’s treatment scheme.

I can’t speak for the X2 towers. The dealer had them on display but I didn’t audition them. My guess is they image somewhat differently since their tweeters are above their midwoofers rather than below as in the X3s.