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.
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.
Arafiq ribbon speakers are so unique. You get different taste of sound.Why I bought the model 9 KLH panel, Resd rose, and now x1.Magnepan are good speakers if you can match them. Thank you for the update.
@newtonGood 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.
@jayctoyI understand your point about listening to the X3s in an unfamiliar room. But that is still significantly more valuable than just reading about it or listening at audio shows -- which I suspect a vast majority of buyers do. Whether we like it or not, unless the dealer is willing to let you try the speakers in your own room, the best we can do is to listen at a dealer. Perfect? Of course not. But that is the only data point I had available to make a decision. Could the outcome have been any different in my room? Possibly. But I wasn't going to roll the dice based on my initial impressions.
I ended up buying the Magnepan 1.7i's. TBH, they are a phenomenal speaker given the price. Like any speaker, they have strengths and weaknesses. But you would be hard pressed to find another speaker at $3k retail that can compete with Maggies when it comes to soundstage, acoustic instruments, and vocals. I'm thinking of upgrading to 3.7i/s ... that should tell you how much I liked the 1.7s :)
Arafiq - nice review, thank you for taking the time to write it. I listened to the X3's at a local dealer (who also used Forte integrated amps). In their room I did notice the clarity, transparency and high frequency extension that you mention. I also noticed a disturbing bass bump. In this dealer's room the speakers were place well away from the rear walls behind the speakers. I don't know why the X3 and other AGD models haven't been measured in labs yet (like Sterephile) as that would help us to better understand the sources of what we hear, the design aspects (and tradeoffs) and give me, at least, greater confidence in making a purchase decision.
Arafiq again thank you for spending time writing this thread.I just realized you spend four hours on the dealership that’s a long hours just to demo speakers. This tells me you enjoyed listening to them. Because initially you almost bolted out when the x3 when connected to axxis integrated amp.When I listened to to audition 30 minute is needed to settle my ears .I also believe your Harbeth are tune for your listening preference.your room is very familiar to you.The dealer room is very unfamiliar to you , you are not familiar how the x3 react to the room.I believe your system is also perfectly match to your Harbeth. So I agree with your comparison.I wish you can listen to x3 with perfectly match system and the right room for them.
good feed back. I am not a die hard measurements guy either but most of the speakers I really like also measure pretty well. I think it is an important starting point and then quality of the drivers/build matters too. I will be interested to see measurements of the X line and see if insight can be gained with subjective reviews. I have seen the BMR measurements but never heard them. Also having owned Revel speakers I know “perfect” measurements are not the be all end all as everything important is not measured.
I hope to hear the Borresens sooner than later but in the meantime I would love to see full measurements of the X line, whether it is gated, Kipple, or anechoic.
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 tread despite the negativity. I have not seen a lot of A/B comparisons (not that this really is one). I personally am waiting for detailed measurements or a demo. I have only seen the M1’s measurements and they a comically bad at any price with a 7db peak at 80hz followed by a 5db dip at 300hz. You have to use a translator (built into web browser) to read it but the link is below.
I have seen a few comments now about the X3 having a bass peak. I wonder if they are all tuned like this.
@prof I wanted to collect my thoughts before responding to your question :)
if I have to rank the three speakers, it would be like this:
Harbeth 40.x > JA Perspective2 > Harbeth SHL5+
When I replaced the SHL5+ with JA Perspective2's it was definitely a jump in sound quality in most areas, especially bass and treble. JA has a very modern, crisp sound that I enjoyed. However, I still missed that little bit of midrange magic that Harbeth had. But in almost all other areas, JA was superior.
Now, on to Harbeth 40.2 ...
First of all, it is a completely different beast than the rest of the Harbeth lineup. You would be mistaken to assume that just because you are familiar with other models in the lineup you can extrapolate it to the 40.x. Yes it retains most of the midrange characteristics, but it adds tremendous scale to everything. Everything sounds much more palpable, more real, more organic, more transparent, and at a much bigger scale. It added a fullness to the sound that was missing from SHL5+ and Perspectives. Here's an analogy I would use to describe the difference between JA Perspective2 and 40.2: The Perspectives are like drinking an ice cold coca cola on a hot day. It gives you that refreshing kick while tickling all your senses.
The 40.2, on the other hand, is more like drinking a warm glass of thick, rich hot chocolate milk on a snowy day. You just feel the warmth going down your throat and engulfing your entire body. There's no wrong or right here. Just depends on what your preference is. For me, I love what the Harbeth 40.2 brings to the table. That does not make Perspective2, or Borresen X3 for that matter, a lesser speaker.
However, the 40.2 do require a beefy amp to really wake them up. More so than the Perspective2s.
@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! :)
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 :)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
@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 .
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.
@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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
@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.
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 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.
@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.
@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?
@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.
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.
My setup (I don't know how to internet anymore, apparently) 
, 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.