Borresen X3 vs Harbeth 40.2 -- my impressions


After reading so many glowing reviews of the Borresen X3 speaker, I decided to go and audition them at a local dealer who was gracious enough to let me stay there for over 4 hours. I went there with the intention of buying the X3 if they appealed to me. I thought I’d share my impressions here for those who are interested, especially in comparison to my Harbeth 40.2 speakers that I adore.

 

The dealer at first hooked them up to the Axxess Forte 1 integrated amp. To be brutally honest, I was about ready to bolt in the first 10 minutes. I just don’t understand why Axxess is getting so much praise. It was the most flat, dry, and boring sound I’ve heard. Luckily, the dealer had some very high end Burmester amp, preamp, and music server (close to $100K retail for the three pieces), which he agreed to use instead. Huuuuuge difference! The Burmester really made those Borresens come alive and sing. IMO, AGD is really doing a disservice to the X line by pairing them with the Axxess in audio shows. They are capable of scaling with much better gear. Shame!

 

If a massive, immersive, and holographic soundstage is your primary criteria and your budget is $11k max, you should stop reading at this point. Run and get these speakers before AGD decides to raise the price. I have yet to hear a speaker in this price range with this kind of soundstage. But if you value other aspects of music reproduction, keep on reading ...

 

Soundstage Width, Depth, and Height:

No contest. Borresen is noticeably better. The soundstage is as tall as it is deep. I heard sounds coming from besides me and behind me. Depth, while not outstanding, is there for sure. Just not as impressive as the height and width relatively speaking. I still can’t get that immersive feeling out of my head.

 

Ability to disappear:

This is one area where Harbeth always struggles. Owing to the thin walls of its cabinets, one is always aware of the big box the sound emanates from. The X3s totally disappeared. Again, very impressive for a speaker in this price range.

 

Vocals:

Sorry, but the X3 is simply not in the same league as the 40.2 when it comes to vocals. There’s this little extra, lifelike quality to vocals in most Harbeth speakers that is hard to beat. I listened to some very familiar songs on the X3, and it became clear why I fell in love with the Harbeth sound many years ago. Female voices are more ethereal and nuanced, male voices have more chestiness. You hear the emotions and every little inflection in the singers’ voice. It simply gives more of the ‘singer in the room’ feeling.

 

Instrument Separation:

This is a tough one. Both are excellent in this regard. But I will give a very slight edge to 40.2s here. Or maybe not. I don’t know. Let’s call it evens.

 

Transparency and Realism:

This is where Harbeth pulled ahead of the X3s in a major way. I’m not saying that the X3s are deficient by any means, but the 40.2s just give you a lot more of it. You really have to live with them for a while to truly understand and appreciate what this speaker brings to the table. It’s truly addictive. The only other speakers I’ve heard that are better in this regard are the Quads or other electrostatics.

 

Midrange and Lushness:

My impression of Borresen speakers prior to this was that they were very fast, neutral, and quiet. But, much to my surprise, the X3s (or perhaps the X line itself) has been voiced to be more on the warm side of things. Sound was warm and had body. Unfortunately, this is being achieved by adding a bit of a mid bass bump. While it gives the speaker an overall warm predisposition, I felt it came at the expense of hiding details in the mid bass region. Harbeth is also known for a lush midrange but it doesn’t get here by sacrificing detail or exaggerating the sound. Another side effect of this characteristic was that acoustic instruments felt bigger than life. Guitars felt like they were 10 foot long. Piano strokes lacked the bite and immediacy that I get with 40.2s – and by the way this is not a particularly strong point of Harbeth either.

 

Tone and Timbre:

Harbeth to the front of the line, please. The timbre and tonal accuracy of the 40.2s is on another level. X3s are also very good in this regard but are somewhat outclassed by Harbeth.

 

Overall Refinement:

I apologize in advance if this is going ruffle some feathers, but the 40.2s are overall much more refined sounding than the Borresen X series. Again, this is only in comparison. On its own, I would never label the X3s as unrefined. The Harbeth just has this extra layer of refinement that you come to appreciate the more time you spend with it.

 

Bass:

As they say, there’s no replacement for displacement. The 4.5” drivers on X3 produce a prodigious amount of bass which is hard to believe considering the size of the drivers. Yet, the 12” woofer on 40.2s gives you more of that deep and tuneful bass. It just sounds more satisfying and fuller.

 

Look and Feel:

This is very subjective, of course, so please feel free to take it with a grain of salt. But I was not impressed by how the X3s looked in person, they lacked elegance. It kind of reminded me of Tekton – okay, maybe that’s too harsh, I take it back. But I was a little disappointed as they looked really nice in pictures. Wish they would lose the carbon fiber touch and the checkered driver patterns. The Harbeths, on the other hand, don’t look as impressive and nice in pictures. I mean what do you expect from an oversized shoebox on stands. But, the quality and craftsmanship of hand-built cabinets has a more timeless and elegant feel to it that has to be seen and felt to be appreciated. I just feel this style, boring as it is, just ages more gracefully.

 

Long story short, I have decided to stay with my 40.2s. They have many quirks, as pointed out by several members on this forum. But what they do, they do it exceedingly well. I found the Harbeth 40.x to be overall more transparent, lifelike, refined, and balanced. They don’t do dynamics as good as other speakers or disappear as much as other speakers in this price range, but they more than make up for it in other ways. I’ve heard people claim that the X3 are twice (or even thrice!) as good as their asking price. If soundstage is your primary criteria for judging speakers, then I wholeheartedly agree. But if you value transparency, vocals, timbre, tonal accuracy, and overall refinement ... the Harbeth 40.x series justifies its higher price, despite the shortcomings.

 

Having said that, I was still very impressed by Borresen X3 and won’t mind having it as a second pair once they hit the used market. But I feel the hype doesn’t quite align with what I actually heard during the audition. In this price range, I find Audio Vector to be a better value.

 

Please note that these are my opinions based on a ‘mere’ 4-hour demo, and only in comparison to my favorite speakers. It’s totally fine if someone draws a completely opposite conclusion, or tells me that I’m biased. My taste, my preferences, IMO, IHMO, etc. etc. etc.

 

 

128x128arafiq

@helomech you make fair points, but my point is slightly nuanced and different. Sure, a ls3/5 is a wonderful speaker, I’ve purchased it myself. Now, I’ve never denied that the sound quality can be great, what my issue is the price and value proposition is nothing more than a cash grab. All of the parts you’ve mentioned are not expensive, nor are they difficult to manufacture. Whether you think Harbeth has a better sounding tweeter or bass is highly subjective, not subject to proof, and overlooks the importance of system pairing. I have made the Olympicas sound far better than any ls3/5 by virtue of the right amplification, DAC, and source , and you should know in some environments there will be an inherent advantage of using a floor stander vs a book shelf.

I’m confused as to why you are continuing to mention the LS3/5a in a thread discussing speakers many times their size and price. Is the P3ESR the only Harbeth with which you have substantial experience (presumably)? I ask because the M40.2s are a very different animal. The 40s cost a lot more than the entry-level Harbeths (P3ESR and C7ES3) but IME they also sound superior in every regard. It’s really apples to oranges. I mean no offense to owners/lovers of the P3, but to my ears, relative to the M40.2, it’s very much a “mid-fi” speaker. I would say the same for some of the other LS3/5 variants.

 

I think a lot of you have really misunderstood bbc speakers.

Derek Hughes has said on numerous occasions that it is all about the crossover, that is where you design the sound of the speakers, off course the cabinets are important but that was taken care of 50 years ago, today you have better drivers and better components to use in the crossover implementation, so he has been able to improve the old bbc design, I am lucky enough to have the Graham Audio LS 5/9 speakers, in my room they are so good and real sounding, I like them better than the Harbeth 30.1 that I have heard in a demo.

I think many here would be surprised by what a well-setup pair of original Spendor SP100s (a Hughes design) can do relative to many modern options. There’s good reason it’s still a resident favorite at stores like Acoustic Sounds. 

 

@macg19 

@arafiq You have a really nice and obviously very well thought out rig. What are you thinking for your next cart? 

Actually, thanks for reminding me that I have made a few changes to my system in the last few months, and forgot to update the virtual system.

First, I replaced the Meitner MA3 DAC with a Merging Technologies +NADAC and separate power supply. I chose this DAC after home auditioning Mola Mola Tambaqui and DCS Bartok in my system. To my ears, Merging Technologies was the most analog and natural sounding. Shout out to @lalitk for first recommending the Merging DAC and then giving me the opportunity to hear it in his system, which by the way is one of the best systems I've heard so far.

Second, I replaced the Denon DL-103 cart with Hana ML. Another leap in performance. I might go up the Hana food chain in the future, but for now I'm very happy with ML. I have updated my virtual system with new info and pics. Please check it out if you haven't already.

Lastly, I recently purchased Magnepan 1.7i as a second pair of speakers. This speaker really defies the price-to-performance ratio like nothing else I've owned in the past. It's different than Harbeth 40.2 in many ways, which I enjoy since I wasn't necessarily looking for 'better', just a different 'flavor' to spice things up. And boy does that Maggie deliver the flavor in spades. I might add the Magnepan pics to my virtual system later.

@helomech I mention the ls3/5 not for the size, but the patent that its based on. Presumably, the larger speakers share or borrow a similar design and technology perspective . The sound signature of that design while different carries a sound signature that most could identify as originating from a ls3/5 BBC design. To act like the m40 is some revolutionary, unique design wholely unrelated to the ls3/5 patent is just false and bizarre.

@fishagedone 

Certainly the designs are not wholly unrelated. But the larger one has a significantly better tweeter, is a 3-way design, and is bass-reflex.
 

The woofer in the P3ESR is handling both bass and midrange duties, and is operating in a sealed enclosure. In terms of subjective performance the only thing they mostly have in common is a similar midrange tonality. Otherwise, the definition and dynamics of the M40.2s is on a completely different level.