When a budget speaker is preferred to a high end one...

@audition__audio were you shocked by the number of parts or their love of non air core inductors?

@fsonicsmith wrote:

I don't know if you are agreeing with most of what I said in this thread or not and don't care, great post.

Thank you. 

Like the old adage that a good photographer can get far better results with a cheap camera than a novice can achieve with an exotically expensive camera, an experienced listener can do amazing things with optimally placing any well designed loudspeaker if the supporting components are in place and assuming reasonable compatibility between amp and speaker.

We're definitely in agreement here :) That analogy however comes as a more easily quantifiable scenario on the one side with the "exotically expensive camera" being very likely the objectively better one (but it actually only strengthens your point), which I don't necessarily find to be the case with speakers fitted with expensive drivers, cross-overs, terminals and what not compared to alternatives with cheaper components and less luxurious cabinet finishing; it's all about the implementation of the overall design, system set-up, acoustics and physics. 

By todays standards, I don't think Peter Snell could sell a Type A. But then again, there is certain brand that defies all the odds...

It's certainly a more "technocratic" market today with audiophiles now inclined to scoff at cheap or somewhat scruffy looking drivers because of a paradigm shift and that it's an easy marketing trick and selling point luring in potential buyers with expensive componentry, irrespective really of perceived sonics. It's not necessarily to indicate more expensive drivers (and cross-overs) can't have sonic advantages in certain areas and be well implemented, but it's no guarantee either. Same with finishing and a sad current tendency of lacquer galore to make stuff look "exclusive." Whatever became of oiled real wood finishes that actually looks, smells and feels like real wood? 

Harbeth speakers may be one of the brands to counter the current tendency with their thin paneled (but wisely dampened) cabinets walls, cross-overs that don't look like much (there it is again..), and drive units that don't sport huge magnets or large diameter voice coils. In light of their sonic presentation I don't really care about that. To my ears they sound very good, not least tonally, with very natural sounding voices and commendable coherency. If one likes how they sound why not leave it at that? Seems to me they'll deliver decades of trouble free performance. 

Never happened to me; only so called engineers" here about tend to think they can always build it better & cheaper signed- the inspector

Well there is no denying that the best speaker for the individual is the one they like best. However, when you read some of what the Harbeth "guy" says most doesnt make much sense. Much of what Harbeth appears to do is create a sound that appeals to a certain listener. No problem with this provided that you understand that the sound coming from every Harbeth speaker, to my ears, is the antithesis of neutral or accurate. 

Now I would rather listen to a Harbeth than say any number of other designs that are etched, rough or not organic in nature. But I dont think that creating a "house sound" is really what good loudspeaker design is about no matter ones preference. Coloration should be designed out not in. Just an opinion.

@audition__audio wrote:

Well there is no denying that the best speaker for the individual is the one they like best. However, when you read some of what the Harbeth "guy" says most doesnt make much sense

Are you referring to Alan Shaw of Harbeth, and what’s the written specifics here?

Much of what Harbeth appears to do is create a sound that appeals to a certain listener. No problem with this provided that you understand that the sound coming from every Harbeth speaker, to my ears, is the antithesis of neutral or accurate.

Seems to me the term ’accurate’ has a tendency of getting patented or earmarked as that which is as well a sonic character, but I guess we could argue until Christmas without coming to an agreement here, and that’s fair. Judging by the general popularity of Harbeth speakers however that "certain listener" is plentiful, I’d say. What’s your definition of "accurate" in terms of speakers that are representative here?

As an example of "sins of omission" inaccuracy is (also) a lack of tonal authenticity and coherency, both of which I find are vital areas Harbeth speakers generally excel at. Lack of dynamics (micro and macro) and transient snap is coloration, as is lack of ease, scale and overall image size, etc. What is "designed out" of speakers, as a mantra even, could be throwing out the baby with the bathwater in the process..

Now I would rather listen to a Harbeth than say any number of other designs that are etched, rough or not organic in nature. But I dont think that creating a "house sound" is really what good loudspeaker design is about no matter ones preference. Coloration should be designed out not in. Just an opinion.

House sound to some, musical and natural to others. An area in reproduction that’s very often overlooked, to my ears, and that by its anemic nature in many "hifi" speakers seems to be equated with "accuracy," is the lower midrange to upper bass. It makes for a somewhat leaner sound that in turn accentuates detail in the upper registers as well as the lower bass, but it removes the richness and presence in the "power region," important for setting the overall tone and energy of music, that to me is much more prevalent in live music. Harbeth speakers are better than many others in this respect, which is one of the reasons why I don’t find them colored per se but instead relatively natural sounding, not to say that they’re perfect by any measure. To each their own (preferences).