Harbeth Experts

Glai - Can't resist this further question as well: How does the Avalon sound compare to the Harbeths? I've been interested in Avalons b/c Steve Huntley, who has modified my pre-amp and Wadia CD player, likes them, and I like his work. But I also like my Harbeths. Thoughts?

Quick query, if you don't mind: I've always found that
planars somehow produce the most natural, non-mechanical
vocals. How do the Harbeth's vocals compare to the Quads?
Thanks in advance.

Quick query, if you don't mind: I've always found that
planars somehow produce the most natural, non-mechanical
vocals. How do the Harbeth's vocals compare to the Quads?
Thanks in advance.

****I had Maggies and Apogees a year or two ago. While I aggree that the Highs and mids or these planars are extremely clear, I personally find it lacking in tones or contrast. Hard to explain but when you are new to them, you get intoxicated, but after a while they seem to be just working in 1 wavelength. I also find planars to be sensitive to your listening position.
I agree that planars have their marvelous strengths especially the Highs, but I always felt wanting... something amiss.... bass on the maggies were pretty decent also.
I wouldnt mind having them as a 2nd system but not as a primary system... Others may vary.

Drubin, i find the Harbeths sound good with a variety of amps. They seem to prefer more detail oriented speaker cables, though.

The Diamonds are better speakers in most aspects. The only drawback is that the ceramic midrange can sound glassy with the wrong amp or cables.

I share the same observation with Nolitan. Vocal reproduction on ESL is insanely good. It shows off the strengthed of statics and does not tax its limitations. I find the quads have great tone and timbre. Microdynamics is also excellent but it lacks macrodynamic contrast. It does a good job with Piano concertos but it does not blow you away.

The sins of Harbeth is mostly of omissions, mainly lack of deep bass and reproduction of nuances. One can argue that by grossing over some useless details, the musical message is enhanced.

Come on, what speaker cables do you all use???

Both the Quads and Harbeths are pretty neutral in terms of tonal balance with the Harbeths on the warmer side.

Quads are more transparent and detailed. Imaging has more depth and more holographic. Bass is about the same on both speakers. It is a higher maintenance speakers in terms of partnering equip and room setup.

Harbeth M30 has a much smoother, linear treble. The treble on the quads can sound edgy & rough. ( The frequency response curve is not smooth at high freq. at all).

Harbeth has better macrodynamics and sounds more substantial. Quads can go loud but the real limitation is in dynamic freedom.

I auditioned ML, maggie and Analysis ( close to apogee). They are different sets of compromises in comparison to the quads. However, they don't rival the quads in purity/transparency for me to tolerate their short comings.

Thanks Drubin for helping me on previous threads, tubes, etc.