People That Have Upgraded From Harbeth 30.1s....


.... what speaker did you buy? 
dhcod

Showing 9 responses by prof


I became infatuated with the idea of owning a Harbeth speaker for a while.  I auditioned the 30s but ended up buying a pair of SuperHL5 plus as I felt they were a step up in every way - airiness, neutrality, bass depth and control, realism.
Thought maybe I could replace my Thiel 3.7s with them but no.  I found in comparing them the Thiels did just about everything better than the Harbeths.  They had the beautiful tone, but were just less boxy, cleaner and more realistic, without sounding thin.  So I sold the Harbeths.  Great speakers to be sure though!

@cd318

I do find the SLH5+ to be quite neutral sounding to my ear.  By that I mostly mean sounding smooth, without obvious frequency deviations, that kind of thing.  I did find the smaller 30s, though seductive,  to be just a bit too rolled off and darkish in tone for my own long term enjoyment. 

I really do enjoy the lushness of the Harbeth midrange, where so many speakers tend to sound too thin to my errs. As you know the Harbeths of of the thin-wall cabinet design, tuning the cabinet to allow for vibrations but in a way that are supposed to be invisible to the ear.

I think they are remarkably competent in that regard. Just given their looks and construction the actual lack of boxy sound is impressive.

That said, it seems to me the brute-force school of cabinet making, where cabinets are made to be as inert as possible, seem to ultimately hold the day in terms of achieving more realistic sound in most regards.At least in the case of the Thiels. Though they are not made of aluminum or granite, the overriding design of the Thiel cabinet is to be inert and not sing with the music. And I heard those benefits when comparing the Harbeth and Thiel 3.7. With the Harbeth there was a sense of the sound sort of filling all the space in between the instruments, almost as if the space/reverb between the instruments itself had density and was tactile.


On the Thiels, the tone was just as organic (though not as perfectly soft and organic with voices as with the Harbeth), but the sound seemed to clear up in and around the instruments, as if a spurious form of "ringing" had been removed and all the energy cleaned and organized to come only from where it was coming, the instrument itself.

So for instance, playing a classical guitar quartet, the guitars became less produced by a speaker, more cleaned up, organized, precise, free of the speakers, and just sounding less "of a speaker" than and more like real guitars playing in free space. More believable.

The Harbeths certainly got the tone and gestalt right of the guitars, but the Thiels got the tone, gestalt right and also moved the sound towards greater realism and accuracy.  If the Thiels had sounded "boringly accurate" with a bleached tone, I’d never own them, but they really are fantastic at portraying an organically correct sounding timbre on voices and instruments.  So I found the Super5HL+ with it's more neutral extended presentation to actually sound fairly similar to the Thiels, but I found the Thiels actually took that sound further down the road in believability of timbre, realism.


But for capturing something essential about the roundness, softness and humanness of the human voice, the Harbeths are almost peerless. Until recently a store near me sold Harbeths and when I’d stop in to buy vinyl inevitably a Harbeth model would be playing. Every time I would be seduced by the sound and want to just sit and listen. If I could I’d own them too, but I already have too many speakers on the go.


jacksky,
It's completely the opposite:  The 3.7s are one of the easiest to place speakers I know of, their coax design with the special flat midrange (so so no coning around the tweeter allowing full dispersion) provides one of the widest sweet spots I've experienced with very little tonal balance changes, and I have found them easy to driver with 140W of tube power and even 14W of tube power sounded fantastic on them! 

The 3.7s sounded fantastic the moment I dropped them in to my room, and only got better as I played with position to conform to my own tastes.



I can’t figure out who inspired jethro1964’s rant.

Someone hasn’t had his morning coffee? ;-)
I was also wondering which post inspired the rant, but I agree with jethro1964. I own and enjoy Harbeths, but I simply can’t understand why Mr. Shaw sidesteps the amplification thing. To say any well designed amp over 50 (or whatever) watts will give you great sound does not make sense to me. It’s a very well designed speaker, and it will easily allow someone to hear the flaws in a mediocre amp.


Probably because he knows something about Speakers and electronics ;-)

He wanted to design a robust speaker, not too hard to drive, that would sound good with any competently designed amplifier. And you can find competently designed amplifiers for pretty cheap.

Personally I’ve found it to be the case: Harbeth speakers seem especially "amplifier agnostic" - I’ve heard them with a range of amps, from tube to modest solid state to more expensive, and they always sounded good, with the same nice qualities. I’m a bit of a tube-amp-head and I find the Harbeths sound smooth and full no matter what they are powered with.
I find Harbeth speakers, generally speaking, to be very well balanced.  For me they do a nice job across a wide variety of music.  Really big rich recordings sound rich, but not overly so.  Thinner recordings still have some juice and still sound good.
I remember concurring with a reviewer who said something like "With the Harbeth, everything is presented at the correct level.  Mixes sound right." 


The Harbeth's are a good enough speaker to easily decipher the difference between entry level and a $2,000 integrated. If he suggests otherwise, he is selling the speaker short.


This kind of comment reminds me:    It's always a bit weird to me how many audiophiles seem to focus on how a speaker "resolves" different equipment rather than emphasizing how they resolve actual music.   "Could EASILY hear the difference between all my cables" king of stuff.   Uh.  Great.  I'll listen to music, thanks very much. 
Agree 100%...To a speaker that is capable of showing how an amp with special qualities can shine. IMHO, the Harbeth's easily qualify.


Ok, enjoy “listening to your amps.”   I’m off to listen to some new LPs.  :)

avanti,

From my auditioning the 30.1s are more even and controlled through their frequency range. 


When I auditioned the 30s I really liked their sound, but wished for some deeper bass.   The C7es3 did that and I liked it for the bigger sound, but found the bass to be a bit overwarm and less tight than I'd like.

That's why I ended up owning (for a while) the Super HL5Plus which were for me the perfect version - bigger and more full than the 30s, but also the best controlled and most balanced bass of the line (not to mention, more realistically open and extended on the top end, without losing the Harbeth midrange magic).