advertisement


Finally heard Harbeths

I've lived with Compact 7s for about six months now, powered by a SuperNait2 . A lot of 'modern' speakers (especially PMCs, I have to say) sound very contrived to me.

I could have bought pretty much anything short of £3-4k, but am delighted with the C7s. They have fabulous instrumental timbre and do the 3D thing very, very well for what is not exactly a small standmount. I do know that I'm missing out on ultimate bass extension (or at least that weirdly detached sense of it that you get with many recent floorstanding designs), but that's not where most of the musical information I'm interested in sits anyway.

I full agree what you have written, I love my C7s.
And I owned more than 30 speakers and listen to about 80, bottom line, best speaker I owned and listen so far (some in the price range about 10.000€ or more). I still will not listen to the 40.1, because I'm afraid that I like it, and buy it after listening.:D
 
PS As to Harbeths; I suspect I've owned the two I don't entirely get on with, SHL5s and C7s, and not the ones that I think I really like, the P3ESR and M30. I have a feeling that if Alan Shaw ever stuck the lovely M30 tweeter into the P3ESR I'd end up having to buy a pair!

That's probably true. I owned some SHL5s as well and found them woolly and dull, and ended up selling them after a short time. I also listened to a friend's C7s many years ago and did not like them at all. After those experiences I decided to avoid Harbeths.

But this year I picked up a used pair of P3ESRs on a whim and have been stunned by them. I was so impressed I also ordered a pair of M30.1s which have recently arrived. I thought the M30.1s would be a disappointment after the P3ESRs, and closer to the SHL5s, but I was wrong. The M30.1s are a huge improvement on the P3ESRs in every area, and are completely different to the soft, woolly sounding SHL5s. The M30.1s are tight, sound surprisingly fast and incredibly rich, while still being accurate and, like the P3s, sounding great at low listening levels as well as higher volumes.

I don't think you can say that you have "finally heard Harbeths" until you have heard the M30.1s.
 
.....

PS As to Harbeths; I suspect I've owned the two I don't entirely get on with, SHL5s and C7s, and not the ones that I think I really like, the P3ESR and M30. I have a feeling that if Alan Shaw ever stuck the lovely M30 tweeter into the P3ESR I'd end up having to buy a pair!

That's probably true. I owned some SHL5s as well and found them woolly and dull, and ended up selling them after a short time. I also listened to a friend's C7s many years ago and did not like them at all. After those experiences I decided to avoid Harbeths.

But this year I picked up a used pair of P3ESRs on a whim and have been stunned by them. I was so impressed I also ordered a pair of M30.1s which have recently arrived. I thought the M30.1s would be a disappointment after the P3ESRs, and closer to the SHL5s, but I was wrong. The M30.1s are a huge improvement on the P3ESRs in every area, and are completely different to the soft, woolly sounding SHL5s. The M30.1s are tight, sound surprisingly fast and incredibly rich, while still being accurate and, like the P3s, sounding great at low listening levels as well as higher volumes.

I don't think you can say that you have "finally heard Harbeths" until you have heard the M30.1s.

Interesting. I've not tried SHL5s, but I've had C7s and couldn't get on with them. The bass was loose and boomy, though I think this might have been more of a room problem than a fault of the speakers. I find the M30s much tighter, articulate and easier to place. I've not yet heard the 30.1s and wonder how much of an improvement they are over the M30s? My current favourite though is still the HLP3 ESR which is just so right. If I could have only one pair of Harbeths it would be these.
 
Am I the first Harbeth (x2) owner to respond?

The SHL5+ use a tweeter, super-tweeter and the 8" Radial 2 mid-bass driver. It is very neutral and versatile and can be driven very nicely by a cheap 50w amplifier. For a time I used a 35w triode valve amp. Push them with some more power (say a Quad 909 for £500) and they have a remarkably good bass GIVEN THEY ONLY HAVE A MID-BASS.

They do not employ bass enhancement like PMC's ATL (I changed from PMC Fact.8 to SHL5+). If you want big bass they make the M40.2 that are a quite astonishing speaker. I have heard them at a 3-hour demo and consider them vastly more musical and refined than, for example, PMC MB2 SE, which are almost twice as expensive.

However, if bass is what you want then the PMC MB2 SE is probably for you.

The real joy of Harbeth is actually the low volume performance, where my PMC's fell down (and they cost twice as much as the SHL5+). The dynamics achieved at low listening levels are astonishing, so I don't find myself cranking up the volume unnecessarily.

At the M40.2 demo Alan Shaw started with half a dozen piano recordings (at progressively greater recording distances), several BBC voice recordings, then a nice mix of pop music, jazz, highly percussive music and so on.

It is very unfortunate that the dealer used a poor playlist and possibly an under-powered amp.

I hear what you're saying, but I'm evaluating under different optics or with a different viewpoint.

I hardly ever, if ever, rate the 'treble/mid/bass' of a system as components other than at the window-dressing stage. I don't care really how limited the bass response is either in a chart or in reality unless it's SO limited that you're feeling like you're missing out on a large percentage of the music (any competent speaker I don't really think has such a major problem, and often times--as in with Kans, per se, the lack of bass is the expense of such a wonderful quality of delivery that you don't *really* care that much).

I'm looking at it from a "house sound" perspective as well as what I could gather it would match up with, style of delivery, etc. And the impression I got was simply a bit limp, very detailed and pleasant and smooth but not terribly dynamic, grippy, or exciting.

They may very well have been 'Tonally accurate' but also that's another thing I don't really give TOO much credence to particularly today where all speakers are heads-and-tails, night-and-day better than most things available 30 years ago due to material sciences and other advancing technologies (and again, in the example of say, Linn Kans, which were really not terribly accurate--honking all over the place--they were still magically fun to listen to). BUT ON THAT FRONT, I'm actually not sure how tonally accurate they were given that they sounded kind of....flattened, as it were, again in a Castle kind of way. (If that makes sense).

I got the feeling that they'd mate okay with Naim amps, though that might be a bit of a waste of a naim amp and the combination might be a bit hard, and that they also would work very well with Valves.....but this would be using the smooth, robust sound of Valves to add some warmth into these things that are fairly colourless.

Look it's all personal. We all know that. But if it were between a pair of those 5+'s and a completely innaccurate, coloured, flawed and frequency impaired set of 15" monitor golds.....look out sister, it's no question for me.
 
I have only heard the M30.1 and they are the ones I have. I'd love to hear more of the range. All I can say is they suit my listening tastes perfectly. But then, I don't listen to any 'harder' than Yo La Tengo or Sonic Youth.
 
Perhaps I should listen to the M30.1s to determine if they are an improvement over the M30 (so far there are inconclusive views on this). When I was at the dealers about 7 years ago, I listened to all speakers in the Harbeth range except the M40.1. All speakers have a distinct house sound and sound pretty much alike, except the M30 which deviates from the rest of the models. When going up the range from P3ESR to C7ES3, you will get a larger scale and more bass, ditto with the C7ES3 to the SHL5(though the C7ES3 sounds slightly more forward due to the newer Radial2 driver). Several comments on the dull and wooly bass of the SHL5 are likely due to the room and/or setup but I can understand the experiences or impressions some folks may have over these speakers, since I too have gone through this experience having set up the SHL5s in different rooms with numerous placement configurations and the number of amplifiers rotated through them. They CAN sound dull and thick with uncontrolled plodding bass with certain setups. (the speaker stands may play a part too although the designer had mentioned the speakers are perfectly fine being supported by a stack of telephone directories).

Some folks may find the P3ESRs to sound *better* than the C7s or SHL5s because they do not have the scale of the larger speakers. More bass and midrange output will equate to more problems due to room colourations, especially in smaller rooms, and I suspect the remarks on loose, boomy or wooly bass which mucks up the midrange producing a *dull* sound are likely due to the combination of the room and higher output / larger scale from the larger speakers.

The M30s being "monitor speakers" sound much more controlled than the C7s and SHL5s when I listened to them as the do not resonate much. That is one reason I find the M30 to sound slightly shut-in and less open than than the C7s and SHL5s. On the other hand, being more controlled could mean that there is less tendency for the M30 to exhibit the wooly/loose/boomy bass like the C7s and SHL5s. However, I have to agree that the M30s sound richer than the C7s and SHL5s. Instruments and vocals sound more like the real thing than on the C7s and SHL5s, very rich and palpable. Not that the SHL5s or C7s are compromised in comparison, but there is this unique quality about the M30 that sets it apart from rest of the speakers, and for this reason I can understand why there are many fans. Very nice speaker indeed, the M30 (now replaced by M30.1), though I prefer the more open sound of the C7s and SHL5s which are more versatile for a wider range of music. That's just my opinion.
 
I always like Harbeths when I hear them at shows, not as "in your face" as many brands are.
If you just want loud rock with some nice colouration just buy Cerwin Vegas
 
The preceding discussion of suitable amps for Harbeths puzzles me because it is my understanding that Harbeth designer Alan Shaw claims that his speakers can be driven quite easily by virtually all competently designed amplifiers that were made over the past 30 years, in which case it isn't necessary to spend large amounts of money on amplification.

Amps aside, I agree with the OP's observations.
 
The preceding discussion of suitable amps for Harbeths puzzles me because it is my understanding that Harbeth designer Alan Shaw claims that his speakers can be driven quite easily by virtually all competently designed amplifiers that were made over the past 30 years, in which case it isn't necessary to spend large amounts of money on amplification.

Amps aside, I agree with the OP's observations.

Think Quad 405-2 onwards. That's just over 30 years.

If you are going to push them, at least 100w is probably a good idea.
 
though the C7ES3 sounds slightly more forward due to the newer Radial2 driver

No that's not the reason for the forward sound. They are voiced differently with a more pronounced presence region. This is also true of the P3ESR, which is very similar in tonal balance to the C7. The M30.1 are the odd one out now because they have a slightly recessed presence region. The SHL5Plus are the flattest.

The original M30 puzzled me; I couldn't really work them out when I borrowed them for a few days. As for the SHL5 (not plus), I think we covered this on the thread you started; I'm presuming they have more of a pear shaped frequency plot, with a generous mid-bass and a classic BBC presence region dip, but I'm only guessing about the presence region. I don't think the tweeter and supertweeter are perfectly balanced, whereas with the Plus I just can't hear the supertweeter at all. At first I wondered if it was just there for decoration.
 
I always like to keep in mind that Harbeth monitors are primarily designed for broadcast studios as opposed to recording studios.

I'm quite sure there are people here who have direct experience of both but even as an outsider I can imagine that what you want in either situation may be different.

AS did explain the differences as he saw them on HUG, eg:

A feature of the BBC monitor therefore has been to design it such that it has a full warm bodied sound when used at a low to moderate listening. It's optimised for sounding right in the 80 to 100dB range. Conversely a loudspeaker designed for recording studio use and/or one which was optimised for use in a large listening room far from the listener would sound right in the deafening (even frightening) 100 to 120dB range. But swap these speakers over and things don't sound right at all: the BBC monitor will sound rather rich and the high-level optimised speaker will sound very bass shy.

(Very happy with a 405-II, 30.1 pairing)
 
No that's not the reason for the forward sound. They are voiced differently with a more pronounced presence region. This is also true of the P3ESR, which is very similar in tonal balance to the C7. The M30.1 are the odd one out now because they have a slightly recessed presence region. The SHL5Plus are the flattest.

The original M30 puzzled me; I couldn't really work them out when I borrowed them for a few days. As for the SHL5 (not plus), I think we covered this on the thread you started; I'm presuming they have more of a pear shaped frequency plot, with a generous mid-bass and a classic BBC presence region dip, but I'm only guessing about the presence region. I don't think the tweeter and supertweeter are perfectly balanced, whereas with the Plus I just can't hear the supertweeter at all. At first I wondered if it was just there for decoration.

Thanks for the information and correction. It was purely a guess on my part on the forwardness of the C7s and P3ESR which come with the Radial2. Yes, the P3ESR sounds very similar to the C7ES3.

I did consider replacing my SHL5s with the SHL5 Plus (if I happen to find an improvement after a demo) but the dealer's price at where I am based (I'm not in the UK) has somewhat dampened that hope. Moreover, I still love the way the old SHL5s sound, hence I"m living the "why fix it if it ain't broke" motto. Instead of upgrading the speakers, I have upgraded the amp instead (I have the Naim NAC282 on order which actually costs quite a bit more than the SHL5 Plus). I believe the new SHL5 Plus is a major step forward from the older SHL5 from what I have read here as they would better fit my listening taste and preferences (I listen to a wider genre of music, and I prefer the speakers to sound faster, quicker and more accurate with a tighter/tauter bass, although that may require the speakers to lose a bit of the old charm).

In my mind, the old SHL5s are still good speakers. Perhaps my impression may change after I listen to the SHL5 Plus but that another day.
 
I seem to remember that the SHL5+ was a significant change as it replaced the Radial driver with the Radial 2, the last model to have the upgrade. The crossover was also changed with a notable improvement in voicing of the speaker. The SHL5 is still a good speaker.

As a result, M40.1 was revised based on the the crossover enhancement learned from developing the SHL5+, resulting in the M40.2. No other changes (other than the price). AS explained at a demo that the M40.1 was more of a studio sound, the M40.2 more focused for domestic use. This ties in with Coda II's quotation.
 
It's really all about the crossover, and Alan Shaw has made it clear that it has been changes in crossover modelling software that have brought the big advances. I'm skeptical about Radial 2 making much of a difference, since from what I first read this was really just a slight change to the surround.
 
The preceding discussion of suitable amps for Harbeths puzzles me because it is my understanding that Harbeth designer Alan Shaw claims that his speakers can be driven quite easily by virtually all competently designed amplifiers that were made over the past 30 years, in which case it isn't necessary to spend large amounts of money on amplification.

Amps aside, I agree with the OP's observations.

Meaning he believes that all such amplifiers work equally well when not clipping.
 
If you like to hear speakers that grab you buy the balls and play powerfull tight bass, you have to look for maybe a Klipsch Cornwall, if tonality, timbre, realistic stage size is your goal, go for Harbeth.

But I you want both, you should take a chance on Spendor SP2/3 R2. Sunning speakers, great allrounders.
 
If you like to hear speakers that grab you buy the balls and play powerfull tight bass, you have to look for maybe a Klipsch Cornwall, if tonality, timbre, realistic stage size is your goal, go for Harbeth.

Never mentioned tight power bass, but as far as grabbing by the balls and being fun/dynamic, quite right--cornwalls ARE fun.

...and I'm not sure you're really sacrificing that much on tonality, timbre, or a "realistic stage", given that when you listen to live music (amplified or acoustic) you can't hear much staging if you really close your eyes and listen.
 


advertisement


Back
Top