@larryi
I don’t know of any speaker that is perfect in every way, so I mentioned what I heard as a mild weak point. It may be a matter of a tradeoff—if that slight peak is tamed, something might be lost in terms of sense of speed and dynamics, for example;
Yes. There are (at least with gear I can afford) always trade-offs. Personally, I'm wiling to sacrifice some detail for the sake of taming potentially fatiguing frequencies.
Thanks for the detailed info on the A. Note speakers. I'm not a good candidate, given what you've explained.
@yogiboy
FWIW, I've received many different suggestions regarding my sibilance issue, including speakers.
.
|
Perhaps, "sibilance" was not the right term to use. At certain upper midrange frequencies there is a slight edge or hardness that will be most pronounced in recordings that have a tendency to be sibilant. That slight edge also can make recordings sound more detailed and lively, so it is not necessarily a fault. I hear this with many speakers I like because they are lively sounding speakers, such as Fyne speakers, for example. As I said before, I like Harbeth speakers, and in particular, I like the 30.2 model.
|
|
@larryi
What I’ve noticed is that most often when reviewers use terms such as "lively" or "exciting" they then go on to say that whatever they’re reviewing presents highs in a tipped up, forward, accentuated fashion that prioritizes detail. I regard this as a red flag because I’m extremely sensitive to highs. I understand that verbal descriptions are no substitute for listening (and I’d never buy speakers without a home demo) but at this point I’m confused. Most descriptions I’ve encountered of Harbeths praise their "warm" midrange. Are you are saying they are both warm and lively?
|
All of the speakers we are talking about are "warm" (they are tipped up a bit from about 60 to 200 hz), but, warm speakers can also have a peak much further up or some other characteristic not necessarily associated with frequency response to can be associated with hardness or an edge to the sound. I hesitate to ascribe this to frequency response because measured frequency response often does not correlate with what I hear--I cannot reliably say what a speaker or any component will sound like from most measurements.
Harbeth speakers are both warm and reasonably lively. They are not in the same class of lively as horn-based systems, but they are good as far as box speakers go. Most horn systems are much more peaky than other types of speakers and those that pull off being smooth, lively and reasonably free of harsh peaks are often very expensive and large (I heard a good custom made example this weekend that was about 30" wide by 30" deep by more than 60" tall that I am guessing will sell for around $70k).
|
@larryi
Thanks for your patience. Out of ignorance, I'm apparently oversimplifying things.
|
I suppose that tendency for sibilance in the upper mids is another way of describing what I heard in the 30.2’s (and also in some 40.2’s I’ve heard in a friend’s system). But sibilance is too hard a word, I think. A shade of sibilance, No such thing in the Classic series Spendors I’ve heard ( 3/5 - those before the R2 series I think - , SP 2/3R2, Classic 100) at all, though.
I know exactly the “shade of sibilance” you mentioned. Of all the Harbeths, I find it most apparent in the C7ES3s and SHL5+. Naturally, one would presume it’s the result of their metal tweeters in those models. However, I also heard it to a lesser extent in the 30.1s, and least in the 40.2s and P3ESRs. This leads me to hypothesize that the 8” Radial cones are exhibiting more audible breakup, since they are crossed over relatively high.
To the OP:
The common (perhaps unfortunate) misconception is that world-class midrange performance is the exclusive jurisdiction of these BBC inspired brands and their trademark polypropylene cones. The reality is there are many brands that match and even exceed the midrange performance. Good examples are some of the Joseph Audio and Tyler Acoustic models that employ magnesium Seas Excel drivers. Those drivers can actually make a Harbeth or Spendor sound a little distorted and homogenous by comparison. The truth is that that these BBC-derived brands are all employing drivers that are equivalent in quality and performance to <$100 off-shelf models from Seas, Scanspeak and SB Acoustics. I would pit my Tyler Taylo Ref monitors against any of the aforementioned Brit boxes in terms of all freqs above ≈60Hz. As much as I enjoy and respect these old guard brands (Harbeth/Spendor/Graham et al), they simply do not keep up with speakers equipped with top-shelf parts and drivers IME. I replaced the OEM drivers in my Stirling Broadcast monitors with off-shelf Seas models and they now perform in an entirely different league. The Brit boxes are good among dealer hawked speakers, but their hype (and prices) have become misaligned with their performance in recent years, in my opinion, FWIW.
|
@helomech
The common (perhaps unfortunate) misconception is that world-class midrange performance is the exclusive jurisdiction of these BBC inspired brands and their trademark polypropylene cones. The reality is there are many brands that match and even exceed the midrange performance. Good examples are some of the Joseph Audio and Tyler Acoustic models that employ magnesium Seas Excel drivers.
As much as I enjoy and respect these old guard brands (Harbeth/Spendor/Graham et al), they simply do not keep up with speakers equipped with top-shelf parts and drivers IME.
Thanks for sharing your experience. Will keep your observations in mind.
|
I had Falcon LS3/5a Gold Badge. It has pretty impressive imaging, mid range, and tonality but it cannot match those qualities of the Joseph Audio Perspective2 which I currently own.
|
As someone who owns Spendor, And has owned the
Harbeth SuperHL5plus, and now Joseph Audio Perspectives 2
I can attest to what @helomech wrote.
|
actually the numbers support the @helomech view. Everything about the BBC speakers are average (average hifi) other than the price. Maybe the design is special too, like the famous English grass, a result of meticulous care over a long time
|
I’m certainly not saying that the “Magic“ isn’t there
in the mid range of many of these British speakers.
I absolutely adore the sound of my spenders speakers and loved
the Harbeth speakers as well. I still think In someways both
Vocals in a particularly human fashion. And there’s a wonderful texture and body to the sound. I just found that there was Another level
of refinement to be found in my Joseph audio speakers.
|
Thanks for the ongoing comments. I'm now less inclined to regard these brands as the right direction for me.
|
I have the Graham Audio LS 5/9 and adore them, beautiful reproduction of the human voice, strings sound sublime and jazz is just very special to listen too. I have never heard the Joseph Audio speakers so can’t comment on them, but I hear good things.
I have heard a few speakers and some much more expensive that the Graham’s, but for me the Grahams just reproduce voices so nicely, especially male voices which I think is more difficult to get right that the female voice, that most high end speakers do very well.
|
Thanks for your observations. Jazz and other acoustic genres constitute a major share of my listening. However, for me, choosing a speaker primarily due to its presentation of vocals is too limiting. I need more of an all-rounder.
|
I usually stay away from these types of comparisons that often turn into pissing matches. But, given some of the negative opinions expressed about Harbeth speakers, I want to share my experiences having owned several Harbeth speakers over the years, including P3esr, M30.1, SHL5+, and M40.2.
First of all, you have to acknowledge the fact that when a company sticks around for this long and has a huge fanbase, they have to be doing something right. The opinions of the usual suspects who trash speaker brand A in favor of brand B which they happen to own should be taken with a grain of salt. Just because you don’t like a speaker doesn’t mean it’s overpriced crap.
In my audio journey, I have gone away from Harbeth several times, only to dearly miss the sound characteristics and buy them again. A couple of years ago, I replaced my Harbeth SHL5+ with Joseph Audio Perspective2 Graphene speakers. The Perspectives were an amazing speaker and did most things right. But I still missed that unique Harbeth midrange magic. Sure, the bass on the Perspectives was tighter and more visceral. They had a very modern, crisp sound ... but at the end of the day, while they wowed me they did not engage me emotionally. So last year, I replaced them with Harbeth M40.2.
For my tastes, in my room, with my equipment, there’s simply no contest. While the 40.2 don’t have the visceral and impactful bass (which is phenomenal on the JA Perspectives), what they do have is very natural, tuneful and textured bass which I enjoy considerably more than the Perspectives. These speakers need a hefty amp to wake them up though. I suspect most people who were ultimately disappointed in Harbeth 40.x (especially when it comes to playing pop, rock, EDM) did not give them enough current. For me, after owning several pairs of speakers ranging from $2000 - 25,000, the 40.2s have given me the most listening pleasure to date. The bass is good enough that it prompted me to sell my pair of REL S/510s. The vocal reproduction is outstanding. The midrange is so seductive that it makes you forget about the equipment and just get drawn (drown?) into the music. Unlike some other speakers, the Harbeths are not going to make your jaw drop at first listen. No, they’re not that type of speaker. What they do bring to the table is a sense of ’substance’, naturalness, and balance across the frequency range. I listen to all types of music with the exception of metal, rap, and hip hop. The 40.2s just deliver what I desire.
This does not mean the Perspectives are an inferior speaker. I’m sure some folks would prefer them over anything Harbeth. But what I can tell you is that if you keep aside the usual allegations (old technology, cheap parts, etc.) to insinuate that these are overpriced speakers, and only focus on sound ... then IMO the 40.2 are absolutely worthy of their asking price. Also, just because they do vocals exceedingly well doesn’t mean they’re a one trick pony or not worthy of being considered as all-rounders. They do lots of things very right. Maybe it’s not your cup of tea and that’s quite alright. But let’s not write them off because someone thinks they’re not worth the asking price.
|
@arafiq
...but at the end of the day, while they wowed me they did not engage me emotionally.
Emotional and physical engagement are topmost priorities for me. Have you owned any of the smaller Harbeths?
|
Hmmm….the only time I’ve heard Harbeth do vocals “exceedingly well” was when I hadn’t yet experienced lower distortion, higher resolution speakers. In more recent years I simply fail to hear what all the fuss is about with regard to their purported midrange and vocal ability. Not only are they readily matched, and in some cases exceeded, by competing BBC derivatives, they are significantly lacking in resolution, realism and tactility relative to brands employing true high end drivers. To my ears, speakers like Joseph Audio, Rockport and Borresen do pretty much everything better, while sounding more realistic and less fatiguing in the process But one must consider some of those are like 4X the price of SHL5s.
The M40.2s are unquestionably the best Harbeths in my opinion, but for their price, I simply don’t understand the appeal. Some other options around the $25k mark are in entirely different leagues to my ears.
|
@stuartk
Emotional and physical engagement are topmost priorities for me. Have you owned any of the smaller Harbeths?
Sorry just saw your post. I don't know why I'm not getting notification emails from audiogon anymore. To date, I have owned Harbeth P3esr (in home office), M30.1, SHL5+, and M40.2 (still own). For me, the engagement factor with these speakers is very high. There's a level of realism -- especially vocals, that is quite addictive. I understand these speakers are not for everyone, but they are world class when it comes to tone, timbre, and emotional engagement. They're also a very forgiving speaker in that it makes bad recordings tolerable.
On the negative side, they're not the most dynamic sounding, and they don't disappear as well as some other speakers.
|
@helomech
The M40.2s are unquestionably the best Harbeths in my opinion, but for their price, I simply don’t understand the appeal.
The 40.2s retailed for a smidge under $20k, but I don't think anyone paid that amount for them. Mostly they were selling for around $16-18K. I see that the 40.3s are now touching $25K retail, and I would tend to agree with you that they're definitely not worth that much. Same for P3esr's -- too expensive given the competition nowadays.
However, I would add that Harbeth is one brand that has to be experienced in your own system to understand what it's trying to do. Simply listening to it at an audio show never reveals the special sauce. As I mentioned, I owned the Joseph Audio Perspective2 Graphenes and loved them. But the Harbeth still gives me better timber, tone, and midrange. The Jospeh Audio are certainly a more modern, crisp sounding speaker, and I can completely understand why some people might prefer it.
|
@arifiq
Thanks for your response.
|
Emotional and physical engagement are topmost priorities for me. Have you owned any of the smaller Harbeths?
I'm not Arafiq, but I have the P3ESR SE in a second system and currently have the 30th Anniversary Compact 7's in my main system. I've had a lot of different small monitors in the small room where I have my second system and the P3ESR's are forever speakers. I got a great deal on them (I think I paid $1K) and it would be close to impossible to do better for what I spent. At the reasonable volumes I play them at, they have great tone and timbre and detail, but never have a hint of brightness or edginess. For a small room, or if you like near field listening and don't ever play music loud, they are amazing.
The Compact 7s are surprisingly good. I currently have them in my main system. I say "surprisingly" because my other speakers are KEF Reference 1s.
In the past I've had Harbeth Super HL5 Plus 40th Anniversary and Stirling LS 3/6 in that system. I like the Compact 7s better than the Super HL5 Plus and the Stirlings. They are just slightly less detailed, but are "richer" in the midrange and sound more "real" than either of those speakers as well as the KEF Reference 1s. The Reference 1s are "better" in a number of ways, more detail, more dynamics, more bass, slightly better imaging and a slightly larger soundstage, but the Compact 7s are more involving and easy to listen to. I'm really torn about which ones to keep at the moment.
|
@big_greg
Thanks for your input. The Compact 7’s might be worth checking out.
I'm curious. How would you rate their bass extension in your room?
|
Thanks for your input. The Compact 7’s might be worth checking out.
I'm curious. How would you rate their bass extension in your room?
The Compact 7's are not for everyone. I've seen them described as "boring" or too laid back by some, but for me they are about as close to Goldilocks speakers as anything I've listened to. I'm fairly sensitive to "bright" or "edgy" speakers, but like detail and imaging and soundstage, so they align well with what I like to hear.
It's hard to say how good the bass extension is. I have a large listening room, but listen close to near field (about 8' from tweeters to listening position). I also have 4 subwoofers in the room, and haven't done extensive listening without the subs. I would describe the bass as being plentiful for their size and having nice texture and timbre.
|
I'm fairly sensitive to "bright" or "edgy" speakers,
Yeah. I can relate. I'm very sensitive in this regard. I recently tried a speaker that many others praise for its non-fatiguing highs. Boy, was I surprised and not in a good way.
RE: bass, I was thinking more in terms of lower extension in dBs.
|
They only go down to about 45Hz, so don't expect them to make your bowels rumble. They will produce truthful and tuneful bass, but if you want deep bass, you need to add a subwoofer (or 2 or more).
|
@big_greg
They only go down to about 45Hz, so don't expect them to make your bowels rumble.
Yes; Hz, not Db.My mistake.
I believe my Silverlines were rated @ below 35 Hz.
Paired with the right amp and DAC, the bass is pretty impressive, given the size of the drivers. I don't know if trading their bass extension for the Harbeths' mids would be an improvement. Unfortunately, I have very little flexibility in terms of potential sub locations.
|
I have simultaneously owned the Spendor SP2/3R2 and the Harbeth M30.2 Anniversary for about a year. My amplifier at the time was the Audio Analogue Maestro Anniversary integrated. My take (both speakers used without grills as I found the grills to obscure some detail):
- Spendor: bigger sounding with deeper bass (as expected, given the box and midbass driver size difference), silkier and comparatively more restrained highs that I found to be somewhat better integrated with the mids, and very colorful, natural, organic, textured, lovely mids but with what seems to be a bit of a (rather wide and shallow) hole in the lower mids / upper bass. Robert Greene also mentions a more restrained 200Hz area in his review of the Spendor SP1/2R2. Bass is of the round variety, better suited for reproducing the reverberant body of a double bass than the sharply delineated start / stop of the bass in something like Kraftwerk. They need to be placed well away from the walls and the bass could also be a bit weak compared to the midrange in this case. I'm using them now with an Accuphase amplifier with its loudness button engaged and I'm getting wonderful midbass to midrange body and even quite enough low bass. The midrange is the star of the show, anyway. All in all, wonderful for acoustic music.
- Harbeth: a very refined tweeter, a bit more detailed than the Spendors', but cymbals have less body and midrange centered instruments have a bit of an overemphasis on overtones, I think, making for a less rich gamut of colors. It's a less saturated midrange, like looking at a picture that is a bit more black - white - silverly, comparatively speaking. Robert Plant's voice is too recessed on Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song" for example, making the whole piece less musically convincing - I suppose the "BBC dip" is more pronounced in the Harbeths' case?! Texture is a bit more emphasized, which is really nice for strings, especially in the upper bass which is a bit stronger than the rest of the frequencies, making the bass and mids better integrated than in the Spendors' case - especially nice when listening to cello music. Midrange and bass seem drier, though, and harder in a way, as if the midbass driver is made from a harder material than the better self-damping polypropylene of the Spendors (which I suppose it is). Also, the sound is smaller and the bass rolls off quite high, around 60-70 Hz I think, if listened t away from the walls. A more "sober" sound than the more extrovert, joyful Spendors. I sold them and kept the Spendors.
I agree wholeheartedly with this description between these two specific models. I haven’t owned the 30.2s but have auditioned them a few times. I did own the SP2/3R2s for a few years.
A speaker that mostly splits the difference between these two models is the Stirling Broadcast SB-88.
|
@stuartk
I read the reviews on the Spendor Classic speakers and the reviews are very good. From what I can tell the Spendors sound a little warmer in the highs than the Harbeths. I agree with you that the Spendors sound like a better match for what you are looking for. Best of luck in your search.
|
@tjraubacher
Thanks, Thomas. That's the impression I've gleaned as well.
|
@stuartk
Hey Stuart I just purchased a used pair of JA Pulsars. I will let you know what I think as soon as they arrive next week. Tom
|
@tjraubacher
Congratulations -- I hope they're everything you're hoping for and more !
I'll be very interested to hear what you have to report about their tonality.
|
@stuartk
i am so very happy with the JA Pulsars. The sound out of these speakers is pure heaven. Based on what I am hearing the Hegel is a great match. So smoooooth and rich sounding. To me not harsh in the least, but that is me. You can really appreciate each note the musicians are playing and how the whole composition comes together. Voices are beautiful maybe not as glorious as Harbeth but just plain beautiful all the same. Do they disappear well if you close your eyes it is easy to imagine that the music is just emanating from open space. The other thing it is just so enjoyable to sit and take it in. Tom
|
@tjraubacher
Based on what I am hearing the Hegel is a great match. So smoooooth and rich sounding.
Maybe I'd like the Pulsars, after all.
You are using the Hegel's internal DAC?
|
|
@stuartk I'm very sensitive to brightness too, some speakers even making my ears ring after listening. The C7 brings me very close to that liveliness and detail without crossing over the edge. Something here is nicely done. If you want deep bass without a sub be prepared to add another few thousand in my experience.
Best of luck please share what you land on!
|
@bjesien
The C7 brings me very close to that liveliness and detail without crossing over the edge.
Good to know!
|
@stuartk
I don’t know how the Fritz speakers you had compare to the Pulsars in regards to brightness. But I would not be surprised if there are a few audiogoners who have experience with both speakers and could do a comparison for you. I will say I listened to music for 6 hours on Saturday and finally hunger pulled me away. From what I have read I believe the Harbeths and Spendors sound like they are warmer. Also, input has suggested that the 30.2s are a little brighter than the 30.1s.
|
@stuartk Just wanted to speak more clearly that these transport me to that live in the room sound with magic between the speakers. I've owned many speakers that demonstrate this but saw less and less play over time. Somehow the 7XD is far from fatiguing.
|
