Harbeth 30.1 or 40.1

mapman,

'In any case choosing speakers based on Sound on a YouTube video alone is very risky business IMHO.'


I'd second that. Throwing an extra transducer between yourself and the recording of the original seems risky at best.

Unless there is a some way to record demos to play back on YouTube which give a close representation of the sound heard in the room. I've seen production values on YouTube (microphones and cameras) look quite impressive, but are they accurate?

It would be great if it was possible and then we could all play them back via a neutral pair of headphones (or monitors) if we wanted to etc.

Perhaps someone can answer that?

This is a no brainer - get the 40.1 if you must have one or the other. It can easily be used in a room like yours. Both designs share the same well regarded tweeter and are both considered excellent loudspeakers, but the 40 is naturally more excellent.

Furthermore all Harbeth speakers can be used near field and are voiced to sound good at low volumes.

However, however, just like @andysf asked above, I would also ask you to think carefully before pulling the trigger.

I’m far from certain that the Spatial X5s are so easily bettered.

Have you considered the possibility that your Spatial X5 speakers might even be better than the Harbeth 40.1s?
It’s certainly not impossible.

Isn’t it all too easy to sometimes denigrate what we have whilst pursuing something better?

Just yesterday I was playing a Smiths compilation on my Tannoys and it suddenly hit me, ’Wow, these are really good speakers!’

Maybe Morrissey’s voice and diction could have been a touch cleaner, maybe the speakers could have disappeared better leaving a ghost like sound behind, maybe the timbre could have been a hint more life-like, but yeah, pretty good.

Good enough to let me forget that I was listening to a recording.

At least for a while.

big_greg,

There has a been a online feeling going around for a few years now that the tweeter used in both the 30s and 40s is superior to the one used in the SLH5 - nothing confirmed, just a feeling.

It would be interesting if you could post your impressions of the 40.2s, as I’ve only heard the SLH5s sadly).

The 40s have long been regarded as amongst the big hitters of the audio world, going back around 20 years since
Robert E. Greene posted his iconic review.

He used to own a pair back then but I’m not too sure what R.E.G. thinks of them today.

big_greg,

There's always been a feeling that the tweeter used in the 30 and 40 is superior to that of the SLH5 - nothing confirmed - just a feeling kicking around the net for a few years now.

It would be great if you could feed back your impressions of the 40.2s. I've never heard a pair (only SLH5s sadly) but the 40s have long been regarded as amongst the big hitters of the audio world.

At least going back around 20 years ever since an iconic review by Robert E Greene.

big_greg,

Good write-up. Thanks.

I think we could predict that there might be more subwoofer integration issues with the 40.2s. I would have imagined that they’d barely need one.

So maybe there’s still room for improvements in the sub integration settings.

So I guess that’s a qualified yes to the 40.2s.

@pdreher

At the very least Harbeth owners ought to consider the long held opinion of the designer when it comes to amplifiers, stands, cables etc.

Thereafter, as you have done, it’s a question of personal choice.