A move from Harbeth to... Wilson?

@mijostyn 

haha

ok now i am completely confused as to what point you are making

but i still agree.... 😁🤣😂😆

@jjss49 , You may have missed my point. Even the largest Wilson has one little tweeter, no different than a Harbeth P3. Once you turn it's little woofer into a midrange driver by removing the bass the speaker will go just as loud as the largest Wilson as long as you add two 15" subwoofers with digital bass management crossing over at 125 Hz 8th order. The Only differences are price and enclosure materials. Once you get down to a very small enclosure it is much easier to make it non resonant. We noticed the possibilities right away with the Rogers LS3 5A back in the late 70s. The problem for us back then was our crossover choices were extremely limited and they were all analog. It was very difficult to keep the sub out of the midrange so we had to crossover lower down. The output levels were still limited. 

@mijostyn 

i agree 100%

line source speakers, especially tall ones, have a real magic to them in how they fill the room with sound with a more real life scale

overdriven smaller drivers always sound like water being shot out of a high pressure hose... no bueno...

@jjss49 , great systems will reproduce them all. 

There is nothing wrong with Wilsons other than the price and a few questionable building practice's. I personally prefer Magicos because they are most definitely better made. The sound is remarkable similar between the two. For value you can not beat Harbeth P3s on stands with subwoofers. The subwoofers with proper digital bass management turn the little guys into monsters, every bit as potent as Sabrinas if not more. The limiting factor in most speakers is the power handling of the tweeter.. There is only so much you can get out of a 1" cup or dome. In a room the size of the OPs small monitors on stands make sense. These little monitors are so attractive because the small cabinets are so small and stiff they do not resonate. The enclosure disappears. The problem for them is the little woofers have to work very hard to make bass distorting everything else they carry. Subwoofers and crossovers with steep curves solve that problem turning David into goliath. I think the P3 is Harbeths best speaker. The Falcon is also popular but I have not heard them.

All these speakers are point source which means their acoustic power drops off at the cube of the distance and they are relatively omnidirectional causing more room interaction. I prefer line source dipoles because their power drops off at the square of the distance and their directionality is controlled in all directions limiting room interaction. They produce a larger soundstage which is more realistic.  

 

I like a wide range of speaker brands.  Each has their own strengths and weaknesses.  None are really bad and I'd be happy to live with any of the top brands at their various price points.  I've just ordered a new pair of Wilsons as I love their ability to image three dimensionally.  Do they sound like live music .....no but then no speaker or recording does.

For me that's the point. A live event (of whatever sort - it's live!) does not have a "tone" as such. It is what it is. A musical instrument has a "tone". But that's just it. A loudspeaker is not a musical instrument. It is a medium through which a musical instrument is transduced. Nothing is perfect of course, but my Wilson speakers get me closer to the live sound (warts and all) than anything else I have owned and that is what I am looking for. 

@daveuk

I owned "BBC monitor" style speakers for decades from the likes of Rogers, Spendor, KEF, B&W, et al. They are all wonderful with what my grandmother would have called a "nice tone".

 

Yes, but it's that 'tone' that is so incredibly appealing and addictive to so many of us.

Is it not fair to ask why can't we, after all these years of development, have the best of both?

Has it got to be one or the other?

Or is that like having our cake and eating it?

all excellent, well established, successful speakers are doing something very right

it just depends if their flavor of ’right’ matches your tastes and requirements

furthermore, ’live’ music comes in vastly different flavors too. .. mid hall at boston symphony vs grandstand at coldplay concert vs third row at village vanguard jazz show... substantially different sounding ’live performances’

Just saw this very interesting thread. I know it’s old but may still be relevant to others. There seem to be a lot of "Wilson haters" on here so I thought I would chip in as I think my experience is relevant. I owned "BBC monitor" style speakers for decades from the likes of Rogers, Spendor, KEF, B&W, et al. They are all wonderful with what my grandmother would have called a "nice tone". However, some years back I had the opportunity to audition Wilson Sabrinas. And I was sold. Wilson does not have a "nice tone" as such. They just sound, to my ears, like attending the live event! I know it’s personal. But even given the ridiculous expense, I have subsequently upgraded to the Sasha DAW and now have a pair of Alexia V on order. Harbeth and Wilson are chalk and cheese. Both are excellent at what they do. Both have a distinguished heritage. But ultimately it’s down to personal preference and budget. Would love to learn what the OP did?

Old thread. If anyone prefers the sound of the Harbeth and desires to have a slightly more transparent, open and detailed sound, the Graham is a good choice. Basically a sound with slightly improved clarity and detail which can make a significant difference to the listening experience. My comment is based on the comparison between the equivalent Graham models to the older Harbeth pre XD models such as P3ESR, C7ES3, M30.1 / 30.2, SHL5+ and M40.1 or 40.2.

I've listened to the Wilson Sasha mk1 about 11 years ago. Sound is rather good.

 

completely different kettle of fish is right

although i will say that modern wilsons are smoother and easier to mate with ancillaries than older ones with the metal tweeters... those could exhibit much stridency and hardness/harshness with minimal provovation

From the mids to the treble I like Vandersteen better than I like Wilsons, and in terms of room integration (bass!) a lot better than Wilson.

so Jaylat says above that a $15,000 system sounded better than a $1,000,000 Wilson Audio system.  No, we should generally not equate sound with dollars spent, but maybe for good measure, Jaylat should have his ears professionally examined.

I moved from Harbeth HL Monitors MkIII to Wilson W/P 2/1 about 20 years ago.  Completely different kettle of fish.  No regrets....I've since moved on of course.  It's all part of the journey!

At a dealer last year I auditioned Harbeth 30.1s versus a Wilson system set up in the next room. Don’t recall the particulars of the Wilson gear but the entire system cost over $1,000,000, while the Harbeth system was around $15,000. For me, I much preferred the Harbeths, which had a much more natural sound especially with voices. The Wilsons sounded thin.

Also loved this @photomax:

I find the Wilson’s to resemble a mix of school lunchroom garbage can and Transformers robot

If you get a change, I’d recommend auditioning for Harbeth 30.2’s with a slightly higher powered SS amp, along the lines of Ayre, Sudgen or Hegel.  

How about the Tannoy Canterbury or Kensington? Definitely worth checking out. 

The few times I've listened to Vandersteens, they struck me as having a rather "forward" presentation.  By this I'm not referring to tonal balance, which was fine, but rather to where the plane of the sound stage started, which was well in front of the plane of the drivers.  Tastes will differ, but I prefer a more "distanced" presentation, where the front of the sound stage coincides with the front plane of the speakers or even starts a little behind them.  The Harbeths are 100% satisfactory in this regard.

Richard Vandersteen's designs are extremely good value and are one of audio's best kept secrets.

wow -- and porsches are the secret of the sports car world LOLOLOLOLOLOL

I have C7-ES. I thought about upgrading to Wilson Watt Puppy which was (and still is) my dream speakers. I ended up choosing Gershman Grand Avant Garde. As I grow older, being able to move speakers around by myself was a concern, and Wilson was too heavy for me.
Now C7-ES and Gershman sit side by side. There is no comparison. Gershman is every bit better, except Gershman needs more power. C7-ES is just fine to drive with 40W amp, but Gershman needs 100W or more. C7-ES is nice when I listen to a less volume. Gershman shines when you listen to loud.
I still miss Wilson. I might try to have one before too late though.

Sorry, but I think that the Sonus Faber are very bright.

@decathlon1991 — which SF speakers have you heard? At this level I was implying the Olympica line with my recommendation and not the lower-level Venere or Sonetto lines if that’s what you’re referring to. I’ve never heard anyone categorize the upper-level SF speakers as bright sounding.

good value and are one of audio's best kept secrets.

I'd have to argue that point, If you are even remotely interested in high end audio, Vandersteen is a household name to you.

Oz

Richard Vandersteen's designs are extremely good value and are one of audio's best kept secrets. They are capable of entertaining for extended listening periods with a lovely open and musical performance.

I have not heard any of the Daedalus range but can say with certainty that I would choose Vandersteen over Wilson any day. Wilson to me, like many others, favours detail seemingly above all else. In your face detail, detail that one would not normally hear at a live event. This type of performance is initially impressive but ultimately fatiguing.

Sizing the speaker to the room is very important. I consider the M40s one of the best speakers out there and could easily live with them forever. That said, I would not go up to the M40's in a room that small. You won't get what they are capable of--not even close. I ran my C7s in a room nearly identical. Worked very well. If you want to try something different the Wilson's or the Vandersteen's would be a good choice. Neither are my cup of tea but they will certainly give a very different presentation from the C7. I'm running my Daedalus Apollo's in a room slightly larger than yours and they are making incredible sounds. For your room I would strongly recommend a pair of Daedalus Studio Muse. They are the little twin brother of the Apollo. You will get everything the C7s give you in terms of accurate tone and realism through the mids AND much greater speed, dynamics, inner detail, and frequency extension. Really awesome speakers and just right for a room your size.

@dodgealum

I’ve only heard great things-- cabinet workmanship supposed to be the very best, and similar to Harbeth, the box is used to maximize the sound the builder is after.

I feel like these boutique speaker builders should make demo pairs and send them around the US to potential customers. I'd pay the shipping to send it to the next person. And if you buy it, you get the shipping as a credit. Anyway that's what I would do. 

I auditioned several models of Daedalus before getting Harbeths.  The Daedali (?) are very good, very even-handed, so to say, but none of them produced the 40.2 magic.

One thing to consider... Sabrina’s are a relatively easy sell. Try a pair. Speaker choice is absolutely personal. Tons of opinions, stated as fact, doesn’t change that. You obviously want to go a different direction than Harbeth it would seem. Go for it. Another thing to consider,  the Sabrina was one Dave Wilson’s favorites.

@aj523 yes Daedalus Audio. The challenge will be auditioning but very much worth the effort!

Does a speaker exist that has the warmth, the musicality and very critically the tonality of Harbeth with no boxy sound and no boomy bass?  If so, sign me up. I will demo it asap. 

To address what I don’t like about the Harbeths, that would cause an upgrade "itch" to be scratched? It’s hard to say - they do from time to time sound a bit "boxy" on big, orchestral stuff.

I understand what you mean about the "bit boxy" thing.


I LOVE Harbeth speakers. They are easily in my top favorite speaker lines, for essentially the reasons they have their fans: that rich, organic tonality and even top to bottom balance, clarity without fatigue, etc.I’ve listened to the whole line up, and heard the 40.2s do astonishing things. The Harbeths disappear far more than you’d expect given their old school "boxy" look.


But while they do an excellent disappearing act, that isn’t their strongest characteristic. It’s bettered by other speakers, the modern designs that go for heroic attempts at reducing cabinet noise etc.


I had the big Thiel 3.7 speakers and was looking to see if I could downsize a bit due to some aesthetic / ergonomic issues. I actually bought a pair (used) of Harbeth SuperHL5plus speakers and lived with them for a month or two. They were fantastic in all the ways I’d heard from them before: open, rich, organic, sparkling highs without fatigue, so balanced and controlled from top to bottom, and special with vocals - the way they fleshed out the human voice in such a human way.


However, I found when comparing to my Thiels, which are of the "low cabinet/low coloration" school, the Thiels seemed to do almost everything the Harbeths were doing, but better. They had a rich, full quality - e.g. acoustic guitars had wonderful full sized body - and a similar organic realistic timbre to acoustic instruments and voices. But the sound was just that much more clean and precise and hence realistic. So for instance, playing tracks from the Los Angeles Guitar Quartet, 4 classical guitarists playing at the same time, both speakers had beautiful tone and sound very similar, but compared to the Thiels there was an "extra" bit of tone in the Harbeths, a bit of "hearing the box" added, making for a bit of blur in between the guitars. Where the Thiels seemed to clean up everything around the guitars, for a cleaner more precise and live and realistic presentation.


So I think the Harbeths beat plenty of speakers on their wonderful tonal quality and balance. And I’d take them over the majority of speakers out there that I’ve heard. And their balance of box vibration is so canny that you don’t necessarily notice most of the time and can even add to the richness. But in direct comparison with even more precise speakers, it might make you itch for more (as long as those other speakers can compete well enough in most other areas of tone with the Harbeths).


In the end I sold the Harbeths and kept looking. Still, they were so good with voices they haunt me, and I’d love to have a pair of Harbeths still around to throw in my system.

@layton64
Spot on ! That intangible their users talk about is their tonality.  It has to be experienced in the right setup to understand. 

My Harbeth 40.2 are now 5 years old. These speakers are a joy to listen to. Something intangible that is beyond description. I have no thoughts about changing or "upgrading". I can relax and enjoy my music collection.

@decathlon1991 was top of the line Audio Research rack and the other was Dan D'agostino momentum line. Is that matching equipment? 

aj523160 posts11-05-2020 6:07pmGeoff won’t like this but i had two 60-90 minute demos with the Sasha Daw in Manhattan this past July and found the $37k speakers too dry and clinical to my ears. Although on the plus side great soundstage, imaging and super clean as I could hear every lyric (which is a problem for me as I have asymmetrical hearing loss), it just tired me out. It had no soul to me. Meanwhile I wound up with the Harbeth 40.2 Anniversary and absolutely adore their warmth and natural sounding musicality. Vocals are liquid smooth

What was your equipment? Is it the same type of equipment you use in your home? As with any speaker (room size, placement, etc.) and components, it makes a huge difference. I have the original Wilson Max 2’s and the equipment I used with the Cary Audio SLP-05 with the Ultimate Upgrade and Tube Rolling, I’ve used on the Monoblock amplifier side, the Cary Audio CAD805 AE Monoblock,  the Chord SPM6000 Monoblock, Audio Research REF250 SE Monoblock, and now McIntosh MC2301 Monoblock. In mentioning this, trust me, it’s all about matching the equipment with the speaker. Listen with your ears as you try to decide with your eyes.

soix3,219 posts11-05-2020 11:27amSounds like you’re not sure what you’d like to improve upon — “upgrade” is too vague at least for me.  So failing that the obvious safe and perhaps smartest bet is moving up the Harbeth line. I would say that given you like the Harbeth sound I’d suggest looking at Sonus Faber over Wilson — a little more rich or warm/musical and less clinical sounding (relatively) than Wilson while possibly adding better 3D holographic imaging over Harbeth if that would qualify an an upgrade to you. Those are my impressions of the house sound differences anyway, FWIW. Hope this helps, and best of luck
Sorry, but I think that the Sonus Faber are very bright. I find it brighter than the Harbeth and the Wilson’s. With his components, he can’t go wrong with the Sabrina’s. The Harbeth upgrades are nice as well. Better bottom end with the Wilson. More control and is a better match with Pass Labs Class A amplifiers. It’s about matching the components with the right speakers. You are heading in the right direction. Stay on course, it will pay off. This is no disrespect to the Sonus Faber brand.

Thanks for more comments and thoughts!

I've heard (and had) planars, not interested in going there at this time. Same with open-baffles and "horns" - not my thing. Though "omnis" such as MBL might not be out of the question, that would require some new consideration.

I've heard the Sabrinas numerous times at shows, and a local dealer, where I also recently heard the new Sabrina X. While the new X definitely isn't in the budget, the Sabrina could potentially be, especially on the previously-owned market. An in-home audition prior to purchasing isn't likely an option, but I've rarely had that opportunity, anyway.

As for going from Harbeth to Wilson, I suppose it is a different direction, which is probably the reason for this thread. Again, appreciate the many thoughts so far.

@yogiboy Thanks for explaining.  
I think I understand what you mean.  IME, Harbeths are easy to drive but need a certain synergy with the amplifier to sound their best.  I have had a few amps that sounded "small" with my Harbeths in comparison to my current amp (Hegel H590) and a few others.  Of course, proper set-up is also essential.  I think this is true of any speaker, however.  
Happy listening!

W/P 8s (94 dB) are now reasonable and sound great with lower powered amps. Consider them. They sound great with Both my 18w tube amps and my Pass 600.8s. 

As others have said, it sounds like a strange move. Take it if you want but try to listen to some other speakers also.

If you want a change, maybe try another type of speaker? Like horns, planers or omnidirectional?
MBL 121 might be worth trying. 

Other thoughts:

-Open Baffle from Spatial would be a different approach.

-If timbre is your hot button, try Tannoy. The 10" to 15" Dual
concentrics. Nelson Pass voices his amps with a tweaked Tannoy
dual concentric. They are efficient. The Wilsons will need a lot more
power than you currently own.

-The Sonus Faber Suggestion also makes sense to me.

Keep us posted please!

@snackeyp
@yogiboy

Definitely possible tp sound boxy if not set up right. And definitely the 40x’s are not image monsters, but set up right and you will be rewarded with the most musical speaker with the most beautiful tonality that I’ve ever heard.

@snackeyp
To me, boxy means that the sound was ’small’ and you can tell exactly where it’s coming from.  This was my experience in my room with those other Harbeths that I have owned.  In my room the little P3 sounds very similar to a QUAD ESL. I am not putting down the larger Harbeths. They just did not work out for me!

@yogiboy stated that Harbeths sounded "boxy".
Can you define what boxy means?
My imagination tells me that it would sound like the music was coming from inside of a box, but this does nothing to describe the sound. If the box were a closed box the sound would sound muffled. Am I right?
If the box were open but the source was deep from inside the box the sound would be cavernous, or hollow. Or perhaps, like music coming through a megaphone or horn, which would be harsh or brittle. At least this is what I imagine.
I have had several models of Harbeth speakers over the past 14 years and have never heard them sound boxy in any variation of the term that I can imagine. Thanks for elaborating on this. I am eager to learn.

I think the Vienna Acoustics with their soft dome tweeter would sound less harsh.  I noticed they had a lot of bass and sounded best when listening to classical.  I did think they sounded great and I think you would get less fatigued listening to them.  I think the Wilson's sounded a bit harsh in the highs.  However, I needed to listen to them for a couple hours to determine what I was hearing.  I thought the Motion 60 Martin Logins sounded great, but when I went back and listened to them for a couple hours the ribbon tweeters seemed a bit harsh.

Haven't heard the Sabrinas, but I'm a bit cautious as they are the latest generation of what started as the Watt/Puppies none of which ever captivated me. Problem is that anything above that in the Wilson line escalated price very significantly. Best to do some auditioning yourself ad think about it.

(FWIW I have loved several models of larger Wilsons and have a pair of Maxx 2 in one of my systems - the Alexx are the modern speaker in that niche today).

your Harbeth’s have that Rogers, Spendor, Stirling Broadcast (Proac ATC?) BBC monitor lineage and dna.
dare I say an apples and oranges comparison discussion in regards to Wilson?
I would move up to the big box Harbeth 40 as others have suggested and maybe treat yourself to an additional upgrade elsewhere in your system.
you will be after all... saving several thousand delore’s on that automotive paint finish🤗

OP: check out the room size here:
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/harbeth-monitor-40-2.25222/

I have had one experience with a Wilson speaker, so I am far from an expert, but I will give you my experience.   I would demo the speaker, preferably in your setup, but if not, then at a dealer.  I would not buy them without listening to them first.

This is my experience with the Wilson Watt Puppy.   The dealer was extremely nice and did a tour of the system the Watt Puppies were connected to, showed me how to adjust the Watch Dog subwoofer, pointed at a huge collection of CD's and said, "You can stay as long as you want, if you have questions, come and get me," and then left the demo room.

A friend and I spent the next two hours listening to the speakers and playing around with different adjustments on the Watch Dog.  There was a seat between the two speakers and if you were in that chair, there was the most three dimensional, accurate, pleasant sound I've ever experienced from a music system.  HOWEVER, if you moved left or right, changed seating height the sound stage became flat and no different than fifty other speakers I've heard.

The Watt Puppy speakers were extremely accurate, but also, extremely directional with a very, very small soundstage.  Whether that's the case with the Wilson speakers you're considering is unknown, but you should listen to them very carefully before buying them.

Going from Harbeth to Wilson is an interesting direction.  I will admit my bias against Wilson speakers.  I have listened to many models over the last several years and the last ones were at RMAF in 2019.  I find them too clinical in the top end and also the integration of the midrange and bass just strikes me as unbalanced.  Perhaps if they are really set up well my opinion would change but I have heard them with top notch solid state and tube electronics.  My test is always violin music and the upper frequencies just drive me out of the room.  I settled on Vienna Acoustics Liszt when I was doing my search.  I guess everyone has different priorities that they value.