2. speakers
  3. 1176667597

Report on Harbeths vs. Vandersteens

I've used Vandersteens with various electronics for 6-7 years, first 2ce sigs, then 3a sigs. They have many positive attributes. Among other things, they reveal all kinds of detail in the source material on the top end. On certain source material, that's fine. Over time, however, for my ears, I was hearing, in an unflattering light, too much negative information about source material that I really wanted to listen to. In that respect, I described that Vandersteens, in another thread, as being somewhat "unforgiving". That didn't sit well with some folks, but I stand by it, and point to Mike Fremer's review of the Quattros in Stereophile for a similar impression.

I tried dealing with the issue with cable and electronic changes (and eventually did like fairly well the Cary SLP 2002 with the ARC VT100 MkIII, pulled together with Cardas Cross cable throughout, with a Linn CD12 front end), but I finally decided to try a speaker change anyway. After much research, I took advantage of an opportunity to make a rather convoluted trade that netted me some Harbeth M30s on Sound Anchor stands instead of the Vandersteens. Based upon all the reading I'd done (and opinions from a few trusted folks), I figured I needed to spend some time with the BBC monitor sound, be it Harbeths or Spendors or possibly something else.

I'm very glad to have made the change. For my ears, this is a very interesting and satisfying direction, and I recommend it as an avenue to explore for anyone who can relate to my kind of concerns.

The Harbeths have plenty of energy in the highs, but their focus is on the mid-range and upper bass. They have less detail in the high frequency range, but lots of detail in the mids. They do a particularly lovely job with strings, massed or otherwise (which was a weak spot as between my ears and the Vandersteens). On some material, they sound rolled off compared to the Vandersteens, but on other material, they don't...and, yes, if it's the "right" recording, they can even be too bright. But I hear the latter far less frequently than I did on the Vandersteens.

I'm by no means the first one to recommend the "BBC sound" direction for a solidly pleasurable, warm and satisfying musical experience with a variety of source material, but I'm happy to join in that chorus at this point in my listening life...and look forward to sampling some Spendors and different Harbeths over the next few years.
eweedhome
drubin
3,285 posts
 
You might want to look at this thread.

I owned Response 2.5's a few years ago and now have SHL5's. The D series of ProAcs is supposed to be a bit different, so I can't offer a direct comparison. But between the two I do know, I would say that the Harbeth's offer greater clarity, detail, and resolution overall, while the ProAcs have their own special brand of midrange magic, which I always found very appealing even as I longed for greater clarity. The ProAcs may be more dynamic and better-suited to Big music.
sc53
727 posts
 
Thanks for the link to that very interesting thread. As an owner of both the older more "romantic" ProAc's and the newer possibly more "analytical" ProAc's, I found the comparisons and opinions in that thread informative. Seems there are a lot of British-sound-lovers out there. Funny how well such speakers go with tubes.
eweedhome OP
227 posts
 
Drubin, that's a great thread, and one I studied before committing to the Harbeths. In fact (and this is part of my point about the use of the Forum), I committed to the Harbeths, and gave up the Vandersteens, without having auditioned the Harbeths. May sound dumb, but there were such consistent positive reports on Audiogon and in the reviews that I figured my risk was small, and after 7 years of intermittant "disharmony" with the Vandersteen sound, a change was inevitable, anyway.

Now, here's a question for Harbeth and Spendor people. My impression on the Harbeth M30s and M40s (the latter being too big for my room, by the way) is that part of their magic is in their silk dome tweeters. The Harbeth Compact 7's and Super HL5's do not have the same tweeters. First, who can tell me about the respective high-ends of the M30/M40 series vs, in particular, the Super HL5's? My memory is that there is one report floating around here on Audiogon that the HL5's are bright in comparison to the M30s. Any comments? Second, what about the HL5's versus the new Spendor line (such as the S8e's). Anybody done any comparing?

In the meantime, I'm going to consider other speaker lines mentioned, as and if I can find an audition opportunity. (Buying speakers unheard is something I intend to do only once!)
drubin
3,285 posts
 
I have the same curiosity about the HL5 vs. the M30. In fact, I'm thinking of picking up a pair of M30s to explore for myself. You can come over for a listen.
vaughn3d's avatar
vaughn3d
32 posts
 
Eweedhome, you make a very good point about the consistent reports on Harbeths. That was one thing that got me interested and when I finally heard C7s, I found the reports to be correct. I own C7s and they are great, but let me just say that if you can afford M40s you should get them. I heard a pair and they are spectacular.
More to discover