lol at 'factual statements' -- please share your source please.
Borresen X3 vs Harbeth 40.2 -- my impressions
After reading so many glowing reviews of the Borresen X3 speaker, I decided to go and audition them at a local dealer who was gracious enough to let me stay there for over 4 hours. I went there with the intention of buying the X3 if they appealed to me. I thought I’d share my impressions here for those who are interested, especially in comparison to my Harbeth 40.2 speakers that I adore.
The dealer at first hooked them up to the Axxess Forte 1 integrated amp. To be brutally honest, I was about ready to bolt in the first 10 minutes. I just don’t understand why Axxess is getting so much praise. It was the most flat, dry, and boring sound I’ve heard. Luckily, the dealer had some very high end Burmester amp, preamp, and music server (close to $100K retail for the three pieces), which he agreed to use instead. Huuuuuge difference! The Burmester really made those Borresens come alive and sing. IMO, AGD is really doing a disservice to the X line by pairing them with the Axxess in audio shows. They are capable of scaling with much better gear. Shame!
If a massive, immersive, and holographic soundstage is your primary criteria and your budget is $11k max, you should stop reading at this point. Run and get these speakers before AGD decides to raise the price. I have yet to hear a speaker in this price range with this kind of soundstage. But if you value other aspects of music reproduction, keep on reading ...
Soundstage Width, Depth, and Height:
No contest. Borresen is noticeably better. The soundstage is as tall as it is deep. I heard sounds coming from besides me and behind me. Depth, while not outstanding, is there for sure. Just not as impressive as the height and width relatively speaking. I still can’t get that immersive feeling out of my head.
Ability to disappear:
This is one area where Harbeth always struggles. Owing to the thin walls of its cabinets, one is always aware of the big box the sound emanates from. The X3s totally disappeared. Again, very impressive for a speaker in this price range.
Vocals:
Sorry, but the X3 is simply not in the same league as the 40.2 when it comes to vocals. There’s this little extra, lifelike quality to vocals in most Harbeth speakers that is hard to beat. I listened to some very familiar songs on the X3, and it became clear why I fell in love with the Harbeth sound many years ago. Female voices are more ethereal and nuanced, male voices have more chestiness. You hear the emotions and every little inflection in the singers’ voice. It simply gives more of the ‘singer in the room’ feeling.
Instrument Separation:
This is a tough one. Both are excellent in this regard. But I will give a very slight edge to 40.2s here. Or maybe not. I don’t know. Let’s call it evens.
Transparency and Realism:
This is where Harbeth pulled ahead of the X3s in a major way. I’m not saying that the X3s are deficient by any means, but the 40.2s just give you a lot more of it. You really have to live with them for a while to truly understand and appreciate what this speaker brings to the table. It’s truly addictive. The only other speakers I’ve heard that are better in this regard are the Quads or other electrostatics.
Midrange and Lushness:
My impression of Borresen speakers prior to this was that they were very fast, neutral, and quiet. But, much to my surprise, the X3s (or perhaps the X line itself) has been voiced to be more on the warm side of things. Sound was warm and had body. Unfortunately, this is being achieved by adding a bit of a mid bass bump. While it gives the speaker an overall warm predisposition, I felt it came at the expense of hiding details in the mid bass region. Harbeth is also known for a lush midrange but it doesn’t get here by sacrificing detail or exaggerating the sound. Another side effect of this characteristic was that acoustic instruments felt bigger than life. Guitars felt like they were 10 foot long. Piano strokes lacked the bite and immediacy that I get with 40.2s – and by the way this is not a particularly strong point of Harbeth either.
Tone and Timbre:
Harbeth to the front of the line, please. The timbre and tonal accuracy of the 40.2s is on another level. X3s are also very good in this regard but are somewhat outclassed by Harbeth.
Overall Refinement:
I apologize in advance if this is going ruffle some feathers, but the 40.2s are overall much more refined sounding than the Borresen X series. Again, this is only in comparison. On its own, I would never label the X3s as unrefined. The Harbeth just has this extra layer of refinement that you come to appreciate the more time you spend with it.
Bass:
As they say, there’s no replacement for displacement. The 4.5” drivers on X3 produce a prodigious amount of bass which is hard to believe considering the size of the drivers. Yet, the 12” woofer on 40.2s gives you more of that deep and tuneful bass. It just sounds more satisfying and fuller.
Look and Feel:
This is very subjective, of course, so please feel free to take it with a grain of salt. But I was not impressed by how the X3s looked in person, they lacked elegance. It kind of reminded me of Tekton – okay, maybe that’s too harsh, I take it back. But I was a little disappointed as they looked really nice in pictures. Wish they would lose the carbon fiber touch and the checkered driver patterns. The Harbeths, on the other hand, don’t look as impressive and nice in pictures. I mean what do you expect from an oversized shoebox on stands. But, the quality and craftsmanship of hand-built cabinets has a more timeless and elegant feel to it that has to be seen and felt to be appreciated. I just feel this style, boring as it is, just ages more gracefully.
Long story short, I have decided to stay with my 40.2s. They have many quirks, as pointed out by several members on this forum. But what they do, they do it exceedingly well. I found the Harbeth 40.x to be overall more transparent, lifelike, refined, and balanced. They don’t do dynamics as good as other speakers or disappear as much as other speakers in this price range, but they more than make up for it in other ways. I’ve heard people claim that the X3 are twice (or even thrice!) as good as their asking price. If soundstage is your primary criteria for judging speakers, then I wholeheartedly agree. But if you value transparency, vocals, timbre, tonal accuracy, and overall refinement ... the Harbeth 40.x series justifies its higher price, despite the shortcomings.
Having said that, I was still very impressed by Borresen X3 and won’t mind having it as a second pair once they hit the used market. But I feel the hype doesn’t quite align with what I actually heard during the audition. In this price range, I find Audio Vector to be a better value.
Please note that these are my opinions based on a ‘mere’ 4-hour demo, and only in comparison to my favorite speakers. It’s totally fine if someone draws a completely opposite conclusion, or tells me that I’m biased. My taste, my preferences, IMO, IHMO, etc. etc. etc.
- ...
- 170 posts total
@arafiq 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. |
I imagine there’s some great scenery on that route. Was that in an S-76? At the risk of another car analogy
🤔 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 .
|
, 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.- 170 posts total