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.
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.
@helomechVery 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.
My hearing was compromised 30 years ago. Got too close to a wall of JBLs at an outdoor rave in London. My system is designed to accommodate for that error in judgment.
I probably should have saved my comments to a ls3/5 specific thread, to the extent my observations are relevant to the larger models, maybe they could be useful. I was under the assumption that the larger models used the same design and technology as the original BBC design, but truthfully I haven't looked into this in any depth.
I was in the market for a m30 or m40 type speaker, I did settle on SF Olympica instead, and that's when I started analyzing the different value propositions and business models, and started to wonder why the m40s cost so much considering the model has low manufacturing cost, simplistic design, and nearly no R&D since it's inception. That began to bother me , and I've concluded it's a cash grab, that when a true competitor emerges on sound quality, irrespective of country of origin, Harbeth will be in major trouble.
Pretty scathing response, don't know what your experience is with Harbeth M40 but I can say that they are not a speaker that falls short in the way(s) you mention. Robert E. Greene of the Absolute Sound, who funnily enough plays violin in an amateur Orchestra has owned M40 (the original M40) speakers for going on 20 years. You should research some of his writings on the subject. I've also owned M40's for going on 17-18 years now and in no way do they exhibit the shortcomings you mention. I think you got a bit carried away, just my opinion.
I think if both Speakers compared here are well match will gears and cabling. They will both give the performance of musical enjoyment. I consider them both good speakers. It’s up to the buyer how they utilized them to get the most out of them. It’s a matter of preference really. It’s risky to write a thread comparing two speakers? Because owners will defend their speakers. And they will push back.
It has nothing to do with your subconscious racism against the Chinese. I actually purchased a Sonus Faber, Mcintosh system in place of the Harbeth. If you can’t make real arguments against why the Harbeth is overpriced, lacks innovation, poor QC, and looks like a wood shoe box for last few decades, then please refrain from commenting.
I am merely using the Chinese example to point out how badly Harbeth owners are being hosed, when the Chinese are making a qualitatively and objectively better product at 1/3 the price. Try doing that with a Sonus Faber or BW flagship model, it will look like a joke because there’s actual real European craftsmanship and innovation in those brands. Not like Harbeths old shoe box of 50 years that never changes and even a Chinese factory can build better.
@fishagedoneUnderstanding that you were looking at the 30's and 40's, which of course is utter nonsense (the nonsense would have been more believable of you claimed you were contemplating the 30's and SHL5's), and that you bought the SFs (which by reputation alone appear to be very nice speakers), why do you care so much about Harbeth's so called shortcomings?
I (we) don't need your sympathy. I was not hosed. I'm on my second pair. I did own the 30's and now the 40's. BOTH my cabinets have perfectly matched walnut veneers, as did the previous pair. This is neither cheap nor easy and QC the department seems to be doing a very nice job. I am very happy and sometimes spend 3-4 hours in single dedicated listening session enjoying them.
All you are doing is insulting a very successful company/speaker that you previously admitted you "haven't looked into in any depth" and insulting Harbeth owners.
So the real question is, what is wrong with you? No one insulted you or your choice of speaker, so why do you keep at it?
You haven't made any substantive arguments to address my points. If you love your speakers that's your right to do so, but I also have a right to point out the vast shortcoming of Harbeth as a speaker company and as a product . I did consider both models, why is that so strange ? My primary criticism was that Harbeth uses the same technology and same.cabinet design, which is very simplistic and does not use any new techniques or require woodworking compared to companies of a similar price point. Hence, as a consumer I found this to be a disturbing cash grab and value proposition. Add insult to injury, now the Chinese are producing better speakers at 1/3 the price. I do have a right to be concerned that I was almost ripped off and nearly misled into paying 3 times more for an inferior product by fan boys who are not upfront about the true value proposition .
@arafiq If this wasn't a 1994 era website I'd find a way to "follow" you since your posts are always very thoughtful and well reasoned.
Separately, holy s*&^ if you punted Joseph Audio to the side for Harbeth, I can't see a scenario where X3 is on your radar, but that's just me. You're going to need to step up 1-2 notches to really nail it from here.
First off, thank you for the wonderful compliment. It's heartening to know that people still value balanced perspectives instead of just mindlessly rooting for their favorite brands.
I know it comes as a surprise to many that I preferred the 40.2 over JA Perspectives. The Perspectives (in fact most JA models) are really good and are generally well received in the market. They were certainly a step up from Harbeth SHL5+ which they replaced. But, the 40.x is a completely different animal IMO. Yes, they have some family resemblance but they're just in a class of their own compared to other Harbeth models. The one speaker that I heard recently is the Daedalus Apollo model. Now, this is something I feel can give Harbeth a run for its money. But it's so hard nowadays to find something you can listen to that it makes it impossible to reach an informed conclusion.
@helomechI just want to clarify that my 'brash' comment was not directed towards you. In my book, it's quite ok to passionately defend your choices in audio. After all, you reached to this point after a lot of research and listening. My comments were really meant for some other posters who don't quite understand the notion of civility when making their opinions known. It's one thing to defend your choice (which you were doing) and quite another to insult people for their choices on something as inconsequential as 'liking' a specific brand. In fact, your posts really convince me to seek out an X3 audition in my home and possibly even buy one in the near future.
@fishagedoneAs someone who previously owned both SF Olympica 2 and 3, I am forever in your debt for showing me the error of my ways. How dare I prefer the crappy box, otherwise known as Harbeth 40.2, over the magnificent Sonus Faber. I think you should collect a few thousand signatures and propose that Alan Shaw be paraded naked on donkey back on the streets of London followed by life imprisoment. What a charlatan he is for collectively fooling so many gullible audiophiles who don’t know what’s good for them. I mean who makes a speaker that looks like box?!! Surely, it must sound horrible by the looks of it. And how dare he uses true-and-tried approaches for making good sound. He should be experimenting with space age materials and exotic drivers -- who cares whether they sound better or not. After all, it's not about SQ but about design language and marketing hype for the sake of marketing hype.
@arafiqSorry to break this to you, but your use of sarcasm is just about as boring as a wooden shoe box with a driver attached. Makes sense why you would prefer such a design. But on a serious note, address the argument, Harbeth has consistently failed to invest in R&D, design, and is grossly overcharging for a speaker than can be produced far less. Do you actually dispute any of those factual statements?
@arafiqSources 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.
@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.
@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. Could the opposite be true in certain environments, of course but not likely , that’s why your missing the point. Its about value, R&D, innovation, and cost. The total cost of parts for those Harbeth designs is a very small margin, and the labor cost is minimal, with the actual speakers demonstrating poor Qc as documented by glue being left on speaker cones. Whatever you say about speakers like Sonus Faber or BW 804 line, those are pieces of art. Whether we like it or not, speakers are furniture, and if we’re paying 10k plus, we should ask the manufacturer to spend some money and time to make them look better than an antiquated shoe box while they gouge all the profits for their personal expenses.
@donvitowhile I may sound like I’m railing against those brands, all I really want is lower prices, actual customer service, and better QC if they’re going to use that business model. It’s basic economics. If "it’s not broken, then don’t fix it" is the model, where’s all the cost savings to the customers? Why are these speakers costing the same as European counterparts that are using world class level wood working and craftsmanship? Harbeth and their ilk are screwing some boxes together using parts that are widely available and cheap on the wholesale market, at least pass on the savings to us . To me, it’s nothing more than a cartel and artifical price manipulation. I will be loyal to the consumer every time. We should be balking at such asking prices and demanding lower prices rather than playing submissive cult follower with an open wallet who never dares speak out.
Audiophiles have become the equivalent of a car owner smiling while the mechanic charges him thousands for replacing an electronic module that doesn’t exist . The question is, why ? Have they become so eager to be accepted and part of an imagined club that they dont dare question the party line anymore ? It’s just like how nearly every review is positive, and if a YouTuber dares to give a negative review they get threatened with a lawsuit by DCS. Come on, it’s a hobby, let us be free at least with our hobbies.
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 have not heard the bigger bbc designs, hopefully one day.
I have heard many more modern designs, although only in stores, and must say I don’t feel I miss anything from my speakers, some speakers are more revealing and some have more bass, but both of those things can be a bad thing if you room can not facilitate that or I have a problem listening to very revealing speakers as I feel that they often dissect the music and I loose the natural flow and rhythm that I like, but the best I like with my speakers is the tone of instruments and the naturalness of voices, I think some people have not heard these speakers and just comment on the looks and the perceived value of parts and form their opinions on that and that is a shame, the 5/9 and others of their ilk are very revealing speakers in their own right, they just don’t over do it.
@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.
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.
@arafiq You have a really nice and obviously very well thought out rig. What are you thinking for your next cart?
Actually, thanks for reminding me that I have made a few changes to my system in the last few months, and forgot to update the virtual system.
First, I replaced the Meitner MA3 DAC with a Merging Technologies +NADAC and separate power supply. I chose this DAC after home auditioning Mola Mola Tambaqui and DCS Bartok in my system. To my ears, Merging Technologies was the most analog and natural sounding. Shout out to @lalitkfor first recommending the Merging DAC and then giving me the opportunity to hear it in his system, which by the way is one of the best systems I've heard so far.
Second, I replaced the Denon DL-103 cart with Hana ML. Another leap in performance. I might go up the Hana food chain in the future, but for now I'm very happy with ML. I have updated my virtual system with new info and pics. Please check it out if you haven't already.
Lastly, I recently purchased Magnepan 1.7i as a second pair of speakers. This speaker really defies the price-to-performance ratio like nothing else I've owned in the past. It's different than Harbeth 40.2 in many ways, which I enjoy since I wasn't necessarily looking for 'better', just a different 'flavor' to spice things up. And boy does that Maggie deliver the flavor in spades. I might add the Magnepan pics to my virtual system later.
@helomechI mention the ls3/5 not for the size, but the patent that its based on. Presumably, the larger speakers share or borrow a similar design and technology perspective . The sound signature of that design while different carries a sound signature that most could identify as originating from a ls3/5 BBC design. To act like the m40 is some revolutionary, unique design wholely unrelated to the ls3/5 patent is just false and bizarre.
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.
@helomech fair enough, I don't have much to add. As much as I enjoyed my time with you fine, internet audiophiles , I do have an incredible Sonus Faber Mcintosh system in front of me playing Beethovens Violin Concerto and other great works that require my attention. May you all have as much audio bliss and enjoyment on your respective systems as I am .
As an owner of some great Sonus Faber’s, i can say that i truly enjoy listening to the Harbeth models, particularly the 40’s. In the right room, I have heard the 40.2’s absolutely sing. They require a larger room than most folks can easily accommodate, an amp with a little more horsepower than a flea powered SET and will reward a superior front end. Get this all right and I think you have a speaker than can compete with some of the very best.
As to the value proposition, the big Harbeths are nowhere near as pricey as a lot of high end products, some of which truly do make them look like bargains. Complaining about how the cabinets are made, how the drivers are constructed, etc., seems to me to be nowhere near as relevant as how they sound....which is, at least to my ears, generally outstanding.
How these speakers sound is a direct result of the cabinet. A good thing when a designer like Shaw can propose the superiority of a cabinet that is the simplest and least expensive cabinet on the market. Usually designers avoid lossy cabinets, parallel surfaces and a front face that extends far beyond the drivers. So yes Harbeth's have a distinctive "house" sound.
@arafiq I checked out the updates, thanks for sharing.
I'm not sure what your phono stage is?
The Hana ML is a great cart, maybe tough to beat in its price range. Looking at your TT, I think you are just scratching the surface of your vinyl potential (pun intended).
If and when you invest in your next-level cart, please talk to JR at Wally Tools about the set up. The conversation will be free. I'd be surprised if you didn't end up working with him. The service and tool set you ultimately use yourself, are NOT expensive. I've just been through this process with a new TT and cart (updated in my virtual system). Net result will be a perfectly aligned cart and diamond with no guess work.
Hi, I’m Justin and I’m a lurker. I love audio and read on here frequently but have rarely felt the need to reply.
I love my setup, which is mostly Mcintosh and Wilson Audio (old-school WP6)
I was compelled to log in and write because, quite frankly, the level of disrespect I see from audiophiles is saddening.
The OP wrote an amazingly well-thought-out review of his experience with speakers. It was honest, it of course has his own bias, but he called this out time and time again. Is he getting paid for his posts his time or his opinion? I doubt it. He wanted to give another data point regarding a brand that is not well known (okay, here is where I can see myself getting attacked, yes they are well known but to bring in the X series and move from six-figure down to more realistic pricing is fairly new) and from a point of view that isn’t a reviewer. While I appreciate review sites, I personally do want a mix of "professional" and home users, like myself.
@arafiq thank you sincerely for this feedback. I’ve had my Wilson Watt/Puppy for many years and I have been toying with changing them out. I love them, and a change would be difficult to do, but there are better, for certain. These are on my list and reading feedback, such as yours, helps me to shorten the demo list.
To those on the attack, the world is crazy - I’d hope we all sit and listen to our music to get away from it all. I’m certain that is where the passion comes in. Just remember that feedback/reviews/opinions aren’t meant to be an attack on anyone personally. But an attack on anyone personally is never useful and makes the conversation degrade to being useless.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 forgotten you were the one with the thread comparing the Joseph audio perspectives to the Harbeth SuperHL5+. And you went with the josephs.
How interesting that you have now swapped the Josephs for the Harbeth 40.
I’d like to know more about that!
I agree with you the Harbeth 40 is a different animal from the super HL5+. It’s capable of a much heavier sound, and greater scale and drama. And I don’t care what the Harbeth detractors say, that speaker can sound glorious!
I once heard the 40s in a large room, and they portrayed the most convincingly, corporal rendition of a solo trumpet singer and standup base I’ve ever heard. Astounding, three-dimensional, and spaciousness, ultra richness of timber, full bodied, and organic.
The 40s have been one of my dreams speakers that I occasionally imagine in my room, but which form fact just would not fit.
I still don’t know that I would actually prefer them over the Joseph perspectives, given how well I have those dialled in. But it would be nice to hear them in my room.
So how would you compare the Harbeth 40s with the perspectives? What pushed you towards the Harbeths?
Looking at your TT, I think you are just scratching the surface of your vinyl potential (pun intended).
I am fairly new to the analog world. To be honest, my focus up until this point has been improving the digital front-end as much as possible. However, I find vinyl to be a worthy contender, in fact, even better than digital in many aspects. Next year, I plan to dedicate most of my audio budget to improving the analog side of things. I'm currently using the built-in phono in the Octave preamp. I compared it to several standalone phonos in the $3-4K range and still found Oct'ave's built-in phono to be a better value.
Wally tools has been suggested to me by another friend of mine. My thinking is that I first need to get a better cartridge (open to suggestions) and tone arm before I do anything else. Hopefully, 2025 will be all about analog for me :)
@thermoThank you for chiming in. I really appreciate your post. Just like you, I put an equal emphasis on opinions/reviews shared by average joe's like us and not seasoned/paid reviewers. In fact, some of my best buys were influenced by average joes and not reviewers. Go figure! :)
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.
, 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.
My setup (I don't know how to internet anymore, apparently)