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.
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.
With respect, I think much of what you are hearing with the Harbeth speakers are the distortions caused by the cabinet and other things as well. When auditioning most the Harbeth line, I found them very very colored, but decidedly pleasant. Plus a quick parts count and inventory will quickly confirm the fact that these are among the most over-priced speakers of which I am aware.
And yes Harbeth owners seem to have taken a page, in terms of aggression, from the Klipsch crowd.
Arafiq reading your post ? I think your ears prefer the Harbeth. And that’s good. Børresen are amazing speakers but they are not for everyone.I agree maybe the gear and cabling , the room as well did not synergise with the x3. Who knows.
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.
At the end of the day, this is just audio gear. I don't know why folks get so worked up. Prior to owning Harbeth 40.2, I owned several speakers with very different design philosophies -- Joseph Audio Perspective2, Sonus Faber Olympica 2 and 3, B&W 804, Focal Sopra 2, KEF Reference 1, several Harbeth models, Klipsch Cornwall IV, and a few more that I don't remember. So it's not like I had no idea how other speakers sound.
I enjoyed every speaker for what it offered. They all had strengths and weaknesses. I recently bought Magnepan 1.7i, which will be delivered today. Of all the speakers, my 40.2 are not as dynamic and has weaknesses that I knew very well when buying them. Despite all that, they allow me to get emotionally engaged with the music better than any other speaker I've owned. Whether they use cheap parts or cabinets, or pick your favorite Harbeth insult, I could care less. They do something that other speakers have not done for me ... thus far.
When I listened to the Borresen X3, I did not find them to be as transparent as the 40.2. Could it be the dealer's room, supporting equipment, or something else? Maybe. Now, I will say that the X3s did impress me enough that I'm thinking of buying a pair in the near future. I'll keep whichever sounds better in my room.
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.
Arafiq If I did not listen to Harbeth and Boressen. I might agree with your comparisons. I both listens on both Borresen and Harbeth on audio shows. Why it is always good to audition for yourself , instead of reading. The best way really to choose the speakers is listen to them in your place if you have the chance. Or find a dealer to audition them.
Sometimes it seems more effective for the person to bash the competition than to extol the virtues of his own camp. One needs look no further than political rants in today’s climate. Eerily similar.
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?
I've never even seen a Borresen speaker other than their website. They look very interesting and the Danes have a history of exceptional design and craftmanship. I'd definitely listen to them given the opportunity.
patriotic brits who will only look at British things
True, other than my German TT, Japanese cart, Italian phono stage, German integrated, Canadian streamer, American DAC, American cables, power supply and acoustic room treatments.
And my next speaker won't be Harbeth - no where else to go up the line.
One thing I would like to add is that when a manufacturer creates a product which performs so well at it's respective price point, us as audiophiles, must acknowledge and appreciate it. Whether you like Borresen or not, AGD has delivered a solid product which definitely punches above its weight. Yes, there is some hype, but it's not totally unjustified either. I suspect the next generation of X3 will be tuned even better to overcome some shortcomings (e.g. exaggerated midbass bump). It seems more of a tuning decision than a deficiency in design or quality of parts.
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.
Based on my auditory memory, which is very recent, I found Harbeth to be superior in resolution, including midrange and treble. X3s had a much wider and taller soundstage though. There are too many variables here -- you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. Anyways, audio is highly subjective and it makes no sense to engage in these types of arguments. I am going to keep an open mind and seek to purchase an X3 so I can listen in my own system. Will truthfully share my impressions after that. I might change my mind after all. Or maybe not.
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.
Truthfully, presuming the OP still possesses good hearing acuity (which many/most audiophiles do not, because one cannot elude age-induced loss), I think he would come to a much different conclusion if he were to live with the X3s in his own system for some time.
This is a valid point. Often times, it takes some getting used to the sound signature of a new speaker to appreciate the full spectrum of capabilities, subtleties, and nuances. As I mentioned, I plan to purchase the X3s when they show up in the used market. I will be the first one to admit if they turn out to be better, or even the same.
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 :)
Anyway I owned the 40.1 for a short time Ive owned the Raidho C3 (a Boressen design and much better than the X series we are discussing) ,I pretty much agree with your assessment
I auditioned the 40.1 maybe 7-8 years ago and was disappointed. I pretty much wrote off the big Harbeths from consideration. I found them to be not resolving enough, bass heavy, and a bit boomy. However, IMO, the 40.2 is a much different animal. It is vastly superior (again, based on for my listening preferences) to the 40.1.
I don’t agreed I am going to use car analogies, Harbeth it’s an BMW series 3 maybe 5 and Borresen it’s a Porsche Cayman. Either are very good cars and depends a lot of who is driving and what is the use. Borresen it’s a taste of a sports car. Fast, dynamic, soundstage and Harbeth it’s a taste of a luxury car. Easy driving, comfortable. Both are doors for bigger things
While I can't comment directly on the comparison, I do have a few thoughts.
First, @arafiq deserves high marks for his original post. If only all reviews and comparisons were so well constructed, and sensitively produced! That doesn't mean, of course, that one has to agree with his opinions of conclusions, but no one should be confused about how he arrived at them.
Secondly, whole I am not familiar with Børresen speakers, and have never owned the 40.2, I do have experience moving from Harbeth speakers to a faster, more neutral and accurate speaker. I owned Harbeth M30.1 for some time, and liked them quite a bit for the reasons that most are attracted to the Harbeth sound: gorgeous mid-range, impressive vocals, etc. But as much as I love good vocals, jazz, and some classical music, I grew up in the '70s listening to soul and funk, and also now listen to a lot of African music, and felt that I was missing dynamics with the Harbeths.
Long story short, I ended up purchasing a pair lightly used Fink Team KIM stand-mounted speakers, and never looked back. The custom AMT tweeters provide both speed and dynamism that were lacking in the Harbeth, while at the same time producing beautiful details. The bass response is night and day better. Of course the 40.2 are far bigger and, at least in some respects, better than the small M30 series. But I expect that the broad strengths and weaknesses of Harbeth designs are likely to be found, at least to some degree, throughout their range.
To be clear, I am aware that the FinkTeam speakers are more neutral, and on some recordings the warmth of the Harbeths was be a welcome coloration. But coupled with my Aqua La Scala DAC and Circle Labs A200 integrated amp, both of which are hybrid designs, employing tubes, the KIM, while revealing, are never harsh.
What I suggesting, in essence, is that for all types of music I find the speed and dynamism of the KIM to be a very valuable improvement, and, with the exception of relatively poor recordings that benefit from some warmth, I really don't miss the Harbeth sound at all.
Arafiq...."Talk about being fickle minded"......No kidding ,I call it laughable at best but adding his take on the Harbeth speakers..Well ,you think he would just be silent for awhile...Anyway I owned the 40.1 for a short time Ive owned the Raidho C3 (a Boressen design and much better than the X series we are discussing) ,I pretty much agree with your assessment..Lets get past this X series hype chatter please,its starting to get like the Tekton shill debates
I’ve been clear from the beginning that these are my subjective opionion based on listening to the speakers in different environments. For those of you who are bringing up this (valid) point, let me ask you ... did you compare the Borresen X3 with Harbeth 40.x on the same day? Have you owned Harbeths before sharing your opinion? In 99% of the cases, the answer is going to be no. So your opinion is no more or no less subjective than mine. At least I made the effort to audition the X3s before sharing my impressions. Unlike deep 333 who not too long ago was trashing Borresen speakers without having listened to them first. Talk about being fickle-minded.
Second, most Harbeth owners know the strength and weaknesses of the speakers, and if you read my impressions I readily admit what they are -- soundstage not as deep, wide, tall as X3s, less dynamics, do not disappear as well.
Third, I have repeatedly mentioned that X3s are an amazing value at their asking price. I have yet to hear a speaker at $11K that comes close to what these guys can. And, no, they're not twice as good. If they were, Borresen would price them accordingly. For my preferences, they did not sound as tonally accurate or transparent as Harbeth 40.x. It is quite possible that someone else might reach just the opposite conclusion in a different setup.
Lastly, this is not dogma. If I can bring the X3s in my room and they turn out to be better, I will have no shame in admitting I was wrong. I will buy them right away ... and I still might because they impressed me more than any other speaker I’ve heard in this price range.
If we make it an absolute rule that you must hear the speakers in the same room, same time, same equipment before you can share your impressions ... let me tell you this, 99% of the opinions shared on these forums will be null and void. If someone wants to bring the X3 to my home for a side by side comparison, I’m all for it. Bring it on.
As an ex pro studio musician, I really have a hard time with folk who profess to know exactly what a musical instrument sounds like, and therefore, others don’t.
In the pro music world, particularly in the studio area, we know that the sound of an instrument is going to be dependent on a number of variables, where the instrument is played, how it is played, the impact that the musician is trying to impress upon the audience, and numerous other factors.
It is pretty clear that most listeners can determine the difference between a live acoustic drum set and an acoustic bass, but can they determine the difference between a dialed in electric bass and an acoustic bass?
OP, Harbeths have been used in recording studios around the world, there is a reason for that…:0)
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.
What I mean for digital and mechanical means, separation is too much to a point that I feel like song looses its composure. I feel like listening the each note from each instrument getting detached from the vocals that I can’t concentrate to song anymore. Music is presented as if you are reading something from a screen but each letter is displayed one by one, so you can’t focus on what is being said anymore. I hope this is helpful.
After a short while it sounds very digital and mechanic. No musicality. It feels like you are listening each individual note instead of a song.
You said the Borresen speakers sound "digital" on another thread, which I asked for an explanation of that descriptor applying to a completely passive transducer. I didn't understand how it applies.
My cousin owns a pair of Borresen Z3, and they sound nothing like you describe. They are neutral, dynamic, cohesive, accurate. Sure, they are not what I would refer to as a warm speaker, but they are not harsh either.
Last time I was at my cousin's house, we listened for hours with no hint of fatigue.
I believe Harbeth speakers are good speakers. But they are not for everyone.Borresen speakers like my x1 will play any music at ease.True you pay the price.
Nobody can evaluate a speaker against another in 2 different systems, in 2 different rooms. System synergy and room acoustics come into play here.
when I looked at Harbeth speakers in the past, I went with another brand mainly because of the sound but the harbeths are ugly. Who shows black screw heads on the front or rear of a speaker? Not Tekton ugly but getting close. When looking at harbeths in the past I ended up buying totem speakers.
Hatbeths don’t play progressive rock music very well but any Borresen I have listened too play it well. I have been impressed with all the Borresen speakers for their size of drivers, but you pay the price.
@dpac996I also struggle to understand the vitriol directed at Harbeth ... a good example is one of the posts on this very thread :)
Usually, it devolves into exactly what you can witness on this particular reply from our esteemed friend ...
1. If you like Harbeth, you really don't understand tone, timber, etc. You have no idea how instruments sound like in real life. ONLY I know this because I'm a wannabe musician.
2. You must only listen to Diana Krall or Norah Jones if you like Harbeth.
3. How dare Harbeth set the price of those boxes so high? Anyone who buys Harbeth does not know how real music sounds like ... yada, yada, yada.
The simple fact is that if Harbeth speakers are grossly overpriced then no one would buy their products and they would go out of business. Hasn't happened since the late 70s while many other manufacturers have come and gone.
If you don't like the Harbeth sound it's your prerogative to not buy it. But to throw around your credentials and make assumptions about someone's understanding of how instruments do or don't sound, or their music preferences shows some people need a lot of growing up to do.
Nice post! I’m in agreement with you on Harbeth. Amazing speakers when setup with some care. They display truth and color in music and are capable of being highly emotionally engaging. I never quite understood the vitriol directed at Harbeth by some folks. It’s like they are put off that other listeners love them… But pretty much pick any two speaker brands and a roomful of picky audiophiles and you might see similar discordant opinions.
Again, as I said they are a steal at their asking price. Are they as good as speakers twice the price? Based on my limited (4 hours) exposure, this is true in some cases (soundstage, imaging) but not so much in other cases (refinement, tonality, timbre, vocals, etc.). Just sharing my findings based on my preferences. Feel free to disagree :)
Since you somehow appear to have the price of a Harbeth 40 justified, allow me to shed some light. Have you spent any time around real musicians? I am a hobbyist violin/piano player who makes some guest appearances in some shows from time to time. Not sure what you understand about tonality, timbre, etc (something’s way off there too) but, lets keep it simpler...do you understand how a real instrument in real life hits ya?
A trumpet will hit a 110db. A trombone will hit a 110 db. A cello will hit a 110db. A flute will hit a 100db...etc....percussion, don’t even go there... These types of things will just exterminate your Harbeth 40.
That cheap cabinet, drivers, lack of innovation, etc are also the cheapest ways to make a rinse/repeat speaker and they have the audacity to charge 20k+? based on what? I wouldn’t even consider paying 2k for that speaker.
It could work though for trying to doze off to some Diana Krall/Eva Cassidy vocals at 60db (that kind of apparent "female vocals refinement" is certainly not my thing).
Anyways, i suppose we shall agree to disagree & move on...
I understand the concerns about the dealer setup but it is what it is. In the ideal world, I could bring the X3s into my listening room and compare them side by side. Unfortunately, that was not possible -- and believe me, I asked :)
Again, as I said they are a steal at their asking price. Are they as good as speakers twice the price? Based on my limited (4 hours) exposure, this is true in some cases (soundstage, imaging) but not so much in other cases (refinement, tonality, timbre, vocals, etc.). Just sharing my findings based on my preferences. Feel free to disagree :)
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.
