As macg19 said, the magnesium cone speakers are used by JA.
Harbeth does not use magnesium cones
JA Pulsars vs Harbeth 30.2
Well still investigating different speakers. In the used world these speakers are similarly priced and both have great reviews. Does anybody in the Audubon family have familiarity with these two speakers. Which one would you recommend and why. I have a dedicated room approx 20x 15 with no special acoustic treatments. Wall to wall carpet. I mostly stream with bluesound node 2. I have a Hegel 390 Integrated amp and project turntable and Yamaha CD player both around $300 - $400. Mostly listen to blues, folk and rock. Some classical too.
look forward to hearing from you
70 responses Add your response
Thanks @bigkidz |
@tjraubacher - some of the Harbeth have such a beautiful mid-range you can easily simply fall in love with the music. The speakers I mention a way less expensive and top to bottom are just impressive. For $5K hard to believe but that's what we heard and we have heard more than most. Driven by Line Magnetic integrated amp was just magical. Happy Listening. |
@soix @rsf507 @bigkidz @macg19 @rlb61 @arafiq Thanks for your input. I really had no idea what the Harbeth’s sounded like and nowhere to listen to them. So your input is greatly appreciated . @2tuby you scared me a little concerned with the magnesium cone. I believe I will stay away from the Harbeth line. Thanks, Tom |
I haven't heard the JA's but owned 30.2 XDs for 2 years. They are not thin but they do not rock-out. I don't listen to a lot of classical music but I don't think the small Harbeth's excel when there is a lot going on. Jazz, blues, vocals, acoustic, well recorded stuff like Steely Dan sound great and not fatiguing. I bought them because I heard them and could not get the sound of the midrange / vocal reproduction out of my head. I'd listen to both if I were you you'll probably be drawn to one or the other and it will be an easy call unless you hate them both! btw I also bought 2 REL T/9x subs at the same time as the 30's - I have a large non-dedicated room - I think you'll need a pair of subs to be really happy, maybe with either choice. Having said all that, I now have the 40.3's and I sold the RELs. Much happier. As someone else pointed out, in your room why not go full size? Lastly, FWIW Harbeth shows with Hegel and while the 30's worked well with Tubes for me, they really are best with beefy SS. |
JA has used the magnesium drivers in the Pulsar, Perspective, and Pearl speakers for years and I’ve never heard anyone anywhere mention anything about corrosion. |
Something I wish I knew ahead of time- You should check to see if the JA Pulsar model you are interested in has a Magnesium cone woofer. i purchased a pair of Opera Callus bookshelf speakers that have SEAS Magnesium cone woofers. The speakers sound wonderful. However, over time the magnesium cones have corroded. (Magnesium is a highly reactive metal) A Google search confirmed that others have had the same problem. SEAS claims that the corrosion does not affect the sound. I hear no difference. The problem is that I cannot sell the speakers if I want to change my gear. Would you buy used speakers with corrosion on the woofer cones? |
Both Harbeth 30.2 and JA Pulsars are excellent speakers but they’re not going for the same buyer profile IMO. 30.2 is more of a monitor speaker and has a distinct sound. I would never advise anyone to buy the 30.2 without listening. You will either hate it or fall in love with it. Pulsars are more traditional in the sense that they will sound more similar, but overall much better, than your existing speakers. Having said that, given your room size why are you looking at bookshelves? You can easily accommodate floorstanders in that room. |
I got to hear the 705 S2 and the original Pulsars in the same room, and the Pulsars will provide all the improvements you’re looking for in spades. Performance wise the two speakers are on different planets, as they should be given the price differential. The Pulsars excelled at providing a larger, deeper, more 3D soundstage while pulling off a much better disappearing act that JA speakers are known for, and they sounded much more natural and balanced without any perceived lack of detail/air. Bass capabilities were also at another level entirely. I also much preferred the Pulsars to the 805 D3 (also in the same room) for many of the same reasons although the performance differential was not as severe as you might expect. Given what you’re looking for I think you’d be mightily impressed with the Pulsars. I’m not familiar with the Harbeths, but I would be a little concerned the treble might be a little shelved down compared to what you’re used to and/or looking for, but that’s just a guess FWIW. Hope this helps, and best of luck. |
I am familiar with a friend's B&W 705s and have owned the Harbeth 30.2 for about an year. They are very different to the B&Ws. The bass is not better IMO, just a different take on it (less punchy / tight, different timbre, probably somewhat less extended, better suited to reproducing a cello than an electric bass). Treble is not as elevated and is softer. Overall the Harbeth's are more refined but less dynamic and fun - depending on the rest of the system, probably better for classical and jazz and equal or worse for most everything else. Listen before buying, if at all possible.
I haven't heard the JA speakers. |