May I ask which Accuphase model?
I had a VTL ST150 with the SHL5Plus for a while; that was both dynamic and beguiling; a really fine mixture of qualities. I should have been patient and waited for a VTL preamp; I was using it with an ARC LS26, which I thought was good until I compared it in a friend's system with his VTL pre; the latter was so much better. I'd been hesitant because I'm not keen on high gain US preamps, but I should have ignored that anxiety. Eventually I went back to my Unico Pre and DM because I just couldn't justify the amount I had invested in the VTL and ARC set up.
The 5Plus were too much for my 4.5 x 3.5 room, so I moved to Tannoy Eatons. Original 70s version. Oh dear, I thought, yet another flawed speaker (the 5Plus is very good, but does have flaws other than mere incompatibility with my room). I found out that it was the 3-4Kh region of the Eatons that was irritating me, but fortunately Paul Coupe tweaked the crossovers and really improved the speakers.
I've not yet heard the Legacy Eatons. Regarding the OP: Paul, I am a bit puzzled, since you say you hear nothing wrong with the Harbeths. I would stick with them and do some amp tourism.
Easy placement has nothing to do with the place of the port. It is a hifi myth that front ported speakers are working better closer to the wall as back ported speakers.
I have to disagree there - a rear port can be a nightmare if the speaker depends on wall reinforcement for its bass response, and for reasons of room shape you can't get them the same distance from the back wall. I had a pair of AN-Es in a room like that once - couldn't image for toffee and the bass went all wonky. Front ported Tannoys were fine.
BTW on the Tannoy vs Harbeths discussion I think it's very hard to generalise. I find the smaller Harbeths very tuneful but the bigger ones can be a bit bland. (But as a long-term Tannoy owner I would say that). It's all about room though, and about amplification. The larger the cone the more control Tannoys need, and the later Tannoys seem to work better with solid state than the early ones (and vice versa, the earlier ones are generally better with valves). Harbeths seem to be less fussy about amps in doing what they do but you get the amplification right on Tannoys and they are both big and rich AND controlled. No contest for my tastes in the main system but of course we all hear and enjoy differently. I'd happily swap a pair of PSER3s though for the Tannoy DC6es in my little study system.
You can only compare a Audio Note E with a front port and a back port, otherwise there is absolutely no evidence.I have to disagree there - a rear port can be a nightmare if the speaker depends on wall reinforcement for its bass response, and for reasons of room shape you can't get them the same distance from the back wall. I had a pair of AN-Es in a room like that once - couldn't image for toffee and the bass went all wonky. Front ported Tannoys were fine.
Keep going Tom! What's your view on the Classic Spendors ? SP100 onwards
Whever I've heard Spendors I've always thought them pleasant enough - in the same mental category for me as the bigger Harbeths though people with more experience of the differences may disagree there. However I've never tried them in my room with my stuff so I wouldn't feel qualified to comment at any length.
I tried out the AN-Es after I moved house and found the Tannoy Autographs I had commissioned didn't fit. After quite a few years with Tannoys (with some Quad ESLs in the middle) I thought I'd experiment. The ones I demo'd for a couple of weeks were AN-HE's with silver coils, fairly up-spec, and they did some nice things, but I simply couldn't get them to work in my room.
I also demo'd the hORNS FP12s (quite special speakers from Poland) - these actually came close to making a sale and I could recommend a look at them if Tannoys don't float your boat.
But I plugged in an old pair of stopgap Tannoy Chatsworths, and the magic was back. Of course in detail terms they were well behind the curve, but I just loved what they did. Set me off on a quest that ended with my current RFC Canterbury design.
I think with Tannoys there are some things that uniquely only they do (in the same way there are unique aspects to Quad ESLs). The dual-concentric design with phase alignment at half wavelengths means it operates as a true point source in perfect phase. It's just so amazingly musically coherent. Only the Quad ESL63 and above comes close to this (and the more bass panels the model has, the more any Quad model messes that point source up).
Add to that the fact that many Tannoys are using 12 or 15 inch drivers - providing an impact you'll never get from six or 8 inch drivers, to go with that musical coherence - and the way the energise the room is something very special, as is the way they throw a soundstage.
Consequently, in the same way that I've marvelled at the dynamics of five-way horns, or enjoyed the 'purity' of ESLs, while rejecting both on their flaws which to me are respectively impracticality and lack of 'realism' in a musical sense, and a two-dimensionality I never learned to live with no matter how pretty the picture, I've simply never come across a box speaker that kept my ears quite so happy, even if there is theoretically more detail, or a wider frequency extension, or lowered measured distortion, to be had from one. All these things are important but they don't persuade me.
Tannoys have issues of course: vintage Tannoy boxes (Guy Fountain famously insisted 'we aren't in the furnuture business,' and it shows) are not as well braced and damped or as scientifically proportioned as can be done today by the likes of RFC Audio; the original factory crossovers were accurate enough, but skimped on component quality - and this applies as much to Tannoy crossovers made yesterday as it does to ones made 50 years ago ... expensive to remedy, but worth the trouble; and it's the bigger the better when it comes to cabinets, which can make them a challenge to fit in a domestic environment. None of this is insurmountable but I can see why some people give up on them.
However for me there's no substitute.
You can only compare a Audio Note E with a front port and a back port, otherwise there is absolutely no evidence.
The good thing is, you don't need to do that because the German company Visaton has done research for different port positions in relation to bass response in the past with the conclusion that the position of the bass port has no influence as long as there are a few cm left to breath.
Thanks Tom for such a comprehensive reply.
Without having heard the Spendors what attracts me is they are 3-way, the reviews concur with what I think I want to hear 12 inch bass driver so sort of ticks the 12/15 inch Tannoy driver bit. I like what I hear about the Tannoys but even though my room is bigger than average I think Cheviots are as big as I should consider. Temptation is the Ardens as they are available secondhand on occasion at similar price levels to the Cheviot.
It is interesting to hear your view on the quality of the Tannoy cabinets and cross overs. For me the Tannoy cabinets especially the legacy range doesn't look particularly high quality. Spendors appear to be better put together all round. My gut feeling is the Spendors will be more coherent and give just as good a soundstage. Not sure also I like the ideal of bunging up ports to try and tame the bass. It sets off alarm bells.
Thanks also for the steer on the Horns I had a quick look they could be worth a punt. I toyed briefly with the Opera Consonance ones advertised here.
On the Quads I assume you only had the 57's that I ended up with from Rabski (Richard)?
In ways I am sorry I didn't hold them to swap around with the 63's as they are very different beasts. They had Oltec treble panels and Rupert stands. I consider myself lucky that I can consider a second pair of speakers to try and contrast with the 63's but ultimately wonder will it be just an excercise in Hifitis The 63's are fantastic and in reality I should be happy to just carry on with them. Have had them for 6yrs at this point. It is more difficult over here to chop and change or even get to hear the range of speakers available in the UK.
One final comment on the pricing of these type of speakers. I wonder is there an unwritten cartel on the pricing as the latest iterations of these speakers to me are very over priced. They all come out around the same price point?
I had a VTL ST150 with the SHL5Plus for a while; that was both dynamic and beguiling; a really fine mixture of qualities. I should have been patient and waited for a VTL preamp; I was using it with an ARC LS26, which I thought was good until I compared it in a friend's system with his VTL pre; the latter was so much better. I'd been hesitant because I'm not keen on high gain US preamps, but I should have ignored that anxiety. Eventually I went back to my Unico Pre and DM because I just couldn't justify the amount I had invested in the VTL and ARC set up.
The 5Plus were too much for my 4.5 x 3.5 room, so I moved to Tannoy Eatons. Original 70s version. Oh dear, I thought, yet another flawed speaker (the 5Plus is very good, but does have flaws other than mere incompatibility with my room). I found out that it was the 3-4Kh region of the Eatons that was irritating me, but fortunately Paul Coupe tweaked the crossovers and really improved the speakers.
I've not yet heard the Legacy Eatons. Regarding the OP: Paul, I am a bit puzzled, since you say you hear nothing wrong with the Harbeths. I would stick with them and do some amp tourism.